>> WONDERFUL, GOOD MORNING.
TODAY IS JULY 1st, 2020.
THE SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE
WELCOME TO ORDER.
IT IS 10 ZERO ONE. WILL THE
CLERK CALL THE ROLE?
>> STRAUSS.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GONZALEZ.
COUNCILMEMBER , ANDREW J.
LEWIS, , TAMMY J. MORALES,
KSHAMA SAWANT, TERESA
MOSQUEDA.
>> PRESENT, THANK YOU.
>> WE HAVE A LONG AGENDA TODAY,
THIS IS SESSION 1 AT 10:00,
SESSION 2 STARTS AT TWO,
SESSION 2 WILL BE DEVOTED TO
THE 2020 REBALANCING PACKAGE.
AS YOU HAVE SEEN THE AGENDA, IT
IS LENGTHY AND WE WILL GET
THROUGH AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO
MAKE SURE FOLKS HAVE A SHORT
WINDOW FOR LUNCH.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE
TAKING CARE OF OURSELVES AND
THE CITY.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTIVE, IT IS
ADOPTED.
WE HAVE FOLKS SIGNED UP TO
TESTIFY, WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY. UNFORTUNATELY WE
WILL PROBABLY NOT GET THROUGH
EVERYONE SO I WANT TO THANK
EVERYONE WHO HAS CALLED IN.
IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GET TO
YOU THERE IS ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY AND WE
ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO SO OR SEND
US YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS.
WE RECEIVE THOSE AND WE
APPRECIATE THOSE.
ON TODAY'S AGENDA WE WILL HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM
FOLKS FOR THE NEXT 25 MINUTES
AND I ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO TRY TO
WRAP UP WHEN YOU HEAR THE TIME.
THERE WILL BE A 10 SECOND CHIME
TO LET YOU KNOW IT IS RUNNING
UP.
WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE
EVERYONE GETS A CHANCE TO SPEAK
AND WE HAVE TRIED TO DIVIDE
PUBLIC TESTIMONY INTO TWO PARTS.
THE TWO P.M.
SESSION STARTS AT 12:00.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SIGN UP
FOR THAT OR IF YOU DIDN'T GET A
CHANCE TO TALK TODAY.
I WILL CALL ON THE SPEAKERS ONE
AT A TIME, THREE AT A TIME IN
THE ORDER THEY REGISTER AND
HEARING FROM SEATTLE RESIDENTS
WILL BE THE PRIORITY AND TIME
PERMITTING THE REMAINING.
IF YOU GET TO THE END OF YOUR
TIME AND YOU HAVE NO TIME LEFT
CALL BACK INTO THE LISTEN IN
LINE OR LISTEN AT SEATTLE
CHANNEL OR THE ONLINE STREAMING
OPTION.
YOU WILL HEAR YOU HAVE BEEN
UNMUTED FROM OUR I.T.
FOLKS AND THAT IS THE QUEUE TO
START SPEAKING.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
WEIGHING IN WITH THE SELECT
TRUCK OPPORTUNITY AS WE KEEP
OUR SOCIAL DISTANCING PRACTICES
IN PLACE TO PROTECT FOLKS FROM
CONTRACTING COVID
UNINTENTIONALLY.
HERE WE GO.
WE HAVE THE FIRST THREE
SPEAKERS PRESENT.
DANIEL KAVANAUGH, SEAN
BUTTERFIELD AND DON.
>> MY NAME IS DAN, I AM A
NURSING STUDENT I AM HERE TO
URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS
THE AMAZON TAX AND VOTE YES ON
THE AMENDMENT AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO WANT -- WE
ARE FACING ON THE BARREL OF A
GUN ON A MAJOR ECONOMIC CRISIS.
WE JUST HAD THE LARGEST WAVE OF
LAYOFFS IN U.S. HISTORY AND A
MASSIVE WAVE OF FORECLOSURES
AND EVICTIONS ON ITS WAY.
PEEPER ARE FEELING THE PAIN.
I TALKED TO THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE
SUPPORT IS OVERWHELMING.
OVERWHELMING.
27,000 SIGNATURES IN A FEW WEEKS
, PEOPLE ARE FEELING THE PAIN
AND IF ANYTHING PEOPLE FEEL
LIKE $500 MILLION IS NOT ENOUGH.
NO CONTRACT CLAUSE, FUND 500
MILLION, NO EXCUSES.
>> SEAN BUTTERFIELD, WELCOME.
>> DO YOU MIND STARTING OVER?
>> MY NAME IS SEAN AND I AM A
HOME CARE AIDE, WHEN YOU ARE OUT
COLLECTING SIGNATURES AND THE
WEALTHY PART OF SEATTLE YOU GET
PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO SAY NO THANK
YOU, I AM OKAY AND AFTER A
WHILE THAT GETS TO ME.
THIS PARADE OF COMFORTABLE
OLDER MEN HOW OKAY THEY ARE.
I FINALLY SAID I KNOW YOU ARE
OKAY, I AM NOT WORRIED ABOUT
YOU BUT I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE
WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF COLOR
STRUGGLING TO AFFORD THE RENT
AT ONE OF THE PROPERTIES YOU
OWN.
I AM WORRIED ABOUT MY FRIENDS
KIDS WHO ARE SWITCHING SCHOOLS
WHILE THEIR PARENTS FIND A
PLACE TO LIVE.
THIS IS AN ABOUT YOU SO TAKE A
MOMENT TO THINK OF SOMETHING
OTHER THAN YOURSELF AND SIGN
THE PETITION AND HE DIDN'T AND
WALKED AWAY WE HAVE 27,000
SIGNATURES LAKERS AND COUNTING
AND THE CRITICISM I HEAR IS
THIS A NOT ENOUGH BUT IT
DOESN'T MATCH THE SCALE OF THE
PROBLEM WE ARE FACING BUT IT'S
A BIG FIRST STEP.
PAY FOR THE NEEDS OF THE
COMMUNITY IN THIS TIME OF
CRISIS, ANYONE WILL STOP TO
THINK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DOWN, GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING, I AM SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION OF
SEATTLE BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
WHO REPRESENT THOUSANDS OF
COMPANIES AND HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF JOBS.
EARLIER THIS MORNING WE LOOKED
INTO A LETTER TO OPPOSE THE
LEGISLATION.
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS
APPROACHING 14%, 80,000 JOBS
HAVE BEEN LOST SINCE MARCH
COMPARED TO 5000 OVER THE TWO
YEARS.
WE URGE YOU TO UTILIZE THE
FUNDS FOR CITY SERVICES AND NOT
FUND PROGRAMS.
SEATTLE FACES THE WORST
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN NEARLY
100 YEARS AND WE MUST FOCUS ON
THAT AND NOT PASSING ON THE
JOBS THAT ARE EVAPORATING.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT IS ALICIA, LEWIS, WILL
AND KATY.
WELCOME, ALICIA.
>> MY NAME IS ALICIA, I AM
ACTIVE ON THE AMAZON TAX
MOVEMENT.
WHILE I AM EXCITED THAT THIS IS
BEING REVIEWED WE SHOULD BE
HONEST THE ONLY REASON THIS IS
BEING BROUGHT FORWARD IS
BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURE OF THE
MOVEMENT THAT HAS COLLECTED
27,000 SIGNATURES IN THE LAST
MONTH TO TEXT HIM FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CREATE A
MAJOR JOBS PROGRAM.
SINCE JANUARY, THOUSANDS OF
PARTICIPANTS IN THE
CONFERENCES, MARCHES AND
PROTESTS AND 500 HAVE
VOLUNTEERED.
I URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO STAY
WITH THE MOVEMENT AND URGE ALL
FOR A STRONG TAX WITH NO
CORPORATE LOOPHOLES.
IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE
MOVEMENT IS PREPARED TO SUBMIT
SIGNATURES AND BRING IT TO THE
BALLOT.
WE WILL HOLD A MASS ACTION
CONFERENCE TO ASSESS WHAT THE
COUNCIL DECIDES AND VOTE ON
WHETHER TO BRING THE INITIATIVE
TO THE BALLOT.
I URGE EVERYONE LISTENING TO
JOIN.
>> I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF
OF SOLID GROUND TO MAXIMIZE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE FOR HUMAN
SERVICES. HOUSING CRISIS AND
SYSTEMS OF RACISM THAT CONTINUE
TO STABILIZE AND THE
COMMUNITIES.
INCLUDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING [
INAUDIBLE ] WE REJECT ANY
MEASURES TO DELAY THE PASSAGE
OF THE PLAN INCLUDING THE PLAN
OF POPULAR VOTE, TIME TO
INCREASE SERVICES WAS -- TIME
FOR YOU TO BE ELECTED LEADERS
OF THE CITY TO TAKE ACTION THAT
WILL RESULT IN CHANGE IN
PROGRESS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
KATY.
WELCOME.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AT MLK
LABOR, WE REPRESENT MORE THAN
100,000 WORKERS IN 150
AFFILIATE UNIONS IN KING
COUNTY.
I AM A MEMBER OF LABOR LOCAL
242, A CONSTRUCTION UNION.
BOTH THE UNION AND COUNCIL HAVE
ENDORSED JUMPSTART SEATTLE AND
I AM HERE TO EXPRESS OUR
OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THIS
POLICY MORE THAN 80% OF THE
AFFILIATE UNIONS VOTED YES TO
ENDORSED JUMPSTART, THE LABOR
UNION IS UNIFIED AND IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT OUR COUNCIL AND
CITY DOES NOT LEAD WITH
AUSTERITY IN THE FACE OF AN
ECONOMIC RECESSION.
I WANT TO THANK THE
COUNCILMEMBER FOR HER DEEP
STAKEHOLDER WORK THAT SHE AND
HER CHIEF OF STAFF DID AND URGE
IMMEDIATE PASSAGE OF JUMPSTART.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KATY.
JOSEPH, SUMMER, ROBERT, JOSEPH,
WELCOME AND GOOD MORNING.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
THANK YOU.
>> MY NAME IS JOE, I AM A
MEMBER OF DISTRICT 6. AS AN
UNION MEMBER AND TEACHER I
STAND ALONG THOUSANDS OF
TEACHERS AND SCHOOL FACULTY,
CUSTOMERS TO DEMAND VOTING
TODAY ON A STRONG BIG BUSINESS
TAX OF $500 MILLION PER YEAR
THAT GOES INTO EFFECT
IMMEDIATELY WHICH IS ONLY A
DROP IN THE BUCKET FOR THESE
CORPORATIONS.
BUT WHAT INCREASE THE QUALITY
OF LIFE FOR WORKING PEOPLE,
ESPECIALLY BLACK PEOPLE.
THE MOVEMENT IS TIRED OF THE
FEATURES AT THE RALLIES WITH NO
SUBSTANCE.
NO CONCRETE DEMANDS BUT TODAY,
YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE
ON A STRONG TAX TO HELP THE
PEOPLE OF SEATTLE.
THE MOVEMENT DEMANDS IT BE
PASSED WITH THE AMENDMENT PUT
FORWARD BY RAISING $50 MILLION
TO BUILD THOUSANDS OF HOMES AND
THAT IS A CONCRETE WAVE OF
SAVING BLACK LIVES MATTER.
THE CAUSE HAS TO GO.
AND BY SAYING THIS WOULD EXPIRE
IN --
>> THANK YOU.
SUMMER, WELCOME.
>> GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS SUMMERS STINSON.
SEATTLE FACES A HEALTH AND
ECONOMIC CRISIS IN COVID AND
DUE TO THE WEALTH DIVIDE AND
SYSTEMIC RACISM.
THE CITY COUNCIL MUST PASS
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE AND NOT
PASS THE BUCK.
JUMPSTART SEATTLE WAS NO CAUSE,
DOUBLE THE REVENUE.
TAX AMAZON, SEATTLE CAN
INCREASE INVESTMENT AND SERVE
UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES BY
DECREASING THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT BY 50%.
THE MAYOR WILL NOT SUPPORT AND
I URGE THE COUNCIL TO REMOVE
THE MAYOR.
>> I AM A HOMEOWNER IN
GREENWOOD IN DISTRICT 6.
SPEAKING YOU URGE TO PASS THE
TAX REVENUE THAT IS ESSENTIAL
TO THE COMMUNITY.
AUSTERITY WILL ADD TO THE HARM
AND DEVASTATION THE COMMUNITY
FEELS AND THIS IS THE RIGHT
TIME TO RAISE TAXES ON THE
COMMUNITY AND THE TIME REQUIRED
TO GET THE REVENUE COLLECTED.
WE NEED TO BE BOLD.
PASSING AMENDMENTS TO RAISE
RATES, AMENDMENTS THAT
ELIMINATE THE CAUSE, BEING BOLD
AND REJECTING THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WOULD SEND THEM TO THE
BALLOT BOX.
IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO
ABANDON THE ROLE.
BEING BOLD MEANS ENSURING SOME
OF THE FUNDING GOES TO BLACK
LIVES MATTER IN THE GREEN NEW
DEAL BY ADOPTING THE AMENDMENTS
PROPOSED BY THE COUNCILMEMBERS
AND APPOINT THE CAPITAL GAINS
TAX THAT THE COUNCIL PROPOSED
AND DEFINED THE PD AND REMOVE
THE MAYOR.
>> I ASSUME WE WERE JOINED BY
DANIEL.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO SPEAK.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS DANIEL.
I AM A WORKER AND RENTER IN
DISTRICT 4. I AM CALLING IN
SUPPORT TO PASS THE AMAZON TAX
WITH NO WATERING DOWN OF THE
CURRENT PROPOSED DECISION.
I BELIEVE IT IS 500 MILLION
RATHER THAN THE 174 THAT IS
PROPOSED, THIS SHOULD NOT BE A
QUESTION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
BUILDING 10,000 HOMES AND 100
MILLION VERSUS 300, SEATTLE HAS
BEEN IN A CRISIS THAT WILL ONLY
BE EXACERBATED BY THE CURRENT
PANDEMIC.
IT WOULD BE A SLAP IN THE FACE
TO CONSTITUENTS TO STRUGGLE TO
STAY HOUSE.
-- WE NEED TO START ENACTING
THE GREEN DEAL REFERENDUM, WE
NEED JOBS TO IMPROVE SEATTLE'S
GREEN HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE LEGISLATION MUST BE ENACTED
AND DONE SO WITH NO CAUSE.
W HAVE BEEN MEETING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND INVESTMENTS AND WE
NEED THEM NOW MORE THAN EVER IN
THE FACE OF THE PANDEMIC.
WE DON'T NEED A SUNSET CLAUSE
ON AFFORDABLE CLOSING BUT
BUDGETING.
>> ANGIE, CASSIE AND JOSS.
>> WOULD WELCOME -- [ INAUDIBLE
] I AM HERE IN SUPPORT OF
JUMPSTART SEATTLE BECAUSE WE
NEED GRANTS, SINCE COVID-19
ARRIVED OUR SANITATION COSTS
HAVE SKYROCKETED AND WE HAVE
SMALLER CLASS SIZES AND PAYROLL
COSTS ARE UP AND REVENUE IS
DOWN.
A CLASS THAT USED TO HAVE 20
CHILDREN AND TWO STAFF HAS
EIGHT CHILDREN AND THREE STUFF.
ONE STAFF PERSON IN EACH CLASS
IS CONSTANTLY CLEANING.
I REDUCED THE HOURS BUT I PAY
THEM THE SAME.
THIS IS ONE WAY TO RECOGNIZE
THE ESSENTIAL AND STRESSFUL
WORK THEY ARE DOING FOR THE
FAMILY.
WE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO
KEEP THE CHILDREN AND STAFF SAFE
AND HEALTHY BUT THIS IS
EXPENSIVE AND NOT SUSTAINABLE.
PLEASE VOTE YES TO JUMPSTART
SEATTLE, DIRECT GRANT TO
CHILDCARE AND HELP US STAY IN
BUSINESS.
>> JOSH?
JUST CHECKING, FOLLOWED BY AVA
AND MATTHEW.
DO WE HAVE JOSH?
OH JOSH IS NOT HERE.
AVA, WELCOME BACK.
MATTHEW AND EMILY.
>> I AM A MEMBER OF SOCIALIST
ALTERNATIVES.
IT IS BECAUSE OF OUR MOVEMENT
THE DEMOCRATS ARE PUTTING
FORWARD THIS WATERED-DOWN
VERSION OF OUR MOVEMENT
LEGISLATION.
CITY COUNCIL OWES IT TO WORKING
PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH, BUT
WITH NO DELAY IN WATERING DOWN.
WE NEED MORE.
IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS SO WHY
ARE DEMOCRATS PROPOSING TO BUILD
ONE THIRD OF THE HOMES WE HAVE
BEEN DEMANDING.
THEY PLEDGED TO FUND A GREEN
DEAL SO WHY ARE THEY FILLING TO
INCLUDE FUNDS FOR PROGRAMS AND
JOBS THAT WE NEED.
THERE HAS BEEN A HISTORIC
APPRAISING FOR RACIAL JUSTICE
BUT SUBSTANCE BEHIND THE SLOGAN
STANCE WITH A 220 CLERGY WHO
FIND SUPPORT AND DEDICATE
FUNDING TO STOP BRACES
GENTRIFICATION.
REMOVE THE CAUSE, RAISE THE TAX
OF $500 MILLION AND AT MINIMUM
SUPPORT THEM TO ADD $50 MILLION
FOR PROGRAMS AND FUND 1000, NEW
, AFFORDABLE HOMES.
OUR MOVEMENT IS WATCHING.
>> MATTHEW, WELCOME.
>> MY NAME IS MATTHEW, I AM THE
ORGANIZER AT TRENT'S OR RISER
UNION.
[ INAUDIBLE ] LET'S TALK ABOUT
THE NEEDS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF
US.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT
ARTISTS AND SEX WORKERS THAT
HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT, IMMIGRANTS
AND REFUGEES WHO STRUGGLE TO
PUT FOOD ON THEIR TABLES.
BLACK AND RUM PEOPLE ARE [
INAUDIBLE ] NO SUNSET CLAUSE,
RAISE THE TAX RATES, BRING IT
TO AUGUST 1st AND DO NOT TAKE
IT TO THE BALLOT BECAUSE PEOPLE
NEEDED THIS RELIEF YESTERDAY.
>> THANK YOU, MATTHEW.
EMILY MacARTHUR.
>> MY NAME IS EMILY AND I AM A
RENTER IN DISTRICT 2 I AM
CALLING TO SAY TO PASS STRONG
AMAZON TEXT TODAY.
THIS HAS BEEN A VOTE THAT HAS
BEEN TOO LONG DELAYED AND
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE
DENIED.
I DEMAND YOU VOTE YES TO THE
$50 MILLION TO THE GREEN NEW
DEAL AND FOR THE HOMES THAT ARE
URGENT PRIORITIES FOR THE
COMMUNITY THAT YOU HAVE VOTED
IN HOLLOW RESOLUTIONS TO SAY
YOU SUPPORT.
NOW IS THE TIME TO PUT YOUR
MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.
WE NEED ACTION NOT JUST HOLLOW
RESOLUTION.
I WANT TODAY SHAME ON THE MAYOR
FOR HER ATTACK ON OUR MOVEMENT.
THIS LETTER SHE ISSUED CALLING
ON THE COUNCIL TO ATTACK THE
COUNCILMEMBERS IN THE MIDST OF
A PANDEMIC AND BUDGET CRISIS
SHE WANTS THEM TO WASTE TIME
REINVESTIGATING WITH THE
INDEPENDENT SEC INVESTIGATED
AND SHE WANTS THE CITY -- SHE
CALLED ENDANGERMENT AND DOESN'T
TAKE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR GUESSING
RESIDENCE, SHE HASN'T EXPLAINED
WHY IT IS OKAY TO MAKES AN 8-
YEAR-OLD GIRL.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE GABE,
JESSICA AND JOE.
>> MY NAME IS GABE, I AM A
VOLUNTEER IN A RENTER.
MY COUNCILMEMBER HAS MADE IT
CLEAR HE INTENDS TO DO ANYTHING
IN HIS POWER TO UNDERMINE OUR
MOVEMENT FOR THE AMAZON TAX.
HE IS DISINGENUOUSLY SUPPORTING
THE AMENDMENT WITH THE TAX ON
THE BALLOT.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON IS AWARE
WE HAVE SIGNATURES TO TAKE TO
VOTERS IF THE COUNCIL FAILS TO
ACT.'S AMENDMENT IS DESIGNED TO
PUMP THE BRAKES ON THE MOMENTUM
AND ALLOW FOR BIG BUSINESS. AS
AMAZON DID LAST YEAR TO GET HIM
ELECTED.
THE MOVEMENT WILL ACCEPT NO
MORE DELAYS.
THE CRISIS WON'T WAIT IN THE
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS CRISIS
18.
A PANDEMIC WON'T WAIT.
HOLD THE VOTE TODAY.
HEED OUR MOVEMENTS AND DEMANDS
TO CUT THE CAUSE, FUND A DEAL
AND 1000 HOMES.
THANK YOU.
>> NEXT IS JESSICA.
>> I AM A DISTRICT 3 RESIDENT
AND I AM CALLING TO ENCOURAGE
THE COUNCIL TO VOTE FOR THE
ORIGINAL AMAZON AND BIG
BUSINESS TAX.
WE DON'T NEED A SUNSET CLAUSE,
WE NEED A GREEN NEW DEAL
PROVISION AND WE NEED TO ADD 50
MILLION MORE DOLLARS TO IT TO
MAKE SURE WE ARE PRIORITIZING
1000 NEW, AFFORDABLE HOMES IN
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT TO START
TO CHIP AWAY AT GENTRIFICATION,
MUCH WILL BE NEEDED BUT THAT IS
A GOOD START AND I HAVE BEEN
COLLECTING SIGNATURES ON THE
PAST FEW WEEKENDS AND PEOPLE
ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS TEXT,
THEY THINK IT IS NECESSARY AND
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO
VOTE FOR IT TODAY WITHOUT
DELAY.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY MESSAGE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, WE HAVE
10 MINUTES LEFT FOR PUBLIC
COMMENT.
I AM GOING TO ASK BY TWO FOLKS
TO GIVE US 30 SECONDS SO WE CAN
TRY TO GET AS MANY PEOPLE IN AS
POSSIBLE.
IT'S NOT IDEAL BUT WE LOVE TO
HEAR FROM AS MANY PEOPLE AS
POSSIBLE.
JOSH.
JOE, ROSIE DANIELS.
JOSH, WELCOME.
>> WE URGE COUNCIL TO REJECT
AUSTERITY AND BUDGET CUTS WITH
PROGRESSIVE TAXATION THAT CAN
BRING IN 200 TO 500 MILLION
REALLOCATE THE BUDGET THAT
TAKES A 25% OF THE BUDGET, WE
CAN FULLY FUND THE THINGS WE
NEED TO BRING MORE PEOPLE
INSIDE AND PROTECT PEOPLE FROM
COVID AND REVERSE THE EFFECTS OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT.
PLEASE SUPPORT THE CENTRAL
HOUSING PLAN, MORTALITY HOUSE
VILLAGES AND THE COUNCILMEMBERS
AMENDMENT
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JOE SIMMONS, WELCOME.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF
THE SPEAKERS SO FAR FOR THEIR
GOOD POINTS.
I AM URGING SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL
AMAZON TAX.
I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT
THE CRISIS THAT SEATTLE, THIS
COUNTRY AND WORLD ARE
EXPERIENCING.
CUTS DEEPER THAN ANYONE
MOVEMENT COULD POSSIBLY ACCOUNT
FOR AND I WOULD LIKE TO URGE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL TO THINK
BIG, --
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I.T., 35 SECONDS TO WRAP UP
COMMENTS SO THEY CAN HEAR THE
TIME.
THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
ROSIE DANIELS AND FOLLOWED BY
HANNAH AND RACHEL.
>> MY NAME IS ROSIE DANIELS, I
AM A RENTER AND THE COUNCIL
WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERING THE TAX
WERE IT NOT FOR STRENGTH AS A
MOVEMENT TO THE AMAZON TAX ON
THE FACT THAT WE ARE PREPARED
TO TAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO
NOVEMBER.
I SUPPORT THE COUNCILMEMBERS
AMENDMENTS BUT I WANT TO HEAR
THE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO SUPPORT
A SUNSET CLAUSE EXPLAIN WHAT
VALUE IT HAS FOR US WORKING
PEOPLE.
WHEN YOU'RE UNABLE TO DO THAT
WE WON'T FORGET YOU BETRAYED US
AND WE WILL KEEP GOING.
WE ARE DEMANDING YOU VOTE AND
REMOVE THE SUNSET CLAUSE AND
YOU VOTE TODAY BECAUSE WE NEED
A TAX AND 20 YEARS FROM NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> HANNAH, WELCOME.
>> HELLO, I AM CALLING INTO
URGE THE COUNCIL TO VOTE TODAY
WITH NO DELAY TO TAX BIG
BUSINESS.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS DISCUSSING
THIS BECAUSE OF THE IMMENSE
PRESSURE WE HAVE CREATED AND WE
SHOULD SEE THIS AS A VICTORY
THAT A PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
TAXES BEING DISCUSSED.
THE TAX PROPOSAL IS WATERED-
DOWN AND INADEQUATE AND WE NEED
A STRONG TAX TO MAKE AN IMPACT.
THE MOVEMENT IS DEMANDING $500
MILLION A YEAR, WE SHOULD NOT
HAVE A SUNSET CLAUSE, WE NEED
AN EXTRA $50 MILLION TO FUND
GREEN NEW DEAL PROGRAMS AND
AFFORDABLE HOMES.
>> AMANDA.
I AM SORRY, RACHEL BROOKS.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS RACHEL
BROOKS, PRESIDENT OF PROTECT
17, REPRESENTING 2600
EMPLOYEES.
AS WELL AS A RESIDENT OF
DISTRICT 3 AND I AM SPEAKING IN
FAVOR OF JUMPSTART SEATTLE.
THIS IS A STEP TO HELP THEM TO
STRUGGLE FROM COVID-19 AND PUTS
THEM ON THE PATH TO RECOVERY
BOTH ECONOMICALLY AND
EMOTIONALLY.
THE FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE
CORPORATION IS NOTHING COMPARED
TO THE DEVASTATION OF OUR
WORKERS.
IT IS CRUCIAL THAT THE BILL BE
PASSED IN THE COUNCIL WITH NO
DELAY AND SUNSET CLAUSE AS
COMMUNITIES NEED AID AND
IMPROVED SERVICES IMMEDIATELY
AND CONTINUOUSLY.
>> AMANDA, SCOTT AND DALE.
WILL COME.
>> HELLO, THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS AMANDA AND I AM AN
ORGANIZER WITH 350 SEATTLE AND
I SUPPORT THE PROGRESSIVE
TAXATION, THANK YOU FOR
CONSIDERING IT.
I WANT TO SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD MAKE IT
STRONGER, SPECIFICALLY TEMPLE
MEMBERS AND AMENDMENTS THAT
DIRECT 50 MILLION IN FUNDING TO
A NEW DEAL.
A YEAR AGO THE CITY COUNCIL
PASSED RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT.
NOW YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO FOLLOW
UP BY SUPPORTING THE DEAL AND
IN LEGISLATION AND FUND.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS THIS.
>> SCOTT, WELCOME.
>> I AM A POLICY DIRECTOR FOR
THE ALLIANCE AS ONE OF THE
LARGEST AND OLDEST COMMUNITY-
BASED MEDICAL CASE MANAGEMENT
AND FOOD PROVIDERS UNDER THE
UMBRELLA OF CHICKEN SOUP OR
GRADE DURING POPULATION
THROUGHOUT SEATTLE AND KING
COUNTY WE ARE HERE TO SPEAK UP
FOR THE COUNCILMEMBER TO
JUMPSTART SEATTLE RELATED
LEGISLATION.
THE AGENCY WAS FORMED BY THE
HEALTH CRISIS OF OUR DAY NOT
UNLIKE THE PUBLIC HEALTH
DISPARITIES AND INEQUITIES THAT
THEY ARE -- WE REALIZE HOW
IMPORTANT AND VITAL IT IS TO
HELP WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES.
>> THE NEXT THREE PEOPLE ARE
DALE, ALICE AND MOLLY.
>> I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
THE MEN AND WOMEN OF LOCAL 242,
MANY OF WHOM WORK AND LIVE IN
SEATTLE.
THE EXPANSION OF THE VILLAGES
AND THE REST OF THE HOUSING WE
MUST REMEMBER THE WORKERS.
BUILDING THESE PROJECTS [
INAUDIBLE ]
>> DALE ALICE, WELCOME.
>> I AM ALICE LOCKHART, WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT ALL THE
AMENDMENTS AND OPPOSE THE SO-
CALLED LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
AMENDMENTS THAT KILLS THE
PLAYING FIELD BY CAPPING TAXES
BUT NOT ON WORKING PEOPLE.
PLEASE DON'T WAIT FOR A BALLOT
MEASURE OR SUNSET JUMPSTAR.
WE NEED REVENUE NOW AND WE NEED
IT LATER.
THANK YOU.
>> MOLLY MOON, WELCOME.
>> HELLO, I LIVE IN DISTRICT 3.
I OWN MOLLY MOON'S HOMEMADE ICE
CREAM AND FEEL RESPONSIBLE FOR
OUR EMPLOYEES AND LIVELIHOOD
AND HOUSE.
I URGE YOU TO VOTE YES ON
JUMPSTART SEATTLE.
I HAVE BEEN THANKFUL FOR ALL OF
THE OUTREACH AND WORK THAT HAS
GONE INTO A BILL THAT MAKES
SENSE FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE
CHILDCARE COMPONENT AND SMALL-
BUSINESS SUPPORT.
>> AND A FOLLOWED BY BARBARA.
AND ALAN ANDERSON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM WITH
ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERS.
I ASK YOU TO VOTE YES ON THE
JUMPSTART SEATTLE BILL AND
AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY THE
INTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
BILL.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
'S
>> I LIVE IN DISTRICT 5 AND I
AM SPEAKING FOR THE AMAZON TAX
WHICH YOU NEED TO VOTE ON
TODAY.
NO DELAYS, NO WATERING DOWN.
WE NEED 50 MILLION FOR 1000
HOMES IN THE CD.
QUALITY, NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES
TO ALLOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
HOUSEHOLDS TO RETURN TO THE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
TAX AMAZON.
>> THANK YOU.
RICHARD.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS RICHARD
AND I AM IN DISTRICT NUMBER 4.
I BELIEVE THE CITY SHOULD TAKE
CARE OF ITS WEAKEST MEMBERS,
THE CITY CANNOT CALL ITSELF
CIVILIZED WHEN IT IS CHILDREN,
DISABLED AND SICK AND ELDERLY
ARE NEGLECTED.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY
SCENARIO IN WHICH PREVENTABLE
SUFFERING IS AN ACCEPTABLE
OUTCOME AS LONG AS MONEY AS
SAVED.
WE NEED TO DO PROGRESSIVE
TAXATION NOW, FULLY FUNDED
SEATTLE, GET USED TO THE IDEA OF
TAKING BACK MONEY FROM THE
WEALTHY TO HELP THE
MARGINALIZED.
>> THE LAST FOUR SPEAKERS ARE
ANGELA, ELLEN AND --.
REVEREND, WELCOME.
>> THIS IS REVEREND ANGELA
YANG, I AM WITH 200 FAITH
LEADERS WHO HAVE SIGNED A
LETTER THAT YOU PASS NOT ONLY
TAX AMAZON WITHOUT WATERING IT
DOWN BUT ADD AN ADDITIONAL $50
MILLION TO FUND 1000 AFFORDABLE
HOMES IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT
IN SUPPORT OF BLACK FAMILIES TO
LIVE AND RETURN TO THEIR
NEIGHBORHOOD IN REVERSE
GENTRIFICATION AND 50 MILLION
FOR FUNDING THE GREEN NEW DEAL
INCLUDING LEGISLATION FOR
CLIMATE JUSTICE.
WE WANT NO SUNSET CLAUSE, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE BACK LIVES
MATTER AND WE ASK YOU TO VOTE
NOW FOR THE BUDGET SO WE THE
PEOPLE'S MOVEMENT.
>> ELLEN, WELCOME.
>> I LIVE IN DISTRICT 2, THE
CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO PASS THE
STRONGEST 500 MILLION A YEAR
WITH NO SUNSET CLAUSE AMAZON
TAX TODAY.
I CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER HOW
MUCH CITY OWNED HOUSING WE
WOULD HAVE IF THE MAJORITY OF
THE CITY COUNCIL HADN'T
REPEALED THE PREVIOUS TAX,
PLEASE DON'T MAKE THE SAME
MISTAKE.
COVID-19 IS NOT JUST A GLOBAL
CRISIS BUT ECONOMIC. WE NEED
THE HOUSING NOW, THIS DOESN'T
CARE IF THERE IS A PANDEMIC, DO
YOU AND HOW WILL YOU ACCOUNT
FOR THAT?
>> WELCOME.
>> [ INAUDIBLE ]
>> SORRY ABOUT THE LAST NAME,
WELCOME.
>> MY NAME IS --, I AM A
HOMEOWNER AND ECONOMIST.
THE CURRENT RECESSION IS BEING
USED AS A REASON TO AVOID
PASSING A ROBUST, LARGE TAX ON
BUSINESSES.
THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IS CAUSED
BY STRUCTURAL INEQUALITY AND
TAXATION IN ORDER TO FUND
SPENDING ON MARGINAL PEOPLE IF
NOT A PROBLEM IN THE RECESSION.
WE NEED LARGE, PROGRESSIVE
SOURCES OF REVENUE WHICH ARE
LONG-TERM FOR STRUCTURE AND
EQUALITY IN RECESSION IS NOT A
REASON.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF
YOUR COMMENTS TODAY, WE
APPRECIATE THE FOLKS WHO HAVE
SIGNED AND.
PLEASE EMAIL US YOUR COMMENTS
AND WE APPRECIATE FOLKS
WEIGHING IN.
YOU CAN TESTIFY AT 12:00.
THAT ENDS PUBLIC COMMENT, WE
WILL PICK THAT UP AT 2:00
TODAY, YOU CAN SIGN UP FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT OR SEND US YOUR
COMMENTS VIA EMAIL.
LET'S MOVE ON TO OTHER ITEMS OF
BUSINESS.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ ITEM
ONE INTO THE RECORD.
>> AGENDA ITEM ONE.
THE COUNCIL RELATED TO TAXATION
AND PAYROLL TAX ON PERSONS
ENGAGING IN BUSINESS IN SEATTLE
. ADDING A CHAPTER TO THE CODE
AND AMENDING SECTIONS 5.30.010,
5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040,
5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165,
5.55.220, 5.55.230, AND
6.208.020 OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE.
FOR DISCUSSION AND VOTE.
>> WONDERFUL, THANK YOU.
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES I WANT TO
SAY THANK YOU TO OUR CENTRAL
STAFF.
WE HAVE CENTRAL STAFF HERE WITH
US FROM CENTRAL STAFF AND THE
ENTIRE TEAM AT OUR CENTRAL
STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING AROUND
THE CLOCK WITH THE FOLKS FROM
I.T.
AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
HUGE AMOUNT OF APPRECIATION FOR
THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE
THROUGHOUT THIS TIME OF COVID
TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO
CONTINUE HAVING ROBUST
DISCUSSIONS AS COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES AND ENGAGE WITH THE
PUBLIC.
ESPECIALLY TODAY AS WE THINK
ABOUT GOING THROUGH THE
AMENDMENTS IN FRONT OF YOU
TODAY.
THE CENTRAL STAFF HAS PROVIDED
A COMPREHENSIVE FILE.
IF YOU ARE LIKE ME AND YOU
PREFER TO HAVE ITEMS IN PAPER,
WORKING ELECTRONICALLY IS
CHALLENGING BUT WHAT THEY HAVE
DONE IS THEY HAVE SENT IS THE
DRIVE WITH ALL THE AMENDMENTS
AND MATERIALS.
ALL OF THOSE ARE LABELED IN
ORDER AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THEY
WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE ORDER
PRESENTED IN THE FILE.
WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR
FROM CENTRAL STUFF THAT WILL
WALK THROUGH A PRESENTATION OF
THE AMENDMENTS.
DON'T WORRY, THERE WILL BE
PLENTY OF TIME TO TALK ABOUT
EACH AND WE WILL DISCUSS
AMENDMENTS AS THEY ARE GROUPED
IN CATEGORIES AND YOU WILL SEE
THAT IN THE PRESENTATION.
YOU HAVE THESE MATERIALS
ELECTRONICALLY.
IF YOUR COMPUTER STARTS TO
OVERHEAT WHEN THE SCREEN IS
BEING SHARED, YOU CAN GO TO
YOUR EMAIL AND FIND THE
AMENDMENTS AND POWERPOINT
PRESENTATIONS AND THE MATERIALS
THEY SENT YOU.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS
POSSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE THE
MATERIALS OUTLINED IN FRONT OF
US.
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES FOR US TO
BEGIN THIS DISCUSSION, I WILL
MOVE TO HAVE ITEM ONE BEFORE US
WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR CENTRAL
STUFF TO WALK THROUGH EACH
AMENDMENT PRESENTED ON THE
AGENDA.
THEN WE WILL HAVE CONVERSATIONS
BY GROUPING OF AMENDMENT
SPECIFIC TO THEME.
I MOVE THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS
PASSAGE OF --, IS THERE A
SECOND?
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
NOW THAT THE BILL IS BEFORE US
I WILL REQUESTED THAT CENTRAL
STAFF WALKED THROUGH A NUMBER
OF AMENDMENTS ON THE AGENDA IN
ADDITION THEY WILL BE GROUPING
THE DISCUSSION OR THEY MAY BE
CONFLICTS THAT EXIST TO ALLOW
THE SPONSOR OF THE AMENDMENT AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS BEFORE
VOTING ON THOSE.
SO AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR WALKING
THROUGH THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS
IN FRONT OF US.
WE HAVE FOR THE FIRST PART OF
THE MEETING, THE REVENUE BILL,
WE WILL THEN TALK MORE AFTER
THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE
AMENDMENTS, ABOUT THE HIGH-
LEVEL CATEGORY SPEND BILL WHICH
WE DISCUSSED ON MONDAY. THAT IS
THE MAJORITY OF THE MEETING
TODAY.
HOPING TO HAVE A ROBUST
CONVERSATION AND AS ALWAYS PING
ME IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY
SOMETHING BUT WE WILL ASK
CENTRAL STUFF TO GET THROUGH AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND WE WILL
BEGIN THE DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU, DAN AND I WILL TURN
IT OVER TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I AM DOWN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
CENTRAL STUFF.
TOM AND I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH
THE PRESENTATION BUT I HOPE YOU
CAN SEE IT ON YOUR SCREEN.
AS YOU ARE WELL AWARE DURING
THE PAST COUPLE MONTHS, THE
COMMITTEE HAS BEEN CONSIDEING
PROPOSALS FOR A NEW PAYROLL TAX
ON THE CITY'S LARGEST
BUSINESSES MEASURED BY SEATTLE
PAYROLL.
LAST WEEK THEY REVIEWED THE
POLICY CHOICES INCLUDING THE
JUMPSTART SEATTLE TAX BILL AND
THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED THE
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES TO
WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE
TAX AMAZON BILL.
TODAY, TOM AND I WILL WALK
THROUGH A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS
IN THE TAX BILL, THERE ARE
THREE CATEGORIES, ONE SECOND
PLEASE.
THERE ARE THREE CATEGORIES OF
AMENDMENTS, WE WILL TAKE EACH
OF THESE SEPARATELY, THERE ARE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS, THERE ARE
TAX STRUCTURE AND RATE
AMENDMENT AND THERE IS A
CATCHALL CATEGORY OF ALL OTHER
AMENDMENTS.
I AM GOING TO ORIENT YOU TO THE
SLIDES, GENERALLY THEN TURN IT
OVER TO TOM TO WALK YOU THROUGH
THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS FIRST.
YOU WILL SEE A SERIES OF ROWS
AND GRIDS, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO
IDENTIFY WHEN THERE ARE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN
COMPETITION, WHICH IS TO SAY
THEY ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND
IF YOU ADOPT ANYONE OF THEM YOU
CAN'T ALSO ADOPT THE OTHER ONES
THAT HAVE AN X NEXT TO THEM.
THE FIRST GREEN, I AM GOING TO
KEEP IT OVER TO TOM TO TALK
THROUGH, NO EXES SO THESE ARE
NOT AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN
COMPETITION.
THE NEXT CATEGORY WILL HAVE
SOME NEXT TO THEM.
UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS I
WILL TURN IT OVER TO TOM.
>> THANK YOU, DAN.
GOOD MORNING.
MEMBERS OF THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE, I AM TOM, AN ANALYST.
YOU ARE NOW LOOKING AT THE
SCREEN THAT DAN REFERENCED.
AND HOW WE HAVE ORGANIZED IT SO
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
PROPOSAL AS A TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT.
IT IS UNNUMBERED AMENDMENT, 21
FOR REFERENCE TO THE MATERIALS
THAT WERE DISTRIBUTED.
THERE ARE NO CHECKS OR EXES IN
THE BOXES ALONG THE ROAD SO
NONE OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS WE
WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THIS
MORNING HAVE A CONFLICT WITH
THIS.
IN TERMS OF THE SUBJECT MATTER
OF THIS AMENDMENT, IT WAS
DISCOVERED DURING THE PROCESS
OF REVIEWING AMENDMENTS THAT
THE DEFINITION OF COMPENSATION
HAD LOST SOME WORDING AND THAT
WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, NOT AT THE
INTENT OF THE SPONSOR AND IT WAS
A PURELY DRAFTING ERROR.
AMENDMENT 21 ESSENTIALLY
RESTORES THE LANGUAGE BACK TO
THE INTRODUCED BILL AS THE
SPONSOR INTENDED.
IT ESSENTIALLY ADDS THE
FOLLOWING CATEGORIES WHEN THEY
ARE EARNED FOR SERVICES
RENDERED.
IN BUSINESS OPERATIONS.
THE DISTRIBUTION IS PAYMENTS TO
AN OWNER, PARTNER OR LLC MEMBER.
>> YOU HAVE AMENDMENT 21.
I AM NOT SURE IT WORKS WELL
WITH THE TOGGLING BACK AND
FORTH BETWEEN THE POWERPOINT
PRESENTATIONS TO SHARE THE
SCREEN BUT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL
AS WE DO THAT TO HAVE THEM
READY TO GO IF YOU WANT TO SEE
THE STATEMENT.
JUST REITERATING WHAT TOM HAS
SAID AND I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT
YOU OFF.
úJUST TO REITERATE WHAT TOM HAS
SAID, AMENDMENT 21 IS TECHNICAL
IN NATURE, APPRECIATE YOU
CATCHING THIS AND THANK YOU FOR
WORKING IT HERE.
SEEING THERE IS NO CONFLICTS, I
WANT TO MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL
BILL AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
21.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
TO ALL THE CENTRAL STAFF
PRESENTATIONS FOR WHAT IS
CONSIDERED IN THIS TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITION COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE.
SEEING THEM.
DOUBLE CHECKING.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED
THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT
AMENDMENT 21 AS PRESENTED ON
THE AGENDA AND DESCRIBED BY
CENTRAL STUFF.
HEARING NO COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS, WILL THE CLERK CALL
THE ROLL ON ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENT 21.
>> DAN STRAUSS . LORENA
GONZCEZ LISA HERBOLD , DEBORA
JUAREZ , ANDREW J. LEWIS,
TAMMY J. MORALES, PETERSON,
KSHAMA SAWANT, TERESA
MOSQUEDA, EIGHT IN FAVOR, NONE
OPPOSED.
>> YES, I.
>> NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE MOTION CARRIES IN THE
AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
THANK YOU FOR THE OVERVIEW.
COULD YOU PLEASE CONTINUE TO
THE NEXT GROUP?
>> DID I HEAR YOU ASK IF WE
COULD PUT THE AMENDMENT ITSELF
ON THE SCREEN WHEN WE ARE
DISCUSSING IT?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS
POSSIBLE BUT IT MIGHT BE
HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT STATEMENT
READY TO SHARE.
I THINK THE SLIDE IS GOOD AS
CONTEXT IF THERE IS CONFLICT BUT
IF IT IS AVAILABLE AT THE READY
TO SHARE THE STATEMENT, THAT
MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR FOLKS
FOLLOWING ALONG.
>> PUSHING INTO ADVANCED SCREEN
SHARING AND I WILL DO MY BEST
TO DO THAT ON THE FLY.
I AM NOT SURE IF I HAVE THE
CAPACITY.
>> NO PRESSURE.
AS A REMINDER, YOU HAVE EACH OF
THESE AMENDMENTS AND THE EFFECT
STATEMENT.
IF YOU NEED TO CROSSWALK, THE
NUMBER IS LISTED ON THE SUBJECT
TITLE IN THE MATERIALS WE
RECEIVED FROM CENTRAL STUFF.
SO COUNCIL COLLEAGUES.
WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US A SERIES
OF AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE
RELATED TO AMENDMENTS 20, 11,
15 THROUGH 17.
I WILL ASK THEM TO GO THROUGH
THE GRID AND FOR THE PURPOSES
OF DISCUSSION I WILL BE ASKING
FOLKS TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO
CONSIDER AMENDMENT NUMBER 20 SO
WE CAN HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION
ON THE AMENDMENTS INCLUDING
SOME THAT ME -- ME BE
LATEBREAKING.
DAN OR TOM WAS THAT YOU WHO
WANTED TO LEAD?
>> LET ME ORIENT SINCE THIS
MATRIX DOES HAVE SOME COMPLEX
IDENTIFIED, THIS SERIES THAT WE
WILL BE DISCUSSING INCLUDE
AMENDMENTS -- THE TAX STRUCTURE
AND THE AMOUNT OF THE RATE.
FOR EXAMPLE, AMENDMENT 20 WHICH
I WILL LEAD INTO HAS CONFLICTS
WITH AMENDMENT 11 -- IF IT
PASSES THE NONE OF THE OTHER
CAN BE RECONCILED AGAINST
AMENDMENT 20.
I WILL LAUNCH INTO THE
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT 20.
WHAT IT DOES IS IN REFERENCE TO
THE INTRODUCED JUMPSTART BILL,
IT ADDS A MIDDLE RATE TEAR OF
TOTAL BUSINESS PAYROLL EXPENSE
THAT INCLUDES TOTAL BUSINESS
PAYROLL OF $100 MILLION.
JUST TO GIVE A POINT OF
REFERENCE, IT WAS INTRODUCED
AND HAD A TEAR OF $7 MILLION UP
TO $1 BILLION AND $1 BILLION
AND ABOVE.
ONE FUNCTIONAL CHANGE IS THERE
IS NO AMENDMENT 20 AND THE
ADDITIONAL MIDDLE TIER BUSINESS
EYES.
AN ADDITIONAL CHANGE --
>> MAY I INTERRUPT YOU?
IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO SHOW THE
EFFECT STATEMENT OR PAGE 2 OF
THE AMENDMENT, THAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL.
>> I AM GOING TO TRY TO DO
THAT.
I NEED TO STOP SHARING THE
POWERPOINT AND TRY TO SWITCH TO
SHARE THE WORD DOCUMENT.
>> YOU GOT IT, TOM YOUR AUDIO
SOUNDS BETTER BUT IT SOUNDS A
LITTLE GLITCHY WHEN WE TALK
FAST.
JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT FOR
YOU.
LOOKS GOOD, THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
>> I COVERED THE FIRST BULLET
POINT WITH REGARDS TO THE NEW
TOTAL BUSINESS PAYROLL ADDITION
IN TERMS OF THE TAX STRUCTURE.
THE NEXT KEY POINT IS THE
INTRODUCED JUMPSTART PLAN HAD
LEVELS OF COMPENSATION SUCH THAT
THE PAYROLL EXPENSE HAD
DIFFERENT RATES APPLIED FOR
150,000, 500,000 AND 500,000
AND ABOVE, WHAT AMENDMENT 20
DOES WITH REFERENCE TO THE BILL
IS IT REVISES THE CUT OFF POINT
FROM $500,000 TO $200,000.
SO NEXT IN LINE WITH REGARDS TO
THE EFFECT, AT THOSE NEW
PAYROLL SIZED TEAR AND
COMPENSATION AMOUNT, THE NEW
RATES ARE AS SHOWN IN THE
EFFECT STATEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL IN THE INTEREST OF TIME
TO READ THROUGH THOSE OR NOT.
EACH RATE IS NEW AND THERE IS
AN ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TEAR.
I WOULD REFER TO THE CHAIR
WHETHER OR NOT I SHOULD
DESCRIBE THOSE FOR YOU.
BEYOND WHAT IS STATED ON THE
SCREEN.
>> I AM HAPPY TO DESCRIBE THESE
BUT THIS IS A COSPONSORED BILL
FROM TAMMY J. MORALES AND
MYSELF.
WE MAY TALK ABOUT THE TEARS FOR
TECHNICAL PURPOSES.
THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A
DEBATE BUT FOR TECHNICAL
I MAY ASK YOU TO CALL IN
BECAUSE IT IS STARTING TO
GLITCH A LITTLE BIT.
IF I CAN ASK HIM TO CALL INTO
I.T., REGARDING THE STRUCTURE
AND THE BACKBONE OF WHAT THE
TABLE LOOKS LIKE I WILL TURN IT
OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES
WHO HAD INITIALLY CONSIDERED
AND BRIEFLY DISCUSSED LAST WEEK
THIS MIDDLE CATEGORY.
FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING
TO CENTRAL STUFF'S PRESENTATION?
>> I WANT TO THANK CENTRAL
STAFF, TOM IN PARTICULAR FOR
WORKING WITH ME TO FIND THIS
MIDDLE TERRITORY AND AS HE WAS
SAYING WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO
HERE IS AMEND BY INSERTING A
THIRD TIER INTO THE TAX RATE
AND THIS ADDITIONAL TIER DOES
ALLOW US TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL
$35 MILLION FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I DO WANT TO THANK THE
COUNCILMEMBER FOR THE
CONVERSATION AND WILLINGNESS TO
HAVE A CONVERSATION SO WE CAN
MOVE FROM THE 175 TO THIS TO 15
THAT WE HAVE IN THE AMENDMENT.
>> WONDERFUL.
I WILL ADD TO THAT.
AS YOU DIAL IN, MUTE YOUR
COMPUTER.
I WILL ADD TO THAT, WHAT YOU
SEE IN THIS AMENDMENT IS THE
INITIAL RATE BEING KEPT STAGNANT
FOR THE INCOME THAT IS BETWEEN
150 AND 400,000.
WE HAVE KEPT THE SAME RATE THAT
MOST OF THE COMPANIES, THESE
LARGE COMPANIES WOULD PAY FOR
THOSE SALARIES OVER 150 AND AS
TOM MENTIONED, THE UPPER TIER
SALARY, FOLKS WHO WERE
PREVIOUSLY MAKING 500,000 AND
MORE HAS BEEN MOVED TO $400,000
AND IN THIS EFFORT AS YOU CAN
SEE, WHEN WE TOGGLE UP BY .3%,
THE HIGHER INCOME CATEGORY,
ANOTHER 2.2% IN THE MIDDLE
INCOME OR LARGE CATEGORY,
LARGE, VERY LARGE AND THE LARGE
CATEGORY, THAT ALLOWS FOR THE
KNOWN TOTAL TO BE COMPUTED TO
$214.3 MILLION.
THAT BRINGS UP THE TOTAL
PROPOSAL BY ABOUT $40 MILLION
WHILE KEEPING THE FIRST TIER
STAGNANT FOR WHAT LARGE
COMPANIES CAN ASSUME TO BE
ASSESSED IN THE CATEGORY
BETWEEN 150 AND 400.
THAT IS JUST FOR ADDITIONAL
TECHNICAL FEEDBACK.
ANYTHING ELSE?
AND WE HAVE A QUESTION.
OKAY.
YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR TOM?
>> THANK YOU.
TWO QUICK QUESTIONS.
AS IT RELATES TO THIS
PARTICULAR BOX.
THE FIRST ONE, THE TOTAL $214
MILLION TAG BASED ON THE
AMENDMENT IN ADDITION OF THE
MIDDLE TIER, IS THAT 214 MILLION
NUMBER STILL NOT INCLUSIVE OF
AN ESTIMATE FROM THE 1 BILLION
PAYROLL TIER, IS THAT SOMETHING
WHERE WE ARE NOT COMPLETELY
CLEAR ON HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL
REVENUE THAT WOULD BRING IN?
YOU ARE ON MUTE.
>> SORRY, YOU ARE ON MUTE ON
YOUR PHONE.
>> ON BOTH IT LOOKS LIKE.
WE HAVE ALLOWED TOM INTO THE
PRESENTATION.
IF NOT, GO AHEAD WITH THE
COMPUTER.
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>> YES, I CAN.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
WITH REGARD TO YOUR QUESTION,
THERE ARE TWO PIECES, ONE IS
THAT THE CALCULATION OF THE 214
MILLION IS THE SAME.
THE SAME BASE DATA AS USED FOR
THE ORIGINAL 173 1/2.
WITH REGARDS TO THE BILLION PLUS
PAYROLL TIER, THE DATA WE HAVE
DOES INCLUDE THE 1 BILLION+ BUT
IT DOESN'T PROVIDE THE
ADDITIONAL DETAIL TO FIGURE OUT
AN INCREMENTAL PORTION OF THE
HIGHER RATE THAT IS PROVIDED TO
THE LARGER BUSINESSES AS THEY
EXIST IN THE DATA.
THAT IS JUST A DETAILED WAY OF
SAYING THERE IS A PORTION OF
THE PAYROLL AND THE TAX
LIABILITY CAPTURED FOR THOSE
BILLION PLUS CORPORATIONS.
WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT DATA
TO FIGURE OUT THE INCREMENTAL
PIECE OVER AND ABOVE FOR EXAMPLE
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1.7% OR
.7% AT THE 150,000 LEVEL AND
1.4%.
IT IS ESSENTIALLY A .7%
INCREMENT THAT IS UNKNOWN FOR
PAYROLL EXPENSE FOR 150,000 TO
399,000.
AND A HALF PERCENT FOR
COMPENSATION OF 400,000 AND
ABOVE.
THAT IS THE PIECE WE CANNOT
ESTIMATE BECAUSE IT IS NOT
AVAILABLE.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING
THAT THAT WAS STILL THE CASE.
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AND I
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS
STILL THE CASE WITH THE
AMENDMENT.
OTHER QUESTION FOR THE SAKE OF
THE AUDIENCE AND ALL OF US HERE
ON THE COUNCIL.
JUST WANTED TO ASK SINCE WE ARE
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE RATES
CONVERSATION AND THE ESTIMATE,
I HAVE HEARD SOME CONCERN FROM
FOLKS IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
THAT WE ARE PERHAPS WITH THE
BASE DATA WE HAVE,
UNDERESTIMATING THE TOTAL
REVENUE AND I WANTED TO GIVE
YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUBLICLY
ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING
METHODOLOGY AND THE BASE DATA
SETS USED TO CREATE THE
ESTIMATES JUST SO WE CAN FOR
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WATCHING
AND FOR US AS COUNCILMEMBERS,
REITERATE BECAUSE I THINK YOU
MENTIONED WHEN WE HAD A MEETING
THREE WEEKS AGO BUT JUST TO
REMIND EVERYONE THE BASE DATA
AND METHODOLOGY USED TO DEVELOP
THE ESTIMATE.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THE BASE DATA CAME FROM A
DETAILED REQUEST TO THE STATE
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT.
FOR ESSENTIALLY REQUESTING
DETAIL ARRANGED IN A WAY THAT
SUPPORTED THE COMPENSATION
TEARS AS DESCRIBED.
FOR THE 150,000 TO WHILE
ORIGINALLY 500,000 AND THEN
500,000 AND ABOVE AND THEN ALSO
WE ASKED FOR THE PAYROLL, THE
TOTAL PAYROLL DATA OF $7 MILLION
TO $1 BILLION AND ABOVE.
THE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
DEPARTMENT IS LIMITED THROUGH
CONFIDENTIALITY TO DISCLOSE
INFORMATION THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE DESCRIBE EITHER IN A
CASE WHERE A BUSINESS CATEGORY
AND DATA IS DESCRIPTIVE OF
THREE OR FEWER EMPLOYERS OR A
CASE WHERE ONE EMPLOYER IS SUCH
THAT THEY REPRESENT 80% OR MORE
OF THE TOTAL IN THE CATEGORY.
SO DUE TO THE RESTRICTION, THEY
WERE NOT ABLE TO DISCLOSE AN
ADDITIONAL CUT OFF IDENTIFYING
BUSINESS THAT ARE AT $1 BILLION
AS ABOVE.
THAT GAVE US A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF DATA TO PROVIDE WHAT
WE HAVE DESCRIBED DURING THE
COURSE OF THE MEETINGS IN TERMS
OF THE LARGE PORTION OF THE
TEARS AND PAYROLL CUT OFF
AMOUNTS.
IT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO DETERMINE
THE ADDITIONAL INCREMENTAL
PIECE FOR ANY BUSINESSES THAT
ARE $1 BILLION AND ABOVE.
ONE ADDITIONAL POINT I WILL ADD
BY WAY OF HOW THE ESTIMATE WAS
DERIVED.
WE USED THE 2019 DATA AND
INFLATED THAT TO A 2021 VALUE
USING THE CBO REGIONAL FORECAST
FOR PUGET SOUND FOR THE SALARY
DISBURSEMENT GROWTH.
THAT WAS THE ABSENCE OF HOW IT
WAS DERIVED AND THE LIMITATIONS
OF THE DATA WITH REGARDS TO THE
BILL PAYROLL TIER.
>> THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT.
THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
TOM, DAN, THANK YOU FOR THE
NUMBERS AND I WANT TO TAKE A
SECOND TO THANK THE FOLKS AT ESD
THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR
TEAM TO PROVIDE THE DATA AND
HAVE BEEN VERY GRACIOUS TO
SHARE THEIR TIME AND PROVIDE
THE INFORMATION.
I WANT TO THANK THEM AT
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY FOR ALL
THEY ARE DOING IN THE MIDST OF
THE CRUNCH ON THE NEED TO GET
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND
FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE.
THANK YOU FOR THE TECHNICAL
QUESTION.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON, ANY
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL QUESTIONS?
WE WILL HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS
EACH OF THE AMENDMENTS BUT I
WANT TO HAVE FOLKS HAVE A
CHANCE TO HEAR ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THERE ARE AMENDMENTS RELATED
TO SOME EXEMPTIONS TO THE BASE
BILL THAT WILLIE WILL BE
CONSIDERING SO I WANT TO MAKE
SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT DOES NOT
INCLUDE ANY CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTIONS THAT WERE INCLUDED
BILL. INCLUDED IN THE BASE
>> THAT IS CORRECT, THIS IS
MERELY A STRUCTURAL CHANGE TO
THE PAYROLL TEARS IN THE
COMPENSATION TEARS.
IT DOESN'T TOUCH THE EXEMPTIONS
OR SUNSETS OR START DATES WHICH
WILL BE COVERED IN THE SECOND
HALF OF THE PRESENTATION.
>> TANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATION AND FOR ALLOWING
ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE
CLARIFICATION.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> I BELIEVE THE BASE
LEGISLATION ESTIMATED 2021
REVENUE TO BE $200 MILLION.
I AM SORRY, THE BASE
LEGISLATION ESTIMATED 2022
REVENUE TO BE $200 MILLION.
WHAT IF THIS PASSES, WHAT ARE
WE ASSUMING WOULD BE RAISED IN
2022?
IF WE HAVE THE INFORMATION.
>> THE ESTIMATE THAT STAFF HAS
PROVIDED IS 173 1/2 MILLION
DOLLARS FOR 2021 AND THE BASE
LEGISLATION.
WHICH DOVETAILS WITH THE
COUNCIL BILL 119811 4812.
THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY SPENT.
WE HAVE NOT PROVIDED A 2022
ESTIMATE OTHER THAN WHAT WOULD
BE ASSUMED IN TERMS OF INFLATION
FOR THE OTHER AMOUNT.
>> I THINK THE COUNCILMEMBER IS
REFERRING TO THE INFLATION
ASSUMPTION THAT GETS US TO 203
MILLION.
AS IT RELATES TO THE PLAN SINCE
YOU ARE USING THE NUMBERS,
COULD YOU COMMENT ON THE
QUESTION?
>> THANK YOU.
AS TOM INDICATED, THE ESTIMATE
FOR 2021 WAS 173.5 WHICH IS
WHAT THE SPENDING PLAN ASSUMED
FOR 2021 SPENDING.
THE 200 MILLION ASSUMED IN 2020
WAS THE REVENUE GOAL, IT IS NOT
BASED ON AN ESTIMATE THAT AT
THE REQUEST OF THE SPONSOR WE
USED THE GOAL ASSUMING THERE IS
SOME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
ESTIMATE AND THE DATA NOT
AVAILABLE.
SO THE SPENDING PLAN WAS USING
THE REVENUE GOAL RATHER THAN AN
ESTIMATE FOR 2022 AND BEYOND.
>> AND FOR TECHNICAL
CLARIFICATION, I THINK THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS
THAT IF AS TOM WAS SAYING, THE
KNOWN AMOUNT WAS PREVIOUSLY 173
AND THE NOW KNOWN AMOUNT IS
214.3.
THAT GETS TO THE COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS QUESTION ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL UNKNOWN CALCULATION
THAT WOULD BE THE MULTIPLIER
EFFECT OF HAVING THAT THIRD
CATEGORY FOR THE MEGA
COMPANIES.
THAT IS NOT FACTORED IN TO TO
14 IF I AS AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD
BE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HOW
THAT WOULD BE ADDED, YOU COULD
ASSUME IT WOULD BE 200 MILLION
DOLLARS THRESHOLD.
WE WILL, THAT IS PART OF THE
ASSUMPTION.
THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THESE
NUMBERS IS THESE ARE THE KNOWN
DOLLARS.
YOU COULD COMPARE 214.32 173.5.
THANK YOU, PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> LET ME ASK THE QUESTION
DIFFERENTLY.
IF UNDER THE BASE LEGISLATION,
THE SPEND GOAL FOR 2022 WAS
$200 MILLION, IF THIS AMENDMENT
PASSES WHAT WOULD BE THE 2022
SPEND GOAL?
>> YOU LANDED ON THE CHALLENGE
HERE OF TRYING TO SORT OUT THE
DETAILED SPENDING PLAN WHILE
THE CONVERSATION IS ABOUT WHAT
THE RATE IS AND HOW MUCH
REVENUE IS ESTIMATED TO COME
IN.
SORT OF IS A LITTLE BIT OF A
PICKLE.
ESSENTIALLY THE SPEND PLAN,
THAT IS WHY WE DON'T HAVE THOSE
DETAILS DEVELOPED YET.
WHAT I HAVE ASSUMED IF I RERAN
THE HOUSING MODEL FOR EXAMPLE,
USING THE NEW ESTIMATES WITH
THIS ADJUSTED RATE I ASSUMED A
SMALL INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT
TO THE $214 MILLION WOULD BE
APPLIED.
FOR EXAMPLE, ONE WAY TO THINK
ABOUT THIS IS IF WE ASSUME THE
SPENDING PLAN STAYS THE SAME AS
THE BILL AS INTRODUCED, 65%
WOULD GO TO HOUSING IN 2022,
STARTING WITH HOUSING
INVESTMENTS I WOULD ASSUME 3400
UNITS WOULD BE DEVELOPED OVER
THE 10 YEARS WHEREAS THE BILL
IS INTRODUCED AND HAS AN
ESTIMATE OF 3200 UNITS. I
DIDN'T REAPPLY A GOAL VERSUS
ESTIMATE BUT I USED THE 2021
ESTIMATE AND ADJUSTED IT
SLIGHTLY FOR INFLATION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON HAS
HIS HAND UP.
THE MATH I HAVE USED IS ADDING
35 MILLION AS AN ASSUMED AMOUNT
TO THE TOTAL YOU SEE.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> THANK YOU.
THANKS TO CENTRAL STAFF FOR
PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS SO THANK YOU FOR
ORGANIZING THEM FOR EVERYONE
HERE TODAY.
MY QUESTION IS GETTING BACK TO
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS QUESTION, I
WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD
THE RESPONSE ON THE 1 BILLION
AND MORE PAYROLL TIER.
214 MILLION, THAT IS ALL THE
DOLLAR AMOUNTS FOR THE 1
BILLION PAYROLL TIER AND ABOVE,
ALL THOSE ARE KNOWN OR ARE THEY
NOT KNOWN BECAUSE EMPLOYMENT
SECURITY WAS NOT ABLE TO
DISCLOSE THAT.
I WAS UNCLEAR ON THAT.
>> YES, THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.
IT IS DEEP INTO THE DESCRIPTION
OF HOW IT IS WORKED.
WE HAVE DATA FOR THE ENTIRE
PAYROLL AMOUNTS THAT ARE
COLLECTED BY THE EMPLOYMENT
SECURITY DEPARTMENT, FOR ALL
SIZES OF BUSINESSES, $7 MILLION.
WHEN RUNNING THE MODEL TO
DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF
ESTIMATED WILL REVENUE, WE CAN
APPLY -- FOR EXAMPLE OF THIS
AMENDMENT, THE .7% RATE TO ALL
BUSINESSES THAT ARE $100
MILLION AND ABOVE THAT INCLUDES
BUSINESSES OF $1 BILLION AND
ABOVE, JUST BY VIRTUE OF THE
ASSUMPTION THAT ANYTHING OVER
$100 MILLION INCLUDES 100
MILLION AND ABOVE.
AND ALSO WE CAN ASSUME THAT
SINCE THE DATA INCLUDES ALL
BUSINESS DATA THAT THE RATE
TEAR OF 1.9% WHICH IS APPLIED TO
COMPENSATION OF 400,000 AND
ABOVE FOR THE 100 MILLION CAN
ALSO BE APPLIED TO THE
BUSINESSES THAT ARE $1 BILLION
AND ABOVE.
THAT IS A DETAILED WAY OF
SAYING THAT FOUR BUSINESSES OF
$1 BILLION AND ABOVE, WE HAVE
THE DATA TO CALCULATE THE .7%
FOR THE PAYROLL EXPENSE,
450,000 TO 399 AND WE HAVE THE
DATA TO CALCULATE THE PAYROLL
EXPENSE FOR COMPENSATION OF 400
AND ABOVE AT 4.9%.
WHAT WE CAN DO IS FIGURE OUT
THE INCREMENTAL PORTIONS OF THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1.4% AND .7%
FOR 150,000 400,000.
IN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2.4%
AND 1.9% FOR THE CONVERSATION
OF 400,000 AND ABOVE.
>> THAT IS OKAY, I DON'T NEED
THAT BROKEN DOWN.
WHAT I NEED IS TO KNOW WHETHER
THE 214 MILLION AS
UNDERESTIMATING WHAT WE MIGHT
BE ABLE TO OBTAIN. AND
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE EMPLOYMENT
SECURITY DEPARTMENT, WE DID
ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR
NOT THERE IS ANY PAYROLL
EXPENSE AT $1 BILLION AND ABOVE
AND THEY WERE UNABLE THROUGH
CONFIDENTIALITY TO DISCLOSE
WHETHER THERE IS OR IS NOT DATA
IN THAT CATEGORY.
IT WOULD BE AN ASSUMPTION THAT
ONE COULD MAKE THAT THERE IS
ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT IS NOT
BEING DESCRIBED BY THE
ESTIMATES THAT WE ARE GIVING.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA TO
CONFIRM THAT ASSUMPTION.
>> THE REASON I ASK THIS
QUESTION AS THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HAD A QUESTION ABOUT
INCLUDING EXEMPTIONS, THE
ANSWER IS NO.
I GUESS I AM TRYING TO GET AT
MAYBE THIS IS UNDERESTIMATING
WHAT THE POTENTIAL REVENUE IS
WHICH WOULD THEN MAKE ROOM FOR
EXEMPTIONS THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO
MAKE LATER AND I WANTED TO
UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT WAS
KNOWN AND UNKNOWN WITH THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT.
>> IF YOU DON'T MIND ME JUMPING
IN.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO PUT
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
LEDGER, SOME OF THE
UNCERTAINTIES THAT MAY MAKE OUR
REVENUE ESTIMATE TOO HIGH.
YOU HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THE
DIFFERENTIAL FOR BUSINESSES
THAT ARE ABOVE $1 BILLION.
IF THERE ARE BUSINESSES THAT
HAVE MORE THAN $1 BILLION OF
PAYROLL AND I THINK MY
ASSUMPTION IS THEY ARE BUT I
DON'T HAVE DAVID TO DEMONSTRATE
THAT.
THE REVENUE ESTIMATE HAS SOME
SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTIES TO
IT.
USING 2019 DATA FROM BEFORE
WHEN THE COVID EMERGENCY STARTED
AND WE MADE ASSUMPTIONS TO THE
EXPECTED 2021 REVENUE.
BUT THOSE ARE ASSUMPTIONS THAT
WE CAN'T KNOW IF THEY ARE RIGHT
OR NOT.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OUR BASE
ESTIMATE IS TOO LOW BECAUSE WE
ARE NOT CAPTURING THE
INCREMENTAL TAX REVENUE FROM
TE HIGHER RATES FOR THE
BILLION DOLLARS AND ABOVE.
IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE OUR
ESTIMATE IS TOO HIGH BECAUSE WE
HAVE TOO ROSY OF A PICTURE OF
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN 2021 AND
BEYOND.
WITH THE COVID EMERGENCY
AFFECTING PAYROLL EFFECTIVELY.
SO HOW THOSE BALANCE EACH OTHER
OUT IS UNKNOWABLE AT THIS POINT.
>> GREAT QUESTIONS.
ANY FOLLOW-UP?
>> NO THANK YOU.
IT MAY JUST .2 WHEN WE DO THE
SPENDING PLAN PROVIDING
FLEXIBILITY.
IF THIS IS ADOPTED, THERE IS
FLEXIBILITY AT THE REVENUE
AMOUNTS THAT COME IN HIGHER OR
LOWER THAN EXPECTED THEN THERE
IS SOME AUTOMATIC WAY THAT
ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE, DOING
THINGS BASED ON PERCENTAGE
RATHER THAN THE DIFFERENT
SPENDING BUCKETS DOING IT BASED
ON PERCENTAGES RATHER THAN
BASED ON DOLLAR AMOUNTS OR
SOMETHING TO PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY.
>> GREAT POINT.
I SAW COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF,
CAN YOU TAKE YOURSELF OFF MUTE
AND COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
I ASSUME WE WANT TO REMIND
FOLKS THAT IS A GREAT REMINDER
FOR US.
THIS IS PART OF THE REASON WE
ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING A
BREAK NEXT WEEK SO WE CAN
CONTINUE TO GET FEEDBACK ON THE
AMOUNT THAT IS RAISED FROM THE
POTENTIAL TAX AND PLUG THAT
INTO THE SPEND PLAN THROUGHOUT
NEXT WEEK SO YOU WILL HAVE THE
TEXT IN FRONT OF YOU FOR
CONSIDERATION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING?
>> THANK YOU.
I WOULDN'T ADD MUCH, YOU SAID
WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY THE
ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS TO
NOTE THAT ULTIMATELY WHEN THE
COUNCIL ADOPTS A SPENDING PLAN
IT WOULD BE PERCENTAGE BASED
AND IT IS FORMALIZED THROUGH
THE ANNUAL BUDGET ADOPTION
PROCESS THROUGH SPECIFIC
APPROPRIATIONS WHERE YOU ARE
ALLOCATING AND AUTHORIZING
SPENDING OF DOLLARS SO IT IS
REFINED THROUGH THE ANNUAL
BUDGET ADOPTION PROCESS.
>> THINK YOU FOR THE REMINDER.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF
THIS IS A QUESTION FOR DAN OR A
QUESTION FOR TOM.
I WANT TO THROW OUT THERE TO
CENTRAL STAFF, I KNOW WE ARE
CLEAR ON HOW MANY TAXPAYERS ARE
IN THE 1 BILLION PAYROLL TIER.
PROBABLY NOT A WHOLE BUNCH, I
WONDER IF WE HAVE ESTIMATES OF
WHAT THE BASE IS FOR THE 100
MILLION TO 999.9 MILLION TEAR.
IF WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA, THE
UNIVERSE OF COMPANIES THAT IT
WOULD IMPACT AND HOW CONFIDENT
WE ARE OF THE ESTIMATES WITHIN
THE MIDDLE TIER.
>> THANK YOU.
I CAN TAKE THAT QUESTION.
IN THE ORIGINAL DATA EXPLORATION
WITH TRYING TO IDENTIFY AT WHAT
POINT THEY COULD DISCLOSE DATA,
THAT POINT WAS $100 MILLION.
SO THEY DID PROVIDE THE DETAIL.
I THINK THERE ARE 32 COMPANIES
THAT WERE IN NO 100 MILLION AND
ABOVE.
SIMILARLY, FOR THE AMENDMENT
THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING NOW, WE
MADE AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST TO
DEFINE THE 400,000 AND ABOVE
EMPLOYEE EXPENSE TIER SO WE
HAVE THAT DATA, AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THAT
COVERS BUT WE DO, THERE WAS DATA
TO ENABLE US TO SET THE RATES
AT THESE TEARS AS DESCRIBED.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK
CLARIFICATION, MAYBE YOU ARE
GOING TO ASK.
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS WAS
ASKING ABOUT THE TEAR BETWEEN
100 MILLION AND 1 BILLION AND I
THINK YOU WERE ANSWERING ABOVE
100 MILLION INCLUSIVE OF, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> ACTUALLY, YOU DID PREEMPT MY
FOLLOW-UP.
THAT WAS HOW I TOOK TOM'S
RESPONSE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY.
WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD DATA
PICTURE FOR THE NUMBER OF
COMPANIES ABOVE 100 MILLION BUT
ABOVE THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE
A GREAT IDEA OF HOW MANY THOSE
ARE ABOVE A QUARTER MILLION,
HALF-BILLION, 1 BILLION.
WE KNOW THERE ARE 32 COMPANIES
ABOVE 100 MILLION.
IS THAT A GOOD READ?
>> CORRECT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE CENTRAL STAFF
TO CONTINUE JUST FOR THE
PROCESS WE ARE ENGAGED IN.
WE ARE HEARING THE AMENDMENTS
IN THIS FIRST CATEGORY THAT
CENTRAL STAFF PROVIDED ON THE
SIDE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT SO
WE ARE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT
AMENDMENT NUMBER 20, 11, 15, 16
AND 17 AND WE WILL GET INTO THE
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTIONS.
REMINDING FOLKS WE ARE IN THE
OVERVIEW SECTION.
TOM AND DAN, PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> I WILL NOW TALK ABOUT
AMENDMENT 11.
AMENDMENT 11 ESSENTIALLY, THIS
GETS INTO REFERRING BACK TO THE
MATRIX, THE INSTANCE WHERE IT
IS A TAX STRUCTURE CHANGE SO IT
CONFLICTS WITH OTHER SUBSEQUENT
AMENDMENTS.
WHAT THIS DOES IS IN ORDER TO
GENERATE A TOTAL OF $500
MILLION OF ANNUAL ESTIMATED
REVENUE, IT IS IMPLEMENTING THE
TAX AMAZON TAX APPROACH SO IT
REMOVES THE SUNSET PROVISION,
THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
PROVISION WHICH IS THE INSTANCE
WHERE COUNCIL WILL ASSESS
OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION,
PROGRESSIVE TAX OPTIONS AND
REPEAL THE TAX OR AMENDMENTS IF
NECESSARY IF THERE IS AN
OVERLAP IN JURISDICTION, IT
WOULD MOVE THE PAYROLL EXPENSE,
COMPENSATION TEAR, THE DIFFERENT
GRADATIONS OF BUSINESS PAYROLL
AND REPLACES IT WITH A SINGLE
CUT OFF OF $7 MILLION AND ABOVE
IN TOTAL EXPENSE.
IT AS A SINGLE TAX RATE OF
1.63% APPLY TO ALL NONEXEMPT
PAYROLL EXEMPT AN EXEMPTION FOR
NONPROFIT BUSINESS AND HOME
CARE AGENCIES, IT ADDS A
DEFINITION OF INTEGRATED
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE OF A SINGLE
BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CALCULATING THE TOTAL PAYROLL
EXPENSE AGAINST THE THRESHOLD,
PRECLUDES DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENTS
AND CHANGES THE START DATE OF
THE TAX TO AUGUST 1st, 2020.
>> NOT FOR DEBATE, JUST FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.
>> TO REITERATE SOMETHING DOM
MENTIONED TO CLARIFY.
AMENDMENT 11 IS NOT IN CONFLICT
WITH AMENDMENT 20, IF THIS
WOULD PASS IT WOULD REPLACE THE
STRUCTURE SO THOSE ARE NOT IN
CONFLICT.
>> THANK YOU.
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
LET'S GO ON TO AMENDMENT 15.
>> THANK YOU.
AMENDMENT 15 DOES A FEW
STRUCTURAL CHANGES AND ALSO
CHANGES THE RATES IN THE
LEGISLATION, REMOVES THE SUNSET
PROVISION, THE LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD, INCREASES THE TOTAL RATE
ACROSS ALL PAYROLL EXPENSE AND
COMPENSATION TEARS, PRECLUDES A
DOWNWARD INFLATION ADJUSTMENT
INTO THRESHOLDS AND EXEMPTION
AMOUNT AND IT CHANGES THE TAX
START DATE TO AUGUST 1st FROM
JANUARY 1st OF 2020 OR 2021.
THE ESTIMATED PORTION OF THE
CHANGES RESULTS IN A REVISED
REVENUE ESTIMATE OF $466
MILLION IN 2021 AND 194.5 AND
2020.
THIS BRINGS IN AN ADDITIONAL
$293 MILLION IN ESTIMATED BILL
REVENUES IN 2021 AND THE TAX
BILL DOES NOT DO THIS BUT AS
DESCRIBED BY THE SPONSOR OF THE
AMENDMENT, THE INTENT IS FOR
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
REPLACEMENT IN 2021.
>> NOT FOR DEBATE BUT ANY
QUESTIONS?
I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
>> IN RELATION TO THE AMENDMENT
NUMBER 20 THAT WE DISCUSSED,
THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS.
WHEN WE GO BACK TO CONSIDERING
AMENDMENT NUMBER 20, NUMBER 15
WILL COME AS AN AMENDMENT 28
WHICH WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO
AMENDMENT 20 BECAUSE IT WOULD
BE UNDER THAT STRUCTURE BEING
DISCUSSED.
JUST TO EXPLAIN, IT WOULD BE
DISCUSSED AS AMENDMENT A AND
NUMBER 16 WHERE WE DISCUSS 20
AND 17 WOULD DISCUSS AS
AMENDMENT NUMBER 20 C AND THEY
ALSO APPEAR AS -- WE PREPARED
THEM AS STANDALONE AMENDMENTS
BUT ONE AMENDMENT 20, [
INAUDIBLE ] .
>> APPRECIATE THAT, TO
REITERATE, A BNC ABSENT BY
STAFF EQUALS 15, 16 AND 17 FOR
PEOPLE FOLLOWING ALONG.
HEARING NO ADDITIONAL QUESTION
, PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> AMENDMENT 16, IT MAKES
CHANGES TO THE TAX RATE IN THE
INTRODUCED LEGISLATION TO
GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $52
MILLION IN ESTIMATED WILL
REVENUE IN 2021.
AND AGAIN, SIMILARLY NOT
INCLUDED IN THE BILL, THE INTENT
OF THE SPONSOR IS THE REVENUE
WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE
AMENDMENT TO THE COUNCIL BILL
TO BUILD 1000+ HOMES IN THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT FOR PEOPLE.
>> THANK YOU.
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> SIMILARLY AMENDMENT 17
REVISES THE RATE IN THE
INTRODUCED BILL TO GENERATE $52
MILLION IN ESTIMATED WILL
REVENUE, THESE WOULD BE
ASSOCIATED WITH A SPENDING PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE GREEN NEW
DEAL INVESTMENTS.
>> TECHNICAL QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE THE SUMMARY?
>> YES.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL
OF THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE, THE
CENTRAL STAFF TEAM IS WORKING
AROUND THE CLOCK AND MAKING THE
REVIEW OF THIS VERY EASY TO
FOLLOW, THANK YOU FOR THE
FOLLOW THROUGH AND BEING
FLEXIBLE WITH THE SCREEN.
I MOVED TO AMEND THE COUNCIL
BILL AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT
20, IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADOPT
AS PRESENTED ON THE AGENDA AND
DESCRIBED BY CENTRAL STUFF.
I WANT TO TURN TO COUNCILMEMBER
MIRELES AS COSPONSOR.
TO TEE UP THE DISCUSSION ON THE
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO AS WE BEGIN THE
CONVERSATION, I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
WITHOUT HER URGING THE BODY TO
CONSIDER THE IDEA OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, IT IS LIKELY WE MAY NOT
HAVE,.
THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL WAS
HERE WHEN THE TAX WAS REPEALED
AND I KNOW THERE WAS REAL
TREPIDATION ABOUT REVISITING
THE TOPIC.
UNDERSTANDABLY SO.
I WANT TO THANK THE
COUNCILMEMBER.
TODAY WE ARE VOTING ON MAJOR
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN HOW WE
FINANCE PUBLIC SERVICES AND
THROUGHOUT THE RENEWED BUDGET
DISCUSSION I HAVE BEEN VOICING
THE REVENUE PACKAGE THAT BEGINS
TO ADDRESS THE ENORMITY OF THE
ISSUES WE FACE.
I DIDN'T REALIZE WHEN I
COSPONSORED THE ORIGINAL BILL
THAT WE WOULD BE STARING DOWN A
$300 MILLION BUDGET SHORTFALL
OR FACED WITH A PUBLIC HEALTH
AND FINANCIAL CRISIS BOTH OF
WHICH HAVE LAID BARE THE
DEVASTATING IMPACT OF THE
LAYERS OF INEQUITY IN OUR
SOCIETY.
THIS AMENDMENT AS WE HAVE BEEN
SAYING INSERTS A THIRD TIER
INTO THE TAX RATES.
I WANT TO THANK TOM AGAIN FOR
WORKING WITH ME TO DETERMINE
WHERE THE THIRD RATE SHOULD GO,
WEAR THAT SHOULD GO.
AND FOR HELPING US GET TO AN
ADDITIONAL $35 MILLION FOR THE
COMMUNITY AND AS I SAT I WANT
TO THANK THE COUNCILMEMBER FOR
THE CONVERSATIONS AROUND HOW WE
GET HERE SO THAT WE CAN GET
ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR OUR
COMMUNITY. I THINK IT IS A
TESTAMENT TO THE POWER OF
COLLABORATIVE GOVERNMENTS THAT
WE PRODUCE OUTCOMES FOR THE
COMMUNITY.
SO MANY CHALLENGES THE CITY IS
FACING.
>> APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND
WORK.
WE WILL MAKE A FEW COMMENTS AND
TURN IT OVER FOR FOLKS TO
DISCUSS.
I WANT TO ECHO APPRECIATION FOR
THE ONGOING PUSH, I THINK THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE FIRST GOT
THE BALL ROLLING IN TERMS OF
RENEWING OUR DISCUSSION AROUND
WHAT IT MEANS TO INVEST IN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND I THINK
THAT ALSO INITIATED SOME
INCREDIBLY PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS AT THE STATE
LEVEL TO KEEP THE PRESSURE ON.
I WANT TO THINK THE WORK THAT
YOU DID TO INTRODUCE THE FIRST
BILL WHICH PROMPTED FOLKS TO
ADVOCATE IN OLYMPIA FOR THE
BILL SHE INTRODUCED.
EVEN THOUGH IT DIDN'T MOVE
FORWARD IT CONTINUE TO SHOW THE
PEOPLE IN COMMUNITY ARE CALLING
FOR US AND WE KNOW THIS ALONE
WILL NOT CLOSE THE GAP THAT WE
NEED AND WE ALSO NEED TO
CONTINUE TO COUPLE CITY
RESOURCES WITH REGIONAL, STATE
AND FEDERAL DOLLARS TO RESPOND
TO THE CRISIS.
AND WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU AND
FOLLOWING THE MODEL THAT THE
COUNCILMEMBER DISCUSSED LAST
WEEK, I THINK THIS PROPOSAL
BRINGS UP THE KNOWN DOLLAR
AMOUNT BY $40 MILLION.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER
TAMMY J. MORALES TO MOVE THE
DIAL TO CONTINUE TO EXPLORE
WAYS FOR US TO PUSH AND DO
BETTER BY COMMUNITIES WHO DON'T
TYPICALLY HAVE A SEAT AT THE
TABLE.
THE AMENDMENT DOES JUST THAT BY
ADDING 40 MILLION IN REVENUE
COLLECTED, KNOWN REVENUE
COLLECTED AND WE CAN INVEST
THIS YEAR IN COVID NEEDS AND IN
THE YEARS ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS CRISIS.
AS A REMINDER WE WILL CONTINUE
TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW
TO MOVE THE DIALS AND
PERCENTAGES IN THE SPEND PLAN
AS WE RECONVENE ON THE 15th.
THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US
WOULD REFLECT MANY IN THE
COMMUNITY INCLUDING LABOR AND
BUSINESS AND ADVOCATES, SMALL
BUSINESSES AND COMMUNITY
ADVOCATES WHO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED
IN THE CONVERSATION WOULD LIKE
US TO DIAL UP THE DOLLAR AMOUNT
TO THE DEGREE POSSIBLE ALLOWS
US TO KEEP THE INITIAL
PERCENTAGE POINT CONSTANT AS WE
INTRODUCED IT BUT ALSO
RECOGNIZE THE HIGHER SALARIES
COULD OBSERVE MORE OF AN
ASSESSMENT AND BRING THAT UP AND
REALLY MAKES HIM INCREDIBLE
PROGRESS.
THANKS EVERYONE WHO PROVIDED
FEEDBACK FOR YOUR COSPONSORSHIP
AND LEADERSHIP.
OTHER COMMENTS ON AMENDMENT 20?
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS
AMENDMENT, I WANT TO SIGNAL WE
ARE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH
THESE WITH EVERYONE ELSE SO WE
ARE NARROWING DOWN AS A GROUP
WHAT THE ULTIMATE BILL WILL BE.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY SIGNAL
MY SUPPORT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINAL
PACKAGE IS BUT I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
I BELIEVE I SAW ANOTHER HAND.
IS THAT COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> I WILL AND THIS SHOULD COME
AS NO SURPRISE BUT I AM
ABSOLUTELY FOR ANY AND ALL
MEASURE THAT WILL RAISE MORE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE AND BY
TAXING THE WEALTHIEST
CORPORATIONS AND PEOPLE IN OUR
SATIETY TO FUND WORKING
PEOPLE'S NEEDS.
THIS MEASURE THAT WOULD BRING
AN ESTIMATED $40 MILLION IS
SOMETHING I WILL SUPPORT
ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY THIS IS NOT
ENOUGH IN TERMS OF MAKING THE
WHOLE TAX WITH THE SCALE OF THE
CRISIS AND THAT IS WHY THE
OTHER AMENDMENT TAKES THE WHOLE
AMOUNT THAT IS RAISED PER YEAR
UP TO $500 MILLION AND ALSO I
WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN I CAN
MOVE MY AMENDMENTS [ INAUDIBLE
] .
>> DID I SEE ANOTHER HAND?
BEFORE WE CONSIDER, IT HAS BEEN
MOVED AND SECONDED, BEFORE WE
CONSIDER VOTING, I WILL COME
BACK TO YOU.
ANY COMMENTS?
I AM NOT SEEING ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ANY
OF YOUR AMENDMENTS, NOW IS THE
TIME TO CONSIDER THEM.
>> FIRST I MOVED TO AMEND
AMENDMENT 20 AS PRESENTED ON
AMENDMENT 28.
I MOVE TO AMEND AMENDMENT 20 AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT 28.
MY OFFICE CIRCULATED A COPY OF
THIS EARLIER THIS MORNING AS I
SAID BEFORE, TAKING THE PLACE
OF AMENDMENT 15 WHICH WAS
PRESENTED BY THE OFFICE AS A
STANDALONE AMENDMENT IT WOULD
RAISE AN ADDITIONAL $293 MILLION
THE MAYOR ANNOUNCED AND THERE
WILL BE AT LEAST $290 MILLION
OF CUTS AND I BELIEVE THAT IS
THE FIRST ROUND OF CUTS.
THERE WILL BE MORE COMING AND
IT MEANS ALL THE BURDEN IS
PLACED ON SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT
ARE MARGINALIZED AND IT MEANS
MANDATORY FURLOUGHS AND LOSS OF
JOBS FOR OUR CITY EMPLOYEES AND
I DON'T MEAN THE POLICE.
THIS WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR
THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT A BUDGET
THAT WOULD HAVE ZERO CUTS AND I
WILL SAY THE MAYOR HAS SAID THE
BUDGET CUTS ARE UNAVOIDABLE,
THAT IS DISHONEST AND
UNCONSCIOUS SYMBOL, THERE IS NO
EXCUSE FOR THIS TO BE FORCED ON
WORKING PEOPLE AND THOSE WHO
ARE IN NEED OF SERVICES AND I
WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO
SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
AND IT WOULD RAISE $290 MILLION.
>> THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
CURING NO SECOND.
EMOTION FAILS.
DO YOU WANT TO MOVE TO YOUR
NEXT AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU.
I MOVE TO AMEND AMENDMENT 20,
THIS IS A REPLICA OF AMENDMENT
16 WHICH WE HAVE ADOPTED INTO
THE STRUCTURE OF AMENDMENT 20
AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD PUT AN
ADDITIONAL $50 MILLION, 50 ODD
MILLION DOLLARS, I DON'T HAVE
THE EXACT FIGURE.
$50 MILLION TO THE REVENUE BY
RAISING THE TAX RATE AND PUT
THE FUNDS INTO BUILDING 1000
HOMES IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT
TO BEGIN TO REVERSE RACIST
GENTRIFICATION AND AS THE
REVEREND, PASTOR OF SEATTLE
FIRST METHODIST SAID EARLIER
THIS MONTH AT A PRESS
CONFERENCE THAT WE HAD UNVEILED
THE CALL FOR 1000 HOMES IN THE
DISTRICT FOR THE BLACK
COMMUNITY.
HE SAID SIMPLY PUT, IF BLACK
LIVES MATTER, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR BLACK FAMILIES IN
THE CENTRAL AREA SHOULD MATTER,
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT USED TO BE
GREATER THAN 70% AFRICAN-
AMERICAN, SOME DECADES AGO AND
IT IS LESS THAN 18%.
FIRST THERE WAS RACIAL
GENTRIFICATION AND NOW THERE IS
ECONOMIC GENTRIFICATION AND
THAT AFFECTS COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN
THE NATIVE COMMUNITY THE
HARDEST.
PRIVATE DEVELOPERS GENTRIFYING
WITH THE POLITICAL
ESTABLISHMENT BLOCKING RENT
CONTROL AND UNDERFUNDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TAKING
LAND FROM CHURCHES.
I WOULD UNDERSCORE THIS HAS
POWERFUL SUPPORT TO THE LETTERS
SIGNED BY 220 FAITH LEADERS AND
ACTIVISTS AND YOU HAVE ALL
RECEIVED THOSE AND I WANT TO
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL
DOLLARS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT
COMMUNITIES OF COLORS AND THOSE
PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER AND
ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL,
THERE IS LIMITED FUNDS AND WE
HAVE TO STRUGGLE TO PRIORITIZE
ALL THE NEEDS.
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
PRIORITIZING 1000 HOMES FOR
BLACK FAMILIES IN THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT IN ADDITION TO
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
THROUGHOUT THE CITY FOR ALL OUR
NEEDY COMMUNITIES.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THESE ARE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE AMAZON TAX
LEGISLATION ACCORDING TO THE
LEGISLATION IT WOULD BILL 3300
PERMANENT HOUSING UNITS AND 900
UNITS TRYING TO [ INAUDIBLE ]
THE MATH IS UNFORGIVING SO I
WOULD URGE A SECOND TO THE
AMENDMENT IN A VOTE.
>> THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
HEARING NONE, THE MOTION FAILS.
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT,
PLEASE PROCEED AS WE CAN COME
BACK BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE
YOU GET TO THE ITEM.
>> I MOVE TO AMEND AMENDMENT 20
AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT 20 C.
THIS IS THE SAME AS AMENDMENT
17, RESTRUCTURE FOR AMENDMENT
20.
IT WOULD ADD $50 MILLION TO THE
REVENUE BY RAISING THE TAX RATE
TO FUND THE GREEN NEW DEAL
PROJECT AND JOB CREATION.
I WOULD START BY MAKING THE
SAME ARGUMENT I MADE EARLIER
THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT
RESTRUCTURING A LIMITED -- BUT
INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF
REVENUE SO WE CAN BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR BLACK
FAMILIES IN THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT, THROUGHOUT THE CITY
AND EXPAND GREEN NEW DEAL
PROGRAMS.
LAST YEAR THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED
FOR THE GREEN NEW DEAL
RESOLUTION AND DECLARED A
COMMITMENT TO FUND AND
ESTABLISH DEDICATED PROGRESSIVE
THIS WOULD DO JUST THAT AND I
WANT TO PARAPHRASE AMANDA WHO
SPOKE ON BEHALF OF OF [
INAUDIBLE ], THE PARTNER
ORGANIZATION WHO SAID WE WANT
ACTION TO REPRESENT THE
COMMITMENT TO THE GREEN NEW
DEAL AND VESTING ENERGY
EFFICIENT UPGRADES TO HOMES,
INVESTMENT IN RENEWABLE ENERGY
AND CREATE SUPPORT OF 20,000
JOBS THAT WOULD BENEFIT
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES.
I WANT TO THANK [ INAUDIBLE ]
AND THE SIERRA CLUB FURTHER
RELEASE THIS MORNING SUPPORTING
THE AMENDMENT.
I WILL SAY THIS IS A SMALL
AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR BIG BUSINESS
, $50 MILLION ADDITIONALLY PER
YEAR.
I URGE THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT
THIS AND I DON'T ACCEPT
UPCOMING COMMENTS THAT THIS IS
INCLUDED.
THERE IS NO DEDICATED FUNDING
FOR THE GREEN NEW DEAL AND IF
THERE IS [ INAUDIBLE ] , THE
MATHEMATICS IS MATHEMATICS OF
DOLLARS AVAILABLE FOR ORDINARY
PEOPLE, POOR PEOPLE WHO FIGHT
FOR CLIMATE JUSTICE, THOSE HAVE
UNFORGIVING MATHEMATICS AND IF
WE DON'T PUT DOLLARS ON THE
TABLE FOR THE CRISIS, THAT
WOULD COME, ONE WOULD COME AT
THE EXPENSE OF SOMETHING ELSE.
SO IF WE ARE GOING TO FUND, IT
WOULD COME AT THE EXPENSE OF'S
-- [ INAUDIBLE ] IS MOVING THE
PIECES AROUND.
I THINK IT WOULD BE WRONG ON
OUR PART AND WE NEED TO RAISE
THE TAX, THIS IS BARE MINIMUM
SUFFICIENT FUNDS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE OVERVIEW.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED, IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBERS, WE HAVE
AMENDMENT NUMBER 17, IS THAT
CORRECT?
WE HAVE AMENDMENT 17 IN FRONT
OF US WHICH IS LABELED
AMENDMENT 20 C.
>> IF I COULD?
IT IS TECHNICALLY AMENDMENT 20 C
, 17 IS STANDALONE.
>> I THINK THAT IS WHAT SHE
MEANT.
>> I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU
MEANT.
>> THE CONTENT IS NOW IN FRONT
OF US, RETITLED AMENDMENT SEE
TO AMENDMENT 20.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT
THE STATEMENT, IF YOU DON'T
MIND, IT IS THE SAME.
COULD YOU PULL UP THE EFFECT
STATEMENT FOR US?
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
WE WILL ENTERTAIN COMMENTS AND
QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM.
I AM NOT SEEING ANY HANDS.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU
WOULD LIKE TO SAY?
>> I WANT TO FOLLOW UP AND ASK
A QUESTION BECAUSE YOU DID
ALLUDE TO IT AND I KNOW WE HAVE
HAD DISCUSSIONS AND I WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVOCACY.
YOU BELIEVE THAT THE BASE
LEGISLATION AND THE AMENDMENTS
DON'T ADDRESS THE LEGISLATION
WE PASSED IN SUPPORT OF CLIMATE
CHANGE IN THE MONEY WE
DEDICATED FOR THE EFFORT.
I GAVE YOU THE SECOND BECAUSE I
WANTED TO HEAR MORE WHY YOU
FELT IT WAS OR IT WAS DEFICIENT
IN ADDRESSING THE ISSUE IN THE
FUNDS TO PROMOTE THE PURPOSE.
>> [ INAUDIBLE ] RETROFITTING
OF MASSIVE NUMBERS OF HOMES AND
THESE WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL
PLACES FOR WORKING-CLASS AND
MIDDLE-CLASS AND THIS WOULD
ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE QUESTION [
INAUDIBLE ] IN THAT SENSE, IT
IS UNFUNDED AND THE EXISTING
LEGISLATION.
I THINK FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT
NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
IS THE OTHER POINT I MADE.
MOST OF THE THINGS THAT ARE
UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE BASE
LEGISLATION, I STRONGLY SUPPORT
AND I MADE IT CLEAR I SUPPORT
ANY DOLLAR WE CAN WIN THROUGH
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE FOR ANY OF
THESE, COVID RELIEF, ASSISTANCE
TO IMMIGRANT FAMILIES,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR GREEN NEW
DEAL AVENUES AND PROGRAMS.
THE PROBLEM IS THE OVERALL
NUMBERS ARE SMALL AND IT
DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH WE SAY
WE ARE COMMITTING, EACH WILL GET
VERY LITTLE FUNDING.
EACH OF THEM WILL STRUGGLE
AGAINST THE OTHER.
RATHER THAN PITTING ALL OF
THESE SOCIAL NEEDS, WE SHOULD
MAKE MORE REVENUE POSSIBLE AS A
SIMPLE MATHEMATIC.
NOTHING BEYOND THAT BUT I FEEL
LIKE THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
POINT UNDER THIS.
>> YOU.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> I JUST WANT TO THANK HER.
>> I WANT TO ASK IF YOU COULD
PLEASE PUT AMENDMENT 17.
>> I THINK THE SPENDING
PRIORITIES ON THIS ARE RIGHT
AND CORRECT.
I AM INTERESTED IN MAINTAINING
THE RATES THE BUDGET CHAIR HAS
PUT FORWARD.
I WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION
THAT WE WILL BE GETTING TO THE
SPENDING PLAN AT A LATER
PORTION OF THIS HEARING.
I DOUBLE CHECKED THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO FUND GREEN NEW
DEAL AND WHETHER PROGRAMS
LATER TODAY.
I GUESS IT WILL BE SHORTLY
LATER THIS AFTERNOON.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU LEAD INTO MY COMMENTS.
I WILL MAKE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT
THAT AS A REMINDER SO FOLKS, WE
ARE GOING TO GET INTO THE
DETAILS OF THE PLAN ALLOCATION.
IN THE DISCUSSION THAT WILL
COME UP ON THE 17th.
IF YOU ARE ASKING IF THE
CATEGORIES OF SPENDING INCLUDE
GREEN NEW DEAL, I THINK THAT IS
CORRECT.
I SEE NODDING AND ALLOWING FOR
THE STAFF TO PROVIDE THE ANSWER,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE YOURSELF
OFF ME TO COMMENT ON THE
CATEGORIES OF SPEND AND HOW
THAT WILL TS UP FOR CONVERSATION
IN ADDITION TO THIS DISCUSSION
IN THE JULY 15th MEETING.
>> THANK YOU.
THE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE TO THE
SPENDING PLAN BILL INCLUDES A
SPECIFIC CATEGORY FOR GREEN NEW
DEAL INVESTMENTS.
IT WOULD ALLOW FOR USE OF THE
TAX PROCEEDS FOR SPECIFIC TO
GREEN NEW DEAL OR FALL UNDER
OTHER CATEGORIES.
AS THE CHAIR SAID, IT WOULD BE
AUTHORIZED CATEGORY OF SPENDING
THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
INITIAL SPENDING PLAN, THEN
COULD GET FURTHER DETAILED IN
TERMS OF THE SPECIFIC
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE
CATEGORY AND ANY PROGRAM
DETAILS HE WANTED TO PROVIDE
THROUGH THE RESOLUTION THAT
WOULD BE DISCUSSED LATER IN
JULY.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES I WILL
PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THIS.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING FORWARD
THIS AMENDMENT.
I WANT TO NOTE THE UNDERLYING
AMENDMENT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF
US BRINGS FORWARD ANOTHER KNOWN
$40 MILLION AND WE WILL HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A
ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
SPEND ALLOCATION ON THE JULY
15th MEETING.
I KNOW MAKING SURE THE GREEN
NEW DEAL AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
ELEMENTS INCLUDING
WEATHERIZATION FOR NOT JUST
EXISTING BUILDINGS BUT USED AS
A WAY TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT
AS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE
COUNCIL AND A NUMBER OF
COUNCILMEMBERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SINGLE I AM
GOING TO VOTE NO ON THIS BUT I
THINK THERE IS A LOT OF SHARED
INTEREST IN MAKING SURE WE LOOK
AT ELEMENTS IN THE FINAL PLAN.
I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU ON AMENDMENTS THAT WILL
COMPLEMENT THE FUNDING THAT IS
INCLUDED IN THE JUMPSTART SPEND
PLAN FOR DEEP CREAM AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
LABOR STANDARDS INCLUDED IN THE
PLAN AND WOULD REQUIRE DEEP
STANDARDS ON NEW AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CREATED THROUGH THIS
PLAN.
INCLUDING GREEN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, TRANSIT AS THIS
DISCUSSED WAS STRONG STANDARDS
AND ONE OF THE BEST WAYS WE CAN
MAKE SURE WE COMBAT CLIMATE
CHANGE BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT
THE CALL FROM THE SPONSOR OF
THE AMENDMENT AND OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE COUNCIL IN ADDITION TO
THE COMMUNITY HAVE UNDERSCORED
THE IMPORTANCE FOR US TO
EXPLORE OTHER WAYS TO FOCUS ON
ANTI-DISPLACEMENT ON EXISTING
LOAN AND HOMEOWNERS AND OTHER
ENERGY EFFICIENT STRATEGIES TO
ASSIST WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY
SOURCES AND CREATE THE
RETROFITS NEEDED FOR THE
COMMUNITY TO ADDRESS THE DEAL.
I AM VOTING NO BUT I AM
SIGNALING I THINK THIS IS
IMPORTANT AND WE WILL HAVE IN
THE PLAN, DISCUSSION AND
AMENDMENTS ON THE 15th AND THE
CATEGORIES THAT WERE OUTLINED
MAKE IT SURE THAT THE ITEM WILL
BE ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS ON
THE 15th AS PART OF THE PLAN.
AGAIN, ADDING 40 MILLION TO THE
BASE AMOUNT THAT IS KNOWN IN
THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OVER 1
BILLION WILL MAKE SURE THERE IS
ADDITIONAL DOLLARS TO GO
AROUND.
I UNDERSTAND THE POINT THERE
NEEDS TO BE DIRECT DOLLARS
ALLOCATED TO THE ADDITIONAL
ELEMENTS.
I DON'T WANT TO MISS THAT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS
AMPLE TIME TO MAKE SURE DOLLARS
GOING TO EACH CATEGORY WHEN WE
HAVE THE SPEND PLAN DETAILED
DISCUSSION ON THE 15th.
FOR THAT REASON I AM VOTING NO
BUT SUPPORT THE CONVERSATION
AND ALLOCATION THROUGH
DISCUSSION AND AMENDMENTS ON
THE 15th.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
>> WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO
THE SPEND ALLOCATION BUT FOR
PEOPLE WATCHING, THE COUNCIL
COME BACK IN A FEW DAYS TO
DISCUSS IF AND WHEN WE VOTE,
WHICH I HOPE WE DO, WE WILL
DISCUSS HOW MUCH SHOULD GO TO
EACH OF THE PROGRAMS THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE DECLARED
THE INTEREST IN AND AS I SAID
BEFORE, [ INAUDIBLE ]
THAT WILL COVER THE BASIC
FUNDING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
FOR GREEN NEW DEAL IN ADDITION
TO FUNDING COVID RELIEF, AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
NOT TO MENTION WE DON'T HAVE
MONEY ALLOCATED FOR THE HOUSING
FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS
TO COME BACK BECAUSE ALL OF IT
IS STRUGGLING AGAINST EACH
OTHER AND SOME WILL BE FUNDED
AND I AM AND AGREEMENT WITH THE
LANGUAGE WE USED FOR HOW WE ARE
COMMITTED BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE
THE MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE THE
MONEY TO FUND ACTUAL THINGS AND
[ INAUDIBLE ] THAT IS WHY I
WOULD URGE A YES VOTE.
>> ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
HEARING NONE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
WE WILL PROVIDE AMPLE TIME FOR
THE DISCUSSION IF THIS DOES NOT
PASS FOR THE 15th AND I THINK
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL AS A NOT TO
CENTRAL STAFF, IF WE CAN
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH AND
IDENTIFY WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT
ALLOCATION AS WE THINK ABOUT
LAYERING ADDITIONAL PIECES THAT
COMPLEMENT IN THE FUTURE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON AMENDMENTS HE TO
AMENDMENT 20.
>> DAN STRAUSS, LORENA
GONZCEZ , LISA HERBOLD ,
DEBORA JUAREZ, ANDREW J.
LEWIS, TAMMY J. MORALES,
PETERSON, KSHAMA SAWANT,
TERESA MOSQUEDA . ONE IN FAVOR,
EIGHT OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
ON THE MOTION FOR C, THE
AMENDMENT FAILS.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS
TO THE AMENDMENT THAT FOLKS
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS?
I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY BUT I WANT
TO DOUBLE CHECK.
OKAY, WE HAVE AMENDMENT 20, IT
HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY CENTRAL
STAFF AND THE COUNCILMEMBER AND
I AS THE COSPONSORS, ARE THERE
OTHER CONVERSATIONS, IS THERE
ADDITIONAL DEBATE PEOPLE WOULD
LIKE TO HAVE FOR ITEMS THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THIS
BEFORE WE CONSIDER AMENDMENT 20?
>> I WANT TO MAKE ONE
CLARIFYING POINT FOR THE
ACTIVISTS AND MEMBERS WATCHING.
FOR THE AMENDMENTS, THE
COMMUNITY IS FIGHTING FOR AND
IF YOU DON'T WIN TODAY, WE WILL
BE BUILDING A CAMPAIGN AROUND
THE BUDGET AND WE SHOULD
CONTINUE PUSHING FOR THE THINGS
WE BELIEVE OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS
AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION.
>> THANK YOU.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANY
CLOSING COMMENTS BEFORE THE
FINAL VOTE?
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
TERESA MOSQUEDA.
I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY . I
WANT TO THANK CENTRAL STAFF IN
PARTICULAR, FOR THE INCREDIBLE
WORK YOU HAVE DONE.
I KNOW THAT I KNOW YOU HAVE
BEEN WORKING HOURS AND HOURS
AND YOUR DEDICATION IS
COMMENDABLE AND YOU HAVE BEEN
WORKING TIRELESSLY. WE KNOW YOU
HAVEN'T HAD A BREAK SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND TALENT AND ACUMEN AND
INTELLECT AND I HOPE THAT YOU
GET SOME RESPITE THIS HOLIDAY
WEEKEND.
I WANT TO THANK COLLEAGUES FOR
THE CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE AN IMPORTANT STRUCTURAL
CHANGE IN OUR CITY.
I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO BE AN
IMPORTANT CHANGE IN HOW WE
GENERATE REVENUE IN THE CITY IN
THIS AMENDMENT CAN HELP US MOVE
DRAMATICALLY TOWARDS PROVIDING
OPPORTUNITIES TO INVEST IN OUR
COMMUNITIES, HOUSING AND AS WE
HAVE BEEN SAYING, ONCE WE HAVE
A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS,
INVEST IN BUILDING COMMUNITY
WEALTH AND TRANSITIONING AWAY
FROM FOSSIL FUEL.
THIS IS A HUGE WIN FOR THE
COMMUNITY AND I WANT TO THANK
THE ADVOCATES AND PARTNERS WHO
HAVE HELPED US GET HERE.
>> WELL SAID.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO OUR
HELPFUL WITH THINKING THROUGH
WAYS FOR US TO NOT ONLY RAISE
REVENUE WITH THE INITIAL
PROPOSALS BUT HOW TO PUSH FOR
THAT TO GO UP. I APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENTS AND CONVERSATIONS WE
HAVE HAD, THEY WILL NOT GO AWAY
, WE WILL HAVE ONGOING
DISCUSSIONS OVER THE NEXT WEEK
AND A HALF ABOUT THE DEDICATED
SPEND PLAN AND I WANT TO SIGNAL
MY SUPPORT FOR ADDITIONAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WORKING
WITH THE COUNCIL COLLEAGUES AND
COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
WE CAN FIND WAYS TO DO THE
GEOGRAPHIC SPECIFIC LOCATIONS
FOR MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES,
SPECIFICALLY BLACK OWNED AND
BLACK HOMEOWNERS IN BLACK AND
BROWN IMMUNITIES TO HAVE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE WILL WORK ON THAT STRATEGY.
ECHOING MY INTEREST IN
CONTINUING TO STRENGTHEN
LANGUAGE AROUND ANTI-
DISPLACEMENT INVESTMENTS FOR
EXISTING HOMEOWNERS AND
ASSISTING WITH CONVERSION POOR
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND
RETROFIT THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
FIGHTING THE CONVERSATIONS THAT
ARE ONGOING, EXCITED ABOUT THE
PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US TO
CONTINUE TO BRING A KNOWN
DOLLAR AMOUNT $40 MILLION AND
WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE OTHER
COMPONENTS SO THIS IS NOT THE
END THAT IT DOES BRING US TO
THE END OF THE CATEGORY, THE
END OF A, B, AND C ON AMENDMENT
20 AND IF THIS PASSES WE WILL
BE ABLE TO KNOW THAT WE WILL
HAVE $214.3 MILLION IN HAND TO
PROVIDE IMMEDIATE RELIEF FOR
COVID RELATED ISSUES, HELP STEM
THE TIDE OF CUTS THAT WILL BE
COMING NEXT YEAR WITH THE
BUDGET BY HAVING REVENUE IN
HAND.
WE CAN ADDRESS THAT AND CREATE
A RESILIENT COMMUNITY THAT IS
EQUITABLE AND PROVIDES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE
APPROPRIATE SHELTER FOR FOLKS.
WITHOUT, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON AMENDMENT 20?
>> STRAUSS, GONZALEZ, LISA
HERBOLD, DEBORA JUAREZ, LEWIS,
LORENA GONZCEZ, PETERSON,
KSHAMA SAWANT, TERESA MOSQUEDA
. NINE IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> IT IS UNANIMOUS, MOTION
CARRIES IN THE AMENDMENT IS
ADOPTED.
BEFORE WE LEAVE THE TAX
STRUCTURE AMENDMENT
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT YOU
HAD AMENDMENT 11.
DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT
, I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU WOULD
LIKE TO DO WHAT I WANT TO GIVE
YOU A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT IT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT
THAT ANSWER BY SAYING [
INAUDIBLE ] FOR YEARS THE
MOVEMENT HAS BEEN DEMANDING TAX
AMAZON AND OTHER BIG BUSINESSES
, TAX ON OTHERS AND BIG
BUSINESSES, THE GOAL IS TO AND
THE CORPORATE TAX HAVEN AND
MEET HUMAN NEEDS AND AS MANY
STATED IN PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY
AND BEFORE, IF WE VOTE ON THE
AMAZON TAX LEGISLATION, IT WILL
BE BECAUSE OF THE MOVEMENT AND
BECAUSE OF THE THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN FIGHTING
ON THE FRONT LINES FOR THIS.
THAT INCLUDES MANY WHO HAVE
BEEN ON THE FRONT LINES FOR THE
BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT IN
THE MOVEMENT AGAINST POLICE
VIOLENCE AND TO END RACISM AND
OPPRESSION BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND
IT IS CONNECTED TO ENDING
RACIST GENTRIFICATION AND ENDING
THE CRIMINAL UNDERFUNDING OF
PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE OTHER
NEEDS WE HAVE IN OUR SOCIETY
THAT HIT THE UNDERFUNDING
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THE
HARDEST AND AS I SAID, IT WILL
BE A MOMENT OF PRIDE FOR THE
MOVEMENT IF WE HAVE THE CITY
COUNCIL PASSED AN AMAZON TAX
LEGISLATION AND WE HAVE TO BE
SOBER ABOUT HOW MUCH IS
ACCOMPLISHED AT THE SAME TIME.
THIS AMENDMENT IS TO PROVIDE
ENOUGH REVENUE TO COMMENSURATE
WITH THE LEVEL OF WHAT IS
NEEDED IN TERMS OF COVID
RELIEF, SOCIAL HOUSING, GREEN
NEW DEAL AND LAST BUT NOT
LEAST, LIVING WAGE JOBS THAT
WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR US AS WE
HEAD DEEPER INTO THIS CRUEL
JOBLESS RECESSION.
RESTORING THE FUNDING LEVEL
WILL BUILD MORE THAN 10,000
SOCIAL HOMES, RETROFIT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF HOMES AND CREATE
OR SUPPORT 34,000 JOBS IN THE
FIRST DECADE ALONE.
IMAGINE WHAT A TRANSFORMATION
THAT WOULD BE IN THE CONTEXT OF
THE RECESSION WE ARE FACING AS
ECONOMISTS SAY WE MIGHT SEE THE
MOTHER OF ALL FINANCIAL CRISIS.
A COMMISSION LAST YEAR -- I
DON'T THINK THEY LIKE THE
CONCLUSIONS BUT IT FOUND THAT
$410 MILLION NEEDS TO BE SPENT
IN THE GREATER SEATTLE AREA
EACH YEAR TO ADDRESS THE
HOUSING CRISIS AND EARLIER THIS
YEAR THEY FOUND THE REGION LOST
112,000 AFFORDABLE HOMES SINCE
2010.
THAT WAS ALL PRE-COVID AND PRE-
PANDEMIC.
WE NOW HAVE A TRIPLE CRISIS OF
COVID PANDEMIC, HOUSING ON
AFFORDABILITY AND JOBLESS -- WE
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH
WHAT WE WANT SO I WOULD URGE A
SECOND FOR THIS AND VOTE.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
HEARING NONE.
THE MOTION FAILS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO CENTRAL
STAFF FOR YOUR WORK TO GET US
THROUGH THIS.
I WANT TO CONTINUE TO MOVE
THROUGH THE OTHER AMENDMENTS
HERE, WE WILL HAVE SOME CLOSING
COMMENTS AT THE END IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE
OVERALL PACKAGE, THE AMOUNT
RAISED AND WE HAVE ABOUT
ANOTHER HOUR AND A HALF YEAR
HOPING TO GIVE US AT LEAST A
BREAK FOR LUNCH.
BUT I THINK WE CAN DO IT.
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE
TO GET US INTO OTHER AMENDMENTS.
IF YOU COULD BE SO KIND AS WE
DISCUSSED THESE ONCE WE HAVE
GONE THROUGH THE HIGH-LEVEL
OVERVIEW OF WHERE THERE MAY BE
CONFLICTS.
IF YOU COULD PUT THE EFFECT
STATEMENT ON THE SCREEN.
THANK YOU.
>> THE THIRD AND LAST CATEGORY
OF AMENDMENTS ON YOUR SCREEN
NOW.
IT'S DIVIDED INTO THREE
SUBGROUPS.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME A BRIEF
MOMENT I WILL BRING UP AN
AMENDMENT.
THIS WOULD CHANGE THE
IMPOSITION DATE OF THE PAYROLL
TAX FROM JANUARY 1st OF 2021.
IT WOULD MOVE IT FORWARD IN TIME
FOR THE TAX TO BE OPPOSED ON
AUGUST 1st OF 2020.
WHEN THE TAX IS GENERATED, THE
2021 TAX BILL WOULD BE DUE AT
THE SAME TIME AS THE ADDITIONAL
MONTHS IN 2020.
ALL OF THE FIRST PAYMENTS WOULD
BE DUE ON FEBRUARY 1 OF 2022.
$74.5 MILLION OF 2020
COLLECTIONS WOULD BE AVAILABLE
FOR SPENDING IN THE 2021 BUDGET.
>> IF THERE IS NOTHING IN
CONFLICT, IS THIS STANDALONE?
>> IT IS.
>> THIS HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD TO
US BY COUNCILMEMBERS KSHAMA
SAWANT AND LISA HERBOLD.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE?
>> THANK YOU.
I MOVED TO AMEND ACCOUNTABLE AS
PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT ONE.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
IT HAS BEEN SECONDED.
WONDERFUL.
IT IS IN FRONT OF US FOR
DISCUSSION AND DEBATE.
COMMENTS?
>> AS MENTIONED, THIS WOULD
GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $74.5
MILLION IN ADDITIONAL CITY
REVENUE THAT WOULD BE COLLECTED
ON FEBRUARY FACED -- FIRST.
ELIGIBLE FOR SPENDING IN 2021.
I HAVE CONCERNS IN ORDER FOR IT
TO BE IN AUGUST 2020, THE
ELIGIBILITY TRIGGER HAS TO BE
BASED ON 2019 REVENUES.
I WANT TO REMIND FOLKS THAT
EVEN THOUGH THAT IS THE CASE
THE BUSINESSES WILL ONLY BE
TAXED FOR THE NUMBER OF JOBS
OVER THE INCOME THRESHOLD IN
2021.
SO FOR INSTANCE, IF A BUSINESS
IS DEEMED TO BE ELIGIBLE BASED
ON 2029 REVENUES, OF MORE THAN
$7 MILLION, BUT IN 2020, THE
BUSINESS GROSS REVENUE OR GROSS
PAYROLL, I AM GETTING MY
NUMBERS MIXED UP.
IF IN 2019, THE GROSS PAYROLL IS
$7 MILLION OR MORE, THE
BUSINESS IS THEN ELIGIBLE.
BUT IF IT TURNS OUT IN 2020
THAT BUSINESS GROSS REVENUE HAS
OR GROSS PAYROLL HAS DROPPED,
TO SAY $6 MILLION, THAT
BUSINESS WOULD STILL BE ELIGIBLE
TO PAY THE TAX BUT THEY WILL
ONLY BE HAVING TO PAY THE TAX ON
THE INCOMES ABOVE THE INCOME
THRESHOLDS, THE NUMBER OF
INCOMES ABOVE THE INCOME
THRESHOLD IN 2020 SO IF THERE
IS ANY CONCERN THAT JOBS THAT
WERE OR INCOME SALARIES THAT
WERE ELIGIBLE IN 2019 WOULD BE
TAXED REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR
NOT THE SAME NUMBER OF JOBS
EXISTED IN 2020, THE WAY THE
STRUCTURE OF THE LEGISLATION IS
DRAFTED, THAT WOULD NOT BE THE
CASE.
>> I FEEL THAT WAS AS CLEAR AS
MUD.
I AM TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE
CONCERNS I HAVE HEARD FROM THE
BUDGET CHAIR AND TRYING TO
AMELIORATE SOME OF THOSE
CONCERNS.
AND TRYING TO OFFER SOME
REASSURANCES ABOUT THE CONCERNS
ABOUT IMPACTS ON THIS.
>> APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATIONS.
THIS WOULD BRING IN ADDITIONAL
$74 MILLION WHICH IS URGENTLY
NEEDED ESPECIALLY AS WE SECURE
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PANDEMIC
SO THIS WOULD HELP, THAT IS
$74.5 MILLION. IT IS A SMALL
AMOUNT FOR BIG BUSINESS AND ANY
DELAY WOULD BE THE MONEY LEFT
IN BIG BUSINESS POCKET WHICH
THEY ACTUALLY DON'T NEED.
[ INAUDIBLE ] I WANT TO POINT
OUT THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION
WAS GOING TO START JUNE 1st.
AND WE NOW CANNOT GET THOSE TWO
MONTHS BACK BUT I HOPE THE
COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT IS A SMALL
CHANGE AS FAR AS BIG BUSINESS
BUT IT WOULD MEAN A LOT TO THE
COMMUNITIES WHO NEED THE FUNDS
AND I WOULD SAY MANY AND PUBLIC
COMMENT AND EMAIL THAT WE
SHOULD NOT DELAY A VOTE.
BUT I THINK THEY MEANT NOT ONLY
THE VOTE ON THE AMAZON TAX BUT
DON'T DELAY THE DISBURSEMENT OF
FUNDS TO THE COMMUNITIES SO
THEY CAN BEGIN HEALING.
>> THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU.
I THINK I WILL SHARE I WILL BE
VOTING NO.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
ALLOW FOR BUSINESSES TIME TO
PREPARE FOR THIS.
AS WE ALL KNOW, 2019 IS A
DIFFERENT YEAR THAN THIS YEAR
AND THIS YEAR WILL BE A
DIFFERENT YEAR THE NEXT YEAR.
I THINK I BELIEVE IN THE
IMPORTANCE OF MOVING QUICKLY ON
THE PASSAGE OF THE LEGISLATION.
AND THE NEED TO PROVIDE
PREDICTABILITY AND THE ABILITY
FOR TAXPAYERS TO BE ABLE TO
STABILIZE BETWEEN NOW AND
JANUARY.
I THINK THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT
ASPECT OF THE PROPOSAL YOU PUT
TOGETHER FOR ME AND I WOULD
LIKE TO RETAIN THE JANUARY 2021
DATE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU.
I HAVE A 9-YEAR-OLD RUNNING
AROUND.
SHE IS DISTRACTING.
I WANT TO SIGNAL MY SUPPORT FOR
THIS.
AS THE COUNCILMEMBER MENTIONED
WE DID TRY TO HAVE SOMETHING
BEGIN SOONER EVEN IF IT WON'T
BE COLLECTED UNTIL LATER.
I THINK THE ABILITY TO ASSESS
SOONER AND BRING IN ADDITIONAL
REVENUE TO THE CITY, ESPECIALLY
NOW AS WE HAVE A $300 MILLION
SHORTFALL AND IS AN IMPORTANT
OPTION THAT WE SHOULD TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF.
I WANT TO SIGNAL I WILL SUPPORT
THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER HANDS, I WANT TO
THANK THE SPONSORS OF THE
AMENDMENT.
I SUPPORT MAKING SURE WE GET
INCREASED REVENUE BUT I WILL BE
VOTING NO ON TODAY'S AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1, I CANNOT
SUPPORT.
THE EFFECTIVE DATE AS ON AUGUST
1st OF 2020 WOULD RELY ON DATA
FROM COMPANIES THAT HAVE NOT
ADJUSTED TO THE NEW BUSINESS
REALITY IN A POST-COVID WORLD.
I THINK AS WE WANT TO SEE
REVENUE COME INTO MAKE SURE
THERE IS RELIEF FOR FOOD
ASSISTANCE, HOUSING ASSISTANCE,
SMALL-BUSINESS SUPPORT,
STABILITY FOR IMMIGRANTS AND
REFUGEES, WE HAVE THE SAME GOAL.
ALLOWING FOR THE REVENUE TO BE
COLLECTED IN 2022 BASED ON 2021,
THE PAYROLL DATA ALLOWS FOR US
TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT OF THE BUSINESSES THAT
ARE CURRENTLY HERE WOULD
úCONTINUE TO BE HERE NEXT YEAR
IN THE BUDGET CYCLE.
AND FOR THAT REASON ALONE, I AM
VOTING NO TODAY.
I WILL ASK IF THERE ARE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THE START
DATE IS AUGUST OR JANUARY,
BUSINESSES WON'T HAVE TO PAY TAX
UNTIL EARLY 2022.
I AM NOT EXACTLY CLEAR WHAT THE
ARGUMENT IS FOR THE BUSINESSES
MEETING TIME AND I ALSO WANT TO
PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE.
THERE IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT
TAXPAYERS NEED TIME TO PREPARE,
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
LARGEST CORPORATIONS IN OUR
CITY AND BY THAT MEASURE, SOME
OF THE MOST STABLE CORPORATIONS
IN OUR CITY.
TO PREPARE TO PAY SOMETHING
LIKE A .7% TAX RATE WHEN
WORKING-CLASS FAMILIES HAVE
BEEN PAYING SOMETHING LIKE 17%
YEAR AFTER YEAR.
AS FAR AS GIVING THE LARGEST
AND MOST STABLE AND CASH STABLE
, CASH-RICH CORPORATIONS TRYING
TO PREPARE, WORKING PEOPLE WHO
LOST THEIR JOBS BY NOW, 45
MILLION NATIONWIDE HAD NO
PREPARATION, NO ONE TOLD THEM
THEY WOULD HAVE A YEAR TO
PREPARE OR SEVERAL MONTHS TO
PREPARE FOR THIS MASSIVE CRATER
IN THE FINANCIAL SITUATION,
THEY WERE JUST LAID OFF. IT
HITS WORKING PEOPLE.
I WOULD URGE YOU ALL TO VOTE
YES ON THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
AS A COSPONSOR, ANY ADDITIONAL
CLOSING COMMENTS?
OKAY.
SORRY, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> MY CURSOR WAS NOT MOVING TO
THE MUTE BUTTON QUICKLY.
SO YES, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
OFFER ONE LAST PITCH FOR THIS.
I THINK IT IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT CONSIDERING THAT WE
KNOW THAT YEARS 2021 AND 2022
ARE GOING TO BE DIFFICULT YEARS
FOR OUR CITY.
NOT JUST AS A RELATES TO THE
DELIVERY OF CITY SERVICES BUT
ALSO AS IT RELATES TO THE NEED
TO CONSIDER LAYOFFS OF CITY
STAFF AND SO THAT IS WHY ONE OF
THE REASONS WHY THIS AMENDMENT
IS SO IMPORTANT.
WE TALK ABOUT NOT WANTING TO DO
AUSTERITY BUDGETING, WE KNOW
THAT IS GOING TO BE EVEN HARDER
NEXT YEAR TO EVEN WITH THIS NEW
REVENUE SOURCE TO MAINTAIN OUR
CURRENT PLAN INVESTMENT AS WELL
AS MAINTAINING THE CITY STAFF
NECESSARY TO DELIVER THOSE
INVESTMENTS.
SO I THINK IN ORDER TO ADHERE TO
THE PRINCIPLES OF NON-30
BUDGETING, WE NEED TO BE
LOOKING FOR 2021 WHERE OUR CITY
BUDGET DIRECTOR HAS WARNED US
THAT EVEN WITH NEW REVENUE WE
ARE GOING TO BE NEEDING TO
CONSIDER LAYOFFS OR FOR LOWS.
>> THANK YOU.
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE
OF ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT ONE?
>> DAN STRAUSS, LORENA
GONZCEZ, LISA HERBOLD,
DEBORA JUAREZ, ANDREW J.
LEWIS, DAN STRAUSS, PETERSON,
KSHAMA SAWANT, TERESA
MOSQUEDA.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED.
>> WONDERFUL.
GOT YOU, THE AMENDMENT FAILS AND
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
CENTRAL STAFF, THANK YOU.
WE HAVE ANOTHER HOUR AND 10
MINUTES.
LET'S MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT
NUMBER 5.
>> THIS AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE
VOTER APPROVAL OF THE TAX BEFORE
THE TAX BECOMES EFFECTIVE.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND
DEBORA JUAREZ, THIS IS YOUR
AMENDMENT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
MOVE IT?
>> THANK YOU, YES.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND
COUNCIL BILL TO PUT THIS ON THE
NOVEMBER BALLOT.
AS SPONSORS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE
TO SPEAK TO IT, GO AHEAD.
>> I CAN GO FIRST.
WE DISCUSSED THIS AT COUNCIL
BRIEFING AND I KNOW THAT IN
THE NOT SO DISTANT PAST THERE
WERE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO WERE
INTERESTED AND IF THERE WERE
MAJOR BUSINESS TAX MEASURES TO
PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT FOR
VOTERS TO CONSIDER.
IT WOULD BE PUT ON THE BALLOT
THIS NOVEMBER AND IF VOTERS
APPROVE, IT WOULD START JANUARY
1st. DEPENDING ON WHICH PASSED
TODAY AND WHAT THE FINAL
SPENDING PLAN IS, THE JUMPSTART
PROPOSAL IS WELL-CRAFTED YET
ALSO FOUR TIMES AS LARGE AS THE
HEAD TAX.
WE REMEMBER IN 2018, THE HEAD
TAX, THERE WERE LOTS OF
CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN THE
GENERAL PUBLIC AND THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY WHEN IT WAS FINALIZED.
SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME
SORT OF BACKLASH FROM THAT TYPE
OF ORDINANCE TODAY.
PUTTING IT IN FRONT OF THE
VOTERS TO DECIDE IS PRUDENT, IT
IS ALSO I BELIEVE THE LARGEST
TAX THAT THE CITY GOVERNMENT
HAS PASSED AND IT IS VERY
TYPICAL TO PUT TAX MEASURES ON
THE BALLOT FOR PEOPLE TO
DECIDE.
WE DO THAT FOR THE SEATTLE LEVY
, EDUCATION LEVY, HOUSING LEVY
AND OTHER GOOD PURPOSES, WE PUT
THAT ON THE BALLOT FOR VOTERS
TO DECIDE.
I BELIEVE PUTTING IT ON THE
BALLOT WITH INSULATED FROM
REFERENDUM SO IF YOU PUT IT ON
THE BALLOT VOTERS WILL MAKE
THAT A PERMANENT LAW IF THEY
PASS IT.
THANK YOU.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE
OPEN AND HONEST DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT WHERE WE AGREE AND WHERE
WE DISAGREE.
AND WE ARE COOL.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
LET ME BE CLEAR.
I SUPPORT A PROGRESSIVE TAX.
I SUPPORTED A COUNTYWIDE
APPROACH IN THE SPRING OF 2019
AND WORKED CLOSELY WITH
LEADERSHIP AS WELL AS CITY
COUNCIL AND COUNTY FOLKS, AS
WELL.
I SUPPORT A COUNTYWIDE APPROACH
AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY.
AND WHY I BELIEVE THIS SHOULD
GO ON THE BALLOT.
IT IS THE SAME CONCERN I HAVE
BEEN SAYING SINCE FEBRUARY,
MARCH AND NOW WE ARE IN WHAT WE
CALL THIS TRIFECTA OF A GLOBAL
PANDEMIC OR RECESSION AND
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL UNREST
BASED ON RACISM AND POLICING IN
ALL THOSE ISSUES WE WERE
DISCUSSING.
WE DON'T KNOW THE LENGTH,
DURATION OR CONTINUED HUMAN
DESTRUCTION THIS WILL INFLICT
ON HUMANITY IN PEOPLE'S LIVES.
WE DON'T KNOW THE LENGTH OF THE
DURATION OF THIS PANDEMIC OR
WILL AFFECT THE LANDSCAPE IN
THE FUTURE.
WE DO NOW AS WAS STATED
EARLIER, WE HAVE A $300 MILLION
BUDGET SHORTFALL.
I GUESS WHAT I AM CONCERNED
ABOUT IS SINCE THERE IS A LOT
OF UNKNOWNS AND I TRY TO
DETERMINE AND TRY TO MAKE UP
FOR THAT, WITH STAFF AND
LOOKING AT.
BID CONDITIONS, MAKING
DETERMINATIONS ABOUT WHAT THIS
WILL LOOK LIKE, WHAT DATA THE
UNPREDICTABLE REVENUE AND
FORECAST FOR ME AND I KNOW THE
FACTS CAN BE USED THE OTHER
WAY, THAT IS PRECISELY WHY WE
NEED A TAX AGAIN.
I THINK IT SHOULD GO TO THE
VOTERS.
IN SHORT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW
THE EFFECTS OF THE RECESSION.
AND WHAT THE REVENUE WILL BE.
AND THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS.
IT SHOULD GO TO THE VOTERS.
LET ME SAY ONE LAST THING.
SEATTLE HAS A WELL-ESTABLISHED
DEMOCRATIC TRADITION OF GIVING
VOTERS THE FINAL SAY IN IN THE
LAST 15 YEARS, VOTERS HAVE
APPROVED 11 CITY LEVEES FROM
LIBRARY TO HOUSING TO EDUCATION
TO TRANSPORTATION AND PARKS.
VOTERS HAVE SUPPORTED SIX LEVEES
AND VOTERS HAVE SUPPORTED TWO
MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR LEVIES FOR
TRANSPORTATION.
IN 2006 THEY APPROVED BRIDGING
THE GAP.
THE TRANSPORTATION MEASURE THAT
INCLUDED ATTACKS ON BUSINESS.
BASICALLY A HEAD TAX.
AND 2019 COUNCIL MADE AN ERROR.
THEY PASSED A PAYROLL TAX AND
DISCOVERED IT WAS OUT OF TOUCH
WITH VOTER SENTIMENT AND
REPEALED IT.
I WAS ONE OF THOSE THAT VOTED
TO REPEAL.
I CAN GO INTO THOSE DETAILS
ANOTHER TIME.
I THINK TO ENSURE THE TAXATION
MEANS WITH PUBLIC EXPECTATION
AND NEEDS TO BE PUT OUT FOR
VOTER APPROVAL.
I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON SAID.
I LIKE HOW THEY REACHED OUT,
NAILED THE SPECIFICS, TALKED TO
BUSINESS AND LABOR, MYSELF,
PARTICULAR GROUPS ABOUT HOW
THIS WOULD WORK.
MY CONCERN IS THAT I BELIEVE
THE VOTERS SHOULD HAVE THE
FINAL SAY.
I LIKE THE JUMPSTART PROPOSAL
BECAUSE IT LIMITS THE TAX
IMPACT TO HIGH-PAYING JOBS AND
PROTECTING LOW AND MIDDLE
INCOME JOBS AND PROVIDES FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES TO INVEST IN
OUR MOST VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES
, PEOPLE OF COLOR AND BUILD
MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I THINK IT IS A GREAT PROPOSAL
TO PUT IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS
IN THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY AND
WITHOUT, THANK YOU.
>> I AM GOING TO SIGNAL I WILL
VOTE NO ON THIS TODAY.
I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT IN
WHICH IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.
I KNOW THE MOVEMENTS THAT THEY
HAVE MADE AND WE ARE IN
ALIGNMENT AND WE WANT TO SEE
RELIEF IN THE NEAR TERM AND
MAKE SURE THAT SMALL BUSINESSES
AND FAMILIES HAVE A HOUSING AND
SUPPORT THEY NEED AND WE WANT
TO SOFTEN THE BLOW OF THE
BUDGET BY PROVIDING FOR THE
REVENUE.
I KNOW THERE IS A SHARED VALUE
ON WHAT THIS COULD DO AND I
WILL BE VOTING NO BECAUSE I
DON'T THINK I CAN WAIT FOR A
BALLOT.
BY DOING THE COUNCIL VOTE TODAY,
HOPEFULLY NEXT WEEK WE KNOW WE
CAN LOOK AT ADDITIONAL REVENUE
IN THE 2022 BUDGET WHICH WE
WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO IN THE
BALLOT.
I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS
WE HAVE HAD OR OTHER PIECES OF
LEGISLATION WHERE WE WORK IN
THE COMMUNITY TO IDENTIFY THE
STAKEHOLDERS THAT WOULD BE
IMPACTED OR WOULD BENEFIT AND I
WOULD ENCOURAGE VOTES ON THIS
LET'S PASS THE SO WE CAN RELY
ON THIS
>> THIS IS TO PUT THE PAYROLL
TAX ON THE BALLOT, NOT THE
OTHER COUNCIL BILL.
THAT DEALS WITH COVID RELIEF.
WE WILL VOTE ON THAT SEPARATELY.
I DO SUPPORT ELEMENTS OF THAT.
YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT, TO ENSURE
REPLENISHMENT OF THOSE FUNDS IT
WOULD HELP TO HAVE THE OTHER
SOURCE OF THE PAYROLL TAX, I
BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING WE CAN
VISIT LATER.
IT DOES NOT MEAN WE CAN'T
SUPPORT, WE STILL CAN SUPPORT
COVID RELIEF USING THE
EMERGENCY FUND, I JUST WANTED
TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS
AND CLARIFICATION.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> JUST QUICKLY I WANT TO SAY
THAT I DON'T SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT, I FEEL LIKE WE AS
ELECTED LEADERS ARE ELECTED TO
MAKE HARD DECISIONS.
INCLUDING VOTING ON TAX
PACKAGES, SAYING NO TO LARGE
CORPORATIONS.
IT'S NOT A HARD DECISION FOR ME
PERSONALLY BUT WHAT IS ALSO NOT
HARD FOR ME IS WANTING TO PASS
THIS NOW IS THAT I HEAR EVERY
TIME I HAVE ANOTHER LEVY ON THE
BALLOT I HEAR FROM LOW INCOME
HOMEOWNERS IN MY COMMUNITY WHO
ARE ON THE BRINK OF GETTING
PUSHED OUT OF THE CITY BECAUSE
THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO KEEP
BURYING THE BURDEN OF ALL THESE
LEVEES.
THIS IS A WAY FOR US TO SHIFT
THAT BURDEN AWAY FROM LOW
INCOME HOMEOWNERS SO THEY DON'T
HAVE TO CONTINUE TO BEAR THAT
BURDEN AND I DON'T THINK THAT
WAITING SEVERAL MORE MONTHS TO
PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT SERVES
MY DISTRICT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO ALSO QUICKLY
CHIME IN ON THIS PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT, I APPRECIATE THE
REMARKS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ
, AND UNDERSTAND THEIR INTENT.
I DO THINK THAT THE SENTIMENT
OF THE PUBLIC HAS DRASTICALLY
CHANGED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF
YEARS SINCE WE CONSIDERED THE
PRIOR TAX ON LARGE
CORPORATIONS.
I ALSO THINK THAT THIS IS
THE EMPLOYEE HOURS TAX THAT WE
PROPOSED IN 2018.
UNFORTUNATELY WE WERE PUT IN A
POSITION TO HAVE TO REPEAL IT.
AND PRIMARILY I SAY THAT
BECAUSE THIS TAX IS A PAYROLL
TAX AND FOR FOLKS WHO WEREN'T
AROUND IN 2018, THE HEAD TAX WE
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WAS
SUPPOSED TO EVOLVE INTO THE
PAYROLL TAX AFTER, I BELIEVE,
TWO YEARS.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING, THAT
CONCEPT, THAT MODEL ACTUALLY
WAS BEING ADVOCATED BY MEMBERS
IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AT
THE TIME AS SOMETHING THAT
WOULD BE MORE SCALABLE AND
PROGRESSIVE AND MORE EASILY
ABSORBED, PARTICULARLY BY
SMALLER SIZED BUSINESSES.
IT WAS DISCUSSED AS A MORE
EQUITABLE WAY TO PURSUE THIS
TYPE OF REVENUE. AND SO, I AM
OF THE MIND NOW THAT THIS IS
THE RIGHT APPROACH AND THAT
THIS IS THE RIGHT MODEL.
MEANING THAT THE PAYROLL TAX
WAIT THAT THIS HAS BEEN
STRUCTURED IN I THINK IS THE
RIGHT CHOICE FOR US TO GO.
NOW IN TERMS OF THE ARGUMENT
AROUND WHETHER OR NOT THIS
SHOULD BE ON THE BALLOT OR NOT,
THERE HAVE BEEN CITATIONS BY
THE SPONSOR OF THIS AMENDMENT
TO HOUSING LEVY, EDUCATION
LEVY, TRANSIT LEVEES, A WHOLE
HOST OF OTHER LEVEES.
BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE CLEAR
WITH EACH OTHER AND THE PUBLIC
THAT THOSE WERE PROPERTY TAX
LEVIES.
AND IN SOME INSTANCES THEY WERE
SALES TAX LEVIES.
THOSE ARE TAXES THAT ARE LEVIED
AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE AT A
MASS PROPORTION.
IT MEANS 100% OF EVERY PERSON
WHO OWNS OR RENTS PROPERTY
PURCHASES GOODS WITHIN OUR CITY
IS SUBJECT TO THE TAX LIABILITY.
IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES TO SEND THOSE
KIND OF REVENUE PROPOSALS TO THE
GENERAL PUBLIC TO UNDERGO THE
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AND HAVE
PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS AT A MASS
RATE THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHO
ARE GOING TO INCUR A TAX
LIABILITY AS A RESULT OF THOSE
PROPOSALS TO SAY YES OR NO TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO TAX
THEMSELVES AS INDIVIDUALS IN
ORDER TO CONTINUE TO FUND
SERVICES THAT THE CITY CAN
PROVIDE.
WHETHER THAT IS QUALITY
PRESCHOOL, ADDITIONAL
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, MORE
TRANSIT SERVICES.
THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR US TO
PROPOSE THAT TO THE VOTERS OF
THE CITY OF SEATTLE TO ACCEPT
THAT TAX LIABILITY.
THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT
BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A
PAYROLL TAX THAT WILL IMPOSE
TAX LIABILITY ON A SMALL NUMBER
OF CORPORATIONS WHICH IN SPITE
OF THE SUPREME COURT'S
DECISION, THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE.
THEY ARE NOT HUMANS.
AND THIS IS A VERY SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL
POPULATION OR CONSTITUENCY IN
THE CITY OF SEATTLE.
I BELIEVE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR
THE CITY COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION
AS IT RELATES TO BEING IN A
POSITION OF THIS PAYROLL TAX.
AND I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO REJECT THIS AMENDMENT AND TO
SUPPORT THE CONCEPT THAT AS A
PRESENTED OF MICRO SEE THAT IS
THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT WE HAVE
THE AUTHORITY AND INDEED THE
URGENT NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON
THIS PAYROLL TAX TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>> FOLKS, I'M GOING TO CALL THE
QUESTION.
I DO THINK THAT COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO
THIS.
I'VE GIVEN THE SPONSORS THE
OPPORTUNITY.
I LIKE TO CALL THE QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , I DO
WANT US TO MOVE ON . SO VERY
BRIEFLY.
>> I'M SORRY, I JUST FEEL THE
NEED TO SPEAK TO MY SUPPORT.
I'M SORRY, MY OPPOSITION TO
THIS AMEDMENT BECAUSE OF PRIOR
SUPPORT THAT I HAVE EXPRESSED
TO PUTTING A BIG BUSINESS TAX
ON THE BALLOT.
I THINK AS RECENTLY AS PROBABLY
APRIL I SAID THAT I BELIEVE
THAT WAS THE WAY WE SHOULD GO.
MY OPINION IS VERY DIFFERENT
RIGHT NOW FOR MANY OF THE
REASONS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY
HEARD, THIS IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY
NOT A TAX ON INDIVIDUALS, SO I
THINK COMPARISONS TO PROPERTY
TAX LEVIES ARE NOT APPLICABLE.
AND I DO AGREE WITH THE URGENCY
OF THIS COUNCIL TO ACT NOW .
BUT I ALSO WANT TO IDENTIFY
PART OF THE REASON FOR MY
CHANGE IN POSITION IS BECAUSE
THE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF
THIS TYPE OF PAYROLL TAX IS
DIFFERENT FROM THAT THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY POSED.
WHAT I BELIEVE THAT IS SO
IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IT MIRRORS
A PROPOSAL THAT WAS INTRODUCED
AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE BUT
THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS
SIGNALED SOME SUPPORT FOR.
MY FEARS ABOUT THE COUNCIL
ACTING REALLY RELATE TO NOT
WANTING TO REPEAT THE
EXPERIENCES THAT THOSE OF US ON
THE COUNCIL , WHO WERE ON THE
COUNCIL OF THE TIME
EXPERIENCED, WHERE THERE WAS A
LEGITIMATE THREAT OF REFERENDUM
AFTER COUNCIL PASSAGE OF THE
EMPLOYEE HOURS TAX.
I BELIEVE, AND I CALL ON THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO NOT
REPLICATE THAT SCENARIO BECAUSE
WHAT WE ARE PUTTING FORWARD NOW
LARGELY REPRESENTS THE SAME
STRUCTURE THAT THERE WAS BROAD
SUPPORT IN THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY FOR ADVANCING IN THE
STATE LEGISLATURE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD . I WANT TO TURN US
OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ
TO CLOSE US OUT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE WHO
RESPONDED.
I WANT TO RESPONDED THREE
LEVELS.
FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT WE KNOW HOW TO MAKE
HER DECISIONS.
AND SOME OF US HAVE MADE HER
DECISIONS TO THE DETRIMENT OF
OUR OWN PERSONAL SAFETY.
I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ SAID AND I AGREE THE
SENTIMENT OF THE PUBLIC HAS
CHANGED DRASTICALLY.
THAT IS WHY I DO STILL TRUST
THE VOTERS.
I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A PROPERTY TAX AND
CORPORATE TAX.
AND THE ANALOGY I WAS LISTING
AND THE TAXES I RATTLED OFF
WENT TO THE UNDERLYING
SENTIMENT THAT BASICALLY
SEATTLE VOTERS HAVE BEEN
GENEROUS IN VOTING YES, WHETHER
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PROPERTY
TAX OR LEVY, AND HOPEFULLY WHEN
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TAXING
CORPORATIONS.
I UNDERSTAND CORPORATIONS ARE
NOT PEOPLE.
I UNDERSTAND CITIZENS UNITED.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M GETTING
AT.
I'M NOT COMPARING APPLES AND
ORANGES, THIS AND THAT.
WHAT I AM SAYING HERE IS THE
UNDERLYING CHARACTER FOR ME OF
WHY THINK IT GOES ON THE BALLOT
IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE VOTERS
UNDER THE JUMPSTART SEATTLE
WOULD VOTE YES.
AND I THINK THEY WOULD VOTE YES
BECAUSE WE STILL, EVEN THOUGH
THE CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED,
AND WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF
THIS AGAIN TRIFECTA OF A
PANDEMIC OF THE RECESSION AND
SOCIAL UNREST, I BELIEVE IN THE
GOODWILL OF THE PEOPLE THAT
THEY CAN LOOK AROUND AND SEE
WHAT WE SEE AND VOTE YES.
THAT IS WHERE MY FAITH FLIES.
I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A
DEBATE ABOUT CORPORATIONS AND
PROPERTY AND WHY THINGS ARE
DIFFERENT.
I GET THAT.
BUT THERE IS A BEDROCK HERE OF
GENEROSITY AND THAT'S WHAT I
WAS GETTING TO.
I UNDERSTAND AND I WILL CLOSE
IT AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ . COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN I SAW YOU TAKE
YOURSELF OFF MUTE, IS A
COSPONSOR LET YOU SPEAK TO AND
THEN I HAVE TO MOVE US ON.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO POINT OUT I SUPPORT
PROGRESSIVE TAXATION, HOUSE
BILL 2907, I AM SORRY IT DIDN'T
PASS.
ONE OF THE KEY OFFENSES IS THAT
WAS REGIONAL.
I THINK THERE WAS A LOT MORE
SUPPORT FOR THAT BECAUSE IT WAS
REGIONAL AND SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESS THE CRISIS OF
HOMELESSNESS WHICH IS DIFFERENT
THAN WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US
TODAY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT
NOTE.
THANK YOU.
>> I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MY
COMMENTS WHICH WERE, I
APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT IN WHICH
THIS WAS PUT FORWARD.
I KNOW THERE IS AGREEMENT AMONG
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT THE NEED
DOLLARS AND THE NEED FOR THE
SPEND.
I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT
WERE MADE TODAY. COUNCIL CLERK
WILL YOU CALL THE ROLE OF
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ ? NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD ?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ ?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> NO.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA?
>> NO.
TWO IN FAVOR AND SEVEN
OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
CENTRAL STAFF COULD YOU MOVE US
ONTO AMENDMENT EIGHT, LAST IN
THE FIRST CATEGORY.
DO WE STILL HAVE CENTRAL STAFF
WITH US?
IS A GET THE SCREEN AND THEIR
AUDIO GOING, THIS IS AMENDMENT
NUMBER 8 SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ON
NONPROFIT EXEMPTIONS.
ARE YOU WITH US?
AMELIA?
I JUST WANT TO CHECK IN TO SEE
IF WE HAVE I.T.
FOLKS WERE ABLE -- HI DAN.
WE'VE GOT YOU.
BEFORE YOU GO ON, THEN, WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT I.T.
COULD CONFIRM THAT THEY CAN
HEAR ME BECAUSE WE HAD SOME
FOLKS SAYING WE COULDN'T HEAR
YOU WELL.
>> IS THIS OKAY FOR FOLKS?
GO AHEAD AND IF WE GET
NOTIFICATION I WILL LET YOU
KNOW BUT TRY TO SPEAK UP.
>> VERY GOOD.
HANG ON ONE SECOND, PLEASE.
AND I.T.
FOLKS SEE IF YOU CAN TURN UP
DAN.
DAN, I CAN DEFINITELY HEAR YOU.
>> THIS IS AMENDMENT NUMBER 8
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
IT WOULD EXEMPT ALL NONPROFITS
FROM PAYROLL TAX THE DEFINITION
OF NONPROFITS, I WON'T READ BUT
SHOULD BE ON YOUR SCREEN, IT
EFFECTIVELY WOULD EXEMPT ALL
501(C)(3) TYPE OF NONPROFITS.
THE EFFECT BOX IN THE SECOND
PARAGRAPH DESCRIBES CENTRAL
STAFF'S ESTIMATE AND METHODOLOGY
FOR COMING UP WITH THE ESTIMATE
FOR HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT THE
ESTIMATE OF TAX REVENUES THAT WE
PULL FROM THE APPROVAL OF THE
BILL.
IF THIS AMENDMENT PASSES.
THE INFORMATION AND DATA THAT
WE HAVE FROM THE EMPLOYMENT
SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE
HAS ONE CATEGORY FOR BOTH
NONPROFITS AND HOSPITALS, BOTH
NONPROFIT AND FOR-PROFIT
HOSPITALS.
WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY ONLY ONE
TOGGLE WE CAN THROW THAT
CAPTURES THE DESCRIPTION OF
NONPROFITS THAT WOULD BE
EXEMPTED HERE.
AND WHEN WE THROW THAT TOGGLE
AIR READ OF THE ESD DATA IS
THAT EXEMPTING NONPROFITS ALONG
WITH ALL HOSPITALS WOULD REDUCE
OTHERWISE ANTICIPATED 2021 TAX
REVENUES BY $9.2 MILLION.
I WANT TO JUST NOTE THAT WE
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE $9.2
MILLION IS LIKELY ON THE HIGH
SIDE OF WHAT THE ACTUAL
REDUCTION WILL BE.
BECAUSE INCLUDE SOME TYPES OF
HOSPITALS THAT ARE FOR-PROFIT,
AND WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE
EXEMPTION IN THE AMENDMENT.
IT ALSO POTENTIALLY INCLUDES
OTHER KINDS OF NONPROFITS SUCH
AS 501(C) FOUR AND OTHERS THAT
ARE NOT 501(C)(3).
I'M HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY
QUESTIONS, I WILL TURN THIS
OVER TO THE SPONSOR.
>> I'M NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT?
>> YES.
THANK YOU CHAIR.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
119810 AMENDMENT EIGHT TO EXEMPT
501(C)(3) NONPROFITS.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, IT'S BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT?
>> CENTRAL STAFF EXPLAINED IT
WELL, THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
EXEMPT 501(C)(3) NONPROFITS,
THERE WAS AN EXEMPTION FOR
NONPROFITS IN OTHER VERSIONS OF
PAYROLL TAX LEGISLATION.
I SUPPORT THAT EXEMPTION.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO
GET AT WITH THE PAYROLL TAX IN
ADDITION TO MEETING CERTAIN
NEEDS IS THAT, THERE BEEN
STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT LORD
CORPORATIONS, LARGE
CORPORATIONS ARE ABLE TO, ARE
STABLE, ARE ABLE TO AFFORD
CERTAIN THINGS, AND I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE EXEMPT
501(C)(3) NONPROFITS WHO AREN'T,
WE ARE TRYING TO TARGET WITH
THIS PAYROLL TAX ON LARGE FOR-
PROFIT CORPORATIONS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
I APPRECIATE THE SUMMARY.
LET'S SEE, ANY IMMEDIATE HANDS?
I WILL PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS
AND IF THERE ARE OTHERS WOULD
LIKE TO CHIME IN PLEASE LET ME
KNOW.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN FOR PUTTING FORWARD
THIS AMENDMENT.
I KNOW THE SPIRIT IN WHICH YOU
HAVE DONE THIS IS TO TRY TO
MAKE SURE THAT THOSE WHO ARE
NONPROFITS ARE ALSO RECOGNIZED
FOR THE ROLE THEY ARE PLAYING
IN COVID RESPONSE.
JUST AS A REMINDER WE HAVE A $7
MILLION THRESHOLD IN SEATTLE
PAYROLL AND THIS IS ONLY
APPLYING TO SALARIES STARTING
AT $102,000 OR MORE.
AS WE HEARD FROM FOLKS THE ONE
AREA I HAVE HEARD SOME
QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT
NONPROFITS COULD BE EXEMPT WAS
SPECIFIC TO NONPROFITS IN THE
HEALTHCARE WORLD.
AND THERE IS AN AMENDMENT I HAVE
FOR US TO DISCUSS POTENTIALLY
NEXT WHICH IS AMENDMENT NUMBER
14 WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS
TO LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A NICE
WAY TO THREAD THE INTENT I
BELIEVE YOU ARE TRYING TO GET
AT, THE CONCERNS YOU ARE
RAISING, AND THE WAY IN WHICH
14 IS PRESENTED IS ONLY FOR A
SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AND ONLY
APPLIES TO AN EXEMPTION FOR THE
SALARIES BETWEEN $150,000 AND
$400,000.
TO THE HIGHER WAGE EARNERS CAN
STILL HAVE AN ASSESSMENT THERE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT YOU
HAVE GONE INTO THE DETAIL OF
YOUR AMENDMENTS.
I WILL SAY THOUGH THAT IN
WORKING WITH THE BROAD GROUP OF
STAKEHOLDERS I ENGAGED WITH ON
THE BILL, THE FOLKS WHO WERE
RAISING ISSUES AND WANTINGTO
SEE VARIOUS CHANGES, NO
EXEMPTION TO NONPROFIT PROVIDERS
WERE FLAGGED AS A POSSIBLE
CONCERN.
AND WANT TO SAY THAT MANY OF
THE NONPROFITS THAT ARE
INCLUDED HERE HAVE BEEN PART OF
THE COALITION PARTNER.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
YOU AND IF THERE IS OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS THAT HAVE
CONCERNS, I THINK I AM HAPPY TO
HEAR THOSE BETWEEN NOW AND
MONDAY.
AT THIS POINT I WOULD ENCOURAGE
FOLKS TO BE A NO ON THIS
AMENDMENT AND POTENTIALLY
CONSIDER AMENDMENT 14.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR.
I TOO WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN FOR
BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT
FORWARD.
AND I WILL SIGNAL THAT I DO
INTEND TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS
AMENDMENT, ACTUALLY I DO THINK
THAT IT IS EQUITABLE TO EXEMPT
NONPROFITS FROM THIS TAX WHICH
I BELIEVE SHOULD FUNDAMENTALLY
BE A CORPORATE TAX WITH HIGH
MARGINAL RATES FOR BIG
BUSINESSES.
INDEED I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT
THAT COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S
TAX AMAZON LEGISLATION
INCLUDING AN EXEMPTION FOR
NONPROFITS, I THINK IT'S A GOOD
THING FOR US TO INCORPORATE
INTO OUR VARIOUS PAYROLL TAX
PROPOSALS.
I WANT TO SINGLE THE I DO
INTEND TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> I SAW COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS'S HAND UP NEXT.
>> THANK YOU BUDGET CHAIR, AND
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN FOR
BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT
FORWARD.
I AM CONFLICTED ABOUT THIS
AMENDMENT.
I WILL LIKELY VOTE NO, AND I
WANT TO SHARE MY REASONS WHY.
THAT SAID, I AM STILL MAKING MY
MIND AS I HEAR OTHER PEOPLE'S
COMMENTS AS WE GOVERN IN REAL
TIME.
I HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED IN
NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT AND THAT,
DURING THAT CERTIFICATION
PROCESS WE LEARNED IMPORTANT
LESSONS ABOUT NONPROFITS.
AND HOW TO MANAGE NONPROFITS.
AND REALLY IT COMES DOWN TO THE
FACT THAT NONPROFIT IS A TAX
STATUS.
STILL OPERATE YOUR BUSINESS IN
THE SAME FUNCTION.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS YOU DO
NOT FUNNEL YOUR PROFITS, YOU
DON'T FUNNEL YOUR REVENUE INTO
PROFITS.
RATHER YOU CAN STILL FUNNEL
THEM INTO SALARIES, YOU CAN
STILL FUNNEL THEM INTO PROGRAMS,
YOU CAN STILL FUNNEL THEM INTO
OTHER WAYS.
AND SO, NONPROFITS SIMPLY BEING
A TAX STATUS, IT MAKES ME
CONFLICTED ABOUT THIS
AMENDMENT.
I DO SHARE YOUR SYMPATHY THAT
WE NEED TO BE SUPPORTING OUR
NONPROFITS AND ESPECIALLY THE
NONPROFITS PROVIDING SERVICES
TO OUR COMMUNITY.
YOU WILL SEE IN THE SPENDING
PLAN THAT I WILL BE BRINGING
FORD AND AMENDMENT TO CREATE
ELIGIBILITY FOR NONPROFITS WHO
PROVIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES TO
APPLY FOR STABILIZATION FUNDS.
NOW AGAIN, THAT NUANCE IS
IMPORTANT BECAUSE NOT ALL
NONPROFITS ARE PROVIDING A
BENEFIT TO OUR COMMUNITY.
IS IMPORTANT AND DIFFICULT TO
IDENTIFY HOW TO CATEGORIZE IN
NONPROFIT THAT IS PROVIDING
MEANINGFUL SERVICE TO OUR
COMMUNITY AS COMPARED TO A
NONPROFIT THAT IS SIMPLY
REGISTERED IN A TAX STATUS FORM.
LOTS TO THINK ABOUT.
OVERALL I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN FOR
BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD
IN THE DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS.
>> MADAM CHAIR?
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I AM SORRY, I TEXTED YOU BUT
I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO BE
LOOKING AT YOUR PHONE.
ANYWAY, THANK YOU.
I HAD A QUESTION AND MAYBE YOU
CAN RESPOND TO SOME OF THIS IN
REGARDS TO SOME OF YOUR
AMENDMENTS, I WILL BE
SUPPORTING COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT, BUT I,
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR
ANSWERING THE SIX PAGES OF
QUESTIONS OUR OFFICE AND YOUR
STAFF.
YOU KNOW THAT ONE OF OUR
QUESTIONS WAS THE MEDICAL FOR-
PROFIT AND NONPROFIT, THAT IS
AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL
SERVICE OR PRODUCT IN THE CITY.
WE HAVE PROVIDED BY 50
HOSPITALS AND CLINICS
THROUGHOUT SEATTLE INCLUDING
MEDICAL SERVICES TO PEOPLE OF
ALL INCOME LEVELS.
SO WE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE
IMPACT WOULD BE FOR JUMPSTART
ON HOSPITALS OR CLINICS OR EVEN
A CLINIC LIKE PLANNED
PARENTHOOD.
IN REGARDS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON, WHICH OPERATES
HARBORVIEW HOSPITAL, THEY ARE
FACING A $500 MILLION SHORTFALL
AND FURLOUGHED 5500 EMPLOYEES
AS A RESULT OF THE ECONOMIC
IMPACT OF THE PANDEMIC.
AND THEY MUST CONTINUE TO
RESPOND TO THE PANDEMIC AND ALSO
RESPOND TO BACK UP CASES PUT ON
THE WHOLE.
WE HAVE LEARNED THROUGH
VIRGINIA MASON, OTHER HOSPITALS
THAT CONTACTED US THAT THEY ARE
FACING SIMILAR CHALLENGES.
SO I GUESS SOME OF THE QUESTION
IS, ARE SOME OF THESE ISSUES
GOING TO BE ADDRESSED?
OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE
ADDRESSED IN YOUR AMENDMENTS IN
LIGHT OF THE LAYOFFS IN THE
MEDICAL FACILITIES THAT ARE
HAPPENING REGIONALLY?
WE KNOW OVERLAY HOSPITAL HAD TO
FURLOUGH 150 EMPLOYEES.
WILL TAKE CARE TO, HAD TO
FURLOUGH 6000 EMPLOYEES.
THE REASON WHY AM SUPPORTING
THIS FOR THE MEDICAL NONPROFITS
IS, I WANT TO KNOW WHO IS LEFT
STANDING TO TAX WHEN THIS
PANDEMIC FUEL AND RECESSION
HITS US AND WHERE WE CAN
REALIZE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT AN
ADDITIONAL $9.2 MILLION THAT
YOU THINK WE WOULD LOSE IF WE
WERE NOT EXEMPTED.
CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN YOU ANSWER
THAT QUESTION FOR ME SO I CAN
BE CLEAR IN MY VOTE?
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ AND COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN AS SPONSORS AS WELL.
I WOULD SAY THAT IN AMENDMENT
NUMBER 14 THAT WE WILL CONSIDER
HERE IN A MOMENT, IF THE
CONCERN IS SPECIFIC TO
NONPROFIT MEDICAL ENTITIES, THE
LANGUAGE I PROPOSE IS TRYING TO
SPECIFICALLY GET AT THAT
NONPROFIT THRESHOLD OR
NONPROFIT SECTOR.
WHEN WE HAVE NONPROFITS AS A
GENERAL CATEGORY, IT OPENS THE
CONVERSATION TO EXEMPTIONS MUCH
BROADER AND I UNDERSTAND THE
SENTIMENT YOU ARE RAISING
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ , AND I
BELIEVE COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
SPOKE TO THAT SECTOR AS WELL.
THE ATTEMPT I HAVEN'T AMENDMENT
14 WHICH WILL BE COMING SOON IS
TO TRY TO OFFER A SPECIFIC
NARROW EXEMPTION FOR THOSE
NONPROFIT MEDICAL ENTITIES AND
THOSE FOLKS THAT YOU TALKED
ABOUT, COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ ,
WOULD BE COVERED IN THE
AMENDMENT COMING, AMENDMENT 14.
THAT IS MY ANSWER TO YOUR
QUESTION SPECIFIC TO THAT
SECTOR.
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
AND COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, BUT
BEFORE WE MOVE ON, DID THAT
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> YES IT DOES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
SORRY ABOUT THAT AND I WILL
CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR YOUR BOX
TO LIGHT UP FOR ANY MESSAGES.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , AND
THEN COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO SIGNAL MY INTENTION
TO VOTE NO ON THIS AMENDMENT AS
WELL AS THE FOLLOWING TWO
AMENDMENTS, THE EXEMPTION FOR
NONPROFIT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
AS WELL AS THE EXEMPTION FOR
FOR-PROFIT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE
OF CHARITY CARE.
THE REASON WHY I AM GOING TO
VOTE NO IS I ACCEPT THAT THERE
ARE LIKELY TO BE ELIGIBLE
NONPROFITS BOTH IN THE
HEALTHCARE FIELD AND IN THE NON-
HEALTHCARE FIELD AND WE KNOW
THERE ARE PAYROLL ELIGIBLE FOR
PROFITS THAT ARE HOSPITALS THAT
PROVIDE CHARITY CARE.
BUT THE COMPARISON TO
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT'S ORIGINAL
BILL I DON'T THINK IS AN
ACCURATE COMPARISON BECAUSE
THAT BILL INCLUDED EXEMPTION
BECAUSE THE PAYROLL TAX WAS
LEVIED ACROSS ALL INCOME JOBS.
AND THIS PARTICULAR BILL IS
VERY TARGETED.
ONLY ON THE PAYROLL ABOVE
$150,000.
I EXCEPT THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS
WORKING AT BOTH NONPROFIT
HOSPITALS, NON-HEALTHCARE
NONPROFITS, AS WELL AS FOR
PROFITS THAT PROVIDE CHARITY
CARE TO EARN MORE THAN $150,000
PER YEAR THE NUMBER OF THOSE
EMPLOYEES I BELIEVE IS
RELATIVELY SMALL AS COMPARED TO
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
UNDER THE ORIGINAL BILL.
THE TAX HIT I BELIEVE IS LIKELY
TO BE ALSO RELATIVELY SMALL
BECAUSE IT'S ONLY BASED ON
THOSE INCOMES OVER $150,000 PER
YEAR.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT TO
CLOSE US OUT.
>> ONCE AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S IN
THE CONTEXT, SOMETHING WE HAD
ALL REITERATED TOGETHER IN THE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE THAT THE
AMAZON TAX BILL IN THIS BILL
ARE BOTH TAXES ON BIG BUSINESS,
BIG CORPORATIONS.
AND HENCE THEY LAND ON THE TOP
EXECUTIVES, SHAREHOLDERS,
WORKERS NO MATTER WHICH SECTION
YOU TARGET.
IN OUR ORIGINAL LEGISLATION, WE
HAD A TAX THAT WAS LEVIED ON
THE CORPORATIONS TOPMOST, THE
OWNERS AND SHAREHOLDERS ON THE
ENTIRE PAYROLL.
SO IT'S NOT AN APT COMPARISON.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, ANY
CLOSING COMMENTS FROM YOU?
>> THANK YOU.
THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
THOSE ARE REALLY GOOD POINTS
ABOUT THE $150,000 THRESHOLD
BEING A KEY DIFFERENCE.
I AM JUST THINKING, I JUST
THINK IT WILL BE BETTER FOR THE
PAYROLL TAX PACKAGE AS A WHOLE
IF YOU EXEMPT ALL NONPROFITS
BECAUSE IT TAKES AWAY A
POTENTIAL CRITICISM LATER OF
THIS.
I THINK WE JUST DON'T KNOW
WHICH NONPROFITS ARE OUT THERE.
IF THEY ARE OVER $7 MILLION IN
PAYROLL THEY HAVE TO FILL OUT
THE PAPERWORK AND IT WILL
EMERGE OVER TIME THAT THERE
WILL BE SOME NONPROFITS, MAYBE
LARGE ARTS ORGANIZATIONS LIKE
SEATTLE OPERA, WE JUST DON'T
KNOW WHO IS GOING TO BE BROUGHT
INTO THIS AT THIS POINT AND I
JUST THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER
TO HAVE AN EXEMPTION FOR ALL
NONPROFITS.
AND IF WE THINK, THERE AREN'T
THAT MANY PEOPLE WHO MAKE
$150,000 AND OVER $70 MILLION
IN A NONPROFIT, THEN WHY NOT
PASS EXEMPTION?
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
TO THE EXTENT THAT WAS A
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DATA
BEFORE MONDAY, I WOULD ADD TO
THAT.
I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO KNOW IF ENTITIES
LIKE THE NATIONAL HOCKEY
LEAGUE, NATIONAL BASKETBALL
ASSOCIATION ARE EXAMPLES OF
NONPROFITS THAT WOULD
POTENTIALLY BE EXEMPT FROM THIS
IF THE AMENDMENT WERE INCLUDED.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE SHOULD GO
AHEAD AND VOTE I THINK THAT IS
A WORTHY CONVERSATION TO ASK.
AGAIN I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT
IN WHICH IT WAS INTRODUCED
SPECIFICALLY TO HELP AND THAT
IS HOPEFULLY THE CONVERSATION
WE WILL HAVE IN JUST A SECOND.
AT THIS POINT I WOULD LIKE TO
CALL FOR A VOTE.
MADAME CLERK WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER 8?
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS .
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ .
>> NO.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ
>> YES.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> YES.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
>> YES.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
>> NO.
THREE IN FAVOR AND SIX OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEMS 14.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR SUMMARY
PERHAPS WE COULD DO THE TAX
STATEMENT AS WELL.
YOUR ON MUTE.
>> THERE.
I HAVE TROUBLE FINDING THE MUTE
BUTTON.
>> SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> I AM TAKING YOU BACK TO THE
PRESENTATION SLIDE NUMBER 4. WE
HAVE ADDRESSED ONE, FIVE AND
EIGHT. WE ARE ABOUT TO GET INTO
THE AMENDMENTS THE BEGIN TO BE
EITHER ORES.
THE FIRST COUPLE I'M GOING TO
ADDRESS TOGETHER AS THE CHAIR
JUST DESCRIBED ARE
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA'S
AMENDMENT 14 AND COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT NUMBER 7.
I WOULD BRING UP THE EFFECT THE
STATEMENTS FOR EACH OF THESE I
THINK WE WILL COMPARE THE TWO.
>> THAT WORKS GREAT.
BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD
PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION TO THE TAX
FOR NONPROFIT HEALTHCARE
ENTITIES.
THEY ARE COMPETING VERSIONS OF
HOW TO DEFINE WHAT THAT MEANS.
IN AMENDMENT 14, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA'S PROPOSAL, THERE
WOULD BE A FIVE YEAR DEDUCTION
OF PAYROLL THAT IS UNDERNEATH
THE $400,000 LEVEL.
THOSE REMAINING TO HAVE TO PAY
FOR THE TAX WOULD PAY ONLY FOR
THE EMPLOYEES EARNING MORE THAN
$400,000.
THE DEFINITION OF NONPROFIT
HEALTHCARE ENTITIES WHO WOULD
BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS DEDUCTION
ARE THOSE WHO ARE PRIMARILY,
WHO ARE INVOLVED IN PRIMARY
HEALTHCARE AND PROVIDE MORE
THAN 50% OF THEIR SERVICES TO
MEDICAID ELIGIBLE CLIENTS. ALSO,
NONPROFIT LIFE SCIENCE RESEARCH
ORGANIZATIONS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE
FOR THE DEDUCTION.
THE DEDUCTION WOULD LAST FIVE
YEARS.
I'M GOING TO JUST QUICKLY JUMP
TO A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
PROPOSAL.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
PROPOSAL WOULD DIFFER IN THE
TIMEFRAME FIRST.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA'S NUMBER
14 WOULD BE A FIVE YEAR
DEDUCTION.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S WOULD
BE A TWO YEAR EXEMPTION.
THE EXEMPTION WOULD APPLY BOTH
TO NONPROFIT HEALTHCARE
ENTITIES WHICH ARE DEFINED IN A
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY, I
SHOULDN'T FLIGHT SAFE SLIGHTLY,
SHOULD SO DIFFERENT.
IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL HOSPITALS
WHETHER THEY ARE NONPROFIT OR
FOR-PROFIT.
I'M GOING TO HIGHLIGHT WITH THE
NONPROFIT ENTITY CATEGORY WOULD
BE COVERED BY THE TWO YEAR
EXEMPTION UNDER COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S AMENDMENT NUMBER 7.
THOSE ARE PRIMARY MEDICINE
PROVIDERS FOR WHOM THAT 50% AS
WITH COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA'S
PROPOSAL, BUT 25% IN
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
PROPOSAL , WOULD PROVIDE
SERVICE TO THOSE WHO ARE EITHER
MEDICAID ELIGIBLE OR MEDICARE
ELIGIBLE.
COMPARISON TO COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA'S PROPOSAL IS THE
ADDITION OF MEDICARE ELIGIBLE
BEING PART OF THE 25% AND THAT
PERCENT IS ALSO DIFFERENT IN
THE TWO PROPOSALS.
I APOLOGIZE IF THAT WASN'T
CRYSTAL-CLEAR.
THAT IS THE FLAVOR OF THE
DIFFERENCES.
SPOKE VERY CLEAR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DAN.
I APPRECIATE IT.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
ANYTHING TO ADD ?
>> THANK YOU, BUDGET CHAIR.
SO AMENDMENT SEVEN WHICH WOULD
BE THE TWO YEAR EXEMPTION FOR
ALL HEALTHCARE, THE RATIONALE
THERE IS THAT DURING THE COVID
EMERGENCY I DON'T THINK IT
MAKES SENSE TO TAX, TO IMPOSE
úTHIS ADMINISTRATIVE FINANCIAL
BURDEN ON THESE INSTITUTIONS AS
THEY ARE PROVIDING HEALTHCARE
RELIEF, PROVIDING HELPING
PEOPLE WITH COVID, ETC., IN THE
MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC.
THAT IS WHY THE TWO YEAR PERIOD
IS THERE, IS THAT IT'S
PRESUMABLY DURING THE COVID
PERIOD.
I ALSO SUPPORT THE INTENT OF
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA'S ,
BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A
LONGER PERIOD OF TIME TO EXEMPT
NONPROFITS. THERE ARE SEVERAL
NONPROFIT HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
WOULD BE EXEMPT FOR THE FIVE
YEAR PERIOD UNDER COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA'S.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO
RECONCILE THESE TWO.
I WILL DEFER TO THE CHAIR FOR
NOW.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
I THINK AMENDMENT 14 WAS AN
ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE.
IF YOU WOULD STILL LIKE TO MOVE
YOUR AMENDMENT FOR A POSSIBLE
VOTE AND CONSIDERATION WE CAN
DO THAT.
I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO THAT
FIRST IF YOU DID WANT TO VOTE
ON AMENDMENT SEVEN, BEFORE YOU
CONSIDER DOING THAT I THINK,
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, DID YOU
HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE WE
CONSIDER OUR MOTION ?
> THANK YOU.
I WANT TO ASK CLARIFYING
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OVERALL
IMPACT THIS MIGHT HAVE REVENUE
WISE BASED ON THE LAST
AMENDMENT WE CONSIDERED, THE
COMPREHENSIVE TOTAL, DAN, I
BELIEVE FROM YOUR COMMENTS AT
THAT POINT WAS EXEMPTING ALL
NONPROFITS WOULD POTENTIALLY BE
A $9 MILLION HIT.
I THINK I SAW ON THAT DATASET
THAT INCLUDED ALL HOSPITAL
PROVIDERS.
úI JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY NOW
THAT WE ARE ON TO THIS, AND WE
HAVE AN IDEA ON BOTH OF THESE
AMENDMENTS, WHAT THE REVENUE
IMPACT WOULD BE?
OR IS THERE SIMILARLY A DOUBT
LIKE THERE WAS IN THE NONPROFIT
ONE?
I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT BACK
TO YOU.
>> A GOOD QUESTION.
I WOULD ANSWER IT THIS WAY.
WE KNOW THAT HOSPITALS ARE PART
OF THE CATEGORY OF NONPROFITS
AND HOSPITALS.
WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY ESTIMATED
THAT NONPROFITS ARE LIKELY THE
LARGER OF THE TWO AND WE SAID
$9.2 MILLION FOR BOTH
CATEGORIES.
WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
NONPROFITS ONLY.
I AM NOT ABLE TO BREAK THE $9.2
MILLION DOWN AND SAY THAT'S THE
UPPER CAP OF WHAT IT COULD BE
WHEN WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT
HOSPITALS AND NONPROFIT
HOSPITALS IS A SUBSET OF THAT.
>> TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, I'M
HAPPY TO GO IN THE ORDER IT IS
ON THE SLIDE HERE IF THAT IS
YOUR PREFERENCE.
THAT IS NO PROBLEM.
>> I DON'T WANT TO DRAG THIS
OUT.
AT THE SAME TIME I DO FEEL THAT
THE TWO COULD BE FURTHER
RECONCILE.
YOU COULD THEORETICALLY EXEMPT
FOR-PROFIT HOSPITALS FOR TWO
YEARS DURING COVID AND THEN THE
FIVE YEAR MEASURE FOR
NONPROFITS WOULD KEEP GOING.
BUT IF OTHER FOLKS DISAGREE,
MAYBE IT DOES EXTENDS TO THEN
VOTE ON MINE FIRST.
>> MADAM CHAIR, MAY I CHIME IN?
I APOLOGIZE FOR THE
INTERRUPTION.
>> GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ .
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
I AM STRUGGLING BECAUSE, IN
TRYING TO RECONCILE YOUR
AMENDMENT, MADAM CHAIR, AND
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
BECAUSE THEY BOTH GET TO WHAT
MY CONCERNS WERE IN THAT I
APPRECIATE YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA ON THE FIVE YEAR
DURATION UNDER $400,000.
EXEMPTING AT 50% ARE MEDICAID.
BUT YOU DON'T INCLUDE MEDICARE.
AND THEN ON COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S, I APPRECIATE THE TO
YOUR EXCEPTION TO BOTH
NONPROFIT AND PROFIT, AND I AM
WONDERING, IT'S A DIFFICULT
CHOICE BECAUSE I THOUGHT IF WE
COMBINED THE TWO IT WOULD BE A
BETTER PIECE OF LEGISLATION.
A BETTER AMENDMENT, I'M SORRY.
TO CAPTURE WHAT WE ARE TRYING
TO DO HERE.
BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THAT WE
HAVE SOME FOR-PROFIT HOSPITALS
THAT MAY NOT FALL UNDER THESE
AND ARE PROVIDING SERVICES TO
LOW INCOME FAMILIES THAT ARE
DOING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID AND
ONE ENTITY IS THE INDIAN HEALTH
BOARD.
I KNOW THEY HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT
MAKE OVER 150, AGAIN, I THINK
THERE IS SOME WORTH TO WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN IS
SAYING TO THE EXEMPTION IN THE
MIDST OF COVID.
IF THERE'S SOME WAY WE CAN
BRIDGE THAT, OTHERWISE I AM
INCLINED TO VOTE NO ON YOUR
AMENDMENT AND YES ON
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S.
>> THIS IS A PROCEDURAL
QUESTION BECAUSE THIS IS MY
FIRST BUDGET PROCESS ON THE
COUNCIL.
IF WE PASS THIS BILL SINCE
THIS IS A COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE,
STUFFED AWAY IN ON IT AGAIN AT
FULL COUNCIL?
>>> THERE ARE PARTS FOR BOTH OF
THEM.
I LIKE.
I THINK WE COULD RECONCILE IT.
PUT A COMPREHENSIVE FOR COVID
FORWARD POTENTIALLY LATER IN
THE PROCESS.
THE PROCESS QUESTION, I DON'T
KNOW IF IT'S FOR MADAME CHAIR.
>> I WILL NOTE WE ARE TRYING
NOT TO HAVE ESSENTIAL STOP WORK
COMING UP.
APPRECIATE YOUR CREATIVE
THINKING.
I AM THINKING AT THIS POINT WE
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
IN FRONT OF US AND IF THERE ARE
COUNCILMEMBERS INTERESTED IN
ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT
PASSES OR DOESN'T PASS TODAY,
THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CONVERSATION.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE UP OR
DOWN ON THE AMENDMENTS, WE
COULD CONSIDER THAT.
>> I WAS GOING TO ANSWER
COUNSEL LEWISES QUESTION.
I THINK YOU ADDRESSED IT MADAME
CHAIR.
THIS WOULD BE UP FOR VOTE
BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL.
WHEN YOU NEXT TAKE IT UP AFTER
IT MOVES OUT OF COMMITTEE AND
GOES TO FULL COUNCIL.
THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
FURTHER AMEND WHAT EVER IS.
I THINK YOU WILL NEED TO PICK
ONE OF THESE TWO SO WE AREN'T
DOING THE SAUSAGE MAKING ON-THE-
FLY.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE
YOU WANT TO ADD BEFORE YOU
CONSIDER?
>> I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE
TIME.
>> OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, DID YOU
WANT TO WORK OVER THE NEXT FEW
DAYS ON THIS QUESTION AND SEE
IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL ROOM WE
COULD PULLED THE AMENDMENTS AT
THIS POINT DID YOU HAVE
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD
. I AM HAPPY TO DO THAT FOR THE
PURPOSES OF TIME HERE TODAY AND
ALSO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
úDISCUSSION TO KEEP HAVING THIS
CONVERSATION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS CONCERN
ON BOTH ENDS.
WE WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO AND
TRY TO DO THAT IN A QUICK
FASHION SINCE TIME IS NOT OVER
THE WEEKEND.
I AM GOING TO PULL AMENDMENT 14.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> YOU SUGGEST I AM PULLING
AMENDMENT 7 AS WELL?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION,
FOLKS.
DAN, LET US MOVE INTO THE LAST
SECTION.
>> OKAY.
SORRY, I TOOK A CALL.
YOU CAN'T SEE THE SLIDESHOW, IS
THAT CORRECT?
CAN YOU SEE THE SLIDESHOW?
>> NOW WE CAN.
>> THIS LAST SECTION AT THE
BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN, THERE
ARE FIVE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE
AT LEAST A COMMON COUPLE OF
SUBJECTS THAT ARE ADDRESSED.
AMENDMENTS 3 AND 4 ADDRESS WHAT
IS DESCRIBED AS A SUNSET
PROVISION WHICH IS TO SAY WHEN
DOES THE TAX AND? ITEMS 6, 12,
AND 18 HAVE DIFFERENT
APPROACHES FOR HOW TO AMEND
WHAT IS DESCRIBED, MAINTAIN A
LEVEL PLAYING FIELD SECTION.
THAT SECTION DESCRIBES THE
COUNSEL'S INTENT OTHER TAXES
THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY KING
COUNTY AND THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON AND TO TAKE FUTURE
ACTIONS TO END OR AMEND THE
PAYROLL TAX.
THESE ITEMS ARE MARKED AS BEING
ALL IN CONFLICT WITH ITEM, I'M
SORRY, AMENDMENT 3. THAT
AMENDMENT UNLIKE WHAT IS SHONE
DIRECTLY ON THE SCREEN, NOT ONLY
WOULD STRIKE THE SUNSET CLAUSE
WHICH WOULD MAKE THE TAX NO
LONGER END AFTER 10 YEARS WHICH
IS ON THE BASE LEGISLATION.
IF YOU STRIKE THAT SECTION,
THERE WOULD BE NO SPECIFIC END
DATE TO THE TAX UNTIL COUNSEL
TAKES A FUTURE ACTION.
THROUGH SEPARATE ORDINANCE.
THAT AMENDMENT 3 ALSO STRIKES
THE ENTIRELY STRIKES THE
MAINTAIN THE LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD PROVISION THAT AMENDMENTS
SIX, 12, AND 18 AMEND IN
DIFFERENT WAYS.
AMENDMENT 3 IS IN COMPETITION
OR IN CONFLICT WITH AMENDMENT
FOUR. THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON IS SPONSORING.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON'S SUNSET
AMENDMENT WOULD CHANGE THE
CURRENT TENURE PROPOSAL TO A
FOUR YEARS SUNSET SO THE TAX
WOULD CEASE TO BE IN PLAY AFTER
20 24.
I THINK I WILL PAUSE HERE TO
SEE IF YOU WANT TO DO ANY
PROCEDURAL STEPS THAT MIGHT
ALLOW US TO TALK NOT ONLY ABOUT
THE SUNSET PROVISIONS, AND THEN
POTENTIALLY TALK AS A SEPARATE
STEP ABOUT MAINTAINING A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD PROVISIONS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP THE
SUNSET PROVISION QUESTION. THEN
MAINTAINING THE LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD PROVISION.
COUNCIL MEMBERS SAWANT AND
PEDERSEN HAVE SUNSET RELATED
ITEMS.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, YOU ARE
LISTED FIRST.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO
YOUR AMENDMENT AND THEN
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
THIS AMENDMENT WAS DATED BEFORE
WOULD ELIMINATE THE SUNSET
CLAUSE. IT IS ALMOST SEEMS
STRANGE ARGUING AGAINST THE
SUNSET CLAUSE BECAUSE WHO IN
ANY HONESTY CAN BELIEVE THAT
GIVEN HOW EXACERBATED THE
CRISIS IS OR PEOPLE ESPECIALLY
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES THAT
THE CRISIS OF HOUSING, NOT TO
MENTION THE AFTER AFFECTS OF
THE PANDEMIC AND AFTER AFFECTS
OF THE JOBLESSNESS WILL
MAGICALLY BE SOLVED BY SOME.
WE HAVE BEEN TRENCHED
INEQUALITY AND THAT MEANS IT
SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.
TO SAY THAT A TAX ON BIG
BUSINESS, FIRST CITYWIDE TAX ON
BIG BUSINESS BECAUSE WE HAVE
THE MOST REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM.
TO SAY THIS TYPE OF NEW TAX
ONLY NEEDS TO BE TEMPORARY. IT
IS DISINGENUOUS.
JUST INSULTING TO ORDINARY
PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING
SHOULDERING THE BURDEN OF
FUNDING THE SOCIETY WHILE BIG
BUSINESS LIKE AMAZON AND OTHER
CORPORATIONS HAVE ENJOYED A
CORPORATE TAX HAVEN FOR WHO
KNOWS HOW LONG.
WE BELIEVE THE ONLY THING THAT
SHOULD SUNSET IS THE ECONOMIC
INEQUALITY AND REPORT
REGRESSIVE TAXATION AND
UNDERFUNDING OF OUR SOCIAL
NEEDS.
>> I WILL SIGNAL BEFORE
COUNCILMAN PEDERSEN.
IF WE TAKE THIS AMENDMENT UP
WOULD BE TO DO AN AMENDMENT TO
MOVE THAT WE AMEND AMENDMENT 3
BY MAINTAINING THE LANGUAGE IN
THE WAREHOUSE SECTION AND
MAINTAINING THE LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD SO THEN WE COULD COME BACK
AND ADDRESS THE PLAYING FIELD
LANGUAGE.
THERE ARE THREE AMENDMENTS
RELATED TO THAT.
WE WOULD JUST BE AMENDING THE
SUNSET LANGUAGE THAT IS THE
ITEM IN YOUR BILL.
JUST WANT TO PUT THAT IN
CONTEXT.
THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION FOR
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, WITH
THAT IN MIND, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SPEAK TO YOUR AMENDMENT BRIEFLY
SO WE KNOW HOW THESE PROPOSALS
COMPARE?
>> THANK YOU.
THE RATIONALE, I VIEW THE
SUNSET AS A RENEWAL, TIME TO
REVISIT, TIME TO RENEW,
RECALIBRATE THINGS. A LOT OF
THE TAX MEASURES WE TALKED ABOUT
, WE HAVE SUNSETS ON THEM.
THE TAX LEVY FOR THE LIBRARIES.
HOUSING, EDUCATION
TRANSPORTATION ETC.
HAVE DATES AND THEY ARE RENEWED
AND REVISITED.
I THINK THAT'S A HEALTHY
PROCESS TO GO THROUGH THAT.
I AGREE THERE IS A CRISIS NOW
THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
FOUR YEARS FROM NOW I THINK IT
CAN BE DISCUSSED AGAIN.
WE CAN SEE WHERE WE ARE WITH
COVID, THE RECESSION, AND
REVISIT AND MAYBE THE TAX WILL
GO UP IN FOUR YEARS.
WE NEED TO HAVE THE DATE IN
THERE TO REQUIRE THAT FOR NEW
CITY COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT . YOU ARE
FIRST ON THE AGENDA.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3?
>> YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 HAS BEEN
MOVED TO COUNCIL BILL 11980.
I WILL SECOND THAT.
>> CAN I SPEAK TO IT QUICKLY.
IN RELATION TO WHAT YOU
PROPOSED AS AMENDMENT TO MY
AMENDMENT, I WANT TO SUGGEST, I
AM OPEN TO THAT AND I REALLY
HOPE THE COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT
REMOVING THE SUNSET CLAUSE.
I WELCOME YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS.
JUST AS A SUGGESTION AS AN
ALTERNATIVE, MAYBE WE COULD PUT
YOUR AMENDMENT, YOUR LANGUAGE
FOR THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AS
PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT NUMBER
12 INSTEAD OF COMBINE THAT WITH
MY AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE
SUNSET LANGUAGE AND DO THAT AS
ONE AMENDMENT.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT TOO
COMPLICATED.
THAT IS ONE IDEA, WE COULD DO
IT THAT WAY.
THEN HAVE THE AMENDED VERSION
OF MY AMENDMENT VOTED.
>> FOR THE PROCESS OF
SIMPLICITY, I AM LOOKING AT
DAN.
I THINK YOUR COMMENTS ARE IN
LINE WITH MY HOPE. IF WE
ELIMINATE THE SUNSET LANGUAGE,
WE THEN TAKE UP THE MAINTENANCE
OF THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO OTHER
COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE
OFFERED LANGUAGE AROUND
MAINTAINING THE LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
GIVE FOLKS THE CHANCE TO SPEAK
TO THOSE AS WELL.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, THE
EFFECT OF WHAT I'M GOING TO
PROPOSE TO YOUR AMENDMENT WOULD
IN ESSENCE DO WHAT YOU SAID IF
MY AMENDMENT WERE TO BE TAKEN
UP ON MAINTAINING THE LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD.
AT FIRST, IT WOULD BE A TWO-
STEP PROCESS.
THE FIRST STEP TO JUST STRIKE
THE SUNSET.
THAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT OF THE
AMENDMENT I AM SUGGESTING.
>> YES.
>> I APPRECIATE WHERE YOU'RE
GOING WITH THAT IN TRYING TO
PUT TWO INTO ONE.
LET'S GO AHEAD FOR THE PROCESS
OF SIMPLICITY.
I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND AMENDMENT
NUMBER 3, AMEND AMENDMENT
NUMBER 3 BY MAINTAINING THE
SECTION WHEREAS AND 5.38 POINT
100 TWO MAINTAIN THE LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD.
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN
THE LANGUAGE IN COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT'S PROPOSAL IN AMENDMENT
NUMBER 3 THAT STRIKES THE
SUNSET SECTION.
AS YOU SEE IN COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT'S PROPOSAL, SUNSET
LANGUAGE SECTION 5.3 8.120.
DAN, DO YOU MIND PUTTING THAT
ON THE SCREEN SO FOLKS CAN SEE
THAT.
THE EFFECT OF THIS IS MAKING
THIS AMENDMENT STRIKE THE
SUNSET.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
HEARING NONE.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, DID YOU
HAVE --
>> YES, CHAIR.
SO WE WILL TALK ABOUT
MAINTAINING THE LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD LATER?
>> YES.
>> I LIKE COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
VERSION OF THAT.
MAY BE WILLING TO WITHDRAW MY
VERSION FOR COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES'S VERSION.
>> WE WILL TALK ABOUT
MAINTAINING THE LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD AMENDMENT IN JUST A FEW
MOMENTS.
KEEP THE LANGUAGE THERE SO WE
CAN DEBATE IT AND VOTE ON THAT
AMENDED LANGUAGE IN A MOMENT.
IS DANNA SHOWING YOU, THE
EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT I AM
MAKING TO COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
AMENDMENT IS STRIKE WOULD BE
TO HAVE THAT SECTION STRUCK
WHICH IS 5.3 8.102 THE SUNSET
SECTION.
>> IT'S ELIMINATING THE SUNSET
CLAUSE.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? SEEING
NONE.
WILL THE CLERK CALLED THE ROLL
ON THE AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT 3.
>> STRAUSS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
>> YES.
>> LEWIS?
>> I.
>> MORALES?
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN?
>> NO.
>> SAWANT
>> AYE.
>> 8 IN FAVOR AND 1 OPPOSED.
>> DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON
AMENDMENT 3 AS AMENDED?
>> CORRECT.
AMENDMENT 3 AS AMENDED BEFORE
YOU.
>> OKAY.
MADAM CLERK WILL YOU CALL
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> THANK YOU BUDGET CHAIR.
I WILL VOTE AGAINST BOTH SUNSET
AMENDMENTS TODAY BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT VOTING FOR THE LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD AMENDMENTS FIRST.
IF WE NEED TO COME BACK AND
HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION AT A
LATER IN THIS MEETING, I AM
HAPPY TO DO SO.
THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AS A
CONDITION FOR ME ON WHETHER OR
NOT THE SUBSETS PROVISIONS ARE
IN THE PLAY.
WANT TO EXPLAIN MY RATIONALE
BEFORE I VOTE.
>> VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.
I AM IN THE SAME BOAT IN TERM
OF CONCERNS AND CONSIDER
ORDERING THEM IN THAT WAY.
I WILL BE VOTING ON AMENDED
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 WITH THE
INTENT TO IMMEDIATELY TAKE UP
THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
DISCUSSION.
GETTING TO THAT IN A MOMENT AND
I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE
COMING FROM.
HEARING NONE.
WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON AMENDMENT AMENDMENT NUMBER
3.
>> STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT GONZALEZ.
>> EPSTEIN.
>> HERBOLD?
>> AYE.
>> JUAREZ.
>> NO.
>> LEWIS?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> MORALE US?
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN?
>> NO.
>> SAWANT?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIRMAN MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> MADAM CLERK BEFORE YOU CALL
THE ROLL, WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK.
I THINK BEFORE THE ROLL IS
CALLED WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO RECONSIDER VOTES.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO RECONSIDER
THEIR VOTE TO STRIKE THE
LANGUAGE ON HERE THAT
ELIMINATES THE SUNSET KNOWING
WE WILL TAKE UP MAINTAINING THE
PLAYING FIELD IN A MOMENT.
>> CHAIRMAN MOSQUEDA?
ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE
IMPACT OF THE ABSTENTIONS?
>> YES, I AM.
>> CAN YOU REMIND US OF THE
RULES RELATED TO ABSTENTIONS
AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE FINAL
ROLL CALL?
>> THIS IS AMELIA.
THE EFFECTS OF ABSTENTION IS IT
IS NOT IN THE YES, SIR NOSE.
THE RESULTS OF THE MOTION
REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO VOTED.
>> THANK YOU, SO MUCH.
THEREFORE, THE NUMBER OF
COUNCILMEMBERS THAT VOTED IS 7,
IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT.
>> MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL?
NOT CALL THE ROLL, TELL US WHAT
THE ROLL CALL WAS.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR, 3 OPPOSED, 3
ABSTAINED.
>> THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED
WITH A VOTE OF 4-3.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN YOU HAVE
YOUR AMENDMENT OUT THERE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT
OR GIVEN WE HAVE MOVED TO
STRIKE THAT AMENDMENT SECTION I
AM WONDERING HOW THAT AFFECTS
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN'S
PROPOSAL.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT AND
HAVE A QUICK QUOTE.
WE DON'T NEED TO DEBATE IT
PROBABLY.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU.
I AM HEARING NO CONCERNS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> I GUESS THE INITIAL QUESTION
THAT YOU ASKED CHAIRMAN
MOSQUEDA WAS TO HAVE EFFECT OR
WHETHER THIS PEDERSEN AMENDMENT
IS RELEVANT ARE WHAT THE
EFFECTIVE IT WOULD BE?
PERSONALLY, I WOULD BE
INTERESTED IN HEARING A
RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION FROM
COUNCILMEMBER STAFF BEFORE
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN MAKES
HIS FORMAL MOTION SO THERE IS
NO OBJECTION TO GETTING A
RESPONSE TO THAT PARTICULAR
QUESTION POSED BY THE CHAIR.
I WOULD URGE US TO GET THAT
RESPONSE SO WE HAVE AN
UNDERSTANDING OF WHETHER
EMOTION NEEDS TO BE MADE OR
NOT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> THIS IS DAN.
I WOULD DEFER TO THE COMMITTEE
TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION ABOUT
WHETHER THIS IS STILL AMENDMENT
FOUR IS WORTHY OF A VOTE.
HAVING JUST PASSED AN AMENDMENT
THAT STRIKES THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION OF AMENDMENT 4
WOULD ALTER, I GUESS, MY
OPINION IS IT WOULDN'T BE
NECESSARY THROUGH VOTE CONSIDER
AMENDMENT 4. IF THE SPONSOR
WANTS TO DO SO AND THE CHAIR
AND OTHER MEMBERS ARE WILLING
TO DO SO, I HAVE NO OBJECTION.
>> MADAM CHAIR?
>> YES, COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> BASED ON THAT AND THANK YOU
TO COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR
GETTING US THE ANSWER TO THAT.
BASED ON THAT CLARIFICATION
THAT THE SUNSET CLAUSE BY A
MAJORITY OF VOTING MEMBERS HAS
BEEN ELIMINATED BY THIS
COMMITTEE, THEREFORE IT WOULD
INDICATE I WOULD NOT HAVE THE
VOTES FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 4.
EVEN THOUGH I SUPPORT REDUCING
THE SUNSET PERIOD, I WILL
WITHDRAW AMENDMENT FOUR BECAUSE
IT DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES.
>> APPRECIATE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> LET'S MOVE ONTO THE LAST SET
OF AMENDMENT ITEMS.
WE HAVE THE MAINTAINING THE
LEVEL PLAYING FIELD LANGUAGE IN
FRONT OF US.
THERE ARE THREE AMENDMENTS.
WOULD YOU PLEASE WALK US
THROUGH THE THREE AMENDMENTS IN
FRONT OF US?
>> I WILL HAVE TO REDO THAT.
I WANT TO GIVE A HIGH-LEVEL
OVERVIEW OF THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN AMENDMENT 6, 12, AND
18.
IF ANY COUNCILMEMBERS WANT TO
LOOK AT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE, I
WOULD BE GLAD TO PULL THAT UP
OR DO IT ONE AT A TIME.
I CAN'T GIVE YOU ALL THREE OF
THEM.
AMENDMENT 6 AND 12 WOULD
ARTICULATE THE COUNCILS IN 10
TO MONITOR THE FUTURE TAXING
AUTHORITY THAT MAY BE IMPOSED
BY KING COUNTY OR THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON.
IT STATES THAT EACH OF THESE
STATE IN DIFFERENT WAYS THE
COUNCILS INTENT TO TAKE A
FUTURE ACTION TO EITHER END OR
AMEND THE CITY'S PAYROLL TAX
THAT WOULD BE ENACTED BY THE
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
AMENDMENT 18 IS A HARD AND TO
DATE THAT WOULD STOP THE TAX
UPON RECEIPT OF A REPORT FROM
THE DIRECTOR OF THE CITY'S
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
THAT INDICATES THAT KING COUNTY
AND/OR THE STATE HAVE ENACTED
CERTAIN KINDS OF PAYROLL TAXES
FOR SIMILAR PURPOSES TO THE ONE
IN THE UNDERLYING LEGISLATION.
THE SLIDE ON YOUR SCREEN SHOWS
THAT COUNCILMEMBER MORALES'S
HARDENED AMENDMENT, NUMBER 18
IS IN CONFLICT WITH AMENDMENTS
6 BY COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN AND
12 BY MOSQUEDA AND STRAUSS.
IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY
ATTENTION THAT IT IS POSSIBLE
FOR COUNCILMEMBER MORALES'S
AMENDMENT 18 TO BE ADDITIVE TO
EITHER AMENDMENT 6 OR AMENDMENT
12.
THAT IS JUST SOMETHING THE
COMMITTEE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE
ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE OR NOT
IN CONFLICT.
YOU COULD DO BOTH 6 AND 18 OR
12 AND 18.
YOU CANNOT DO BOTH 6 AND 12.
UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE,
I WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE SPONSORS
TO SPEAK TO THEIR AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THIS IS OUR LAST SECTION OF
AMENDMENTS.
I HAVE BEEN CHATTING WITH FOLKS
FROM CENTRAL STAFF AND WE ARE
GOING TO TRY TO GET THROUGH
THIS LAST SECTION AND I WILL
MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
START TIME FOR THE NEXT
COMMITTEE MEETING.
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES AND
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN ,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS AND I
HAVE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE AS
WELL.
I WILL TAKE IT IN THE ORDER
IT'S PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO
YOUR AMENDMENTS, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN I'M SORRY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS AND I
WILL SPEAK AND THEN
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES.
>> I AM PLEASE TO SEE SO MUCH
INTEREST.
THANK YOU CHAIRMAN MOSQUEDA FOR
PUTTING THE LANGUAGE IN THE
ORIGINAL JUMPSTART TAX
LEGISLATION.
I AM GLAD TO SEE THERE IS SOME
UNITY OF TRYING TO TIGHTEN THE
LANGUAGE UP A BIT AS WE THOUGHT
THROUGH WHAT MIGHT ACTUALLY
HAPPEN.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE STATE
GOVERNMENT AND COUNTY
GOVERNMENT ACTING, MAKING
PROGRESS ON PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
AND WHAT WE WOULD DO ABOUT IT.
I ACTUALLY VERY MUCH PREFER
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES'S
AMENDMENT.
IF WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED WITH
HER AMENDMENT, I AM HAPPY TO
DROP MINE. I UNDERSTAND FROM
CENTRAL STAFF IT COULD BE
ADDITIVE AS WELL.
I WILL SEE WHERE THE
CONVERSATION GOES WITH
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES TALKING
ABOUT HER MEASURE.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE SHARED
AMENDMENT?
YOU ARE ON MUTE.
THERE YOU GO
>> THANK YOU CHAIRMAN MOSQUEDA.
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT AMENDMENTS IN THIS
ENTIRE BILL, IN MY OPINION.
IT IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE IS MRS. DO HAVE A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD ACROSS OUR
REGION, ACROSS OUR COUNTY, AND
ACROSS OUR STATE.
I HAVE HEARD FROM BOTH PEOPLE
RUNNING IN THE DISTRICT THAT I
REPRESENT FOR THE STATEHOUSE
EXPRESS AN INTEREST IN A
SIMILAR TAX PROPOSAL, STATE-
LEVEL. I HAVE HEARD MANY
EXPRESSED THEIR INTEREST IN
HAVING A SIMILAR TAX PROPOSAL
AT THE STATE LEVEL.
IF THEY ARE GOING TO GO BACK
THIS NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION
AND PASS A SIMILAR TAX TO FILL
THEIR OWN GAPS, WE WILL LOSE
OUT.
WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT ABOUT
THIS AMENDMENT HERE AS IT DOES
ALLOW AND SET UP FOR REGIONAL
SOLUTIONS.
WE HAVE KING COUNTY REGIONAL
AUTHORITY AND HOMELESSNESS THAT
IS COMING ONLINE IN JUST A FEW
MONTHS.
WE HAVE A REGIONAL TAX PROPOSAL
THAT WAS AT THE STATE
LEGISLATURE THIS PAST YEAR THAT
HAD WIDE SUPPORT.
IT IS STILL CONFUSING TO ME WHY
IT DID NOT GET ACROSS THE FINAL
FINISH LINE.
THE REASON THIS AMENDMENT AS
COMPARED TO THE OTHER AMENDMENTS
PUT FORWARD TO SECURE THE LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD IS IMPORTANT IS
BECAUSE IT CALLS OUT THREE
THINGS.
IF I COULD READ FROM THE
LEGISLATION.
IT SETS UP AND PUTS IN PLAIN
LANGUAGE THE COUNCIL INTENDS TO
MONITOR PROPOSALS FROM THE
COUNTY OR STATE TO ENSURE THAT
BUSINESSES IN THE JURISDICTION
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL
PAYROLL TAXES, B, FILINGS ARE
CONSOLIDATED AND STREAMLINED TO
PRODUCE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.
C, THE FUNDING SOURCES
MAINTAINED FOR THE ITEMS AS
DESCRIBED IN THE BILL.
THE REASON THIS IS IMPORTANT TO
ME IS BECAUSE, ESPECIALLY WHEN
TALKING ABOUT THE REGIONAL
SOLUTIONS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME
BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE A
HOUSING DEFICIT IN OUR COUNTY.
THIS AMENDMENT AND THE WAY THE
AMENDMENT IS CRAFTED ALLOWS US
TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY OR
COUNTY HAS PROPORTIONAL REVENUE
. IF THE STATE PASSES IT.
AND IT ENSURES THAT IF THE
COUNTY IS GOING TO PASS THE
SAME BILL THAT THE ITEMS WE ARE
ADDRESSING IN THE LEGISLATION
HERE AROUND HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS ARE IN FACT
INCLUDED IN THE THAT WE ARE
DESCRIBING.
THAT IS WHY, I FIND THAT, IN
THANK YOU DAN EDER FOR YOUR
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS ABOUT
WHETHER THESE AMENDMENTS CAN BE
COMBINED.
I WOULD SAY THIS AMENDMENT
SHOULD STANDALONE.
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TAXPAYERS
PAYING TAXES MORE THAN ONCE.
AND, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE
PROGRAMS ARE STREAMLINED SO IT
IS PREDICTABLE AND WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT SEATTLE IS
GETTING A PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT
OF REVENUE IF ANOTHER LEVEL OF
GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO GO ALONG
WITH THE SAME THINKING THAT WE
ARE LEADING HERE IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
THANK YOU CHAIR FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I AM SURE YOU HAVE THOUGHTS TO
SHARE AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I WILL BRIEFLY
CHIME IN.
I THINK THIS AMENDMENT
RECOGNIZES THAT WE ARE PART OF
A LARGER EFFORT AT THE STATE
AND COUNTY AND THE PARTNERS WE
HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ON THIS
LEGISLATION HAVE BEEN TRYING TO
GET ADDITIONAL PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE BOTH AT THE COUNTY AND
STATE LEVEL. WE ARE TRYING TO
BE GOOD PARTNERS IN SEATTLE.
WE ARE STEPPING UP IN A MOMENT
OF CRISIS TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE
RELIEF.
IN THE OUT YEARS TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SERVICES
THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE BACK
BURNER.
WE KNOW THIS IS THE CASE FROM
CITY STUDIES AND LOCAL STUDIES
IN THE REGION.
WE NEED TO BE PART OF THE
SOLUTION AND WE'RE TRYING TO
ACT WITH URGENCY RIGHT NOW.
WE ARE ACTING WITH URGENCY TO
TAKE CARE OF SEATTLE RESIDENCE,
AND WE KNOW AS THE STATE AND
REGION CONTINUES TO SEE THE
INEQUITY CAUSED BY OUR UPSIDE
DOWN TAX SYSTEM.
THIS IS ONE RESPONSIBLE WAY TO
STEP FORWARD AND ADDRESS THAT
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE.
THE AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US
RECOGNIZES WE ARE STEPPING UP
AND FILLING THE GAP IN THE
MOMENT AND PROVIDING
PREDICTABILITY.
WE WANT TO SHOW IF THERE IS
ADDITIONAL EFFORT TO TRY AND
ADDRESS THE PROGRESSIVE TAX
SYSTEM WE HAVE, THERE IS
ONGOING PREDICTABILITY FOR
PARTNERS.
TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS THE
ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO MAKE
RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS IN THE
FUTURE.
I AM EXCITED ABOUT THE LANGUAGE
WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
I THINK IT PROVIDES
PREDICTABILITY FOR ENTITIES IN
THE SEATTLE REGION AND PROVIDES
IMMEDIATE RELIEF WE KNOW WE
NEED.
WE HAVE GOTTEN RID OF THE SUNSET
. BY THE LAST VOTE WE TOOK AND
WE WENT TO RECOGNIZE PREDICT
ABILITY MEANS MAKING SURE THERE
IS ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT IS
COMMENSURATE WITH THE NEEDS WE
ARE OUTLINING IN THE PROPOSAL
IN FRONT OF US AND IT'S GOING
INTO THE PROGRAMS WE DEEPLY
CARE ABOUT THAT WE WILL BE
VOTING ON IN THIS PLAN.
WILL THEY, I THINK IT PROVIDES
ASSURANCES, TAPE RESPONSIBLE
WAY TO STEP FORWARD, AND IT
PROVIDES THE PREDICTABILITY THE
COMMUNITY NEEDS.
I WANT TO GIVE THE LAST SPONSOR
OF THE AMENDMENT ON THIS SECTION
TO TALK ABOUT HER PIECE AND
THEN WE WILL HAVE THE
LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF US TO
DO A DISCUSSION AND VOTE.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> THINK MEMBER -- THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PICK THROUGH WHICH EACH OF
THESE DOES.
I DID NOT SEE THIS UNTIL THIS
MORNING.
I AM STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
HOW THEY ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
AS I UNDERSTAND, THE STRAUSS AND
MOSQUEDA AMENDMENT IS FOCUSING
OR INCLUDING PRESERVATION OF
THE SPENDING IF ADDITIONAL
REVENUE COMES IN FROM OTHER
JURISDICTIONS.
THE AMENDMENT THAT I HAVE HAD
DRAFTED WOULD ONLY SUNSET THE
PAYROLL TAX A YEAR AFTER.
COUNTY AND STATE LEVEL.
ONLY IF THE NEW FORM OF
CORPORATE TAX WOULD EQUIVALENT
AMOUNT OF REVENUE FOR THE CITY.
I THINK THE IMPORTANT PIECE IS
THE CITY WOULD NOT LOSE OUT IF
SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS
IS A PROGRESSIVE TAX WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S NOT ADDITIONAL PROPERTY
TAX THAT WOULD TRIGGER SUNSET
CLAUSE.
OR THE ELIMINATION OF THE TAX.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM
UNDERSTANDING, DAN, YOU
MENTIONED THESE COULD BE
ADDITIVE.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT
LOOKS LIKE FOR YOU.
SO MAYBE I WILL STOP THERE.
AND THEN I MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER
COMMENT AFTER THAT.
>> DAN, CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE
GET INTO DISCUSSION?
>> I THINK IT IS OPEN FOR
COUNCILMEMBERS TO DECIDE AS TO
WHETHER THE INTENT WAS TO ADD
THE HARD STOP LANGUAGE IN
AMENDMENT 18 TO ANYTHING THAT
PASSES.
THE AMENDMENT 18 DOESN'T STRIKE
OUT ANYTHING ELSE IN SECTION
538 100.
IT ADDED LANGUAGE.
IT COULD AT IT TO EITHER AND
UNCHANGED BASE OR ADD THAT
LANGUAGE TO A CHANGED BASE, THE
CHANGES BEING PROVIDED IN
AMENDMENT 12 OR THE WITHDRAWN
AMENDMENT 6.
>> THAT IS HELPFUL.
MY REAL PREFERENCE, HONESTLY,
WAS TO DELETE THE SUNSET CLAUSE
ALTOGETHER.
I AM GLAD TO SEE WE DID THAT.
IT WAS NOT MY INTENT TO MAKE
THIS A HARD STOP, BUT MERELY TO
SAY IT WAS TO ENSURE ANY
ADDITIONAL TAX FROM ANOTHER
JURISDICTION DETECTED REVENUE
FOR THE CITY.
I AM WONDERING IF MY CONCERNS
HAVE BEEN MET BY COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT'S AMENDMENT .
>> I BELIEVE SO.
AND I SEE COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
NODDING.
WITH THAT, THAT IS AN OUTLINE
OF THE PIECES IN FRONT OF US.
HANSEL MEMBER PEDERSEN, I DO
THINK IN YOUR AMENDMENT IS
LISTED FIRST.
I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO GO IN ORDER.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN
PUTTING FORWARD YOUR AMENDMENT,
WE COULD ENTERTAIN THAT.
I HOPE YOU SEE ELEMENTS OF THE
SUNSET WITH STRENGTHENING THE
TIE INTO COUNTY AND STATE
PARTNERS, REFLECTED IN THE
STRAUSS AND MOSQUEDA .
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I AM WILLING TO PULL AMENDMENT,
MY AMENDMENT 6, IF I BETTER
UNDERSTAND YOUR AMENDMENT 12.
I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE
IS THE LANGUAGE IN AMENDMENT 12
THAT SAYS IF THE STATE OR
COUNTY PASS A CORPORATE TAX
EQUIVALENT AMOUNT, THAT WE
WOULD ADJUST OUR TAX LOCALLY.
>> I WILL TURN IT TO
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS. PERHAPS,
GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> THIS WOULD BE UNDER SECTION
A STATING THIS THIS IS IN THE
JURISDICTION ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
ADDITIONAL PAYROLL TAXES.
THIS MEETING, THERE IS ONLY
GOING TO BE ONE OUT OF PAYROLL
TAX.
PAYROLL TAX MEASURE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
THINK WHAT I WILL DO , I WANT
US TO BE ABLE TO GET AN
ANNOUNCEMENT OUT THERE.
I AM GOING TO SUGGEST WE MOVE
AMENDMENT 12. FOR THE PURPOSES
OF DISCUSSION.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
THIS ALLOWS US TO GET INTO THE
DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT.
BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WANT TO
MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THOSE
INTERESTED IN JOINING US FOR
THE SESSION 2. I WOULD LIKE US
TO GET THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION
AND POTENTIALLY A VOTE ON THE
BILLS IN FRONT OF US.
IF THERE IS NO OF TRACTION, THEN
WILL BE AMENDED TO THREE P.M.
WHICH WOULD ALLOW US TO GET
THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS AND THE
REMAINDER OF SESSION 1 AGENDA
AND ALLOW FOR A MINI BREAK.
HEARING NO OBJECTION.
THE AGENDA IS AMENDMENT TO
MODIFY SESSION TO START PINE AT
THREE P.M.
THE MODIFIED SESSION 2,
COMMITTEE TO RECESS AND WE WILL
PROCEED WITH THE BUSINESS ITEMS
ON THE AGENDA INCLUDING PUBLIC
COMMENT AT THE BEGINNING.
CENTRAL STAFF, DAN EDER WOULD
YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE
HEARD REGARDING THE AMENDMENT
IN FRONT OF US?
>> NO, MADAM CHAIR.
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT
I NOTED THAT WERE OUTSTANDING.
YOU FOLKS WANT TO REMIND ME, I
WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY.
>> GREAT.
I THINK THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS
BEEN CRAFTED IN FRONT OF YOU
HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH A
NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN THE SAME CONCEPTS
THAT COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS
OUTLINED.
I FEEL CONFIDENT THIS ALLOWS
FOR US, NOW THAT THE SUNSET HAS
BEEN REMOVED, HAVE A STRONGER
EMPHASISON WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE
TO HAVE OUR SPEND PLAN INVESTED
IN AND BE REALLY GOOD PARTNERS
AS WE THINK ABOUT WITH THE
REGIONAL AND STATE EFFORTS ARE.
HANSEL MEMBER PEDERSEN I SAW
YOUR HAND.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
AMENDMENT 12, THE STRAUSS
MOSQUEDA VERSION MAINTAINING
LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, SUBSECTION
A , THIS QUESTION IS FOR
CENTRAL STAFF.
BUSINESSES IN ITS JURISDICTION
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL
PAYROLL TAXES UNDER CHAPTER
5.38.
IS THAT SAYING IF THIS IS
ADOPTED, THIS TAX MEASURE IN
THE NEXT WEEK OR SO, IF THE
STATE PASSES SOMETHING WE WOULD
REDUCE THE PAYROLL TAXES THAT
WE ARE PASSING NOW?
OR WE SIMPLY WOULD NOT ADD MORE
TO THOSE?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE
LANGUAGE HERE IS IT IS AN INTENT
STATEMENT THAT ANNOUNCES BUT
THIS COUNCIL TODAY INTENDS TO
DO IN THE EVENT THEY OBSERVE
THERE ARE PAYROLL TAXES IMPOSED
BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT
WOULD AFFECT THE SAME TAX BASES
, THE UNDERLYING LEGISLATION
HERE.
WHAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE COMMITTED
TO DO, FUTURE COUNCIL, SO
WHEN YOU LEARN TOMORROW OR NEXT
YEAR OR 10 YEARS FROM NOW,
THAT CAN COUNTY OR THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON HAS IMPOSED A
PAYROLL TAX, IT WILL BE UP TO
FUTURE COUNCIL TO DETERMINE
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.
THIS IS AN INTENT STATEMENT
THAT DESCRIBES WHAT THIS
COUNCIL RIGHT NOW INTENDS TO DO
IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, I SAW
YOUR HAND.
>> YES.
JUST VERY QUICKLY.
I KNOW WE ARE CONSIDERING
AMENDMENT 12, BUT ALL THE THREE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE UNDER
CONSIDERATION, AND I HOPE
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES HAS
WITHDRAWN HERS ARE DEPENDING,
OR IT WILL DEPEND ON WHAT WE
VOTE ON THIS ONE.
I WANTED TO HAVE OVERALL
COMMENTS ON ALL OF THESE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
LABELED AS LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
AMENDMENTS.
WHILE I INTEND TO SUPPORT 12
AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY, ALL
THESE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN
CALLED LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THERE IS
NOTHING LIKE A LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD OR WORKING PEOPLE RIGHT
NOW.
PEOPLE PAY SIX TIMES MORE THAN
THE WEALTHIEST IN WASHINGTON
STATE.
I FIND IT ORWELLIAN THIS IS
BEING USED.
WE HAVE THE TAXES OF THE POOR
AND WORKING PEOPLE BEING
REDUCED FOR THE LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD?
I THINK THIS SECTION HAS BEEN
--.
I DON'T WANT TO DWELL ON THAT.
I WENT TO REGISTER THE POINT IN
THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE WATCHING THIS.
I WANT TO SAY, MY OFFICE DOES
NOT OBJECT TO REMOVE
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS.
I ALSO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO
POINT OUT THAT WHEN WORKING
PEOPLE NOT ONLY ARE SHOULDERING
THE OVERWHELMING BURDEN OF
TAXATION, BUT THEY BAY CITY,
COUNTY, STATE TAXES, I DON'T
SEE WHY IT IS UNTHINKABLE FOR
BIG BUSINESS TO PAY TAXES TO
THE CITY AND STATE AND COUNTY.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE
AMENDMENTS ARE NECESSARY.
I THINK NUMBER 12 IS THE LEAST
PROBLEMATIC IN MY VIEW.
I WILL VOTE YES ON IT AND I
APPRECIATE DAN CLARIFYING THAT.
I HOPE THERE WILL BE WORKING
PEOPLE MOBILIZING AND ORGANIZING
THE EVENT OF WHAT WE ARE DOING
TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBERWANT
YOUR POINT IS APPRECIATED .
ALSO TRYING TO CONTINUE TO
REFERENCE THIS IS ABOUT
PREDICTABILITY.
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A BETTER
TITLE.
EGG FOR THAT COMMENT.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
I THOUGHT I SAW YOUR HAND
EARLIER. NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
HEARING NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
>> NO.
>> MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE ON AMENDMENT
NUMBER 12?
>> STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT GONZALES?
>> AYE.
>> HERBOLD
>> AYE.
>> JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> MORALES?
>> AYE.
>> PEDERSEN?
>> AYE.
>> SAWANT?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIRMAN MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> 9 IN FAVOR.
>> APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK ON
THE AMENDMENTS.
BEFORE WE MOVE TO FINAL
ADOPTION, ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT FOLKS
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ON THE
REVENUE PROPOSAL. COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES .
>> IS THIS OUR FINAL SAY ABOUT
THIS BILL?
JUST CLARIFYING THE PROCESS
HERE.
>> YES.
GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
>> IT IS COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
I WAS AGREEING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
IS THIS THE TIME TO MAKE A
QUICK STATEMENT?
>> ACCORDING TO MY SCRIPT, WE
HAVE AMENDED THE UNDERLYING
BILL.
ALL OF THE BILLS HAVE BEEN
AMENDED.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES WE HEDGER
ONE LEFT.
>> WE DO HAVE THE UNDERLYING
BILL IN FRONT OF US AND THIS IS
A CHANCE TO MAKE ADDITIONAL
FURTHER COMMENTS TO THE BILL,
AS AMENDED.
>> OKAY.
SHALL I PROCEED?
>> YES, PLEASE.
>> GOOD GRIEF AND THANK YOU,
EVERYBODY.
SO, I DO WANT TO SAY BEFORE I
BEGIN WITH COMMENTS ABOUT THIS
BILL, THAT WE STARTED THE
MORNING IN A WAY THAT I DON'T
THINK ANY OF US EXPECTED AND SO
I WANT TO STRONGLY CONDEMN THE
ACTIONS TAKEN BY OUR MAYOR THIS
MORNING.
PEACEFUL PROTESTERS EXERCISING
THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO
PROTEST POLICE BRUTALITY HAVE
ONCE AGAIN BEEN MET WITH POLICE
IN RIOT GEAR.
THE C.H.O.P.
IS A PROTEST AND HAS ALWAYS
BEEN A PROTEST AND IT'S A
SYMBOL OF THE POLICE BRUTALITY
THAT WEST AND AND WHAT MUST
ALSO AND IS THE MAYOR'S
PURPOSEFUL CAMPAIGN TO
MISINFORM THE PUBLIC ABOUT
THREATS TO SAFETY AND TO CENSOR
THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HER.
FOLKS ARE CALLING ON OUR CITY
TO RELEASE PROTESTERS WHO ARE
DEMONSTRATING THEIR RESISTANCE
TO CONTINUE POLICE BRUTALITY
AND I THINK WE SHOULD SUPPORT
THEM BY MEETING THAT DEMAND.
OKAY.
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE, THIS IS
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
VEHICLES WE HAVE FOR CREATING
PERMANENT INVESTMENT IN OUR
COMMUNITY AND YOU ALL KNOW MY
PERSONAL INVESTMENT IN THIS
PROCESS HAS BEEN TO FIND A
PERMANENT SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE AND
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR
INVESTING IN BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITIES AND AS WE KNOW,
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A GREATER
NEED FOR THAT RIGHT NOW OR A
MORE OPPORTUNE TIME TO INVEST
IN BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES,
FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE REPEATEDLY
BEEN HARMED BY OUR CITY.
I WANT TO THANK ORGANIZATIONS IN
DISTRICT 2 WHO HAVE BEEN
ADVOCATING FOR THE KIND OF
INVESTMENTS THAT WILL SERVE OUR
BLACK AND BROWN NEIGHBORS AND
THEY HAVE REMINDED ME AT EVERY
TURN IN THIS PROCESS THAT IF
BLACK LIVES TRULY MATTER WE MUST
BE SURE IT IS MORE THAN A
SENTIMENT AND THAT OUR ACTIONS
REFLECT OUR PRIORITIES.
I WANT TO THANK SCOTT GREENE,
THE INTERIM ACTION COALITION
AND MANY OTHERS WHO HAVE
UNDERSCORED THEIR PRIORITIES
AND THEIR SHINE TO MAKE SURE
THE COMMUNITY IS REFLECTED IN
THIS PROPOSAL.
THIS BEGINS TO ADDRESS THE
HISTORY OF UNDER INVESTING IN
BLACK AND BLACK AND BROWN
NEIGHBORHOODS BY SHIFTING THE
BURDEN TO THE WEALTHIEST
CORPORATIONS IN THE CITY AND
SUPPORTING THE EDI TO BUILD
COMMUNITY WEALTH AND SUPPORTING
THE GREEN NEW DEAL TO INVEST IN
A JUST TRANSITION AWAY FROM
FOSSIL FUEL AND INCREASING THE
REVENUE FROM THE PROPOSAL.
THESE ARE HUGE WINS FOR OUR
COMMUNITY AND I WANT TO THANK
THE ADVOCATES AND THE PARTNERS
FOR HELPING US GET HERE.
I WANT TO THANK MY STAFF FOR
BRINGING THEIR LIVED EXPERIENCE
TO MY OFFICE AND FOR THEIR WORK
FOR THE CITY.
THEY HAVE BEEN ORGANIZING IN
OUR DISTRICT TO ENSURE THAT OUR
COMMUNITY VOICES ARE HEARD IN
THIS PROCESS.
THIS IS A HISTORIC VICTORY FOR
THE PEOPLE OF SEATTLE.
THEY CARE DEEPLY, AS DO I,
ABOUT CREATING A MORE
COMPASSIONATE CITY AND TODAY,
WE'VE SHOW THEM THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CAN DELIVER AND WE'VE
REJECTED CYNICAL ATTEMPTS BY
OUTSIDE FORCES TO MAINTAIN THE
STATUS QUO, STATUS QUO
PROTECTING POWERBROKERS AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE LITTLE GUY AND TO
QUOTE ONE OF MY FAVORITE
PERFORMERS AND ARTISTS, LAURYN
HILL, IT'S TIME TO SHIFT THE
FOCUS FROM THE RICHEST TO THE
BROKEN WRIST AND TIME TO BUILD
COMMUNITY WEALTH AND REPAIR THE
HARMS DONE BY OUR RECENT
HISTORY AND SEATTLE IS ASKING
FOR AND HAS INSISTED ON
DRAMATIC CHANGE IN HOW OUR CITY
FUNCTIONS AND THE PEOPLE IN OUR
CITY HAVE SHOWN THEY HAVE THE
POWER TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
I AM EAGER TO VOTE FOR THIS AND
LOOK FORWARD TO CELEBRATING
WHEN IT IS DONE AND THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH AND I HAVE
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ AND THEN
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
I WON'T GO THROUGH WHAT I
TALKED ABOUT THIS MORNING, BUT
I WILL MAKE A FEW POINTS
BECAUSE I DO SUPPORT A
PROGRESSIVE TAX AND I DO
SUPPORT A TAX ON CORPORATIONS.
I'M STILL A SUPPORTER OF A
COUNTYWIDE OR STATEWIDE
APPROACH TO ADDRESS OUR
REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM BUT
TODAY, UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN
SUPPORT TODAY'S ACTION, ATTACKS
ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGAIN.
I BELIEVE IT SHOULD GO TO THE
VOTERS AND OUR CITY IS FACING A
PANDEMIC AND ECONOMIC RECESSION
AND CIVIL UNREST DUE TO RACISM,
AT THE SAME TIME WHICH I'VE
LOVINGLY CALLED THE TRIFECTA.
ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS,
ENOUGH, WOULD CAUSE MORE PAUSE.
TO ADDRESS THESE NEEDS, I
BELIEVE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE
INVOLVED TO HELP ON A SOLUTION
AND DURING THE PANDEMIC, WE
DON'T NEED TO TAX HOSPITALS,
MEDICAL SUPPLIERS AND
CONTRACTORS OR MEDICAL
INSTITUTIONS OR ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES ALREADY
SUFFERING ECONOMICALLY.
UW MEDICINE THAT RUNS
HARBORVIEW HOSPITAL, AS I
SHARED THIS MORNING, AND THE
TRAUMA CENTER, THEY'VE
FURLOUGHED 5500 WORKERS AND I
BELIEVE WE DON'T NEED TO TAX
OTHER SERVICES OR FUNCTIONS,
THE LEGAL AID SERVICES FOR LOW
INCOME OR SUPPLIERS OR
CONTRACTORS OR ORGANIZATIONS
BECAUSE GROCERY STORES MAY BE
EXEMPTED BUT THE SUPPLIERS ARE
NOT.
DURING THE ECONOMIC RECESSION,
WE NEED TO CREATE AND PROTECT,
NOT TAX.
THE BOEING COMPANY HAS LAID OFF
10,000 WORKERS IN WASHINGTON
STATE AND ALASKA AIRLINES IS
LAYING OFF 3000 WORKERS.
CONSTRUCTION IS HAMPERED BY THE
ADMINISTRATION'S FIGHT WITH
CHINA AND THE EU AND SUPPLY
CHAINS ARE CHOKING.
WE ARE FEELING THIS NATIONALLY,
LOCALLY, REGIONALLY AND
CERTAINLY IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE.
THIS, IN ADDITION TO HUNDREDS
OF BUSINESSES THAT ARE
SHUTTERED AND STOPPED IN THEIR
TRACKS AND THESE WORKERS ARE
LAID OFF.
OUR CURRENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
IS OVER 16%.
AS I SHARED IN 2009, THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL LIFTED THE
QUOTE-UNQUOTE TAX ON JOBS, THE
PAYROLL TAX, BECAUSE OF THE 2008
RECESSION.
WE PASSED A QUOTE-UNQUOTE HEAD
TAX AND REPEALED IT BECAUSE WE
FOUND OURSELVES IN A RECESSION.
SEATTLE NEEDED JOB GROWTH AND
THAT IS WHAT THE COUNCIL DID.
TODAY, WE NEED JOB GROWTH AND
THEREFORE, AND CHAIR MOSQUEDA,
THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR
WORKING WITH OUR STAFF TO
ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS AND THANK
YOU TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
AND THE NONPROFITS AND THE
TRIBES IN THE HEALTH CENTERS
AND CLINICS THAT HAD CONCERNS
AND THE SUPPLY CHAIN FOLKS AND
LABOR.
I COULD GO ON AND ON AND I WANT
TO SAY A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, HARD AT
THIS FOR YEARS AND I APPRECIATE
THAT HER AND I CAN DISCUSS
THESE ISSUES AND AGREE TO
DISAGREE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I TRUST
THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF
SEATTLE TO TAX CORPORATIONS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> COULD YOU COME BACK TO ME IN
A ROTATION SO I CAN HAVE A FEW
MORE MINUTES?
>> ARE THERE OTHER FOLKS THAT
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME
COMMENTS?
OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU, 1012 AND FOR YOUR
STAFF FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THE
JUMPSTART PROPOSAL AND FOR YOUR
STAFF FOR RECOGNIZING THESE
AMENDMENTS AND I'M GLAD WE
COULD TALK ABOUT THESE
AMENDMENTS TODAY AND IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS
PUBLIC DISCOURSE EVEN IF WE
DON'T AGREE ON EVERYTHING.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC
TO HEAR US CONSIDERING THE
VARIOUS OPTIONS AND PARAMETERS.
I FEEL THAT I WAS DISAPPOINTED
WITH SOME OF MY AMENDMENTS THAT
THEY DID NOT PASS AND I FELT
THEY WERE ALL REASONABLE AND I
THINK WE SHOULD EXEMPT
NONPROFITS AND PUT IT TO THE
VOTERS TO DECIDE SUCH A LARGE
TAX.
ALSO, WE DON'T HAVE THE
SPENDING PLAN, YET.
I REALIZE THE RATIONALE FOR
TALKING ABOUT THAT, NEXT.
BUT BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A
COMMITTEE VOTE TODAY, I WILL
VOTE NO TODAY BUT I WILL RESERVE
MY RIGHT TO CHANGE MY VOTE
LATER IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE
SPENDING PLAN.
THE BIG PICTURE IS THAT I
SUPPORT PROGRESSIVE TAXATION AND
I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED WE DON'T
HAVE IT FROM THE STATE AND I'M
DISAPPOINTED THAT WE DIDN'T GET
THE REGIONAL MEASURE, HOUSE
BILL 2907 PAST.
SO, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY
FOR TODAY BUT I'M GOING TO VOTE
NO TODAY AND THEN WE WILL TALK
ABOUT IT MORE AS WE TAKE IT TO
THE WHOLE COUNCIL AND HAVE A
SPENDING PLAN.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT?
>> I WANT TO START BY
CONDEMNING THE ATTACKS BY MAYOR
DURKAN AND THE SEATTLE POLICE
THAT SERVE UNDER HER DIRECTION
AGAINST THE CAPITOL HILL
ORGANIZED PROTEST AND SHE CHOSE
THE DAY THAT SHE KNEW THE CITY
COUNCIL WOULD BE COMPLETELY
ENGROSSED IN DISCUSSING AND
DEBATING AND VOTING ON THE
AMAZON TAX TODAY AND SHE CHOSE
THIS DAY TO ATTACK THE C.H.O.P.
AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS A
COINCIDENCE.
WE ARE HEARING REPORTS THAT THE
POLICE UNDER HER DIRECTION HAVE
USED PEPPER SPRAY AND RUBBER
BULLETS WHILE CREATING THE
C.H.O.P.
AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY STUNNING
AND COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE.
I'M NOT SURPRISED BY WHAT THE
ESTABLISHMENT DID AND WHAT
MAYOR DURKAN WOULD DO BUT I AM
AGHAST THAT THEY WOULD DO THIS
IN THE MIDST OF THIS UPRISING
IN THE CONTEXT OF US HAVING
JUST VOTED ON A BAN ON CHEMICAL
WEAPONS.
AND, GIVEN THERE WAS A
TEMPORARY ORDER BANNING THE USE
OF TEAR GAS, IT REALLY IS JUST
STUNNING TO ME THAT SHE WOULD DO
THIS.
ACCORDING TO THE REPORTS, THERE
HAVE BEEN 31 PEOPLE ARRESTED,
31 ACTIVISTS ARRESTED AND THE
SEATTLE POLICE ARE DEMANDING
THAT THE MEDIA LEAVE.
ONE OF THE ON THE GROUND
REPORTERS, MARIE'S SALISBURY
POSTED HOW THEY ARE THREATENING
TO ARREST HIM FOR CONTINUING TO
LIVESTREAMED AND I WANT TO
CONVEY MY SOLIDARITY FROM MY
OFFICE TO THE WORK THAT HE HAS
DONE AND SAY THAT I ABSOLUTELY
OPPOSE THE CRACKING DOWN ON THE
MEDIA ABILITY TO REPORT WHAT IS
HAPPENING THERE AND I WANTED TO
REITERATE SOMETHING I'VE SAID
MANY TIMES ENCLOSING AND TO OUR
SOCIAL MEDIA AND OUR EMAIL
NEWSLETTERS, THAT ALL THE
PROTESTERS THAT HAVE BEEN
ARRESTED NOT ONLY TODAY BUT
THROUGHOUT THE MOVEMENT TO BE
ARRESTED WITHOUT CHARGES.
THIS PAST SATURDAY, ONE OF THE
MAIN LEADERS OF THE C.H.O.P.
MOVEMENT, A YOUNG BLACK WOMAN
FROM THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY AND A
MEMBER OF LABOR 242 WAS
ARRESTED ON FRIDAY ON WHAT
SEEMED VERY CLEARLY LIKE
TRUMPED UP CHARGES JUST FOR
SPENDING TIME BROWSING AT A T-
MOBILE STORE IN SEATTLE AND WAS
HARASSED BY ARMED PRIVATE
SECURITY AND THEN THE POLICE
ARRESTED HER.
MANY OF US WERE AT THE KING
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AT HER
BAIL HEARING AND IT WAS THANKS
TO OUR MOVEMENT SOLIDARITY THAT
THE JUDGE WAS COMPELLED TO
RELEASE HER ON HER OWN
RECOGNIZANCE, IT WOULD LOAN THE
PROSECUTOR MADE A COMPLETELY
UNREASONABLE AND PUNITIVE
REQUEST AND DEMAND THAT THE
BAIL BE FOR $10,000.
THIS WAS JUST ONE OF THE
COUNTLESS EXAMPLES OF HOW
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR AND THOSE
ACTIVELY AND COURAGEOUSLY
FIGHTING FOR THESE MOVEMENTS
ARE TARGETED BY THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM.
I WANTED TO CONGRATULATE
EVERYBODY IN THE C.H.O.P.
COMMUNITY AND THE MOVEMENT WHO
HAS SOUGHT SO FAR AND
OCCUPATION IS A VERY EFFECTIVE
TACTIC AS MOVEMENT BUILDING AND
WE ARE FACING MAJOR REPRESSION
AND WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO GO FORWARD
AND WHEN THE DEMANDS WILL BE
RELEASED AND MANY OTHER DEMANDS
AND ONE OF THEM THAT HAS COME
FROM THE FAMILY AND MANY
OTHERS, 45,000 SEATTLELITES HAVE
SIGNED THE PETITION DEMANDING
THAT MAYOR DURKAN RESIGN AND
SHE CONTINUES TO SHOW SHE IS
NOT CAPABLE OF LEADING THIS
CITY.
ALL THESE ATTACKS ARE ATTACKS
ON THE BLACK LIVES MATTER
MOVEMENT.
I SAY THIS BECAUSE IT'S
HAPPENING AT THIS MOMENT AND IT
WOULD BE INCORRECT TO NOT SPEAK
AND NOW, I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE
LEGISLATION WE ARE ABOUT TO
PASS, I HOPE.
TODAY'S VOTE TO PASS THE AMAZON
TAX IN SEATTLE WILL BE A
HISTORIC VICTORY, ABSOLUTELY
HISTORIC FOR WORKING PEOPLE.
THIS VICTORY WILL BE HARD-
FOUGHT AND IT WILL BE HARD WON.
THE ONLY REASON THE AMAZON TECH
WIDTHS WOULD BE PASSED TODAY IN
THIS BUDGET COMMITTEE IS
BECAUSE OF THE STRENGTH OF OUR
MOVEMENT, A MOVEMENT THAT WOULD
NOT GIVE UP, A MOVEMENT THAT
DID NOT RELENT WHEN BEZOS
BELIEVES CITY COUNCIL IN 2018,
LEADING TO THE SHAMEFUL REPEAL
OF THE AMAZON TAX BY THE
MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL AND A
MOVEMENT THAT DID NOT BACK DOWN
WHEN HE ATTEMPTED A HOSTILE
TAKEOVER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
LAST YEAR AND HANDED HIM A
MASSIVE DEFEAT.
A MOVEMENT THAT ORGANIZED
ITSELF TO A SERIES OF
GRASSROOTS DEMOCRATIC
CONFERENCES WHERE HUNDREDS OF
PEOPLE, AND FACT THOUSANDS,
DISCUSSED AND DEBATED AND VOTED
ON THE STRATEGY AND A MOVEMENT
THAT DID NOT RELENT WHEN
CORPORATE DEMOCRATS IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE ATTEMPTED TO CREATE
A BAN ON BIG BUSINESS TAXES IN
CITIES TO BLOCK OUR MOVEMENT. A
MOVEMENT THAT DID NOT RELENT
WHEN THE CORPORATE MEDIA WENT
ON AN ALL-OUT ASSAULT AGAINST
OUR TAX AMAZON MOVEMENT.
IT WAS NOT JUST IN SEATTLE, BUT
NO LESS THAN THE EDITORIAL
BOARD, A BASTION OF THE
AMERICAN CAPITALISTS WROTE TWO
OPINION EDITORIALS ATTACKING THE
TAX AMAZON MOVEMENT IN SEATTLE.
WE DID NOT SLOW DOWN WHEN THE
PANDEMIC AND THERE WAS FACE-TO-
FACE ACTIVITY THAT WAS
IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANY WEEKS IN
THE RECESSION LEFT MANY OF US
JOBLESS OR WITHOUT ENOUGH HOURS
AND WE DID NOT STOP WHEN WE
FACED UNFOUNDED DELAYS ON THE
CITY COUNCIL AND WE ARE HERE
TODAY BECAUSE OF THE SOLIDARITY
AND DETERMINATION OF WORKING
PEOPLE TO SMASH ALL OBSTACLES
THAT STOOD IN OUR WAY BECAUSE
THAT IS WHAT OUR CLASS, THE
WORKING CLASS, IS MADE OF.
THIS VICTORY HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH MEANINGLESS ARTIFICERS OF
BIG BUSINESS TO DISTRACT FROM
WHAT TOOK PLACE THESE PAST
MONTHS, AN ALL-OUT FIGHT
BETWEEN THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS
AND THE WORKING PEOPLE OF
SEATTLE.
THIS VICTORY HAD EVERYTHING TO
DO WITH THE HUGE SACRIFICES OF
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WITH THEIR
TIME AND ENERGY OVER THESE PAST
MONTHS AND INDEED, YEARS, IN
THIS FIGHT TO BEGIN TO AND THE
CORPORATE TAX PAYMENT AND TO
MAKE BUSINESS PAY, NOT WORKING
PEOPLE AND IT HAD EVERYTHING TO
DO WITH THE BLACK LIVES MATTER
REBELLION THAT BROKE OUT IN
MINNEAPOLIS AND SPREAD AROUND
THE COUNTRY.
THE LEGITIMACY OF THE STATUS
QUO HAS BEEN SMASHED BY THE
NATIONWIDE PROTEST MOVEMENT AND
THE PANDEMIC AND THE DEEPENING
CRISIS OF CAPITALSM.
IN SEATTLE, TAX AMAZON WAS
WIDELY TAKEN UP AT THE JUSTICE
FOR GEORGE FLOYD PROTEST WITH
MORE THAN 20,000 PROTESTERS
SIGNING, AND 20 DAYS -- JUST 20
DAYS -- TO SUPPORT TAX AMAZON
AND VOLUNTEERS WITHOUT PAID
SIGNATURES HAVE GATHERED A TOTAL
OF 27,000 SIGNATURES IN JUST
ONE MONTH TO PUT A 300 MILLION
DOLLARS AMAZON TAX ON THE
BALLOT, PROVING ON PROVIDING
MASS SUPPORT.
IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH
WORKING CLASS SOLIDARITY
AGAINST RACISM, OPPRESSION AND
ECONOMIC INJUSTICE AND IT'S
BECAUSE OF THE UNITY OF
WORKERS, THE OPPRESSED AND THE
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND
PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIALIST
ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS FIGHT AND
BECAUSE OF OUR POWERFUL
BIRACIAL MOVEMENT.
WE DID NOT WIN EVERYTHING WE
WANTED.
THE AMAZON TAX, AS IT STANDS IN
THE FINAL VOTE IS NOT UNTIL
MONDAY AND IS NOT COMMENSURATE
WITH THE SCALE OF THE CRISIS
AND NOT THE 500 MILLION DOLLARS
AT OUR MOVEMENT ORIGINALLY
PROPOSED TO THE LEGISLATION AND
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 293
MILLION DOLLARS WE FOUGHT FOR
TO REVERSE THE ATTACKS, THE
COMING ATTACKS AGAINST SOCIAL
SERVICES AND THE MANDATORY
FURLOUGHS AND JOB LOSSES THAT
EMPLOYEES WILL BE FACING.
WE DEFEATED THE SUNSET CLAUSE
AND WE QUADRUPLED THE REVENUES
FOR THE AMAZON TAX WE HAD WON
IN 2018.
WE SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT WHAT
NEEDS A SUNSET IN THIS CITY IS
NOT THIS MODEST BUSINESS TAX OR
TAXES ON BIG BUSINESS, WHAT
NEEDS A SUNSET IS RACIST
POLICING, THE NATION'S MOST
PROGRESSIVE TAXES AND THE
MAYOR'S VICIOUS HOMELESS
SWEEPS.
WE NEED TO STOP THE SWEEPS AND
THE BRUTAL REIGN OF CAPITAL
OVER WORKING PEOPLE, EVEN OF
COLOR AND THE POOR HERE AND
GLOBALLY.
WHILE I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF
THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THEIR
DEMANDS AND AMENDMENTS AND THERE
ARE NO VOTES ON SOME OF THE
STRENGTHENING MOVEMENTS OUR
AMENDMENT BROUGHT FORWARD, I
ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR SUPPORTS AND
PASSAGE FOR THE AMAZON TAX.
THANK YOU, CITY COUNCIL, FOR
WHAT I THINK WE ARE ABOUT TO BE
DOING AND I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA AND
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES THAT WE
PUT FORWARD THE PROPOSALS
TOGETHER. I
CANNOT HELP BUT NOTICE THE HUGE
IRONY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO SAY
WE SHOULD NOT PASS THE AMAZON
TAX BUT PUT IT ON THE BALLOT,
INSTEAD.
WHERE WAS THIS ALLEGED
DEMOCRATIC SPIRIT FOR THE
COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTED FOR
THE REPEAL OF LETTING THE VOTERS
DECIDE?
THAT IS WHAT WE SAID WHEN WE
VOTED AGAINST THE REPEAL,
LETING THE VOTERS DECIDE AND
WHY DID THE MAJORITY OF THE
COUNCIL VOTE TO REPEAL THEN?
THANKFULLY, THE MAJORITY OF THE
COUNCIL WILL VOTE TODAY AGAINST
ANY ATTEMPT OF THAT KIND THAT'S
WHY I APPRECIATE WHAT WE HAVE
DONE, SO FAR AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO THE VOTE.
I ALSO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH
COMMENTS THAT THIS LEGISLATION
IS SOMEHOW FUNDAMENTALLY
DIFFERENT THAN THE 2018
PROPOSAL.
THE DIFFERENCE IS NOT IN THE
WEEDS OF THE BILLS, IT'S IN THE
STRENGTH OF OUR TAX AMAZON
MOVEMENT THIS YEAR WHICH, OF
COURSE, WAS CLEARLY PROVIDING
THAT KIND OF PRESSURE THAT WAS
CLEAR TO ALL THE ELECTED
OFFICIALS AND WE SHOULD BE
CLEAR THAT THE MOVEMENT IS THE
ONLY THING THAT MADE THIS
VICTORY POSSIBLE WITH ALL THE
WORKING PEOPLE AND THE REST OF
THE ORGANIZATIONS COMING
TOGETHER TO FIGHT TOOTH AND
NAIL AND FORCING THE CITY
COUNCIL TO ACT AND THE
ADDITIONAL 40 MILLION DOLLARS
THAT WAS WON TODAY, WHILE LESS
THAN PROPOSED, STILL A VICTORY
AND ENTIRELY DUE TO THE
PRESSURE OF OUR MOVEMENT AND
ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ADVOCATED
FOR THE GREEN NEW DEAL AND THE
DISTRICT HOMES AND WE WILL FIGHT
FOR MORE REVENUES.
AS I'VE SEEN AGAIN AND AGAIN
SINCE ELECTED IN 2013, WHAT IS
WON OR NOT WON ON THE CITY
COUNCIL AND IN THE HALLS OF
CONGRESS IS BASED ENTIRELY ON
THE STRENGTH OF OUR MOVEMENT
AND ON THE BALANCE OF POWER
BETWEEN THE WORKING CLASS AND
THE RULING CLASS.
OUR TAX AMAZON MOVEMENT, AS WE
RIGHT NOW HAVE IT, STRONG
ENOUGH TO DEFEAT JEFF BEZOS BUT
NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO STOP ALL
THE CORPORATE LOOPHOLES.
WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS
IS AN HISTORIC VICTORY AND THAT
WE WILL BE ON THE GROUND AND
WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO
SPREAD OUR MOVEMENT, OUR
RALLYING CRY AND EVERY RALLY
MUST SAY NO TO HOSTILITY AND NO
TO BUDGET CUTS UNDER THE
PANDEMIC AND RECESSION AND WE
TAX BUSINESSES IN EVERY CITY,
NOT WORKING PEOPLE.
WE MUST BUILD ON THIS REBELLION
OF THE WORKING CLASS AS WE DID
WITH THE $15 MINIMUM WAGE AND
THE RENTER RIGHTS VICTORIES WE
HAVE WON TO MAKE IT A NATIONAL
AND GLOBAL FIGHT.
GENTOO, OUR MOVEMENT IS COMING
FOR YOU, FOR YOU AND YOUR
BILLIONAIRE CRONIES HERE AND
EVERYWHERE.
IN THIS STRUGGLE, WE WERE CLEAR
ABOUT NAMING THE REAL POWER AND
PULLING THE STRENGTH IN SEATTLE
AND AMAZON AND THE BILLIONAIRE
CLASS.
MANY ARGUED WE SHOULD NOT QUOTE-
UNQUOTE ANTAGONIZE BIG BUSINESS
AND INSTEAD, TRY TO BROKER A
DEAL BUT WE KNOW OUR POWER
COMES FROM THE SELF-REALIZATION
OF THE WORKING CLASS, NOT FROM
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE ELITE.
IF YOU ARE LISTENING FROM
ANOTHER CITY, DON'T LET ANYONE
TELL YOU THAT IN YOUR FIGHT TO
TAX BIG BUSINESS THAT YOU ARE
BEING DIVISIVE BECAUSE CLASS
STRUGGLE IS WHAT GETS THE GOODS
AND LET'S BUILD ON THE MOMENTUM
AND IN SEATTLE WE HAVE TO
IMMEDIATELY PIVOTED TO THE
FIGHT TO DEFEND SEATTLE POLICE.
DEMANDING AND WINNING THE
DEMANDS TO RELEASE ALL
PROTESTERS WITHOUT ANY CHARGES
AND TO FIGHT AGAINST THE BUDGET
CUTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FIGHT
TO WIN AND THIS WEEK'S
AMENDMENT, LIKE WE'VE BEEN
FIGHTING FOR BUT LET'S TRY AND
WIN AND CONTEXT OF THE MOVEMENT
AND WE NEED AN INDEPENDENT
ELECTED COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT
BOARD TO PROVIDE ACTUAL
DEMOCRATIC OVERSIGHT TO ROOT
OUT POLICE BRUTALIY.
OF COURSE, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT
JEFF BEZOS OR AMAZON OR THE
POLICE OR JUST ABOUT
PROGRESSIVE REVENUES.
WE CREATE A JUST SOCIETY NOT
JUST IN SEATTLE NOT ONLY
WASHINGTON OR NATIONALLY, BUT
GLOBALLY AND THIS HAS TO BE OUR
FIGHT BECAUSE CAPITALISM IS
INCAPABLE OF MEETING THE BASIC
NEEDS OF WORKING PEOPLE AND
COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF
AVOIDING CLIMATE CATASTROPHE.
WE NEED TO TAKE THE PUBLIC-
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS AND BANKS
INTO DEMOCRATIC AND PUBLIC
OWNERSHIP RUN BY WORKERS AND
PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
ALL.
WE HAVE TO DO THE SAME WITH BIG
ENERGY CORPORATIONS TO ENACT A
REAL GREEN NEW DEAL AND BEYOND.
WE NEED TO TAKE THE TOP 500
CORPORATIONS INTO PUBLIC
OWNERSHIP AND WE WON'T BE DONE
WITH THAT UNTIL WE GET TO THAT
POINT.
LET'S REMAIN VIGILANT AND REMAIN
FIGHTING UNTIL THROUGH MONDAY
TO MAKE SURE THIS VOTE GOES TO
THE CITY COUNCIL WITH NO
FURTHER WEAKENING AMENDMENTS AND
I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY WHO HAS
BEEN FIGHTING IN THIS FIGHT.
LET'S DISMANTLE THIS DEEPLY
OPPRESSIVE, RACIST, SEXIST AND
TOTALLY BANKRUPT SYSTEM OF
CAPITALISM AND THIS POLICE
STATE.
CAPITALISM IS A POLICE STATE AND
THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS ROTTEN.
LET'S BUILD A SOCIALIST WORLD
BASED ON SOLIDARITY, GENUINE
DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM
COLLEAGUES?
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS?
OKAY.
I HAD A FIRE ALARM GOING OFF AT
OUR HOUSE, SO I AM OUTSIDE SO
YOU WOULDN'T HEAR THAT NOISE.
EVERYBODY IS SAFE AND FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE VIEWING PUBLIC
AND FOR FOLKS WHO WANTED TO
CHIME IN TO PUBLICLY SPEAK, YOU
WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO SO
AND WE ANNOUNCED A CHANGE IN
THE AGENDA TO START AT 3:00
p.m.
AND THAT WILL HAPPEN.
ON THE AGENDA, ITEMS 2 AND 3
FROM THIS MORNING'S AGENDA, THE
CENTRAL STAFF BEING PREPARED TO
COMMENT ON THAT AND WE ALSO HAVE
THE COMMERCE BILL, WHICH WE
HAVE CENTRAL STAFF HERE TO
SPEAK TO AN THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, WITH
YOUR HELP WITH THAT AND THEN
WILL PLAN TO END WITH THE GRACE
OF DIRECTOR NOBLE WHO IS AGREED
TO PRESENT ON THE SEVENTH OF
JULY AND WE APPRECIATE HIM
DOING THAT WE WANT TO GET YOU
OFF OF THIS SCREEN AT LEAST BY
6:00 AND OUR HOPE IS BY 5:30
TODAY.
IN WRAPPING UP, I WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU, AS WELL, TO THE
CENTRAL STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON
THIS AND FOR MY STAFF FOR YOUR
ONGOING WORK AND MOST
IMPORTANTLY, THANKS TO THE
ENTIRE COALITION OF FOLKS WHO
HAVE BEEN WEIGHING IN WITH
SUPPORT.
I WILL HAVE MORE COMMENTS TO
MAKE IN OUR UPCOMING
DISCUSSIONS ON MONDAY.
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR TWITTER
PAGE, YOU WILL SEE DOZENS,
ALMOST 60 PLUS ORGANIZATIONS
FROM HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS,
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS,
PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZATIONS LIKE
POVERTY ACTION AND COMMUNITY
RESILIENCE ORGANIZATIONS AND
NEIGHBOR CARE AND LIFELONG AIDS
AND FOLKS FROM FAITH
ORGANIZATIONS AND IMMIGRATION
RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS. AND, FOOD
ACCESS ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE
HEALTH LINE AND OPERATION LUNCH
SAC AND FOOD AND OPERATIONS
WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES AND
HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATIONS.
WE WILL TALK MORE ABOUT THOSE
GROUPS WHEN WE MEET AGAIN ON
MONDAY AND WITH THAT, I THINK
ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT
ON THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TALK
ABOUT PROGRESSIVE REVENUE IN
THIS CITY.
WE WILL TAKE UP THE OTHER TWO
BILLS ON ITEM ONE AND TWO WHEN
WE COME BACK FROM OUR SHORT
BREAK.
I DO NOT SEE ANY ADDITIONAL
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES RAISING
THEIR HANDS.
SEEING NONE, MADAM CLERK, WILL
YOU CALL THE ROLL?
>> STRAUSS, GONZALES, HERBOLD,
JUAREZ, NO.
>> LEWIS?
>> AYE.
>> MORALE?
>> AYE.
>> PETERSON?
>> NO.
>> SAWANT?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR AND TWO
OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK AND THE
MOTION CARRIES.
THE AMENDED BILL IS ADOPTED AND
THIS WILL BE ON OUR CALENDAR
FOR THE FULL COUNCIL ON MONDAY,
JULY 6th AND AS A REMINDER, OUR
MEETING IS NOT YET OVER.
WE WILL TAKE ANOTHER RECESS
HERE AND WE WILL COME BACK AT
3:00 p.m.
WITH THE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO
COMMENT AND AT 3:30, WE WILL
GET INTO ITEMS TWO AND THREE ON
OUR AGENDA FOLLOWED BY OUR
DISCUSSION ON THE FLOOR, THE
COMMERCE BILL AND THANK YOU,
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES.
ENJOY YOUR LATE LUNCH AND WE
WILL SEE YOU AT 3:00 p.m.
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.