Seattle City Council Special Meeting 8/12/20

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Here.

Council President Gonzalez.

Here.

Eight present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

Colleagues, we'll go ahead and begin public comment.

At this time, we will open the remote public comment period for items on the City Council agenda and the Council's 2020 Work Program.

I'd ask that everyone who is joining us for public comment be patient as we continue to learn to operate this new system in real time and navigate through the growing pains.

We are continuously looking for ways to fine tune this remote process and adding new features that allow for additional means of public participation in our council meetings.

It does remain our strong intent to continue to have remote public comment regularly included on our remote meeting agendas.

However, the city council reserves the right to end or eliminate these public comment periods at any time if we deem that the system is being abused or is no longer suitable for allowing our meetings to be conducted efficiently and in a manner in which we are able to conduct our necessary business.

I will moderate the public comment period in the following manner.

The public comment period for this meeting is 20 minutes, and each speaker will be given two minutes to speak.

I will call on each speaker by name and in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

If you have not yet registered to speak but would like to, you can sign up before the end of public comment by going to the council's website at Seattle.gov forward slash council, that's C-O-U-N-C-I-L, The public comment link is also listed on today's agenda.

Once I call a speaker's name, staff will unmute the appropriate microphone and an automatic prompt of you have been unmuted will be the speaker's cue that it is their turn to speak.

And before speaking, the speaker must also press star six to begin speaking.

Please begin speaking by stating your name and the item that you are addressing after you hit star six.

And as a reminder, public comment should relate to an item on today's agenda or the council's 2020 work program.

speakers will hear a chime when they have only 10 seconds left of their two minutes.

Once you hear the chime, we ask that you begin to wrap up your public comment.

If speakers do not end their comments at the end of the allotted time period, the speaker's microphone will be muted to allow us to call on the next person.

Once you've completed your public comment, we ask that you please disconnect from the line.

And if you plan to continue following this meeting, please do so via Seattle Channel or the listening options listed on the agenda.

The public comment period is now open and I will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Again, please remember to press star six before before speaking today.

Okay, let's see.

First speaker is Maria Harwell, followed by Peter Shalito.

Hello, my name is Maria Harwell.

I'm calling today in support of the Council Bill 119862 to provide community-based organizations with $3 million for research to promote real public safety informed by community needs.

As you know, the ordinance provides resources for an initial needs assessment, including language access needs, staffing and technical support, community participatory budgeting, data collection and reporting, and development of a roadmap for future equitable participatory budget processes related to public safety.

Your financial commitment through research enables community building, which is fundamental to real public safety.

Thank you very much.

I yield my time.

Thank you so much for calling in.

Next up is Peter Shalito.

Thank you.

Hi, this is Peter in Seattle District 4. It has been a busy couple months.

I want to start by thanking you all for doing your job, representing the people of Seattle, engaging in uncomfortable and difficult conversations, and taking action through the budget to remove power from the police, power that they have shown so much willingness to abuse this summer.

We need to continue working towards defunding by at least 50%.

I'm calling today in particular to support the bill to provide community-based organizations with $3 million for research.

Your financial commitment will enable community building, which is so fundamental to public safety.

As you know, this ordinance provides resources specifically for an initial needs assessment, staffing training, administrative and technical support, community participatory budgeting, data collection, analysis, and reporting, and development of a roadmap for future equitable participatory budget processes related to public safety.

And finally, this may be beyond your powers, but after hearing comments from Chief Best yesterday, I would love to see an investigation into who gave the order for officers to leave the East Precinct on June 8th.

If the command came from the Seattle Police Officers Guild, then this city is hostage to that group even more than I thought.

The officers effectively carried out a strike in plain sight.

That's all I have for today.

Thank you again for your hard work.

Black Lives Matter.

Thank you so much for calling in, Peter.

Those are all the names I have for public comment today.

So we are going to go ahead and close out our period of public comment.

Thank you to the folks who called in to provide public comment today.

Okay, we're going to go ahead and move on to items of business on our agenda for today.

The first item up is reconsideration of Council Bill 119812. I would ask the clerk, please read the item, item one into the record.

Agenda Item 1, Council Bill 119812, amending Ordinance 26000, which adopted the 2020 budget, making appropriations from the emergency fund for public assistance during the COVID-19 civil emergency, making appropriations from the general fund for public assistance during civil emergency, and making appropriations from the Revenue Stabilization Fund for public assistance during civil emergency, all by three-fourths vote of the City Council.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, I am calling up the reconsideration of passage of Council Bill 119812 to consider the mayor's veto.

The reconsideration of Council Bill 119812 is now pending before the council.

I'm going to go ahead and open it up for comments in a moment.

I would ask that the prime sponsor of the bill and the chair of our budget committee, Council Member Mosqueda, will be the first person to speak to this particular vote for reconsideration.

And then I will happily open it up to my other colleagues for any comments on reconsideration of this council bill.

I'd just like to start by saying that the reason we are taking up the reconsideration of Council Bill 119812, is because the charter of the city of Seattle under section 12 requires the council to take up and reconsider any and all bills that may be vetoed by the mayor of Seattle.

We have engaged with our law department and have confirmed that the requirement to reconsider the veto is mandated by the charter.

In other words, it is not discretionary on our part in terms of whether we consider a veto or not.

And again, that's under section 12 of the city charter.

And I just want to take a moment to make sure that the record reflects the mandatory language that is included in section 12 of the charter, which reads, quote, the council shall, not less than five days after such publication, and within 30 days after such bill shall have been so returned, reconsider and vote upon the same.

And so I just want to make sure that the record is clear as to why we are taking up this vote.

It is rooted in a charter required obligation for the full council to undergo this exercise.

I am looking forward to having a conversation about how to move us forward on Council Bill 119812, which was originally passed unanimously with a 9-0 vote from the City Council.

and I believe Councilmember Mosqueda, and I'm also happy to address this, have worked over the last 48 hours on identifying potential consensus here to move us forward and identifying some compromise opportunities so that we can go ahead and move forward and begin the process of getting this important relief out to eligible residents in the city of Seattle.

So in large part, uh, today, um, we will, uh, reconsider this and my hope is, uh, consistent with the communication that Council Member Mosqueda sent out this morning, that we'll have an opportunity to immediately amend it with some, uh, uh, language that, uh, will reflect, uh, the council's willingness to, uh, take into consideration the new financial information that we've received on Monday, and to make sure that those financial realities are reflected, memorialized, and appropriately considered as we look at moving forward with this particular council bill.

So hope that you all will share some of your own comments.

And at this point, I'm going to go ahead and hand it over to Councilmember Mosqueda, who was the prime sponsor of the bill, and then colleagues, for anyone else who would like to provide comments before we call this roll, please do let me know by raising your hand or by shooting me a quick message to let me know you'd like to get in the queue.

Thank you.

Councilmember Mosqueda, please.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I want to start today by thanking the mayor, the city budget office, and all of the folks who've been involved with this council over the last few months as we engage in the budget process, especially as we review the revenue forecast.

Given the crisis that we're in, we understand the realities of the changing revenue forecast, the trying times that we are in to both respond to the emerging and emergent needs in our community and also to make sure that our city and our city employees have the services that they need.

Together, we are working to identify the needed revenue to address the needs in our community and to be fiscally prudent with the dollars in front of us.

This effort today is an effort to work together to address the revenue shortfall that has been presented in front of us.

Monday, we did get news from the CBO that there was another projected $26 million shortfall.

We want to thank CBO Director Ben Noble for flagging the $26 million.

that had presented itself in this most recent revenue forecast.

And as we learned about it on Monday, over the last 48 hours, we've been working diligently along with the Council President's comments.

I, and I know Vice Chair, Council Member Herbold of the Select Budget Committee, and many others on this Council have been identifying ways that we can work together to close this new revenue gap and to find collaborative, creative solutions to make sure that we can still get dollars out the door.

All of this is in our joint interest.

Our joint interest as a city, everyone within city hall, in the mayor's office and city council, but also more importantly, the residents of the city, that we work together to provide immediate relief and to close this revenue gap.

Today we are proposing a two-step plan in front of us.

It's a procedural approach which allows for us to put the jumpstart COVID relief bill in front of us to repeal the veto as required by the charter, and then to immediately act in our joint effort to amend the statute to address the revenue shortfall.

As soon as the bill passes, we will be able to then immediately address those revenue shortfalls by reducing the COVID spending by $26 million.

Together, this allows for us to address the pressing issues facing our city, our city budget, and our residents across our city here.

I also want to thank the hundreds of organizations.

It's been a while since we've had a chance to thank you, but just again, thank you for your diligence in working with all of us to identify smart ways that we can plug some holes that are being presented by the lack of action at the federal level.

The organizations have been listed a bunch of times and I won't again thank them, but all of the services that they are providing from serving our most vulnerable to providing housing to caring for those who are unsheltered and to providing assistance in terms of economic recovery right now, we know that you've been offering your time in the middle of these compounding crises, so we want to thank you.

The organizations, the businesses, the unions, advocacy groups, and individuals, all of you have helped to make sure that we're investing in affordable housing and secure housing, providing shelter options for a homeless population, working to make sure that small businesses don't close and that families across the city have access to child care.

We're helping our immigrant and refugee population where the federal government hasn't stepped in, and we want to thank you for all of your work that you've done especially as we think about the longer term strategies to create a more equitable local economy.

I want to note for the record, many of you have received the three letters that we received from labor, from immigrant rights groups, and from the housing and homelessness groups encouraging this action today.

And while everybody is acknowledging that we always need to continue to see how this compounding crisis that is COVID is affecting health and housing issues in the long term.

They're really urging our action today and from the conversations I've had with many stakeholders, our understanding as well about the $26 million deficit and the joint approach, the two-step approach that we have in front of us.

Thank you again, Madam President.

I think I'll save some of my comments for later, but just deeply appreciative of the ability to have this conversation today in recognition of the $26 million shortfall that we have.

I believe we have a strategic collaborative approach to try to close that gap as we also continue to provide immediate relief.

that is a constant moving target and we will be working closely with the executive and the departments to right size those investments.

Thank you so much.

have any questions for council central staff with regard to the reconsideration and the intention to have some subsequent amendments.

Happy to suspend the rules to allow questions to be directed at council central staff.

Please let me know if that is of interest to anyone.

Colleagues, anyone else have any comments they would like to make on this council bill?

Council Member Herbold and then Council Member Lewis.

Thank you.

So while the council is voting on whether or not to override the mayor's veto today, I want to be really clear that I see my vote to override this veto as technical in nature because of the need for a replacement bill that I think addresses the position of the mayor and the budget office as it relates to preserving additional emergency revenues in light of the recent revenue forecast, and also the concerns I've heard from the mayor's office around ensuring that there's flexibility within the bill that we're about to vote on to to make clear that the council's intention is that the revenues be spent, but with an understanding that if they can't be spent, that either because of future financial shortfalls in 2020, or because of technical issues related to setting up new programs and funding, actually getting the money out the door.

that we are intending to give them that flexibility.

But we can't vote on that other bill without taking an action on the veto before us today.

As Council President Gonzalez said, it's a charter obligation.

to vote on this bill up or down.

We don't have the ability to just put it aside and introduce a new bill.

And the reason for that is because the council is required to do our action in public.

We can't just sort of unofficially say, well, we're going to put this bill aside and move forward a new bill that we have agreement with on the mayor, on some of the principles.

We're not permitted to do that.

The mayor, on the other hand, can allow legislation go into effect without her signature.

We are obligated by the charter and by the principles of open government of a legislative body to vote this veto up or down.

But again, I see the vote on this veto.

as technical in nature, it's technical in nature because it allows us to vote on the substitute bill that we'll be talking about in a moment.

If we don't vote on the veto, we can't vote on the substitute because the substitute itself is an amendment of the vetoed bill.

And under a different set of circumstances, we could potentially introduce a new bill, but we simply don't have the time to do that.

Under a different set of circumstances, we could vote to uphold the veto and introduce a new bill.

But again, given the fact that we have a council recess, given the fact that we don't have another introduction and referral calendar until next Monday, and not a lot of ability to schedule additional council meetings before the council goes on recess, this is the option before us today.

We have to vote on this replacement legislation, the legislation that's going to be coming up next.

that amends the veto for a number of different reasons.

There's a need to make some balancing decisions that are reflected in that bill, and we'll be talking about them later.

So for me, it's really important to highlight the reason why we're taking this vote.

It's not to celebrate the overriding of the veto, but it's as a vehicle to get us to the ability to vote on another bill that I'm really hoping accomplishes the shared objectives of the mayor and council and members of the public who have worked really hard to not just get the jumpstart tax measure in place, but also the spending plan.

Thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Herbold for those remarks.

Really appreciate it and do absolutely agree with everything that you have just laid out for us.

Councilmember Lewis followed by Councilmember Peterson.

I'm going to turn it over to you.

and who have been working so unbelievably hard during our summer balancing session, I agree that all of those logistical hurdles are in front of us.

They're real, and that this is not an ideal time to be having a conversation over overriding a veto that, frankly, should not have been made in the first place when a different approach in amending consulting on these measures before taking that type of an action could have been done.

I am extremely conflicted and divided on this, mostly because I'm frustrated, and I think it's partly because I'm a freshman to this body.

I don't have a long track record of experience in working in this legislative department and in working with I don't think that as an executive that we frequently have hurdles with, I don't think that I am personally shocking anyone from the viewing public or anyone on this council by saying that there is very real friction between this virtual second floor and the virtual seventh floor and the running of the city, and that that is spilling over into everything that we are doing as a city atmosphere that has been polarized and that has been divisive in a way that none of us want to cultivate and that none of us want to be participating in.

And it is all the more frustrating given that we are faced with an unprecedented series of challenges this year.

from completely rethinking and reconstituting our systems of public safety, to the Magnolia Bridge, to now the waterfront park that is falling in Elliott Bay, to the COVID pandemic that is completely engulfing everything and forcing us to have these meetings on Zoom, forcing lots of my fellow renters, as one of the few renters on this council, to not have a livelihood and be able to pay their rent to people that literally are starving because they have lost their ability to care for themselves and to pay for food.

The city has never been facing greater challenges, and every day it is just frustrating that we are in a position where the public has to see the leaders of the city, not be able to reach an accord, not be able to reach a deal, and not be able to get relief out to the people of this city.

And this is not something that I blame any of the different actors in government for, specifically, since the voters have given us divided government.

They've given us a council that has a certain set of priorities, including myself, who proudly voted for Jumpstart and voted for this bill.

and a mayor who is concerned about looking down the barrel of furloughs and firing employees and keeping essential services in the city going, and worried that these emergency funds are the only lifeline to keep the city going.

And I really want us to make a deal, and I wanna flag at the front of this, One of the problems that I see with the current arrangement that's been set up, which is that the mayor from her position has made it clear that she is not going to spend this money, that she's not going to spend the money if we send a revised package.

She is going to continue to push back until there is a broader accommodation of what she sees as her concerns in the spend level of the bill.

And that we as a council have pushed back eloquently and strongly to say, this relief needs to get out there because no one else is sending it.

The idea of federal relief coming in on gossamer wings or of philanthropy alone being able to do the trick.

And I do applaud Governor Inslee for putting forward a considerable amount of relief for our undocumented neighbors who have been excluded unjustly from federal relief.

But on the whole, it is this jumpstart package that is the relief that people really need.

The challenge that I see is that even if we move forward and appropriate this money the way that we're intending to do today, the executive, without a deal, will not get this money out the door.

That doesn't do anything to fulfill our promises to the people that need this relief and need this money.

And barring locking in a joint deal where the people's representatives on the council and the mayor can stand together and say, look, We gave a little here, we gave a little there, but this money will get out and this relief will be spent expediently.

We're all locking ourselves into this and we're all making those commitments to each other.

I don't see a way that we aren't relitigating this entire conversation again after recess because there has been another roadblock because we have not reached an accord and understanding with the executive.

My understanding is that there could be an opening to work over the next week and a half to nail in this deal where we would get the money out, we would lock in a commitment to spend the money, and we could all go forward knowing that it's done and the relief will actually come forward.

I know that there has been frantic and frenetic negotiations that have been frustrating over the last 48 hours, where an accord has not been able to be reached, not due to the lack of trying of any parties on any side of the city government.

But I do get the sense that if there is a sustainment today, that that deal can be locked in and we can actually get this relief out the door.

And just given that we have had eight months of very polarized back and forth between the executive and the council, I think that we owe it to the people of Seattle to try for another week and a half and come to an arrangement where the money will get out the door, where we are all locking ourselves into that and we are all mutually committed to rising to what this occasion requires.

I think that a sustainment today can help to force that conversation.

And if an accord cannot be met, I've got no problem passing a package like this over the objections of the executive after trying for another week and a half, and if we can't come to an accord, passing something then.

But today, I am going to vote to sustain in order to force this conversation and show the people of Seattle that we can all come together and that we can make an arrangement where this will actually get out the door and this will actually start meeting the needs of our community and that we can finally do this all together as a council and a mayor to get this job done.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

We have a few people with their hands up.

I had Councilmember Peterson in the queue and then I think I saw Councilmember Herbold raise her hand again and then Councilmember Salon.

Thank you, Council President.

So I wanted to address the letter that we received from the City Budget Office on Monday, August 10 from the Budget Director Ben Noble.

So just for the viewing public to provide additional context.

you know, why some, at least a couple of us might be struggling with this vote here, is that we received a letter with an August revenue, an updated revenue forecast that shows an additional deficit of $50.2 million.

Now, they break it out, you know, what's the deficit for this year, what's the deficit for next year, but it's $50 million, $50.2 million, and what we're trying to do is get additional COVID relief out the door that is using our rainy day fund.

So I voted for that measure.

It was unanimous to pass the COVID relief bill of 86 million to drain down the rainy day funds, leaving only about 13 million left.

out of $125 million in those funds.

But we now have new information.

This new information is pertinent to the need to rebalance the budget, and it's a $50 million hole, not a $26 million hole when we and the Rainy Day Fund, once it's gone, it's gone.

So my concern here is also the trend.

So we're showing a trend that's going down.

And so we don't know what the bottom is yet.

It's going in the wrong direction.

We don't know what the bottom is yet.

So I'm concerned about draining down the Rainy Day Fund more at this point, except that we still want to get as much COVID relief out the door at the same time.

So that's where you get back to this idea of reaching an agreement with the executive to show the public that we can balance the need for compassionate relief with the fiscal responsibility.

And I know that that's what, I hear that's what some of my colleagues have worked to do here.

So they've got the the bill that's ready to go right after this vote to reduce the COVID relief package by 26 million or so.

My concern is that we still have this $50 million shortfall, and I'm concerned about city government employees and the fact that starting January 1, you know, there may be a challenge where there need to be layoffs to balance the budget, to rebalance the budget again.

But we know we have this deficit.

So I'm concerned about going as deep into the rainy day fund.

Yes, we should get more COVID relief out the door.

But I also believe, yes, we should reach I think it is important to have a more sustainable agreement with the executive and I really want to commend my colleagues, Council President and Councilmember budget chair Mosqueda.

My understanding is they have been working hard on this and so is the executive.

I may have some additional comments, but I just wanted to highlight that the reason there's this challenge here is the concern over the $50 million hole that we now have as of 48 hours ago.

Thank you.

Councilmember Peterson, can you please show me your math on the $50 million?

I would like to get a better understanding on the record where your numbers are coming from.

I have also sent a message to council central staff about this new assertion related to this now new position that it's a $50 million deficit for 2020. And I want to make sure that I understand that you're saying that there is now a $50 million deficit for 2020.

Sure.

So what I was saying is that the executive, the updated revenue forecast from the city budget office is a 50.2 million.

They are breaking it into two pieces, 26 million in 2020 and 24.2 million in 2021. That my concern is that 2021 is starting on January 1st.

And so we, we know that this, this gap exists and yet we're acting as if it, you know, if we were to pass this, we're acting as if it doesn't exist.

And so that's my concern is that once January one hits, we're into that additional $24.2 million deficit.

I don't think anybody on this council is acting today in a manner that would imply that we believe that there is no deficit for 2021. So I'm going to push back on that assertion that you just made with all due respect to council member Peterson.

I think it implies that, that, the folks who might be inclined to overturned the mayor's veto or somehow doing it in a cavalier fashion without realizing that 2021 does, in fact, have a deficit.

We are all acutely aware of the fact that there will be deficits in 2021. And so I just want to note that my understanding is that we are also looking at the payroll tax for JumpStart to pay back some of those identified shortfalls that you just cited to currently and I think that the numbers are modest enough to account for a higher level of confidence that those revenues will come in and be able to do the backfill there.

So I just don't want any members of the public who might be viewing this to think that we are somehow ignoring the fiscal realities of either this year or next year by virtue of taking a vote that might be contrary to a sustainment of the veto and just want to stake that for the record.

Did you want to respond?

Yes, Council President.

So my concern, that is an excellent point that the idea is that the rainy day fund would be replenished by the jumpstart payroll tax revenues.

The challenge with the payroll tax revenues is that because the economy is going in the wrong direction, that we don't know exactly the dollar amounts that we're going to get to replenish.

those fundings, and now we've got a bigger hole than we had thought.

So I think it's just this, the unknowns, there's so many unknowns that I think that's what gives me pause.

We don't really know the math for the payroll tax in terms of what we're actually going to collect.

And so that's, I think that's, it's just the unknowns for me.

So I just, I think it's valid to look at it both ways.

I think we're probably going to have a conversation about the validity of those assumptions based on the analysis that we've seen from our own independent council central staff as opposed to analysis that we have received from the mayor's office.

And I do think that that's important to the integrity of our legislative process is to make sure that we are also looking at the information that we get from our I know councilmember Herbold was in the queue.

It's hard to sort of figure out how to call on folks because we're jumping around a lot, but I'm going to go over to Councilmember Herbold and then Councilmember Sawant and then hopefully Councilmember Mosqueda, you've jotted notes and can remember what you were going to say, Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you so much and I appreciate you give me an opportunity to speak for a second time even though others haven't spoken yet.

I forgot to mention in my earlier comments because I was saving these comments for the discussion of the next bill, but when Councilmember Lewis spoke it occurred to me that I really should have.

I should have included the comments about language that's in the second bill to sort of address some of the concerns that folks have about whether or not to vote for the override of the veto or vote to sustain the veto.

In acknowledgement of the uncertainty that Councilmember I think it's important to look at the future revenue updates in recognition of concerns that I've expressed and the mayor's office has expressed also around the ability to get the money out the door and to the concerns that Councilmember Lewis has expressed about the fact that perhaps with more time, I really feel like the language that we are proposing in the new section three of the amended bill, the amended jumpstart bill, really recognizes that we are close in getting to a place of agreement on these principles, but we're not there yet.

And given that we're not there yet, and given that we have a council recess, and given that we have staff the executive side of things, particularly in the budget office, staff that are working on the council side of things.

We wanted to give some flexibility to the executive in recognition that we're close on agreement, but we may still have some details to work out.

And so the language states that the council acknowledges that the administration of the program will require new contracts and systems to distribute these critical services and direct relief to the community.

And that this may take time and could result in not expending the full $57 million in 2020. If the full amount is not expended in 2020, the council is committed to working with the executive to continue funding these critical COVID-19 relief programs in 2021 and to address newly identified 2020 revenue shortfalls.

So in essence with this new section, we're saying if there are logistical reasons for not being able to get all the money out the door in 2020, or If there are, we're going to get another revenue update, I think sometime in November.

If we get additional bad news, we will work with the executive to allow them to spend less than the $57 million that is in this bill.

And that is my commitment to the executive.

And with the passage of this legislation, it would be the council's commitment to the executive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold, and we are now going to hear from Councilmember Swan.

Thank you.

I will be voting yes today to override Mayor Durkin's veto of part of the Amazon tax package of bills.

As has been mentioned, and for clarification for working people and community members who might be watching, the Amazon tax was divided into three council bills.

One bill implemented the tax, one bill gave a plan for how the funds would be invested, and the last bill used the rainy day and emergency reserves as a temporary loan to make some of the 2021 funds from the Amazon tax available right away for urgent COVID needs.

That last bill is what the mayor has vetoed.

In our veto, Mayor Durkin said, and I quote, it is irresponsible to spend the entirety of our rainy day and emergency funds in the first few months of what is likely I have a question for Mayor Durkan.

She has been from the beginning totally opposed to taxing big business in any shape or form, especially corporations which have paid an assembly for her election campaign.

Because if you are willing to tax Amazon and other large corporations as this council has been, then there is a clear alternative to budget cuts or needing the rainy day and emergency funds next year.

Amazon made $5 billion in profits in the second quarter of 2020. I fully support this bill to overturn the However, the explicit and continued threat of draconian budget cuts in 2021 must also be taken seriously.

Today several council members have already spoken as if they accept as an established fact that there will be furloughs and layoffs next year.

I want to state for the record, I absolutely do not accept furloughs or layoffs because they are not necessary if the political establishment had the political will to tax big business in order to make austerity completely unnecessary.

It is because politicians choose austerity that furloughs and layoffs become necessary.

It's not an act of God.

It is a choice made by politicians.

Remember that when the council was voting on The budget and also on the Amazon tax itself, my office proposed increasing the rate of the Amazon tax to collect an additional $293 million per year.

That sounds like a lot of money, but if you look at the tax rate increase for big corporations that are going to pay the tax, it is a very, very small change.

That would have eliminated all of the then projected budget shortfalls of 2021. And I have no doubt that the math works out for the biggest corporations to be taxed a little bit more so that we avoid austerity entirely.

I support using the rainy day funds today to meet the burning needs of regular working class people this year.

And I also think it is essential that the council increase the rate of the Amazon tax to cover the budget cuts that the mayor is threatening for next year, because otherwise, austerity will be a given.

COVID-19 is a health emergency caused by a virus, but the public health damage it is causing is rooted in the deep inequality in American capitalism and especially exacerbated by the lack of access to basic health care and by the horrendous response by the Trump administration.

furthermore the economic recession is not simply a product of the pandemic it is the fundamental crisis of the capitalist system a long-standing global crisis that was already underway before the pandemic began every time there is an economic recession there's a struggle over which class will pay for this crisis, the ruling class or the working class.

In 2008, the very banks that had pillaged tens of millions of working families, especially black and Latinx families, were bailed out while working class homeowners lost everything.

In 2021, either Amazon and other big businesses will pay a small portion of their immense wealth that they have accumulated by exploiting workers in our community, or public sector workers will pay through layoffs and mandatory furloughs and lost incomes, and marginalized communities will suffer through the cuts to essential social services.

Who will pay will be determined by the balance of forces and whether or not there will be mass movements on the streets and particularly in the workplace led by labor unions.

The people's budget movement will demand during the fall budget that big business, not workers, pay for this crisis.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Salant.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

There's just a few items that I felt like needed clarification.

Number one, this is a 2020 spend plan.

This is providing immediate COVID relief in 2020. So let's not conflate the numbers of $26 million and $24 million for next year.

This has always been about 2020 and the immediate relief that we need to get out the door right now.

Our numbers are clear.

We identified $26 million in conversation with Director Ben Noble immediately on Monday and have been working diligently to try to reduce the amount of funding that goes out by that $26 million number.

But if you want to talk about 2021, The 2021 plan for the jumpstart revenue package was to invest in city services was to prevent furloughs and to prevent layoffs and to really shore up core government services like parks and libraries and child care.

What is critical is that we recognize that these two issues cannot be pitted against each other.

So in effect, the two part process that we have in front of us basically acknowledges that we are front loading 26 million into this critical service of shoring up key government priorities and public employees by offering 26 million to be used for that in this year.

It then continues to allocate the remaining amount, or as Councilmember Herbold articulated, the amount that is possible to get out the door this year for the 2020 allocations.

But something else that was missing from the conversation over the last few weeks, but especially right now, is that the dollars get replenished.

So I want to be very clear, yes, there's a lot of uncertainty in our local economy and the economy around the globe.

But what is certain is that we will be able to replenish the reserves that we are borrowing right now for this crisis.

This is the rainy day.

This is the emergency.

Compounding public health crisis and housing emergency, this is the time for us to use those dollars.

And it is very important that we're clear with the public that we know exactly how we will replenish these funds.

Because Jumpstart Progressive Revenue, the payroll tax proposal, and a conservative estimate is assuming $214 million a year when we start collecting those taxes based on the 2021 payroll tax rule.

So let me just posit this.

Even though there is uncertainty in how fast the economy will recover.

And we're in this position because we have a U curve recovery ahead of us.

If we had gotten every single $86 million out the door this year, we would have been able to replenish those dollars next year with jumpstart funding because 86 million is 40% of the overall total that we were expecting to bring in.

On our conservative estimate, even if we were wrong by 60%, we would be able to replenish the jumpstart COVID emergency relief using the payroll tax with next year's payroll tax dollars.

So then let's look at the dollar amount in front of us.

We're talking about up to $57 million.

We would have to be wildly off, which I know that our central staff and the folks that we've been working with, both at the national level and locally here, when crafting jumpstart proposal, we have a carefully crafted proposal in front of us that we are just using a portion of the dollars right now with a certainty that we will be able to replenish the dollars that we're getting out once we begin to collect the payroll tax.

And it's really important that the public also, the public recognize that the jumpstart payroll tax replenishes the emergency fund and any rainy day fund that we would use.

But at this point, we're just talking about $57 million.

So the argument that the city needs to save additional emergency funds for city workers or city services, let me be really clear.

The Coalition for City Unions has supported the Jumpstart Payroll Tax and is supportive of this effort to get dollars out the door immediately to those in need for housing and food assistance.

as well as to be able to use $26 million to help prevent the types of poor government services that we rely on every day from shutting down.

They have been supportive as city unions, as folks who provide daily city services with the proposal in front of us.

This bill ultimately helps prevent more people from being laid off in the future, if we can really invest now and start bringing in jumpstart payroll taxes to replenish in the upcoming years.

So there's not a lot of unknowns, actually, when you look at what our proposal includes, because on a very conservative estimate, we will be replenishing these funds, especially if we're talking about the existing bucket of funds, sorry, talking about the existing funding for 2020, we have a certainty that we will be able to pay that back with Jumpstart Progressive Revenue.

I do have a chart.

I could show you that just to illustrate the point.

But while the unknowns were mentioned, let me just remind folks of the knowns.

We know, according to NPR last week, that there are more people paying their rent this month using a credit card than they are using unemployment checks.

We know that child cares will close down.

Around 30% of child cares are slated to close down unless they get immediate assistance.

And we know that many of the small businesses that are poised to close without additional local flexible dollars will not be able to reopen due to the startup costs.

Those are the knowns in front of us.

So I just wanted to correct the record, Madam President, about the knowns and the unknowns, because the dollars in the reserve funds are going to be paid back using 2021 dollars.

And that is just around the corner.

This is the emergency.

And again, I do want to thank the CBO for flagging this 26 million dollars so we could collectively work in this two part process.

I am hoping that we get to the second bill here.

because it really does identify a pathway forward for us.

In my conversations with folks in the executive level, when I talked about the 26 million, the words that I heard was, this is internally consistent with our numbers, this is a recognition of the situation that we're in, and this is a meaningful gesture.

Obviously, nobody speaks on behalf of the executive that this is a meaningful gesture as we work together to identify how to close the gap and provide critical city services and care for our most vulnerable.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda.

Are there any other comments on the reconsideration of Council Bill 119812?

Councilmember Peterson, please.

Thank you.

And I appreciate everybody's comments here.

I know this is not, um, I know there's a lot, a lot of pieces of information and I think everybody's well intentioned to try to get COVID relief out the door to balance the budget.

I think that all the intentions are good.

It's just, I'm approaching it from a different angle here in terms of the, the revenue forecast, and I guess I just want to add some additional context to my original comments where, you know, we're focused on the payroll tax replenishing the rainy day fund.

I think what the challenge is is that, as we know, we get our revenue, our city revenue from all sorts of sources.

We get it from B&O taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and, you know, the trend is bad.

The trend is negative, and so the rainy day funds are one-time funds.

I just want to to paint that picture and also to you know if if whatever reason the the veto is sustained today then I commit myself to work with with all parties to get something done in the next few days so that it's not we it's it's really just a giving people more time to craft a more sustainable compromise so that the the executive will so that it's it's real dollars out the door quickly that the mayor's committed to getting those out the door and it just sounds like there needs to be a few more days to work that out.

So I'm committed to joining with folks to get that done.

Colleagues, are there any other questions or comments on Council Bill 119812?

Did you want to make closing remarks, Council Member Mosqueda?

I'm going to make some comments before that.

I was just sort of seeing if anybody else wanted to offer thoughts.

Okay, seeing none, I will add to the debate and the record here before handing it over to Councilmember Mosqueda to close out the debate on reconsideration of the Council Bill 119812. I just want to start by acknowledging that I recognize that our economic picture is unstable currently due to COVID-19 and the related economic crisis.

And yes, there are some unknown factors.

And that is inherent in the reality that we continue to appreciate and understand the depth of the economic crisis and the recovery period that will be necessary to come out of this.

But I really sit with the fact that knowing those things doesn't give me a reason to or an excuse to shock me into inaction.

These are uncertain times, but I think our constituents are looking to us to take action in this period of time that is reasonable and that is rooted in an acknowledgment of new information that we just recently received.

And so I want to encourage us to Yes, acknowledge that there are uncertainties, but these uncertainties cannot shock us into inaction.

We cannot just freeze ourselves in amber and wait for all of the factors that we think don't have answers to them before we take action.

I believe that Mayor Durkan and most of this council share the values of balancing the budget, of appreciating the volatility of our economic forecast, and of appreciating the depth and the breadth of the need of our constituents who are suffering during this economic crisis.

And I do believe that that is where the common ground is. where we are unfortunately not able to find consensus today is on this issue of what the number should be for the spending plan.

And I will disclose to you colleagues that I have spent the last couple of days having very long conversations with the mayor directly, with senior deputy mayor Fong, And my staff has also been engaging with staff from the mayor's office.

Unfortunately, we were not able to come up with an agreement in large part because there was an insistence on there being a sustainment of the veto before we can agree to a number.

And I believe that we need to have this vote on reconsideration because the charter requires us to do it and that there was an opportunity that unfortunately we were unable to achieve agreement to, but there would have been an opportunity to memorialize a compromise and a agreement between us and the executive on the policy aspects of the jumpstart COVID relief spending bill.

But unfortunately, we just couldn't get there.

Now, I think that, unfortunately, I'm not sure that three or four days will yield or produce a deal, but I do think that those conversations are still important to have.

And so I do intend to vote in favor of an override, but I do that in the spirit of putting forth a bill that represents the council's compromised position as a place for us to continue to have conversations with the executive that would address her particular concerns.

And so I think we can both override this veto.

We can amend Council Bill 119812 in the fashion that we have been describing.

And we can still have conversations with the mayor and her staff around additional amendments that might be needed to the bill based on information that I understand the executive is continuing to gather.

I believe that's a reasonable position, and it's a responsible path forward.

And I think we have, again, done all that we can do in the last 48 hours to identify that path and to do it in a way that is collaborative and that will allow us all to feel good about this bill ultimately and to achieve the ultimate goal, which is to get these dollars into communities.

So the inference and the implication by some of you colleagues that somehow we have been creating some sort of intentional tension or have inherently been the problem or the holdup in terms of these negotiations is just not accurate.

I have spent hours on the phone over the last 48 hours trying everything I can to find the common ground and to close the daylight in hopes that we could both do an override, quickly memorialize that agreement in a mandatory language, and and move on with getting these dollars out to community.

Unfortunately, it was made very clear to me that an agreement could not and would not be reached without first agreeing to sustain the mayor's veto.

And that is not something that I feel is procedurally appropriate for us to do if we want to effectuate the underlying $57 million amendment today.

And I feel strongly that time is of the essence, and I would really like to wrap this up today for purposes of being able to get the departments and the agencies responsible as much time as possible to begin the process of pushing these dollars out, which at this point I understand would occur early September if we take action now.

So I just wanted to share that information with all of you because there's been some comments implying that somehow we haven't tried hard enough or that somehow we have presented a roadblock in terms of of the efforts that Councilmember Mosqueda and Councilmember Herbold and I have been undertaking.

But I feel like we have really tried hard to come up with a consensus.

And that being said, I still want to leave the door open to conversations even after today to further address some and any additional that might come out of the analysis that might continue to be done by the city budget office as they continue to receive additional information about the economic forecast that might be relevant to this particular question.

But I feel that we have addressed the substantive policy issues, both through the reduction from $83 million to $57 million, and also in incorporating the language that Councilmember Herbold read, which does not mandate that the mayor has to spend $57 million, but simply authorizes her to do so if she, based on all the information she has available to her, feels that she has the basis to do so, with the understanding that if she doesn't, we will all come back together to identify how else to use those dollars.

So that is why I'm supporting this and would encourage my other colleagues to also support an override of this veto so that we can move along to the second substantive bill.

All right, Council Member Mosqueda, you got the last word.

Well, thank you, Council President.

I just want to I want to echo your comments.

I really appreciate the way in which you close this.

I will reiterate the common ground here.

The way in which we have tried to address the concerns brought up by the CBO address the changing number of 26 million now is included here.

I want to lift up the comments .

I want to end with the good intentions of us all.

these two issues are not in conflict.

So the one-two step approach that we have in front of us today with this bill and the next bill help address that these two areas are absolutely needing to go parallel together.

We must be able to provide core city services in order to care for our most vulnerable and we must be getting the dollars as we identified from COVID emergency relief jumpstart bill out into communities so people can keep their house and have food and keep their small business and make sure their kiddos have a place to go for child care to prevent more people from needing sturdy services.

These two issues go hand in hand.

And so I'm really looking forward, hopefully with you all in the next few days to make sure that the conversations continue with the mayor's office.

we have to be responsive to the urgent needs that we have heard.

We have received over 500 e-mails.

the city of Santa Barbara.

We have thousands of calls, 800 people individually signed on to a petition in addition to the three letters I sent you all today.

Urging our action today and doing so I think helps us get to that next step and really invest in our

Thank you, Councilmember Mosqueda.

So we're going to go ahead and close that debate and call this to vote.

Before we do that, I want to make sure that I provide an opportunity to our Council Central staff to remind us as to what the parameters are related to the number of votes necessary for either an override or a sustainment to occur.

So I'm gonna call on Allie or Dan, whoever is prepared to speak to that.

And I believe I need to make, I think I need to, Madam Clerk, do I need to suspend the rules in order to allow Council Central staff to speak to us?

That is the practice for allowing Council Central staff to address the Council.

Okay, colleagues, if there's no objection, I'd ask that we suspend the rules to allow Council Central staff to address the City Council on this matter.

hearing no objection.

Thank you, colleagues, for that.

I think it is important for us to make the public record here and to make sure that all council members are aware of the procedural requirements before we call the roll on the reconsideration of passage of Council Bill 19812. So I will now hand it over to Dan and Ali.

Thank you, Council President.

Dan Eder, Deputy Director of the Council of Central Staff, I believe the question is what is the threshold and effect for the council's reconsideration of the mayor's veto, Council Bill 119812. My understanding after consulting with various folks in the law department and in the clerk's office is that the city charter and the council rules provide that a veto override reconsideration vote requires six of the nine council members to vote in the affirmative for the veto override to become effective.

And I can answer any further questions that there may be on the panel.

Great.

It looks like we have one question.

Council Member Peterson, please.

Did you repeat that number, Dan?

Yes, the number is six votes of the full council to override a mayoral veto.

And did you get that information from the city attorney's office?

Yes.

Colleagues, I think that language also comes directly from the city charter as well.

So if you look at section of the city charter, it does read the council shall not less than five days after such publication and within 30 days after such bill shall have been so returned, reconsider and vote upon the same.

And if the same shall upon such reconsideration be again passed by the affirmative vote of not less than two thirds of all the members, the president of the council shall certify the fact on the bill.

And when so certified, the bill shall become an ordinance with like effect as if it had not been disapproved by the mayor.

So the city charter in section 12 does explicitly cite that an override is effectuated by a two-thirds vote of the members of the council, which in this case would be six.

Council Member Peterson, and then Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

What's interesting about this particular bill is that it was an appropriations bill which required a three-fourths vote, seven affirmative votes.

As I understand it, the mayor's veto then canceled the law and the only way to resurrect that law is to have seven votes and was hoping maybe the city clerk could also chime in on this.

We have some legal analysis on that as well.

Dan or Allie, would you like to walk us through the nuance of what occurs when there is both an override of a veto and an appropriations bill that requires three quarters of a vote on the appropriations aspect of this legislation?

Yes, of course.

So there is some additional advice, as Council Member Peterson was alluding to, I believe, or is asking about at any rate, when the state law requires a three-quarter vote for mid-year emergency appropriations, and that's what this Bill 119-812 entailed.

There is some question about whether the veto override vote, if it is six votes versus a seven-vote three-quarter supermajority versus a two-thirds supermajority, whether the appropriations that are in the underlying bill become effective.

That question would get cured in the, whether they become effective or are not effective, there are other provisions within the 119825 that are not appropriations and would certainly, with a two-thirds supermajority, become effective.

that the appropriations, if they are not effective, would then come effective in the next bill that you are considering, I believe that's 119860, if there is a three-quarter supermajority vote to approve the appropriations in that separate bill.

I would just add to that if the veto override happens with a two-thirds majority, I will send a slightly modified version of the substitute that makes the same changes in the that were proposed in the substitute version distributed this morning, but addresses those or would effectuate those changes in a technically different manner, assuming that the appropriation sections that Dan just described would not be in effect after the veto override, so it would just incorporate an entirely new appropriation section and a new provisor section.

Thank you, Dan and Allie.

And Allie, just to sort of follow up on your point, effectively, the nuance, the technical revision that you would send out, depending on the roll call results here, would effectively be an amendment to the appropriations of the of Council Bill 119812 if the veto is overridden?

Correct.

It assumes that after the, with the veto override, that sections two and four in Council Bill 119812 would not be basically part of Council Bill 119812 anymore after the override, and so you would be amending the bill to re-insert them, so it will appear that the appropriations table that is currently in section 2 of 119.812 is struck entirely, and a new appropriations table that is just spending $57 million would be incorporated versus what I distributed this morning that is striking out individual numbers and amending them with new numbers.

So it is effectively the same result at the end of the day, but it is just a technically different to get you there.

Thank you, Allie.

Councilmember Herbold, you had your hand raised.

My question has been answered.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any other questions for either Allie or Dan from our Council Central staff?

Okay.

hearing none, thank you, Dan.

Thank you, Ali, for providing us with that additional clarification.

I know you were all working busily today on identifying answers to those procedural questions, so I appreciate that.

Okay, so there are no other comments.

I'm going to go ahead and close out debate.

The City Council will now vote to reconsider passage of Council Bill 119812. to either override or sustain the mayoral veto.

During roll call, council members will either vote aye to override the mayor's veto or vote no to sustain the veto.

If the vote on the motion is tied or if it is less than two-thirds, in other words, six votes, then the bill fails and the veto is sustained.

Are there any questions on the vote?

All right, because last time we did this, it got a little confusing.

People were confused about what yes meant and what no meant.

So I just want to make really clear, if you vote yes, it's to cancel out the veto.

If you vote no, it's to keep the veto in place.

Does that make sense?

Everybody's clear?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council President.

In reading the charter, it says that we need to vote yays and nays.

Do we need to be that specific as per the charter?

Madam Clerk.

I recommend the ayes and noes, only because of the fact that the nays sound too much like yays, and therefore we can't capture both accurately.

OK, good question.

Okay, so we are now going to vote on this seeing that there are no other questions on the vote.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 119812. Peterson.

No.

Sawant.

Aye.

Strauss.

Aye.

Yes.

Herbold.

Aye.

Lewis.

No.

Morales.

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Six in favor, two opposed.

Okay, the motion carries.

The mayor's veto is overridden and the chair will sign the bill certifying passage of council bill 119812. And I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the bill.

Okay, colleagues, we are now going to, sorry, I'm reading through my procedural gymnastics scripts over here.

Okay.

Item two.

Will the clerk please read item two into the record?

Agenda item two, Council Bill 119860, amending ordinance 12600, which adopted the 2020 budget and amending the ordinance introduced at Council Bill 119812, relating to appropriations from the emergency fund for public assistance during the COVID-19 civil emergency.

I make the appropriations from the revenue stabilization fund for public assistance during the civil emergency.

I'll call for a vote of the City Council.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to pass Council Bill 119860. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Council Member Mosqueda, a sponsor of this bill, you are recognized in order to address this item.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I would like to move to amend Council Bill 119860 by substituting version 5 for version 3A, and I believe that has been circulated by the central staff, if I'm correct.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to substitute the bill.

Council Member Mosqueda, would you be willing to address the substitute?

Thank you very much, Madam President.

Since we have suspended the rules, I wonder if it's possible if Ali would like to address the substitute, and then I could add some additional comments.

Great.

Colleagues, if there is no objection, the rules will be suspended to allow Council Central staff to address the Council.

Hearing no objection, the rules are suspended and Ms. Ali Panucci may address the City Council, please.

Good afternoon.

I think I forgot to introduce myself earlier.

Alec Pucci, Council Central staff.

Council members, I just distributed a new version of the substitute bill that, as I had just described, makes a couple of changes to the bill as introduced.

It reduces the total amount of spending in the bill from $83 million to $57 million and adds language recognizing that it may take some time to get this funding out the door in 2020. and if it's not all expended the council will work with the executive to extend the funding into 2021 for these critical COVID relief programs and we'll work with the executive as needed to address any additional 2020 revenue issues.

I'll just note that this version that was just recently distributed the difference here again is it just fully strikes what was section 2 and 4 in the original COVID relief bill and adds in new appropriations for a total of 57 million dollars and then I would also just add that if the for example the executive determines that additional spending is needed from the revenue stabilization account or the emergency fund this this action will leave about 9.9 million dollars in the emergency fund and 28.7 million in the revenue stabilization account, the mayor will have to come to the council and request authority to spend those dollars.

At that time, if there was an additional revenue issue that was identified by the council and the mayor, you could also introduce legislation to further amend the COVID relief spending if additional resources, excuse me, were needed for other purposes.

And I'll just also note that the numbers in the revenue stabilization account also assume passage of Council Bill 119862 that is later in your agenda that appropriates $3 million for community-led research.

Great.

Thank you so much, Allie, for that presentation.

Colleagues, any questions for Allie?

OK. hearing no questions.

We will now open it up for comment and debate.

I will actually go back to Council Member Mosqueda.

I think you wanted to have Ali speak first before you spoke, so the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

Again, colleagues, I think that the piece of legislation that's in front of us now is reflective of the reality that we are faced with.

This is an ongoing crisis that requires us to both invest in community needs in terms of housing, childcare, food assistance, and small business support, and also recognizing the changing nature in which our city government is trying to respond to the need to provide public health assistance and financial assistance to folks in our community.

I think that the carefully crafted proposal in front of you again, is an offer, a gesture to want to work to address both the crisis that is presenting itself for our city and in terms of financing, but also to act quickly and invest in what our community and families and seniors need.

And when we do, data shows repeatedly that that type of investment into community helps make the recovery happen faster.

And what we've put in front of us is a more equitable way to make sure that we're sustaining this crisis as we weather the storm that COVID is creating.

Again, I wanna appreciate the ongoing work that we have in front of us to work with the mayor's office and CDO and all of our colleagues to get the money out the door in a way that is received by community, but also reflective of the changing nature of our current fiscal climate, and we'll be looking forward to working with the CBO and the mayor's office on that.

This piece of legislation is really important in that it includes funding for community-led research, participatory budgeting process, which I know Councilmember Morales has been really helping to provide and provide meat to the bone in terms of what we're doing with community organizations as we think about a community-led participatory process, a participatory-led process.

We're also excited about the ongoing support that is being provided to COVID relief, just to reiterate the importance of making sure that we are investing in where COVID relief funding originally went, goes hand in glove with the conversations that we've been having over the last two months as well.

Unfortunately, those who've been hit the hardest because of COVID are Black and Brown communities, folks who are more likely to work in the service sector and work in low-wage industries are black and brown workers.

And those who are more likely to have housing instability and food instability and lack of access to affordable child care are members from our black and brown community.

So this is really an opportunity for us to use a racial justice analysis, help get those dollars out the door, and also recognize that our core government services we are holding back money to continue to invest in for city employees and city services, provide direct relief as well.

So it's a well-balanced package in front of us.

With that, Madam President, I know that there was a key, a number of council members who provided key elements to this amended version in front of us.

So I would turn it back over to you to have others comment on it as well.

Great.

Thank you so much, Council Member Esqueda.

Are there any other comments on the bill?

Councilmember Herbold, Councilmember Lewis, and Councilmember Morales.

might sound like coming out of this vote and anticipating sort of what the narrative might be and wanting to provide some context and some prognostication about what the appropriate answers might be to some of those issues raised.

I wouldn't be surprised if we hear from the executive that $57 million to be spent in 2020 is still too much.

I just want to be really clear that what we are saying with this amended language is this is appropriation authority, and we acknowledge that the executive may not be able to get all the money out in 2020, or it may not be the right thing to do to get all the money out in 2020. We get another revenue update that shows additional reductions in revenue.

Some of these dollars may need to be transferred over to our emergency funds or to other things that our emergency funds would otherwise pay for.

Just trying to anticipate a narrative that we didn't bring the number down to a small enough number to be financially responsible, I'm saying that the flexibility that we've built into this legislation allows the branch of government that spends the money to consider the restraints on spending the money.

I have been even up to just these last few minutes been having discussions with the CBO in the middle of this meeting about a different number, something other than $57 million, something lower that they would feel more comfortable with.

and I thank you, Allie.

Allie was preparing to offer an alternative.

I'm not bringing forward that alternative because the message I'm still getting from the executive is that before there's agreement on what this spending plan should aim to spend, that they really wanted the council to sustain the veto.

So that was not the direction that this council is going in, because we have a bill that relies on amending a veto that has been overturned.

And because of the other items that I'd mentioned earlier, and other council members have as well, about the short amount of time that we had before recess.

and the long number of hours that staff have been working.

So, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Councilmember Lewis.

And then, Councilmember Herbold, just remember to put yourself on mute.

Thank you, Madam President.

And my comments are fairly similar to Councilmember Herbold's.

I am thrilled to vote for this new bill today, and I want to thank Councilmember Mosqueda for bringing this forward to cue this up.

I guess I would sort of rhetorically pose my comments to the executive in discussing this to just say, you know, all of us share the common interest of wanting to get relief out to the people in Seattle that really need this assistance.

I know that there are going to be some issues around administrability or concerns about what the number is.

I guess that I would just implore, in the spirit of us all moving together, that In sending this new bill to the executive for consideration, we keep that dialogue open, that if there are concerns, that that be addressed in reaching out to us to be able to pursue some potential legislative changes collaboratively and to be able to discuss how we can work together to build the changes necessary to make sure that the considerations of the fiscal condition of the city are observed, but that also people that can't pay rent can pay their rent, and that people who are experiencing homelessness and tents on our streets can get inside, and that we can show the people of Seattle that as a legislative and executive branch, we can rise to this occasion together.

And I think this is an opportunity in considering the bill that was returned and making these changes to the bill and sending it back for us to reset this really critical conversation around relief related to COVID.

I know that all of us here at the council are committed to that.

And I look forward to this new bill and these new commitments and seeing if we can work something out.

And I maintain committed to doing, I maintain my commitment to doing that.

I think this is a new opportunity for us to collaborate and I welcome it.

I thank you for sponsoring this and moving to this next chapter and providing COVID relief.

I'm hopeful we can get it out the door.

Thank you so much.

Thanks, Council President.

I intend to support this bill.

I think it's important.

It helps us get real dollars out the door to families who are in the city.

We all know that COVID has laid bare the different systems of inequity that have left families in Seattle without income and struggling to pay their rent.

It's left children without child care.

It's left small businesses without revenue.

And it is our responsibility as a council, surely, to address the budget gap that we have.

And I think we've worked really hard to do that.

It is also our responsibility as elected adults to protect the health and well-being of our constituents.

And this bill and the amendment here allows us to support them through this immediate crisis since we are seeing very little federal action to provide the scale and kind of support that our families need.

So I think that this does balance our fiscal responsibility at the same time, making sure that we don't turn a blind eye to the hundreds of emails and phone calls from our constituents and from our service providers in the city who are doing everything they can to help our community.

Um, the last thing I want to say, um, especially over the last few days, as we talk about this issue of civility, um, I think it's really important that we are careful in the kind of language that we use to discuss what are admittedly very difficult policy discussions in the city, especially as women and young girls are watching.

And especially as little girls of color are watching, I think we need to be very careful about Not giving them the impression that you cannot disagree without being called uncivil.

You know, that suggestion that having a tough policy conversation makes you somebody who is uncivil or in some way we are not transmitting to the little girls in our community.

We will continue to have disagreements on this council.

We will continue to have different policy positions and perspectives, I'm sure.

Um, but I want us to make sure that we are, uh, continuing to respect one another and to respect the executive branch, um, and to make sure that we are, we are sending the right message to little girls in our city, that it's okay to disagree with people and that you can still, uh, deserve respect from them and have respect for them.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Well said.

I appreciate you sharing that sentiment and reminding us always that again, these are policy discussions.

They are difficult.

It is okay for us to disagree.

Just because we disagree does not mean we are morally corrupt.

Thank you, Council President.

I wanted to thank Council Members Herbold and Mosqueda and the Council President for working on this strategy here, which will reduce the spending to recognize that there is this additional gap in 2020. I think this is a good way to move forward.

I think this is a good way to move forward.

This shows a good faith effort on the part of the city Council to move toward the executive to acknowledge the new information we have received and to get money out the door.

I was approaching it from a different angle earlier.

I thought that was another path to get there.

This is also a valid path.

Thank you.

I would want to clarify for the members of the public who are watching or who may watch in the future, something that has not been clarified by any of the Councilmembers so far, that this substitute actually implements $26 million in austerity or $26 million in budget cuts.

And every point that I made when I spoke to the last agenda item, Opposing the mayor's veto, opposing budget cuts and austerity apply to this substitute as well.

Especially in this city, which has long been a tax haven for the wealthiest, the city council and the mayor should be doing everything in their power to increase the Amazon tax by whatever the shortfall is, whether it is $26 million today 50 million tomorrow, not cut the budget by those amounts.

So I will be voting no on this $26 million budget cut.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Any other comments from colleagues?

Okay, I will go ahead and make a few remarks and then hand it over to Council Member Esqueda in the event that she has any closing remarks before we call the roll on this bill.

I intend to support this bill.

This bill, which amends the appropriations found in the previous bill, reflects a 34% reduction for 2020 spending.

in response to the mayor's concerns that it may be administratively difficult to spend $57 million in 2020. We have language in this amendment that acknowledges that we have the aspiration of being able to spend $57 million in 2020, but acknowledging the concern that was expressed to us by the mayor that it may not be physically possible to set up the systems to accomplish that.

Nonetheless, I believe that the mayor will make a good faith effort to expend these dollars and will continue to work with her and her staff collaboratively to continue to identify how the council can support those good faith efforts to spend these dollars, all the while acknowledging that there are realities with how we administer these dollars that are new in some ways and baked into existing programs in other ways.

Nonetheless, it's a new revenue source, a new revenue opportunity that will necessitate some I think it is important to understand the realities around how the dollars are administered and distributed to qualifying residents and I appreciate that difficulty and believe that this bill addresses that policy concern that I heard from the mayor.

about the potential of furloughs next year and the need to preserve dollars now to mitigate against those furloughs.

Again, this is with relation to where we set the dial, whether it's 83 million or 87 million or 57 million or some other number, 45 million, 20 million.

And again, as chair of the Select Labor Committee, I share in that concern about mitigating against furloughs of our employees.

And I believe that my colleagues on the Labor Relations Policy Committee also share in that concern.

And I think we all stand at the ready to work in partnership with the mayor on mitigating against furloughs at the city and I really want to say that publicly that I appreciate that that is a real concern and that I'm hearing from the mayor that she.

would like to mitigate against that as possible and is looking for available dollars, including those in our reserves, to be able to use those dollars to accomplish that policy goal.

I believe there is common ground on that policy goal and look forward to working in the coming months as we head into our fall budget season to be able to work together to accomplish that goal.

I also understand that there is another alternative that the mayor would like us to consider.

Passage of this bill and the action that we took on overriding the veto does not preclude or foreclose the opportunity to continue to have conversations about the spending that the mayor may be able to practically effectuate in the coming months.

And I remain open to those conversations to make sure that this appropriations allocation is right-sized in a way that is realistic and that will meet the deep needs in our community.

So I really have appreciated an opportunity to have conversations with the mayor and with her staff around identifying how we can move forward And I expect that over the coming days, we will continue to have conversations.

I hope we continue to have conversations.

But I believe that this amendment to this bill, which is effectively an amendment to the prior bill, is a reflection of our willingness to be flexible and to memorialize an alternative proposal that takes into account the realities around the additional revenue forecast for the remainder of 2020. So colleagues, I will be excited to be voting in favor of this and also excited that we've been able to get to this point.

and look forward to the next few days of conversation should the mayor be inclined to have those.

Councilmember Mosqueda, final word.

Thank you, Madam President.

I also want to thank you, Madam President, Council President Gonzalez, as a co-sponsor.

I just want to thank you for your work on this.

And lift up what I believe Councilmember Morales was saying as well.

You know, you, as the Council President, as a woman, as a younger woman in politics, and as a woman of color, I think are providing a great example to those young women.

councilmember Morales has mentioned across the city who are looking to our city in this moment of crisis for leadership.

I appreciate the conversation that you have led us through today and for demonstrating leadership and respect.

I appreciate that.

to be able to do that.

I'm looking forward to continuing to do that throughout our city and especially within city hall to make sure we move forward as a cohesive strategy to provide the relief needed.

I believe the bills in front of us today help offer that cohesive strategy.

I want to lift up a few pieces in this.

This bill does amend some to funding to actually redirect to additional support for rental assistance and homelessness prevention programs, including diversion and rapid rehousing programs.

It also reduces the total appropriation by $3 million and directs $200,000 to FAS, or our Finance and Administrative Services Department, to begin the process of implementing the Jumpstart Tax so that we can ensure that there is money to replenish those funds that we just spoke about before.

And by including $3 million for the community-led research project, we still have $1.1 million in funding that can be used for the administration and the cost to get these dollars out the door and invest in the relief that we know we need in our community.

The remaining 3 million we will talk about in just a moment as Councilmember Morales has spoken to before, invest in community-led research and participatory budgeting strategy to truly take some next steps on public safety.

And it also, in this bill, clarifies that we are, as Councilmember Herbold spoke to, really recognizing that there could also be the potential, fingers crossed, that maybe some additional federal relief will come down.

Maybe there will be some state relief at some point.

We want to be flexible and recognize and accept those dollars when we can and not do anything that puts those dollars in jeopardy or duplicate where we could potentially be getting reimbursed.

So it has flexibility built in for that possibility in the future.

And finally, I just want to be clear that this bill is an anti-austerity bill.

This is an anti-austerity measure to help prevent folks from getting laid off, to help prevent furloughs, and to help prevent services from getting closed.

When we allocate $26 million, as has been requested, it will help prevent people from getting laid off and allow for core government services to continue in 2020. Much of this, again, was anticipated for 2021. given the nature of this recession that's in front of us, we are pulling forward those dollars to invest in core government services and city employees to truly prevent those layoffs and austerity measures.

I will be the first to admit, we will have to continue to look at every strategy in front of us.

Any strategy that includes the fall budget, we will have to again ensure that our commitments around anti-austerity are right there.

But this is truly a commitment for us to make sure that key government services, city employees are able to maintain their jobs and that we're providing those core government services exactly when our most vulnerable communities need it.

So that's the combination of both the $26 million that we've been talking about and up to $57 million going into community strategies like housing, food, small business, and child care.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

Looking forward to voting on this.

Thank you so much, Council Member Mosqueda, for those remarks.

I'm going to go ahead and we're going to take two votes.

As a reminder, right now we're going to vote on the adoption of the substitute, and then we will immediately call the roll on the bill as amended.

So I will ask that the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the substitute.

Peterson?

Aye.

DeWant?

No.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Seven in favor, one opposed.

Thank you so much.

The motion carries.

The substitute is adopted and the amended bill is before the council.

We have had quite a bit of debate on the bill, so I'm going to go ahead and take that as the comment that is needed on the bill as amended.

So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.

Peterson.

Hi.

Peterson Gonzalez.

I wanted to speak quickly.

Councilmember Sawant, we already had debate on the entirety of the bill.

Well, I had saved some points because I thought you were going to let Councilmember speak to the bill after the substitution adoption, so I would like to speak now.

Madam Clerk, just point of order.

May I do that since we've already started doing the roll call or is that out of order?

Because the fact that she wasn't provided the opportunity, if she, if wanted, I'd recommend that the council member be allowed to speak at this point.

Okay, thank you so much.

Just wanted to make sure that I wasn't going to run afoul of other rules.

Thank you.

I just wanted to clarify something that is related to the bill that's coming up next and also wanted to speak in reference to some comments that were just made.

First, I support funding for community organizations to develop alternatives to repressive policing.

And on the next agenda item, which actually funds those programs, I will be voting yes.

I would prefer that the programs be funded by defunding the police as the justice for George Floyd movement has demanded.

However, I wholeheartedly support that funding for community organizations and I will be voting for that bill in favor of it regardless of the source of funds when we take that vote in the next agenda item.

The current agenda item, however, contains the austerity of $26 million that was just discussed in the amendment.

And I'm voting against, I voted against the substitution and I vote against austerity.

So I will be voting against this bill.

I hope members of the public listening today will make note of the fact that no other council member has acknowledged the point that this is austerity and that austerity can be prevented by increasing the Amazon tax.

In other words, by increasing taxes on the very wealthiest of corporations who have been taxed now because of the historic Amazon tax victory but in general still enjoy an overwhelming tax haven in our city and have done so for many years.

Council members are ignoring those points because they do not want to publicly acknowledge that they are making a choice to do austerity rather than tax big business.

I have to say I'm quite shocked to hear council members say that a bill that cuts the budget by 26 million is an anti-austerity measure.

I just want to clarify to the public that this is an austerity measure and that's why we'll be voting against it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Sawant.

And my apologies, I didn't intend to cut you off previously.

I apologize.

Are there any other, since we've opened it up for debate, are there any other Councilmembers who have any comments to make?

Councilmember Mosqueda?

Thank you.

I appreciate that we will all continue to work on anti-austerity proposals going forward.

I think it is not cutting the budget by $26 million.

This is allowing for $26 million to be used for the city whole that has been identified.

I want to be clear about where my support is coming from.

the crisis that has presented itself has put us in the position to say, where should those dollars be used?

I'm, through this vote and our future votes, really trying to emphasize that we should not be pitting city core government services and city employees that are providing critical services to our most vulnerable against the dollars that we're trying to get out the door.

And wanted to clarify that this is not taking from the current budget, but freeing up dollars to be used for plugging that city budget hole.

I do appreciate the comments that are made about fighting against anti-austerity, and we'll continue to do that with all of our colleagues.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

Any other comments on the bill as amended?

Okay, hearing and seeing none, I'd ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill as amended.

Patterson?

Aye.

Sawant?

No.

Straus?

Yes.

Herbold?

Aye.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Aye.

Mosqueda?

Aye.

President Gonzalez?

Aye.

Seven in favor, one opposed.

Thank you so much.

The bill passes as amended, and the chair will sign it.

And I'll let the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Item 3. Will the clerk please read agenda item 3 into the record?

Agenda item 3, Council Bill 119862, amending Ordinance 126000, which adopted a 2020 budget, changing appropriations to the Legislative Department, appropriating funds from the Revenue Stabilization Fund, and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts, all by three-fourths vote of the City Council.

Thank you so much.

I move to pass Council Bill 119862. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Council Member Mosqueda is sponsor of the bill.

You're recognized in order to address it.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I will be brief, as I know other council members, especially Council Member Morales, has been leading work on this.

I'm just really excited about this critical piece of work to help continue our conversation with making sure that there's diverse voices, especially from communities of color represented at the table as we talk about future budget actions.

And with that, I will be brief and turn it back over.

Thank you so much, Council Member Mosqueda.

Any questions or comments?

on the bill?

Okay, hearing none, I just want to thank you for bringing this forward.

I think we had a robust opportunity to have a conversation about this during Select Budget Committee, so appreciate the opportunity to finalize this last piece.

I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Item four, will the clerk please read agenda item four into the record?

Agenda Item 4, Council Bill 119861, amending Ordinance 26000, which adopts the 2020 budget, creating new budget summary level to disintegrate Seattle Police Department precincts from the Patrol Operations budget summary level.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I will move to pass Council Bill 119861. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Council Member Mosqueda, this lists you as the person that's gonna speak about this, but I do think Council Member Herbold was the prime sponsor.

Would you like me to hand it over to you or go to you first?

You can absolutely hand it over to Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to speak to Council Bill 119861?

Fantastic.

Thank you so much.

So this legislation reestablishes budget spending levels for each of the five separate police precincts.

As central staff has noted, up until just last year's budget cycle, the council adopted budgets that included budget control levels for each of the five precincts.

with the 2020 budget, the five precincts were combined into a single budget level called patrol operations and put all of the money for all the patrol operations across all the precincts into a single BCL, budget control level, at $148 million.

So with this amendment, the council will be able to approve appropriation levels in each of Seattle's police precincts.

The purpose of each precinct BSL says that the purpose of the west, north, south, east, and southwest precinct budget patrol level or budget summary level is to provide the full range of public safety and order maintenance services to residents of and visitors to each of the precincts.

to promote safety in their homes, schools, businesses, and the community at large.

Central staff has indicated that a new council bill is necessary for this action, and we are looking forward to finalizing and voting on this at the full council meeting on August 12th.

The origin of the amendment itself was Chief Best's mention of the possibility of closing the southwest precinct if we were to reduce funding for patrol staffing.

So I believe returning to the longstanding practice of approving VCO levels for all five precincts makes a lot of sense.

Again, we have a charter obligation to ensure adequate policing in each of the city's council districts.

Lastly, it's, I think, important to recognize that our precincts are designed to serve the city.

and by enacting this legislation, it puts us in a position where we can ensure, again, that our charter obligations are fulfilled to do so.

thank you.

I just want to thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for bringing this forward.

I think you're right, it does make a lot of sense.

I do recall a couple of summers ago, I think we were together at a very large public safety town hall in South Park, and one of the things that continued to come up from District 1 constituents was the concern about the equity around how law enforcement services are allocated and appropriated to each of the precincts to meet specific neighborhood needs within I think this is a good way to respond to the ongoing concerns that I think we continue to hear about how those resource allocation decisions are made when there is just a single line.

It doesn't contribute enough to transparency in terms of knowing how those dollars are allocated to each district within the city.

Thank you for bringing this forward.

Hearing none I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Peterson aye Sawant yes Strauss yes Herbold yes Lewis yes Morales yes Mosqueda yes President Gonzalez yes 8 in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The bill passes and the Chair will sign it.

I'd ask that the Clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Okay, we're in the homestretch here.

Item 5. Will the Clerk please read item 5 into the record?

Agenda item 5, Council Bill 119863, authorizing the loan of funds from the Construction and Inspection Fund to the General Fund.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I move to pass Council Bill 119863. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you so much.

It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill.

Council Member Morales, you are, I understand, going to speak on this bill.

So I will recognize you in order to address the item.

Thank you very much.

And, uh, my apologies, colleagues.

I had intended to just say a few words about, um, the stabilization bill, but, uh, clearly that wasn't necessary because it passed unanimously.

So thank you.

Um, this legislation authorizes, uh, the general fund to borrow $13.1 million from the construction and inspection fund.

Um, the proceeds of this loan, um, are in council bill 1 1 9 8 2 5, um, which we passed, uh, and would pay for all of the $4 million investment in the, um, investments such as the community safety initiative.

It would also pay for 9.1 million of the total $10 million investment in community led organizations.

Um, that was in amendment 34 that we passed last week.

Um, so, uh, as we mentioned last week, and I have said before, um, the SDCI ending cash balance as of June 30th, um, is approximately $118 million based on FAS data.

The executive plans to use $50 million of that in concert with another $20 million in REIT funds for the west Seattle bridge.

And based on the information that we have, there is sufficient funding left to or sufficient funds available to cover the west Seattle bridge and an inter fund loan of $14 million for this purpose.

So as we discussed last week, excuse me, this would be 13.1, the 3 million that we just discussed, and an additional 886,000 in SPD amendments, cuts and amendments that we did last week, a total 17 million, which is what we are planning to invest in community for different participatory budget process for community investments, like the community safety initiative.

The funding for this loan would be repaid in 2021. The intent is to repay that with SPD cuts or with jumpstart revenue if that is necessary.

We are hoping it's not, but that is the plan.

And so that is the proposal and I recommend passage.

Thank you so much Council Member Morales.

Any other comments on the bill?

Okay, hearing none, we'll go ahead and close that debate.

And I would ask that the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill.

Peterson?

Yes.

DeWant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Mosqueda?

Yes.

President Gonzalez?

Yes.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you so much.

The bill passes and the chair will sign it.

I'd ask that the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf.

Okay, folks, that concludes the items of business on today's agenda.

Our next regular city council meeting is on Monday, August 17th, 2020 at two o'clock p.m.

I hope that you all have a wonderful afternoon.

Thank you so much for your hard work.

We're adjourned.