A MOTION calling on Governor Inslee to impose an immediate moratorium on rent payments and urging federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose an immediate moratorium on rent and mortgage payments.
Sounds great. Any other parting thoughts from colleagues? All right. The next two items on our agenda today concern legislation related to the pandemic response. The first is a motion that would call on the governor to impose an immediate moratorium on rent payments and urging federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose a similar moratorium on rent and mortgage payments. We have April Sanders from the council, several staff to hear here to provide a brief overview to Sanders. Hello is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record. April Sanders Council central staff controls for this item begin on page 77 of your packet. The proposed motion, as the chair indicated, and we call on Governor Inslee, federal legislators and the Trump administration to impose an immediate moratorium on rent and mortgage payments. For a bit of background, on March 18th, Governor Inslee issued emergency proclamation 2019, which prohibits evictions based on a tenant's nonpayment of rent through at least April 17. On April 16th, under increased terms that were hearing through the 4th of June and added some additional tenant protections. However, rent payments during this time are still due to the landlord and who lawful detainer actions may be initiated after the emergency proclamation expires. If rent payments are not up to date. Similarly, mortgage payments continue to be due on the regular schedule. When additional tenant protection and. Gov. Any please. Extension of the emergency proclamation is the prohibition that landlords hate unpaid rent and charges as an enforceable debt. Unless the landlord demonstrates to a court that the resident was offered and refused or failed to comply with a reasonable repayment plan. To date, the federal government has not imposed a rent relief program, though Freddie Mac has issued mortgage forbearance guidance for single family homeowners, and that guidance remains subject to individual being decide if and how to implement. On March 30th, the City Council passed a resolution calling on Governor Inslee to impose a similar moratorium, as is proposed here . Calling on Inslee, the federal legislators and the Trump administration. And that brings me to the end of my staff report and happy to answer any questions. And there are amendment. On policy questions for Ms.. Sanders. Hearing none. Ms. Sanders and me and customers council members. Hello. Would you prefer to speak to it now? I'm ask April to speak to the striking amendment. What would be your preference amendment? First, please, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right. Case, speak to respect an amendment that was emailed out earlier today as well. So striking amendment act one would add an additional whereas statement to reflect Governor Inslee's extension of the moratorium on evictions that I spoke to earlier. It would also add that the moratorium on rent and mortgage payments would be for low income individuals, specifically who have lost their employment or a significant portion of their income stream due to government closures and orders related to COVID 19. And it would also add language asking Congress and the Trump administration to direct the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish and fund a rental property relief fund for residential landlords. And that is it for the striking amendment. Questions on the Second Amendment. All right, members, what you have to. I'll give a little bit of context first. So March 15 was one of the hardest days of my professional life. That was the day the governor announced expanded limitations on large gatherings and closures of certain small businesses to slow the spread of COVID 19. Immediately after this order came down, my email inbox and social media channels were flooded with the messages of terrified King County residents. We heard from some of them in public comment today, and I actually get choked up just talking about it. I heard from restaurant owners saying the restaurants they had operated for generations were in jeopardy. Beauty salon owner is wondering how they could continue paying their commercial rent. Uber drivers facing imminent financial demise. In the ensuing weeks, their fears became reality. Hundreds of thousands of people were laid off across our state. People were now telling me that the loss of income had upended everything they had ever worked. Work. Renters were on the verge of eviction and homelessness. Small landlords, whose tenants had been laid off, lost the income stream they relied on to make their mortgage payments. Small business owners who had lost months of revenue were closing shop forever. I want to emphasize that none of the messages I've received across the past several weeks have been critical of the shut downs or stay at home orders themselves. Despite the sudden uncertainty in their own lives, people have been fully supportive of the actions taken by our governor. They know he and our public health officials have been some of the most effective leaders around the nation. I share that faith. From a public health standpoint, it's clear that our state and local government have been second to none. We should all be grateful for the thousands of lives their decisions have saved. It's also clear that our solutions to the widespread economic hardship resulting from these affected public health decisions have been insufficient. The eviction moratorium, small business loans and federal stimulus checks do not go nearly far enough to keep Americans from financial ruin. Furthermore, as eviction moratoriums are eventually lifted, thousands of Washingtonians with middle income and no savings will lose their homes and small businesses. Deepening our preexisting homelessness crisis and widening our extreme wealth inequality. Every issue we have ever faced in King County will intensify if more people become unhoused and small businesses go under. With that being said, one of the most powerful steps we can take to secure our collective well-being is to freeze residential rent, commercial rent and mortgage payments during the coronavirus emergency. King County Council does not have the authority to do this. We cannot halt mortgage payments during the months of this emergency. But we believe our state and federal governments really have the authority. That is why Councilmember Jeanie Caldwell and I have introduced today's non-binding resolution calling on our highest levels of government to enact resolutions to pause rent payments, pause mortgage payments and establish a relief fund for small landlords to cover losses from canceled payments. This act would ensure people stay housed during this public health crisis while saving thousands of small businesses. Small landlords who depend on rental income would benefit from actions to pause mortgage payments, delay property taxes, and enacting the private rental property relief fund. We know that some of our colleagues are opposed to this resolution and they have very valid concerns. There are no easy solutions here when we're trying to prevent total economic collapse, collapse. But we hear those concerns. And Council member Cal Wells will speak to the some of the language in this resolution that may ease these fears. Councilmember Caldwell. Councilmember. Oh, sorry, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman, you recognize the council member? I'm sorry about that, Colonel. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one end of people have questions of council members right before I speak. Oh. No. Okay. So I'm very pleased to be co-sponsoring this legislation with council members. Hello. And I think we all know that it is of no help to individuals, that they are not able to stay in their homes because of not being able to afford their rental payments. The last thing they need and the last thing we as a country needs need is to have more people enter homelessness. We know that low income individuals pay a much higher proportion of amount of their income to rent. I've always heard that one should not pay more than 20% or maybe even 30% at best for their housing costs. Yet we know that a large number, very large number of low income individuals and families pay 50% of their income to rent if they don't have income. How are they able to pay the rent if they also have no savings? And I remember vividly that during the Great Recession and the very large amount of foreclosures that took place for homeowners because they were unable to keep up with their mortgage payments. I think we all remember that. So what we're doing here is to, first of all, in our striking amendment, acknowledge the concerns we've heard from our constituents, from others, from some of our council colleagues here, that people who earn high salaries should not be able to access this provision. And we don't believe that our concern workers who are the high paying ones or any workers who make a lot of salary should be eligible. We are referring to low income individuals and families who are really unable to pay for their rent. We're also talking about landlords who are maybe the small mom and pop type of landlords, the seniors who count on the rental income in the duplex they own and the small apartment building that they own for revenue that they depend upon. We've added language qualifying the scope to people who lost their jobs or lost significant income through no fault of their own if they've been laid off, for example, from a restaurant, from a non essential business, and they have not the means to be able to pay for their rent. We know that unemployment insurance will be covering a lot of the people, but in many cases that amount will be inadequate. As small landlords, again, who depend on rental income would benefit from the actions that the US Congress and the President could take, as well as the Governor of our state being able to order. So we're talking about pausing mortgage payments, delaying property taxes and being able to access a rental property relief fund, as proposed by the federal legislation co-sponsored by Congressman Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and others that would provide qualifying landlords the resources to cover lost payments. Let's face it, if any landlord has a tenant who is unable to make the rent, then their landlord is not benefiting at all. So this is something that we encourage and we thank you for your consideration. Thank you, colleagues, for the questions of the co-sponsors. I don't think. Councilmember McDermott. Oh, Councilmember Dunn. Thank you. I got cut off a little bit when April was discussing those amendments. Sounds like it was limited down to low income and also those who lost their jobs. That is correct. Are there any other amendments there? So it also adaware as statement to reflect the moratorium extension and add language asking Congress and the Trump administration to direct HUD to establish and fund the rental property relief fund for residential landlords. Okay. All right. So has there been any analysis on whether there's a Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution takings class or the comparable state constitution clause has been analyzed? And if so, is there a fiscal note on it terms of one? Because the government. Because this is a motion, it didn't go through legal analysis and we'd be calling on a different jurisdiction to make these make this decision. So the underlying constitutional problem here hasn't really been addressed. We're just pushing it up to the state government and the federal government to determine whether there is, in fact, a constitutional challenge. Yes, that is correct. Okay. That was my question. Thank you. Dombrowski related question for member Dombrowski And the answer may be the same, but I wondered about with respect to the state constitution for a rent and a farmer or a contract or a lease, some contract or mortgages or contracts. You know, we have in our state constitution a contract impairment clause. And I wonder if that if any consideration has been to whether that would be a trigger or prevent the relief that is requested in this motion, which is to cancel the obligations. Same answer to that one councilmember. No legal analysis has been was done in the drafting of this. However, I'm more than happy to follow up on on both questions with our legal team. Cole Wells. Councilmember Calvo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a reminder, this is a non-binding resolution. It is a request to the governor and a request to Congress from the United States president. We're not taking any action ourselves to freeze or, as we said, pause rental payments and mortgage payments. Thank you. WG Councilmember Balaji. Thank you, Mr. Chair, on the same topic. So what we're being asked to do today is to vote on a non-binding motion that calls upon a different government to do something. I would like to know, before I take that vote, whether what we're asking them to do is possible for them to do, because if it's not possible for them to do because it's against the state and federal constitutions, I think all we're doing potentially is giving people some false hope or making ourselves look good at the expense of other levels of government. And that that troubles me a little bit. So I'd love to know if we have any attorneys around who could give us their read on this before we have to take a vote on it. That would be helpful to me. I see Mr. Cohen. I see Mr. Cohen in the room mood cut in the call. I don't know. Can you hear me? Mr. Chair. Please. This is morning. COHEN So temporary suspension of rent or mortgage payment may might be constitutional. However, there are issues addressed by the council members. There could be issues with the US Constitution's contract clause which prevents the state from breaking private contracts. There could be interference with those contracts or else also with the takings clause, which would prevent the state from depriving a property owner from all economically beneficial or productive use of their land. And then there's also the issue of whether or not who would pay for it in the end. So we haven't looked into it in complete depth. These are some of the legal issues and consequences that could occur. However, as also mentioned, this is a motion which is non-binding and does not have the legal effect. May I follow up, Mr. Chair, please? Yes. So, just to be clear, the question is framed as if, you know, and so this is why this is not an executive session, because we're speculating on the legal advice that one would give to a different government, not us. But what? What would your assessment be of this proposal if it were adopted by the state or the feds? You've identified some questions, but is the analysis that it would more likely than not be unconstitutional? Very almost certainly unconstitutional. Probably not unconstitutional. I mean, where do you land on? It's important to my vote, honestly, to know whether we're just making a statement or whether we are advocating for something that could really happen. If it's a full suspension of rent and not a suspension, but a complete just saying that people do not have to ever pay for their rent or mortgage, that would likely be unconstitutional. Allowing people or allowing the government to suspend rent with the intention that it will be paid in the end. May not have the same constitutional challenges. That is helpful. Thank you. Caldwell Council Member for Wales. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, council members who are in close and I have discussed this, but the thing that really is important to emphasize here is we're talking about pausing, not an outright forgiveness. We're talking about people having the opportunity. If Congress were to enact the legislation that was identified, that would provide grants. Now almost all of what is coming out of Congress is in the form of either grants or loans to help out people to get by. I think it's especially important to emphasize that we're talking about people who do not have the means to pay their rent. And what are they supposed to do? So we're proposing, again, a request to Congress, a request to the president, a request to the governor to pause rental payments, pause mortgage payments, establish a relief fund. And I believe that at this level, this is something that is really needed. It is really necessary. People are frantic, especially those individuals who have been laid off because of the COVID crisis that we are experiencing and who, through no fault of their own, are not able to work. And have the means to pay for their rent or pay for their mortgage. It's a very scary, even terrifying situation that people are in. And to make this request to our governor and to Congress and the president is something that I think is very reasonable to do. We're not asking the council to do any of this ourselves. It's simply a matter of a request and something that is very, very, very urgent to so many of our constituents. Again, Apollo. Thank members. Hello. Thank you all. And I'll speak. This will be the final time I speak. So I'll address some of the things I've heard, which, again, as I mentioned before, these are valid concerns we're hearing from our colleagues and I thank them for their input. So in just in case to hammer at home to the public was hearing because I think some people may not have gotten it before of the public this is a non-binding resolution that means this proposal would have no legal effect even if our council passes it today. Our goal with a resolution that has no legal effect is to uplift and amplify the voices of our constituents who are struggling the most in an economy that has grinding to a halt. Also, this non-binding resolution allows King County the opportunity to join a larger national movement, a movement of local governments around the country who have been asking their respective states and the federal government to provide the greatest form of economic relief possible, which is to keep people housed and to keep small businesses alive. Council members have called for this in Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, St Paul, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, as well as unanimously by our largest city of Seattle. We have also seen complementary proposals at the federal level, co-sponsored by Congresswoman Jayapal, which shows that there is an appetite for this at higher levels of government. The last thing I want to address in the concerns, the valid concerns from people around the economic impact of these actions and the constitutionality. My response to these valid concerns is the following. Number one, we heard some of the mitigating strategies that Councilmember Caldwell's with said, and we hope he addressed some of your concerns. And number two, government actions like the shut downs and stay at home orders have also had major economic health consequences. And by the way, they have also deprived people of the economic value of their property and their labor, which are the main constitutional concerns that we're talking about. Our government actions, our shutdowns are limitations on gathering. These have deprived countless small businesses of their income and led to major layoffs. But we universally support these actions because of the cost of these shutdowns. The cost of lost revenues, the cost of lost income pales in comparison to the cost of inaction. That's what we're saying here with this resolution. We're making a similar argument. We're asking for bold government action because the cost of inaction is monumental. And we hope our state and federal government will take the bold action is required to help people stay housed and to keep small businesses alive. Thank you. On on bar. So to move on. Right. Thank you, Mr. Sharon. And I want to thank both of the co-sponsors for the intention of what they want to accomplish. We say it's a non-binding. No solution. But in fact, if I vote for it, I bring my name to a resolution that we have not vetted. I can't put a I guess the expression. I heard Jay talk about putting a pause. I can't put a pause in the due process that I usually do to find out if something I vote for is legal. So I'm going to vote against it until it's been vetted by a legal counsel because I bind my name to the intention here not knowing. Not getting confirmation from a legal counsel, and I can't put a pause in my conscience to vote for something that feels good but doesn't do good. Never. Remember. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I appreciate the evaluation that council members Ocala did, because that's exactly what we're hearing in my district, too. And I think probably everybody in the entire county is hearing very similar things from their constituents. My interest here is to know what is different that is in this ordinance, because originally in one of the statements that we read, it talked about the forbearance. As I'm looking through that, the title doesn't say anything about forbearance. The conversation hasn't said anything about that. So there's some uncertainty here as to not being all in sync. So are we saying that this would have forbearance or not forbearance? Will they be responsible for their debts after the pandemic is over or not? That's a legal question going. If they are asking for it to be paused. And there's an expectation, according to Councilmember Corrales, that there would be programs in place for it to be paid. Then that would be not a it would be a moratorium, but the fund would still be would be paid in the end. So there's. Potential that the temporary suspension may be constitutional. However, if it was to. For Bear and not have any responsible for payments, then that would likely bring a further constitutional problem, an issue. I'm done. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do want to commend Councilman Rizal and D.A. Wells for the intense spirit of what they're bringing forth today. Clearly, a lot of compassion and a lot of thought going into the fact that people are hurting out there right now and that the quick disappearance of jobs and the expensive nature of the rent in our area are leaving people with a lot without a lot of answers. I want to I'm going to oppose this motion, but I want to suggest that there are ways, legal ways, constitutional ways that we can help a subset of the folks out, that this motion is attempting to help lower income people who have lost their jobs, that also, after in good faith, negotiating with their landlords, are unable to come to a resolution and also have debt piling up in ways that are are deeply troubling that could force bankruptcy. I think there are ways, including creating a subsidy with some of that federal money or partnership with the state to provide some rent rental assistance. Expanding Section eight vouchers is another way a landlord incentive program is yet a third way. I think those are all constitutional ways we can get to a very similar outcome. But the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that private property should not be taken for public use without providing compensation that the US Supreme Court extended that also to include personal property. The state quashed the state constitution over 100 pages and I read it once when I was getting ready to run for attorney general is much more prescriptive and challenging, and the issue with the constitutional challenges are that it's government action. And if government takes the action and then it turns out later on that it is unconstitutional action, whether it's the county, the state or the feds, it is government that is on the hook to pay the damages. And so that is the concern that I have here. I would point out to legal counsel that this motion says very specifically that no debt shall be accrued during the time of the enactment of this or of this legislation, whether it be at the state of the federal level. So right there, you're saying they don't have to they would get rent free and they also would not have to pay any of it back. They're either taking real property from folks or you're taking personal property in the form of cash payments. You're also potentially tortuously interfering with contractual rights. Those are big ticket items that cause me concern legally. I think there are other ways to get to an answer here, and as a result of all those factors, I'm going to be voting no. Thank you. For further discussion before I ask the sponsor to place the motion before us. Oh, well. Can someone recall? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to give one reminder that this is a motion. It is perfectly legal and within our charter to be able to make motions to the federal government and to the state government, to the president, Congress and our governor. And that's what this is about. We have listed we have included concepts that we would like to have dealt with. They in no way would anticipate that the governor or the president or Congress would follow our recommendation to the letter that they would work within the constraints of our state and federal constitution. But we think this is very important to be able to communicate, as is happening in many jurisdictions around the country and apparently a growing number of jurisdictions. That is one way that we can communicate to federal and state leaders about our values and our priorities and what we believe needs to be done in this tremendous national, state and county local emergency. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Council members. Hello. Would you like to make a motion? Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of my colleagues for hearing this and voicing really valid concerns and for also allowing public testimony and hearing directly from people who are struggling during this crisis. I move to take a vote on the proposed motion. Council members all those moved. We give it a do pass recommendation the motion 2020 166 other amendments. Mr. Chair sounds. A member of the world. So I move the striking amendment. Council member Cole Wells has moved adoption of striking amendment S1 and discussion. And said that it is motion 0165. I think you said 0166. So the notes I'm working for, say six six, I'll go with six five and S1 is before us discussion on this one up the Grove Councilmember of the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Kerry, for clarifying. I apologize. I don't have the document in front of me. And the conversation got confusing in the striking amendment. Does it. Continue to. Say that we support the federal government not requiring folks to ever pay the rent? The thing that our attorney said was likely unconstitutional. Is that still what we're asking for in the. In the striking amendments. So don't move the language around. That does not change, but it is fairly vague. It says that such that no Washington resident should be required to pay rent during this health emergency or accumulate debt for that unpaid rent. So it is left somewhat ambiguous. But I believe Councilmember Caldwell's articulated the intent that it would be sort of deferred until later on. Paul Wells in council member call Wells You're right, I actually have been notes all over my desk and was reading the wrong number. Rest assured that all records are the same as most in 2020 165, and please proceed. Thank you. I do that to say understand. Yes. And I think that well, as we were developing a striking amendment and as we went back and forth on a lot of the language, this is the committee of the whole. If this legislation were to get a majority report out, we could certainly have another striking amendment at the full council meeting next Tuesday that would achieve the language that would be able to be perfected to meet the concerns that both council me. All those in favor of Amendment One, please signify by saying I, my people, those opposed me. Yeah, I. I'm going to ask the clerk to please take an oral vote. According to Jim Council member Lucy High. As a member, Bishop was a councilmember in Boston. No. But then basketball? No. As a member? Dunn No. As a member, Dunn was not council member. Cowell High Council member. Cowell was a councilmember. A number. Council member, Lambert was not council member of the role. I don't I'm. Not. A voting council member from Darwin. No. Councilmember Bongiovi was not councilmember for. Hello. Hi. Councilmember Farhat. I was a researcher by. Thank you. The Second Amendment has one Kerrys. It goes by one of five, eight and four, not count. Councilmember Zollo, for a total amendment. But what is it that I'm member? Council members are. Hello. Would you be kind enough to just move adoption of a total amendment to one? So sorry about that. I was on mute. I move for the title amendment. Thank you. Title amendment to what is before us. See no discussion of those in favor. Please signify by saying I. I oppose me. The title amendment is adopted. This is Motion 2020 165 as amended and final passage. Comments. How did she? Councilmember Balducci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a really this is a hard one for me. This is the hardest non-binding statement of intent I think I have had to vote on. It's. On the one hand, I agree with absolutely everything that has been said by the sponsor and the co-sponsor about the urgency and just the the fear , the the very real challenges that our communities are facing, as so many people in our communities are facing. I am very empathetic with the public comment that says, you know, we should stand up for renters and we need to stand up for keeping roofs over people's heads. And we should we absolutely should. We should help people to keep a roof over their heads. We should do everything we can in the middle of a once in over 100 years crisis to keep people who live in our jurisdiction from spiraling downwards and all the outcomes that will that will land the most heavily on the people who can least afford to bear them. I feel all of that and I want to say yes to that. I want to say yes. I want to side with the people who need me to side with them. But the concerns I have had since the beginning with this proposal remain, and that is I don't know that it ever does anything other than act as a statement of encouragement or support. I think that I have been very concerned that we could actually do harm with this proposal because people will hear it and read about it and get and just hear here wind of it somehow and assume that because we took this vote, they can start paying their rent and they can actually make decisions that will harm them in the long run. Because this isn't rent relief. We're not voting on rent relief. The state has got nothing teed up to vote on rent relief any time soon. The feds have got a proposal, but I. I am not hearing that it is actually constitutional, not in the way that we're asking here in this motion. And so I really don't want to harm people. I wish we were voting on a proposal to pay rent subsidies for people or to help them out in some way, that that would make it more likely they would be able to keep their roof for real as hard as it is. I just am concerned about the fact that this is a it's a statement. It's a statement that can't actually result in any good and could actually result in harm. And I want to really thank council members. I particularly have been so generous with understanding the concerns of, you know, myself and others who have concerns with this proposal while also being extraordinarily right and passionate about the need to support the people in our community. And so I just appreciate that attitude that you bring to this proposal very much. And I actually want to support Councilmember Sala and I. But but I am just very concerned that by voting yes to something that can not make a difference or or it is very unlikely to be able to make a difference. We are sending the wrong message. I mean, we heard from the people who testified that Seattle restaurants are having trouble paying their rent and they're walking away from their rent could permanently damage their ability to do business, that people could lose their homes because they have mortgaged their homes to pay for their businesses and they could lose those mortgages that people are unable to pay their rent. And we need a county, city and statewide approach. We need to put the needs of people in poverty first. And I heard quite frighteningly somebody say, implement this. What we do today will do nothing for any of that. It will not help those people. And I don't know that it will actually force another level of government or encourage them to be able to help those people. I think we should get to work doing something that will really make a difference. And so I am just it breaks my heart, but I am reluctantly going to vote no at committee. If it passes out of committee and comes to full council, I will gladly work with my colleagues to try to do something that I think makes it more meaningful. But I'm a very painful, reluctant no, because I just think it doesn't work for folks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And by asking Councilmember Dombrowski, he was chair in listening to the dialog today, I believe that there is a consensus around expressing some support for those who are struggling to make mortgage payments and. And the intent behind that is maybe not entirely reflected in the language of this motion. Mr. Chair, we are operating with limited opportunities for interaction and dialog among members, and I would now like to make a privileged motion to lay this on the table or to continue it in our terms to a definite time. And a definite time would be the next meeting of the committee of the whole. The reason for the motion is to perhaps allow an opportunity for better language to come forward that could garner consensus and support those who are struggling financially. Councilmember Dombrowski has moved to table two, a date certain to be in the town meeting two weeks from today. Ms.. Cohen, can you confirm that the motion is debatable? It was. I think it's debatable. It's not debatable. Then I will ask the court to call the wrong Mr. Chair. Council Member COLWELL. I have a. 20 point to point of information. Yes, the point of enforcement. I was there too. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was actually going to provide a comment on what Councilmember Bell do, Chin said, and then Councilmember Dombroski made his motion here. So am I correct that I am unable to comment any further on the motion that was already before us? That's correct. We have a motion before us. I would, out of courtesy to my colleague, hold if possible, hold that motion in abeyance and take it up pending completion of her comment in response to our well duty. Councilmember Dombroski, I heard you withdraw your your motion more. Suspend it. Make it a contingent motion. Mr. Chair, I heard you. I heard you withdraw your motion that you may offer again in a moment. Councilmember Colwell So that was. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There may be others who wish to speak, too. I appreciate the remarks of Councilmember Balducci, although I think it's really it's not a zero sum game. There are obviously other things that we can do, because this is an enormous issue for so many of our constituents, so many residents and business owners and property owners and our council in our county. But we do have a situation in which there is some urgency. But this is a symbolic motion. It is not going to change anything here, and it would be up to us in how we communicate the passage of this legislation if indeed the parts are were to pass. And I don't believe that are going forward with this today with would signify that people are going to misconstrue what we're doing and have their hopes up and think that they aren't going to be paying rent. But apart from the motion that will be made momentarily by Council member Ken Barsky, we don't have the opportunity to go forward with this, to improve it, to protect it. If we do not have five votes. So apart from Councilmember Dunbar's motion, I just encourage people to think about that, that we can always percept if we keep this alive. And I think the goal, the objectives are very worthy of being able to have this continue, even for a symbolic measure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. This is Councilmember McDermott speaking for myself with the motion before us at the moment. And I would say I would point out that this motion there greatly improved by the striker continues to be flawed. And I do want to emphasize how much improvement I think the striking amendment that we've adopted today does bring. However, it still, as we've discussed, does not suspend rents and mortgages. We don't have the actual authority imposed on federal and state officials to do so. And we've heard some discussion of the legal and constitutional concerns, but I would vote in favor of this motion today because of the larger system's fatal flaws that are that far outweigh the flaws in this motion itself. There is no social safety net in our county and our state and our country that measures up to the need in the current pandemic that we're responding to. We heard today in public testimony I've seen in my email and I've seen in conversations with constituents, people have a real concern and we've seen that recently in the unemployment figures. The most recent unemployment figures I can find are that 22 million people nationally have filed unemployment claims. That's a level not seen since the Great Depression. And in Washington state alone, 585,983. Let me say that again. 585,983 people have applied for unemployment in the state of Washington. That's twice the number of the peak of the Great Recession. And when additional federal benefits for self-employed people went live on Saturday, the state system crashed. So that number isn't reflective of any increase since then. The county numbers. We don't have to come up monthly. They'll be out in about ten more days. But we know that the rental assistance program that's been sponsored by United Way of King County has been suspended because the applications have outweighed the funds raised to date. And at the same time, I've heard direct pleas from the Interfaith Council on on trying to respond to homelessness, who had gathered money in April to it to assist with rent and are now concerned about their lack of IT ability to raise even a matching amount for yet another month of rent. The need is real that we've heard the while this motion might have its flaws. The system, the overall system it's we're trying to respond to is fatally flawed. And that's why I'm supporting the motion today. Mr. Chair. Caldwell Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe this would be appropriate to do. I'd like to move that. The striking amendment as amended, the motion as amended to go to full council without recommendation. That would give us the opportunity to process the language without having to delay until we have another committee of the whole meeting in two weeks. Council member Col Wells has asked that we amend the motion to without recommendation. I be willing to accept that as a friendly amendment of the makeup of the original motion would accept it. Mr. Chair. I accept it. Then barring objection, I'm going to accept that as a friendly amendment and have the motion as amended before us to go to full council without recommendation. Further discussion or perhaps emotion. So we have a motion on the table, Mr. Chair, and it was just amended with a striker title amendment and then a friendly amendment. So at some point you to vote on the underlying right. We have we have a motion now. We have the original motion that was introduced. We've adopted a striking amendment and a total amendment. And by friendly amendment, we have just changed the recommendation. So it would be without recommendation to full council. And I am pausing to see if there is a motion that was withdrawn earlier. I don't want to for to. The maker of that motion from having the opportunity to do so again after allowing conversation to continue. Mr. Chair, I'm just ready to cast my vote. Thank you. And so I would ask council members. Otherwise, anything too close. Oh, that's all for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much to everybody for your comments. Madam, first I'd ask you to please call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By voting no. Yeah. Doesn't I wish it was not Councilmember DEMBOSKY. No councilmember than basketball? No. Councilmember Dunn. No. Councilmember Dunn But not Councilmember Colwell. Right. Councilmember Colwell Both. Councilmember Lambert. Yeah, yeah. As a member of both. No. Councilmember Article. II. Councilmember Abigail. Okay. And of Bandido. No. Council member Van de Boer was not. Council member Sally. I can't remember. Starlight. Both I. It's a chair. I. Executive Orders for ICE finals in most years. The motion is not adopted. That Texas item on today's agenda. This is the second piece of legislation that would request the executive create a blue ribbon panel of experts to address issues related to the economic recovery. We have Cliff Cory from Council Central South to provide a brief high level overview.