Select Budget Committee Session II 10-14-2026

Black screening, here we are.

The October 14th Select Budget Committee will come back to orders 1.46 p.m.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Sacca.

Council Member Foster.

Here.

Council President Hollingsworth.

Council Member Juarez.

Here.

Council Member Kettle.

Here.

Council Member Lynn.

Here.

Council Member Rink.

Here.

Council Member Rivera.

Chair Strauss.

agenda item 4, Seattle Department of Transportation for briefing Fantastic.

Central staff analysis of the Seattle Department of Transportation budget.

We're joined by Amanda Allen.

Tracy Ratzliff has shown up.

Hello.

Great to see you.

We've known you've been here the whole day.

And Calvin Chow of Central staff.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to you for the full presentation.

And then we'll turn to Councilmember Saka as chair of the committee overseeing the department.

All right, Amanda Allen, central staff.

Good afternoon, council members.

I hope you got rejuvenated in your break there.

We've got a little bit of ground to cover.

I saw one shaking of head, that's not good.

Okay, this budget season is one of shortfalls and reductions and SDOT's 2027 proposed budget reflects, we're gonna try to move the slide forward, there we go.

Great.

Reflects an overall almost 7% decrease in spending when compared to the 2026 adopted budget.

The full impact of the cuts is partially obscured by the assumption of the passage of the Seattle transit measure and the addition of 20.4 million in appropriations.

To achieve the reduction, the department proposed a breadth of cuts across many programs and many projects, both on the operating and on the capital side of the house, as a strategy to try to limit the harm to any one investment area.

We have been working to understand the impacts of the changes proposed and the reality is that the executive and the council may need to revisit some of these changes as the consequences of these reductions become more transparent.

Focusing on the budget summary table and starting at the top with the operating appropriation by BSL, While the operating budget shows an overall almost 3% increase, some program areas are experiencing budget reductions and the extent of those reductions is sometimes obscured by baseline changes that add funding to support citywide adjustments for standard costs.

there were almost $18 million of cuts proposed for the operating programs to help and, again, spread across the programs to mitigate the impacts of those cuts.

Generally, the reductions were trimming non-labor spending, limiting the use of consulting contracts, reducing preventative or routine maintenance capacity across a variety of programs.

There were cuts to reduce service levels that are anticipated to slow response, extend maintenance intervals, and limit preventative care.

These types of changes can potentially affect safety, mobility, and long-term asset condition.

So the programs, the operating programs, I'm gonna focus in on experiencing cuts.

First is bridges and structures.

It's a reduction of 400,000.

which was offset by a much larger reduction that this program would have taken if not for the backfill of $2.5 million from the new King County Transportation District funding.

Moving down to the maintenance operations, BSL, there's a 10% reduction In most instances, cuts in this area are expected to be minimized by their size with services reduced or slowed and response times increased.

It's difficult to fully understand the full impacts of the changes as they're currently presented.

In some cases, there were also proposals that cut contingent budgets for emergency services.

Some notable changes in this BSL include $944,000 reduction in the maintenance operations program that supports Seattle's incident response team, which is a team that supports the removal of hazards in the right of way, like a fallen tree or potentially a spill that occurred in the right of way.

There's also a $637 reduction in the streets cleaning services program that would result in cleaning services decreased in the Pike Pine corridor, the Convention Center, Pioneer Square, and Little Saigon.

There's a 29% or a $1.3 million reduction for the pothole repair program.

This could adversely affect SDOT's ability to accomplish their commitment to a 72 hour response time.

And continuing to move on.

In the mobility operations, we're actually seeing an increase of almost 5%, and that is in the face of $6.8 million in reductions.

Again, the fact that it's showing an increase is due to the fact that there were these baseline adjustments for citywide standard costs included.

Again, this program would have experienced another $5 million in cuts, if not offset by different funding swaps, including the realignment of transportation funds with an increase in automated traffic safety camera funds.

A couple notable changes that we're seeing is a $2.5 million reduction to the pay-by-phone program.

So you go and pay a parking meter using your credit card.

Right now, the city absorbs that credit card fee cost and the proposed budget, that cost would be passed on to the customer.

There's also a $1.1 million reduction in the street service maintenance program, which is a 49% cut of this budget and lowers the service maintenance, decreasing Estat's capacity to conduct preventative street service maintenance.

and there's also a reduction, I'll just note, of 535,000 to SDOT spot improvement program which eliminates all the general fund that this program had received and reduces their budget significantly so that they think they will be more limited in being able to rapidly address small-scale traffic improvements and respond to public complaints.

Moving forward to the right-of-way management.

Again, that's a small change.

Actually, I'm not gonna go into detail there.

Okay, so now for the bottom part of the table, the capital appropriations.

The CIPs represent a six-year spending plan, and while the 2027 to 2032 proposed CIP reflects a 15% decrease in spending when compared to the 26 adopted budget, this was actually a planned decline.

It's noteworthy that the prior year's adopted CAP actually included less funding for 2027 than what's currently being proposed, which is actually 7% increased over what we had anticipated for 2027. and if you look on page four of my paper at table two, you'll see there's a $28 million increase for 2027 over what we had anticipated previously and a $79 million increase over the 28 prior plan.

This increase is primarily due to the reprogramming of reductions included in the 2026 year end supplemental ordinance, which represents a more transparent approach to capital carry forward appropriations.

There are two areas in the capital budget where I want to focus your attention on material changes.

The first is in the major maintenance and replacement BSL where there's a 5.5% decrease in spending from 26 levels.

This decrease was actually planned and the 27 budget actually represents a $10 million increase over the previous plan.

and that is due to spending allocation or reallocation of 10.5 million of transportation levy funds.

So some examples of changes that we're seeing here is an addition of 3.2 million for streetcar repairs only in 2027 and 28. 7.1 million is added to bridges and structures to increase that program by 22%.

There are also decreases.

Some notable ones is a million dollar reduction from the roads program and a $570,000 reduction from the sidewalk maintenance program, which is a 6% decrease.

In the mobility capital, BSL of the capital program, the table is showing a 20% decrease in 27 spending when compared to 2026. However, the allocation for this program actually increased over what had been planned for 2027 by 18 million.

Some notable changes included the addition of $10.7 million for new trails and bike paths, which is a 32% increase in that program area, a 5.1 million addition to corridor intersection improvements, I will also note there were some notable decreases, which is 3.3 million reduced from the Neighborhood Enhancements Program and 600,000 reduced from the Freight Mobility Program, which is a 12% decrease.

So let's see, I think I'll leave it there for this table.

Those were the most notable changes.

Look at that, we're on slide two.

Okay, SDOT is proposing a reduction of nine FTE to its current 1,291 FTE count.

None of the position proposed for abrogation are currently filled.

Seven of the positions had been scheduled to sunset.

They were part of the move Seattle levy work, which has ramped down.

to FTE had been allocated to support the unified care team, and these positions were never filled since the time they were added in 2023. One thing that's not included in this FTE count is the proposal by SDOT to maintain the vacancy of an additional two FTE that had been intended to support the unified care team.

SDOT has shared that given that these positions have never been filled, these changes will not change the team's response times, nor would affect their ability to provide data analysis or reporting of the workload.

And you will look forward to hearing more about the unified care team changes during tomorrow's presentation of the Human Services Department budget.

Oh, but let's not forget to talk about revenues.

So you'll see a 1% decrease for the general fund.

Even with this decrease, we are still meeting the proposed floor requirement of $53.6 million for the general fund.

The unrestricted cumulative reserve fund is zeroed out from 24 million in 2026 to zero in 2027. The move Seattle levy, which ended at the end of 2024 is ramping down and there's no anticipated funding for 2028. The transportation levy is recognizing the reallocation of funding from 2026 into 2027 and the 2028 budgets.

So this again, talking about the realignment of funding from the year end supplemental and the realignment of 134.6 million in transportation levy funding coming from 26 into these budgets and into the out years.

The transportation fund shows a decrease of almost 34% due to reductions in fees and other funds that make up this source, which include commercial parking tax, permit fees, service charges, and grant funding.

I'll note that within the transportation fund, this is where we are allocating the new King County Transportation District funding of 4.7 million.

and then the payroll expense tax or the jumpstart line, you'll see zeroed out due to the backing out of one-time expenditures that had been in SDOT's budget last year for FIFA World Cup activities and sound transit three project coordination.

The automated traffic safety camera fund shows a increase of 72%, which recognizes the anticipated revenue from the new school zone cameras that are now installed, and also the addition of four new locations for seven new speed cameras.

So on a whole, the revenue from those particular speed cameras is anticipated to increase by 8.2 million in 2027 and by a further 3.1 million in 2028. and you'll see there was a reduction in REIT 1. This was a planned change from 26 to 27 and an additional reduction in REIT 2. This was a change that is in response to reductions, in response to meet target reductions for this particular budget and had not been previously anticipated.

Okay, now we can move on to policy considerations.

Counselor, do you want to have questions about that?

First part, I want to just keep going through.

Perfect.

Tracy Ratsoff, Council Central Staff.

So moving to policy consideration number one, which has to do with the transportation fund stability and proposed Interfund loan.

So as the policy consideration memo discusses, the 27-28 proposed budget attempts to address two issues related to the transportation fund.

The first issue relates to the transportation fund's annual budget and the need to align annual expenditures to expected revenues.

As discussed further, in the memo, this is accomplished by increasing several revenue sources, the commercial parking tax and the street use permit fees in particular, that support the fund, and also reducing expenditures in the fund, including reductions that begin in the year-end supplemental.

The second issue is the transportation fund has struggled in recent years to maintain a positive daily slash monthly cash balance due to several contributing factors, including cash shortfalls driven by COVID-related declines in parking and transportation revenues that have not rebounded and stabilized even today, timing delays in the payments of expenditures and the receipt of revenues and reimbursements, and what we mean by that are grants that flow through that fund, as well as other expenditures from our partners, lags in the movement of department-wide expenses, in particular payroll and internal service costs that first hit the transportation fund, but must then be appropriately distributed to the other SDOT funds, as well as other accounting practices.

An interdepartmental team was formed by the executive in July of 2026 to assess and identify the root causes and develop strategies to restore long-term stability to the fund.

Attachment one to the policy consideration memo lays out the work program for this IDT.

The bulk of 2026 will be spent identifying the causes and then moving into 2027 and beyond, evaluating options and beginning implementation to address the causes.

This is going to be a multi-year process of addressing these causes for a problem that has occurred over multiple years.

To address the short-term cash needs, the executive has submitted a proposed ordinance authorizing a 10-year Interfund loan of up to $63.5 million to deal with this difficult season for the transportation fund.

The proposed Interfund loan is intended to address the fund's negative cash position until it can be restored over time through adjustments to administrative cash management practices and through expenditure reductions that create reserves that can help to support positive cash flow.

The executive does not anticipate using all of the loan amount at one time, but instead to use it sort of as a line of credit that they tap when they need to put or keep the funds cash balance positive.

There are appropriations in both 2027 and 2028 of approximately $2.2 million annually to support repayments of this loan.

The loan is to be repaid by December 31st of 2036. The options that you have as relates to this proposal is one, to add annual reporting requirements on the Interfund loan repayments until the loan is repaid.

Request a report from the IDT detailing the causes of the transportation funds cash balance issues and the strategies to restore a positive balance and no change.

Capital project selection.

Estat's approach to the selection of and the scope of capital projects is informed by a variety of policy documents adopted by Council, including the Comprehensive Plan and the 20-year Seattle Transportation Plan.

In addition, SDOT also considers community feedback, considers engineering limits, the plan goals, environmental rules and program budgets to identify investment priorities.

Given limited resources, at times the resulting investment priorities may not meet the expectation of district stakeholders.

Council established the Council District Fund in the last biennial budget, giving council members the ability to direct resources toward neighborhood-scale traffic safety projects.

The council district fund was proposed as a one-time investment and funding was not included beyond 2025 and 2026. Options for the council could be reinstate the district fund by increasing revenues or making commensurate cuts or no change.

Commercial parking tax.

The mayor has proposed increasing the commercial parking tax from 14.5% to 17%, which would generate $9.3 million in revenue for SDOT programs.

Customers paying for private parking in addition to paying the CPT also pay for city sales tax.

This proposal for a 2.5 increase was informed by economic modeling, review of customer behavior and to really understand the elasticity of demand for paid private parking as prices increase.

Some options include amending the commercial parking tax increment or no change.

So I have two contextual policy considerations that I'm going to share for which there will be no options.

The first is the traffic enforcement camera expansion Vision Zero and multiple traffic safety experts consistently identify speeding as one of the most significant causes of traffic deaths and serious injury.

And for this reason, SDOT continues to use automated traffic safety cameras to deter speeding and help make our streets safer as they are a proven effective method to get people to follow the traffic laws.

SDOT's 2027 proposed budget supports installation of seven automated traffic safety cameras at four new locations to help enforce speed limits 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Of course, a side benefit of the cameras is the result of new revenues generated for safety programs.

and ATSC's revenues are anticipated to increase by 9.6 million in 2026 from the adopted to the revised and additional 3.6 million anticipated for 2027. Okay, last one.

Transportation Funding Task Force.

In tandem with the 2024 Seattle Transportation Levy, which authorized funding for citywide transportation investments, the City Council adopted two resolutions that established the scope and responsibilities of a transportation funding task force.

In September of this year, council approved an additional resolution which appointed the members to the task force.

The current work of the task force is to understand the current context and their deliverable to council is to make a final recommendation December of 2027. And so concludes our program.

Thank you very much.

Job well done.

Councilmember Saka is chair of the committee overseeing the department.

You are recognized.

And then colleagues, if you want to start raising your hands now, we'll just keep going down the line.

Thanks.

Over to you.

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Amanda, Tracy, Cal for your presentation today and all the work that went into it and reviewed all the the policy analysis documentation and slide decks today, so in the context of the broader proposed budgets, very helpful, really appreciate the insights here.

Stabilizing our transportation system matters now more than ever because everyday moments shape how people feel safe and connected when navigating our transportation system.

When sidewalks abruptly end or are simply missing in certain neighborhoods, signals feel too short or cars move too fast and potholes, pesky potholes remain unfilled, trust in the system erodes.

Our transportation fund is strained by uneven resources and delays, while our Vision Zero goals and commitments remain more urgent now than ever, as gaps in sidewalks, bike routes, and safe crossings continue to persist.

Now, stabilizing the fund builds the foundation for safer streets and ensures SDOT can better more effectively and efficiently fix roads, add new sidewalks, complete bike networks, and use proven safety tools, whether it's automatic traffic safety enforcement cameras or others.

That's one of a list of 40 plus proven safety countermeasures.

This moment calls for us to restore financial health and accelerate safety improvements so everyone can move through our city safely, As the committee chair that oversees SDOT, I'm personally deeply concerned that council is being asked to authorize a 10 year loan of up to $63.5 million.

On the one hand, while the proposed budget also raises transportation related costs and fees, on the other hand, and reduces pothole repair, transportation studies, spot improvements, street cleaning, preventative maintenance, who knows what else?

I recognize that cash flow timing challenges are not necessarily the same as a structural deficit.

However, borrowing of this magnitude cannot become a substitute for fixing either problem.

My goal here is to protect essential safety and maintenance services while establishing prudent guardrails, earlier milestones, and transparent accountability that return the transportation fund to a more stable footing.

There's a lot going on with SDOT's proposed budget.

the transportation fund, inter-fund loan issues, the reduction in staffing, potentially impacting, curious to learn more later, what the anticipated impacts on our ability to deliver on these various levy programs and projects.

Because we recently authorized an expansion of 20 plus additional people in SDOT.

in part to make sure that the department is well positioned and doesn't get off to a slow start when delivering upon the 2024 voter-approved levy.

There's a increase in the Seattle monorail fees.

It hasn't been revisited or raised, I guess, in about 12 years, but increasing the maximum fair amount I think $4 to $7, I believe, if I'm recalling correctly.

A lot going on in the proposed budget for SDOT, but against that backdrop, let me ask.

Rather than granting the requested, the full 10-year authority in its entirety now up front, could we grant a smaller initial tranche with additional borrowing subject to council review?

And if so, what forecasting, well, I guess irrespective of the answer to that, what cash forecasting draw limits, repayment benchmarks, or other safeguards could be incorporated into the ordinance?

Well, in terms of the amount, SDOT has had a lot of conversations with the City Finance Department about the Interfund Loan and what would be the appropriate level.

As I indicated, they are not intending to draw down that entire $63 million.

They will really do what they need to to keep their cash balance positive on a day-by-day basis.

I will tell you that the end of month balance for that cash fund for September was negative $24 million.

The average daily balance was a negative $41 million.

That is just one data point, and obviously these things can fluctuate.

But I think what you don't want to have happen is for them to have to come back for multiple Interfund loans, because those have to be authorized by ordinance.

I think you absolutely can add more requirements in the ordinance about reporting, about even minimum amounts that you expect for them to pay every year.

Again, I've told you they have appropriations in both the 27 and 28 budget to pay interest payments on the repayment on the loan amount that they draw down.

So I think there is more that could be added in in terms of guardrails in the ordinance to address some of your concerns.

And council member Sokka, if I may, just from the report, I've been doing this today, just the report from the Debt Management Advisory Council meeting this morning, we had a long and robust conversation on this point in particular.

And so I can either go into detail or I can stay high level just to say that working with the city budget office and the finance department.

We will be including additional language regarding repayment specifically on interest so that it is scheduled rather than voluntary because SDOT did in fact not repay their last Interfund loan that was granted during the pandemic as well as it will likely take 10 years to repay this and What Tracy just mentioned of bringing the bills back before council at a regular cadence throughout those ten years is something that we will likely do.

So, and that's all been discussed with DIMPAC, with the City Budget Office, with the Finance Office, and it's a way for us to help support SDOT while maintaining the appropriate checks and balances to make sure that they are indeed improving.

Sorry, Council Member, back to you.

Thank you, Chair.

We definitely support that approach rather than grant a carte blanche blanket tenure authority now up front.

In any event, just curious, Tracy, Amanda maybe, like based off Central SAF's review, how much of the proposed $63.5 million authorization reflects a temporary cash flow timing issues versus a structural mismatch between ongoing revenues and expenditures?

What information is still missing to determine the lowest prudent authorization ceiling?

In the majority, as I understand it, and I have to tell you that I am new to this issue, as you all might notice, but not been sitting with the SDOT budget before.

So I have my colleague, Hal, who has maybe a little bit more history, but as I understand it, there is a connection with the cash balance.

The cash balance issue is fundamentally a cash balance problem in terms of when expenditures come into that fund and then when revenues come in to pay it.

However, in the past, this fund has had a reserve that has helped them buffer through what might be those mismatches in terms of the expenditures being paid and revenues coming in.

That reserve has been spun down.

There is no reserve left.

This proposed budget includes a financial plan that begins to show a rebuilding of a reserve for this fund.

And I think that is a very prudent, as I understand it, in looking at the revenue picture and the instability of some of these revenue sources that we don't know where the end is on this, right?

So I think it is not an imprudent act to establish a reserve for this fund to provide just a little bit more buffer while they also look at what are the day-to-day kind of cash management accounting practices that they have that they can use to try to correct some of this day-to-day imbalance that happens between expenditures and revenue and the balance of that fund.

I don't know if you want to add anything to that.

Yeah, I think from my perspective, you know, Councilman, when you mentioned a structural deficit, a structural problem, I mean, that really came to light with the pandemic and revenues fell and they didn't really come back, or at least they didn't come back as fast as people had hoped.

And the spending, the expectations continue.

So we have a structural imbalance there.

And to my mind, that is largely part of what the work of the Transportation Revenue Task Force is intended to work on.

You know, what are our priorities supposed to be?

What are the funding sources we should be using and how is that aligned?

This issue is coming to a head this year in part because of really accounting measures that we use the transportation fund to clear accounts, to basically run the department, and that's what has been running in negative and causing essentially an accounting problem as much as anything, necessitating this loan.

to the extent that both those things are drawing on the same fund, they're interactive, but I think they are kind of two different bodies of analysis that need to happen.

The IDT that's being proposed is really looking at a lot of those internal controls, looking about what a proven reserve would be, looking at what type of process improvements can reduce the strain on the transportation fund from the accounting perspective.

But that isn't necessarily gonna get you to, frankly, the issue of do we have to curb our expenses in the future?

Do we have to look for new revenues?

That is, to my mind, a bit more from the Revenue Task Force.

But for this year, those things combined to hit the transportation fund's bottom line, and they ended up with what is really a best guess about the highest fluctuation of outstanding loan that they would need to be able to maintain a cash balance.

Thank you for that.

I would, yes, the Transportation Funding Task Force, it was born out of the recognition two or three years ago now that as generous of a levy as it was at the time because of the arbitrary, capricious and Tim Eyman honoring 1% cap on our ability to raise property taxes imposed by the state.

As generous as it was at the time, some advocates at the time were calling for a two, three billion dollar plus levy.

And even if we did that, we still couldn't fund the need for fulfilling our commitment to build more sidewalks, make stronger, faster, more urgent progress on closing out the 27% missing sidewalk network, making sure all of our roads and the pavement conditions are in good serviceable working order, better than the overall poor state they are today because of lack of investment, not because of the work.

and then maintaining our bridges, which is really important as a council member that represents West Seattle, know what it's like to be without a major lifeline to the rest of the region, not to the city.

So now that that work, now here we are with these current issues that the work of the Transportation Funding Task Force is taking on renewed urgency and importance.

And we authorized the membership a few months ago and really appreciate the volunteers stepping up to lead here.

Important now more than ever.

Next question pertains to impacts of some of these reductions.

So the executive is proposing significant reductions in core maintenance functions, including cuts to pothole repair, street surface maintenance, spot improvements, transportation studies, and street cleaning, which may result in slower response times and degraded safety conditions.

Of these specifically listed maintenance functions within SDOT, which proposed operating reductions present the greatest risk in your assessment to safety, risk to asset preservation, risk to just fundamental constituent responsiveness?

I think it was Ali Panucci that said, there's something in this budget for everyone to hate.

And I think there are many changes.

Most of the changes are, or the changes as I'm reading them either are ones that they found a way to do a fund swap or ones where they are really looking to minimize the harm.

So they're extending these timelines, but bridge inspections, for example, in some cases are going to be extended from two years to three years.

As you mentioned, potholes are not gonna be filled as quickly.

So I don't know that there's any one change that I can I think it really depends on the council's priorities about how you want the funding to be spent.

If I could, too, I mean, the strategy appears to be in the face of reduced available resources to spread that around.

So, you know, if there are specific items of concern, we can look at that.

But right now, a lot of it is we know the amount that they've shifted.

We know kind of what percentage that looks like.

But we don't know how to turn that into a service level you know, impact without sort of following up with the department.

Thank you.

We'll definitely be interested in following up the department on this and concerned about all those kind of three functional areas that I mentioned, impacts the risks to safety, asset preservation, and then constituent responsiveness.

But really in that order.

And I'd put safety at the top.

And individually, our ability to repair potholes or fund transportation studies may or may not impact, have a material impact, I'll say, on safety.

But collectively, it might.

And so that's what I'd be interested in learning more about.

Final question.

Thank you, Chair.

As was noted, the executive does not anticipate completing the transportation funding review until fall of 2027, so about a year from now.

Curious to better understand which specific remedies in the work plan, including more frequent inter-fund settlements, direct allocation of department-wide costs, faster reimbursement processing, and revised overhead practices could reasonably be implemented or at least tested, piloted, whatever, earlier in 2027.

So according to the work program for the IDT, which I think is what you're talking about, the transportation fund IDT, much of 2026 is really going to be about issue identification or causes, trying to get a really good sense on the causes of the cash balance to the extent that those are related to accounting practices.

2027 and beyond is when they really are looking at implementing, identifying what the options are and solutions that would be, and then implementing.

I can ask them when they think they might be able to implement some of these potential solutions, but I'm not sure they've identified fully all the causes, and then the solution is just to come after the causes have been identified, not that they don't have some sense about that, but relative sense.

So I can check with them to see what they think might be doable in 2027.

I'd add that some of the things that you just mentioned, you know, really require that we do the budget differently.

So I think the nearest, the next opportunity to actually effectuate that would be next year's budget.

You know, we aren't going to be able to direct appropriate without giving them the direct appropriation.

So there's a potential that they come forward with some changes in a supplemental, but I think it's more likely to do it all over again for the next budget cycle.

Thank you for that.

No further questions or comments, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Saka.

I've got Councilmember Kettle, Councilmember Rivera, and Councilmember Juarez.

Over to you, Councilmember Kettle.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Allen, Ms. Ratliff, and Deputy Director Chow, thank you for being here in the work.

To include the central staff memo, I know we focus on the briefings, but I appreciate, for example, the central staff memo that I have up today, here right now.

I kind of wanted to start not to rehash the entire unified care team discussion from this morning, but to highlight, you know, as listed here in the central staff memo, the Clean Seattle program, you know, and its impacts.

And in the memo it said, would not change the team's response times because they haven't been filled.

Could one also add a sentence afterwards?

Nor would it improve the response times by not filling the positions.

Could we add that sentence afterwards?

That would be accurate.

For sure.

I bring this up because as we'll see in other parts of the budget, whether it's parks, transportation, other areas, as it relates to this important mission area, there's that drip, drip, drip of decisions that negatively impact the ability to improve our neighborhoods under that mission set of the unified care team on the streets of these neighborhoods.

And tied to that, too, on page 3, just above it, is the street cleaning services program, which is going to cut 7 percent.

It's interesting, because earlier this year, we had a press conference just outside these doors here.

It was about North Aurora.

And the question I got as part of that press conference is, what do you think?

And I said that I didn't really have any confidence in the city to really change where we are related to that chronic problem of North Aurora.

Another area that tied to that, and that was part of my remarks that day, was Little Saigon.

And Little Saigon has just finished its 90-day, and I'm hearing that things haven't changed.

And I see here that Little Saigon is going to be, is part of the cut in terms of services, cleaning services.

And in terms of the public safety posture of our streets, and Little Saigon being one of the main areas, you know, oh, this is a focus area.

We're going to add more street cops.

We're going to clean.

and here the budget is showing that Little Saigon is going to be impacted by a reduction of cleaning services.

Is there any more detail on that that was given from the executive?

I don't have any additional detail and I'm happy to look for more.

Do you have particular areas that you'd like us to focus on?

Well, it kind of goes to, you know, the comprehensive approach kind of angle.

Like, you know, when we do have these, you know, this is in partnership, and I recognize, you know, this is the executive's piece here, but, oh, we're gonna do this on Little Saigon, we're gonna do this on North Aurora, our streets are problematic, and then we're gonna have this 90 day, and then 90 days comes and goes.

But on top of that, we have these budget decisions.

I said earlier, we have these inflection points.

By the Seattle was an inflection point.

The removal of Chief Barnes and now the search for a new chief is an inflection point.

And the biggest inflection point of all is the budget, because this is where we see what is happening.

And as I said this morning, this is, at least from a public safety side of things, this is the unfund budget.

and this is another example where we're seeing this unfunding and this has an impact on Little Saigon.

So I have no question except maybe the executive can explain how does this help get us to a solution on Little Saigon.

I would argue that it doesn't.

I guess that's a little bit of a rhetorical question.

for that.

The other point here tied to these, too, is that we have this kind of relationship where we do the public-private partnerships.

You know, we have the DSA, the Mid-Ambassador Program.

I was just at the Sea Star, which is the kind of public safety hub, as they call it, at the Convention Center, because it mentions here on the same topic, you know, the Convention Center, you know, the Pike-Pine Corridor.

in my own district.

You know, so we're trying to improve things in this public-private partnership.

Again, with the Mid-Ambassador Program, those guys do great pieces, because I can take you to Pike and First.

If you're there at midnight, two, three, four, five, it is incredible, incredibly sad.

And then the Mid-Ambassadors come in, next thing you know at 839, oh, everything's great.

and further up the corridor, you know, as we go to the Convention Center and beyond into Cap Hill.

And what are we saying to our partners when we're trying to have these private partners improve what's happening on our streets and at the same time we're having cuts?

What is the message the executive is sending?

by reducing SDOT's ability to participate in that partnership.

Again, technically rhetorical questions.

But I know Upstairs is watching, so they can come in and answer at some point.

But it's an important point that nobody's talking about, but I think we should talk about it.

From a public policy point of view, hey, we're embarking on all these public-private partnerships efforts.

important as it relates to our streets, SDOT's role in public safety here.

I've said this before, switching subjects, the automatic traffic safety cameras, important piece.

And by the way, this has come up, transportation cameras.

There's only about 100 that have been connected into the real-time crime center.

The non-public ones are not part of it, partly because the cameras weren't really suited for the real-time crime center.

So that is, there was a lot of reporting on that.

And a lot of that reporting was kind of off base.

It wasn't baked enough, to be frank.

But the OIG report does highlight that we have to do more work.

And the whole issue of SDOC cameras is important.

And that's something that we're gonna look at in the Public Safety Committee in partnership with my vice chair who chairs transportation.

to ensure that those T's are crossed and I's are dotted.

But in terms of the automatic traffic safety cameras, I think this is great.

My only concern is, and again, this doesn't really fall to the SDOT portfolio, but is what happens to the Seattle Municipal Court because it's kind of like SDCI.

They're going to be in a problematic position because they're anticipating money coming in, and there may be a flood at the beginning and then it trails off and it's, you know, they may be in the SDCI kind of, you know, in terms of the permits and so forth, that kind of process.

Colleagues, I'm just highlighting this as a topic that we should be considering and thinking about or asking questions of the executive.

Another area of this presentation and more the memo is the Council District Fund.

I think this is a great program that my colleague put together and I don't know, perhaps our SDOT friends would say yes because it gives a little different look angle.

All my projects within the district fund were all Vision Zero projects, whether it's in Uptown or Queen Anne or Magnolia.

I would argue that they were positive in terms of what SDOT was doing as respects to traffic safety, pedestrian safety.

And I know there's a piece here to, you know, they've zeroed it out because it's quote-unquote one-time spending.

And again, generally I appreciate what Director Pernucci is doing from a budgeteering perspective.

But this is an area where I think we've had a lot of positive impacts.

I think for District 7, I can say that.

And I think when these projects are going to be butted in, they're going to be like, this is great in terms of what we're trying to do in these neighborhoods.

and so that is a key area, so I just wanted to highlight that.

Another piece in here too was, well, before going to the capital program, the Southlake Union streetcar.

I had last week a budget listening, a budget office hours, if you will, in South Lake Union.

And they came up, they had a lot of questions about the South Lake Union streetcar.

I know it's a pretty controversial topic and it's tied in as well with ST3, 4, whatever it ends up being as well.

But they had some ideas in terms of how can they use the South Lake Union streetcar to better the the neighborhood of South Lake Union, the kind of additional greater downtown neighborhood, a center of activity, by the way, and a generally better public safety posture.

And one of the points that was raised was, can we learn lessons of the monorail, particularly as the monorail is now used, like with the Kraken and Climate Pledge and so forth.

Is there things that we could do with the South Lake Union streetcar similarly to the monorail.

I don't have the answer to that, but I just noted the money that we are spending on the South Lake Union Streetcar, which is arguably not a really good return on investment, but if we were to look at other opportunities and maybe piggyback off the monorail experience, recent experience, I think we could maybe find some other opportunities for the South Lake Union Streetcar in terms of increasing ridership and so forth.

Chair, just one last thing.

Just as I noted before, on the capital program, bridges are very important.

The Magnolia Bridge, both the repair plus figuring out what we're going to do with that.

And tied to that is the emergency access connecting southern Magnolia to the marina, inner bay, and then therefore the city.

Super important to work on that.

And one area that kind of falls under my maritime strategic priorities is the freight program.

I know it's a small, well, it could be considered small because it's one part of the overall freight program, but the freight mobility program being reduced 12 percent.

We need to be, in this times of budgetary challenges, the maritime piece is so important for our revenue, and we should be looking to support the maritime enterprise here in our city as a way to ensure that on the revenue side that we have strong revenue coming in, and we should look for opportunities to improve that.

When it comes to transportation, the freight program is huge in that area.

Chair, just some observations, some rhetorical questions.

Again, thank you, Ms. Allen, for nodding your head.

I recognize the answer.

Maybe Ms. Laborde can answer behind you or folks upstairs or across an SMT.

Thank you, Councilmember Kettle.

Committee table, anything to share in response?

Any reflections?

Fair enough.

Councilmember Rivera, followed by Juarez.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for being here and answering our questions.

And thank you both Amanda and Tracy for jumping into SDOT's issue ID.

I, well first off, I appreciate my colleagues' comments and I don't disagree.

I'm gonna share, I'm a little frustrated because I feel like, and this keeps happening, council gets requested to basically, this to me is like a bailout, and yet we're only just finding out in the last couple weeks and this is important to note for the record because our constituents don't know.

Like they assume we know these things but we do not.

So I did not know up until a couple weeks ago right during the budget as part of the budget process that SDOT was operating basically in the red in this way.

This is a new development for council and that's important for constituents to know.

My first question is, how long has the executive in the department known this because we were not told this?

I can't answer that specific question, but I do want to point out that part of this is about running a deficit in specifically the transportation fund.

So overall, there is money.

The money is there.

It's not in this accounting fund, which is taking all the hits and trying to process all the money.

So not to disappoint your point, but just to- Understood Cal, but we're just finding out exactly what the situation is today and being asked to figure out, you know, or to approve this in our fund loan piece in order to backfill because we don't have reserves.

So there is a lot here that we're just finding out more recently.

And I'm wondering, because I heard you say part of this issue, well first of all we don't know all the causes so let me just start there.

We don't know all the causes, there's this pretty big thing that has been disclosed and then there's a significant amount of money, 63.5 million, that's a significant amount of money to be asking for us to approve ahead of time an Interfund loan for the department and the executive to draw from as they think necessary.

So I definitely support putting guardrails in place because we, as I just disclosed, we don't always know what's happening in real time.

And so if we don't put guardrails in place, that's our only opportunity to find out what is happening in real time because otherwise folks aren't prophylactically coming to us as I believe they should hey let us flag this for you because you will have to deal with this at come budget time.

So I guess Cal that is really my source of frustration is when council finds these things out.

So I don't know when the IDT knew about this situation I suspect obviously before budget but we weren't told then and I don't know before then when the department and the executive knew about the situation that they could have flagged for us sooner.

I guess that's my point.

So I do think that council had an awareness of the transportation fund challenges because we authorized in 2020, was it?

The first Interfund loan of $25 million that they were paying off over the last few years and with the last, I think payment happened in December of 2025. So I think there was some awareness that the transportation fund was having challenges.

Now it may not have had awareness that starting in 2026 after the Interfund loan was paid off, that we continue to have those challenges.

But when I'm looking at the budget materials and financial plans, I looked at last year's financial plan and it was a negative balance and projected for it to be negative balance for this year and the coming years.

This year, I'm looking at the financial plan and it is not negative.

It is now showing a positive going forward from 2028 on.

So I'm not sure to what extent as the historian here.

I do think that, you know, that just speaks to actually the same issue that you have is that, you know, you're presented with the how do we fix it sort of at the end without sort of knowing along as you get along, you know, what's the path, what's the chart?

What Tracy is mentioning is that it was known that we were in a bad situation last year.

Similar to the general fund, we did not show balanced budgets going out into future years.

That was also true for the transportation fund.

So yes, there were some warning lights, but it wasn't described in the same way as running this deficit for how many days and that type of thing.

nor that we didn't have the reserves nor that I didn't know about the 2020 interloan fund because obviously many of us weren't here in 2020 except for Councilmember Juarez and so

You were here?

And Chair Strauss, apologies.

But the majority of us were not.

And then even more recently, we have newer members of the council.

So at the end of the day, this information needs to be given to the council ahead of time so that we know and not made the assumption that because this happened in 2020, we would know what the situation was.

That is a source of frustration, Cal, and thank you for acknowledging that it is, I mean, it is troublesome to be here being asked to approve another inter-fund loan of this amount and not having been flagged that sooner.

I mean, the department could have.

Okay, so let's put that aside.

So the other pieces on the district fund, many of us saw that as an opportunity to help our constituents be able to fulfill projects we knew were not going to get done unless we allocated money.

Really appreciate Council Member Saka for his leadership as transportation chair.

to really support this fund and build it as part of the levy, quite frankly, transportation levy a couple of years ago.

So in my district, for instance, I identified a project for the fund that wasn't gonna get done otherwise, still hasn't gotten done.

Constituents have been waiting 10 years or have been asking for 10 years SDOT to do this vision zero type project.

It's basically a traffic circle.

And nope, can't do it, don't have the money, don't have the money, don't have the money, and so I identified the money, still hasn't gotten done.

So it is hard for the department to come and to hear about this situation and then feel like I'm being asked to give another approval for an inter-fund loan, all the while the projects that we're requesting aren't getting done, even when we do identify the money for it.

Same with last year's budget where I identified, you know, I asked the department to do a traffic calming on Sandpoint Way, and they didn't do it.

They needed to talk to the state.

They needed to talk to our emergency departments.

in order to get this project done.

It was traffic calming.

There's all this speed racing that has happened in that area.

They didn't talk to the state.

They didn't talk to our emergency departments and then come back, no, can't do the project because of these issues.

Yes, we've identified that it is a state road and that you'll have to talk to the emergency departments but there was no evidence nor did they tell me when they talked to me directly that they had talked to those agencies in order to figure out can we do some traffic calming there?

So this is a source of frustration.

I'm frustrated on behalf of my constituents who ask for these improvements.

They are safety focused and then there's no resolve even when we do put things in the budget.

That's a second piece, but it does increase my level of frustration then when I'm being asked to approve an Interfund loan in the amount for them to continue doing their work.

And yet I feel like you're not giving service to the constituents that I represent in the district.

So this is a source of frustration as well.

That's not a question.

That is a comment.

but I feel really strongly that as SDOT is moving forward as these causes for why this is happening is important.

I get Cal what you're saying in terms of we have to identify the causes and then potential solutions before we can get to the next part but I am frustrated ever not just on this department, other departments as well, that sometimes I do think council doesn't have the full information.

And we're like the last people to find things out, I almost feel like.

And that's not a great position to be in.

And I understand that sometimes something occurred six years ago but you can't make the assumption that we know that and I understand that every year we balance our budget and we know we have to balance every department's budget but I wasn't going to assume that the situation was as bad as this because I didn't know and we didn't have the conversation.

If we did it was not in a manner that really we have this inter-fund loan that's coming to an end and we will have to re-up it to this level.

So those are pieces of information that would have been helpful to have sooner rather than later.

So I am simply stating that having council have information sooner rather than later across the board and especially as regards SDOT is really important and that is not happening.

So that along with the frustration of these projects that we ask for in our districts and they do not happen.

so SDOT is not gardening you know they're not occurring any favors with our constituents when this level of problem is identified and yet they're also constituents don't feel like they're getting the service so thank you chair for letting me speak because this is really our opportunity to tell our constituents what is going on otherwise there's really no opportunity and I don't want to leave it on the table that we know things that we don't that the executive knows and we don't get told with what I feel is appropriate appropriate notice amount of notice so I look forward to hearing more about what caused this and and where we're at, putting more guardrails on inter-fund loan.

And then more importantly, how the department's gonna deliver on these district projects moving forward.

Because if we're going to say yes to this loan, I expect that our constituents in every district is going to get service.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Does the committee table have anything to share?

I will just say on the front of the district projects, we did receive information from SDOT saying that they anticipate that more than half of the projects that were identified by the council members will be delivered in 2027, with the remaining finishing up in 2028.

Thank you, Amanda.

Well, Council Member Juarez, you're up next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So let me get on camera here.

First of all, thank you, Tracy and Kelvin, and I understand, I apologize, but I understand that Bill is in the audience as well.

So again, Mr. Chair, I just want to put some things in context about North Aurora, this chronology working with SPD, SDOT, and the Mayor's Office.

and our lack of a plan to address the gun violence and criminal activity on North Aurora in regards to the street closures.

So please just bear with me, I will try to be brief.

Between May and June, the neighbors took it upon themselves, DIY, do it yourself, they closed streets due to gun violence and criminal activity, sex trafficking, et cetera.

On June 11th, and I still have my notes in front of me, we had a press conference with Council President, City Attorney, Chief Farnes, Mayor Wilson, Council Member Kettle, and Council Member Rivera, et cetera.

After the press conference on July 8th, thank you, Mayor Wilson, she signed the legislation which allowed SDOT to close streets on recommendation of the Chief of Police if indeed there was criminal activity.

So we can close streets for a lot of reasons, but now we added to the menu criminal activity.

So, we have been in contact with sending emails with SPD and the Mayor's Office on September 8th, September 14th, September 15th, September 21st, and September 29th, where we sent emails not only to SDOT, and thank you Bill for being attentive and responding, but also the Mayor's Office.

We did get a response on October 5th from SPD responding to our October 1st again on an update of these streets.

So as of today's date, October 14th, there are seven streets that are closed.

Let me just go through them quickly.

96th is a temporary I won't go into the shootings on one on 105th, in which the cameras were shut off.

It's another issue for another day.

So basically, on North Aurora, from 96th, 97th, 98th, 100th, 101th, 102th, and 107th, seven streets, every street except for six, is a temporary full disclosure.

And again, Bill, I know you're there.

I can't see you, but I heard that you were there.

We have yet to know what the plan is. since May, June, press conference, passed the law in July, multiple correspondence.

We still do not have a plan for what we're gonna do about those streets.

So it isn't just constituents in D5, it's the whole city because Aurora is a state highway.

So it's, all of Aurora up into Shoreline south of D5 and D6 and of course all the way down to the city limits and then some but those seven streets that I point out we have yet to have a plan any plan on the temporary streets and what we're going to do about those let alone funding so I'm hoping that the mayor's office and again I'm not picking on the Mayor's Office or SDOT or SPD.

I'm trying to respond to the people that live on these streets that want to know, and this was going on before May, June.

This was building from January when we were meeting with the City Attorney's Office and the King County Prosecutor's Office.

So we are at a breaking point about what is SPD and SDOT and the mayor's office going to do about these seven streets where there are temporary closures about what you're going to do with these streets.

We're just waiting.

So that's more of a statement.

Hopefully somebody will get back to us again and let us know what's going on.

And then I do have one question.

kind of a basic nerdy one.

On the Interfund loan, what is the interest rate between the city, or is there an interest rate issue there on the Interfund loan between the departments?

They're estimating a 4% interest rate or whatever the current interest rate is that's charged to the city's consolidated cash pool.

Okay, so 4%.

Yeah, so I think it's important for the public.

Yeah, but it will be somewhat, yeah.

And we've done a lot of those, Tracy, with MPD, general fund, back over to parks.

So I think people should know that they are going to get paid back with interest.

And that's a very common municipal tool that people use, including tribes, to loan money to each other, knowing that there's a healthy or a fair interest rate to go ahead and loan to another department, knowing that they're going to get it back.

So I guess my last comment is, again, I just want to work with the Mayor's Office SDOT and SPD to address these seven streets.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Anything from the committee table at this time?

Colleagues, any additional questions?

I can go through some of mine.

Seeing none at this time.

Just a couple of questions.

Council Member Kittle, is that old hand?

Old hand.

Old hand?

Thought so.

Does this budget assume the passage of the Seattle Transit measure?

Yes, it does.

Okay, thank you.

And how much of this budget is dependent upon REIT?

We know that REIT has been downturning in the past bit.

If it was to continue downturning, what are we looking at?

Do we have to just delay projects or where are we at there?

So on page six of the memo, the fund appropriation summary, it lists out REIT 1 and REIT 2, but REIT 2, 2027 proposed right now is 15.2 million.

I think you had a follow-up to that, no?

If that REIT disappears, what do we do?

Is it just projects get delayed?

I would say it depends on where this funding is allocated, whether they're delayed or whether there's a way to spread the reduction so that if they have other funding sources allocated to them, maybe they can continue, but just at a slower pace.

Okay.

Cal, I see you've got something- Just broadly speaking, REIT is for capital projects only.

Yeah.

And so, you know, we could- the council could consider shifting other revenues or other sources, but that would necessitate taking cuts from other sources as well.

Yeah.

So through this discussion, and I appreciate Director Panucci bringing this to the forefront, as I've been digging into this situation, this issue, the information that I'm receiving is worse than I expected.

And so when we're talking about why projects can't or can be funded, it's because a mixture of funding sources are being used and then replenished within the department.

And so through this whole experience, frankly have more questions than I have answers starting out here.

There will be a need for the auditor to look at the department and how it's functioning to provide us recommendations.

And it may also be that we need to hire an external fiscal consultant to whether it's a fiscal or forensic audit or just an external consultant to provide us direction on how to fix some of these issues because I'll just kind of leave it at that for right now because these are really serious issues.

If SDOT can't make payroll then we are in serious trouble.

If you need $59 million in a month, that says to me that you need a lot of assistance.

And that's the number that I heard today during DIMPAC is at times you could reach up to needing $59 million.

That's really serious.

At the last meeting that we had, I listed a number of different projects that I had found inefficiencies and they were not my priorities.

These were the projects that were listed in SDOT's levy delivery plan at the beginning of this last year.

that I went through with them to identify how these projects could be done better, and they weren't.

And that is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars at the end of the day.

And so we are having two things occurring simultaneously.

We are having inefficient use of tax dollars to accomplish the goals of our city, and we are having a serious fiscal issue within the transportation fund, effectively a general fund for the transportation department.

It's clear that SDOT needs a bailout and I'm here to help them out.

We're gonna make sure that SDOT is able to make payroll, to pay their bills, to continue working towards a greater financial stability, and we have to fix the problems that are occurring today.

because both from a use of taxpayer dollars in an efficient manner and strong fiscal priorities, strong fiscal abilities, we need both.

And they're two different streets, paths, sidewalks, bike lanes, however you want to call them.

They're two different routes.

I did abstain at DIMPAC today.

We had a very clear and open conversation about the additional guardrails that we'll be putting in, and this is speaking specifically to paying off the interest and making sure that it is paid off.

Tracy, you are correct in stating that we had an inkling that something was wrong when SDOC couldn't repay its last Interfund loan.

I had another inkling that I shared at the last committee meeting of being told that we have only enough Greenways money to do an additional six to eight blocks of Greenways in the next eight years, sorry, eight years in District Six.

These are indicators that there's something not going well.

And we have to make sure that the department is made whole and has a structured path to better stability.

as well as providing additional guardrails and checkpoints.

And so likely, especially for the state auditor who will probably review this tape, it is clear that it will take probably up to 10 years for this loan of $63 million to be repaid and we will be structuring this in a number of different loans so that we can ensure that other council members aren't getting caught off guard, that we have an accountability system here that is engaging with council as it is our charter duty to pass the budget.

And so we're gonna work hand in hand to make sure that SDOT is in a better place but it will look a little bit different than what was passed out of DIMPAC today.

So this repayment could take a decade and we'll need those additional check-ins with reaffirmations throughout that 10 years.

This is also not anyone's fault, any single person's fault.

I think that this speaks to the larger issue of leadership turnover in the city of Seattle and I'm kind of teasing you here, but the fact that you forgot I was here even six years ago, I mean, it just demonstrates.

It just demonstrates that in the last 10 years, we had Scott Kubley, Jerron Sparman, an additional interim director that I can't remember her name, Sam Zimbabwe, Greg Spotts, Audiam Emery, and Angela Brady as SDOT directors.

That's seven in 10 years.

That's why I don't put this at any one single individual's feet, that this is a problem that the lack of consistent leadership throughout our entire city has created and it's our job here to make sure it's fixed, to make sure that the department is stable and that they're being responsive to community needs.

I heard last night when I was in community an additional request for speed humps on residential streets and I said SDOT doesn't do that.

They pressed me for quite some time and I said if it was my decision they would.

Additionally, I think that we need to be spending more money in places where there's deaths occurring.

Rainier Avenue stands out to me that they need a lot more help than some of the other streets that are already safer.

So I don't have much more to say here.

This is just the general framing of how we will get the department through this next hurdle and that there will likely be additional accountability measures put on the department to ensure that we are working well together and that there are no surprises and that the issues that have come to the surface are addressed in a timely manner.

Before I move on to additional council members committee table, I always check back in.

Anything to share, reflect, did I get it wrong or anything you wanna say here?

Seeing none, I've got council member Foster up next, thank you.

Thank you so much chair and apologies for the late hand there's just pulling some stuff up As always thanks to central staff team really appreciate you all Thank You Amanda for your work in the presentation today If you wouldn't mind just going back to slide five please for the commercial parking tax And I think my questions fairly short I just I know this is a to Well, this is 2%.

I think we're at a 2.5% increase in commercial parking tax now.

The last one was 2%.

How does our commercial parking tax here in the city compare to other jurisdictions?

Do we have that?

I did receive some information from SDOT on other jurisdictions, kind of country-wide.

Our commercial parking tax isn't the highest.

It's not the lowest.

I'm happy to share with you the information that they've provided so that you can take a peek at the cities that they were able to provide data on.

That would be great.

I'm happy to do that as a follow-up.

And then the only other question I wanted to ask is, does the budget as proposed assume sort of a path here for the commercial parking tax, noting that the last time we increased it was in 2022 or increasing it in 2024?

Are there any assumptions about remaining flat with the commercial parking tax over the next four years?

And if so, can you just speak to those, please?

At the moment, I'm not aware of a longer term strategy being offered up by the executive.

I'm happy to ask and find out what their thoughts are.

At the moment, it's just proposed in the 2027 budget.

that makes sense and I think one thing that's been on my mind and it came up here a little bit also in SDCI is just around the predictability and I know that's something that we heard some of the other departments speak to at the table and the sort of the forward planning and I think there may be some ability for us to do that work looking out there at the potential need to increase or shift this over time and I'm just very curious about how that will to sit alongside the work that we need to do that Council Member Strauss already, that Chair Strauss already spoke to in terms of the Interfund loan and the balance in the department.

So I look forward to that.

And then I, on slide six, I think, I want to say I heard another Council Member speak to this earlier.

I think it was Council Member Kettle just in terms our ability to ensure as we implement, oh wait, actually I think you're pulling up slide six.

So this is the automatic traffic safety cameras.

And I know that we're projecting in this budget an increase in revenue.

I think we've got an increase of 9.6 million.

Yeah, an increase of 9.6 million.

I just want to make sure what information do we have in terms of Seattle Municipal Court or the appropriate staffing to ensure that we're processing the tickets that come from the traffic safety cameras and how we're sort of judging or evaluating our confidence that as we expand traffic safety cameras that we'll be able to get all of the revenue that comes from those in the door at the city.

It's a good question, council member.

I can't comment on that and we can definitely follow up maybe at a minimum with the analyst at central staff that staffs the municipal court and definitely with the department themselves.

Okay.

Deputy Director.

I don't know the specifics of what's in the proposed budget, but I do know that the issue of how the workflow goes is something that the other departments have raised their hand and said, you know, this impacts us as well.

So, you know, not just the to the police officers and the potential to use parking enforcement officers to do the citations, do the review, and then the court to actually process the claims if it goes to it, as well as, frankly, our accounting staff to kind of handle the volumes as well.

My understanding is that part of the financial planning is to provide a reserve against those types of costs too, so there is at least some financial buffer available that they could come back and ask for appropriations if they needed to move things around to address additional changes.

But largely they're showing a significant expansion of the school zone program this year, and then with the additional speed cameras, we do expect more costs for those departments, yes.

Okay, thank you.

And I think what I heard you say, Deputy Director Chow, is that while we're anticipating more costs for the other departments that are also involved in implementation of this, I think you said there's sort of a reserve or a balance that they'll be able to tap into.

So without knowing exactly, my expectation is that the size of this is built into this budget, and that's something we'll confirm and try to find out to make sure that we understand what other changes might be.

But then in addition, in the financial fund for the Traffic Safety Camera Fund, there is a reserve that is meant to acknowledge that if there are additional costs or if there are additional fluctuations, or frankly, if the revenue doesn't come in as strongly as anticipated, there is at least a reserve to help buffer that.

That's helpful.

And do we know the amount of that reserve?

I don't have it off the top of my head, but I can probably find it.

That's okay.

I'm happy to take this offline.

I mean, I think that you can tell where my questions are headed here.

I just want to ensure as we're looking at this, projected revenue increase, given that there's sort of multiple departments involved in implementing, that we have the appropriate staffing and review to feel confident that we will see the revenue projected from this.

I think I've given Calvin enough time to pull up his notes.

You did.

The reserve is 10% of revenue.

It's expected to be about $3 million in 2027. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Colleagues, any additional questions at this time?

Seeing none, Council Member Sockes, Chair of the Committee overseeing the department, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair.

And first off, let me clarify something, because I misspoke earlier when I was saying that there was a lot of things going on in the proposed budget for SDOT, and then I mistakenly conflated the Seattle Center fair monorail fair increases.

That was for Seattle Center.

That was my bad.

The central staff analyses memos were circulated, delivered yesterday afternoon.

I read them both last night side by side.

And of course, they're back to back.

the fair stuff, that's in Seattle Center's budget.

In any event, I stand by what I said, the proposition, which is there is a lot still going on in the budget, just not pertaining to the monorail or fairs.

Looking at the resolution establishing the the district project fund resolution 3-2-1-7-9 passed by council last year.

That was a joint mayoral concurrence resolution.

And the operative provisions there that govern timing of project delivery is sections 1-E and sections 2-D.

Basically one to two years, up to one to two years that's the TLDR on that one, up to one to two years.

But most projects approved for construction will be scheduled for delivery during the following year's construction window.

That represents the worst case scenario as well.

I would...

I'm hearing from my colleagues some concerns around efficiency and effectiveness of delivery of projects in this program and just other programs across the city.

And at least as it relates to this particular program, that was intended to be the drop-dead floor, with max dates.

I would hope that there are a handful of projects, depending on the volume in each of the queues for each district, I would hope that there is at least one or two projects that can and should start delivery now, before year end, because the concern that I hear expressed by my colleagues, as expressed by their constituents, and mine as well, is like, okay, I approved this as a council member six months ago, told everyone about it, and now there's confusion.

Well, why isn't it built?

And in fairness, like, to the department, some of these projects are more complex than others, and there's materials issues, all the things, and some of them are low-hanging fruit.

So...

would love for more of them to be delivered more efficiently as well, because this...

because we could have said whatever we wanted in this resolution, but we intentionally went the joint route, if you will.

But that was also intended to be the...

the bare bones and would love for these to be delivered more efficiently or at least a few in each district.

But great, great program.

I've used it for safety in my district and it's an effective program as part of our broader set of neighborhood investments, safety investments to address Vision Zero.

Appreciate the presentation again and looking forward to continue collaboration with you all colleagues to help resolve some of these challenges.

Thank you, Chair.

Well said.

Anything, any last words or reflections from the committee table today?

Seeing none.

This does bring us to the end of our meeting.

on October 15th.

We will start at 9.30 a.m.

Thank you, Council Member Foster, for being on time.

Our next committee meeting will be tomorrow morning at 9.30.

Seattle Police Department, followed by Seattle Fire Department.

Community assisted response and engagement.

That is all in the morning, supposedly.

and then in the afternoon, the human services department and unified care team.

So if you thought today was full, buckle up for tomorrow.

On Friday, we will have the revenue forecast.

We are not having an afternoon session regarding the revenue forecast.

So if you would like to come and sit in the audience Please be welcome to.

You can text me your questions.

I'll ask them on the record, but we'll go from there.

Any further business to come before the committee?

Hearing no further business, we are adjourned.

Look forward to seeing you at 9.30 a.m.

Thank you.