AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; adding a new Chapter 5.37 and a new Chapter 5.38 to Title 5 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 5.30.010, 5.30.060, 5.55.010, 5.55.040, 5.55.060, 5.55.150, 5.55.165, 5.55.220, and 5.55.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code.
Report of the Finance. And Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item 20 Council 119 250 Relating to taxation. Adding a new Chapter 5.37 and a new Chapter 5.38. Of Title five. The setting is more code and in many sections five point 30.1. 10.0. 65.50 5.0. 10.0. 40.0. 60.1. 50.1. 65.2 29.2 30th. Economists Code Committee recommends the bill passes amended. Okay, so procedurally, I'm sure everyone may want to say something. So it's just out of your chair. Councilmember Bagshaw So I'll let you sort of introduce the matter and then I know we have amendments in discussion, so I'll turn it to you first. I suppose we have a series of amendments and we'll take them. We'll take Amendment what's known as Amendment 24, I believe. First, if President. Harold, thank you. As Chair of Finance and Neighborhoods Committee, I am very pleased to turn this back over to full council today for a vote. And I want to acknowledge all the work that's gone on. Councilmember Gonzales Councilmember Herbold, for leading that charge, Councilmember Mosquito this weekend for stepping forward. I think we've got an amendment that I look forward to hearing all of you speak about and we'll see where the vote goes. Okay. So we have a some based legislation that had come out of committee Friday. I'm going to make the First Amendment. We have several amendments to vote on and discuss. I'm making what will be known as amendment number. Amendment number one. That's right. Limit number 24. 2024. Okay. What happened first 23. Okay. I'm making amendment number 24, which basically I think all of you know, it does remove the provisions of a payroll tax it. As a sunset date of employer tax of January one, 24. It reduces the employer hours tax from 500 FTE to 275 FTE, and it established an expectation that the City Council will conduct an assessment of the employee hours tax by 2023 or before the sunset tax to both understand its effectiveness, its effects on homelessness and affordability, its effect on jobs in our business, our policies toward the solvency of business acceptable business climate does a complete evaluation and assessment of this new tax revenue, and it's estimated this tax at 25 would generate approximately $48 million a year. We recognize the base legislation set as a target for our first year, right around 75 million. So we have commitments at least during the budget cycle and from other sources to still achieve that, that kind of spending rate spending plan, if you will, but at a lower a head count rate at two setting five. So this amendment that I'll describe is amendment number 24. And I think all of you are aware of it and you have copies of it. It's been on line. I move to the base legislation by moving amendment number 24. Is there a second? Second. Okay, discussion, please. And then I will call for a vote on this amendment and I will just go and order when I see the hands and I could wait. Customers What should go first? Note Council member Herbold, would you like to give it a shot? Sure. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. So Amendment 24 is the result of a lot of talking and listening over the weekend and a strong feeling that by Sunday evening that this was really the strongest proposal that we were going to be able to bring forward with the necessary votes to sustain a potential veto. I've been really struggling with how I feel about this compromise because I've been really, really focused on the spending plan and what the what the dire needs are in this community, the dire needs and the human suffering that we are all faced with and so many of our residents have to live with day by day. When I step back and I look at this issue, the issue as it relates specifically to income inequality in this city and not just in the city, but all over the nation. I do feel that whereas the revenue that we will generate is not enough to fully address the problem and we have to count on the resources that King County it's one table process will be will be making as recommendations for additional revenue as revenue from the state. We really have to stay focused on on those needs. But when I step back and I look at the issues related to income inequality and the regressive nature of our taxation structure, and the fact that I and other other council members, folks out in the audience have been working since 2009 to restore an employee hours tax as as one way to address the fact that we have the most progressive taxation structure in the nation. When I look at that long arc of this campaign, that would not have been possible without the work that you all have done. And I look at how far we've come, not only as it relates to the size of this per employee hours tax, but in the increase progressivity that this tax has as compared to other employee hours taxes as the employee our tax has been considered over the last few years. It has evolved further and further more towards progressivity. In previous versions proposed between 2014 and 2016, there are no exemptions for small businesses or medium businesses in the last year's budget process. The exemption was for small businesses. Less than 5 million in gross revenues. This. Legislation raises the exemption to 20 million and why that is so important. Again, it's because we are truly the most regressive taxation structure in the nation, and Seattle itself is the most regressive taxation structure within the state of Washington. You know, Dick Conway, who's a local economist that the city of Seattle has relied on for our financial forecasting, has said that high tech jobs create two or three other jobs in the account economy through a multiplier process. That means the workers and their families in these lower income jobs and the higher income and jobs together place demands on the public sector for schools, roads and safety. He goes on to say, if the added costs of these public schools and services were to fall disproportionately on low and middle income households as they do under Washington's sales based tax system, those households would, in effect, be subsidizing the high tech companies and their employees. And that's why this is so important. That is why cities all over the country, high cost cities that are faced with the same struggles that we're faced with, are looking toward Seattle and how we are dealing with the regressive city that is created when a city is experiencing an influx of high income jobs, with increased costs of city services and not a lot of ways to pay for them. Thank you, Catherine. Thank you for your opinions. And we respect them, certainly. So I'm sure other ones are sure to wait for the right time to chime in so my patient, I could wait. I know I'm going to see some hands here sooner or later. So. And Councilmember Chance and. Just briefly. I think I want to say thank you to Councilmember Herbal. I don't think it was listening over the weekend. I think folks have been listening to each other for several weeks now, and I know it's taken a long time to get to this point, but I think the plan has. The bill today has eight sponsors for a reason. It has its sponsors because we spent a lot of time talking to each other and working with each other and listening to each other. And, you know, there are things in here that if I were to do this differently on my own, I would I know that that's the case for you, too, Councilmember Herbold, but I think that that represents a reasonable compromise that can allow us to make real progress toward solutions to get people off the streets and into permanent supportive housing. So I'm proud of the work that we've done here today, and I look forward to voting yes. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. I'm going to be supporting this amendment. But I want to be clear that. I think the bill before us unamended is the best path forward at $500 to raise $75 million a year. And and despite. My past is the better half right now. Despite a lot of conversations over the past week, including a lot this weekend, we could not find a path to get the number of votes we needed to put this in place. And so I am acknowledging that I am going to vote for this because I'm settling for this level of service. I think. I do think that with the nearly $50 million a year that this will raise, there's a lot of good things that we can do for people that are suffering out there, and we look forward to implementing that. But we also know, especially in light of reports that come out this this in the past week and what we've seen for four, frankly, four years, that there's a lot more work that needs to happen. I'm I as someone who introduced legislation during the budget last year that would have raised $25 million, I'm I'm excited that we're well above that level. But I also acknowledge disappointment that we're not where I think we need to be right now. But it's the best I think we can do at the moment. Thank you, Councilmember Brian Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you, council president. I will also be supporting this particular amendment. And like Councilmember O'Brien and a probably some of my other co-sponsors on this legislation, we had hoped and I had hoped that we'd be voting on it and a different package that more accurately represented what I believed to be the needed investments in this city. So while I'm excited that we're about to take this vote and it will be in the affirmative to reestablish a head tax that was repealed in 2009, I am nonetheless also struggling with with what we're about, with the package that we're faced with. And so, you know, for me, even in the face of all of the reports and studies that support a $75 million sales specific contribution, it's regrettable that we were unable to find a path among our colleagues and with the mayor that they'd be willing to support a higher taxation rate than 275. So we are left with limited, viable choices to garner the votes that we would need to send a bill to the mayor's desk that would not immediately be vetoed. And as a policymaker, we, you know, make tough decisions every day and tough choices within the political realities of what this government is and is not. And this is one of those difficult choices. So while I'm pleased that this measure is moving forward today, I'm I'm also disappointed that we could not find support for more. Nonetheless, the nearly $50 million that we will additional dollars a year that we will have as a result of passing this measure is a significant new revenue stream , and it will help us increase our production of affordable housing units for those currently experiencing homelessness in our city. And I believe that the spending plan that we'll talk about later, in addition with the implementation of this ordinance, will will challenge the city's current status quo approach to addressing homelessness by focusing these dollars on additional production of units available to those people who are actually experiencing homelessness. And this is an approach that is necessary, according to Bart Poppy and the recent King County Auditor's report. We have to massively scale up the number of deeply subsidized, affordable housing units that are available to those people who are currently surviving and suffering on the streets in the city of Seattle. We hear a lot about a regional approach, and we hear a lot about a regional approach as though Seattle would never be a part of that regional approach, and that somehow we're out of our lane by taking this bold action today, or that somehow by recognizing what our commitment and what our obligation is here , that we somehow are are bucking up against a sense that we also need other folks in our government system to join us. And that's just simply not true. The city of Seattle has an obligation to take care of those people who are surviving and suffering on our city streets, whether they've been here for a day or whether they've been here for 20 years. And this investment is our city's, I believe, our city's proportional obligation to support the type of housing and services needed to help women, children, men of all races and abilities who are currently suffering on our streets. So I'm I am glad to be able to finally move this forward. I'm looking forward to sleeping a lot the next three days after this. At least at least I am going to get my rest because I know that the implementation plan is going to be absolutely critical. And I want to make sure that folks who are in the audience understand how important it is for us to be able to hit the reset here and be able to advance this conversation in a way. Through the budget process that will allow us to continue to make sure that the priorities that we are expressing through the creation of this new tax and through the passage of our spending plan, accurately reflects the priorities that we have to make sure that we're not just putting people into shelters, but that we are connecting people to four walls where they can be safe and healthy and can continue to remain in that space. So I'm going to take the next few days to to reflect some more on that and figure out how we can continue to work together as a council and as a community to making sure that the council priorities that we are going to adopt today are seen through to the very end and the very finish through our budget process and into next year. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Okay. Thank you. Okay. A little longer than the other ones. Because my skater comes from a skater. Would you like. To? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So today we're making a significant down payment and addressing the crisis of consciousness in Seattle. We have community members who are dying. They are dying on our streets today because there is not enough shelter. They are dying because there is not enough affordable housing to move people into from shelters right now. And as I said last week, people are dying on the doorsteps of prosperity. This is the richest city in the state and in the state that has the most regressive tax system in the country. We are trying to right size up our upside down tax system, and this is just one portion of that. We can no longer ask folks who are working family members to shoulder the cost of the housing that our community needs so critically. We've asked working families to pay more and more with property taxes and sales taxes. This is a progressive revenue option that allows for us to get money in the door immediately to build the housing that we need. But I want to underscore that this reflects only a portion of what we need to meet the approximate $75 million needed. And we cannot wait. We must continue to push forward for progressive revenue options. This is just the beginning of the fight. What we have in front of us is an opportunity to build the housing that our community needs. Folks drive through our streets every day and they see folks living outside. There's also so many folks who we don't see who are sleeping on people's couches, who are sleeping in the woods, who need housing now. We want to make sure that we're building the shelter and the housing to actually accurately respond to this crisis as the true public health crisis that it is. So, yes, it's a public health crisis. It's also a crisis of consciousness if we don't act. I so appreciate everyone who has helped to bring ideas forward. I want to thank the labor, community, housing and health advocates, the community at large. Thank you for continuing to ask us to do more than just the status quo, because the status quo is not working and we're not going to house people by building buildings that are only seven story units. We have to build massive amounts of housing on public land, keep it in public hands so that our public can be housed now. And as we build the housing that we need, as we build the city of the future, we must make sure that those who are building those buildings are getting good jobs, prevailing wage priority, hire community workforce agreements, and making sure that we have higher apprenticeship utilization standards and for calling for these things. I especially think the building construction trades for telling us that the status quo is not working and their members should be the ones who are actually building these units. So I will continue to push for those standards. I want to thank the workers who provide services day in and day out for the homeless community and those who are on the verge of becoming homeless because right now they are working for poverty wages. They are eligible for many of the housing units they are placing folks into. And if we don't also address the housing and health and workforce needs that our entire community needs, we will not be meeting our goal, which is to make sure that everyone who works in the city can afford to live here. So within this effort, we have built in community workforce agreements, priority higher standards, prevailing wage standards, apprenticeship utilization standards and workforce stabilization revenue to make sure that we are looking at this holistically. It's not just enough to build the housing. If those who are building it have to commute hours in and are not able to benefit from this down payment. So with this effort today, I want to underscore my deep appreciation for labor, for the community at large, for the faith community. And I see some of the members here in the audience with us. Thank you for reminding us that this is a moral decision that we're making. The budget is a reflection of our moral values and principles. And by our efforts today, we will be able to raise additional revenue, $50 million a year to help fill the gap slightly, but a significant downpayment in making sure that our budget more accurately reflects the values of this Council, which is that housing is a human right. Mr. Chair, if I might also I failed to mention I have a statement from folks who have been working directly with those who are homeless and unsheltered, on the verge of becoming unsheltered and an expression of their support for this package that I'd like to put into the public record and we'll also pass out to our colleagues. Please do. She read what you're reading and just passing. Oh. Would you like me to read it? I may. Thank you. Statement of Support for Meaningful Investments to Reduce Homelessness Crisis. We appreciate deeply the work that has been done by the sponsors of the legislation to create a large business tax, to make the scale investments that are necessary to meaningfully reduce homelessness in Seattle. We acknowledge the good face, the negotiations that we have been engaged in with Labor and human services and stakeholders to ensure a strong package of investments are needed. We support this because it includes the recommendation from the Progressive Revenue Task Force and specifically a strong concentration on new housing, including a mix of deeply subsidized and permanent supportive housing dedicated to those actually in homelessness, or below 30% of area median income because it includes rental supports and other strategies for immediate use of existing housing stock for permanent housing for the actually homeless population, because it includes emergency response strategies that are backed by data and were supported by the Progressive Revenue Task Force. And finally, interventions aimed at advancing public health by addressing conditions experienced by those living homeless. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So I'll say a few words. And then Councilor Swann want, you know, I know how to vote, Councilor. I know you're on the other side of this. I think you want to say a few words probably after me. So. So it seems to me that what this debate is about is the anger or fear of what this city is becoming. On the one hand, people are looking at the affordability of this city and looking at our homelessness and the death on the streets. And one would conclude that's what we're becoming and that's what this fight is all about. And then on the other hand, people are saying, well, now you're trying to drive out businesses and drive out good jobs and making policy or investment decisions that can kill our economy because we are a thriving city. That's what we're becoming. You know, phenomenal thing happen a couple of days, a phenomenal event. And I think some of you might have heard about it. That event was at Franklin High School. These women won a national debate, a mock trial, and they beat some of the best schools in the country. They beat a school, Exeter, out of New Hampshire, which is a private boarding school. They rose to that level of competition. These young women did. And it was unprecedented what they accomplished. And I tell you that story at Franklin High School, not just because of Sandy, too, but because I'm concerned about what jobs they will have to use these oratorical skills where our economy is heading into. When I look at this new investment stream, this new revenue tax stream, I think we have to convince the public that we're using it wisely and strategically. And I think we've failed in that regard as a city. And when I look at this, whether the number was 75 or as I proposed to 75 or even 500 or $1,000 for that matter, I think what's most important is the public has an assurance that we are investing wisely in the future and our present investment strategy, and I don't think we've accomplished that. We'll have some more comments on the spending plan. But I think, again, this proposal that we brought forward balances that balance, that balance between investing now for emergency services, but looking at our future. So for me, that's what this debate is about. I want to thank all of the advocates on both sides of this. I think for without it, we wouldn't have arrived at some kind of package that eight council members have sponsors. So thank you for that work. And having said that and having said that, I'll turn it over to council members. One, I ask you, I want to thank for with the exception of that outburst, actually, how severe this crowd has been. Thank you for that. Councilmember. Want to thank you, President Howell. I just wanted to clarify to everyone the process. This is this boat that is being taken now. And my comments are for replacing the existing legislation that got voted out of committee on Friday, which was the 75 million no sunset clause, the base legislation that will be if it gets majority order , which is going to be replaced by the $48 million big business tax. So this is not the vote on the final legislation yet. And I just want to clarify that, because as a representative of working people, I want to be able to fight until the last possible minute. Whatever we do win and what we don't win will be based on the strength of our movement. I really appreciate Councilmember Herbold acknowledging the role of the movement, but let's face it, the movement is the single most important factor, without which we would not even be having this discussion. And. And while council members talk about the sleepless nights they've had, I don't think it even begins to compare with the hard work and the dedication and the sleepless nights of so many hundreds of people in this movement. We and it wasn't just these last few weeks, if you remember, one of the more recent starts to this movement was when we occupied City Hall overnight in November. And at that time, the council majority voted against an even smaller tax. So here we are. And the message that we are sending is that working people, not just in Seattle, but in every other city, can have the courage to take on one of the most powerful corporations in the world and the richest man in the world. And you could build a movement that can win. However, let's have some sober thoughts right now. The need for at least 150 million in progressive business taxes was confirmed just last week by the study that many have mentioned, ironically, commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce, in which they determined that King County requires an immediate investment of over 400 million to build million dollars every year, to build 14,000 affordable units. And those for those who are concerned about data that is based on hard data, there is an unbelievable statistical correlation between rising rent and rising homelessness. So building permanently affordable housing is the proven solution to address the scale of the housing crisis. The guitar that I didn't. I suppose that. The old man of the movement, hundred and 50 million was cut in half by the first draft of the ordinance to 75 million that got voted out of committee. This amendment would carve out another third out of that 75 million. And we have to ask why? Whose interests are councilmembers Sally Bagshaw, Debra Juarez, Rob Johnson and Bruce Harrell defending when they fight to reduce the amount big business will be taxed. Well, that can be. Can they honestly argue that regular working people in Seattle do not desperately need the affordable housing a business tax would fund? Say? Mustafa, I'm going to warn you that that's disruptive and that's my warning, so I'm going to have you removed if that happens again. I understand. And from when I hear another one, they're. Going to say, you're going to get the. Same notice because I have to give you honors. I thank you very much for that one. Notice customers want, please. Thank you right now. But I also support anybody's right to speak. It's her right to disagree. I don't agree with that issue. Whether you support or not, the issue is we're going to comply with some decorum. Please proceed. Could the council members honestly argue that regular working people in Seattle do not desperately need affordable housing a business tax would fund? Or perhaps they would argue that the largest 3% of businesses already paid too much in taxes or that they could not afford it. Let's review the numbers. Last winter, Trump gave a massive tax cut to business, big business, cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Amazingly, this corporate tax handout was written in a way to allow it to apply retroactively to any taxes companies like Amazon avoided paying in the past. So Amazon, through the Trump Trump corporate tax cut, received a $789 million tax windfall on their all unpaid taxes. Imagine if you failed to pay a parking ticket and after a couple of years the government decided to say, Oh, don't worry about paying that. That never happens for working people. But it does happen for the richest companies in the world. For some reason, council members that claim to oppose Trump's policies of corporate tax cuts are eager to push those same policies. Here in Seattle, the reality is there is no way that this tax will be a burden on big businesses in Seattle. Jeff Bezos has made so much money this year from the ballooning value of his Amazon stock portfolio that on average he has become $275 million richer every day. That means that every day he personally makes enough money to pay for all of Amazon's share of this tax for the next 13 years every day. If this amendment passes, he will he will have made enough money to personally pay Amazon's share of this tax every 58 minutes, 24 hours a day, including when he's sleeping. How can he personally make enough money to pay a year's worth of this tax? In less than an hour of sleep. And yet, elected officials are still worried that he's being taxed too much. Where was the concern for homeowners paying levies, but was a concern for workers paying sales taxes? Regular people are actually struggling to pay taxes. Amazon and other big businesses are not. This backsliding amendment is being put forward not only because council members harrell Suarez back Sean Johnson voted against taxing big business, but also because Mayor Durkan threatened to veto doxing. Amazon which donated $350,000 to our election campaign. Make no mistake, money is power under capitalism. I thank the council members who voted for the $75 million progressive tax in committee, and I urge them to stand strong today against Amazon's extortion and to stand with the housing justice movement, send a bill to the mayor and let her decide whether she will veto funding. For the housing. Let's let the city see whose side Durkan is on with Dawkins deal with Jeff Bezos. She has made it crystal clear where she stands. Rather than being the mayor of Seattle's working people and struggling small businesses, she has declared herself the mayor of Amazon's billionaires. I'd like to point out one other very, very crucial problem with this backsliding amendment. It places a five year sunset clause on this progressive business tax. In other words, five years from now, it would take a new ordinance to have it continue. That would mean that in five years time, in less than five years time, we would have to build another powerful movement just to win the same thing that we won that we would win today. It would be totally naive of us to think that Amazon and other big businesses will not use a similar brutal and extortionate tactic in four and a half years to attempt to stop attacks, to attempt to stop the attacks from being renewed. If we put a five year sunset in this legislation, I can guarantee that 4.5 years from now, Amazon will threaten to lay people off again, claiming it is because of the attacks again and use that as leverage to attempt to prevent its renewal. Power under capitalism is anything but equal. Amazon has disproportionately more power to avoid taxes than working class homeowners, and they have proved that they are willing to use that power to bully the city and its working people. It is unconscionable to ask the courageous tax Amazon movement to have to wage this political struggle again in five years. Instead, our movement should be free to build a continue to build for rent control or. To unionize new sections of Seattle's workforce, including Amazon's warehouse and tech workers. I want to see the. Council increasing the tax on business. 250 million. I know that's not going to happen. I think if not that, the council should should at least hold firm on a $75 million progressive business tax when the final legislation comes to a vote. I will be voting yes because that will be our movement's victory, and I will have some remarks then. But at this moment, I will vote against this backsliding amendment. Have you seen? We? Thank you. So we have we have this we have this backsliding amendment moved in second it. So any further comments from any councilman or worse. You yet the floor. Thank you very much. Hold on now. My name is Deborah Suarez. And I'm an a member of the Blackfeet Nation. I'm also a Latina. I was born and raised in this country because it's my country. I will not impugn the integrity or the motives of any of my colleagues. Because you are my colleagues. You are not my rival. You're not my competitor. You're my colleague. And I represent all of the residents and the people of the city of Seattle. Eight councilmembers worked hard to get to. Yes. Sometimes you have to lead. Sometimes you have to compromise and not bully. Sometimes you have to look beyond your own echo chamber in your own movement. Sometimes you have to look beyond your own personal world view. Political lines and slogan mill. Sometimes you have to do that as a woman of color. I did not get here by being part in the pocket of corporations, big business slumlords, the corporate Democrat or the prison industrial complex. All things that I've been accused of because God forbid I use my mind, my education and my upbringing, my wisdom to bring what I believe, what I believe is leadership. Here as an indigenous woman, as a Latina. Because I, like many of my sisters up here, worked hard. And I know you don't just get what you want because you want it. Sometimes you get what you want because you work hard for it. And it comes in increments. My people did not get the right to vote till 1924. I know what it is like to fight hard and to be an activist in it, advocate it, to move the ball forward. And that's how you get there. That's called leadership. I understand discrimination, racism, disenfranchisement. I know what it's like to be homeless, to live in a HUD home, to have food stamps, to be poor. I get all that. I been there. So I will not sit here and have somebody impugn who I am and how I got here that I don't care about people who are unsheltered. I am proud that I worked with my colleagues this weekend. I am proud that I sat down with Labor. I sat down with social services. I talked to business. I talked to everyone across the spectrum. And I want to particularly thank Councilman Mascara. Councilmember Herald. I'm Councilmember Herbert Councilmember Gonzalez. Because we worked hard. If you can't see that, then I'm sorry, but I'm going to vote yes today because I plan on being here and I plan on moving this forward. I plan on sheltering the unsheltered. And I don't just give up and I don't need a T-shirt to feel that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we are going to vote. Amendment number 24 has been properly moved and seconded. I'm going to ask you to vote and raise your hand. So all those in favor of Amendment 24, please say I and raise your hand I those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No, the ayes have it. 8 to 1. We have another amendment to the ordinance. And I'm going to sort of think out loud here. I don't believe Amendment 22 A is being brought forward, but I think 22 B, which exempts health care providers from 40 is. And Councilmember Bagshaw, I believe you'd like to make that motion and describe it, please. So we talked about this last week and we ended up tabling it. The impact on this would be to exempt businesses that are engaged primarily in the provision of comprehensive health care services. In particular, the polyclinic brought this to our attention. Polyclinic offers Medicare discounts, Medicaid discounts and no coverage services to almost 46,000 people a year. And they offer $148 million worth of services to low income and Indigenous. Councilmember Gonzales, you asked specifically for that, that data and also what would the impact be on them if they remained within the structure of this particular legislation? Their revenues would be about 350 to $400000 estimate. And the tax impact they since they will not reduce employee wages or they wouldn't and they couldn't, that would impact the care that they have offered by about $1,000,000. And why should Polyclinic be exempted from the jobs tax is because under the current legislation we have exempted all of Seattle's large health care systems and exempted them because they're nonprofit. And this amendment would ensure that like organizations are treated similarly. And I recommend that we pass this. Okay. So you move to amendment number 20 to be as their second. Second. Okay. So we moved in second, so. Okay. Any further comments on amendment number 22 be to the amended legislation? I have a quick question. Councilmember Gonzalez. I missed I missed I missed the part about and maybe I just misheard you, but can you repeat what central staff's evaluation is in terms of the revenue impact as a result of this amendment? Council central staff didn't give this to me. Polyclinic did. They said that their tax on them for their DHT revenues would be between 350,000, 400,000 that they would pay. And that would in order to cover that, because they wouldn't reduce wages. Couldn't reduce wages, it would reduce they would reduce the care that would be offered by about $1,000,000, $1,000,000 worth of care. Okay. Any more discussion on amendment number 20 to be? I just need to do the math really quickly. Okay. But go ahead. Okay. I'm going to call for a vote if everyone is ready. Councilmember What? This was. One. Of those issues that was not really clear. Just to clarify that nonprofit hospitals are already exempt based on their nonprofit status. So this amendment would only help hospitals that prioritize profits for their shareholders. And just like other for profit businesses, the intention of this tax is for it to come out of the business's profits. And we should be clear, in the absence of single payer universal health care in this country. There are people and corporations that profiteer off our deeply exploitative pay or die health care system. Let's not forget how Martin Shkreli brought the board the pardon to EpiPens and then drastically increase the price. Obviously, most of our profit hospitals are not anything egregious like that, but they are. But if they are for profit, then they don't need a loophole built in for them. So I will be voting no on this amendment. Thank you. Councilmember Swan, Councilmember, your response? I just. What? I'm just responding to the question about shareholders. My understanding about the polyclinic is that the physicians at the Polyclinic own the polyclinic, and for that reason they're classified as a profit entity and they do pay federal income tax on the profits. And I'm not trying to conflate one with the other. I'm trying to preserve the kind of health care services that are available. And this entity provides 25% of their of care to those as part of a charity care hospital requirement. I just want to make sure they continue to do it. That's the Medicare and Medicaid numbers of patients that they receive, I believe. Okay. Okay. Caspar Herbold, thank you. I just want to, for the record, address a question that I had last Friday. I had asked how the 25% Medicare Medicaid standard compared to the Washington State Hospital charity care requirement. And I learned that there is no minimum amount of charity care required by hospitals by state law, although hospitals are required to prepare a charity care plan. And I also learned that under that charity care plan, sort of the mean contribution, because all hospitals are required to report on their charity care, the mean charity care is about 1%, but that Medicaid and Medicare are not included. As part of. That charity care planning that they have to do. And so these costs associated with Medicare and Medicaid have a much larger negative impact on finances than charity care themselves. So meaning the standards that folks have to fulfill in their charity care plans are less rigorous than the standards that we are setting out in this charity care requirement of of 25%, specifically for Medicaid and Medicare. That would have that's a more rigorous requirement and has a greater impact on on on these for profit medical institutions. And for that reason, I'll be supporting them in. Thank you Casserole for that additional research. I appreciate that. Okay, let's vote all those in favor of Amendment 20 to be which will exempt some health care providers from the please vote I in raise your hand i. I. If you oppose it, please say no one. Raise your hand. No. Okay. So that amendment passes as well. So so now work with me on this clerk. I believe those are the only amendments on the ordinance. And if we could vote on the full package now, then we'll move to the resolution. Is that correct? Okay. So we are going to vote on the amended legislation and now would be the time for you to say any closing remarks on the ordinance, not the spending plan. We don't want hear about the spending plan right now. We just talking about the ordinance. So does anyone want to have any closing remarks otherwise? I think we're ready to vote. Wait. Make sure. Councilmember Herbal, Eurasian Union. Okay, you got it. Thank you. I'm going to restrain my closing remarks for the typical thanks that we like to give our colleagues and the public and staff who have been working on issues of great import like this and really doing more than is fair to expect of of our staff and of our community partners in particular. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales. It's been a real pleasure to have worked with you for the last six months on this issue, first as co-chairs on the Progressive Revenue Task Force, and then every step of the way as we've crafted the legislation. And I also thank, Councilman Mosqueda for your deep commitment to affordable housing and workforce stability and your ongoing support and collaboration throughout the process. I'd like to thank Councilmember O'Brien for your long term commitment to developing more progressive revenue and to ensuring that our region's most vulnerable people have access to the same opportunities as everyone else. And then finally, I want to give a shout out to my staff, particularly Sharon Perez Darby, who staff this issue for my office, as well as the council central staff who have been working tirelessly on with us, really working to come up with a new version every time that we have a new proposal that we were working to try to take to get some consensus around. So shout out to Danny Otter, Eric Lee and Tracy Radcliffe. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. Council member. I was just kind of. Going back. And forth and. I just yeah, you just have to choose between the injuries there, which for. The hands go up. Councilmember Gonzalez. I wanted to just echo those those thanks as well. You know, over the weekend, a lot of our staff canceled or reprioritized a lot of their Mother's Day weekend plans. So I want to thank them for for all of the hard work and effort that they contributed to getting us to this point. So huge thanks to Tracy and Alan and Dan Cody, writer from my office, who has been dogged in his staffing on this issue. And I really appreciate it. I know it's been a lot of countless hours, so thank you, Cody, for all of the time and effort that you have spent on making sure that I get my math right and I'm sorry when I don't get it right. But I but I am really grateful for all of our all of our combined staff, including the staff from Councilmember O'Brien's office and from Councilman Mosquito's office, who have really contributed a lot of time to to to working late into the evenings to get us to where we're at and to make sure that we're prepared. And I would be remiss if I didn't think a lot of the advocates who have been really getting me up to speed over the last six months on these issues. So Alison Eisinger, Lisa Dugard, Lindsay grad from SEIU, 1199 Northwest, and many others who have really given me a tutorial in this space in terms of what it's really going to take to see transformational change. And so I just want to thank you all for your ongoing dedication and fervor and commitment to making sure that we move the needle here. And I look forward to working with all of you as we move forward to make sure that that our priorities continue to be transformational. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Mosquito. Thank you. You know, I think that we've all made some tremendous strides today. And I want to reiterate, we're going to need everybody to continue the work so that we can continue to get progressive revenue in the door. We're making a significant down payment today, but we want to make sure that folks are not only offered a place to stay so that they have a warm bed, but they actually get a home. Because as we create housing and health services, we know folks are going to continue to come here. They're going to come here for a good living wage job. They're going to come here to start their own business. They're going to come here as economic refugees and as climate refugees and as immigrants and refugees. And to be a welcoming city, we must build the housing. In order to do that, we couldn't do without your support. I just want to thank some of the folks who've been part of the task force and the efforts to push this forward. UFC W Local 21 and 1199. Thank you for participating in the task force to SEIU 775 9 to 5 Unite here locally and working Washington along with the Seattle King County Coalition on Homelessness. Thank you for sending the statement that I read today about your support for this effort and the spending plan that will be in front of us. Thank you to the public defenders of the building construction trades, the Martin Luther King County Labor Council. For all of your ongoing work and negotiation to make sure that we could find a path forward. I so appreciate it. And I'm happy to see that our workforce standards pieces are reflected in their thank you for all that work. I want to also thank our incredible central staff. Thank you so much to Dan Edgar, Allan Lee, Tracy Ratcliff, Eric Sons, Communications Team, Joseph People, Dana Robinson, still Stephanie Guzman. Also to all the allies that have already been mentioned, folks were working the entire weekend up until midnight last night. And to my staff especially, thank you to Seattle and Michael for your incredible work. I want to reiterate what Councilmember Suarez said. We got here because we put pen to paper. We got here because we took bold policy ideas and we put them into action. We got here because we listened to each other and we didn't accept. No, we kept pushing the ball forward. And even after today, we will continue to push for more progressive revenue. Thank you for all your work. Thank you, Councilmember Skeeter. Well, can we get a little tell us a step closer to voting? I want to actually put it in play. I will move to pass counts bill 119250 as amended. Is there a second? Okay. Any more closing remarks? Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. I want to also thank everyone who's been working on this, but specifically highlight the folks that came out last fall during the budget session and really did some work to get us almost across the finish line during budget. There are two things that I see at the high level that this piece of legislation does. The first is it creates significant investments to address the housing and homelessness crisis, who are facing and the community that came together last fall and has done all the work. From then until now has done an amazing job at creating broad awareness in our community of how great the need is and what are the types of investments we need to do. And I'm really grateful for that work. The second thing that I believe this legislation does is it starts to address the regressive of our tax system. You've heard numerous folks up here say that Washington state is the most regressive tax system in Seattle. Within Washington state has the most regressive tax system in the state. One of the things that I've seen in this process is that, well, I think most of us view the regressive tax system as a flaw of our system. It clearly benefits some. And when we start talking about changing that system, that benefits some. To make it more fair, there's a lot of resistance, and so we have a lot of work to do if we want to reverse that. Thank you, Katherine O'Brien. Elsewhere. Mosquito bite at that. You know, I just wanna say thank you, Katie Wilson. Thank you for helping to lead the coalition. Really appreciate. It. Thank you. I was also realizing I forgot to give a shout out to Katie Wilson. So we're like a hive mind. But Katie, thank you so much for all the work you've been doing on this issue and for being available to all of us to talk to us through these really important issues. So thank you, Katie. Raise your hand. I want everybody to know who you are. Yeah. Okay. Are we ready to vote? Council members who want. But to put the clock on. I'm just kidding. Secretary Clark. I would like to address my closing comments on this ordinance vote. To those of us in the movement who have volunteered thousands of hours of our time, donated our own funds, and put ourselves on the line for months and in some of our cases years to build a movement, to tax big business and build affordable housing. I'm sure I'm going to leave a lot of names out, but to name some who are on the front lines the Transit Riders Union, Housing for All Coalition, the Affordable Housing Alliance, the Labor Movement. We All Share Women in Black Nichols Ville, Socialist Alternative and the Democratic Socialists of America. I also want to dedicate my remarks to those of you who weren't part of the movement actively, but agree with us and are struggling yourselves to maintain a foothold in this city that is very quickly becoming a playground for the wealthy. What we win today for affordable housing would not have seen the light of day without the movement we have built. Big businesses like Amazon have many tactics to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, and it has required true dedication and sacrifice from hundreds of us to bring us to this point. And I cannot possibly overstate the respect and gratitude that I have for everyone in this movement. If we had had a stronger movement, that could have changed the balance of power between us and the Goliath even more. We could have won more. And if we had had a weaker movement than we had today, then we would have won less or possibly nothing. We all know that. What we win today. We'll make affordable housing available for hundreds of people and families who would otherwise have none or be forced out of the city. And we should not understand that incredible victory that we can win today. However, we are also very conscious of the total inadequacy of the current legislation to match the scale of the crisis. Compare the $410 million that is needed in the Seattle region to what is being passed today to deal with the affordable housing crisis. And I think we have to keep in mind that this is not a question of whether or not there is wealth in our city to fund a much bigger tax. It's a question of the priorities of the political establishment. The city has just decided, the city council has just decided to invest $1.7 billion in a fancy convention center expansion. This is a vanity project for the hotel industry. Yes, it will create construction jobs. And as a rank and file member of the labor movement myself, I fight hard for every possible union job that we can get . But think about it. If those $1.7 billion had all been poured into affordable housing, that would also have created construction jobs. And would have almost eliminated the crisis. The city's establishment has also spent $4 billion on an Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel for the views and property values of downtown investors and poured half a billion dollars into street improvement in Salt Lake Union to accommodate Amazon's expansion, but cannot seem to find enough funds to solve this crisis. For the activists fighting to tax Amazon to build affordable housing in Seattle. We had important lessons through this movement. Number one, our movement should not negotiate against ourselves. Our original demand was 150 million, but many reduce that demand to 75 to compromise with what councilmembers were comfortable with. Of course, the minute some in the movement made that compromise, big, big business demanded more compromise. Today, we have seen that what we can win is entirely based on a defiance and a relative strength of our movement. Lesson number two The movement needs its own representatives rooted in the strength of the movement and in the struggle of working class people, rather than what is possible to achieve in negotiations with the political establishment and big business. Imagine if the four co-sponsors of Friday's legislation, rather than spending their weekend trying to come up with a watered down deal that is acceptable to other politicians. Had been out there with us on Saturday and all these weeks and months building the power of ordinary people, renters, homeless people. We need to go beyond good intentions. Lesson number three The power of the working class is in our unity. When there are divisions in the workers movement in general, all the labor movement in particular, it weakens the political power of workers everywhere and only bosses gain from that. When Amazon threatened our construction sisters and brothers jobs. Some in the labor movement were correctly very concerned. We were concerned. We take Amazon's threats seriously because we know that they have the incomprehensible power and wealth to follow through on their threat if they so choose to. Ideally, in the future, we can build unity in the labor movement to fight against the bosses. Threats together to defend all jobs in the in history. In history, there are countless examples of corporations threatening to or actually attacking jobs to try and undercut the workers movement. When the labor movement has been strongest is when it's been united and those threats have been defeated with mass demonstrations, occupations, strike actions, and sometimes even taking the businesses under Democratic public ownership. I. I recommend that our activists watch the documentaries, the Take and the Battle of Chile for examples of workers resisting these threats from big business throughout history, because these threats are nothing new. Remember in 2013, when Boeing tried to move jobs out of Washington state and extorted a giant tax break from Olympia ? The state legislature took only three days to give Boeing $8.7 billion, and Boeing moved their jobs anyway. I want to say clearly to the rank and file sisters and brothers in the building trades who are genuinely worried about defending well-paid union jobs. If your boss tries to lay you off, we in the housing justice movement will have your back. And. And if you. And we urge you to fight with us to make the Office of Housing Use Project Labor Agreements with priority hire and union labor in apprenticeship programs to build affordable housing in Seattle. And we are supporting you on all of that because it is totally contradictory to build affordable housing and then use labor that is not paid enough to live in Seattle. Finally. Finally. We have to ask today, one, to claim the victory for our movement and to remember that our struggle is not over. As long as big business controls the wealth in society and without controls what is built and where, they will continue to use that money and power to drive down wages in every city, in country after country, dry up, drive up the cost of housing, gender, and generally create a race to the bottom all around the world. The only response to that is to build a movement everywhere. That will threaten that when when big business threatens to move out, we will say, well, why do you move to every city is fighting for better standards of living for workers. But ultimately, we also have to remember that capitalism inherently puts a sunset clause on any reform that we succeed in winning. That is why we have to fight for a socialist world where workers have a democratic say in where the vast resources of big business are invested. I will vote yes on this legislation to raise close to $50 million per year from progressive business taxes. And I vote yes to funding affordable housing. And as long as you all continue the struggle to end the housing crisis, I will be here with you. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the amended Bill O'Brien by. So aren't I. Begala Gonzalez. I. Herbold I. Johnson Suarez I. Macheda i. President Harrell, i. Nine in favor an unopposed. Percent sure was signage. Now we have a resolution was basically embodies a spending plan just one moment here and so. Please read that into the record. We about how I. Back. What are. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So. Thank you for ending the chat so we could continue with our spending plan. Please read it into the record.