Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee October 25, 2022 Session II

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you very much for joining us again at the Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee meeting.

My name is Teresa Mosqueda.

I'm chair of the Select Budget Committee.

It is October 25th, 2022, and the time is 2.02 p.m.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Juarez.

Here.

Okay, thank you.

Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Lewis.

Councilmember Silva.

Present.

Councilmember Morales.

Here.

Councilmember Nelson.

Present.

Councilmember Peterson.

Present.

Councilmember Sawant.

Present.

And Chair Mosqueda.

Present.

That's nine present.

Thank you very much.

We have a full council here today.

We're going to go ahead and continue with item number six.

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

Thank you very much.

I see Jasmine Marwaha with us again.

Jasmine, it's good to see you.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Again, my name is Jasmine Marwaha, Council Central staff, and I'll be presenting this Council Budget Action, Deal 1A1.

This Council Budget Action would reduce proposed funding from the Families Education Preschool and Promise, or FEPP, levy for the Seattle Promise Program by $1 million in 2023 and by $3.7 million in 2024 in the Department of Education and Early Learning, or DEEL.

The 2023-2024 proposed budget allocates $5.7 million of FEPP levy underspend out of a total of $9.7 million of underspend towards the Seattle Promise to address enrollment above projections and the need for additional program supports for students impacted by the pandemic, among other challenges.

This underspend was in large part from COVID-19-related service disruptions to early learning programs and under-enrollment as families stayed in their pandemic bubbles.

This council budget action would result in $4.7 million of FEPP levy underspend being put back into fund balance, with the potential for the funding to be reprogrammed to early learning and K-12 investments in the future.

Towards that end, the next two discussion items after the CBA will address potential slides that would, one, ask DEEL to propose specific early learning and K-12 investments from FEPP levy underspend, and two, provide direction to DEEL to prioritize its promised expenditures.

This council budget action is sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Council Members Herbold and Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

Please go ahead, Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Am I muted?

I just got a thing saying I'm muted.

You're good.

I can hear you.

You can hear me.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Jasmine.

So we've gotten several questions about this.

So the first thing I want to say is that this is not about reducing funding for Seattle school kids.

As Jason mentioned, this is about reducing underspend and reallocating it.

So FEPP levy policy from this council has made clear that if there is underspend, it goes toward early learning or K-12 unless the levy oversight committee and council approve otherwise.

So I have two primary concerns that I just want to walk my colleagues through about why I'm proposing that we not spend it as proposed.

The first is that I have serious concerns with how the proposal was developed and presented to the Oversight Committee.

We were not given a kind of a menu of options for how to spend this, but really just presented with this one proposal to spend it on Seattle Promise.

Given that we know there is great need in K through 12 and early learning, that that is already the priority, preferred priority anyway, I think it's important that we stick to that plan.

We just heard this morning in the news that in Washington eighth grade math proficiency has dropped.

We know that English language proficiency has dropped 12% among here in Seattle among levy supported students compared to the 2018 2019 school year.

We know that kindergarten readiness is another key element in helping our young scholars find success in school.

And so I'm asking Deal to give us some options next year to have real consideration about how to use this underspend funding.

And that is what the subsequent slide is about, which we'll talk about in a moment.

My second concern with adding the $5.7 million is, as I said earlier in our budget deliberations, that the way it's currently structured isn't equitable.

As I said last week, white students get more access to more dollars.

They also have better retention rates and better outcomes than scholars of color.

And I fear that additional investments will just kind of double down on the inequities of the program rather than giving DEEL the opportunity to re-examine some of the fundamentals of how the program is structured right now.

So until this structural problem is fixed, we shouldn't be expanding it.

And I'll explain more in the slides below about what we do hope to see with regard to the Seattle Promise dollars.

Thank you, Council Member.

Are there any questions or comments?

I do, Madam Chair.

Please go ahead, Council President.

So, and this is for both central staff, so I can kind of reframe what I've understood about Promise.

As one of the original people that helped craft the Promise program, I think we started out with three schools and we're up to 16 or 17, and we based it on low-income children.

people who have like the free lunch program.

My understanding of conversations with Director Chappelle, what we were hoping two, three years ago, two years ago, is that playing the long game, that in four years from when it launched, we'd have better statistics.

Actually, we've exceeded those statistics, actually.

for low-income and those who are first-generation college students.

And I'm sure Mr. Chappelle can provide that.

I know we had a briefing again with him.

So I agree with what you're saying, Council Member Morales, and I understand about the reallocating and the 5.7.

I guess the only concern I have, and maybe we can follow up offline as well, is would your slide envision capturing the good data we have and what it may look like and because we, we still need a couple more years under our belt to see if we're reaching children of color who are in high school, who can have two years of free college in any And then advanced to a four-year college, because right now it looks really good.

We have really good retention for two years at a local college and then moving up to the, whether it's the University of Washington or whatever state school.

And those are my questions that I had put to the director.

So I was going to ask you in the slide, is that where you're going with that?

So if you're going to reallocate the overspend from Promise over to early learning in K-12?

So the, should we just move on to the two slides?

Is that what I asked?

Okay, sorry, I got ahead of you.

Didn't mean to do that.

No, that's okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Council Member Morales, you're welcome to answer that question, but if you prefer to go on to the two slides, we can do that and then come back to that comment.

I'm not seeing any additional hands at this point.

Let's go ahead and have central

Okay, so this is a statement of legislative intent and deal 301 a one.

This slide would request deal provide draft legislation for the council's consideration to prioritize enrollment in the Seattle promise program, consistent with the priorities established in the FEPP levy implementation and evaluation plan.

The FEPP levy I any plan provides policy direction when demand for tuition support succeeds supply.

which is to prioritize tuition funds for different groups of students, including low-income, first-generation students, students of color, refugees and immigrants, homeless students, English language learners, and LGBTQ students.

This slide would request that DEEL provide the draft legislation on prioritization to the Neighborhoods, Education, Civil Rights, and Culture Committee by June 1st, 2023. This council budget action is sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Council Members Herbold and Mosqueda.

I'll go ahead and read the next one in.

This is a statement of legislative intent for deal 302A-001.

The slide would request that DL create a proposal for the use of all FEPP levy underspend through 2022 to go towards early learning and K-12 programs.

FEPP levy underspend includes any prior year program expenditures that were not spent in those anticipated years and which will continue to be held in FEPP levy reserves after the 2023 budget is adopted.

This slide would request that DEEL provide a written proposal to the Neighborhoods, Education, Civil Rights, and Culture Committee by June 1st, 2023. This slide is sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Council Members Herbold and Mosqueda.

I'm going to call the meeting to order.

Thank you.

So let me start with the early learning.

So as Jasmine mentioned, this asked to come back with a proposal for how to focus underspend on early learning and K-12.

And that is about addressing, you know, so that they have a chance to get to college.

As I mentioned already, we have seen a dramatic decrease in English and math scores.

We know that our kindergarteners, our young kids starting school need to come in with kindergarten readiness.

We need to address summer learning loss.

We need to ensure that every third grader can read because they can't do math if they can't read math problems.

So all of these things are needed before we can start really thinking about getting our kids into college.

which is not to say that we shouldn't continue the existing funding for Seattle Promise, but we do have a lot of sort of catch-up work to do for some of our students.

So that's what the early learning slide is about, is having them come back next year with a proposal for how to use this underspend on those earlier education components.

The second slide is about creating a prioritization for Seattle Promise.

As the Council President mentioned, the original intent was that this funding would be focused on students who are furthest from educational justice.

So low-income students, students of color, immigrant, LGBTQ, homeless students, Because we opened up Seattle Promise to universal access, that's a big part of why there is a higher than projected interest.

But it's also resulted in, as I said last week or two weeks ago, almost half of the Seattle Promise dollars going to white students rather than these students who were originally identified as the target.

So this slide would request that DEEL provide draft legislation to council to prioritize enrollment that's consistent with the levy implementation plan that meets these targeted students and really helps us understand if there is more demand than there are dollars for this program, how do we make decisions about who gets that money?

And I think what this is really going to lead us toward next year is a policy discussion about how we change, candidly, how we change from this universal access model to more of a targeted model that meets the original intent of the, of the Seattle promise dollars as it relates to the retention question that Council President asked what we learned this summer in the levy oversight committee retreat is that there are disparities in retention rates.

And some of this certainly is due to the fact that we've been in COVID for a few years.

But first year eligibility for high school students, enrollment projections, sorry, I'm losing track of my notes here.

Retention and completion data show that scholars most likely to receive the equity scholarships which is the money for books and, and, you know, housing, not tuition.

Those are the students who are not persisting in the program.

So the retention rates are lower for students who are receiving the equity instead of the Seattle Promise dollars.

The retention disparity translates into a disproportionate number of black and brown students and students furthest from educational justice having access to funding because they're not being retained in the program.

And that results contributes to an inequitable distribution of the funding that is available to them.

So, this can start to get complicated I don't want to get too much more into the weeds on this, except to say that nobody is a bigger advocate for free college than me.

I was the first generation, first person in my.

family to go to college.

But the way that this program is currently structured is not meeting the original intent, which was to serve students who are furthest from educational justice.

And this is these three pieces are really an attempt to try to move us back in that direction, and are just the beginning of what will have to be a deeper policy conversation next year.

All right.

Are there follow up questions to that?

Yeah, I actually, I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

Yeah, please go ahead, Council President.

I'll be very brief.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

But two things I'm hearing is that this is a response to what happened with COVID and its impacts, its disparate impacts on children, particularly children of color and low income children, immigrant children, being lagging behind.

And you're right, I was thinking the same thing.

You would want to invest, if you will, upstream so they actually get to the Promise Program.

But I would just note, though, that there are a lot of, as you shared, white kids that are low income, that are LGBTQ, that are first-time college students.

And so as an original proponent of this program and working with Director Deal and the prior administration, I hope we can keep an open mind that the key issue here was to get every child in the city of Seattle to have two years of free college for those children that never had an opportunity, like you were saying yourself and myself, to be first generation to go to college.

So those were only my only comments.

So thank you.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

I'll also just add, I want to thank you, Council Member Morales, for these three amendments.

Thanks to you and your team for the work that you've done, both here in the amendments and on the levy oversight committee.

we're looking forward to hearing more about the proposed budget.

When I originally looked at the proposed budget I similarly had questions about the concept of proceeding on the promise plan with these inequitable outcomes that you've outlined and looking forward to hearing more about the proposed amendments that you have to help fix some of those concerns.

We don't want to just add money to get to equity.

We want to look at support these amendments and also ensuring that the levies work to ensure that all of our kiddos have a good chance to succeed.

So thanks just for the thoughtful approach that you put forward in the three amendments here.

All right.

Let's keep going.

Item number seven, please.

Agenda item seven, sale information technology department for briefing and discussion.

Wonderful.

I see Lisa Kay online.

Good morning.

Good afternoon, Lisa.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

Lisa Kay with central staff again.

The first amendment in this item is ITD1A1, which is co-sponsored by Councilmember Peterson and co-sponsored by Council President Juarez and Councilmember Morales.

This amendment would restore funding to two council ads to the 2022 adopted budget.

These have been incorrectly coded in the budget system as one-time ads and were not included in the proposed 2023-24 budget.

The Technology Matching Fund provides grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations in Seattle for digital equity projects and programs.

Organizations in turn provide a match which can include labor materials, professional services, or cash.

The Digital Navigators Program provides grants of up to $50,000 to organizations that help residents with the use of computers and the internet.

I will turn over the microphone to Council Member Peterson as the sponsor of the proposed amendment.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thank you, Lisa Kaye, for that summary and your work on this.

Colleagues, we know that expanding access to affordable high-speed internet for our most vulnerable residents is vital for expanding access to education, jobs, to medical care, and to a better life.

Yet, despite these clear benefits and despite being a high tech city the COVID pandemic pulled back the curtain to expose an unacceptable digital divide here in Seattle.

A recent study confirmed racial disparities in the quality of internet service in several cities, including Seattle.

The Council quickly and boldly adopted the Internet for All Resolution 31956 in 2020, but unfortunately we have not seen sufficient investments to reduce the digital divide.

Consistent with the efforts approved last year by the City Council, this budget amendment would put our money where our resolution is. by approving modest but vital investments to two successful programs for digital equity, adding 300,000 to the technology matching fund and adding 250,000 for digital navigators.

These amounts will make sure we don't lose more ground for Seattle residents who are disconnected or who cannot afford these vital services.

For the benefit of the viewing public, Seattle's award-winning technology matching fund provides grants to qualifying nonprofits in Seattle for digital equity projects that are matched by the community's contributions, including volunteer hours, materials, and services.

Despite our Internet for All resolution, the city recently funded only 15 out of 53 digital equity projects from this program.

We also need to adequately fund the digital navigators program, which provides grants to organizations that deploy community members with cultural competence and technical knowledge to assist residents in using computers and connecting to the internet.

So colleagues, this is my only amendment today, and I encourage you to support this amendment.

So we stand by and make real our internet for all resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Councilmember Peterson, I'm not seeing any additional comments on this one.

Anything else from you?

Okay.

No, please go ahead.

I just want to thank my co-sponsors, Councilmember Morales and Council President Juarez.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Let's move on to the next item in this category.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Council Chair.

Budget Chair.

all over the place.

So this council budget action is ITD2A1.

This is sponsored by Council President Juarez and co-sponsored by Council Member Nelson and Council Member Strauss.

This amendment would continue funding for the multi-year implementation of an expanded and centralized records management system with a target completion date of 2025. This is going to get a little bit technical.

I'll try to keep it at a high clip.

Microsoft 365 currently supports records management on platforms such as OneDrive and SharePoint and Teams.

But many departments also have extensive records on internal file servers other than the Microsoft platforms.

Document storage and retrieval from those kinds of platforms currently varies from department to department with differing levels of efficiency and effectiveness.

And so although the project has expended approximately $1 million since 2018 on licensing consultants and staff support, the executive did not include a budget proposal from the Office of the City Clerk and ITD to add $1 million in 2023 and half a million dollars in 2024 to maintain this program's progress.

The council budget action before you today reflects a scaled back proposal that was developed by the Office of the City Clerk in consultation with ITD.

This would appropriate $437,000 in 2023 to maintain the current licensing level and to fund two part-time staff to continue project development.

Then in 2024, it would appropriate about $980,000 to expand implementation of the system, including licensing costs.

It would fund a halftime additional technical lead in ITD and provide consultant support for quality control and security protocols.

With that, I will turn the microphone over to Council President Juarez as the sponsor.

Thank you, Council President Juarez.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, Lisa K you're amazing central staff analyst you did not make it too wonky.

I also want to thank it just get out of the way now before I forget, our acting city clerk Elizabeth actions.

And both of them walk us through what this amendment entails.

So I will repeat a little bit of what Lisa Kay shared, but to give a little bit drill down on a little bit more kind of layman's terms of why we need this.

So I have characterized this, the 1.5 million, which is over two years, is more of a compliance funding.

The Office of the City Clerk ensures compliance with state law.

Regarding open public records specifically RCW 4014060 aptly titled destruction disposition of public records or office files and memoranda record retention schedules and in order to comply with state law, we also have the city law counterpart, which is Seattle Municipal Code 3.122, which is Seattle Archives and Records Management Program.

So together, the state law and the city law, in which the city complies with the state law, on how we retain documents, and I will get a little bit more into that as we get further down on what this technical platform does for us.

So as you know, it's important that the public have open and full access to public records.

And as we're learning, that is a necessity, which we all know to a democratic government.

The city's information technology department, ITD, has been working to have this, having the right technology in place citywide to ensure compliance with both state and city law.

This includes the legislative branch.

So to this end, in coordination with ITD, The city clerk is in year five, an eight year implementation plan.

So we had an eight year plan, we're in year five.

For the record point records 365 system, that's actually the name of the platform.

The project is well underway and ITD has spent and has invested 1 million to date on this project with the goal of completing it by 2025. So for today's purposes, our concern is that if this is not funded, that is allowing the record point project to continue.

And if it laps, we will have, and it will result in more work for our staff, namely requiring more work to retain, maintain, organize, track, release, and retrieve documents to the public.

No small task, as you all aware, when we have PDRs and such.

So we want to get that in place and in order, if we've already invested a million dollars, we want to hopefully get the remainder while we can address all these issues that the clerk's office has to do without this technology sitting on the shelf somewhere because implementation was only half completed.

So this council budget action or amendment, I usually call it a CBA amendment, but anyway, would add a limited amount of funding to keep the project underway.

So I'm basically trying to maintain compliance, keep the project afloat, and follow through on the commitment we made to implement this plan.

Our city has already invested five years of time and resources into completion of this technology platform to better serve the public and maintain compliance again with both state and city law.

So one year funding, or two times, we have $437,000 in 2023, which is one time, and then $979,700 in 2024, one time, which approximately comes out to about $1.5 million.

So the specific dollar amounts, as I just shared, then we'd also add to the SID, Seattle Information Technology Department to continue the multi-year implementation.

of the, it's called the Record Point Records 365 Records Management System to support compliance, again, with state law and city law.

So basically, in the legislative branch, which is the clerk's office, pursuant to city and state law, that is kind of, if you will, the Department of Origin.

That's where all those documents are held, as you all know.

And so what we're trying to do is say, hey, the total cost of this project is $2.4 million.

We've already spent $1 million on this project.

and we need the additional 1.5 to complete this project.

And I hope I did that justice, Lisa Kay and Elizabeth Atkins.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm not seeing any hands at this point.

Okay, Council President, thanks so much for that summary.

Anything else you'd like to add?

I'm glad no one asked any questions because a lot of this is really technology stuff.

And as you all know, I am not quite there.

I'm still a person.

Thank you.

You did a great job.

Thank you.

All right.

Let's move on to the next.

Let's move on to the next item on the agenda, Madam Clerk.

Agenda item eight, Office of Housing for briefing and discussion.

Thank you very much and welcome Tracy Ratzliff.

Thank you very much Council Budget Chair Mosqueda.

Tracy Ratzliff with your Council Central staff.

This afternoon we have three proposed amendments that have bubbled up for the Office of Housing.

The first one is OH1A1.

This would impose a proviso on $1.5 million of home-type family housing funds in 2023 in the Office of Housing to fund an affordable housing project in North Rainier Valley.

This project being developed by Community Roots Housing would create 108 units of affordable housing, affordable for families with incomes from 40 to 80% of area median income.

Funding, if this is approved, would be provided subject to OH's standard lending requirements.

and this is sponsored by Councilmember Morales and co-sponsored by Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Luz.

Amazing, thank you so much.

Let's go ahead and turn it over to Councilmember Morales.

Thank you.

First, I want to thank Tracy for her help.

We've had a lot of housing issues.

Sorry to interrupt you.

I just wanted to make sure you knew your video is not on, just in case you wanted it.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So much technology.

Um, okay so do first want to thank Tracy for helping us with the couple of amendments we've got coming up, as she mentioned, this is a collaboration between Community Roots Housing and jazz ed.

They are developing a mixed use building that would have affordable housing for families and artists in Seattle, as well as space for music and music education program.

with a youth performing arts facility in it.

I do want to apologize, colleagues.

I had sent some information yesterday about this project and realized today that I sent something that was quite dated.

So disregard.

That was information that we had received from the project earlier this summer.

So this is the current information.

The project is close to reaching its fundraising goal, but this would, due to inflationary costs as well as some supply chain issues, the cost of the project is now putting them a little bit behind.

And so this project is experiencing a gap of a million and a half dollars for shell and core construction of the building.

And so this closure would ensure this gap closure would ensure that the housing is built and that the project can proceed on time and support us with reaching our housing goals.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions for the council member.

Okay.

I do have a few questions on this.

Council Member Morales, thank you so much for lifting up this wonderful project.

We did, my staff and I had a chance to see folks from CUNY Roots Housing at our Garfield Superblock walk and we heard about this project.

and all the great transit-oriented affordable housing development from community routes as well.

So just a few quick questions, and perhaps this is for central staff, but of course, if the prime sponsor has comments as well, that'd be helpful.

Just from the technical perspective, can you remind me what stage this project is at, and would this be pre-development costs or capital costs?

So yeah, this is, the design is complete.

They have not yet started construction, at least as of the last time I was out there, which was in July.

But we will follow up with you on that, and it would be capital costs.

Okay, Tracy, anything to add to that?

That's what my understanding is from the sponsor's office, is that it's not pre-development, it's to actually begin construction of the project.

Okay, thank you.

And can you remind me what AMI, what area median income levels we're talking about here?

this is for 40 to 80%.

Okay, great.

Um, I do want to I'm really interested in this.

I I'm just thinking about this last question here.

So let me turn over to Councilmember Peterson as I formulate this last question.

Councilmember Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

This is just a reminder for me that when we're evaluating requests from organizations for capital dollars, it would be helpful to have, and maybe we already have this information or central staff has it, to show sort of a before and after spreadsheet of, you know, here's what the original costs were, and then here's a line item explanation for where those costs are increasing.

I thought that the Office of Housing had some funds to deal with cost overruns, so is there a reason that they're not, that OH is not able to just handle this with their existing funds?

I think that probably is targeted for me.

So a couple of things.

I have not requested, but I surely can request from the developer their development pro forma.

That includes what their original pro forma was and then what it is now based on their concern about the rising costs and so forth.

Second of all, this project didn't actually get awarded any city office of housing funds.

It came into ANOFA a couple of years ago and did not get funded because of other projects that were in the queue.

And so there isn't really a process by which OH could provide additional funding to a project that hasn't gotten office of housing funding because primarily their funds go out via a request for proposals process.

And so it isn't one of those awkward situations in which they don't really have a process by which they could fund this, except by us mandating them to do so through a proviso.

Or reapplying for ANOPA?

I don't think that would work just because of the timing of the project.

So I can verify that with Office of Housing and make sure that that wouldn't be possible.

And again, I don't have all the details about how close this project is to actually being ready to start construction and Council Member Morales may have that information.

But I don't think that there is a current NOFA that is now closed.

And the next one I think that would be available would probably be in the springtime.

So.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, it is sort of delayed already because of the gap that exists.

And so I think that is why they ended up coming to us to look for some help in closing it relatively quickly so that they could proceed.

But I'm happy to do a little more, have a little more conversation with them about some of the questions that have come up.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilmember Morales, I'm not seeing any additional comments on this one.

Let's go on to the next one.

Next one is OH2A1 and this budget action that is sponsored by Councilmember Morales as well as Councilmember Peterson and Councilmember Lewis.

it would add $462,000 of general fund in 2023 and $551,000 of general fund in 2024 and four FTE to the office of housing to create a municipal housing administration program funding and a municipal housing development fund.

Thank you, Kazima Morales.

Okay.

All right, so colleagues I did send around some information about this as well yesterday so hopefully you can sort of follow along with what we're doing here.

This CBA would fund for FTS to create a municipal housing administration team at the office of housing.

And so this would basically do three things.

The first is that this team would assess city property for potential development of permanently affordable mixed income housing.

This would be housing that is built on property that stays in city ownership and is leased for this sort of development via a 99-year lease.

That's where the permanent affordability comes in.

The second thing is that this team would also oversee a new fund, the Municipal Housing Development Fund that would provide organizations with capital who are developing this particular kind of housing.

that fund would go toward, there would be a 3% administration, 3% of the fund would go toward administration of the program.

I should say for the fund in particular, we are working with two legislators at the state level to secure seed funding in the 2023 session.

So those conversations are ongoing and that work is in development.

The last thing I want to say is that this team doesn't hinge on the passage of initiative 135. But if that initiative passes, it would put us in a position for the city to fulfill those obligations quickly and would provide some of the administrative function and infrastructure that that initiative requires.

That said, whether or not the initiative passes, this sort of paves the way for community organizations and other affordable housing providers to develop more housing.

I do want to also say that I have discussed this proposal with Director Winkler-Chin, who believes that this is doable, and indeed some of the elements included, they are already doing at the Office of Housing.

What this proposal does not do is replace or supplant any of our current statutes that promote the development of affordable housing.

If anything, it really allows for more development of more housing by giving our community-based developers the option to partner with the city in securing the use of land.

So as I said, I did distribute a summary of the approach last night.

I hope it's useful in answering some of your questions.

I do want to thank Tracy again on Council Central staff for helping us draft this.

And I want to thank Devin Silvernail on my team who's been working really closely with our Seattle in Reach Seattle Within Reach Coalition over the last two years.

This idea really comes from them, and these are community organizations and advocates who are looking to build a Seattle that offers as many housing options as possible so we can help move people out of being rent burdened, out of homelessness, and into some home ownership opportunities.

I'm happy to take questions now or if throughout the rest of our deliberations if there are questions, please let me or Devin know.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council President Juarez.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

You actually answered it.

I had three questions teed up, actually four, but one of them you straight up answered.

But I kind of got a little bit lost in a couple of the other ones.

So I'm just going to kind of rephrase them if you wouldn't mind.

So are the functions, I think you said, listed for this new program included in the current work program in the Office of Housing?

I think you said it was doable or?

Yeah, some of the things that Office of Housing does already are are doable.

So, you know, building the housing, providing the funding, the asset management piece is something that, you know, some of some of the elements would still need to be worked out.

But in my conversations with direct with the director, You know, she felt like there was nothing, nothing problematic here and that if there are additional questions about whose work is what that those are issues that we could work out later, I should say that we had started with the, with the idea of trying to do this through FAS since they already do, you know, some asset management and it just.

seemed like this was the better way to go.

So these conversations in terms of what elements go in which department are still ongoing.

So there's a difference between doable and whether or not the Office of Housing is already performing these functions.

So I'm hearing some of it's doable, and they already already are performing.

And some of it would be new.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

So it's a mix of both.

Yes.

Okay.

So my second question, I'm really glad you brought this up, because I didn't want to be the one to have to bring it up.

But In initiative 135, the social housing initiative.

If that were to pass in February, you're saying that this would complement if 135 were to pass.

If 135 were not to pass, then the sole responsibility fiscal and function would land at OH?

Yes.

Okay.

And then is there a scenario where you could, and I know you wouldn't want to, but if you had to, and I would certainly want to learn more and work with you, is there a scenario where we could revisit this funding and this policy either after February or in the next cycle when we get a sense of Let's say 135 passes, and then OHA can kind of get together about, okay, how does this complement, how do we complement this initiative that just passed?

Or if it doesn't get passed, then OHA has a different task in front of it.

Would it be fair to say, is it fair to ask that if we can envision this at a later date, either in the supplemental or next year?

Well, so this is kind of the conversation we had last year, you'll recall that we, we started this conversation about how to set up the infrastructure for such a thing last year, and I would say.

My response is the same, which is that you know that didn't that didn't pass in last year's budget but it did spark this conversation in community that has now led to this ballot initiative.

And so I think, you know, we have.

COB, Elaine McLaughlin she-her, PSUG): Clear interest in trying to add one more tool to the way we do affordable housing, I think this would if it does pass this would have the implementation of the infrastructure already underway.

which I think would be a good thing.

If it doesn't pass, I still think there is an interest in having an additional alternative for how we do housing, and this is something that we could begin to implement and begin to provide the infrastructure for that additional alternative.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any additional comments or questions?

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

So I did not read what was sent yesterday, so I apologize.

I will go back and do that.

And so this does not presuppose passage of Initiative 135. Does it and does it kind of make does it pretty much do the same thing instead?

Is it basically I asked because I'm reading the ballot title for 135 and it says, this measure would create a public development authority to develop own and maintain publicly financed mixed income social housing developments and under a on here it says acquire retain and determine viability of city on property so it sounds like they kind of do the same thing so.

When you were in your remarks explaining what this does, I heard asset management.

And so I guess I need to just dig in more and understand what the bulk of this new program would be doing.

But could you comment on whether or not it is very similar to what 135 would do?

Yeah, I think regardless of whether or not it passes, as I said, you know, it really does.

The intent is to kind of pave the way for community organizations to work with the city for securing city land and for, you know, helping create this kind of public developer idea so that it is it is it is city owned housing.

Which is different than the way we do public housing right now.

And the idea is that there is this cross subsidization that could happen.

So there are some units that would be high quality apartments for low income families.

And there are some that are you know market rate and they help support one another but it creates this opportunity of permanent affordability.

Because it is on city-owned land and that is, you know, a long-term lease rather than something that could continue to get flipped and have, you know, I'm sure we're all reading about some of these renter algorithm softwares that are perpetually increasing rents and making it incredibly hard for people to stay in the city.

This is an effort for us to try to have more control over how those kinds of increases happen.

Just to follow up, thank you for that.

So that answers my question.

It does sound similar to what 135 is proposing.

Somebody is going to have to build the housing.

So I will just talk offline to find out if our existing housing providers HAB-Masyn Moyer): Have any thoughts on this because I don't want to create a situation where they're competing for the same limited pool of city support for affordable housing.

HAB-Masyn Moyer): yeah this wouldn't create that situation i'm there, it would give them options for what kind of of city housing to build but wouldn't exclude anybody from doing one or the other, certainly.

HAB-Masyn Moyer): Okay, thanks.

Thank you so much.

I am not seeing any additional comments on this Council Member, and look forward to having more conversation about those algorithms.

We thought we helped to try to address some of that with the rent bidding legislation we passed in 2018, and it was temporary in nature, and now we're seeing all different types of algorithms be put into place that scale up the cost of rental units.

So thanks for flagging that as a general concern.

the housing stock in Seattle and across the country.

I also just wanted to ask Tracy, though, when it relates to housing that the City of Seattle is largely funding for low-income housing or housing at 30% AMI and below, can you remind us what most of those housing units have in terms of a long-term requirement for affordability?

It's a minimum of 50 years, and usually they are structured in such a way as long term loans that we essentially continue to extend at the end of that term of 50 years to essentially make those units affordable in perpetuity.

we're trying to fund through the city in terms of long-term affordability, but it also I think continues to be a housing crisis overall and we need all tools as we seek to add to some of the policies that the city has passed like the housing disposition or the land disposition policy, Councilmember, I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time hearing you.

Do you mind saying that again?

Sorry, can you hear me now?

A little better.

Do you mind yelling a little?

I don't mind.

Sorry, I was speaking softly just because I didn't want to be too loud, but I can speak louder.

Thank you.

I support this amendment and I'd like to be added.

Okay.

Okay, thanks.

I heard at that time council members.

I want council members.

I want adding their name as co-sponsor.

Okay, let's go ahead and continue.

Moving on to the next CDA OH 300 A-1.

This is a statement of legislative intent that is sponsored by Council Member Herbold as well as Straus and Mosqueda.

and it would request that the Office of Housing review options for non-permanent supportive housing services funding and pre-development and or organizational capacity funding in development of the proposed housing levy renewal package.

This package we are expecting to have submitted to the Council in the springtime of 2023, and any recommendations as it relates to those two particular issues would come as part of that proposed levy renewal package.

Thank you very much, Tracy.

I'm going to turn it to Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you so much.

I would like to start my remarks with thanks to Madam Chair Mosqueda and Councilmember Strauss, both for co-sponsoring this amendment.

This amendment follows, you may recall, a very important investment that the City Council made last year to support what are called resident services in affordable housing development.

These kinds of services are typically part of permanent supportive housing development, but not other kinds of affordable housing developments.

They're very, very important to promote greater stability in community building among low-income and homeless residents living in publicly subsidized affordable housing, but do not require the same intensity or level of services that individuals in permanent supportive housing typically require.

This amendment further refines last year's investment by directing the Office of Housing to specifically explore how these resident services can be incorporated into the housing levy renewal, which they're not currently part of, which is why the council, in its wisdom, funded them last year.

It also directs Office of Housing to tap technical expertise to further develop this as a new program area.

The necessary next steps, if we want resident services to be ready as part of the implementation of the next housing levy, Residents that we serve in our housing development face a wide range of challenges, differ in their intensity and severity, but they all share in common the fact that affordable housing that they live in gives each and every one of them a fighting chance to overcome their challenges.

And we know from talking to our providers, we had Heyo Kim with HDC and Michael Thereth with and I'm so excited to be here.

I'm so excited to be able to.

Seed speak to us today and to explain how resident services are becoming an important tool.

In that effort to overcome the challenges associated.

With with living as a low income resident in the city and we their support that the

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I would just like to signal my interest in supporting this amendment.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Councilmember Lewis adding his name to this amendment.

Any additional comments?

Okay.

Seeing none, thank you very much, Councilmember Lewis.

You have been added.

Excellent.

Okay, I think, Madam Clerk, we are ready to move on to the next item.

Agenda item 10, excuse me, agenda item 9, Opposite Intergovernmental Relations for Briefing and Discussion.

Thank you.

I'm looking for our central staff team.

Who wants to pop online?

Good afternoon, Council Budget Chair Mosqueda.

This is Corina Bull.

I'm with Council Central Staff.

I'm here to present information on this Council Budget Action 1A1.

This Council Budget Action would add 12,000 general fund in 2023 and 12,000 general fund in 2024 to the Office of Intergovernmental Relations to fund a membership with a national organization of local elected officials working to achieve racial and social justice, such as Local Progress.

In recent years, Local Progress has supported the city's development of new labor standards, revenue generation ideas, and criminal justice reform.

Membership would increase Local Progress's capacity to help the city develop policies and programs to build power in marginalized communities and would foster the city's collaboration with elected leaders across the country.

The 2024-2023-2024 proposed budget would appropriate $505,000 to OIR for memberships with organizations, and this council budget action would increase that to $517,000.

It would cover the full cost of a membership with Local Progress.

This council budget action is sponsored by Council Member Mosqueda and is co-sponsored by Council Members Strauss and Herbold.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I'm excited to bring forward this amendment for our consideration, small but mighty impact.

Local Progress is a network of nearly 1500 municipal officers around the country made up of city, county and school board elected legislative members in all jurisdictions across the state.

across the states.

I've had the good fortune of being a local progress board member, excuse me, a local progress member since I started in 2017 and now am lucky to serve on the board of directors.

This has a requirement that two-thirds of the seats on the board are held by current local elected officials across this country who are active in the local progress network.

I am not alone.

I have the distinct privilege of following in the footsteps of my colleagues who have been active board members and also local progress members over the last few years.

This includes Councilmember Herbold who has had a strong connection to local progress both as a Councilmember and in her previous role as well.

We also know that Councilmember Nick Licata not only sat on the local progress board but was a founding member.

former council president Gonzalez also sat on the local progress board as well.

And I know that many of our colleagues currently are members and receive communications from local progress, including Council President Juarez, Council Member Lewis, Morales, Strauss, and probably others.

I really have appreciated the role that local progress has had, especially in these tough times as the response to COVID has largely fallen on city shoulders, especially in how we deploy federal dollars that have been allocated to us from the American Rescue Plan being on the ground in the last few years.

to help deploy additional state resources and knowing best how to get those dollars out the door and make a meaningful impact to our local communities.

Local Progress has been at the forefront to share information across jurisdictions about how to act quickly and how to act efficiently in these times of need.

And I'm very proud to say that Local Progress has featured a number of Seattle strategies and policies in terms of how we work together collectively with the executive and with community members to pass historic legislation.

Specifically, there was a report that was just released earlier this summer where Local Progress directly featured City of Seattle and all of the work that we've done on labor standards and the Office of Labor Standards enforcement role and oversight that the city plays.

Concretely, three important elements of Local Progress' membership that I'd like to lift up.

They provide us with policy support as well.

Local Progress has served as a venue to bring policy experts to our ears and eyes in this time to look at ways for us to improve public policy and to build a healthier and more robust economy that centers a recovery on what working families need.

Second, They highlight the work that we're doing, as I noted, with the example of the report that featured Seattle.

They highlight Seattle through many of their publications, and this gets featured in national discussions and national conferences as well.

And finally, they help us build community across elected officials across this country.

So very similar to our participation in the Association of Washington Cities, the National League of Cities, this is one additional way for us to make sure that were connected and coordinated with other cities as we seek to increase access to democracy and build stronger policies that serve our community.

I also would close out by saying that the cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore have also contributed through their We're looking forward to having conversations about this.

support networks that our councilmembers are connected to.

And I want to thank as well the Office of Intergovernmental Relations who has worked with us and identified how this is similar to other funding strategies that we currently have across the city as well.

And I see a hand.

I will turn it over now to Councilmember Nelson.

Please go ahead.

So I thank you very much.

How does paying this money change what we get from local progress?

Because it sounds like we're already a member.

Is that the case?

Can you break that down for me?

Because it sounds like we have already benefited a lot beyond your being on the board.

Yes, so specifically, yeah, thank you.

Specifically, this organization, like many associations, Association of Western Cities, National League of Cities, they look to others to help provide sponsorship for convenings, for publications, for research.

and we have growing numbers of cities who are contributing to local progress, hoping that we will be one of those given the increased work that they've taken on, and then yielding increased capacity for us to continue to learn from other jurisdictions, but also be out there on the cutting edge to share the information that we have passed and are considering in our city with other jurisdictions across the nation.

Got it.

And so you said that you've been working with OIR on this, so they're fine with this.

I'm just, one thing that I would ask them is, will this impact at all our ability to work on bipartisan legislation?

But I assume that they have weighed in on that in there, because those other organizations take a decidedly nonpartisan position.

Sure.

There is, I think, a really good list of all sorts of organizations that Office of Intergovernmental Relations funds, and it's sort of cross-sectional.

So we worked with Office of Intergovernmental Relations on how this applies similarly to some of the other types of organizations that we fund through OIR.

And Karina, I don't know if you'd want to share any of the other organizations, for example, that OIR supports.

Some of them are bipartisan.

Some of them are just organizations that work with specific sectors.

So looking at a broad list that does not preclude us from working across aisles, if you will.

I know we don't really use that in Seattle, but.

I think that it helps us to just get the word out about the type of policy that we engage with.

And then some of the other types of memberships or associations that the Office of Intergovernmental Relations supports are more specific sector-based.

But similar to that, I would say that it's not supporting one sector versus another.

It's just helping to create additional role for the city to have in those discussions.

Karina, do you want to share some of the other ways in which OIRA supports national and local organizations?

Yeah, from my understanding, the organizations that OIR is a member of include those that are meeting criteria for what's called intergovernmental, those that support the office's work more administratively and that also promote the city's interest.

Examples include Puget Sound Regional Council, Association of Washington Cities, the U.S.

Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, Third House, Sister Cities International, World Affairs Council.

In all, I believe that OIR plans to become a member with nine organizations in 2023. So this membership would bring it to 10. And my understanding of some of the organizations, such as those as Association of Washington Cities and National League of Cities, is that those organizations prioritize issues that they advocate for.

And that is a decision, I suppose, among the board members of those organizations, there might not always be consensus among what those issues are among members.

So I don't see local progress as necessarily being different.

There might be more consensus among the issues that local progress is working towards among the members of the organization.

But I think that any of these organizations does prioritize issues that they're going to advocate for.

I think that Office of Intergovernmental Relations could provide more information on that point.

Thank you, Karina.

I want to thank Councilmember Strauss and Councilmember Herbold for their co-sponsorship as well.

All right, let's go ahead and move on to item number 10.

Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs for briefing and discussion.

Welcome back.

Jasmine Marwaha, please go ahead.

Yes, hello.

Once again, Jasmine Marwaha, Council Central staff.

I'm presenting Council Budget Action OIRA 1A1.

This Council Budget Action would add $78,000 in general fund in 2023 and 2024 to the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs for the New Citizen Program.

The program provides free naturalization services to low-income immigrants and refugees living in Seattle or King County.

This increase in funding would help ensure that 12 organizations can continue to be funded at levels similar to prior years while accounting for bubbling inflation and would bring the total amount of funding to the program to a million dollars in 2023 and 2024. The CBA is sponsored by Councilmember Mesquita and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Morales and Straus.

Thank you very much, Jasmine.

Colleagues, you might remember this amendment from years past.

Each year, the new citizenship program partners to do the critical work of helping the city of Seattle residents gain access to citizenship.

This year, each renewing agency was given a little bit less money than the prior cycle, which will decrease the number of people served and impact the provider's ability to retain our highly skilled staff.

As part of the new citizenship program and the larger work around citizenship, they provide information about the naturalization process, assistance with completing applications, small group classes, individual tutoring, and practice interviews to help clients prepare for the citizenship test.

As salaries increase with inflation and tenure, it's impossible to provide the same number of hours of service as they have provided previously with the amount of funding that they are receiving.

We are really proud to live in this city, one that is a sanctuary city that welcomes immigrants and refugees.

We believe all people deserve access to a pathway towards citizenship.

And I think a decrease in funding makes it difficult for those organizations that we partner with to help pay their staff a living wage and pay the necessary investments to keep this program running and serve the population in need.

last year, OIRA allocated $992,000 to 11 partners.

This year, OIRA allocated $921,000 to 12 partners.

So less money, more partners.

And the increase that I'm suggesting here of a mere $78,000 can help increase the funding to bring this program to a million dollars overall and return agencies to all returning agencies so that we can continue to support immigrants and refugees with citizenship services as the level that they have received in the past.

Looking for additional questions or comments?

not seeing any, thank you so much to Councilmember Strauss and Morales for their support on this amendment.

Their co-sponsorship on this amendment, I should say.

Please go ahead, Madam Clerk.

I think we're ready for item number 11.

Agenda item 11, Office of Labor Standards for briefing and discussion.

Thank you.

And we have with us Karina Bull.

Welcome back, Karina.

Item number 11, please.

Thank you.

For the record, Karina Bull with Council Central staff.

I'm here to present OLS 181, This council budget action would add 552,000 in 2023 and 527,000 in 2024 and three positions to the Office of Labor Standards to implement the app-based worker minimum payment ordinance and to provide enforcement support for all labor standards.

In May of this year, council passed the app-based worker minimum payment ordinance to secure workplace protections for app-based workers performing services in Seattle, And in January 2024, this ordinance will go into effect.

So this council budget action would provide funds for to implement the ordinance, and it would support setup, cost staffing and outreach setup.

Cost would include 25,001 time in 2023 for rulemaking new employee costs and other items.

Staffing would be $427,000 in 2023 and 2024 for three FTE, an administrative specialist, policy analyst, and a data analyst.

And outreach would be $50,000 on an ongoing basis for an outreach campaign that OLS could use to fund their own costs for ad placements and informational materials, and also could choose to use to contract with local organizations for community outreach as well.

This proposal would also provide funds to increase OLS's enforcement capacity for all labor standards by allocating $50,000 to support co-enforcement initiatives, mobile intake programs, and professional development for investigators.

This council budget action is sponsored by Council Member Herbold and is co-sponsored by Council Members Mosqueda and Lewis.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Herbold, please go ahead.

Oh, thank you so much.

I'm really excited about this proposal.

I think as many of us know, having participated in developing the legislation that led to this requirement, the Office of Labor Standards as a department is different than most executive departments in that by law, they are empowered to submit their own recommendations for their budget and the expectation under the law that the mayor proposes a budget sufficient to meet those needs as identified by the Office of Labor Standards.

This requirement is referred to as an annual certification of Office of Labor Standards functions and resource needs, and it is required under Seattle Municipal Code 3.15.070B.

OLS's letter this year closes with a really important note that I want to highlight.

It says, OLS continues to be at an important inflection point in its growth and maturity as an agency and an embedded function of our city government.

This is trailblazing work.

Few other municipalities in the United States offers the kind of resources, enforcement capacity, and broad reach as Seattle.

As we have seen over the last few years, The city's enforcement of labor standards has brought significant tangible financial benefits for our lowest income workers.

This is economic justice made real.

To continue this effort requires a sustained commitment by all decision makers to fully fund the office commensurate with the level of effort needed to bring about these results.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to lead the department's work and a staff that deeply believes in its importance.

We look forward to continuing to make strides to improve the lives of Seattle's workers and building a culture of compliance with our labor standards through the city in 2023. So the mayor's budget, unfortunately, did not fully fund the needs identified by the Office of Labor Standards.

And this budget focuses on what's necessary to implement the council-adopted app-based worker minimum wage payment ordinance, though it does, as Karina explained, also have some additional funds focused more on the more general needs for enforcement and education outreach, as identified by the Office of Labor Standards.

The base worker minimum payment ordinance goes into effect in January 2024 so a year from from this January, and this measure funds the implementation work that's needed.

And the ability to do some co enforcement initiatives with organizations and before I close out I I also want to.

Because again, the folks who are doing this work on the ground can speak to the need so much better than I can, and I really want to lift their voices.

The Labor Standards Advisory Commission letter of October 13th that we all received, and I know everybody understands that LSAC is a commission of 15 members reflecting both Seattle's workforce and our business community.

They wrote to us, and here's just a quick excerpt.

Seattle's labor standards advance racial and gender equity in our local economy and ensure Seattle's working families are able to afford housing, food, healthcare, and other basic needs.

Many of these standards are the first of their kind, and such, they're being emulated across the country, and they reflect Seattle's reputation for innovation and leadership on workplace protections and economic development.

continuing to underfund OLS will have significant consequences for Seattle's workers and economic growth.

And without full funding next year, workers will have to wait longer for their cases to be investigated, so lower confidence in our work actions and increase the likelihood that they will struggle to afford the basic needs.

And importantly, businesses will have more unfair competition from companies that break the law, weakening our local economy and discouraging entrepreneurship.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair.

I'm not seeing any additional hands.

You read some of the letter that I was going to read from the Labor Standards Advisory Committee, but I'll just add to that a component that I'm not, I hope I'm not duplicating what you said.

The Office of Labor Standards, they go on to say, provides strong enforcement, which creates a fair playing field for many small businesses in Seattle that are providing health care.

family leave, good wages, retirement contributions, and other benefits that lead to lower turnover, higher morale, better customer experience, and higher productivity.

All of this contributes to Seattle's reputation as a great place to work and own a business.

I'm very thankful for the work that you have put into this amendment, Councilmember Herbold and to the co-sponsor as well, Councilmember Lewis.

I think that when we pass the pay up legislation, and again, congratulations on that historic legislation, I was very supportive and also concerned a little bit about the budgetary impacts and the impact for OLS, so I'm delighted that you are working to help figure out how to fund the outreach and enforcement in this legislation.

And thank you also for adding in a small dollar figure to work on enforcement of our office labor standards.

I think this is an important effort as we continue to see of labor standards taking the largest reduction in their overall budget with a 35% reduction.

We know some of that is offset by not having as many policies to implement due to the state legislation which preempts us.

But overall, I think this is a great way to help close some of that gap.

Any additional comments?

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

All right, I think, Madam Clerk, that it brings us to item number 12.

Agenda item 12, Seattle City Light for briefing and discussion.

Okay, let's see.

Hello, back to the stage, Eric McConaughey.

Good afternoon, Eric McConaughey, Council of Central Staff.

This CBA is Seattle City Light 301A1, and in the primary sponsor bubble for today for this one is Council Member Sawant.

And in the additional sponsor bubbles, we have Council Member Morales and Council Member, excuse me, Council Member Peterson.

This statement of legislative intent or a sly would request that the City Light report to Council on the costs and benefits of new green power generation developed and owned by City Light compared to the same developed and owned by separate private or public entities.

And with that, I'll let the Council Member take it from there.

Great, thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Customer Miskita, and thank you to the staff for that description.

The Green New Deal, like many other demands originating from socialists and grassroots movements, has become a phrase co-opted and changed out of all recognition.

We now have a city budget that talks about every dollar, even remotely related to the climate, including basic funding for city bureaucracy as Green New Deal.

It is not green, certainly not new, and often with the funding that is far out of scale with the problem that needs to be addressed is a bad deal overall.

I do not need to spend time explaining why climate change is a deadly crisis for humanity.

We've all just breathed the smoke for the last month, especially that day, I think last Monday, when Seattle had the world's worst air quality.

That takes some doing.

Nevertheless, across this capitalist world, corporate profits continue to be prioritized over the climate.

We need a real Green New Deal.

where there are massive public investments in new infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel burning infrastructure of society, which also would create good union living wage jobs, building this new infrastructure.

And all of this has to be funded by taxing big business and the wealthy.

People in Seattle enjoy cheaper and greener electricity than most other people in the region and around the country because 100 years ago, the city of Seattle built publicly owned hydroelectric power plants as part of the original New Deal that was won by workers and specifically by the socialist labor movement, including the general strikes that happened in the 1930s.

So through the original New Deal, the federal government built a vulnerable hydroelectric dam.

We need green public infrastructure investments of that kind again.

Seattle should build wind and solar farms to meet our city's growing electrical needs and also to flood the energy markets in the Northwest with green electricity.

It is totally unacceptable that much of the electricity in this region is still generated with natural gas burning power plants, such as those owned by the profit-making Puget Sound Energy Corporation.

In its integrated resource plan this year, Seattle City Light determined that they will need new sources of electricity in the coming years.

That power could come from contracting with private power companies who burn fossil fuels for profit, like Puget Sound Energy.

That is precisely what Sound Transit, to its great shame, did to power the light rail expansion.

Or City Light could build publicly owned green energy like we have enjoyed for the last 100 years.

I would propose this anyway, but City Light has let my office know that there is now a unique opportunity to get federal money for this public expansion.

So this statement of legislative intent asks City Light to present the City Council with a plan with the costs and benefits of building publicly owned new green electrical generation resources.

I believe the cost should be paid for as I said by taxing big businesses who have profited so immensely under the system.

The expense of workers in the environment.

Just to clarify this statement of legislative intent simply asked to be like the information we need to make this new green infrastructure an option.

And lastly, I'll just end by saying that just witnessing the unprecedented energy crisis and absolute chaos that the working people in the various countries in Europe are being subjected to, I think this should be an additional reminder of the grim urgency that confronts us on the question of the climate crisis.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much, Councilmember Herbold and then Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you.

I just want to thank Councilmember Sawant for bringing this forward.

I do remember in committee when we discussed the integrated resource plan, hearing from yourself as well as members of the public, including folks who are on the City Light Rate Advisory Board, their frustration that this, that that we are not fully committed to the plan.

We are not fully committed to the exploration of new sources of green power.

We are not fully committed to in the plan.

I appreciate you remembering that and bringing this forward.

If the sponsor will accept my co-sponsorship, I would like to be added.

Thank you.

Thank you, councilmember Lewis.

Councilmember Lewis adding his name as a co-sponsor.

Okay, thank you so much.

I'm not seeing any additional hands.

Just noting again for the record, councilmember Herbold and Lewis added as co-sponsors.

All right, let's go on.

Anything else in this category?

No.

Let's go on to the next item.

Agenda item 13, Seattle Public Utilities for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

I am turning it over to Brian.

Good night, it looks like.

Good afternoon, Brian.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

Brian, good night.

Council Central staff.

There are two items related to Seattle Public Utilities, or SPU, on today's agenda.

The first item is Council Budget Action SPU 13A1, which would add $50,000 from the Water Fund in 2023 on a one-time basis for SPU to support efforts to remove predacious fish from Lake Washington.

The sockeye salmon run has experienced a drastic decline in recent years, and the number of adult salmon returning to the Lake Washington system has decreased from more than 400,000 fish in 2006 down to about 23,000 fish in 2021. One strategy for helping sockeye salmon survival is the removal of fish predators that reside in Lake Washington, and this funding is intended to help with that effort.

This item is sponsored by Councilmember Lewis and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold and Strauss.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, happy to speak to this.

I've been meeting on a fairly regular basis for the last several months with representatives from the Cedar River Council, a intergovernmental group that really seeks to nurture and cultivate and advocate for the salmon run in partnership with the dual managers of this run, the Muckleshoot Tribe and the State Department of Natural Resources.

There have recently been efforts that'll come up in a future slide where Seattle Public Utilities has been a partner in working with those co-managers to provide some resources to engage in some efforts to maintain the vitality of this run.

in a supporting role.

And this is one of those efforts to see if we can give SPU more things they might offer in the spirit of partnership to support future plans.

There is currently a predation study in Lake Washington on predatory fish.

So this doesn't get too prescriptive, but provide some resources to Seattle Public Utilities to support the efforts of the co-managers in implementing the recommendations of that predation report when it comes back.

I would add that similar efforts of focusing on predacious fish that prey on salmon fry have resulted in helping the vitality of runs in the Snake and Columbia Rivers.

So just putting some attention behind this, I think it's important that we continue to focus with SPU to strengthen our partnership on this and follow up on the success that we have seen this past season and stemming some of the worst effects of attrition on this run and really support the efforts of the co-managers that are helping to reverse this trend.

Seeing none, I do have a question, and Councilmember Lewis or Central South, feel free to weigh in on this.

Could you comment on whether or not this is targeted at invasive species, or would it also include native fish species?

My understanding is that there's a number of different predacious fish in the Lake Washington, Lake Union, and Ship Canal systems, some of which are native, some of which are introduced.

So that would all be within the four corners of the predation study that is currently being conducted.

Okay, CentralSep, do you have anything else to add to that?

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you chair.

So the 2nd item is SPU 313A1, which is a statement of legislative intent that would request SPU to support the co-managers of the Lake Washington Basin as they assess the ongoing feasibility of transporting sockeye salmon from near the Ballard Locks through the Lake Washington Ship Canal.

The co-managers are the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.

And over the last two years, the project has been initiated to capture adult sockeye at the locks and transport them by truck directly to the Cedar River sockeye hatchery, which is a facility that's owned by SPU.

So the slide requests that SPU provide a report or presentation to the Transportation and Seattle Public Utilities Committee by September 1st of next year.

That describes SPU's efforts to support the co-managers, provides the results of any assessments that have occurred on the transport program, and discusses the feasibility of other transport methods or related actions that are being pursued by the co-managers.

This item is also sponsored by Councilmember Lewis and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold and Strauss.

Thank you so much.

I'm going to turn it back over to Councilmember Lewis.

Please go ahead, Councilmember.

Thank you so much Councilmember, Council Budget Chair Mosqueda.

As I alluded to referencing the last item, the co-managers have seen success in working on transport-based strategies to move fish from the Ballard Locks to the other end of the run by truck over the course of the last couple of seasons as a method to mitigate the death of mature returning fish, in particular in the Ship Canal.

This has resulted in, I believe, and maybe central staff could correct me, but a 92% survival rate of fish who are trucked, so it is a great intervention and a great partnership between Seattle Public Utilities and the Muckleshoot Tribe, which has been the primary leader of this effort.

And this is just formalizing a way to make sure that SPU is reporting back on maintaining our support for these efforts.

SPU has, I believe, provided the trucks.

And the letter we received from the Cedar River Council intimated the possibility of maybe looking at other transportation-based stopgap measures as we work on more permanent engineering-based solutions to the vitality of this area in the Ballard and Montlake cuts where the shallow water of the ship canals in the summer suffocates returning adult fish.

So This is just formalizing a way for us to stay updated on this.

It's been a significant area of local interest from people concerned about the future viability of this run and just want to make sure the Seattle Public Utilities stays a significant partner in supporting the Buckle Street Tribe and the Department of Fish and Wildlife in their efforts that are showing success at maintaining the vitality of this run.

Great, thank you very much.

Council President Juarez, please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had to say something.

First of all, thank you, Council Member Lewis, for bringing this forward.

And I'm going to take a point of privilege here and remind everybody that 40 years ago, you would never have heard co-managers in the same sentence with the state and the city when it came to natural resources, and particularly salmon.

It was a legal term of art that is now a regular staple in our lexicon of salmon preservation.

Yes, that's what happens when you get old, you remember stuff like this.

So it's actually nice to see in here.

So thank you, Council Member Lewis.

we will move on to the next item on the agenda.

Thank you for that very nice note to end on.

I don't see any additional hands.

We do have one additional walk-on amendment that we will consider before we adjourn for today.

I just want to thank all of the central staff folks who got us through those first items and we will Eden, is that how I pronounce your name again?

Eden, I want to welcome you to the to the Select Budget Committee meeting.

You may have popped in a time or two in the past, but this is one of the first presentations we have with you in this role.

So welcome again to the Select Budget Committee and to central staff.

We will turn it over to you to walk us through this walk on amendment as our last item of the day.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and good afternoon Council Members.

My name is Ed Encisich with Council Central staff, and I'll introduce this Waukon Amendment, FG Waukon 1, which is sponsored by Council Member Sawant.

This Council budget action would amend Council Bill 119950, which increases the Jumpstart Payroll Expense Tax Rates and would increase the existing rates to generate an additional $95 million in tax revenues annually in an effort to offset the payroll expense tax, the general fund, as proposed in the 2023-2024 proposed budget.

With that, I will turn it over to the sponsor of this item, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

Council Member Sawant, please go ahead.

Council Member Nau, I really can't hear you.

I cannot hear you now.

I could read your lips, but I could not hear you.

I cannot.

I can't hear you either.

I think we're going to have just a moment.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Look at that.

There we go.

That works very well.

Thank you.

I'm having some technical issues.

I thought I'd fix them, but clearly I have to look again.

But thank you for your patience.

This budget amendment, as Edwin said, would increase the tax rate of the big business, Amazon tax, or the payroll expense tax to raise an additional $95 million.

Earlier, we have heard a narrative that Seattle has a budget crisis, which is true, there is a crisis, but that there will be painful cuts.

Human service workers have been asked to take an effective pay cut despite being some of the hardest working and lowest paid workers in the city.

And it is important that the council is talking about making sure that they have at least the bare minimum inflation adjustment.

But the fact is that human service workers have been chronically underfunded for decades.

The Amazon tax funding that was promised for the Green New Deal and for housing is now going to be siphoned off to prevent other painful cuts across all the city work and absolutely my office is opposed to any cuts to the needs of the the working people in our city and the workers who provide the services for our community members.

However, we know that this can be, we can avoid the cuts and fulfill the promises that were made for the Green New Deal and for affordable housing, social housing by increasing taxes on big business.

But so far, I've not heard any council members supporting that.

Earlier today in this budget committee meeting, council members talked about how adding funding for one good thing would require cutting it from another socially useful thing and have discussed how it would be that they have no choice but to rate the tax, the payroll expense tax, and it's okay if it only happens in 2023 and 2024. But that is a false narrative.

Everybody knows this because this budget crisis is the manufactured crisis of a political establishment unwilling to even consider even slightly greater taxes on big business, even though it is true that big business has profited handsomely throughout the pandemic and continues to do so at unprecedented levels, as I said before.

And we live in one of the richest cities in the world with some of the richest people and corporations.

And yet somehow we are told that there is no money to, or not enough money to fund basic services for the people of our city.

And let's keep in mind that what the budget is considering as a whole is still a fraction of the, just the overall needs that working people and marginalized communities have in the city and have had decade after decade.

The crisis is not a mathematical fact or an objective truth.

It is simply a question of political will.

It would take only a one-page long piece of legislation to increase the Amazon tax by $95 million that the mayor used in his proposed budget to backfill the cuts to the general fund, essentially to other departments.

But working people, socialists, and my office are also not naive.

We understand that we will require a movement of working people to force the political establishment to vote yes on something like this, just like we did in 2020, when we built the tax Amazon movement, we had organizing meetings and rallies of hundreds of volunteers.

Ultimately thousands ended up participating in the movement.

We launched a ballot initiative.

We gathered the 30,000 signatures required to put it on the ballot.

And we made it clear to big business and the establishment that this was happening with or without them.

And then we ended up winning.

We're going to need for a message to working people is that we're going to need a similar kind of movement, especially now as we head into what is going to be a very hard recession hard, not for the billionaires and for the wealthy, but hard for working people and the community members who have already shoulder the burden of the pandemic and of the various crises, including climate change.

Austerity is not inevitable.

It is trust on working people in the absence of fighting movements.

I would urge all council members, whether you agree with me or not on many other things to support this amendment and join me in getting on the right side of history.

Please support this demand.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

I am not seeing any.

That concludes the conversation for today.

I want to thank everyone who made today possible.

We had over two hours of public comment that that was very impactful and we will consider those discussions and priorities from community members over the next two days.

We will also have an opportunity to adjourn a little bit early today and make sure that people can get out and enjoy our typical fall weather, which is back again.

I also want to note for the record what's coming up for tomorrow.

Tomorrow on day two of our potential additions and changes from the council offices, we will discuss Department of Neighborhoods, Finance and Administrative Services, Office of Economic Development, Inspector General, the Office of Planning and Community Development, the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, the fire department, and the parks department.

And so those are the major items coming up tomorrow.

Thursday has a smaller list of department lists, but it has a longer list of potential amendments.

And the departments on Thursday include the Community Safety and Communication Center, the Human Services Department, the Department of Transportation, and the Seattle Police Department.

I also want to flag for our colleagues, please do plan to stay at least until 5 p.m.

on Thursday, October 27th, because it will be a long day.

We will do everything we can to adjourn on time, but at least until 5 and maybe give yourself a little bit of a buffer.

If there's no further business to come before the council, I do want to say thank you again to everyone who made today possible, clerks, central staff, the security personnel, the whole city family here everybody thank you everybody yeah for making today possible and everybody look forward to seeing you tomorrow morning at 9 30 a.m again we'll dive right into our department deliberations hearing no further comments today's meeting is adjourned have a great rest of your afternoon thank you madam chair