>> GOOD MORNING.
THIS IS THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED
MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABILITY
AND RENTERS RIGHTS COMMITTEE OF
THE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL.
TODAY IS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4th,
2022.
THE TIME IS 9:31 A.M.
I AM THE CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE, COUNCILWOMAN KSHAMA
SAWANT.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE ALICE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE ALICE IS
MUTED BUT SHE SAID PRESENT.
>> HERE, YES.
DID YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, NOW.
>> IS A MEMBER WARA IS?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
QUORUM PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU AND WELCOME TO OUR
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON TODAY'S
AGENDA.
IT IS A CITY COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF PRESENTATION ON THE
LEGISLATION FOR MY OFFICE
INTENDED TO SUPPORT THE
GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN OF CLIMATE
ACTIVISTS WHO ARE ORGANIZING TO
PRESSURE INSURANCE COMPANIES,
BANKS, AND OTHER LARGE
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS OF
CAPITALISM TO AND THEIR BACKING
OF FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES THAT
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT
HAVE CAUSED SUCH ALARMING
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CLIMATE
CHANGE THAT IS HAVING
DEVASTATING IMPACT ON THE
PLANET AND ITS ABILITY TO
SUSTAIN LIFE.
THE LEGISLATION GIVES THE
OVERSIGHT BOARD THE AUTHORITY
TO GIVE A RATING TO FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE BIDDING
ON CITY CONTRACTS BASED ON
THEIR INVESTMENTS IN FOSSIL
FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEIR
AGREEMENT TO THE FREE PRIOR AND
INFORMED CONSENT POLICY FOR
PROJECTS THAT IMPACTED THE
TERRITORIES OF INDIGENOUS
PEOPLES.
AND COUNSEL HAD A CONVERSATION
ABOUT THIS AND A PRESENTATION
FROM THE ACTIVISTS WHO ARE
LEADING THIS EFFORT IN SEATTLE,
AS PART OF THE NATIONWIDE AND
GLOBAL ACTIVISM.
THEN IF THE OVERSIGHT BOARD
PROVIDES THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES ARE INSTRUCTED TO GIVE
A 20% RATE IN CHOOSING WHICH
INSTITUTION WINS THE CONTRACT.
WITHOUT CHEAP FROM BANKS OR THE
BACKING OF INSURERS, IT WOULD
BE FAR MORE DIFFICULT FOR
FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES TO CREATE
NEW PIPELINES AND OTHER
PROJECTS THAT WILL RESULT IN
DECADES OF NEW CARBON
EMISSIONS.
ONE PART OF THE INTERNATIONAL
MOVEMENT TO STOP THE EXPANSION
OF FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE
IS FOR CITIES LIKE SEATTLE AND
OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS TO REFUSE TO DO
BUSINESS WITH FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS THAT FAIL TO AGREE
TO THESE DEMANDS.
WHEN CLIMATE ACTIVISTS PROPOSED
THIS BILL TO MY OFFICE, I WAS
IMMEDIATELY EXCITED TO SUPPORT
IT BECASE IT GIVES THE CITY OF
SEATTLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE
PART OF AN INTERNATIONAL
MOVEMENT OF GETTING THE
MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS WHO
ARE, IN REALITY, RESPONSIBLE
FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
BECAUSE BIG BUSINESS HAS SO
MUCH POLITICAL POWER UNDER
CAPITALISM, COMPLETELY
DISPROPORTIONATELY, THEY
CONTINUALLY ATTEMPT TO SHIFT
THE BLAME OFF THEMSELVES AND
BLAME -- WHEN THEY ACTUALLY
DECIDE WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE WILL
RUN SOCIETY, AND PUT THE BLAME
ON THE CONSUMER HABITS OF
ORDINARY WORKING PEOPLE AND PUT
FORWARD IDEAS OF LIFESTYLE
POLITICS.
OF COURSE IT IS GOOD FOR PEOPLE
TO INSTALL EFFICIENT L.E.D.
LIGHT BULBS, TO CARPOOL TO
WORK, TO USE PUBLIC TRANSIT, TO
DO WHATEVER POSSIBLE THAT CAN
BE DONE IN ORDER TO MAKE
CHOICES TO REDUCE CLIMATE
IMPACTS, BUT THOSE STATISTICAL
REALITIES THAT THOSE DECISIONS
ARE ONLY A TINY FRACTION OF THE
SOURCES OF GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS.
THAT'S JUST THE TRUTH, LIKE IT
OR NOT.
WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE DO NOT GET
A CHOICE IN HOW ELECTRICITY IS
GENERATED OR WHETHER HOUSING IS
AFFORDABLE NEXT TO WHERE WE
WORK, WHETHER BUILDINGS ARE
CLIMATE FRIENDLY, WHETHER THERE
IS ADEQUATE PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION, HOW CARS ARE
BUILT, AND HOW MUCH PUBLIC
TRANSIT THERE SHOULD BE.
AND THE VAST MULTITRILLION
DOLLAR INVESTMENTS IN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL
GENERATE THE ENERGY TO POWER
OUR SOCIETY FOR DECADES TO
COME.
TRILLIONS ARE INVESTED INTO
DEEP-SEA DRILLING PLATFORMS,
PIPELINES, TAR SAND MINES,
REFINERIES, FRACKING,
úCOMBUSTION ENGINES IN
AUTOMOBILES.
AND WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT
NONE OF THIS HAS REDUCED
BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC.
IN FACT THERE ARE STATISTICS
THAT SHOW THAT BANKS
UNDERWRITING FOSSIL FUEL
PROJECTS HAVE ACTUALLY GONE UP
DRAMATICALLY DURING THE LAST
TWO YEARS.
AND ALL THESE DECISIONS ARE MADE
NOT DEMOCRATICALLY, BY WORKERS
WEIGHING IN ON ITS, THEY'RE
MADE IN CORPORATE BOARD ROOMS,
BASED ON WHAT WILL GENERATE THE
GREATEST PROFITS FOR THE
RICHEST.
THIS IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF
SOCIETY AND ULTIMATELY THE
POWER STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY THAT
WE WILL NEED TO CONTEND WITH TO
STOP CLIMATE CHANGE FROM
CAUSING UNSPEAKABLE HUMAN
SUFFERING IN THE DECADES TO
COME.
SO I'M EXCITED BY THIS
LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS
GRASSROOTS ACTIVISTS AROUND THE
WORLD, BUILDING A MOVEMENT TO
PRESSURE THOSE MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATIONS.
HOWEVER, WE NEED TO BE ABSOLUTE
CLEAR THAT THESE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS AND FOSSIL FUEL
COMPANIES ARE STRICTLY
POWERFUL.
AS I JUST NOTED, MAY HAVE
POLITICAL POWER AND THEY HAVE
MATERIAL POWER.
EVEN A PROSPEROUS CITY LIKE
SEATTLE IS DWARFED BY
INSTITUTIONS LIKE LIBERTY
MUTUAL, WHICH IS RATED
EXTREMELY POORLY BY THE REPORT,
ENSURING OUR FUTURE AND THE
ACTIVISTS WHO WERE THERE AT THE
LAST COMMITTEE TOLD US THIS
POINT.
THIS BILL DOES NOT INCLUDE
INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE SEATTLE
RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS PENSION
BOARD WHICH IS ADEQUATELY
REGULATED BY OTHER LAWS, BUT I
DO STRONGLY SUPPORT THE DEMANDS
MADE BY FUTURE FOR SEATTLE AND
OTHER CLIMATE ACTIVISTS TO
DIVEST FROM FOSSIL FUEL
INFRASTRUCTURE AND TO BUILD
SMART GRANTS UNDERWRITING
SERVICES WHICH THE DEPARTMENT
FELT THE CITY OF SEATTLE DID
NOT HAVE FINANCIAL POWER TO
ACCOMPLISH.
I DO WANT TO STRESS THAT
SEATTLE ALONE, BY ITSELF, HAS
LITTLE POWER AGAINST THESE
GOLIATHS BUT IF SEATTLE IS PART
OF AN INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT
AND ACTIVISTS ARE FIGHTING FOR
SIMILAR POLICIES AROUND THE
WORLD, THEN WE CAN HAVE A
PROFOUND IMPACT.
FOR THAT REASON, WHILE IT WAS
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT THE
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD
USE THIS AUTHORITY IF THIS
ORDINANCE PASSES, THE REAL
POWER OF THIS ORDINANCE WILL BE
FROM SEATTLE JOINING THE
MOVEMENT AROUND THE WORLD.
TO PRESSURE COMPANIES TO CUT
THEIR TIES WITH FOSSIL FUEL
INFRASTRUCTURE.
BY CALLING EVERYTHING
OBJECTIONABLE IN AN ATTEMPT TO
MAKE SOME SORT OF MORAL PURITY
AS A CONSUMER DOES NOT WORK,
BUT A TARGETED BOYCOTT THAT AS
PART OF A POLITICAL MASS
MOVEMENT AIMED AROUND SPECIFIC
DEMANDS, THAT CAN HAVE A REAL
IMPACT.
YOU'RE SEEING THIS THROUGH THE
WORK OF THE UNITED FARM WORKERS
STRIKE AND THE BOYCOTT OF
CALIFORNIA GRAPES IN THE 1960S,
AND ALSO, EXTREMELY
IMPORTANTLY, TO THE MONTGOMERY
BUS BOYCOTT THROUGH THE CIVIL
RIGHTS STRUGGLE.
BEFORE WE BEGIN THAT AGENDA
ITEM, WE DO HAVE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, ONE PERSON
SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,
SO AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE
WILL CONTINUE WITH THE AGENDA
ITEM.
THE SPEAKER WILL HAVE TWO
MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND AFTER
YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE UNMUTE
AND PRESS STAR SIX, AND THE
NAME OF THE SPEAKER IS ANGIE.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> WOW, MY NAME IS ANGIE AND
I'M A SMALL LANDLORD IN
BALLARD.
I HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE AND A
HALF STATEMENT TO MAKE ABOUT
THE NAMING AND SCOPE OF THIS
COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO COMMENT AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS NEW 2022
LEGISLATIVE CYCLE THAT CITY
COUNCIL HAS AGAIN CHOSEN TO
TITLE THIS COMMITTEE
SUSTAINABILITY AND RENTERS
RIGHT.
RENTAL HOUSING OR RENTING IN
SEATTLE.
IT'S BEEN YEARS SINCE ANY SMALL
LANDLORDS OR DATA OR RESEARCH
ABOUT US HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN
YOUR MEETINGS OR COMMISSIONS.
WE ARE TREATED UNLIKE ANY OTHER
SMALL BUSINESS IN SEATTLE AND
IT ISN'T SUSTAINABLE.
I WAS COPIED LAST WEEK ON THE
LATEST RR AUDIO DATA, WHICH
SHOWS ANOTHER SHARP DROP IN
RENTAL UNIT REGISTRATIONS
INCLUDING THE LOSS OF 2400
SINGLE UNIT PROPERTIES IN JUST
THE LAST NINE MONTHS.
I AM ASKING CITY COUNCIL TO PAY
CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE IMPACTS
OF YOUR LEGISLATION AND THE
ONGOING EVICTION MORATORIUM,
SPECIFICALLY ON SMALL, LOCALLY
OWNED RENTAL PROPERTIES AND
FAMILY SIZED RENTAL PROPERTIES.
THE LACK OF EXEMPTION FOR THE
SMALLEST LANDLORDS IS A REAL
ISSUE.
IT IS A DEFINABLE AND SOLVABLE
ONE THAT COULD BE ACTED ON
IMMEDIATELY.
ADDITIONALLY, I PARTICIPATED IN
AN FTC I RENTING IN SEATTLE
WEBINAR THIS PAST WEEKEND AS
PART OF THEIR HOMECARE
SBC I STAFF STRUGGLED TO
PRESENT ACCURATE INFO ON NEW
LAWS AND THIS REPRESENTED SOME
KEY ASPECTS.
THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO KEEP UP IN
PROVIDING A BASELINE OF SUPPORT
TO SMALL HOUSING PROVIDERS, YET
THEY'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR WE
ARE STILL SUBJECT TO THE STATE
PENALTIES AND HIGH RISK IMPACT
OF ALL OF THE NEW LAWS.
IF THE SCOPE OF THIS RENTERS
RIGHTS COMMITTEE IS NOT ALLOWED
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE
VIABILITY OF LOCALLY OWNED
RENTAL HOUSING, PLEASE VERIFY
WHICH OTHER COUNCIL COMMITTEE
WILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE END OF
THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE HAVING
SIGNED UP, SO WE WILL CLOSE
PUBLIC COMMENT AND GO TO OUR
AGENDA ITEM.
TOM MIKESELL AND ERIC McCONAGHY
FROM CITY COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF
ARE HERE TO PRESENT THEIR WORK,
THEY HAVE PREPARED THEIR DRAFT
LEGISLATION AND THEY ARE
AVAILABLE FOR EXPLAINING WHAT
THE BILL DOES, AND THIS WILL BE
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL
COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO ASK
QUESTIONS, VOICE SUPPORT, OR
RAISE ANY CONCERNS OR ANY THING
THAT YOU FEEL SHOULD BE
CLARIFIED, AND IF YOU HAVE
AMENDMENTS TO ITEMS.
ONCE WE HAVE ALL THE QUESTIONS
ANSWERED, AND WE HAVE SOME
INFORMATION FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS ABOUT AMENDMENTS, WE
WILL GO INTO THAT AND THEN WE
WILL BRING THE BILL BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR A VOTE, AND I
DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE WORK
THAT TOM AND ERIC HAVE DONE
WITH THIS LEGISLATION, AND
REALLY APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT
OF ALL CENTRAL STAFF IN ALL THE
WORK THAT WE DO.
TOM AND MIKE, PLEASE INTRODUCE
YOURSELVES.
I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A
POWERPOINT, SO YOU CAN TAKE IT
AWAY.
>> GOOD MORNING, THANK YOU,
CHAIR SAWANT AND GOOD MORNING,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
TOM MIKESELL WITH YOUR CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> HELLO, GOOD MORNING.
THIS IS ERIC McCONAGHY WITH
YOUR CENTRAL STAFF.
GOOD MORNING TO ALL.
>> AND I BELIEVE ERIC WILL TAKE
OVER THE FIRST HALF OR SO OF
THE PRESENTATION, DESCRIBING
THE BILL, AND THEN I'LL TALK
ABOUT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT AND
SOME POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THE COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU, IF I CAN
INTERRUPT, ERIC, BEFORE YOU
START, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE
FOR PUBLIC RECORD THAT
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS HAS JOINED
THE MEETING.
THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> WELCOME.
>> SO I'LL JUMP RIGHT IN.
I'LL BEGIN BY THE POLICY GOALS
OF THIS BILL.
AS THE CHAIR DESCRIBED IN HER
OPENING REMARKS, THE GOAL OF
THIS BILL IS TO ACCELERATE THE
DIVESTMENT IN FOSSIL FUEL
INFRASTRUCTURE WITH THE GOAL OF
DECREASING HARMFUL EMISSIONS
AND TO PROMOTE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PART OF
BIDDERS FOR BANKING AND
INSURANCE SERVICES, IN THE FORM
OF ADOPTING FREE, PRIOR AND
INFORMED CONSENT POLICIES AS
RECOGNIZED BY THE U.N. SO
THAT'S -- THOSE ARE THE KEY
PIECES TO UNDERSTAND AND
THEY'RE REFLECTED IN THE BILL
THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO THE BILL WOULD AMEND THE
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CODE.
THE PORTION OF THE CODE THAT
REFERS TO THE GREEN NEW DEAL
OVERSIGHT BOARD WOULD HAVE
THESE CHANGES.
IT WOULD EMPOWER THE BOARD TO
ESTABLISH CRITERIA, TO RATE
BIDDERS SEEKING CONTRACTS WITH
THE CITY FOR BAKING AND
INSURANCE SERVICES.
THE CRITERIA WOULD PROVIDE THE
MEANS TO EVALUATE THE BIDDERS
DIVESTMENT IN FOSSIL FUEL
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND ALSO THE
ADOPTION OF FDIC POLICIES.
IT WOULD ALSO EMPOWER THE BOARD
TO UPDATE THE RATING CRITERIA
CONSISTENT WITH BEST PRACTICES
FROM TIME TO TIME.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
IT WOULD HAVE THE BOARD FILE
THE CORRECT CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATION WITH THE CITY CLERK,
AND THEN ULTIMATELY, ALL OF
THIS WOULD BE TO HAVE THE BOARD
EVALUATE AND RATE BIDDERS FOR
CITY BANKING SERVICES AND
INSURANCE SERVICES, ACCORDING
TO THOSE SET CRITERIA, AND
PROVIDE THAT READING ALONG WITH
ANY SUPPORTING MATERIALS TO THE
DIRECT OF FAS TO BE USED FOR
COMPETITIVE PROCESSES.
NEXT SLIDE, THANKS.
SO THE COMPANION PART OF THIS
WOULD BE TO AMEND THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO
CONSIDER THESE RATINGS IN A
WEIGHTED PROPORTION OF 20% WHEN
LOOKING AT REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS, FOR BANKING AND
INSURANCE SERVICES, AND THEN
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, IT
WOULD PARTIALLY MODIFY
PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THE CODE
RIGHT NOW THAT PROVIDE FOR
EXEMPTION OF PROCUREMENT FROM
COMPETITIVE BIDDING.
NEXT SLIDE.
THERE WE GO.
SO JUST A BIT OF BACKGROUND FOR
THE RECORD, FOR THE FOLKS THAT
AR WATCHING, AND JUST TO SORT
OF GROUND THE BILL, THE GREEN
NEW DEAL FOR SEATTLE WAS
INCLUDED IN RESOLUTION THREE
1895.
THIS IS 2019.
THE GOAL OF MAKING SEATTLE FREE
OF CLIMATE LIEUTENANTS, TO
PRIORITIZE INVESTMENT IN
COMMUNITIES THAT HISTORICALLY
HAVE BEEN MOST HARMED, TO
ADJUST EQUITABLE TRANSITION
BASED ON AGGRESSION, EXULTATION
OF REGENERATION AND COOPERATION
AND THOSE THINGS THAT GO WITH
THAT, AND TO CREATE STABLE,
WELL IN JOBS THAT PRIORITIZE
úLOCAL HIRE AND PROTECTIVE
AGREEMENTS.
THE GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT
BOARD, AND WE MIGHT SAY
OVERSIGHT BOARD GOING FORWARD,
BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS.
THE NEXT SLIDE.
WAS CREATED THROUGH ORDINANCE
125926, AND THE BOARD WAS
ESTABLISHED TO ADVISE AND MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL RELATED TO THE
GREEN NEW DEAL AND TO MONITOR
THE CITY'S PROGRESS IN MEETING
THESE INTENDED OUTCOMES AND
GOALS.
AND WITH THAT, IF THERE ARE ANY
QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER THEM.
OTHERWISE I'LL PASS IT ALONG TO
TOM.
>> THANK YOU, ERIC.
VERY QUICKLY, I WILL DIVE INTO
A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL
BACKGROUND CONTEXT AND THEN
SOME POLICY CONSIDERATIONS.
BY THE WAY OF BACKGROUND, THERE
IS A TRACK RECORD FOR THE CITY
TO ESTABLISH PREFERENCES IN ITS
CONTRACTING.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
ORDINANCES THAT I HAVE LISTED
HERE THAT DESCRIBE THOSE
EFFORTS.
BACK IN 1999, ORDINANCE 119748
ESTABLISHED NONDISCRIMINATION
AND BENEFITS AND CITY
CONTRACTING THAT REQUIRED
CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE THE SAME
BENEFITS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES
WITH DOMESTIC PARTNERS THAT
THEY WOULD PROVIDE TWO OTHER
EMPLOYEES WITH SPOUSES.
ALSO, THERE IS THE EQUALITY OF
CONTRACTING ORDINANCE THAT
APPLY STANDARDS THAT ALLOW FOR
AGGRESSIVE, AFFIRMATIVE EFFORTS
TO ENSURE THAT MINORITY OWNED
BUSINESSES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PARTICIPATE IN CITY
CONTRACTING.
THAT WAS PASSED IN 2005.
NEXT, IN 2013, ORDINANCE 24 250
ESTABLISHED THAT THE DIRECTOR
WOULD UTILIZE SOCIALLY
RESPONSIBLE BANKING CRITERIA AS
A FACTOR IN SELECTING FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS FOR HANDING
DEPOSITS AND OTHER PROVIDED
FINANCIAL SERVICES.
AND THEN FINALLY, IN 2017,
ORDINANCE 125257 ESTABLISHED A
REQUIREMENT THAT PROHIBITED
CITY CONTRACTORS FROM UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES.
SO THOSE ARE THE CURRENT
ORDINANCES THAT ARE APPLIED IN
CONTRACTING DECISIONS, OTHER
THAN THE GENERAL CONTRACTING
STAT SHEET WRIT LARGE.
NEXT, I'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF
THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT
HAVE DONE SIMILAR WORK IN THE
AREA THAT THIS BILL IS INVOLVED
WITH, REGARDING FINANCIAL
SERVICES AND THE NEXUS WITH
FOSSIL FUEL DIVESTMENTS AND FDIC
POLICIES.
FIRST, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL
VARNER, PARIS, FRANCE, BOULDER,
CALIFORNIA COLORADO AND LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, HAVE ALL
ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS IN RECENT
YEARS THAT HAVE URGED THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND CITY
ADMINISTRATORS TO TAKE
PRACTICES THAT DIVEST FROM
FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES.
I WOULD DISTINGUISH THAT THOSE
OTHER EFFORTS IN THESE OTHER
CITIES ARE RESOLUTIONS URGING
ACTION RATHER THAN STRICT
REGULATIONS ON THE PROCUREMENT
PROCESS AS IS CONTEMPLATED IN
THIS DRAFT OF THE ORDINANCE.
AND AS SUCH, GIVEN THAT THEY
ARE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT IN
CHARACTER, THEY DON'T REALLY
PROVIDE A REALLY CLEAR
BENCHMARK TO GAUGE THE IMPACT
THAT THIS DRAFT WOULD HAVE ON
CITY OF SEATTLE'S PROCUREMENT
PROCESS.
AND SO NOW A FEW POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF THE
BILL.
FIRST IS WITH REGARDS TO THE
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT
BOARD'S CAPACITY.
SO AS WITH ERIC, I'LL JUST SAY
OVERSIGHT BOARD FROM THIS POINT
FORWARD.
SO FIRST THERE IS THE
IMPLICATIONS WITH REGARDS TO
THE OVERSIGHT BOARD'S WORK
PLAN.
A WORK PLAN HAS NOT YET BEEN
ESTABLISHED FOR 2022, AND IT'S
UNCLEAR HOW THESE NEW
REQUIREMENTS WOULD FIT INTO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THAT WORK PLAN.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY, OF THE
2022 BUDGET, GAVE THE
RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BOARD OF
$6.5 MILLION FOR FINANCED
BUDGET OR A VARIETY OF
INVESTMENTS OF THE CITY DEALING
WITH THE GREEN NEW DEAL TYPE
PURPOSES AND IT'S ASSUMED THAT
PARTICULAR EFFORT WOULD MAKE UP
A GREAT AMOUNT OF TIME DURING
THE YEAR.
FURTHER, WITH REGARDS TO
ALIGNMENT OF THE AVAILABLE
MEETING TIME, THE CITY
PROCUREMENT PROCESS, THE
CURRENT CADENCE OF THE GREEN
NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD IS ONE
WEEK PER MONTH.
AGAIN, IT'S UNCLEAR HOW THIS
NEW RESPONSIBILITY WOULD FIT
WITHIN THE CADENCE OF THAT
MEETING THAT DO NOT MESH WELL
WITH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
AND FINALLY, IF THERE IS THE
CONCERN OR ISSUE, I GUESS, FOR
CONSIDERATION WITH REGARDS TO
THE CAPACITY OF THE OFFICE OF
SUSTAINABILITY REQUIRING THE
BOARD TO RATE FINANCIAL
SERVICES PRODUCTS AND
FURTHERMORE, THE SUSTAINABILITY
ENVIRONMENT HAVE INDICATED
THERE MAY BE A RESOURCE
REQUEST, GIVEN THESE NEW
RESPONSIBILITIES.
I WOULD SAY THAT THE BILL, AS
DRAFTED, ESTABLISHES THIS
CRITERIA AS AN AUTHORITY THAT
THE BOARD HAS.
THOUGH IT IS ELECTED, THE BOARD
DOES NOT NEED TO ESTABLISH
CRITERIA, NOR RATE ANY GIVEN
RFP AGAINST THOSE CRITERIA,
THOUGH IT DOES -- THE AUTHORITY
DOES EXIST FOR EVERY TYPE OF
PRODUCT, BANKING SERVICES AND
INSURANCE, THAT THE CITY DOES
PROCURE IN A YEAR.
AND THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE THEN
FOR THE CONSIDERATION IN REGARD
TO THE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONS
RISK THAT EXISTS.
SO NOW, RIGHT OFF THE BAT IT
STARTS.
THERE IS NO DIRECT CORRELATION
BETWEEN THE BILL'S PROVISIONS
AND ANY ADVERSE CONTRACTING
IMPACT.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW, GIVEN
THAT THE CRITERIA ARE NOT IN
THE BILL, AND WHAT THE CRITERIA
WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THE BOARD
DEVELOPED THEM, NOR HOW CAN
PROVIDERS IN THE MARKETPLACE
RESPOND TO THOSE CRITERIA.
THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW, WITH
THOSE FACTORS.
SO AS SUCH, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE
TO HOTEL WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD
BE WITH REGARDS TO A
COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WHEN
USING THOSE CRITERIA.
BUT THE ONE THING I WOULD POINT
OUT, AND IT WILL BE REVEALED IN
THE NEXT FEW SLIDES AND IN THE
STAFF MEMO, IS THAT THE POLICY
CHANGE IS BEING MADE IN AN AREA
OF CITY SERVICE THAT ALREADY
MARKED THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL
PROVIDERS, AND THERE ARE
CONSEQUENCES.
GIVEN THE IMPROBABILITY ABOUT
MARKET RESPONSE, IT'S THE
REASON WHY THIS INFORMATION IS
BEING PREPARED FOR THE
COMMITTEE.
SO DIVING INTO NOW THE SPECIFIC
TYPE OF SERVICES, FIRST IS
SPECIFICALLY THE BILL WOULD
PROVIDE THE OVERSIGHT BOARD THE
ABILITY TO PROVIDE THESE
RATINGS FOR BANKING SERVICES.
THESE ARE SERVICES, DEPOSITORY
AND TREASURY SERVICES, AND A
MYRIAD OTHER TYPE OF FINANCIAL
TRANSACTIONS THAT ARE CRITICAL
TO THE CITY'S CONTINUED
OPERATIONS.
IT'S NOT AN UNDERSTATEMENT TO
SAY -- OR AN OVERSTATEMENT TO
SAY THAT THE CITY CANNOT
OPERATE WITHOUT A BANKING
SERVICES PROVIDER.
THE CURRENT CONTRACT WITH WELLS
FARGO TERMINATES ON DECEMBER OF
2023, AFTER THE SECOND OF TWO
AUTOMATIC ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS,
AND A BANKING SERVICES CONTRACT
WILL NEED TO BE IN PLACE TO
CONTINUE OPERATIONS.
AND IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT THE
LAST BANKING SERVICES RFP THAT
THE CITY CONDUCTED HAD ZERO
RESPONSE.
SO IT'S UNCERTAIN AND UNCLEAR
WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS, HOWEVER,
PROVIDING THE FACTS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.
NEXT IS INSURANCE.
SO INSURANCE IS CURRENTLY
PROVIDED BY A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT PROVIDERS,
APPROXIMATELY 24 DISTINCT
POLICY AREAS, SO DIFFERENT
ELEMENTS OF RISK.
CYBER RISK, PROPERTY RISK,
LIABILITY RISK.
TWO OF THE LARGER CATEGORIES
ARE PROPERTY INSURANCE AND
EXCESS LIABILITY.
WITH REGARDS TO PROPERTY
INSURANCE, IT'S SIMILAR TO A
HOMEOWNERS POLICY.
IT COVERS THE CITY'S BUILDINGS
AND PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND
IT RENEWS ANNUALLY ON APRIL 1st
OF EACH YEAR.
IT PROVIDES $500 MILLION ALL
RISK COVERAGE, FIRE AND FLOOD,
AND $100 MILLION OF EARTHQUAKE
COVERAGE.
IS A VERY COMPLEX STRUCTURE.
I MADE THE ANALOGY TO A
HOMEOWNERS POLICY, BUT IT IS
MUCH MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT.
CURRENTLY IT'S PROVIDED BY A
SERIES OF DIFFERENT PROVIDERS
WITH LAYERED STRUCTURE.
SO AT EACH LAYER OF LOSS, A
DIFFERENT PROVIDER
PARTICIPATES, AND THE
MARKETPLACE IS SUCH THAT THE
PROVIDERS ARE WILLING TO ISSUE
INSURANCE AT THE CLOSER TO THE
MARGIN RISK CATEGORY ARE FEWER
THAN THOSE FARTHER OUT.
SO WITH A STRUCTURE AS APPROVED
BY FAS STAFF, IT'S A POLICY AND
A PROVIDER OF A LOWER TIER, OF
THE LATTER, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE,
THEN THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE IS AT
RISK.
AND AGAIN, PER FAS RISK
MANAGEMENT STAFF, WHO HAVE
PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION TO
US, THE MARKETPLACE LOSS LEFT
EXPENSIVE CLAIM PAYMENTS ACROSS
THE FINANCIAL MARKETPLACE.
INSURANCE MARKET HEALTH AND
THIS IS A MARKETPLACE THAT IS
CURRENTLY CONSTRAINED WITH
REGARDS TO THE WILLINGNESS OF
PROVIDERS TO PARTICIPATE.
AND AT A MINIMUM, THE COST OF
THOSE IS GOING UP.
SO THE NEXT LARGEST CATEGORY IS
EXCESS LIABILITY, WHICH COVERS
THE CITY'S ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE.
THIS RENEWS, THE POLICY RENEWS
ANNUALLY ON JUNE 1st OF EACH
YEAR.
THE COVERAGE KICKS IN AFTER THE
FIRST $10 MILLION OF ANY
COVERED LOSS, WHICH IS REFERRED
TO AS THE SELF-INSURANCE
RETENTION, WHICH IS THE SELF-
INSURANCE RETENTION THAT THE
CITY HOLDS AND WE PAY THE
BOTTOM END, OR I GUESS, LACK OF
A BETTER TERM, THE DEDUCTIBLE
FOR CLAIMS.
SIMILAR TO PROPERTY INSURANCE,
IT'S A LAYERED STRUCTURE WITH
PROVIDERS THAT OFFER COVERAGE
AT EACH TIER OF RISK, AND
AGAIN, THOSE AT THE LOWER TIER
OF RISK ARE FEWER AND FAR
BETWEEN.
AGAIN, SIMILAR TO PROPERTY
INSURANCE, DUE TO LARGE LOSSES
IN THE MARKET, COVERED HAS
DECLINED.
ANECDOTALLY, WE HAD $100
MILLION OF EXCESS LIABILITY
COVERAGE TWO YEARS AGO AND NOW
THAT HAS DECLINED TO
APPROXIMATELY $20 MILLION.
FURTHERMORE, THE COST OF
RECEIVING THAT COVERAGE HAS
INCREASED.
SO CURRENT PRACTICE FOR
PROCURING THE INSURANCE IS SUCH
THAT THE FAS DIRECTOR IS
EXEMPTED THROUGH DIRECTOR'S
RULE FAS-01-15 AS PROVIDED IN
THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE, TO
NOT USE A COMPETITIVE BID
PROCESS FOR PROCUREMENT OF
INSURANCE THAT INDICATES THAT
THE MARKET ONLY HAS ONE
PROVIDER, OR THERE ARE OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS.
THAT COULD MEAN AN UNSUCCESSFUL
COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS.
THE BILL, IN ORDER TO HAVE THE
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD
PARTICIPATE BY WAY OF PROVIDING
RATINGS WITH THE CLERK, THAT
WOULD BE USED IN AN RFP REVIEW
PROCESS, INCLUDES A CHANGE THAT
WOULD PROVIDE THAT EXEMPTION
SUCH THAT ANY MARKETS -- ANY
POTENTIAL PROCUREMENT WHERE
THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE
POTENTIAL PROVIDER FOR A
SERVICE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A
COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS.
SO SIMILAR TO THE PRIOR
REMARKS, UNKNOWN HOW MANY
FUTURE INSURANCE PURCHASES
WOULD NOT BE EXEMPT.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT REMOVING
THE EXEMPTION COULD DISRUPT THE
INSURANCE PROCESS ALTOGETHER,
I THE EVENT OF THAT ACCRUING
THE CITY WOULD BEAR THE FULL
FINANCIAL IMPACT FOR ANY TYPE
OF CLAIM THAT IS NOT COVERED,
WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE NEED
FOR THE CITY TO DEVELOP MUCH
LARGER FINANCIAL TO MITIGATE
RISK.
I AGREE -- I NOTE THESE
DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, PRIMARILY
BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAIN NATURE
OF THE CRITERIA THAT WOULD BE
DEVELOPED, AND HOW THE MARKET
RESPONDS.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT WHAT
THAT RESPONSE COULD BE.
HOWEVER, AS DESCRIBED, THE
SERVICES THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED
ARE PROVIDED.
THAT IS THE EXTENT OF MY
REMARKS WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, AND I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, ERIC AND
TOM.
THAT WAS A VERY USEFUL
PRESENTATION, AND THANKS FOR
THE WORK THAT WENT BEHIND IT.
I HAVE SOME POINTS TO MAKE BUT
I WANT TO FIRST OPEN UP FOR ANY
QUESTIONS OR ANY INPUT FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, JUST LOOKING
AT THE ZOOM TO SEE IF ANY OF
YOU RAISED YOUR HAND.
I'M NOT SEEN ANYTHING YET.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, GO AHEAD.
>> I'M STILL DIGESTING SOME OF
THIS INFORMATION, BUT -- SO
JUST FOR MY BACKGROUND
INFORMATION, THE GREEN NEW DEAL
OVERSIGHT BOARD WAS TO SUBMIT
ITS WORK PLAN ACCORDING TO THE
LEGISLATION THAT CREATED IT, BY
JULY 1st, 2020.
SO IT WAS ALLOCATED $6.5
MILLION THIS PAST YEAR, FOR
THIS YEAR'S EXPENSE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S
RECURRING OR FOR THE LENGTH,
BUT ANYWAY, WHERE IS THAT WORK
PLAN?
I THINK THAT I HEARD SOMEONE
MENTION THAT IT WAS IN THE
PROCESS, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING
IF WE CAN SEE IT BECAUSE MY
L.A.
WENT TO THE MEETING LAST TIME
AND DIDN'T SEE IT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
TOM, GO AHEAD 2
>> THANKS FOR YOUR QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
MY KNOWLEDGE THERE IS NOT A
CURRENT WORK PLAN ESTABLISHED
AT THIS POINT.
HOWEVER, AS I MENTIONED, THERE
ARE ONGOING MEETINGS OF THE
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD
EACH MONTH AND THAT TOPIC IS
ONE OF THE ELEMENTS BEING
CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THE
ALLOCATION OF THE $6.5 MILLION,
WHICH TO ANSWER YOUR OTHER
QUESTION, IS A ONE-TIME
ALLOCATION OF DOLLARS FROM THE
FINANCE GENERAL BUDGET.
SO IT'S NOT AN ONGOING AMOUNT,
JUST FOR 2022.
>> FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, THIS
LEGISLATION ADDS TO THE SCOPE
OF WORK OF THIS BOARD, SO I AM
WONDERING IF THE BOARD MEMBERS
ARE AWARE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF
THIS WORK, DO THEY ALL KNOW
ABOUT THIS?
BECAUSE MY L.A.
DID GO TO THE MEETING ON THE
24th, AND THIS WAS NOT
MENTIONED AT THAT MEETING, AND
WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE MINUTES
OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS, AND WE
CAN'T FIND MENTION OF THESE NEW
DUTIES.
SO CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME
BACKGROUND?
WHAT DO THEY KNOW ABOUT THIS?
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD,
I'M ASSUMING?
>> YES.
>> YEAH, BOARD MEMBERS
RECOMMENDED THIS LEGISLATION.
IN FACT, MAX AND RACHEL, WHO
WERE HERE TO PRESENT THE IDEAS
LAST WEEK, SORRY, NOT LAST
WEEK, BUT AT THE LAST
COMMITTEE, THEY ARE MEMBERS OF
THE OVERSIGHT BOARD AND THEY
ARE AMONG THE MEMBERS WHO
RECOMMENDED THAT WE TAKE THIS
LEGISLATION UP.
AND IT GOES ON THEIR SUGGESTION
THAT MY OFFICE STARTED THE WORK
OF DRAFTING THIS.
THE BOARD IS HAVING A SPECIAL
MEETING NEXT MONDAY TO DISCUSS
THESE DETAILS AND THE QUESTIONS
THAT ARE COMING UP, AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO HEARING THEIR
CONCLUSIONS.
DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO
WHAT I SAID OR TO WHAT TOM
SAID?
I KNOW YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP, AS
WELL.
>> YEAH, I PUT OUT MY HAND FOR
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION, OR TO
ANSWER THE PREVIOUS QUESTION,
SO THE AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION
FOR THE GREEN NEW DEAL
OVERSIGHT BOARD IS THAT THAT
2020 DEADLINE.
HOWEVER, IN PRACTICE, IT WOUND
UP TAKING FAR LONGER FOR THE
BOARD TO BE ESTABLISHED.
THERE WAS A WHOLE PROCESS OF IT
NOT BEING FUNDED IN FORMER
MAYOR GERKIN'S BUDGET BECAUSE
THE STAFFING FOR THE BOARD.
SO THAT WAS EVENTUALLY -- THAT
FUNDING EVENTUALLY CAME IN IN
THAT BUDGET AMENDMENT PROPOSED
BY COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
THE MEMBERS WERE ACTUALLY
COMPLETED LAST FALL FOR THE
FIRST TIME, SO THE BOARD HAS
ONLY ACTUALLY EXISTED FOR A
COUPLE MONTHS.
SO THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF
CREATING THEIR INITIAL WORK
PLAN.
ONE OTHER POINT IS THAT $6.5
MILLION, THAT'S NOT FOR THE
BOARD'S OPERATION.
THAT IS $6.5 MILLION THAT HAS
BEEN RESERVED FOR COMMUNITY
INVESTMENTS FOR THINGS LIKE
BUILDING WEATHERIZATION
PROJECTS, BUT IT'S AWAITING THE
BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW
TO SPEND THAT.
>> GOT IT.
YEAH, COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT,
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I WAS AT THE MEETING LAST TIME
SO I DO KNOW THAT A COUPLE
BOARD MEMBERS -- I WAS ASKING
IF THE WHOLE BOARD KNEW ABOUT
IT.
WE DON'T NEED TO BELABOR THAT
POINT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ON THE BOARD
WITH EXPERTISE IN MUNICIPAL
BANKING AND INSURANCE BIDDING
PRACTICES OR THE MARKET?
I'M MOSTLY TRYING TO GET AT,
THIS IS A PRETTY COMPLEX THING,
AND DOES -- DO THE PEOPLE ON
THE BOARD HAVE THE CAPACITY AND
THE EXPERTISE, AND THE
KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY'RE
TAKING ON AND WHAT THIS ITEM
WILL ENTAIL.
>> I CAN JUST RESPOND IN
GENERAL TERMS, AND TED, IF YOU
WANT TO ADD SPECIFICS, BECAUSE
WE HAD LOTS OF CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE GREEN NEW DEAL
OVERSIGHT BOARD.
SO YOU SHOULD BRING SOME
INSIGHT FROM THAT, SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT THIS QUESTION.
BUT FIRST OF ALL, THIS BILL WAS
ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD
MEMBERS.
>> TWO OF THEM.
>> YES, SORRY --
>> IT WAS A COUPLE OF THEM.
I'M ASKING, YES OR NO, DOES THE
BOARD -- DO ALL THE BOARD
MEMBERS --
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU
DON'T USE LANGUAGE LIKE YES OR
NO.
YOU'RE NOT CONDUCTING A HEARING
OF ME.
THIS IS A COMMITTEE AND I AM
THE CHAIR.
SO I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU NOT
USING THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE.
AND YES, ALL I MEANT WAS THAT
TWO OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE
AT THE MEETING.
THAT DOES NOT IMPLY THAT ONLY
TWO BOARD MEMBERS AGREE WITH
THIS LEGISLATION.
I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY HOW
MANY AGREE OR DISAGREE.
MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT WE, THE
OVERSIGHT BOARD AS A WHOLE,
HAVE STRONG AGREEMENT ON THIS,
BECAUSE THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
THE WHOLE POINT OF APPOINTING
THIS BOARD WAS BECAUSE THERE
WAS A REAL PUSH FROM THE
COMMUNITY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE
THIS KIND OF BOARD THAT GOES IN
A GRASSROOTS VOICE, AND ALSO
EXPERTISE.
TO YOUR POINT, THERE IS
EXPERTISE THAT IS PRESENT ON
THE BOARD, AND IT'S JUST BASED
ON THAT EXPERTISE THAT THEY
HAVE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS AND
THIS IS NOT THE ONLY
RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY WILL
BE MAKING.
THEY WILL BE MAKING OTHER
RECOMMENDATIONS, AS WELL.
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
THE GREEN NEW DEAL IS
ABSOLUTELY URGENT BECAUSE IT IS
NOW NO LONGER A CLIMATE CRISIS
BUT A CLIMATE CATASTROPHE.
SO THEY WILL BE MAKING OTHER
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I BELIEVE
THAT THEY HAVE THE EXPERTISE,
BUT TED, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD
ANYTHING TO IT, PLEASE FEEL
FREE.
>> I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD TO
THAT.
THERE IS -- I CAN SEND TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT REPORT
THAT COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
MENTIONED DURING THE CHAIR'S
REMARKS, THE INSURING OUR
FUTURE REPORT.
THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE SORT
OF EXPERTISE THAT IS OUT THERE
AMONGST -- TO THE QUESTION
WHETHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE
EXPERTISE ABOUT INSURANCE
COMPANIES AND BANKS, INVESTMENT
PRACTICES AND ALL OF THAT.
AS INDIVIDUALS, I DEFINITELY
CAN'T SPEAK TO EACH PERSON'S
EXPERTISE, BUT AS A GROUP, THEY
ARE PART OF THIS INTERNATIONAL
MOVEMENT THAT HAS A GREAT DEAL
OF RESOURCES INTO COMPILING
THIS INFORMATION.
THEY DO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT.
THAT REPORT, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS
SENT TO US BY OVERSIGHT BOARD
MEMBERS.
SO THEY DO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF
EXPERTISE.
OBVIOUSLY THE GREEN NEW DEAL
OVERSIGHT BOARD WOULDN'T BE
EVALUATING BANKS ON THEIR
ABILITY TO BACK LOANS OR THAT
FAS WOULD STILL BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR THAT ASPECT OF IT.
THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE --
THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS
LEGISLATION FOCUSES ON.
>> RIGHT, YEAH.
THE GREEN NEW DEAL BOARD IS NOT
TO GIVE GENERAL ADVICE ON
INSURANCE PURPOSES.
THAT'S THE FAS'S JOB.
THE GREEN NEW DEAL BOARD BRINGS
EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE, AND
REALLY JUST GENUINE INTEREST IN
DOING THIS IN THE WAY THAT
MINIMIZES THE IMPACT OF CARBON
EMISSIONS AND ON THE CLIMATE AS
A WHOLE.
SO THAT'S THEIR EXPERTISE.
THAT'S THE MORAL OF THE STORY.
>> THANK YOU.
I THINK THIS IS A VALUABLE
PROPOSAL.
I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE INTENT
OR THE VALUE OF THE NEED TO DO
THIS.
I THINK THAT REVIEWING OUR
CONTRACTING PROCESSES IS WHERE
WE HAVE POWER AS A
MUNICIPALITY, TO DRIVE SYSTEMS
CHANGE.
BUT I WILL SAY THAT I DO WORRY
ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF THE
BOARD.
AS TED MENTIONED, THEY REALLY
JUST GOT STARTED.
THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE A WORK
PLAN YET AND THE WORK PLAN THAT
THEY ARE PRESUMABLY CREATING IS
BASED ON DUTIES THAT DIDN'T
INCLUDE, DIDN'T CONSIDER THIS
PARTICULAR BODY OF WORK.
SO I'M WONDERING ABOUT THE
TIMING, IF THIS PASSES, WHEN
WOULD THEY BE EXPECTED TO BEGIN
THIS, AND WHAT IS THERE SORT OF
RAMP-UP TIME TO BE ABLE TO DO
SOMETHING LIKE THIS?
>> I COULD JUMP IN OR STAY OUT
OF THE WAY, CHAIR SAWANT, IF
YOU'D PREFER TO REPLY.
BUT I HAVE A TECHNICAL ANSWER
TO THAT.
>> GO AHEAD, LET'S HAVE ALL THE
ANSWERS.
GO AHEAD, ERIC.
>> SO BUILT INTO THE
AMENDMENTS, COUNCILMEMBER
MIRELES, THE FIRST STEP WOULD
BE FOR THE BOARD TO ESTABLISH
THE CRITERIA, AND THEN FILE
THOSE CRITERIA WITH THE CLERK.
SO THAT WOULD BE AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE BOARD AND ON
THEIR OWN TIME AND.
SO IN TERMS OF WHEN IT WOULD BE
REQUIRED OF THEM TO SETTLE
THOSE CRITERIA, THERE IS NO
TIMING SET IN THIS DRAFT BILL.
IT WOULD BE AT THEIR DISCRETION
ABOUT SETTING THE TIME THAT
THEY WOULD DO THAT WORK, SET UP
THOSE CRITERIA.
BEFORE THE CRITERIA ARE FILED
WITH THE CLERK, THE MANDATE ON
FAS WOULDN'T EXIST.
SO THAT'S SORT OF THE FIRST
STEP.
IT PUTS THE POWER IN THE
OVERSIGHT BOARD TO KIND OF GET
THE BALL ROLLING, SO TO SPEAK.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S HELPFUL.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST ALONG THOSE LINES, I THINK
IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR
THAT THE BOARD DOES GIVE THE
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD
DISCRETION.
THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT ERIC
SAID BUT I'M JUST SAYING THE
BILL GIVES THE GREEN NEW DEAL
OVERSIGHT BOARD DISCRETION ON
WHETHER TO DO BANKING.
SO FOR SMALL CONTRACTS, THEY
CAN CHOOSE TO NOT BE CONSULTED,
SO THEY HAVE THE POWER TO
MANAGE THEIR OWN WORKLOAD AND
YOU CAN SEE THE VALUE OF THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, WE SHOULD NOT
FORGET THAT THEY HAVE AN
ENORMOUS EXPERTISE IN THIS
ISSUE.
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THE BOARD.
I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT
POINT.
AND SECONDLY, THEY'RE NOT
WORKING BY THEMSELVES.
AS I SAID BEFORE IN THE CHAIR'S
REMARKS, ONE OF THE MAJOR SORT
OF MOTIVATIONS WE HAVE BEHIND
DOING THIS ORDINANCE ALSO IS
THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING SEATTLE
IS DOING IN AN ISOLATED WAY.
THERE IS AND I INTERNATIONAL
MOVEMENT AROUND THIS.
SO WITH THAT INTERNATIONAL
MOVEMENT COMES A LOT OF
EXPERTISE THAT IS SHARED ACROSS
THE BORDERS.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE GREEN NEW
DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD MEMBERS
ARE OFTEN A ROOM SOMEWHERE
WHERE THEY HAVE NO ASSISTANCE
FROM THE OUTSIDE.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY SHARING
INFORMATION AND EXPERTISE IN A
REALLY GOOD WAY, AND FOR
EXAMPLE, I MENTIONED THE
RATINGS OF LIBERTY MUTUAL IN
THE SHOWING OUR FUTURE REPORT.
THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING OF A FEW
PEOPLE.
THAT REPORT IS THE PRODUCT OF
THE WORK OF A LOT OF PEOPLE,
AND INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM
AROUND THE WORLD.
IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS
INFORMATION IS ALREADY BEING
EVALUATED BY A MOVEMENT OF
CLIMATE ACTIVISTS, AND THE
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD
MEMBERS WORK WITH THE REST OF
THEM.
AND WE WILL NOT RING THIS BILL
TO A VOTE WITHOUT A CLEAR
STATEMENT FROM THE GREEN NEW
DEAL BOARD AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST
INDIVIDUALS.
SO I'M SURE THEY ARE WATCHING
THIS COMMITTEE, AS WELL.
I HOPE THAT MOTIVATES THEM TO
MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHETHER THEY
WANT THIS LEGISLATION OR NOT,
SO THAT ALL THESE QUESTIONS ARE
COMING UP ABOUT WHETHER THEY
WANT TO DO THIS WORK OR THAT
THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO THIS
WORK, SO THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS
THEMSELVES AND CLARIFY ALL
THESE QUESTIONS, AS WE CLARIFY
AS A COMMITTEE WHEN TO HAVE A
VOTE ON THIS BILL.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, GO AHEAD.
>> I AGREE, SO THANK YOU.
I AGREE THAT WE -- THE CITY OF
SEATTLE SHOULD BE USING ITS --
THE LEVERAGE THAT IT HAS TO
GET, TO REACH OUR POLICY GOALS,
AND IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IN THIS
CASE WE ARE TRYING TO USE THE
POWER -- OUR PURCHASING POWER
OF OUR FINANCIAL SERVICES, TO
DO THAT.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO THAT
WITH PROCUREMENT.
THE CITY OF SEATTLE BUYS A
WHOLE LOT OF THINGS, AND WHY
AREN'T WE BUYING OUR GOODS,
PENCILS, ET CETERA, STAPLERS,
FROM STORIES IN OUR CITY, SAME
WITH OUR HIRING PRACTICES.
WHY AREN'T WE HIRING YOUTH FOR
PRMANENT POSITIONS, ET CETERA?
THIS SEEMS A LITTLE BIT MORE
RISKY, BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT A LIMITED MARKET, FROM
WHAT I UNDERSTAND OF THEIR
PRESENTATION.
WHEN WE TRIED TO GET A
DIFFERENT BANK THAN WELLS
FARGO, I THINK ERIC JUST SAID
THAT WE DIDN'T GET ANY BIDS, SO
-- ONE SENTENCE CAUGHT MY
ATTENTION IN THE PRESENTATION,
ON PAGE 14, AND, QUOTE,, THE
CITY WOULD BEAR FULL FINANCIAL
IMPACT FOR ANY TYPE OF CLAIM
THAT IS NOT INSURED.
THAT MAKES ME WORRIED, BECAUSE
I THINK THAT OUR FIRST
RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROTECT
OUR OWN ASSETS, AND YOU HAVE TO
KEEP IN MIND HOW MUCH THESE
POLICIES COST, AND WHETHER OR
NOT WE COULD GET ANY POLICIES
THAT MEET THIS CRITERIA.
SO I THINK THIS REQUIRES SOME
SERIOUS CONSIDERATION GOING
FORWARD, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT
WE HAVE A COUPLE MEETINGS TO GO
THROUGH THE IMPLICATIONS OF
THIS.
THANKS.
>> I DON'T FORESEE NOT HAVING A
MEETING OR TWO ON THIS BECAUSE
WE HAVE NOT ANNOUNCED A DATE
FOR THE VOTE AND IT WOULD BE
GOOD ACTUALLY TO HAVE THE VOTE
HERE AS WELL AS ISSUE A
STATEMENT ABOUT HOW THEIR VOTE
WORKS.
ONE THING I WILL ADD IS JUST IN
TERMS OF THE QUESTION THAT WAS
RAISED, IS THE BILL GIVES THE
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES DISCRETION TO DECIDE
WHEN TO ISSUE AN RFP FOR
FINANCIAL SERVICES.
I BELIEVE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO
GET MORE THAN ONE BID, THEN
THEY HAVE THE POWER TO NOT
ISSUE AN RFP.
SO I THINK THE CONCERN THAT IS
RAISED IS A VALID ONE, BUT IT
IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING
ADDRESSED IN THE BILL ITSELF.
AND FURTHERMORE, I ALSO STRESS
THE POINT OF THIS BILL IS NOT
TO CREATE OBSTACLES FOR THE
WORK OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE.
I THINK WE ARE FULLY
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE ARE
LIMITATIONS TO WHAT THIS BILL
CAN DO.
BUT THE VALUE OF THIS BILL IS
THAT IT WILL ALLOW SEATTLE TO
BE PART OF AN INTERNATIONAL
EFFORT, IN ORDER TO PUT THIS
ONE FORWARD, THAT ACTUALLY IT
IS, THE PROBLEM THAT EXISTS IS
FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE AND
THEIR FUNDERS.
THAT'S THE BASIC PRINCIPLE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, WERE
YOU TRYING TO SPEAK?
>> NO.
SORRY.
IF I HAVE FOLLOW-UP -- I HAVE
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS.
I'LL JUST WRITE THEM DOWN AND
SEND THEM TO CENTRAL STAFF, TO
YOUR STAFF.
THANK YOU.
>> YES, ABSOLUTELY.
AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS NOW,
PLEASE GO AHEAD AND ASK.
ALSO I REALIZE EARLIER I WAS
TRYING TO FINISH SOMETHING BUT
I MAY HAVE CUT OFF
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES.
THERE WAS SOMETHING YOU WANTED
TO ASK COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> NO, JUST, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE 2022
WORK PLAN IS NOT YET COMPLETE.
I COULDN'T FIND ONE SO I JUST
WANTED TO, AGAIN, MY CONCERN IS
A CAPACITY ISSUE AND I WAS
LOOKING FOR THAT BUT IT DOESN'T
EXIST YET.
SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO
SEEING IT WHEN IT'S DONE.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS
WANTING TO RING IN?
ERIC OR TOM OR TED, DO YOU WANT
TO ADD ANYTHING, BASED ON THE
QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS YOU
HEARD?
>> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT HE AND
I WILL BE BRIEFING THE GREEN
NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT BOARD ON
MONDAY AT A SPECIAL MEETING
THAT THEY'VE CALLED TO COMMENT.
JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT PIECE
OF INFORMATION THAT WE WILL BE
MEETING ON MONDAY.
>> AND TO REITERATE, I AM
DEFINITELY AVAILABLE FOR FOLLOW-
UP QUESTIONS, ANY COUNCIL
MEMBERS ARE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
WERE MEMBERS OF