Speaker 9: To report at the Sustainability and Transportation Committee agenda item seven Constable 118 618 relating to the Seattle Bike Share program authorizing a partial removal of the proviso included in 2016 budget green sheet 93, Dash one, dash 80, dash one and ratifying confirming switching prior acts. The Committee recommended the full council pass as amended the Council bill with a divided report with Councilman Mr. Brian Johnson. So want and what is in favor. And councilmembers Herbold and Burgess opposed.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So, I mean, just give a quick overview of the legislation before us. We've had a lot of discussion on this, but I believe there's still four amendments that will be presented today. So we'll walk through those and make sure everyone has any questions addressed or concerns addressed to this legislation. Council Bill 118618 would lift the proviso that the Council placed on the money during last year's budget. As a reminder to folks in the 2016 budget, which we worked on during 2015, the mayor had originally proposed investing $5 million in expanding the bike share system that was part of a program that was going to be matched with a federal grant the application was in during the budget process. We heard back from the federal agency that that ground was not going to be awarded. And what the council did at that point was put a proviso on the $5 million, essentially saying this money stays in the budget, but it cannot be spent until you come back to council. And what we said at the time was we wanted to hear what an expansion plan for expanding a bike share system in Seattle looked like. What happened in the interim is we learned that the nonprofit Pronto, that runs the city's bike share system that was established to run this was no longer going to be solvent before the end of this month March. And so the mayor came back with this piece of legislation asking us to do a partial lift to the proviso essentially allowing him to spend the city to spend up to $1.4 million of that $5 million. And that is the legislation that's before us today. The expectation at this point is if we are to move forward, that request for proposals would be sent out in the next month or so, and we would hear back sometime this summer on what possible expansion options are available. At which point the Council would have a chance to review those and decide if we wanted to lift the proviso on the remaining $3.6 million and move forward for an expansion, which would likely happen sometime in the spring of 2017. There are well, there are a number of amendments that are listed. I believe that there are four that are going to be proposed today. And I propose going in order on our agenda is amendment number four, which was proposed by Councilmembers Burgess and Herbold to go first on that.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 6: Councilmember Burgess, thank you very much. Well, a bike sharing program, as I think all of us on the council have stated in the past, is an important and even a desired element of our public transportation network. We're faced with the reality today that the current system is insolvent and lacks the ridership, annual membership or revenue to be financially viable. In essence, the Council is being asked to invest in pronto rescue from insolvency so that a better and more financially viable service can be adopted. This is what economists call optimism bias. Despite the passionate advocacy by some in favor of this rescue, the risks of investing without a specific plan of action in hand. And we have no plan or a clear understanding of the city's financial exposure and an identification of what that exposure would be are exceedingly high. Such a rescue does not reflect, in my view, the level of care that the Council should exhibit as it exercises its fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of Seattle. The other element that we have to consider here goes more to our process and procedures. And as the Council's budget chair, I think it's my duty to point this out. Asked first learned of Toronto's financial problems in early 2015, as is reflected in the city's application for a federal Tiger grant, which was denied. The Council should have been immediately informed of this material fact, and we were not. In December of last year, one month after the Council had imposed a budget restriction in November. As time went ahead and spent $305,000 to cover pronto operations for the month of December, January and February, violating the spirit and the intent of the Council's budget proviso. I don't think the Council should ignore that kind of behavior. So based on these facts and because of the financial risk to the city, I move amendment number four, which would allow repayment of the federal grant if necessary. While maintaining excuse me, while maintaining the proviso on the remaining funds. This approach would substantially reduce the financial risk to the city and allow us to develop a public private partnership with the clear expectation that no city funding would be required for future operating revenue and that the public and private parties would appropriately share responsibility for capital expenses. I believe that is a much more prudent and wise course for us to follow. So I would move. Amendment number.
Speaker 5: Four.
Speaker 0: Has been moved in Second Amendment four as stated by Councilmember Burgess. Are there any other responses to his amendment?
Speaker 2: I'd like to speak to you.
Speaker 0: Like to supporting comment.
Speaker 5: Councilmember Herbold I'd just like to clarify some changes that were made between the committee meeting that we had where I had an amendment that was a purely it denied the proviso, but it was a supported a purely private system. Councilman Burgess made some changes that put some brackets that I thought were appropriate as relates to the city funding specified that we were minimizing this. The the program that we would like to see come forward would minimize the city investment and would recognize that potentially the full $3.6 million in funds may not be needed. And if so, they should be reprogramed into other bicycle and pedestrian safety projects. I also wanted to just underscore really the primary difference between the bills before us today are really whether or not we're just paying off Toronto's debt, we're purchasing equipment that we'll likely not keep if we want a system that's flexible, like Port Portland's coming system, which is more like a bike version of a car to go where you can leave the bike and other places don't have to return it to the sort of the the docking systems that we have for the bikes now under the pronto system. And really, for me, the question is, is do we need to pay off Toronto's debt and purchase a bunch of equipment that we likely won't want to keep in order to issue an RFP that says what we do want? It's sort of like buying a flip phone, a flip phone and paying off the flip phone company's debt in order to bid on a smart phone. Why not just go for the smart phone? This is an evolving technology, and I really think that we need to understand that when prioritizing our public resources and that so that we aren't paying for the experiment, we're paying for the 2.0 version. So that's mostly what I had to add.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I appreciate the comments that councilmembers Burgess and Herbold brought up. I'm going to oppose this amendment. I agree with the concerns about the timing and notification of our start throughout this past six or eight months in the work. And I struggle with the same question that Councilmember Burgess identified. What do we do when a department has not lived up to our expectations? And I I've struggled with that. In the end, what I know is there are thousands of people that are members of Bikeshare and use it on a daily basis and to take away a system that is working for those folks because a start has not lived up to our expectation, I don't think is the right step forward. Rather, I believe that we've made it clear that our state needs to do a better job on this and other communications and decision making. And through amendment that was passed, the committee made it clear that the Council will play an active role in scoping the RFP and reviewing it going forward. And there's an amendment I will bring forward later to further add language to that. I believe, as I think others do, that bike share is, can be and will be an integral part of our transportation network going forward. I view it as a type of public transit that helps connect users in different ways to get around the city. I think we are at a technology and flux point and we need to learn what goes forward. But I think the best path forward at this point is to make the modest investment, at least the marginal investment, because of the grant we would have to repay if we didn't go forward to maintain the existing system, to maintain our existing users and ridership. Looking at the data from last year, the the system, according to last year's operations, which were not great, still is only $100,000 away from breaking even. And my expectations are that as and the manage the folks managing the system can boost the performance this year to make it. An actual breakeven or hopefully even a profitable operation in 2016. And it can bridge to whatever expansion looks like. And there's a real reality that the expansion in 2017 may be with similar technology as we have today. That's a technology that's very similar to what we've seen in most cities around the country. It may be that there are new technologies that come forward in a more beneficial we could learn about in the fall. That said, I appreciate the work that folks have done on this, but I think this point I will say no on this amendment and instead move to fund the buyout.
Speaker 2: Can I just.
Speaker 0: To Councilmember Beck.
Speaker 2: Show. Thank you. I have just a quick clarifying question. Councilmember Herbold, I really appreciate what you are bringing forward and especially what we can learn from the mistakes or perhaps the not fully baked plan. And I'm wondering, Councilmember O'Brien, if you can talk a little bit further about your amendment that we're going to be seeing in a few moments. How can we incorporate the essence of what Councilmember Herbold is saying in terms of expanding a program that's going to work for Seattle?
Speaker 4: So. I believe what Councilmember Herbold talked about was there's different types of systems. Portland is about to roll out a different version. It's it's new technology. We haven't really seen it on the ground at the scales. Portland are going to do going to use it. And it may be that six months from now when we get responses to the RFP that there are vendors of that type of system that want to invest in Seattle and can put forward a plan that fits within our financial constraints and is competitive. We don't know that, though, and we're not going to know that for months. The amendment number nine, which I'll speak to in a moment, highlights the fact that we are looking for ideas on how to expand the existing system with the existing technology, a system that uses electric assist bikes instead, or perhaps a hybrid of that, or a point to point bikeshare system similar to what Portland is deploying. But it leaves the door open for folks to come forward with all the offers and allow us as a city to evaluate the pros and cons and cost of all those at that time.
Speaker 0: Could we have in front of US Amendment number four proposed by Councilmember Burgess and seconded by Councilmember Herbold? There's an even further discussion before I take a vote.
Speaker 5: I just have a quick question.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Gonzales.
Speaker 5: We've heard in the hundreds of emails that I think we've it's fair to say that we've all received on this issue on both sides of the question here. One of the things that gets highlighted is this issue around limited resources. And my understanding of how this money can be used is that, yes, we do have we do have we are a city of limited financial resources. But but your amendment amendment number four and doesn't permit repurposing of those dollars. Is that is that accurate?
Speaker 6: Amendment. Number four does not originally repurpose the dollars. It keeps them subject to the proviso if provisos are followed. I might add, unless the public private partnership is not established by the end of 2016, then the funds are released to start for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvement projects.
Speaker 5: If the full amount is not met.
Speaker 6: And if the full amount is not needed, they would go to that purpose. So these are street use funds. So they will unless the council were to take some different action, they will always be used for street pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle safety improvement type measures.
Speaker 5: And further to note, there is no use.
Speaker 0: To just be recognized. Councilmember Heard, what was that conversation with Councilmember Herbold?
Speaker 5: Correct. Thank you. There are also no limits to the number of federal and state dollars that could go into a public private partnership bike share program. Under amendment number.
Speaker 2: Four.
Speaker 0: Any further questions? Council Member Alice.
Speaker 5: I do not. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 0: I think we're ready for a vote. So it's been, um, amendment four has been moved. And second, and all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying I and raising your hand I. All those opposed signatures saying no one raising your hand? Nope. Okay. So the amendment fails. Are there any other amendments? Yes, Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: So I would propose in my paperwork right here. Amendment number five. I'll speak to it and then move it. This amendment would modify section two of the bill. That section already states that the Senate, the Council states its intent to grant authority to lift the proviso on the remaining $3.6 million only after Scott provides a detailed spending and implementation plan. This amendment would add language that adds to that condition that we would lift. The proviso on the expansion after our start also demonstrates that the following bicycle infrastructure projects are on schedule to be completed before sorry, prior to an expansion of the bike share system. And then it lists five protected bike lane projects, one of which is already under construction, and the other four which have been completed design and are in the pipeline ready to go. My understanding is these would need to be completed within the next year. And in conversations with our start, they believe that they can achieve that. So I would move amendment number five.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and Second Amendment number five, it moved in second. And any further comments or questions? Okay. Hearing then all those in favor of amendment number five. Please signify with saying I and raising your hand. I opposed. The ayes have it. Next amendment. Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: So to stick with going in order of the ones that I think are coming forward, I'm actually defer to Councilmember Gonzalez and I believe amendment number seven.
Speaker 5: Sure. I think you have an amendment number six. But if you want to do six or nine together, I'm happy I'm.
Speaker 4: Not going to bring six forward and bring nine forward instead, which incorporates the former six. Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 0: So Councilmember six is put away and Councilmember Gonzalez will address number seven.
Speaker 5: Correct?
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I am proposing amendment number seven, the council bill 118618 as amended. This this amendment has would revise two existing sections and would add a new section, section six revised section one would provide that the Seattle Department of Transportation would be required to use up to $50,000 of the proviso money for outreach activities, as described in Section six of my proposed amendment, which would require the Seattle Department of Transportation Section six new Section six would be entitled Engage Low Income Populations and Communities of Color. Consult with Seattle Office for Civil Rights Section. The new proposed Section six would require the Seattle Department of Transportation to engage low income populations and communities of color on the need for an expansion of the bike share system to serve those communities, as is instructed to do so in consultation with the Office for Civil Rights, which would be consistent with our city's commitment to the racial equity toolkit in the course of their development of an outreach plan that will be both linguistically appropriate and culturally competent and will include surveys and direct public engagement. It also authorizes Scott to engage community based organizations to assist in those community outreach aspects that relate to low income populations and communities of color and imposes a requirement on that to report those findings to council as required by SNC 5.09.040 no later than September 30th, 2016. A Section two simply modifies the number of the proviso from 3.6 to 3550000 to recognize the need to allocate with an existing proviso money. The $50,000 allocated in my amendment for purposes of doing this outreach activity and this particular piece is incredibly important to me. I discussed it in the council briefing this morning at 930. And essentially, I think what we hear a lot from from advocates in this particular area is that this would were this type of publicly funded bike share program would assist low income communities and communities of color. But I have not seen any data or study or analysis that supports that particular claim. And if we are going to move forward with a publicly funded bike share program, I think it is our obligation to engage those impacted communities, to set up a bike share program that clearly identifies the needs of those communities, and that sets up a bike share program that takes into account the multiple barriers to being able to access effectively and meaningfully a bike share program. So this this is the intent behind my particular amendment. And I also intend for it to apply citywide for all low income communities and communities of color that that may live in any area within the city of Seattle and not just restricted to one particular district. So with that being said, I'm happy to answer any questions, but would also entertain a second to this amendment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. It's been moved in. Second Amendment number seven has been moved in second by our colleagues. Are there any further questions? I have Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales for this amendment. I fully support it. And I think she spoke well to the concerns that we need to address going forward. I fundamentally believe that bikeshare system, as I mentioned before, is can be a successful, integral part of our public transit operation in the city. And to do that, it needs to work for all folks in Seattle. And I specifically appreciate you identifying not just in certain neighborhoods. Well, the bike system will most likely be located in starting in certain neighborhoods. And the idea is that folks are coming into the city or from other parts of the city using transit can get off transit and use the bike share for that last connection to their job. And so even though the stations may not be located in your neighborhood, they can really add to the mobility folks have. It's critically important that we understand the unique needs of different individuals in the community. Things like folks may not have credit cards, which can be a barrier to accessing the system in addition to just the cost of it. The training that's needed to make sure you understand how the system works, the location, the the rate schedule, all those things I think are appropriate for us to be looking at and modifying, if necessary, to make sure we have a system that works for everyone. So I will support this and thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Suarez.
Speaker 2: Thank you. First of all, I'd like to thank Councilmember Gonzalez and O'Brien. They we discussed some of the changes that we'd like to see going forward. I also want to correct myself this morning. I said that there were no stations north of the ship canal and I was wrong. There are no stations in District five. There is in the University District. But I want to go back to and just reiterate for some of you who weren't here this morning that I shared that in the contract with Pronto and Motivate. One of the issues is because we did accept federal dollars, we have to comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And in that, it's really important. And I want to follow up on what Councilmember Gonzalez said. Is that not first of all, not everybody can ride a bike, but there's our communities where they have been overlooked and underserved. And of course, I'm speaking to some neighborhoods in the north. I'm concerned that there are neighborhoods that we are not going to see the kind of geographical diversity that we would like to see in a true bike sharing plan that is equity, that is equitable. I want to commend the former council for moving forward with this. Seattle is a bike city and so I want to look forward in that this new hopefully if we pass this will the city council will have more control with the RFP, with operations, with implementation, with expansion. And so some of us new council people get an opportunity to, if you will, have a second bite at the apple to make this a better program, to be more inclusive and to look at neighborhoods that haven't been served. And so with that, I want to thank the former council and some of the council members here today that brought forward these changes. And so we could also look at them through a social injustice lens. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Worse comes from infectious. You get hunched up.
Speaker 2: Thinking.
Speaker 0: Something back shot.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, sir. I also want to recognize and thank people that have been working on this, including many who are in the audience. Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, for example, has been reaching out to every neighborhood, both on pedestrian and bicycle connections to make sure that we're a city where everybody can get around. And I'd also like to focus on the idea of all ages and abilities. It isn't simply that various neighborhoods or particular ethnic groups may have been left out. We really want to make sure that people like me, who's currently and riding an e-bike, that we're able to get around and that we feel safe as well. And this is where I also want to thank the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board. Thank you, Kristie, for being here and speaking to that. I do see that as we are supporting and developing this bike share program. We're not there yet. We all know that. But we have a start and a foundation on which we can build. And it's part of this growing an integrated transportation system in every neighborhood for every age and ability. So thank you and I'll be supporting this.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I think that exhausts our comments on the amendment number seven. And is there any further comments, all those in favor of amendment number seven, vote I and raise your hand. I opposed the ayes have it. Are there any further amendments?
Speaker 4: I believe there's one last amendment.
Speaker 0: Councilmember O'Brien.
Speaker 4: I would like to move amendment number nine. You shouldn't have this paper in front of you. This would revise Section four. It currently reads that it will incorporate feedback from the Council in developing the request for proposals for expansion for the bike share system. This amendment would add language that says including the possibility of a combined free floating and point to point model deployment of electric bikes and expanding the existing system. It is the Council's intention that the Mayor engage the Council in the selection of the future bike share operator for the bike share RFP prior to any council action to lift the proviso on the remaining 3.4 million. But it should now read 3.55 million for expansion. And then it strikes the last part that was previously, which also referred to council working with the mayor.
Speaker 0: Second Amendment number nine has been moved in seconds. Are there any further comments or questions?
Speaker 4: Let me just speak to the two things that this one does, just so the public can track what I just read there. The first is it just highlights, as we talked about earlier, three different models that we may use an expansion, the existing model, an e-bike or electric assist bike model or a point to point. It doesn't restrict any proposals to those three, but those are the three that have been identified to this point. It also makes tries to clarify that the ultimate decision on who will be operating a bike share system under expansion is a decision to be made by the mayor in consultation with the council. And the council, of course, has ultimate authority to lift that proviso. So nothing will be done until it comes to a vote of us. But we're trying to stake out that we want to be working collaboratively, and this decision is a decision made at the elected level.
Speaker 0: Councilmember, I may ask you a question in recent. Articles in news reports. There have been at least concerns or allegations about conflicts of interest between department officials and how the city has gone about evaluating the Pronto arrangement. You know, there's been a few articles there. Does this. Amendment in any way sort of address some of those concerns, at least given some of the allegations made.
Speaker 4: In the comments and believe have been in the press have been related to the director of Hastert's previous employment with the company that this predecessor operated and continues to operate the the bikeshare system. But this is trying to make clear is that the decision of selecting for that RFP going forward, which may include people that bid from that company, is not a decision at the discretion of the stock director. Rather, it's going to be a decision made by the mayor in consultation with the council. So it is an attempt to address those concerns.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions on amendment number nine before we take a vote?
Speaker 4: I just have a clarifying because I'm changing that number from 3.4 to 3.55 to reflect the math. Is that something that we can do or do I need to change rules? Okay. So we'll get that back. Okay.
Speaker 0: So I think we're ready to vote. Amendment number nine has been moved. And second and all those in favor vote i. I. Opposed. Vote no. The ayes have it. Does that conclude all of our amendments? I think we're ready to vote on the base legislation. I have to move that. You know, it doesn't have to be actually move because it's already it went through committee so we could vote on it. Before I do ask for a vote, are there any further closing comments on the Bass legislation as amended? When I have a single Council member back, Southern Council member Johnson.
Speaker 2: Great. Just one quick one. And that is that I know over the last few weeks there's been a tremendous amount of heat around this particular legislation. Councilmember Gonzales brought it up. We have received hundreds of emails from people, both pro and con. And what I really hope we can do is rather than having just the heat to provide the light on the issues and the questions on why we want this, why we're moving forward, and I do really want to reduce the angst between drivers and pedestrians and people who are driving trucks or busses. There's this is an opportunity for us to really integrate our system both downtown and across the city. And I think our center city mobility plan that's going to promote a real integrated and yet separated bike lanes and better pedestrian connection so everybody can get around in our city, whether they're driving, whether they're driving a truck or driving a bus. For those that are taking them, this is needed. And to have a bikeshare program that works is something that will just contribute to our transportation system. So I appreciate this. I appreciate the support that my colleagues have given. I recognize what Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Burgess were doing to make sure that this is an effective and efficient system. And I look forward to working with Scott to make sure that we've achieved what all we were speaking about today. So I'll be voting yes.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Johnson.
Speaker 3: You know, I, too, want to echo what Councilmember Baxter said. I'll be voting yes today. I fundamentally believe that with public support, I think bike share is going to expand, increase membership and really continue to be an integral part of our city's transportation network. I want to point out, in contrast to my colleague about optimism bias that we as a society spend a lot of time and energy subsidizing our transportation network. We bail out the auto industry. We bail out the airline industry. We bail out all kinds of different private entities in the in the transportation space. We make significant investments in our public transit infrastructure because we see transportation as a critically important part of the public good. And so for me, I think that this is a modest investment to allow us to really move forward on a system that we know is going to work well for people. And I really want to say how much I welcome the opportunity for us to really move forward on a stronger protected bike network. I think that that has got to be really hand in glove with the investment that we're making today, as well as the potential expansion. I fundamentally believe that a bike lane is only a bike lane when it's safe enough for an eight year old to ride in it. And that means that when I think about the vision for the future of our city, it's a place where my little five year old daughters can learn how to ride a bike, not just in the on the ports in our backyard, but also safely on our city streets and a place that they feel safe and that I feel safe. I think that Pronto is going to be very successful system once we have the opportunity to expand that system. And I encourage my colleagues to vote yesterday.
Speaker 0: I wanted to thank Councilmember Burgess and Council Member Herbold for bringing the issues you did raise that. We need that kind of in this case, minority opinion, but this kind of opinion to make sure we're making wise investments and that it goes through the kind of scrutiny that you require the council to go through. And even though we opted to go a different direction, I think it was a very exhaustive discussion. And I want to thank you for both your committee discussion, your amendments and the discussion today. Having said that, please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.
Speaker 1: Gonzalez, I. Herbold Ney Johnson, I. Or is.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: O'BRIEN All right.
Speaker 2: Frances Bagshaw, I.
Speaker 6: Burgess No.
Speaker 1: President Harrell I seven in favor to oppose.
Speaker 0: The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the full council.
AN ORDINANCE relating to the Seattle bike share program; authorizing a partial removal of the proviso included in 2016 budget Green Sheet 93-1-A-1; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.