City Council - Regular Meeting

I mean the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, can we start with the roll call?

Council President Perez. Council Member Prince. Here. Council Member McIrvin.

Here.

Council Member O'Halloran. Here. Council Member Rivera.

Here.

Council Member Albertson. Here. And Council Member Vaughn. Roll call, Mr. Mayor, one absent.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member. I move we excuse the absent Council Member. Second.

It's been moved by Council Member McIrvin, seconded by Council Member Albertson, that we excuse the absent council member. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. All right, motion carries. Tonight we're going to start off with a couple of proclamations, and the first one is Renton's 125th anniversary.

All right, proclamation. Whereas in 1875, Erasmus Smithers planted a town on the Duwamish homelands that we know today as the city of Renton. And whereas in 1901, the coal mining town of Renton clustered around the Cedar River and Lake Washington and was incorporated as a fourth class city. And whereas during the early days of the city, direct access to Seattle attracted manufacturing industries, the city's longest industries, Pacific Car and Foundry, later PACCAR, Denny Renton Clay and Coal Company, the Boeing Company, attracted immigrants from across the country and around the world. And whereas over the past 125 years, Renton has transformed from a coal mining town to the birthplace of commercial jet aviation and its prime location in the Puget Sound region, continues to serve as a beacon for industries such as PACCAR, Alaska Airlines, and medical institutions. Whereas now in 2026, 125 years after the birth of the city, Renton is home to 109,000 residents with a rich demographic diversity, beautiful parks and green spaces, a booming local economy, excellent schools and opportunities to enjoy culture and art. And whereas we commemorate the growth and success of Renton over the past 125 years, We acknowledge the strong foundation the city is built upon, financially, policy-wise, with our residents and the business community, and this foundation is what will continue to move Renton forward. And now, therefore, I, Armando Pavone, Mayor of the City of Renton, do hereby proclaim September 6, 2026, to be Renton's 125th anniversary in the City of Renton, and I encourage all residents to join me in this special observance by participating in birthday celebrations this month and throughout the entire birthday year. And witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and cause the seal of the City of Renton to be affixed this 14th day of September, 2026. Signed, Armando Pavone, Mayor of the City of Renton.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member. I move the proclamation be adopted as read. Second.

Okay, then moved by Council Member McIrvin, seconded by Council Member Albertson, that the proclamation be adopted as read. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right, motion carries. And accepting the proclamation is fourth generation Renton resident and senior advisory committee member, Anita Dahl.

Am I on? You're on, yes. I accept this with great humility. My family has been a thread in the fabric of the city of Renton for 117 of those 125 years. My family has been here that long. We have deep roots here. We've had a mayor in our family. We had a judge in our family. My grandfather had an early business here, a grocery store. My father and his brother had two businesses, owned two businesses here. Three generations of my family have graduated from Renton High School. You can see we have deep, deep roots, and Renton is a very livable city. We have a park system that's second to none anywhere that I can think of, and it's a great city for senior citizens to live in with many, many resources for seniors. I love Renton, and I'm proud to call it home. Thank you very much.

We're going to take a picture now right up front here. NEED A SON AND I GRADUATED FROM RENTON HIGH SCHOOL TOGETHER ALSO. ADULTS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. All right. Next. Yes. Yeah.

Thank you, Mayor. And thank you for the proclamation of the 125th anniversary of the city of Renton being established. And I just want to say that, you know, our Duwamish siblings and indigenous siblings, they're still here. It's not just the homelands and we celebrate them and they're continued being a part of our community and as many other cultures and communities that are

make this community a vibrant um community so thank you mayor all right thank you all right all right uh the next proclamation is ready and renton

Proclamation. Whereas the President of the United States of America has designated September as National Preparedness Month, also designated as the City of Renton's Ready in Renton Preparedness Campaign, and whereas Renton has experienced natural and human-caused disasters in the past, and scientific evidence indicates that city and region remain vulnerable to disasters in the future, and whereas communication disruptions in a disaster may force residents to rely on neighborhood information centers, alert Renton and volunteer amateur radio operators for essential information. And whereas investing in the preparedness of ourselves, our families, our businesses, and our neighborhoods can reduce injuries, fatalities, and economic devastation from disasters. And whereas every September Renton's Emergency Management Division advocates for emergency preparedness, encouraging all residents to take action before, during, and after an emergency. And whereas the basic steps of emergency preparedness are the same for everyone, make a plan, build a kit, and help one another to become self-sufficient for two weeks or more. And whereas taking community emergency response training beginning in October and volunteering as a CERT member allows people to become their own first responders in their neighborhoods. And whereas ready and renting creates an important opportunity for every member of the rent community to prepare their homes, businesses and neighborhoods for any type of emergency. And now, therefore, I, Armando Pavone, mayor of the city of Renton, do hereby proclaim September 2026 to be ready and rent and month in the city of Renton. And I encourage all residents to join me in the special observance and witness thereof. I've here to. Set my hand to cause the seal of the city of Renton be affixed this 14th day of September 2026 signed Armando Pavoni mayor of the city of Renton. Mr. Mayor.

Yes. I move this proclamation be adopted as read. Okay. It's been moved by councilman McIrvin second by councilman Albertson that the proclamation be adopted as read. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries. All right, accepting the proclamation tonight is Renton Zone Emergency Management Director, Deb Needham.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. We all know that disasters can happen, and they do happen. And we've seen in the news even unexpected events like what Southern California has been experiencing. What we also know is that when disasters happen, individual preparedness is not enough. Community resilience really relies upon neighbors helping neighbors. And that means that the valuable CERT members and Rent and Emergency Communications Service members that we have here in the audience today, they are a vital part of that response. They're the boots on the ground before any other boots on the ground are there. And so I wanted to acknowledge that and also to encourage people to reach out to their neighbors, to get to know them, to be able to share resources, to be able to find out how they can help one another during a disaster and after a disaster. So with that, I wondered if it would be okay if I have all of our volunteers who are present today, if they could also rise in the audience and come and join me up front. Absolutely.

Oh, I got it. All right. Next up, we have a public hearing, property acquisition, King County Parcel 3023059103, Strata Deval, including through exercise of eminent domain, and got Jenna stopped, and Stephanie Rary. Stephanie Rary.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members. I'm here to discuss the acquisition of King County parcel number 302-305-9103. The site is 3.1 acres and the existing use has an office building with a vacant suite on the south end and an occupied suite that is leased on the north end. Improvements include an office building with improved parking lot area. The planned use, the vacant suite on the south end of the building is planned as a city's resource center, resource campus. The purchase and sale agreement was approved by council on August 10, 2026. We have a countersigned purchase and sale agreement, and we are currently within the 90-day due diligence period within any date of November 24th, 2026. The property owner requested that the city pursue eminent domain to close on the property, and it was included in the purchase and sale agreement. The next steps would be to formalize the purchase and sale agreement with the approval of eminent domain, continue in our due diligence period, including environmental review, property survey, title review, space review and design, and project analysis. Staff recommends that council adopt an ordinance to be presented at the next meeting authorizing acquisition of King County parcel number 302-305-9103 through the city's powers of eminent domain. For the acquisition next steps, it would be to formalize the agreement for the property sale and conditions with the property owner, use of the city's powers of eminent domain if we are unsuccessful at reaching agreement as requested by the property owner, and complete due diligence efforts and move to purchasing the property. Thank you.

Mr. Merritt? Yes, Council Member. I do have one question. Yes. I might have to tag in our attorney here. How many, is there any limit to the number of times that we're allowed to use eminent domain at the request of the landowner for tax purposes? At some point, does that get a little... CONFLICTY OR INTERESTING IN TERMS OF PROVIDING TAX BREAKS OR THERE'S NO LIMIT TO IT?

I BELIEVE THAT'S A STATE DECISION.

First of all, the reason that we are doing it through eminent domain is that we intend to acquire it regardless of whether they agree. In this case, they happen to be willing to agree, but in order to get the exemption is that we intend to go forward with it whether they agree or not. So it's a threat of eminent domain that allows them a tax break when they are threatened with it. There's no numerical limit on when we do that.

All right. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you. I thank you for the presentation. I have a question regarding as of the current stage, they are agreeing to the set of eminent domain or at least the process here at the second bullet in terms of acquisition next steps when the use of city's powers eminent domain. If not successful at reaching the agreement, what is the next step after that? We would still continue to pursue without the owner's approval?

Right now we are under contract so both parties have agreed to the contractual elements of the purchase sale agreement so we have the ability now to go through the due diligence portion of the purchase sale agreement and if we find during that process something doesn't turn out to be what we expected or there's some surprise, we can then withdraw from that purchase and sale agreement. Otherwise, we're somewhat obligated to move forward.

In terms of the owner, what is their rights? What's the normal process if we've had a protocol or process in the past? If they withdrew?

Yeah.

If there's no meeting of the minds, say five months down the road or three months down the road.

There's already an agreement, though, in place.

Yeah, so we're under contract with the term set. So they've agreed to those terms. The things that we could find that, let's just say, we found the soils were contaminated and we weren't aware of that and they didn't disclose that. Those kind of things could maybe kill the agreement for the project. But at this point, assuming all marches forward, it would... you know, the purchase and sale would expire and we'd own the property.

All right. Thank you. Do we have any correspondence?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Well, I didn't receive any correspondence, but we did have a few people sign up to speak. Okay. I just want to remind folks that the time limit is three minutes, and there were a few people that might have signed up for this and the regular audience comments. So if I call your name and you don't wish to speak, just raise your hand or something. If so, please come up, and then I'll call the first person to speak, and then the next person in line after them. So the first person I have listed is Aaron Cloudwood. No, three minutes. Yeah, I signed you up on the other side. Okay, so the next person is Cheryl Freese.

Gerald Freese, Renton resident. So the city has already acquired the former Compton Lumber property for its future stabilization and resource center. And the mayor stated in March at State of the City that the city was beginning the build-out of staffing, programming, and construction for that center and intended to deliver it as soon as possible. Quote, this is a priority for us, and our teams are working at full speed to deliver this facility as soon as possible. End quote. That building was acquired in April. It's September. Before another major acquisition moves forward, residents deserve clear answers about the first property and about how these two properties fit into one coordinated plan. Before another major acquisition, residents deserve clear answers And what has happened to the first property that was acquired? Has there been a break-in, burglary, I can't say that word, vandalism, or other significant damage at the former Compton Lumber property since the city acquired it? What is the complete plan for this property? And where can residents see the site plan, operating plan, construction schedule, program design, staffing plan? and projected operating budget. The city is now considering acquisition of the adjoining property, the one that we're here to talk about today. So what exactly is being purchased for the $8.5 million acquisition amount? And what is the additional approximately $8.5 million intended to pay for? Why is eminent domain necessary? What are the financial benefits of eminent domain and for whom? and in what amount? Is there currently a tenant whose lease extends through 2029? And if so, who's the tenant and how is their lease being addressed? Is there a cost associated with terminating their lease? And what is the actual plan? So residents should be able to see much more than a general concept before committing tens of millions of dollars. Where's the written master plan showing use, how many people are going to be served, whether overnight shelter will be provided, what services will actually be on site, annual operating costs and funding sources, security, transportation, renovation, timelines, et cetera. And the transportation question also deserves a specific answer because if the nearest transit access is approximately .6 miles away, how are people expected to reach this center, particularly individuals with disabilities, mobility limitations, belongings, pets, et cetera? And finally, the city should explain how this acquisition fits with its proposed approach to public camping. If the policy objective is to move people from public spaces into services, shelter, and ultimately housing, shouldn't the city first establish the services, shelter, capacity, transportation, and operational infrastructure? You've made a substantial investment already, and why would we trust that you're going to handle this any differently than the first?

Thank you. Thank you.

All right, next up we have Mr. Rohn.

I may refrain from any applause or outbursts. Thank you.

All right, and after Mr. Bensley is Amy.

Thank you. I do generally accept that this is a legitimate exercise of eminent domain authority. I will just share with the council that in general, one of the areas of public policy which really pricks my concern is eminent domain, which I think often is used way too often for purposes that are not absolutely necessary. They don't serve the public interest. My understanding from reading materials, this seems like a good use of the resources. You do have questions that the previous speaker had about what exactly will be the kind of the minutia and what exactly will be the form of this center. So at this point, reluctantly say, yes, this is an acceptable use of eminent domain. As far as the efficacy of the larger project, neutral. Thank you. All right, thank you.

All right, Amy, next. And then after Amy is Sarah G.,

Evening. Long time no see. So I'm in support of a resource center. Oh yeah, sorry, my name's Amy. I'm a Renton resident. I'm in support of a resource center. I think it's a good idea. I do think that before we're allocating more money and acquiring more property under eminent domain, that we actually have a plan for how with another $8.5 million will be $26 million total into this project. And there's no overarching plan for homelessness. There's no overarching plan for this resource center. There's obviously the transportation issues that have been mentioned by Cheryl. There's just not really any plan at all. We don't have a lot of details on what the plan is. So I'm just asking for more of a plan before we're throwing out another 8.5 million dollars essentially um so yeah i am in support of a resource center just i i think we need to think some things through first thank you please i ask you not to delay the proceedings thank you sarah g is next

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

And then we have Matthew Lang and on deck is Ms. Leslie Jensen.

All right. Hello, counsel. Thanks for having this public hearing tonight. My name is Matthew Lang. I come to this conversation as someone who has worked in the homeless sector for over a decade, as someone who has lived experience with homelessness, and as someone who has over 20 years of his life lived in Renton himself. So that's where I'm coming from. I want to speak about implementation. I know how much things cost, so I'm not really balking at the number. That's not what I'm concerned about. But I did work with the coalition to end urban indigenous homelessness for four years, every month going to that meeting, working with folks at Chief Seattle Club, the Seattle Indian Health Board. Colleen Echohawk is my mentor on homelessness. A lot of you know her, I'm sure. So what they did when I started working with them in 2017 is they attacked the problem from all directions, right? What I'm worried about right now with the service center is that it's only a sober living situation with AHA. It's a good start. But it doesn't work for everyone. You have to have low barrier, right? They built the Eagle Village tiny home village. They had permanent supportive housing, the apartment complex that was built next to the day center that is open every single day. Communication with shelters, communication with medical providers to have medical interventions on mental health and drug abuse and other things like that. What we saw is that in 2018, the point-in-time count said that there were less than 1% of the King County population was Indigenous and First Nations, and 8% of the local homeless population was Indigenous or First Nations. Now in 2026, the point in time count has that number cut in half. And that is because the work that was done was not taking one tool out of the toolbox, right? I'm not using an Allen wrench to unscrew a Phillips head, right? We have to use all the tools at our disposal. So if there's anything I would advocate here tonight, it's to bring it back to the table, look at what all of the different things that we can bring in, and not just one thing, right? There's not one approach that's going to solve this. I'm respectful of all approaches, except for putting people in jail. We'll talk about that later. So, thank you.

Male Speaker 3 Please refrain for outbursts. Thank you.

Male Speaker 4 So, Leslie Jensen is next, and on deck is Michael Westgard.

Leslie Jensen, Renton resident. I'm just going to speak to my confusion here because you guys are supposed to be very close to voting for an ordinance that's going to make it basically illegal for homeless people to exist on public property. But you're just now acquiring the building for the places for them to get help. So how long is that going to take? And are people going to be going to jail before they even have the ability to enter these facilities? I've had people from this dais say to my face, we don't want to arrest homeless people for being homeless. So I don't understand why you would vote for an ordinance that does that very thing. It boggles my mind and has me very confused and reminds me of this shirt. I can't believe what you say because I see what you do. Thank you.

Whoa, a seat and everything. Hello, everybody. How you guys doing? Hope you had a great vacation. Michael Westgard, City of Renton. So, yeah, so I'm in favor of a resource center, obviously. Like, I think that would be an incredible thing. Like, in reality, I think it would have been great if the council wouldn't have shut down the one at the Red Lion when the King County... council was running that one. And I think that $18 million could go a long way in investing and trying to bring that building back when it would actually be like across the street from a transit center. And within range of, with all my issues with Walmart, at least it's a type of grocery store because the place that you guys are citing this, not only is it not near transit, it's closer to a casino than transit, but it's a food desert. Like, The majority of working people in King County that are unhoused work for a living. They just don't make enough money at the jobs that they work to be able to overcome a $400 emergency. So that could just be a pop tire. And they're homeless. Like, if you rent and you need to come up with $7,500, $10,000 to rent an apartment somewhere and you get evicted because of a crisis in your life, like, how are you supposed to overcome that? So I think there should be a lot more thought and effort put into this than what we've seen presented to the people at to this point, because like these are the serious issues we face. And if you just criminalize things, It's just going to pack the jails. It's not going to solve the problems. And we see that across the country. So I think there are other ways to do this. There are plenty of people here, including myself, that would love to help and work and advocate for things and work with you guys on creating better solutions. But we have to, like, do that. We can't just... We've been here for three, four months on flock, and you guys are still debating that and going back and forth. You've heard one or two people come out in favor, and the vast majority meeting after meeting, and now it's the same thing. We're talking about criminalizing homelessness, and you've got a room packed with people that are against these things. And you're ready to have a vote to criminalize it. Like, without a majority, without the full council here. Like, none of this stuff makes sense. And it just, it's driving us mad. And I think you guys should do better. I appreciate the time.

All right, thank you.

Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

I have a question.

Yes.

Am I allowed to ask Gina a question? Is that okay? Regarding the acquisition of the property?

I don't know if staff is still here.

Oh, there she is. Could you answer me the question? What is the status of Compton Lumberyard?

So the Compton Lumber... property was purchased, and there's two express reasons to purchase those properties. One is the resource center, which is still the reason, and also some support for parks maintenance facility. When looking at this property that came up, this property being right next door to our build-out plan for the resource center, it became very evident that this would be a logical, very wise next step to potentially look at this property. property because the building exists and the space is in a situation where you can come in, do tenant improvements and get the resource center up and running quickly versus the other site would require redevelopment of the site or significant development of the Compton Lumber building and site in general just because it is quite a bit less developed or ready to move in, I should say.

Thank you. And I can add a little bit to that. The original purchase of Compton's Lumber was for the parks maintenance facility with the hope of using it for the resource center. The original thought was the parks and maintenance. That's been in dire need of finding a home for that department for years.

Mr. Mayor, follow up? Yes. Thank you so much. And so am I to understand that we are still allocating both properties for the Renton Resource Center or that now just going to be the new property that we're looking at tonight for the Renton Resource Center and Compton Lumber is going to be for the parks?

Right now, we are in a purchase and sale agreement with a due diligence time frame. The reason why we do a due diligence is that allows us time to secure the property under contract while evaluating our needs. And all that work is going to be done between now and I believe the date was November 24th to determine exactly what that build-out looks like, a conceptual plan. I mean, we won't be able to design in the next two months, but we'll be able to know that this will work for us to get the Resource Center up and running quickly and efficiently. Or not. That's what our due diligence period allows us that time to be under contract. So it's kind of given us a time out so we can come and assess all the needs and determine whether it meets our needs or not.

Mr. Mayor? So this is more like an inspection period, you know, for those of us who have, you know, gone through the home buying process. This is kind of the time to look at the goods, and even though we might be voting to agree on this purchase, the purchase may not officially be happening until this 90-day period is resolved and we've made sure everything, all our I's are dotted and T's are crossed?

Yes, we get a due diligence time frame to do our research on many things that we can't access until we're under contract.

Understood. Thank you. And then mr. Mayor Yes, I am so sorry. I know I need to address you before I speak again. So thank you And so am I to understand then to just make it super clear that if everything's copacetic The purchase will go through this won't be coming back to the dais and everything's not copacetic. It may come back to us Not

If the inspection doesn't meet our standards. Right. We would bring that back and let you know that we found something that was unusual.

Right. Thank you. And Mr. Mayor? Yes. I do apologize. I'm just wanting to make sure the plans, because we have purchased one and now we're purchasing another. And I do want to understand how this is all going to come to fruition when we are spending so much money and have a better understanding of that. And so I do appreciate you answering all of my questions. One of these is definitely going to the Renton Resource Center.

Yes, and the city is growing, so the rest of it will accommodate the other needs that the city sees and is busting at the seams for.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

All right. Next up is the administrative. Oh, no, that's right. Mr. Mayor? Yes, sir. Move we close the public hearing. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Council Member Prince, seconded by Council Member Albertson that we close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right, motion carries. Now we're going to move on to the administrative report.

Good evening, everyone. Time to celebrate fall. Join us Saturday, September 19th from 12 to 9 p.m. at Legacy Square for a lively autumn event inspired by the spirit of Oktoberfest. Check out the Harvest Market. Enjoy hearty food, local brews in the beer garden, and family-friendly performances and activities for all ages. Grab your 12 jersey and join us at Legacy Square on Sunday, September 20th for the Seattle Seahawks versus Arizona Cardinals watch party. Pre-game begins at 1215 on the big screen with kickoff at 125. Food and beverages will also be available for purchase. Information about preventative street maintenance, traffic impact projects, and road closures happening this week can be found at rentnoir.gov forward slash traffic. All projects are weather permitting unless otherwise noted. Streets will always remain open.

All right, thank you. Now we're going to move on to audience comments. Before we begin, a reminder that this portion of the agenda is set aside for Council and I to hear your concerns and comments about the City of Renton business or items on the agenda. Please keep your remarks directed to the Council as a whole and refrain from addressing members of the audience, individual Council members, political campaigns, or other governing bodies. As this is the council's formal meeting to conduct city business, typically we don't respond to your comments, although we may reach out to you after the meeting. Outside of this meeting, you're welcome to contact everyone directly with questions. If a concern raised is administrative in nature, it may be referred to city staff. For those of you signed up to speak, the city clerk will invite the speaker forward to be seated at the table. When it's your turn to speak, please state the name of your city and your city of residence for the record. Each person will have up to three minutes to speak. The timer is in front of you and will count down and play a sound when expired. You may return to your seat when you have concluded your remarks or when your time is up. For those in the audience, to ensure that all voices have equal opportunity to be heard, we ask that you refrain from applause or outbursts that interrupt or impose your opinion over that of the speakers. Okay. And I'm going to hand it off to Jason. Jason Gildea- All right.

All right, first up we have Ashley Dobson, and on deck is Diane Dobson. Is Ashley not here? Okay. So after Ms. Dobson, yeah, the left side there. We'll have Brigida Jones afterwards.

Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Diane Dobson. I came forward, I signed up with a different presentation in mind, but instead I want to address the public comments made to council on August 17th regarding a position on the use of public space ordinance. There's been a continuing mischaracterization of both my comments and how we arrived at our position. During my remarks, I identified the nonprofit organizations and community partners who representatives sit around the tables at RANU and the Renton Task Force on Homelessness. I did so to help council members who have not participated in these meetings understand the diversity of experiences, perspectives, and approaches represented in all of our conversations. I did not identify those organizations to speak on their behalf, nor did I suggest that they had taken a formal public position on the ordinance. Each organization speaks for itself and our task force does not issue a collective opinion on behalf of its participants, which I clearly stated that evening. The position I stated was our own after listening to the many perspectives shared around those tables. Throughout the conversations, we repeatedly heard about the need for resources, services, outreach, compassion, and an inclusive approach that brings together the organizations and professionals that are already doing this work. Those conversations also informed the conclusion that the city needs additional tools to manage its public spaces, but those tools cannot stand alone. Safe and accessible public spaces and compassionate support for people experiencing homelessness are responsibilities that can and must exist together. My comments are later characterized by a council member as claiming these organizations have publicly taken a collective position supporting a camping ban and criminalization of homelessness. That is not what I said, and those are not the words that I used. By identifying the participating organizations to demonstrate the diversity around our tables, I unintentionally compromise the safe and vulnerable space we provide for our representatives to speak freely, exchange differing views, and participate in difficult conversations without it being expected to adopt or defend a public position. Our community is making a significant investment in a resource center. It's staffing and the partnerships needed to make it successful. We should be working to bring every organization doing this work to the table, not creating additional divisions that make collaboration more difficult. continued divisiveness within this council is problematic the issue requires leadership that brings people together not statements or actions that deepen divisions or undermine the work already underway the three minutes provided for public comment require presenters to speak quickly and with intention and unless the speaker specifically says otherwise their words should be understood as stated not reinterpreted to convey a different emotional message Rented needs honest dialogue, effective tools, meaningful resources, inclusiveness and compassion. I ask this council to respect the context of the conversation to work together towards solutions that protect vulnerable individuals and the public spaces shared by everyone.

Next up is Brigida Jones and on deck is Brad Call who is virtual. Go ahead when you're ready.

Do I just start? Oh, okay. My name is Brigida Jones. I am a Renton citizen in the Cascade area and have lived here for over 30 years and raised my children here in the city of Renton. And we love Renton. So I am in favor of the ordinance that you are wanting to pass to ban camping in Renton. And I do not believe that using the city's public spaces for bedrooms and bathrooms and storage of personal possessions is humane. I think that by allowing people to camp. in these public spaces is taking a tool away from the police that can be used. I believe that the police in the city of Renton have been trained really well and I have personal experience with that. I have a son who was a homeless drug addict in the city of Renton for many years and between the police, Judge Richards and Megan Black and a few other people within this city, the way they handled the different situations with him was wonderful. And I was there a few times when he was being arrested and how they handled that I thought was very humane. Had he been allowed to just camp wherever he felt like it, he wouldn't have taken advantage of the resources that were available because he wasn't in a mindset to be able to do that. And due to Judge Richards, who, over the different arrests, the failure was on the jail. They were supposed to provide resources that they didn't. Or they had said they were going to provide these resources, and then they dropped the ball somehow, just kept falling through the cracks. But the Renton police that knew him and dealt with him well, And Judge Richards, who'd seen him many times, they continued to seek after help for him and got him finally into a program that he was able to connect with. He is now almost six years clean and sober. He's in a low voltage electric apprenticeship program. He married the woman who a mother of his two children and they have now had a third child and they are doing really, really well. So I commend the city of Renton and what they're doing here to help people. I don't think that a camping ordinance is going to suddenly fill up the jails. I don't think the police are wanting to just go out and arrest a bunch of homeless people and throw them in the jails. I don't think that that's what they're looking to do.

Please refrain from outbursts. So Brad calls up next. He's virtual. And on deck is Brandon Conley.

Hi, my name is Brad Paul. I live in the Cascade area. I agree with what my idea.

I'm a Burlington citizen as well. And I agree with what the last Cascade resident said. And if I just came to just simply say,

for approval of ordinance 6199 thank you all right so next up is brandon conley and uh after him on deck is mr eric zimmerman hello again uh my name is brandon conley and my family has lived in renton for almost seven years

Tonight, I am again urging you to vote no on Ordinance 6199. Before your vacation, I mostly told you about my personal experience with homelessness. Today, I want to tell you now is specifically not the time for this measure. The most coherent argument I've heard in favor claims this is a necessary carrot or stick approach that will encourage struggling people towards services that will help them. The enforcement goes into effect January 1st, but it sounds like we can't expect those services to be available in Renton at that time. There will be no carrot, there will be only the stick. We can hope to drive those people out, perhaps deeper into the woods, but Renton offers no actual solutions yet. You are treating them like trash to be removed, but all you're doing is blowing them into your neighbor's yard. We have been told that this plan is following a successful precedent. To quote Council Member O'Halloran, this is modeled after Auburn's no camping ordinance that has been in place since 2021. I assume this refers to Auburn Ordinance 6817. She went on to say its intention is not to get... It is to get people into sobriety and shelter, not into jail. But Auburn went on to pass Ordinance 6950. Will Renton continue to follow in their footsteps, stripping the requirement to provide shelter and increasing the scope of what is deemed illegal? I genuinely hope not. And while I trust the council members' stated intentions, I'd rather have more than hope as a guardrail going forward. Last session, the Council passed an amendment to change the wording from encouraging to requiring that services be provided. Thank you, Council Member Vann. If the Council wanted to take this train of thought to its logical conclusion, I would recommend that you take two more amendments. First, replace the word should in the phrase the official should offer services and document the offer before issuing a citation. And second, currently 6349.c says, nothing in this chapter creates a private right of action or duty enforceable against the city for failure to enforce any provision. Paraphrase that says, offering services is required, but if not, no worries. At the very least, I think this should be amended to invalidate any citations that are made without following proper procedure. Please vote no. This takes our public land, locks it into no trespassing zones, and then claims that's for our own good. But that supposed good assumes that planned resource center is designed, constructed, and staffed before New Year's. Until those services are available, this is just an expensive and dehumanizing non-solution. It is government overreach wearing nanny state clothing. Thank you for your time.

I kindly ask you to refrain from outbursts, please. Thank you.

After Mr. Zimmerman is Ms. Jasmine Clark, who is virtual.

Thank you, council members, and thank you, honorable mayor. My name is Eric Zimmerman. I am a Democrat. I am an elected mayor of the city of Normandy Park. I am the director for public safety solutions at Washington Policy Center. I am a family member to people who have experienced homelessness and addiction, the majority of my siblings and half-siblings, in fact. I'm also in my 25th year of a career in global life-saving public service programs, helping design and operate some of the largest life-saving programs in the world. And I'm here to encourage you to vote yes on your ordinance to ban outdoor camping in the city of Renton. You're going to hear opposition tonight, but we now have more than a decade of seeing what that looks like in policy. And I'm going to share with you from the federal gold standard data to help you understand exactly what happened in Washington state when we spent a decade. trying some of these policies. We in King County and the city of Seattle are first in the country for the growth of chronic homelessness between 2014 and 2024. Number one. Number two is not even close, folks. We grew 849% chronic homelessness from 2014 to 2024. The next closest continuum of care was 530%. It's 300% below The number 10 in the country out of more than 100 COCs was around 200%. You see the problem here. We didn't just grow chronic homelessness. We dominated the growth of chronic homelessness because of the policies that we had in Washington. We also had the highest rate of growth for drug overdose deaths in the entire country over that time period. No one grew more than us. As recently as 2019, our state was 33rd in the country, ranked high to low for per capita drug overdose deaths as recently as 2019. And by 2024, we were fourth, fourth in the country to go from 33rd to fourth in a six-year period is unprecedented and astonishing. But it's the result of the kinds of policies that allow people to stay outdoors, destroying their lives in view of the public and restricting the ability for first responders to intervene to save their lives. You need these tools in your toolbox. If you look at what's happening inside hospitals in Washington State, where people's lives are saved, Washington was number one in the country for opioid overdoses seen in hospitals in 2022, 2023, 2024. Number one. Again, number two was not close. We were several hundred percent above the median states in the country. If you look at fentanyl, and this is the last thing I'll share, in 2025, we were 800% above the median states in the country. It looks like a hockey stick with Washington at the very top. Please pass this ban. Save people's lives. Thank you.

All right. We have Ms. Clark online. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members.

My name is Jeff Clark. I'm on behalf of the Association of Washington in opposition to Ordinance 6199. We recognize that Renton, like communities across Washington, is grappling with a very real homelessness and housing crisis. We also recognize the frustration that can come with seeing people living outside and the pressure cities are under to respond. However, ordinances that criminalize people for living outside do not solve homelessness. They do not create housing or shelter, and they do not address the reasons people are living outside in the first place. Instead, they often move people from one public space to another while making it more difficult for them to eventually obtain housing and stability. That concern is particularly significant here because Renton does not yet have sufficient alternatives in place. The city is investing significant resources in a future resource center that is intended to provide shelter and connect people with services. However, that resource center is not yet operational. The city's severe weather overnight shelter has capacity for only 40 people and operates only during qualifying severe weather. Renton's own resource information otherwise directs people seeking shelter to 211 for referrals and availability and notes that most shelters require a referral. So while we appreciate that Ordinance 6199 was amended to require an offer of available services before enforcement, that requirement does not resolve our underlying concern. There is an important difference between offering someone a service and having an appropriate placement actually available to them. Shelter may be full. It may not accommodate a person with a partner, family member, pet, disability, or belonging. There may be transportation or programmatic barriers. And a referral to another provider does not necessarily mean that provider has someone for that person to stay. If there is no appropriate placement available, enforcement leaves that person with the same problem they had before the interaction. They still have nowhere to go. We have seen the dynamic play out in communities across Washington. When one jurisdiction forgives people from sleeping or living in public spaces without ensuring adequate alternatives exist, People do not stop experiencing homelessness. They are displaced to another part of the city, pushed into less visible and potentially more dangerous locations, or pushed into neighboring jurisdictions. That is not a solution to homelessness. That is displacement. Renton has already acknowledged through its investments that additional resources are needed. We urge the council to allow those resources to come online for expanding the city's enforcement authority. There will be an opportunity to evaluate whether the resource center is meeting the needs of people experiencing homelessness, whether adequate shelter is actually available, where gaps remain, and what additional responses may be necessary. But the city should not put enforcement ahead of those resources. For those reasons, the ACLU of Washington urges the council to pause Ordinance 6199 and prioritize the shelters, services, and houses that actually address homelessness.

Yes, council member.

I understand that mayor has the authority to facilitate our council meeting per the code in the culture of the city of Renton, but if I may ask the mayor to not continue to hit the gavel unless it's really, the crowd is out of, if the crowd is out of control and so forth, just because my ear is getting really... I'm trying to survive a cold and being here and listening to constituents is very hard. And the clapping is not as bothering me as much as this. Yes, Council Member Alverson.

Whereas I can appreciate Council Member Vann's cold or ear issue and that sort of thing, I would say that you wouldn't have to continue to hit the gavel if the individuals will respect what you are asking them to do. And in fact... In fact, one individual like that is actually instigating and being very disrespectful. I'm wondering why this individual has not been asked to leave the meeting.

Mr. Mayor?

He's already commented.

Mr. Mayor? That's council member Van Ness. Thank you so much. I actually am going to agree with council member Van's sentiments here. I'm at the other end of the dais, and I'm having to do this, and I'm getting a little bit of a headache from how hard you are hitting that gavel. And it's not just someone who's recovering from a cold. Some of us have things called auditory sensitivity. I am someone with auditory sensitivity issues. When something's getting slammed like that, it actually causes me physical pain. I don't talk about my medical stuff here on the day of, but I will today. So if we could just maybe do a later tap or maybe when it's getting out of control, I don't find clapping as disturbing as that gavel.

I've been asked by numerous council members to actually... conduct the meeting in a more professional setting. This is in response to the council. This is the council's meeting. This is the council's request to have a meeting that's run more professionally. That's why I'm doing this. All right. Please continue.

If I may, I'm so sorry. I think usually with the council and I appreciate the mayor's attempt to be professional and following the rule of order and keeping control of the meeting. But usually we need a four out of seven vote to do any policy changes and have an executive branch to do anything. So I'm just a little bit concerned of the way we cherry pick of what policy to adopt. implement and also when there is also if I may I still have some time because it's a council meeting if I may I am asking because and this is not I've never asked this because I am trying to overcome this cold and listen to constituent and it's making it worse and as council member had also mentioned so at least with being colleagues I think I appreciate it if you would also understand our perspective. Thank you.

Ms. Merrigan, please proceed.

My name is Kathleen Merrigan. I'm a resident of Renton. I'm also speaking on behalf of the Freedom Socialist Party. I'm here to speak against the proposed ordinance banning camping in public parks, but I want to raise it in a broader context. I'm sure you're aware that for several years now, both working and non-working people, everyone except the wealthiest few, have faced real erosion of our rights. We've seen immigration enforcement tear families apart. We've seen attacks on voting rights and serious threats to the integrity of our elections. Abroad, authoritarian, actually fascist-like, influence is moving through this country and it matters how local governments respond the council has an actual opportunity here instead of adopting a policy that criminalizes poverty and disability a policy that really wants homeless people to disappear You can set an example instead of punishing people for having nowhere to go. You can address the needs behind this. Real solutions instead of criminalization. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. Renton can demonstrate proudly that we hold a different standard. That you choose not to follow the reactionary tide when it comes to protecting people's rights. I urge you to vote against this ordinance and to lead by example. Thanks.

All right. The next four speakers are virtual. So, Judith, the first up is Kathy Powers. We can hear you. Yes.

So, good evening, Council. I am Kathy Powers. I'm a Seattle resident, and I work at Orion Industries out of Auburn, where I service their vice president of services. And we learned today that Orion was publicly identified as supporting the proposed ordinance, and I wanted to clarify that Orion has not taken a position on this ordinance, and that has not been either take a position to support it or oppose it. Orion's role as a nonprofit is to serve the individuals who come to us facing barriers to employment. That includes people experiencing homelessness in a variety of fashions. We remain committed to meeting the needs of rent and residents and those that we support with our job training, employment services, and wraparound supports. That is what we are known for. We respectfully ask that Orion not be identified as supporting or opposing this ordinance. And thank you for allowing me to clarify your position.

Thank you. Next up is Melina Call. We can hear you.

Yes.

We can hear you. We can hear you. We can hear you. We can hear you. tents around libraries, individuals on drugs. I can't even work on my own vehicle or make improvements to our own home without being surveilled by the city and sent threatening letters. Are we Seattle? I hear the word compassion said a lot in these circumstances. Council members, are you showing compassion to the child that sticks up a hypodermic needle out of the park at the park? Are you showing compassion for the residents who walk their dogs through the tent at Tiffany Park? How about the green corridor or the pipeline trail? and garbage everywhere. Compassion for the homeless is showing love with consequences, following rules, following laws. Compassion is helping another make a better life for themselves by requiring they get help when they are not able to ask for it themselves. The neighbors of Tiffany Park want to use the library in safety. No tents, no excrement, no people on drugs. The neighbors of Tiffany Park want to use our park without tents, garbage, or needles. The neighbors of Tiffany Park want our businesses to stay and grow, not be pushed out because of homeless individuals that are camping and relieving themselves in the roadways. We want high barrier shelters. Are we Seattle? No, we are Renton, and we want to stay that way. The neighbors of Tiffany Park want you to pass ordinance number 6199. These families include the Varma family, the Olson family, the San Juan family, the Yost family, the Buena Vida family, the Thomas family, the Varma family, the McAllister family, the Call family, the DiAngelo family, the Rosario family, the Gable House family, and the Trant family. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Cherise McGee.

Cherise was logged in earlier, but she's having technical difficulties. Can we please go through the rest of the lesson and come back later for her.

Yes.

Next is Tara Gorman.

Hi, I'm Tara Gorman. I'm here to speak against the campus coalition. I don't understand how we can essentially make a misdemeanor. It's important that the then criminal prosecution but then goes right on to say that making camping ig existing outside because you have nowhere else to go misdemeanor and that gets officers quote authority to detain where the preferred approach is being not feasible or sufficient i think it's very easy to see that renton has nowhere near enough services to make the preferred which means this ordinance can be so easily used and abused. We'll be either sending people, these are people, not inconveniences, to surrounding cities because where are they supposed to go when they get that direction to leave before being taken to jail? Or we'll be incarcerating people for the simple fact of not being able to afford a house. And that will be our failure as a city because we're using our collective resources to punish the vulnerable among us In fact, paying to house them in jail instead of to build robust services can solve the upstream problems that create the vulnerability. Thank you.

Next we have Aaron Cloudwood in person, and on deck is Mr. Ron Bensley.

Hello, council members. My name is Aaron Cloudwood. I am a Renton resident. My wife and I have lived here for about four years, and we're raising our daughter here. I'm here tonight to speak out in opposition to the proposed camping ban. I have friends and family who have been homeless. My work has given me the opportunity to meet and befriend a lot of homeless folks. And I just wanted to say that these are people who are Intonites. They're down on their luck and have just lost their homes. Creating legislation that criminalizes someone for not having a bed is cruel. And it doesn't work. It's been shown to be expensive, more expensive than just offering them shelter, of which we don't have enough of. I want to commend the city on building a multi-service center, but even when that is built, even when we have more shelter beds in the city, it's not going to be enough to deal with the problem we have without a better strategy going forward. So, I just urge you to vote no, because I don't think it is a humane legislation to pass. Thank you.

Robert Adler Right. After Mr. Bensley is Cheryl Fries.

On the August 10th meeting, you may recall there was some parliamentary procedure issue around a vote on a roll call vote. It's a 3-3 tie. I assume you've discussed among you how to handle that kind of situation in the future. I know there was a position which would affect any the office of the mayor has a cast a tie vote, but cannot be obligated to do so. It doesn't matter who is the mayor. Any you can't force them. You need to figure out because a tie vote would generally be doesn't pass because it's not a majority vote. The other thing I wanted to discuss, and it's not specifically the proposal on the camping van. It is specifically the treatment facility that is proposed. I would encourage you to provide more information to the community, including perhaps chance for those of us who are community activists to actually take a site visit to the Auburn facility to see how it operates as a service setting. We will be blessed if we can at least begin to provide meaningful services to provide hope, opportunity for people who are facing homelessness and extreme poverty. Thank you for your time.

After Cheryl Fries is Zach Moore.

Cheryl Freese, Renton resident. For more than seven years, I've been volunteering monthly at DESC, Downtown Emergency Service Center, specifically the Union Hotel near Pioneer Square. It's a housing first model. Prior to making a commitment to the Union Hotel, I delivered coffee and clothing at 6 a.m. in the morning under bridges. and at encampments in Seattle. I've been to a tent city near White Center. I've sat down and had coffee and lunch with numerous people who are unhoused outside of and at DESC. I've attended meetings here in Renton on this topic and conducted endless hours of research. I remain both shocked and appalled, yet on one hand not surprised by your approach to the camping ban. The city has adopted the culture of cart before the horse on so many issues, especially lately. Make significant investments, and then after doing so, plan later, if at all. Make significant investments and then try to backtrack when you realize or the residents start holding you accountable to help you realize you had no plan. And now it's a mad scramble that results in chaos and damage that can't be undone. And it doesn't matter if we're talking about flock or the camping ban or doing a deep dive on the unhoused issue in Renton and really getting into the weeds and looking at all the local Renton-based resources that would be a critical part of addressing this issue and helping humans, humans get off the street and into stable housing takes planning, conversations, research, and money. It takes a myriad of people coming into a room together and talking about lessons learned and approaches some of which are tried and true and others new and customized specifically for Renton. It takes humanity. It takes being really thoughtful about the culture you want to create in Renton for all residents. It means not saying things like comfortable in their misery because if there ever was an oxymoron, this is one. I don't know a single unhoused person who would tell you they're comfortable. What many would tell you is they are afraid, afraid of so many things. What they would tell you is they are just trying to survive. When I sat with Lux yesterday, and you can read about my conversation on social media and see a video, she was one of the youngest ever to get housed at the Union Hotel. She was 20 and has been on the streets since she was about 16. She now just got a job and she is working as a Seattle ambassador. So what I'm going to challenge you all is let's do this one differently. Let's try something new. Let's put a plan in place. Let's execute against that plan. Let's pivot where necessary. And let's see what happens when we offer services and shelter first. For seven years, seven years, I've seen the result of Housing First. Thank you.

All right, next is Zach Moore. Please refrain in disrupting the meeting.

Thank you. Zach Moore is Mr. Bob Baker.

Hi, Zach Morris, Renton resident. I, for one, like the clapping. But I'm here to speak about the vote to criminalize homelessness in Renton. Despite what lies some pro-business zealot told in the Seattle Times or here in tonight's meeting, or shrill NIMBYs who complain about homeless people while vehemently opposing programs that could help, Housing First works. What doesn't work is nonsense about accountability and tough love. If you want to fail the people of Renton you think matter, then by all means, keep pushing this empty rhetoric while people continue to struggle and suffer openly in the streets. You will accomplish nothing besides exposing yourselves as arrogant and uncaring fools. Be smart, have a heart, vote no on this needlessly punitive and ineffective proposal. Thank you.

Right after Bob Baker is Amy.

I'm not going to sit down because it's too hard to get back up. So, Bob Baker, Unincorporated King County. I come to you tonight to ask a couple of questions. First question is, how many of you have sat down with a meal or a good conversation with unhoused individuals? Two of you. Three of you. I've been sitting with Quite a few unhoused people in the city of Renton lately. Last night I had the opportunity to have dinner with a 43-year-old male who's been on the streets for 10 years, a 36-year-old woman who's been on the streets for 18 years. Their stories are totally different. The male lost his job of 14 years. Lost his job, and even with unemployment, was unable to keep up his bills. Eventually wound up unhoused. While he was unhoused, he turned to drugs. And it's a vicious cycle. The female had to run away from home because it was safer on the streets than it was at home. So she left, hit the streets, wound up in the city of Renton. And through talking to them, the one thing that both of them said was, my questions were, and this is almost every single unhoused person that I've talked to, What would you like, if you asked the mayor or the city council, what would one thing be that you would like? And they all said, a sustainable area where we can live, a sustainable area that has porta-potties that get cleaned regularly, a sustainable area that has dumpsters that are taken care of on a regular basis, That's what they want. I asked them about housing. They said, we would love to have housing, but there is no housing. So my question is to you, we have this ordinance that you're trying to pass, but we have no place to put these people. So I'm asking you to pause this ordinance until you can figure out what in the world you're going to do with these people instead of casting them aside or forcing them out of Renton to unincorporated King County where they have zero resources whatsoever. Nothing. Once they get out there, their lives are in jeopardy. And so for that, I thank you for the time.

Next up is Amy. After Amy is Nicholas Bautista.

I'm Amy, resident of Brenton. Today I'm asking you to abstain from voting, actually, on any issues related to homelessness or ALPRs until we have a full council. But I do still want to speak on both of those issues. The ordinance 6199 to criminalize homelessness has life-altering consequences on the line. We heard from another speaker that jail often drops the ball on a lot of mental health and substance use treatment, although sometimes it is kind of a substitute for substance use treatment simply because they have to detox. But that's neither here nor there. Despite having such life-altering consequences, there are isn't really any justification from data or any overarching plan to manage homelessness. The city hasn't presented any information about how many unhoused people are in Renton, how many of those people already receive mental health and substance use services, how many of those people utilize shelters already, how many of them use services that are in Renton versus outside Renton, how many are already on a wait list for housing. We just don't know that information. and yet we're taking really drastic actions without having any sort of resources in place to send them, any sort of shelter I mean. The King County Housing Authority, that wait list is actually closed. King County Housing Authority operates 71 properties and there are up to 2,000 people or households waiting for each property. So they just closed the wait list. It's just not available. And then the Rent and Housing Authority, there are a couple vacancies for seniors and people with disabilities on the website, but when I checked, the link to apply was broken, so they can't really even apply. I'm not sure where they're supposed to go, and yet we're going to send them to jail. It's very confusing. It's also cruel, it's also dehumanizing, and it surely will just displace people and not solve any sort of real problem. I also want to make a quick note about FLOC and ALPRs. We had access through a neighborhood Renton meeting to a list of cases from January to March 2026 where FLOC was used to search related to that case. And I wanted to make note that of the 89 cases that were presented, only four actually resulted in some sort of arrest that was noted on that list. That's about 4%. And then two of those arrests were made, only two of them were based on a FLOC hot list alert. So I do want to just point out that of the data that we have, which is not much, it's not very effective. So Why do we have it?

Yeah, thanks for your time After Nicholas Bautista is Megan Jacob

Mr. Mayor, City Council, citizens of Renton, my name is Nicholas Batista. I'm a lifelong Rentonite, and I'm here to testify in favor of the homeless camping ban. In the last 10 years, the homelessness crisis has gotten too far out of hand in King County. Compassion has been abused more than it has been used as a step towards better lives. From encampments by Fred Meyers at North Benson Center to the stench of urine on the sidewalks at downtown Renton Transit Center to the roaming of drug-using and or mentally unstable vagrants, all are blights to the quality of life of we who live and work in Renton, as well as harmful unto their own selves with their chosen nihilistic destruction. Passing this homeless encampment ban will not only improve Ryan Knight's lives, but make these unhoused individuals face their own reality, move on, get help, or be imprisoned for disobeying the laws of our society. They could move on elsewhere. They can move on and get help and support, or disregard the simple answers and take extra steps via custody. That's the results to be expected when passing this ban. If the unhaves don't face themselves now, then when? If not we, the Rentonites, then who? It's all gone too far. Enough is enough. There will be other benefits to such a ban too. It has become apparent that the city of Renton does not currently possess the legal tools to keep things in clean and orderly condition for its citizens and visitors alike concerning public furlough fairs and spaces. Case in point, the Bronson Way underpass on the Riverwalk. It seems the Parks Department, the DOT, and or other city agencies cannot keep it clean and safe even for one single day, the day it sees the most foot traffic all year long, the duck race Sunday of River Days. Every year, once the ducks reach the library bridge, hundreds of people rush the river walk path, children, teens, adults, and the elderly. All must endure the stench of human waste and drug residue, and this year... splayed and tweaked out vagrants in the underpass. Holding breath doesn't help. We were lucky and blessed that those individuals were not belligerent towards the throngs of people following the ducks down to the Wells Avenue Bridge. Had they been, this year's River Days could have ended very differently. If this ban passes, it should surely be enough legal standing in impudence to keep the Bronson Way underpass clean for at least one day a year. Duck race Sunday. I implore the city council, pass this homeless camping ban for the sake of the homeless to face their existence. For Rentonites living and learning and working in our city, young and old, and families, I implore you, enough is enough.

Please respect everybody's opinion. Please respect everybody's opinion.

All right. After Ms. Jacob is James Needham.

Hi. I'm a resident of Renton for 53 years. I did leave for a small period of time for about eight months. I had, when I was in in my 20s to live in Seattle. So I'm speaking out of my heart of what I saw in Seattle, too, that is only escalated. When I ask you to please vote for this ban, you have people that have homes, you have businesses that are trying to earn money here, which is your revenue that you get to spend. When I watch through COVID, especially my neighborhood, have an encroachment of people that were homeless. And my heart breaks for them. I know people that have been homeless. I know people that have in the city of Renton, in our condemned buildings, where vagrants or homeless people or whatever you want to call them, because I think it is a mix. You cannot just put one name on them all. They all have a different story in what's causing their plight. But I know people that have gone in there that are minors that have ended up doing fentanyl with the adults that were there. I know people that are in these camps that take advantage of people that are either younger than them or less of them and they are sexually assaulted and they are harmed. When you have this happen and you allow camping on the street, you lose businesses. BUSINESSES HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY TO SUPPORT SECURITY. PRICES GO UP AND THEN THEY EVENTUALLY LEAVE. AND PEOPLE HERE TALK ABOUT A FOOD DESERT. WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP JUST LIKE SEATTLE WHERE NO STORES WANT TO STAY. TACOMA JUST IS LOSING THEIR LAST FRED MEYER. I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE ONE LEFT OPEN. YOU JUST HAD A GROCERY STORE THAT EMPLOYS AND LETS THE PEOPLE HAVE A PART OF THEIR BUSINESS. open in Renton, and you're going to lose that because these people cannot survive. There are businesses that have shut down. When you allowed the Red Lion in to happen, you ended up having people that were getting killed or assaulted or harmed. People did not want to use the carpool thing anymore, so they had to go out of the way to safer areas. And when you go downtown Seattle, for Pete's sake, they are now dropping off cases of Narcon. because they need it so drastically and businesses are leaving seattle they're losing their revenue and we're not talking just mom and pop we are talking big ones big businesses stepping out and you're going to lose homeowners because they cannot afford to pay taxes on inflated homes that people give a value to when you have situations like this that are going to bring it down and it's fine if people own a home and they want to let these people you know, camp in their backyard, let them. And then they can pay all their bills. But there are, I guarantee you, a lot of people are not going to do that. And there is a group of people with the socialism, people that I watch on TV, and their biggest thing is to get rid of the capitalism, and they do not want. And capitalism is to overt property ownership. So by allowing this to happen, you're going to have people leave to a state that's going to allow them to own property. Thank you.

All right, next is James Needham. After James Needham is Leslie Jensen.

Council members, I'm James Needham. I'm a resident of Renton, and I'm here to ask you to either abstain from voting or vote against the proposition. I would like you to remember that these people we're talking about are people. Everyone is one bad day from homelessness. It might have to be a really bad day, depending on how well off you are, but one bad day. For example, when I was living with my father when I was very young, eight maybe, he received a job offer across the country, which we had to move for. And he took me and my little sister with him. And on the way, the job offer was rescinded. And so we no longer qualified for a home that we were going to be renting. We were broke. We had no resources that we could turn to. There were none. And we were just very lucky that he happened to have a friend in a reasonable distance that we could stay with during the time that he found employment again. I just want you to remember that whenever you talk about these people, whenever you talk about the people that are not going to have the assistance that you say is going to exist, eventually, one day, post-passing all of this, They're people. They're you one bad day later. So if you ever need these services, I hope that you never do, you're going to want them in place before you pass any of these ordinance, before you criminalize a behavior as though it's a choice. So thank you.

Next up is Leslie Jensen. On deck is Todd Allred.

Leslie Jensen, Renton resident. It's me again. The amount of vitriol that is being thrown at homeless people right now is actually disturbing to me. Like the gentleman before me said, these are human beings, and this is supposed to be a community, and communities take care of each other. They don't treat homeless people like they are not human beings. So I ask you to either vote against or abstain on this ordinance that will put people in prison before you have the services to offer them. I don't understand why you want to put the cart in front of the horse so much. There's no logical reason for it. And second, I want to mention ALPRs. We had asked for a town hall. And I believe that is what you all voted on, a town hall for ALPRs. And what we got was RPD giving us marketing from Flock. In a town hall, you have a conversation. You don't have to turn in questions ahead of time and have them be ignored. I sent in a question, didn't get asked. I'm not surprised. But we asked for a town hall, and that is not what you gave us. And that's unacceptable.

Okay. Next is Todd Allred. After Todd Allred is Brigid Cavallone. Okay. All right. Next is Brigid Cavallone. Hopefully I said that right.

Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for having us present today, those pro and con, our voices heard. I am in support of initiative 6199. I do not have a very prepared statement because I just decided to speak this evening. I have lived in Renton for 64 years. I've been a homeowner and taxpayer for 55 of those years. I'm pretty distraught to hear that my tax dollars are heading in these directions. The Blight of Seattle is definitely moving to Renton or has already moved to Renton. I've enjoyed walking the Cedar River Trail many years, but I stopped probably about six years ago because of the environment. Dogs were running at us. People were yelling at us, throwing things at us. that clearly we, why would we expose ourselves to that? I worked for 40 years as a social worker. My last 30 years were with King County Department of Community and Human Services. I was literally boots on the ground working with homeless populations all over South King County. What I found is when we went out to provide services, outreach, as well as folks coming into our offices, individuals who were willing to accept help got help. They were willing to abide by rules and regulations as any citizen should, and they received the help they requested. For those who were not willing to abide by rules and assistance we provided, they turned their backs and walked out the door. We did not give up on them. We would continue to outreach to them and try to work with them, provide them services the best we could. But if we needed a shelter bed, we could always find one. We were able to provide food, gas, housing, employment, education to folks. And for those who were willing to accept it, they received it. And I have many success stories. Again, I am a taxpayer. I'm seeing, as one other speaker spoke of, my home value is inflated. At this point I know that if I go to sell I'm not going to get what the county is assessing me for. I pay about $12,000 a year in property taxes. And, you know, the status quo is just not working. I am considering moving out of state. if things don't get better here because I don't see why I should be subjecting myself or my family to fear when I even walk through the parking lot at the Fred Meyer store.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Chris Allred and on deck is George Hacker. Okay. All right. So is this Mr. George Hacker?

Yeah, I'm the on-deck guy.

And on-deck is Janet He.

Mayor, council members, my name is George Hacker. I'm a new Renton citizen. I moved here just over a year ago, and I came to move up to be with my family and my grandkids. I was really moved by the people who had drug-affected relatives that came and testified. And they told you from personal experience that they felt such an ordinance should be passed because it held their family members accountable and put them into a system. It wasn't a perfect system, but it put them into a place where they could get the help that they needed. Have you ever seen a car with a window spray painted from the inside? You walk up to it, some of the fenders are barely hanging on. That's someone's personal opium den, where they just sort of camp in there and they do drugs all day. I've seen a couple of those in my neighborhood since I've moved up here, and I live just a few blocks from an elementary school. I think your ordinance would help to curb such situations in neighborhoods like mine. Also, since I've been here for the last year, there's a fire at the Triton Tower at the corner of the street where some camping had a campfire just sort of lose control. Camping isn't safe for the campers. There's abuse and all sorts of other things, violence that happens in camps, but also it's not safe for the community. Recently, Seattle got an open letter from businesses stating that their number one concern with Seattle was public safety. Your ordinance is a public safety ordinance, and I don't think it's an unreasonable one. The time for action is now. Pass the ordinance. You folks have a quorum. I don't think you need to have every member in attendance to make decisions, so I encourage you to pass the ordinance that you have before you. Thank you.

All right, next up is Janet He. And after her is Matthew Lang on deck.

Hi, Mr. Mayor and all the council members. And I actually did not know that I signed up. I must be signed up on the wrong sheet. However, I'd like to take this opportunity to present what I'm thinking. So I heard both sides of supporting and opposing the ordinance. And so from China, I just want to say that it's amazing to, first of all, to experience this wonderful opportunity to witness this process of doing of doing the American way, I guess. So speaking of homelessness, okay. So I came here 30 something years ago. And every time that I see a homeless people, a person on the street, that I've been always giving them money. And when my son was young, that I always told him that give money, and then every time you look into their eyes saying, God bless you. And because that this person is in need, and maybe one day, as some of the people who testified as well, maybe one day you are also in need. But the homeless has been, the issues has been, I've been here 36 years now, and has been increased, and doesn't matter how much money I have even given, and how many people have been given money to. And I think that the thousands, billions, and money have been spent on this issue, and yet Seattle has become really desperate place and with homeless on the streets. And what the homelessness has been destroyed is our community and our once beautiful city. And now that I see that the same thing is moving into Kent, because I actually go to Kent a lot downtown, and then every... There are many people, because I go to the gym over there, and every morning there are homeless people sleeping in front of the business. Yes, I do give them food now, and I don't give them money now. But just to say that you let those people do whatever they want to do, and that is a way to show compassion. and the love and well for the last 36 years and I haven't seen this improving so maybe your love and your compassion did not really work the way that you wished it to be and I also agreed that there should be places that actually the solution maybe facilities or whatever and it needs to be provided but then I actually worked with a lot of organizations also reached out in homeless camps and everything. So just there's no need to comment to educate me that your love and compassion. So I support this ordinance. Please pass it. Thank you.

All right. Next is Matthew Lang and on deck is Brian Dang.

Hi, my name is Matthew Lang. I already introduced myself earlier, so I'm not going to belabor that too much. One of the things that I have done in my career, I was on the community engagement work group that helped build the King County Regional Homeless Authority. I stepped away when the Live Experience Coalition membership was reduced from 30% of the governing board, giving them less power in favor of no offense folks, other more elected officials. Also, I thought that the funding mechanism was severely broken from the very beginning. Here we are. I want to talk a little bit about how we should actually approach this, right? I think that homelessness is a public health crisis. It's not something that is a public safety crisis at its heart. There is public safety absolutely embedded in there. There's sex trafficking happening in some camps. There's violence that happens. Those people do need to be removed from society and rehabilitated. I agree with that. But for the vast majority of folks, if you provide them appropriate housing options, they will take it. If you provide them with wraparound services that meet their needs, they will take it. The problem is we don't have that. But I do have luxury townhomes that just got built right across the street from my house in Sunset. So I'm a type 1 diabetic, right? So if we're going to talk about it as a public health crisis, let's look at it from a holistic point of view, right? So I have an entire care team. I have an endocrinologist, I have a primary care physician, I have a diabetes educator, a dietitian, several nurses and support administrative staff that all help me manage my illness, right? Chronic homelessness is an illness, right? You need support for mental health, possibly addiction, disability, you need housing, and there's a whole suite of things that you need to offer. What this does to me, the ordinance, it's like handing me a vial of insulin and saying good luck. Right? It's one piece, right? Like I said, there are some people who need to be removed from society because they're violent and harmful. That is not the majority of the folks who are living on the streets. In 2017 and 2018, I worked on the head tax campaign, the ill-fated head tax. I was the lead organizer for that. And one of the biggest problems that we had was that we didn't have a detailed enough spending plan. We didn't have a plan that we could communicate to the public that actually did it. Folks came out and did a referendum, and 30 days later, it was repealed. Now, four years later, there's the jumpstart tax in Seattle, which is raising about 10 times as much as the head tax was originally supposed to do, but we did the work to get there. So let's take it back and do that. I really don't want to have to file a referendum tomorrow, guys.

Next is Brian Hughes. After Brian Hughes is Gabriel Weidling.

Brian Dang, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Oh, I'm sorry. Brian Dang and then Brian Hughes. Sorry. Yep.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. This is Brian Deng again from King County Unincorporated.

Can you use the other microphone? That one's not working. That's what I thought. Oh, now it's working. It's good. Sorry about that. Okay, let's start over. Go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. This is Brian Deng again from King County Unincorporated and a frequent Renton visitor. I'm here to urge the Council to pause the camping ban and to comment briefly on ALPRs. I last spoke about how surveillance did not actually prevent crime and only films it taking place. ALPRs are as ineffective as enforcement on ordinance 6199. Threatening people with jail time of 90 days and fines of $1,000 that they can't pay doesn't actually help people and only criminalizes them. Homeless people need homes. It's in the word itself. That the city is only now scrambling to come up with the resource center shows that this is not planned out. Helping people get their life together needs proper planning and problem solving. Other speakers have already mentioned housing first methods and more options than only sober living, which is not practical for everyone. When I was in education, my mentor teacher told me she went into teaching because she wanted to set people up for success to prevent anyone from ever becoming homeless in the first place. In the same way that ALPRs do not prevent crime, ordinance 6199 does not help homeless people. Homeless people are human beings. Please abstain on voting on this ordinance. Next I'll briefly comment on ALPRs. At the meeting I attended last month, I heard there was going to be a town hall on ALPRs and I wanted to attend that. I thought, you know, this might be something worthwhile. A town hall is supposed to be like an in-person event that's a two-way conversation. What I got was a one-sided PowerPoint presentation where we were just a captive audience for flocks talking points. I'll say it. It was dishonest to ever frame it as a town hall. Please hold off on enforcing or please hold off on passing and enforcing ordinance 6199. Thank you for your time.

All right. Next is Brian Hughes, and on deck is Gabrielle Weisling. It's a luxury.

We can get one of those red chairs down here next time.

Hello, my name is Brian Hughes, Renton resident. Last time I was here, I presented a sample of abuses and carelessness RPD had with accessing our personal data with Flock. No case numbers when it was required, extraordinarily broad and unnecessary searches, and unclear audit records. Since then, the RPD had their ALPR town hall, and according to RPD, nothing I described has ever been a problem for them. We are told that since 2024, there have been no issues with RPD's use of flock, but the data shows a completely different story. RPD does not seem able or willing to audit the data, so it's clear why their solution is to make us pay a third-party auditor to do the work for them while they can continue to abuse our data. In addition, RPD had not once mentioned axon fusis during their ALPR town hall. If anyone here is not aware of axon fusis, I don't blame you because they didn't mention it in the ALPR town hall, even though RPD officers have used it for searching our ALPR data. Regarding the camping ban, this council's acting with what I feel like is a rushed, reckless disregard for human dignity of those who will be affected by this. We do not have the shelters that are trustworthy and available to those who need it. The locations being looked at for housing and shelters have significant concerns, which could impact their availability and quality of service before this ordinance goes into effect. And I can't help but wonder why they need to rush such a monumentally life-changing impact on our most vulnerable neighbors. The data being used by Eric Zimmerman to dismiss previous approaches is biased and not trustworthy with the intent of selling governments in his approach and seems to be foundational for this ordinance. If the council cares about our most vulnerable neighbors who cannot be here to speak for themselves and truly care about working together towards solution, why do you not take the time to host a community meeting town hall to discuss this in depth instead of listening to each of us for no more than three minutes? Take the time to hear us, be thoughtful, and let us work together as a community towards a solution we can believe in. We should understand how to measure success before you rush towards a decision that risks greater harms on our fellow humans that cannot be undone with a vote from the dais. Thank you.

Next up is Gabriel Weidling, and on deck is Andrew Labriato.

Hi. Welcome back after the break. I'm going to do a rare thing for me. Oh, Gabriel Weidling, resident, taxpayer, blah, blah, blah. All the things everyone else has said, I do those too. Also HOA president. I'm qualified to speak about what I'm talking about, okay? all right um a compliment which i don't usually start with um i am really thrilled to see that the flock cameras were covered thank you so much for getting that done i do truly and honestly appreciate that very much it really does make me feel a lot better about the situation All right, down to business. ICE and Renton. Last time we were here, we had some unpleasantness about not passing a ban on ICE on city property because it's not enforceable and it's just symbolic. That's a thing that other cities have undertaken as a symbolic measure to say where they stand for their community and against ICE. It was cowardly for y'all not to do that. Read the carrot and the stick. I mean the ordinance to criminalize homelessness. Do y'all carry Narcan? Do you know any homeless folks? Do you give them cash? Do you feed them? Is this a thing you do? Or is this just an exercise in appeasing people who saw a homeless person, it made them feel uncomfortable, which they have now conflated to being unsafe? I think it's that one, but that's my personal opinion. I would again encourage you as always to do homework, and I mean actual homework. Please don't read us the flock stats from the flock website that the police department put together. Do a Google, do a DuckDuckGo, whatever your search engine of choice is. Use that thing to find some real articles scholarly articles peer-reviewed studies even Unlike the one that was cited by Eric Zimmerman tonight. That's not peer review That's just a guy who is a fellow mayor from a free-market think-tank And citing stats like from 2014 to 2024 about how all these things have increased all these bad things homelessness Right. All of that things that we're perceiving as like bad stats. Yeah, those things have increased because you're using pre and post pandemic years, 2014 to 2024. A lot of things changed real bad for a lot of people. And on top of that, you're also including the legacy of Trump's first term in that. OK, so, yeah, of course, those stats are terrible. I'm gonna do a compliment sandwich, which I think is more than the services that are offered to our folks currently in the city I really enjoyed during the cow earlier tonight hearing a couple council members talk about Raya I didn't know about that organization and learning about the salmon was really cool So I'm gonna look them up and like learn more about them because that's rad and then as for the clapping situation This lake because the news is here tonight. We've never enforced not clapping after public comments before I'm just curious. What's different about tonight? And the last I checked the reference to it's our business meeting as a council. We elected you it's our business meeting Next up Andrew operator on deck is Wyatt

Hi, my name is Andrew Lopriato, and I'm a resident of Renton. I'm asking the Renton City Council to cancel our city's conflict with flock safety once again, and remove all the devices from the city. Among the hundreds of reasons we've heard to remove these devices, tonight I want to focus on how the proposed policy doesn't provide any remedy for those who are wronged by its use. In earlier city council meetings, city council member Albertson mentioned that the Renton police officers would lose their job for misusing the data collected by flock, as if that was an argument to prove that surveillance data won't be used incorrectly. As I've mentioned before, this is just an injustice to the officers that if they were to be hacked or their credentials were to be stolen, they would be fired for making a common mistake, especially given how insecure the system is. And while I think it's unfair to put each officer's career into the hands of a company as reckless as Flock, I certainly wouldn't want to put my career into the hands of them. I think it's also worth noting that it's punishment for punishment's sake and does nothing to help the people whose data have been stolen. What will our city offer when the people who have their daily driving habits are leaked on the internet? What will the city offer to the people whose identity is stolen in part from the release of this data? What will the city offer to the person who gets kidnapped because their stalker used the data to kidnap them? The model of justice where we punish people who make mistakes without cleaning up the mess is not justice at all. It's just sweeping a problem under a rug instead of addressing it. It's blaming a guy and moving on. If you were to truly think through the remedy a city should provide for the damages to all these easily compromisable systems, it should be easy to recognize that the costs aren't worth it. With hundreds of thousands of people going through Renton, even if we had the money to compensate them all, would cash repair the damage done to all of them? And would the city even provide remedy to someone who had their physical well-being lost due to these cameras? Luckily, the easiest solution is also the cheapest one, just remove the flock cameras. Speaking of sweeping problems under the rug, I also want to mention that the camping ban isn't going to solve our homeless problem, and more importantly, it's not going to solve the problems that the homeless have. So please don't pass it. It would be disappointing to have a council more interested in rug sweeping problems than actually solving problems. Thank you.

Next up is Wyatt, and then Sarah G.

Hello, I'm Wyatt Fitzpatrick. I'm a resident of Renton, and first I'd like to share a childhood memory. My father, when I moved in with him when I was 14, worked as a mechanic. And in the back of his truck, he had these really, really old boots. And we would go shopping, and I would ask him, why aren't you locking up your boots? And he said that if anyone stole them, they needed them more than he did. And that is to say that that was a defining point in my understanding of what compassion is. And I am really, you know, empathetic to the people who are concerned about, you know, feeling unsafe in the city. I lived in Pioneer Square. I lived there for about a year when I was in the military. I was a early 20-something-year-old at that time. Very cute girl. Not so much anymore. And I was never harassed. I lived literally in a building attached to a methadone clinic. And the people there would make sure that I actually got home safe. And I know that other people have different experiences, and those are absolutely valid. I just think that banning camping in public areas is penalizing the most vulnerable of us. And I have helped four people who were houseless by living with me, two of whom were absolute strangers, and all of them were transgender. As a transgender person, we are extremely likely to be unhoused. and to experience drug addiction. And most of the people who are homeless are so because they accidentally became addicted during accidental doctor prescriptions. It wasn't something that they chose to do. I also have an aunt who is currently missing who we hear from occasionally who is addicted to fentanyl and prostituting herself. So I do have a connection to this and I have many memories of growing up and having to stay with family members or strangers with my mom. And multiple times we didn't even have furniture. Excuse me. And it's really concerning to be surrounded by people who don't care about us and don't want us to live and grow up. One of my favorite memories is busking with my grandma. So, yeah, I'm going to go. I have 30 extra seconds, so they can be loud if they want to.

All right. We have Sarah G. Okay. And then on deck is Alex Cook.

Good evening. I'm a citizen of Renton and I have been for almost 40 years. I grew up on historic Renton Hill and I am currently a Renton homeowner. Another thing about me is that I come from a family who has suffered from drug addiction. That includes my father and about a dozen other close family members. I felt the impact firsthand that addiction has on the innocent bystanders. I have seen endless generosity often abused. Drug treatment facilities, 12-step programs, and those who are sober and working a program will often tell you that enabling an addict is not helpful to their recovery. The reason I'm talking about addiction today is because I believe that we have an addiction problem, which has created a much bigger and more problematic homeless issue. The rights that have been given to people in the name of compassion have caused our communities in the greater Seattle area to be overridden with crime and abuse of shared resources, with litter and paraphernalia left in the wake. Children shouldn't have to worry about drug paraphernalia at playgrounds, and those working hard to keep the community thriving, clean and safe don't deserve it either. Making matters worse, underserved communities often take the brunt of these issues. I went to dinner in downtown Renton this weekend and I'm so impressed with the revitalization efforts being made. The business owners who are investing in our community also deserve an area that is welcoming to patrons. I think we all have compassion for people experiencing homelessness and addiction. I love many people who have experienced both. I urge you today, though, to think about your entire community, not just a small subset, and please prohibit homeless camping in Renton. Thank you.

Up next is Alex Cook. And on deck is Gabriel Diaz.

Alex Cook, Renton resident. I'm here to urge you to vote no on ordinance 6199. For years I mentored foster care youth to help them graduate high school. As you may or may not be aware, being unhoused and experience with foster care are unfortunately strongly correlated. I've had students who had a history of being unhoused and were actively unhoused due to their family's circumstance. Sadly, some fled their birth families or foster care placements because they felt unsafe and had nowhere else to go. None of these situations were their fault. In my experience, one of the biggest barriers to my students getting their education was instability. Being unhoused hinders my students in many ways, but a big one is getting to school. My students can't learn if they can't get to the classroom. While we have McKinney-Vento protections to ensure in how students can continue to go to their school of origin, putting it into practice is still difficult. When a student is unhoused, taking the school bus is no longer feasible because they no longer live on that route. I would work with school districts to arrange rides to personally transport them to and from school. Youth needing to constantly be on the move to avoid breaking laws would make this infinitely more difficult. Criminalizing the unhoused from public spaces does not bring them closer to resources. It pushes folks farther away from them. Obviously, no one wants our young people or anyone out on the streets, but the resources that would shelter them are currently not there. We need to invest in programs that work like Housing First and wraparound services. A camping ban frames being unhoused as a choice without acknowledging the actual choices we leave people. Banning camping does not help unhoused people, and it certainly won't before more resources are established. Please vote no on Ordinance 6199. Thank you.

Next is Gabriel Diaz, and on deck is our final speaker, Michael Westgard.

Hey, everyone. My name is Gabriel Diaz, resident and taxpayer, and I'm here to speak today about how our city wants to fine you or put you in jail if you're in too poor. Firstly, I don't know if the people in this dais follow other cities, what goes on in other cities, but you know what happened to a Seattle City Council member that also loved no clapping during council? What's she doing these days? I think she has a podcast at home after losing by 25%. Also, the disregard one of you showed the people we elected because you're having a hard time with the idea that people don't like bad stuff you keep trying to pass. If you want us to clap for you, ask good stuff. Stop banging the gavel. We're not going to listen. And all you're doing is hurting the people around you. Stop it. But, back to the way we want to jail poor people. I can use the fancy language I want to use and make it nice and flowery. We talk about how, you know, we're just helping people. But what we're doing is making poor people poorer and adding burden to where people are already very heavily burdened. The argument is, if we force them inside, they'll get resources. While public commenters who have shouted this viewpoint literally said... They didn't get resources while they were there. This is what happens. We tell them, oh, we're going to push them inside so they get resources. But the same people are saying we need to push them inside to get resources. You know how they feel when it comes time to dole out the money for those resources? Well, we don't want to give it to those type of people. Those people don't deserve the money. That's what happens. Here's what's going to happen. We're going to put people in jail and force them to get help. They'll go to SCORE. And if they survive SCORE, because a lot of people don't, they won't be given resources and be put back on the streets. Where they come out, how will they afford to eat? How will they afford to have a place to live? What's going to happen? They'll be right back at square one and nothing has changed. We don't have the resources. Have y'all looked at the Section 8 website recently? I have. I've looked constantly over the last two years. You know what it says? Waitlist is closed. No idea when it's going to be open again. That's where we're at. That's the resources. Now, we could actually address the root cause and actually do something real about homelessness, but that's not an easy election talking point. That's not what makes everything look nice and pretty right before election season. So you can say you really did something about the issue. But I promise you, we aren't going to forget, and nobody who votes us up will make another election. This is a half-baked bill that doesn't have a plan or do what we actually want to do. As I've said before, all stick, no carrot. Why do we constantly focus on bigger sticks? But when it comes time for a carrot, well, we don't have the money for that. You know, we can't give that kind of money. It is time to vote no on this. I appreciate y'all. Let's clap it up for getting rid of this bad bill. Next up is Michael Westgard.

HE'S OUR FINAL SPEAKER.

I DON'T THINK SO.

OKAY. WELL, YOUR NAME WASN'T ON THE LIST. OKAY. OKAY. GO AHEAD, SIR.

HELLO, MICHAEL WESTGARD, A RENTON RESIDENT. Where am I going to start? So, yeah. So first thing, I reached out to Auburn just because I'm inquisitive like that and kind of got nudged by a comrade. And they don't have any data for their program past 2024. And that looks like that was the only year they really collected any data from. And they had contact with around 1,200 people. They survived or presented services to something like 200 people, and then the data stops. So I'm not sure if that's the gold standard program that we should be basing this all off of. And then to live experience. So currently I'm a wastewater treatment operator with King County and I work for the West section offsite team. So I am in the incredible parts of downtown Seattle that everybody keeps talking about. And it's just not like that. Yes, there are people struggling. There are issues, but it's not Mad Max. I promise you. I do have to pick up needles a time, but I also have to pull all kinds of other garbage and crap out of pumps trying to get them to run again so we don't overflow into the sound. So like these things are just being way overblown. Like if you look again at information, we just as a region hosted a World Cup and the entire world that came to the city or the region of King County and stayed in our different cities and around the area, they proclaimed how incredible it was here and how lucky we are to live here. So we have issues. I get that. And to the people that are concerned about their safety, I do have compassion for that. But the issue is about the intersectionality of home. It's not being built since the crash in 2007 and not keeping up for the demand in the market, making it unaffordable. And then you add things like Purdue Pharma. flooding our communities with opiates and you have a bunch of opiate addicts like these things are not that complicated the city actually just received a check from that like we could have repurposed that to supported some services so kind of in like i'll close them like hopefully continue this conversation you guys don't vote on this garbage tonight um Like, we need to set the services up. I don't think any of the people I'm here in support with against the ordinance are saying that we're demanding people being able to camp on the streets. That is not what we're asking for, and that's not what we're fighting for. We're fighting for services for people that are struggling so their needs are met and they can get off of the street. And then focus on building housing, doing rental protections, helping the small businesses with some kind of rental and lease protections. Like, there is lots of work that we can do. And then in closing, since I got six seconds, like, dismantle flock. Like, let's get rid of that. Have a good night.

Please state your name and city of residence.

My name is Tammy Hess. I'm a Renton City resident, a member of Radical Woman, and a mom. And we've been hearing a lot about tents and tarps and open-air drug use and concerns about safety sanitation in our public spaces. But I worry that as we're discussing homelessness, it's a disturbingly narrow scope. So I was speaking with our family liaison who works at the school, and she shared with me that she works with Retton Technical College, and she's worked with several students who are unhoused, living in their cars, and who also have small children. She works at my daughter's elementary school, where last year there were 26 families that were experiencing homelessness. For some families, you've heard tonight, it can take one missed paycheck or a crisis to lose their housing. My daughter is seven years old, and so we're talking about some of her classmates, actually a significant number for a smaller school. When she sees someone living outside, she asks me, why don't they have a home? Where do they sleep? Are they okay? Those are simple questions, but I think they're questions we should be asking tonight. Where do they go? Because when we tell someone to leave, the problem does not leave with them, as you've heard tonight. Maybe that person is a parent with children, a student trying to stay in school, a woman who fled domestic violence, or someone struggling with substance use. All I've heard tonight is substance use, so we're really looking narrow right now. There are many different circumstances, and this is an entire community we're talking about. I respect the people who are connecting our neighbors with services, but before you give the city enforcement power, you have to ask whether we're ready for what comes next. Do we have the shelter, treatment, transportation, storage, safe parking, and housing capacity to make the power actually lead somewhere? When those resources are often limited or full, you heard about that tonight too, enforcement does not create any infrastructure. It just moves the problem and makes an already difficult situation that much more difficult. You're not just deciding whether you can enforce this, you're deciding whether it will actually work. Other cities have taken this path. Let's learn from what they're seeing before we assume that enforcement is the answer. Are people getting housed? Are they simply being moved? And we're learning that they're simply being moved, cited, fined, and potentially jailed and pushed to another city or in cycle of instability. An ordinance can create enforcement power. It cannot create a place for someone to go. When this meeting ends, most of us will go home to a bed, to a door. We'll sleep there and we will have our belongings with us and our loved ones with us. For the people affected by this ordinance, many who are not here to speak for themselves, they don't have a door. You're up there because you were entrusted with the stewardship of this community and you have the power to decide what happens next. Please don't measure success by whether homelessness becomes less visible, because that's all I've heard you talk about. Measure it by whether people are actually finding a safe place to call home rather than simply being moved from one place to another. Because my daughter's going to keep asking, are they okay? And I hope I can tell her yes, because in Renton, when someone had nowhere to go, we actually provided somewhere safe for them to go.

That was the final speaker, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Mr. Mayor, we do have our last virtual speaker. Okay. That is Sharice McGee.

Good evening, Mayor, Council President, members of the Renton Council. My name is Sharice McGee, and I am the founder of Exxon Portable Housing and Development, a Washington-based real estate development company focused on creating quality and stronger communities. I understand that tonight the council is addressing the difficult issue of homelessness encampments on public property. I recognize that the city is trying to balance public safety, the use of parks and public spaces, and the very real needs of people who currently have nowhere stable to live. And that is exactly why I wanted to be here tonight. Whatever decisions are made regarding the encampments, I believe we also have to continue addressing the question underneath all of this. Where do people go? As a developer, I want to be some part of that answer. My vision is to develop affordable housing that provides more than four walls and roofs. I want to help create communities and give people a pathway towards stability and independence. That includes quality affordable housing, but it can also include childcare, safe spaces for children, career and computer resource centers, employment resources, and partnerships with organizations that provide supportive services. I believe we can create housing that is affordable and beautiful, safe, well maintained, and something residents and the surrounding community can be proud of. I also understand that I cannot do this alone. Meaningful, affordable housing development requires partnerships between the city, housing agencies, service providers, community organizations, experienced developers, financial institutions, and the people we are ultimately trying to serve. So tonight, I'm asking the city of Renton to help me identify where Echelon Affordable Housing and Development can become part of that partnership. I am particularly interested in learning about city-owned or underutilized land, redevelopment opportunities, affordable housing funding, future requests for proposals, and public-private partnerships where Echelon can help create additional housing. I am building Echelon for the long term. My goal isn't simply to build properties. My goal is to help build solutions. I WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH APPROPRIATE CITY STAFF FOLLOWING TONIGHT'S MEETING AND BEGIN THAT CONVERSATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CITY OF BRENTON AND RESIDENTS AROUND.

That was a marathon. Thank you all for coming. Appreciate people coming out tonight on both sides of this issue. It's a challenging one for the council to deal with. Definitely appreciate you coming and sharing with us your viewpoint. So, with that, we're going to move on to the next part of the meeting. We've got the consent agenda. There are 12 items for council consideration. Are there any that you'd like pulled for separate discussion?

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member. Hearing none, I move approval of the consent agenda as published. Second.

It's been moved by Council Member McIrvin, seconded by Council Member Albertson, that the consent agenda be approved as published. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, Nate. Motion carries. We're going to go on to unfinished business. Council Member Prince.

No unfinished business, Mr. Mayor.

Council Member McIrvin. Yes, Mr. Mayor, the Community Services Committee has one report to present.

All right, Community Services Committee, committee report regarding the appointment of Paul Wong to the Parks Commission. The Community Services Committee recommends concurrence of the staff recommendation to approve Mayor Pavone's appointment of Paul Wong to fill a vacant position on the Parks Commission with the term expiring June 1st, 2028. This is signed by the committee chair and members.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes, Mr. Mayor.

I move that the council concur with the recommendation of the Community Services Committee.

Second. It's been moved by Council Member McIrvin, seconded by Council Member Rivera, that the council concur with the, which committee was that? Community Services Committee. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries.

Thank you. Council Member Halloran. Yes, Mr. Mayor. The Finance Committee has six committee reports for this evening.

All right. The first report from the Finance Committee is regarding approval of claims and payroll vouchers. Finance Committee approves following payments. Account payable total payment $17,595,578.08 for a number of vouchers and payroll benefit without holding vouchers and three wire transfers. Payroll total payment of $5,000,000. $36,910.22 for payroll vouchers that include 1,707 direct deposits and 24 checks. This is the June 16th through 31st and August 1st through August 15th pay periods. And then municipal court vouchers totaling $17,152.32. This is signed by the committee chair members.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member Halloran. I move that Council concur with the Finance Committee report. Second.

It's been moved by Council Member Halloran, seconded by Council Member Gervin that the Council concur with the Finance Committee report. Any discussion? On favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries.

All right, next is Amendment Number 6 with Axon Enterprise Incorporated for the purchase of Axon Justice Fast Pass. The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Amendment Number 6 to Contract 21227 with Axon Enterprise Incorporated in the amount of $206,300.84 for the purchase of Axon Justice Fast Pass. This is signed by the Committee Chair and members.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, Council Member Halloran. I move that Council concur with the Finance Committee report.

Second. The move by Council Member Halloran, seconded by Council Member McIrvin, that the Council concur with the Finance Committee report. Any discussion?

Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

I'm just curious, can you tell us what the fast pass is, Council Member Halloran?

Yes, the Fast Pass is a program that offers translation services and helps with the identification of private and personal information to be redacted for the purposes of providing privacy in our reporting. Thank you.

Question? Yes, Council Member Vann.

Thank you, Mayor. I am curious as to prior to prior to the fast pass, because this is the amendment number six to this contract. So prior to the justice fast pass, were we not being able to have, and you said interpretation, translation services, like I'm just kind of understanding what's the difference, what we've had in the past and what's now. I can speak to it.

This is actually, so the police department has this contract for the Axon software on its side. The prosecutor's office has been using a free version of it that is much more limited. It's not integrated with our case management system and it requires a lot of manual work beyond the other things that were mentioned. So it allows us to operate more efficiently and more accurately, I would say, and that's the purpose of it.

All right. Any other discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. All right. Motion carries. Oh, we have one last abstention.

All right, so the next report is regarding an application for a grant for the Parks Department, Parks and Recreation Department. The Finance Committee recommends concurrence of the staff recommendation to authorize application to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, RCO. for a $4,930,000 land and water conservation fund outdoor recreation legacy partnership grant. The committee further recommends that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. This was signed by the committee chairs and members.

Mr. Mayor. Council Member Halloran. I move the council concur with the finance committee report. Second.

Moved by Council Member Halloran, seconded by Council Member McIrvin, that the council concur with the finance committee report. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries.

The next report is regarding an agreement with Geoengineers Incorporated for the May Creek Trail Bank Stabilization Project. Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement with Geoengineers Incorporated in the amount of $399,493 for the May Creek Trail Bank Stabilization Project. This is signed by the Committee Chair and members.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member O'Halloran. I move that Council concur with the Finance Committee Committee Report.

Second. Okay, it's been moved by Council Member O'Halloran, seconded by Council Member Gerben, that the Council concur with the Finance Committee Report. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries.

All right, the next report is regarding a reimbursement agreement with the King County Sheriff's Office. The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the cost reimbursement agreement with the King County Sheriff's Office in order to receive up to $19,857.26 for reimbursement of overtime costs associated with verifying addresses and residency status of registered sex and kidnapping offenders. This is signed by the committee chair and members.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member Halloran. I move that Council concur with the Finance Committee report. Second.

It's been moved by Council Member Halloran, seconded by Council Member Gervin. Council concur with the Finance Committee report. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries.

The final report from the Finance Committee is regarding an agreement with the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission. The Finance Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a three-year agreement with the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission for the reimbursement of salary and benefits for the provision of one training officer, Officer Ridgway, time while working at the Basic Law Enforcement Academy. This, too, was signed by the committee chair and members.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member Halloran. I move that Council concur with the Finance Committee report.

Second. It's been moved by Council Member O'Halloran, seconded by Council Member Kerbin, that the Council concur with the Finance Committee report. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. All right. Thank you, Finance Department. We're on to Council Member Rivera.

Go and finish business, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Council Member Albertson.

Go and finish business, Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Vance. Go and finish business, Mayor.

All right. We are moving on to legislation where we have two resolutions for adoption, one ordinance for first reading, and one for second and final.

All right. The first resolution, resolution 4597, is regarding the grant application that we spoke about earlier. The resolution of the City of Renton, Washington, authorizing the submission of an application for grant funding assistance for a land and water conservation fund, outdoor recreation legacy partnership program project to the National Park Service for the Cleveland Richardson Park development.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member Halloran. I move the resolution be adopted as read. Second.

It's been moved by Council Member Halloran, seconded by Council Member McGovern, that the resolution be adopted as read. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries.

All right, the next resolution is regarding adoption of our arts and culture master plan. A resolution of the City of Renton, Washington, adopting an updated City of Renton Arts and Culture Master Plan.

Yes, Council Member Prince. I move the resolution be adopted as read. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Council Member Prince, seconded by Council Member Vann, that the resolution be adopted as read. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries.

The next ordinance is regarding a docket item. common open spaces. So an ordinance of the city of Renton, Washington amending subsection 41240A and 49150E1 through 2 of the Renton Municipal Code amending common open space substitution applicability and planned urban development residential open space standards authorizing corrections providing for severability and establishing an effective date. Mr. Mayor.

Yes, Council Member Parks.

I move the ordinance be placed on second and final reading of the next council meeting.

It's been moved by Council Member Prince, seconded by Council Member Vann, that the ordinance be placed on second and final reading at the next council meeting. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries.

All right. Finally, we have the Ordinance 6199, which is regarding public property use, camping, and trespass. This is for second and final reading. We'll require a roll call vote. An ordinance of the city of Renton, Washington adding a new chapter 634, public property use, camping and trespass to the Renton Municipal Code establishing prohibitions on camping, unauthorized property storage, shopping cart possession, trespass after order, failure to obey an order. to leave unauthorized entry on restricted access property in violation of property specific rules on city property, establishing a unified trespass order system with geographic trespass zones, providing for city property classification and public access rules, amending subsections 298B10 and 298C10 of the municipal code, repealing chapter 630 and 631 of the municipal code, providing for the continued effect of orders issued under the repealed chapters, authorizing corrections, providing for severability, and establishing an effective date.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, Councillor Robertson. Due to some problematic issues that have come to my attention, I move to amend Ordinance Number 6199 by striking the word required in the first sentence of RMC 6-34-9-B and inserting the word encouraged.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded to strike the original amendment. Any discussion?

Yes, Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

I'll kick it off. One of the few things that we decided to do to make this ordinance actually effective was require services be offered, not preferred, not to confuse as the preamble all of the graduated things that we don't actually put in the body of the ordinance, but to actually say we are going to require these services to be offered. It's unfortunate that we have been given information and have researched information that says by doing so that we might place ourselves at a larger liability. And I just don't think that's very fair to our unhoused community members to say that we need to change this so that our employees aren't liable. As simple as we could do is say document that you did services. You're fine. You're okay. Document that you gave services and document why they were refused. Plain and simple. Simple documentation that says these services are required before we choose to criminalize something. I think that's a minimum that we can do. Going back to the original ordinance is going to be a huge mistake. And again, this ordinance in itself is not effective. It will move the problem around. And I just think that we can do a lot better. I have a higher standard for us.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

The reason I suggest that and why it's a good idea given the information is what was previously said was insufficient to the whole problem. The initial verbiage was specifically designed to give the discretion to our officers to gauge the situation and the circumstances. Making this a blanket mandate will create legal consequences, requests that don't fit the situation Uh, and ultimately water down the ordinance to have no effect at all. In some situations, uh, the mandatory request is not limited or is not limiting or limited to camping informants, but enforcement, this, uh, this ordinance is not just about camping. And so there are some situations where, um, offering services or being required to do that would be wholly inappropriate, not applicable, and could actually cause some situations that could get more complicated, and it's not necessary in the grand scheme of things. By putting this verbiage in, we're once again saying that we don't have the faith in our officers that we've touted so loudly. Thank you very much.

No outburst during the council meeting.

On many occasions that RPD goes through major efforts to create an environment of fair treatment by the officers in their recruitment, in their training, in their approach. We even heard from a public speaker tonight on the actual lived experience of how they treated her son, I believe it was. And so to put that in not only complicates the issue and creates unintended consequences, it also just underscores, for whatever reason, indirectly, the belief that our officers already know what to do. This is not – and basically it tends to give the notion that they are just – just waiting, chomping at the bit to arrest people and lock them up. That is not what any of the RPD's officers, none that I've talked to, none that I believe are trying to do. This is about helping get homeless and people out of a situation that they cannot help themselves. We've heard from several individuals who actually were in the spot, who had relatives, who were themselves. I've heard from several individuals themselves that said, hey, I'm glad somebody intervened and made me do it because I was not of the right mind. And so therefore, as long as we, and our officers know that, that's what this is about. This is not about, this is not a punitive ordinance by any means. In its actuality, it is about getting people into a situation so that they can have the assistance they need in the situation of encampment. But, like I say, this ordinance is broader than that, and so to limit it to that is a mistake, and I believe it needs to be corrected.

Okay. please no outburst during this part of the meeting. Just out of the respect for the council members so that they can run the business. When you're up here providing public comments, everybody's giving you the respect to be able to get your points across. So, please provide the council the same level of respect as they're providing you as you provide your comments. Thank you. Yes, Councilmember Vann.

Councilmember Vann- Yeah. is someone who motioned for this last three weeks ago before we went on to our recess or holiday. And The reason I motioned for it and you all voted for it is that I think when we are requiring people of getting services, we ourselves should be held accountable and require ourselves to provide such services. And when you leave it, and I'm not saying it's either or, you can have this for us to show that we are accountable to our constituent and we're going to be in the professional way. And I think in all situation, you can provide referral offer services and leave it as general. If you just only encourage the officer, it comes after the fact if they even remember, right? So when we're dealing with homelessness and reason why people are unhoused, there's many reasons. And so for me, and I'll go more later on to other motions that I plan to address with this issue, this ordinance here, but I continue to believe that we need to have a requirement of our officer to provide the services, provide, offer the referral, the information for folks' resources. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Yes. Council Member.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. As I was not able to attend the last council meeting, I look forward to participating in the conversation on this ordinance and have had quite a few thoughts of it and a few ideas on my own. This change, whether it was the right place to make that change or not, I think in the spirit and the intent of what we wanted to accomplish with it, which I've heard other colleagues on this dais say many times before, is the goal is not to incarcerate people. The goal is not to put people in jail. And if that is truly the intent, I would like to see us work on this and find a path to codify it so that that is actually what the ordinance says. I want to grant staff some flexibility to enact that, but I think this is not the fact that we are changing on the fly tonight back to the way it was when we all wanted something different. tells me it needs more work, and I'm willing to send it back for more work to get it right. Ultimately, I think we need what's at the end of the line. I think we can have both. I think we can be services, housing first, and then if you don't follow what we're asking, that there are consequences at the end. And I know that might not be the most popular, probably the least popular opinion in the room, frankly. But I think that's ultimately the route that we need to go. For me, the solution, the outcomes that are not positive outcomes are if an individual either ends up incarcerated or an individual just moves to another community, that is not under addressing the underlying issue that we are trying to solve here. We do need to take control of our community. We do need public places to be places that we can all be as a community and feel safe being as a community. Those are things we all deserve. And so for that reason, I do think we need all the tools in the box. I think one of the speakers said that earlier that we need all the tools. I do think ultimately that last tool as well, but I think we need to codify that we do have a services first model. I do believe that is the intent. I do have trust in our police officers. What I don't necessarily know is what a future administration is going to do, what a future council is going to do. I would rather have it in writing that it is there and that is the course of action that we are going to do. So the question I suppose I would ask. would be is, A, was the motion in order in the first place since the original, I don't know that this maker of the motion moved the original ordinance, so would an amendment to that ordinance be in order? And if such, if it's out of order, I would like to move that the ordinance be returned for further review by the Community Services Committee. What? Well, first of all, I need a ruling on if it was out of order. Okay.

not a rule that prevents the motion from being made but it's ultimately up to the council to decide the mayor can rule on that on the point of order and and yeah we have so we have a motion on the floor to to strike the first part and then this motion is to be clear the original um was the original ordinance brought before us did anyone move the original ordinance to amend it was the point of order

Yes, a few weeks ago we did. And we all voted to pass the amendment.

We did not all vote to pass that.

But majority of the council voted. And so we got a four out of seven or whatever it is that we decide as a council body. And now there is an interest by a council member to strike that particular amendment that we had voted out of.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes, Council Member Robinson.

As I mentioned, that was, yes, the council vote went towards that amendment. Since then, information about the consequences of changing that amendment or changing that word has come to light. And maybe, at least for me, maybe no one else is privy to that information, but I don't think that's the case. Because of that, passing that amendment without that knowledge and saying, oh, well, it was passed and that's it. Now that you have the knowledge and you know that it potentially could complicate the issue and could complicate it and could quite honestly make it very ineffective overall, that is a different issue and that is why I'm putting this out. May I ask the attorney, I mean, just a simple question to the best of your ability that you can answer. What would be the effect of this ordinance if that service request requirement is kept in the language?

I'll try to speak briefly to it. But the issue isn't the services issue, it's the placement of it, because this section wasn't really designed for saying what the outcome of something not happening. So it says it's required, but there is no consequence that's stated if it's not required. There are other ways to deal with preconditions of whether or not something is A crime, for example, we have in a separate section of the ordinance that says for property storage, you can't issue a citation unless they're first asked to remove that property and they refuse to remove the property. You got to give them a chance to do so. So we have a system for building in if that's the intent. I don't know what the intent here is. This is in a section that is not, or in a sentence that applies to the entire, any rule of the city for city property. Before you can enforce it, you have to offer services. And I don't know what those services are. I don't know exactly who's supposed to offer them. So as written, it is largely unenforceable. I can say that. So there doesn't work. If there's a desire for it to be somewhere, we need to define what the consequence is of not offering services, or I would probably word it a little bit different and put it in another section, depending on what your intent is. And just from a drafting perspective, if you want an ordinance to be effective, we need to figure out what that intent is before we draft it. I think when the motion was made, the section wasn't even referred to. So it was we're just kind of figuring out on the fly after the meeting where it fit.

Yeah, and if I may, it feels like, I mean, the council did vote for it and there was an intent there, but I think in the placement of it, it's not having the impact of the desired intent. So, yes, Council Member Vann, you have your hand raised.

And the reason why I didn't specifically state that section is because it's going back to the city administration to look at those details during the last three weeks or so. And so I think that's kind of where I'm I need a little bit clarity in terms of what has been done after the amendment, right?

It wasn't sent back to be looked at at the administration. It was actually a motion to change the ordinance.

It was to change the ordinance. That means the staff, which is the city administration, y'all's got staff. We only got one. And so that's kind of where the drafting process is, right? And it was passed. So I'm... I just think if we are looking for technicality and how it's written so that we can enforce it, I think then that we need to pause this whole ordinance and go back to the drawing board. But since there is a motion on this right now, I guess we have to go with to award it and vote for it. And then I will be presenting another motion.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council Member. Thank you so much. The crux, I feel like, of this problem a little bit is I understand the process of which we operate is the same process we've operated when we were a population of 50,000 and now a population of 108,000. I add that to say we're the fourth largest city in King County. We are the eighth largest city in Washington State. We are the 16th most diverse city in the country. And for all seven of us, Council members, we have one chief of staff. There is not enough resources for us as council members to submit amendments and to thoughtfully contribute to these ordinances, especially when they only go through one committee that has only three council members on it. And we're even called and discouraged to submit our amendments because it would overcomplicate the process. And for something like this, that's going to impact so many people. And we want to get it right. We want to get it right. I want to make sure our public parks are safe. I want to make sure our trails are safe. I want to make sure our pipelines are safe. I want to make sure we get it right. As someone who worked in social services, who has worked with the unhoused, who has worked in an incarceration setting, I worked in a prison. All right. And I will add, personally, I have opened up my home a number of times to unhoused individuals. I have opened my home, my family's home, a number of times to unhoused individuals because I do believe in a holistic solution. I do not think I'm above reproach. I definitely do not think I'm above providing services, especially as a council member. We should all be required to do the best of us and what is most expected of us to do a services-first approach, a housing-first approach, a treatment-first approach that is effective. We haven't exhausted safe parking zones. We haven't exhausted safe camping zones. We haven't exhausted all of the tools in our toolbox. We're actually going straight to the stick. And the one thing that we were able to pass, I'll remind my colleague, four to one to establish requiring an offering of services. Now we're taking it away because it wasn't in the right spot, which I totally get, Shane. I bet it's an absolute nightmare to sit down there while we pick apart everything, right, that you have thoughtfully put together because we don't think it's just right. And I can't even begin to understand how frustrating that might be for you. Which is why I think we do need to go back to a committee as a whole. We need to all review this. We need to submit our thoughts and our amendments. We had a conversation at... The council retreat, as you reminded us, in 2025. And we saw this ordinance, it got presented to community services, not even the actual ordinance, just the idea of it, through emerging issues in July. We haven't been able to really reflect and look at this. We are seven bodies, all of whom are at large. So we were all elected by the entire city of Renton to serve, right? And we could afford to give us a little more time to look through these things, submit our feedback, so that we can avoid these long meetings on the dais that are incredibly frustrating. I think there is, and what I'm getting at, is there's a problem with the process. We're doing the same process we had when we were a population of 50,000 people. We are now a city of 108. Maybe we evolve a little bit.

Okay, so there's a motion on the floor. We have to get back to that and vote on it here.

Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, did I get a ruling on if it was out of order? So what I understand from Robert's Rules of Order, and if someone can correct me, is that the main motion has to be moved first before it's amended, and was that properly brought before the body? Did the Speaker move the ordinance prior to moving to amend the ordinance?

I see what your question was. Yeah. Was there a motion?

Yeah, they're figuring it out over there.

Yeah, if there wasn't a motion to adopt the ordinance, then you don't get to the motion to amend. You're correct on that. There needs to be a motion to adopt, and then there can be motions to amend.

In which case, does my previous motion stand that I made, if that one was ruled out of order? Ah, yeah. Yes, it does.

So it's no good.

I will defer to the presenting officer if that's who's the ruling entity is.

Well, I mean, yeah. It sounds like that's the intent of the council at this point, but...

Well, then, officially, I don't know if I need to rescind the motion, but if it's null and void, then...

I'm saying it wasn't a proper motion. I made a point of order. You're ruling that you're upholding the point of order. Yeah.

Okay.

I wouldn't combine your second motion. I would make that... Yeah.

Let's get too cute.

Yeah.

Shall we rewind to him just finishing reading? Okay. I move that the ordinance be adopted as read.

Mr. Mayor. Yep. Moving on.

Lack of a second. I would move the ordinance be referred back to the community. Let me find my words. Refer to the community services committee for further review and amendments.

Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded to have the ordinance sent back to community services. Any discussion on that?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Yes. Per my colleagues' comments about, oh, something only going through a three-person committee, I would like to amend that and have the motion and have it be moved to the committee of the whole for full discussion by the full council.

Second. Do I second the amendment? Is that allowed? No.

You know, we have a motion. You've got a motion on the floor. I got too excited. You want to move to amend the motion? Okay. And it's, okay, it's been, it's been, okay. So the motion has been, or the, we've got to vote on that first. It's been moved and seconded to amend the motion to send it to, give me the whole, any discussion on that?

Mr. Mayor.

Yes, Council Member.

So... In the absence of our council president, if she were here, I would defer to her on if that is their purpose. But of course, the body can refer to any committee they want to. As the person who would preside over either committee, I'm fine with that. But I also don't want to throw something in the direction of our colleague if that's not the chair's desire.

Yes, council member and then council member.

So I hear you. But if we want to get away from the three council members looking at it and we all want to look at it, the only place we can do that and have a proper discussion is at the committee of the whole. And I know that we have a packed schedule for the committee of the whole, but it's not like we don't get here early enough anyway. We can get here a little earlier and have a robust discussion about this versus... And no offense to your committee at all, but I'm just going back to the, we don't want three people looking at this. We want the whole council to look at this. We can come here a little early and do that.

Okay. I think James and she's first. Okay. Kim, then James.

Yeah, no, I appreciate Council Member Albertson for making that amendment because, like I had mentioned, I think about two weeks or something when it was brought up in emergency issues, I think community services, I asked for us to really be thorough in making sure that we have every council member's and community's opinion on this before. rushing this through. And I think this came through public safety, but we were just informed in community services. And so I think that whole process itself was inappropriate. And it's not. Now we're going back to kind of the original succession that I made in community services. So I appreciate you bringing it back to community of the whole.

Okay. Any other discussion about the amendment? Yeah. The amendment.

Are you good or you want to talk about it more? No. Okay.

All right. So we're going to vote on the motion to amend the ordinance. All in favor signify. A point of information. Yes.

Can we get clarification on this motion? Very clear clarification on what's going on.

Yeah. This is the motion to amend. the motion that is sending it to community service. So the amendment is sending it to community of the whole.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor.

And then we'll vote one more time on that one, the amended one.

Yes. If it's similar for my colleagues, I can see a majority wants to send it there and I'm happy to accept that as a friendly amendment. If that is allowed, we could just vote one time. We can do it twice if we prefer. Yeah, we have to vote.

Yeah, still have to vote, city clerk. Okay, the second motion, which is to move it to Cal. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All right, second motion, which is to send it to community services, which has been amended. Send it to the community level. Any discussion?

This will stick to the community level.

All in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All right, oppose nay. Unanimous. Unanimous. okay we are um okay we are moving on to new business um council member friends no new business mr mayor Council Member Girvin.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On behalf of Chair Perez, I would like to announce that the Committee of the Whole will be meeting on Monday, September 21st at 5.45 p.m. in Council Chambers and via video conference. We have one item on the agenda, and that is the, for now, Rent and Regional Trail Improvements Collaborative Initiative with King County Parks. Following that, we'll have a regular Council meeting at 7 p.m., and that will be here in Chambers and via video conference. Thank you.

All right, Council Member O'Halloran.

No new business, Mr. Mayor.

Council Member Rivera. Yes, Mr. Mayor. I have several items of new business to move. I'm just joking. I won't do that to you tonight. Um, the only thing that I have is going to be the transportation committee, which will be meeting on Monday, September 21st at 5 PM. We have two items on the agenda, though this may be amended and may change. So keep your eye out. Uh, the first of the appointments to the rent and airport advisory committee rack is also meeting tomorrow. If you want to check them out and, uh, emerging issues in transportation and that is all Mr. Mayor.

All right. Thank you. Council member Allison.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. On Monday, September 21st at 4.15 p.m., the Public Safety Committee will meet one item on the agenda. We'll be meeting in the Council Conference Room and via video conference. That item is emerging issues in public safety. And that's all, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Thank you, Council Member Batten.

Thank you, Mayor. The Utilities Committee meeting for September 21st, 2026 is canceled. And I want to take this opportunity to thank our community members for coming to speak. Both sides or all the sides of the aisles that we have is very informative coming from your lived experiences. Everyone, I do appreciate your time because you could have spent time with your family and loved ones. And I know that we'll be discussing more about the ordinance camping ban, but I do want to, given we've gone through a pandemic, given that we had the downtown patrol district unit in the midst of the Blake decision and we've used certain tools, I would like to get some update on that from our police department of how many of our referral services that we can have received from that. And with all that in perspective of the ordinance, I move the council to direct the city administration to set up a homelessness task force with majority of the members with lived experiences. Second.

Okay, there's a motion on the floor to ask... As the administration to set up a homelessness task force?

With the majority of the members be of lived experiences.

Experiences.

All right. Any discussion? Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

As a seconder of this motion, I am happy to speak really, really briefly on it. I think that this is overdue. Again, we are a large growing city. We no longer get to call ourselves a little town of Renton. We're the fourth largest city in King County. This is a regional issue. I know some people want to frame this as this is Seattle's overflow. That is not the case. Homelessness touches every single person at some point in their life or someone that they love or someone that they know. It is an epidemic. It is not just Seattle's problem. I think that we need to do... City focused, right? Ran by the city, outreach, with the young house, get them organized, get them to come and get them on task force to help inform us on the decision making. Again, it's not going to be the majority, but it's not going to be the entire committee, but it should be the majority of people with lived experience speaking to how we can solve this issue. Because in my experience, those with the lived experience are the most informed. And this task force, frankly, is just overdue. So kudos, Council Member Vann.

Mr. Mayor?

Yes, Councilman Robertson.

Now, a few weeks back, we approved some sort of temporary hire to come in and study homelessness and that sort of thing. I forget the exact parameters of it, but we had members of the audience or the attendees jeer at that and say, what are you doing spending time on that to study homeless? You're going to pay somebody to study homeless. My experience with task forces is that they don't do what you even remotely think they're going to do and if on one hand we say well we don't need somebody to come in and study homeless and then we say oh we need a task force uh to study and address homelessness uh to me i think you're taking away resources uh for the city to gear towards something that we likely have a decent understanding of we have these plans in place Every time we put, we have this resource center, we have this plan to go forward, and yet, because individuals don't understand the time it takes to actually develop a property or understand that we have an opportunity to get something to accelerate the creation of a resource center, we're saying, okay, well, hold on a second, we need to go back and apparently get some data that we probably already have. So for that reason, I think that this is more of a performative request and not necessarily a fully necessary one.

Thank you. As the maker of this motion, I'd like to say that I don't think we have our I'm not talking about data in terms of folks going out there studying a community. I'm talking about data of people who have experienced it, like some of our community members here who are on both sides, all sides of the aisles. I think that if you really want to hear the community and have an actual approach to supporting our unsheltered community and supporting our overall community. Then we need to do this thoughtfully. Whether you call it a task force, an advisory council, it has to come from lived experiences, at least majority, and then you fill that up with experts and folks who are going to help uh navigate it with this ordinance i think that's what we're missing here and also i haven't even heard that we ran this ordinance through the equity commission that has a lived experienced person who was once homeless and so as a refugee from vietnam and now an attorney growing up in housing project refugee is different than the streets of seattle the street of renton and we have a regular 70 80 rent-a-nights who have been unsheltered all their life. They have family members who took care of them and then they pass away. We have kids prior to the pandemic, 500 plus, who were couch surfing, unsheltered. So if we really truly want to problem solve this, why not go through the actual process of bringing community together who have the majority of the answer because they have lived these particular circumstance because it has been put upon them between systems and policies and they haven't had a voice to be a part of it. So I think we're missing a lot here. We haven't used our equity commission on a lot of our policy. We haven't, so this is why I'm very much Like, if we want to problem solve, this is something we need to do. Mr. Mayor? Oh, sorry. Council Member Gervin, go.

Yes, thank you. I will concur with the idea of including the voices of those with lived experience. I'm not necessarily speaking directly to the motion itself. I do what I would like some more logistics on how it would work out. I totally concur with Council Member Vann on the notion of the Equity Commission having a review on it. And so having folks either on that body or even as a advisory, a stand-up, you know, advisory committee to that body, I do agree, we need to solicit those voices. I'm differing on, I'm not saying differing, I'm not opposed to the mechanism. I just want to make sure that what we do is actually going to be effective and have the function that we hope and desire that it does. Keeping in mind, it's difficult to get people to serve on task force. So I guess the question is, like, would we offer compensation for time and other things like that? And I think all that stuff needs to be worked out in order to make sure. And I know that's a wild idea, but that more volunteer boards are doing that these days. And particularly for the group of folks we might be soliciting input from that might even be. helpful or needed. I know we talked about that with Skip previously. South King Housing Homeless Partnership for the acronym. So I do think I want to explore that. Maybe to at least amend the motion to bring something back to us at least on a concept versus just say we want a task force is maybe more where I'm landing. But I do agree on the lived experience I think is a critical way that this body should be informed.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, Council Member. Thank you. I think what the intention we put into it, it depends on the outcome. And I, coming from the state level, I can agree with you, Councilmember Robertson. Sometimes task force are just a waste of money because they are just meant to just pass the buck and push it down the line. And maybe the intention isn't really there. My experience is with our institutional education budget. That is the budget for those juveniles who are incarcerated through the state of Washington. I've seen task force after task force on that institutional education budget. So I understand the frustration to that. However, in the city of Renton, I've seen our committees, our and our task force actually be quite effective. I would point to the mayor, my experience with the mayor's inclusion task force and the work that they have done over the years to help make sure that there is inclusion and cultural celebration throughout the city of Renton. I would say, again, it's the intention that we put into it. And I don't think establishing this would slow anything down because we are just now acquiring property. It's not like we're going to be launching the Renton Resource Center January 1st, 2020. We could probably put a task force together quite quickly and get the information while we're still, for lack of a better term, kind of building the ship on the water, right? And I think that this could be really beneficial just to gather more information. None of us have the experience of being unhoused. I've worked with those. I've worked in carceral settings. As far as I know, none of us have that lived experience directly, except for Council Member Vann. Please forgive me. I do not want to speak for you. But in my experience, I think we could add more to that outside of our limited lived experience or the one on the council. I'm not trying to... get in anyone's side pocket here. I'm just trying to say that we could add more perspectives. That's the, I think, intent of this motion is to add more information and more perspectives. I think it's incredibly important to do that. And again, I don't think it's going to slow down any sort of process. I don't think it is a meanless task force. I think when we put something together in the city of Renton, it's intentional.

Mr. Mayor? Oh, yep. Council Member? I'm... Hello? Is this working? Yes. I'm wondering if the member would be willing to revise her motion to not specify task force but what type of mechanism staff would or mechanisms would facilitate what the member is asking for?

Yeah. I think I haven't been part of the Mayor's Inclusion Task Force, haven't been the initiator for the Equity Commission, haven't been working regional on issues of new trade and homelessness, and just kind of seeing what it is, and it's particularly in Renton. I think the model of the Mayor's Inclusion Task Force has helped under last mayor's administration to really bring folks in and the continuation of the current administration to bring people in. Well, that doesn't do systematic change is what we need to get to, but it serves its purpose. It wasn't a diversity club like it was several mayors before that. And so I do believe strongly that it's set up for a specific purpose. And this purpose is to have the wisdom and knowledge of the lived experiences that is not reflected in the policy that is presented today. And that my hope is that as we grow together in building this policy, that we're actually helping and healing our community. And so those voices have been missing, just like the folks from diverse communities of prior to mayor Dennis, uh, law putting up the mayor's inclusion task force. Um, so I really think I've seen it worked.

Mr. Mayor, may I clarify?

Yeah.

So what I meant was, um, the direction to develop a task force rather than, uh, the direction for staff to develop a mechanism to get to what you want, which is how do we hear these voices? So it's not task force specific, it's how do we get to that, to what you want.

I think how we get to creating the task force. I want you to amend the motion too, actually.

state that as opposed to develop a task force. Is that what you're saying, Councilmember O'Halloran?

Councilmember O' I'm not trying to amend anything. Mr. Mayor?

Councilmember O' Just let me interject one second here because I hear you guys loud and clear. I want to remind this council that you guys unanimously voted to create a position that we hired somebody to do this work who has lived experience, who goes out into our community every day and works with individuals with lived experience every day. And so, you know, hear you loud and clear, but versus us being very prescriptive, we should probably contact and connect with the individual that's doing this work. Council Member Rivera's up next.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

Not to negate that one individual, but again, we need more than one individual or one perspective on this, and that was what I was trying to get at, right? Love y'all, but come on. All right. Now, what we're trying to get at right here, and I'm glad Council Member Vann has not amended her motion, because I have found, right, the balance. If we get too prescriptive, some things don't get passed. But if we don't say things just the right way, like a riddle for a troll or something underneath the bridge, it doesn't get answered, right? And I've experienced that when I've been trying to seek information. Again, if I don't ask just the right question, I don't get the answer. And I think leaving it open makes it that this is maybe something that's just a one-time thing. Maybe it turns into a town hall that's just a Zoom with no actual engagement, right? That is what happens if we leave a motion open or we leave talking about the unhoused or houselessness experience to one single person. The goal of this task force is to gather diverse voices because homelessness is not a monolith. I'm going to say it one more time, and everyone Google monoliths if you don't know what I'm talking about, but homelessness is not a monolith, all right? I've had students that are not addicted and are not mentally disabled or in any way that have been unhoused living in their cars. All right. I have had mothers who have been escaping situations who have been temporarily unhoused and have had to live in their cars. We have had those that have been dealing with drug drug usage, which, mind you, if you are sleeping outside for extended periods of time in the cold and the hot. I can understand why drug usage is an awful, awful cycle for those who are living on house because it's a coping mechanism. It's self-medication and it's a disease. As someone with addiction in their family, I can tell you it's absolutely a disease that needs a public health response, not a public safety response. That's three different perspectives. And that's not even scraping the top of all the different perspectives out there when it comes to being houseless, couch surfing, living in your car, living in an RV long term, renting rooms. camping outside in the woods. These are all very different experiences. That's what we're asking for with this task force. I think it's incredibly important. Also, again, we are the fourth largest city in King County, the eighth largest city in Washington State, the 16th most diverse city in this country. We are ready to evolve to the next step.

mayor yes council member one other suggestion i'll throw and again i'm not speaking uh necessarily against the motion i support the idea in in part in certain to say let's let's get folks with lived experience i want to restate that um as we're going through kind of a transition process right now and how we're approaching human services being that we've largely contracted them in the years and we've been looking to bring them in the house right uh we've had a body that's been charged with reviewing those contracts the human services advisory committee who will have less of a function i suppose at the end of this and i'm wondering if that would be the proper metamorphous time um again leaning on lived experience the only reason i hesitate a little bit is that the hurdle of getting to a majority without defining the scope and size of the body is the only thing i just don't want to be overly prescriptive but again the concept i'm open to

Yeah, so the reason I didn't put a number, a cap on the majority of how many task members is that I think as the city administration have had experience in terms of the Mayor's Inclusion Task Force that goes up to like, what, 30 members and so forth. If you want, my envision is roughly just, you know, 13, 15. If you want to make it 30, it's kind of up to you. But I want the majority of it to be lived experience. And I see task force has worked in Renton. And we have, I love the individual who's been working on this. I've known them for a second long now before the pandemic. And so I think in community, I think the work they do is phenomenal. But it gets back to what is Renton? Renton is not Auburn. Renton is not Auburn, right? And having folks from Renton who are on the streets of Renton to be a part of the policymaking is not just where it's transparent, thorough, it's ethical, it's actually you're caring for the community. And it's not just the street, like I said, couchsurfing and every other aspect of homelessness.

All right, any other discussion at this point? Jason, will you read the motion just so that everybody knows what they're voting on?

Direct the administration to develop a homelessness task force with the majority of members with lived experience.

Mr. Mayor, can we call for individualized votes?

Call for the vote. Council President Pro Tem McIrvin. Council Member Prince.

No.

Council Member O'Halloran? Aye. Council Member Rivera? Aye. Council Member Albertson?

Nay.

Council Member Vaughan?

Aye.

The vote is 4-2, Mr. Mayor.

Great motion.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. As I mentioned earlier, we've had the Downtown Patrol District Unit established during the pandemic, given the drug crisis, the Blake decision. And I truly believe providing officers tools to support their work. And with that, we haven't gotten thorough data of when we had the patrol in downtown. I move the council to direct the city administration to give us an update on the data from the downtown patrol district unit in terms of referral to services.

Second, Rob. There's no need for a motion. We'll give you whatever information you're looking for without a motion. Oh, okay. No need for a motion. Yeah, whatever information you're looking for, you can have. So update on the data on the downtown patrol. What was that? No.

Mr. Clark, can you repeat, there's a motion on the dice, um, move the council to direct the city administration to give an update on the downtown patrol district unit and referral services that they provided for communities in downtown.

We will provide it. We did make a motion to.

What's that?

There is a motion on the.

Was it seconded? Yes, sir.

I seconded it.

Okay. It's moved and seconded. Any discussion?

Thank you, Mayor. And the reason I made the motion is because oftentimes when we say we want something or we need something to help our community understand the issues or the policy, we don't often get it. And so I think it's important with this particular, I'm speaking here. With this particular issue and the ordinance, I want to be as informed as possible what we had provided to folks in downtown and unsheltered communities. And so we don't make the same mistake or that we're learning from what we had strength in and we can better the strength, strengthening the strength. That's why.

Yeah, I would love to know when we didn't provide you information so that we don't do that again. So if you can give specific incidences, I would be happy to make sure that that gets corrected.

And what I mean is on other issues as well. And there are.

Love specifics because then we make sure we don't have that mistake again.

Well, if you want one, I can give you one primary one. There was five different processes of how to do a proclamation. Point of order.

Yeah, point of order. Will you ask me a question? Do I need to wait for you to call me? Yes. Call question, please. All right. You want to repeat the motion? May you repeat the motion?

Yeah, I move the council direct the city administration to give an update on the downtown patrol district unit and its referral services result to communities.

All right. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carries. All right. What's the wish of the council?

Move adjourned. Second.

All right. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.