>>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE
AND WELCOME TO THE FINANCE AND
NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE.
TODAY IS AUGUST 14, IT IS 2 PM.
I AM SALLY SHOT AND I CHAIR
THIS COMMITTEE.
I AM JOINED BY LINDA TEBO.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FROM
NICHOLASVILLE.
IS ANYONE SIGNED UP?
EXCELLENT.
WE WILL APPROVE THE AGENDA
TODAY.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA IS GOING TO BE ADOPTED
SINCE THERE IS NO ONE HERE BUT
ME.
WE WILL ASSUME THAT THE AGENDA
IS ADOPT IT.
WE HAVE GOT NINE ITEMS ON
TODAY'S IS GUSHING.
THE FIRST IS A BRIEFING AND A
DISCUSSION FOR AN ORDINANCE
FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
RELATING TO EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED
MOTOR VEHICLES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYBODY
THAT IS JUST ARRIVING FOR THIS.
WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THE RV
LEGISLATION.
NEXT WE WILL HAVE A BRIEFING
AND DISCUSSION ON THE SEATTLE
CITY EMPLOY RETIREMENT SYSTEM
AND THAT IS KNOWN AS THIS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA FOR JOINING US.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA IS
WORKING WITH ME ON OUR
RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
WE WILL ALSO HAVE TWO
BRIEFINGS FROM SD HR, THE
SEATTLE THE PART OF HUMAN
RESOURCES WITH A POSSIBLE VOTE
ON A CITYWIDE POSITION LIST AND
THE POWER MARKETING
COMPENSATION PROGRAM FROM
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT.
THOSE ARE THE NEXT FIVE ITEMS.
SO WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC
HEARING ON ONE OF THOSE ITEMS.
AS WE GO THROUGH, WE WILL GET
THERE.
I AM GOING TO ASK IF ANYONE
WANTS TO SPEAK ON THAT
PARTICULAR ITEM.
WE WILL THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING IF WE DO NOT HAVE
ANYONE HERE.
WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH
ALLOWING THE VOTE AND MOVING
FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY
SUSPEND THE RULES THAT WILL
THEN ALLOW US TO MOVE ON IT
NEXT WEEK.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING.
SO WE HAVE TO PEOPLE SIGNED UP.
PEGGY?
GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
AND DAVID OLSON IS HERE TO
DISCUSS THE RV CAMPERS.
I WILL ASK YOU TO COME UP TO
THE MICROPHONE AND THANK YOU,
ALICE McLEAN FROM MY ASP IS.
WE WILL HAVE TO MINUTES FOR YOU
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
FROM YOU.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS
PEGGY AND I'M A LONGTIME
VOLUNTEER WITH NICHOLASVILLE.
I AM COMMENTING ON THE
EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED MOTOR
VEHICLE PROPOSAL OF MAYOR
DURKIN.
IT IS FULL OF PEOPLE LIVING IN
VEHICLES.
THIS ORDINANCE WAS NOT CRAFTED
WITH ANY REGARD FOR THEM AND
SHOULD BE SHELVED IMMEDIATELY.
HERE IS AN UPDATE ON THE TOP OF
THE ALBUM SOLVING LIST.
LEHIGH HAS STARTED A NEW EFFORT
TO ESCAPE THE ALLEGATIONS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND CHEMIST
ORDINANCE.
THEY WANT THROW IT OUT AND CALL
OTHELLO VILLAGE AND RELIGIOUS
AND CHEMIST.
GOING TO A LARGE CORPORATE
STAFF.
THIS IS SIMPLY A WAY TO EVADE
COMPLIANCE WITH LAND-USE
OBLIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT BY
COMMUNITY ADVISORY COUNCILS.
IT IS THOUGHTLESS AND BAD
POLICY AND PROBABLY ILLEGAL.
THE PASTOR OF THE CHURCH THEY
PLAN TO CALL THE OPERATOR OF
THE SO-CALLED OTHELLO RELIGIOUS
AND CHEMIST HAS BEEN ON THE
LEHIGH BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR 3
YEARS.
TALK ABOUT A CLEAR AND BLATANT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
TOSS OUT THE PLAN FOR TREATING
MOTOR VEHICLE CAMPERS AS A
CRIME PROBLEM.
USE THE CONFLICT WITH HSD AND
LEHIGH AS A WAY TO SEE THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN GOOD IDEAS
AND A TERRIBLE EXECUTION BY HSD
AND LEHIGH.
REMEDIATION BETWEEN THE THREE
PARTIES, HSD, LEHIGH AND
NICHOLASVILLE AND A REPORT BY
THE MEDIATOR ON WHAT THEY
LEARNED AND WHAT HAPPENED.
THE HOMELESSNESS DIVISION AT
HSD IS IN CHAOS.
STAFF IS FLEEING AS WEEKLY AS
POSSIBLE.
THE INTERIM DIRECTOR IS OUT OF
TOUCH WITH FACTS ON THE GROUND.
PLEASE DO WHAT YOU CAN TO PUSH
THIS MEDIATION FORWARD THAT WE
HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR FOR SO
LONG.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, PEGGY.
>> DAVID OLSON?
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS DAVID OLSON AND I AM
THE EXTERNAL COORDINATOR AT
NICHOLS THERE NORTHLAKE AS WELL
AS A RESIDENT.
IS A FORMER TRANSIENT LIVING
OUT OF A VEHICLE AND AN RV
BEFORE THAT, NICHOLASVILLE WAS
A NATURAL OPTION TO ASSIST IN
GETTING ME HOUSING.
WE HOPE THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL
HELP PUSH MEDIATION BETWEEN THE
HST AND NICHOLASVILLE SO IT
WILL CONTINUE TO BE AVAILABLE
FOR THOSE WHO WILL LOSE THEIR
RV IN THIS PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DAVID.
THANK YOU FOR COMING.
SO ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK
THAT DIDN'T SIGN UP?
ALL RIGHT.
SAYING NINE, WE WILL MOVE ONTO
THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS AND
THIS IS A REPORT AND IF I COULD
INVITE ANY OF YOU.
DO ANY OF YOU WANT TO JOIN US?
THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT WE
JUST GOT.
A LITTLE BIT AGO.
SO GREAT.
THEN LENA COME WOULD YOU KINDLY
READ IN ITEM NUMBER ONE?
>> ITEM NUMBER ONE, EXTENSIVELY
DAMAGED MOTOR VEHICLE BRIEFING.
>> IF YOU WILL INTRODUCE
YOURSELF?
>> JEFF SIMMS.
COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> LAST WEEK AT THE SPECIAL
MEETING, WE HAD A NUMBER OF OUR
FRIENDS FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE
TALKING ABOUT THE INTRODUCTION
OF THE RV LEGISLATION.
AND BE ASKED YOU TO COME BACK
AND PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
THEY HAVE OFFERED SOME DATA BUT
UNFORTUNATELY I DIDN'T GET A
CHANCE TO READ THAT.
BEFORE THIS MEETING.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
>> I AM HAPPY.
THE MAJORITY OF THE MATERIAL I
WILL COVER WAS ALREADY
CONTAINED IN THE MEMO ATTACHED
TO LAST WEEK'S AGENDA AND TO
THIS WEEK'S AGENDA.
I DON'T HAVE ANY VISUAL
MATERIALS IF ANYONE IS ONLINE
OR WATCHING THEY CAN ACCESS
THAT FOR REFERENCE.
I WILL GO THROUGH SOME OF THE
BACKGROUND THAT WAS NOT COVERED
AT THIS LITTLE SESSION LAST
FRIDAY.
INCLUDING SOME OF THE NEW
INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN
DIVIDED BY AS PD.
THEN WE WILL GO THROUGH ITEMS
THAT WERE RAISED ALREADY BY THE
COMMITTEE.
ON THE AMENDMENTS AND ON THE
LEGISLATION AND THEN OTHER
AREAS THAT CENTRAL STAFF HAS
IDENTIFIED AS AREAS OF INTEREST
FOR THE COUNCIL.
>> SO FIRST, AS WE KNOW, WE
ALREADY ESTABLISHED LAST TIME
THAT IS A LARGER CONTEXT AROUND
THIS ORDINANCE, THE SHELTERS
ESPECIALLY, THE TINY HOUSE
KNOWLEDGES ARE OPERATING AT
ESSENTIALLY FULL CAPACITY.
WITH THIS ORDINANCE, AS WAS
DISCUSSED IN THE MEMO, WE DON'T
HAVE A FULL PICTURE OF HOW
EXTENSIVE THIS ENGAGEMENT WAS
OR WHERE STAKEHOLDER SUPPORT
LIES WITH THE ORDINANCE AS
WELL.
>> I'M GETTING A SIGNAL FROM
THE AUDIENCE.
COULD YOU SLOW IT DOWN A LITTLE
BIT?
>> YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANYWHERE
AND WE ALREADY HAVE QUESTIONS.
>> LAST TIME, I HAD THE CHANCE
TO JOIN THE COMMITTEE AND THANK
YOU AGAIN FOR LETTING ME SIT IN
ON THESE.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED
WAS AROUND THE FISCAL NOTE.
YOU SENT ME A REPLY BUT IN THAT
ANALYSIS, WE DON'T REALLY SEE
HOW MUCH MONEY HAS ALSO BEEN
SPENT SO FAR.
SO DO WE REALLY HAVE A SENSE OF
HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT
EITHER WITH AN INITIAL OUTREACH
OR EVEN INTERNAL OFFICE
COORDINATION?
AND HOW MUCH MONEY THIS WOULD
COST GOING FORWARD?
>> I HAVE TALKED BOTH TO HSD
AND FAS THROUGH CDL.
TO TRY TO LEARN EXACTLY THAT.
WITH, IN REGARD TO THE ACTUAL
DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES, THERE IS
STILL A PROJECTED INCREASE.
I DIDN'T BRING THE NUMBER WITH
ME.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
THAT WOULD BE MORE RELATED TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE ON
HOW TO COMPLETE A JUNK VEHICLE
AFFIDAVIT RATHER THAN THIS
ORDINANCE IF IT WERE TO BE
IMPLEMENTED.
THE CBO INDICATED THEY DON'T
EXPECT IT TO IMPACT THE
QUANTITY OF VEHICLES THAT WOULD
GO THROUGH A TOWING AND THUS BE
HAVING A JUNK VEHICLE
AFFIDAVIT.
IT MIGHT AFFECT THE TIMING
THOSE VEHICLES ARRIVED.
HST'S IMPACT IS ALSO CONSIDERED
NEGLIGIBLE BY CBO.
THEY FOUND THAT THE STAFFING
AND CASE MANAGEMENT AVAILABLE
THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW SHOULD
BE SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE
WHATEVER WOULD ARISE FROM THIS
ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF NEEDING
TO CONNECT PEOPLE WITH
LANDLORDS OR HELPING
RESTITUTION ASSISTANCE AND
THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> SEE YOU CAN GET BACK TO US
ON THE FINANCIAL SIDE OF THAT
WHEN YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
THANK YOU.
>> WE ALSO RECEIVED NEW
INFORMATION ON THE SCALE.
ALL OF YOU ASKED ABOUT HOW
COMMON THIS PRACTICE IS.
HOW WIDESPREAD WE ARE LOOKING
AT.
SBD AND PARKING ENFORCEMENT
CONFIRMS THAT THEY KNOW OF FOR
PREDATORY VEHICLE LANDLORDS
THAT HAVE A MINIMUM OF 30-40
VEHICLES.
THEY THINK THEY'RE MORE.
IT'S JUST THEY CAN CONFIRM
THERE ARE FOUR.
THEY PROVIDED INFORMATION THAT
I WON'T GO INTO TODAY.
ABOUT EACH OF THOSE SPECIFIC
INDIVIDUALS.
THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES THEY
HAVE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
FAS AND LINCOLN TELLING ALSO
ARE AWARE THAT LEAST TENANT
INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE MULTIPLE
VEHICLES IN CIRCULATION IN
THEIR NAME, EACH OF THESE
INDIVIDUALS HAS HAD MORE THAN
30 VEHICLES IN THEIR NAME IN
THE PAST.
THE VARIOUS NUMBERS OF THESE
HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF ALREADY.
I BELIEVE TO SOME DEGREE, THAT
WAS COVERED IN THE SEATTLE
TIMES ARTICLE THAT WAS
MENTIONED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
O'BRIEN AT THE LAST COMMITTEE
MEETING.
>> INC.
YOU FOR JOINING US.
JEFF, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?
OF THE 38 ACTIVE VEHICLES THAT
ARE REGISTERED AMONG THOSE FIVE
PEOPLE, HOW MANY OF THOSE WOULD
WE ANTICIPATE OUR WHAT WE WOULD
CONSIDER TO BE UNINHABITABLE?
>> I DON'T KNOW PRECISELY WHAT
THAT NUMBER WOULD BE BECAUSE
THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED
CHARACTERIZED THIS AS A
PREDATORY VEHICLE LANDLORDS.
MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THESE ARE
CONSIDERED SITUATIONS THAT
WOULD BE UNDER THE SCOPE OF THE
ORDINANCE OR THE BILL IF IT
WERE PASSED.
SO MEETING SOME OF THE CRITERIA
TO BE THE PERSON BEING FINED AS
A PREDATORY SITUATION.
AND POSSIBLY RESTITUTION AND
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE BEING
AVAILABLE
>> AND THEN, IN ADDITION TO
MAYBE THE SMALL NUMBER OF
PREDATORY VEHICLE LANDLORDS
THAT HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF
VEHICLES, WE ALSO, THE
INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED
TO US IS THAT FAS AND PARKING
ENFORCEMENT, SBT ARE AWARE OF
SMALLER SCALE LANDLORDS.
THEY ONLY HAVE ONE-TO VEHICLES
PERHAPS.
THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THE
IDENTITIES NECESSARILY OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS BUT ESPECIALLY IN
THE SOTO AND GEORGETOWN
REGIONS, THEY ARE AWARE AND
HAVE COME ACROSS AT LEAST 10 OR
SO VEHICLES WHERE THEY BELIEVE
WHAT IS GOING ON IS THIS
PREDATORY PRACTICE OF RANCHING
AND RV.
SO SOME OF THE NEW INFORMATION
THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE
COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY, THERE WAS
ONE SECTION THAT WAS NOT
COVERED AS BACKGROUND LAST TIME
THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WAS
HIGHLIGHTED FOR COUNCILMEMBERS
AT THIS POINT.
AS YOU CONSIDER THIS ORDINANCE,
THAT IS RELATED TO OTHER
AVENUES AND PENALTIES THAT
MIGHT ALREADY INTERPLAY WITH
THESE RVS.
AS WAS DISCUSSED LAST TIME, AND
RV IS NOT CONTINUED A DWELLING
UNIT.
THE BUILDING CODE FOR MOBILE
HOMES AND ALSO THE BUILDING
CODE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLINGS.
HOWEVER, THE HOUSING AND
BUILDING MAINTENANCE CODES DOES
ALLOW US TO IMPOSE POLICIES AND
FINES ON THE PREMISES.
AS DCI CURRENTLY DOES NOT
CONSIDER EMESIS.
THEY INTERPRET THAT TO EXCLUDE
THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THAT IS WHY THOSE PENALTIES AND
FINES AND STANDARDS WOULD NOT
APPLY IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
I AM NOT SURE THAT WAS
ABUNDANTLY CLEAR DURING OUR
LAST COMMITTEE MEETING.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER AVENUES
THAT WE COULD LOOK AT FOR
POTENTIAL ENFORCEMENT.
BUSINESS LICENSING WAS BROUGHT
UP AT THE LAST COMMITTEE
MEETING.
THROUGH CONVERSATIONS WITH
STAFF AND THE EXECUTIVE, THEY
CLARIFIED THAT THEY DID NOT
WANT TO PURSUE THAT AS A ROUTE
BECAUSE THEN OBTAINING A
BUSINESS LICENSE WHICH WOULD BE
VERY OPEN TO THESE RVS RANCHERS
WOULD ESSENTIALLY CONDONE THE
ACTIVITY.
THEY DID NOT WANT TO TAKE THAT
STEP.
I ALSO THOUGHT IT WOULD BE
IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT, FOR
$511 OR LESS, RANCHERS ARE NOT
GROSSING MORE THAN $2 MILLION.
THEY COULD OBTAIN A BUSINESS
LICENSE AND THUS BE CONDUCTING
LEGAL BUSINESS.
AND THEN, THERE WAS A QUESTION
LAST TIME ABOUT VEHICLE
EQUIPMENT AND WHETHER OR NOT
THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES SINCE
THIS IS NOT DEFINED AS A
DWELLING.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THESE CODES
AND REQUIREMENTS FOR VEHICLES
FOCUS MORE ON THE EQUIPMENT.
THEY DON'T CONSIDER SITUATIONS
A PERSON RESIDES IN THEIR
VEHICLE.
WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT FINES
THAT RANGE FROM 48-$93.
DEPENDING ON WHAT IS BROKEN ON
THE VEHICLE.
THEN OF COURSE WITH PARKING
VIOLATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT
YOU COULD HAVE A VEHICLE TOWED
AND IMPOUNDED.
ULTIMATELY PUT UP FOR AUCTION.
BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, IT
PERPETUATES THE CYCLE.
SO WITH THAT AS THE ADDITIONAL
BACKGROUND, I WANTED TO SWITCH
TO WHAT WAS ALREADY RAISED AS
ISSUES BY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
A COUPLE OF OTHER AREAS THAT
COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF HAVE
IDENTIFIED.
FIRST, IT WAS CLARIFIED AT OUR
LAST MEETING THAT THE
COOPERATION OF THE PERSON
RESIDING IN THE VEHICLE WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE EITHER
A CIVIL INFRACTION OR A
MISDEMEANOR.
THAT IS NOT HAVE A LEGISLATION
CURRENTLY READS.
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT IT
WOULD BE THE CASE BUT IT WAS
BROUGHT UP AS A CONCERN LAST
TIME AND EXPRESSED BY STAFF AND
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE THAT IT IS
THE GOAL HERE.
IT SEEMS TO BE AN AVENUE WHERE
THERE IS AGREEMENT IF THAT IS A
CHANGE THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO
MAKE.
>> COULD I SPEAK TO THAT?
IN, IS THIS YOUR MEMO?
OR FROM THE EXECUTIVE?
>> THAT IS FROM THE EXECUTIVE.
>> SO IT LISTS A NUMBER OF
BULLET POINTS THAT ARE LIMITING
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT.
THE LAST ONE, I DON'T HAVE THE
PAGE.
IT IS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.
SORRY, THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT
PLACE.
LET ME SCROLL DOWN A BIT MORE.
>> ANYWAY.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT.
I RECALL SOMEWHERE THAT ONE OF
THE REASONS WHY WE MAY NOT HAVE
GOOD INFORMATION WAS FOR FEAR
OF RETALIATION.
UNWILLINGNESS OF OCCUPANTS TO
REPORT LANDLORDS FOR FEAR OF
RETALIATION.
ANOTHER POINT MIGHT BE AN
UNWILLINGNESS FOR PEOPLE TO
REPORT FOR FEAR THAT THEY MIGHT
LOSE THEIR HOUSING.
THEY MIGHT BE LIVING IN
CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOT
ACCEPTABLE BUT THAT PERSON, IF
THEY TAKE IT AWAY I AM EVEN
WORSE OFF.
SO THE COMMENT, IF THERE IS
CLARITY IN SOME SORT OF
STRUCTURE THAT SAYS WE WILL
ONLY EXERCISE THESE RIGHTS IF
THE TENANT AGREES ABOUT IT, IT
HELPS ME WITH THAT A LOT
BECAUSE AS WE SAID, WE WANT TO
BE IN CONTACT WITH THESE FOLKS
TO GIVE THEM BETTER OPTIONS.
WE DON'T WANT TO PULL THE RV
OUT FROM UNDER THEM IF YOU WILL
IF THAT IS THE BEST HOUSING
SITUATION THEY HAVE UNTIL WE
CAN GET THEM SET IT BETTER.
>> YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, WE KNOW
THAT, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST
TIME.
THAT PEOPLE ARE SURVIVORS.
THEY FIND THE BEST OPTION THEY
CAN FOR THEMSELVES.
AND UNLESS WE HAVE GOT
SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER THAN
WHAT THEY HAVE, THEY ARE NOT
GOING TO WANT TO CHANGE.
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY
IS WHAT CAN WE DO, WHAT WILL BE
DUE TO BE WILL TO SAY, THERE
ARE BETTER OPTIONS FOR YOU.
AND HERE THEY ARE.
I AM INTERESTED AS YOU ARE
GOING THROUGH THIS TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE AND I
HAVE A BOOKMARK ON A COUPLE OF
IDEAS.
BUT LET'S KEEP GOING.
>> WHILE THE NEXT AREA THAT WAS
UP AT THE LAST COMMITTEE
MEETING ACTUALLY STEMS WITH
WHAT YOU RAISED.
IT IS RELATED TO INCREASING THE
VULNERABILITY OR EXPOSURE TO
UNSAFE LIVING CONDITIONS FOR
THESE INDIVIDUALS.
AND RECOGNIZING THAT IS WHERE
THEY ARE AT NAIL, PREFERABLE TO
OTHER OPTIONS OR SHELTER THEY
MIGHT HAVE AVAILABLE.
NOTING THAT RESTITUTION IS A
PROCESS THAT WILL TAKE SOME
TIME.
IT WOULDN'T IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE
THEM WITH ASSISTANCE.
IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE SOMETHING
THEY CAN THE BURDEN FOR BECAUSE
THEY DON'T HAVE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTATION.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT IS
EXCEPTIONALLY RARE RIGHT NOW
FOR A CIVIL INFRACTION TO HAVE
A RESTITUTION RECEIPT.
THEY WOULD LIKELY NEED TO BE A
SEPARATE PROCEEDING WHICH
DOCUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE WERE
BROUGHT FORWARD.
I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR
COUNCIL MEMBERS, LOOKING AT THE
DAMAGES AND THE RESTITUTION
THAT CAN HAVE RELOCATION
ASSISTANCE IN THE ORDINANCE
PROVIDED.
IT IS CAPPED AT $200.
COMPARE THAT TO THE TENANT
LAWS.
WHICH PROVIDE FOR EITHER THE
GREATER OF THREE MONTHS OF RENT
OR THE TRIPLE OF THE ACTUAL
DAMAGES.
THAT IS JUST FOR RESTITUTION.
ON TOP OF THAT RELOCATIN
ASSISTANCE THAT IS THE GREATER
OF THREE MONTHS OR $2000.
SAID THE MAXIMUM OF $2000.
A MINIMUM OF 2000.
AND WITH OUR EMERGENCY ORDER
WITH THE CITY SAYS THIS IS
UNFIT.
YOU MUST LEAVE, PROVIDING 4007
AND $34 OR TWO MONTHS RENT
DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
ARE TALKING ABOUT VERY
DIFFERENT SCALES OF RESTITUTION
THAT IS AVAILABLE TO
INDIVIDUALS WITH HOW THE
ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
>> IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME
TO SEE IS A CHART OF THAT.
WHAT IS AVAILABLE FOR SOMEBODY
IN AN APARTMENT RIGHT NOW.
WHAT WOULD IT BE AVAILABLE
UNDER THE CURRENT THINKING
UNDER THIS LEGISLATION?
WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS AND WHAT
SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT?
BECAUSE I THINK IT REALLY
MATTERS IF AN INDIVIDUAL
ACTUALLY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
GET THREE MONTHS RENT AS THEY
ARE MOVING.
WHAT IS THE POT OF GOLD THAT WE
CAN ACCESS FOR THAT.
IF WE'RE GOING AFTER
RESTITUTION, ARE WE SERIOUSLY
THINKING THAT THE RV RANCHERS
HAVE THE KIND OF RESOURCES THAT
WE WOULD HAVE TO GET?
WE NEED SOMETHING FAST.
WE CAN EXPECT SOME READY TO SAY
I'M GOING TO MOVE OUT OF YEAR
AND I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER
OPTION.
WILL GO TO COURT, SORT OF LIKE
SQUEEZING THE ONION.
THERE IS NOT A LOT THERE.
>> I CAN, THAT IS AN EXCELLENT
SEGUE TO THE POINT BROUGHT UP
LAST WEEK ABOUT THE ABILITY TO
ADVANCE PAYMENTS WHICH IS
PERMITTED UNDER THE TENANT
LANDLORD LAWS BUT WOULD NOT BE
IN OPTION WITH THE BILL AS IT
IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
THAT IS NOT 40 THAT IS PROVIDED
TO SPITE THE PROVISION OF FUNDS
PASSED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL
BUDGET.
THE BULL AT THIS POINT WOULDN'T
OFFER THAT.
>> I'M SORRY.
ABSENT THIS BILL GOING FORWARD,
COULD FOLKS DO THAT TODAY?
>> NOT FOR, YOU COULD DIVIDE
ASSISTANCE TO AN INDIVIDUAL
RESIDING IN A VEHICLE.
THAT WAS WRITTEN RATHER BROADLY
SO THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY,
YOU WOUL NEVER SITUATION WITH
THE PERSON IS DISPLACE AND
HAVING TO SEEK THAT.
>> WE PROVIDES ASSISTANCE TO A
LOT OF FOLKS.
>> IT IS NOT TOO TO SIMILAR
FROM OTHER SERVICES PROGRAMS.
EITHER PREVENTION, WE CALL IT
INVENTION NOW OR SOMEONE IS
IMMINENTLY GOING TO EXPERIENCE
HOMELESSNESS OR DIVERSION WHERE
THEY ALREADY ARE APPEARING AT
ONE OF OUR SHELTERS.
WE PROVIDE THEM TAXABLE
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MOVE
INTO HOUSING.
THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> AND SO, THE LAST AREA THAT
WAS DISCUSSED LAST WEEK WAS
CLARIFYING THE IMPACT OF
VEHICLES AND WHO RANCHERS ARE.
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO WHO
RANCHERS ARE.
THE BILL AS IT IS CURRENTLY
DRAFTED WERE STILL APPLY TO
SOMEONE RESIDING IN THE
VEHICLE.
SO IF I AM ALLOWING A FAMILY
MEMBER OR PARTNER TO RESIDE
WITH ME, I COULD POTENTIALLY BE
LABELED AS AN RV RANCHER AND
THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE
PENALTIES AND RESTITUTION ARE
POSSIBLE LOSE MY VEHICLE.
I WOULD NOTE THAT THERE ARE TWO
COURT DECISIONS THAT COULD BE
AT PLAY THERE.
ONE IS A SUPERIOR COURT
DECISION AND ANOTHER IS A NINTH
CIRCUIT DECISION.
>> TO VOICE THE OPINION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS.
>> YEAH.
THE COURT OF APPEALS.
>> DO HAVE A QUESTION?
>> THANK YOU.
LAST TIME, WE HAD THIS MEETING,
IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD
HEARD RV RANCHERS USED.
IT IS NOT IN THE LEGISLATION AS
WE TALKED ABOUT.
I THINK WHAT I SEE IN THIS MEMO
IS THE TERM PREDATORY VEHICLE
LANDLORDS OR PREDATORY
LANDLORDS I THINK IT IS
REFERRED TO IN SUBSEQUENT
PARAGRAPHS.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
PREDATORY LANDLORDS TO
INDIVIDUALS FOR DWELLING UNITS
ON WHEELS, WE CAN BE REALLY
SPECIFIC AND ATTEMPTS TO BE
VERY INTENTIONAL IN OUR
LANGUAGE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE ARE NOT USING LANGUAGE THAT
AGAIN GIVES US THIS ASSOCIATION
WITH SOMEHOW WORKING WITH FOLKS
WHO, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
WORKING WITH PEOPLE, PERIOD.
LET'S TRY TO BE REALLY
INTENTIONAL ABOUT THE LANGUAGE
WE USE AND JUST STICK WITH
PREDATORY VEHICLE LANDLORDS.
THAT COULD HELP US OUT WITH THE
NARRATIVE A LOT.
I THINK IT IS THE FAULT OF THE
PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT IT
DOESN'T HAVE IT DEFINED AS TO
WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
IF I COULD OFFER THAT AS A
FRAMEWORK FOR US AS WE THINK
ABOUT WHO IT IS THIS
LEGISLATION IS TARGETED
TOWARDS.
IF IT IS THIS PREDATORY VEHICLE
LANDLORDS, LET'S TRY TO USE
THAT TERM UNIVERSALLY IF WE
COULD.
>> THAT IS IN LIEU OF?
>> RANCHERS.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
>> IT DIDN'T ORIGINATE FROM
YOU.
I APPRECIATE IT.
I WAS USING IT LAST WEEK
BECAUSE IT WAS THE TERMINOLOGY
THAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED.
BUT IF WE COULD BE THOUGHTFUL
ABOUT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
TALK ABOUT HERE AND HOW WE HAVE
REGULATED BAD LANDLORDS IN THE
PAST.
THIS IS CLEARLY A MARKET THAT
IS CROPPED UP BECAUSE OF THAT
LACK OF HOUSING AND LACK OF
SAFE PLACES IN ENHANCED
SHELTERS.
FOR US TO JUST BE REALLY
INTENTIONAL ABOUT THE LANGUAGE,
WHICH IS THE TAKE AWAY I HAD
WITH THE LAST MEETING.
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> JEFF, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I'M
CURIOUS.
DOES THIS LEGISLATION OR ANY OF
THE DISCUSSIONS, ARE THERE NON-
PREDATORY RV LANDLORDS?
IS THERE A PATH TO NOT BE
PREDATORY?
>> AS THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
LAY IT OUT, IF YOU DIDN'T MEET
THE CRITERIA OF HAVING A
DAMAGED VEHICLE THAT IS AN
OPERABLE, THERE ARE FOUR
CRITERIA.
IT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEALTH OR A
FIRE HAZARD.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THEN YOU COULD ARRIVE AT A
SITUATION WHERE PROVIDING THIS
AS A DWELLING UNIT, PROVIDING A
VEHICLE AS IT IS WRITTEN.
FOR DWELLING THAT IS NOT
MEETING THOSE CRITERIA, THAT
WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE.
WE WOULD BE IMPOSING FINES OR
PENALTIES.
>> I THINK THAT IS, YOU KNOW,
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE PEOPLE LIVING
IN VEHICLES.
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE LOTS OF GOOD
CHOICES.
BUT IF WHEN WE HAVE 1000 PEOPLE
LIVING IN VEHICLES RIGHT NOW,
IF THERE IS A PATH TO FIGURING
OUT HOW THEY BECOME COMPLIANT,
WE WANT TO DO THAT AS A MATTER
OF POLICY.
WE APPRECIATE THE CLARITY.
>> THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD.
>> SO GOING ON THAT, YOU GUYS
ARE REALLY SETTING ME UP WELL
TONIGHT.
THE, IN ADDITION TO CLARIFYING
WHO THE RV PREDATORY LANDLORD
IS, WE ALSO RAISED LAST TIME,
WE WERE FOCUSING ON WHAT TYPE
OF VEHICLES WOULD BE IMPACTED.
CLARIFYING WHETHER THIS IS ALL
VEHICLES, JUST RVS, THAT HAS
BEEN THE MAJORITY OF THE
CONVERSATION.
ALSO CLARIFYING SOME OF THE
CONDITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THANK
YOU COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN, AT
SOME PHOTOS IS DIFFICULT TO
TELL WHAT IS CONSIDERED JUNK OR
MISCELLANEOUS THINGS IN THE
VEHICLE THAT ARE A HAZARD
VERSUS SOMETHING THAT THE
INDIVIDUAL AND THE VEHICLE
WOULD CONSIDER THEIR OWN
POSSESSIONS.
THAT IS NOT SPECIFIED IN THIS
KIND OF TIES INTO AN AREA THAT
DID NOT GET INTO LAST TIME.
THERE IS NOT A DISCUSSION ABOUT
THE POSSESSIONS A PERSON WOULD
HAVE.
CURRENTLY, FAS WOULD PERMIT A
PERSON TO BE ACCOMPANIED TO
LINCOLN TOWING SLOT AND RECLAIM
POSSESSIONS IF THEY NEED TO.
THERE ARE NOT PROTECTIONS THAT
WOULD SPECIFY THAT IT SHOULD BE
DONE OR ANYTHING THAT NOTES IF
THE RV, THE PREDATORY LANDLORD
IS, I SHOULDN'T BE SAYING, THE
PREDATORY LANDLORD IS NOT
ALLOWING THE POSSESSIONS.
IF THERE ARE ANY RIGHTS OR
RESTITUTION LAID OUT IN THE
BILL FOR THAT SITUATION.
>> YOU ARE PROPOSING SOME
AMENDMENTS, RIGHT?
OR HELPING US BUILD SOME?
>> I MOSTLY WANT TO LAY OUT
THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN
RAISED AS ISSUES.
INDICATES A POSSESSION, COUNCIL
MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER,
POSSIBLY AS AMENDMENTS.
I AM CERTAINLY ABLE TO DRAFT
THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT.
IN SOME CASES, SINCE IT IS
ALREADY BEEN RAISED LAST WEEK,
I HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT
SEPARATELY.
BUT I DEFER TO THE COUNCIL ON
WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO DO.
>> ALLISON HAS A QUESTION.
>>> SO JEFF, I WAS WONDERING IF
THE ORDINANCE TALKED ABOUT WHAT
THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WOULD BE
LIKE?
WHO WOULD BE IN CONTROL OF
THIS?
WHAT TRAINING WITH THEY RECEIVE
úFOR SUPPORTING VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS?
>> IT IS NOT ACTION, NEITHER OF
THOSE ARE SPECIFIED CURRENTLY.
THERE IS THE RV REMEDIATION
TEAM.
IT IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
BETWEEN MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS.
SPD, PARKING ENFORCEMENT, SPU,
FAS.
IT CURRENTLY DOES SEVEN RV
CLEANUPS PER MONTH RIGHT NOW.
THERE ARE ALSO PARKING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GOING
THROUGHOUT THE CITY SO THERE IS
A VARIETY OF AVENUES WHERE YOU
CAN HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE
ACTUALLY LAMENTING THIS.
THERE WAS NOTHING LAID OUT
ABOUT THE TYPE OF TREATMENT
THEY WOULD NEED TO RECEIVE.
THOUGH I DO KNOW THAT IN THE
CASE OF THE RV REMEDIATION
TEAM, I HAVE GONE WITH THEM AND
SEEN THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY AN
APPROACH OF TRYING TO CONNECT
THE SYSTEM NAVIGATORS THAT WORK
WITH THE NAVIGATION TEAM WITH
OTHER OUTREACH PROVIDERS IN
PROVIDING OUTREACH AND HUMAN
SERVICES RESOURCES AS THEY
ENGAGE WITH INDIVIDUALS.
>>> MY FOLLOW-UP WAS JUST IF
THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE
CASEWORKERS OR MENTAL HEALTH
PROFESSIONALS WITH THEM WHEN
THEY WERE GOING OUT TO WHAT
THEY CURRENTLY DO.
>> CURRENTLY, THEY DEFINE IT AS
A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER
THAT.
THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE BILL
THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT KIND OF
TRAINING OR THAT KIND OF
CONNECTION.
>>
>> I AM HEARING THAT WE WOULD
LIKE TO LOOK AT AN AMENDMENT TO
ADD THAT.
>> IF I COULD JUST ADD, A
QUESTION JEFF, I THINK YOU
ANSWERED IT EARLY ON BUT THE
TENANT LANDLORD LAW DOES NOT
APPLY THERE.
THESE ARE NOT, FOR WHATEVER
REASON, THEY DO NOT FALL INTO
THE DEFINITION OF THAT.
>> YET, THERE ARE A LOT OF
SIMILARITIES.
I KNOW THAT OUR TENANT LANDLORD
LAWS ARE ENFORCED.
THERE IS A ROLE FOR THE POLICE
AND THE SHERIFF AT THE END OF
THE THIS.
LARGELY ENFORCED BY FOLKS THAT
HAVE EXPERTISE AROUND THAT.
DIVINING THAT IF WE ARE GOING
TO GO IN, WORKING WITH FOLKS, I
THINK WE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC ON
THE TYPES OF QUALITIES WE WANT
PEOPLE TO HAVE FOR DOING
NETWORK.
IT IS COMPLICATED.
>> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> INC.
YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT DOVETAILS WITH A QUESTION
I WAS GOING TO ASK, PROMPTED BY
YOUR EARLIER QUESTION.
I'M NOT CONVINCED WE NEED THE
LEGISLATION.
IS THERE NOT SOME SORT OF
PROTECTION THAT WE CURRENTLY
HAVE FOUR CONSUMER PROTECTIONS,
CONSUMER RIGHTS?
IF THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE
PURCHASING A PRODUCT.
IF THEY ARE PURCHASING AN RV
AND HAVE ENTERED INTO AN
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL
THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE RENTING
THEM A PRODUCT.
IS THERE NOT SOME SORT OF
CONSUMER REJECTION LAW THAT WE
CAN ALSO LOOK AT TO SAY, YOU
HAVE CLEARLY RENTED OUT WHAT
YOU KNEW TO BE A FAULTY
PRODUCT.
THERE WAS A LEAKING ROOF,
LEAKING WINDOWS, A BROKEN
WINDSHIELD AND A CAR THAT
DOESN'T RUN?
YOU HAVE WITHHELD THE KEYS?
THERE SEEMS LIKE THERE HAS TO
BE SOME OTHER PROTECTIONS FOR
THESE INDIVIDUALS ON THAT END.
I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR IF YOU
HAVE LOOKED INTO THAT ANALYSIS.
>> I DEFINITELY HAVE.
IT IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION AND
FOCUS.
THE SHORT ANSWER IS, NO THERE
IS NOT.
THE, LET'S FOCUS FIRST ON THESE
AS VEHICLES.
AS I SAID, THE REGULATIONS DOES
VISION A SITUATION IN WHICH A
PERSON IS DWELLING IN THE
VEHICLE.
THAT IS NOT OUTLINED AS A
PENALTY OR SITUATION.
WHAT YOU HAVE IS A FAULTY PIECE
OF EQUIPMENT WITH YOUR VEHICLE.
YOU CAN PAY A FINE AND HAVE TO
GET IT REPAIRED.
THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THAT WOULDN'T PROVIDE
ASSISTANCE FOR THESE
INDIVIDUALS RIGHT HERE.
IF YOU WANTED TO FOCUS MORE TO
YOUR QUESTION ABOUT SEEING THIS
AS A RENTAL SITUATION, THE LAND
USE CODE DEFINED A RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE, IT ACTUALLY SAYS NOT A
DWELLING UNIT.
SEPARATELY, IN THE BUILDING
CODE, MOBILE HOMES ARE DEFINED
AS USABLE FOR TEMPORARY LIVING
QUARTERS FOR RECREATION,
CAMPING OR TRAVEL USE.
EXCLUDING THIS SITUATION.
AND FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES,
HAVING A PERMANENT FOUNDATION.
WITH THOSE DEFINITIONS, THE
ONLY AVENUE WE COULD TREAT
THESE AS BEING DWELLING UNITS.
IF I HAD AN RV THAT WAS PARKED
IN MY DRIVEWAY AND I WAS, IF IT
WAS IN DEPLORABLE CONDITION AND
SHOULDN'T BE FIT FOR HUMAN
HABITATION, BECAUSE IT IS ON MY
PROPERTY, AS DCI COULD COME AND
I COULD PAY FINES AND HAVE
PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH DOING
THAT.
IN THIS CASE, THAT IS BECAUSE
IT IS DEFINED AS ON MY
PREMISES.
MY PROPERTY.
AS DCI DOES NOT DEFINE PURPOSES
AS BEING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT
AWAY.
THEREFORE, THAT DEFINITION OF
PREMISES AND THE ABILITY TO
IMPOSE THOSE FINES AND
PENALTIES AND PROTECTIONS FOR
THESE INDIVIDUALS IS THEREFORE
NOT BEING EXTENDED TO THEM.
THAT IS PRIMARILY A CONCERN
ABOUT THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEY
ARE ABLE TO ENFORCE IN THEIR
CAPACITY TO BE LOOKING AT THE
PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY AS WELL.
>> DO WANT TO PURSUE YOUR
COMMENT?
YOU'RE NOT SURE THE LEGISLATION
IS NEEDED.
BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE ARE
LOOKING AT THIS FROM A PUBLIC
HEALTH STANDPOINT FOR THE
INDIVIDUALS THERE.
WE WILL PROTECT AND THEN ALSO
FROM EIGHT DWELLING SPACE, WHAT
CAN WE DO TO PROMOTE MORE
DWELLING UNITS THAT WILL BE
HEALTHY?
DO YOU WANT TO JUST ANSWER
THAT?
>>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I WAS GOING TO CLARIFY AS WELL.
BUT I DO THINK IS NEEDED IS
PLACES FOR FOLKS TO LIVE THAT
IS HEALTHY.
WHAT I DO THINK IS NEEDED IS
ENHANCED SHELTERS.
LOCKERS AND CASE MANAGEMENT AND
SAFE LACES TO BE WITH YOUR
FAMILIES SO THAT WHAT I DO
RECOGNIZE IS THAT THIS INDUSTRY
HA CROPPED UP SO PEOPLE CAN
KEEP THEIR BELONGINGS AND
FAMILY TOGETHER.
TO NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE
TRAUMA OF LINING UP IN THE
MORNING AND BEING KICKED OUT.
GETTING KICKED OUT IN THE
MORNING AND LINING UP IN THE
EVENING.
SO I SEE THESE VEHICLES AS A
LAST RESORT FOR MANY PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE KEPT THEIR BELONGINGS
THERE.
I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT A LOT OF
TIMES INDIVIDUALS ARE USING
THIS AS A LAST RESORT BECAUSE
THE SHELTERS ARE AT CAPACITY.
WE HAVEN'T BUILT THE HOUSING.
I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THE
NEED FOR US TO GET FOLKS INTO
SAFER LIVING PLACES AND TO GET
THEM POTENTIALLY SUPPORT FROM
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
THAT WOULD BE IDEAL FOR ANYONE
WHO NEEDS CASE MANAGEMENT.
AS COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN
MENTIONED, IF THIS WAS
SOMEONE'S HOME, SOME OF THE
CONDITIONS WE WOULD SEE, WE
WOULD CALL SOMEONE WITH CASE
MANAGEMENT BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE
CONSIDERED HOARDING RATHER THAN
A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD.
THIS IS A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD
TO HAVE FOLKS LIVING OUTSIDE.
THE REASON I DON'T KNOW IF THIS
BILL IS THE RIGHT VEHICLE FOR
ADDRESSING THE CONCERN OUT
THERE IS I AM STILL NOT SURE
HOW THIS HELPS THESE
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LIVING IN
THAT SITUATION NOT BE ANY WORSE
SITUATION OUT ON THE STREET OR
POTENTIALLY SPIRAL BACK INTO
THE STREET IF THEY DO END UP IN
SOME OF THE CURRENT SHELTERS.
SO THE RUSSIAN I ALSO HAVE IS,
HOW ARE WE TARGETING THE
INTERVENTION?
IF WE KNOW THERE ARE FOUR OF
THESE SLUMLORDS ON WHEELS, WHAT
ARE WE DOING TO HOLD THESE
INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNTABLE?
THAT IS ONE QUESTION.
FOR 2, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A
REVOLVING DOOR IF LINCOLN
TOWING FOR EXAMPLE IS THE ONE
WHO IS TELLING THESE VEHICLES
OFF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
ALSO THEN AUCTIONING THOSE SAME
VEHICLES BACK OUT.
WHAT ARE WE DOING TO AND THAT
REVOLVING DOOR OF THOSE
VEHICLES GOING OUT?
THAT THIS LEGISLATION DOESN'T
SPEAK TO THAT.
THE LAST THING I WOULD ASK
AROUND THE CONSUMER PROTECTION
ANGLE IS, WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE
LEMON LAWS THAT HELP WITH
INDIVIDUALS WHO BY A FAULTY
CAR.
IS THERE NOT SOME SORT OF LEASE
LAW IF WE CONSIDER THIS A LEASE
OF A VEHICLE TO MAKE SURE THAT
THOSE VEHICLES OUGHT TO BE
OPERABLE AND IN GOOD CONDITION?
THAT DOESN'T SPEAK TO SOME OF
THE PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES AND
THE IMAGES WE SAW LAST WEEK BUT
IT SPEAKS TO INDIVIDUALS BEING
RENTED OR LEASED, A PRODUCT
THAT IS NOT UP TO PAR.
IS AT AN ANGLE WE HAVE LOOKED
AT AS WELL?
>> I DID LOOK AT THE TRADING AS
A RENTAL VEHICLE.
IF I WERE TO RENT A CAR, THOSE
CODES APPLY TO SITUATIONS WHERE
VEHICLES ARE BEING RENTED FOR
LESS THAN 30 DAYS.
SO IN THIS SITUATION, I AM NOT
SURE HOW THEY WOULD APPLY.
I HAVE NOT LOOKED INTO THAT.
SO I COULD LOOK INTO THAT AND
ALSO SEE IF THEY ARE RELATED TO
LEMON LAWS AND HOW THAT WOULD
APPLY WITH THE VEHICLE HERE.
I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER IN THAT
REGARD.
I DO THINK YOU ARE CORRECT IN
FOCUSING ON THE IMPACT THAT
THIS BILL WOULD HAVE COMPARED
TO CURRENT PRACTICE THAT IS NOW
IN PLACE ADMINISTRATIVELY.
BUT HAD NOT BEEN PRIOR TO JUNE.
NOW, AS THESE VEHICLES ARE
BEING TOWED, INSTEAD OF
CONTINUING TO PUT THEM INTO
CIRCULATION, SAS AND THE SPD
ARE COMPLETING JUNK VEHICLE
AFFIDAVITS.
THEY ARE ACTUALLY USING VERY
SIMILAR CRITERIA TO WHAT IS IN
THIS BILL TO DETERMINE THAT A
VEHICLE THAT IS IN LINCOLN
TOWING'S LOT IS A JUNK VEHICLE
AND SHOULD NOT BE RERELEASED.
THERE IS AN ASSOCIATED COST OF
CITY OF $2000 TO DISPOSE OF
THAT VEHICLE BUT THEY ARE DOING
THAT MORE NOW TO PREVENT THE
VEHICLES FROM GOING BACK INTO
CIRCULATION.
ONE OF THE EARLIER NUMBERS WE
WERE GIVEN IS ABOUT HALF OF THE
VEHICLES THAT HAD BEEN TOWED
WERE REEMERGING AFTER GOING
THROUGH AUCTION.
ú>> HAS THERE BEEN DISCUSSION
EITHER AS PART OF THIS RESEARCH
OR WITH THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT
ABOUT SOMEHOW PUTTING MORE
MARKINGS ON THE VEHICLES SAYING
THAT HABITATION MAY NOT BE
USED?
IF SOMEONE WANTED TO BUY IT FOR
$25, AND TOLD TO THEIR FARM AND
USE IT FOR A PLACE THAT YOU
WILL PUT TOOLS, THAT IS
SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT THAN
RENTING IT BACK OUT AND GIVING
IT TO AN INDIVIDUAL.
HAS THERE BEEN FURTHER
DISCUSSION ON THAT?
>> AS REQUIREMENTS AND THE LAW
CURRENTLY STANDS, NONE WOULD BE
FIT FOR LONG-TERM HARM, HUMAN
HABITATION.
WE DEFINED AN RV IS NOT BEING
THAT.
IN TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC
VEHICLES AS THEY GROW THROUGH.
>> MARKETING THEM, LICENSING
THEM, --
>> I AM NOT AWARE OF THOSE
STEPS BEING TAKEN.
IN MANY CASES, THEY ARE AS
INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE BUYING A
LARGE NUMBER OF THESE VEHICLES
AT AUCTION.
THERE WERE TIMES THAT A PERSON
WAS NOT PERMITTED TO RETURN TO
THE AUCTIONS.
BUT OFTEN WOULD LOCATE A PROXY
IN THEIR PLACE SO THEY ARE
FINDING WAYS TO WORK AROUND
THIS.
>> LET'S TALK MORE ABOUT THAT.
COUNCIL MEMBER O'BRIEN?
>> FOR ME, THERE IS SOME
OBJECTIVE HERE THAT I WOULD
LOVE TO SEE AS GUIDANCE AS WE
THINK THROUGH WAYS TO AMEND THE
ORDINANCE OR IF THERE IS
ANOTHER PATH.
ONE IS, I THINK THE BEST WAY TO
THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE BAD
ACTORS IN THIS BUSINESS, THE
BEST WAY TO DRIVE THEM OUT OF
BUSINESS IS TO PROVIDE A BETTER
PRODUCT.
THAT WILL BE PERMANENT HOUSING
OR GOOD SHELTERS THAT ARE MORE
AFFORDABLE.
AND WHEN WE DO THAT, THERE WILL
NO LONGER BE A MARKET FOR THIS.
THAT SHOULD BE THE MAIN FOCUS.
TO THE EXTENT WE ARE NOT
CAPABLE OF DOING THAT
IMMEDIATELY, WE ARE WORKING ON
THAT AS A CHALLENGE.
I APPRECIATE A PATH SAYING IF
THERE ARE GOING TO BE FOLKS OUT
THERE RENTING RVS, THIS IS WHAT
ACCEPTABLE MENTORSHIP LOOKS
LIKE.
THESE ARE THE RV LANDLORDS THAT
ARE APPROPRIATELY OPERATING A
BUSINESS.
OTHER THINGS THAT THEY NEED.
A BUSINESS LICENSE, THEY DON'T
HAVE THAT.
IF WE WANT TO NORMALIZE THAT,
IT WILL BE UP TO THE EXECUTIVE
BUT THERE SHOULD BE A PATH TO
SAYING THAT IS OKAY.
CLARITY AROUND WHAT IS NOT
OKAY.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE RV
LANDLORDS, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS
THE ADJECTIVE THEY ARE USING?
PREDATORY RV LANDLORDS OUT
THERE.
THEY'RE LOOKING TO EXPLOIT
PEOPLE AND PROFIT OFF OF THEM.
WE PROBABLY JUST NEED TO DRIVE
THEM OUT OF BUSINESS TO THE
EXTENT.
THERE PEOPLE OUT OF COMPLIANCE
BUT GENUINELY TRIED TO PROVIDE
A PRODUCT, LET'S HELP THEM GET
INTO COMPLIANCE.
I THINK THAT IS, I HAVE A
QUESTION ABOUT THE ORDINANCE.
I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
BUT THERE ARE THE 4 CRITERIA,
TWO OF WHICH WOULD TRIGGER
THAT.
>> THEY WOULD TRIGGER
CONDEMNATION OF THE VEHICLE.
ONE OF THOSE WAS ABOUT SANITARY
CONDITIONS.
THAT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HAVING
A FUNCTIONING BATHROOM OR NOT?
>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT, IT IS
SUBSECTION C. I'M NOT SURE
WHICH.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHERE IT IS
INADEQUATE SANITATION AND THEN
YOU LOOK DOWN TO NUMBER FOUR.
THE LEAKING FLUIDS.
THAT IS AUTOMOTIVE FLUIDS.
NUMBER THREE.
THE DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RVS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THESE DON'T HAVE
FUNCTIONING SEWAGE SYSTEMS IN
ORDER TO HAVE A PLACE THEY CAN
DUMP THEIR SEWAGE IF AND IF IT
WERE A FUNCTION.
IS BEING DUMPED ONTO THE STREET
AND CLEANED UP BY SPU WITH
THEIR TRUCKS THAT COME IN WITH
SUCTION.
OFTEN, IT IS ALSO THAN FLOWING
INTO OUR SEWAGE SYSTEMS, DOWN
IN SODA, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A
SEWAGE SYSTEM THAT FLOWS
DIRECTLY INTO THE SOUND.
>> IS IT A REQUIREMENT THAT AN
RV HAVE SOME SORT OF
FUNCTIONING OR ANY KIND OF A
SEWAGE SYSTEM ATTACHED TO IT AT
ALL?
>> SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT VEHICLES.
AND A TOYOTA COROLLA DOESN'T
HAVE A TOILET IN IT.
DOES THAT MEAN WE FAIL ON #3?
OR IS IT ONLY IF YOU HAVE A
TOILET, IT NEEDS TO BE
OPERABLE.
>> I AM ACTUALLY NOT DUBBED
INTO THE QUESTION.
THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN PRIMARILY
PRESENTED AS AN ISSUE WITH RVS
AND NOT VEHICLES.
IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO NARROW
THAT SCOPE TO VEHICLES THAT
DIDN'T FOCUS IN ON HOW IT
PLANNED OTHER VEHICLES.
I CAN GET BACK TO ON THAT.
>> THE LEGISLATION AS IT IS
DRAFTED IS NOT EXCLUSIVE TO
RVS.
I JUST WANT TO, WHAT THE INTENT
IS THERE.
TO MAKE POLICY DECISION, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE
CLARITY ON THAT.
I THINK THAT, THE ISSUE OF,
PEOPLE HAVE TO GO TO THE
BATHROOM.
AND YOU KNOW, I WILL HOPE THAT
THE INTENT IS NOT TO SAY THAT
IT IS ILLEGAL TO CAMP IN YOUR
CAR BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A
TOILET IN IT.
AND THEN, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH
RVS IF THEY DECOMMISSION THE
TOILET.
DOES IT MAKE IT OKAY OR NOT?
I AM NOT SURE THAT
DECOMMISSIONING THE TOILET
HELPS US OR NOT.
CLEARLY IF SOMEONE IS DUMPING
RAW SEWAGE ONTO THE STREET AS
OPPOSED TO THE SEWER SYSTEM,
THAT IS A PROBLEM.
BUT ANY ONE, IF WE ELIMINATE
ALL OF THAT, THESE PEOPLE STILL
HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM
SOMEWHERE.
THEY ARE USING THE BATHROOM
THAT IS IN OPERABLE IN THE RV
BECAUSE IT IS THE BEST OPTION
THEY HAVE.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS
GOING.
BUT A SOLUTION MIGHT BE TO
FIGURE OUT IF THIS IS A REALITY
WE CAN LIVE WITH FOR A WHILE.
HOW WE PROVIDE PUMP OUT
OPERATIONS FOR FOLKS.
ANOTHER PLACE WE MIGHT WANT TO
INVEST IS SAYING WE CANNOT PUMP
OUT ON THE STREET BUT WE WILL
COME OUT AND YOU'RE OUT HAD A
CLAIM HE SAT.
MAYBE THE LANDLORDS CAN SIGN UP
FOR THIS.
THAT IS PART OF THE LEASE
AGREEMENT OR WHATEVER THAT
LOOKS LIKE.
AGAIN, FOCUSING ON HOW DO WE
SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?
THE PROBLEM IS HUMAN WASTE.
WE ALL CREATE HUMAN WASTE.
MOST OF US HAVE ACCESS IN
APPROPRIATE PLACES.
SOME DON'T.
INSTEAD OF SAYING IT IS
INAPPROPRIATE TO DUMP IT IN
HISTORY, MAKE SURE WE HAVE
OPTIONS FOR THEM THAT ARE SAFE.
>> THAT COMES BACK TO WHAT WE
TALKED ABOUT LAST IN.
IF WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE IN
THESE RVS OR IN VEHICLES ON THE
STREET, WE HAVE TO PROVIDE
SPACE FOR THEM TO BE.
ONE OF THE THOUGHTS THAT I SENT
TO BOTH OF YOU IS, I AM
INTERESTED IN WHETHER THERE ARE
SOME BUILDINGS WE CAN ACCESS
THAT WE COULD LEASE THAT WE
COULD TURN INTO 24/7 SHELTER.
A VISA, BUT THIS IS EXPENSIVE.
AND I REALLY HAVE A LOT OF
FAITH AND THINGS TO THE
EXECUTIVE BECAUSE I KNOW THEY
HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.
BUT JUST LIKE THIS OVER THE
WEEKEND, I WAS AT SAM'S CLUB.
THAT THING HAS BEEN EMPTY FOR
YEARS.
WHY COULD WE NOT RENT THE
FACILITY LIKE THAT AND AT LEAST
HAVE 50 PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO
BE.
úINCREASING THE 24/7 SHELTER.
I AM VERY RELUCTANT.
AS MUCH AS I HATE HAVING THESE
RVS OUT THERE THAT ARE TERRIBLE
IN CONDITION AND NOT HABITABLE
IF WE DON'T HAVE PLACES TO PUT
PEOPLE.
WE ARE STIRRING THE POT AND
PUTTING PEOPLE BACK IN THE
STREET.
BACK INTENSE.
BACK WITH CARDBOARD BOXES.
WE HAVE NOT SOLVED THE PROBLEM.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT WHATEVER WE
COME UP WITH WITH THE
LEGISLATION ULTIMATELY, WE WILL
BE ABLE TO FIND PLACES FOR
PEOPLE TO BE.
>> WE PUT $100,000 INTO OUR
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ON MONDAY.
SAYING WE WANT TO INCREASE THIS
AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR
INDIVIDUALS.
BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME TO
BUDGET START I HOPE WE CAN DIVE
INTO THIS AND FIND A FEW MORE
SOLUTIONS.
>> ANOTHER AREA THAT IS REALLY
UNRELATED TO THIS BILL BECAUSE
IT IS EXCLUSIVELY FOCUSED ON
FOLKS LEASING RVS TO SOMEONE
ELSE.
BUT FOR FOLKS WHO DO OWN THEIR
RV, WE KNOW FROM THE EXPERTS
OUT THERE ON THE STREET THAT
ARE WORKING WITH THESE
INDIVIDUALS, TRANSITIONING OUT
OF AN RV INTO HOUSING IS OFTEN
A REAL CHALLENGE BECAUSE THAT
VEHICLE IS THEIR SAFETY NET.
>> THAT IS THE LAST RESORT.
>> WHAT WE HEAR IS, HEY IF YOU
WANT TO TRANSITION SOMEONE INTO
MORE STABLE HOUSING, TAKE IT AN
ACTUAL TRANSITION AND CREATE A
PLACE WHERE WE WILL MOVE YOU
INSIDE THAT YOUR RV IS STILL
THERE.
WE HAVE A PARKING SPACE ON
THAT.
IT IS A 24-HOUR SHELTER THAT
WOULD BE BETTER BUT YOU STILL
HAVE YOUR RV THERE.
ACTUALLY, HAVE A TRANSITION
PERIOD WHERE FOLKS GET TO SEE
WHAT A DIFFERENT LIVING OPTION
WOULD BE WITHOUT HAVING TO SAY
I HAVE TO GIVE UP THE ONE THING
I HAVE KNOWN FOR THE LAST THREE
YEARS.
THAT IS NOT REALLY WHAT THIS
BILL IS BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE
CASE WITH SOMEONE RENTING AN
RV.
I DO THINK IN THE BROADER
CONTEXT OF FINDING, THIS IS
DIFFERENT THAN HAVING SAFE
SPACES FOR PEOPLE IN RVS.
FOR PEOPLE MOVING TO SHELTER
AND OTHER RVS, THEY CAN TRY OUT
ANOTHER WAY WITHOUT GIVING UP
THEIR CURRENT WAY.
I SUSPECT THEY WILL FIND IT IS
NOT SO BAD.
I COULD DO WITHOUT MY ARE
VIEWED NOW.
THEY CAN MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> I WANT TO BRING THIS TO A
CLOSE IF YOU HAVE ANY MAJOR
QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
ONE THING THAT CAME UP THAT I
DIDN'T HEAR AN ANSWER TO, THAT
IS, IS THAT HE IS RENTING FROM
ONE OF OUR LESS FAVORITE PEOPLE
RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE ALLOWING A
PARTNER TO COME IN WITH THEM, I
REALLY WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL RENTER IS
NOW SUBTLY FALLING UNDER THE
PENALTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE
BRINGING IN A PARTNER.
TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO CHARGE
THE INDIVIDUAL RENTER WHO
PROBABLY HAS NO MONEY TO START
WITH A PENALTYBECAUSE THEY
INVITE SOMEONE ELSE TO JOIN
THEM.
I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT A
BIT FURTHER.
IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
WE WILL HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS NOT THE LAST
CONVERSATION WE WILL HAVE BUT
IT IS THE LAST CONVERSATION
BEFORE THE BREAK.
SO THANK YOU FOR ASCRIBING ALL
THIS.
I APPRECIATE IT.
I WANT TO SAY THANKS TO THE
FOLKS FROM THE MAYOR'S OFF'S.
THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON
THAT AS WELL.
WE JUST ARE GOING TO WORK ON
THIS CURRENTLY UNTIL WE GET
SOME ANSWERS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND
THANK YOU FOR COMING.
THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE ON OUR
AGENDA IS THE CITY EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
I SEE THAT JEFF DAVIS AND JASON
MALINOWSKI ARE HERE.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
IF YOU WILL COME UP TO THE
TABLE ? IF WE HAVE AN ITEM TO
BE READ IN?
>> ITEM NUMBER TWO.
CITY EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
BRIEFING.
>> GREAT.
STINK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IF EVERYONE GETS SETTLED IN, I
DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN
TO THE TABLE SINCE I HAVE BEEN
CHAIR FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE BUT
WELCOME.
IF YOU WILL JUST STATE YOUR
NAMES FOR THE RECORD.
>> AND GLEN LEE COME UP .
PLEASE JOIN US.
>> MY NAME IS JEFF DAVIS AND
I'M THE DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY
OF SEATTLE EMPLOYMENT RETIREES
SYSTEM.
>> JASON MALINOWSKI.
SEATTLE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM.
>> MY NAME IS TOM WITH YOUR
COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> GLEN LEE , CITY FINANCE
DIRECTOR.
>> TAKE YOU SO MUCH.
WELCOME.
AND I HAD ASKED TO HAVE YOU ALL
JOIN US, GIVE US A LITTLE
UPDATE ON OUR RETIREMENT
SYSTEM.
THIS REALLY ROSE BECAUSE OF THE
POTENTIAL LEGISLATION THAT
SENATOR CARLISLE HAD BROUGHT
FORWARD LAST YEAR THAT WOULD
OFFER US AN OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN
THE STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
AND I HAD ASKED FOR AN
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS.
YOU WERE GREAT ABOUT HELPING
GET OUR OTHER BOARD THAT
ADVISES US ON VARIOUS
INVESTMENTS, TO PROVIDE
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS AND THE
CONCLUSION AT THE END THAT WAS
NOT SO INTERESTING.
SO I DIDN'T WANT TO FOCUS ON
THAT TODAY.
I WANTED YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND WE CAN
CIRCLE BACK.
>> WE WILL COVER THAT AND
ANOTHER OF OTHER ISSUES.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE
TODAY.
SO I HAVE GOT A PRESENTATION TO
GO THROUGH.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK
QUESTIONS AT ANY POINT.
SO SOME THINGS WE WILL COVER
TODAY, WE WILL GIVE BACKGROUND
ON THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
WE WILL ADDRESS THE FINANCIAL
CONDITION, INCLUDING OUR
ASSETS, OUR FUNDING RATIO AND
THEN ACTIONS THAT WE HAVE TAKEN
TO IMPROVE THE FINANCES OVER
THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.
WILL ALSO TALK ABOUT SOME
SPECIFIC INVESTMENT BANISHMENT
ISSUES, INVESTMENTS
PERFORMANCE, THE ISSUE YOU
RAISE ABOUT OUT SOURCING
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND THEN
TALK ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL,
SOCIAL GOVERNMENT.
>> I'M SORRY THAT COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN HAD LEFT BECAUSE THAT
IS ONE OF THE ISSUES HE HAS
RAISED FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS.
WE WILL FILL HIM IN.
>> QUITE.
SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
IT WAS ESTABLISHED BACK IN THE
1920S.
IT PROVIDES RETIREMENT BENEFITS
TO ALL CITY EMPLOYEES OTHER
THAN THOSE WHO ARE UNIFORMED
POLICE AND FIRE EMPLOYEES ARE
COVERED BY THE PLAN.
WE PROVIDE RETIREES WITH A
DEFINED AND A PLAN.
THAT MEANS UPON RETIREMENT.
THEY ARE GUARANTEED A BENEFIT
THAT IS BASED ON AGE AT THE
THE YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE
SYSTEM AND THE HIGHEST AVERAGE
SALARY.
IT IS GOVERNED BY A BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION.
IT HAS SEVEN MEMBERS.
THREE MEMBERS ARE SERVED BY
NATURE OF THEIR ROLE WITH THE
CITY.
WE ARE CHAIRED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER BAGSHAW AS THE CHAIR OF
THIS COMMITTEE.
GLENN LEE, THE CITY'S FINANCE
DIRECTOR IS ON THE BOARD AS IS
BOBBY HUME, THE CITIES HR
MANAGER.
WE ALSO HAVE THREE BOARD
MEMBERS WHO ARE ELECTED BY
MEMBERSHIP GO TO OUR ACTIVE
CITY EMPLOYEES AND ONE IS A
RETIREE.
AND THEN COLLECTIVELY, THE SIX
OF THEM SELECT THE SEVENTH
BOARD MEMBER.
JUST SOME STATS ABOUT THE
MEMBERSHIP.
AT THE END OF 2018, WE HAD
AROUND 9400 ACTIVE MEMBERS.
AROUND 2600 DEFERRED NUMBERS.
THEY ARE NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY
THE CITY.
THEY HAVEN'T YET RETIRED BUT
THEY STILL HAVE MONEY IN THE
SYSTEM.
AND THEN AROUND 6800 RETIREES
AND BENEFICIARIES.
>> 9400 CURRENT MEMBERS.
AND HOW MANY ARE WE PAYING OUT?
>> THOSE ARE THE STATE HUNDRED
RETIREES AND BENEFICIARIES.
>> SO OUR BOARD SERVES A VERY
IMPORTANT FUNCTION FOR THE
SYSTEM.
THEY HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THEY TAKE A
NUMBER OF ACTIONS AND THEY MAKE
A NUMBER OF DECISIONS AND WHEN
THEY DO SO, THEY MUST DO SO IN
THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR
MEMBERS.
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR
FUND.
NOW WE MAKE A LOT OF DECISIONS
AROUND INVESTMENTS.
NONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS ARE
EXPECTED TO BE AT BERT'S ON
INVESTING.
BUT WHEN THEY DO MAKE
DECISIONS, THEY CAN RELY ON
OTHER SOURCES AS RESOURCES TO
INFORM THEIR DECISIONS.
THE FIRST OF THOSE IS OUR
STAFF.
WE HAVE A GROUP OF FOUR
INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS ON
STAFF LED BY JASON, THE CHIEF
INVESTMENT OFFICER.
OFFER MEMBERS ARE VERY
EXPERIENCED INVESTMENT
PROFESSIONALS.
THEY EACH PLAY A LEADERSHIP
ROLE DIFFERENT ASSET CLASSES IN
OVERSEEING THEM IN OUR
PORTFOLIO, WHETHER IT BE FIXED
INCOME OR PUBLIC EQUITY.
WE ARE ADVISED BY AN INVESTMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH YOU
REFERRED TO EARLIER.
THIS IS A GROUP OF FIVE
INVESTMENT NATIONALS IN THE
LOCAL AREA.
THEY ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH
THE CITY.
BUT THEY DO VOLUNTEER THEIR
TIME TO GIVE ADVICE ON
INVESTMENT ISSUES TO THE BOARD
AND TO STAFF.
THIRD, WE CONTRACT WITH AN
INVESTMENT ADVISORY FIRM CALLED
AN EPC.
THEY ARE ONE OF THE LARGEST
INVESTMENT ADVISORY FIRMS IN
THE COUNTRY.
THEY HAVE OVER 250 CLIENTS THEY
WORK WITH AND OVER $1 TRILLION
OF ASSETS UNDER ADVISEMENT.
FINALLY, WE, OUR STAFF DON'T
MAKE INVESTMENTS DIRECTLY.
WE CONTRACT WITH THE FRONT
INVESTMENT MANAGERS.
WE CONTRACT WITH OVER 20
INVESTMENT MANAGERS WHO EACH
SPECIALIZE IN A SPECIFIC AREA
OF OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO.
OUR STAFF WORKS TO EVALUATE THE
PERFORMANCE OF THOSE MANAGERS
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE
MEETING OUR EXPECTATIONS AND
THE PERFORMANCE IS CONSISTENT
WITH BENCHMARKS WE ESTABLISH
FOR THEM.
>> JEFF, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
I AM AROUND NUMBERING HERE BUT
THE BUDGET IS ROUGHLY $20
MILLION ANNUALLY.
$10 MILLION THAT WE EXPEND ON
OUTSIDE ADVISORS.
DO YOU KNOW HOW THAT COMPARES
WITH OTHER SYSTEMS?
>> JASON CAN MAYBE SPEAK TO
THIS, THE AMOUNT WE PAY IN
TERMS OF FEES TO OUR INVESTMENT
ADVISORS IS ROUGHLY IN LINE
WITH OTHER PENSION SYSTEMS.
>> THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT THAT
NUMBER IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE
TOTAL ASSET OF THE FUND.
SO WE PAY AROUND 0.5% IN FEES.
THAT IS SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN THE
MEDIAN PENSION FUND.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> SO MOVING ON TO THE PENSION
SYSTEMS FINANCIAL CONDITION,
THE CONVERSATION AROUND HERE
STARTS WITH A LOOK AT THE
ASSETS.
SO AT THE END OF 2018, WE HAD
AROUND $2.7 BILLION OF ASSETS
IN OUR INVESTMENT FOLIO.
AROUND HALF OF THAT WERE
INVESTED IN EQUITIES.
SO STOCKS, U.S. FIRMS,
INTERNATIONAL FIRMS, AROUND 80%
WERE IN FIXED INCOME.
SO I THINK CORPORATE BONDS OR
TREASURY NOTES.
WE HAVE SMALLER ALLOCATIONS TO
THINGS LIKE REAL ESTATE AND
PRIVATE EQUITY AND CREDIT FIXED
INCOME.
THE GOAL HERE IS TO HAVE AS
DIVERSIFIED A PORTFOLIO AS WE
HAVE.
DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIES TO
MINIFY'S OUR RISK.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT PAGE, WE GET INTO
FUNDING RATIOS.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT HOW
PENSION SYSTEMS ARE JUDGED,
WHAT METRIC IS LOOKED AT TO
GAUGE THE HEALTH OF A PENSION
SYSTEM, THE FUNDING RATIO IS
THE THING THAT IS MOST OFTEN
CITED.
SAID THIS IS SIMPLY THE ASSETS
DIVIDED BY THE LIABILITIES OF
úTHE SYSTEM.
SO ASSETS, WE JUST SPOKE TO
$2.7 BILLION IN OUR INVESTMENT
FOLIO.
THE LIABILITY SIDE IS THE
AMOUNT THAT WE EXPECT TO PAY
CURRENT RETIREES AND CURRENT
EMPLOYEES UPON THEIR
RETIREMENT.
THAT IS THE LIABILITY THAT WE
ARE LOOKING AT.
THE FUNDING RATIO OF 80% IS
CONSIDERED TO BE RELATIVELY
HEALTHY FOR THE PENSION SYSTEM.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHART ON THE
BOTTOM LEFT HERE, AT THE END OF
2017, WE WERE AT 69.9%.
IF YOU LOOKED EARLIER IN THE
GRAPH, YOU CAN SEE WE WERE OVER
100%.
BY EIGHT.COM CRASH OR A GLOBAL
RECESSION.
BUT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS, WE HAVE BEEN MAKING
STEADY PROGRESS AND CLIMBING IN
OUR FUNDING RATIO.
SO AFTER A LITTLE BIT OF A DIP
IN THE MARKET LAST YEAR,
SPECIFICALLY LAST DECEMBER, WE
ENDED 2018 AT 62%.
>> HOW DOES THAT TO STAY .2%
PAIR WITH OTHER, WHETHER IT IS
THE STATE OR TACOMA OR SPOKANE?
IN TERMS OF THE FUNDING RATIO?
>> I CAN GIVE YOU A SENSE THAT
THE CHART ON THE RIGHT OF THIS
PAGE LOOKS AT OTHER PENSION
SYSTEMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
IT GIVES A DISTRIBUTION OF WHAT
KIND OF FUNDING RATIO THEY ARE
REPORTING.
SO OUR ROUGHLY 70% FUNDING
RATIO FALLS PRETTY SOLIDLY IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK OF
DIFFERENT PENSION SYSTEMS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
SPARKS OF THIS IS HARD FOR
PEOPLE TO READ I THINK.
WHERE WOULD BEFALL?
>> AT THE END OF
>> JUST SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT OF
THE TALL BLUE CENTER?
>>'S OF THE RANGE OF 60 HAVING
70% WHICH WOULD BE THE 20% OF
THE PENSION SYSTEMS.
>> AND THAT COMPARES TO, I
THINK TO, HAD SOMETHING LIKE
90%?
>> IT HAS A HIGHER RATIO.
SPOKANE HAS A LOWER RATIO.
>> AND THE STATE IS?
>> BETWEEN US AND TACOMA.
>> THEY ARE OVER 80?
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE SYSTEM OF
THE STATE AS WELL.
THEY MANAGE A FULL SYSTEMS AND
THE FUNDING RATIO DIFFERS
BETWEEN THEM.
>> DID YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE
THIS?
I HAD QUESTIONS COME FROM
RETIREES THAT SAY THAT IF OUR
TOTAL FUNDING RATIO IS LOWER
THAN TO, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE WE IN
TROUBLE?
ARE WE GOING TO GET, MAKE SURE
OUR PAYMENTS ARE MONTHLY?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE NOT
CONCERNED ABOUT BEING IN
TROUBLE.
WE HAVE $2.7 BILLION IN
INVESTMENTS.
WE HAVE ACCESS TO LIQUIDITY.
WE CAN MAKE PENSION PAYMENTS.
THAT IS NOT A CONCERN.
THE LOWER FUNDING RATIO JUST
MEANS YOU ARE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE
TO IF THERE IS AN OTHER BIG
DOWNTURN THAT HAS A BIGGER
IMPACT ON YOUR PORTFOLIO.
>> AS WE TALKED ALL ALONG,
GLENN, THIS IS WHERE YOU MIGHT
WANT TO JUMP IN.
THE GENERAL FUND BACKS THIS UP.
SO THE RETIREES ARE ASSURED OF
GETTING THE MONEY THEY HAVE
EARNED.
>> YEAH.
SO WE WILL GET INTO THIS LATER
BUT WHEN THE CITY IS REQUIRED
TO MAKE A HIGHER CONTRIBUTION,
THAT IS SPREAD ACROSS ALL
DEPARTMENT BUDGETS THAT PAY
INTO THE SYSTEM.
SO THE CITY LIGHT EMPLOYEES,
THOSE DOLLARS COME FROM THE
CITY LIGHT FUNDS.
THE GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS
COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND
DOLLARS.
>> YOU ARE REACHING FOR YOUR
MICHAEL FROM.
>> IN GENERAL, THE PENSION
PAYMENTS THAT EMPLOYEES HAVE
EARNED IS A COMMITMENTS OF THE
CITY AND THE COURTS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY, THEY HAVE INDICATED IS
IS ALMOST AS IMPORTANT AS
PAYING DEBT ON OUR BONDS.
SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, EVEN IF
THE NUMBER IS SUBSTANTIALLY
LOWER, THERE IS NO RISK TO
RETIREES TO RECEIVE THEIR
PENSION.
AND THERE ARE SOME SYSTEMS IN
THE COUNTRY THAT ARE IN
TROUBLE.
THEY ARE IN TROUBLE BECAUSE IT
IS COSTING THEM SO MUCH TO MEET
THE OBLIGATIONS BUT NO ONE IS
PULLING BACK ON THE OBLIGATIONS
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE
DETROIT AND PUERTO RICO.
I AM NOT SURE WHERE THEY ARE
RIGHT NOW.
BUT IN GENERAL, CERTAINLY IN
THE WEST COAST, AND CERTAINLY
IN THE SEATTLE REGION OR THE
NORTHWEST, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY
NO RISK HERE TO ANY RETIREE.
AND RELATIVES TO THE PENSION
THAT THEY HAVE EARNED.
AND THIS IS A MEASURE REALLY OF
FIGURING OUT WHERE YOU ALL, THE
MAYOR AND COUNCIL, HOW MUCH YOU
WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE
SYSTEM TO MAKE IT EVEN
STRONGER.
YOU ARE COMMITTED THROUGH THE
LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
YOU HAVE COMMITTED TO BRINGING
UP THIS RATIO TO 100% OVER A
SPECIFIC TIME FRAME.
>> 20/40.
>> I BELIEVE 2043.
>> 2042.
>> WE WILL GET INTO ALL OF
THAT.
>> WE SHOULD JUST LET JEFF DO
THIS PRESENTATION.
>> YOU GUYS CAN TALK ALL YOU
WANT.
>> REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THE RISK.
>> THANK YOU, JEFF.
>> SO WE WILL GET INTO SOME OF
THOSE ISSUES.
SO OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS, THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY
HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF THE
MEASURES AND TAKEN A NUMBER OF
STEPS TO INCREASE THE FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND LONG-TERM
SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PENSION
SYSTEM.
ON THE INVESTMENT SIDE, A
COUPLE OF THINGS I MENTIONED
BEFORE, BEFORE 2008, THERE WERE
NO INVESTMENT PROFESSIONALS ON
STAFF.
THERE WAS NO INVESTMENT ADVISOR
UNDER CONTRACT.
SO THAT CHANGED IN, WHEN WE
HEARD THE FIRST INVESTMENT
PROFESSIONAL.
BUT THOSE CHANGES BUILDING OUT
THE CAPACITY REALLY STARTED
ACCELERATING IN 2014.
>> THAT IS WHERE WE HIRED
JASON.
>> EVERYTHING GOES BACK TO
JASON.
>> EVERYTHING THAT A LOT BETTER
THAN.
>> WE BUILT OUT THE TEAM OF
FOUR HIGHLY QUALIFIED
INVESTMENT NATIONALS.
WE CONTRACTORS WITH THEM AND
MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO
REALLY RECRUIT INDIVIDUALS TO
OUR INVESTMENT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD
BE VALUE ADDED.
IT WOULD PROVIDE GOOD ADVICE TO
THE BOARD AND STAFF AS WE LOOK
AT THE DIFFERENT INVESTMNT
ISSUES.
>> TO THE POINT THAT WE ARE
JUST DISCUSSING, THE CITY HAS
DEMONSTRATED A STRONG
COMMITMENT TO FUNDING ITS
OBLIGATION.
IT IS MAKING ALL OF THE
REQUIRED CONTRIBUTIONS INTO THE
PENSION SYSTEM.
I WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT.
EVERY YEAR, OUR ACTUARY DOES AN
ASSESSMENT OF THE PENSION
SYSTEM.
WITH A LOOK AT OUR ASSETS AND
OUR LIABILITIES AND THEY DO
WHAT IS CALLED A VALUATION
REPORT.
IN THAT REPORT, THEY SAY, WHAT
LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTIONS ARE
NEEDED TO GET TO A 100% FUNDING
OF THE PENSION SYSTEM BY THE
YEAR 2042.
BECAUSE THE CONTRIBUTION RATES
FOR EMPLOYEES ARE SET THROUGH
LABOR AGREEMENTS, ANY CHANGE IN
THAT OVERALL CONTRIBUTION IS
DONE BY THE CITY.
SO TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE,
FOR THE BIG RECESSION, THE
CITY'S CONTRIBUTION LEVEL WAS
AROUND 8%.
NEXT YEAR, IT IS GOING TO 16%.
SO THERE HAS BEEN A PRETTY
DRAMATIC INCREASE OF THE CITY'S
CONTRIBUTION OVER TIME BUT TO
GLENN'S POINT, THE CITY HAS
DEMONSTRATED THAT COMMITMENT TO
FUND ITS PENSION SYSTEM
OBLIGATION EVEN WHEN IT HAS
BEEN DIFFICULT.
SO THAT IS ONE PIECE.
BUT THERE ARE THINGS WE HAVE
DONE TO ADDRESS THE LONG-TERM
SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PENSION
FUND.
THE FIRST WAS CLOSING THE
AMORTIZATION PERIOD.
THE GOAL IS 100% BY 2042.
IT USED TO BE THAT EVERY TIME
WE DID A VALUATION REPORT, WE
WOULD ESTABLISH A NEW 30 YEAR
WINDOW FOR AMORTIZING THE
LIABILITY.
AND WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO DO A
NEW VALUATION, WE WOULD MOVE
THE 30 YEAR WINDOW OUT ANOTHER
YEAR.
IN 2013, WE CLOSED THAT
AMORTIZATION PERIOD.
2042 IS THE HARD DATE.
WHEN WE DO ANOTHER YEAR EMMA
THE VALUATION REPORT, THAT
MEANS WE HAVE ONE LESS YEAR TO
FULLY FUND THAT LIABILITY.
THAT PUTS MORE PRESSURE ON THE
CONTRIBUTION SIDE.
TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE DO
THE REPORT, WE ARE STAYING ON
THE PATH,
>> THAT IS A CONTRIBUTION TO
THE CITY.
>> FROM THE CITY EMPLOYEES.
THOSE ARE ESTABLISHED.
>> I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TO
MY COLLEAGUES THAT WHAT WE HAD
ENDORSED LAST YEAR WAS A 15.46
PERCENT RATE AND THAT IS
APPLIED AGAINST SALARIES.
IT WILL GO UP TO 16.14 FOR THE
PROPOSED BUDGET.
THAT IS GOOD.
VERY GOOD FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND
FOR THE RETIREES.
JUST FOR THOSE OF US BALANCING
A BUDGET AND SCRAPING THE
BARREL TRYING TO FIND MORE
MONEY FOR HOUSING AND TRYING TO
DEAL WITH SOME OF THE
HOMELESSNESS ISSUES, IT JUST
MEANS THERE IS LESS MONEY IN
THE GENERAL FUND FOR US.
>> THE SECOND THING WE DID AS A
CITY TO ADDRESS LONG-TERM
SUSTAINABILITY IS CREATE A
SECOND TIER FOR THE PENSION
SYSTEM.
WILL BE CALL IT IS IN EFFECT
FOR NEW EMPLOYEES IN THE SYSTEM
AFTER THE START OF 2017.
SO JUST LIKE THAT, IT IS A
DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN.
JUST LIKE TIER 1, WHEN IT COMES
TIME TO RETIRE, YOU HAVE THE
SAME SET OF OPTIONS YOU CAN
CHOOSE FOR YOUR RETIREMENT.
BUT IT IS DIFFERENT, MAINLY IN
THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE PAYS
LESS INTO THE SYSTEM.
THE EMPLOYER, THE CITY PAYS
LESS INTO IT.
AS A DECREASING EFFECT ON THE
LONG-TERM LIABILITY WE HAVE.
>> THE LAST PIECE IS REDUCING
THE EXPECTED RATE OF RETURN ON
THE INVESTMENTS.
NINE YEARS AGO, THE ASSUMED
RATE OF RETURN, THIS WAS THE
AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT RETURN
THAT WE VIEWED THE PORTFOLIO
WAS CAN AVERAGE OVER A 30 YEAR
PERIOD.
THAT WAS SEVEN UNDER QUARTER
PERCENT.
AND FIVE YEARS, WE DROPPED THAT
TO SEVEN AND HAVE TO FRET.
BUSTER WE DROPPED THE NUMBER
DOWN TO 7 1/4.
THE GOAL HERE WAS TO BE AS
REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT WE THOUGHT
THOSE INVESTMENT RETURNS WERE
GOING TO BE.
YOU SO 7 1/4 REPRESENTS OUR
BEST VIEW OF WHAT THAT LOWER
RETURN ENVIRONMENT WE ARE GOING
INTO WILL RESULT IN.
WE ARE NOT ALONE IN THAT.
OTHER PENSION SYSTEMS ACROSS
THE COUNTRY ARE ALL PULLING
DOWN THE ASSUMED RATE OF
RETURN.
>> I THINK THEY SUGGESTED WE
THINK ABOUT 7.0%.
THAT THE 7.25 WAS SMACK IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE RANGE.
THAT IS THE PENSION SYSTEMS.
COULD YOU TELL ME OVER THE LAST
10 YEARS, WHAT IS THE ANNUAL
RATE OF RETURN?
>> I CAN.
>> IT HAS BEEN 9.3% AS OF THE
END OF MARCH.
>> SO THE PERCENTAGE AMOUNT
THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IS
ACTUALLY LOWER THAN WHAT WE
RECEIVED OVER THE LAST 10
YEARS?
>> CERTAIN YEARS OVER THE LAST
10 YEARS HAVE BEEN GOOD.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A FORWARD-
LOOKING VIEW.
WE EXPECT THE NEXT 5-7 YEARS TO
PERFORM BELOW OUR RATE OF
RETURN.
BUT THE EXPECTATION IS THAT
OVER THE ENTIRE PERIOD, WE WILL
ACHIEVE THE 7 1/4 RATE,
>> I THINK THAT IS THE BIG
REASON IN THE MARKET, WE ALL
RECOGNIZE THE EBB AND FLOW AND
THEY HAVE BEEN FLOWING WELL FOR
THE LAST FEW YEARS MINUS
DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
>> OR TODAY.
>> WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT
IT.
>> SO MOVING ON TO INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT ISSUES, WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT THE INVESTMENTS PORTFOLIO
OF THE FIRST TOPIC ON
EVERYBODY'S MIND, WHAT HAS BEEN
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
PORTFOLIO?
SO WE GET INTO THAT HERE.
JUST TO ORIENT YOU ON THIS
CHART, IT IS BROKEN INTO THE
THREE SECTIONS.
THE FIRST THREE BARS REPRESENT
THE LAST 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE.
THE SECOND THREE OF THE LAST
FIVE YEARS.
IN THE THIRD IS OVER THE LAST
THREE YEARS.
THE BLUE BARS HERE REPRESENT
THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT
PERFORMANCE OVER THOSE PERIODS.
THE GREEN BARS REPRESENT THE
POLICY INDEX.
AND ON THAT IT IS LOOKING INTO
THE ASSET CLASS AND WHAT IS THE
BENCHMARK FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE
ASSET CLASSES?
ACTIVELY, THAT ESTABLISHES WITH
THE POLICY INDEX IS.
THAT IS REALLY THE YARDSTICK WE
MEASURE OUR PERFORMANCE ON.
THE YELLOW BARS THAT WE
PRESENTED HERE, THEY REPRESENT
A PEER UNIVERSE.
LOOKING AT OTHER PENSION
SYSTEMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WITH
OVER $1 BILLION IN ASSETS, THIS
IS THE MEDIAN RATE THAT THOSE
PENSION SYSTEMS HAD REALIZED.
SO JUST WALKING THROUGH THIS,
AT THE 10 YEAR PERIOD, YOU WILL
SEE THAT THE PERFORMANCE LAGGED
BEHIND BOTH POLICY INDEX AND
OUR PEERS.
THE STORY CHANGES WHEN WE LOOK
AT THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
WHERE WE ARE RIGHT IN LINE WITH
THE POLICY INDEX.
A LITTLE ABOVE OUR PEERS.
A SIMILAR STORY IN THE LAST
FOUR YEARS.
WE ARE BEHIND THE POLICY INDEX
BUT ABOVE OUR PEERS.
THAT ACTUAL PERFORMANCE CHANGES
PRETTY DRAMATICALLY OVER THE
LAST FIVE OR SO YEARS.
I WILL SAY THAT IF YOU TOOK THE
SAME VIEW TWO YEARS AGO OR
THREE YEARS AGO, THAT GAP AND
THE 10 YEAR FIGURE BETWEEN OUR
PERFORMANCE AND THE POLICY
INDEX O OUR PEERS WOULD HAVE
BEEN BIGGER.
THE PERFORMANCE LAGGED BEHIND
OUR PEERS IN THE POLICY INDEX
BY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT IN THAT
PERIOD.
THAT LEADS US TO THE NEXT
TOPIC.
YOU MENTIONED IT BEFORE.
THAT IS THE ISSUE OF
OUTSOURCING INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT.
SO OVER THE PAST SEVERAL
LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS, THERE
HAVE BEEN BILLS INTRODUCED THAT
WOULD ALLOW THE STATE'S
MUNICIPAL PENSION SYSTEM, THAT
IS SEATTLE, TACOMA, SPOKANE, TO
OUTSOURCE THE MANAGEMENT TO
THAT WASHINGTON STATE
INVESTMENT BOARD.
THESE BILLS HAVE BEEN BILLED AS
ALLOWING THE MUNICIPAL PENSIONS
TO LEVERAGE THE ECONOMY OF
SCALE TO THE WASHINGTON STATE
INVESTMENT BOARD.
TO RESULTS IN LOWER
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OR HAVE
ACCESS TO INVESTMENTS THEY
WOULDN'T OTHERWISE HAVE ACCESS
TO.
THE LAST BILL, THE SENATE BILL
5240 WAS INTRODUCED LAST
LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
AND THAT BELDEN TAKE IT OUT OF
COMMITTEE.
BUT IN LOOKING AT IT, THE
SEATTLE, THE SERVICE BOARD AND
THE CITY THOUGHTS THAT WAS
AS A MATTER OF DUE DILIGENCE,
TO SEE IF IN FACT OUTSOURCING
INVESTMENTS IS SOMETHING THAT
IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
CITY.
THE TO DO THAT EVALUATION, HE
REACHED OUT TO THE INVESTMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
REMEMBER, THIS IS THE GROUP OF
FIVE INVESTMENTS PROFESSIONALS
WHO VOLUNTEERED THEIR TIME.
WE ASKED THEM TO LOOK AT THE
SENATE BILL AND ANALYSIS DONE
AROUND IT.
TO REPORT BACK TO US TO SEE IF
THEY THOUGHT THAT OUTSOURCING
WAS IN THE CITY'S BEST
INTEREST.
SAID THEY DID THAT WORK AND
CAME BACK TO HIS EARLIER THIS
YEAR.
AND THEY SAID NO, THEY DID NOT
BELIEVE THAT OUTSOURCING WAS IN
THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST.
THEY SAID THAT SENDING THE
INVESTMENTS TO THE STATE TO
MANAGE ONLY REMOVED
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT PART OF
THE EQUATION.
THAT THE CITY WOULD STILL BEAR
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RISK
OF MANAGING THE LIABILITY.
FROM THE REPORT, THEY SAID THE
CITY WOULD INCUR SIGNIFICANT
FINANCIAL RISK BY SEPARATING IN
PERPETUITY MANAGEMENT OF
INVESTMENTS FROM PENSION
OBLIGATIONS.
IT WENT ON TO SAY THAT IT
SERVES WITH A MORE THAN
ADEQUATE SCALE TO MANAGE IT
EFFECTIVELY.
THEY REPORTED THAT IN A
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
EARLIER THIS YEAR.
I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO THANK THE
MEMBERS OF THE INVESTMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE
SERVICE THEY PROVIDED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND I WILL ADMIT THAT I
PUSHED TO HAVE THAT REVIEW.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT BOTH
OF YOU WERE WILLING TO LET THAT
MOVE FORWARD.
WE DO HAVE IN THE RECORD FROM
THESE FIVE INDEPENDENT
ADVISORS, THE RECOMMENDATION
THAT IT IS NOT IN THE CITIES
BEST INTEREST TO PROCEED AND
JOIN FORCES WITH THE WASHINGTON
STATE INVESTMENT BOARD.
I THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.
AT LEAST FOR THIS PERIOD OF
TIME, WE ARE WONDERING IF IT
WOULD BE BETTER TO STICK WITH
THE PROGRAM THAT YOU ARE
WILLING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR PUSHING THAT.
>> THE LAST TOPIC IS
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL
GOVERNANCE ISSUES.
THIS APPEARED ON OUR RADAR BACK
IN 2013.
IN THE FORM OF PEOPLE
PETITIONING THE BOARD TO DIVEST
FROM FOSSIL FUELS.
AT THE POINT, WE DIDN'T HAVE A
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND
GOVERNMENT POLICY., BUT WE DID
DEVELOP THEM VERY QUICKLY AND
OVER THE NEXT WHILE, WE
RECEIVED A NUMBER OF PROPOSALS
TO DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUELS.
WE DID THOROUGH ANALYSIS ON
EACH ONE OF THEM.
BOTH FROM THE INVESTMENT SIDE
AND FROM THE LEGAL SIDE.
THE CONCLUSION WAS ALWAYS THE
SAME.
THAT THE PENSION SYSTEM COULD
NOT DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUELS
AND STILL MEET THE FIDUCIARY
DUTIES.
SO THAT WAS THE CONCLUSION.
BUT I WILL SAY THAT THESE
PUZZLES REALLY PUSHED US TO
EVOLVE IN HOW WE THOUGHT ABOUT
PSG ISSUES.
WE ESTABLISHED PSG POLICY BACK
IN 2013.
IN 2015, WE CREATED SOMETHING
CALLED A POSITIVE ACTION
STRATEGY.
IT IS A GROUP OF ACTIONS THAT
WE COULD TAKE TO ADDRESS
CLIMATE CHANGE WHILE STILL
MEETING OUR FIDUCIARY
RESPONSIBILITIES.
SO THE POSITIVE ACTION
STRATEGIES HAS THREE MAIN
POINTS.
THE FIRST IS SHAREHOLDER
ADVOCACY.
BECAUSE WE OWN STOCK, WE HAVE A
VOICE, A SAY IN THE GOVERNANCE
OF CORPORATIONS.
NOW WE HAVE A VERY SMALL VOICE
AS WE DON'T HAVE A BIG SHARE IN
ANY ONE CORPORATION.
BUT WHEN WE COMBINE OUR BOYS
WITH THOSE OF OTHER PENSION
SYSTEMS, SOME ARE MUCH BIGGER
THAN OR FOUNDATIONS OR
ENDOWMENTS.
COLLECTIVELY, CORPORATE BOARDS
WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT.
PUSHING CORPORATIONS TO DO RISK
ASSESSMENTS OF HOW THEIR
BUSINESS IS AT RISK FROM
DIFFERENT CLIMATE CHANGE
SCENARIOS TO DISCLOSE THOSE
RISKS.
AND DISCLOSE THE MEASURES THAT
HAVE BEEN TAKING TO MITIGATE
THOSE RISKS.
WE HAVE BEEN PUSHING REGULATORS
TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE
CORPORATION SHOULD DISCLOSE
THOSE RISKS.
SO THAT IS --
>> CAN WE TALK SPECIFICALLY?
YOU HAVE MENTIONED IT TO OUR
BOARD.
WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE THE
NEEDLE.
>> WE ENGAGE WITH A SMALL
NUMBER OF COMPANIES.
ONE OF THEM IS EXXON.
I FEEL IT IS ONE OF THE WORST.
WE HAVE DONE THINGS REQUIRING
THEM TO DO A CLIMATE RISK
ASSESSMENT THEY PUBLISHED
PUBLICLY TO TALK ABOUT HOW THEY
NEED TO THINK ABOUT -- WE ALSO
MADE SURE THEY OPENED UP
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN
SHAREHOLDERS AND BOARD MEMBERS.
IT IS BEEN DIFFICULT TO MOVE
THAT.
I THINK WE ARE SEVERAL YEARS
AWAY FROM A REAL WATERSHED
EVENT.
I AM THINKING OF AN EXAMPLE
WHERE SHAREHOLDERS HAD A LOT OF
INTERACTION WITH THE SHELL.
SHELL HAS DONE A LOT OF THINGS
RECENTLY.
BE IT IN THE ARCTIC, THEY ARE
NOT STOPPING DOING THAT.
THEY ARE INCENTIVIZING THE
EXECUTIVES SO THAT IF THEY
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS, THE EXECUTIVES
BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM THAT.
THE HOPE IS TO MOVE MORE
TOWARDS THAT LEVEL AND PROVIDE
A GREATER, SAFER SITUATION.
>> WE TALKED A COUPLE OF TIMES
ABOUT THE PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS,
STANFORD, HARVARD, BOWDOIN.
THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DIVEST.
AT LEAST HAVE A POLICY THAT
MOVES THEM FASTER TOWARDS
DIVESTING.
WOULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN AGAIN
WHY THEY CAN DO IT AND WE
CAN'T?
>> IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY.
>> IT DOES.
SO DEPENDING UPON THE MISSION
OF THE ORGANIZATION.
IT HAS A BIG ROLE TO PLAY
AROUND THE FIDUCIARY DUTIES THE
BOARD MEMBERS HAVE.
SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WE ASKED OUR
OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO DO AN
ANALYSIS.
FOR THE BOARD, THE BOARD
SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASED PUBLICLY
THE TALKS ABOUT THE ISSUES
RELATED TO STATE LAW.
THE PROBLEMS THAT, THE
INABILITY FOR THE SCERS BOARD
TO ACT IN A WAY THAT IS
AGAINST THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS
OF THE SYSTEM.
SO BECAUSE THE SCERS ABIDES BY
DIFFERENT SET OF REQUIREMENTS,
THE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, THE
PRIVATE FOUNDATION, THEY ARE
ABLE TO BE MORE MISSION
DRIVEN.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I KNOW WHEN I FIRST BECAME
CHAIR, I ASKED YOU THAT
QUESTION REPEATEDLY.
YOU FINALLY HANDED ME THE LEGAL
OPINION.
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ANOTHER POINT THAT CAME UP ON
THAT.
THAT IS ENVIRONMENT, SOCIAL AND
GOVERNANCE POLICY.
I THINK I BROUGHT THIS UP TO
YOU.
AFTER WE HAD THE NATIONAL
CONFERENCE IN AUSTIN THIS YEAR,
I LEARNED THE NEW YORK PROGRAM,
THEY ARE INVESTING IN THINGS
THAT, THEY WOULD MAKE SURE THAT
WORKERS ARE WORKERS ARE
PROTECTED AND INVESTORS HAVE
WORKER PROTECTIONS BUT, SOME OF
THE PUBLIC THINGS WE ARE
WORKING ON THAT WE BELIEVE ARE
PROMOTING PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENTS AND OTHERS?
I KNOW NEW YORK CITY HAD BEEN,
THEY WERE ONE OF THE SPEAKERS.
THEY ARE PART OF RESULTS.
THEY SAID THEIR RETURN TO BEEN
GREAT.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT AND HOW
IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN TAKE A
LOOK AT?
>> IT IS RELATED TO RESPONSIBLE
CONTRACTOR POLICY.
I BELIEVE IT TYPICALLY RELATES
TO REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS.
WHEN YOU'RE CONSTRUCTING A REAL
ESTATE BUILDING.
ENSURING YOU HIGHER RESPONSIBLE
CONTRACTOR'S.
ONE UNIQUE DIFFERENCE PER THE
NEW YORK RETIREMENT SYSTEM THAT
IS APPROXIMATELY $200 BILLION
IN ASSETS, THEY ARE ACTUALLY
FULLY FUNDED AND CONSTRUCTING
BUILDINGS THEMSELVES.
WHEREAS OURSELVES, WE INVEST
THROUGH FUNDS TO THE MANAGERS
THAT JEFF ALLUDED TO.
WE ARE REALLY DOING DUE
DILIGENCE ON THE INVESTMENT
MANAGERS.
INVESTMENT MANAGERS ARE EARNING
FUNDS.
MANY INVESTORS, OURSELVES BEING
ONE OF THEM, TO MAKE THESE
DECISIONS.
OUR ABILITY TO DRIVE THINGS
OURSELVES IS MORE LIMITED.
MOST OF THE REAL ESTATE
INTEGERS DO HAVE RESPONSIBLE
CONTRACTOR POLICIES IN PLACE.
PARTICULARLY FIRMS THAT DO A
LOT OF DEVELOPMENT.
SO THAT WAS ONE AREA WHERE WE
TALKED TO MANAGERS ABOUT IT.
AT LEAST TO THE SOCIAL ELEMENT
INCLUDED.
>> GREAT.
WHAT YOU JUST SAID, IT WAS
SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T
REALIZE.
NEW YORK HAS $200 BILLION.
WE HAVE TO .7 BILLION IN OUR
ACCOUNT BUT I DID NOT REALIZE
THAT THEY WERE FUNDING THEIR
OWN DEVELOPMENT.
THAT IS IMPRESSIVE.
AND I THINK WE LOOKED AT THAT
THROUGH SOUTH DAKOTA.
THEY HAD CREATED THEIR OWN
BANK.
THEIR OWN PENSION SYSTEM.
IT WAS FUNDED, BEING ABLE TO
FUND SOME OF THE PUBLIC
DEVELOPMENT.
THEY WERE ABLE TO ESSENTIALLY
BORROW FROM THEMSELVES.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT.
YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT LEFT.
>> I DO.
WE ARE IN THE HOME STRETCH.
SO THE SECOND PILLAR OF OUR
POSITIVE ACTION STRATEGY IS
THAT OF SUSTAINABLE
INVESTMENTS.
SO HERE, WE PROACTIVELY
EVALUATED INVESTMENTS THAT ARE
EXPECTED TO HAVE A POSITIVE
IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
OR ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE.
WHERE THIS COMES UP MOST FOR US
IN THE AREA OF INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE AS
WHAT, ONE OF OUR ASSET CLASSES.
WE DON'T MAKE VESTMENTS
DIRECTLY.
WE INVEST THROUGH INVESTMENT
MANAGERS.
THEY HAVE A WIDE VARIETY OF
PROJECTS THEY ARE INVESTING IN.
BUT ONE OF THE MORE PROMINENT
AREAS OF INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT IN A GROWING AREA IS
THAT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY.
SO INVESTING THROUGH THE
INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGERS, WE
HAVE A STAKE IN THAT GREEN
FUTURE.
I SHOULD NOTE HERE, WHEN WE
MAKE THESE SUSTAINABLE
INVESTMENTS, IT IS NOT BECAUSE
WE WANT TO DO GOOD OR THAT WE
HAVE THE ENVIRONMENT FIRST AND
FOREMOST IN OUR MIND.
IT IS BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THESE
INVESTMENTS ARE THE BEST
ECONOMIC RESULTS FOR US.
THAT THEY ARE AT EQUAL OR
BETTER THAN OTHER OPTIONS ON
THE MARKET.
>> SO AT WHAT POINT CAN WE
BEGIN SHIFTING TOWARDS THINGS
LIKE BIOFUELS?
THAT I KNOW RIGHT NOW THE RATE
OF RETURN ISN'T AS MUCH AS
EXXON OR SHELL BUT AT WHAT
POINT CAN WE SAY WE BELIEVE
THAT FOR THE GREATER GOOD, THAT
THE RETURN IS EQUAL TO THE KIND
OF INVESTMENT THAT WE COULD GET
BY STAYING WITH FOSSIL FUELS?
>> DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO
THAT?
>> I THINK IT IS, ABOUT HALF OF
THE NEW FUNDING THAT IS GOING
INTO INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE
UNITED STATES IS GOING TOWARDS
RENEWABLES.
THAT IS LARGELY DUE TO DRAMATIC
DECLINES WE ARE SEEING IN SOLAR
PANELS, WIND TURBINES AND
THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT REALLY HAS THOSE TYPES OF
CAR SOURCES.
THEY BECOME MORE COST
ADVANTAGE.
THERE IS MORE MONEY THAT CAN BE
MOVE TOWARDS THOSE SOURCES.
I THINK THAT IT IS CONTINUING
IN THE FUTURE.
ONE OF THE BIG CATALYST THAT
PEOPLE ARE WAITING FOR IS A
BATTERY STORAGE.
ONE OF THE REAL PROBLEMS WE
HAVE IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY
GENERATE ELECTRICITY WHEN THE
SUN IS SHINING.
YOU HAVE NO WAY OF STORE THAT
FOR FUTURE USE.
IT WILL SPEED UP THE TRANSITION
TO MORE OF A CLEAN ECONOMY.
THERE'S ALSO BEEN A MOVEMENT
FROM COAL-BASED POWER
GENERATION TO MORE GAS POWER
GENERATION.
I THINK THAT IS MARGINALLY
BENEFICIAL FROM A CARBON
INTENSITY ASPECT OF.
IT IS REALLY A TRAJECTORY
CONTINGENCY GOING FORWARD.
I DON'T SEE A POINT IN TIME ON
THE HORIZON WHERE IT WILL BE
100% RENEWABLE BUT WE ARE
MOVING TOWARDS THAT DIRECTION.
>> SO WE PASS LEGISLATION ON
MONDAY.
THE GREEN SEATTLE PLAN.
A LOT OF THAT WAS VERY
ASPIRATIONAL.
THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD BE
COMPLETELY OFF FOSSIL FUELS IN
2030.
IT STRIKES ME AS BEING A
WONDERFUL GOAL.
I HOPE WE ARE.
I THINK THERE WILL BE
TRANSITION BETWEEN NOW AND
THEN.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT AS OUR
SCERS PLAN, MAKING INVESTMENTS
IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE BETTER GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.
I HOPE WE ARE ABLE TO DO THAT.
GLENN, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING
YOU WANTED TO ADD?
MR. FINANCE DIRECTOR?
>> I THINK THE STAFF HAS DONE
INCREDIBLY INNOVATIVE WORK IN
THIS AREA.
RELATIVE TO THIS IMPORTANT
LEGAL CONSTRAINTS WE HAVE.
I AM VERY PROUD OF THEIR
EFFORTS.
IN PARTICULAR, THE LAST POINT,
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WENT
THROUGH IT, IT IS VERY
INNOVATIVE.
JEFF, DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN?
>> THE LAST PIECE OF OUR
POSITIVE ACTION STRATEGY IS
INTEGRATING CLIMATE RISK.
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PORTFOLIO
AND HOW IT IS CONSTRUCTED, THE
SS HOW RESILIENT IT IS UNDER
DIFFERENT CONDITIONS.
HOW DOES IT RESPOND TO HIGH
INFLATION OR LOW INFLATION?
HIGH VOLATILITY OR LOW
VOLATILITY?
HOW DO SHOCKS TO WORLD EVENTS
IMPACT THE PORTFOLIO.
HOW WE HAVE BEEN INTEGRATING
CLIMATE RISK INTO THAT
ASSESSMENT.
WE LOOK AT ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT
CLASSES AND MAKE AN ASSESSMENT
ON HOW WE THINK THE ASSET
CLASSES WILL PERFORM IN
DIFFERENT CLIMATE OUTCOMES.
THAT ALONG THE ECONOMIC
FACTORS, THEY JUST ADD TO THE
CALCULUS ON HOW WE CONSTRUCT
OUR PORTFOLIO AND HOW WE SPREAD
IT ACROSS THE CLASSES.
>> WE ARE THINKING FURTHER
AHEAD THAN I WOULD IMAGINE ANY
OF OUR LIKE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS.
SO CITIES AND COUNTIES ABOUT
WHAT OUR PORTFOLIO SHOULD LOOK
LIKE.
WE HAVE THIS BINDING LEGAL
CONSTRAINT THAT WE HAVE TO
INVEST ONLY TO MAXIMIZE RETURN
GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF RISK.
AND YET, THIS PORTFOLIO AND
WORK IN PARTICULAR, THINKING OF
THE FUTURE AND WHAT IS A GOOD
PORTFOLIO EMMA IT PROFITABLE
ONE, WITH CLIMATE CHANGE AS A
REALITY.
IT IS INNOVATIVE.
IT IS TERRIFIC WORK.
>> DO WE HAVE THAT WRITTEN UP
ON OUR WEBSITE?
>>> WAS PART OF OUR
PRESENTATION AT THE INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE.
LAST MONTH.
>> WE DO A QUARTERLY REPORT TO
THE BOARD ON THE EST POSITIVE
ACTION STRATEGY.
THE THIRD QUARTER REPORT WILL
BE DELIVERED IN SEPTEMBER.
IT WILL BE ONE OF THE ITEMS ON
THAT.
>> IT WOULD BE VALUABLE IF THIS
WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
AND TO KNOW ALL THE GOOD WORK
YOU ARE DOING.
IT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHERE THEY ARE ASKING TO
INVEST IN THINGS YOU DON'T FEEL
COMFORTABLE WITH FOR A VARIETY
OF LEGAL REASONS.
úBUT TO HAVE IT ON THE WEBSITE
SO THAT THEY COULD JUST CLICK
ON IT AND SAY, WHY OR WHY NOT.
YOU HAVE SOME REALLY CLEAR
INFORMATION.
OF THE THINGS WE ARE DOING IN
ALMOST EVERY DEPARTMENT IS
PUSHING FOR A DASHBOARD TO BE
ABLE TO SAY, WHAT ARE THE
INVESTMENT OUTCOMES?
WHAT ARE WE SHOOTING FOR?
WHAT IS THE MEASUREMENTS?
HOW ARE WE DOING?
SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE
VERY VALUABLE TO HAVE.
>> WE ACTUALLY HAVE A REPORT ON
THE ISSUES QUARTERLY.
THE QUARTERLY REPORTS ON OUR
WEBSITE.
>> SO LET'S JUST DO IT AGAIN
AND HAVE SOMETHING FOR THIS
NEXT ONE COMING UP.
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN HIGHLIGHT
IT BECAUSE IS WONDERFUL AND
CLEAR AS FINANCIAL DATA CAN BE,
OFTENTIMES PEOPLE DON'T REALLY
UNDERSTAND IT UNLESS THEY CAN
SEE SOME BAR GRAPHS AND CHARTS
AND THINGS THAT BRING IT HOME
TO THEM.
ONE OF THE LAST THINGS I WANT
TO SAY BESIDES THANK YOU FOR
COMING, THANK YOU FOR SPENDING
YOUR TIME PUTTING THE
PRESENTATION TOGETHER, IS I
KNOW BOBBY HUMES, HE IS NOW ARE
HR DIRECTOR.
HE AND I TALKED AGAIN ABOUT
MAKING A, MAKING IT CLEAR TO
PEOPLE, YOU ARE A NUMBER OF THE
CITY EMPLOYEE FAMILY.
YOU GET YOUR RETIREMENT.
YOU VEST AFTER FIVE YEARS.
IF YOU STICK WITH IT FOR 30.
THINGS ARE LOOKING FOR THE DARN
GOOD FOR YOU.
HOW THE 457 PLAN CONNECTS IS
SOMETHING THAT AS RECENTLY AS
THIS MORNING, I AM TALKING TO
PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING I DON'T
GET THAT.
I AM REALLY CONFUSED ABOUT IT.
I THINK WE TAKE IT FOR GRANTED
BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM AT 457 IS
JUST SOMETHING ELSE YOU CAN DO
FOR DEFERRED COMPENSATION.
BUT AGAIN, THE EARLIER PEOPLE
CAN INVEST IN THAT, THE MORE
MONEY THEY WILL HAVE AT
RETIREMENT.
IT JUST GETS LOST BECAUSE IT IS
CONFUSING.
THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION
OUT THERE.
>> I ABSOLUTELY AGREE.
BOBBY AND I'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT THIS.
YOU HAVE A MEETING NEXT TUESDAY
I THINK TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
>> IT IS LIKE MAKING IT EASY
FOR PEOPLE.
IS HAVING SOMETHING THEY CAN
FOLLOW AND SOME BENEFIT LINK
THEY CAN CLICK ON TO HAVE THAT
INFORMATION.
IT IS BASICALLY, IT IS A 457
101 WE ARE LOOKING FOR.
HOW IT CONNECTS.
>> AND PEOPLE SAY THEY WANT TO
INVEST IN THAT.
EVEN IF IT IS $100 TO GET
STARTED, IT REALLY MATTERS.
GREAT.
>> MY COUNSEL COLIN, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE?
I KNOW YOU'LL BE DEEPLY
INVOLVED IN THIS IN THE FUTURE.
SO THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING
TODAY.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO
ADD?
ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE GOOD OF
THE ORDER?
JASON, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
EXPERTISE AND JEFF, FOR YOUR
STUDY HARDENS.
TOM?
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU
WOULD LIKE TO ADD.
INC.
YOU.
WE WILL HAVE A TOUCH POINT WITH
THE BUDGET SINCE YOU DID RAISE
THAT POINT AND HOW IT ALL PLAYS
INTO THE BUDGET.
I DID CHECK WITH CBO TO GET
DATA FOR 2018.
THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
THE BUDGET INTO THE SCERS FUND
WAS $180 MILLION.
>> $180 MILLION.
THAT IS ACROSS ALL FUNDS.
THE GENERAL FUND.
SDOT.
>> THAT WAS 2018?
>> YES.
THAT WAS 2018 ACTUALS.
OF THAT PIECE, 27 MILLION
WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.
>> SO THE BULK OF THAT IS $90
MILLION?
IT IS COMING FROM UTILITIES?
>> CITY LIGHT AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES AND SDOT.
>> THANK YOU.
THAT IS HELPFUL.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, I JUST
GOT A CALL FROM THE MEDIA WAS
ASKING THAT QUESTION.
I WILL GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.
VERY GOOD, TOM.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR COMING.
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU, GLEN LEE.
>>> ITEM NUMBER THREE, I WOULD
LIKE TO INVITE OUR NEXT
PRESENTERS TO THE TABLE.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS ARE
CITYWIDE POSITION LIST.
>> KARINA BULL, SARAH BUTLER.
>> I AM KARINA BULL, I AM WITH
CENTRAL STUFF.
>> I LIKE THE SAND OF THAT, BY
THE WAY.
>> CONSISTING, AS THE HR.
>> JOY LEICHTY, SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT.
>> YOU CAN BRING THESE THINGS
TOWARDS YOU.
YOU CAN MOVE THEM SO IT IS
EASIER.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO LEAN FORWARD.
>> ANDREW GANN, AS THE HR.
>> BRENT MEYER, SD HR.
>> NICE TO SEE YOU ALL.
KARINA, YOU'RE SETTING THIS UP
FOR US?
>> YOU WERE HERE TO DISCUSS THE
LEGISLATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED
BY THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES.
THIS IS THE 2019 CITYWIDE
POSITION LIST.
IT IS ESSENTIALLY A LIST OF ALL
REGULAR FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME
AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEE POSITIONS AND CITY
DEPARTMENTS.
AND AND ANNUAL ADMINISTERED
PROCEDURE THAT WILL HAVE AN
IMPACT TO CITY OPERATIONS,
EMPLOYEES AND FUNDS.
THE ORDINANCE WOULD BECOME
EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1. OF THIS
YEAR.
ONCE IT IS PASSED.
AND AN INTERESTING NOTE, THE
ATTACHMENT TO THIS ORDINANCE
LISTS A TOTAL OF 12,106
POSITIONS, WHICH IS A .32
PERCENT INCREASE OF 39
POSITIONS FROM THE 2018
POSITION LIST.
>> DOES THAT INCLUDE PART TIME
AS WELL?
AND LENA, DID WOULD YOU READ
THIS ITEM INTO THE RECORD FOR
ME?
>> EXCUSE ME.
FOR THE RECORD, BUILT 119577,
AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY
EMPLOYMENT, ADOPTING 2019
CITYWIDE POSITION LIST.
>> VERY GOOD.
I GOT THE CART BEFORE THE
HORSE.
GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
>> THAT IS BASICALLY THE SHORT
OVERVIEW OF THIS ORDINANCE.
>> SARAH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
ADD?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO
ADD.
>> WE HAVE FIVE OF US HERE AT
THE TABLE?
ANYONE ELSE?
>> NO?
>> I KNOW YOU CAME FOR A GOOD
REASON.
>> TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> I AM INTERESTED IN JUST WHAT
IS NEXT WITH THIS ORDINANCE?
WE PASS THE ORDINANCE TODAY AND
WE WILL BE, IT IS ALREADY
INCLUDED IN THE 2019 BUDGET.
SO WHAT DO YOU SEE IN TERMS OF
THE NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES?
IS EVERYBODY COVERED?
ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO KNOW?
>> NOTHING ELSE WE NEED TO KNOW
FOR THIS ORDINANCE.
BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THERE
IS NOT A FINANCIAL IMPACT.
>> IT IS JUST THE LIST.
>> JUST A LIST.
>> THIS JUST SETS THE BASELINE
FOR 2019.
SAID SECOND-QUARTER
SUPPLEMENTALS, THEY GET BUILT
ON TOP OF THIS.
SO WE HAVE KIND OF RESET TO
GROUND EVERYONE AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF
PRESENTING THESE AND PUTTING
THAT TOGETHER.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I LIKE THAT VERY MUCH.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
SO THIS IS COUNSEL BILL 11957
EIGHT AND SINCE WE HAVE REACHED
THE END OF ANY PRESENTATION ON
THIS, I AM GOING TO MOVE
ADOPTION OF THIS COUNSEL BILL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE DID.
VERY GOOD.
THERE IS NO NO.
THAT WAS THE EASIEST THING THAT
HAS COME BEFORE US AND A REALLY
LONG TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT.
SO WE WILL MOVE ONTO THE NEXT
ITEMS.
WOULD YOU PLEASE READ?
I AM SUPPOSED TO SAY THE MOTION
PASSES.
IT IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO
THE FULL COUNCIL NEXT WEEK.
SO HOW ABOUT ITEM NUMBER FIVE.
>> COUNSEL BILL 119 578, AND
ORDINANCE RELATING TO CITY
EMPLOYMENT, ADJUSTING THE PAY
ZONES FOR TITLES IN THE CITIES
POWER MARKETING COMPENSATION
PROGRAM.
>> GREAT.
>> SO THIS IS ANOTHER PIECE OF
PROPOSED LEGISLATION, SUBMITTED
BY THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES.
AND THIS LEGISLATION WOULD
ADJUST THE PAY ZONE FOR A
SUPERVISOR POSITION.
IT IS THE POWER MARKETING LEAD
IN SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
SO THIS PROPOSAL LEGISLATION
FOLLOWS THE RECENT RATIFICATION
OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENT FOR THE POWER
MARKETER POSITIONS.
THESE TWO POSITIONS, THE POWER
RECORD LEADS WERE NOT INCLUDED
IN THAT COLLECTIVE ARE GETTING
AGREEMENT.
THEY ARE SUPERVISOR POSITIONS.
SAID THIS ORDINANCE BEING
PROPOSED TO BRING WAGE
COMPRESSION THAT MIGHT HAPPEN
IF THE POWER MARKETERS GET A
RAISE AND THE SUPERVISORS
DON'T.
>> I JUST REALIZED THAT I MADE
AN ERROR READING INTO THE LAST
VOTE WE TOOK.
THAT I WAS READING IN COUNSEL
BILL FOR ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
IS NOT ITEM NUMBER THREE.
SO IF I COULD CORRECT THAT AND
THEN ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT OUR
NEXT MEETING IS IN SEPTEMBER.
AND IT IS NOT THIS NEXT COMING
MONDAY.
SO IF I JUST MIGHT TAKE THIS
AGAIN FOR THE RECORD.
ITEM NUMBER THREE THAT LENA HAD
CORRECTLY READ IN, IT WAS
COUNSEL BILL 119577.
WE WILL TAKE THAT AGAIN.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING
THIS COUNSEL BILL SAY I DID.
TAKE YOU VERY MUCH.
NONE OPPOSED.
NO ABSTENTIONS.
COUNTABLE 119 577 HAS BEEN
ADOPTED AND WE WILL MOVE THIS
THROUGH TO THE FULL COUNCIL AT
OUR FIRST MEETING AFTER THE
BREAK, WHICH IS EARLY
SEPTEMBER.
>> OKAY.
NOW WE ARE ONTO 119578.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
BACK TO YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT.
SO AGAIN, THIS ORDINANCE IS
ADJUSTING THE PAY ZONE FOR
THESE SUPERVISORS.
THE POWER MARKETING
COMPENSATION PROGRAM.
AND THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY
WOULD CHANGE THE LEAD POSITIONS
FROM HOURLY TO SALARY WITH
ELIGIBILITY THE FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS ACT.
THAT SAME STATUS CHANGE ALSO
HAPPENED FOR THE POWER
MARKETERS UNDER THE COLLECTIVE
ARE GETTING AGREEMENT.
THAT IS HAPPENING ACROSS THE
BOARD.
THIS IS MEMORIALIZING IT TO THE
POWER MARKETER LEADS.
AND IT WOULD MAKE THE POWER
MARKETER LEADS ELIGIBLE FOR A
ONE-TIME BASE WAGE INCREASE
THAT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON
THEIR PERFORMANCE.
IT HAS UNSATISFACTORY FORMANTS
DURING 2008.
THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE.
BUT IF THE EMPLOYEE IS
ELIGIBLE, THIS ORDINANCE
MEMORIALIZES THE INCREASED PAY
ZONE FOR THEM TO GET THAT.
>> DOES THIS APPLY TO JUST TO
EMPLOYEES.
>> SEATTLE CITY LIGHT DO YOU
HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO
ADD?
>> NO.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING
YOU HAVE WORKED AT.
IF YOU ARE RECOMMENDING IT, I
WOULD ASSUME YOU MOVE FORWARD
WITH IT.
>> SO THIS IS COUNSEL BILL
119578.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> WE SHOULD GET A SECOND OUT
OF IT.
NONE OPPOSED.
THERE IS NO ABSTENTION.
SO THIS TOO WILL MOVE FORWARD
TO THE FULL COUNCIL IN EARLY
SEPTEMBER.
>> OKAY SO THAT WAS ITEM NUMBER
FOUR.
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS COUNSEL
BILL 119591.
>> THIS IS AND ORDINANCE.
>> DON'T YOU WANT TO STAY FOR
THE REST?
>> I WILL CATCH YOU NEXT TIME.
>> IT IS OUR PUBLIC HEARING?
>> SO LET'S DESCRIBE WHAT IS
HAPPENING WITH COUNSEL BILL
119591.
WE DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC HEARING
AND TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON
COUNSEL BILL 119591.
DOES ANYBODY HERE WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> I AM OPENING THE PUBLIC
HEARING?
>> ANYONE?
ANYONE?
SEEING NO SPEAKERS QUESTION TO
THE MICROPHONE, I WILL CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IT IS NICE TO SEE YOU.
W SMITH.
>> MY NAME IS TRENT 13, I AM
THE DIRECTOR OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND
REAL ESTATE DIVISION OF CITY
LIGHT.
>> I AM DEBORAH SMITH, THE CEO
AND GENERAL MANAGER OF SEATTLE
CITY LIGHT.
WE WANTED TO THANK YOU BOTH FOR
ACCOMMODATING US.
TIME IS REALLY TIGHT RIGHT NOW
SO HITTING THESE ITEMS THROUGH
COMMITTEE HERE COULDN'T HAVE
HAPPENED WITHOUT YOUR
FLEXIBILITY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
IT IS A PLEASURE.
BILL, DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE
THIS?
>> COUNSEL BILL 119591.
AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT,
DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
RIGHT SURPLUS TO THE NEEDS OF
THE CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT AND
AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF A
PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR ROAD
PURPOSES, RESERVING AN EASEMENT
FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINE
PURPOSES.
>> I WOULD LIKE COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA , AND LENA REMIND ME
THAT I HAVE TO SUSPEND THE
COUNSEL BOATS WE CAN VOTE ON
THE SAME DAY AS OUR EXTENSIVE
PUBLIC HEARING WE JUST HAD.
THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A JOKE.
SINCE NOBODY SPOKE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> BILL, GO AHEAD.
>> DO YOU HAVE A GREEN LIGHT?
HALFWAY UP THE STEM IS A GREAT
BUTTON.
>> SO THE FIVE WE HAVE TODAY
ARE PRETTY BASIC.
THERE REAL ESTATE RELATED
ORDINANCES.
THIS ONE JUST ALLOWED SNOHOMISH
TO WIDEN THE 35th AVENUE
SOUTHEAST ROADWAY NEAR THE
TRANSMISSION LINES.
WE RETAINED OUR EASEMENT WITH
THEM SO WE CAN STILL OPERATE
FINE WITH HIM.
WE SOLD THE PROPERTY BUT
RETAINED OUR RIGHTS.
>> VERY GOOD.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO
ADD?
>> IS CITY LIGHT ALWAYS THIS
EASY?
>> I WISH.
THEY ARE WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH
BUT WE HAVE SOME BIG, MEATY
ISSUES COMING UP IN THE NEXT
YEAR.
>> SO IF NOTHING ELSE, BUT FOR
MORE PARCELS WE WILL GO
THROUGH?
INDIVIDUALLY?
>> I AM HAPPY TO MAKE A COMMENT
JUST ABOUT ALL FOUR OF THEM
TOGETHER.
>> SET MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THESE
ISSUES FORWARD.
THESE NEXT FOUR BILLS REALLY IN
COMBINATION ARE WHAT WE SEE IS
A MEAT AND POTATOES ISSUES THAT
ARE USUALLY DEALT WITH IN THE
ENERGY COMMITTEE.
I REALLY JUST WANT TO THANK YOU
PUBLICLY FOR YOUR OFFER TO
BRING THESE INTO YOUR COMMITTEE
AS THEY RELATE NICELY TO SOME
OF THE OTHER GOOD GOVERNMENT
FUNCTIONS THAT YOU HAVE PASSED
TODAY.
SO I AM EXCITED TO BE ABLE TO
WORK WITH YOU TO GET THESE
THROUGH THE COMMITTEE AND TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ITEMS
THAT ARE NOT MAJOR DEVIATIONS
FROM POLICY OR PROGRAM CHANGES
BUT REALLY ARE ROUTINE BUSINESS
ITEMS THAT SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
IS REQUIRED TO PASS SO THAT WE
CAN GAIN AUTHORIZATON FROM
CITY COUNCIL TO PROCEED WITH
THEM.
I REALLY THINK THAT THIS IS
KUDOS TO YOU AND YOUR TEAM.
DEBBIE SMITH FOR ALL YOU DID
LEADING UP TO THIS TO MAKE SURE
WE WERE WELL PREPARED.
THANK YOU.
I SEE MYRA AND THE AUDIENCE.
THEY HAVE TEED UP THE ITEMS
NICELY SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD
AND HAVE THESE REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTIONS IN FRONT OF US.
>> YOU WANT TO SAY MORE ABOUT
THE SNOHOMISH FIFTH AVENUE?
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS VOTE
ON THIS ONE AND WE WILL TAKE UP
THE SECOND AND THE REST.
>> AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE
TO MOVE TO SUSPEND OUR COUNSEL
RULES THAT RELATE TO VOTING A
LEGISLATION ON THE SAME DAY OF
OUR PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS WILL ALLOW THE COMMITTEE
TO VOTE ON THIS BILL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE DID.
>> SO THAT JUST SUSPENDED THE
COUNSEL RULES SO THAT NOW I AM
GOING TO MOVE THAT THE
COMMITTEE PASSED COUNSEL BILL
119591.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE DID.
NONE OPPOSED.
NO ABSTENTION'S.
SO THE FIRST ONE, CHECK.
WE WILL MOVE ONTO THE NEXT
ROOM.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ THIS AND
FOR ME.
>> COUNSEL BILL 119592, AND
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CITY
LIGHT DEPARTMENT, AUTHORIZING
THE GENERAL -- DO I HAVE TO
READ THE WHOLE THING?
>> JUST READ IT.
YOU ARE DOING GREAT.
>>> AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL
MANAGER AND CHIEF OFFICER TO
NEGOTIATE FOR AND PURCHASE OR
LEASE UP TO TWO PARCELS OF LAND
IN THE CHOIR OTHER REAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS AS NECESSARY OR
DESIRABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING TEMPORARY HOUSING FOR
CITY LIGHT PERSONNEL AND
CONTRACTORS AT THE BOUNDARY
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON JUNE
24 COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
AND FOR OTHER MUNICIPAL UTILITY
PURPOSES.
THAT IS NEW.
>> WELL DONE.
YOU WERE STUMBLING OVER TRENT
24, THAT IS WHAT YOU DIDN'T
WANT TO READ IT.
>> THIS ONE IS PRETTY
STRAIGHTFORWARD.
WE ARE LOOKING, WE HAVE TWO
DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON.
ONE IS THE PARCELS WILL BE
PURCHASED FOR PROVIDING A PLACE
TO STAY WHILE PEOPLE ARE UP
THERE IF LAMENTING THE BOUNDARY
LICENSE.
MANY PROJECTS OVER MANY YEARS.
THE SECOND PARCEL IS FOR
SPECIFICALLY PROJECTS THAT WILL
BE DOING RE-HALLS ON
GENERATORS.
THAT WILL ALSO GET THEM A PLACE
TO STAY THAT WILL GIVE US COST
CONSISTENCY.
WE WON'T HAVE TO BE RELYING ON
THE MARKET AND AT THE END OF
THE PROJECT, IF IT IS NO LONGER
NEEDED, WE CAN ALWAYS SELL IT
THEN.
>> HOW MUCH ARE YOU PAYING FOR
THIS?
>> WE DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE AUTHORIZATION.
IT WILL GO OUT AND SEE WHAT THE
MARKET IS.
>> VERY GOOD.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO
ADD?
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
THIS IS COUNSEL BILL 119592.
WE WILL MOVE TO PASS THIS BILL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE DID.
>> NO ABSTENTION'S.
VERY GOOD.
AGAIN, THIS MOTION PASSES.
IT WILL BE RECOMMENDED TO THE
FULL COUNCIL.
IT IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN COMING
UP.
>> COUNSEL BILL 119498, AND
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CITY
LIGHT DEPARTMENT, ACCEPTING THE
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEEDS TO THE
MAST NECK AT 11'S PROPERTIES IN
TRENT 24.
TURN 25.
BOTH TO BE MANAGED AS PROJECT
HABITAT LANDS AS REQUIRED BY
THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION LICENSE ORDER FOR
THE BOUNDARY HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT AND PLACING SAID LANDS
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE
CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT.
>> WELL DONE.
A LOT OF WORDS.
>> THIS ORDINANCE IS PART OF
THE BOUNDARY IMPLEMENTATION
REQUIRED ON THE TERRESTRIAL
RESORTS TO OBTAIN ABOUT 858
ACRES.
THIS ORDINANCE ALLOWS US TO
ACCEPT THE DEED OF TWO PARCELS
THAT TOTAL 65 ACRES.
WE STILL HAVE SOME WAYS TO GO.
AND EACH OF THESE PARCELS ARE
DESIGNED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE AS
PART OF THE LICENSE.
WE FOUND GOOD PLACES AND THESE
ARE TWO DIFFERENT PARCELS.
192,000.
>> GOOD.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS?
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO
ADD?
I WILL MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE
PASS 119498.
THERE ARE NO KNOWS.
NOBODY HAS ABSTAINED.
THIS MOTION PASSES.
IT RECOMMENDS TO THE FULL
COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER.
>> VERY GOOD.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
>> COUNSEL BILL 119523.
AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT ACCEPTING
VARIOUS EASEMENTS FOR OVERHEAD
AND UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL
RIGHT IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON.
PLACING SAID EASEMENTS UNDER
THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY
LIGHT DEPARTMENT AND RATIFYING
AND CONFIRMING CERTAIN PRIOR
ACTS.
>> VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
>> THESE NEXT TWO ARE JUST
HOUSEKEEPING ORDINANCES OF PAST
ACTION THAT WE HAVE DONE.
THIS ONE IS 451 THE FRONT
EASEMENTS THAT CAME INTO PLAY
WHEN WE DID, WHENEVER THERE WAS
LAND USE PERMITTING ACTIONS
THAT CHANGED EASEMENTS.
THIS IS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
451 EASEMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THE TECHNICAL AND
HOUSEKEEPING EFFORT.
I KNOW WHEN I WAS CHAIRING THE
SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES, WE
WOULD DO THE SAME THING
PERIODICALLY.
SOME WERE OLD BUT THEY ARE
BRINGING THEM FORWARD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS?
OKAY, SO WE ARE LOOKING AT
TOTAL BILL 119 533.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE
PASS THIS BILL.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE DID.
NONE OPPOSED.
NO ABSTENTION'S.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
CANCEL BILL 119523 PASSES.
WE WILL RECOMMEND THIS TO THE
FULL COUNCIL.
IN SEPTEMBER.
WE HAVE ONE MORE AND THEN I
HAVE A THANK YOU FOR YOUR.
>> COUNSEL BILL 119524.
AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT ACCEPTING
VARIOUS EASEMENTS FOR OVERHEAD
AND UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL
RIGHT IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON.
PLACING SAID EASEMENTS UNDER
THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY
LIGHT DEPARTMENT AND RATIFYING
AND CONFIRMING CERTAIN PRIOR
ACT'S.
>> THIS ONE IS VERY SIMILAR TO
THE OTHER ONE EXCEPT IT IS FOR
INDIVIDUALS WHEN THEY NEED
POWER BROUGHT TO THEIR HOME.
IT IS ANOTHER LIST OVER A
PERIOD OF TIME.
112 EASEMENTS THAT WE MADE WITH
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS OR
BUSINESSES THAT NEEDED AN
EASEMENT FOR US TO GET IN AND
GIVE THEM POWER.
>> I ESPECIALLY LIKE THEM.
ARE YOU GLAD WE AREN'T PUTTING
THESE IN ONE BY ONE?
>> THERE ARE ONLY 12 PAGES.
LET'S GET GOING.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD
LIKE TO ADD?
ANYTHING ELSE AT THE TABLE?
SO THIS IS OUR LAST ITEM FOR
TODAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO PASS
COUNSEL BILL 119 534.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE DID.
NONE OPPOSED.
NO ABSTENTION'S.
THIS ONE PASSES.
IT WILL BE RECOMMEND TO FULL
COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
SO ANYTHING ELSE HERE FOR THE
GOOD OF THE ORDER?
SO DEBORAH SMITH, I HAVE BEEN
SINGING YOUR PRAISES FOR WEEKS
AND WEEKS NOW.
I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY
GRATITUDE FOR THE WORK YOU AND
YOUR TEAM ARE DOING FOR US ON
THOMAS STREET.
I HAD ANOTHER MEETING TODAY
WITH SDOT.
THE PLANT THE CAME OUT OF THE
DESIGN.
WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT FIVE
OR SIX BLOCKS BUT YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO EXTEND THE
SIDEWALKS AND PUT SOME LIGHT
AND ART ON THE THOMAS STREET
STATION IS SERIOUSLY MAKING ALL
THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD
BECAUSE ONCE PEOPLE SAW, THIS
IS GOING TO BE GREAT, SDOT
ENGINEERS THEMSELVES SAID LET'S
JUST CLOSE OFF THE LAST HALF
LOCKS SO TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE
COMING IN THERE.
THE PARCEL WILL EXTEND DOWN
JUST RIGHT TO THE EDGE OF WHERE
WE ARE LOOKING AT HAVING A
PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE AND PRIORITY
BEFORE YOU GO INTO SEATTLE
CENTER.
THE SEATTLE CENTER IS FOLKS ARE
THRILLED BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE
GOT ALMOST MORE THAN JUST A
WALKWAY.
BUT A BEAUTIFUL INVITING SPACE
ACROSS THOMAS AND FIFTH AS AN
ENTRY POINT.
BUT TRULY, IT WAS YOUR
WILLINGNESS TO STEP FORWARD AND
SAY CITY LIGHT WILL DO THIS
THAT MADE THINGS MOVE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON
THAT.
>> WHERE WELCOME.
THANK YOU TO LEE BACON AND TUAN
TRON BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN
WORKING TO CHANGE THINGS.
I HAD A GOOD MEETING TWO DAYS
AGO WITH RANDY ENGSTROM.
I SHARED WITH HIM THE DRAWINGS
THAT YOU HAD SHARED WITH ME.
THAT IS PRETTY COOL TO.
THANK YOU.
>> THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GET THE
YES.
WITH NOTHING ELSE FOR THE GOOD
OF THE ORDER, THE MEETING IS
ADJOURNED.