Select Budget Committee Session II - 10/26/22

Welcome back, everyone.

Welcome to the Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee meeting.

Today is Wednesday, October 26. The time is 2.01pm.

I'm Teresa Mosqueda, Chair of the Select Budget Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Strauss?

Present.

Council Member Herbold?

Here.

Council Member Juarez?

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Present.

Thank you.

I see Council Member Nelson is logging in as we speak.

Council Member Nelson.

And chair present.

Councilmember Morales?

Here.

Eight present.

Excuse me, Chair Mosqueda?

Present.

Eight present.

Okay, and I do see Council President Juarez also on the line here.

So just want to note her participation as well.

We will reconvene the Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee meeting.

Colleagues, we were again on our agenda for today at agenda item number nine, which gets us into Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Madam Clerk, could you please read item number nine into the record?

Agenda item nine, Seattle Park and Recreation for briefing and discussion.

Thank you very much.

Okay, Tracy, as if we haven't had enough conversations in the last few months about parks, our favorite topic this year, this fall, Thanks to you and Councilmember Lewis for leading that discussion on the municipal parks district investments.

We are here to talk about more investments for parks, so take us away.

We are, for the record, Tracy Ratzliff, Council of Central Staff.

And so that we don't toil for too many hours this afternoon, let's get right into the eight SPR budget amendments that are proposed by Councilmembers.

So the first one is SPR 2A1.

This would add $193,000 of general fund in 2023 only to Seattle Parks and Rec to fund an afterschool program for resettled and immigrant children who are predominantly low income and living in subsidized housing in Magnuson Park.

The council approved one-time funding for this program in 2022. Council Member Peterson is the primary sponsor and with additional sponsors of Council Member Lewis and Strauss.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I'm going to turn it over to Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thanks to the initial co-sponsors, Councilmembers Lewis and Strauss.

Colleagues, this amendment provides one-time funding to sustain a successful program that provides engaging after-school activities for immigrant and low-income children residing primarily at the subsidized low-income housing within Magnus Park.

Council's provision of seed money last year was such a success that King County will be contributing some funds, but not enough money to support the number of kids from last year and the hope for year-round expansion.

The program is expected to serve 40 children in the spring and fall and then expand to 80 children in the summer.

Colleagues, as you know, 850 low-income neighbors reside at the apartments inside Magnuson Park, including 350 children.

The community center has been closed for two years and won't open again for several months.

While there is an early childhood education center and some program for older youth on the sports fields, there's not much available for elementary school-aged children, particularly those kids who reside at the low-income housing within Magnuson Park.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

I'm not seeing any hands on this item.

Council President Juarez, did you have anything else you'd like to add on this one?

No, but I'm back.

Thank you.

Sorry.

You're welcome.

That's okay.

I saw you.

I saw you on the screen.

So I noted your attendance.

Oh, great.

We got you.

Thank you.

Okay, let's go ahead and move on to the next one then, 003.

SPR 3A1, this would add $200,000 of general fund in 2023 and $150,000 of general fund in 2024 to Seattle Parks and Rec to support community planning costs for the Garfield Super Block Project.

This CDA is sponsored by Council Member Sawant with co-sponsors Council Member Strauss and Council Member Morales.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to turn over to Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I've spoken about this issue a number of times, as Council Members know.

The Garfield Superblock has been a grassroots effort to create a vital civic space that honors and tells the story through art and cultural presentations of the people who have lived here over the millennia, from the Duwamish people to Black Americans today.

The Garfield Superblock, working with staff from the Parks and Recreation Department, aims to enhance the area around the Garfield Community Center, Medgar Evers Pool, and the Garfield High School with art that celebrates the area's history, new trees and walkways to ensure access for all, new, safe, publicly accessible bathroom facilities, and other urgently needed community amenities.

And when it is done and ready, it will undoubtedly be a gem for the community.

My office has been happy to work with the Garfield Superblock alongside Central District community members.

Last year, we met with the activists multiple times.

My office also launched a community petition that garnered over 600 signatures.

We sent four mass emails encouraging people to speak in public comment and explaining why the Superblock would be a wonderful project for the Central District community.

I've also personally had the opportunity to speak at a GSP event outside the Garfield Community Center last summer, while community organizers from my office were talking to community members about getting actively involved in advocating for the funds that are needed.

Last year, the People's Budget Campaign won pre-development funding for the Garfield Superblock to prepare the designs of the project, thanks to all the People's Budget activists and the Central District residents who who helped with this, this month on October 11, the Garfield Superblock met with the Parks Department and had their designs for the project approved.

The Parks Department will partially fund the project and is expected to be completed by the end of 2024. They have received or have a plan to receive almost all the funding they need to complete the project, including Metropolitan Parks District funding.

This budget amendment will fill one small remaining unfunded need.

$1,000 in 2023 and $150,000 in 2024 to finish support for the planning costs of the Superblock.

And these funds will allow the Garfield Superblock staff to continue their planning work leading up to construction, specifically for artist selection, including stipends and hosting a public arts boot camp, hosting outreach events to maintain community excitement.

funding, fundraising, sorry, and advocacy for construction and the arts and project management and coordination with the parks department and the landscape architect.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Are there any additional comments on this?

I will add to, oh, excuse me, Council Member Herbold, I'll go after you.

Just a quick question.

Didn't we just add funds for this in the MPD package?

We added, I think what people thought would be capital dollars for the project, along with the Mara Desimone project.

The language in the spending plan does say for support of the Garfield Super Project.

So it is possible that that could also be used to fund this, but recognizing that it would take funds potentially away from the capital costs of that project and the Mara Desimone project.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I wanted to add in if I don't see any other hands just double checking Tracy anything else on your end.

That was not a hand.

Okay.

So thanks council member so on for bringing this forward, I really appreciate the support for this project that has wide support from council.

I also want to thank customer herbal who just chimed in for your support and including this provision in the MPD renewal package to fund the project in 2023. That was a really appreciated effort that we participated in with you through the equity fund alongside the Mara Desdemona Park project in South Park.

So I am wondering, Tracy, if this can also be funded through the $3 million equity fund we just passed.

Are you saying that this is separate, that was capital and this is separate or it could?

No, that $3 million funding includes capital, but it also includes potential funding to help with community planning, outreach of activities, feasibility studies, The policies for that money for that kind of set aside $500,000 are going to be developed by the Board of Parks and Rec Commission.

They have not been developed yet.

It probably was not envisioned to be used to fund ongoing staff or staffing like this, but I have to say that those policies have not yet been created.

And so the council might have the ability to direct the use of those funds.

Again, it would be the entire $3 million pot for 2023, in part that was targeted to be used for the capital costs of those two projects as well.

So it may have impacts to the capital funding that would be available for those two projects to be very clear.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any additional comments on this?

All right, let's go ahead and move on.

Moving on to SPR 4A1.

This would add $200,000 of general fund in 2023 and $200,000 of general fund in 2024 to Seattle Parks and Rec to purchase electric leaf blowers, and it imposes a proviso on those funds to be used for that purpose.

The primary sponsor is Council Member Peterson, joined by co-sponsors, Council Member Juarez and Council Member Swat.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

And if you'd be willing, it might be most efficient if I can also speak about the related statement of legislative intent, which is SPR 300A on page 20 of today's agenda.

I can just speak to both items now, if that's OK.

The slide just has to do that.

Or yeah, OK, thank you at the end.

So let's go ahead and have you speak to both of them and then we can circle back.

There's an additional information needed from central staff.

Thank you.

So thank you to the initial co-sponsors, Council President Juarez and Council Member Sawant.

Colleagues, I bring to you this broad coalition of support for a practical yet profound action we can take to benefit the environment, workers, and public health.

Our city's overdue transition away from harmful gas-powered leak blowers.

Together we adopted resolution 32064 to phase out the polluting and toxic fossil fuel machines.

And this budget action enables us to stand by our resolution and make it real.

So with these modest investments, the city government should be able to convert completely from gas-powered to electric-powered, especially as the parks department, the largest user of leaf blowers, implements the rest of the resolution, which includes exploring opportunities to reduce our reliance on these machines when there are other options.

So colleagues regarding the statement of legislative intent that's related to this council budget action, it's really meant to get a report back so that we know that they're reducing when and where they're using leak blowers, and that'll make it even more affordable.

And we can also decide how best to allocate that money in 2024 that we're setting aside now in the 2024 portion of the budget.

But this 200,000 is needed now in parks to accelerate the conversion so we can meet the timelines in resolution 32064. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Yes, please go ahead, Council Member Lewis.

I would like to add myself to this one, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Lewis adding himself to SPR 004. Any additional comments?

Hearing none, let's go ahead and move on.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Tracy, you are on mute.

SPR 105A1 would add $200,000 of rate one in 2023 to the Seattle Parks and Rec to fund conceptual design and cost estimates for improvements to the Ballard Commons skate park.

The primary sponsor of this proposal is Council Member Strauss, joined by co-sponsors Council Member Morales and Nelson.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

As many of thank you also colleagues last year you helped me fund the children's playground at Valor Commons Park, but I can tell you is that when the park was first built it was built with a baseline infrastructure and a lot of space because the community realized and knew at the time.

the incremental additions would need to occur over the decades.

I can tell you that since that first baseline infrastructure was put in, those incremental improvements have not happened as fast as we thought they would.

What we have now, right now at the park is a spray park that's good for kids that are zero to five.

And we have a skateboard feature that's accessible for kids that skate over 17 years old, with the children with the addition of the children's playground, we're going to have a place for kids that are five to 12. And that's going to be really great.

And that still leaves a gap from 12 to 17. What we know when the park used to be a safe way, the first iteration of a public space was a street skate area that was really accessible for kids of all ages, whether they were learning at age five or practitioning at age 17. What we have right now is a deep bowl that is not accessible for most people learning how to skate.

And so what i'm asking for here is not the full funding to create the skate park because, again, we are coming at this from an incremental approach what I am asking for today.

is funds for conceptual design and cost estimate about adding improvements for kids aged five to 15 at the Ballard Commons skate park.

This work will help ensure the park is welcoming and accessible for children of all ages.

And with these incremental approaches that we're adding the children's playground and other amenities, This is going to dovetail in very nicely.

And what I'm asking for today is simply the funds to get the cost estimate and design so that I can come back with a more robust and dialed-in request.

This is by request of community organizations like Ballard Thrasher Skateboard Club, Skate Like a Girl, and the Parents for Skate Parks and the Skate Park Advisory Committee.

Thank you, Chair.

Excellent.

Thanks, Council Member Strauss.

Any additional comments on this one?

I'm not seeing any.

All right, let's keep scooting.

No, does that work?

Does that work related to skate parks?

Yeah.

Great.

We're just going to kick push.

Am I right?

Very profound.

Moving on.

Oh my goodness, the toiling that is going on this afternoon.

SPR 106A1 would add $500,000 of REIT 1 in 2023 to Seattle Parks and Rec.

to fund the restoration of the Bell Street cottages.

Those cottages are located in the Belltown Cottage Park in downtown Seattle.

They are vacant and in need of improvements, but no actual recent formal assessment of what the cost of those improvements might be has been yet done.

Council Member Lewis is the prime sponsor of this proposal, with additional sponsors of Council Member Morales and Strauss.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you for that summary, Tracy.

These cottages have been sitting on this property for a very long time.

There's some of the last remaining examples of a type of building that used to be very common in the Belltown neighborhood way back at the turn of the century, meaning 1800s to 1900s to be more specific.

This parcel was acquired by the parks department.

around the year 2000 with the intent of eventually transferring these cottages to historic Seattle to be activated, maintained, and used as a community space.

The rest of this parcel is used by Seattle Parks and Recreation as a small pea patch community garden, and that use would continue with the Envision transfer.

For the last 20 years, This intent has not been realized and Historic Seattle estimates they need about $500,000 as part of the transfer to restore the cottages as envisioned.

This is a request not only from Historic Seattle, but also from the Belltown community.

The Belltown community has not had a active community center for the last five years, nor are there very many park amenities in the Belltown neighborhood itself beyond Bell Street Park and the sculpture park, which is actually not a city, Seattle Park, but a installation owned by Seattle Art Museum.

So this would be a way to create some new space for community gathering, community programming, and partnership between Belltown United, the Belltown Community Council, and Historic Seattle in coming forward to placemake with this request.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Any additional comments?

Please go ahead, Councilmember Nelson.

Sorry, I should have read the detail on this one.

Who owns them right now?

Seattle Parks and Recreation owns this parcel, but when they acquired it, it was with the intent to eventually do this transfer.

I don't think it was envisioned that it would take as long as it has taken to do the transfer.

Um, but parks does not, uh, to my knowledge, intend to, uh, hang on to activating, um, this asset.

They want to engage in a partnership similar to the legislation we recently approved, um, between Historic Seattle and a parcel in Beacon Hill, uh, that we recently considered where Historic Seattle is gonna own and preserve the buildings, but the surrounding land would probably still be used for the community garden activation that Parks is currently using for the space.

Thanks.

Chris, anything to add to that?

Nope.

Okay.

I think we're ready to move on to the next one.

Moving on to SPR 107A1.

This would add $10 million in REIT 1 in 2023 to Seattle Parks and Rec, to install synthetic turf at the softball fields at Inner Bay Stadium.

The prime sponsor of this amendment is Council Member Strauss, joined by co-sponsors Council Member Herbold and Council Member Lewis.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, you may remember this conversation from the Metropolitan Parks District levy where Friends of Inner Bay, which is an organization that is being built right now, is looking at expanding stadium seating at the Inner Bay Soccer Facility.

They were able to break down the improvements into three phases.

And the second and third phase are the phases that would touch the soccer stadium today.

That conversation needs to have stakeholders from all entities participate.

And while that work is underway to have that conversation, we're not ready to take any positions on that work yet.

What we do know is that phase one of this proposal sits entirely on Parks Department land.

It is re-turfing with synthetic turf the softball fields at Inner Bay so that it can be multi-sport, including softball, and that it would increase the amount of field space that is able to be used, which increases the amount of field time the Seattle Parks Department can schedule.

We all know that we're in a field deficit at this moment.

The things that are interesting about this project are that the field is already lit, so it already has lights.

What we know is that when we're looking at expanding our field access across our city, the first thing that we look at is if the field already has turf, put lights on it.

If it already has lights, put turf on it.

What I can tell you about the inter-bay softball fields is that these are some of the most rained out fields in our city.

and they already have lights.

So to not only provide us additional field time, not only to stop having these games rained out, and not only to help begin and continue this conversation about stadium expansion ahead of the World Cup, I've brought forward this proposal about providing synthetic turf at Interbay Stadium.

So this will replace the athletic complex multi-sport fields turf with synthetic turf, The softball and soccer fields already have lighting, and this improvement would extend the amount of playtime available.

And as I said before, these fields are some of the most rained out in the parks network.

This improvement will benefit many sports, many ages, many leagues, and our partners at Seattle Public Schools.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any additional comments?

I am I'm not seeing any Council Member Strauss.

I think we can go ahead and move on to the next one.

Moving on to SPR 108A1.

This would add $50,000 of REAP 1 in 2023 to Seattle Parks and Rec to address potential construction cost escalation for the Interbay Stadium Americans with Disabilities Act Improvement Project that might be generated in terms of those cost escalations if in fact the scheduled improvements are delayed in terms of the start of that project until the fourth quarter of 2023, which could happen if, in fact, some scheduling of that athletic facility interrupts the ability for that project to begin construction.

This is sponsored by Councilmember Strauss and joined by co-sponsors Councilmember Lewis and Nelson.

Thank you.

Councilmember Strauss, please go ahead.

Thank you chair, as I was just discussing about inner inner base stadium, this is the only stadium in our network that is specifically designed for soccer, and we all know that soccer is becoming more popular, and we don't have a dedicated space for it.

We also know the improvements that were made to this.

this field which allowed for the stadium seating in the first place were first of its kind in our city, and it was also built below the capacity that we are now experiencing and there are some issues that we have to fix, such as the ADA improvements, what is, to our knowledge, occurring right now is potential cost escalations.

And with increased desire for soccer-specific facilities, this is the only soccer-specific facility in our city.

And scheduling of both different leagues and schools and this construction may potentially have conflicts, which is why I'm requesting $50,000 in case there's cost escalations.

Okay, thank you.

Are there questions on this one?

We're on SPR 108. Not seeing any, Council Member Strauss.

Okay, let's continue.

Thank you, Chair.

And then moving to the final CBA, which is actually a statement of legislative intent, SPR 300A-001.

This would request the Department of Parks and Rec to report on the current practices related to leaf blowers and the use of funds appropriated in the companion council budget action SPR4A001.

This is, again, sponsored by Council Member Peterson with co-sponsors Sawant and Juarez.

Okay, thank you so much, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

And I spoke to this earlier.

It's directly related to that adding the funding for parks to convert from gas-powered leaf blowers to electric.

This just has them come back a year from now to let us know how it's going.

Wonderful.

Thanks.

I see Council Member Lewis's hand raised.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to be added to this item.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Lewis adding his name as well to SPR 300. Any additional comments?

Okay, Council Member Lewis has added his name as co-sponsor.

Thank you very much.

That brings us to the end of parks, correct Tracy.

That is it.

Okay, um, I you know I appreciate the conversation that we had earlier and Councilmember Nelson had asked about, you know, funding streams for various amendments and the central staff did a good job reminding us of where we're at in the process and not needing to identify specific funding streams at this point.

Given our conversation last month about parks, it might be helpful, Tracy, to have just a crosswalk on the amendments in parks, whether there is any corresponding funding in the Metropolitan Parks District Fund, and if there's any relation to anything we just passed there.

It doesn't have to be right now.

If you have a short answer, that's great, but if you want to follow up with us, that might be helpful too.

So I will just tell you that the one and only amendment, which you're speaking to, are the proposed amendments that have been brought forth by your colleagues.

The only one that aligns in part with what you all have just done in terms of adopting the spending plan is that one related to the Garfield Super Project.

OK, great.

Good to know.

That was a quick answer.

Thanks so much, Tracy.

All right, so we are at the end of the departments for the day, and we are gonna wrap with a discussion about some technical corrections and opportunities for us to look at budget improvement policies that could be folded into the budget deliberations this go-round.

I really wanna thank central staff for this item, and let's go right on into it.

Madam Clerk, could you read item number 10 into the record?

Agenda item 10, budget improvements and technical changes for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

So on this set of slides, I'm going to turn it over to Director Handy and I assume as well your team, but thanks Director Handy for being here.

Absolutely.

Esther Handy, Chair of Central Staff, and thanks for allowing a few minutes for us to add this to the agenda this afternoon.

As Central Staff has spent more time to understand the proposed budget over the last few weeks, we've identified a few budget amendment options for consideration as the Chair develops the initial balancing package and for you all to consider.

These are not drafted amendments, but two short categories of items that we want to brief the committee on for your awareness.

The first ones I will talk about build on the discussion from our first day of issue ID on general fund balancing on October 11th and are specifically related to planning reserves and the financial plan for the general fund.

And the second group are a handful of errors in the proposed budget that have been identified either by central staff or the city budget office that may have some policy implications so wanted to make sure we're briefing the committee on that.

So we can go to the next slide, Patty.

I'll just remind folks about planning reserves.

These are our unappropriated balances reflected in the financial plan for the general fund.

We often call them part of our unreserved fund balance.

Due to sensitive items that are generally in these planning reserves, like estimated costs for labor agreements that are under negotiation or potential legal costs for settlements, They are not formally appropriated or discussed during the budget process.

They are, however, considered part of the general fund budget when we determine whether the budget is balanced.

This year, when CBO finalized the mayor's proposed budget, there were several sort of late breaking items not related to sensitive labor negotiations or settlements that didn't have time to be made as an appropriation and are instead assumed in the total planning reserve amount.

And I'm going to walk through these four.

Central staff sort of recommends that we daylight and give the council options on these four items.

The first is that there is $4 million starting in 2024 to stand up a fourth public safety department.

The executive has shared in the Public Safety and Human Services Committee that they are expected to propose said department next year following their development of a white paper on this topic.

This item could be held for 2024 in planning reserves.

It could be appropriated into finance general, into an appropriated reserve, or it could be removed from the budget until a more detailed proposal is made.

The second item is there is half a million dollars a year reserved for fluctuation in election postage cost.

So the city pays the postage cost for our ballots.

This is in addition to what's been allocated for election costs annually in the budget.

and central staff thinks it is prudent to retain this reserve, the choices for the council are to hold it in planning reserve or move it into an appropriated reserve in finance general.

In either case, when it is needed, it can be appropriated and sort of released through a mid-year supplemental.

The third is half a million dollars a year for operating and maintenance costs for a proposed tribal interpretive center on the waterfront.

This has been discussed in the budget because there is $13 million of capital costs.

in the 2023 CIP for this project.

And the executive is wisely sort of making a placeholder of we're going to need to operate this.

There's going to be some operating costs if we build it.

And so the choices here are to hold it in planning reserve or appropriate it into a reserve in finance general.

And the last is that there is $5 million in unreserved fund balance that is assumed could be appropriated for specific council priorities in the budget through this process you are undergoing.

So we assume that that will get spent either in the balancing package or by council members.

Before I take questions, I'll just say that central staff continues to work closely with the chair and members of the Finance and Housing Committee and with our partners in the city budget office to determine the next steps we can take to continue to improve the budgeting and financial planning process to increase transparency on items like these.

With that in mind, the chair may include a slide in the balancing package stating the council's intent to refresh the guidance that the council provides to the executive on budget development.

Council members currently do that through resolution.

with the hopes of strengthening our collaboration between the executive and the council on our work to increase transparency on the budget each year.

Happy to take questions on these and then I can move to the technical edits.

Thank you so much director handy.

I also just want to really appreciate the collaboration as we've talked about before a number of times so it really lift that up right now as well between central staff and the city budget's office to get this level of detail.

I think that as we have talked with Director Panute, with Director we're going to have to look at some of the things that we need to plan for.

I'm Julie Dingley from CBO at the table.

She has a number of policy approaches that she's trying to put into place to have greater transparency.

Into the budget-making process from CBO one of which aligns with some of the strategies outlined here to really lift up some things that are below the line items that are included as line that we're looking forward to working with the budget office on as well as getting information on, for example, underspend.

Underspend in real time is something that Director Dangley talked about as well.

and central staff specifically, Esther, Director Handy, as well as Ali and Tom Mikesell from central staff for their good work on the analysis here.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and appreciate your remarks and really appreciate central staff digging into this and daylighting this.

The item with the $5 million, is that potentially Tempered, though, by the fact that we're going to be getting a revenue forecast soon that may it may end up not being favorable.

And so therefore, we might need to deal with that as well.

You're spot on, Councilmember Peterson.

If the revenue forecast received next Wednesday, November 2nd, is a negative one, as we expect it would be, this $5 million could be the first place that, you know, before the Council begins making cuts to the proposed budget of appropriated items, this could be the first place to absorb some of that.

Thank you.

Any additional comments on this?

Okay, great.

Let's move on to the next set of slides.

Great, the items listed on these next slide are errors that staff have identified in the proposed budget and options to address them.

I want to note that our colleagues in the city budget office have identified some of these as errata changes and transmitted those changes in the errata legislation.

Because some have already been discussed in issue ID and touch on some key policy issues, I wanted to make sure that committee members were aware of each of these topics.

So the first two relate to the JumpStart fund policies and were addressed in the related fund policies paper.

So we wanted to speak to the resolution on these.

The first is JumpStart housing and services.

So the fund policies require that 62% of proceeds from JumpStart are allocated for investments in affordable housing and services.

And it breaks it down into subcategories you all are familiar with.

82% for acquisition and development of affordable rental, 13% for acquisition and development of affordable rental in areas at risk of displacement, and 5% for investments in affordable homeownership in areas at risk of displacement.

The proposed budget did not accurately make the allocation.

And we understand that was by error, not an intended policy change.

So you can expect a technical update so that those housing investments are aligned to current policy.

And the second is that one of the proposed changes to the jumpstart fund policies that was transmitted with the budget would change the prioritization of funding serving households with incomes at or below 30% of AMI and increase that to 60% AMI.

After we've had further discussion with the executive, they've come to realize that that policy change is not necessary.

So that will either be changed through a technical amendment or if the alternative legislation about jumpstart realignment proposed in CBO 2A1 moves forward, it would address this issue.

Items three and four represent errors in how 2022 appropriations were treated as one-time or ongoing.

The first is funding in the Department of Education and Early Learning for mental health and BIPOC girls.

The proposed budget included $875,000 of ongoing investments that the executive intended to be one-time.

Because this has been a priority of the council, unless a council member proposes an amendment to remove this, it's likely to remain in the budget as an ongoing add, as is.

Number four was addressed in IDT 1A1, which you all discussed in committee yesterday.

That's a CBA sponsored by Council Member Peterson.

funding for two internet for all investments last year, one for digital navigators and one for the technology matching fund were described as ongoing but allocated in last year's budget as one time, so they weren't included in the base for 23 or 24. So Council Member Peterson's proposed amendment would add these to the base as an ongoing investment.

And then the last one here is an item that is not really optional unless you intend to reconvene the Metropolitan Parks District Board to amend the six-year spend plan.

As you know, the executive transmitted their budget on September 27th.

The proposed budget included funding based on the mayor's initial proposal.

Later that afternoon, the Metropolitan Parks District convened and updated that spend plan.

So a technical amendment would realign the funding in the proposed budget to what the Parks District has adopted.

As I mentioned, some of these will be included in the errata and some will be drafted by central staff.

We just wanted to brief the committee on them before we head into balancing.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Number five, can you explain how that realignment would happen?

I don't quite get it.

I understand why the difference because the two happened on the same day.

Does money have to come from somewhere that is not already in existence?

And then does that require changing the rate to the MPD?

Nope.

All it does is to appropriate the funds to the right BSLs in the actual city budget document.

What you all adopted was the six year spending plan for the park district.

What we now need to do then is to have those changes reflected in the actual city budget.

which is again, only about the park district funding because that's all we're talking about here as it relates to the spending plan is the changes you made to the park district.

Nope, it doesn't change the amount.

The amount is still the same, all the spending category is the same.

You will in fact see this CBA, not that you will care about, but in the details, the transaction is very much mapped to the changes you all specifically made and you will be able to see those in the CBA.

Thank you.

Any additional comments?

All right, Director Handy, I'm not seeing any additional comments.

Any closing thoughts here?

No, I just want to thank the opportunity you all for the opportunity to sort of add this into this week as we wanted to make sure we're sort of being transparent about the process, even though there are formal amendments drafted and look forward to continue talking about these pieces as we move into balancing.

Wonderful.

Any comments?

Okay, we are at the end of the agenda.

That gets us through item number 10 on our agenda.

And as a reminder, tomorrow, we have only four departments, but a number of amendments.

So we're going to have the Community Safety and Communication Center section, the Human Services Department, the Seattle Department of Transportation, and then we will conclude with Seattle Police Department.

And again, tomorrow's Probably going to be a long day.

We've ended a little early, both the last two days.

So please plan to be here at least until 5 p.m.

and give yourself a little bit of a buffer because we make a lot.

We will make sure to have an hour break for lunch and do everything we can to end by 5 p.m.

Are there any additional comments for the governor?

Thank you for your profound thoughts, your incredible commitment to the city, colleagues, as we talk about areas where we may have disagreement, but we know that everybody's interested in serving our city and making our most vulnerable the priority in these investments.

So thanks for your concepts that you've submitted via amendments, and let's wrap this up tomorrow with a robust discussion.

Take care, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.

We'll see you tomorrow morning at 9.30 a.m.