Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee Session I 10/26/22

♪ ♪ ♪

Council Member Juarez.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

And Chair Mosqueda.

Present.

Eight present.

Thank you so much.

I want to thank you all for being here today.

Again, this is day two of three, and we have a number of departments to cover.

We have a handful of walk-on amendments, and I want to make sure that we get the chance to consider those.

In addition, we have the following departments, Department of Neighborhoods, Finance and Administrative Services, Office of Economic Development, Office of Inspector General, the Office of Planning and Community Development, the Office of Sustainability and the Environment, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, Seattle Fire, and Seattle Parks and Recreation.

I understand that there is an amendment that was circulated before 5 p.m.

the previous day, so I'm going to go ahead and make the motion to accept the amendment in the agenda before we adopt it.

I move to amend the agenda to add FG walk-on one.

Is that, is there a second?

Chair Mosqueda, excuse me, if Ali Panucci can please.

Please go ahead, Madam.

Apologies for the interruption, Chair Mosqueda.

I think that is your script from yesterday.

There are no walk-on amendments that I'm aware of for discussion in committee today.

Okay, I did have a walk-on amendment.

It sounds like that was not circulated.

So I guess we will not consider it.

Apologies, Chairman Skate.

I don't know that...

It may have been distributed and I wasn't on copy.

I'm not a required recipient to meet council rules.

So if it was...

Um, distributed, it could just be added, or if you would like to add it to the agenda, you could just you could.

Suspend make a motion to suspend the rule that it didn't meet the distribution requirement and add it to the agenda.

I do not have the amendment at my fingertips right now.

I can ask you for the following, Ali.

If I can circulate it this morning and then when we reconvene in the afternoon, is there the opportunity procedurally to amend the agenda at that point in the afternoon if folks are interested?

I'm going to circulate it for you all to review this morning.

When we come back after recess, we can collectively make a decision if folks feel comfortable adding it to the agenda.

It is related to Seattle Fire Department, and it is a walk-on amendment related to a mental, excuse me, a nurse practitioner position.

So relatively small, but let me get that circulated so I can follow my own rules.

At this point, there are no amendments to the agenda.

hearing no objections, the agenda is adopted.

All right, let's go ahead and jump on in.

We promised we'd jump right into discussion.

So the first department that is up is Department of Neighborhoods.

And I am thankful for you all for being here again today.

We will have the first three amendments today relate to our Department of Neighborhoods.

So I'm going to turn it over to central staff and I see Lish Whitson with us.

Good morning, Lish.

Good morning, Lish with some Council Central staff do when one a one is sponsored by Councilmember Morales with council members for both in Lewis.

It adds $75,000 to the Department of Neighborhoods 12 support the historic South downtown PDAs outreach and engagement efforts.

At this point, I'll turn it over to Councilmember Morales as chair Councilmember Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Lish.

Yes, so this is pretty straightforward.

We know that the Historic Seattle Downtown Association was created by the legislature in 2007, and the purpose of this organization is to respond to the impacts in the Pioneer Square and sort of Chinatown neighborhood as well.

impacts to those neighborhoods, including public works, facilities, construction projects.

In the mayor's proposed budget, there is a significant increase in funding for WSBLE and the EIS process, but there's no investment in community-led approaches, which is what this organization provides.

So I know we will be discussing the proposed budget and the proposed positions for this work, but we do need to make sure that we are not abandoning this support for community-led outreach, particularly in these neighborhoods.

This investment would continue outreach to residents and businesses through this station location decision and vote and the publication of the final EIS.

It would support community in developing a community mitigation plan, and it would continue work with agencies, government officials, and community, especially on the Jackson Hub implementation plan, which is that several block area where the light rail stations are being considered.

Thank you, Councilman Morales.

Are there any additional comments or questions on this?

I am not seeing any.

Thank you so much.

Let's go ahead and move on to number two.

Department of Neighborhoods 2A1 is sponsored by council member Mosqueda with council members Morales and Lewis.

It adds $1.85 million to the Department of Neighborhoods to implement the generational wealth initiative.

The generational wealth initiative supports community-led efforts to close the racial wealth gap.

Funding for this council budget action comes from $1.85 million that is in a reserve set aside for this purpose and finance general.

The council budget action would maintain 2.5 FTE whose positions would be cut in the 2023 budget and allocates $350,000 to pay for those positions.

It would also add toil provisos.

A proviso on $150,000 would be lifted when DON submits a draft plan, including a program path and deliverables.

The remaining 1.35 million would be lifted once the final plan is submitted to council.

Thank you, Lesh.

This is my amendment, so I'll take a quick second to speak to it.

I'd like to start off by thanking Councilmember Morales and your team for the work that you've done on generational wealth and the pilot that is currently taking place this year.

We have spoken with folks that are involved in this project, and I hear that this is one of the first times the city has engaged in this type of work, and that feels really authentic to them.

By allocating the money directly to the department with the proviso, we provide the funds for the department to actually do the work and make a proposal, the mayor and council.

the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and the city of Santa Barbara and The city will continue to build on this work in an authentic partnership with community partners, and this allows for the current employees to continue their work instead of housed within the finance, instead of housed within finance general.

Installing the work and investments into generational wealth building for BIPOC communities means that this will be work that will be in the long-term beneficial for our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks again to the mayor's office.

We've had the chance to work with them and confirm that the mayor's office does not have any concerns with this one time funding or the approach for 2023. And I also want to make sure Councilman Morales and your team that has done a lot of work on this to make this program work that you get a chance to also Okay, before I turn over to Council Member Nelson, Council Member Morales, did you have any additional comments on this topic?

Sure, thank you.

Thank you, Chair, for bringing this amendment.

I thought I would just, those of you who are on my committee know that this topic of building shared prosperity and community wealth is really central to the work that I've been trying to do representing my district, but also looking at the city overall and the work that we're doing to support neighbors.

Building generational wealth really is about building the capacity of our neighborhoods to drive the kind of change they want to see.

And I think it's important to at least draw a distinction between traditional economic development, which tends to focus on kind of attracting industry to a community.

where jobs may be drawn into a community but then leave without warning.

It could attract jobs that extract resources from a community or really destroy community assets through pollution or low wage jobs or, you know, the loss of income through excessive tax breaks, building community wealth is really about developing assets in a way that wealth stays in community.

So our goal is to sort of democratize wealth democratize resources and really create resilient local economies.

And so the work that Department of Neighborhoods has been doing and that was presented in my committee in September is really trying to align our city departments and programs behind that shared vision for how we build generational wealth, particularly in our black and brown communities, but for folks throughout the city.

And I'll just give you a quick example of the kind of research they're doing right now to see what kind of strategies we might work on as a city.

They include things like community controlled capital, community ownership of real estate, worker ownership, building equitable business ecosystems so that we support our local businesses and really try to grow those and grow our entrepreneurs.

So this is important work.

It's exciting.

And some of the key takeaways that they've discovered so far is that the city really needs a strong vision to organize behind.

And that these equity, building equity requires measuring our impact, evaluating our investments, and then translating all this research into action.

So I'll be working next year as these different slides that we're working on come together and figure out how to braid some of this work into a more cohesive strategy for the city.

Really looking forward to presenting that as we move into next year.

Thank you again, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Well, I know convincing that expanding opportunities to build generational wealth is the most profound way that the city can advance our equity goals and prevent displacement.

So I'm there.

When I hear capacity building and words like this, I'm wondering if there will be any direct assistance to the actual people in community, because I think that there is a shared vision.

I could be wrong in the city that this is what we have to do.

We are constrained by some constitutional issues, but I'm talking about homeownership programs, access to capital, workforce development, all of these things.

And as I said, in one of the first days of our conversations about this, OED is doing a lot of this work already because I really just want to make sure that we are getting the resources in the hands of people that can do it.

And I'm not talking about big businesses coming in and destroying communities.

I'm talking about supporting small businesses in community so that they can maintain jobs, hire more people, be the nodes in neighborhoods that they are and prevent them from going away.

So I understand that the study that's being produced is going to be out in August.

What is, this is a question, what are the questions that are being answered or what are the outcomes of this study?

Because I think that there will, I think that we know that poverty, institutional racism, redlining, these things, I think we understand what has caused disparities.

And I'm just wondering, what are the answers that will come from, we're hoping will come from the study?

Because, yeah.

That was memorable.

Please go ahead.

Sure, I can take an initial stab and leash if you want to chime in to please go ahead.

So, so far what they're what has been presented is. looking to build the structures for community stewardship for community engagement.

And so the department has been out in community meeting with folks and trying to understand what people's perceptions of building generational wealth is and what tools they would need to be able to take advantage of opportunities.

So that's sort of the external work.

They're also looking at city departments, looking at how they align, as Chair Mosqueda mentioned, as they were surveying city employees in different departments to ask them specifically, what do you contribute to generational wealth?

A lot of city workers didn't feel like they did contribute, but as they started to unpack the kind of work they did, they could see how it is building access to resources and helping support at least some of the infrastructure.

And then they are looking at things like the strategies that I mentioned.

How do we build community capital?

How do we increase community ownership of assets?

How do we stop the displacement that's happening by creating mechanisms that allow small businesses to buy a block of buildings and own that rather than having to pay rent in those storefronts.

So there's different strategies that they're looking at, and I think part of what we will learn over the next year is which ones seem feasible.

One of the things I'll be talking about later today is the Community Investment Trust, which is another strategy that can help, you know, residents and businesses I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city.

I think it's important for us to look at this as a city contributions to people to individual wealth.

Okay, I like having concrete ideas because building structures and giving tools, building structures.

I just like to know more, what are the actual outcomes.

And I appreciate that the folks doing this work right now, that it's that I'm glad that they like doing the work.

But this is we're supposed to be helping our constituents.

And so I just want to make sure that there will be actual resources provided.

If basic income is one of them, that's fine.

Again, I'll say access to capital is a big barrier in workforce development jobs.

Anyway, thank you very much.

All right.

OED won't do this work unless they have additional staff to do it.

The plan is in conjunction with the mayor's office to make sure that we can build a plan around generational wealth that directly helps our constituents.

And yes, there are resources.

So thank you so much to Council Member Morales for adding additional context to this amendment.

Yes, Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Did you say OED won't be doing this work?

How is this related to OED?

I'm going to move on.

Let's go ahead and move on to the next

sponsored by Council Member Strauss with Council Members Pearson and Nelson.

It adds $100,000 to DLN in ongoing funds to fund community safety coordination efforts in Ballard.

Go ahead, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Colleagues, coming to you from my district office here in Ballard today.

Regarding this Ballard Community Safety Hub Coordinator, we had originally requested a different, we made a different request.

It's been refined since I submitted the CBA.

And this is, this CBA is specifically because I host a bi-weekly operational public safety case conferencing meeting.

And this is with community leaders, social service providers, mayor's office, city department, city attorney's office, King County prosecutors, and the police department.

This work is grounded in addressing real-time public safety issues affecting the neighborhood.

And for this work to be effective, we need a position that is solely dedicated to this work.

The community safety hub coordinator position would be a liaison between these different entities, neighborhood businesses, Enable to provide a meeting a meaningful coordination between departments and organizations we took this idea.

From other places in the city that are already doing this and this coordinator position mirrors the positions in the Chinatown international district in the university district the eye.

Thank you chair.

Thank you council members.

Strauss is there any additional comments or questions.

Okay, Council Member Strauss, I do have just a few questions either for you or for central staff.

Can you remind me for the similar positions in the CID and U District, how are those funded and how is the funding administered?

Can you remind me?

I'll take that.

Department of Neighborhoods receives general fund to support those positions and contracts with community-based organizations to do the work.

Okay, great.

All right, thank you so much.

Thank you.

I think at this time we're ready to move on to item number two on the agenda.

Can the clerk please call the roll?

Excuse me, can you please read this item into the record?

Agenda item two, Department of Finance Administrative Services for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

We have four items in this category and we have with us from central staff.

It's not popping in my screen here.

Hi, Lisa.

Lisa Kay, welcome back.

Thank you.

I think Asha will be your first person on FAS 3A1.

Great.

I'm not seeing Asha yet.

Do we want to go to the next one?

Sure, why don't I go ahead and speak to FAS 4A1.

I'm Lisa Kay with Central Staff.

This CBA is sponsored by Councilmember Strauss and co-sponsored by Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Morales.

The CBA would add $200,000 in one-time funding to FAS for a waterway safety study intended to produce recommendations that would protect the city's waterways while preserving public safety.

Council included funding for this study in the 2022 adopted budget.

Most of the funding was put on hold last year, but FAS did issue an RFP for $50,000, which generated no responses.

This amendment is intended to support a reissued RFP in 2023 at the intended $200,000 funding level.

I'll turn the mic over to Council Member Strauss as the sponsor of the proposed amendment.

Thank you, Lisa.

And thank you, colleagues and Chair Mosqueda, for prioritizing this request last year.

As Lisa mentioned, we did put $200,000 into the budget.

And as part of the closing of the budget gap exercise, the funding level was reduced.

Just in some background, along with other agencies, the City of Seattle performs public safety operations for about 200 miles.

I think it's 201 exactly, miles of city shoreline.

in freshwater and in saltwater.

This amendment would contract with an outside independent consultant to conduct an analysis of staffing capacity needs to ensure public safety on our waterways.

This study is needed in the context of not only Harbor Patrol, but also the increased usage of our water for recreation, the increased drowning with record-breaking heat last year, and the increased use of recreational boating, whether it's motorized boats, waterfront.

This data will inform us moving forward as we make staffing and resource allocations to best provide meaningful public safety for all users of our waterway and working waterfront.

As mentioned earlier, we did include to reduce the budget gap this year.

We reduced that funding and did not receive meaningful responses.

And so I'm here requesting additional funding to reissue that RFP.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

I'm not looking, I'm not seeing any additional hands, Councilmember.

So that was FAS 004A.

And I think we can go ahead and go back to number three.

Okay.

Hello, Asha.

Welcome.

Good morning Council Members, apologies for having some tech issues.

Asha Venkatraman, Council Central Staff.

This agenda item is FAS 3A1.

It would place a proviso on the contracted jail services budget that would limit spending of the additional $2.9 million that the mayor's proposed budget includes in this year's budget.

As discussed previously at budget hearings, that $2.9 million is a reflection of contractual increases from inflation and from an increase in surcharge costs.

I'm sorry.

I just want to flag that our sponsor needs to be let into the zoom if you don't mind.

Thank you for that.

Councilmember Herbold will be admitted in a second if we can let her in.

excuse me, the proviso would prohibit spending by the executive of that $2.9 million until the mayor's office responds to the chair of the public safety and human services committee with a either a finalized agreement between the city and the county that addresses how potential savings from decreased bed.

Usage would be used or certifies to the chair that no agreement has been reached.

The idea is for the mayor's office to keep the council updated on what's happening by providing a report by January 31st.

councilmember Herbold and councilmember Morales and Luis.

Councilmember Herbold needs to be and we will just wait for a second.

Here I am.

Wonderful.

Sorry about that.

I know Council Member Herbold, you could hear the discussion as you were waiting to be admitted, so I know that you've been listening in.

I'd love to turn it over to you to walk us through this amendment.

Thank you so much.

Just a little bit of background for folks.

In 2019, the council passed a slide that was prior to the pandemic in 2019. And it really was about expressing a policy interest to work to reduce the number of people being incarcerated.

And then based on basically what was already happening and a realization that Seattle was paying for many, many more beds than we were using.

And so we're contractually obligated to pay for those beds because the contract can't be reopened right now.

But we wanted to work with the county because they were having a similar experience and that we would pull the funds associated with using fewer beds at the jail to make some really critical investments in addressing some of the underlying issues that lead to crime.

And so there was a slide first in 2018, identifying the need to do this work.

There was another slide in 2019, following up on some of the work that was done in 2018. And then finally, the executive reported back on the drawdown of contracted services to begin in 2020. So this resulted in $16 million in savings over two years, which were redirected to health and housing for communities that are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system and incarceration.

This CBA provides us 2.9 million of the current contract and ask that the executive continue negotiations with the county and that we take those inflationary costs out of the savings that we know already that we will be achieving.

Again, this $2.9 million, just like the obligation to pay for bed nights that we don't use, there's no question that it is owed, but there's a question of whether or not we can pay for it out of savings.

The executive indicates that conversations with the county about whether and how to invest additional potential savings for future years are ongoing, and they have not come to resolution yet at this time.

So I think that's sort of a background on what we've done in the past and how we wanna try to replicate the relationships and the collaborations with the county to address the inflationary costs associated with our contract, as well as determine whether or not there are other opportunities for reinvestment of savings.

Thank you.

Wonderful, thank you very much.

I'm not seeing any hands right now, so I'll add in on this.

Council Member Peterson, I see your hand now, so I'll go after you.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

This question might be for the sponsor or central staff.

Do we know that there will be savings?

Are we sure that there'll be savings in 2020, in the future?

Because I know that the booking policy at the jail has been very strict.

We've been hearing about people arrested who were turned away because of the jail, strict booking policy, not accepting certain people accused of certain misdemeanors.

So if that booking policy changes in 2023, will there still be savings that we'd be capturing?

And Asha, if I'm missing anything here, please do step in.

The agreement that was worked on starting with that first slide, and realizing two years worth of jail savings was really based on the pre-COVID booking reality.

So we were realizing significant, I think almost $8 million worth of savings a year with reduced bed nights.

During COVID, bookings were around 50 ADP prior The agreement that that was struck with the county was based on about an estimate of 80 ADP.

And again, that was that was prior to the booking restrictions.

OSHA has been so good to monitor the the bookings now that they are starting to look more like the pre covid booking policy.

with the many changes in the city attorney's office dealing with both the backlog of cases, deciding to make charging decisions within five days, and the High Utilizer Initiative.

To some extent, King County has worked with the city attorney's office to create booking policy exceptions for all of those examples.

And so the numbers are not as low, not nearly as low as they were during COVID and are starting to look more like the average ADP prior to COVID.

But again, this doesn't assume that there will be any savings.

It is simply provisoring the money while we can have that conversation about whether or not there will be savings.

I'm not seeing anybody else jump in.

Asha, did you have anything else you'd like to add to that?

I just add that in general, the ADP as related to Seattle has been dropping pretty consistently since probably about 2015. And that led the city to negotiate down to the lowest bed floor that we could have, which is where it is at right now, which is that 187. And so there has been some recognition since that time that the number of people that are being jailed to the contract has been falling.

And so the negotiations that took place while the pandemic may have been one incentive for the county to negotiate for 21 and 22, that sort of continued decrease in ADP as well as some of the other factors mentioned in the CBA, issue with the correctional officers.

The jail's been toiling to address these issues for a while.

And so there is potential for a specific amount of savings, even if it's not up to the 8 million annually that it used to be.

In 21 and potentially in 22, there may still be some savings associated with that decrease in ADP.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you so much.

And Asha, just to jump in to clarify and underscore that I think that with this discussion, this point has been made, and I just want to clarify that what we're really looking to do is figure out a way to capture the delta between what we're contracting for and what our actual use is. to make sure that we're not spending money for jail capacity that we aren't using or that we can't use.

I just want to accentuate that given the profound impacts that we have on the budget this year and a lot of the public safety related additions and projects that we want to do, HAB-Danny Teodoru, COB.: : It just doesn't make sense to pay for jail space that we aren't using or that we can't anticipate being able to use and there's enough flexibility in this proposal.

HAB-Danny Teodoru, COB.: : To make sure that we're not in a position where we're stuck and there is capacity, we would want to use, but we can't because of a Council budget action, I just want to confirm that.

what we're really focused on is trying to identify what that delta between actual use and the contract is, and then try to use that money for other public safety initiatives in a tough budget environment.

Yeah, I would just add to that.

The idea is for those savings to get reinvested in things that would prevent incarceration upstream.

So not necessarily at the same point of release from jail, although that could be part of that conversation as well.

But whatever savings that could be reinvested, the city and county come to agreement about how to reinvest those funds.

Thank you, Asha.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

I'm fine with this proviso if there are savings that we can that that we can use for these contractual adjustments.

That makes sense to me.

So great.

But I should just said prevent incarceration upstream.

That is a policy conversation and we have to be careful about not encroaching upon the authority of the city attorney's office and the courts when we're talking about you know, filing decisions.

So I just wanted to make it clear that we do also have an elected official in another branch of government that is part of this conversation.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

I'm looking for additional hands.

Okay.

I will just add a few comments as well, Councilmember Herbold, and then if you have anything else to add or wrap up, that's great.

I do want to say thank you to Councilmember Herbold for proposing this amendment.

I would like to add my name as a cosponsor.

Our office did I think it's important for us to continue to work in partnership with her team as well in the past, and I also agree the prior agreement that was reached with king county to route jail funding through our contract towards upstream community safety housing health solutions was very important.

Government is hard sometimes.

You don't immediately see some impacts of the investments that you're making, but I think we need to continue to direct funding away from positions that are not actually being filled in these jails here and move towards a system that tries to address harm and use harm reduction strategies.

we're not putting money into a coffer that's not actually being

Thank you so much.

I want to thank you, Madam Chair, for co-sponsoring and thank sponsors Morales and Lewis as well.

Just to clarify a couple of things, this in no way impacts the independent decision making of either our city attorney or the county prosecutor, nor does it impact the jail holding policies It simply recognizes that even with prosecutions, continuing even with the flexibility of existing jail booking policies perhaps changing, that there may still be savings associated with it.

And so the idea of reinvesting them into upstream investments like housing is not in any way interfering with the decision-making of those elected officials, It just simply recognizes that even after their decision-making about filing prosecution or jail bookings, that there may still be some savings there and we should have a conversation about what to do with those savings in a way that we are, again, trying to both minimize the city's liability associated with this nearly $3 million of inflationary costs, as well as the need to redirect these investments to the extent that they exist, to health and housing for communities that are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system.

So I just want to make that perfectly clear.

And then also, I just want to, the question of the mechanism of the proviso, I just also want to clarify it.

The proviso only holds the money in place until the executive does the work to determine if we can save the money.

This is an issue that the council has been closely monitoring and will continue to closely monitor.

It's not going to fall off the council's radar.

With collaborative and transparent communication continuing between the council and the executive, we can keep close tabs on whether and when the funds need to be released.

If the executive determines that an agreement isn't forthcoming or will not result in absorption of the increase, They will have the option, because of the proviso language itself, to transmit a statement to the council that they could not reach agreement with King County, in which case the council will lift the proviso and the funding in the proviso would remain in place to be spent on the contract.

Again, I'm confident that we'll have regular and ongoing communication and the council and the executive can work together to ensure that the proviso lift, if necessary, occurs in a timely manner.

Thank you.

I have a motion and a second.

Thank you.

Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Peterson.

I think it would be helpful if we could precommit where those dollars would go.

I know there are different ways of reinvesting those dollars and the Council, it is a healthy discussion that I would like to reserve for some time and not to say it is necessary.

We have entire I personally, what my constituents know, I'm not pre-committing these dollars to something outside of law enforcement at this time.

But hopefully that's a discussion we could just have later.

Yeah, that is the meat of the agreement with the county.

As the prior agreement, which we are not going to be under in 2023, was to invest in and agreed upon with the county complement of housing and services.

We will have to create a new agreement.

That is not at all defined by this proviso.

Although I do want to flag that I am identifying, there's no agreement, but I am identifying that I would like part of the discussion, before talking about reinvestment in housing and services that we get off the hook for this $3 million in inflationary costs.

So there's no agreement yet, but I'm just flagging that this is a $3 million new cost to our budget that I would like to see if we can get absorbed by savings from unused jail beds but that will all, that and other reinvestments of unused revenue from unused jail beds is all part of the agreement that doesn't exist that I hope to happen with King County.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Nelson.

Did we create housing with the savings before?

I can take this offline.

I didn't realize that.

I, is that the health, the county's health through housing initiatives that right Asha.

Yes.

Out of that $16 million, $11 million went to provide housing through that Help Through Housing program, and another $5 million was being contemplated.

And I'll get an update on this, Council Member Nelson, about the status of these funds, but was also considered for being included in an RFP that would go towards housing for youth that would otherwise be incarcerated.

But I will get an update on where those funds are now.

Thanks.

Excellent.

Thank you so much, Council Member Okay, Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Mosqueda adding herself as a co-sponsor, the third person here.

Let's move on to the third item in this list, FAS005.

Good afternoon.

Hi, Eric.

Hi, how are you?

Eric McConaghy, I'm the Council Central Staff.

This is the CBA known as FAS5A1.

It's sponsored primarily by Andrew Lewis, with council members Tammy Morales and Sarah Nelson being co-sponsors.

And this council budget action would add $750,000 of general fund dollars in 2023 to support the construction of an upgraded elevator and stair connection between the Pike Place Market parking garage and Alaskan Way.

This parking garage is a part of the overall project called Market Front.

This is a The Market Front project is a project of the Pike Place Market Public Development Authority, which I'll just call the Pike Place Market.

In 2013, the city committed a total of $34 million to this project and conveyed a parcel of land for it.

The city has completed that commitment of financial support.

The Pike Place Market, as we hear, we have a report that about $1.5 million of that total $34 million in city funding has been set aside.

for this elevator and stair project.

And except for the new elevator and the stair project, the marker front project is complete, and it includes parking spaces, low-income senior housing, retail commercial space, and public open space.

Thank you so much.

I'm gonna turn to Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

So this is a project request from the Pike Place Market PDA.

As Eric just indicated, it is part of a much larger umbrella project related to the market front and the interface of the Pike Place Market campus with the emerging waterfront park and promenade and overlook.

This project, like lots of capital projects, has become the victim of the profound impacts of the inflation brought on by the post-COVID era and the dynamics in our economy, which has made the project overrun costs rise to a level that is out of reach for the Pike Place Market PBA to cover on its own.

So this is one-time money that would help bridge those gaps and unanticipated and historically high inflationary impacts.

And let this project be finished on time in coordination with all the other things that are happening in this space.

So I will leave it there.

It's sort of a simple one-time capital project.

the contribution that they're looking for from the city is $750,000.

They will need to secure some additional funding that they're looking for from other sources.

They're not asking the city to cover the entire cost.

$750,000 is a portion of the cost that they're looking to recoup.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

I am not seeing any.

Councilmember Lewis, thank you so much.

Let's go ahead and move on to the next one.

Hello, Lisa Kay.

Hello, I'm back.

The next item before you is FAS 301A1.

This is a statement of, make sure I'm looking at the right one, good, is a statement of legislative intent sponsored by Councilmember Morales and co-sponsored by Councilmember Sawant and Councilmember Straus.

This slide would request that FAS and the Office of Housing develop a plan and process for the acquisition, retention, use, and sale of city-owned property for both municipal affordable housing and non-city-owned affordable housing.

The slide response would include draft legislation to clearly identify changes from or additions to existing policies.

I'll turn the microphone over to Councilmember Morales as the sponsor of the proposed amendment.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Lisa.

So from our conversations with FAS, we've learned that the city approaches sale of land on kind of an ad hoc basis.

There isn't really a unified or systemic way for us for developing the best use for city owned land.

So as Lisa mentioned, this would ask FAS to create what I'm sort of thinking of as a land stewardship plan.

So asking that land, that it create a consistent process for identifying when a piece of property is best suited for, for example, a library, a fire station, municipal housing, affordable housing.

And we know that Chair Mosqueda championed the change to city code that prioritizes sale of city land, especially for affordable housing.

This slide is basically requesting that FAS create a process for when we don't sell the land.

So it was written with resolution 31837 in mind and is really intended to provide, ensure that this updated plan would kind of harmonize with changes that Chair Mosqueda has made.

So as Lisa mentioned, the idea is to create a plan for use by city departments for leasing land in order to develop affordable municipal housing, and for the purpose of selling land in order to develop community-based or low-income nonprofit affordable housing.

And as Liz also mentioned, would require legislation to be accompanied with it.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

I appreciate the note to the land disposition policies that we worked on in 18 and 2019. I just I want to I want to clarify something and this is not in my notes, but The land disposition policies, and maybe we can get clarification from central staff to make sure that I'm saying this all accurately, it actually wasn't prioritizing the sale of land.

What we were trying to do was prevent the sale of public land given what we saw with the Mercer Mega Block.

So I came in in 2017 after the Mercer Mega Block was sold off and a lot of concern around public land being sold to the highest bidder.

So what it did is two things.

First, it says, don't sell public lands, keep them in public hands.

So if the Seattle City Light Department or Parks Department, that's not a great example, public utilities had land that was publicly owned, the first thing that they would ask is the Office of Housing.

to hold on to that public land.

What can you use it for?

Can you build affordable housing?

Can we work with community partners to do this?

So it was about preservation of public land.

And then the second thing was, if Office of Housing said, hey, we don't actually have an ability to utilize this land, we think that'd be better if we did a very small sale, like a dollar sale or something like that to a nonprofit community organization that prioritizes housing and community-oriented strategies.

And they can act more quickly on it.

If we don't have capacity as a city, then we would consider that as the second step.

So I think this is complimentary, right?

How do we do more of an analysis on that first aspect, which is maintaining that public land?

But I just wanted to make sure that I was remembering correctly, the two components of our land disposition policies.

And I'm wondering if central staff, I know Lisa Kay and Tracy Ratcliffe worked on this, if you can describe the existing surplus lands process and what we put together and updated as it relates to the land disposition policies from 2018 and 2019. Did I get those examples right?

I'm going to ask you to ask Tracy.

Okay, great.

I see Tracy.

I heard my name mentioned, and I figured I might be, as it relates to the disposition policies.

So, Council Members, with all due respect to both you and Council Member Morales, in 2018, the Council toiled quite a bit as it related to the disposition policies, changing both the general disposition policies for general property owned by the City, as well as the policies specific to City Light disposition of their properties.

And we did a couple things.

One, we actually did prioritize affordable housing as the very first thing to be considered when a department decides that a property is excess.

The department has the ability to decide when it is that they're done with a priest property and when they are ready to make it available for for use, but if they decide it's excess, the very first thing that they are to do is to engage the Office of Housing to determine, is that property appropriate for the development of affordable housing?

And in those policies, we say that we want to develop affordable housing that is predominantly serving those under 80% of AMI with the intent of wanting to actually increase the number of units serving those at 30% of AMI.

And the reasons for that are pretty clear, given our shortage of affordable housing, that that emphasis would be pretty clear why we would do that.

It also provides for the ability to transfer those properties to non-profit or for-profit to do that affordable housing development or to lease the property for those purposes.

So we did a couple of different things as it relates to those policies.

In terms of process, there is an annual process that departments are going through that FAS leads in which they are to look at the properties that are in their jurisdictions to determine are there any properties that are now excess or are there properties that know they want to retain because they're maybe going to be used down the way so they don't need to, in fact, access them or don't want to access them, but they go through a process by which they kind of judge what's going on with their various properties and their jurisdiction.

And then the Department of Finance and Administration and Services issues an annual report about surplus properties and kind of the status of the properties that are underneath the jurisdiction of the various city departments, and we get a copy of that report every year.

So that's what our current policies are and then there is that process that has been set out very clearly for determining when a property is determined to be excess, is it appropriate for affordable housing, if it's not appropriate for affordable housing that it has, there is a process by which they actually make the property available for the community to to indicate are they interested in any property for a particular community use.

So there is that process once affordable housing is not considered to be the most likely or appropriate use.

And we've had actually since those policies were adopted for situations in which we've actually disposed of city property for affordable housing.

includes the K site up on Queen Anne that is a PSH building that was just recently completed, a couple of homeownership projects that have been done on City Light, formerly owned properties, and then one that was owned by I think FAS in the Central District that's being developed for homeownership properties.

And one of those I want to talk a little bit about the new home ownership opportunities that we went to the ribbon-cutting ceremony for in the new homes, both rental and homeownership.

So that's exciting.

But okay, thank you for that overview.

I feel like that my memory was mostly correct on that.

Can you talk a little bit about how this proposal relates to the existing process that's used?

So, you know, it sounds like there's overlapping goals.

What would this do to the existing land disposition policies that are in statute?

So I think the one change that I know is that, again, the existing policies really focus on us using those surplus properties to develop housing under 80% of am I, and so the proposal in front of you would actually allow that that those properties potentially to be used up to 120% of AMI.

So that is definitely a policy change there.

Now does it say you have to do that?

It doesn't, but it certainly gives a nod to, you know, looking at that possibility.

So I think that would be the one place where I would see there being a change from current policy.

Again, there is a process that is set out in our disposition policies for how you go through determining is a property access and then what happens if it is determined to be accessed by a department, whether it's identified by OH as appropriate for affordable housing or if they decline it, then the process that you go through to make it first available to other departments as well as community development, actually they can allow it to be used for both other departments as well as community uses.

So there is a process for properties that OH says, no, we don't think it's appropriate for affordable housing that involves a public process and the ability for communities to actually say that they want to to secure a piece of property for a specific community use.

Great.

Okay, thank you.

I'm going to turn it back over to the prime sponsor and then Council Member Herbold.

Go ahead, Council Member Morales.

Yeah, thank you.

Just a couple of points.

Thank you, Tracy, for that summary.

One important distinction, I think, is that right now, what we're looking for is that if the land sold right now, it is typically sold to nonprofits.

And part of what we're trying to move toward is to add the option of keeping those lands in city hands.

And not prioritizing.

Well, not that we wouldn't prioritize but giving the option of the city holding that land for different housing purpose.

And then related to the issue of AMI, you know, we're talking about a process where the AMI is mixed, so it's 0 to 120%, but 60% of the units would be for under 80% AMI.

And so the whole idea with the municipal housing that's being proposed is that there's cross subsidization happening so that there are folks from a spectrum of incomes, a spectrum of backgrounds who are able to live in high quality housing together.

I think the important thing is that the city stays affordable permanently because it stays in city hands.

So, I'll leave it at that.

Looks like there might be a question from Councilmember Herbold.

Just wanted a chance to add that additional priority in there.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate that.

And I think I saw Councilmember Herbold say, never mind.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember Morales, and I appreciate the conversation around how do we cross subsidize.

and create more affordable housing across the income spectrum.

Even at 100, 120, we know that it's still relatively expensive in the city.

I think that I'm going to look a little bit more to see if we can get additional information about what kind of cross-subsidization already occurs.

I think that that's an important point.

But I do want to make sure that I understood, though, Tracy, we do have the option to hold land in public hands.

That's the first line of questioning, right?

And then leasing, long-term leases, are part of what OH already considers as they look at any surplus land in the city.

The first question is, can we hold on to this in public hands or is that correct?

Yes.

Yes.

We have it specifically in the disposition policies that they are to consider the possibility of leasing the property versus a transfer.

Okay.

Just double-checking.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

What Council Member Morales raised a question.

Is it contemplated that we would get into business of developing housing?

Is that what you're saying if we're not leasing it?

Please go ahead, Council Member.

Yeah.

So the idea with the municipal housing, which I understand is related but separate conversation, is that the city could become a developer or it could partner with a developer who wants to do housing that follows the guidelines that are set up in the municipal housing.

policies.

There are several options for who could develop housing as long as it follows the guidelines that are set up in that particular policy in terms of cross-subsidization, but certainly no requirement that the city begin developing housing.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

I see hands, just want to make sure everybody got their comments in, and then Council Member Morales, if there's anything else.

I would just double check to see if Tracy or Lisa have anything else you'd like to add, you're welcome to.

We're a lively bunch today.

We woke up from yesterday's deliberation, so yes, do you have anything else?

No, okay, I'm seeing shakes of heads, so anything else on this item?

I have nothing profound to add.

Okay.

I will challenge that, everything you say is always profound, Council President.

Okay, let's move on.

Council, excuse me, Madam Clerk, could you please read item number three into the record?

Agenda item three, Office of Economic Development for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much, and welcome back, Jasmine Marwaha.

Thank you.

This is Jasmine Marwaha, Council Central staff, and I'm presenting Council Budget Action OED1A1.

This Council Budget Action would add $3 million general fund in 2023 to the Office of Economic Development to attract large conventions to the Washington State Convention Center.

These marketing efforts would be provided by an organization that toils to attract leisure tourism to Seattle nationally and internationally, such as Visit Seattle.

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

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As we're all aware, the new Washington State Convention Center is going to be opening this fall.

I think it's actually coming up on getting its master use permit to be occupied.

And this is going to be a really great addition to our downtown neighborhood and inviting in hundreds of thousands of people every year, who are going to be reinvigorating the downtown neighborhood through their patronization of our businesses and just making sure that they're staying in Seattle hotels and spending money in Seattle bars and it's just going to be a great boon to our local economy and to the recovery of the downtown neighborhood.

The ability to attract those kinds of conventions I'm is really going to be dependent on the Washington State Convention Center, making it known that that this is the place if you're the National Association of dentists or.

the National Association of Realtors or whatever the organization is, that your next destination should be the city of Seattle and this great new standard setting convention center.

And unfortunately, the Visit Seattle BIA cannot spend money to attract folks for conventions.

They can only attract people for leisure travel.

So this is really an ad that in some respects pays for itself by making sure that this new asset in a convention center is being fully utilized, bringing people in, making sure that we're taking full advantage of this profound new asset that's in the middle of downtown.

So this proposal in number came from consultation with Seattle and with to the convention center.

I'm excited to be able to see the boosters and board for the convention center.

And this is something I continue to talk to them about to promote.

It's going to be really great to see that convention center open and firing on all cylinders.

And with that, I will go ahead and turn it back over to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, or maybe Central Staff, can you...

So I think what I heard you say is that right now our convention center doesn't have a way to promote the convention center.

So how do we currently advertise the space that we have to attract conventions?

So my understanding is that Visit Seattle and the resource that they have as the primary conduit for doing this work focuses exclusively on leisure tourism with the money that they attract through the rate.

The Convention Center does have the ability to do some of this work independent of this investment, but it's it's limited and constrained.

I can get the number of what they can do without additional support versus what they could do if they were more amply supported in being able to promote this work.

Part of it is that there's a new scale, right?

I mean, like our current convention center is not very big.

I think it ranks as like the 60th, footprint of a convention center in the lower 48 United States, whereas this new convention center is going to be significant and have a lot of programmable space.

So we're stepping into a new level of competition in this area, but without necessarily commensurately resourcing the way to promote the new asset.

But I can get better information on the delta between what we currently have versus what would be a more national best practice for this kind of work.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm just, I mean, I am assuming, and it would be good for me to understand this better myself, but I am assuming that, you know, we do attract national conventions.

I, before COVID, would see Comic-Con and all kinds of folks downtown regularly.

So I know we have some capacity, and I don't know if that is a different entity than Visit Seattle, and they're just trying to expand what they're able to do.

But, you know, given the sort of deficit situation that we're in.

I just want to make sure that we aren't, um, you know, sort of adding resource to something that, that already has capacity to do the kind of work we need to do in order to attract people.

And I totally understand we have a shiny new, uh, profoundly larger, uh, convention center that we want to be able to fill and use.

Um, just want to make sure that I understand how we're, how we're able to attract people.

So thank you.

Great, thank you.

And just before Councilmember Nelson, Jasmine, I see you off mute, would you like to add anything?

Sure, just to clarify that Visit Seattle primarily generates its funding from revenue from the Seattle Tourism Improvement Area, which is a BIA.

And according to the bias policies, those revenues must be spent towards marketing and promotion related to leisure tourism.

And as you may recall earlier this year, there was an ordinance to increase the STI is rate as revenues from $2 per occupied room to $4.

per occupied room per night to allow for additional revenue for that promotion of leisure tourism.

My understanding, and I can confirm this offline, is that the council could amend the STI's policies by ordinance to allow for them to attract conventions with their revenues so that we can amend those policies for convention attraction.

I can confirm that offline.

Thanks, Jasmine.

That would be really helpful.

It sounds like we did contribute money last year, and you'll confirm with us what the funding went towards.

Okay.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Yeah, thank you very much.

I feel like, well, Visit Seattle doesn't just promote downtown, and this would promote a facility downtown, and Visit Seattle does promote neighborhoods around the city, so I just want to make sure that we're keeping them separate, and I would not I'm not ready to endorse changing the scope of work a visit Seattle, but I did, I did want to, to concur with Councilmember what I think Councilmember Morales was saying, which is that this.

I don't know, reading between the lines, this is a lot of money.

And for my part, I do believe that we do need a mechanism to promote this new asset that we have downtown and our offices can be looking at best practices around the country.

How how do other cities and states, because this is also a state facility, promote the convention centers.

But just for the record, noting that, yes, 3 million is a bit, but we do need to do, I believe that we do need to add some kind of support for promoting, I don't know what the right number is.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you so much.

I see Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

And yeah, to the extent that we're not able to afford to further subsidize the Washington State Convention Center, I would be opening to looking at what central staff had mentioned about allowing additional scope for that marketing to occur without us having to have an outlay of cash for that.

And if it does pay for itself, maybe there's a way proviso or contractually receive those revenues back to us directly from any profits that the convention center makes.

I find it hard to believe that all this effort went into building it and there was a budget.

I would have assumed there would have been a marketing budget.

I wasn't here at the time that that was all approved.

hoping we can make the best use of the dollars that already exist and maybe make the policy more flexible so we can achieve the same outcome.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I see Yolanda from central staff with her hand up.

I also just want to make sure that I confirm, was it last year that we added funding for the marketing aspects?

No.

I just wanted to clarify, it was earlier this year, the BIA came forward with the right proposal to increase.

It had been something that had been in the works for several years.

I would just note that that is an increased assessment on the rate payers right so that was not city funding.

That was the rate payers themselves are increasing the rate on each occupied room as Jasmine described also I would just note in terms of amending the establishing ordinance.

the rate payers would need to weigh in on that as that is a kind of a stakeholder driven process.

So if the council is interested in such a thing, it would be an engagement process with the rate payers.

Cause that is how they determine what they want their revenues to be used for.

That's the BIA mechanism is allows for a kind of that self-determination within the boundary of the BIA itself.

Okay.

I see Jasmine nodding.

Any other questions from other Council members?

Not seeing any.

Okay.

Council Member Lewis, thanks so much.

Anything else?

Thumbs up.

Great.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Let's move on to the next item here.

Sure.

The next item is Council Budget Action OED2A1.

This council budget action would add 120,000 general fund in 2023 and 120,000 2024 to the Office of Economic Development to support the Martin Luther King County, Martin Luther King, Jr.

County Labor Council or mlk labor.

their virtual hiring hall project.

The city council allocated $123,000 in Clifford funds in 2021 for the virtual hiring hall of which approximately $73,000 has been spent to date.

This council budget action would ensure ongoing support for the project designed to connect job seekers with union jobs in King County.

The CBA is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and co-sponsored by council members Strauss and Lewis.

Thank you so much.

I want to thank Councilmember Straus and Lewis for their co-sponsorship of this.

Since its launch in September 2021, MLK Labor's virtual hiring hall program has achieved tremendous engagement.

This is something that the City of Seattle supported in last biennial year's budget and in partnership with Mayor Jerkins' administration.

It has served over We have a total of 652 people overall, 33 unions, 111 employers all have engaged with this initiative.

This has been a very successful effort in a virtual time to reach workers and try to connect them with great opportunities for employment in our city.

It's also been able to extend to being an in-person outreach effort as well.

BIPOC, 72 percent of the people they've reached out to have been immigrant and refugee, and they have connected folks with good living wage jobs, good union jobs in the city.

Through this budget add, MLK Labor could pilot a program to recruit additional BIPOC immigrant and refugee workers into union pre-apprenticeship programs and regular apprenticeship opportunities.

They could provide follow-up and support to participants through their union jobs hiring process, and expand their virtual hiring call to more unions, including those who would need additional support.

This helps to level the platform to create more online services for users to access union jobs and increase the reach of events through union job fairs and other in-person outreach and support events as folks are emerging from pandemic and want more in-person activities.

Really want to thank the partners at MLK Labor, I just wanted to highlight for folks that these initial investments from the local labor movement, the city of Seattle, and also King County have allowed this program to take off, help establish itself in the first year of its existence, and with this support, they'll continue to scale up and reach more communities who need access to good living wage jobs, and really make sure that there's long-term success, not only for those workers, but for our local economy.

Just so that we know as well, we had an opportunity through this fund, through the American Rescue Plan Act funds, that's how the city supported it.

And I understand that most of that money is already out the door, thanks to the great administration's efforts.

that we have real-time data on how that money is getting out the door.

And King County is also considering matching this at $120,000 investment for MLK Hiring Hall again this year.

So thank you so much.

I'm not seeing any questions.

All right, well, we'll pass on those.

Oh, please go ahead, Councilmember Nelson.

In terms of getting yesterday in the in the context of using excess jumpstart revenue to fund the budget, we discussed a list of items for potential reduction or alternative funding.

And that included Seattle job center, which would serve both unionized and non unionized workers.

So I'm wondering, is the goal that the city fund this project instead of the job center?

I guess that's my question.

Or if for the job center, it was just a matter of an alternative funding source, I'd be happy to have that funded through the general fund as well.

Okay, so thanks for asking.

Again, I think maybe I tried to overshare the initial analysis of things in the budget by putting that list in the CBA from yesterday because I want to make sure that's not intended to be a list of reductions for folks.

This here, this amendment is not intended to replace the Seattle Job Center.

I think there's more information and work to be done to develop a job center concept.

So this is like a continuation of the support that we've added to this program in the past.

It's additive.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Okay, let's keep going.

I think we're on item number four.

Is that correct?

Correct.

agenda item four, office of inspector general for public safety for briefing and discussion.

Great.

So we have with us, I'm looking for central staff.

Who's on the line with us?

That's me.

Sorry, Lisa.

I'm sorry to be late.

Yes.

Lisa K. Central staff.

OIG 1A1.

would add $232,000 in 2023 and $244,000 in 2024 and one and a half FTEs for surveillance technology review, audit capacity and public disclosure work at OIG.

The CBA is sponsored by Council Member Nelson and co-sponsored by Council Member Herbold and Council President Juarez.

The full-time position would support OIG's review of SBD surveillance technologies and provide additional audit capacity for work on consent decree topics.

The part-time ad would be used to create a full-time position, so they've already got a half-time position, they would just add this authority and increase that position to full-time, to reduce backlogs and increase the speed of OIG's public disclosure responses.

I'll turn the microphone over to Councilmember Nelson.

Thank you very much for that introduction.

This fall, council granted OIG an extension to the Q1 2023 deadline.

It was supposed to be done by in September this year for eight first time usage reviews that were due this fall.

They will also need to next year complete six more.

I'm talking about SIRs in surveillance technology reports.

They'll need to complete six more first-time usage reviews in 2024, and that's for Group 4B.

So OIG has a lot in its pipeline, and we heard before that they had to hire a consultant to help with some of this work.

So if Council, this is basically getting at the fact that they've got a lot of work on their plate and if Council wants OIG to implement the policies that were set forth in the 2017 Police Accountability Ordinance and the Surveillance Ordinance, we need to fund that work.

Thank you, Council Member.

Council President Morris.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm supporting this with Councilmember Nelson and Herbold.

Councilmember Herbold and I were here and helped select, or at least I did, when we first started the Office of Inspector General, the OIG.

So we've watched the history of this agency, and it has expanded, I think, from three to over 20 employees now.

And we are certainly feeling the pressure on the HR side, which I'm dealing with on the ledge budget, but that's a whole other issue.

So the expansion of this to make sure that we uphold and look at the surveillance issues and also the PDR requests and also being in compliance and conditional audit capacity for the consent to create topics.

Has actually taken up more than we had thought or anticipated.

I think when we anticipated an office back in 18, we did not well, we kind of built in thinking it would grow a little bit more.

but it's actually expanded more.

So now we're looking at not only the expansion of OIG and the additional resources needed to comply with the consent decree and the other issues regarding HR, we're also seeing the same things in OPA and then CPC is a different issue.

So with that, I am supportive of this.

I wanna thank Council Member Nelson, Council Member Herbold for bringing this forward.

And of course, us working with Lisa Judge, did I get her name right?

It's Lisa, right?

Judge?

Okay.

Yeah, meeting with her and her staff and getting an idea about how we need to make sure that this department does its job and does it well and is accountable and transparent, not only to Seattle City Council, but of course to the taxpayers.

So with that, I will end my profound comments.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I do not see any additional comments.

Let's go ahead and move on.

Council Member Nelson, did you have anything else?

No.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Let's go ahead and move on.

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

Agenda item five, Office of Planning and Community Development for briefing and discussion.

Okay.

Wonderful.

And I see Lish.

Good morning, Lish.

Good morning, Egan.

OPCD 181, is sponsored by Council Member Morales with Council Members Strauss and Lewis.

It adds $250,000 to the Office of Planning and Community Development, OPCD, for the creation of community investment trusts.

Community investment trusts would support equitable development initiative projects and provide an alternative financing tool for those projects.

Wonderful.

Council Member Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Lish has so much better word economy than I do.

Um, so yes, we have, um, let me back up.

Our office has been working, uh, for the last year and a half or so to support three EDI projects, um, who expressed interest in creating a community investment trust.

Um, so as of this year, we've got a cohort of three EDI awardees, um, Friends of Little Saigon, Multicultural Community Coalition, and the Eritrean Community Center.

plus the White Center Food Bank.

So they are in phase one of this process of trying to understand how to build a CIT.

It's a 10-week process to determine whether that model is feasible here in Seattle.

Some of you may know that this is something that they're done in Portland and that is where folks have been going to understand this better.

So they're trying to understand if they can build a CIT for commercial properties that they either currently own or would like to acquire.

And the idea here is that it offers a path to Collective communal ownership of real estate neighbors can invest from 10 to $100 a month in a property to help stabilize the community.

And as I said, we've been working for the last year with these groups, supporting them through phase one.

they are now working their way into phase two of the project.

And so this investment would support them for their kind of continued licensing implementation and understanding this.

It would include facilitator training.

It would include a financial action course that's called moving from owing to owning and would also support and assist with building the legal framework and governance that we're trying to do.

We're trying to support their further interest in a community ownership model and developing a way for them to stop the displacement that's happening in

I have a couple of questions.

One just a question for me and councilmember this might be for you or maybe for central staff.

They are, so they're still in phase one.

I think I'm going to, don't quote me on this, but I think they still have a few weeks of that process left.

So once they're completed with that, then they want to begin the process of formation.

So, you know, understanding that transition will take some time.

I think it's safe to say that early next year, they would want to begin phase two.

Thank you so much.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Let's move on to the next one.

OPCD 2A1 is sponsored by Councilmember Peterson with Councilmembers Herbold and Sawant.

It would place a proviso on the OPCD budget and require OPCD to report on how the One Seattle Comprehensive Plan update will incorporate measures to prevent economic displacement, minimize stimulation of existing unsubsidized affordable rental housing, and produce substantial net increases in the number of units of very low-income housing.

Excellent.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you chair mosquito.

Thank you much for that summary colleagues the good news about this provides us that it doesn't cost any money.

I know that's important as we deal with the funding struggles.

So this provides ensures that the Office of planning and community development addresses displacement concerns as part of its environmental impact statement process.

It outlines 3 simple but vital questions that will be see would need to directly address.

How will the EIS for the one Seattle comp plan incorporate mitigation measures to prevent economic displacement of existing residents?

How will the EIS for the comp plan incorporate mitigation measures to minimize demolition of existing affordable rental housing?

How do the alternatives for the comp plan incorporate strategies to produce substantial net increases in the number of units of very low-income housing?

and I believe these questions are both reasonable and vital, and I'm confident OPC has the ability to answer them before the end of 2023, as asked for in the proviso.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Are there any questions or comments?

Okay, I have a question.

As we know in the last three budgets, we have included proviso language requiring OPCD to include a study of anti-displacement strategies along with options for creating greater housing diversity across the city.

We included the proviso requiring OPCD to conduct a racial equity analysis of Seattle's current growth strategy, which was the racial equity report released this last summer.

So I'm wondering how this proviso overlaps with the existing provisos on the comp plan EIS funding, and would this proviso supersede that previous proviso or be additive?

Thanks for that question.

That really brings up the the unique scope and authority of the EIS.

So as we know, they have to scope out certain things in the EIS, which then would enable us to enact policies based on that scoping.

So making sure that they've listed a wide array of mitigation measures as part of the EIS, then enables us to make those policy choices to have the largest possible menu of policy choices because they've been put within the confines of the guardrails of the EIS scoping.

So that's why it's important for them to do it as part of this process.

They can use some of the work that they've done recently and then also be creative about other options.

But it's better to have more options and more scope so that we can then make those policy choices formally as part of the EIS.

Okay, thanks.

Lish, anything to add?

Just that OPCD is currently toiling away trying to complete the scope of the EIS and should have a report out in early November.

Okay.

It will be out before our budget is concluded then?

Yeah.

It should be.

Like next week, early November or?

I heard early November as of yesterday.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Okay.

All right.

I'm not seeing anything else on this.

Let's continue on.

Item number six.

We will begin with OSC 1A1, sponsored by Councilmember Morales and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Strauss and Lewis.

This would add 2.5 million general fund in 2023 and 2 million general fund in 2024 to the Office of Sustainability and Environment to support clean energy pre-apprenticeship and green building apprenticeship programs.

Of the 2023 amount, this includes a one-time addition of $500,000 to increase funding for the existing clean energy pre-apprenticeship scholarships, so that the total would increase from $1 million to $1.5 million.

Just noting that the proposed budget includes $1 million in ongoing jumpstart funds for this effort, as recommended by the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

but also provide ongoing funding of 2 million in 2023 and 24 for state registered green building apprenticeships.

Funding may be used for program development and implementation and also to support program participants.

And finally, the budget action would also impose a proviso on the $2 million for the green building apprenticeships to ensure that the funding is used as intended.

Thank you.

Councilmember Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Well, I think Yolanda summarized this pretty well, so I don't have a whole lot to add except to say that the existing Clean Energy Pre-Apprenticeship Program and the state-registered programs are things, for example, there are many, but for example, are already offered through South Seattle College or the Construction Industry Training Council of Washington.

So my office has been in communication with partners in labor to make sure that this opportunity results in long-term, well-paying careers for participants in this pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs.

And the idea here really is to create a bridge between the pre-apprenticeship and careers.

So the intent here is after one year in the pre-apprenticeship program, people would be able to graduate to the apprenticeship program.

One thing I will say is that we've heard from our labor partners that the funding needs do exist and that they should be directed to state registered apprenticeship programs and scholarships.

So I'm not sure, I heard Yolanda say it, but I'm not sure that it's actually in the CBA language.

So I just want to to be clear that if this item does make it into the chair's package we would want to amend the language so that it includes that and aligns with those needs.

Thank you.

Councilor Morales, you answered part of my question.

I agree with the intent.

I guess the practical question was I was wondering where is this supposed to happen?

And then you did mention South Seattle College, but is it so as it stands right now, because we do apprenticeship labor programs at North Seattle College.

So as it stands now, there is no And as you know, our colleges, our state institutions are funded by the state.

So there isn't anything now that if this were to pass where you could just, they would have to actually go out and find what local college had a program that is already up and going and then give money to that program.

So that's what I was wondering.

I'm not sure I'm following your question.

Council.

I'm sorry.

I guess what I'm saying is, so just in a practical level, does this mean would have to find out or work with all local colleges in the city of Seattle to find out which have apprenticeship programs that are already.

working, or is this like startup?

That's what I'm trying to figure out here.

So there are many existing programs already, and this would be just sort of expanding that.

And then in terms of what we're trying to create as a new apprenticeship program, there are already existing, lots of existing programs, and we would want to be adding a green building component to what they do.

So, you know, if you, and I should say that we are talking to La Una, to IBEW, to UA Local 32. So, there are existing programs, but they don't necessarily focus on, you know, the kind of green building that we are trying to support and grow.

i'm not sure if i'm answering your question but i know actually well you kind of are i understand ibw labor i get it what what i'm getting at is i apologize for not being more more specific basically what is the structure for the apprenticeship program where where would they be housed like physically housed like are you're saying south seattle college has a program that's up and if this were to pass, this money could be shared with South Seattle College?

Sure.

And I'm not trying to limit to any one particular place, but there are existing places that do these sorts of work already, and so that could be a place to start anyway.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Sala, please go ahead.

Thank you, I just wanted to say I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor to this.

So sorry, I was on mute.

Okay, thank you so much Council Member Sawa and Council Member Sawa adding her name as a co-sponsor to OSC001.

Any additional comments or questions?

I could just add in terms of the Council President's question, OSC and FAS, Finance and Administrative Services, earlier this year in terms of the pre-apprenticeship program was they issued an RFP for organizations to provide proposals to the city to provide these scholarships, right?

So I think the intent here may be to, in addition to the scholarships, as the sponsor mentioned, there may be some program development to add a green building component.

So I think the pre-apprenticeship program is also somewhat like that.

I think some programs are just getting started up based on that funding, but the idea is that it would support individuals who participate in these programs as well as the programs.

themselves if additional kind of qualifications were needed to be, you know, supported through those programs.

So there is an existing model at this point that OSC and FAS have jointly worked on.

And so I think the intent would be to kind of build upon that to expand to the apprenticeship programs.

Okay, thanks, Council President.

Any follow up on that?

No, I just wanted to, the only reason I wanted clarification, and you know this, Madam Chair, we've been doing these apprenticeship programs at North Seattle College for all kinds of groups, and some of them, there's just not space for them, and that the green economy and all these other issues that have come up.

So I agree with the intent, I just wanted to know where all this physically was gonna land.

So thank you, thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Let's go on to the next one.

Okay, OSC 2A1, also sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Council Members Strauss and Lewis.

This would add $220,000 of general fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024 on an ongoing basis to the Office of Sustainability and Environment to support a Green Link certification program for workers currently engaged in the construction of housing in Seattle.

Thank you so much.

I'm going to turn it back over to Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Okay, so as Yolanda mentioned, this creates a program that funds certification training for workers who are already in the trades and who are actively seeking construction, actively engaged in construction of multifamily housing in the city.

So this would fund things like tuition for LEED, for greening, certification for the Master Builders Association, U.S. Green Building Council, Passive House, and others who educate and provide certification to these workers.

Again, we've been in conversation with labor partners to ensure that this opportunity provides support for those who are currently employed and who are facing career transition, particularly as codes change, requiring more you know, different kind of energy codes, for example.

So one thing that we've heard from labor partners is the need to specify multifamily construction in this CBA.

So again, we want to make sure that that language is included.

And yeah, I think I think that's all.

There's a little bit more.

Sorry, I'll add one more thing, which is that typically the cost of participating in these programs might range from $200 to $2,000 to get this additional certification if you're a construction worker.

So we could potentially fund, you know, from $200 to $2,000 certifications depending on which program people are interested in.

And I think you know, one of my interests is in offering this additional certification.

It could also mean offering the opportunity for greater earnings for these workers.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Are there any questions on OSC002?

I'm not hearing any, Councilmember, so let's go ahead and move on to the next one.

Okay, OSC 3A1, sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Council Members Herbold and Lewis.

This would add $455,000 of general fund in 2023, one-time basis to the Office of Sustainability and Environment to support development of a community-led climate resilience hub in South Beacon Hill.

Thank you, Council Member Morales, back to you.

Okay, so we have a campus in South Beacon Hill.

It includes Bethany United Church of Christ.

It includes Beacon Hill Council, Got Green, Sparks Northwest, and they formed a partnership to try to establish their own resilience hub on that campus.

Partners are looking to prepare really for low-income neighbors, for unhoused neighbors, for elderly, And especially given, for example, the smoke season that we just had, looking for a safe place for people to be in the event of a natural disaster.

So the request would fund three things.

It would help decarbonize and create energy efficiency improvements in the buildings, replacing oil and gas furnaces, for example.

The request would fund battery storage sufficient to meet emergency electrical needs for two weeks, powering heat pumps, computers, phones, that sort of thing.

And then the final thing is funding purchase of just essential supplies, first aid kits, food and water to store, water filtration systems, toiletry and hygiene, that sort of thing.

So they really are trying to to create a safe space in South Beacon Hill so that people know where to go and that once they arrive the resources are there to help take care of folks for a couple weeks.

I really think this resilience hub can serve as a model for the rest of us in the city as we're looking to address the effects of climate change and knowing as we do that The big one could be right around the corner.

Really trying to anticipate and prepare the community in the event of that kind of disaster.

Thanks so much.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Council Member Sawant, please go ahead.

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor on this one.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Sawant adding her name as a co-sponsor to OSC 003. Council Member Nelson.

Thanks.

Is this something that could potentially be funded through Jump Start instead of the general fund?

Because clearly I'm interested in making sure that the items that might not be in alignment with Jump Start do have funding.

Yeah, if you want that for central staff, Ali, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Councilmember Nielsen, at this stage in the budget process, we are often just, you know, putting a, if a fund source wasn't specifically named by the sponsor, it is typically put forward as a general fund ask, but through the balancing discussions with the chair and with all of you, we will look at all potential fund sources and where there's resources available.

So if this One of the exercises we'll go through is looking at all the amendments and think about what potential fund sources could possibly support this investment and try to provide those options to the chair and then to all of you as the discussions proceed.

Thank you, and I see Yolanda off mute.

Anything else?

But the Green New Deal Oversight Board did prioritize funding community resilience hubs as one of their budget funding priorities.

So that that's something that will also be kind of up for consideration during our discussions.

Yeah, thank you.

Thanks for that question.

And I think it speaks to some of the various sources that could potentially be looked at for good alignment.

We are looking forward to continuing to look at the front-line communities.

We did just include in the we're going to be able to do that.

We're going to be able to do that as well.

So I think there's going to be some good analysis on where there's cross-sectional interest here.

Councilmember Morales, please go ahead.

great.

Thank you so much for that.

Anything else?

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

And just noting again, Councilmember Sawant has added her name as a co-sponsor to OSC 003. Now we're on 005.

Yes, OSC 5A1.

This is sponsored by Councilmember Peterson and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold and Straus.

This would add $147,000 of general fund in 2023 and $190,000 of general fund in 2024 and one FTE strategic advisor three to the office of sustainability and environment to create a new city urban forester position, just in terms of a little bit of background.

2022 adopted budget included statement of legislative intent, MO1A2, requested that the mayor's office, urban forestry interdepartmental team and the urban forestry commission submit to the council recommendations for creating independent chief arborist position to oversee the city's management of trees and initial focus on the preservation of exceptional trees.

The office of sustainability environment on behalf of the mayor's office submitted a slide response late last month provided recommendations for the position's job, responsibilities, and qualifications, and described opportunities and challenges related to the proposed position.

Just noting that this proposal aligns with the recommendations provided by the executive, which are provided in the attachment to the council action.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thank you, Yolanda, for that excellent summary.

Colleagues, when the Mayor's Office responded this year to our slide from last year, they explained well the rationale for creating a new position within the Office of Sustainability and Environment called City Urban Forester, formerly referred to as Chief Arborist.

The position is also consistent with direction from the City Auditor as far back as 2009 So currently Seattle has tree functions scattered across multiple departments and we need a unifying position to lead and coordinate overall strategy of preserving and expanding our city's vulnerable tree canopy.

Over the last few years Seattle has lost 255 acres of trees.

I appreciate my initial co-sponsors I'm very thankful for the executive's interdepartmental team for working well with the urban forestry commission to produce what is essentially a job description and statement of need.

So now it's up to us to fund it.

Thank you for enabling us to follow through on this important environmental issue if we are to fund this position.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to add my name to this.

Thank you so much.

Is there, oh, excuse me, Council Member Lewis, Council Member Lewis adding his name as a co-sponsor.

Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Peterson, do we no longer have an arborist, a city arborist?

We do not have a central unified position.

They're in various departments and they work in the field primarily, so we have them in STCI, SDOT, parks, but there's no unifying strategic person.

Got it.

Okay.

I know about the SDOT one.

Okay.

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember Nelson.

Councilmember Nelson adding her name as a co-sponsor.

Yolanda, I just saw you pop off mute.

I want to make sure that you have, if you have any clarification, please jump in.

Councilmember Nelson, actually, just in her last note there, there is someone with the title, I believe, of City of Arborist, but that is the person in the Department of Transportation.

Wonderful.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Sawant, please go ahead.

councilmember Perkins.

Thank you.

And please add me as a co-sponsor on this amendment.

Thank you.

aspects of our tree canopy, the increasing of the climate change on our existing canopy and how given our driest summer that we had last year, the choking skies full of smoke, how that's affecting our trees.

And I think that there'll be some good research as well to support the concepts here of really creating a thoughtful process across our city's departments on how to look at boosting the number of trees and improving the health of our existing canopy.

I will be signing on as a co-sponsor as well.

We have council members Mosqueda, Nelson, and Lewis as co-sponsors here.

Let's move on.

Still on the topic of trees, OSC 301A1.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is a statement of legislative intent.

I would like to start with a brief background that nine departments have a role in managing Seattle's urban forest, making it difficult for the public to have a comprehensive understanding of the city's investments in maintaining and enhancing this resource.

In addition to providing information about funding and expenditures, this report requests that departments determine if additional resources are needed to complete the actions

Thank you so much.

I'm going to turn over Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

To your previous comments, one thing that I've found when helping to follow up with resident notification that when illegal tree cutting has occurred, that the penalties don't go to planting, planning or stewarding trees.

So currently when the illegal treading illegal tree cutting occurs, penalties are levied against the homeowner, the dollars received go to the general fund.

These dollars should be used to address our tree canopy goals, planning, planting, and stewarding of trees.

This amendment would create a mechanism of tracking these dollars so we can ensure penalties for illegal tree cutting do fund the replanting and stewarding of trees.

Yolanda, I may request that we make the report date due earlier and everything that you shared was completely spot on.

I would like to be added to this amendment as well.

Thank you so much, both to Councilmember Strauss and Councilmember Peterson on this topic.

I just, I wanted to ask, and perhaps this is for the sponsor and or central staff, in this one, in the previous amendment, is there a focus as well, specifically on communities of color, communities of color that have seen higher amounts of paving over green space historically?

Is there an emphasis here to try to look through an equity lens at certain geographic regions of our city?

Chair, really great question.

That's actually going to come up in one of my future amendments tomorrow on the SDOT where I'm requesting dollars to be spent to plant street trees, focusing on the equitable framework so that areas of our city that have less canopy are focused on first.

And so all three of these kind of go in sync with each other, right?

Where if these dollars from illegal tree cutting were tagged as I'm as I'm requesting it within our financial accounting software, then those dollars could have paid for Councilmember Peterson's primary request for a citywide arborist.

And then also added to the funding that I'm asking for from colleagues and yourself to address street tree planting.

So there are many branches to providing a larger tree canopy and meeting our tree canopy goals.

Great, thank you so much and a profound need out there.

So thank you both for this incredible work.

All right, let's keep going.

I could also just add, Chair, that the recent update to the urban forest management plan very much centers on equity and racial equity in particular.

So that's why I think all these do kind of have that shared alignment of really advancing environmental justice and racial equity.

great.

Thank you so much.

All right.

So I think are we on our last OSC one?

Yes.

OSC 510A1.

This one is sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Council President Juarez and Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry, excuse me.

Go ahead.

I'll try to be quick.

This council budget action would repeal the heating oil tax, which is set to go in effect on January 1st, 2023, and would also reduce projected tax revenues of 1.4 million general fund in 2023 and 1.25 million general fund in 2024, located in finance general.

As discussed at committee a couple of weeks ago, the council passed this tax in 2019 on the sale of heating oil to generate funding to fully cover the cost of converting oil heat electric heating systems for low income residents, and to expand the existing conversion rebate program available to all households these two programs together known as the clean heat program.

Because this tax is anticipated to be passed directly on to residents, the council had delayed the effective date three times from September 1, 2020 to the 1st of next year to avoiding imposing an additional financial burden on residents during the pandemic.

as they were toiling away to recover from the economic turmoil that the pandemic caused.

Just noting that Jumpstart Green New Deal funds are an available alternative source of funding for the Clean Heat Program, and that the use of this funding has been, for this purpose, has been recommended by the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

Excellent, thank you.

Council Member Morales, please go ahead.

Yeah, I don't have a lot to add to what Yolanda said.

Colleagues will recall that I have sponsored the legislation that has delayed this three times now.

So I am hoping that we can now just repeal the thing and understand that the intent here really is to protect our low-income homeowners, many of whom do have heating oil tanks and who are really nervous, frankly, as they attempt to convert, that they will be faced with leaking tanks, extremely higher costs for cleaning up a spilled tank than they might have anticipated or been prepared for.

So yes, we're looking to repeal the tax, understanding that with the approval of the Green New Deal Oversight Board, we have jumpstart funding that can help support this program.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson.

Council Member, excuse me.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Well, I just want to say I'm all about repealing a tax on poor people, so I would like to be added as a co-sponsor.

Thanks.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Nelson.

Councilmember Nelson adding her name to OSC 501. Councilmember Nelson.

Councilmember, Council President Gonzalez.

I'm so sorry.

Council President Juarez.

I'm gonna have to pay something every time I do this.

It's okay, girl.

I got you.

Don't even worry about it.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Don't even worry about it.

Hey, what I want to ask is Yolanda, I remember when we passed this.

I'm just gonna hold up a moment and say I told you so because I'm not gonna do that.

What year did we pass this?

Was this 2018?

2019. Okay.

So thank you Council Member Morales for finally doing what I was trying to do back in 19. I kept saying it's too much too soon.

It's anywhere between six and $10,000 to remove these.

We need to slow down, we need to figure out, we need to have a plan in place about how we actually move these oil tanks for low income people, middle income people, people that just couldn't afford right away to go ahead and move this.

So thank you Council Member Morales for I'm moving this forward, and that's why I became a co-sponsor.

Well, thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, Council President Juarez.

Thank you, Madam Chair Gonzalez.

I'm going to get payback for this.

All right.

I don't see any additional hands.

Let's go ahead and move on.

Agenda item 7, Seattle Department of Construction and Expectations for briefing and discussion.

Thank you very much, and welcome Ketel.

Thank you, Chair.

Ketel Freeman, Council Central staff.

The first budget action for SDCI is SDCI 1A1.

This council budget action would add $3 million on a one-time basis to SDCI for rental assistance to be administered in conjunction with eviction legal defense programs.

The council expects that the rental assistance to be provided would be administered by eviction prevention organizations.

The current organizations that are receiving safety funding for eviction legal defense are the Housing Justice Project and the tenants, sorry, the Catholic Community Services Tenant Law Center.

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

Thank you very much, Ketel.

Colleagues, I want to just call out the important work of the Housing Justice Project that was just noted.

They have been reaching out to our office about this need and they're having conversations with Erin House.

Thanks to Erin for her work on this.

There has been a sharp increase in eviction cases over the last few months.

We knew that this was a really pressing issue during the pandemic, but I think there's this desire to think that the pandemic is over.

It is not, neither is the impact of eviction cases as people think that we are, quote, returning to normal.

So the Housing Justice Project is working with about 100 households per month right now.

A lot of these cases are involving small amounts of money and there is a need for flexible emergency rental assistance funds to stop these evictions.

and prevent more families and individuals from falling into homelessness and creating greater housing instability in our city.

The Housing Justice Project is seeing cases recently where just a couple hundred dollars would have helped households prevent them from getting evicted.

The Housing Justice Project estimates that $3 million could help stop most of the evictions we are currently seeing throughout Seattle.

The intent for this funding is twofold.

First, it focuses on individuals who are in the eviction process, which is somewhat different from previous rounds of rental assistance, which were granted to landlords who agreed not to bring an eviction case to the tenants.

So these funds would serve as the last line of defense against potential eviction, homelessness, and housing instability.

Second, for the funds to be centralized within one or two agencies that provide eviction legal defense for tenants in the eviction process, this intention of centralizing the funding would be drawing on our experience having administered past rounds of rental assistance We have learned that having funds centralized rather than spread across many agencies makes it a lot easier to access funds and makes it possible for us to achieve our racial equity goals in terms of making sure that BIPOC households are being served and given the disproportionate rates of BIPOC households facing eviction.

I'll also note that the funds are flexible.

They should cover what the tenants need in order to avoid eviction coming directly from the issue experts like the housing justice projects.

I'm going to go ahead and move on to the next item.

We are proposing to route this funding through SDCI for ease and coordination with existing eviction legal defense contracts and look forward to continuing the support and have a more coordinated and streamlined process to get these dollars out the door.

Councilmember Nelson.

I don't think that $3 million is a relatively small amount.

I think it's on top of 1.2 already.

But my point is that if we have this much money, why aren't we just providing vouchers?

Because eviction is usually the result of failure to pay rent.

And the use of the federal funds that they got down to Seattle during the pandemic were largely focus, the majority of that money went to organizations that dispersed.

And so if if we have this money, it should be, I believe, direct, you know, again, direct assistance administered by SDCI instead of through all these other organizations, because we don't really know exactly how much actually goes actual assistance in the in the form of vouchers to tenants so that they can stay in their apartments.

Okay, I just want to make sure we're not conflating various programs that do provide much-needed assistance and I'm going to ask Ketel to confirm this.

We don't already have 1.2.

We do have vouchers but those are very limited.

We get those vouchers from the federal government and they are routed through the Seattle Housing Authority.

And vouchers don't help all the people that are currently in the eviction process so I'm going to ask you to add anything there or clarify anything that I've said to make sure that that's all accurate.

Yeah, one thing I'd say is the 1.2 million is for eviction legal defense so it's not for direct assistance for for emergency rental support.

So that's the current contract allocations that the city has with both the Housing Justice Project and Catholic Community Services.

If my colleague Tracy's online, she may be able to chip in here, but I think that the city does offer some vouchers, but not through this source.

I think that there may be some jumpstart funding which supports vouchers that are administered by the Office of Housing, but it's not in the context of preventing evictions for folks who are in an eviction proceeding.

Hi, Tracy.

Thanks, Ketel.

Good try, Ketel.

No, the city does not actually have a voucher program.

It is Seattle Housing Authority that is the recipient of vouchers, including what Council Member Nelson might be remembering was the emergency housing vouchers that the federal government allocated to the Seattle Housing Authority that are actually distributed in partnership with the King County Regional Housing Authority.

So that is the only departure really in terms of how vouchers have been allocated and who has been in charge of those vouchers.

We have rental assistance programs.

We have a housing levy that provides a little bit of funding for rental assistance, rapid rehousing, as well as just plain old rental assistance.

But that's really the only other rental assistance funding that I know of in my world.

Yeah.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I would like to be added to this amendment as a cosponsor.

As a matter of fact, my office had also actually prepared the same amendment and sent it to council offices requesting support for this, so I'm happy to cosponsor this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Sawant adding her name as a cosponsor to I would also like to be added.

You know, I just I'm trying to do math here.

If if if the this and the other two amendments pass, that's three million plus five hundred and seventy thousand plus four hundred thousand all going to organizations and not to people who can't pay their rent.

And again, I'll say that failure to pay rent is usually the cause of eviction.

So strong statement of I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth it.

from a nonpartisan perspective, provide us with the analysis on how these dollars get passed through.

Sure.

So does the budget amendment states about $2.1 million is allocated through different organizations and those city purchases services, those services range from eviction legal defense to tenant counseling, direct counseling, money for organizing, other services that benefit tenants at different sort of for a variety of different purposes, including eviction legal defense, which is what we're talking about primarily here.

A lot of it is education outreach, letting people know what their rights are as tenants and what their obligations are as landlords.

It's a variety of services.

There's obviously a policy discussion that the council can have about what the right mix should be for which services.

and to what extent there should be direct assistance.

But the city is not funding organizations as much as purchasing services from these organizations that benefit tenants and landlords too, to a certain extent.

Okay.

Ali, I see you with some clarification.

Yeah.

I would just add to that, that the funding that Ketel is describing that has flowed historically through SDCI provides those types of services.

In addition, the funds that have Historically, and I don't know if it's still gone through HSD for contracts with organizations, did include pots of money that provide direct rental assistance if that is what is necessary to cure the eviction in some cases, as well as the funding that went out through the federal funds with the United Way, King County, that was money going directly to tenants.

there are often different needs that tenants have to cure an eviction or to stabilize them in their housing that might include, as Ketel was describing, providing eviction defense in court.

Sometimes those organizations are helping mediate between the landlord and the tenant to resolve issues with payments or other issues.

So I think through a variety of ways, as Ketel described, is purchasing services, and in some cases, includes providing rental assistance to pay, to cure their background.

Vice Chair Herbold, do you have something to add?

Yeah, sure.

Just to, I think the sentence that might be adding some confusion is the sentence that says SDCI currently administers programs that provide direct payments to households facing displacement through programs such as the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance and the Economic Displacement Relocation Ordinance.

Those are discrete programs that SDCI administers.

They don't generally administer any direct payments for evictions.

The tenant relocation assistance program is a program that SDCI has administered since the mid-80s.

It's specifically focused around SDCI's role in giving out permits for substantial renovation or demolition of housing.

And in that role of SDCI giving permits, they administer the relocation program because they can hold back the permits for the demolition or substantial renovations going to displace somebody until the payments are paid.

Similarly, the economic displacement relocation assistance program as championed by Council Member Sawant.

SDCI administers that program.

That is when tenants are being displaced because of very, very large rent increases, a law that SDCI enforces.

It is not an assistance program for people who are being evicted because of non-payment of rent.

It's people who are losing their housing because of large rent increases.

So those are the programs that STCI administers.

They do not generally administer any programs to my knowledge that are rent assistance programs such as the organizations named here.

And I can just speak a little bit to the city's philosophy in funding organizations to provide rent assistance grants Again, this is not, as I understand it, this is not a proposal to fund these organizations to do general things to help tenants, it is specifically to fund the needs of tenants who are facing eviction because of non-payment of rent.

This decentralized approach we've talked about many times over the years of whether or not a decentralized or a centralized approach, like for instance, HomeBase that the county was running, which are better approaches.

It is a both and.

They're both good approaches.

Having a program like HomeBase that is located in the courtrooms, helping people who have not been reached by organizations like this prior to ending up in court, Those are assistance dollars that can, in the moment, help a tenant avoid an eviction.

These organizations provide rent assistance earlier on in the process.

And it's one of the reasons why it's important to fund organizations that have deep connections into community is because they are best suited to reach people within their communities that have these needs.

There's strong connections between vulnerable communities and these organizations, and they can be there earlier on in the process to get those dollars to avoid the eviction.

later when there is actually an eviction lawsuit pending, programs like Home Base have been helping people in the courtrooms access dollars to pay their rents and avoid eviction.

So that's kind of the thinking behind the both and, decentralized and centralized approach.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Okay, I think we're going to move on.

Council Member Nelson, do you have something else to add?

I just want to make sure that there is the and, and because this is a lot of money not going into direct assistance.

I don't think that this, Madam Chair, is a partisan issue.

And I will note that I hope that we do have some information about the on-the-ground benefit to actual tenants for the services that we're providing.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks so much.

We're gonna move on to the next item.

All right.

The next agenda item is STCI 2A1, sponsored by Councilmember Swatt, co-sponsored by Councilmembers Morales and Lewis.

This is also in the theme of eviction legal defense.

This would add $570,000 in 2023 and 2024, so it will be ongoing funding to STCI for eviction legal defense.

As we just discussed, there are two organizations that The city contracts with for eviction legal defense Catholic community services and the House of Justice project on the housing justice projects as the larger contract that contract anticipated serving 300 clients.

They have had more than twice that many in 2022.

Thank you so much.

Council Member Salwa.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

And once again, apologies to the Council and members of the public who are watching and unable to be on camera because of technical issues that I'm still trying to resolve.

Just in reference to the questions that Council Member Nelson was asking in the discussion of the previous amendment, just to clarify, When renters face eviction, they are sent to court.

They meet an attorney, hopefully, from the Housing Justice Project, which is funded by this type of amendment that we're discussing right now.

And then the Housing Justice Project attorney helps the renter get connected to rental assistance funds to pay off the background, if that's the situation they're facing.

And so just to clarify, in the previous amendment, the dollars go to fund people to pay rent.

This budget amendment that we're discussing right now would fund the crucial work of the Housing Justice Project of the King County Bar Association in preventing evictions in Seattle, or in other words, eviction defense.

This year, 2022, is the first full year that renters in Seattle will have had the right to legal counsel when they face eviction, city funded because of the legislation sponsored.

by my office and approved by the council in March of last year.

And it is really helping people in their homes, keep people in their homes.

The numbers are really just strongly confirming the need for having passed that kind of law and also for ensuring that this funding exists.

So I think that this budget amendment is extremely important if you want to make sure that we're keeping vulnerable people in their homes and they're not put into much worse situations, including potentially actually having unsheltered homelessness.

The Housing Justice Project has reported that more often than not, they are able to prevent an eviction when they defend people facing eviction.

So just having The trained attorney there with you is a make or break situation for renters.

However, last January, the mayor shamefully ended the eviction moratorium, putting an unacceptable stress on those legal eviction defenders.

The Housing Justice Project was contracted by the SDCI, the Department of Construction Inspections, to defend 300 tenants in eviction court this year.

But as of their September report from the SJP, they had already defended 708 tenants.

SJP has identified that they will need $1.4 million to adequately defend their renters.

They expect to unfortunately see an eviction court in 2023. I mean, just to emphasize this point, we have seen eviction of the emergency tenant protections that were in place in this state and also in other states in our city of Seattle that were present during the pandemic have been rolled back.

And so it's not unique to Seattle.

We're seeing in metropolitan areas nationally that this problem is going to be exploding.

And so it's not surprising that as JP has identified this increased need of funding in order to keep people in their homes and prevent evictions in 2022 they were granted $830,000 so this $570,000 budget amendment makes up for that difference for the 1.4 million that they say they need.

Just to share also just on the note of what's going to happen and what's already being seen with the pandemic eviction protections having rolled back.

Less than a week ago, there was a dire report from the Bay Area, which is very comparable in terms of, you know, Seattle and its overall economic conditions.

Evictions have been seen to be soaring in the Bay Area, in fact, more than doubling And from July 2021 through June 2022, that region saw more than 6,300 eviction filings.

And undoubtedly the surge began when the emergency protections were taken away.

So I think this is, I really urge the council to strongly support this.

And just in closing as a technical note, the funding for legal defense is part of a broader budget line for all tenant services grants.

In the mayor's proposed budget, that broader budget line is unchanged between 2022 and 2023. So not only is there no additional funds to address the increased caseload caused by the end of the eviction moratorium, but there's also not one penny of inflation adjustment, which really should be there given just the unprecedented inflation.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

I'm not seeing, excuse me, I am seeing some.

Councilmember Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I would just like to confirm the 700 clients in eviction proceedings that that does, that I know HJP represents people outside of the city of Seattle.

I just want to confirm that those are city of Seattle clients that's The eviction moratorium, I think, was lifted the end of February.

So this would be 700 clients over the last eight months in eviction proceedings.

I know there was a backlog, as Council Member Sawant said, of, unfortunately, tenants who landlords were planning to evict and just waiting for the moratorium to be lifted.

But I do want to just confirm that these are all Seattle numbers here.

And I'm also interested to know what the average cost per case is too.

But also thank Council Member Swartz for bringing this forward.

A right to legal counsel and eviction proceeding is only as valuable as we have funding to support that right.

So thanks.

Thank you.

Just before we go on, any responses to that or any additional comments?

Please go ahead, Ketel.

Just to say that we will follow up with Councilmember Herbold and the entire Budget Committee with responses to those questions.

I cannot confirm that the 708 is exclusively City of Seattle cases, but we'll definitely get back to you online.

Great.

Councilmember Sawant, did you have any response as well?

Just very quickly, I appreciate Ketel getting back to council members on that question.

Just to clarify the number, as council members probably already know, that was from the Housing Justice Projects report to the SDCI.

Obviously, they're required to submit those reports as part of the grant.

I'm not sure if that report has already gone to all council members, but I'll make sure my staff forward that or central staff can do that.

And yeah, I'm also not aware of what the cost per case is, but hopefully we can get those responses.

I will say though, just again, just to reiterate that even if we found out that SJP is serving King County as a whole and they cannot delineate which tenants were in Seattle or not, or maybe they weren't tracking.

I don't know whether they were or not.

Maybe they're watching this and they'll give us clarification.

I just wanted to say from a policy standpoint, from the standpoint of what I would like to see, I hope that we don't make the support for this funding conditional on where the tenants are located because this is a region-wide crisis and the HJP is doing exemplary work and it is imperative.

As I said, having the trained attorney there makes all the difference in your life and of your children especially.

So I feel like if we take our responsibility as city council members seriously in terms of doing our best to prevent any further crisis for our renters and their families, then it really shouldn't matter where the families are located that they're supporting.

If it is working, then it is a worthy cause to to keep funding.

So yeah, I'll just leave it there.

Thank you.

Council Member Nelson.

Well, I think it is important to know whether or not we're actually benefiting our residents.

So I appreciate that question being asked and and we do need to know how much each case costs to litigate.

Very important questions because what we're doing here is we're passing money through to pay for staff.

Instead of paying the rent of people who are about to be evicted.

So I'm just wondering, this is a this is an offline conversation, if there's any appetite for or ability to ask these organizations to just give the tenants some money so that they are not evicted.

I have to correct the conversation here.

I'm going to again ask central staff, and when I say nonpartisan, it's because they do an independent analysis that is not influenced by any council member's opinion or preference.

In the response that we just had in the previous discussion, the explicit answer was these dollars are passed through for services, meaning that these are trusted community partners who help get into communities on the ground level who are reaching people and providing direct assistance.

So I want to make sure that there's not a misunderstanding about what the previous amendment did.

And I don't want that to be conflating with what we're trying to provide here with Council Member Sawant's amendment because I do think that there is an important role that these community partners are playing.

We are not padding any organization.

We are providing direct assistance in the previous amendment.

and I will ask council members to want to respond to your direct question about this amendment, but I just don't want that to be the misunderstanding and misinterpretation as we walk away.

Council member Sawant, I see your hand up and I see Ketel off mute as well.

Do you want central staff to respond first?

Sure, Ketel can go first.

Just by way of clarification, and I think this is a distinction that that the committee understands, this budget action would add additional funding for eviction prevention services, so legal defense.

The prior budget action would add funding for rental assistance for folks who are facing eviction.

Folks face eviction for a variety of different reasons.

Non-payment of rent is only one of them.

Adding funding for eviction prevention services, eviction legal defense, It fills in a gap that may be unrelated to the ability of a tenant to pay rent.

That was the only clarification I was offering.

Thanks.

Council Member Silva?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Just to add to the points you made and also Ketil, just again to clarify, although I feel like honestly, this point has been clarified over and over, And it's just difficult to see these questions as, you know, just, I mean, how genuine, like, we've said this many times.

In any case, I'll go ahead and say it once more to add to the points that have already been made.

The previous amendment is about rental assistance for renters, for tenants.

It's not for the organization.

It's for the renters.

This amendment is to prevent eviction in the first place when the tenants, the renters end up in court.

The funding for rental assistance and funding for eviction defense, these are both extremely crucial right now in order to provide just a basic protection that our most vulnerable community members are going to need increasingly, especially as inflation continues to intensify and the recession enters in in a much stronger way, unfortunately.

And they're not either or, the previous amendment and this amendment, the services that these two amendments fund are not either or, they both are necessary.

As far as Council Member Nelson's point that while it is necessary to know where the tenants live, I mean, as a point, as a point of statistical information, yes.

If the HDP has that information, of course, I wouldn't be opposed to getting that information.

However, I think it is just It's just not in touch with the reality to say that that should be a condition.

I mean, if we are asking that out of curiosity, that's great.

But regardless of where those tenants live, I think the services that the IJP is providing is extremely important.

There aren't like 20 other organizations that are doing this work.

That is why we are talking so prominently about the housing justice project.

And furthermore, it's also connected in the sense that you cannot look at this just from the city standpoint, because a lot of the people who are living in the city, inside city limits, within city limits last year, aren't living here this year because they were pushed out because of rent increases.

And the people who are living this year will not be here next year because they will get pushed out.

I mean, this is happening at a ferocious rate, especially for black and brown community members who are getting pushed out at a disproportionately higher rate outside of city limits.

So I would really urge council members to keep that overarching fact in mind.

And as far as the cost per case, again, totally, they should be able to give that information.

And maybe it's already in the report.

I'm not able to recall.

However, Again, the point being, keeping things in perspective, whatever the cost is, I can guarantee you it is a fraction of the cost both for public resources when people are pushed out of their homes and potentially face homelessness in terms of shelter and other services.

And also, you cannot put a price tag on the trauma that people face when they lose their home.

So I don't think that if you put that in context that the cost would in any way be objectionable or prohibitive.

And I'll just make one other point in terms of emphasizing why it is so crucial that if you're a renter and you end up in eviction court, having an attorney with you is that The fact is that even if you have genuinely in legal terms have a defense against your eviction.

More often than not, I mean I think the statistics are even stronger than I'm expressing them that.

that you will end up getting evicted even if you have a legal defense, if you don't have a trained attorney to put that eviction defense forward.

And in fact, the SAP have told us, the attorneys have told us that they have heard judges say that actually we need funding for this kind of eviction defense because otherwise the process doesn't, the legal process cannot be carried out in the best interest of the tenant.

So I do hope that all of this information is going to be sufficient to convince council members that this is indeed just an absolutely crucial service that our renters need.

Thank you all.

Thank you, everybody.

Okay, so we have some good questions that have been posed, analysis coming in from central staff, and greater discussions to come, it sounds like, on these topics.

I'm going to move us on, and I think we have one more in this category, is that right?

Yeah, actually the next two have to do with STC function, regulating the rental market so both in some ways they're both connected.

STCI 3A1 is the next agenda item.

This is sponsored by Council Member Swatt and co-sponsored by Council Members Morales and Lewis.

This would add $400,000 in general fund in 2023 and $400,000 in 2024 to STCI for tenant services grants and contracts.

This would be grants and contracts to organizations such as the Tenant Union, the Tenants Union that provides counseling, education, and outreach.

This is an ongoing ad.

And that is the introduction to it.

Thank you so much.

Council Member, Council Member Swat, you're back up.

Thank you.

This budget amendment would fund the crucial work of the Tenants Union, which is funded out of the same Tenant Services Grants budget line that I mentioned that is in the SDCA as the previous budget amendment.

So just like in the previous budget amendment, the Tenants Union find themselves perpetually understaffed to meet the needs of renters in Seattle.

They run a call line to answer renters' questions, and they also have organizers that help renters organizing their buildings when they and their neighbors are facing more generalized abuses by their landlords.

And it's unfortunately far from an uncommon situation that renters find themselves in.

For example, the Sustainability and Renters' Rights Committee this year heard from a group of tenants at the Matkin Apartments on Capitol Hill.

These renters, many of whom are seniors living in the same building for decades, suddenly found their housing upended this year when their longstanding landlord passed away and the building they call home was put up for sale.

The Tenants' Union met with these renters help them advocate for a nonprofit housing provider to buy the building.

And when that was unsuccessful, help them organize against the attacks or the property management company that ultimately bought the building.

Attacks by the property management company that ultimately bought the building.

So this budget amendment would allow the tenants union to increase their staffing to more You know better staff their helpline i'm i'm sure that just given the crisis, you know i'll probably predict that it still won't be enough, but.

They need much more than what they have right now, so this budget amendment allow the tenants unit increase their staffing to staff their helpline help renters organizing more buildings and higher.

an in-house attorney to help directly answer the renter's legal questions, which has been, I know, a goal of the Tenants Union for many years.

And I think this aspect also connects to the questions that came up in the previous amendments, you know, like why aren't we giving direct rental assistance?

You know, the fact is that often ordinary people, you know, renters don't know where to go for support.

And when they have sort of a, like a single go to area, like if they know that they can go to the tenants union, no matter what happens, or if they go to, they know that they can go to the HAP, no matter what can happen, what happens, then they know that they can get the information there.

So organizations like the tenants union, like the HAP, they connect people with rental assistance funds, because they have that information, they have that knowledge and expertise.

And so It is not a superfluous thing in any way whatsoever.

It is actually an extremely crucial need.

And as I said, these organizations have been perennially underfunded.

So I really hope council members will support this.

Okay, thank you, council member.

I am not seeing any additional hands on this one.

So let's go to the last item in this category.

All right, the next item is STC for a one is sponsored by council member stress and co sponsored by council members herbal Lewis, this would add a position and funding for that position in 2023 and 2024 position would be added to STC is property owner and tenant assistance group, technically a code compliance analyst position on these positions among other things.

the city's renting and Seattle webpage and also provide education outreach to landlords and tenants.

Thank you.

Councilmember Strauss, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

In the vein of this entire conversation, this property owner and tenant assistance group code compliance officer is the person in the city that can help both tenants and landlords navigate and understand state code, city code, federal code regarding their obligations And one of the things that I'll highlight is that with the increased complex complexity of landlord tenant law, both the state and city level.

This position helps both tenants and landlords understand their rights and responsibilities.

This last weekend I received a call.

from a senior living in a building that was recently sold from their longtime owner who built the building in the 80s.

It was a local, kept their rents very stable.

The new owner is in the process of renovating and raising the rents of unoccupied units, and the senior received a letter that was vague and seemed to suggest that anyone staying in the building needed to move out at that very moment.

When I'm faced with these I'm going to bring forward this addition to the property owner and tenant assistance group.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this forward.

I would like to ask for your before we get to agenda item number eight, which is Seattle Fire Department.

I did circulate that amendment at about 10 a.m., and again, apologies for the late circulation on that on my part.

And we would be amending the agenda to include the walk-on amendment that I circulated if you are so inclined to amend the agenda.

Colleagues, does that sound like an okay allocation of time?

Okay, I saw some thumbs up.

Thank you very much, Council Member Strauss.

All right, great.

So at this point then, before we move on to agenda item number eight, which includes the Seattle Fire Department, if there's no objection, the rules will be suspended to allow consideration of a motion to amend the agenda to add a walk-on amendment that was not circulated by 5 p.m.

Hearing no objection, The rules are suspended.

We will now proceed with amending the agenda.

I move to amend the agenda to add SFD walk-on one, which is from my office.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to amend the agenda to add SFD walk-on one.

Are there any comments?

I will comment.

Apologies again.

I'm trying to follow my own rules and really appreciate you all doing the same.

I've already seen some amendments being circulated for tomorrow, so thanks so much for that.

I have a motion and a second.

Any additional comments?

Hearing none.

Madam clerk, please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment.

I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I. I.

the walk-on one is added to the amended agenda.

This walk-on amendment will be the last item of discussion during the agenda item in front of us, which is number eight.

So Madam Clerk, let's go ahead and move on over to item number eight on the agenda.

Agenda item eight, Seattle Fire Department for briefing and discussion.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

First up, we will have Council Member Straus' amendment and welcome Ann Gorman.

Thank you very much, Chairman Mosqueda.

Good afternoon, council members and Gorman Council Central staff.

I have three council budget actions pertaining to the Seattle Fire Department today.

The first one is SFD 1A1.

It is sponsored by Council Member Strauss and co-sponsored by Council Members Morales and Peterson.

This would add $150,000 in general fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024. to the Seattle Fire Department to support a contract with a recreational boating association to promote water safety.

The specific interest would be educating on water recreators about the seaplane landing buoys on Lake Union.

The state provided one-time funding last year for an awareness campaign, but there is no state funding in 2023.

Thank you so much.

I am going to call on Council Member Strauss.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Lake Union really is an amazing gem in our city.

It is both connected to Lake Washington and the Puget Sound.

Being so close to downtown, it serves so many different purposes.

It really is one of the heartbeats of Seattle, a central connecting waterway that people flock to for several months out of the year, whether on boat and kayak, stand-up paddleboard, in a sailboat.

or landing in a seaplane.

Oftentimes other people rent other vessels.

I've heard of floating hop tubs and small electric boats.

There are a lot of different uses in a very tight space and it makes good sense for us to have a target zero approach, keeping the lake safe and free of incidents and accidents.

It really is an important thing for us to do because when we, with so many conflicting uses, Especially with seaplanes landing there is not a centralized place for new voters to get information, I can tell you that I paddle with some of the strongest paddle boarders in the city.

some of the strongest kayakers in the city.

I'm friends with some of the strongest sailors in the city.

They all know the rules of the water.

What is more challenging are the folks that are renting that small electric boat, first time they've ever piloted a small craft, or the folks that are trying stand-up paddle boarding for the first time off of the shores of Mojai, or using a kayak for the first time.

And it's, quite dangerous in some respects, not only because they need to give right of way to sailboats, especially when sailboats are under their own power.

And new people who are new to watercraft sports might not know that.

What's even more dangerous is when somebody is piloting a sailboat or on a paddleboard or in a kayak and a seaplane is trying to land.

We've made great investments to designate the seaplane landing zone more clearly But the education of why those buoys are there is not formalized to an everyday person, excuse me.

We were fortunate enough to have organizations step up to use state money to design water education safety and awareness campaigns on Lake Union.

This helped increase safety.

And it's important to remember that the governor's office and others have described this as one-time funding.

We've had great success with the safety awareness and education initiative and keeping waterways safe is not a one-off or a one-time thing.

We're going to have to do more and more as more new and casual users of vessels along through Lake Union increase.

It's great to have them there and let me paint this picture for you.

We have buoys to help designate where seaplanes can land and new water users are tying up to these buoys, which is more dangerous than anything else.

So whether it's duck dodge or just a sunny Saturday afternoon, it's very important that we increase educational awareness about the rules and responsibilities of the waterways.

This is a very modest allocation that's good for business, tourism, and drawing visitors and folks to spend their money in and around Lake Union.

The reason at the end of the day that this is so important is because there is no other waterway in our city that has so much use and has a seaplane airport on it.

So whether or not you want to look at it, it's just a beautiful blue gem in the middle of our city or as an airport, there are many conflicting uses and we need to make sure new users especially understand the rules and their responsibilities while on water.

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to add myself as a co-sponsor.

The next item is SFD 2A2.

It is sponsored by Councilmember Herbold and co-sponsored by Councilmember Morales and Councilmember Nelson.

This item would add funding to continue on an ongoing basis the operation of a ladder truck at Fire Station 37 in West Seattle and High Point and a medic unit at Fire Station 26 in South Park.

The funding is 20 excuse me the funding is 4.7 million general fund in 2023. and 5.6 million general fund in 2024, with most of these costs going to support firefighter staffing.

Both of these resources were put in place temporarily while the West Seattle Bridge was closed to ensure prompt response to fire and medical emergencies, and this council budget action would make them permanent.

Because the ladder truck and the medic unit currently in use are past the department's standard replacement age, it would be necessary to purchase new vehicles for permanent deployment.

This item also includes, as an attachment, the Office of Community Planning and Development's Racial and Social Equity Index Map.

This map shows that the anticipated impact of maintaining the current investments permanently would have equity impact in a geographic area that OPCD has identified as having high priority for a city planning program and investment.

Thank you very much.

I'm looking at Council Member Herbold.

Please go ahead.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate that description and I just want to emphasize some points that we received from the city budget office.

But before doing so I do want to again publicly thank Chief Scoggins for him acting so quickly.

In March of 2020, and putting these units in place with the closure of the West Seattle bridge.

incredibly important to constituents on the peninsula and South Park that he did so.

And as a result, I think we have some really good data about what would happen if we lost that infrastructure.

So by removing the medic unit from Fire Station 26, paramedic response for advanced life support residents would go from an average of four minutes and 27 seconds to 12 minutes and 33 seconds.

In comparison to other paramedic response times by station area, this would be the longest response time as compared to all station areas in the city.

The ladder truck would go from an average of one minute and 54 seconds to three minutes and 56 seconds in the south end of West Seattle.

This would result in station 37 having the eighth highest average response time and nearby stations 26 and 11 having the longest response time in the entire city.

The response times map shared by the budget office in the Q&A really show this stark impact and show how these response times are far longer than accepted standards.

The neighborhoods where response times would increase are listed as well in the city's race and social justice equity index as higher disadvantaged areas.

And the removal of the medic unit would also increase response times in the southern parts of District 2 in South Seattle.

You can see that in the email I sent to council members at 1045 last night, which also included the support letter from President Stewart of Local 27 and real life stories of SFD Ladder 13 and Medic Unit 26. helping District 1 residents.

Just two quick excerpts.

One person writes, during COVID, my now nine-year-old started having seizures.

Each one of these has required the team on Medic One Ambulance to administer a higher dosage of the same medicine that they carry on board.

This drug and their expertise was essential to stopping his seizures and getting his brain stabilized.

Each time he has required transport to Children's Hospital, the thought of having to wait 10 to 15 minutes for a medic to come from Beacon Hill or elsewhere would mean potentially life altering ongoing seizure activity for my son.

Another person writes, in November 2020, my wife suffered a sudden heart failure.

It was only timely and professional response by Fire Station 37 that saved her life.

Her situation was truly dictated by minutes.

Just taking a look at the number of responses, Medic 26 responded to 975 incidents in 2021. Ladder Truck 13 responded to 1,037 incidents in 2021. I've provided a couple of examples, but without these units, the surrounding stations would need to pick up that workload, and that would affect a really profound number of people.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Is there any additional comments or questions?

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Thank you very much for sponsoring this.

If I'm sponsoring this, I'm happy to support it, of course.

The Seattle Fire Department staffing has really not kept up with just plain old population growth over the past 10, 15 years.

And that's to say nothing about the added challenges that are generated by our homelessness crisis and also the pandemic.

So this money pays for the bodies that are in the vehicles that help save lives, which is, and to me, it's clear that this region needs it, but the whole city does need to be mindful of the fact that resources from one area can pull resources from another if the need arises.

So I really appreciate this being under consideration.

Thank you, Councilmember Nelson.

Any additional comments?

Okay, I'm not seeing any.

Let's go ahead and move on to the next item.

Finally, SFD 300A1 is sponsored by Councilmember Herbold and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Peterson and Lewis.

300A1 is a statement of legislative intent, or SLI, that would request quarterly reports from the fire department that provide data about staffing levels and demographic changes, overtime hours and overtime spending, department finances, and 911 response times.

SLI responses would be due to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to turn this back over to Vice Chair Herbold.

Thank you.

I'll keep it short.

In August of this year, the Seattle Times reported that the Seattle Fire Department had $37.7 million in overtime in 2021. This overtime usage was a 49% increase over 2019 and the most overtime ever used in the department's history.

As mentioned by Council Member Nelson earlier, the Fire Department continues to have a staffing shortage and the workload has increased due to the pandemic.

It is the council's responsibility to exercise oversight of departments and the use of the city dollars.

We require reporting on the use of overtime by by the Seattle Police Department, and this information will give us a better sense of how much the fire department is relying on overtime in order to meet minimum staffing levels that will help inform our decision making around how to fund vacancies and recruit classes.

As the fire department continues to struggle with staffing, we really need to have a better sense of how to meet those staffing challenges and appropriately fund new recruitment classes.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Any additional comments or questions on this?

Okay.

I think that's it.

And we have one more now, the walk-on amendment.

So we will get the walk-on amendment for SFD 001. Is that right?

Just walk-on.

Walk-on SFD.

We'll get that teed up and then we will go to that one.

Thank you very much, Patty.

And are you?

Yes, yes, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Sfd walk on one would add 200,000 general fund in 2024 to the Seattle Fire Department to support the addition of ARNP services on Sfd's HealthONE team and impose a proviso.

Sfd has some grant funding for this work that would include ARNP services and this would make additional funding available pending the demonstration of positive outcomes associated with the new services.

Excellent.

Thanks.

And thanks so much for working with our office to draft this.

I want to thank Kenny Stewart, who is the president of IAFF Local 27, previous co-chair of the Coalition for City Unions, and as folks know, a firefighter.

with our city and leader within the firefighter community.

This was brought to our attention in conversation with President Stewart, and I want to thank Councilmember Herbold, who as well has expressed support and interest in being a co-sponsor on this walk-on amendment.

This amendment continues funding for an existing position that is currently grant-funded, as you heard, thanks to Congressman Smith for the support that He has provided, this funding is going through 2023 for a Substance Abuse Mental Health Service Association Nurse Practitioner.

So this nurse practitioner provides the support in field assessments, writing prescriptions, developing plans, helping develop strategies for helping those who have chronic disease management needs, and also establishing clients with direct connections to primary care.

This will allow the HealthONE team to add another layer of service beyond what they already provide, or I should say extend the service for another year beyond what they already provide.

we're going to be able to do that.

So thank you again for the idea being flagged directly from firefighters themselves.

And as folks know, we have extended the health one teams in the last few years' budgets.

Really excited to hear the health one van number three is operational.

And when we asked how can we support the firefighters even more this year, this was one of the I don't know if you need to make the official motion or not, but I will note for the record your interest.

Thank you.

Great.

I saw her hand raised, so I will add you as a co-sponsor.

Councilmember Herbold adding her name as a co-sponsor.

Councilmember Herbold.

Councilmember Lewis?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to be added to this item.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Lewis.

Councilmember Lewis adding his name to this item as well.

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

Oh, Councilmember Strauss, please go ahead.

May I also join as a co-sponsor?

Yes, you may.

You are welcome to.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Strauss, Councilmember Furbold, and Councilmember Lewis, all adding their name to SFD Walk-On 1. Okay.

Well, we look like we might be able to adjourn a little early for our lunch break today, because I'd like to have all of the discussion about the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department together as one, since there's a handful of those.

And then we'll wrap today with a discussion from central staff on agenda item number 10, which will include some slides about budget improvement and technical changes, issues that central staff have identified for consideration in the balancing package.

I would like to also let folks know that at the break, I'll be circulating two amendments for your consideration tomorrow.

These are not for today's deliberations, but in I'll be circulating two amendments.

Colleagues, just want to flag for you where these amendments are coming from.

As I discussed yesterday during our initial day one of this week's deliberation, I have been working with central staff on a few omnibus amendments.

We spoke about one yesterday, and that is the realignment or reconfiguring of potential we need to make sure that we are making sure that we are using those priority items that the council has codified in statute with various fund sources such as jump start, TNC and short-term rental tax and looking to align those investments and maintaining those investments as codified in statute as best as possible and then where we need to make some temporary I'm not going to be able to that we are working on with central staff and we'll be circulating those today so that you have ample time to read those in advance for tomorrow.

Obviously, there's the opportunity as chair to work on these amendments and then have them just daylighted in the chair's proposed balancing package.

But for the purposes of discussion and transparency and the importance of these policy conversations that have been initiated, We have a number of amendments in the mayor's proposed budget.

We wanted to share those with you as we discuss the two issue areas tomorrow.

One relates to the unified care team and one relates to the placement of the parking enforcement officers.

We have a number of strategies for unified care team investments as well as the placement and consideration for the parking enforcement officers.

I would like to thank the executive and the legislative branch for joining us today.

I'm very appreciative of the supportive approach to making sure that these issues get addressed in this year's budget, but also their flexibility and collaboration and working with us on the two amendments that you'll see circulated.

So really a lot of harmony between the legislative and the executive branch in helping to develop strategies to address these two important policy issues that were suggested in the mayor's proposed budget.

with the two amendments, you'll see the work that we've done in collaboration being sent to you shortly.

So those will be in tomorrow's agenda, but I wanted to flag for you, those are the last two omnibus amendments, and those will be sent to you for your consideration and review throughout today.

we're going to have a discussion about that as we take on those two topics tomorrow.

Deputy Director Panucci, please go ahead and add any additional clarification.

officer-related amendments.

So they should be in the materials distributed last night for tomorrow's discussion.

And then for the public, we will get the other walk-on amendments that were discussed yesterday and today to the clerks to add to the legislative record at some point after committee.

Okay, thanks.

I understood that we were going to send those around to folks today to explain why there was one sponsor listed, and that is the why.

The one sponsor is me, as the chair, and wanting to work with central staff to work on these in collaboration with the executive's office and relevant community partners as well.

Wanted to provide you with that additional context and also draw your attention to them because they are a great example of the cross-collaboration with the mayor's office and the legislative branch as we think through these tough issues in this budget time.

Okay.

Well, with that, thank you again, and we are going to take on SPR and the budget improvement and technical changes at 2 p.m.

If there's no objection, the Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee meeting will be at recess until 2 p.m.

today.

Hearing no objection, have a profound lunch and we will see you very soon.

you