Committee on Finance and Housing, March 20, 2023

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you so much for joining the Finance and Housing Committee meeting.

Today is Monday, March 28, 2023. The time is 9.35 a.m.

My name is Teresa Mosqueda.

Chairing remotely today, I apologize to my colleagues and to members of the public, but I will be chairing remotely and as I am homesick today, topical, given our agenda for today.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on for members of our committee to see who's here.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Madam Chair.

Present.

Madam Chair, that is five present, none absent.

Okay, wonderful.

Thanks colleagues for your participation in today's meeting.

We do know that we have a number of items that we'd like to get through today.

This includes the paid sick and safe leave legislation that we discussed last week.

Hope that's sick lady.

What'd you say?

Oh, what'd you say there, son?

I'm sorry.

You sound awful.

You should have called in sick.

I know, but you know what?

Um, it is true.

And also I had to call in sick that first time that we were supposed to discuss it.

So I don't want to delay us anymore.

And, um, I also, uh, want to make sure to get through this and thank you to my vice chair as well.

Who's who's telling me she could have stood in for me.

I appreciate that.

And I will happily take her up on that here soon, but I wanted us to get through this paid sick and safely legislation.

We also are going to come back and discuss the.

The grant acceptance ordinance, and we'll have a final vote on that.

If there is any amendment, I'll ask central staff to remind us of that.

I do know that there is 1 vote or excuse me.

There is. 1 amendment on the page that could safely legislation for myself and council member herbal.

So we will discuss that as well.

We will also have a presentation from the city budget's office on the final 2022 ARPA spending.

And lastly, we'll have the MFTE extension legislation we discussed briefly last week that we would have our last time.

Yeah, we had the meeting that we would have this presentation, and it's an extension of the existing policy for consideration, briefing and discussion and vote today.

So those are the four items on the agenda.

Are there any objections?

Okay, hearing no objections, today's agenda is adopted.

Madam Clerk, I understand that there are people here to provide public testimony.

Folks, you'll have two minutes to provide public testimony.

You'll hear a chime when it's 10 seconds for you to wrap up your comments.

Please do wrap up your comments so that your microphone does not get cut off.

We're gonna start with the one person who's on the line for remote public testimony, and then we'll go ahead to go to the folks in the room.

Again, two minutes, and please make sure to introduce yourself and speak to an item on the agenda.

And we're happy to take your public comment today.

Thanks, Madam Clerk, for managing this.

And I'll turn it back over to you to call the names for both people in the room and online.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Sounds good.

We are going to start off with Alexis Rodich.

Alexis Rodich, you can start pressing.

Yes.

OK, you can start your public comment.

Great, thank you.

My name is Alexis Rodich.

I'm speaking in support of the permanent paid sick and safe time for kid workers as well as this amendment.

I am the director of research and policy at SIE 775 and currently co-chair of Seattle Labor Standards Advisory Commission.

Thank you to Chair Mosqueda for championing this issue from the beginning and for the council's continued leadership on this issue in particular for putting an end to some outdated exclusions that leave certain workers behind All workers should have the right to sick time no matter what type of work they do.

This is about protecting the health of all of us in the city, and it's really a common sense way to improve and maintain public health.

This ordinance has been incredibly successful since it went into effect during the pandemic.

It works well, workers understand it, and companies have adapted to implement it, and OLS knows how to enforce it.

I applaud OLS's effective enforcement to date, and I'm glad to see Both passing new labor standards and resourcing enforcement remain priorities of this council.

I also strongly support, express support for council members Mesquite and Herbold's amendment that would expand coverage to marketplace network companies.

Thank you for your continued support for workers and leadership on this issue.

Okay, up next we're going to move to our in-person public comment and we have Danielle Albrado first.

I think we're good.

It's green.

Good morning.

My name is Danielle Alvarado.

I'm the executive director of Working Washington.

And on behalf of our entire organization, I want to express our strong support for the PSST policy being voted on today.

Chair Mosqueda, thank you for your steadfast commitment to advancing labor standards, particularly for gig workers, domestic workers, and others who have been intentionally excluded from basic workplace protections.

All workers must have access to paid time off when they are sick, need to care for a loved one, or need to access survivor support services.

Over the past two and a half years, we have seen how effective the temporary PSST ordinance has been for Seattle gig workers.

Thanks in part to the skilled outreach and enforcement work of COEF grantees and the Office of Labor Standards, 21,000 workers have recovered millions of dollars in benefits.

Just as importantly, thousands more have been able to take the time off when they needed it.

I also want to thank the council for keeping the daily accrual standard in place in this permanent policy, which will ensure gig workers can utilize this benefit easily and keep track of it.

Making this policy permanent and expanding the workers who are covered by it is a huge step forward for us as a city.

We urge the committee to support the amendment proposed by Chair Mosqueda and Council Member Herbold that would extend this basic essential protection to gig workers on marketplace apps as well.

We are proud to see this council continue to uphold Seattle's reputation as a national leader in advancing innovative policymaking to meet the needs of workers who make our economy thrive.

Workers have access to sick time is not just the right thing to do.

It is a common sense approach to protecting public health that will help keep our city moving.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Michelle Balzer.

And after Michelle, we have Carmen Figueroa.

My name is Michelle and I am a gig worker from Seattle.

I actually do Instacart and I started in 2020 when the pandemic started.

I'm a drug and alcohol counselor.

All those places pretty much closed down.

So this allowed me to be able to work with some flexibility and also help my sister who was a single parent of two littles under three.

I've used PSST and was able to access it under the emergency ordinance when I got COVID, when I got injured and when I've needed to provide childcare.

Without it, I wouldn't have been able to take the necessary time off, meaning I would have been contagious in the community.

I would have further hurt myself.

And my sister, she's a principal.

She would have like lost her job.

I mean, it's not easy to just walk away.

I'm able to see what I have available to me.

I'm not able to see how it's accrued.

So I like the current and I really support moving forward with doing it by the day and not by the hour.

It's easier to track that way and also, If we didn't do it by the day we have a significant pay cut.

It's important because it allows me the work life balance we make so little as good workers.

It's hard to have any cushion should an emergency occur without it it's a matter of paying rent or not.

Just for one day of missed work.

The good companies are beyond dishonest and exploitive so anything the council in the city can do to help us is greatly appreciated.

They've become, the gig companies, increasingly aggressive and deceptive.

And I kind of fear for all the workers on these platforms.

The level of stress, frustration, and overall confusion increases daily, impairing our quality of life and mental health.

And we need the city to step in and help us because we don't have a voice.

So passing this PSST is really vital for all of us.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Carmen Figueroa followed by Davis Obenga.

Hello, I am Carmen Figueroa, a gig worker in Seattle with a hidden disability and I'm here in support of permanent paid sick and safe time for gig workers.

My disability pushed me into the gig industry about six years ago, and traditional employment is no longer an option for me.

I am one of the thousands of disabled gig workers who relies on gig work as my only source of income.

I do not survive paycheck to paycheck, I survive order to order.

This past winter, I would have preferred not to have delivered on ice-covered roads.

Instead, because I did not have access to PSST, I risked my life and livelihood to earn an income.

I got stuck on a customer's long and steep ice-covered driveway.

To get out, I ended up having to shovel and salt their entire driveway by myself with no help from the customers.

It took me about two hours.

I would have taken advantage of a few paid days off if they were available to me because I was in a lot of pain when I got home.

The apps need to communicate to gig workers paid sick and safe time and how it is available to them.

There should not be a ridiculous period of time between accessing PSST and receiving the benefit.

Accessing PSST should not be purposefully difficult, overly intrusive, or require reams of unnecessary documentation.

I need PSST to be permanent.

I as a taxpayer pay for your salaries and your benefits.

I do not place limits on your benefits or your time off.

Please don't place limits on mine.

PSST provide me and other disabled gig workers peace of mind and knowing that they do not have to push themselves past their physical limits to earn an income.

Thank you.

We have Davis Obenga followed by Raymond Evans.

Hello, my name is Davis Obenga and I live on DoorDash as well as Drive4Uber.

I'm part of the Pay Up campaign, and I'm here to express my support for making PSST permanent for gig workers.

Because of high inflation rates, life is more expensive for the working class and poor.

To make things worse, all the key indicators point to the possibility of a severe economic recession.

Banks are already collapsing.

This threatens to lower the standard of living for ordinary people and working class people and poor people even more.

For this reason, I'm here to ask the City Council to pass, to make the PSST permanent to ensure that when individuals like me become sick, or need to take care of our families, we have the option to do so.

Too many times I've come across individuals who would work sick instead of taking care of themselves and their families.

And the purpose of PSST is to protect workers' health and public health by ensuring that workers can stay home when they're sick.

That's why the temporary gig worker PSST ordinance, it usually uses a daily accrual system with workers accruing one day of PSST for every 30 days that they perform work in Seattle.

Workers PSST payout is based on the average earnings per day.

And basing a call on days worked in Seattle ensures that workers can stay home and avoid going to work sick in Seattle.

Under emergency PSST, I had received a total of five days from multiple companies at the same time when I really needed them.

I had to help my family because they needed me in Spokane.

My mom works in Spokane.

And this allowed me the option of focusing on my family versus wondering if I needed to leave early to make cash.

The access process was somewhat easy, and I appreciate that the council put this policy in place when we needed it during the pandemic.

Make it permanent.

Thank you.

And lastly, we have Raymond Evans.

Okay, looks like Raymond is not here, so that concludes our public comment.

Wonderful.

Thank you all for your public comments this morning.

We don't have anybody else signed up for public comments, so we're going to go ahead and move on into other items on our agenda.

Colleagues, thanks again for allowing me to continue to share this remotely with the help of the vice chair and the good clerks there.

And I appreciate your patience this morning.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on, excuse me, read into the record item number one.

agenda item number one, Council Bill 120514, an ordinance relating to the outbase workers in Seattle for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Wonderful and welcome back to the dais here, Karina Bull.

Last time we were joined as well by the mayor's office, including Breonna Thomas in the mayor's office, his legislative liaison, and we also had with us I care, um, who is a representative from the Office of Labor Standards who's been along with Director Steve Marquesi has been working very closely with the mayor's office and our office and community partners on this updated legislation.

I want to thank all of you for the robust conversation that we had last week and again, extend my appreciation to say Joe Perique, who is not here with us today on the dais or last week, but has been very present and helping to drive this train to make sure that we could not miss a day, not miss a beat with extending paid sick and safe leave to the folks who would be left without it if we do not extend this, especially for our food delivery drivers coming next month.

So we are well on our way to helping to make sure no one is left without those paid sick days who currently has it.

as TNC drivers were able to see their protections put into statute at the state level.

And then we are looking forward to harmonizing the definition of which gig drivers we're talking about to be in alignment with Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Lewis's legislation that defined gig workers.

in the payable legislation, which goes into effect mid-January next year.

So very excited about the two-step process that's underway here and the work that we've done so far to dig into pretty complex legislation with our committee members who asked some great questions last meeting.

My goal is to make sure that we move this legislation out of committee today.

I understand that we may have some amendments, so I'll leave it to Karina to walk us through that.

And thanks, just one last time to all of the workers the folks who, who are participating in the gig economy, who testified last week and today about what they've experienced, for example, one of the people who testified and they talked about how complicated it is to currently know their benefits.

That's one of the examples of why we have tried to incorporate language to make sure that it's really easy for those who are driving on any platform or those who are working on any platform to be able to understand their benefits.

And also, in some conversations with the platforms, trying to better understand how we could divvy up the time so that workers could really access it.

And I think the product that we have in front of us helps to ensure that we have worked to ensure that the information is really clear to the workers and we've reduced barriers for making sure that those workers can access the sick time that they're accruing.

So with that, I will ask Karina, maybe, to provide any overarching themes that you'd like to offer in clarification that you'd like to provide as well.

And I don't see any hands, but I will keep monitoring the board here with all of our council members.

And Karina, if you then could walk us through any amendments in front of us, including the one that I mentioned from Council Member Herbold and myself, which is amendment number 1, that would be appreciated.

Good morning committee members, Karina Bull, council central staff.

Good to be here this morning.

I'm happy to answer any questions about the legislation and I will begin with an overview of the single amendment for the committee's consideration that is sponsored by council members Mosqueda and Herbold.

I'll attempt to put it on my screen.

Okay, so I'm hoping that folks can see this.

This amendment would express the intention of city council to consider establishing paid sick and save time regulations for marketplace network companies.

If council establishes minimum payment transparency or flexibility regulations or marketplace network companies, and the text, or the language of the amendment is very similar to that effects statement here for you to review as a background during the councils.

consideration of the pay up minimum payment legislation last summer.

There was an amendment sponsored by council member Morales passed by the committee that stated council's intention to consider separate legislation that would cover marketplace network companies who were removed from the minimum payment legislation during the deliberation process.

And that amendment intended for council to consider that legislation no later than August 1st.

This amendment doesn't have a date attached to it, but it is conditioned upon the Council's consideration of establishing regulations for Marketplace Network companies for minimum payment and other standards.

Examples of Marketplace Network companies are those sorts of app-based network companies that facilitate relationships between workers and customers.

As an example, Rover would be one facilitating relationships for pet care.

TaskRabbit is facilitating relationships for home-based services, and those companies are not covered by the minimum payment standards, and they're not covered by this legislation.

They exert less control than certain app-based network companies that still do things like charge commissions and have background check policies and deactivations that can impact workers.

So that is the amendment.

That's all I have to say about the amendment.

Great.

Thank you.

There's a question.

Well, I'll go ahead and have Council Member Peterson ask this question.

Just wondering procedurally if I needed to get the amendment officially in front of us to then have a discussion.

I think I'll do that, Council Member Peterson.

I'll move it so that it's officially in front of us.

Colleagues, to get the amendment in front of us for the purposes of debate and discussion, I move that committee amends amendment number, or excuse me, a committee adopts amendment number one.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

The amendment number one is now in front of us.

Council Member Peterson, I'll turn it to you for the starting off the discussion.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thanks, Karina, for the explanation of the amendment.

I think we got this around Thursday afternoon, and I'm trying to understand how this would work because marketplace network companies have a different business model.

And so if somebody's, if a worker is negotiating their, their job with, or project with a client, a customer, and they are, they're doing that like with Rover, which is a Seattle-based company, which is not impacted by this legislation at this time, but how would they, if they called in sick, you know, a few months later, or they were sick a few months later, and they work for multiple, they get clients from multiple marketplace network companies.

Would Rover basically be writing a check and sending it to the dog walker, for example?

Yes, so the responsible paying party would be the marketplace network company.

That would be Rover.

There are a number of different ways I suppose that this could work out that would be further developed if this legislation were to be moved forward to the policy development stage.

But thinking now, a worker could have scheduled a shift with a customer and could provide notice that they weren't able to follow through.

And then the Marketplace Network Company would not penalize the worker, would not charge them a fee because that could be viewed as retaliatory.

and they would pay the worker for that time.

And then that's one example.

It could happen on a non-shift day as well, I suppose.

There could be a scenario similar to paid sick and safe time for employees where the worker maybe could contact the customer and schedule another time to do the work.

But what would be important about that sort of scenario is that the marketplace network company wouldn't be able to penalize the worker for doing that.

So we would have more flexibility, and it would allow the worker maybe to cancel multiple shifts in one day in order to accommodate a sickness for them, for a family member, or a safety issue.

And I think I also missed a step in not having the sponsors speak to the legislation to better articulate that.

So we're doing a little bit in reverse order.

Sorry about that.

And just to clarify as well, there is nothing being decided in this amendment here.

This is intent to try to figure out all those details later, and I'm going to provide additional comments, but I see Councilor Herbold's hand up.

and I wanted to make sure that I had a chance to offer you comments maybe in response to the question.

I'll offer some comments and then we'll come back to Council Member Peterson for some follow up.

Go ahead Council Member Herbold.

Just simply that I don't think this amendment creates any particular payment standards, does not say that we're intending to use the same formulas as we're using for paid sick and safe leave.

Under this legislation, it simply expresses the intention of the council to consider establishing paid sick and paid safe time regulations for these marketplace network companies.

It does not, again, it does not opine on what those regulations would be.

Doesn't even necessarily, like I said, commit us to a payment standard.

It may turn out that there are other ways to protect workers in these instances.

But it does recognize that we need to look at this particular type of work arrangement.

It's a unique model, as we discussed during the discussions around minimum payment, with need for, I think, for a different type of recognition as it relates to transparency and flexibility.

Thank you.

Excellent, thanks, and thanks for being a co-sponsor on this legislation.

Excuse me, on the amendment here, I'd want to offer additional context as well to put the amendment in front of us for the purposes of discussion.

We, I think, all have an interest in helping to respond to the type of comments that were made in public comment last Wednesday.

There was a worker who has MS who was talking about wanting to be included in the legislation in front of us.

I'm very sympathetic to that.

As folks might know, my sister as well has MS. It's National MS Awareness Month.

And I think it's really critical that we continue to think about all workers, especially in a sector that have seen an 8% growth during the time of the pandemic and projected increase in growth over the next five years, how we incorporate more workers.

And this legislation is an incredibly important first step for how we concretize paid sick and safe leave for app-based drivers and app-based workers.

But knowing how many people are currently in the marketplace, it was really important for us to continue to think about how the policy could continue to evolve.

And the amendment in front of us looks at the future evolution of the policy and commits us to having an ongoing conversation.

This might sound familiar because, as you heard in the pay up legislation that was considered last year, there was also an amendment to include marketplace workers.

I supported those marketplace workers being included in the minimum compensation legislation.

And what ultimately ended up happening is something very similar to what we have in front of us today, making sure that we committed to a future process that included.

how a policy could be evolved and expanded to incorporate those marketplace workers.

As I consider marketplace companies for paid sick days.

I thought it's even more of a reason for us to cut this cast a wide net for public health and equity and labor reasons.

And so that's why today I thought it would be helpful for us to have a similar process identified in this amendment to make sure that future workers in the marketplace were potentially considered under this paid sick and safely legislation.

This amendment simply states that when a marketplace is considered for minimum compensation, or in other words, when we in the future figure out the right language to use and parameters for marketplace under the pay up legislation that we should also consider it for sick leave as well.

I think there's a broad public health interest here.

That's why I wanted to raise it to make sure that it continued to stay on our radar to further answer the type of public comment that we heard last week and to remind ourselves that all workers deserve paid leave in instances when they're sick, when their family member is sick, or when they're experiencing interpersonal violence like domestic violence, stalking, and assault, and need access to health care.

Those are the examples of when you can take paid sick leave.

I also want to make sure As Council Member Herbold also explained, we're not figuring out the policy details here today.

That's why it was written the way it is.

And we're deciding to wait on those policy details for that future conversation.

So this is literally language that just expresses an intent to consider these workers as the final language is worked out in the pay up legislation.

I also want to make sure that folks know that it is correct.

The amendment was sent out last Thursday.

That's because our last meeting was Wednesday.

I gave folks to the end of last Wednesday to let me know if they had amendments.

And then we circulated those within 24 hours.

So thanks to Karina again for her fast work on this.

And thanks to all my colleagues for your understanding of the timeline, given that that first week I was out on my own paid sick leave for, well, frankly, for COVID.

And now it appears that I have the flu.

So like many workers in Washington State getting, what do they call it?

The double pandemic, I can't remember the word, but these are good examples with your best intent to show up for work.

Sometimes the sickness just comes and gets you.

So we want folks to be able to take paid sick leave for their self, their family, and also for that safe leave.

Karina, before I take other questions or other hands, Is there anything else that you would offer for clarification on what is actually being requested via this amendment?

I believe that you and Council Member Herbold have said all of it.

Again, I guess I will triple emphasize that the way the amendment is written is that it doesn't commit the council to do anything.

It is their intention to consider this proposal.

Great, thank you.

I see Councilmember Peterson, please go ahead, follow up.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Thanks for the explanation from you and Councilmember Herbold and Karina.

I'm supportive of the original legislation that came down that was worked on with the mayor's office.

I feel that this is a new twist to it.

that I'm concerned about because I'm not I'm concerned about the practical implications of how it would work.

So I would need more time to get comfortable with that to actually consult those businesses that would be impacted, especially the Seattle based businesses.

So I'm not I'm not able to support the amendment because it seems like a change from the spot and from what originally came down.

But thanks for the explanation.

Thank you very much Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So, you know, I agree with the general sentiment that Councilmember Peterson articulated about the unique difference between the work of on demand versus.

what the marketplace apps typically regulate or typically facilitate, which is more akin to the economy of general contracting.

That type of work, as I understand it from talking to people who do general contracting as carpenters or electricians or what have you, it's a job-by-job, contract-by-contract kind of flow.

If you're sick, you just do it next week.

There's not an expectation that the client compensate in that kind of economy for you not being able to arrive and perform on the originally scheduled day.

That conceded.

I'm willing to admit that the marketplace companies cover a broader array of potential work, and we are examining that through our ongoing report back to happen later this spring around further assessing the applicability of some of these rules around the suite of pay up legislation to the marketplace model and where that might or might not be warranted and appropriate to address some of the unique issues that the marketplace apps may have that are very different from the cadence and the issues that on delivery work has, which is more akin to a traditional employee and employer relationship.

So for that reason, I don't really have any opposition to incorporating a amendment to this paid sick and safe leave ordinance that merely says we are going to look at whether there's potential applicability.

As I've stated, I continue to be skeptical that there will be.

I would note on the record that this is the first time we've inserted paid sick and safe leave as a consideration for marketplace apps.

Paid sick and safe leaves were not included under any or marketplace apps were not included under any of the COVID era.

paid sick and safe leave orders or ordinances.

As Council Member Peterson just indicated, the executive did not, as far as I know, consider incorporating marketplace apps into this work.

So I'm skeptical that it's gonna lead to a regime of paid sick and safe leave that mirrors what is appropriate in employee-employer relationships that we've seen with the delivery apps.

But I have no opposition to saying we'll look into it as we continue to look into all the other dimensions of marketplace apps.

And for that reason, I'm happy to support this amendment that doesn't ultimately commit this council to any specific action.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Thanks for the helpful addition to the explanation of what is included in the amendment and also thanks for your ongoing work on a marketplace policy over the last few months and ongoing.

Appreciate that.

Okay, Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I wasn't around in 2020 when the underlying legislation was passed.

So I had to do some research and section two of the 2020 paid sick and safe time for gig workers ordinance says, quote, as the substantive effects of this ordinance are not permanent this ordinance is not intended to be codified and quote.

So why not permanent?

Because it was passed as an as emergency legislation to ensure that gig workers can provide the services their services in a safe and reliable manner during the covid-19 emergency.

And that's in the statements of facts.

Item Y. So for the record, Seattle's and the state of Washington's covid state of emergency ended on October 31st, 2022. So just to be clear, we're making a policy decision here and and one that the network companies that have been involved in the stakeholder process support.

So but it's more than that, because this legislation.

expands coverage beyond food delivery network companies and transportation network companies to, according to Karina's attachment, on-demand network companies and some network companies offering pre-scheduled services.

Can someone else answer that question?

Yes, I'm sorry.

It sounds like you're speaking to the underlying bill.

Did you want those comments to be further to the amendment?

Those are to them and I'm sorry, you can continue and then if your comments were specific to the amendment that I'm happy to offer some clarification.

Please let me finish and then if that's okay.

So, so.

It's expanding to a bunch of companies that weren't covered under the emergency legislation.

And now with this amendment, we're talking about adding in market network companies and without any research or outreach.

And so we're pretty much going all the way and I would suggest that without figuring out the details or doing any of the outreach that we're talking about that has occurred with some of the companies that are used to this system, that's just not good governance.

And I don't think that signaling our intent to do something without doing some of the basic groundwork is good policy.

So I'll be voting against this amendment.

Okay, thanks for that clarification.

Um, I would just say, we can chat a little bit more about the underlying bill here coming up and those initial comments, but just to reiterate, and I think Councilmember Lewis and Councilmember Herbold made this point as well.

We are not considering, excuse me, we are considering the amendment in front of us.

So if there is any additional comments on the amendment, please go ahead.

Amendment number one, please go ahead, Council Member Herbold.

I just want to say I really, I really object to the, The framing of this amendment is being not good governance, we are simply saying we recognize that this is a unique in worker employer relationship.

is not being addressed in this bill that we are going to discuss whether and how to address in the future.

That is not an example of bad governance, it is not an example of committing us to a particular regulation or any regulation at all.

So I'm going to say I hope that people are speaking in good faith and just not understanding the amendment, rather than mischaracterizing it but it absolutely does not commit the city or the council to vote.

on any particular type of regulation related to sick and safe time.

It says that we are interested in considering it.

And as I mentioned before, that interest in considering it, we don't know what that looks like.

So the idea that we need to understand something is just seems Curious.

There is nothing to understand because there is no proposal, it is just simply saying we're going to talk about this issue, it could result in a proposal that doesn't have a payment standard associated with it all but just recognizes that we don't want these workers to be retaliated against when they when they call in sick there's a whole spectrum of ways to look at how to protect these unique workers that we are not moving forward with protections for today.

Okay, great.

Well, I will go ahead and call the question.

Is that an additional hand, Council Member Nelson?

Okay, thank you so much.

Okay, I'll go ahead and call the question.

And the last thing I would say is, everybody knows our office relies heavily on community stakeholdering to inform future public policy.

And that's what this amendment really does is it says that we're going to make sure that we're going to have an informed process from folks affected at the table, along with Councilmember Lewis's process that he's leading on deep dive into policy.

And that's good governance.

That's how we make a policy, by making sure that we take the time to include folks at the table.

And that's really all this is saying is that it's our intent to further understand how and when and if this policy comes together and make it part of the discussion.

Council Member Nelson, the question's been called.

Do you have an urgent comment?

Well, did the companies who are now added, were they involved in the stakeholder process?

Council Member Herbold, did you have something?

You saw me mouthing companies that were now added, because I don't understand what that means.

We haven't added any companies.

Yeah.

That's my initial comment as well.

There is no additional company added.

The process would be to have a conversation with any affected company and stakeholders.

There is no company being added.

There's no workers.

being added beyond what is already included in our sick leave legislation and truing up the definition with the pay up legislation in January next year of workers and companies who've already been contemplated in the legislation that already goes into effect in January 2023.

I was responding to your comment about commitment to stakeholdering process, and I was talking about the underlying legislation, but go on.

Sorry, thanks so much.

Okay, let's go ahead and call the question.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the adoption of amendment number one?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Peterson?

No.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Madam Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Madam Chair, that is three in favor to oppose.

Okay, thank you so much.

The amendment carries and we now have amended Council Bill 120514 in front of us.

Are there any additional comments?

Council Member Peterson and then Council Member Herbold.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Question for central staff.

I had asked this.

So I'm supportive of expanding sick leave to the those in the underlying legislation.

So I think I'm going to get to a yes on the underlying bill.

I just I'm trying to understand The communication with those the businesses that would actually be impacted and have to, you know, set up the new systems and write the checks for those who are sick and eligible for sick leave under this new policy.

But when I asked Wednesday who those Seattle-based businesses were, it wasn't clear that was well known who they were.

But since then, I think central staff has been able to clarify and ascertain who the Seattle-based businesses are that would be impacted by this new law.

And so there's questions for central staff.

Could you let us know who that is, Seattle-based businesses that would be impacted by the underlying legislation?

Yes, so I did some preliminary research on this question, not comprehensive.

I want to thank Kerem Levitas at OLS for his assistance in doing this research as well.

And I uncovered that there would be four to five Seattle-based companies that would be covered.

Amazon Flex, which is already covered by the temporary ordinance.

DALI, which provides a delivery of non-food items.

I believe it's moving items loopy laundry, which provides on demand laundry services wrench, which provides mobile mechanic services and possibly.

Dumpling, but I'm not sure if their business or technology platform would be covered by the legislation or not.

There would need to be more research.

On that, so I'm thinking that there are probably about.

23 to 25-ish companies that would be covered at minimum by this legislation.

Probably more.

I would need to do more research, but that is what I know thus far.

Chair, may I follow up?

Thank you.

So, to central staff, so these four companies that would be that would be impacted by the underlying legislation.

Have they all been contacted or consult, consult as part of the stakeholder.

Do we know.

Councilmember, are you asking me that question or the council members.

Yeah, whoever has the answer, if they've all, since there are only four or five of them, have they all been consulted at this time?

I can chime in on that, and I think that it's worth some follow-up conversation as well.

Thank you, Corinna, for doing that preliminary analysis.

I know that that's just sort of a back of the envelope, and we appreciate that.

But Council Member Peterson, I think that it's really the robust stakeholder process that the mayor's office went through.

They had the direct conversations with the companies, and in partnership with us, we all took various assignments.

So I wanted to just thank again, the mayor himself for his support and the mayor's team for their outreach.

And we can do some follow up specifically on those companies that Karina listed, but appreciate that that research has been done.

And when I again, thank Brianna Thomas for the time and intense work that they did on company outreach as we crafted this collectively.

And Karina, did you have a follow up to answer that?

Yes, although Karen's not at the table, he's watching online and he did chime in and inform me that Amazon Flex and Dumpling are aware of this proposal.

Again, we don't know if Dumpling would be covered.

Amazon Flex, the relevance of that is that some of Amazon Flex's delivery are already covered by the temporary ordinance, but because if they deliver items from a warehouse that doesn't have food items, that would be newly covered.

That lets us know that Amazon is aware of the full scope of coverage of this permanent.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

Karen.

And I see 1 more hand calls or Peterson.

Did you have a follow up to that though?

Thank you since I think this the final vote on this will be next Tuesday the 28th.

So, so I think what I'll do I'm supportive of this concept I think I just for for my own due diligence now that I know the names of the companies and they're just a handful of Seattle based ones I think I'm going to reach out to those three companies just, and then I'll abstain today but I'm, I'll get to a yes by next Tuesday.

Thank you.

And if we learn any additional information, happy to pass that on as well.

Okay, Council Member Herbold, I think we're getting into closing comments.

Please go ahead.

Great.

If it's appropriate, just to speak to my support for the bill, I would like to do so now.

So thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for working with with the executive on developing this permanent standard.

We know that we have grown to depend on app based workers.

through the pandemics, stay at home orders, and now our hybrid work models, the ordinance will ensure a basic workers right is guaranteed to one of Seattle's fastest growing job sectors.

As the chair has mentioned, Councilmember Lewis and I have sponsored additional legislation to protect at-place workers via pay-up.

This is our continued work to build more protected rights for workers.

We are also working on another bill following up on pay-up, working collaboratively with Councilmember Lewis's office to address the issue of unfair unfounded deactivations policies like this ordinance and other labor protections are indeed as the good chair has explained, they are public health policies.

They're also economic development policies, they strengthen local economies.

and ensure workers have secure income to spend in their neighborhoods, their community development policies.

They help workers stay in their neighborhoods fighting displacement and their homelessness prevention policies as they help workers keep a roof over their head.

I'm proud to have the opportunity to vote in favor of this legislation this morning in committee and I hope others join.

Thank you.

Thank you councilmember herbal and I will just say thank you as well to all of the workers who have been expressing the ongoing need for this legislation, outside of any emergency legislation I think today's a great example whether or not you're sick with coven being sick and having a communicable disease is still a threat to the public's health, whether that's someone who is. trying to receive groceries or food delivery, who's in their home, you want the driver and the workers to be healthy and only go to work when they are feeling well, whether that's you as a driver worried about of being sick and having to make an impossible decision of whether or not to stay in bed and get better yourself or worry about paying your rent and putting your own groceries on your table.

Those are impossible decisions that in the midst of an ongoing pandemic, and now with the knowledge, the greater community awareness of what public health practices should look like, we should be doing everything we can to align our public policies to make sure that the public's health is being taken care of.

I'm very excited about this legislation in front of us.

I know that it complements many other efforts to make sure that we're looking at how we respond to improving the public's health.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have taken many steps to think more robustly about how our public policies can improve working condition and the public's health.

And this is another great example of how I think we'll have continued lessons learned from the pandemic that will live on and improve individual health and well-being, customers' health and well-being, the population's health and well-being, and well-articulated by the vice chair, Ken Hattie as well.

We also took great care in partnership with the mayor's office.

Again, huge shout out to the mayor's office for getting the ball rolling on this four to six months ago in partnership with Sajal Parikh and Karina Bull, who we wanted to make sure that we have lessons learned incorporated into this legislation and making sure that the information was really clear to the worker was very important, but also making sure that we reduced barriers for how employers, excuse me, let me rephrase that, hiring entities, how those hiring entities on platforms could ensure that the earned leave was being both displayed and distributed in a really easy way.

We wanted to reduce burdens, both for the higher entities, as well as the recipient of those paid sick leave hours and days.

So thank you again.

Specifically, I want to thank Breonna Thomas for her work in the mayor's office and really applaud all of the work that we've done collectively here today.

Granable, we know you've spent endless hours on this, so thanks for your work.

And Sejal Parikh, who I know is watching at home as well.

or excuse me, in the audience there as well.

Thanks for all of your work, Sejal.

I appreciate you.

Okay, colleagues, I think we're at the final call.

Let's go ahead, Madam Clerk, and call the roll on the adoption of the amended legislation in front of us to offer paid sick and safe leave to gig workers.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Peterson?

Abstain.

Council Member Nelson?

I'm thinking.

Okay, we can come back to Council Member.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Madam Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Council Member Nelson.

I'll abstain for now.

Council Member, we have three yes and two abstain.

Okay, thank you, colleagues.

The amended legislation is pass.

So thank you very much for your votes today.

And we look forward to answering any additional questions if needed.

Between now and next Tuesday, the committee recommendation that the vote that the bill as amended pass will be sent to the March 28 Seattle City Council meeting for a final vote.

And we look forward to the discussion on Tuesday if there are folks who are hiring entities or workers themselves who would like additional clarification on the discussion today.

Of course, our office is always available to help field those.

And thanks again for your collective work between central staff, screenable Brown and Thomas in the mayor's office and Central Creek in my office.

Thanks so much, folks.

All right, let's go on to agenda item number two.

And item number two, Council Bill 120516, an ordinance relating to the Multifamily Housing Property Tax Exception Program for a briefing discussion and possible vote.

And I was remiss in not saying thank you to Office of Labor Standards, so Council Member, if the Council President was here, she'd be teasing me, but just want to make sure that we get that thank you in as well to the Office of Labor Standards and specifically CARIM as well.

We are on agenda item number two, I will cease with my thank yous, a pretty exciting piece of legislation, just pass though so I appreciate your flexibility colleagues we have in front of us on ordinance related to multifamily tax exemption program again this is an extension legislation.

that would extend the sunset for MFTE programs that was slated to expire on December 31st of this year.

And we're going to push that out to 2024 at the request of the Office of Housing.

So they could really have the, I think, detailed conversation with stakeholders and think through some policy implications, as well as really focus on the upcoming housing levy, which will be in our committee.

Our committee is going to transform from being finance and housing and for the most of April, May, June, we will actually have a select housing levy committee that will begin meeting in April.

Really wanting to make sure that we took care of this legislation before we turned our entire focus over to the housing levy starting next month.

Passing the one-year extension on this bill will allow for Office of Housing to really make sure that their capacity is focused on deep policymaking and community engagement.

outside of the levy conversations and it will provide stability for the program during this particularly volatile market that we find ourselves in.

given the interest rate changes, working worker capacity issues and concerns about the recession possibly coming, and not to mention all the news that we see about the banking industry right now.

So this is an extension and as a reminder in 2019 we took a deep dive on the MFT program and strengthen the policy then I want to thank Aaron house from our office who really helped lead from our team, along with Tracy Radcliffe, who is here with us today.

In 2019, we found ourselves passing deeper levels of affordability for MFT studios and one bedrooms.

a higher set-aside requirements for two bedrooms.

We added more specific comparability requirements for affordable units, including size, access to amenities, functionality, and the number of bathrooms and distribution in the building.

It also included a 4.5 percent cap on rent increases to account for fluctuations in the area median income.

It incorporated standards specific to tower buildings, a new type of development project participating in the program.

And the projects vesting under the program over the next year will be required to comply with these strengthened standards and requirements that we included in our last policy authorization.

So there's nothing that changes there.

There's a continuation of that.

strong and important policy that we considered the last time.

The legislation also included a requirement that the Director of the Office of Housing analyze changes in the housing market and include recommendations for changes to the program and include any changes in the state law related to MFTE.

or any other information such as demographics that could be used to inform our policy and program changes going forward.

So we clearly look forward to receiving that report from the Office of Housing this year.

I know that there was a lot of anticipation for this conversation, especially from our good vice chair.

We were really excited together collectively to take this on.

I, I do understand though that there's a number of issues within the office of housing portfolio right now especially given our joint commitment executive and the legislative branches commitment to helping make sure that we passed.

a robust housing levy for voters consideration this fall.

So with that, we are happy to entertain this legislation in front of us today.

And again, I will turn it over to central staff to walk us through any comments they have before going over to the Office of Housing and want to thank Andrea Akita from the Office of Housing for being with us and Tracy Radcliffe from central staff.

We'll turn it over to you first, Tracy.

Thanks so much, Council Member Mosqueda, Council Members.

You have done, as usual, a very good job of painting the context for the legislation that is in front of you.

And so I think I would just go ahead and let Andrea move forward with a description of the legislation in total.

Thank you, Tracy, and thank you Council Member Mosqueda.

We really appreciate being able to work with both you, Council Member Mosqueda and Vice Chair Herbold, to consider being able to move the extension date for the Multifamily Tax Exemption Program.

So I'm Andrea Ikeda.

I am the Deputy Director for the Office of Housing.

I'm sharing my screen.

I'm hoping that it's viewable now?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

The current multifamily tax exemption program MFTE is set to expire or sunset at the end of this year on December 31, 2023. And the legislation you're considering proposes to move the sunset date to December 31, 2024. So I appreciate the opportunity to provide an overview of the program, very high level, and highlight how moving the sunset date will affect the current program.

And then I'll end with just strengthening some of the things that council member Mosqueda added about the full reauthorization of the MFT program.

The city of Seattle's multifamily tax exemption program is authorized by the state and it's implemented locally.

And the MFT program here in Seattle began in 1998. And since that time, It's been reauthorized six times about every four to five years.

And the current program, as we said, is due to sunset at the end of this year.

It's one MFTE is one of several tools that we use to create affordable housing.

And it does so by providing a 12 year tax exemption on the residential portion of a building in return for the property owner, making 20% to 25% of the units in a development.

remain income and rent restricted for that period of time.

The program is voluntary and the buildings may exit at any time.

To give you an idea of how the program currently performs, there are currently more than 6,000 MFTE rental units in service in over 250 buildings throughout the city of Seattle.

And generally these units are affordable for households earning between 60 to 85% of area median income.

The current program, Program 6, is the current version, and we've received more than 30 MFT applications comprising over 1,100 MFTE units.

In 2021, the state, through RCW, was updated to allow restrictions in the MFTE program to offer owners of properties with expiring exemptions opportunity to extend participation for an additional 12 years.

And that same year the City Council in Seattle approved legislation which provided an extension option for properties with MFTE units expiring in 2021 and in 2022. At that time there were nine projects that were eligible to extend their tax exemption and two-thirds of them or six developments with 223 units of MFTE units chose to extend for another 12 years.

So what would the proposed legislation do?

It will move the sunset date from December 31 of this year to December 31 of 2024. And in doing so, it will provide 12-year extension option for properties expiring this year.

And this will be the same option that was available to the properties that expired in the last two years when the city made this available in 2021 and in 2022. For any new projects that want to participate, it would leave the affordability limits and set-aside percentages unchanged.

And I have a slide that will help illustrate this.

And then finally, the legislation makes some technical changes to clarify 12-year extension rules and increase administrative efficiencies.

With regard to the impact the legislation would have on the current program, if the city moves a sunset date out to the end of 2024, there are five properties that are expiring in 2023 that are currently participating in MFTE that could take advantage of the 12-year extension option.

And then we are estimated conservatively that there could be maybe 15 new projects that could vest under the current MFTE program, adding new income and rent restricted units.

So I mentioned that I would hope to illustrate this a bit.

This slide shows the five properties that are expiring in 2023 that would be eligible for an extension if the sunset date is moved.

And you can see that across these five properties, there's a total of 143 MFTE units.

You can see the name of the property and the neighborhood and then the number in each of these.

Sorry.

And then this chart illustrates how the affordability limits are applied to both the new projects that may apply.

It holds the program six requirements steady.

And it also shows what the existing MFT projects that choose a 12-year extension would be signing up for.

In the existing project extension, they would, in return for a 12-year property tax extension, the owners would agree to abide by new lower income limits, which are in the far right-hand column.

So it's important to note that within the extension properties, there are safeguards built in to support tenant stability.

For tenants in MFTE units that are within the new income guidelines, their rent will be reduced when leases expire.

And for tenants whose income are over the new limits, they can remain in their units and their rent levels grandfathered in at the former MFTE rent levels.

And this is designed to help mitigate any displacement.

Overall, the rent increases are limited to up to four and a half percent per year.

And then upon turnover, all of the units at turnover convert to the new limits.

So Council Member Mosqueda had reviewed some of the opportunities that are provided by extending the reauthorization into 2024. We are able to focus the legislative efforts on the 2023 housing levy renewal, really be able to incorporate more analysis in what we're hoping to be a more stable housing market, deepen our engagement with a range of stakeholders.

We're able to align our MFTE policies with comprehensive plan updates, as well as consider any changes that the state may be making to reauthorize the statute for the program.

Over the next year, we will be gathering and analyzing information, engaging with stakeholders, and then we plan to come back to City Council to provide you with an update this summer in June.

Happy to entertain any questions that you may have.

Great, thanks so much.

I know that Council Member Herbold has some questions.

She messaged me.

So I'm going to go to Herbold first and then Council Member Peterson.

Yes, go ahead, Council Member.

Thank you so much.

If we could go to the slide that showed the affordability limits under both the folks who are for new projects, as well as people who are looking for their reauthorization, those five projects.

Thank you.

So, I'm just looking at the different affordability levels for the extension projects.

Those are examples of projects that are getting the benefit of the council deliberations today to extend the limitations that state law previously put on participants in the project, and appreciate that in exchange for that ongoing benefit, these are slightly lower affordability levels for new projects under Program 6. Um, but where do these levels derived from the extension projects, I for some reason I had thought that our last round of MFT changes had further driven down the affordability limits.

But I see that, you know, again, they're a little bit slightly higher than what is shown on this chart for the extension projects.

So it just makes me wonder where do these levels derive from under the extension projects?

The extension projects, because they are 12 years into their performance or 12 years older, These numbers have been adjusted through legislation to be able to account for that.

So, in other words, you know, and market new unit would expect to be able to have a higher rent than a unit that's been in service for a period of time.

And so these numbers for extension projects recognize that and then actually create more affordability that the council has previously authorized.

Great, super helpful.

Definitely very supportive of the greater affordability.

But just seeing that it does not tie back to one of the programs, one through six, I wanted to understand sort of what the methodology was.

And what I hear you saying is that it's because they're older units.

Yeah.

OK.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

And Council Member Herbold, just to further amplify that, we looked at the programs that were going to be up for expiration and their affordability levels are actually a little bit higher than I think even for Program 6. And so we did that calculation about what it should be for the extension to be, you know, a reflection of needing to drop it down below what those affordability levels would be for that new program.

So you kind of used the Program 6 as a benchmark and got it.

Well, I think we actually use the the earlier programs can remember the ones that are expiring and our program six their program, I think it's three and I think we're up to three.

I don't have those in front of me I wish I did.

Yeah, exactly.

So we looked at those affordability levels and made some deduction based on those and I think they're actually, I think they're slightly higher than program six actually is on a couple of the different units.

sizes and I wish I had it in front of me but I don't know I think you're right we've we've over each iteration of the of the program has resulted in uh slightly uh deeper affordability for most of the yes the um units exactly that's exactly right councilmember peterson please go ahead

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda and thanks Council Member Herbold for having them bring up that slide.

I support this legislation and I support the deeper affordability levels that are required for the beneficial extension that we'd be granting.

On slide four, though, where it says proposed legislation, it says leaves affordability limits and set aside percentages unchanged.

How does that reconcile with the slide we were just looking at?

Oh, maybe I'm looking at an older version.

Oh, there it is.

Yes, thank you.

Leaves affordability, the third bullet, leaves affordability limits and set-aside percentages unchanged.

But we just talked about how they're going to be lowered for existing projects.

Is this just for newer projects?

That's correct.

Councilman Peterson for the new projects that would apply to have the tax exemption, they would be operating under the current program.

So there would be no change in the current program six to any new projects that would come on board in this period.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then when, whenever you all are ready to take another look at the program comprehensively, although that'll probably be next year, but I would definitely support deeper affordability levels.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Yeah, that's great.

If you do have comments like that, that you'd like to tee up just for the benefit of that discussion.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thanks.

I did have one question related to language that I had sponsored the last time we did a reauthorization of this of this program.

We know that MFT is a really important tool in providing affordable housing.

Council colleagues, oh, you know I've long wondered whether or not the cost of buying down rents in some units might be a more cost-effective approach for the city.

As we know, MFTE results in both a reduction in property taxes that the city collects, as well as some property taxes being basically diverted to other taxpayers.

And when looking at how we make sure that units that are expiring stay in the program, I do think we ought to be looking at maintaining affordability in those units in the most cost effective way.

Last time Council considered this legislation, the amendment that I sponsored in the Council passed required additional reporting by the Office of Housing.

And it basically it read that OH would determine the total cost to buy down rents for MFT units to proposed affordability levels and the total amount of the property tax exemption that is forgone, as well as the tax exemption that is shifted, broken down by city and other taxing jurisdictions for MFTE projects.

Um, I believe that when we have this information the council will be able to examine whether or not rent buy downs are a tool that we should consider basically looking at perhaps a city of Seattle housing voucher program.

I understand that if we vote in favor of this legislation, that reporting would be delayed as well because we would be delaying the deliberations around the extension legislation.

But that analysis under the resolution that the council passed that I mentioned the amendment from, that was going to be due on June 30th of this year.

When I inquired whether or not that reporting would be delayed, I was told that it wouldn't.

The reporting due on June 30th would still happen, but it's still unclear to me about the content of that reporting because I was told that it would be likely that we would learn in the reporting that the work would still be in progress at this time.

So I'm just wondering if OH can say a little bit more about what information we expect will be included in that June 30th report and the timeline for the completion of the analysis required in Resolution 32017. Thanks.

Thank you, Council Member.

I will need to defer some of that to my colleagues who are working on the report.

We are outlining right now the scope for the our report back to you in June.

And I know that we are also should be transmitting our annual reports for the MFTE program to Council close to the end of this month.

So you will see some of that information reflected in our annual reports for the program as well.

Specifically, I think that the tax for gone information is included in and shifted versus shifted is included in the annual report Councilmember problem.

I know to want more information, like the amount of the, I know that and that's part of the work that we'll hear from the also housing in June, where they are in terms of providing that information.

I also need to correct some information I gave you because thankfully we have on staff now Jen Lebrecht who has staffed the MFT program and she wanted me to clarify that as it related to the affordability levels on the extension projects they actually did use program six because the program six is the current market rate units and rents and so they wanted to use what is current in terms of the new construction affordability levels and then look at that in terms of making modifications to those that are 12 years old so just to correct that statement.

Thank you.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Thank you.

So I support this legislation because it is a win-win because in addition to the tax benefits to the property owners, we're also getting a benefit of 223 affordable units.

And so that benefits the city and those tenants.

So this is, I think this is a positive development and I'm looking forward to the reauthorization process and the analysis that goes into that because I believe that uh we need to maximize participation in this program because we're not going to be able to fully subsidize our way out of our housing affordability unaffordability crisis and um whatever we can do to uh to incentivize the private providers to make units affordable i think is a good thing and i was disappointed that the legislation.

I think it was Wellman in Olympia this year to extend an MFTE program sort, you know, that type of program to existing buildings did not go forward.

But we need to do everything that we possibly can to to provide stability and affordable rents to folks.

So I'll be voting yes today.

Thanks, Council Member.

Tracy, did you have something else you wanted to add?

No, I tagged it on to my comment, my initial comment to Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anything else from my colleagues or presenters?

OK, great.

Well, thanks so much.

We also are looking forward to receiving that report.

I know that our agenda for the Finance and Housing Committee is pretty packed, but we will do what we can to make sure that the information gets presented.

So we'll work with Office of Housing and central staff to see if we can have any time in committee to present that after we conclude the housing levy, which again, starting in April, all things housing levy, April, May, June.

There is one meeting in mid-May.

We will have a report out on sort of the fiscal health of the city.

We'll have information presented on the revenue forecast conversation that just happened last week, giving central staff ample time to talk about, in partnership with CDO, ways to address some of the news that we received from the revenue forecast.

And we'll have an update as well on the carry forward legislation.

But absent that, in mid-May, everything turns to the housing levy.

So colleagues appreciate your participation in those meetings, but we also wanted to not overburden your schedules too.

So we're shifting Instead of having the finance and housing committee meetings, we really are going to be having the select housing levy discussions as a committee of the whole for those three months, minus that one meeting in May.

Much more to come on this topic, but we will do everything we can in partnership with OAH and the central staff team to get a report out in our committee if we can shift some things around after we conclude the housing levy.

I'm not seeing any additional comments.

Seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and move the legislation to get in front of us.

I move the, oh, excuse me.

Was there any more comments?

No, okay.

I move the committee recommends passage of Council Bill 120516. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

Are there any further comments?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120516?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Yes.

Bern Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Madam Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

I think we have to go back to Council Member Peterson too.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Madam Chair, that is five in favor.

Great.

Five in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be sent to the March 28th Seattle City Council meeting for a final vote.

Thanks for your consideration of that extension colleagues and much more to come as we consider the revisions later next year.

Okay, let's move on to our third item of business.

And believe it or not, we are slightly ahead of schedule on my end.

I know we held a little bit of extra time on your end as well.

So we're gonna have a consideration of the ordinance that related to grant acceptance.

And then we will also conclude with a overview of the American Rescue Plan Act spending from the Seattle Rescue Plan.

I'm really excited to be able to continue to provide transparency on that.

Colleagues, thanks again for your participation in your questions.

The last time we had Council Bill 120-527 in front of us, which was the legislation related to grant acceptance ordinance from non-city sources.

We again are joined from central staff by Eden Cicic and Greg Doss from central staff.

And then welcome back to the dais virtually here, Heather Marks, Todd Kibbe and Eric Barden from Seattle Police Department.

I know I should have had titles in front of those names.

So, to our assistant chiefs and community liaisons.

Thanks so much.

You can help correct the record as you introduce yourself as well.

This ordinance proposes the acceptance of grants and private funds for donations from from from various sources and organizations and authorizes spending The expenditure of the funding backed by the revenue perspective revenue.

During the course of the year the city departments receive grants and awards or opportunities for other funding resources that are not anticipated in the adopted budget.

So the city's budget office formally accepts those funds by ordinance.

and make sure that it complies with the anticipated spending.

We want to make sure that it's all transparent and done here at council so that we can accurately and transparently keep a pulse on how the funding is being woven with the already adopted budget.

I'm going to turn it over to central staff to see if there's any initial comments to get us started.

And then we will turn it to our colleagues at SPD to see if there's any additional comments.

We do have at least one amendment in front of us today for your consideration as we consider the grant acceptance ordinance.

Good morning, Eden and Greg.

I'll turn it over to you.

Good morning.

Item into the record.

Oh, excuse me.

Have we not already read it into the record?

Item number three.

No.

Agenda item number three, Council Bill 120527, an ordinance relating to the acceptance of funding from non-city sources for briefing, discussion, and possible vote.

Excellent.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Okay, go ahead, Central Staff.

Good morning, Chair and Council Members.

My name is Eden Cisic, Council Chancellor's Staff, and to build off of Chair Mosqueda's introduction, during last week's Finance and Housing Committee meeting, we provided a briefing and discussed Council Bill 120527, the 2023 Grant Acceptance and Appropriation Ordinance, which provides authority for city departments to accept and appropriate expenditures of grant revenues from non-city sources.

The purpose of today's meeting is to continue that discussion, introduce one amendment and vote on Council Bill 120527. As a brief reminder, Council Bill 120527 is the first comprehensive grant acceptance and appropriation legislation transmitted by the Executive in 2023, authorizing City Departments to accept and appropriate expenditures of $30.2 million from external funding sources.

Approximately 57% of that $30 million is funding from the Federal Highway Administration for various SDOT programs.

And those are itemized in Table 2 of the memo that was circulated and is attached to the agenda.

We've also got $2.9 million in funding from Department of Homeland Security for Seattle Police Department and Seattle Fire Department.

And I'll turn it over to Greg to introduce an amendment related to this grant shortly.

I just want to remind everyone that the memo provides more detail on the individual grants and also summary attachment A details each of the proposed grants.

And lastly, in terms of Next steps, if the Council votes to make a recommendation on Council Bill 120527 today, the legislation will be considered for final action at the March 28th Council meeting.

That's all for me now.

Grant, the floor is yours.

Thank you, and last week I talked about the 2.9 million dollars that are appropriated to that would be appropriated to Seattle Police and Seattle Fire and specifically 1.7 that's appropriate under the urban area security initiative.

That's the WASI program from the Department of Homeland Security to the Seattle Police Department.

And we talked a bit with Heather Marks, the director of strategic.

Heather, you're going to have to help me out with your title.

Executive Director of Strategic Initiatives.

Director of Strategic Initiatives, thank you.

And Assistant Chief Kibbe and Assistant Chief Barden talking about one of the projects in particular, which is an armored rescue vehicle called the Bearcat, a shorthand that would be funded through $400,000 of UASI funding and wouldn't require any match funding.

We talked a bit about the uses of the Bearcat and We are here again this morning with SPD to continue that conversation.

And I wanted to note that Heather is here without the assistance chiefs.

Actually, one of them was online a minute ago, but had to leave.

And I think probably the reason why best comes from Heather.

So I'm going to turn it over to Heather before we continue.

So, it's all very topical over here at SPD and first I want to say that Assistant Chief Kibbe wasn't able to join us today because he has a bad cold council member mosquito and decided to make use of sick leave benefit that the city so graciously provides, and we approve of that move.

Assistant Chief Barton was here and was intending to be here as he is the subject matter expert, but in fact was called away to an incident where the Bearcat is being used.

So I'm here, I'm prepared, and we'll do the best we can moving forward.

Heather, do you want to say any more about how it's being used?

It is, I understand, being used as a rescue vehicle for an officer that's been shot in Ballard.

It is.

It's being used.

It's actually a King County.

This is as much as I know, a King County sheriff's deputy was serving a an eviction notice and was shot.

And the Bearcat is being used to go and rescue him.

So that's what's happening right now.

These are things that don't necessarily make the paper, right?

But stuff like this happens much more often in the city than you might imagine.

Well, we definitely extend our hope that everybody is safe and and able to get the medical attention needed ASAP.

I appreciate the example of how the vehicle is currently being used.

And obviously what's most important is folks' health and safety.

So thanks for flagging that.

I will happily open it up to folks, but is there any additional questions before we consider at least one amendment in front of us?

Okay, I'm not seeing any additional questions on the underlying content here.

I want to thank as well SPD for your PowerPoint that you provided last time.

I know that that had a lot of detail in it as background.

And so we still have that available as a link to our agenda from last meeting as well, but have had a good opportunity to read through those materials and to also hear from central staff here today.

So I want to just reiterate some of the points that were made here and then we'll get into The amendment, the ordinance colleagues make sure that we span bridge maintenance, protect bike lanes, invest in resilience hubs, decarbonization of multifamily affordable housing and more.

It is more than the SPD related items, but historically we have had a number of questions about SPD related grant funds.

I think appropriately wanting to make sure that we know how those dollars are being used and that we're invested in the safety of our personnel and also the safety of the community.

Thanks to Eden and Greg from Central Staff for walking us through this, to the team from the Seattle Police Department for providing additional information on the grants that were being requested here.

And I believe we do have one amendment in front of us, so I will move that the legislation get in front of us for the purposes of considering that amendment.

Colleagues, I move to recommend that the committee pass Council 120527. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

We now have the language in front of us for the underlying bill, and I understand that we do have an amendment.

Amendment number one, I'll turn it to central staff to describe it, and then I'll move it to get it in front, or then we can move it to get in front of us.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We'll go ahead and share my screen and make sure that everyone can see this.

I want to zoom in one more time.

That's a good question.

How's that?

That's a little bit better, thanks.

OK, so as the effect statement says, the amendment would request that SPD would consult with the Office of the Inspector General to produce a written policy in the SPD manual that is consistent with national best practices for the appropriate use of the armored rescue vehicles.

The amendment would also make a technical adjustment to add to the purpose statement of the appropriation and acceptance, specifically the acceptance table, that the vehicle is also used for other emergency events.

That language appears in the attachment, but it doesn't appear in the short description for the grant acceptance language in the table, and this would add it.

It's simply a technical move to allow us to allow you all to be able to request the report.

or the policy.

And with that, we'll just ask if there's any questions.

Great.

Why don't we go ahead and get the amendment in front of us for the purposes of discussion?

I'm not seeing any hands for questions.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to move your amendment?

Amendment number one.

Sure, I move amendment number one to Council Bill 1205 27 seconds.

Okay, wonderful.

It's been moving second I apologize Councilmember Peterson I know you were a co sponsor I believe on this as well so it has been moved and seconded by the sponsor and co sponsor of the amendment Councilmember herbal, and then I'll ask us for Peterson if you'd like to add anything customer herbal did you like to add anything to describe your amendment.

Sure.

Just a few words.

I want to thank Councilmember Peterson and Council Central Staff Greg Doss for working over the weekend on this language.

It simply recognizes the fact that when we discussed the deployment of the Bearcat in committee.

We learned that the policy that the police department uses is sort of operational as opposed to a policy that is written and contained within the SPD policy and procedures manual.

And so this amendment would sort of lift up the need for a standardized policy and the need also to work with the Office of the Inspector General in receiving their input on that policy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson, anything you'd like to add?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Yes, I appreciate the collaboration with Council Member Herbold, our public safety chair, and thanks central staff.

And we did give the department a heads up this morning, only this morning, but I think they had been anticipating something like this.

So thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Okay, anything else from our presenters?

Okay, I'm not seeing any hands.

Colleagues, if there's no additional comments or questions on Amendment Number One, the question is in front of us.

Madam Clerk, why don't you go ahead and call the roll on adoption of Amendment Number One.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Madam Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Madam Chair, that is five in favor, none opposed.

Okay, thank you very much.

The amendment carries and the ordinance is amended.

The amended ordinance is in front of us for consideration.

Are there any final comments on this before we go to final vote?

I want to thank you Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Peterson for your work on this amendment over the weekend and for the ongoing interest in crafting policy that helps us all be able to point to future direction for the use of such vehicles.

I think that is important for transparency for the public as well.

Again, extending our best wishes to everybody involved in this morning's activity and hoping for the best health and safety outcomes for everyone involved.

Thank you as well, Heather, for being here with us all day today and last week as well.

And to Eden and Greg from central staff for your work on this legislation.

We know we ask a lot of questions when it comes to this grant acceptance ordinance, but it's all for the sake of transparency and making sure that we know where these dollars are going.

All right.

With that, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the adoption of the ordinance as amended?

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Madam Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Madam Chair, that is five in favor and none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The committee recommendation that the bill as amended will be sent to the March 28th Seattle City Council meeting for a final vote.

Thank you all.

Okay, wonderful.

Well, we have one more item in front of us today, and I want to thank again the team from the City Budget's Office for your flexibility in meeting with us today.

I will ask the clerk to read item number four into the record.

Agenda item number four, Seattle Rescue Plan 2022 year-end report for briefing and discussion.

Wonderful, and I think we had asked for folks to extend time on their calendar to at least noon today, so we do have Ample time William Chen from central from the city's budgets office is here with us.

I don't anticipate that we'll need that full time, but we do want to make sure that you don't feel rushed in your presentation.

Thanks for your flexibility and moving from 1 week to the other, given how much was on our agenda last week and thanks for your ongoing teams effort to.

provide monthly reports to the city council and members of the public and I would say also congressional members we do hear from congressional members the information gets passed on to them, and that they appreciate being able to show how those federal dollars are being deployed as well.

So we'll have an opportunity to hear from the CBO's office the city budgets office on the expenditures of the Seattle Rescue Plan dollars, which include federal American Rescue Plan Act funds, along with some other federal sources, as well as our local efforts to try to make sure we're responding to the pandemic needs, both for public health and also economics.

infusion of funds directly to workers and small businesses.

And we'll have the presentation of the ARPA funds and Seattle Rescue Funds through the end of 2022. Thanks again for being here.

William, we'll turn it over to you.

Great.

Good morning, Chair Mosqueda and committee members.

Thank you.

Let me share my screen.

Great.

Thank you.

And I was told by Mr Sun this morning that I should make it full screen.

All right, and that's showing up for everyone.

Yes, thank you.

Um, great.

Well, I will begin today's presentation with a high level look at the status of federal funding sources for the city before going into a little more detail about each of them.

And Two weekends ago now, March 11th marked the two-year anniversary of the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act.

And it's been a year and three quarters since council passed the first of the Seattle Rescue Plan packages.

And since then, the city and our partners in the community have accomplished a lot with these funds to recover from the effects of the pandemic.

And it's thanks to the flexibility of this funding and the fact that federal government granted a large part of it directly to Seattle.

that the city's been able to use these funds to address our most urgent needs, from funding affordable housing units to providing cash assistance to families and to small businesses.

And we are ahead of the pack in spending our CLPPR funds.

So thanks to quick planning and implementation since 2021, have made a lot of great progress in getting the funds out into the community.

According to a Bloomberg analysis of suspending reports from local jurisdictions from across the country, cities and counties, On average, last September, they were 29% spent for Clifford funds.

And currently, now Seattle is 75% spent for our Clifford funds.

And later this year, we're going to have more performance reporting.

Implementation of the programs continues, and we'll continue gathering data.

Presentation's mostly about the American Rescue Plan Act funding for Seattle Rescue Plan for Seattle's portion of it, but I'll also touch on a few other significant sources of federal funding first, which is namely FEMA public assistance and the infrastructure funding.

So for FEMA, the COVID-19 incident period, as it's called by FEMA, ends on May 11th, 2023. almost all of the reimbursement applications for eligible activity have been submitted now.

And the Office of Emergency Management continues to work to move applications through that pipeline.

And to date, $18.4 million of reimbursements have been approved by FEMA with $16.7 million of that already received.

And another almost $10 million of reimbursements are in that pipeline that you see on that table there on the screen.

And just to note that all of these reimbursements have already been factored into the revenue projections that you heard before and in budget balancing.

Seattle has been amazingly successful in getting reimbursements approved with a 99.6% approval rate.

And only $70,000 of submissions to FEMA for this incident have been rejected.

What's also been really remarkable is how fast those reimbursements have come in.

And it's been within a one to two year timeframe instead of the three to eight year timeframe that's historically been the case.

OEM has taken more time working with departments upfront before submitting these reimbursement applications.

And that may speed up FEMA's review because they're not seeing things needing really detailed review.

So I want to give kudos to OEM for orchestrating this process.

That's for the federal infrastructure funding.

Seattle's now been awarded over $70 million in federal infrastructure grants from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, also known as BIL, today.

And just to have a few of the grants of particular note, SDOT won a $25.6 million grant from the Safe Streets for All program, and that's for pedestrian and bike street improvement, or bike safety improvements.

Seattle Center was awarded a $15 million grant from the All Stations Accessibility Program, and that's for ADA renovations at the Seattle Center monorail station.

And then also, S.1, over $9 million in grant funding from the Surface Transportation Block Grant, and that's for transit corridor and bike lane construction.

And the grant cycles are continuing.

So Bill was a five-year funding bill, Very helpfully, the acronym sounds the same as the word bill.

So the federal agency's grant cycles are going to continue for another four years through 2026. So through that time, city departments are continuing to watch for information about the grants of interest that they've identified and responding to RFIs to help shape these grants and applying for funding.

And the Office of Intergovernmental Relations is going to have another update on infrastructure funding at their presentation to council next month.

So now we're turning to the Seattle Rescue Plan.

Implementation is continuing and more programs are concluding spending.

So we'll have much more to share later this year.

And spending updates and highlights from our research are going to be added to the Seattle Rescue Plan's web portal, which is also linked on the slide.

This slide's a reminder of the grants that fell under that Seattle Rescue Plan umbrella, and it's primarily the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, or CLFR grant, with a few other grants that were authorized by the federal ARPA legislation.

The next several slides are summary tables about the SRP spending allocations, and you can see them in the slides for your reference, but I'll save you from me just reading numbers off the tables.

Let me pause at this graph.

This graph shows the city's progress in implementing Clifford Funds since last January of 2022. And you can see that it's been a little over a year now, since it's March, but the graph shows enormous strides since then, with over $120 million in new expenditures recorded.

Okay, so in this next section of the presentation, we'll go over programs that have completed their QLIFR spending.

And I make that distinction, QLIFR spending, since some programs also have other funding outside of QLIFR too.

And also please note, As you're looking at these slides, some of the output metrics that you'll see on the slides are from when the programs were in the middle of implementing.

Some of them we don't even have any metrics from yet because they were finished relatively recently and started more recently.

But we should have newer data for all these programs in the coming months.

And I just wanted to share what we had in the meantime.

So if they don't have final data on the slides, you'll see that asterisk by the name.

So on this slide, the Enhanced Shelter and Outreach Program, that was a partnership with King County to provide de-intensified shelter and temporary housing for people with significant behavioral health needs or criminal legal system involvement.

That's one of those ones where we'll have data about the program in the coming months, but don't have anything on hand now.

And the Multifamily Housing Acquisition Capital Program enabled the city to buy four affordable housing buildings.

And through those buildings, bringing online 443 affordable housing units.

There were two really similarly named grants called Emergency Rental Assistance I and II.

And that first one, ERA I, has completed spending.

Whereas the second one, ERI2, is about 77% spent now.

The rental and utility assistance that these grants funded have helped thousands of households to keep their housing and avoid homelessness.

So for those households that received rental assistance, nearly half of them were under 30% of the area median income, and another quarter were between 30% to 50% of the AMI.

Two-thirds were BIPOC households, and 43% of those households were households with children.

There's a couple of testimonials from recipients of ERA assistance that are in the text on this slide.

And they express how it's helped them.

I want to also note that there's testimonials included about programs on some of these other slides, too.

I won't read them word for word, but you can see them.

The gender-based violence response services program is also finished.

That funded mobile advocacy services to prevent, intervene, and end gender-based violence.

It supported victim service agencies with funding for staff time and supplies to adapt to remote work.

And as a quote from a provider on the slide notes, This support came at a critical time when the pandemic upended lives and made it more difficult for victims to separate from abusers.

At the height of the pandemic, the city set up an employee vaccine verification system that was to track vaccination status of employees.

And also at the height of the pandemic, the Seattle Relief Fund disbursed cash assistance in amounts ranging from $1,000 to $3,000 to over 11,000 households, totaling over 26,000 people and including nearly 10,000 children.

And that funding reached immigrant, refugee, and low-income households around the city and aimed to improve their ability to survive the pandemic and the long recovery process that's been going on since.

Seattle Center held eight summer campus activation events in 2021. Those events attracted nearly 30,000 people, and they brought business opportunity back to small businesses in the heavily impacted tourism and hospitality industries.

And the Clifford-funded child care wage allocation provided awards of $835 each to about 3,500 staff at sites around the city, serving About 20,000 children, and that funding was meant to support hiring and retention of child care providers, which are especially women and women of color.

In a time when when in person work became more difficult and more dangerous.

And as a quote from the director, 1 child care provider on the slide shows.

That action to show their position has been noticed and appreciated by the staff.

The metrics on this slide are not the final total outputs, so we'll be getting more information in the coming months about their actual final outputs.

But the Enhanced Diaper Distribution Program helped to reduce financial hardship for low-income families with children by providing diapers.

And the Good Food Kitchens program reduced food insecurity by providing culturally appropriate food for low-income, primarily BIPOC community members through local neighborhood restaurants that are BIPOC-owned.

Seattle Public Libraries was able to reopen and restore their library hours to nearly pre-pandemic levels in 2021. And that was thanks to Clifford funding.

Instead of having to wait till 2022 to restore their hours Parks and Recreation provided scholarships for their child care services and also held outdoor mobile recreation events in communities that have less access to safe outdoor recreation spaces and worse health outcomes.

And 26,000 people participated in those events.

Parks was also able to fund more open days at wading pools around the city in 2021 thanks to the funding and nearly 26,800 children used the waiting pools in 2021. And during the pandemic, parks use dramatically increased due to the lockdowns, which also dramatically increased the wear and tear on the city's parks.

So this funding enabled parks to hire maintenance staff who provided 34,000 hours of parks maintenance, and that helped support community safety and health by allowing us all to keep using the public parks.

The Downtown Workforce Development Program has been able to connect un- and underemployed people in the hospitality sector to jobs.

And the quote on this slide is from one successful job seeker about how horizons have changed for the better thanks to her new union job that she found at a jobs fair that was funded by this program.

We'll have updated metrics on that program in the coming months.

And the Safe Starts Program funded 64 permits in 2021. that allowed small businesses to use public right-of-way to reopen their businesses while still meeting COVID safety guidelines.

The Clean City Initiative is ongoing, but parks and SPU have finished spending their CLFR allocations for this program.

And the city's efforts to clean up public spaces has been well-received by neighborhood business groups, And those groups have expressed sentiments like the quote on this slide.

And lastly, a note about our ongoing evaluation work.

Last fall, we shared highlights from our 2022 performance report that included output metrics and geographic analysis about the alignment of program spending with areas of need around the city.

The evaluation team is about to kick into high gear, analyzing program data from the past year to produce this year's performance report.

And in addition, also working on more in-depth analysis on select programs that have the deeper data to enable the analysis and qualitative research, following up with beneficiaries of programs to understand how SRP programs have affected them.

So there's much more to come, but I'll leave you with a glimpse at how we can use in-depth analysis to continually improve how we're serving the people of Seattle.

Innovation and performance is conducting analysis of civic form data, taking a closer look at where disadvantaged populations live around Seattle.

In particular, looking separately at BIPOC households, low income adults and families, disadvantaged neighborhoods, non-English speaking households, those without internet at home, and those who are struggling with affordability, like having housing costs.

And as we shared last fall, The program, or CIVIFORM, appears to be doing an excellent job reaching disadvantaged groups as mapped by the Race and Social Equity Index Map.

And that's apparent in how the map for CIVIFORM applicants lines up with the RSE Index Map.

However, the RSE Index aggregates many different dimensions of disadvantage, so analyzing those dimensions individually might show us where else it could be helpful to boost outreach efforts.

So we'll share that and other analyses as we complete them later this year.

And that concludes my slides, so thank you, and I'll take any questions.

Thank you very much.

I do have a few questions.

Are there any questions from my colleagues first?

Okay, let's see.

Oh, please go ahead Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Slide three was the slide titled Lay of the Federal Funding Land and referenced the May 11th cutoff for the COVID incident period.

And I'm wondering what that means for recouping the city's expenses and specifically would like to understand whether or not the city will be able to submit requests for reimbursement for activities that occurred before the deadline, but.

Yeah, submitting requests.

Is that is the cut is the cutoff date around of when we can put requests in or is the cutoff date?

Specifically informative to the date where the activities have to have occurred, right?

No, that's a good question for how we do things.

It's the date for when the cost occurred.

I don't have the specific date for when applications need to be submitted by, but your interpretation's right.

Fantastic.

Thank you.

And then on slide four on the FEMA public assistance update, just wondering if you could sort of address the fact that early on we heard concerns that FEMA reimbursement payments might lag by several years.

Is the timeline for pipeline projects as we have anticipated, or do you have new information about what we should expect for those reimbursement payments?

It's hard to say.

We don't really know.

why it's been faster this time around.

So, you know, for at least the COVID incident period, I suppose a reasonable assumption would be how things have been going so far.

But I don't really have insight into why FEMA has been able to move faster for our submittals on this particular incident.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair.

I've two more about to proceed.

That's OK.

So just two more questions, one about the spending for diversion and the other on the Older Americans Act funding.

I see that there's been good progress on the diversion spending, but there's still It looks like 300,000 that is neither spent nor encumbered.

These are really important and desperately needed funds.

And to my understanding, they're relatively simple to deploy because we have diversion programs and contracts.

But just wondering if you could talk a little bit about what we can expect there to get these dollars out the door.

And similarly, the Older Americans Act funding.

would love to know what the deadline is to spend the funding.

I know that though the numbers show that it's been slow to roll out.

I think that in some ways that was by design because of the different programs that they're intending to fund with these dollars.

But just would like to know whether or not there's a deadline here to spend the funding that we're going to be running up against.

That's it for me.

Yeah, good questions.

I'll start with the first one with the diversion.

It's going to be a bit of kind of boring technical stuff.

But so as you noted, $1.3 million, that million that's been spent was contracted to KCRHA.

So that happened.

That first $300,000 actually, I believe, had gotten under contract before KCRHA was stood up.

So then at this point, HSD is trying to transfer that over to KCRHA to be spent.

So that's the plan that should be happening.

For the Older Americans Act, it was a multi-year grant, I believe through 2025. So I know HSD is working on updating their spending plan for some rule changes that have come down, but I'll need to get back to you about what the actual deadline to spend those dollars is.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

That's all for me, Madam Chair.

Okay, excellent.

I do have a few questions as well.

Can we go back to slide 16?

Sorry, slide 17. Apologize for that.

I wanted to chat about the wage allocation for child care providers.

Obviously, this is something that we're really excited about, and I've talked to our national partners, other local jurisdictions across the nation about the way in which we got the child care allocation out.

And this was a one-time investment in childcare workers to make sure that they receive funds for being on the front line.

We've also been able to add to this and make an additional one-time investment through Jump Start as part of our economic revitalization and resilience components.

And you might hear her in a second as the parent of a three-year-old.

It's been so important to be able to have access to high-quality childcare Accessible child care, especially during the pandemic, obviously, we're both home today sick, but we know that more child care workers need additional resources to be able to.

for our economy to run and for more parents to be able to get out and go to work.

And so this is not only good for workers, but this is good for businesses, employers, entrepreneurs, folks in every sector of our economy, and notably the construction industry, Labor's 242, their biggest ask right now in the state legislature, is access to affordable child care for construction workers.

Is there anything else that you can tell us about the child care allocation here?

Obviously, we're working in partnership with Deal, but there was some frustration that the total amount that was allocated has not yet been spent.

This is not the total, right?

Do you have any update on the total?

I might be conflating this with the HSD allocation for the actual building itself.

That's right.

So this is actually a particular program that made me make that distinction between Clifford funding versus other funding.

This is the entire amount that was funded by the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund grant.

But there were other funds that were paying for that additional tranche that you noted.

I don't know much about that.

Other piece.

Okay, you're right.

I think I am conflating it with the funding for the facilities and the build out and we know that part of that funding went out and part of it hasn't.

So we'll follow up with them.

and probably with Council Member Herbold as Chair of Human Services as well, who I know is interested in tracking this, to see what else we can do to shed some light on when the additional funding will go out.

And I know that actually there's been some progress as of late, but given the high urgency of need for not just supporting the workforce, but also increasing slots, both of these elements are important.

Chairman Skidden, sorry.

You're referring to the facilities grants.

Yeah.

Sorry about that.

I do know.

Yeah, that the RFP went out last fall and they've awarded all the grants now.

So I believe they're under contract and that should start showing up in our county system as being encumbered and spending should start rolling out soon.

Great and in addition to that, I think what we'll see soon is another award to add to the initial list because there was some concern that some funding had been not fully allocated.

So.

Glass half full okay glass half full that that will be included in the future.

summary of uncovered funds.

Council Member Herbold, anything else to add to that?

Yeah, just a question.

I thought I heard you say, William, that the Child Care Facilities Fund, that they've accepted applications and they may not have enacted the contracts yet, but they've made some funding decisions.

Is that correct?

No, rather They made the decisions and contracted them.

There's a distinction.

This is, you know, boring administrative stuff but between the contract being signed and it actually getting into the system that tracks everything for the city so it may not be visible to us, but it may, but the contract is already signed.

The reason why I asked is my.

The staff in my office, Christina Kotsubos, had looked into this particular item because it had shown that because of that lag, that the spending was still very far behind the other investments.

And she has discovered that this funding is still listed on the HSD website as a continuous funding opportunity.

So if that's not the case any longer, That should probably be updated, but we can follow up with HSD on that.

Thank you council member and thanks to deal I know this was a slide that related to deal so I didn't want to.

Continue to complete HSD and deal too much longer.

I just wanted to thank deal for their work and apologize that I was misremembering on this item.

I do want to just ask, though, for the deal related funding is all of the funds that had been allocated to deal minus the administrative funding that might have been held back.

Is that all expended now from your calculations, Andrew?

Yes, that's right.

I said, Andrew, I'm sorry, William.

I am a little under the weather, so I'm just making up names here.

Cows have ever heard of anything else to add to that.

Oh, great.

And then I had, oh, sorry, Allie, I see you're popping in there.

Good morning, Allie Panucci.

Good morning, Chair Mosqueda and council members.

For the record, I'm Allie Panucci of your central staff.

I just wanted to chime in on some of the child care conversation.

I think there are two things going on.

Through the Seattle Rescue Plan, council approved additional funds for the child care facilities program.

That is an ongoing program that is funded with incentive zoning dollars.

So there are some ongoing funds for child care facilities.

those in order to avoid having to create a whole new program, that funding is flowing through that process, but it has greater flexibility than the incentive zoning dollars.

So that's part of, I think, the confusion.

There was a big allocation through this, and I think there are also some jumpstart funds added in this year's budget for a specific project.

And then in terms of the child care hiring or retention bonuses or wage allocation.

There was this allocation through the Seattle Rescue Plan.

And then also in this year's budget, there were some additional funds added, I think, through the Jumpstart Payroll Expense Tax as well.

So some of this is crossing funding sources.

And what William is reporting on is specifically related to the ARPA funds.

Thank you very much.

It's a good thing when you have so many dollars going into child care workers and facilities that they get confused.

So I'm, I'm still, I'm very proud of our city for that.

Um, last question for me, page 22 or slide 22 regarding downtown workforce development.

Is this part of the funding that we had directed to go to the MLK hiring hall, the Martin Luther King County labor central, um, Central Labor Council.

Is this part of that funding?

It isn't, but it's related.

It did pay for that.

But what you directed is a different funding source now.

So this program is done.

And I believe the action you're referring to is in this year's budget.

I'm not certain on the funding source, but maybe Deputy Director Panucci can speak to it.

Please go ahead.

That's, that's correct.

This was the Santa rescue plan allocation.

And I believe through the jumpstart economic revitalization funds that in this year's adopted budget, there were additional funds provided for that.

But I'll need to double check to confirm that it's jumpstart and not general fund, but there were additional funds included in this year in the 23 budget for the MLK labor hall.

Okay, my memory is a little fuzzy on this, but it would be helpful to get clarification.

I know we did funding from jumpstart higher jumpstart funding, especially, especially since it was tied to workforce development and this year's budget.

But I thought we had started that with the funds to go through MLK labor hiring hall.

And so I just wanted to get clarify and that was, I think.

Under the previous administration, so I just want to make sure that I get clarification at some point about where those labor hiring hall dollars are being captured in this because it's something we're also proud of too.

I saw a thumbs up from central staff.

Okay, that'll that'll suffice unless we'll let me have anything to add.

My sense of this program is that it went to MLK Hiring for that same purpose that was funded by this new tranche too.

Okay, great.

Well, thank you very much.

Those are my questions.

Is there any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

I am not seeing any.

William, anything else to add to close us out here?

I just want to say thank you all for your engagement on this.

There's been a lot of work done.

I want to also just shout out to all the city staff who've been taking this on in addition to their, you know, their regular work with this kind of separate slice of funding.

And I look forward to keeping this going and hopefully getting a clean close out by next year.

Excellent, thank you so much again.

I mentioned that there's national interest from our congressional partners and continuing to monitor these and being able to lift up Washington state as you noted for being 1 of the recipients of funds that have quickly moved to use these funds as intended as a stimulant to our local economy via supporting workers and small businesses and providing direct covert relief for the hardship that has imposed on so many families.

So I'm just wondering, in addition to the multi-page report that we get monthly, the PowerPoint that you provided today, is there a summary document, like a one or two pager that would be a quick leave behind as we chat with folks and highlight the good work of Washington, excuse me, of Seattle?

There isn't.

You know, I think we're putting together a report for you in May also, instead of uh, a committee presentation because of the housing levy.

Um, maybe that, that might be what you're looking for or, uh, but otherwise you could put a few parameters on it.

We could be happy to put together something for you.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Yeah, that would be good.

We know attention spans are limited, so, um, a one or two pager would be very helpful.

Allie, did you have anything else to add to that?

Deputy director?

Thank you, Chairman Skinner.

Yeah, I was just going to add, I'm happy to work with William and his team on sort of a one or two page summary.

Maybe we can pull out of the larger report.

Excellent.

That'd be great.

That'd be great.

Really appreciate it.

Part of the reason I asked is we just want to continue to underscore the points that you started with and how impactful these funds have been, but also how successful Seattle has been with deploying the dollars.

And it's important to show the the ways in which our federal partners are making a real impact with local jurisdictions.

This is one of the few times that cities are on the receiving ends of federal dollars, and it was a huge boon to our population's health and our local economy.

So we'd love to continue to lift that up.

Thanks so much for that suggested assistance, Ali, and we will look forward to more conversation in May.

All right, thanks so much William and colleagues.

I think that does conclude our presentation here today.

Is there any other questions for the good of the order?

Okay, hearing none all of the items that we did pass out of committee today will be sent to the.

May 28th meeting, which is next Tuesday for a final consideration to hope we can answer any additional questions from colleagues on sick leave specifically before we get to next Tuesday and hope to earn your support.

Thanks for the passage of legislation today in front of us.

In addition to the work that was done on the grant acceptance ordinance and extension.

We'll vote on those next Tuesday.

Our next finance and housing committee, as I mentioned, as a finance and housing committee will be May 17th at 930 am.

But we will begin our, our select housing levy committee meetings and that will be committee meetings of the whole starting on April 5th.

So, April 5th was our usual, our usual finance and housing committee meeting.

Between April 5th and June 27th, we will dedicate those meetings to the select housing committee meetings.

So thanks again to.

the entire team that's been working very hard on this, including central staff, Aaron House from my office and the really being led by the mayor's office.

This has been a big undertaking to make sure that we can show the public how effective the housing levy has been and come out strong with broad support for our housing levy for voters consideration.

In November, we will again have this committee meeting May 17th.

Otherwise, I'll see you next time at the Select Housing Levy Committee.

Thanks for all your participation today, colleagues.

feel better.

Thank you.

Bye, everyone.

Thank you.