Select Budget Committee Session I 10/16/20

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

Here.

Strauss.

Present.

Sawant.

Here.

Herbold.

Here.

Juarez.

Here.

Lewis.

Morales.

Here.

Chair Mosqueda.

Here.

Levin, present.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

I also want to wish our Council President well.

I know that she is feeling under the weather and is excused from today's meeting as well.

I want to thank you all for being here.

If there's no objection, today's Select Budget Committee meeting agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

And thanks again.

Welcome back to the Select Budget Committee, our day two of the four-day period where we are looking into issues that have been identified by council members.

This is our chance to signal various issues that we may be bringing forward, either areas for concern or areas for addition.

Today, we'll be hearing from the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, the Department of Neighborhoods, the library, and then this afternoon at our 2 p.m.

session, We will go into miscellaneous sections.

An overview of this afternoon will incorporate a number of different departments that do not have separate presentations.

The central staff will present the issues and the options that they have identified through their own independent analysis first.

If you had the chance to read through the various memos, you'll see the issues that central staff is identifying as possible areas for us to take action on and or concerns first, and then they are going to go into various individual council members proposals from their form A's that were submitted.

Thanks again for all of your work to submit form A's.

I appreciate all those who got the chance to submit those form A's on time.

And we do have a lot of Form A's this year, about 158 Form A's, and not a lot of time.

So again, I'm asking you to be very brief in your remarks.

I will give you a chance to say one or two sentences on those issues after central staff has given them a brief overview once we get to that portion of the agenda.

Again, I want to make sure that folks know we will have ample time for debate and discussion on Form B's.

And during Form B's, we will then be signaling interest in signing in signing on as co-sponsors for various issues that are being brought forward.

I want to make sure that folks know that the conversation that we're having today about Form A's, these ideas do not have to be self-balancing.

This is truly your chance to put any ideas out there that you just want to signal for possible future discussion.

And they do not have to be self-balancing, which is different than future forms.

I want to make sure that they get clarification on that.

Today, I look forward to hearing from all of you.

And I know many of our council colleagues are going to be in listen mode and in learning mode.

There's a lot to unpack here.

And this is really important that you all are able to share any initial ideas that you have.

You don't have to obviously share all of your ideas at this point, but this point, this is an opportunity for us to point to where future conversations may lead and really appreciate your engagement on these tough discussions that are going to be forthcoming.

today help set up those discussions on the horizon.

I wanna thank everyone again for your patience as we do try to have public testimony at the beginning of each of these meetings to ensure that those who are not able to join us for our full public hearings, again, large public hearing on Tuesday, the 27th at 5.30 p.m.

Hope folks will join us there as well, but we wanna make sure that public comment is available for all different types of home and work and community responsibilities.

We offer 30 minutes at the beginning of our meetings here at the Select Budget Committee.

We're going to open up the remote public comment period here, and we will continue to do so throughout the time for the Select Budget Committee convenings throughout 2020 fall session here.

And it's going to be our effort to try to continue to improve access to the system.

So if you are having any trouble, please do email teresa.mosqueda at seattle.gov or the email link that you received when you signed up for public testimony.

The public comment period, we are going to go ahead and give folks two minutes for the public comments this morning.

We do not have a ton of folks, around a dozen, who have signed up for public testimony.

I'm going to call three speakers at a time in the order in which you have registered on the website, and if you have not yet signed up but would still like to, there is still time to go to Seattle.gov backslash council and sign up.

The link is also on today's committee agenda.

Once I call your name, you will be unmuted by the system, but you do still need to hit star six on your phone to make sure that your end is unmuted and make sure that you also have hit the unmute button as sometimes I think we hit star six, but we're still muted on our end.

So make sure you double check for that.

Again, you're going to hear 10 seconds at the end of your allotted time.

That's your indication to wrap up your comments so that we don't the public comment section.

We ask you to disconnect from the line and if you would like to continue Public comment period is now open and the first three speakers are Derek Bonifilia, Denise Harn-Harnley and Rich Vogt.

Good morning Derek.

Thanks for being with us today.

Hi.

My name is Derek and I'm a renter in the University District in D4 and a member of Sunrise Movement Seattle.

I'm calling today in support of the solidarity budget We're standing together to dismantle anti-Black racism in this city, to build a livable future for all of us through an anti-racist Green New Deal, and to build a city that takes care of everyone, in particular, its most vulnerable community members through this pandemic, its associated economic crisis, and the crises that are yet to come.

And in this, we're calling on you to pass a budget that defunds SPD by at least 50% using this money to fulfill Jenny Durkin's promise of $100 million to the Black community, and allocates this money and all new funds for Black communities and community-led health and safety systems through participatory budgeting, and preserves all vital services in the city, reversing all proposed cuts to transportation, parks, COVID relief, and other vital services.

And I also want to express that in addition to these concrete demands for this budget cycle.

I feel like it's really important that this budgeting cycle is getting used to build a government that everyone here in Seattle can really start to trust and depend on.

And I feel like for this to happen, it's really important that the commitments that have been made in recent months of protest get kept and just follow through there.

And whether that's the $100 million in new money to black communities from the mayor, or the super majority of council members committing themselves to defunding SPD by 50%, I hope that we can follow through on those commitments and that we can use this budget cycle to start building a city and a government that works for all of the people in Seattle.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you for calling in this morning.

The next person is Denise.

Good morning, Denise.

Hello.

I'm Denise Harnley, Chair of the Seattle Neighborhood Group Board.

Thank you, Honorable City Council Members, for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the South Park Crime Prevention Coordinator position.

The community-based South Park Safety Coordinator position is exactly the model of a reimagined public safety policy in action.

Concrete examples of a reimagined public safety policy are the things that the coordinator has been doing just in the last few months to involve residents and build community.

He has worked with neighborhood youth in creating vibrant murals in the heart of South Park.

He's coordinated cleanups and helped to create humorous signs to alert drivers to slow down on the residential heavily streets heavily impacted by the West Seattle Bridge closure.

And at the same time he works as a liaison with the city transportation staff.

During these long months of the pandemic the coordinator has provided support to residents by connecting them with appropriate resources and assisting with food distribution.

Central South Park Roots is an exciting newsletter in Spanish, Vietnamese, and English that tells neighbors what is happening as well as providing safety and resource information.

He provides a forum for South Park residents to speak up and openly talk about their experiences around policing and what they see as alternatives to traditional policing.

The coordinator is giving residents a platform and a voice in this critical issue.

I hope you will continue to invest in the South Park Crime Prevention Coordinator position.

This is an investment that works.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for calling in today.

And the next person is Rich Voget.

Good morning, Rich.

My name is Rich Voget and Supporters of the solidarity budget say that some of the funds diverted from defending funding the police should go to the Seattle Green New Deal.

So let's get specific.

First fund the oversight board composed of low income marginalized community members.

Now I'll read portions of the flyer written by Dot Green on implementing a Seattle Green New Deal.

They call for fair green jobs for all.

We can utilize priority hire project labor agreements and be sure jobs are accessible to undocumented folks and folks with criminal records.

Those jobs can be in weatherizing and retrofitting current housing stock to be energy efficient and powered by renewable energy.

Housing development that serves the needs of people facing housing insecurity and doesn't displace them.

Transit for all, equitable expansion of free public transit that is powered by renewable energy.

This includes the end to fare and fare enforcement within city limits.

Clean and cool air, the long haul vision of stopping climate change means clean air and water for all.

The flyer advocates paying for some of this by congestion pricing.

Mayor Durkin in 2018 climate plan calls for congestion pricing.

It's time to put that into action.

I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Thanks for calling in today.

The next three speakers are Thomasina Schmidt, Carly Gray, and Neil Anderson.

Thomasina, good morning.

Hello, my name is Thomasina Schmidt, and I'm the executive director for Seattle Neighborhood Group, a local nonprofit dedicated to public safety and community building.

I'm calling in support of continued funding in the 2021 budget for the community-based public safety coordinator position in the South Park neighborhood.

This position was the top priority recommendation in the 2017 South Park Public Safety Task Force report, which was funded by the city council.

Our city is in a unique time with community demanding changes with policing and a reimagined approach to public safety.

The role of a community-based public safety coordinator is a golden opportunity to move in this new direction of reimagined public safety.

This is a full-time position with a coordinator who lives in the South Park neighborhood and who is well known in the community.

His current priorities include facilitating community safety dialogue around South Park's experience with policing and alternatives to police in South Park, street and safety concerns due to the West Seattle Bridge closure, business district concerns, and youth engagement.

He's also coordinated community support during COVID and organized community cleanups, youth murals, and neighborhood walks.

We know this budget cycle is tough and hard decisions are being made.

We respectfully ask the City Council to consider reinstating funding for the South Park Public Safety Coordinator position.

Thank you for your consideration.

I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you for calling in this morning.

Carly, good morning.

Thanks for calling in.

Hi, my name is Carly Gray.

I'm a renter in Andrew Lewis's District 7. I'm also a member of Sunrise Movement Seattle and a member of UAW 4121. And I'm speaking today to ask you to amend Mayor Durkan's proposed budget to reflect the demands that community have been proposing for the last six months, rather than moving forward with her austerity budget.

I'm echoing what others have said and asking that first, the budget must defund the Seattle Police Department by at least 50% and reinvest these funds in black communities and community-led health and safety systems.

The $100 million proposed by Mayor, or promised, excuse me, by Mayor Durkin is step one.

We must continue to move our city towards abolition of policing and prison systems, and our money must reflect those priorities.

Second, the money divested from police and the $100 million promised by Mayor Durkin must be allocated through participatory budgeting, not a task force that's handpicked by the mayor.

Third and finally, the revenue from Jump Start Seattle should remain dedicated to COVID-19 relief, affordable housing, and Green New Deal investments.

The $100 million Mayor Durkin promised should come from divestments from the city's policing budget, not Jump Start funds.

I stand with 60 plus organizations who have signed on to a solidarity budget, which outlines these three key amendments to the mayor's budget proposal.

We deserve a budget that prioritizes true public safety solutions, not reactive policing that introduces violence to our communities and perpetuates white supremacy.

Those closest to problems are often most close to the solution.

So it's time that we uplift and we fund solutions from Seattle BIPOC leaders.

Thank you, and I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you for calling.

Thank you for calling.

Neil, good morning.

Hi, my name is Neil Anderson, and I'm calling in support of the solidarity budget.

In the conversation around defunding the police, there's a lot of talk about whether they should always be the first ones responding to calls, especially when they involve people with mental illness or drug addiction.

This isn't a new idea, though.

Eugene, Oregon made this change 30 years ago.

It started as a small group of volunteer medics and social workers who provided counseling to people in crisis.

And they were so effective that the city's emergency services department started routing some of their 911 calls to them instead of police.

Now they handle 20% of those calls.

And even the police chief has said, when they show up, they have better success than police officers do.

Which makes sense.

In situations where emotions are running high, sending someone who's trained in mental health counseling is much more effective at calming the situation than someone who's armed, even if they're trying to de-escalate.

And given that 25% of the people killed by police show signs of mental illness, a lot of the interactions that go wrong start in situations like these.

Some people are worried about responders going into potentially dangerous areas and getting hurt.

But in Eugene, that hasn't happened.

And last year, only half a percent ended up needing police backup.

Since the people who show up are better trained for the situation that they're going into, it ends up being safer for everyone.

And this wouldn't just shift resources from one department to another.

This would cost much less overall.

In Eugene, they handled that 20% of the 911 calls.

at a cost of just $2 million compared to 91 million for the city police budget.

And by helping people navigate the mental health and social services systems, they see even more in the long run by preventing future crises.

We just found out yesterday that we now have fewer officers to respond to 911 calls.

Let's not send them into situations that they don't need to be there for.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in today.

The next person is Emily.

Good morning Emily.

Hello.

Hi Emily.

Thanks for calling in.

Go ahead.

Hi.

My name is Emily Graham and I am a renter in District 3 and also a member of Sunrise Seattle.

In accordance with the solidarity budget principles I'm calling to urge you to divest from SPD by at least 50 percent this budget cycle and to support distribution of those funds divested from SPD through a participatory budgeting process rather than by a appointed task force.

I'm also asking you to make sure that investments in Black communities and community led health and safety come from funds divested from police prosecutors and courts and not from jumpstart Seattle funds or any other city funds.

The Green New Deal investments made possible by JumpStart Seattle funding are crucial to our long-term health and our ability to shift away from fossil fuel pollution in the decades to come.

It is not acceptable to withdraw $100 million from the JumpStart funds as Mayor Jenny Durkan has proposed, and this measure cannot be allowed to pass through the budget cycle.

Additionally, police do not generate public safety.

Community does.

When our communities feel unsafe and harassed due to excessive police presence, they are unable to thrive.

Seattle is also in crisis due to the COVID pandemic.

To continue excessively funding police departments instead of community services while people in our city are struggling with unemployment inability to pay rent homelessness and illness is frankly a slap in the face to communities that are struggling to survive.

Please provide necessary community services rather than continuing to pour money into a harmful police department.

Over 60 organizations around Seattle have endorsed the solidarity solidarity budget that I've outlined.

This is a position that the community is embracing.

I ask City Council to have the courage to be national leaders in dreaming of a brighter future for Seattle by defunding police to fund the community and by continuing to fund Jump Start Seattle throughout all of this.

Thank you and I yield my time.

Thanks so much for calling in today.

The next three speakers I'll just read the last four.

The last four speakers I have signed up to testify are Howard Gale June Bluespruce and Ellen Labutz.

And our last speaker will be Jim Street.

Good morning Howard.

Please go ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning.

This is Howard Gale from Lower Queen Anne District 7 addressing public safety budget.

Rather than discussing defunding and reimagining our policing system this afternoon you will be discussing giving it actually more funding.

You'll be discussing providing the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety, the OIG, additional funding to investigate the very police abuse it has so far failed to investigate.

Actually, it's worse than this.

On August 13th, the OIG held a public forum to hear from folks abused by police over the last four months.

Not only was the hearing poorly publicized and extraordinarily brief, only 90 minutes, But the OIG allowed folks that worked for and with the SPD to diminish disrespect and distract from the testimony of those who suffered real serious harms from police violence.

The OIG then proceeded to hide that video of this disaster from the public.

Consider that after four days of police abuse during the 1999 WTO, the City Council held over 18 hours of public testimony.

Whereas now, during four months of continuing police abuse, the city, through all its accountability bodies, spending $9 million in funds, has held exactly one-and-a-half hours of testimony, and then managed to screw that up.

Since the director of the OIG, Lisa Judge, was hired in 2018, the SPD has killed Ayocele Falotelgo, Danny Rodriguez, Ryan Smith, Charlie Thurr, and Terry Kaver, all unnecessary murders which have never been investigated properly and which have never been questioned by the OIG.

I could go on.

The OIG also failed to investigate highly biased policing during the summer, fall, and winter of 2018. The point here is, if you're going to give money to anyone, give it to the community to actually have public testimony and do public investigations.

Please do not continue to fund an accountability system that is not working.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in, Howard.

June, thanks for calling in.

You're up next.

Hello, my name is June Blue Scrooge.

I live in district two, and I'm speaking in support of council member Peterson's proposed statement of legislative intent to consolidate urban forestry functions within OSC.

In 2009, the city auditor recommended this step in the management of city trees report.

11 years later, authority over management and preservation of trees is still dispersed among nine different departments in the city.

One of the primary departments is SDCI, which has a large proportion of its budget coming from building permit fees.

And so they have an inherent conflict of interest.

OSE now oversees the Urban Forestry Commission and the Urban Forestry Interdepartmental Team.

and is the most appropriate home for this critical work to live.

As the report said, clear lines of authority and effective leadership will help resolve conflicts and better ensure that all city departments are unified behind a single mission.

I'd also like to speak in support of Councilmember Peterson's proposal to place a proviso on SDCI's budget to ensure that adequate FTE is devoted to development of an updated tree protection ordinance.

As the council committed last fall in Resolution 31902, this ordinance is needed more than ever.

I know we're in tough budget times.

You have many hard choices in front of you.

Trees are an essential part of Seattle's infrastructure.

And as we lose trees it has financial as well as health and environmental impact.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling.

Ellen good morning.

You're second to last and then we'll hear from Jim.

Thanks for dialing in.

Hello.

I'm Ellen Labus.

I'm a renter in Dan Strauss' District 6. I'm calling in support of the solidarity budget and I'd like to echo previous callers in calling you to amend the three key amendments on Durkin's budget.

Basically this morning I was thinking about my own family's budget.

It's all about rent health care premiums and food.

That's a lot of our income.

So we're grateful that Seattle provides extra COVID testing sites parks and definitely the library.

But also I wonder why is this not the experience of everyone in our city and why do so many folks experience city services in the form of armed officers of SPD who consistently criminalize folks at protests those without homes or going through a crisis.

In reflecting on all these various needs in Seattle I urge you council members to reject an austerity budget and also to reduce the harms inflicted by the police.

Please defund SPD by at least 50 percent.

Invest in affordable housing essential services a Green New Deal and many other items identified by the 60 organizations who have signed on to the solidarity budget.

This is how we'll get through the pandemic together.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you very much.

And our last speaker today is Jim Street.

Thanks, Jim, for waiting.

You are up now.

Just want to double check.

Do we still have Jim straight with us?

Jim is on the line.

Hey, Jim, if you can hear me, maybe just hit star six one more time on your end.

And I see you listed as on mute on my end.

If you could hit star six one more time.

Just wait one more minute.

Folks, that's the last person I have signed up to testify.

And Jim, just star six on your end.

If we don't get the chance to hear from you, Jim, I will make sure that if we get any written testimony from you that we do send it around.

It still appears that you are muted on my end.

Star six.

Okay, folks.

Jim, I apologize.

It looks like you are unmuted and I cannot unmute you on my end.

We will look forward to getting any written testimony from you, and we'll send it around.

I know that's frustrating if you've been waiting on the line, but thank you for calling in today.

And I don't see it coming off of mute, so thanks again for calling in.

We will look for your public testimony in writing.

Folks, that ends today's public testimony.

Thanks all for dialing in.

Apologies to Jim that we weren't able to get you unmuted, but we will look for that written testimony.

At this time, let's go ahead and move on into the first item on today's agenda.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda item one, Office of Sustainability and Environment for briefing and discussion.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

And we have with us today Yolanda Ho and Allie Panucci from Central Staff.

Thanks for being here with us.

Thanks as well for the robust memos and PowerPoint presentations that were sent by Patty earlier.

We appreciate those documents and I'm sure folks have had the chance to read through them.

So we look forward to this presentation and answering and having central staff answer any questions that we have.

And then again, as a reminder, I'm going to ask folks who have presented form A's in this department category, to keep their comments very brief, and we'll do that at the very end of the presentation once we get to those.

Yolanda, thanks for being with us.

Good morning, Allie, again.

Thank you for being with us.

I'll turn it over to Central Staff.

Great.

Yolanda Ho, Council Central Staff.

Just want to confirm you can hear me okay.

Great.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm going to be providing a brief overview of OSC's a 2021 proposed budget before diving into the issues and then discussing councilmember proposals as mentioned by the chair.

I'm not going to go too in-depth about OSC just because they did present to this committee a couple of weeks ago and had an opportunity to answer questions.

As a reminder, OSC focuses on issues related to environmental equity, building energy, food policy and transportation electrification, and also coordinates implementation of Seattle's Climate Action Plan.

In 2020, in response to the COVID-19 crisis, OSC has oriented its efforts primarily on providing food assistance to Seattle residents, including launching the new emergency grocery voucher program in March of this year.

If we can move to the next slide, please.

So this is a quick summary of OSC's 2021 proposed budget as compared to the 2020 adopted budget.

You will note a nearly 17% increase in appropriations between 2020 and 2021. And also note that OSC receives general fund support as well as support for the sweetened beverage tax.

This increase is entirely due to the proposed addition of 3.4 million in general fund to extend the Emergency Grocery Voucher Program until April 2021 as part of the Joint Jumpstart COVID-19 Relief Plan.

This is in addition to the $5.6 million that will be expended in the remainder of 2020 for vouchers as part of the same plan.

There is no change in the number of FTEs proposed for OSC, but excluding the addition of the emergency grocery vouchers, OSC's budget would actually be cut by about 1.3 million, or roughly 10%.

A few notable reductions are cutting 272,000 in general fund by continuing to hold vacant the Green New Deal Advisor and Climate Advisor policy, Climate policy advisor positions until 2022, the positions remain, but funding would be eliminated, cutting a hundred and fifty thousand dollars of general fund for enforcement and compliance activities for the energy benchmarking and building tuneups programs.

cutting $25,000 in general fund from the Drive Clean Seattle program for community member compensation and consultant services, cutting $35,500 general fund for travel, training, communications, and community programs, and the reductions in the Sweden beverage tax include removing one-time ads that the council adopted in a 2020 budget for consultant services for the Sweetened Beverage Shack Community Advisory Board, Fresh Bucks, water bottle filling stations in schools, and a scratch cooking consultant for Seattle Public Schools.

These were intended as one-time only and not expected to continue in 2021. I would also note that that money was actually repurposed for the emergency grocery vouchers earlier this year.

No service reductions to SBD funded programs are proposed.

On to issue ID.

Next slide, please.

Real quick.

I should have done this at the very beginning.

I want to acknowledge for the record Councilmember Lewis is with us and was with us from early onset in the public testimony period.

So I just want to acknowledge that for the record since we can't see each other.

Thanks, Councilmember Lewis for being with us.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks, Yolanda.

No problem.

So on to issue identification.

So the first issue was the reductions to enforcement of energy benchmarking and building tune-ups programs.

These two programs target commercial buildings of a certain size.

Specifically, the energy benchmarking program requires building owners to track emissions of commercial buildings 20,000 square foot or larger annually and report on their building energy efficiency performance.

The building tune-ups program requires building owners of commercial buildings 50,000 square feet or larger to identify and correct deficiencies in operations and maintenance every five years.

And these measures can reduce energy use by 10 to 15%.

In response to the revenue shortfalls, OSC have proposed reducing the funding for enforcement and compliance activities for these programs that would be equivalent $150,000 of general fund cuts.

This is anticipated to reduce compliance rates from 95% to possibly somewhere around 70% and result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Additionally, as a result of suspending compliance and enforcement activities, OSC would not be collecting an estimated $140,000 in fines from the building tune-ups program, which would actually be used, money from these penalties would be used to fund energy efficiency projects in affordable housing.

So this cut would eliminate funding for a long-term temporary technical assistance position and also includes $50,200 that would fund consultant contracts to support proactive engagement with building owners to promote compliance.

As a result of this cut, OSC would then shift the roles of three staff members on the benchmarking and tune-ups team to support help desk inquiries and use $45,000 for a professional services contract to provide more limited technical assistance.

So the options here would be to restore the $150,000 of general fund for enforcement and compliance activities, and also add position authority for a senior planning and development specialist to provide the in-house technical expertise.

I would note that this option is proposed by Council President Gonzalez and Council Member Strauss, and of course, the no action option.

Any questions?

two pieces, one to underscore that the proposed reductions here would result in possibly greater greenhouse gas emissions, correct?

I would say greater, it would just be not as much of a decrease as we would anticipate.

OSC provided, the council president actually inquired about this at committee.

OSC estimated that there would be 350 to 400 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent that would still be produced if they don't take the measures to comply with all the requirements.

So it's not as much of a decrease as we would anticipate if compliance and enforcement were to move forward as planned.

Thank you so much.

And I think you summarized that well on the second paragraph on page three, but it's sort of important for us to underscore because it's not that there would be, um, that it would result in fewer greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and then just last question here, and I see Councilmember Strauss, um, to reiterate the point as well on this page, this program and compliance with this program is revenue generating at this point.

You noted that fines that are projected to result in 140,000 fewer fines.

Is that correct?

Yeah.

So I believe from what OSC has communicated to me, this would be the first year that the building.

So, so there's been a bit, there's been a ramp up of both of these programs.

Benchmarking happened first, tune-ups came in afterwards.

So the intent was to kind of promote compliance.

Right.

These programs had kind of geared towards compliance, education, technical assistance, but with the Building 2 Notes program now, this will be the first year that fines would be instituted as you know they have spent years engaging with the building owners and building up that knowledge so that you know now now it's time for probably sterner action I guess we would say by the city and so they would they're estimating and so for the building tune-ups program specifically because benchmarking has fines but those just go into the general fund, not specifically kind of earmarked for anything.

Building tune-ups specifically, the fines were identified to go to promoting energy efficiency and affordable housing in vulnerable buildings.

And so that would be something new for 2021, but then with this cut would be shifted to 2022.

Thank you.

Council Member Strauss, as one of the proponents of this, you and Council President Gonzalez, do you have another few sentences that you'd like to add to this?

Yes, thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

And I have been asked by Council President to share her remarks.

Ours are very similar.

We did not realize that we were both submitting a Form A for this.

Just briefly, this would restore the $150,000 to fully fund the Building Tune-Up Program through a senior planning and development specialist for enforcement and compliance.

Council President wanted the record to reflect her remarks that with our climate crisis worsening every year, this is a relatively low cost, high impact way to continue working towards our climate goals.

The comments that I had prepared are just making the note that buildings are one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, and this is a modest item to maintain our budget to keep us on track for our city's climate goals.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much to you and the Council President.

And thanks for modeling a short, succinct summary for us there.

Very helpful.

Seeing no questions.

Thanks so much, Yolanda.

Let's go on to number two.

Yes.

Next slide, please.

So the next issue is the proposed delay of the Green New Deal advisor.

This would extend the hiring delay for this position to 2022, and this position is intended to support the Green New Deal Oversight Board, which was established by the council in 2019, and would also coordinate city actions intended to advance the Green New Deal for Seattle.

Delaying higher of this position has also delayed appointments to the board.

So we know that the board is not.

In existence currently, and the board is the role is to provide the council mayor recommendations.

on how to implement the actions identified in resolution 31895, which established goals for the Green New Deal for Seattle and identified priority actions necessary to achieve these goals.

Additionally, the board is expected to provide the council and mayor recommendations on the 2022 budget, which would have dedicated ongoing funding for the Green New Deal, Green New Deal priorities, which is from the new payroll tax 9% of the proceeds or p Funding for the position and financial hardship stipends was added in the 2020 adopted budget, but due to the hiring freeze that was implemented earlier this year, the position was not filled.

The council added funding to support this position for the remainder of 2020 during the summer budget deliberations, but has not been filled because of the uncertain funding situation.

Should the council opt to add funding for this position, OSC is prepared to initiate the recruitment and hiring process soon after the adoption of the 2021 budget.

So the option here is to add $132,000 of general fund to fund the position, and this is proposed by Council Member Sawant or no action.

Thank you very much, Yolanda.

Council Member Sawant, would you like to add to that description?

Thank you.

This budget amendment, as Yolanda said, would restore the funding cut yet again by the mayor for the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

The good news, as was just stated, is that we've heard from the Office of Sustainability and Environment that this time they've been authorized to actually hire someone for this position.

if the council votes to restore the funding.

So I would urge the council to support this.

Just to quickly remind council members about the background.

In the fall of 2019, climate activists and organizations demanded that Seattle support the Green New Deal.

And as a result of that, the council passed a Green New Deal resolution stating support for many of the Green New Deal projects and committing to end greenhouse emissions by 2030. Then the council also passed an ordinance establishing the Green New Deal Oversight Board, which was to be composed of climate justice organizations, impacted communities, labor representatives, and technical experts.

And it was intended to hold elected officials accountable for following through on the commitments to the investments for the Green New Deal, including to make recommendations for this year's budget, but as we've seen, unfortunately, Mayor Durkin has cut the oversight board as part of the city's hiring freeze in 2020. The council voted to restore that funding in the 2020 revised budget passed earlier this summer, but the OSC was not authorized by the mayor to spend that money until they see that council has restored, again, restored the funding for 2021, which is what this budget amendment would do.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Seeing no additional questions, Caroline, you're lined up.

Please go ahead.

All right.

Next slide, please.

And finally, we have the proposed budget would also extend the hiring delay of the Climate Policy Advisor, which has been vacant since early this year, late last year.

This position oversees implementation of the Climate Action Plan and other city-led efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including the development and implementation of the Climate Impact Assessment Toolkit, which would require city departments to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions with major capital projects and procurement decisions.

OSU worked on developing this toolkit until about early 2019 when staff turnover stalled further progress, including the planned pilot rollout to select departments following the council's adoption of resolution 31933 last month.

The city's summary and fiscal note that accompanies all legislation will require an assessment of climate impacts and climate resilience beginning on January 1st of next year.

This analysis was intended to be informed by the more thorough quantitative and qualitative to be completed by the end of the fiscal year.

This would be a greenhouse gas emissions evaluation required by the climate impact assessment toolkit.

But with this proposed hiring delay the toolkit will likely not be completed until 2022. So the options here would be to add $140,000 of general fund for the climate policy advisor position.

And this is proposed by

Thank you, Chair.

Just underscoring, as Yolanda noted, this position will work to implement the climate impact assessments and focus on efforts to decarbonize buildings.

We can't wait until 2022 to really start addressing the climate crisis before us, because as we know, we have less than 10 years to make meaningful actions before this world may be uninhabitable.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Okay, let's go on to the other proposals.

Yes, so these are the budget actions proposed by council members as of the deadline last week.

The 1st, 1 is a carbon excise tax proposed by council member Lewis.

This statement of this proposed statement of legislative intent would request that.

OSC, the City Budget Office, Department of Finance and Administrative Services, collaborate with the Office of Councilmember Lewis to develop legislation to impose a carbon excise tax on commercial buildings.

Councilmember Lewis, anything to add to that?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Yolanda, for queuing that up.

You know, throughout a lot of this year, I've been having conversations with the city attorney's office and some other folks I know who have dealt with policy around carbon taxes to see how something like this might be structured.

I'm fairly confident an approach like this could be crafted and developed that would withstand a legal challenge.

And I'm happy to put this idea forward.

It's essentially the same concept as the gun and ammo tax and the soda tax.

It's an excise tax essentially for the privilege of emitting carbon in the city of Seattle, or emitting greenhouse gases, rather, to be broader in the city of Seattle.

As we know from the various items that we just discussed, buildings are a big portion of our About a third of our emissions come from buildings, which can be inefficiently heated or can over rely on natural gas in particular as the method to heat big buildings.

In that category of buildings, commercial buildings make up over half of the total emissions, eclipsing the emissions of multifamily buildings.

As excise taxes are typically taxes on businesses, that's the reason that at least in this initial proffering of this, I've limited it to commercial buildings since that fits more within the confines of our excise taxing authority.

There's the old saying we're frequently reminded of by a lot of folks, particularly the business community, if you want to see less of something, tax it.

Well, I think we can all agree we want to see less emissions, especially we know there are strategies to reduce the amount of emissions to make buildings more energy efficient.

And while a tax is not a regulation, it's designed to raise revenue.

We do know that there can be an effect in creating a sense of urgency to adopt some of these mechanisms to reduce your tax liability by retrofitting your building more proactively.

And we know that this could raise revenue that could have a virtuous feedback loop, where money raised from a tax like this could go toward underwriting some of those efforts and subsidizing some of those efforts to increase the rate at which buildings are retrofitted to reduce emissions, have more efficient methods of burning natural gas that produce more electricity for less emissions.

These are all things that could be funded with potential revenue.

Now, in terms of building something like this, I think the legal concept is fairly sound, but it's something I would want to rely on the expertise of the community, of the Office of Sustainability in terms of setting what the rate should be, if there should be staggered progressive steps as far as uh you know different rates for emissions of different levels of co2 with an excise tax we can put in progressive steps uh and would would certainly like to uh um uh to move on this with the sense of urgency next year that we need to given the extent of the climate emergency um but it is something that uh you know the the um uh The specifics of the policy will need to be developed very carefully and intentionally, given that it is novel.

There's no other jurisdiction in Washington that has attacks like this.

But I do think that the concept is sound, and we could fill out the details in collaboration with the community and other city departments.

So with that, I'll turn it back over.

But I'm certainly excited to try to work on this with the rest of the council, and have discussed this idea with the Office of Sustainability.

And I think that there could be ways to incorporate it into their work plan, and we can discuss that throughout the budget process.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Lewis.

I'm not seeing any questions on that one.

I will note for our colleagues, in an effort to try to keep us relatively brief, I did not mention this at the beginning, I've been doing a little two minute timer on my end over here.

I'll take myself off of mute just so that you are aware that we have gone about two minutes and that hopefully will keep us moving along in case other folks do have questions on those pieces too.

We want to build in time for those questions.

But that's that's the little process I'm using on my end.

So when you see me come off mute that means two minutes has been hit.

But looking forward to hearing more about each of these proposals.

Okay, item number two, Yolanda, it looks like we have covered this one on issue number one in your summary.

Anything else to add to that?

No.

Okay.

Council Member Strauss, on issue number three as well, we covered that with issue number three in the presentation.

Assuming we're good to move forward on those two pieces then?

Yes, thank you, Chair, nothing to add.

Okay, thank you very much Council Member Strauss.

You're up for the next one as well, Council Member Strauss.

Yolanda, you want to provide a quick summary of item number four?

Yeah, on your next slide, please.

This proposal would add funding for Fresh Bucks, an amount to be determined by Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Thank you, Chair.

COVID-19 has exacerbated food insecurity in many of our communities.

Increasing funding for Fresh Bucks will improve access to healthy food and promote healthy and safe opportunities to get that food like at farmers markets.

We have seen this program be extremely successful in our grocery stores and our farmers markets for the past few years, and it is one of my top and has been one of my top priorities even since before COVID.

to increase and expand the Fresh Bucks program.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Yolanda.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Are there any questions on this?

My quick question would be, Council Member Strauss, do you have any indication of a general amount or are you still doing research on what the gap is?

I believe that the gap is larger than we can fill during this recession.

And so it is important for me to understand in context, as per my comments yesterday, that policy, not politics, must drive our decision making.

And so I would like to see what types of opportunities we have as we move through the form Bs and Cs.

Appreciate that.

Thank you so much.

OK.

Councilmember Sawant, we discussed item number five in issue number two in Yolanda's summary.

Any additional comments on that?

No additional comments.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember Sawant.

Let's go on to item number six, also an item from Councilmember Sawant.

Yolanda, you want to summarize this for us?

Yes.

This proposal would add funding for the emergency grocery voucher program to extend it from June through December of next year.

I would note that the 19 million general fund proposed is in response to OSC's estimate of what that would take to extend the program.

And the sponsor has also indicated that they would want the vouchers to be accepted at Asian grocery stores.

As a member, so anything else to add to that?

Yeah, as we discussed in the departmental presentations, the Office of Sustainability and Environment has done very important work this year running the emergency grocery voucher program.

This is the program, as we know, provides Safeway voucher cards as part of the COVID relief.

Thousands of people have depended on these emergency grocery vouchers to keep their families fed through the year.

As we've discussed in the past, it is unfortunate that these vouchers can only be used at Safeway and not at other smaller grocery store options, which was a decision based on logistical expediency and not what makes sense for the community.

And of course, having grocery vouchers at all stores is the most important thing.

However, in my office's discussion with the Vietnamese Senior Association and the ACRS, which is the umbrella organization that they are a part of, It has become clear that the fact that the vouchers can only be used at Safeway is a real barrier to the seniors that the ACRS works with.

It is really essential that this voucher program be expanded so that they can be redeemed in the Asian grocery stores in the international district and down Rainier Avenue in addition to other stores.

Outrageously, the grocery store voucher program that so many people depend on is also currently budgeted to expire in April, but it seems very unlikely that the COVID emergency will be over by then, and the economic consequences certainly of the emergency will not be over by then.

So this budget amendment does two things.

It funds the extending of the voucher program through to the end of 2021, and it states the intention that the voucher program be expanded to be redeemable at Seattle's Asian grocery stores.

There's also a separate budget legislation that asks the executive to expand the voucher program to smaller grocers, particularly to grocers that accept Fresh Bucks, and my office will be preparing a related amendment to that legislation to add Seattle's Asian grocery stores, which are not currently part of the Fresh Bucks program.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Just very briefly, is there also in the other proposal an interest in various ethnic groceries more broadly?

Yes, absolutely.

I didn't mention that because I was trying to stick to the two limit.

Sure.

You did good.

You had seven seconds left.

But yes, absolutely.

And thanks for highlighting that.

We will definitely be doing that.

OK.

I appreciate your brevity as well as the summary on that.

I see a question.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I just want to flag that during our discussions around the emergency grocery vouchers during the Jump Start discussion, we did at that time signal our intent that the program be expanded to ethnic grocery stores.

And so we might want to look at...

I'm not sure if we have any other ways to support councilmember Sawant's proposal, but we might want to look to see whether or not we have other ways to underscore our intent, because we have expressed this policy preference in the past and the expansion has not happened, so I just think that maybe we should see if there are

Thank you for noting that.

Okay, not seeing another comment.

Thank you for summarizing that.

And Yolanda, number seven.

Yes, so next slide, please.

The final budget proposal for OSCE would be a proposed statement of legislative intent that would request that OSCE consult with the Urban Forestry Commission and the Urban Forestry Interdepartmental Team to develop a plan to transfer staff and decision-making authority over tree removal and tree management to OSC.

And this is sponsored by Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson, thanks for summarizing.

Thanks, Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you, Yolanda, for your work on this.

And a shout out to the staff at the Office of Sustainability and Environment just for their ongoing work this year during the COVID emergency.

So as we know, Washington is the evergreen state and Seattle's the emerald city.

And trees provide numerous benefits, including carbon sequestration, absorption of rainwater to reduce harmful runoff into Puget Sound and Lake Washington.

shade for cooling during the warmer months, and proven health benefits.

The bigger the tree, the better.

As long as we are taking an overdue, serious look at racial injustice issues, we know some communities of color have fewer large trees and are having them removed more often.

So as far back as 2009, our city auditor determined that fractionalized management of trees and urban forestry issues was a major problem for the city of Seattle and recommended consolidation.

Instead, the city for 11 years has continued to try to make a multi-departmental approach to tree management work.

But during that time, I'm concerned we're seeing a declining tree canopy, a loss of numerous large trees.

Decentralization has had its chance.

It doesn't seem to be working.

So this slide just asks the executive to produce a plan, which we don't have to act on, but at least we'll have a plan for council consideration to rationalize and consolidate management authority over Seattle's trees.

with a preference for an agency focused on the environment, and that is the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Peterson.

Any questions?

Okay, I am not seeing any questions.

Council Member Peterson, just, oh sorry, I do have one question.

This is a slide and it builds off of the recommendations from now 11 years ago, correct?

It it can be independent of those recommendations because we were just not seeing great results with the current decentralized system.

OK.

Great, well thank you for flagging that an 11 year old plan is not actually working and need to.

re-look at this.

Thanks for the summary there.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you and thank you Council Member Peterson for bringing this forward.

You and I have, it's been great to collaborate with you regarding tree work.

What I will just note for the record that SDCI has taken a number of steps on tree protection this year.

We're awaiting the director's rule on tree protection that would extend a lot of these protections.

In fact, if the director's rule were in place today, there would be a tree in my neighborhood that would be protected.

So happy to work with you on this.

I do have a couple concerns, but I really appreciate and love the intent that you're bringing forward.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you very much.

Any final questions or comments on this?

Okay.

I am seeing none.

Thank you all very much for your questions on these pieces and for your summary.

your succinct summaries on all of these items.

We really appreciate every council member who has spoken.

And Yolanda, thank you for walking us through this proposal and the memo and the PowerPoint presentation.

Great work.

Appreciate your time and thanks for being here with us today.

Okay, seeing no additional questions in that section, let's move on to the next item.

Good morning.

I'm going to talk about the Department of Neighborhoods and we should have a presentation up in just a second.

Wonderful.

Thanks, Lish.

Let me just double check here.

I think what we'll need to do is read item two into the record.

That was my mistake.

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

Agenda item two, Department of Neighborhoods for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

And Lish, thanks for introducing yourself.

We have Lish Witson and Ali Panucci still with us from central staff to walk us through this presentation that corresponds with the memo that you all received yesterday.

Thank you.

The Department of Neighborhoods oversees outreach and engagement, supports community building, and has community grant programs.

Can we go to the next slide, please?

The proposed 2021 budget is cut by approximately 10% compared to the 2020 adopted budget.

The shifts you're seeing are generally driven by shifts away from the community building BSL to the other two.

budget summary levels.

So, for example, the Healthy Food Fund, which is a new community grant program funded with $1.5 million of sweetened beverage tax proceeds would be moving from the community building BSL to the community grants BSL, which represents a large shift and offsets a $830,000 reduction in the neighborhood matching fund between 2020 and 2021. There are a number of small changes, but I wasn't going to go into them.

But I'm happy to answer any questions about the DLN-based budget if any council members have some.

I'm not seeing any questions, Alish.

Ali, I'm wondering, just from the macro perspective, I'm sorry I didn't have a chance to ask this question to you earlier.

If you know offhand, could you give us a general sense on how each of the department, not each of the departments, I'm sorry, On the average amount of reductions to departments overall, over 10% seems on the higher end.

Can you remind us how this compares to other department reductions?

And Lish, if you have that answer too, that's great.

I don't have it overall, but for each of the departments I've been working on, they were given a 10% reduction target.

And if they were able to provide that, the executive did include those in their budget.

Chair Mosqueda, I don't have that number in front of me, but I can work on getting it and can circle back either at the end of the session this morning or this afternoon for the miscellaneous issue ID paper.

That paper does include the percent change in the budgets for each and every department.

So I can get that number for you, but it will take me more than a minute.

OK, no worries.

The miscellaneous section sounds great.

I think if folks were following along and they were looking at the previous summary for Office of Sustainability and the Environment and saw a 16.9% increase, they might be wondering how each of the departments compare.

So thank you, Lish, for the reminder to folks that the directive to each department was to try to hit around a 10% or higher reduction.

And looking forward to that information later this afternoon as well, Allie.

Thanks.

Okay, Lish, sorry for the interruption.

Let's go ahead.

So I have identified three issues in the DLM budget, and then there are three council member proposals.

Let's move to the next slide.

So in the 2019 and 2020 budget, the budget included a position to support outreach and engagement.

related to 2020 census.

That position is due to sunset at the end of this year.

The executive's budget proposal includes making that position permanent.

Its role will necessarily shift from supporting participation in the census to working with community-based organizations and members of the public on understanding the census as it's published this coming spring.

That work is closely related to work that the city demographer does in reporting on census results and helping to interpret them for both city government and the public.

In addition, this position is intended to support community-based organizations' understanding of and participation in redistricting efforts.

the city council redistricting process will kick off in the second half of 2022. I've prepared three different options.

One is to not fund this position, which would sunset at the end of the year.

The second is to move the position to OPCD to work with the demographer.

And the third is to take no action.

Thank you, Lish.

Are there questions on this item?

Okay, I'm not seeing any.

Thank you for identifying the overlap that this potentially has with the demographer.

Appreciate that analysis.

Next slide, please.

The mayor's proposed budget, both the third quarter supplemental and the 2021 budget includes funding to lease space for a community-based organization.

The community-based organization would respond to the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on black LGBTQIA, non-binary youth and young adults and other indigenous and people of color, LGBTQIA and non-binary youth and young adults coordinating services and potentially in the future acting as a resource center.

This is a different approach to funding services than we normally see.

Normally the council or the city puts out a request for proposals.

and funds the best proposal.

And then the community-based organization that is providing services based on that RFP response determines how to fund, how best to fund the services that they're providing.

This would instead have the city act as an intermediary and lease space for the organization.

I have two options here.

One is to allocate funding as we normally would to the human services department or the public health department to contract for services or to allow for the lease to go forward.

And just to note that the council probably will have to approve that lease.

So it's a two to three month process before any of these space could be occupied.

I'm going to turn it over to you.

I do not know the answer to the second question.

The amount of money that's being provided, which is $120,000 in the third quarter supplemental and 360,000 in 2021 is based on how much FAS assumes that 5,000 square feet of office space would cost on Capitol Hill, which is the neighborhood that they're targeting for these funds.

My understanding is that this approach came out of a discussion with a community-based organization that identified the need and how best to support this outreach and these services.

Thank you.

And so does this go back to the old proposal that folks have been advocating for for a really, really long time for an LGBTQ community center?

No, I think it's distinct from that.

It is.

OK.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks for the question, Council Member Herbold.

I also have a question, I guess, around process.

Absolutely.

I think we've heard for a while the desire to have land transfers and long-term leases to make space more available, especially for BIPOC communities.

Specific to this building, the latest thing that I had heard was that there was some offers of space to community partners that had been declined.

Do you know anything else about offers already going out the door to community organizations?

No, I do not.

My understanding as of last week was that space had not been identified yet.

Okay.

Appreciate it.

I'll look into that a little bit more.

Not hearing any additional questions.

Let's go ahead and move on.

All right.

The 3rd item relates to discussion about OSC.

In 2020, in the 2020 adopted budget, there was $2.5 million put from the sweetened beverage tax into the Department of Neighborhoods that was to fund a new healthy food fund grant program to support community-based organizations and innovative ideas to create, to bring food to underserved communities.

That funding was cut during some of the rebalancing processes and was redirected to the grocery voucher program.

It's added back to the DLN budget in 2021 at $1.5 million.

And question for council members is should the grocery voucher program be extended probably by a month or so by keeping these funds for grocery vouchers rather than the healthy food fund?

Any questions, folks?

Okay, thanks for identifying that I'm not seeing additional comments or questions on that one.

All right, moving on to the next slide with council member proposals, and there are three.

The first, as you heard during public comment, is to fund the South Park Safety Coordinator for another year.

It was funded in the 2020 budget.

This would extend those funds for 2021, and Council Member Herbold is the proponent.

Thank you, Lish.

Councilmember Herbold, do you have any additional comments on this item for the South Park public safety coordinator?

Yes.

Thank you so much.

I'll keep it short.

Just as a reminder to council that this program and this funding for this work derived from a community request and a council generated study from a couple of years ago.

It combines innovative approaches to public safety along with traditional approaches.

The council has provided funding for it for several years.

A multilingual approach is critical for public safety issues in South Park.

And I just want to give a shout out to the organizations who have come out to vocally and strongly support funding this position.

The South Park Neighborhood Association, the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition, I want to thank folks for giving testimony this morning.

It's $75,000 for 2021 to continue the work of the coordinator.

So this was 2020 funding that is not slated to go forward after this year and you're looking to extend it.

Is that an accurate summary?

Correct.

Okay.

Great.

And they didn't have, they being South Park, they didn't have any of that funding held back for any reason related to COVID or anything like that this year, did they?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Councilmember Herbold, I'm not seeing any additional questions and underscore your appreciation for the public testimony this morning on this topic.

Okay, item number two.

Councilmember Lish, please give us a quick summary.

The deal on budget includes $32,000 to support Indigenous People's Day events, and this would add a proviso requiring the funding go to an organization

on some members to walk, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Seattle's Indigenous People's Day celebration is a powerful community event every year.

And in the absence of social distancing restrictions, there is a rally in City Hall with speakers, an exciting march that arrives at City Hall, and a community celebration at Daybreak Star Center.

And I've personally been at that celebration, and it's truly a wonderful event that is welcoming of all families, regardless of income or housing status.

And it's just incredible.

The day is also an opportunity for community organizers to continue fighting for important legislation.

For example, the council passed the Indian Boarding School's resolution on Indigenous Peoples Day, but it was the same group of activists and organizers who also pushed for the Wells Fargo divestment.

And one of the reasons this is such a powerful event on this day every year, because it is organized by dedicated and genuinely grassroots community activists and organizers, and particularly the organization named Canoes has been

Thank you.

quite essential.

In this year's budget, the IPD funding has been moved from the Office of Civil Rights, where it has always been in the past, to the Department of Neighborhoods.

And many of the organizers dedicated to supporting the celebrations every year have reached out to my office, worried that the fiscal change might signal to the mayor that, might signal that the mayor intends to take IPD organization organizing out of community hands.

And to be clear, activists have heard from the Department of Neighborhoods that they do not intend to make a substantive change and that they intend to contract the funding to canoes who have always organized the event in the past, which is good.

However, community organizers are still concerned and want more assurances.

They do not want to get a call from the mayor's office that says, accept this keynote speaker, stop pushing that legislation, or with threats of pulled funding.

So this budget amendment imposes this proviso.

and the provisor will make no change if the mayor follows through on the promises, but otherwise it will provide some security to the planning committee.

Thank you very much Council Member Sawant.

Are there any additional comments on this item?

I just want to double check here.

So Council Member Swanthorpe, there is not an addition of funding.

It's basically a proviso around already appropriated funds in the proposed budget.

Exactly.

Great.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Seeing no additional comments, let's go ahead and move on.

The last item for Department of Neighborhoods is a proposal from Council Member Morales to fund improvements to create Detective Cookie Chess Park in Rainier Beach.

This proposal would add $200,000 to DON to contract with community-based organizations to build out the park, which will occupy some underutilized right-of-way where Rainier Avenue South curves and heads down into rent.

Thanks.

Thanks, Lish.

Councilor Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you.

So some of you may have heard of Detective Cookie, Denise Bolden, who is, since 2006 has been, has created a chess club for young people in the Rainier Beach neighborhood, and has been doing a lot of work with young people.

They have created, there's now this, a small park, as Lish said, on some S-dot land, And so there is a plan to create an outdoor space.

There is already some public art there.

If you've ever been to the neighborhood across the street from King Donuts, you've seen a giant king and queen chess piece, public art in the park.

This funding is to help complete the park.

So the idea is to have outdoor play space, chess play space, and to put a giant chess board on the ground so that they can mark the space and have giant chess tournaments.

So the proposal here would add $200,000 to DON so that they can complete that part of the park design and finish and create a space for young people to have an opportunity to play chess outdoors.

Thank you.

Councilmember Morales, are there any questions on this item?

Okay.

I am seeing none.

Thank you so much.

Lish, I think that that actually concludes this presentation, if that's correct.

Correct.

Thank you.

Well, thank you very much for your time today and for the memo and presentation.

Appreciate your work and I know we'll see you again very soon.

Madam Clerk, will you please read into the record item number three?

agenda item three, Seattle Public Library for briefing and discussion.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

On item number three, we have the chance to be joined by Asha Venkataram.

Asha, tell me how to say that again.

It's been a long time.

And Allie Panucci again with us.

Asha, it's great to see you.

Please do state your full name for the record and we'll turn it over to you.

Thanks, Budget Chair Mosqueda.

This is Asha Venkatraman with Council Central staff.

As you can see, I'll be talking about the public library.

As you know, the library consists of the Central Library downtown, as well as 26 branches and a mobile services division.

It's a little different from many departments in that it is governed by a five-member board of trustees who have exclusive control over operations.

And so they usually adopt an annual operations plan after the council adopts its budget each year.

Recently, in 2019, the council, as well as voters, passed a $219 million levy.

This extended the services that were provided in the 2012 levy and proposed to expand some of those services.

If we can move to the next slide, please.

So what you'll see in this summary is that the library has both an operating and a capital budget.

The operating subtotal for the 2021 proposed budget is about $78 million, and the capital budget is about $9.2 million.

We can move to the next slide.

You'll see that the total budget for the library is about $87 million, and that is a Technically a 1% increase, but most of that increase comes from baseline and technical changes rather than increases in the operational budget.

which I'll get into a little bit later.

On the revenue side, the library is primarily supported by a general fund and levy funds.

So the library fund, which is primarily consists of general funds would support the budget by $55 million.

And the 2019 levy fund would support the budget by about $31 million.

So that's the total we'll get to is about $87 million.

Now what the 2021 proposed budget does is proposes to cut $5.8 million of general fund from the operations budget.

And what that would do is, it's divided into three separate buckets.

So that 5. million is divided into a cut of $3.1 million for operating hours and associated personnel.

$1.4 million for the physical and digital, excuse me, digital collection, as well as circulation staff that are associated with the physical collection.

And then $1.36 million in other expenses such as administrative support, maintenance, event staffing, technology, and a training budget to total the $5.8 million.

It would also reduce REIT spending, real estate excise tax spending, that supports the capital budget by $360,000.

And as I mentioned, the remainder of changes are primarily technical and baseline changes.

What this would do is reduce the percentage of general fund support that currently makes up the budget.

As of the 2020 adopted budget, general fund supported 68% of the library's budget and the levy supported 30% of the library's budget.

The change in general fund would mean that the general fund would now support the library by 63% rather than 68%.

And then the levy would support operations by 36% instead of 30%.

If we could go to, there are no questions on this piece.

I can move into issue identification.

Okay, if we can move to the next slide, please.

So the first issue I want to talk about is the cut in operating hours that comes from this $3.1 million of general fund reduction.

As of right now, the library estimates that it'll reopen in July of 2021. Obviously, that's dependent on public health guidelines and how the COVID-19 pandemic develops, but that's the current estimate.

was a $3.1 million general fund reduction.

Without any levy offset, it would result in the library opening at, and all the branches opening at reduced hours.

So hours fewer than what was open in 2020 before the pandemic hit.

The library board has voted to use the $1.36 million to mitigate those impacts.

And what that would do is, for the most part, restore hours to what they were at the beginning of this year, before all the libraries closed in March.

For some context, in 2019, the libraries were open weekly for 1,377 hours.

At the beginning of 2020, they were open for 1,403 hours.

Attachment A in your memo lays out what weekly hours have been starting in 2006 all the way through the 2021 proposed budget.

So you can see when hours increased, when they decreased, and what the proposed budget looks like.

Because weekly hours is a bit of, it's hard to contextualize in the scheme of 27 branches open at all these different hours.

So hopefully that table was helpful.

The plan before the pandemic hit was for hours to be expanded up to 1,581 hours, and that was scheduled to happen in June of 2020. After the rebalancing discussion occurred, that hours expansion got pushed to January of 2021. In the 2021 proposed budget, by using this $1.36 million to offset the $3.1 million general fund cut, that hours expansion gets pushed up until 2022. In addition, the $1.36 million comes from a bucket of $1.6 million that is intended, as I mentioned, for expanded hours, but also for programming for youth and children.

If you'll remember during the 2019 levy discussions, there was funding added not only for expanded hours, but for play and learn programming, as well as a community resource specialist that would help youth that were at risk.

And so those parts of the programming would now be delayed until July of 2021, which is when the library anticipates reopening.

The difference between the $1.36 million and the $1.6 million, the funding that's left over there supports a position hired this year that is intended to support the Seattle Public Schools with K-5 programming.

So there would still be funding left to support that position in 2021. Based on all of that, there are a couple options laid out for you here.

Oh, sorry, before I get to options, impacts of hours cuts.

I'll premise this by saying, even if there were no cuts at all, or all of the general fund was restored, as I mentioned earlier, so much of what the library can do depends on public health guidelines and depends on what happens with COVID-19.

So that will continue to inform what the impacts are in terms of service.

In general, during recessions, people use the library more than they did before, and increased hours was a pretty high priority for residents that participated in the surveys that took place before the levy was voted on.

And the services that the library provides are so wide, everything from homework help to after-school programming, youth and teen outreach.

Small business support, those are just a couple examples.

But those are the types of programming that would go, would return depending on public health guidelines, but could be limited depending on, obviously afterschool programming requires the library to be able to be open after school and up until 6 p.m.

or 8 p.m.

And so without the levy offset, that would be a problem.

In addition, the library also provides access to populations that have been historically underserved, those that are impacted by the digital divide in that there are many people that can't access internet or Wi-Fi or have computers at home, and so they're able to access those things at the library itself, as well as people that can't necessarily access e-books through the digital collection and would prefer to read those things in library locations or through the physical collection.

So all that to say there are a variety of impacts of cutting the hours that the library would reopen with in July.

So there are a couple options here for you all.

This is not an exclusive list of options by any stretch, but the first option would be to add back $3.1 million of general fund into the budget to restore the proposed cut, and that would obviate the need to use any levy funds to get operating hours back to their 2020 pre-pandemic levels.

option B would add some lesser amount under $3.1 million and the library could decide how that impacted using the $1.36 in levy funds, $1.36 million, excuse me.

And option C would be to take no action and adopt the proposed budget as is.

Okay, it looks like we have a few questions.

Council Member Herbold, will you please go ahead first?

Thank you.

Just a question that was raised by library foundation members.

The proposal to include funds to reopen in July?

Does it include funding for COVID precautions such as PPE for staff and installation of plexiglass dividers, hand sanitation stations, et cetera?

Or does it assume that these precautions would not be needed when libraries reopen?

I'm not actually sure about that, so I will have to get back to you.

I'm not sure whether that's already baked into reopening in July 2021, but I'll check in.

Thank you very much.

Great question.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you, Asha, for this presentation.

I just wanted to If you could reiterate for me or reconcile the fact that the total spending seems to be net neutral when you combine the operating and the levy amount.

So is it really a cut?

I'm just trying to understand what the net result is.

Sure.

So basically what The operating cuts are a total of $5.8 million, but there are baseline adjustments that increase the budget by a million dollars.

There's also a capital transfer of an infrastructure project that moves from the operating budget to the capital budget.

So that ends up being an increase as well.

And so as does a couple technical adjustment to deal with some revenue issues and citywide adjustments for cost changes.

And so what ends up happening is that $5.8 million in general fund cuts gets offset a little bit in terms of the baseline and the technical.

So it looks like that there is an increase happening, but because of the way in which the baseline changes and the technical changes came in, the big picture looks like the, excuse me, the general fund cuts don't appear in that big picture summary as clearly as a reduction.

Does that make sense?

So just so I can follow up.

So the proposal from the Durkin administration is to transfer money from the library levy to just base operations for salaries, basically.

So are we foregoing a capital project to then feed the salaries?

No, the levy transition, that 1.36 million is what was originally proposed for expanding hours and play and learn programming.

And so those things would get delayed a little bit more up until July 2021 and 2022 in order to maintain the level of hours operations that occurred in 2020 before the pandemic hit.

Thank you.

And I'd be happy to follow up in further detail if that's helpful.

I have a few questions.

Was there another question, council members?

Okay.

I have a few questions.

I appreciate that we are noting that in times of recessions, families have used libraries more frequently.

to our youth are using libraries more frequently in the past.

I guess my concern is that wasn't, it's not exactly apples to apples, right, given the pandemic is airborne.

So I guess part of my question is, is there anything that we are able to do with existing dollars that are not levy dollars to dial up digital access and digital opportunities and also to make sure that the For example, the resource specialist for youth that I fought really hard for a few years ago, that services like that can continue to be offered even when library hours are reduced.

Yeah, there's certainly discussions that can be had with the library and the board about how to move funds around to be able to provide those sorts of resources.

I think it's, and we'll get into this a little bit in the next issue in terms of cuts to the physical and digital collection, but I think the idea is that in using those funds, using those funds prioritizes open hours and would push the programming that was proposed to later.

And so if the priority is to provide digital services in lieu of open hours, that is a decision to use that $1.36 million of levy funds for those services rather than for the physical reopening.

So it is a bit of a priority in terms of whether the priority is physical reopening at the same level of hours, or we want the funds to go towards shifting towards the digital services piece.

Madam Chair, if I may?

Yes, please, Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

We're having this dilemma with libraries similar to what we had in parks, where at libraries we are deploying employees and some elderly who could be very sensitive to COVID are doing other things.

And as you know, we worked with the executive to get some libraries open so our homeless people have somewhere to go to the restroom and other services.

And so it's what Asha has just shared.

We're in this difficult spot where what I learned from Marcellus or MT, a library turner, is that the digital and print collections are important, but obviously don't want any cuts that would be at the detriment of either.

And we're looking at if we up the digital access, then we're looking at taking away from the physical aspect.

So while the digital is very expensive, the demand is there because people are at home.

On the other hand, we have older patrons who love the print collection, which is important.

So we're in a difficult spot because we're going to have to, as we all are with the $315 million deficit here, about making some tough choices.

So I don't know if that helps, but I have been in constant, obviously, contact with Mr. Turner and the board and looking at shifting when we're using the levy dollars to backfill some other services at the library.

Thank you very much, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Morales, did you have something?

Well, I just, this is where we are.

I really appreciate the dilemma Council Member Juarez illustrates, because as we talk about how to manage, knowing that, especially in our low-income neighborhoods, The libraries are a crucial access point for young people to get access to technology so that they can do their homework.

for people who are applying for jobs, people trying to make appointments with doctors, and just being able to go get a physical book because technology, access to the internet is not what it should be in the city.

So we'll see further down the actions that I've proposed, but this is the dilemma.

And even in COVID, I know a lot of, folks I'm talking to are asking why we can't quarantine books for two weeks if we're worried about spreading something that way, and just trying to find ways so that we can continue some sort of operation, some sort of access to the collections.

And I understand we've got a giant hole to fill.

Yeah, just noodling on how difficult these conversations are going to be.

Sorry, I have this long to offer.

If I may respond, Madam President, or Madam Chair, if I may respond.

Council Member Morales, thank you.

Obviously, I know you understand that, and thank you.

I think everything you said is true, and we all agree.

And we have to start with the fact that obviously we have this deficit.

We do know, and I don't have it off the top of my head, and I can get that information to you.

The library does hand out for free the Wi-Fi hotspots and has a relationship and a contract with the Seattle Housing Authority for free Wi-Fi.

And we are working, and I think this was Councilmember Peterson, to do Wi-Fi for all citywide for free.

And we have been exploring opportunities with some of our local Wi-Fi providers, internet providers.

So that's happening.

That hasn't gotten by us.

But again, we're trying to choose between recognizing that digital collection subscriptions cost more than the physical collection of reading materials.

And there's two different sets of folks that use them.

And as you know, the digital is more younger and the physical is more older.

But then we're also trying to balance safety of how we can get people the library how they're now having you can pull up your car and get books so I would love for you to join us in those conversations of how we do that with all the libraries and obviously they're in every district that is something we're still struggling with but we only have two of we have three libraries in d5 and only one is open right now and there are they're doing other things besides being a library just like just like parks is doing other things besides We have had to take on different roles that don't offend their job descriptions as far as their unions go.

That's kind of where we are at right now.

I hear you loud and clear.

Thank you all I just have one last point of clarification on on the previous page on slide 2, I'm sorry I'm looking at the memo.

The summary document, you mentioned the 2021 proposed budget would further reduce the general fund supports to libraries by $5.8 million and the sub-bullets here you have 1.36 million of that is in administrative support, maintenance technology, related personnel and training.

Just want to double check.

Is it accurate to say that there are no FTE reductions to Seattle Public Libraries in the proposed budget?

I thought that's what I had heard.

Positions themselves are, so this is one of the quirks of the library, is that the FTE amounts and positions don't usually come in with the budget book because the board is responsible for those.

And so I do know that they are discussing right now how to mitigate any potential personnel impacts, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what those look like yet.

But I'm happy to follow up with the library and get some more information.

We just don't have the same level of information as we do for other departments when it comes to FTEs and positions.

Okay, great.

I'll follow up on my end as well with some of the folks who are represented.

Any additional questions on this item?

Okay.

I'm not seeing any additional questions on this.

Let's move to number two.

Okay.

Sounds good.

If we could go to the next slide.

Thank you.

So, as was already discussed in some of this.

This discussion, there are also cuts to the digital and physical collection of the 1.4M dollars of general fund would be cut and of that 1.4M dollars.

$277,000 currently supports the digital collection.

That's access to databases, periodicals, ebooks, and streaming media.

The library does propose to use $138,000 of leftover funding from the 2012 levy to mitigate some of that impact and restore the funds for streaming media, but that would leave $139,000 worth of cut to the digital collection.

The 2021 proposed budget also proposes to reduce the physical materials collection by $531,000.

This is everything from literally physical books, CDs, DVDs, serial collections, print, and audio.

And lastly, it would cut $588,000 in the circulation budget.

So this would be coordinated with the cuts of physical materials.

If you don't have as many physical materials, you don't necessarily need as many personnel to deal with those physical materials.

And so in terms of impact, even before the pandemic and as was discussed when you all were discussing the 2019 library levy, the demand for digital materials as well as the level of expense for e-materials is something that the levy addressed in terms of increasing support to the digital collection.

Between 2015 and 2019, there was 112% increase in the demand for digital materials.

And there's also been an increase since the libraries themselves have been closed since the COVID-19 pandemic.

So these cuts will impact the e-materials collection, excuse me, the digital materials collection, in that it would increase wait times, it will decrease the level of availability, as well as the range of selection of those materials.

In terms of the physical collection, the general trend is a decrease in demand for physical materials, which is in some ways coordinated with this increased demand for digital materials.

But the rate of use of physical materials depends on the type of material.

For example, children's books, even though the general trend has been for a decrease in physical materials, children's books are always in constant demand.

Physical materials such as CDs and DVDs have lower rates of demand than do physical books, for example.

With the pandemic, this has shifted a little bit just in terms of people do still like their physical materials, which is why curbside pickup and return has been so helpful.

But with a recession, things like when people cancel their streaming services, for example, they'll turn to the library's DVD collections for that resource instead.

So it's not quite as clear cut as there is a general decline in physical materials.

It just depends on the material itself.

And an additional piece of that is that many people prefer physical materials and want to come into the library to read a newspaper or would prefer to read, don't have access to the e-materials collection and their only access to books is the physical books.

So there are impacts from cutting the depth, the breadth of the physical collection in terms of access.

The associated cut of personnel with the circulation budget basically reflects, as I said earlier, if there are fewer physical materials, there would be fewer personnel required to circulate those materials.

The only piece that this doesn't account for is the fact that there has been an increased need in terms of handling physical materials because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

So in terms of sanitation, in terms of the increased staffing needed to make sure those materials are safe.

This cut does not account for what that increased need is.

And we're working with the library to figure out what that increased need looks like.

With that, say there are a few options here for the council.

Option A would be to add back in $139,000 to prevent any cuts to the digital collection.

And that'll be reflected in a form A, which we'll get to in a moment.

Option B would be to add up to $1.1 million.

And that's the figure that combines both the physical materials as well as the circulation personnel.

So anything up to that amount to prevent cuts to the physical collection and their supporting personnel.

Option C would be to add up to $588,000.

And as I mentioned earlier, this would be to allow the library to retain staff to manage the physical collection under these pandemic conditions.

and then D would be to take no action and adopt the budget as proposed.

Council Member Hurdle, please go ahead.

Just a quick question.

When we talk about the digital collection, are we including the Hotspot program?

No, so the hotspot program, the 2021 proposed budget doesn't have any impacts on the Wi-Fi hotspot program.

I can send you further information on that that the library provided in its pre-budget questions, but there does not appear to be any impact on that Wi-Fi hotspot program.

Great, thank you.

We do know that the Wi-Fi hotspot checkout program was used 92% by people of color per the foundation and friends of the Seattle Public Library.

And we also know that there's very, very, very long wait list for hotspots.

So I know in past years, the council has increased funding for more hotspots.

So I'm glad to hear that there are no impacts in this year's budget.

Other questions?

Okay, we're going to get into that first option A in the summary of council members' proposals in just a second.

Any other questions on the context that Asha provided?

Asha, did you have anything else there?

Nope.

All right, let's go into the council members' form A discussions, and there may be additional questions about the context that you just shared as we go through some of these or at the end.

Okay, so the first is to add funding for a pickup service at all branches.

It's proposed by Councilmember Lewis, and I'll turn it over to him, except to say that currently the Central Library and six branches offer loaded curbside service, excuse me, curbside pickup service three days a week from 12 to 6 p.m.

Councilmember Lewis, thank you so much for joining us.

I know you are in route if you don't have the ability to chat right now.

I'm happy to get your feedback on this later.

But if you can hear me go ahead and unmute and happy to have you chime in here.

Sorry I was muted Madam Chair.

Can you hear me.

Now we can.

Great.

Excellent.

Yeah.

So I appreciate being able to queue up this this Form A. You know I know a number of us have libraries you know within our districts in particular where It would be good to have, even if it's only a single day a week or a couple days a week or even a single window within a single day in a week, the opportunity to do more localized neighborhood pickup to library locations people can walk to that are easily accessed.

And that's not necessarily the case with all of the current branches where this service can currently be provided, though I am very grateful to the library for standing up the current opportunities to engage in the onsite pickup.

I would just be interested in exploring with the department what it might look like to allocate resources to expand the access to that to make sure that, you know, I mean, we talk a lot about being in a 15-minute city, for example, to make sure that this service of being able to continue to access library collections can be done in a way where people can walk and easily access the pickup at their local branch.

and would just be interested in pursuing and exploring that.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Can you clarify as well, when you say exploring that, is this intended to be more of a statement of legislative intent to do that analysis, or are you thinking that you'd like to allocate funding at this juncture?

Well, I'd like to seek from the library what they think expanding this kind of service to more locations, because it is basically talking about expanding an existing practice, right?

I mean, we do have on-site pickup at some locations, as central staff just previously indicated.

So I would think that we could get a decent idea from the library on what it would cost.

Presumably, there would be a cost associated with this.

And I think that this would be obviously the time when we're allocating the 2021 priorities to expand the service beyond the branches it's currently being done at.

At the time that I talked to Marcellus Turner about this, I don't believe there were plans to extend other branches at this time.

So I would like to use our budget process is an opportunity to have the library present what that would cost in terms of a budget appropriation to be able to provide it.

So I think a little more than a slide, depending on what we can gather from talking to the library and central staff about staffing levels or whatever would be required for this to happen.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Central South, did you have anything else to add to that?

I just note that we are working on that right now with CDO and the library, so should have an estimate soon.

Okay, thank you, Asha.

Don't see or hear any other questions on that.

Council Member Lewis, thank you for offering that explanation.

Let's go to number two.

This would add, as I mentioned earlier, is one of the options in the second issue identification.

This would add $139,000 to support the digital collection.

It's proposed by Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

So, I don't have to say a whole lot about this, except that we know that the library has seen a 29% increase in utilization of the digital collection, as the impact of reduced physical access has unfolded.

So digital collection provides access to students and families, digital materials, and to those who have limited access to the physical collection due to COVID.

So we are very interested between this and the physical collection, which we'll get to in a moment, and making sure that people have access to their libraries.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I'm not seeing any hands or questions on this right now.

Thank you for that summary.

Go ahead, Asha.

And that means we can move to the next slide.

So the third for May, also sponsored by Councilmember Morales, would be to add $531,000 to support the physical collection.

This would restore the full amount of the general fund cut that's proposed.

Councilmember Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Well, we know that As Council Member Herbold mentioned, the hotspot program is great and there's long lists.

And as somebody who regularly gets cut off of our meetings here, you all probably can guess that we don't have great internet connections here in the South End.

And so that digital divide really disproportionately impacts black, brown and senior communities.

And so the physical collection really is important to providing critical access for those who can't get their library access through digital options.

So we want to make sure, and especially also for folks with disabilities, to be able to access the physical collection is really important.

Very often the digital option is just an additional barrier for folks who have disabilities.

really looking to make sure that access to these materials is restored.

Just a quick follow-up question on that.

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

Okay.

A quick follow-up question on that.

Council Member Morales, is your intent here to also potentially reduce, is the $531,000 account for the fact that there has been a reduction in the use of CDs and DVDs, for example?

No.

I don't think so.

Yeah, I might actually need Asha's help here, but I don't think so.

I think, you know, it is in general, the access to the entire physical collection that we're talking about.

I guess the reason I was asking is it seems like option C from above in the memo and in the PowerPoint that you just provided, excuse me, mirrors much of what is in number three here, but it's off by about $50,000.

Is there similarities there, Asha, in what you have presented as option C and what is listed here as number three?

So option C is the $580,000 that pertains to the circulation personnel, not the physical collection.

Those two things are related.

The $531,000 is the full restoration of the cut to the physical collection.

And so I just note that it's more of a implementation of option B, I suppose, than it is of C.

And so we can talk further about what it looks like to just do a portion of the 531,000 that doesn't account for CDs and DVDs.

The other thing I would just note is that if there is a a desire to increase the physical collection or restore the physical collection, it might also necessitate some balance of restoring the personnel that would be required to use the physical collection.

And so that may be something to discuss further as well.

Thank you for that clarification.

I'm not seeing any additional questions.

Let's move on to the last form A from Council Member Sawant.

Okay, so this proposal would add $5.8 million to maintain library operations.

It would restore the full amount of the general fund cut.

And as you mentioned, it's proposed by Council Member Salam.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Swatt, please take it away.

Thank you.

This is the first of several budget amendments that my office has submitted as form A's to stop the mayor's draconian budget cuts.

And just in general, unless we increase progressive revenues as a council, we will see departments like libraries facing massive budget cuts and the council will end up passing an austerity budget.

In 2019 in the library levy voters agreed to tax themselves to expand library hours technology and services.

Unfortunately, as we've seen the proposed budget from the mayor is cutting all those new hours and programming in 2021 and this budget amendment would replace all of that funding and stop all of the cuts.

My office has proposed similar budget amendments to stop the austerity to prevent the horrendous budget cuts in all the departments that have faced large budget cuts in the mayor's proposed budget and those will be coming up.

Added together, the mayor has proposed well over $200 million in cuts.

My office continues to fine-tune the calculations with help of city council central staff, So far, my office has identified at least $219 million in budget cuts to housing, parks, libraries, and transportation.

And so the people's budget movement is demanding that the city council increase the big business tax rate in the Amazon tax that the council passed over the summer.

Technically, this would be a very simple one-page bill to change those tax rates, to increase those tax rates.

And in my view, ultimately, it will be a question of political will because it's a mathematical issue.

It's recessions, regressive taxes, revenues plummeting.

We will either pass an austerity budget as a council or we will actually shore up the budget by increasing progressive revenues.

And as I said, this afternoon we'll have another budget amendment from my office to increase the tax rate to prevent the budget cuts to libraries and also other departments.

Thank you very much council members.

So want questions on this?

Okay, I just have one question.

Asha, can you remind us, were there cost savings at all in this 2020 operation for libraries?

Council member Juarez today and in the past has reminded us the ways in which libraries have both adapted and also I'm just trying to figure out if there's a way to.

accommodate or account for those reductions in services due to COVID.

So I'll have to talk to the library and CBO about that specific piece, but I would note that the library had already taken a $2.9 million general fund cut during the rebalancing this summer, and that was mitigated by using $1.6 million of levy funds as well as saving operational savings from from holding positions vacant and reducing operating expenses.

So it's possible that there are more savings than that.

I believe that most of them were used over the summer to offset that general fund cut, but I'm happy to follow up.

Thank you so much.

I am not seeing or hearing additional questions on this.

Are there any additional questions on the library's presentation over all colleagues or any comments that folks want to make?

All right.

Asha, thank you for walking us through this presentation and for helping us better understand how the funding sources get braided to provide critical services to our community through the libraries.

Appreciate that.

I had one overall question, Asha, that I'm wondering if you might be able to get back to me on later or if you have the answer right now.

That's great as well, but don't want to I assume that this might require a little additional digging.

Do you have any analysis on how the governor's order to allow libraries to open to 25% capacity in phase two would affect hours, staffing cuts, or needs?

Especially if we're going to retain the mobile library services for those who are most vulnerable in the community, given that many people, even with a 25% opening, are still going to have compromised immune systems and are not going to be able to come in person.

Any knowledge of how that order affects what we are slated to offer for 2021?

I do not at the moment.

I think that order came out last week.

And so I'm happy to talk to the library about how they plan to incorporate that guidance into their plans moving forward and get back to you.

Okay, appreciate that.

I'm happy to send that question through the appropriate channels if that's helpful in terms of our tracking.

Great, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, colleagues, I'm not seeing any additional questions.

I want to thank Council Member Juarez as well who chairs this area.

for chiming in with additional context and I know that we will look forward to learning more about this issue area as we consider possible add backs and the impacts of the library specifically have on those who are trying to teach at home.

keep engaged and socially interacting with folks while we're in this remote period.

Libraries are offering critical services.

So huge thank you to MT and to all of our folks who are on the front line offering services through the libraries, traditional services, but also as Council Member Juarez noted, along with Asha, to those who are out there providing key services in community and in many cases, in dangerous positions given the spread of COVID.

We want to thank them for their ongoing work in our community to make sure our most vulnerable are cared for.

With that, we are going to go ahead and take a break, folks.

If there's no objection, we will go into recess until 2 PM.

You have a little bit extra time today.

I'm going to go ahead and do that with the hopes to keep to our schedule and have you all join us again this afternoon at 2 PM for the miscellaneous sections.

I know many of us probably see that as a long break for lunch, but I do hope that this gives you extra time to get through all of the additional emails.

I know many of us are receiving tons of emails, calls, and constituent meetings regarding the budget.

I hope you enjoyed this extra time, and we will see you at 2 p.m.

Until then, we are on recess.

Thank you so much.