Test one, two.
Thank you very much.
Wow.
Yes, I sound like Barry White.
So thank you for being here.
And thank you, Councilman Herbold, for being here for what is likely to be our last Governance and Equity and Technology Committee.
And why don't we have introductions to the table first?
Tom Mikesell, Central Staff.
And Ms. Samuels, who needs no introduction.
So just one moment here.
If there's no objection, we'll approve today's agenda.
Seeing no objection, agenda will be approved.
Public comment, I don't think we have anyone sign up for public comment, but let's always check to make sure we're not depriving someone an opportunity to speak.
We do have one sign up and we'd love to hear from John Perotti.
Please come forward, John.
Thank you for being here.
Good morning.
Thank you.
My name is John Parrott.
I'm the director at the King County International Airport, and I'm here today to address the City Light easement change.
The airport is thankful for this being brought forward.
It will accomplish a couple of items.
First of all, it will bring the legal easement into alignment with reality as to where the power lines are and where the underground easement is not being used.
And that will also facilitate the airport being able to build our snow removal equipment building.
So we view this as a win-win and support this proposal.
Thank you, John.
Thank you for letting us know that.
And thanks for being here to testify.
And I think that will conclude our public comment section.
So why don't we move into our first agenda item?
Short title.
Yes, please.
Council Bill 119706, an ordinance relating to gifts and donations to the city, eliminating the gift catalog account and creating specific departmental donation funds.
Okay.
Um, Jeff, were you all coming to the table to discuss this as well?
Yeah.
Why don't I tell you that that would be very appropriate.
And because this sort of, um, came from the, recommendations of the law department.
I know there's a fine line between you rendering us legal advice as our attorneys and being assistants in the legislation, so we'll just sort of thread that needle.
Why don't we do introductions first?
I'm Jeff Slayton, Assistant City Attorney.
Brandon Islip, Code Advisor.
Thank you for being here.
I'm sorry.
I'm so used to being an executive session, I push the microphone away.
We're in public session today, Jeff.
You're not used to that.
See that?
So, Tom, why don't you sort of introduce the legislation, if you will, and thank you for writing what I thought was a very good central staff memo on the issue.
So why don't you walk us through what we have here.
Thank you, Council President.
So Council Bill 119706 makes changes to one mechanism by which the City Council provides for accepting gifts and donations from third parties.
So one of the current ways is through a process called the Gift Catalog Account.
And so this was established in 1985. And it set up a very structured mechanism by which third parties to the city could donate gifts or financial gifts or other types of donations to specific city projects that are specified in this gift catalog.
So this was actually a listing of projects and city programs, very specific with specific dollar amounts that could be donated.
And it was very structured.
The one thing that I believe leads to this bill being proposed is that it was not kept up to date.
The most recent update was in 1988. more recent legislation that are noted in the memo, I believe on page two, where there were other specific uses that were added.
But as I understand, and I would defer to Mr. Slayton to give a more thorough description of the impetus for the bill, but it was given that the structure was not updated consistently over the years.
And here we are, what, 34 years later, And there's, you know, it's a proposed remedy.
So, but I did, I have some other items of different things that I found in my analysis and then proposed remedies, but I can add those later.
So the way I'd like to do it is I've read it.
I believe Council Member Herbold has read it.
So I don't need you to go over that.
I'll sort of address those issues.
And I assume that both Brandon and Jeff had an opportunity to see the memo written by Tom as well.
Yes.
So is there anything about the description of what we're trying to do or his concerns that you'd like to say at this time, or should we just sort of wing a conversation?
I'll defer to you since this has sort of come up through, I think, Brandon's work.
So go ahead.
I think I only have two comments.
This is something that we might see in the future from the code reviser.
There are a number of ordinances that Brandon and I have been working on over the last few years that or what I would like to call cleanup of the code, but require policy decisions to be made by the council.
And this is the first one that the code reviser has, through our office, is bringing forward to the council.
We're not weighing in on the policy decisions identified by council staff.
I think that's the appropriate thing for council staff to do.
and to highlight those for you to make.
We just wanted to give you a vehicle to kind of fix something that's currently broken.
Having said that, on the, just a little background, the original gift catalog, and I have one with pictures of puppies and benches and what people could buy, it was done by Mayor Royer and Norm Rice signed it as council president at the time.
So it is quite old and as council staff pointed out it is Not really been kept up to date so one of the options for policy decisions was to Just revise the gift catalog more frequently that I would say from a practical standpoint from that it hasn't been done for 30 some years and I I don't think that is a I would, I know that's a policy decision, but I would think that that's not an ideal option.
The other options seem fine.
So just let me describe sort of the scenario for the viewing audience that hasn't read all the background.
So this is the way I look at the proposal.
that we currently have a gift catalog and if I'm a donor and I just want to donate some money for the betterment of our city, I could donate by using the gift catalog and I could sort of choose an item in the gift catalog that says I want my money to go to that.
Correct.
And a bench would be a good example that's in the gift catalog.
And the gift catalog has several categories and Again, it hasn't been updated for a long time and it's sort of hard to get to.
Most members of the public wouldn't, perhaps they don't even know about the gift catalog or it's tough for them to navigate to see what the gift catalog is.
And so through Brandon's work, one of the ideas is to allow departments actually just to receive, I'll say it's sort of a general line item on their budget, monies from the public.
So in this case, HSD or the Office of Education or any department can have a line item in their budget and now I as a donor could just give it to that department and the department then has discretion on how they would like to use it for obviously a city purpose but they have a little more flexibility and the thought is that there's more flexibility in giving the donor a little more flexibility in how he or she wants to, or an organization wants to make it easier, easier of access to give the money.
Correct.
And more flexibility, less council oversight or involvement.
That's sort of my...
Yes, part of the conceptual framework to make it easier to understand was tying the threshold below which departments may accept gifts to the competitive solicitation threshold for contract procurement because that is something that the council has already trusted these departments with in another sphere and it would adjust for inflation the same way.
It's the exact same amount as a competitive solicitation threshold.
It's tied definitionally to that so that we don't have to every few odd years come back and adjust that amount upward and in some ways run into the same problems that led to the gift catalog lack of updates in the same way.
That concept is not necessary for this legislation to work.
It was just the easiest way in my interpretation of the issues to frame this as what is the level of trust given to these departments in various projects and various sizes.
Very good.
And at the outset, number one, I want to thank you for being proactive.
And what I do like about it is, number one, not only is it proactive in looking at an area that we haven't updated the catalog and perhaps we're not optimizing our use of, number one, but number two, it once again looks at the door of opportunity that can be open for members of the public to help us in many of the issues that we're dealing with in the city.
And I think that's a good thing.
So that's on the pro side of the equation.
On the other side of the equation, I'll just sort of voice my concerns.
And because my concerns are somewhat significant, my recommendation is not to vote anything out of committee and probably kick it down the road till next year for another council to look at that.
So I'm just gonna cut to the chase now, rewind the tape.
So part of my concerns, number one is that, The RSGI implications to me are somewhat significant, that it could possibly, perhaps inadvertently, allow either organizations, groups, or individuals to sort of double down or triple down in their particular area.
and really earmark and work with that department on where that money's gonna go.
And there's a less of a count, there's no council oversight to some extent, it goes right to the department.
And then we see sort of pet projects or unique projects in certain areas and not in other areas where they don't have the wherewithal or the philanthropic means or there's the people who can donate the money.
And so we could have sort of a lopsided approach to an investment strategy for the city.
And so I would think that at least a disparate impact analysis or a race and social justice analysis would be very appropriate to see the success of the program.
That's my first concern.
My second concern is I would think we'd want some kind of stakeholder process.
I think we'd want to talk to both the donor community, a few of the departments to see some history.
I don't even know how much money has been donated in the last couple of years, what kind of projects have been, done performed as a result of philanthropic or private donations I mean I just want a little context and see if we could have some kind of stakeholder process to make sure we're Make sure that this is the right approach as opposed to just updating the gift catalog and I think my third concern was That the point I just sort of danced around earlier a little bit was the lack of City Council oversight I'm not suggesting we need this any City Council needs to over the shoulder of every department to see exactly how they're spending lower amounts of money, because this could just be $5,000 or $10,000.
I think that's a waste of resources.
But there could be a situation where hundreds of thousands of dollars come in through different organizations.
I understand there's like a $52,000 limit or something from one individual, but several individuals could aggregate their funds and can do some really good things.
But again, at that point, there could be the subsidy issue or the, I don't want to say bait and swish, but the situation where a department are not using funds that we've earmarked because all of a sudden they've got philanthropic dollars in and then we want to, particularly in the world of education as an example, where we'd want some oversight, some reporting in so we could at least know what's going on by the departments.
I'm not suggesting even remotely that departments would, are working with negative intent, not at all.
They're just making budgetary decisions and it could be a little inconsistent with what the council are directed through the budget process.
So how we gain some legislative oversight without micromanaging that balance, I think needs to, and I don't think that's an existing legislation.
So when I looked at the four options, I thought about basically having a report back period to the Finance Committee and RSI evaluation stakeholder process, but quite candidly That seemed a little much on our last meeting and trying to do this between now and the 16th.
And so, and I'd like to hear Council Member Herbold's opinions.
And I do want to say if Council Member Gonzalez is watching this or her staff, I was looking at her amendment, which basically brought in OIR as a potential recipient of this.
I was strongly supporting that and I appreciate her efforts on this amendment.
And so I certainly, if we're going to move forward, I was certainly going to strongly support that amendment.
Thank you, Council Member Gonzalez.
But I think that if I were to give some, I don't want to say marching orders, but some marching orders, I would say that I would like to see this revisited perhaps by the finance committee.
It might be a logical place early next year.
And then perhaps a stakeholder process and RSGI work can sort of be done.
And then on one of the options, and it could be the current legislation I would add, would be adopted.
But I just don't, I think I'm a little ill-equipped to do it here.
just given the current hand that I'm dealt.
So those are my knee-jerk reactions.
Councilman Hurwell, did you want to chime in at all?
No, I think, Chair Harrell, you've done a good job of outlining some of the issues related to oversight and equity.
These are policy issues.
I would be interested to know more about the code revisor's identification of this policy as necessary for adjustment.
Beyond the obvious fact that we haven't updated the gift catalog in 30 years, is that the primary reason?
Is it more sort of bureaucratic?
Y isn't being done, so X as an ordinance isn't effective, or there's some mention in Tom's memo that there are anecdotal instances of gifts not received.
Some more information like that would be useful as well, something that really speaks to not just sort of a bureaucratic need to adjust this ordinance, but some policy implications of not doing it that we could use to weigh the options before us.
And we don't need that now.
And just to clarify one item on the record if I'm correct Councilmember Gonzalez's amendment would add OIRA to the legislation.
OIR is already part of the legislation in the main ordinance.
Right.
It's one slight, slight acronym confusion.
Thanks for picking up that.
You're the right man for your job, by the way.
You watch, you dot those I's and cross those T's.
O-I-R-A, which is different than O-I-R.
Thanks for catching that, Brandon.
But what I want to say is I was very pleased and excited when I got this, because quite canonically, I was not familiar with the GIF.
The gift catalog and and you have 18 you have almost 30 years of experience here, and I said the gift catalog Now how is that used and so you're raising an issue that I think is going to be actually an exciting?
The concept to pursue next year, and I'll tell you that I You know, when my staff and I had reviewed it, the first thing we asked, now, who's pushing this?
Who wants this?
And then there were some suspicions of the donor community.
Why?
I said, well, are they going to want to double down on one area?
And I think you astutely said, maybe people are going to load up on the navigation team and expect certain outcomes from the navigation team.
And I said, well, I was thinking more like park benches and things like that.
And so you start thinking about all these what ifs.
But I think that this gift catalog have done appropriately or this policy that Brandon is done appropriately could be a great benefit to the city.
I just think we need to think about a little more thoroughly and I think this legislation is a good start.
So let me just sort of recap what I'm asking.
I'm asking, Tom, perhaps next year you could tee up the issue as the Councilwoman started looking at the work plan and I think this should be a good part of the work plan working with Brandon.
Find a little history on how When the gift catalog was in its heyday, I mean, what kinds of things were done?
Maybe the finance committee or, and the FAS has it, the finance, they have a great race and social equity team.
Perhaps they could look at what implications could be raised by this, maybe some kind of stakeholder process.
And then look at what makes sense in terms of trying to bring in the investments and making sure we're having parity in the city and taking advantage of organizations that want to help the city.
And then the council could sort of weigh in on how much oversight they want based on that data that comes in and could be sort of a middle road.
So that's what I would suggest.
Yeah, we can absolutely do that.
Is that pretty much acceptable to everyone?
Sounds good.
Council Member?
Absolutely.
Okay.
To clarify some of the role moving forward, under Chapter 103 of the SMC with the Code Reviser Ordinance, The idea of submitting code improvement legislation is baked into that.
It's language that the state code advisor office has as well, if I'm not mistaken.
And legislation like this.
We are well aware that there are several knobs to turn, and however it goes is going to be better than it is now.
So anything you decide, I have no strong opinions one way or the other, and I'm happy to work with whomever I think it's possible, requiring a racial equity toolkit prior to acceptance.
of donations could be a very easy thing to write in and integrate into the process.
Yeah, there are a number of ways this can go that's for everyone's betterment.
And along those lines, Tom, if we could talk offline about one issue I'll just bring up publicly.
It's sort of funny that we use gift park benches as an example, that I did have a request from Jefferson Golf Course about a deceased African American golfer there that all of the, I'm not a golfer, so I hit a bucket of balls, I don't think that makes me a golfer in my lifetime, that they wanted to raise the money, they actually had the money, they wanted a bench to commemorate a particular person, and I wish I had known of the gift catalog then, but I said I would look into that.
And so maybe we talk offline about that as one.
I'm getting these last minute requests.
Hey, we're going to lose you.
Can you do this?
Well, OK.
Got this gift catalog.
I didn't know about that at the time.
So we could talk offline about what we want to do.
To be clear, you have to know the 1988 ordinance exists to find.
If you Google Seattle gift catalog, no one can find anything.
I tried.
OK.
OK.
I think it's something else we can address.
OK.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for being here.
Okay, let's move to the next agenda item.
Please read it into the record.
Sure.
Resolution 31919, a resolution relating to the Technology Matching Fund Program, requesting the Chief Technology Officer to set the program's guidelines, goals, project eligibility and selection criteria and maximum grant awards and to execute contracts and encumber funds in support of the program.
Okay, thanks for being here.
Please sit.
Sit.
Sitting?
OK, let's do introductions first.
Is this working?
Yeah.
Yes.
OK.
So hi, I'm Tracy Cantrell, Executive Advisor for Seattle IT, and here to introduce a new resolution.
Sitting beside me is Delia Burke, who is the Program Manager for the Tech Matching Fund.
Thank you very much for being here.
I don't know if I got my joke.
Please sit, sit.
Okay, okay.
So I've had, I've been briefed by the department about what they're trying to do and why.
And I'll just sort of describe it as this and then I'll let you just better describe it.
And that is we've really had tremendous success on the technology matching fund program on how we've Funded it how we've implemented.
We've got the money out the door to some great organizations But there's been a lot of concern both by the communities and by the department on the time it takes from When we air market to in the budget to actual receiving by the entities themselves and there's a long lapse and the department has some ideas on how they could accelerate that and not lose at all a the parity in the investments and the depth of the investments into the community.
So that's sort of why we're here.
Maybe you could describe what you guys have in mind, and go ahead.
That is true.
What our goal is to take a well-vetted program and accelerate the grant distribution process.
And this would enable the CTO to distribute that, those grants, rather than coming to council for an ordinance.
This would enable the communities to receive that money much sooner in the process and really create a momentum for those organizations that have been awarded the grant to use those funds more expediently.
Delia Burke has worked firsthand with these organizations and we believe this would be a great benefit to those communities.
Yes, we, so I work directly with our community-based organizations and The lack of digital skills and access to technology has been a huge barrier for many of our older adults, our low-income families, and other people.
So, you know, being able to apply for technology-matching funds to do things like get online to register for the census or gain jobs skills, digital skills to gain jobs, but to be able apply for funding in the first quarter, and then be able to get the money by the second quarter is what we're aiming for, and that'll make a big benefit.
Again, our program reaches some of our most historically underrepresented and underserved communities, and we see big needs for gaining access to tech.
Very good.
So this all looks Did you need to add anything Tom?
It's pretty straightforward.
Councilmember Herbold.
I thought I heard you identify As I read this ordinance it is an ordinance that says Go forth work with stakeholders identify barriers to getting the money out expediently and come back with recommendations.
I thought I heard you identify a solution and And which is, and tell me if I heard you wrong, please, which is to not have the disbursement of the funding be required with a council ordinance.
And it seems to me if what this resolution is truly doing, which is gather stakeholders, examine the program, make recommendations, your identification of a solution pre-date, like, is sort of getting the cart before the horse.
predetermined So our goal is to align us to other grant Distribution processes within the city and so it's to follow suit with what happens with for example the Department of Neighborhoods and the art Department so this it is to model and as you said predetermined that this is a model that we want to follow So let me say it how I understand it
that some of these grants are $10,000, $12,000.
And the city has, all of the other departments have a much more efficient process to get out the smaller grants.
And this one, probably because we love to showcase what we're doing, we do more of a stringent legislative process for these small five, I think some of them are like five or $10,000.
And what you're wanting is, to come up with some recommendations, which may quite candidly and transparently involve less council oversight in some of the smaller grants.
And what this resolution is going to do, you're going to describe that and you're going to bring it, you're going to say what these are and of course share with the council and hopefully we can accelerate the program.
But if we're going to be totally transparent, there will likely be less council oversight in it because of the size of the grants.
That is correct.
That answers my questions.
I was under the impression that some of these grants were larger grants.
They're all less than $50,000.
I think your department, as well as many others, know that one of our highest values is transparency.
And it's not because a council wants to micromanaged departments.
It's because when things go sideways, guess who gets all the blame?
The council, because their job is oversight for how funds are spent.
But I know this department and I know the structures in place to make sure that we're doing great work.
So I support this resolution and hopefully it'll be successful.
The bottom line is getting the money out to the right organizations and you'll involve all of the stakeholders in that process.
Thank you.
Okay, so on this one, I would be ready to vote.
Any other questions?
Just one other question.
There's not a, that I can see, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, there's not a timeline for a report.
Do you have an, in the resolution itself, is there a ballpark of what you expect?
I would say from during a quarter basis, we could report back on the distribution or the awards.
Oh, I see.
You're not going to come back with us with a recommendation for changes for the process.
You're just going to change it.
Well, can we say, Tom, around March or so, I don't have to change the legislations, I don't have to go through that, but can Can there be some kind of document generated for the new council in March to, can you tickle your calendar and make sure that whatever these recommendations look like are shared with council before March?
Sure, we can check in with the department.
Is that doable?
Okay, well the records on the television.
And when is the next disbursement scheduled to occur?
When's the next announcement of funding availability and the next disbursement?
We've made the announcement in this quarter for recipients that want to apply for the grants, and I think the disbursement or selection would happen in the first or second quarter of 2020.
Okay, so before the disperse for me, just share with the council what the recommendation, what the process looks like so they can know it and bless it and life goes on.
And if it's okay with you, it'd be great if actually before Monday, not today, but before Monday, maybe we could come up with some mandatory language that reflects that.
But you don't trust these folks?
OK, well, we can do that right now.
So we could put that in right now.
So why don't you just put a short sentence in there that SIT will share their recommendations and policies by March.
So we can add a section four, which would basically be that amendment.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
But the next Monday, that's okay.
And I'll just do it on the dais.
Okay, so that language will just include at that point?
Yes.
That would be great.
Because that will give me the chance to get law review and all that good stuff.
Right, right.
Okay, so let me vote it out first.
I will move to adopt resolution 31919 with the caveat that there will be an additional statement requiring a specific data so when they come back with the recommendations.
Second.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
Okay thank you very much.
Thank you.
Okay and now let's move just put our city light hat on and channel Council Member Mosqueda.
Great.
Council Bill 119707, an ordinance relating to the City Light Department, authorizing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer to enter into an easement area amendment agreement with King County to revise the legal description of an existing easement for an electric transmission and distribution line through King County Airport property.
All right, let's do introductions and then tell us what we have here.
Maura Brugger, Director of Government and Legislative Affairs for Seattle City Light.
Tim Kroll, I work in the Environment, Land, and Licensing business unit in Seattle City Light.
And I just want to briefly thank you very much for taking this up before the end of the year.
We really appreciate it.
And also just to thank you, Council President Harrell, for your leadership for the utility and especially for your vision to create the strategic planning process and the City Light review panel, which has been very successful.
Thank you for your many years of leadership and support.
And then I'll let Tim talk about the easement and also its relation to some really exciting work happening down at King County International Airport with the Georgetown steam plant.
Thank you for those comments.
I appreciate that.
You were the chair of Sealake, right?
So it's a nice little symmetry here.
This is the last piece of legislation.
That's right.
Came all the way full circle.
All right, so about 60 years ago, City Light obtained an easement from King County for a plain old electric distribution line in the North Boeing Field area in Georgetown.
Now, since that time, the utility lines have sort of gone astray.
They've been built outside the easement area.
We did some little research on trying to figure out when that happened over the 60 years, and it's not an easy answer, so I don't have an answer for you how this happened.
And it's become relevant now because King County is trying to build an important building for their airport, and they need to build it where the old easement was, and they need to kind of extinguish that so they have clear title to develop.
So the proposed ordinance relinquishes the part of the old easement that's not being used now.
It revises part of the easement to reflect the present location of the distribution lines, and of course there's no cost to either party.
And that picture summarizes it.
The red is where there's easement, but no lines.
The green is where there is presently no easement, but there are lines.
And so we're changing the easement from the red to the green.
Reasons to amend it.
We should be all squared away.
Our legal rights should conform with the actual infrastructure.
It clears the way for King County's project.
And of course, we want to accommodate an important customer and a partner.
governmental agency.
A little bit of wider context that Maura alluded to, City Light is developing the Georgetown Steam Plant as a community asset museum.
It's a National Historic Landmark.
City Light and King County International Airport are cooperating on developing an improved access for the community to the plant, a new driveway.
And we expect to have legislation to the council the first quarter of next year about that.
And this ordinance is consistent with that and supports this wider effort.
Very good.
I think it's pretty straightforward.
I read the materials prior to the meeting.
I didn't have any questions or concerns.
Looks like a good deal.
I appreciate the testimony we have from this fine Tom.
Councilor Herbold, any questions?
No questions.
No cost to the city or to the other party.
So it's all good.
OK.
So with that, I'll move to adopt Council Bill 119707. Second.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
And we'll present this to the full council Monday and I'm sure it'll get approved.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for being here.
And with that, we'll stand adjourned.
Okay.
Well, congratulations on completing your last committee meeting.
Yes, feels good.
And Jennifer as well.
You've done amazing work here and ably assisted council president, council member, and for a short period of time, Mayor Harrell.
Thank you.
Really, it's been a pleasure for me to work alongside you.
And I feel the same.
We've been an outstanding vice chair and outstanding council member.
and I look forward to watching you shine in 2020 and a few more years.
All right, bye-bye.