Ready?

All right.

Good morning.

The July 6th, 2026 meeting of the select committee on the Seattle Transportation Benefit District will come to order.

It is 11.03 a.m.

I am Rob Saka, Chair of the Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Foster.

Here.

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Councilmember Warriors.

Councilmember Kettle.

Here.

Councilmember Lynn.

Here.

Councilmember Rink.

Present.

Councilmember Rivera.

Present.

Councilmember Strauss.

Chair Shaka.

Here.

Chair, there are six members present.

All right.

Thank you.

Let the record reflect that Councilmember Warez is excused.

And Council President Hollingsworth, Councilmember Strauss are excused until they arrived.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

And noting that Council President has joined us in person, is here present and accounted for.

Welcome.

So the agenda is adopted.

Good morning, everyone.

Colleagues, members of the public.

Thank you for joining us today on an exciting FIFA match, round of 16 team USA going head to head against Belgium right here in the city of Seattle.

And I'm wearing my own swag, and I know colleagues, I saw a few of you and your respective teammates in your offices wearing team USA swag.

You could have chose to be anywhere in the world today, but you chose to be with us right here in Council Chambers.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

But an exciting day today because today marks an important milestone in our work together on the Seattle transit measure.

This is the point in the legislative process where ideas are tested, assumptions are challenged, and good proposals have the opportunity to become even better.

I want to begin by thanking each council member and your respective staff for the tremendous amount of work that went into preparing the amendments before us today.

For historical context, the original 2020, the original 2014 rather, Seattle Transit Measure proposal received five proposed amendments.

By comparison, the 2020 renewal received eight.

It's to ensure we have a thoughtful, transparent, and well-organized process that gives every amendment a fair hearing and every council member an opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

Now, as I've shared before, transit for me personally has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember.

Growing up, my family often depended on it.

Today, I continue to ride transit regularly, whether commuting or traveling to major events around our great city.

That experience reminds me that transportation and transit more specifically is never just about moving people from one place to another.

It is about expanding opportunity.

It is about safety, it is about accessibility, it is about reliability and predictability, and it is about all of those things and more.

Building a safe, reliable, and effective transportation system that people trust enough that they choose to use it every day.

That broader perspective should guide our work today, colleagues.

The amendment process exists for a reason.

It allows us to test public ideas in public, refine proposals, and identify unintended consequences to improve legislation before it reaches voters.

It is one of the most important responsibilities entrusted to us as a legislative body and co-equal branch of government, and it should always be carried out with openness, respect, and willingness to listen.

I also want to briefly address one aspect of today's amendments.

As chair, I believe that this legislation should establish the policy framework, high-level priorities, and resources that will guide future transit investments.

It should not attempt to prescriptively defined individual transit routes or specific neighborhood service decisions through the amendment process.

I've taken this principal position as chair for two main reasons.

First, I believe that type of granular level route by route detail and specificity is best managed and addressed during the implementation phase.

Should voters approve this measure.

The implementation phase is where operational planners and experts will be best positioned to effective to effectively evaluate feasibility across the entire regional system.

Subject, of course, to council review and oversight.

Second, it's important that we maintain appropriate expectations for our operational partners at King County Metro.

Metro alone retains exclusive financial responsibility to plan, expand, and restore service in specific areas to pre-pandemic levels and beyond based on regional demand and system-wide constraints.

Simply put, we must let Metro do its job, and we should not let them off the hook financially for expanding service in Seattle while balancing the needs of the entire regional system.

These points are bolstered by the fact that neither of the two prior Seattle transit measure proposals reflected that level of operational detail.

Again, 2014-2020.

Colleagues, again, our role is to establish clear policy direction while respecting the expertise of those charged with implementation.

Again, subject to our oversight responsibility.

Today's discussion is not about winning or losing individual amendments.

It's about collectively building the strongest possible measure for the people of Seattle.

I encourage each of us to approach today's conversation with curiosity, humility, grace, and a shared willingness to improve not only our own ideas, but each others as well.

When this committee's work is complete, I hope Seattle residents will be able to look back and say something simple.

Their elected representatives took this responsibility seriously, work collaboratively together in public, and let left the proposal stronger than when they found it.

Thank you.

Let's get to work.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items on today's agenda and within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Chair, we currently have 14 in-person speakers, and there are 12 remote speakers for a total of 26 speakers.

All right, thank you.

Just under the 30 speaker threshold, so each speaker will have approximately two minutes.

Uh and we will start with in-person speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

Speakers will alternate between sets of in-person and remote speakers.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list, Greg Woodfill.

After Greg, we'll hear from Kirk Hovencotter.

Good morning, Chair of Saka and distinguished council members.

My name is Greg Woodfill, president of ATU 587.

I'm here representing 5,000 transit workers, mostly from King County, who move this city and region.

We respect the City Council's authority to shape this legislation and appreciate the Seattle City Council and Seattle residents' long and firm commitment to investments in public transit.

On the 22 proposed amendments, our union wants to respect the council's authority and uh only speak to one amendment that we strongly support, amendment one, and one that we strongly oppose, amendment 13.

Yesterday's shooting incident on a bus in the Soto district is just another and a long line of examples of why we need to keep our focus on transit safety, which we believe is addressed in amendment number one.

On amendment 13, the public is clear that they want more transit, not less.

Our union asks for the council to pass this amendment with a full taxing authority.

Our union has a long history of endurance of uh supporting it working with Seattle Council members, including the current council.

All we ask for is your commitment to public transit and labor in general.

The decisions you make on this legislation will demonstrate if you back up your words with actions.

Investment in public transit benefits all more so than most investments.

Please make this bold and needed investment in transit without placing restrictions that will lessen or inhibit the ability for increased transit service, which is what the public needs, wants, and demands.

Thank you.

Thank you, President Woodville.

Let the record reflect that Councilmember Strauss has joined us in person.

Welcome, Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kirk Hoffencotter.

After Kirk, we'll hear from Mark Brunson.

Chair Saka, Council members, I'm Kirk Hovencotter, Executive Director of Transportation Choices Coalition.

Thank you for the work the committee has done on these thoughtful amendments.

Today I want to focus on two amendments.

Reducing the funding rate from 0.3 to 0.2 and shortening the term of the measure.

We urge the council to keep the measure at 0.3% sales tax and a full 10-year term.

A shorter term and a lower rate mean less service, less predictability for riders, and a harder conversation with voters down the road about renewing this measure around the time of the Seattle transportation levy.

Over this past month, Seattle has shown up on the world stage.

The growing investments in transit has made that possible.

During the World Cup, our transit system moved over a million riders just across the first two matches.

And it broke all-time ridership records twice in one week.

That's what this system can do when it has the funding it needs.

A full 0.3 tenure commitment in investment keeps that momentum going.

In contrast, we can look three hours south to Portland, a city without a sales tax and without a local transit funding source that just this weekend had to announce severe cuts in its bus service and cutting its operators.

Business owners and residents want to invest in a city with a great public transit system.

And voters have shown they want a city that is bold in its vision of what it wants to be that isn't satisfied with what it has today.

Transit service is key to what makes our city work.

It's an economic driver, it eases congestion for everyone on the road and lowers the cost of living in our city.

Even for residents who have never set foot on a bus or a train, transit investment means fewer cars and less congestion.

We look forward to further conversations with you all and the committee as your amendments move forward, but we hope to see this measure continue with a.3% sales tax rate and a 10-year term.

Let's go, Salmon Bay.

Let's go team USA.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Kirk.

And uh also let's go West Seattle Roadies FC and the Junction FC.

Thank you.

Our next speaker will be Mark Brunson, followed by Jack Wisner.

Good morning.

My name is Mark Brunson.

I live in Capitol Hill and have navigated Seattle by transit during each iteration of the Seattle transit measure, as well as the years that preceded them.

The first transit transportation benefit district was a hope.

Mark, can you uh speak directly into the mic?

Almost gotta eat it.

Thank you.

The first transportation benefit district was a hopeful time for mobility in Seattle.

This measure expanded service to the point that 70% of Seattle households could walk to a frequent bus line.

As a result, Seattle was the only major city in the country increasing its transit ridership during these service expansions.

Today I live near the G line, and this high frequency route has made me more connected to First Hill and the Central Library.

Everyone should be able to walk to a frequent bus like the G.

But most of my destinations are not along the G.

A citywide frequent transit network is important to everyone because we do not always get to choose where our destinations are.

Sometimes our friends move across the city.

Our local our only local pharmacy closes, or we want to support a local business in another neighborhood.

I strongly urge you to pass this plan to fund the end the amount of bus service in the mayor's proposal.

I also support amendments 10 and 29 to expand upon that service level.

Please reject amendment 13 that represents a cut to today's transit service.

When people apply to jobs and sign leases, they need to know that their mobility is not subject to the whims of future council members.

Our service levels should be guided by a consistent vision.

The frequent transit network was developed in the transport transit element of the Seattle Transportation Plan, which was unanimously passed by this body, and currently many people currently serving on it.

Please reject amendment four and leave the specific details of to the expertise of our planners who are charged with implementing the plan that the council has already approved.

Thank you for your time and let's have a great time at our final World Cup game.

Thank you.

Our next speaker will be Jack Wisner, followed by Riley Avron.

Good morning, Chair Sokka, members of the board.

Um I uh want to second the remarks of President Woodfill.

Um please adopt the measure.

Um, but I want to talk a little bit, color outside the lines a little bit, and suggest two amendments that are not on the list today.

I've written several notes on these topics.

Um remarked that uh the bus routes are the purview of metro transit, but there is one mode that's the purview of Seattle, which is the Seattle streetcar.

And there are two lines the South Lake Union line began in 2005, and the first of the line was funded by ST2.

Um, I think it's time that we stop funding the service subsidy for the South Lake Union line.

Shar Saka brought this up during the 2024 budget process.

Um, it's not very cost effective.

It is duplicated by several very good bus routes.

The 40, the 62, the 70, and the C line.

Ridership is very low.

The streetcars are a boutique service, they cost a lot more.

Um, I've shared that with you in email.

400 an hour for every streetcar, 250 dollars for every bus hour.

So for every streetcar hour you fund, you can buy 1.6 bus hours.

And the hours you spend on South Lake Union do not help any of your objectives because the streetcar in South Lake Union duplicates good bus service, and the bus hours you spend outside downtown are where weights are longer and riders need it more.

The second amendment I have suggested is that you go ask the voters about the latent authority for the $50 vehicle license fee and target that funds that those funds for pavement management.

We know we're in a deep deficit for pavement management, bridge, bridges, and sidewalks.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Wizard.

Next we have Riley Avron, who will be followed by Clinton Attaway.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Riley from West Seattle.

I want to first recognize this form of public comment is profoundly unrepresentative and biased towards people like me who are able to spend their weekday morning here with you.

In particular, the people most likely to benefit from this measure are least likely to be able to be here in part because our transit system is so time consuming.

That said, I urge you to pass the Seattle transit measure and to reject the amendments from Council members Kettle and Saka, weakening that measure.

Like many residents, I rely on public transit to get around, but many routes are infrequent or non-existent.

The bus I take to the airport runs every 20 or 30 minutes later in the evening, and the trip takes an hour compared to 20 minutes by car.

The bus I take to visit friends in South Seattle is the same.

For you council members who don't use transit, imagine if there was a gate at the end of your driveway that only opened twice every hour.

Please reject amendments four and five from my councilmember Saka.

Most critically, please reject amendment 13 from Councilmember Kettle, which would cut the purchase bus service in half.

This measure improves connectivity, reduces emissions, and absolutely increases equity.

Please pass it rather than undermine it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Clinton Attaway, followed by Cecilia Black.

Good afternoon, Council.

Thank you all for meeting today.

Chair Sokka, I would like to read from uh words that I guarantee the chairman is going to respect.

As you know, I'm not a traffic engineer.

Last time I'm intervened or meddled specific design solutions.

It didn't go well for anybody.

I'm not going to dictate uh or tell the department specific solutions they should implement.

I'll absolutely pass along the feedback.

This the statement represents a profound amount of humility and understanding of where this committee's capabilities lie and where they need to be empowering other people with specific abilities to give us a 21st century Metro solution.

So I asked the council to uh vote against amendments 13 and 4 and uh push forward on amendments 10 and 29.

Um, and uh let's look back and say something simple that we didn't meddle.

We enabled the people who know what they're doing to do what they should be.

Thank you.

Thank you, Clinton.

Next we have Cecilia Black and then Jonathan Gonzalez.

Um good morning.

Uh my name is Cecilia Black, and I am an activist and advocate with non-drivers alliance and a wheelchair user.

Um, I just want to first say thank you to council for considering this transit measure.

Um people with disabilities are disproportionately more likely to not be able to drive and also live in households that do not have access to a car.

And um, meaning that uh transit access is disability access.

Um people disabilities are twice as likely to not leave their house in a day than non-disabled peers in the same age bracket.

Um, this means that people are isolated, that they're not accessing jobs, that they're not accessing all of the opportunities that everybody else has who has access to a car.

Um, this uh, and and I just want to say that I am incredibly privileged.

I um I can't put my own gas.

It takes me it's very difficult to get my wheelchair and out of a car.

Um, and it's really hard to find safe parking in Seattle, but I can afford to live on the frequent transit network, which means that I can get almost everywhere in the city that I need to go.

Um, but most people uh with disabilities are um in a lower income bracket.

They do not have access to living in the frequent transit network, and this transit measure um will just give people so much more opportunity.

And so I just want to really emphasize that we need to expand our transit funding, and we need to make sure it's reliable so we can plan for the future and make an accessible city.

So please, please, please keep this transit measure at a 0.3% and dedicate that to more transit on the frequent transit network and make sure that it is um predictable and that means keeping this transit measure again at the uh 10-year funding um timeline and and doing everything we can to ensure Metro has all the tools to um plan and expand our frequent transit network.

Thanks.

Thank you, Cecilia.

Our next speaker will be Jonathan Gonzalez, followed by Hendrik Delcock.

Um, my name is Jonathan Gonzalez.

I'm an organizer with State Ballard Rail and a volunteer with Ballet Fremont Green Streets.

Um I guess I want to start off with.

I was just in LA this past weekend or last weekend with my husband, and something that really struck me was how much better our transit is here in Seattle's.

I think LA is supposed to be like a bigger, like cooler city, but my husband and I tried to go around by train, by bus, and it just was striking just how different it is.

And I think um what we see is that Seattle really likes to take public transit, and with the World Cup, we're also seeing that Seattle is really just like shining everywhere online.

Everyone's talking about how beautiful the city is, how accessible our stadium is, and how easy it is to get around.

Um, even City Nerd said that our stadium is S tier, which I thought was really cool.

Um, and to that end, I think it's very important that we continue to fund transit, and that means funding the full point three percent.

Uh, we need to continue expanding and make it accessible to everyone in the city.

Um, I appreciate Councilmember Strauss's amendment to call out connecting regional centers.

I think that's very important.

I also think it's important that um Councilmember Lynn and Rink uh called out amendments for looking for progressive revenue and ways for local and state level um revenue increases can be done and how that can help with the sales tax.

I know that sales tax is aggressive, but this is important.

Um I worry about limiting the uh measure to six months that are six years.

I know that that might tie in with the transportation levy, and that would just seem like a disaster.

And um, yeah, I hope that you end up passing the full point three percent in the full 10 years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jonathan.

Next we have Hendrik Dilcock, followed by Nick Sattel.

Hello, um, I'm a resident of uh Capitol Hill and I've been uh using transit uh almost exclusively.

Uh I I'm a non-driver since uh essentially the beginning of the first Seattle transit measure uh since its implementation.

And so I'm here to both uh strongly support its renewal and in particular to recommend against adopting amendments 13 and amendment five uh for various reasons.

So the first of all being that um amendment 13 um cutting down the uh tax measure will significantly hamper the amount, like the amount of transit that the city is able to fund, and it's really being able to fund a lot of very frequent transit that really grants people like me the freedom to you know be able to go where they want to go, where they need to go, uh whether it's for work, for leisure, to see friends, to go to a doctor, what have you.

And at the end of the day, um the measure as proposed is only going to is going to cost the median Seattle like under $30 per year.

And so I don't think cutting that extra third really does much versus the amount of extra transit service we can buy.

As for amendment five, I recommend against shortening the term, particularly because that would mean in order to do a renewal, the city would have to shell out the money for an extra special election, something they which they would not have to do under the 10-year term.

And as such, it does lead to more unnecessary spending down the line, particularly since the measure would likely get renewed regardless.

Thank you, Hendrik.

Next up is Nick Sattell, who will be followed by Harper Nally.

Hello, council members.

Uh, my name is Nick, I help colleague fix the late.

Um, and I want to thank everyone here for writing all your amendments for getting so far along in this process.

I know it's not very easy.

Um, but I wanted to uh uh to call out some amendments to vote against.

Uh, first off, amendment number four would force annual council approvals of the service investments, which is just gonna end up hitting all of our districts against each other.

We've seen this process play out at Sound Transit, and it's not very good when we have all these different regions fighting against each other for the same resources when we have a data-driven approach already that's run by SDOT.

Um, I urge you to vote no on amendment number five, which would force uh the renewal of this measure on a special election or force it on the same general election as the Move Seattle levy, which is certainly gonna cause problems for both of them.

But more importantly, I urge you to vote no on amendment number 13, which will reduce the Seattle transit measure by one third.

That would cut service funded by the city of Seattle, and that would also halt the service expansion that we have planned.

Throughout the years, this council has talked the talk on a number of different goals, like climate change, the Seattle Transportation Plan, Vision Zero, the Frequent Transit Network, we all voted for and approved, is what's gonna get funded by the Seattle transit measure.

Um, and I want to call out that you know we have a lot of problems in the city, and they're not gonna get solved with less transit.

You know, downtown has a 40% vacancy right now.

You know, we're not gonna make a dent on that with less transit.

Um it's not gonna be easier to run a business in the city if we have less transit, it's not gonna be easier to find a job or get to work if we have less transit, and it's not gonna be a more affordable city if we have less transit and more people have to drive, pay for some of the most expensive Ubers in the country, pay for expensive gas and parking.

Um but more importantly, I think we've seen this in the past couple weeks that like we're not gonna be a fun city or an enjoyable city if we don't have transit like we've seen with the World Cup.

You know, we have a night network of buses that allow people to go out and have a night on the town to work a later shift at the bar.

And that night network is overwhelmingly funded by the Seattle Transit measure, not by Metro itself.

And by prioritizing service expansion here, and by keeping the measure at point three and 10 years, that allows us to make these investments and make the city better for everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nick.

Our next speaker is Harper Nally, followed by Carlo Alcantara.

Okay.

Mom, stop texting me.

Okay.

Uh hello, my name is Harper Nally.

I'm with the Seattle Transit Writers Union.

I'm a member of District 3.

Uh, I'm a transit writer, and I'm a student.

This tax increase in improved service it would fund will save me money, even though I don't already or I don't have a car to give up and save money on.

This improved bus service will reduce our contributions to climate change, something that everyone on this council at least says they understand is an existential threat.

It is a well-established fact that improved transit service boosts the economy by putting more money into the pockets of riders and transit operators.

Are you a council that only believes climate change, affordability, and economy or and in the economy when the uh when talking to voters and cuts to trans it cuts transit service and puts barriers in the way of its success while in the chamber?

Or are you a council that actually follows through on its talk?

Uh, because I have more time, really briefly.

I uh last weekend went to uh Mount Psy to go for a hike on a bus that is half funded by the Seattle Transportation Measure.

I do not have access to that if that bus doesn't exist.

And that is really important.

Uh a lot of people I know uh uh if they had better access to uh uh uh bus service to things like uh their job to uh various places that are not downtown, uh, and further out into uh our mountains, uh, would be more willing to give up their car.

Uh we know that transit service uh boosts our economy, we know that our transit service uh uh makes our city greener and more equitable.

Please, when the voters are asking these things to improve, please don't do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Harper, and uh friendly reminder, folks.

Uh, when you hear that chime, that means you have 10 seconds left, so you don't have to necessarily abruptly end your comments.

You have 10 seconds left.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Carlo Alcantara.

After that, Joseph Bolden.

Good morning, council.

Uh, my name is Carlo.

I help lead Aurora Reimagine Coalition.

I also live in D5.

Um, I just want to highlight there's a bunch of good amendments that are up today for vote.

Um, so to highlight a couple, uh first one is amendment 16 that would expand night bus service.

Um, amendment 11 to find new progressive revenue sources, tend to increase transit to uh regional centers, which I also want to mention, Councilmember Strauss, I don't need the bus to go to Ballard to downtown, but to get across to Northgate and then to Ballard.

That's how I access it.

And I love this amendment because it gets me to the Ballard farmers Market more often every weekend.

Um, let's see, 20 to increase accessibility uh and access to transit.

Um there's a bunch more, but uh uh my ask here is that um you pass some of those, but um reconsider and do not pass amendment 13 to cut bus service uh that would also cut jobs for uh metro drivers.

Um don't pass amendment four.

We don't need to micromanage um the funding we've already set aside uh to purchase more bus hours.

And please don't pass amendment five to shorten this measure uh or the term of this measure to I think it was six years, nine months.

Um that would also potentially trigger an expensive expensive special election.

Um I do want to say too that uh uh had a great time using transit to get around during the World Cup.

Um I think we can we've demonstrated how good Seattle does transit and that we can do even better, and this transit measure will do that and make us uh an even more connected city than we already are.

Thank you.

Thank you, Carla.

Our next speaker is Joseph Bolden, who will be followed by L Harrison Jerome.

Hello, Council members and Chair Saka, I'm Joseph Boulder with the Seattle Building Trades.

Uh the Seattle Building Trades Council and our affiliates are in support of amendment three.

We believe that these funds to help capital projects will contribute to good paying jobs for workers around the community and help ADA construction projects.

Uh these capital projects also provide apprenticeship pathways so people that can build a career uh within the place that they live and work.

These projects also provide provide uh priority hiring for people within the area, the zip code, so that they continue to live and work in Seattle and around King County.

So please support amendment three for the community workforce.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have L Harrison Jerome, who will be followed by Brandon Derbladder.

Hello, council members.

My name is Leonard Harrison Jerome.

Um the city and the country are not saying that the government is being too bold right now.

Uh the city is not asking for us to pair back the transit measure.

I'm here to speak in favor of keeping the transit tax at 0.3% and keeping it at 10 years rather than six years and nine months.

Um, I'm Gen Z.

I get the joke.

Um it's very funny.

Um I don't think we should be trying to sell transit budget cuts by making it a funny number.

We need to we need the longer time because having pro-transit council members is not a guarantee.

It's seeming increasingly likely that we could have austerity Democrats in both local and state government who won't necessarily call for extra transit investment.

We need to go as far as we can, whilst politically possible to do so.

On the subject of the sales tax, there's no arguments for me that it's a regressive tax, but even still, using that money to invest in transit is the best bank for buck way to create affordability.

Especially since it's the only tax the state allows us to levy for transportation.

Which is why we need people at uh we need state legislators who will give us more options in the future for better taxation.

But that's certainly not guaranteed either.

I'll leave with this.

Um, after the Iraq war, when I was just three years old, government promised at every level that we would have irresistibly good transit and wean ourselves off of foreign oil.

Frankly, oil, period.

But we didn't.

We gave more subsidies for oil.

Now we find ourselves in another oil war.

They had the same conversations at the time about public transportation, whether we should invest in it.

Let's not go so bold.

Are we sure we want to raise taxes?

We should pair it back.

Don't make the same mistake.

Thank you.

Thank you, Leonard.

Our final in personal speaker will be Brandon Derbladder.

After Brandon, we'll go to our remote speakers, starting with David Hill.

I strongly urge the council to reject Councilmember Kettle's amendment to reduce funding available to Mayor Wilson's proposed Seattle transit measure.

Yes, sales tax is regressive, but it's one of the few levers the city has to improve transit service.

The disadvantages of this tax to more vulnerable residents will be greatly offset by the benefits of increased bus service.

Over one in five people in the city don't even own a car, and many more primarily use modes other than a car, keeping a car only so they can reach far away locations that don't have enough transit or bike infrastructure.

I also support Council Member Rink's amendments supporting increased night service.

I have previously walked from Soto to Capitol Hill, and I have previously biked from Kenmore to Belltown before both of those after midnight because transit service ended too early.

Transit funding also supports Vision Zero Goals by allowing more people to get around without a car.

Please make the this transit measure as strong as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brandon.

Oh, sir, by the way.

Really love it.

So waiting on somebody to give me my courtesy copy.

Love it.

Thank you.

Switching to our remote callers.

Our first caller will be David Hill.

Following David, we'll have Amy Storm.

David, please hit star six to begin speaking.

David Hill, please hit star six to begin speaking.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is David Hill.

I'm a car-free resident of the Roosevelt neighborhood and a member of the Transit Riders Union.

I'm here today to urge the council to protect the integrity and long-term vision of the Seattle transit measure.

I want to be entirely clear.

I strongly oppose amendments four, five, and thirteen.

First, amendment 13 cuts the sales tax rate to 0.2%, stripping over 460 million dollars from our transit system and gutting 1.1 million service hours.

It completely eliminates the infrastructure maintenance category, operating on the flawed assumption that the 2024 transportation levy can absorb all capital transit needs.

Transit capital demands consistently outpace available funding.

Stripping this category prevents us from building the dedicated bus lanes and speed and reliability spot improvements that make transit functional and efficient.

Second, amendment four, which requires annual council approval for service hour purchases and route served is entirely unworkable.

Voters pass transit measures to establish stable long-term networks managed by transit professionals, not to hand over route logistics to a yearly political tug of war on the council floor.

Micromanaging route alignments annually treats a core public utility like a discretionary political chip, tripping away the exact operational predictability King County Metro needs to function.

Finally, I strongly oppose amendment five.

Shortening the measure's duration introduces deep operational instability when we desperately need certainty.

If the council wants oversight, look to amendment six for a data-driven midterm evaluation.

But if the goal of these amendments is to dilute the measure into milktoast centrism, I urge you to look at the recent election results.

Seattle voters just replaced the centrist mayor with a transit organizer.

Our city wants bold, dependable, well-funded public utilities, not watered down micromanaged compromises.

Please reject the test, the micromanagement, and the instability of amendments four, five, and thirteen, and focus on robust midterm accountability instead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next remote caller will be Amy Storm.

Following Amy, we will go to Wes Mills.

Amy, please hit star six to speak.

Hi, Seattle City Council.

Uh, my name is Amy Storm.

Uh, I'm addressing the Seattle Transit measure, as you might imagine.

I've been a West Seattle homeowner since 2011, and I want better bus service and would happily pay more than the estimated $29 a year that Mayor Wilson's unamended proposal would help cost my household to get it.

Let me take you on a little bus adventure.

The closest grocery store to my house is almost exactly a mile away, which would be a reasonable walk except it's straight down one of the steepest hills in West Seattle, making walking home with a full load of groceries untenable.

I would happily take the bus instead of drive, but my choices are a bus stop half a mile away where the bus comes once an hour, or a bus stop two blocks away that's supposed to come every 15 minutes and requires a transfer bus that comes every 20 minutes.

If I take the bus that comes once an hour and finish my shopping in 20 minutes.

Then I have to wait at least another 20 to 40 minutes with melting brush rate to get home.

If I take the bus with the transfer and one of the two buses is delayed, which happens constantly since our buses share red space with cars, then I'm stuck waiting 15 to 20 minutes for the next bus.

If I drive, it takes me five minutes.

Guess how I get my groceries.

The most important metric to get people to take public transit is frequency of service.

If I reliably know a bus will be at the stop within no more than 10 minutes of my arrival at the stop, I will take the bus.

Amendment 13 by Bob Cattle and Amendments 4 and 5 by Rob Saka are the kind of thing that makes me assume they want to deliberately sabotage our bus that rest of horse reliance on cars.

It's a favorite strategy of conservatives to put to slash funding to public services, making those services harder to use and then pointing at the reduction in use to justify slashing those services even more.

Reject these amendments and instead support amendments 10, 11, 17, and 29.

Our climate goals can't afford worse bus service, and neither can our groceries.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Amy.

Our next remote caller will be Wes Mills.

After Wes, we'll go to Billy Heatherington.

Wes, please hit Star 6 to speak.

Good morning, Chair Saka and Council members.

My name is Les Mills, and my wife and I live in Northgate.

We are full-time pedestrians without a car who do not drive, and this means we rely on transit for everything, as we have since 2018 when the first Seattle Transportation Benefit District measure was really hitting its stride.

And I remember the amazing days of the first STBD.

Local buses and not just rapid rides were so frequent that we rarely check the schedule.

We saved the overnight bus network and worked with Metro to revamp and expand it into something more useful than the spaghetti of what was before.

And Seattle was the only area of the country to see increases in bus ridership because Seattle invested in buses.

Trains are great, but they can't go everywhere, and buses are vital.

Affordability and access are important, and there's little more we can do for affordability than relieve the burden of owning a car by increasing buses across the city.

Some of us do need to drive, but a lot of us do not need to drive or cannot or do not drive.

Buses are how we access transit, including light rail and the street cars.

Seattle likes to go big on transit, and we should go big on transit here.

The state lets us have 10 years.

We should use those years.

The state lets us have a higher level of tax revenue.

We should use that tax revenue.

Seattle's transit measures have always been about more buses in more places and more often.

Buses or people cannot ride buses that don't exist.

And more people on transit makes for safer, robust, and popular transit.

And those are good things that we should spend big on, particularly considering amendments like amendment 24 that would increase the threshold and the amount of service hours.

Personally, I need these buses.

My family needs these buses.

My friends need these buses.

Please vote to go big on buses.

And thank you very much.

Thank you, Wes.

Our next speaker is Billy Heatherington.

After Billy, we'll go to Alexandra Johnson.

Billy, please hit star six to speak.

Chair Sokka and Council members.

My name is Billy Heatherington.

I represent Lyona Local 242 and the men and women who build and maintain the infrastructure our community depends on every day.

I'm here today in support of Councilmember Socca's amendment three and against the amendment 13.

If this measure's goal is to expand transit service, then the city has the responsibility to ensure expanded service is truly accessible to everyone.

Under Title 2 of the Americans with Disability Act in the 2010 ADA standards, local governments are expected to maintain an ADA transition plan and identify barriers that lays out a strategy to remove them.

As we invest in more transit hours, we should also invest in infrastructure that allows every Seattle resident to actually use this service.

Roughly one in four adults in Seattle identify as living with a disability.

Time and time again, transit accessibility is identified as one of their highest priorities.

More buses and more service hours don't mean much of riders can't safely reach a stop, navigate sidewalks, access curb ramps, or move through the public right-aways with confidence.

I know in the first couple years as a laborer working in the city of Seattle.

Capital improvements, we ensure that these available dollars continue advancing the goals voters expect residents sitting idle.

It creates flexibility while keeping the focus on delivery and transportation systems and that serves everybody.

These advancements also produce good paying family wage careers, expand apprenticeship opportunities, and support local higher pathways for workers who are looking for a chance to build a better future while improving the communities they live in.

Accessibility isn't an optional feature of a successful transit system.

Is it a fundamental part of its success?

Thank you, Mr.

Etherington.

Our next speaker will be Alexandra Johnson, followed by Maya Ayala Marshall.

Alexandra, please hit star six to begin speaking.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Alexander Johnson, and I'm a policy analyst with the Duwamish River Community Coalition representing South Park in Georgetown in the Duwamish Valley.

I'm here to urge your support for amendment two, prioritizing electric bus electric bus deployment in the Duamish Valley in South Seattle.

And big thank you to Chair Faca for creating this amendment out of direct feedback from very hard to reach community members in South Seattle.

Our communities carry Seattle's heaviest environmental burden.

South Park and Georgetown sit at the intersection of industrial corridors, freight routes, and highway 99, and both census tracks rank among the highest in the state for cumulative environmental health disparities.

Prioritizing electrification in overburdened communities means the benefits, cleaner air, less noise, lower emissions, reach the people who have carried the greatest impact rather than being distributed evenly regardless of need.

This amendment gets that right by grounding prioritization in the environmental health priorities map in EJ Stream, same tools the state already uses to direct equitable investment, and we're really glad to see the city apply that same standard here.

Electrifying transit in our neighborhoods is a direct measurable way to reduce the pollution burden our residents face every day, and we ask you to adopt this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alexandra.

Our next caller will be Maya Ayala Marshall, followed by Andrew Crow.

Mia, sorry.

Mia, please hit star six.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hello, Chair Saka and honorable council members.

My name is Mia Ayala Marshall, and I'm the Clean Air Program Manager at the Duamish River Community Coalition and Environmental Justice Nonprofit based in South Seattle's Duwamish Valley.

I'm here to urge you to support amendment two, prioritizing electric buses, bus deployment in the Duamish Valley in South Seattle.

In my work, I listen to community members' priorities up and uplift their voices in spaces like these to improve their health and well-being and the environment.

Over the past two years, I have continuously heard that the Duamish Valley Transit must be improved.

As you just heard from my colleague, the Duwamish Valley is home to one of Seattle's busiest transportation corridors, I5, Highway 509, and Highway 99, which supports residents, freight, and industry.

However, this proximity also leads to significant environmental and air pollution burdens.

Additionally, in the Duwamish Valley, only 2% of community members live and work in the valley, and the Duwamish Valley is one of the only neighborhoods in Seattle not covered by equitable public transportation defined by SDOT as a 10-minute or better all-day service within a 10-minute walk.

Our community and those entering it for work significantly rely on public transportation and it must be improved.

Investments in the Duamish Valley public transit system is critical, especially those that will help support cleaner air and better health outcomes for community members.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to comment.

And again, I urge you to support amendment two as a great first step in improving the Duwamish Valley's public transportation.

Thank you, Mia.

Next up is Andrew Crow.

Andrew will be followed by Jason Lee.

Andrew, please hit Star 6.

Hello, my name is Andrew Crow.

I live in the upper Queen Anne area of Seattle.

I have a part, and I gotta say, I'm frankly a little embarrassed by some of the amendments today.

The time of gas rising costs and international acclaim in part due to our public transit system.

Why are we trying to reduce our bus system?

We need to reject amendment four, five, and thirteen.

My parents are getting older.

This is a personal, they're getting older.

They have to take the bus to get downtown.

I don't have the time or freedom to take them to their appointments.

But you know what gives them the freedom?

You know what gives them independence?

It's the bus system of Seattle.

It's our transit system.

I love that stuff.

And right now, no one talks and says, Wow, I really wish I had fewer buses.

I love being in traffic.

I love having to take my parents to the to the doctor's appointment, taking a day off from work and using my vacation time for that.

We need to reject those amendments.

We need to support our bus system.

I would gladly pay the additional of one tank of gas in order to expand our bus system further.

It is a shining star of Seattle.

We're gonna get more tourism from all the people that came and loved going and visiting Pike Place and everywhere around Seattle, and who used our bus system to do that.

Please reject four, five, and thirteen.

Support any amendment that improves our bus system.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Crow.

Our next caller is Jason Lee.

Jason will be followed by Rafi Ronquill.

Jason, please hit star six.

I'm actually here in person if that's okay.

Yeah, uh, sorry about the confusion.

I had a book meeting that I wasn't sure if I would be able to make it here in time.

Um, yeah, my name is Jason Lee.

I'm a resident of Capitol Hill speaking here in favor of uh the Seattle transit measure um and against amendments five and thirteen.

Um I apologize if I sound like a broken record here, um, but in 2024, uh Seattle added 13,000 drivers to its road in just one year.

That's before Amazon's RTO, that's before Microsoft's RTO.

That's before the largest employers in our region started their RTO mandates and are continuing to do so today.

We added 13,000 drivers.

If we pass amendment 13 and maintain the status code bus service, we will continue that trend.

If we pass amendment five, even with the shorter term, by the end of those seven years, we will have added nearly a hundred thousand drivers to our roads.

The World Cup, the last World Cup match in Seattle is today, but if we pass amendment 13, that traffic will be permanent.

Tomorrow, construction resumes on Seattle streets, but the uh and our visitors will leave, but we keep adding drivers to our roads, and we need to reverse that trend with a larger and more bold transit measure.

Um, and to be clear, that those hundred thousand people is more than the capacity of the field previously known as Lumen.

We will have more traffic by the end of the shortened measure uh than we have today if we don't pass a really large and innovative one.

And for the shortened measure, we need to make sure that we keep that momentum that once we start improving our transit, we need to keep that momentum going for as long as possible.

Um I kind of want to highlight too, you know, the fact that I wasn't sure if I was gonna make it here in person.

The uh I think the people who would be most in support of transit are the working class.

But um, you know, those are the ones that for this time period are gonna have the most difficulty making it here, or either calling in or being here in person.

But I don't think I've heard a single person in favor of amendment five or thirteen, even with that in mind.

So I just want you to keep that in mind too, and just realize how popular transit is in Seattle and how badly the city needs it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Lee.

Go back to remote.

Yep.

Back to remote callers.

Our first one will be Rafi Ronquill.

After that, we'll hear from David Haynes.

Mr.

Ronquillo, please hit star six to begin speaking.

Hi there.

Good morning, everyone.

This is Rafi Ronchio down in the Brighton neighborhood uh of Seattle.

I'm just calling in to uh voice my support for amendments 10, 11, 17, and 29.

Uh, and I would ask the council um to reject members amendments four, five, and I strongly urge the council to reject amendment thirteen.

Um, we can't afford to reduce investment in our transit network.

Um, these dollars are incredibly well spent and uh an incredibly great deal for the residents of Seattle.

Um, so with that, I will yield my time.

Thanks so much.

Thank you, Rafi.

We will now go to David Haynes after David Haynes.

We'll hear from Robert Kruikshank.

Mr.

Haynes, please hit star six.

Hi, David Haynes.

Katie Wilson is the mayor.

And Mayor Wilson is the executive who's taking the lead on solving the crisis of all the people who are public transportation bound and alleviating the oppressive frustrations and the dangers of waiting for the bus too long or missing a transfer or not being allowed to go from the Westlake tunnel to the rapid ride because the private security refuses to look around the corner and see and say what they see to work with the cops, but yet some people want to persecute poverty who's not bothering anybody, and then a trafficker who pays his ticket on the link light rail gets to transport a woman to a rapehouse in your district because the police chief wants the virtue signal with bad policies.

If the city council wants to improve public safety, come up with better legislation based on the rude cause of predatory drug pushers and pimps and customs violators instead of waiting for the feds to approach the police chief to ask help, shutting them down because you're just sweeping them and pushing them into elsewhere places.

And if you want to improve legislation for public safety on the buses, you still have to have a resolution that demands that the bus drivers, the union, speaks up when they say all see all these evil predatory pieces of crap who are doing drugs in and around the transit oriented infrastructure.

But persecuting innocent people is unacceptable.

But you also allow the mayor to take the lead and stop brow beating and bullying and jive talking with these bogus amendments that should be withdrawn and rejected because you all didn't say or do anything about the bad policies that Bruce Harrell implemented into the budget that you all signed up on for the rest of this year that were still waiting to play out, that you all are still competing with other bad policies that need to be fixed in the transportation department and the comprehensive plan with the restrictions.

It's revolting.

Let the mayor Thank you, Mr.

Haynes.

Our next caller is Robert Kruikshank.

After Robert, we'll hear from Alberto Alvarez.

Uh Mr.

Kruokshank, please hit star six to begin speaking.

Hi, my name is Robert Krukshank.

I'm a homeowner.

We own two cars, and I've been a Seattle resident for 25 years.

In 2014, I helped create and pass the first of the Seattle transit measures, which funded the great bus service we enjoyed today.

Two of my kids now rely on metro buses to get to and from school.

Seattle public schools does not offer bus service to kids in middle and high school.

The buses are often delayed, they don't run as frequently as they should.

Our kids would save a lot of time and have fewer tardies with the proposals in this transit measure.

We would all save a lot of money by driving last.

This proposal will only cost households about $29 a year.

That's a really good deal.

So please don't undermine that good deal.

Please reject amendment 13, also known as the defund the bus amendment.

If the council adopts amendment 13, you'll actually make it more expensive to live in the city by increasing transportation costs with less customers.

Amendment 13 would also probably make it less likely voters would prove the measure since you'd be getting less far back.

I'd also ask to reject amendment five.

We don't need a shorter time frame.

We do need to fund transit for years to come.

Thank you, and let's make sure we get more bus service for our great city.

Thank you, Robert.

Our next caller will be Alberto Alvarez, followed by Daniel Hepner.

Mr.

Alvarez, please hit star six.

Thank you.

I would support amendments that lower the tax hike.

And shift taxes to car usage and parking.

Better funding through car tabs and parking fees.

We need people out of their cars and into public transit.

The responsible funding mechanism should address all these things.

It's not just about building it and they will come.

Ridership will remain low because the cost of driving a car is better than taking two bus routes to the places people need to travel to.

We are stuck with regressive taxes, passing the wide net of a sales tax for limited improvements to bus routes.

Responsible spending should place the burden of taxes on the things we want less of.

And that means less cars on the road.

Thank you all.

And have a good day.

Thank you, Mr.

Alvarez.

Our next speaker will be Daniel Hepner.

After Daniel Heppner, we'll uh hear from Scott Nelson.

Mr.

Hepner, please hit star six.

Hi, I'm Daniel.

I live in Capitol Hill, and I oppose amendments four, five, and thirteen, which would reduce transit funding by reducing the sales tax and reducing the length of the transit measure itself.

So, first of all, the point one percent reduction in sales tax will have a barely perceptible effect on the affordability of Seattle for the average person in terms of taxation, but a huge impact on affordability of Seattle in terms of transit and transportation.

Um I decided to my partner and I decided to get rid of our cars a few years ago, just during COVID actually, and every day we save more money by not having cars than we would pay in sales tax with that.1% per year.

Second, as a volunteer, I'm sick and tired of having to campaign for transit every few years because we insist on passing short funding measures instead of just committing to our future and committing to the vision that Seattle has had with the frequent transit network goals.

So let's use the maximum allowed amount and length for the Seattle transit measure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Hefner.

We're down to our final three callers.

Uh first we'll hear from Scott Nelson, who uh looks like we lost him and then he came back.

Then we'll hear from Joseph Smith, and then uh we're gonna hear from uh uh caller who I believe is Charlie Nguyen, but it isn't identified on the screen.

Uh so first we'll hear from Mr.

Nelson.

Uh please hit star six.

Good morning, council.

My name is Scott Nelson, and I'm a co-chair of the Seattle Disability Commission as well as a carless renter of District 2 in the Chinatown International District Neighborhood.

I'm calling in today to speak to the Seattle Transit Measure as a vehicle, no pun intended for the access and security of folks with disabilities, whether they're invisible or visible, mobility, sensory, cognitive, or developmental.

Council Member Warez has submitted amendment 20 to provide clarifying language that includes a name subility as a fundamental consideration and category.

And there is no portion of this bill that does not have wide-ranging implications for Seattleites with disabilities.

Increased service means that working folks who can't drive can get to their jobs on time.

More reliable transit helps folks access Seattle's world-class hospitals.

Play finding improvements can provide folks with strange confusion or anxiety to engage more fully in public spaces.

I'd like to name that in conversation with fellow commissioners.

The first thing that came up and remains difficult is the funding mechanism of a sales tax.

Low-income families who already have less access to disability support, like modified automobiles or private shuttles, are disproportionately impacted by increases in sales tax.

It's important as a city and important to the Seattle Disability Commission to explore progressive funding mechanisms as vigorously as possible to prevent this disproportionate burden from falling on the shoulders of the vulnerable.

To my colleagues in disability advocacy, I encourage everyone to be aware of how these funds are being sent, what impacts there are on folks with disabilities, and engage in this conversation to the fullest.

Council, I want to thank you for inviting the Seattle Disability Commission to learn and engage with this bill and to live and embody the expression, nothing about us without us.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Nelson.

Next, we'll hear from Joseph Smith.

After Joseph, it appears we'll hear from Charlie Noane.

Joseph, please hit star six.

Joseph Smith, please hit star six.

Hello, can you hear me now?

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh hi, my name is Joseph Smith.

I'm a lifelong Seattle resident.

I live in Queen Anne currently.

I want to say that I am a huge fan of our transit system, our buses, our trains, everything.

It's great.

I think it's one of the things that makes us a great city, and I'm I'm opposed to amendments four, five, and thirteen for that.

Especially a little bit disappointed in my council member Kettle, just as this is not something I want to see.

You know, we're basically downtown.

We need to be funding transit.

Uh the thing is, Seattle's a very expensive city.

It's a hard place to get by for a lot of people, and transit is one of the ways that we can make it affordable.

If you can live without a car, that's tens of thousands of dollars that you don't need to spend thousands of dollars every year.

That's way outshines, you know, the $30 a year that we're talking about here.

And it's popular.

Transit is really popular with people that you wouldn't even expect to talk.

I've talked to all sorts of people that don't regularly ride the bus and they're excited for the connection development.

They're excited for these improvements, and they do ride them.

They they become transit riders.

Uh, really, the thing is I have to say, are we a real city?

Because real cities fund transit, uh, and you know, other places don't.

But I think we want to be a real city, and I hope I hope that we are.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Smith.

All right, we'll go to our final caller.

I don't have the name on the screen here, but it appears that this is uh Charlie in the wind.

Uh whoever's on the line, if you could please hit star six and just confirm your name, then I'll start your time.

Hello, council members.

Uh, yes, this is Charlie.

Apologies for any issue with uh call RD.

Uh I'm a resident of District 3 and I'm a transit writer.

Uh, speak today in overall support of the council bill before you today, and I fully support the bill's intent to ensure transit needs continue to be funded in the city.

With this being said, and as uh other member of the Seattle Disability Commission, I speak today in particular support of amendment 20 to the bill on the agenda today, which would add language to the bill to clarify that the transit measures work to be done with recognition towards disability needs and accessibility.

This is an important amendment to ensure Seattle continues to be an accessible city to all in all aspects, including transit.

There are people who cannot drive because of disabilities and thus rely on transits.

Ensuring transit is accessible for individuals with disabilities should always be acknowledged.

Important proposed transit measure, transit ordinances like this one.

Also understand there are some differing views among council members regarding how the measure should specifically allocated spending, including with respect to transit service versus transit infrastructure.

There are trade-offs between the two, but both categories of transit service and transit infrastructure can help people with disabilities.

The exact spending allocations should be carefully considered by this committee to ensure it is appropriate for meeting the needs of Seattle's disability community.

Thank you.

Chair, that was our final public commenter.

All right.

Thank you, and no more last-minute in-person testifiers.

Just confirm.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone, for your public feedback today.

We'll now move on to our first item of business.

Will the committee clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one briefing and discussion on council bill one to one two two six, an ordinance related to a sales and use tax providing for the submission to qualified electors of the city at an election to be held on November 3rd, 2026.

A proposition to collect a sales and use tax to fund transit and related transportation programs in Seattle and ratify and confirming certain prior acts.

Thank you.

And looks like our presenters have uh joined us at the table.

Welcome in just a moment.

Please do introduce yourselves.

Begin your presentation.

Uh colleagues, a couple quick housekeeping items first, um, just kind of framing how this is go will go today.

Uh we'll get our presentation overview from our central staff experts.

We'll then walk through uh the individual 23 amendments, starting first with the central staff kind of brief description overview, and then turning it over to the amendment author to chime in and clarify from their perspective and speak to their own amendments.

Um and also wanna remind colleagues that this is your opportunity to provide feedback on these various proposed amendments.

One of our goals, in fact, today is to assemble uh a chairs package for consideration at our July 16th meeting, where we'll be voting on these to help streamline um you know the administrative process, so we don't have to vote on 16 individual amendments.

Um so doing so will allow us putting that chair's package together with mostly consensus items will allow us to spend more time at that meeting deliberating on individual amendments that warrant more robust conversation, or we're alignment or consensus may not be as strong.

So one indicator of whether an amendment will be appropriate for a potential chair's package will be how many council members vocalize their support for a particular amendment just briefly.

Um another potential factor would be how many council members volunteer today to co-sponsor an amendment.

So colleagues, please do share your support for particular amendments or otherwise express your willingness to co-sponsor any of these amendments as they are discussed in this open meeting format.

There's no limit to how many council members may choose to co-sponsor a particular amendment.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Uh welcome again, presenters.

Please do introduce yourselves and begin your presentation.

Amanda Allen, central staff, and Gorman, Council Central Staff.

Okay, council members.

Why are we here today?

Um and I are going to be presenting the amendments that you all proposed.

Um this is an opportunity to make those amendments public, and as the chair said, we'll turn it over to you all to to do the main show.

But um we have three purposes in this legislation.

The first one is to set the maximum amount of sales and use tax that can be collected that would be allowed to be collected.

Includes a point three percent sales and use tax, and that's the maximum allowed under the transportation benefit district.

Also to set the total number of years for the collection, ten years is what's proposed in the current legislation, and that again is the maximum allowed for collection of this type of sales tax.

And then lastly, to establish the broad categories of eligible uses of the STM, the Seattle Transit Measure Revenue Revenues.

Um I'll just note that specific allocations to fund the specific bus lines and other investments are is something that is currently held with Seattle Department of Transportation SDOT and King County Metro.

That being said I would like the council members to understand that any of the proposed amendments and the final legislation can be changed by future council action and legislation as it relates to the size of the tax and the term of the tax collections because of the up to language the up to point three percent and up to 10 year term the the tax rate could be adjusted downward and the term could be adjusted downward in future legislation and as it relates to the allowable uses again council may in the future amend aspects of those allowable uses in future legislation so you're not boxed in today necessarily if future priorities pop up so I'm going to start sharing my screen.

Okay.

So what do we have um we had a variety of amendments 23 amendments then we group them together in similar categories the amendments are not ordered in any sort of the amendment numbers do not indicate any sort of priority on our behalf they are probably closer to when we receive them and we entered them into our tracking spreadsheet than anything so it's it's simply organization strategy has no commentary on the value of the amendments there were amendments proposed four different amendments opposed um proposed to change recitals in the legislation there were two other amendments that changed the either the duration of the ordinance or the tax rate we also had amendments related to the clarifying the uses of the funds which didn't substantially change it didn't uh expand the eligible uses but just made very explicit how they could be used.

There were also amendments that added language to address some new or newly expanded revenue sources and how the city might address that those introductions were they to happen.

There's also increasing and oversight requirements and reporting requirements we had about eight different amendments that touched on that and the most popular category was adding eligible uses for the transit measures so we had amendments offered to identify priorities for the allocation of revenues other amendments that added additional possible populations who could be served by this revenue source and lastly adjustments to the percentage of revenue for transit service.

So when we start this presentation off we're gonna first start with the chair's amendments and then we'll just review the rest of amendments grouped together by some of these categories okay amendment one was sponsored by council member Saka with a co-sponsorship from council member Kettle.

This is an amendment that would add recitals and amend sections to the bill regarding the shared responsibility of local jurisdictions in King County Metro and providing safe and secure transit services.

It would also add new permissible uses to support the implementation of King County Regional Transit Task Force recommendations.

And lastly, it would add a clause regarding additional purchases of safety and security investments and prohibit supplementation of those resources if similar services were already being provided by King County Metro.

And I'll turn it over to the chair.

Thank you, Amanda and for being here today.

And also, colleagues, I want to thank you again for your respective, you and your respective offices for your thoughtful engagement in putting together 23 proposed amendments.

Again, really shows a strong uh commitment to this work and making this package even better.

So thank you again.

And I also especially want to thank our own central staff experts, and Amanda, Cal, Lish, others involved as well.

Um it's a truly a Herculean effort to put together this many amendments of this level of complexity in such a short amount of time.

Um, so really uh applaud and appreciate that effort from our central staff.

Thank you.

On the amendment number one.

So, colleagues, transit safety and security is one of my highest priorities as chair of the council committee that oversees transportation policy, including transit.

And it has been since I took office and certainly has been throughout the entire process of working collaboratively with the mayor's office to develop the executive proposal uh and working with our own central staff to develop my my amendments.

Last night, as ATU President Woodfill noted in his public comments, last night, a 39-year-old man suffered three gunshot wounds while sitting in the back of a metro bus in Seattle.

Now, according to witnesses, the incident began when the suspect on the bus accused someone riding the bus of stealing his personal property.

The suspect exited the bus in the 500 block of Southlander Street, which is in my district in Soto, the stadium district, and then fired multiple rounds at the back of the bus, ultimately striking the victim.

Seattle police detectives are working with King County Metro to review any video that may have been recorded in the bus.

If anyone has any information that could lead to an arrest, please call the tip line at 206-233-500.

5,000.

Colleagues, this is real.

I hope we can work together to truly prioritize transit safety and security.

By now, we should not unfortunately be too surprised that things like this are an issue, a remaining recurring issue in Seattle and for our entire region, because transit safety and security, as my amendment specifically notes, because the King County Regional Transit Safety and Security Task Force ultimately came together and noted this fact as well.

Improving transit safety and security is a shared responsibility.

Accountability is shared for that important mission by all jurisdictions.

It's not just a responsibility borne by an individual transit agency like King County Metro or Sound Transit, all governments, including the city of Seattle.

Bear responsibility in improving that.

And so do individuals too riding the bus.

See something, you say something.

This also, colleagues, as we know, last night's you can't you can't make this stuff up on the eve of the day that my office is going to present a transformative transit safety and security amendment.

Someone is shot while riding a bus.

To check on him and his members, I think it's so fresh they are still working their way through this themselves.

But this is a real issue impacting transit riders and operators, and also comes on the heels of what happened in December on December eighteenth, 2024, when King County Metro operator Sean Yim was tragically struck down, killed, murdered while doing his job.

Driving a bus, riding a bus, that was going through the city of Seattle.

Went to work that day thinking it was probably gonna be an ordinary day.

Fortunately, he never came home, and incidents like that are entirely preventable.

We cannot let the service and ultimately the sacrifice of people like Sean Yim be forgotten.

Let us never forget, never forget, is what this patch says, and sadly, we continue to experience unsafe conditions for riders, as in the case of last night, and operators, as any operator will tell you.

If you see chat with them and learn about their experiences, and there's been some significant upgrades made, and I want to specifically applaud King County Metro for their initial work and rapid work, frankly, in making these critical upgrades, installing protective barriers, making other improvements, but more work needs to be done, and in full recognition that this is a service first-based Seattle Transit Measure proposed package.

That's why my amendment in line with the service first authorizes more service, specifically security service, services, and personnel to boost our transit safety and security posture.

This would be through the work of behavioral health specialists, metro transit police officers, transit security officers, metro ambassadors, contracted security officers, fair enforcement officers, and the like, just additional service that we can do and provide on top of what King County Metro should already be providing, which is why my proposed amendment also includes an express and explicit non-supplantation clause, serving to ensure that these funds will be allocated for safety and security services in this measure, uh, and that we're not relieving anyone else of their responsibility to provide baseline levels of service for transit safety and security.

Can do more, we must do more, and this is our opportunity to do exactly that to improve transit safety and security on our transit system.

Thank you.

Looks like council member Rivera's first.

I just have a quick question about the um uh I'm not familiar with all of the recommendations from the King County Transit Safety Task Force.

So um is this amendment saying that we're gonna take all of the recommendations from the task force and move those forward with the investment with the funding from this uh investment?

Yeah, thank you.

From from my perspective, I welcome if central staff has any comments on this as well, but uh I am not familiar with each and every one of their recommendations of the of the task force as well.

Uh I I am aware that there are a number of recommendations in their initial report, and I think my understanding is that this task force is intended to you know the work is intended to keep going and you know provide periodic reporting and recommendations and updates over time, um, and so this is this would allow us as a city to uh to do our part in implementing those recommendations that you know fall within our purview or shared purview between local jurisdictions in this case the city and and a transit agency like King County Metro.

Yes, um it's a fair question, council member.

The task force currently has um I I want to say it's like 40 different recommendations that span all sorts of jurisdictions.

There's only one recommendation in the current report that impacts SDOT particularly, and it was related to the creation and development of a workforce development program for youth to be exposed to transit oriented um professions, and that's something that SDOT has already begun.

And um, so currently there are no outstanding recommendations that we haven't been able to achieve.

And as the council as the chair mentioned, this is uh an ongoing group that plans to continue to meet.

So there might be something in the future that they um make a recommendation on that impacts specifically SDOT.

Chair, may I do a follow-up?

I I am so I I suppose the way I'm reading this, um, the way it is written.

Um I'm reading it to say if there are any implementations that the task force brings up, we're gonna fund it.

And I'm not sure that that was the intent of the of the sponsor.

So I just want to make sure that we are since this is gonna be an ongoing thing, we would have the we should be reviewing what the recommendations are and then implementing accordingly.

So I just want to make sure that the language that is contained there in here um is more of that nature rather than we're just gonna implement all of the you know the recommendations from the task force, especially if there's gonna be ongoing ones in the future.

We're we're not might not be familiar with now or that one that are unknown today.

I mean, so I'm hearing from the council member uh just clarity on either the current language or a potential amendment that you might work with the chair on about reviewing uh that the council would be able to review the recommendations and consider them before committing to funding something.

Correct, Chair, do you have thoughts on I don't know if that was your intent or not to just my my intent is is to provide a funding path for the city to implement recommendations from the from the King County Regional Transit Safety Task Force and recognizing that there are some that are solely within uh you know various jurisdictions control whether that'd be King County Metro San Transit, any transit agencies, we we own we own and manage two transit agencies here within the city of Seattle, so the Seattle Street Car and the Monorail.

Um so it's not just the the responsibility of the transit agencies.

Um there are 40 plus amendments as central staff noted, and and rather than sort of dive deep into the particulars of of you know what which ones should be of those initial batch of 40 should be uh should the city play a role in or not, like this this amendment just says plainly at a high level, we're responsibility in implementing in in ensuring that the those recommendations are ultimately implemented especially those within the city of Seattle.

Um I'll just follow up with chair afterwards since we're not voting today because I do think this needs further clarity that way.

Um but thank you so much for addressing it.

I'll just follow up.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

I also want to uh thank my amendment co-sponsor, chair of the public safety committee, Councilmember Kettle, appreciate your leadership uh and co-sponsoring this with me, um, which leads me to my next point.

You are recognized, Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to uh note um how important transit safety and security is, and most immediately by your comments.

I had uh a call this morning with Chief Barnes uh discussing the incident, and uh it's tragic.

And it's it just underlines as you said the you know the challenges that we have.

You know, it plays out in so many ways from ridership, but most importantly, it goes to the health and safety of the the people who are on board the buses, the riders and the drivers.

And if Mr.

Woodfill is still in the uh chambers, uh you know, I will say to him that my priority along with yours is to ensure that you know the members of his union, the drivers and those are on the bus are safe.

And uh, and so last night's uh tragic incident is it just underlines the need for transit safety and security.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Council Member Foster, you are recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair Saka.

Um I wanted to just ask a question to central staff as I'm looking at this amendment.

It's my understanding that when we purchase our service from King County Metro, that the purchase of those service hours already includes the safety and security measures that Metro provides.

Um is that correct?

And can you speak to how this amendment would alter that if at all council member that is correct?

So um as part of our base rate with uh Metro King County, they do charge us for safety and security services, and that rate has increased and as and has been influenced by the recommendations of the safety task force.

Um so we're we are paying for it in that way, additionally.

This purpose of this amendment is if there are new recommendations by the task force that are specific to um to us to STOT that this would allow us a pathway to make those specific investments.

Okay, and just a follow-up question there.

Is there is there a reason to because again, my understanding is that the task force recommendations are currently uh being implemented?

So the response that I heard from central staff to a previous question was at this point in time there are no recommendations from the task force that are not being implemented.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, and then uh my last question on this one is just the supplantation component, and I just want to make sure I understand this because as I read it, it says there's no supplanting of existing funds for safety and security services.

So, does that mean that as we continue to purchase service hours and safety and security will can continue to be included in those service hours?

If Metro were to work in uh additional recommendations for safety and security into those service hours, that wouldn't count because of this no supplementation component.

The goal of the no supplementation clause is really to help us protect any specific and discrete investments that we make in safety security.

It would not impact the base investments in safety and security.

Okay, so the goal is that if we have additional money coming from our Seattle transit measure that's purchasing safety and security, that that could not be supplanted.

That's the that's the intention there.

Correct.

Okay, thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Appreciate your uh your your thoughtful questions there and allow me to pile on directly from my perspective uh as the amendment author.

Um, so we do so already included in our baseline levels of service with King County Metro is a again for clarity a baseline level of transit safety and security services.

Uh the executive has reported in their one of the earlier presentations that that today approximates is approximately nine percent of the total purchase price uh includes specific transit and safety and security services from Metro.

Uh what this would do, the the intent of this amendment would be to allow us as a city to go above baseline levels of transit safety and security services.

Here's an analogy is is that our current levels of baseline levels of pure transit service is clearly insufficient, that's why we're we're proposing a measure that would allow us to purchase additional transit safety and security above King County Metro's baseline levels of transit, excuse me, of transit service above King County Metro's baseline levels of service, you know, with the nexus of routes in and through the city of Seattle, because today's levels of baseline service of transit service are insufficient.

So just as that principle is true, this would allow us to provide extra transit safety and security on top of Metro's baseline level of services and that they offer for trans specifically for transit safety and security that's included in the purchase price.

It's a recognition that the baseline levels uh in Seattle are insufficient.

Here's one example of how that played out real world.

Um within the last couple years, this council during our our uh budget annual budget process in the fall, we've authorized two million dollars specifically for uh behavioral health specialists, King County, Metro Transit Police, King County uh transit security officers and ambassadors.

It might have been up to four million dollars, but my point is we leverage the measure and uh it if funding the measure as a funding source to allow the purchase of extra service, in this case, transit safety and security, on top of baseline levels again, companion parallel recognition that the baseline levels of service included or offered are insufficient.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh Vice Chair Rank.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Um, I'm going to build on this topic, understanding that um when we're purchasing our service hours, there's a component that's going towards a security.

I'm wondering if central staff can further place this amendment in the context of our city investments into transit and security.

So thinking about our current uh Seattle transit measure beyond just the investments that are embedded within purchasing service hours, but also in the transportation levy.

So I'm wondering if we can just level set and ground place this amendment in the context of our broader city investments in this area.

I'm not sure I'm I'm tracking you.

I are you curious about well, I'm sorry, I can rephrase.

Uh where else are we spending in the city on transit safety and security from the transit the current transit measure um or the transportation levy?

I'm I'm not sure if we spend anything out of the transportation levy.

I would have to double check on that.

I do know that the amount contributed by the existing STM has tribu has tripled in the last three years.

Um I have been informed that there is nine million in the transportation levy for transit safety and security.

Certainly.

Um thank you for uh highlighting that.

I just wanted to place this amendment in the context of our broader city investments.

And um, colleagues, I know we haven't had an opportunity to have King County Metro at the table during our deliberations on the Seattle Transit measure, but I wanted to read into the record um a portion of the letter that they sent to full council this morning that speaks to some of the transit safety and security investments.

So just to read this, Metro has more than doubled annual spending on safety and security in the past few years to support these key efforts.

Growing presence to include 89 metro transit police officers and 275 transit security officers to make our system safer for customers, launching and expanding Metro's behavioral health specialists and ambassador programs to provide non-officer presence in the system, expanding Metro's internal capacity to administer a comprehensive safety and security program to help keep Metro's employees and customers safe, including a safety emphasis manager to provide comprehensive assistance and solutions across Metro's divisions, and as a part of Metro's safety emphasis program conducted additional coordination and key emphasis areas, including additional monitoring, temporary additional law enforcement presence and clarifying protocols for considering bus stop closures.

So I wanted to just read that into the record to help aid in this discussion on this amendment and just provide some uh further background information as this is being considered.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Councilmember Lynn.

Thank you, Chair.

Um just in terms of um safety.

Um I just wonder uh in terms of that baseline, whether um I mean, through the regional safety task force, um, what efforts we have, if we feel like safety, that baseline is not high enough.

Um, how much does it make sense for us to push to increase that baseline um sort of across the system?

So, you know, if it's we're paying 9%, do we pay more versus sort of spending kind of outside of that baseline?

I'm not sure if that question makes sense.

Definitely the estimated nine percent that we are spending is is based on Metro's comprehensive view of how they deem most appropriate to approach safety and security investments for their for the whole system, um, not just for Seattle.

So I'm not sure I have a recommendation as far as if Seattle deemed that that was insufficient how we might size uh a future in investment.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I guess part of it is just, I mean, I I think safety is just sort of you know, it's like, you know, if the bus, if you get on and the chairs are broken, it's just sort of like a baseline.

I mean, and I know there's different levels of safety, so we can all you know debate like how safe is safe, but it just seems like it it's uh an essential part of the service and it should be included in it.

And so I'm just not sure whether, you know, the the best way to advocate for it is to, you know, uh, through advocacy say, hey, uh, we we think you need to do more versus um implementing these sort of uh in a sense uh potentially outside of that baseline.

Um but I'll just say last question or um this uh amendment doesn't require any level of spending, it just authorizes that level of spending.

Is that correct?

That's correct, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lynn.

Uh all right.

Looks like there are no further questions from my colleagues.

Let's press to the next.

If I may, before I before I describe amendment two, I just want to make sure everyone understands that uh the committee clerk has the ability to put any amendment up on the screen.

So that if there is an interest in focusing on specific bill language, we we have the ability to do that.

Um, if if that's not necessary, we'll just keep going with the presentation like this.

Um, amendment two to council bill one two-one two two two six is sponsored by Chair Saka, and its subject is electric bus usage in Duwamish Valley and South Seattle.

The amendment would add a new recital to the bill stating the city's intent to work with King County Metro to prioritize the use of electric buses in the Duwamish Valley and South Seattle communities, guided by tools that identify environmental health disparities and potential environmental vulnerabilities.

Each of those tools uh works at a census tracked level.

The amendment would also permit the use of Seattle transit measure revenues to plan for and deploy the increased use of electric buses as I just described.

All right, thank you.

And I'll just pile on as amendment author.

This amendment is in direct response to specific feedback that I received from my constituents in this case in the Duamish Valley and South Park in particular, meeting with the DRCC, who express concern and frustration and some fair amount of confusion as well.

Why we have certain electric 100% electric buses, not one of them goes through climate, very climate burden and polluted neighborhoods like South Park.

And so this would authorize that as a possibility and encourage that.

And you know, specific neighborhoods in the Duwamish Valley and South Seattle that have been identified on the Washington environmental health disparity map as being highly impacted by air pollution.

Again, many of these do not currently receive electric bus service.

So again, very frustrating, confusing experience for impacted communities, especially for their close proximity in this case to Metros Tequila Base, which has a dedicated charging facility for electric buses.

This amendment is intended to achieve environmental equity for several historically underserved areas of Seattle, and it's also intended to boost and build climate resilience.

Thank you.

Any questions, comments on this amendment, or shall we move on?

Councilmember, is that an old hand?

Um yes, that's an old hand.

Okay, cool.

Uh Councilmember Foster, floor is yours.

Uh thank you so much, Chair.

Um and appreciate the intent behind this amendment.

Um, having done work in the Duwamish Valley on air pollution, I think uh there's uh a lot of work for us to do there, and we know that there's a significant life expectancy difference for residents in South Park and Georgetown compared to our highest income neighborhoods in the city.

I want to say the last I looked at was 13 years difference between South Park and Georgetown and Laurel Hearst.

And I haven't looked in a few years, so that number might might not be correct.

But um my question is I just wanted to ask around obviously we're you know, through the Seattle transit measure, we're we're purchasing from um King County.

And I I just wanted to ask, in terms of the language here, how does this sort of help us ensure that the buses that Metro sort of deploys on those routes end up being um electric buses?

I'm I'm familiar with the process that Metro uses to determine and prioritize where they're deploying electric buses.

So it's more of a mechanism question.

If you can just help us understand that a little bit more.

From from my perspective, this this amendment doesn't really get to the mechanism level.

This this amendment um provides flexibility to plan for and deploy these buses.

Um I'd be happy to follow up with some information about what that process looks like or what it could look could look like in this specific instance.

I will do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

All right.

Uh Vice Chair Rink, floor is yours.

Thank you.

Um this is uh clarifying question just on uh in intent by the amendment author.

So I'm I'm wondering um if there's a reason that um we're not including Charlie electric buses that are on use.

We are already using today on top of uh battery electric buses.

If there's a reason that we're not reflecting what, yes.

Uh a question about um whether uh we want to have a a US amendment uh sponsor want to have just a focus on battery electric buses or are open to expanding to allow for trolley electric buses.

Yeah, I'd be open to expansion of trolley electric buses, provided that the specific neighborhoods and then the objective criteria for the Washington uh whatever it says, health index, that map, um, environmental health disparities map and ESEG EJ screen demographic indexes as long as those are continue to be called out, which would better ensure communities like the Duwamish Valley would would benefit from those.

I'm not sure if uh 100% trolley electric service or the capability would exist in those neighborhoods, but but I would be open to that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Quick question.

Do we know how much how what percentage of the fleet is electric, regardless of whether it's battery or trolley?

I don't have that information off the top of my head.

I will follow up.

Great, and it'd be great also to know what um metro's plan is for electrification, because obviously, in general, electrification is where we want to be going in general across the city.

So uh readily acknowledge um to Dewamish Valley and the chair's intent here.

So um don't want to ignore that part, but also want to acknowledge that's where we should be going across the city.

So this goes back to Metro's plan for electrification of the fleet.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Councilmember, I do know that um Metro is on that path and has been starting to use and deploy electric buses.

Um having the infrastructure to charge the buses is important and building that up is important.

It's one of the reasons why they're not yet in Georgetown and South Park.

Um, the air quality there is of great concern.

It's it's it's different from everywhere else in the city.

So how the path forward for them to build that infrastructure, I I don't know enough about.

I do also know that they have had trouble purchasing electric buses from the vendor.

There was um issues with supply chains, so um, I they are aligned with the thinking that electric buses are a good path forward, but we can and we can find out more information, and also Chair, obviously, we'd have to partner with City Light because if we need the infrastructure in the Duwamish Valley, we obviously need the partnership.

Metro does, and we do with our own City Light.

So, want to call that out too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Uh, let's see, looks like there are no further comments, questions on that amendments.

Uh let's move on to the next one.

Amendment three to council bill 12126 is also sponsored by Chair Saka.

And the context for this amendment is the Seattle transit measure spending plan, the categories in that spending plan.

This amendment would require on an annual basis that any unexpended transit service funding is um redirected to the transit and accessibility infrastructure uh category.

Uh the amendment further requires that any funding, any such funding is prioritized for infrastructure projects that support increased or enhanced accessibility.

Thank you and colleagues just to pile on directly from my perspective as the amendment author.

Uh this amendment would clarify what would happen if there are leftover funds and for the transit service amounts.

Uh, and this is a contingency measure.

Uh, I think it would also incentivize the executive to to actually ensure that those funds are spent on on transit service as well.

Um but if not, you know, the the money here would roll over automatically to uh transit accessibility and ensuring that you know transit remains accessible and we have safe connections to transit as well.

There are frankly there are open questions today that exists on whether King County Metro could even deliver a 47% expansion of transit service that they currently provide the city of Seattle, and certainly do so overnight.

If this measure were to pass.

47% increase in transit service in the city of Seattle.

It's a huge ask, it's a heavy lift, it's a non-trivial uh amount of expansion, and Metro has stated that it may take a year or two for them to be able to deliver the full amount of transit service this proposal specifically contemplates.

So we need a plan again under my amendment, unused funds will be used for transit accessibility capital investments and enhance transit access and support safe acts.

More specifically support safe access to transit for pedestrians.

Thank you, Chair Saga.

Um, I'm wondering if just for the purposes of um understanding this amendment in practice, um, I know I've been through one budget process uh before, it's always a blur.

I'm wondering if you can walk through again how historically we have regarded underspend in the budget process when it relates to underspend and stm, how we regard it during the traditional budget process.

I'm wondering also uh Chair Strauss, sorry, pardon me, Councilmember Strauss, pardon me, Chair Saka, or if uh Councilmember Strauss as budget uh chair would like to speak to that too.

Yes, are you asking uh through me to directing a question towards Council Member Strauss in his capacity as budget chair?

Yes, if if so, Councilmember Strauss, you are recognized.

Happy to share thank you, Chair, thank you, Councilmember Rink.

As with all levies with all uh all levies that we we have before voters, etc.

So this is Department of Education Early Learning.

Um Seattle Trans Department of Transportation.

Sorry, you're catching me a little off guard, but what I will say is that there are under there is underspend across all departments.

Um, and last year even Jasmine Marwaha found some underspend from a levy that we no longer have anymore.

The good work, Jasmine, and so every year we are able to find dollars that maybe were not spent, but with in particular to Seattle transit measure, throughout the course of the pandemic when Metro was unable to sell us the hours that we were trying to purchase, we started funding other things like concrete.

Um I personally put forward an amendment about ambassadors and uh worked with Chair Saka on security.

These are important things that we put to make sure that transit is accessible for everyone.

So in the course of the last number of years, when Metro couldn't purchase all of the hours that we were trying to purchase, uh we started spending on other related but not transit hour things, and then even as more recently as this last year, pilot programs like Golden Gardens Direct were funded with underspend from the transit measure.

So it is not unlike any other department, and it happens every year.

Uh, you'll hear from me later.

I just I wish we were in a place that we could buy as many hours as possible from Metro because I think we'd be having a very different conversation.

And from everything that I can tell, they're in that upswing.

But that's how the budget is uh worked with this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Vice Chair, any other comments?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for um affording me that opportunity to get that input from um our budget chair.

And I'm wondering if central staff would have anything to add on to this point.

The thing that I'm trying to parse to is with um this amendment, how does that change our options when we come to budget this year?

Sure.

Um, Vice Chair, so the revenue generated by the transit measure goes into its own fund.

Think of it as a check checking account.

It's dedicated to support the types of investments that are identified in this ordinance.

Investments that we make in capital that are backed by STM that are unspent automatically carry forward within that project into future years.

Investments in transit are on the operations side, and so they do not automatically carry forward and they lapse back to the fund.

So they stay dedicated within this STM fund.

And I I guess one other thing to share as as I understood from STAT, the money that was invested in the Golden Gardens line was taken from other service, not from a unspent fund balance.

First off, thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Vice Chair, do you have any other comments or questions?

Happy to turn it over.

Thank you.

Okay.

Go ahead, Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you.

Just digging into this a little bit more.

You have received new information from SDOT that this is taken from transit service, not other underspend.

Correct.

And this was received when?

Over the course of this ordinance development.

So this is new information since last budget session where these decisions were made.

If this is new to you, then yes, it is new.

So then this is a change of information from last November.

Yes.

Thank you.

Right.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

And uh looks like Councilmember Foster, floor is yours.

Uh thank you so much, Chair.

Um, and I just want to make sure again, just digging into the amendment, that I've got a full understanding.

So we already, as is require an annual report to the public around service.

And so I think the sort of first portion of this outlines the details of a separate annual report, but I I might come back to that, but I want to turn my or turn our attention to section seven, which I read to be that council approval of transit service purchases is required by service hours and routes served annually.

So does that mean that as we think about sort of the balance between, and I know we heard some comment about this earlier, the role that the department has in digging into and proposing um work and figuring out where we're gonna buy our service.

If I read this part uh correctly, it means that we would then be required to approve those purchases prior to those decisions being made on an annual basis.

Is that correct?

That's that's one scenario that that could apply if if this amendment um were passed with the bill.

The amendment could also reference the the budget process during which council approves SDOT's spending plan, including what is described here.

Thank you for that.

And I guess I'm trying to what I'm trying to get at here too is just an understanding, and I think this was part of Councilmember Rink's question.

If I understood it as well, of just the sort of difference between as is process because council already has decisions that we have to make on an annual basis, and whether or not this amendment is changing that process, um, our existing process, or adding an additional one onto it.

So that's what feels unclear to me.

And I appreciate that your response to that first question, but it sort of doubles down on that because I heard you say that's one interpretation, this could be another, and I want to make sure we understand the future that we are agreeing to if this amendment passes.

To me, to me, the key phrase is um hours and uh uh service hours and and routes.

I I'm not recalling that from memory.

There is currently no requirement that that information be provided to the council uh prior to the council's adoption of a budget.

That's that's the that's the nuance.

Um it's the this the same year process is also new.

Uh this amendment states by December 31st of each year.

SDOT shall report to the council the anticipated amount of unspent appropriations for transit service in that year.

Currently, SDOT reconciles this spending um in the in the next year.

Um so SDOT has not uh been required to state by December 31st of a given year what funding has not been expended for that year.

It is reconciled a year later.

So this amendment would move that timeline up.

Okay, sorry, I have that as amendment five.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

We're uh we're discussing amendment three, I believe.

I'm I'm sorry, I'm getting I'm getting ahead of myself.

Okay.

Um, yes, uh uh anticipated uns amount of unspent appropriations for transit service in that year.

Um, and I apologize and think I also got ahead for myself.

I think I introduced amendment number four.

So I think I I get where you're doing.

I'm sort of looking at all of them together.

So I sent us down that wrong road, and apologies.

I I I went down it dumbly.

Okay, thank you, and thank you, Chair.

I'll come back when we get to amendment five.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember Lynn.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, in terms of um service, um, and aren't we anticipating that costs kind of will go up over time?

And I just wonder about sort of is there a plan for that?

I mean, I guess I could see some benefit to having unspent appropriations um early in the 10-year uh levy, so that uh if we anticipate, you know, including things like security costs might go up if uh so just could you talk about that and and how unspent appropriations could be used to kind of uh plan for future increases, or is that part of the plan?

I I I don't know the specific math of reserving some early year revenue to plan for unexpended costs later in a levy.

I do know that um levy planners often use this tactic because costs can increase at uh a higher rate than was initially planned for.

I don't I don't have that specific information here.

I'd be happy to follow up, but oh uh Amanda's got something to add here.

So the spend plan that came through from the executive side does include a reserve for exactly the reason that you've discussed.

Um we anticipate that labor costs are going to go up.

We anticipate that other costs will increase, and so we are saving money on the front end to in this reserve to spend in later years.

That being said, um, so that so that is part of the plan, and this amendment would not change that plan.

What this amendment is saying is when we depart from the spend plan when we when we have more underspend than what we anticipated, then we would move that money.

And you're right.

If there are additional unknown things that come up in the future, um spending that money early would make it more difficult to absorb future changes that are currently unforeseen.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Lynn.

Councilmember Foster, is that a new hand or are you just waiting on?

I think what our what we'll be discussing next amendment four.

Just ready.

All right, all right, you're you're you're ready, anxious.

All right.

Uh let's move on to the next amendment.

Amendment four to council bill one two one two two six is sponsored by Chair Saka.

This amendment will require annual reporting and annual approval of all transit service purchases by service hours and routes.

The amendment would require annual reporting by King County on various dimensions of service hours purchased with Seattle Transit Measure funding.

Uh those dimensions are fair compliance, the fair recovery ratio, uh, transit reliability, and on time performance.

Um the amendment would also add a requirement related to the city's purchase of transit service hours with this funding.

It would require the council's annual approval by ordinance of such purchase of such purchases by service hours and routes served.

Uh, council currently approves annual appropriations for transit service as a total sum through the budget adoption ordinance.

Thank you.

And piling on from my perspective, colleagues, uh this amendment is principally an accountability in oversight and transparency amendments.

Uh it is it is about boosting those things which are needed now more than ever.

The executive proposal would uh double the the rate of sales tax.

Um, and so this would help strengthen oversight of you know implementation for this proposal.

One of the one of the most important features of this, I think, is the fair recovery ratio.

And colleagues, as you know, members of the public.

Successful transit does not make money or or appear revenue neutral at the end of the day on the balance sheet.

We the taxpayer is intentionally making a decision to subsidize the cost of transit.

Still charging a rate for it, but intentionally making that decision because the the net benefits of uh you know boosting and improving our environment, promoting climate resilience, getting people out of our cars, cars, and which has impacts on climate and also the overall state of our pavement conditions, um, so much more.

So it's not intended to make money from fares alone.

That said, Metro's current fare recovery ratio is roughly 10%.

Pre-pandemic, they were closer to 30 plus percent, which I think is more along the lines of national average for transit 30 to 40 percent range.

I don't think we can and should in good faith put a measure before voters that would essentially double the tax without insisting on stronger accountability oversight, including how what's our plan?

How are we gonna improve on the fare recovery ratio getting getting it to a more normal state?

So additional sales tax is not solely funding, or responsible for solely funding and subsidizing this.

Um eight and a half percent was the fair recovery ratio for for metro in 2025.

So again, this proposal strengthens oversight, accountability, and transparency critically needed now more than ever, especially when a proposal we're referring to a proposal that would double the sales tax, a regressive tax um on everyday people.

Thank you.

There's a hand.

Go ahead.

Floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Um, and uh apologies uh to central staff for uh getting getting us mixed up earlier.

Um appreciate you.

Okay.

So I'm gonna ask the same question now that we're actually now that I've not uh mix up our amendments, but I really appreciate hearing from the chair um about your intent and the the fair recovery here, so thank you for that um as well.

Um so now I'm gonna say where I was looking before.

So section seven, which is the council approval of transit service purchases, and so this is saying that we're purchasing we're approving all transit service purchases by service hours and routes served annually through future ordinance.

So, as I understand it, this gives us the responsibility to approve this, as you I think you said this at the beginning, not just the in the budget, but we would be signing off on the service routes.

So can you just talk about the difference between the as is and then the as would be with this amendment, particularly in regards to section seven?

I'm I'm gonna let I'm gonna I'm gonna let Amanda talk a little bit about the about the as-is um aspect of that question.

Um, and I I just I just want to say again um apologies for for getting bollocks up previously.

The new language here is buy service hours and routes served annually.

Um through future ordinance, uh this this amendment is not specific about whether that ordinance is the budget ordinance that in the future will include uh more information, that is to say service hours and routes served, or whether it is a separate ordinance.

Um this is uh what's described in this amendment is um a significantly new wrinkle for for the city for SDOT and King County Metro, and I think the implementation of the requirements of this amendment would take some conversation between the between the city and the county um to just to make sure that the the intent of the amendment is being met.

Um and uh there is a legislatively possible solution.

So currently the city council does not do follow any sort of review or approval process for the investments that are made in transit service hours.

Um neither does King County Metro Council approve um changes in our investments and bus routes.

Um the county council does happen to approve when a bus stop is changed more than a quarter of a mile.

They also approve um when a route is being proposed to be changed by more than 20% of whatever its original state was, and they do approve um whether or not new routes are added.

Um so this would be a completely new process as Ann discussed, and what and the timing for that would be something we would have to determine.

Um currently SDOT works with King County Metro on an ongoing basis, there's DOT staff meets with Metro on a weekly basis on the ongoing operations, they're always making tweaks and changes.

They make two changes, um, two formal changes throughout the year to service based on needs and changes that they're seeing to ridership and um requiring an annual approval process would obviously change that cadence of how quickly they could make additional changes throughout the year.

We would we would then be curtailing that to once a year.

Thank you.

And so just and I don't want to belabor the point here, but I really just want to again make sure I'm I'm understanding it.

So if they if there was a plan by Metro to make a change in a route uh mid-year with the language of this ordinance, either they would have well this is annually, so you know it's sort of unclear to me they would have to come back and get council approval, or they would have to forego making that change twice in a year.

Exactly, yeah.

And then my final question are we aware of any other municipalities, um, and again, well, cities or counties, because counties as we know cover bus service, uh who have this level of decision making requirement for service hours and routes.

You know, uh given given the compressed time schedule to work on these amendments, I I researched that question in a very cursory manner, and I did not find any.

Um now that I have some more time, I will I will follow up and I will get back to council members and and let them know if there are any comparator counties.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Uh Councilmember Rink, Vice Chair, for is yours.

Thank you, Chair.

Um just for the purposes of my clarification, um, just if approved, is this amendment essentially intend to give council the authority to select which routes get levels of service?

I believe that is the intent.

I mean that that seems in contradiction to uh start's equity-centered prioritization method of methodology that's rooted in our frequent transit network.

So I'm just noting that on on the top my concerns on that point.

And um, in terms of implementation, I appreciate the discussion on just how something like this would be implemented.

Um, and that as currently written, the amendment is not specific about whether the ordinance would be um as a part of the budget or a separate standalone um ordinance.

I am curious if I may ask the sponsor if you have an intended pathway there, just so I'm clear if you had a pathway in mind.

Yeah, intended pathway regarding what specifically.

Um the matter related to this amendment speaks of um having an ordinance process where council shall approve all transit service purchases by service hours and routes served annually.

And as central staff noted, uh it is not specific as to whether the budget process would uh count as that ordinance or if we'd have a standalone ordinance, and I'd like to understand your intent.

Yeah, so as author of this, the intent is making sure that we have full transparency.

Uh council members in this council as a body is able to provide effective oversight and control of this spending and not essentially writing the executive a blank check every every year.

So it's an opportunity.

I think it is a great opportunity.

There may be I'm open to other ways to substantially achieve the the same sort of shared goals in terms of making sure that uh council members can provide directional control on a on the yearly kind of spending, you know, how these funds are spent to to boost lines of service in their district.

Uh I think this is an effective way, but it may not be the only way in terms of whether this would be for a best a future ordinance would be best be, you know, during the annual annual budget process or some other sort of mid-year.

I'm open to you know what whatever is the most workable in practice, but the basic idea is making sure again that council members have well, the council has stronger um directional say in how the service lines are spent rather than calling out specific expansion in this framework level, getting a stronger say in the in the implementation level on a year-by-year basis.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments?

Looks like none.

Let's press.

We have 20 or so other amendments to get through.

Uh, and I and I'll note that Seattle is uh King County Metro's largest, most strategic customer number one in terms of purchase of additional transit service on top of uh you know baseline levels of map baseline levels, and so there may or may not.

I'm also curious, it's a great question.

Also curious whether other jurisdictions provide this level of oversight and accountability, but I know no other jurisdiction has is uh purchases service to the level of of that we do in the city of Seattle.

So the it's more compelling and it makes it's more it's more of a rational approach that we as a city might want to have that kind of level of oversight from my perspective, but also curious to hear you know where the facts take us on that answer.

Let's move on to the next the next um amendment, please.

Amendment five to council bill one two one two two six uh sponsored by council member Saka.

This amendment would reduce the measure's duration from a 10-year duration to a six-year and nine month term.

Um the intent would allow this timing to continue collections of sales tax in anticipation of a future ballot measure that might occur a special election or a primary election date in 2020, sorry, 2033.

Thank you.

Uh first off, before I get into my comments, can you clarify can you please help clarify uh when the Seattle transportation levy would be up for renewal and how this amendment might impact that?

Sure.

So the transportation levy is set to expire the year prior.

So this would be putting to the voters in assuming a renewal is desired in the following year.

Following year, so which uh is why the additional nine-month flexibility, the idea there is that it could be in put on a ballot in a February election.

I suppose it could be a special election of some sort.

That's not the intent when there's a February option available, and it could allow for the a potential renewal to be placed on the August primary election ballot the following year with that nine months.

Is that correct?

I I was just missed the very last part of what you just said.

With the six years and nine months, uh the nine month duration, I suppose, would would allow a potential renewal if this were to pass the to be placed on the August primary election of the following year.

Yes, yes.

Okay, yeah.

Yes.

So the the timing of when an election would be identified would have would in part be influenced by the components of a future renewal.

Um if a VLF of vehicle license fee was part of a future renewal, then that requires us to have more lead time to notify the state of implementation of the VLF.

So that if a VLF is included in a future renewal, that would require the earlier time frame.

Um otherwise, if it's similar to what we're reviewing today and it's just looking at sales tax, then that would allow for the primary election timeline.

Got it, thank you.

And colleagues, I think this amendment is is pretty straightforward.

It would just restore the duration to historical levels.

It's historically been a six-year term.

Uh, and so this would restore essentially restore that.

Uh, the reason why it's not a full six-year is because that would could potentially conflict with the prospective renewal of the transportation levy.

So this would allow greater flexibility, so that does not happen.

Um, and again, this just puts the measure in line with historical durations, uh, especially when paired against in the context of you know, some of the other amendments calling for additional revenue sources and and state reform at the state level.

Uh, if and when those changes are likely to be made, it's likely to happen in the next six years, and so you know, making the time frame, restoring it in line with a traditional six six-year term uh would allow us to revisit what is the the best and most appropriate use of our taxation authority that were granted by the state to substantially fill the fulfill the same goals we're seeking to fulfill with this proposed renewal of the transit measure, which is to expand transit service in the city of Seattle, uh for those reasons.

Uh yeah, thank you.

Any questions, comments?

Hearing and seeing one, council member Foster.

I'm really I'm really on the mic today.

Thank you so much, Chair Saka.

Just a question, because I um believe the the levy allows us to uh to go up to 0.3% over the tenure term.

However, my understanding is that council has the ability at any point in time to make a reduction in that rate if and as needed.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

So we could make that reduction at the year six point without requiring it to go back to voters.

Correct.

The date or the term.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

All right, looks like we can press to the next amendment.

Amendment 13 to Council Bill 121226 is sponsored by council member Kettle and amends the sales and use tax to a point two rate.

Oh, move this forward.

Um the amendment would reduce the sales tax from the proposed point three down to point two.

A point two sales tax would generate approximately nine hundred and twenty-one million dollars over 10 years as compared to um the 460 million less than in the proposed legislation.

The amendment would remove funding allocated for infrastructure and maintenance and capital improvements, so the current five million would be zeroed out, and it would change the language for the ballot.

The funding for transit access program participation for the city's sound transit staffing for the streetcar would remain as originally proposed.

The 10-year term would also remain unchanged.

Um this amendment would reduce the total transit service hours purchased from King County Metro by about 1.1 million relative to the transmittal and would provide about 2.6 million hours over 10 years.

They're based on um my best estimates and have not been verified with the department.

The point two measure may allow approximately 106 million transit hours to be delivered, and by removing a category of infrastructure spending potential projects that might have been provided for um through the STM would need to be funded by other sources, such as the 2024 transportation levy.

Reducing sales and use tax would preserve 0.1 sales and use tax authority.

That uh council could decide to levy via separate legislation.

That 0.1% is council manic, so it's under the authority of this council to allocate and would not would not require a vote of the people.

All right, thank you.

Uh Councilmember Kettle, as author of the proposed amendment 13.

You are recognized to share your thoughts on your amendment.

Uh thank you, Chair, and I also want to thank Ms.

Allen and Ms.

Gorman of Central Staff for being here.

And I really appreciate the opportunity to talk to my amendment and public transit, but also affordability and good governance.

Um, as I noted, uh, a healthy transit and transportation system is absolutely essential for Seattle, has both a strong supporter and believer in public transit.

I know how vital these connections are to our daily lives as we've been noting in public comment.

However, we uh must spend our public dollars strategically rather than raising the same sales tax simply because we can.

Every day I hear from neighbors uh about how living in Seattle is becoming less and less affordable.

My alternative offers a pragmatic increase in uh transit funding for bus service and orca cards while preserving the flexibility we need for emergency transit um investments.

Uh Mayor Wilson's current vision of the transit measure was released uh on the third, as you know, and doubles the sales tax um that supports the transit from 0.15 to 0.3 percent.

And as you've heard the expected increases uh in terms of dollars and and also the transit and also assumes major increases in transit ridership as of 2024.

Post-pandemic post uh uh bus ridership has recovered to about 70 percent of the 2019 numbers, and 50 percent of today's riders are commuters compared to 60 percent in 2019.

And uh this amendment uh acknowledges the 100,000 transit service hour increase anticipated to be made by King County Metro in 2028, uh which will help support uh Seattle services and then would be uh aided and um added to by the point zero five percent uh that is there.

Uh you know I make that point because there's it's what is just noted what is you know compared to it is building on what is being added by King County Metro and increased by 0.05, but also importantly, the alternative reserves the point one sales tax to be used by emergency emergent um transportation uh needs, and this goes to the point that that has been brought up.

And so uh, you know, that we can be adding, and this amendment reduces duplicate funding for uh the capital spending as voters approved with the transportation levy in 24 and sets aside uh 151 million dollars for transit quarter spending.

And additionally, it maintains the uh the T the TAP, the transit accessibility program, giving out 22,000 free ORCA passes to further reduce the regressive impact of the sales tax.

I note this uh because this sales tax measure cannot be just seen in isolation, it needs to be seen in the context of what the county and the state are doing.

We've had various tax bills in Olympia by the state done over the last number of years, sometimes uh with you know tax pieces being rescinded or corrected the next year.

We've had levies pass that are justified in and of themselves, but also add to the collective amount.

We've had sales tax measures across the board to include most recently by the county, which is something that we had to engage on, uh, that has increased already high regressive sales taxes, and in addition, we've had ever increasing rates for Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light, and Seattle Public Utilities.

Each property tax, sales tax, and rate increases are done in isolation, and each one could be argued, but who looks out for the collective uh impact?

Who looks at the cumulative impact?

Is it just our state treasurer Mike Pelliciati?

I don't know.

Is it our central staff?

Who looks at the collective?

Who looks at the cumulative impact of all these various uh uh pieces?

This is something I think that we we need to do on affordability.

We recently had a briefing on affordability and finance budget.

I spoke to the four, like everybody else, affordability issues uh for our residents, the burdens are immense.

I also spoke to the affordability impacts on businesses, which are also immense too, and could also lead to other affordability issues like having the property tax burdens being shifted from commercial to residential.

The last affordability point I made is that we as a government, this is when we in that last committee meeting, that we as a government also across state, county, and local levels have an impact on affordability by what we do, and again, in that collective sense, and this is goes to why my amendment has been submitted.

We have to have this discussion on affordability, we have to have this discussion on the collective impact of what we do at the state, county, and the local area here in Seattle.

On good governance, I also wanted to know that we also have to ask hard question on what is King County Metro's capacity, not really spoken to is what is the capacity for King County Metro to provide these services.

This is something that we should we can't just wish away or just hope for.

Uh, we need to understand, and tied to this and good governance and to that point is the fact, and and sadly it's not really mentioned a lot in articles and even in public comment, and it's been kind of spoken to different points with the public comment, is that and as just noted too, that we do have the reserve the 0.1% that we can consummatically add to it after we've ensured that you know King County Metro has that capacity, as we've looked at affordability issues and really raised you know the questions in terms of what is the cumulative impact on our residents on our the people of Seattle, you know, and I bring this up because recently, as you know, from New York, and Mayor Amandani in New York, who was speaking from a DSA perspective, said that the fact that working people are fed up, and when we look at this country, we know that the only majority that really exists is that of working class, and for too long that hasn't been reflected in our politics.

For too long, our politics is felt as if irrelevant to the struggles of the working person tried to pay the rent or afford going to the grocery store or thinking about having a kid.

He further added that you know, there's a belief that working people have to return back to the heart of politics.

This is not just a DSA point.

I think this is a point for us as well.

I believe the majority of us grew up working class, and we have to have this kind of understanding.

Again, each of these measures that we do is looked at individually, but where's the public's policy review in terms of what is that cumulative?

What is that that combining effect have on our residents?

Particularly when we look at this as a regressive uh tax measure.

And so, for that reasons, colleagues, I raised this up, and again, not often noted, and we do have the ability to add the point one after doing the good governance measures and having a very strong discussion in terms of affordability and our role as government officials, particularly in partnership with our county and state uh colleagues.

And with that, Chair is my submission of amendment 13.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll try to be quick.

I know we've got a lot of amendments.

I'll just thank my colleague, Councilmember Kettle for his attention to the affordability piece.

I too very much care about affordability, particularly when it comes to the most regressive kind of sales uh tax, excuse me, which is a sales tax.

Um, I uh would say that um uh the one piece I'm uh so I appreciate you, Councilmember Kettle for bringing this forward.

I often will say that you know we're taxing poor people to help poor people, and that's why um the sales tax increase is such um uh uh it does distress me in terms of the affordability piece for our working folks in town.

I will say that in terms of the this particular measure, we've had the sales tax for a while.

The point um two doesn't get to the inflationary piece, so it was a point one five percent, and my understanding is accounting for inflation that would turn into today it being a two point excuse me, a one sorry a point two to three percent increase would cover the point one five plus inflation, and that way it would keep our service levels to what it's been.

Um it just wouldn't add to it, but it is important, I think, to preserve our service levels.

So I do think that the inflationary piece is important here as a friendly piece, Councilmember Kettle.

Um, but I do appreciate um and also am very concerned about the sales tax piece.

That's all I'll say for now.

Thanks, um, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Robera.

Councilmember Charles, you are recognized.

Uh thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Kettle, for bringing this amendment forward.

It's an important discussion.

As we've noted here, we are doubling the tax for fewer transit hours than in the past, and that's an experience from the pandemic where we were not able to purchase as many hours as we desired, and we started using those dollars for other purposes.

Again, I had it was up until August of 2021 that my entire life until August of 2021, I could walk to a bus, and it has and I've not been able to do that since.

Um that's where these alternative uses of the Seattle Transit measure came in, and in my opinion, Seattle Transit measures should be focused on transit hours.

If Metro could provide as many hours as we could buy, I would be adding a VLF to this proposal and using a similar approach as Councilmember Kettle is speaking about getting voter approval for a higher level and giving us some room that to have councilmatic authority in the future.

And I say that because this is this type of approach of getting voter approval for a higher level than we are actually spending, is something that we've done in the past with the Metropolitan Parks District, and it's a good tool.

And I think that we should be looking at in this next year and the years coming, that if we are collecting more revenue than Metro is able to spend on transit hours, I think we should really come back and look at this, have this conversation again because at this time I'm in favor of setting us up to by as many hours from Metro as possible.

And Councilmember Kettle is right, the affordability issues are real.

Um, it's taken me six plus years to get a change on the utility discount program, just with the eligibility, but also ensuring the eligible users are signing up, and this is a tool that we don't have a lot of tools within our toolbox to address affordability directly as a uh as relief.

And I'm really excited that we're able to get this utility discount program.

That we are able to increase the eligibility as well as increase sign up.

And you know, I really appreciate the amendments later on from Councilmember Warz, Council President Hollingsworth, and Council Member Rink that link these programs together with transit access program.

So I think that this is a really good and important conversation.

I think that we need to be monitoring Metro to see how much how many hours they are able to buy from us, or we are able to buy from them.

And we really need to make sure that this transit measure is focused on transit, not concrete.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Fosser, you are recognized.

Um thank you so much, Chair, and I apologize.

My computer just did an automatic reset, so I cannot see the amendment.

Um, but uh council central staff, I just want to ask a question to you.

Um and I first I want to say thank you so much, Councilmember Kettle.

I I totally understand the the heart and the intent behind uh this amendment.

Um I am concerned around our ability to actually make sure that we are delivering sufficient service um both from a climate perspective and to make sure that we are um providing sufficient service from our for our residents um who are low income may not own um cars and may not have other means to travel.

Um but here I guess is it just can you just speak to to get the affordability component sort of locked in a little bit?

I know we had the average cost, uh the cost for an average Seattle household at 0.3 percent, um, and unfortunately, no longer have it pulled up in front of me, but that was presented to us previously.

Um so if you can remind us of that and then tell us what the average cost per household is at point two percent.

I just want to understand the the difference between the two.

Um, and if you have it as a bonus, because I appreciate uh councilmember Rivera's question of not losing service hours, and there's the you you talked to us about this previously, the point two three, point two two three percent.

Um so what I would really love is to understand that difference and um and again uh if you can do it by average and by low-income household.

I know we've had both of those numbers presented to us previously, yes.

Thank you, council member.

Um so the median income, a a median income two-person household, so 121,000 a year.

The annual cost of the proposed STM at point three would be $58, and at point two would be almost $39.

We'll say 3867, a roundup.

For the low-income two-person household making $38,000 a year, the point three cost is about $35, and the point two cost is about $23.

$12.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you.

Uh it's looks like there are no further comments, questions.

Oh, one more from Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to underscore though that those numbers were always given those for one particular item, but that is additive to the other sales tax and property tax conversation and other levies that we do around here.

So um wanna want to put that in perspective and underscore that um as we get these figures.

All these things are additive, and that's important.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

Just to close, I really appreciate the comments that I received from everybody.

And by the way, I apologize for not being there in person.

I'm away, and I also don't have my glasses on as I was reading my comments.

Um but I I wanted to note that yes, you know, councilmatically, we can go to point one.

I'm aware of the point two to three in terms of the inflationary piece.

And this is to start the conversation, colleagues, uh, to look at uh what we're doing here in terms of public transit, which I 110% support, but also drive the affordability conversation and the good governance uh question.

So I'm willing to work with uh all of you on this to to talk to these issues, and I think it's really important to have this conversation.

And um, and I again really appreciate the uh the comments uh from you and uh and really to have this uh um affordability and good governance conversation between now and the 16th.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle, and I'll close out uh by sharing what I said.

Thank you, Councilmember uh Kettle for your proposed amendment.

I appreciate your the intents and the spirit there addressing affordability.

There are a number of amendments that sort of speak to affordability, including one of my own, the last one we discussed uh to shorten the term.

Um, I didn't even mention that, but one of the one of the drivers of that is affordability.

It's you know more affordable over a six-year term, six years and nine months over the you know, 10-year term, and uh but but there are a number of amendments that speak to affordabilities.

This is clear from my perspective at least.

This your amendment 13 speaks most directly to that concern.

So I appreciate the the spirit and intent uh with with that regard.

So um, in any event, thank you.

Let us move on to the next proposed amendment.

Amendment 16 to council bill one two one two two six is sponsored by council member rink.

Vice Chair Rink.

And this amendment would clarify the eligible use of Seattle Transit Measure revenues to that they may be used to support transit services at night.

Um currently the the STM does allow for transit service, um nighttime transit service hours to be purchased, and this amendment just makes that explicit.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

You are recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, colleagues, this amendment is fairly straightforward.

Um, I will note that King County Metro has been ramping up their night service as writer trends change with new needs.

This is an important service to offer, and I believe it's worthy enough to make it explicit and signal our support for it.

Now, in my experience, I've missed my bus and I've had to wait in the dark for 30 minutes after getting off a shift to wait tables at 1 a.m.

So the alternative to waiting in the dark and feeling unsafe, or paying for a 40 dollar lift ride.

And I know there are many workers in nightlife who I'm sure would much uh would be much happier to pay three dollars or for some one dollar to be able to get home on time and get some rest for the next day.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink, and I'll just share that uh from my perspective, appreciate you for bringing this forward.

Uh this is already an authorized expense in our today's proposal, but there are many valid policy reasons for specifically uplifting, enumerating, expressing, making making explicit you know what is all already authorized today.

So appreciate you from that perspective.

Uh Councilmember Rivera, final comment on this amendment.

Uh well, this is a new one, right?

The 16 haven commented on this one yet.

But thank you, Chair.

I just want to thank Council Member Rink for bringing this forward.

There are a lot of workers actually that work overnight, and they rely on the night service.

So that's really important.

My only point of uh I just want to clarify because the way it is written, it makes it sound like it's prioritized within the framework.

So does that mean prioritize within other service hours?

I don't think that well, like I can ask the chair whether I mean the chair, the sponsor whether that was the intent.

Um, but just uh making sure that that is not the case necessarily.

Vice Chair go ahead, recognize.

No, it is not.

Thank you for the question, and thank you for your support for this.

And um, no, that is not the intent.

This is just to make it explicit.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

All right, Chair.

Any final comments, questions before we move on to the next hearing seeing none.

Let us move on to the next proposed amendment.

Uh moving on to a new category here, uh, impacts of potential new uh or expanded revenue sources.

We have two amendments in this category, and I'll be presenting both of them.

Um, first is amendment 11 to Council Bill 121 226.

It is sponsored by council member Lynn.

Um, this amendment would add a recital to the bill stating the city's intent to collaborate with King County and other regional partners to advocate for state authorization of new progressive revenue sources available to transit benefit districts.

It would also allow the council in the future to amend the Seattle Transit Measure tax rate and/or eligible uses of funding if the state authorizes new progressive revenue sources.

Alright, thank you.

Uh Councilmember Lynn, as the author of amendment number 11.

You're recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

And um part of this is uh clarifying what I believe is already the case if this moves forward, which is that this um if this tax is approved by council and then is approved by voters, it gives us the authority to collect up to 0.3, but it doesn't require us to collect up to 0.3.

Um it would give us that authority if as currently proposed for up to 10 years.

But again, uh if the idea behind this is that if we come up with a different funding source or a better funding source of the state uh gives us different authority, uh 10 years is a long time, and you know, there's uh I think a lot of interest in working on how we fund uh transit um not just you know here locally but regionally um it's a big issue and um so this would just kind of signal that uh this should be a priority for us as council uh to work with uh our regional partners to work with our state partners uh to explore different ways to fund to fund transit.

I um I believe uh in terms of affordability, you know, there in terms of there's both how we tax and then what we what we spend it on and what we spend it on in terms of spending on transit.

I can't imagine uh something more important in terms of affordability.

We know that transit is one of our the top costs for households.

Uh we also know that as we are um looking at our long-term comprehensive plan, making sure that we have a dedicated source for transit um that we can rely upon.

I think it's critical uh for us as we plan for the future.

I also think it's critical for us to make sure that we are again um committing to this level of spending on transit as we think about the climate um change.

You know, there are um estimates that switching uh to public transit uh from driving for an individual can reduce your climate um uh impact by up to 4600 pounds, equivalent to about a hundred trees uh per year.

Um so as we think about um we have this difficult debate about trees and housing.

Uh really we need to be focusing on transit.

Um, and so again, this commitment to transit I I think is important, but uh that doesn't mean that we should not be looking at our tax structure and finding ways to better fund all of our essential needs transit being one of them.

Um so with that, uh happy to uh answer any questions if if folks have any.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rank, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Um, no questions on this point, but I wanted to ask if I could be a I guess I am asking a question, ask if I could be a co-sponsor.

I realize we haven't done that yet in this meeting.

But that is part of our task for today.

So I'd like to ask to be a co-sponsor.

Yes, thank you.

Let the record reflect.

Councilmember Rink would like to co-sponsor this.

All right.

I'm looking over it at our colleague that has technical difficulties.

None right here.

All right.

Uh so let's let us move on to the next amendment, which is similar in many regards, but also a little different.

Amendment 17 to Council Bill 12126 is sponsored by Vice Chair Rink.

This amendment would amend a recital in the bill and add two new recitals, which collectively name the city's ongoing collaboration with King County, both to enact a future countywide transit funding measure and to identify new local progressive revenue options to fund such a measure's investments with the intent that that new revenue replace Seattle transit measure funding.

Uh, this amendment would also allow the council in the future to amend the Seattle transit measure tax rate andor eligible uses of funding if new or expanded progressive revenue is authorized by the city.

Alright, and Vice Chair Rink, you are authorized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Uh, nice, excuse me.

Thank you.

Um, I um colleagues have mentioned previously how during the last state legislative session I met with legislators in an effort to see about expanding opportunities for localities to have expanded authority on funding our transportation benefit districts, particularly to have more progressive options to help move us away from sales tax.

Unfortunately, that uh effort was overshadowed by a number of other uh important issues that the state was working on, um but of course that allows us, and that has put us in the position we are right now.

Um this amendment focuses on our local efforts uh that we can take uh to be able to have more progressive ways to fund our transportation uh services, and so this amendment includes explicit references not just to new local progressive revenue, but also uh to congestion pricing or commercial parking tax.

And so um, this in many ways uh complements uh the previous amendment that we just provided an overview on.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you.

Uh colleagues, any comments or questions?

Councilmember Lynn, just would like to co-sponsor.

All right, we have have that noted.

Awesome, thank you.

Um, like there are no other comments questions from our colleagues.

So I question from my perspective to central staff on this one.

They're substantially similar in many material respects.

Key difference here is as uh was noted.

This one calls out specific things like congestion pricing and commercial parking tax.

Can you help me better understand how many jurisdictions in the US currently have uh congestion pricing?

Uh as of as of right now, only New York City has a congestion pricing program in effect.

It started on January 1st of 2025.

Got it, got it.

Thank you.

So under the New York City congested congestion pricing model.

Um, just curious uh because this amendment specifically contemplates you know the expansion of transit service for any new prospective congestion pricing.

You know, if it shall one be implemented one day in the city of Seattle.

Can you help me better understand just based off of the current model for congested pricing that we have in the US, namely New York City model?

Approximately how much of the those revenues are uh generated for congestion pricing in New York, specifically fund capital.

I I have some high level information here that I'm happy to share.

Um I am under the expert in this area, but um happy to follow up later if more information is needed.

Uh the the New York revenues from the New York City congestion pricing program, 80% of those revenues fund New York City transit.

Um, 10% go to the Long Island Railroad, and permissible uses of those funds are track expansions, station renovations, and commuter line infrastructure.

So to me that that sounds like capital.

Another 10% goes to the Metro North Railroad, uh, station improvements, power system upgrades, and line reliability.

Uh the total of uh the total revenues collected in the first year for congestion pricing were 562 million after offsetting operating expenses, so about fifty-six million each for the Long Island Railroad and the Metro North Railroad.

Okay, thank you.

So about 20% for my hearing 20% for capital, 80% for purely for transit service.

Is that correct?

Subways, buses, and Staten Island Railways.

Subways, buses, like purchasing the subways themselves and the buses themselves.

Because if that's true, I would consider that to be a capital expensive.

Excuse me, transit service.

Transit service, so service hours for those things, not the underlying purchase of uh trains, subway trains, buses.

I I has I hesitate to uh to get to apples to apples about it because I'm not familiar with the specific language in the New York City authorizing legislation, but I I will I will follow up.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um and what is the total amount you said?

500 562 million was collected in the first year.

Got it.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh no further questions from my perspective on that.

Looks like there is no others.

So let us press to the next amendment.

Next amendment, we move to a new category, uh, amendments that concern oversight and reporting related to the Seattle transit measure.

Um, for those who are looking at amendment six in the agenda, in the agenda packet, there is a formatting error in this amendment.

All of the proposed new bill language should be in red and underlined.

Council members have uh a revised version of the amendment and will be working to update the um amendment packet.

Just to be clear, this amendment does propose some new bill language.

Um this amendment uh to council bill one two one two two six was sponsored by council member foster, and it would add a new section directing uh the Seattle Department of Transportation to provide the city council with a midterm evaluation.

There are eight dimensions that are requested to be reported on.

Uh, they are financial reporting, transit service outcomes, transit service equity outcomes, the utilization and performance of transit access programs, capital and infrastructure outcomes, sound transit three coordination outcomes, an evaluation of the program's administrative cost efficiency, and any policy recommendations regarding the tax rate.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Foster is author of the amendment.

You are recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you so much, Chair, and happy to report.

I got my computer to work again.

Um thank you for that update, central staff.

So, colleagues, I've heard uh several folks today sort of speak to questions around oversight, accountability, and affordability, and uh much of that is what is at the heart of this amendment.

Uh the goal of which is to allow us a sort of formal place as a council to evaluate the impact of the Seattle transit measure.

From my perspective, that a worthy time to do that would be at the midpoint of the 10-year measure, which gives us something closer to what our typical timeline is when we take a look at this when it's been up for renewal every six years.

So the idea here is to provide a number of key components, which you'll see listed out in the uh alphabetical component uh the alphabetical enumeration uh that we are looking at here.

So the financial reporting, transit service outcomes, transit access, capital, um, so that we can take a look at it holistically and make a determination about whether or not we want to make any structural changes to the way that we are thinking about uh the program, including a request for policy recommendations from the department on whether or not to maintain the rate of the sales tax adopted by the ordinance and whether adjustments to program spending priorities are warranted.

So, um, as we've discussed earlier in committee today, these are things that council has the ability to do on our own.

We have the ability to adopt this at point three percent and make a change at any point during the lifetime of the levy.

However, this gives us a marker to do that collectively as a council.

Thank you.

Let's see, colleagues.

Any questions, comments from your perspective.

Looks like council vice chair rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor, all right.

Make sure that is noted by our central staff experts.

Looks like yes.

All right, okay, uh, if there are no other comments, questions, colleagues, let us move on to the next proposed amendment.

Amendment 14 to council bill one two one two two six um is sponsored by council member Kettle, and it requests a report on Metro's use of smaller buses and on the feasibility of increasing their use.

So this would be uh a joint request to Seattle Department of Transportation and working with King County Metro to provide this report on the sizing of buses and opportunities that there might be to use smaller buses like what we have been using as um part of the waterfront shuttle.

And um, I think the the interest in this area is that smaller buses would have less impact on the city's infrastructure.

Large buses have great impacts on our streets and bridges.

Got it.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kettle is the amendment author.

You are recognized to speak to your amendment.

Is he on the call anymore?

Council Member Kettle.

Still shows it's being online.

Let us take a moment.

Let's come back to that one.

Keep pressing to the very next amendment.

Okay.

In this bundle, we'll revert back.

The next amendment is amendment 21 to Council Bill 12126.

It's sponsored by Council Member Rivera.

It would also request a report on the performance outcomes of buses of the bus routes number 62 and 65.

This was also be a joint report between SDOT and King County Metro, and would focus in on these two particular routes.

And would help to inform additional service delivery to these routes.

Thank you, Chair.

It's fairly straightforward.

These are two routes I've heard a lot about from the district.

And it gets overcrowded with the folks that are also using the bus service to get to either work downtown or to other parts of the city, like into the Fremont neighborhoods, etc.

Wedgewood.

And it also goes, it services Sam Point, and I have a population at Sam Point that very much relies on Buzzet Transit.

So it's really just to study how well and how much it is utilized, and it just helps inform future potential future service delivery.

As per the chair's comments earlier, in terms of our at a later point in time, saying this is where we need our constituents need service.

Happy to answer any questions if anyone has any.

Thank you, Councilmember Rovera.

Any other comments, questions, colleagues?

Your perspective.

Let us press to the next amendment, noting that we're about approximately halfway through.

And so we control our own destiny here, colleagues, in terms of getting out of here.

Uh hopeful that the back half of these will be a little more slightly more expedited than the first half.

But these are some really important you guys are also raising some really important comments and questions.

The purpose of this meeting, so uh so let us keep pressing and hopefully we can be a little more expeditious in some of this too.

Um let us go.

Amendment 22 to Council Bill 12126 is also sponsored by Councilmember Kettle.

Uh this amendment would request that the Seattle Department of Transportation in partnership with King County Metro provide a report on the outcomes of King County Metro's waterfront shuttle pilot program, including opportunities for its improvement or expansion.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember Kettle.

Are you with us now to speak to your proposed amendment?

Your amendment more specifically uh the was that the you said 14.

Are we going back to 14?

22, 23.

Okay, wrong slide.

Councilmember Kettle.

Yes.

Central staff just oriented us on your proposed amendment number 22.

Let's let's speak to that, have a discussion on that, and then we're gonna revert back to your earlier amendment that appears before in this next sequence.

Amendment 14, but you're recognized to speak to amendment 21.

Or excuse me.

Okay, because all right, so we've um looking at the uh the slides.

Okay, so we jumped to 22 now back to 21.

20 we're on 22.

Okay, my slides or at least the online, that was on the next slide.

So um yes, uh basically one of the things that we've been looking at uh, you know, and working with community uh is neighborhoods, um different organizations, uh residents, uh constituents is the fact that we do not have anything uh in terms of uh transit service west of uh third avenue and looking to highlight this in a bigger picture, not talking specific uh bus routes or anything, and that's what's behind amendment 22 is the fact that we need to ensure that the waterfront, Alaskan Way, and so forth have that coverage in First Avenue, because it's really really important.

As seen right now, FIFA will cut the number of people who are there and the also the linking between the stadium district and Seattle Center.

So this uh amendment is to raise the profile and and highlight the need generally because uh things have been kind of not set, particularly with First Avenue, but also with the waterfront, and so that's the the focus and the the the background related to this amendment, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle, colleagues.

Any comments, questions on Councilmember Kettle's proposed amendment 22.

Hearing and seeing none, uh appreciate the amendment.

Let us return to amendment your other amendment, Councilmember Kettle 14.

Um let if central staff wouldn't mind rebriefing this one briefly, and then council member kettle, you can speak to it.

Yes, uh amendment 14 is requesting a report from Metro on the use of of their current use of smaller buses and on the potential of increasing their that use.

It would be a joint report between SDOT and Metro.

Um I'll leave it to you, Councilmember Kettle.

Go ahead, Councilmember.

This this amendment, like the other amendments, is is really to you know to raise the issues to raise the discussion on the various topics, and particularly due to the unique circumstances of downtown.

And you know, this the spacing and the sizing of these, you know, we we're not a suburban uh jurisdiction.

Uh we do not have uh, and by the way, this is not related to rapid rides and the like, but it's to it's to our you know more dense downtown.

And what's happened is it's just like what we see on Aurora Bridge, but downtown where basically the buses don't fit.

As I mentioned in the earlier meeting that we had, we have a lot of triple sevens, but sometimes we need some 737s, and and this goes to district seven and and our downtown.

When you go down Third Avenue and you see uh buses taking up two lanes, it's because they don't fit, or if you see them on First Avenue, they don't serve First Avenue, but they use First Avenue as a turnaround for East Welsh Rat routes.

You know, again, this it creates a big challenge uh for what's happening in downtown.

And this is something that's come up um again and again in discussions with residents and communities, and this is to highlight the issue and to kind of you know drive you know that opportunity to get you know basically buses transit that's right size for the area.

Again, this is not looking at more broadly.

This is unique in terms of some of these denser areas that we have, and basically right sizing uh the service due to those circumstances, and uh, and that's really uh you know what this amendment is all about.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Colleagues, any other comments, questions on this proposed amendment number 14.

Hearing and seeing none, let us press to the next amendment.

Which I think is amendment number 23.

Amendment 23 to Council Bill 12126 is also sponsored by Council Member Kettle.

This amendment would request that STAT and King County Metro provide a report on Metro's policies regarding bus stop spacing and report on the efficiency of transit service delivery and balanced against increasing access to bus routes.

The report would request analysis on how closely Metro follows its current policies on bus stop spacing and request where they might identify opportunities to refine bus stops placement in order to enhance the efficiency of transit service delivery.

All right.

Thank you, Chair.

This is another example, and it kind of reflects that district seven and again the downtown greater downtown is such a dense, you know, and where public transit is so important.

And it needs to be as efficient as can.

We've heard from residents in terms of and maybe even other council members in terms of how the spacing impacts the efficiency of the route.

We need to look at all the opportunities that we could, you know, further the effectiveness, the timeliness of our public transit and our transit system, but particularly in the downtown area.

This is the reason why I supported the change for the Route 8 from Queen Avenue North to 2nd North in terms of flip-flopping the lanes from three to two to two to three in terms of north-south and providing for that east-west-east, I should say, bus lane for to support the Route 8.

All these little things in terms of uh the pieces to these routes are important for the efficiency of the uh of this of the system overall, and it goes to some of the public commenters in terms of you know having that bus show up on time and and then do it in a way where it might have made sense at one point, but it may be impacting again the implementation.

And this is you know feedback that we've received uh from uh you again, you know, riders, the you know, bus riders and you know the residents here in district seven.

So thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle, colleagues.

Any questions, comments from your perspective on the proposed amendment number 23?

Uh Councilmember Foster, floor is yours.

Uh thank you so much, Chair and trying to be judicious with time.

I wanted to ask this question.

I think it's applies across a couple of the amendments that we're discussing, certainly 22 and 23.

But Central Staff, can you just speak to given that these are reports that we are asking SDOT to request for Metro?

Just the mechanism of that, and then can we clarify?

Are we expecting that these are there's sort of three questions here?

So the mechanism from our department requesting this from the the county.

Um a second is the cost.

Are we expecting to spend STM dollars here?

And then the third is um action, I don't know how to action them.

Um, and and so in particular, knowing that my understanding is bus stop spacing is a metro determination and something that the King County Council has the ability to weigh in on.

I just want to make sure I understand if we're asking our department staff to spend their time and possibly STM dollars for this information.

What are what will our options be to action those when we have that information back?

So three points and to those questions.

Um let's see, the starting at your first question about how to go about this.

We have uh many staff people who are, it's not just those two staff members, we have many people within SDOT who work on policy programming related to King County Metro service.

So we're in constant communication with King County Metro and we would work through the existing channels in order to um work with them to develop this this report uh in any of the circumstances.

As far as the costs, I think I at the moment I haven't talked with the executive side to find out if they think there is an additional cost.

My expectation is that they would absorb this within existing staff capacity, just as we would expect any other department to report out on their service delivery and their program outcomes.

And how to action the items, I would say again, to the extent that King County Metro and SDOT are making adjustments to service delivery twice a year currently, and this would be information.

If if we found information in this report, if they agreed that it was important to act on, then I would imagine that they would make recommendations to make changes at one of those two times during the year.

Thank you.

And then that would be a change for this one in particular that would go to the King County Council for the bus stop spacing.

The request for any of these reports is that they would come back to this council.

Okay.

Thank you.

Alright.

Thank you.

Uh Councilmember Kettle, floor is yours.

Thank you.

Uh I want to thank Councilmember Foster for a question.

And again, the intent here is for Estat to basically on behalf of the city and behalf of us as the council to engage on these things on these on these various um questions that we have with these amendments that I've just been speaking on.

And the reason why they're amendments is that I've been asking uh SDOT on repeated basis uh over the last couple years regarding you know bus transit service on first Avenue West.

Questions about hey, what are we doing on the waterfront?

You know, how do we connect Bell Town?

This whole section of Bell Town has no transit service.

You know, all these questions, and here in you know, in the middle of this year, we're kind of still where we are where two years ago, and so these measures are really to highlight some of these challenges that we have uh in areas such as Bell Town and in the waterfront, and to ensure these important areas are covered by um post transit service.

And so this the intent is for as Ms.

Allen was saying is that STOT and their normal um work with King County Metro will be raising these issues and you know and highlighting these issues, and then to really uh you know get some type of you know movement forward with King County Metro in terms of bus transit service west of Third Avenue.

So uh so again, thank you for the question.

And thank you, Ms.

Allen.

All right, thank you.

Looks like there are no other comments, questions on this particular amendment.

So I'll close with my comp my question.

Uh and this amendment, this question applies to a few uh similar amendments with the this the same March 30th, 2027 requested report date.

So just curious from that sort of transcend, you know, amendment authors or a few authors with the similar date.

So just curious to hear from a central staff perspective.

You know, what why might this specific date be chosen?

Yeah, that's a good question, uh chair.

I we picked a date that was in the first quarter and ending in the first quarter.

I think how many of these amendments move forward, we might need to revisit that date.

Um we have not talked to the executive side to see the feasibility to test the feasibility of having all of these reports um due on the same date.

It might be possible that that would be something that we would need to adjust.

And the goal was to provide information in advance enough that would help to inform any future actions that you might want to take, whether it be the budget process or any other separate process.

Got it, thank you.

All right, let us move on to the next proposed amendment.

Amendment 25 to Council Bill 121226 is sponsored by Council Member Brevera.

This amendment would require an annual reporting by King County on various dimensions of service hours purchased with Seattle Transit Measure funding.

Specifically, the report would include dimensions such as King County Metro's fair recovery effectiveness and bus transit on time performance and reliability.

All right.

Councilmember Rivera, you are recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, and thank you, Amanda.

Um, it's pretty straightforward.

I mean, the fair recovery piece is really important, colleagues, as you all know, because our ability to continue to operate transit relies on the funding to do so, and if folks are not paying their fares is going to um uh have a huge impact on the ability to provide the service, um, and so we want to make sure, and plus I think just last week there was an article that came out about um the low percentage of fare recovery that metro was doing on on transit service.

So we just want to make sure that um we understand the uh fair box recovery ratio or the percentage of the King County Metro operating cost that was funded by the fairs.

Um, so we have uh a complete picture of how um what is going on and then also making sure that we understand because our inability to collect the fares also will have an impact on revenue performance.

So this just has that level of specificity as to the information that we're requesting and the why, um, and then our ability to perform like I said earlier um uh based on what we're able to recover because it goes to why we're you know, if we're unable to meet the transit need, it is directly related to the fare recovery since that is what the money goes back into the service.

So anyway, happy to answer um any questions and also it goes to if we need to if metro needs to cancel trips, etc.

Because of this, fair recovery piece.

We should know all this as part of um the equation, um, and we need to get this information from Metro, and it should be more than just on uh occasional piece, or we shouldn't be getting this information from the news, we should be getting it from Metro.

So making sure that Estad is partnering with Metro to make sure we get this information and it goes to maybe something that we might do in the future, colleagues.

Anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera.

Uh any other comments, questions, colleagues.

Hearing seeing none, I'll just pile on from my perspective.

Thank you, Councilmember Rivera for putting uh this forth.

Uh I think you were referring to the Seattle Times editorial board piece a few weeks back that was very thought-provoking.

Um, and I too called together some insights from that uh piece to put together, you know, uh similar kind of oversight and accountability uh proposed amendment with respect to transit fare recovery ratio.

Um so just want to thank you for uh for this amendment.

Um all right, let us press to the next proposed amendment.

Amendment 28 to council bill 12126 is sponsored by council president Hollingsworth.

This amendment would request that STAT in partnership with King County Metro provide a report on the possible pathways for the city of Seattle to expand the transit access program.

So this is the program that we use currently to give free orca cards to low-income populations and other student populations, including but not limited but not limited to providing support to participants of city run income-verified programs such as the utility discount program, Seattle Preschool Program, Early Childhood Education and Assistance Programs or others.

All right, thank you.

Council President Hollingsworth is the amendment author of 28.

You are recognized to speak to your amendment.

Awesome.

Thank you, uh Chair.

And if it's with your permission, I would love if I could speak about amendment 206 as well, because they're both connected as well.

One's about a report, the other one is about expanding the uh transit access program with your permission.

Yes, first off, let's let us brief.

You're absolutely right.

I noticed that when I was reading those together, and for uh, yes.

Uh, can we brief that one first and then you can speak to both of them?

Awesome.

Thank you, Chair.

Awesome.

Amendment 26 to Council Bill 121226, also sponsored by Council President Hollingsworth, is an amendment that would make explicit the inclusion of participants from City of Seattle income verified benefit programs, um, so that they would be eligible to receive support from the transit access program.

All right, council president, you are recognized to speak to each of your two amendments to get.

Awesome.

Thank you, Chair.

And I'll be I'll be quick.

Uh so amendment 28, colleagues, this amendment, and thank you, central staff as well.

And shout out to uh Jack and the audience who's been with us here since 11.

You haven't moved one bit, sir.

So appreciate you staying with us.

Uh so amendment 28.

Uh this amendment requests SDOT in partnership with King County Metro to provide a report on possible pathways for Seattle to expand the transit access program tap.

We like acronyms to include additional low-income populations.

Um, as chairs the governance and utilities committee, I know I've heard from uh countless constituents about affordability concerns.

Uh proud to co-sponsor uh with council member council member Strauss' leadership on the utility discount program to expand access to more people who need support.

So this would be a report uh to understand pathways in which we can expand the program uh for what we have right now, and then amendment 26.

So that's the report.

Amendment 26, um, would expand access to include participants of aligned city-run income verified support program.

So this intention for this amendment is just to expand access to more folks who need it explicitly.

Our city has incredible amount of affordability programs.

Uh, in the executive's proposal, it mentions Seattle Housing Authority residents, Seattle Preschool Promise Program participants, Seattle Promise Program participants as well.

I know Councilmember Rink has an amendment to expand that to ensure that it's uh with the trades as well.

Uh we want to make sure that we can uh people possibly eligible for this program are in the utility discount program and participants of fresh bucks uh as well.

So pretty straightforward and thank you, uh Chair.

Thank you, Council President, and Councilmember Rivera, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Hollingsworth, for bringing this forward.

I'd love to co-sponsor both the report and then the expansion, and then I will say it's my understanding that we're expanding service already to Seattle Promise program um participants.

Uh we already provide uh uh transit service to all young people under the age of 18 in the city, which is really something to be proud of.

Um, and so that's all.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Making sure central staff has noted those that request for co-sponsorship.

All right.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

And Councilmember Rink, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, similarly, I wanted to request to be added as a co-sponsor on these amendments these two amendments as well.

Thank you.

That's being noted.

All right, thank you.

Any other final comments, questions?

All right, hearing seeing none, let us press to the next amendment.

Let's see.

Number eight on the list, I believe.

Yes, amendment eight.

Amendment eight.

Um, this is amendment to council bill one two one two two six and is sponsored by council member Strauss.

The amendment would add to the scope of allowable uses of revenues generated under the measure, allowing funding for contracted passenger transportation services provided by transit agencies and private transportation service operators.

So currently, the uh as proposed, the measure only allows transportation services to be brought provided via King County Metro, and this would expand the scope to make it possible to to do private contracts.

Um, this is uh similar to an amendment that that took place was passed under the current STM.

All right, thank you.

And Councilmember Strauss is the amendment author.

You are recognized to speak to your amendment.

Uh thank you.

This comes from the program that we've been talking about, Golden Gardens Direct, our pilot service out to Golden Gardens, which has been so well received.

I can't tell you everyone from all walks of life wants it.

And I'm even hearing from other council colleagues about their own desires in their own districts, and I'm here to support it.

At the end of the day, my preference would be for metro to provide the service in-house.

And I didn't actually think that the Golden Gardens Direct pilot could happen or would happen because we know of the constraints that we've been discussing with Metro.

It is occurring because of Hope Link, and they are not a uh they're not metro, and so this amendment would allow the pilot program to become permanent, and it would allow for programs all across the city, whether it's like Washington, Alki, Magnuson, Seward Park, or others to have similar types of service.

And so, as always, I prefer a unionized workforce that is uh government run, but when we can't do that, I'd rather have some service to places that don't exist, don't have service today, then not at all.

So that's what this amendment is.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you.

Councilmember Strauss.

All right, colleagues, any other comments, questions on this proposed amendment?

Uh Vice Chair Rink, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

And uh want to voice uh my excitement about someday riding the Golden Gardens uh bus, if I can get out there easily and quickly, also on a bus, but we're working on that.

Um, I uh really want to again voice my support for the Golden Garden shuttle as well as Trailhead Direct and emphasize how uh they are great investments.

I really appreciate the sponsor touching on this point around his intent and wanting to move towards you know, trying to make sure that we are delivering on these investments and trying to support a union workforce.

I'm wondering from a cent a question for central staff.

Are there opportunities or can you speak to what guardrails there may be either in this bill or through other means to try and limit potential further privatization as associated with this amendment?

We can follow up on that point too, but yeah, that would so as the amendment is currently written, it allows the opportunity for contracts to happen.

It doesn't require them, and the default option would always be King County Metro.

So, in addition to that, if there were other considerations that the council wanted to be can included, then we could look at adding those.

Certainly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Looks like there are no other comments.

Oh, Councilmember Kettle, you're recognized.

Uh, just wanted to uh thank Council Member Strauss for this.

This this kind of goes to my amendment related to um West of Third Avenue and specifically the waterfront.

You know, obviously King County Metro, these are the kind of questions that we're asking.

This goes to the questions about their the capacity to provide, and uh you know, and bottom line is we we need to have this this this transit available.

So I appreciate this amendment.

I appreciate the points council member rink was just making uh after the dame and and basically I'm also looking to tie in, if you will, my point about service west of Third Avenue.

So thank you.

All right, thank you.

Looks like there are no other comments, questions pertaining to this specific proposal.

So let us press move on to the next amendment.

Amendment 10 to Council Bill 12126 is also sponsored by Councilmember Strauss, and this amendment would add to the scope of prioritized and allowable uses of the revenue generated under the measure and allow support for connections to regional centers as identified in the city's comprehensive plan.

The city's comprehensive plan identifies seven regional setup centers throughout the city, and this would prioritize connecting those centers.

All right.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss is the amendment author.

Author, you are recognized to speak to your amendment.

Uh thank you, Chair.

As Council Member Rink just noted, if she could get to Ballard, she would use the Golden Gardens Direct.

That is what this amendment is about.

It's also, you know, something Councilmember Rink wrote read a quote from somebody trying to get back from their service industry job about waiting for 30 minutes in the dark on a street corner.

That was my experience at 6 p.m.

on a weekday in the winter here in the city of Seattle.

I was able to catch the last direct bus from Ballard to downtown today, the 17, and it didn't get me to work before 9 a.m.

And I get the distinct pleasure of trying to figure out the maze on how to get home.

Because as I mentioned earlier today, until August of 2021, my entire life I've been able to walk to a bus stop.

That changed in August of 20, September 2021, where I don't have that ability anymore.

I have to drive to the bus.

And so today I drove to the 17.

I caught the 17.

I'm gonna be going down to the World Cup watch tonight, and I don't get to go to the game, but I get to go to the watch, it's amazing.

And that's the maze to get home.

How do I get back to the bus stop that I had to park at?

It is at minimum two buses or a lift or a bus and a line bike or scooter.

And the city has designated Ballard as a regional center.

Um there were many years where no one from Ballard or the central district for that matter were on council when zoning decisions were made.

And through the presentation that we had earlier this month from the mayor and Estot, it clearly demonstrated that Ballard has some of the, it does not have the highest frequency, and it has the longest travel time.

40 minutes.

The offer was well, why don't we add a rapid ride?

We have a rapid ride.

Why don't we add bus lanes?

We can't add a bus lane to a one-lane road on Queen Anne.

Um we need direct service.

I'm agnostic on which routes we use.

We don't even need them to go into the neighborhoods, the neighborhoods of Ballard, that is.

Um, but we do need a direct connection from downtown to downtown Ballard, and as Carlos said earlier, we need that connection from Ballard to the light rail.

What wasn't mentioned is that Metro has even already put in bus service from Lake City to Greenwood.

If it continued just two more miles, it would connect the regional center to light rail and lake city.

But for whichever reason has occurred, the Seattle Transit measure as sent to us, does not allow for this type of funding.

Metro has not funded these routes, and so colleagues, I ask for your support today when Sound Transit has broken trust with the community.

Let's not make the this transit measure break trust as well.

Because currently, to get from my city hall office to my district six office, it takes me the same amount of time on the bus as it takes me to get to downtown Tacoma on the bus.

So I'd love for your support so that we can have direct service to the areas in which we have zoned for greater density.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our number of hands, not sure if these are stale, so I'll just go here uh in order.

Councilmember Rink.

Do you have a comment or question on this?

Yes, I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor on this amendment.

Thank you.

Looks like Central Staff is noting that.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

And I just want to uh thank Councilmember Strauss.

First, I want to thank him for telling me, uh telling us his story, uh trying to get from Ballard to downtown.

And it's almost like I should name my amendment number 23, the Strauss Amendment.

Uh it goes to why we need to be as efficient and effective as we can because of the delays and the impacts that you know Councilmember Strauss was reflecting on in terms of trying to get from Ballard to downtown uh Seattle to basically City Hall, if you will.

And um, I also appreciate the point because I've said this related to Sound Transit that land use and transit uh basically two sides of the same coin.

Obviously, sound transit has failed related to the Ballard Regional Center, even though its mission is to connect regional centers.

So what's next?

And this is an important area to connect ballot properly.

And by the way, there's second and third impacts.

There's ripple effects of terms of how what we're dealing with today.

And those ripple effects are felt uh here in district seven, you know, and you know, in terms of inner bay, Queen Anne, uh, Uptown, uh, Belltown, and so forth.

Uh so we need to do better.

And and so I really appreciate Councilmember Strauss uh speaking to this, raising this, and um and and with this story uh basically you know underlying my amendment 23, which I like to informally uh refer to as the Strauss Amendment if I can, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh let's see.

Uh don't see any other new hands.

So let me just close out by sharing that we're asking central staff a question on this proposal.

So if this amendment were to pass, what would be the impacts of other, you know, the criteria that the original legislation calls out?

Um, for example, equity focused expansion.

The purpose of this amendment is to um add an additional priority component, and so all of the existing components that were in the original legislation would remain.

They would need to share the stage with this new priority area.

Got it.

Thank you.

And I know you know there's specific neighborhoods in District One, for example, that have been long requesting expanded transit service, including in and around um Highland Park, specifically the South to serve South Seattle College, uh Georgetown, Arbor Heights and Elki, none of which currently meet the regional center criteria, nor uh neighborhood center criteria, although there's a elk I suppose is still but possible.

Um I wouldn't prefer it.

Uh what would be like how if this amendment were to pass, what would be the impacts on expansion to other neighborhoods that do not meet the regional center designation that again have been calling and requesting increased transit service.

So other neighborhoods that would not meet the regional or that do not meet the regional center designation would receive service in this in the same allocation that had been originally proposed.

So looking at the equity centered component, looking at Metro's long range plan, no change would otherwise be um proposed by this amendment.

Thank you.

Alright, let us move on to the next amendment.

We're approaching the end.

A couple more to go, colleagues.

Amendment 20 to council bill one two.

I lost my place.

Two two six, uh, is sponsored by council member Juarez, co-sponsored by Council President Hollingsworth, and the amendment clarifies bill language describing the populations that are being prioritized to ensure service with Seattle transit measure programs, and would explicitly name historically underserved populations, particularly individuals with disabilities.

The amendment would also clarify allow allowable investments in transit infrastructure to more explicitly include accessible pedestrian connections, ADA improvements, and projects that improve access for people with mobility, sensory, cognitive, and developmental disabilities.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember Warez is excused today.

So we'll uh turn it over to Council President Hollingsworth, who is will speak on behalf of Councilmember Warez.

Thank you, Chair.

And I have talking points from Councilmember Warez.

Uh proud to co-sponsor this amendment.

Seattle transit measure has a total expenditure of 1.4 billion dollars in its full term, and the total percent of this measure that is dedicated to transit infrastructure, accessibility and safety is less than four percent.

Of the STM, 86% goes to transit service, and 3.6 goes to transit infrastructure for people with disabilities, elderly, and the vision impaired community.

People with disabilities are one of the populations most dependent on transit and often face the greatest transportation barriers.

Public infrastructure is a public good that benefits and enables agencies over mobility for everyone, regardless of age, ability, or income.

100% of transit riders are pedestrians.

So buses and light rails do not exist in isolation.

Every trip begins and ends with traveling uh to a bus stop.

As stated in amendment 20, capital infrastructure includes but is not limited to projects that improve access to transit for individuals with mobility, sensory, cognitive, and developmental uh developmental disabilities, ADA accessibility improvements, accessible transit stop infrastructure, safety enhancements, accessible uh pedestrian connections, and wayfinding improvements.

The community input from the Seattle Disability Commissions is invested in uh content with the Seattle Transit measure and their Here and Now Expo uh emphasizes the need for accessible and safe public transportation, or public transit, excuse me.

Um, and the Seattle Disability Commission surveyed folks who use uh they also people that use wheelchairs and mobility impaired, and for people with limited mobility, the results is costly delays having to take uh different routes and being forced onto street or bike lanes.

So the pedestrian advisory board wants to emphasize that access to transit is just as important as transit itself.

Um, the background I know we're grateful for the Seattle Disability Commission and the Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board for their input for the Seattle transit measure.

Their insight and feedback have been critical in the legislation for reliable accessible and safe models for transportation for non-driving commuters.

Uh, proud to sponsor this uh with council member Warez, and I know that um she has been very open about her disability and um some of the barriers that she has when using transit, so she's very intentional about this and has been a phenomenal advocate uh for folks that have disabilities and uh navigating transit can be somewhat of a barrier, but making sure that we're doing everything possible infrastructurally, uh making sure that we have those investments for everyone.

So thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Council President and Council Member Warez.

Uh colleagues, any comments, questions?

Looks like uh Vice Chair Ring.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor on this amendment.

Thank you.

Sure, central staff is noting that.

Awesome, thank you.

Anything else, colleagues?

Hearing seeing none, I'll just close out this one from my perspective.

I too want to thank uh council member Warez, Council President Hollingsworth for uh putting this forward.

Uh makes a lot of sense.

Um, and couldn't agree more with the intent, purpose, goals, and the specific words on paper.

Um made clear by this amendment.

And I also think it it uh underscores one of my earlier proposed amendments that we discussed as well the importance of accessibility capital for transit.

So um thank you.

Let us move to the next amendment, two or three more.

Oh one more one more comment on this one.

Councilmember Rivera, you're recognized.

Can I'd just co-sponsor this one, please?

All right, looks like staff is noting that.

Thank you.

All right, now let's move on to that next one.

Amendment 24 to Council Bill 121 226 is sponsored by Vice Chair Rink.

Um this amendment would make various changes to the eligible spending categories of Seattle transit measure revenues, and I'll just briefly outline those.

First, it would reduce the maximum amount of infrastructure maintenance and capital improvement spending from five million dollars a year to two million dollars a year.

Second, based on that proposed reduction, it would increase the minimum percentage of Seattle transit measure revenues for transit service from 60% to 65%.

Third, it would expand the category of allowable infrastructure maintenance and capital improvement spending to include contributions to Sound Transit 3 projects, including the Graham Street infill station infill station, West Seattle Link Extension, and Ballard Link Extension.

And finally, it would revise the description of Sound Transit 3 staffing spending category to clarify these revenues are for staffing costs separate from the revised capital spending allowance.

Right, thank you, Vice Chair Rank is the amendment authority.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Colleagues, this amendment does a number of things specifically referencing Sound Transit uh SG3 light rail projects in Seattle to be recipients of the capital bucket, but it also increases uh the minimum spending on transit service to 65% of the measure and it prioritizes bus service, which I see as the centerpiece of the Seattle Transit measure.

Um with these changes, I believe we can strike the right balance but in raising our investments into transit service hours while having flexibility for capital projects.

Notably, this amendment would add three million dollars annually to be spent on transit service, which would translate to 9,000 additional bus service hours a year, which then translates to 90,000 additional bus service hours across the 10-year measure.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Rank colleagues.

Any comments, questions on this proposal?

All right.

Um looks like I'm not seeing any so far.

Let me ask a few questions of central staff.

Uh, I'm a little confused because under the proposal, the proposed amendment 24, it specifically calls out specific Sound and Transit projects like the Graham Street infill station, West Seattle link extension, you know, et cetera.

Didn't the Sound Transit Board already specifically fund many of these listed projects uh in capital costs uh during recently during their approved plan as part of that sort of value engineering review?

I don't have that information in front of me, I apologize.

I will follow up.

Uh Councilmember Strauss, who is also board member Strauss in the Sound Transit.

Uh thank you, Chair.

In West Seattle, we have 40% reliance on federal funding to get to the junction right now.

And so if that federal funding does not come through, there will be needed other needs associated with it.

Currently, there is 10 million dollars in the transit transportation levy that is dedicated for West Seattle that I believe is being rerouted to Graham Street.

There's still a $30 million gap, maybe $20 million gap for Graham Street.

And while I don't believe that we have seven to nine billion dollars in this uh transit measure, any additional assistance to get to turn the downtown tunnel project into a ballard link extension project would be advantageous.

Um there are many needs across our entire ST3 program, um, and sound transit has not yet fully funded any of them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Central staff.

How much would $2 million dollars per year contribute to completing the capital projects at Graham Street Infill station individually or the West Seattle link extension versus the total cost of these projects?

Go ahead.

On the margins.

Do we have the context yet of the full uh total costs of each of these respective projects?

No, I don't have that yet.

Okay, thank you.

Curious to hear that, you know, when when that information becomes available, and so what is being proposed here is is local capital expenditure of sound transit projects, so of another government, and we've we've helped implement decisions of other governments before indeed.

The current executive proposal would allow us to do that again by adding you know specific positions, funding specific positions for uh to help with permitting review and expediting that process.

Um, but what what what is before us uh under this proposed amendment is seems a little unique.

I don't know, at least from my perspective, in terms of it would it would allow local jurisdictional support to support specifically capital costs of sound transit.

So has as that has that happened before any local government proposed like boosting and providing supplemental funding to support capital expenditures of Sound Transit.

I understand uh Chair that Bellevue did contribute to their downtown tunnel when the preferred option that was their preferred option, and the default plan that had been offered up was either an elevated solution or a trench station.

So that that's one example.

Um more traditional way for local jurisdictions to contribute is through access projects for pedestrian bike access, bus transfer access.

Um Seattle has some examples with a hundred and thirtyth street station and um also the U District bus transfer facilities, those were funded with uh levy funds, not with STM.

Got it.

Thank you.

So the Bellevue example that you just described, it sounds like please correct me if I'm wrong.

There, there was a baseline sound transit proposal that they were gonna build with their allocated expenditure for that specific station.

It was unsatisfactory apparently to the local jurisdiction, and so they they wanted to provide additional funding to go above and beyond that baseline proposal that would have cost more than Sound Transit was willing to provide.

That's correct.

Okay, um, and these two like just using Graham Street Infill and West Seattle, those have been deemed satisfactory to uh maybe this is to the like this the city delegation, part of the city delegation, those two proposals uh have been deemed satisfactory.

Is this a question of me?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Sorry, go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

If you have any thoughts on that to West Seattle and Graham Street are part of the long-range financial plan that has been adopted by the Sound Transit Board that includes assumptions for West Seattle of I believe 40 percent federal funding through grants, and that also uh assumes I believe it was 30 million dollars city contribution if Sound Transit cannot close the gap for Graham Street.

Now, what we have had many long discussions at Sound Transit about what is a betterment?

So, what is some an asset that Sound Transit is going to come up and rip up?

So let's say they rip up a water main while they're building their new station, they're legally obligated to replace that water main one for one.

And if the city of Seattle was coming in to say you need to put in a larger water main, that would be considered a betterment, and so that's something that the city of Seattle is responsible for.

Then alternatively, there are funding gaps where Sound Transit will say we can only do this if there's third-party funding.

Third party funding has been a long discussed uh and disputed issue, and so third-party funding is what is needed from the local jurisdiction to ensure that the project's delivered.

There are more macro politics about the fact that Seattle taxpayers are paying for a downtown tunnel that the region needs that is redundant for Seattleites, which is a bigger conversation.

The third-party funding conversation has been one that has gone on for a decade plus, and while we have not come down to the levels of what the city will and will not pay.

I can tell you right now with the staffing plan that is coming before Sound Transit in the expansion committee this week, they are projecting that the Sound Transit will expend 19 million dollars on reimbursable staff for the city of Seattle.

That is projected while already to date, the city of Seattle has spent 15 million dollars on city staff to support Sound Transit's mission.

That I believe should be considered third-party funding, but because we're having this discussion after the expenditures, it is harder to really dial in.

What has the city already contributed to meeting Sound Transit's goals?

And so third-party funding conversation is not gonna go away, the betterments conversation is not gonna go away.

Um frankly, uh I have much more discussion to have with the amendment sponsor about this specific amendment, but having something in this levy in this proposal that discusses third-party funding betterments, uh, I think it would be a good thing.

But uh I have much more discussion with the with the sponsor on this before I'm gonna come out with a position on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um let us move on to our next proposed amendment.

If I may I apologize, I just wanted to take a moment to respond to some of the points.

Thank you.

Um just as to reiterate a point for the record in an amendment that Mayor Wilson brought to the Sound Transit Board and was passed, um, she alongside the county executive had executive committed $30 million for delivering Graham Street infill station in terms of local funding.

The mayor's office identified 10 million dollars from the levy, but 20 million dollars is needed in additional resources to make sure we deliver, and so by including some ability here for STM to be used to ensure delivery.

I think there's a longer discussion to have with the executive again on how we deliver, but I wanted to get uh that on the record, just a matter that this commitment was made publicly just a few weeks back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh and I'll just close out by sharing you know, I I have concerns about this amendment uh taken away from our ability to fund critical accessibility upgrades, um, and these are worthwhile causes.

The we and we're still waiting on specific numbers, but we know that at best this would be marginal around the edges, tweaks around the edges, uh, and which would be of the minimum impact for us being able to actually complete those projects, but they would be tremendous impact for purposes of adding more curb ramps and vital accessibility upgrades, and so you know, for those reasons I I do have concerns, but I appreciate the intent that went behind this.

Uh councilmember Foster, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Um, and I just wanted to um share quickly, I think maybe a statement less of a question.

Uh, you know, it's my belief that the language in this amendment that clarifies the Graham Street infill West Seattle and Ballard Link extensions is uh good transparency uh measure, because it's again it's my understanding that there was 20 million already set aside uh directed towards those projects.

So I don't I I don't experience that as a shift.

I think there are other parts of this that uh maybe uh there are questions around the five million to two million, but I at least want to state I believe that's a transparency amendment so that we have clarity of what my understanding was uh matches what council member reek mentioned, which was that 20 million dollars to ensure that the Graham Street infill station um is built as was recently promised.

And we know that that's been such a long delayed um station that I I want to express I think that's incredibly important and look forward to more engagement on other components of this amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Now let us move on to I think the second or last amendment, amendment 27 amendment 27 to council bill one two one two two six is sponsored by Vice Chair Rink, and the effect of this amendment would be to add students attending Seattle area trade schools as eligible population to receive the transit access program orca cards.

So currently, um the current the currently what's called out is students at Seattle area colleges and universities, and this would expand that to also include those attending trade schools.

All right, thank you.

Vice Chair Rank, as an amendment author, you are recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I'll be brief and just say the spirit of this amendment, similar to the amendments we discussed earlier for expanding to eligibility for programs to a number of city programs.

Um the spirit of this is really aligned with ensuring that um beyond just Seattle promise program students um allowing uh Path to Trade students uh able to participate and be eligible for this program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any comments, questions on proposed amendment number 27.

Uh Council President Hollingsworth, you're recognized.

Just asking uh to be a co-sponsor on this as well.

Thank you.

Making sure central staff showing my support.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Yep, and council member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, this same, I view this as just like a friendly amendment to Council Hollingsworth and um Council Council Member Hollings, Council President Hollingsworth and Council Member Harris's amendment.

It adds another um the path to trade students.

So thank you.

Thank you.

So you're adding your name, Council Member.

Thank you.

Right.

Great.

Looks like that is noted.

Awesome.

Any other comments, questions?

If none, let's press to our final amendment.

Amendment 29 in this box.

Final amendment is uh amendment 29 to council bill one two one two two six.

It is sponsored by council member Strauss.

The amendment would increase the percentage of the proposition revenues for transit service from 60 percent to 75 percent to reflect the anticipated spending plan as provided by the executive.

All right, thank you.

Four plus hours, we're almost there.

All right.

Councilmember Strauss, as amendment author, you are recognized to speak to your amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh a question I'll ask the body and those in the viewing audience.

Is this a tr is this a Seattle transit measure or is this a Seattle transit adjacent measure?

And I say that because 50% of this measure being dedicated to transit hours is a half, it's only half the measure.

And all of the other buckets that we have discussed today are incredibly important.

I haven't brought any amendments to those other buckets.

And those the we need to fix the process, we need to fix the practice that we started during the pandemic.

And that practice was diverting money from transit hours into other projects, because again, we could not metro couldn't supply us with those hours.

That is a bad habit that we need to work out of.

If I thought I could get the votes, I would make this number 100%.

So a hundred percent of the funds in this proposal would go to transit hours.

I don't think that I've got the votes for that.

I'm just maybe I'm maybe I'm betting against myself here.

Uh, and so that's why I say 75%, because this can be at least a three-quarters measure.

And it's important for me that we really focus this revenue on transit hours because I know that Seattleites will pay as much money as they can to buy if if they know that those dollars will actually purchase service hours.

That's why I said to Jack Wism, Jack Wisner has stayed in his seat longer than I have today.

Kudos, my friend.

Um I will just say to Jack's point that we should have a vehicle license fee on this.

I agree with Jack.

I just don't see us being in the right place right now with the history that we've had with Metro over the last few years, but I do believe that in the near future they will be able to come back up to pre-pandemic levels of service.

I don't know that they're gonna put a bus stop back within walking distance of my house.

That's not what we need today.

But what we do need is for us to use our money that we collect from Seattleites in the way in which we advertise to them.

In the way that we are advertising this, this is a Seattle transit measure, and that's why I'm proposing that 75% of this measure's funding goes to transit hours.

Thank you, colleagues.

Alright, thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Uh colleagues, any other comments, questions on this last amendment.

Councilmember Rink, vice chair, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

Um, a question for central staff.

Do we have an understanding of how an increase like this would have an impact of any other of the other buckets identifying the levy?

How may this make us less flexible?

Well, any any new um any new requirement in one area is going to imply less flexibility in other areas.

But um uh it should be noted that this change um mirrors the spending plan as has been provided by by the executive.

It's in the the fiscal note to to the ordinance.

Um that said, there are a lot of amendments that we've talked about today that would have an effect on that spending plan.

But um, from from my perspective, uh this this change would not result in any significant um uh compression in the other uh spending categories.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you.

Colleagues, any comments, questions, others on this?

Okay, hearing seeing none.

Uh I believe we just have one final kind of uh overview.

Next step slide from our central staff colleagues to get through, and then we'll be concluding.

Uh our next step.

Here we go.

Okay, next steps.

Uh coming up on Monday.

There will be two public hearings in the morning.

There will be one at 9:30 that will be remote, and the afternoon at um early evening at 5 p.m.

There will be another win here in council chambers on Thursday on the 16th will be the next meeting of the select committee where we will be hoping to have a final vote on this council bill, um, and time for discussions on any last amendments or revisions that need to be taken up.

Tuesday, July 21st is the last day for the full council to vote on the ordinance so that we can make the timeline we need to make to get this on the ballot later in November.

All right, thank you.

Let's see.

Any other final comments, questions for the good of the order?

No.

I'll just note that yes, we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Uh, want to thank you, colleagues.

I want to thank members of the public.

Special shout out to Mr.

Jack Wisner for uh being here and saying the entire time.

I agree substantially on a lot of your your amendments, by the way, Mr.

Wisner.

Uh I disagree on the timing.

This is not the appropriate timing from my perspective to um to revisit the decision to potentially retire the SLU street line.

That's one of my learnings when I proposed that during the budget process a couple years ago.

Um, but I do think we should have that conversation again.

I just don't think right now is the appropriate time.

But I want to thank you for being here and staying the entire time.

Uh also thanks to Erica Barnett, who is uh who was also here the whole time.

Uh I hope your equipment is okay.

We heard some dropped equipment earlier.

But um, today's an important conversation.

It's not the it's not quite the end of our deliberations before this committee takes action.

As central staff noted a moment ago, we'll have two public hearings next week, and both the virtual and in-person options.

So all are strongly encouraged and welcome to provide their feedback on the proposed Seattle Transit Measure Renewal.

We'll then reconvene for the final meeting of the select committee in the Seattle Transportation Benefit District on Thursday, July 16th, 2026 at 9 30 a.m.

At this meeting, we will vote on the proposed amendments and the legislation itself, including a proposed chair's package to help streamline simplify uh the process and reduce administrative overhead for everybody involved.

Um, and I think that's the best way to go with 23 amendments.

Thank you again, colleagues, for your hard work on this.

Good legislation is strengthened by thoughtful public engagement and deliberation, exactly what we've been doing for the last four plus hours.

I look forward to continuing this important work together.

Is there any final business to come before the committee before we adjourn today?

Hearing and seeing none, it is 3 12 p.m.

We are adjourned.

Thank you.