City of Seattle - City Council - Committee - Finance and Housing - Committee Meeting
(August 11, 2022)

Here are some observations from the Thursday August 11th Seattle City Council Finance and Housing Committee (City of Seattle - City Council - Committee - Finance and Housing) Committee Meeting.

My top 6 takeaways:

• In public comments ahead of the committee discussion, representatives from labor organizations, trade groups, and prospective social equity applicants commented on who was likely to benefit from a training component in a proposed ordinance on cannabis equity.
  • Ariana Davis, WeTrain Washington Engagement Director (audio - 2m, video) 
    • Davis was in favor of an amendment to Council Bill 120391 (CB 120391) narrowing criteria for a prospective “Cannabis Needs Assessment” in the bill. She believed that the “important amendment” would ensure that “future cannabis training and education programs support the needs of business, provide safety, and opportunities for workers, and provide equity to communities most harmed by the war on drugs, particularly low income, formerly incarcerated, and communities of color.” 
      • A memorandum elaborated that the assessment would:
        • “clarify investments and improvements that could be supported by the City; provide demographic information about cannabis industry workers; evaluate and determine the training needs of workers to advance beyond entry-level positions and those seeking to become new owners; and make recommendations on whether to fund training and, if so, how.”
        • The amendment, sponsored by Committee Chair and City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, specifically mentioned WeTrain Washington as the sole example of a non-profit group “with experience in curriculum development, administering retail training and apprenticeship programs in the State of Washington, expertise in the roles and functions of jobs within the cannabis industry, and that is not primarily funded by cannabis businesses or employer associations.”
    • Davis related to the need for training as a former retail employee “and cannabis organizer” who said she’d spent “more than half my life in the industry, and I know first-hand that workplace safety and adequate training is a major concern for workers,” especially in “underserved communities.” She stated that WeTrain Washington had “conducted successful retail industry needs assessments for pre-apprenticeship, registered apprenticeship, and leadership development programs” in the preceding two years, and had ongoing needs assessments in other retail industries which she asserted were “particularly important.” Extolling her company’s balance of employer and employee needs, she promised she was looking forward to hearing from “cannabis employers about their greatest workforce needs.”
  • Gabriel Prawl, A. Phillip Randolph Institute Seattle Chapter (Seattle APRI) Chapter President and ILWU Local 52 President (audio - 2m, video) 
    • Prawl previously advocated for training opportunities as one avenue for equity on March 2nd.
    • Prawl told committee members that his organizations were “centered around racial equity and economic justice, which is why equity in the cannabis industry is important to us.” Supporting CB 120391 for more cannabis training opportunities, he reported that Seattle APRI had been engaging “for the last year and a half in community stakeholders meetings” and would “play a role as a voice for workers and communities impacted” in increasing equitable outcomes and options for workplace advancement. Prawl credited staff from the Seattle Mayor’s Office for bringing legislation that was part of a “continued fight to bring equity to Black and Brown workers and community stakeholders.”
  • Adán Espino, Craft Cannabis Coalition (CCC) Executive Director (audio - 2m, video) 
    • As WeTrain Washington had been specified in the proposed amendment from Mosqueda, Espino stated that the group’s affiliation with UFCW 3000 (formally UFCW 21) was "very concerning" to members of CCC that had participated “in good faith” in the development of legislation. Wanting to advance equity in the industry through “an honest tackling of the issue that will benefit the communities damaged,” he called for the needs assessment proposed to be done by “an organization with no bias or agenda in the industry, such as a local college.”
      • Joe Solorio, a UFCW 3000 member and appointee of the Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF), had offered few public contributions to task force meetings besides calling out “anti-worker” behavior of a Seattle cannabis retailer on June 28th.
    • Espino felt that “the broad amount of stakeholders” on a proposed advisory committee established by the bill “would help the city shape the scope of future efforts.” Letting one “stakeholder of these ongoing efforts to control the needs assessment” was something he posited would “clearly call into question the neutrality and impartiality and accuracy of the assessment.” He asked that the committee reject that amendment.
  • Zion Grae-El, Have a Heart Belltown budtender (audio - 2m, video) 
    • Grae-El had previously spoken to the committee about worker needs on February 16th, and again on April 6th.
    • Grae-El spoke up in support of the three bills’ potential benefits for worker retention. He lauded the needs assessment and funding changes before voicing appreciation for the varied groups included in the advisory group in the bill. Grae-El then offered himself as a potential worker member. He further encouraged officials to work to support conviction expungement efforts beyond the city’s jurisdiction.
  • Peter Manning, Black Excellence in Cannabis (BEC) member (audio - 1m, video) 
    • Opposed to “this form of unionization by UFCW,” Manning’s view was that “if you’re going to say equity...you should come to us and talk to us about any type of policy like this." He characterized CB 120391 as “another attempt at a blackface on a White agenda" and that union interests sought to “merge” a priority of their agenda with social equity without doing sufficient outreach to existing equity stakeholders like BEC. “Social equity is different than anything doing with the union,” Manning argued, considering it “putting money in rich White folks’ pocket.” 
    • Mosqueda promised to get back to Manning before indicating they’d just spoken “yesterday.”
  • Mike Asai, Emerald City Collective Gardens (ECCG) Co-Founder (audio - 2m, video) 
    • Manning and Asai spoke to the committee about equity issues on July 20th.
    • Asai also felt the amendment on “unionization is just wrong, we cannot expect a small business” that gets an equity license to be taxed for the sake of “unionization.” Urging members to not include the amendment in the ordinance, he considered it “unfair” to expect equity license holders to follow new rules the existing industry hadn’t been subject to. Asai added that equity businesses wouldn’t have to come to the city as their licenses could locate “anywhere within King County” that allowed them.
      • The ability to move licenses from their allotted jurisdiction is part of a rulemaking proposal on social equity the board heard on August 3rd which, at publication time, had yet to be adopted.
    • Mosquesda promised she would clarify “what the amendment does” in upcoming remarks.
  • Ahmed King, BEC Executive Secretary (audio - 2m, video) 
    • King spoke before the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) on July 6th.
    • Commenting that his father had “his brick-and-mortar stores taken away unjustly,” King told the committee that after “an eight year head start” by existing retailers, “now you want to unionize.” He agreed that equity retailers may be less likely to set up in the city and asked, “why is it that no one came to people of our community and directly asked us?" Finding it to be “the same song and dance” with issues impacting communities of color “that there’s always a study, or there has to be some board,” King wanted more “solidarity” on actions by the city.
  • Brooke Davies, Washington CannaBusiness Association (WACA) Deputy Director and Associate Lobbyist (audio - 2m, video) 
    • Arguing that “all cannabis businesses in Washington are by definition small businesses,” Davies said Washington state, as one of the first states to legalize, faced both the “opportunities and all the challenges.” Allowing that some businesses were thriving, she asserted that others “fight to keep the lights on.”
      • In RCW 19.85.020, the Regulatory Fairness Act defines small businesses as “any business entity, including a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or other legal entity, that is owned and operated independently from all other businesses, and that has fifty or fewer employees.”
      • On July 14th, the U.S. Small Business Administration published an updated table of small business size standards, though it did not mention the cannabis sector specifically. 
    • Thanking city officials for taking on the topic, she summarized that WACA leadership’s “remaining concerns are technical in nature."
      • She wanted the special advisory group in CB 120391 to have its composition codified “that representation from the three groups be evenly distributed in thirds.”
      • She believed Council Bill 120393 (CB 120393), a worker retention ordinance based “on one passed for hotel workers” in 2019, wasn’t reflective of the cannabis sector.
      • The “private right of action” provision proposed for Chapter 8.38.230 also troubled WACA members for being “very complex.” They preferred WSLCB retain “full enforcement authority.”
  • Dyneeca Adams, Freedom Project WA Advocacy Director (audio - 2m, video) 
    • Adams last spoke to the committee on February 16th.
    • Adams noted she’d had a conviction expunged due to the State v. Blake decision and resulting 2021 changes in law. Pointing out that CB 120391 included the use of “summer legal interns to work on expungement of cannabis convictions,” she offered assistance from organizations from impacted communities like hers that had partnered on expungement programs. “This initiative should acknowledge, and be willing to work with” existing community groups, and not give funds “to outside sources,” Adams argued. She hoped for more inclusion as the committee considered an expungement component of their legislation.
  • Faye Guenther, WeTrain Washington President and UFCW 3000 President (audio - 2m, video) 
    • Guenther claimed that UFCW 3000 had been “working with someone who came forward" from a cannabis business after they suffered "lots of burns" and their “ears melted off, almost.” Upon hiring, they had been “given a sheet of paper” on mixing compounds for “a patch that you put on your skin,” a list, a mason jar, and a microwave which resulted in the jar exploding “and he caught on fire.” Guenther had heard that Harborview Medical Center in Seattle had other patients with “burns that they were seeing in the cannabis industry” which encouraged her to call for more “training and safety procedures that are necessary.” She also mentioned her group’s interest in rectifying “the history of racism that’s happened in the industry.”
      • Cannabis Observer identified a 2019 incident where a cannabis processing employee suffered burns and was sent to HarborView. However, more news articles mentioned cannabis-related burn patients at HarborView from unlicensed production, rather than the regulated industry.
  • TraeAnna Holiday, King County Equity Now (KCEN) Media Director and former Africatown Community Land Trust Community Organizer (audio - 2m, video) 
    • Holiday most recently addressed the committee on March 2nd. She had previously served on the WA SECTF Licensing Work Group.
    • With the perspective that the proposed ordinances need “more detail," Holiday complimented the intentions of city officials while wanting there to be “more concrete understanding about numbers,” even as she felt some data review had become “over-exhausted.” Believing that “solution-oriented approaches” from Seattle officials could be a model for other regulators, she felt that the “different initiatives and legislation” which had been tried but hadn’t been passed meant the licensed cannabis sector was “completely inequitable.” Holiday found that those “most impacted by the war on drugs” were also the least involved in crafting the solutions being proposed, and once she’d read the bills “I thought that it was too many generalizations” and not enough specific numbers.

• Committee Chair and City Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda reviewed how “quite a bit of time” had been invested leading up to the introduction of the ordinances (audio - 6m, video).
  • She established the history of the committee’s public discussions focused on cannabis equity, the presentation by the mayor’s staff on July 20th, and the council bill introductions on August 5th. Mosqueda indicated that several amendments would be "daylighted" and that any additional amendment drafts were due the following day, August 12th 
  • Members of the mayor’s staff, Policy Director Dan Eder and Labor Liaison Brianna Thomas, returned to the committee to be available for questions about the ordinance proposals (audio - 1m, video). 
  • Thomas reviewed some of their motivations, like the "disproportionality" of the war on drugs, and the city’s merging of the unlicensed medical and licensed adult use markets in 2016. “This suite of legislation does not undo that harm, but it is a stepping stone in the right direction,” she argued, stressing their plans to work “with community.” As for the advisory committee, she assured stakeholders that city officials would "work collaboratively" with council members to "build that table" with room for full representation for the industry and communities affected (audio - 3m, video). 

• The first council bill related to "establishing the City’s commitments and plans for supporting cannabis workers and supporting communities disproportionately harmed by the federal War on Drugs," and evoked discussion on who should conduct a needs assessment - including whether an assessment was even necessary.
  • Amy Gore, Central Staff Legislative Analyst, provided a background on Initiative 502, city cannabis regulations, and findings of the Seattle Department of Facilities and Administrative Services (FAS) Racial Equity Toolkit for cannabis, before outlining the intentions of city leaders, as well as the specific provisions of the ordinance in a presentation (audio - 6m, video).
    • She noted some FAS ideas hadn’t been included in the bill, though the council could amend it “with some or all” of the absent toolkit recommendations, specifically “buffering and dispersion requirements, business supports, or funding investments.”
    • Though a cannabis needs assessment was required under the bill, Gore reported that the projected $250,000 expenditure for that assessment hadn’t been funded. Council members could “identify a funding source, remove the needs assessment” until there was funding, or “take no action,” she stated.
    • Gore called attention to the advisory group in the bill, noting that there wasn’t much process on how members should be determined or the group formed. Council could consider amending clearer guidance, or do nothing, she concluded.
    • Then Gore briefed about Proposed Amendment 1, which had already been “reviewed and prepared” by staff. Sponsored by Mosqueda, it would “add a new Section 10 to CB 120391 to provide additional guidance on the preferred characteristics for the organization selected to conduct the Assessment,” she read, noting it specified WeTrain Washington as an acceptable needs assessor. 
  • Mosqueda felt her amendment was “a pretty small, commonsense amendment" to ensure cannabis worker training was “being given by an entity who has experience doing training in this industry specifically.” She mentioned that the FAS racial equity toolkit and public comment had both indicated a need for more worker safety training, and the amendment would give city officials better information for them to evaluate “the kinds of long-term safety needs” of the industry (audio - 4m, video).
    • She used Uncle Ike’s “robbery tracker” to show that “in the year 2022 alone there have been 87 incidences of armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, or smash-and-grab burglary” in the state. While her amendment couldn’t stop such crimes, she hoped to help prepare cannabis workers in the event they were present during a robbery. She added that such training allowed workers “to be part of that training opportunity and prioritize equity within the communities most harmed by the war on drugs.”
      • WSLCB partnered with the Washington State Crime Prevention Association (WSCPA) to provide cannabis licensee safety training, starting in King County, and contracted with Setracon, a Tacoma-based security consulting firm specializing in training and data management.
      • On May 17th, the King County Council approved a motion forming a Cannabis Business Security Task Force.
    • Mosqueda found WeTrain Washington to be a good fit for the needs assessment as they had worked with “both management and labor.” She read off some of their training offerings for other retail areas and referenced a partnership with the University of Washington on research “particularly relevant for making sure that this legislation is meaningful.” Mosqueda claimed the practice of legislators suggesting, but not dictating, organizations to be approached for city contracts was common, but the final “decision does rely with the mayor’s office.”
    • WeTrain Washington job listings mentioned cannabis workers were eligible for “high-quality programs and services to current and future” union members. Besides Davis’ background as a “cannabis organizer,” Executive Director Evan Woods noted providing services to cannabis businesses in his Linkedin job description.
  • Mosqueda acknowledged the recommendations that weren’t included in CB 120931, asking Gore if there was any “known fiscal impact if the city wanted to provide additional guidance” on reducing buffering and dispersion of cannabis businesses. Gore responded that it would necessitate the input of city offices besides FAS, but wasn’t sure “beyond staff work” which was a “normal cost” of modifying land use regulations. She conveyed that she’d speak with executive staff about the “scale” of the work (audio - 2m, video).
  • Vice Chair and City Councilmember Lisa Herbold was curious about the amendment from Mosqueda and the naming of WeTrain Washington. Feeling the amendment already described the "attributes of the entity that we would be seeking” and was “very thorough,” she wondered if the language could be "neutral" about the organization the executive branch would select for the needs assessment. She then asked Thomas about “the development of scope of the assessment” and the process for how that branch might ultimately select a vendor for the needs assessment (audio - 5m, video).
    • Thomas admitted she “would be guessing” about that process. Eder stated FAS would handle a request for proposals (RFP) process.
    • Herbold wanted to ensure there wasn’t a “sole source contract" in this case. Eder assured her there wasn’t and that this would be an “open ended” competitive system. He reported they were amenable to an entity aside from a non-profit organization (NPO) “such as an educational institution.” Mosqueda added that she was also open to that option and believed the bill allowed for a competitive process.
  • Councilmember Sara Nelson delved into the needs assessment criteria in CB 120391, stating that the briefings she’d received from the mayor’s team led her to think the bill was “mirroring” WSLCB and WA SECTF equity work. However, the materials referenced the FAS findings, and none of those groups had requested a needs assessment, she noted. Nelson wanted to understand the rationale for the additional evaluation, noting the comments of Holiday about the extensive data around the subject of cannabis equity (audio - 7m, video).
    • Nelson claimed that 2020 state legislation drafted by UFCW 3000 members had called for a needs assessment but the bills were opposed by the Washington State Commission on African American Affairs and the Washington Build Back Black Alliance (WBBBA). She noted an earlier UFCW proposal to the city on equity had “a cannabis tax that would generate $5-6 million a year.” Nelson encouraged communication with WSLCB Board Member Ollie Garrett, also a WA SECTF appointee who spoke to the committee on April 6th, about the assessment
    • Mosqueda highlighted how there was no taxation in the measure, but Nelson remained skeptical, leading to Eder contributing that although the types of training were specified by the bill, they hadn’t been “costed out." He agreed that an educational institution had been considered as an entity to evaluate the needs of the city cannabis market, but they’d never received details on that idea from an accredited college or university.

• Council Bill 120392 (CB 120392), the second proposed ordinance, concerned "licensing cannabis businesses in Seattle; establishing social equity applicant criteria for cannabis businesses; setting fees for cannabis businesses; expanding the purposes for which a cannabis license may be issued in the future.”
  • Lisa Kaye, Central Staff Legislative Analyst, went over details of the legislation to create a social equity category of licensee established by the state criteria, waive fees, change wording from ‘marijuana’ to ‘cannabis,’ and prepare to allow other license types like social consumption or delivery. She made clear there was no increase to other license fees (audio - 7m, video). 
    • Kaye remarked that eligibility would match draft social equity rules under development from WSLCB but those had yet to be adopted by the board. A delay in those rules could impact the bill, so she suggested the director of FAS could be permitted to modify criteria as part of administering the program, or members could update criteria through a separate legislative action.
    • By waiving the fee for equity businesses, Kaye warned that cost recovery for the cannabis licensing program could be affected depending on the number of businesses located in the city. She noted the bill could be changed to require annual reports to the council on this impact.
  • Kaye further indicated there were two possible amendments offered. Amendment 1, sponsored by Herbold, “would reduce license fees from $3,500 to $2,000 for small cannabis producers and transporters in the City of Seattle.”
    • Herbold talked about working with staff to set up the lower fees for “tier 1” producers and licensed transporters, making clear that this would only impact “two businesses” currently in the city. Citing FAS research after a “statement of legislative intent that I sponsored” in 2018, she argued those licensees “have lower margins” than other cannabis companies and that considering a business’s “ability to pay” a fee was an acceptable consideration. FAS had also noted that cannabis transporter business inspections took the least amount of time, leading Herbold to support lowering the fee, even as “no transporter businesses” were currently located in the city (audio - 4m, video).
    • Mosqueda reiterated that, as drafted, CB 120392 waived equity licensee fees, removed a charge “for reinspection and licensing reinstatement,” and didn’t alter taxes for any other businesses (audio - 1m, video).
  • According to Kaye, Amendment 2, sponsored by Nelson, “would prioritize social equity license applications from former owners of medical marijuana dispensaries who applied for but were not awarded state licenses after the state legalized cannabis possession and sale in 2012” (audio - 1m, video).
    • Nelson briefly mentioned the bill would only prioritize licensing for former medical dispensary owners meeting social equity criteria, crediting the concept to Manning and Asai (audio - 1m, video).
    • Mosqueda asked that the amendment “harmonize the time period” to end with the merging of the medical and recreational sectors in 2016 (audio - 1m, video).
    • Herbold wanted to know how the city could prioritize equity licensing ahead of state standards. Kaye replied that applicants could only be prioritized at the city level once they’d been licensed by WSLCB, at which point FAS staff would weigh any previous dispensary ownership. Mosqueda asked Eder and Thomas to weigh in on the “application” and “concept” of the legislation (audio - 6m, video). 
      • Thomas believed that part of the difficulty on the topic was due to the possibility of equity license “portability” throughout the county under proposed WSLCB rules. This could lead to “up to eight” licenses, she elaborated. Understanding the intention of city leaders to “affirm any licensure” for equity they could, she emphasized "we are beholden to the behavior of the state."
      • Nelson felt "this isn't fully cooked" as she believed it could be applied to non-equity licenses being sold. Thomas felt there was an implication the prioritization only applied to equity licensees but was open to amending that distinction into the bill.
  • Mosqueda inquired about applicant criteria, specifically determining disproportionately impacted areas (DIAs), and if employment status was included in considering equity applicants. Eder made clear applicants only had to meet one eligibility criteria, and employment status was one of the standards. Kaye noted that DIAs were based on state law that the city couldn’t alter (audio - 3m, video).
  • Herbold asked for another amendment around expungement, commenting on the intention of the city government to work with King County officials as well as “communities negatively impacted by the federal war on drugs” (audio - 1m, video).

• The third ordinance, council bill 120393 (CB 120393), would create a new system intended to boost worker retention in the event of cannabis business ownership changes (audio - 4m, video).
  • Jasmine Marwaha, Central Staff Policy Analyst, went over the particulars of the proposal to alter Chapter 6.500 of the city code to add requirements that license holders retain employees hired up to 30 days before a cannabis license assumption. This would increase transparency and job security, she conveyed, relating it to a similar ordinance passed for hotel workers. The measure required additional notice “to account for the different way that the industry operates,” said Marwaha, giving employees the names of “any associated integrated enterprises.” She felt this was a simple fix, adding a line on the Notice of Employment Information used by the city.
  • Mosqueda indicated no amendments had been offered (audio - 1m, video).

• Mosqueda and Labor Liaison Brianna Thomas summed up the commitment of the city government to action on social equity at the local and state levels (audio - 2m, video)
  • Mosqueda insisted that the ordinances showed a “commitment” by city leaders to focus not only on what they could do locally, but advocate for state level reforms as well. She congratulated all those who had been involved in city meetings and outreach to FAS staff, feeling that Seattle would be “well positioned” as WSLCB prepared to move forward on social equity licensing. Mosqueda further pledged to offer support “to workers, to employers, for public safety, and to make sure that we are investing in this industry” and helping those “disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs.” Even as the council bills were only a “first step” by the city, she knew that more amendments would be considered by the council. Mosqueda offered the option for closing remarks to the mayor’s representatives.
  • Thomas observed "this is timely work, this is important work, this is racial equity work" and even if discussions grew “testy” she knew officials needed to take action because Seattle was “behind other cities" on social equity. She assured the committee that she and Eder would continue to be available to members as questions arose (audio - 1m, video).
  • At publication time, the Finance and Housing Committee was scheduled to take up the cannabis ordinances for amendment and possible recommendation to the full council on Wednesday August 17th.