Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.
Today is July 31st.
It's 2 p.m.
I am Sally Bagshaw, chair of this committee, Finance and Neighborhood.
Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco, for joining us.
Thank you, Allison, for getting us organized.
This is a special meeting today.
And the first order of business is to approve the agenda, and if there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.
Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.
So we've got six items on our agenda today.
The first is a briefing discussion and possible vote for a human resources ordinance that's related to city employment.
And then after that, we're going to begin our supplemental budget review.
And I appreciate the fact that Director Ben Noble is here or will be back.
Thank you so much for being here.
There's no vote on this, but we're going to be talking about five supplemental items.
The exceptions ordinance, the carry forward ordinance, the supplemental budget ordinance, the CIP abandonment ordinance, and the grand acceptance ordinance.
It's my hope today that we're going to get through all of these items.
In fact, I'm going to insist that we get through all of these items so that we can bring them forward and we will deal with the votes and the amendments on August 9th.
So right now we're gonna open it for public comment.
seeing nobody who has signed up or interested in this, and don't take that personally.
I know that budget is an exciting time for everybody.
So since we have no one here today, we're gonna move right on in, and Allison, if you'd be so kind as to read in the first item of business.
Thank you.
Item number one, Council Bill 119579, an ordinance relating to city employment, establishing new wage relations for certain job titles.
Very good.
Thank you.
Dan, do you want to start introductions?
And can we turn this down a little bit, Allison?
It just sounds like we're echoing in here.
Thank you.
Dan Nieder, Council Central Staff.
Sarah Butler, SDHR Policy and Legislation Advisor.
Rich Groff, Labor Relations Negotiator, assigned to City Light.
Mike Haynes, Seattle City Light.
Excellent.
Thank you all.
Dan?
The proposed legislation would raise the wages of two types of hydro maintenance workers at Seattle City Light.
I'm going to summarize the central staff memo that is attached to your agenda by briefly reviewing some background, and then I'll describe the fiscal impacts of the legislation.
So in terms of encapsulation of some of the background, Hydro maintenance workers at City Light are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that permits the union to request a wage review of job titles and also authorizes a wage review committee at City Light to rule on wage increases subject to final approval by the City Council.
In August of 2018, the union, IBEW Local 77, requested a wage review of the top step of the wage progression for two positions, Hydro Maintenance Worker 1 and Hydro Maintenance Worker 2. In October of 2018, the City Light Wage Review Committee took action supporting a wage increase, citing several factors.
The proposed wage increases applicable only to the top step in the wage progression would be based on a certain percentage of a baseline wage, that is the established wage for a more experienced journey level position.
The proposed legislation would do the following.
It would establish a new so-called baseline wage at $47.51 per hour for a hydro maintenance worker one, The legislation would increase the top step to 75% of this baseline wage, resulting in a wage increase to $35.63 per hour.
For a hydro maintenance worker two, the increase to the top step would go up to 80% of the baseline wage, and that would result in an increase up to $37.83 per hour.
In terms of the fiscal impacts, the proposed wage increases would change the wages for nine existing positions, and this increase would start in the pay period following the effective date of the proposed legislation.
The legislation would not authorize any retro pay.
And the executive estimates that the proposed wage increases would add a total of $77,000 annually.
And City Light plans to absorb these extra costs without requesting additional budget authority.
If there are any questions, I can answer them, or perhaps the folks at the table can.
Seattle City Light?
I actually have a clarification to your statement.
It's not establishing a new baseline wage.
It's adjusting the relationship of these two titles to the baseline wage that's for the entire bargaining unit.
That's helpful.
Thank you.
Good.
Thank you.
Anything else you'd like to add?
Nothing.
Either as part of the negotiations or Seattle City Light?
Well, I'll just say that it was an example of a really collaborative process.
The union approached us and we engaged in discussions right away.
I think Rich would add that the meetings were, like I said, collaborative, professional.
There was agreement pretty early on that this was a legitimate ask.
It's been something we had been reviewing for a while, just because the accretion of duties with this particular classification over time and the relationship of the work that they do with their journey workers out there.
So really a good process in general, and it's nice to see it come to fruition.
So is this mostly Boundary Dam?
This is just Boundary Dam.
Okay, very good.
Council Member Pacheco, do you have any questions?
All right, I think if there are no further questions and without further ado, I'm just going to move approval of council bill.
Just hold on one moment.
Council Bill 119-579.
Do we have a second?
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
None opposed.
No abstentions.
Thank you.
One last thing for Seattle City Light.
Thank you for the excellent event that you had and participated in at the Denny's substation.
Last week, it was a delightful day, a wonderful project, but I also want to acknowledge how much good work that we had done bringing in apprentices and the apprentice program, pre-apprentice program.
I had a good time talking with a number of people there that were in the program.
Excellent.
And thank you very much for your participation as well.
Yeah.
No, it was a wonderful day.
So it's a good thing.
We've worked long and hard on that project.
So thanks so much.
Okay.
Very good.
Appreciate that.
So the next five items, we're not going to be voting on these, but these are all important.
So as Allison's reading this in, Ben, I'm going to invite you and anybody else, Eric, Tom, to come up and join us.
Would you like me to read all of them?
Item number two, Council Bill 119572, an ordinance amending Ordinance 125493, which amended the 2018 budget, including the 2018-2023 CIP.
Item number three, Council Bill 119575, an ordinance amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 budget, including the 2019-2024 CIP.
Item number four, an ordinance amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 budget, including the 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program.
Item number five, Council Bill 119576, an ordinance amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 budget, including the 2019 and 2024 CIP.
And finally, item number six, Council Bill 119574, an ordinance authorizing, in 2019, acceptance of funding from non-city sources.
Briefing and discussion for all five.
Very good.
Thank you so much.
All right, Eric, are you or Tom going to introduce this?
How do you want to proceed?
Well, this will be Tom's show.
I just wanted to make a quick comment at the beginning, or rather ask a question, which is, are you comfortable having the five ordinances sort of presented as a body of legislation in kind of one go, or would you prefer to have them separated more?
Since we're not voting, the distinction isn't quite as substantial.
Well, Allison's read them all in, so I think at the point where you're shifting, if we just make it really clear that we're shifting so that the record is obvious for anybody who is interested.
Very good.
Also, just because the agenda item number and the order that it's listed in Tom's memo are different.
Can you just flag what agenda item the bills, respectable bills are?
Will do.
Very good.
Thank you.
And welcome, Tom.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Council Member Pacheco.
It's a pleasure to be here.
And as you all introduced, we have five separate pieces of legislation.
So together they comprise the first supplemental adjustment package for the 2019 budget.
And as Allison indicated, the agenda is slightly mismatched with the way the memo was written, but I can point out the roadmap to link the two together.
So kind of starting from the first, so if we refer to the memo, the first bill is Council Bill 119572. And this is the informally or perhaps formally termed the exceptions ordinance.
And what this does is, well, by law, city departments can't spend beyond the amount allocated in the BCL, at the BCL level.
However, there are...
Can I just make sure that as we're going through this that we try to avoid acronyms, so at least once we talk about budget control level and henceforth BCL, just to make it clear.
Yes, will do.
So yes, budget control level is the legal level of control, and it as happens from time to time, there are instances where the actual level of expenditures exceeds the BCL.
And it's appropriate for the name because this is the exception rather than the rule, and in most cases that does not happen.
But there are a few items.
Council Bill 119572 totals $13.7 million worth of this type of change.
Perhaps conveniently, the bulk of that amount is in one item, which is to increase the FAS customer requested tenant improvements program budget.
So what the, what's, it's informally referred to as the CURTI program does is it provides FAS with the expenditure authority to complete work that's been requested by city departments.
And it's essentially just passed through budget authority.
So the original cash comes from the departments and it flows through FAS who does the work.
And the intent under normal circumstances would have been to have made this adjustment in the fourth quarter supplemental for 2018. However, due to an error in the process, that did not happen.
So this just corrects for that.
So that is the bulk of the $13.7 million change.
Yeah, just one thing on specific, one thing in general.
The memo that Tom has prepared is really ideal.
So if you're comfortable, what I thought I'd do as he walks through is just offer some explanation for these items as we go rather than having a separate go at this, if you will.
So what I wanted to say about the exceptions is that at some level I'm embarrassed to have this here in front of you at all.
Our goal is to produce a budget and to administer it without any exceptions at the end of the year.
I said the same thing last year and I'm here again, so we have not perfected this.
In our defense, if you will, the shift to 9-2 is something we are to the new accounting system.
is something we are still working through.
And this was the first year we did, the first time through, we did year-end under the new system.
And there were some things that were missed, bottom line.
None of this is, anyway, none of this is monies that were expended in ways that I don't think councils essentially intended.
There were either errors in the ways they were reported or, for instance, in the case of FAS, those monies effectively are double appropriated.
That is to say that you had given the departments the authority to make improvements and they spend that money by giving it to FAS.
What we hadn't done is to tell you that you need to give FAS the authority to spend the money they're getting from the departments.
Like that was like 99% of what's here.
And that's not an excuse.
I just wanted you to understand that it's not material and we need to be better.
And we are continuing to work on that.
Thank you, and I know that I asked you the specific question, do we have money to pay this?
Yes, and it's money that you appropriated, in fact.
So it's really more of an accounting.
A timing piece, yeah.
So again, our goal is no exceptions.
I recently was just, the department was saying, well, you know, if we We have to decide how much authority to ask for.
And he said, if we don't ask for this much, we could face an exception.
I'm like, I do not want an exception.
We will go to counsel and explain that we are potentially asking for more authority than you need and why.
So again, just to give you a sense of how we're going to manage to avoid these.
Very good.
Thank you.
So that concludes my comments on that bill, which was agenda item two.
And so with permission, I'll move to agenda item four, which would be.
We'll jump one and come back to three.
So this would be Council Bill 119573. And this is the 2019 Carry Forward Ordinance, which in effect carries forward unspent appropriations from the last fiscal year into this fiscal year to complete the work that those appropriations were originally given for.
So there are a number of increases in this council bill.
The total is $90.3 million.
36.2 of that is in the general fund.
I guess in terms of the good news is that this is not new money in terms of effect on the fund balance because the original thought was that these appropriations would be spent last year.
So all we're just doing is moving that authority forward to 2019 fiscal year.
Can I just ask about, I'm looking at tallies here, and on page 12 of 14, on 119573, I noticed that we've got a total of 88 million here, and then a 1.7 million on page 12. Does that add up to the 90.3?
I'm just 1.6.
It looks to me like it's a little short.
Nope.
Fine.
Thank you.
Good.
So those are our two columns.
The one on page 12 for 88.5 and the one on page 13 for 1.7.
That equals the number that you just specified about 90.3 million.
Okay.
Good.
Thank you.
So, I'll just run through highlights.
So, this kind of tracks the memo at a very high level.
So, in terms of the general fund, there's a $13.6 million in the Office of Planning and Community Development, OPCD.
So, this represents unspent portion of an inner fund loan for the Equitable Development Initiative.
And the original origin of these monies was the sale of the Civic Square property, and so, So this is essentially an interfund loan that's in place until those proceeds come into backfillable loan.
And to Tom, how does this work?
I know last week when we had gone through several weeks worth of conversation around both sweetened beverage tax and EDI, they were companion bills.
How do those compare and how much money is coming in to pay off this 13.6?
Are they just hand and glove now?
is one ahead of the other as far as money coming in?
I can explain this.
Okay, great.
So this 13-6 is what's left of an original $15 million appropriation to EDI that is backed by the proceeds.
I'm pointing, for the sake of the audience, to a piece of property across the street from City Hall that was formerly the location of the public safety building.
So the city is going to be paid $15 million and receive some of the compensation as well for the parcel.
Those monies are dedicated to the Equitable Development Initiative, EDI projects.
The timing on when this the land sale will close.
Actually, it's looking like early 2020 at this point.
But we've known for some time and had reasonable anticipation that it was going to close.
And we knew some of the EDI projects needed funding immediately.
So what we did was to do an inter-fund loan, so take from the city's checking account.
$15 million and make it available to the Office of Policy and Community Development, I'm careful with my acronyms, to administer and to fund the EDI projects.
And so what, but they haven't expended that money in any given year and it was never the intent that they would.
So what we're doing is carrying forward that appropriation authority.
So OPCD will continue now, they've spent some of it as you can see, it was originally 15, it's now down about 13 and a half.
They've been giving small grants to individual organization, a variety of things.
We'll continue to carry this forward until it's ultimately expended.
But that was a one-time allocation.
The more exciting news about the Equal Development Initiative is that as part of the short-term rental tax that has been imposed statewide, so it's a tax that extends, effectively extends hotel-motel taxes to things like Airbnb without, I'm not going to do that acronym.
The city has been taking about $10 million a year by estimate, and half that $5 million has been dedicated on an ongoing basis to the Equitable Development Initiative, which very quickly, actually any time beyond three years, will be more than this initial $15 million, and it is intended to only complement this as well.
So EDI now has an ongoing funding source of $5 million a year.
Very good.
Thank you.
Very clear and very succinct.
So next increase I would highlight is $1.7 million that's carried forward to the Department of Education and Early Learning's post-secondary program for the 13th year promise.
A portion of this is funded from unspent sugar sweetened beverage tax revenues from 2018. That's about $1.4 million and the remaining 349 is from the city's general fund.
There are a couple of other sweetened beverage tax funded items that I'll just kind of take in order.
One is a million dollar increase in HSD for food and nutrition program contracts.
An additional $769,000 going to the Office of the City Auditor to perform evaluations of sweetened beverage tax programs.
Also kind of a larger category, finance general, so this is where we set aside monies to meet an intended council purpose.
There are a number of these individual buckets of money that were not spent in 2018, so we're just carrying them forward with that identical purpose into the new fiscal year.
There's 1.3 million for safe consumption site reserve, $590,000 for equitable development loan interest, $233,000 for insurance premium payments, $100,000 for Lambert House.
Remind me, Lambert House is?
The consulate had allocated $100,000.
Lambert House is looking to make some improvements to their facility, if I recall.
I don't remember what it is, I'm sorry.
Just checking.
Oh, it's a LGBT youth support facility.
Great, thank you.
A non-profit.
I was going to say, the safe consumption site reserve, I was looking at the notes.
It says it tells something that's submitted to the city clerk.
What's the holdup?
I'm just curious.
I kind of understood the broader.
Yeah, the broader holdup is the federal government, if you will.
So the idea is that if the If we have, when we have a plan, we work with the council to bring something forward.
But in the meantime, it doesn't seem prudent to try to move forward with the general space as has been described.
And we're actually exploring alternatives as we speak about ways to address some of the underlying issues.
But maybe in a different way.
Good.
And I would just like to put a bookmark in that over the next few weeks before the budget, rather than just holding on to the safe consumption site money and having it sit there in a bank account to look at ways that we can use it for other behavioral health needs.
So just as an early alert, I think that's something that I personally am going to be very interested in.
Thanks, Tom.
Sorry, I keep interrupting you.
No, that's quite all right.
That's why we're here.
So just to round that out, there is still money left for Seattle Retirement Savings Plan Study, $162,000, and then $500,000 each for a sweetened beverage tax, job retraining reserve, and youth opportunity project.
Thank you.
So now I'll move into kind of the other funds, some non-general fund increases.
There's about just shy of $30 million in the Seattle IT department.
And so this is similar to the FAS increase that we, that I led off with where There's an appropriation amount in the IT department.
What that does is give IT staff the ability to spend money transmitted to them from other departments to complete projects on behalf of those departments.
And so this amount is carrying forward work that was begun in 2018 for those other departments including City Light and SDCI were I think major chunks of that money.
It carries that money forward so that they can complete that work.
A couple things on this one.
Some of this is a result of IT not being able to get projects out the door on the timelines that had been originally identified.
So new director is working hard to streamline project delivery and to make sure.
But we're also changing, for many departments, the building structure.
So in the past, what had happened is we'd build the departments for the work based on a cost estimate and collected the revenues and put them into satellite's use checking account, if you will, and then they were spent down as the project moved forward.
Moving more towards a bill-as-you-go arrangement, so they won't be having to carry forward the budget authority necessarily.
They will, we will meet out the budget authority as needed over time.
So, structural ways to address that as well.
And for now, what you have here in this item is sort of the opposite of the tenant improvements item in the exceptions ordinance, which was where basically a project got out ahead of its technical authority.
And here the technical, I mean, the authority to spend has been provided, but the projects haven't kept pace.
Next large item I'd just like to highlight is a $7.3 million increase from the 2018 multipurpose, so LTGO, so that's a limited tax general obligation bond fund.
And so these are monies from a bond that are for affordable housing loans.
And the affordable housing loans have been awarded.
However, they could not actually be encumbered in the financial system until the loans close.
So this just carries that money forward until that process is complete.
We have a $2.8 million increase in the FAS for Seattle Municipal Tower land lease.
And so FAS, the city owns the Seattle Municipal Tower.
However, the city does not own the land underneath.
The state of Washington does.
So this particular lease technically expired in 2017. We're in the process of renegotiating.
the actual annual lease rate is going to go up.
We know that and I understand that the budget is sized to eventually to make those payments.
However, until the ink is dry and we actually have it finalized, we're still paying the old lease amount.
And so this reserves the authority to pay kind of those retroactive true up payments once we've signed the lease going forward.
So next item is a $2 million increase to HSD for child care facility construction funding with child care bonus.
And then a $1.7 million increase to complete the central library materials handling system.
Do we know where the $2 million is going for the child care facility capital?
I believe there are some specific projects that have been identified, and at the top of my head, I can't tell you what they are, but we could get back.
All right, so, I mean, it's qualifying buildings in downtown and South Lake Union areas of the city.
Yes, I mean, we have, I believe there's actually a fund balance in this, so that people, as part of height bonus, people pay into the fund, and we're constantly looking for projects that could be eligible for the use of the dollars.
I think the narrative here is that there were projects identified in 2018 and appropriations made, and it's the work, you know, for the description, work not complete, but we can get you the details on the projects.
And I know we'll be talking more about that before the upcoming budget.
So thank you for highlighting this.
Go ahead.
So thank you.
I will move off, move to the next item, unless there are further questions.
So this is actually Agenda Item 6, which relates to Council Bill 119574. This is the first comprehensive grant acceptance ordinance.
And so this actually has an interrelationship with the supplemental ordinance that we'll discuss.
and soon on the agenda.
What this does is when a third party wants to give the city money to do a thing, we actually have to go through the formal process of accepting that money.
So that's what this ordinance does.
It has $3.7 million worth of grants that are coming in from a variety of third parties that I'll just run through quickly.
So the trick is that this doesn't actually spend the money.
So it's a two-step process, the second step of which we'll get to with the Supplemental Budget Ordinance.
So highlights, there's $2 million from the State Recreation Conservation Office to the Park Fund for a number of projects, including $1 million for South Leschi Marina, $855,000 for construction work on a floating boardwalk trail on Foster Island.
200,000 to complete final designs for shoreline restoration at Lowman Beach Park.
$773,000 from the State Heritage Capital Project Grant going to City Light for concrete restoration at the Georgetown Steam Plant.
$250,000 from the Federal Justice Assistance Grant Program.
And so this goes to SPD to fund three existing crime prevention coordinators.
There's just shy of $170,000 from two grant programs in state parks.
Going to SPD to support marine patrols and voter education classes.
$450,000 from King County Youth and Amateur Sports.
Going to the Parks and Recreation Fund for Ballard Playground, Synthetic Turf, and Smith Cove Playfield Construction.
There's $25,000 from King County Conservation District being given to Office of Sustainability and Environment for Fresh Bucks program.
And then to round it out, $21,000 from Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs going to SPD for scanners and printers to be used by the harbor and traffic units.
And our total is $3.7 million of grants?
That is correct.
OK.
Very good.
That seems like a pretty straightforward one.
It's fairly straightforward.
And again, all of the actual appropriations will be covered in actually the next one we talk about.
All right.
Very good.
OK.
So now we'll be talking agenda item three.
Yeah.
We're just happy that things are moving along in such a nice way.
Thank you.
And so this is actually the largest piece of legislation that we're going to talk about today.
And it's Council Bill 119575, which is the first actual supplemental budget adjustments for 2019. So where the exceptions and carry forwards sort of were the linkage between 2018 and 2019, this is just pure net new ads for the 2019 budget.
The total increase that's covered by this legislation is $72 million, 6.9 of which is in the general fund.
And again, to kind of harken back to the last bill, $3.7 million of that is actually grants that we can accept and spend.
A little shy of half a million of that is in the general fund.
of the proposed total $72 million increase.
$19.5 million is backed by new revenues, so new non-grant revenues, and these include interfund transfers, reimbursements, and fee revenue.
On this point, I would highlight, and it's not obvious here, and I can show my math, but we have, as part of the overall budget process instructed departments to keep their requests for new general fund support, so new use of existing general fund to an absolute minimum.
It's consistent with our message that the 2020 endorsed budget is the budget we intend in large part to deliver to the council because the revenues picture has not changed significantly at this point.
We're waiting a new revenue forecast the next month.
So although there is several million dollars of general fund, most of it actually all but about a half a million dollars is backed by some reserves that we had stored or monies being transferred from other city departments and the like.
So we have really the overall net addition here, again, is in the order of a half a million dollars of general fund that had not previously been committed that would be.
And as we go through, I can highlight what those specific asks are.
But we were firm with the departments about the need to preserve those resources to address 2020 issues.
So now I'll just walk through, similar to prior bills, just the highlights, covering those kind of noteworthy items.
Start with.
And you are on page five now?
I'm on page four.
Probably middle of the way through.
Four.
Page four.
Okay, thank you.
So I'll start with the general fund adjustments.
Excuse me.
So we have a $622,000 increase going to the Department of Neighborhoods.
So this will fund outreach and engagement, collaboration with SDOT, looking at nine SDOT capital projects.
It's a pilot program.
There's a $520,000 increase in the law department, dealing with key arena negotiations.
And this will be funded actually with reimbursements from the Oakville Group.
There are a few items covered under with Sweden beverage tax revenue.
So these are revenues coming in higher than forecast.
They're including $1.2 million increase in the human services department for food bank facility improvements.
Just to highlight that one real quick, this is technically from the general fund, although we can consider this a dedicated revenue source, so it was not in my math when I described the half million.
We saw an opportunity here.
There were some unused resources from previous years of the sweetened beverage tax.
As you know, one of its eligible uses is access to food, and there have been investments in food banks.
What we're spending here is unanticipated revenues from previous years, so in some sense they're really there one time because they were things we accumulated that we didn't expect, but we don't see them as an ongoing.
So we had those one-time resources, and then we had been approached by several food banks who had some one-time capital needs.
So there was a really good match here between a one-time resource that is dedicated to, among other things, food access, and some requests from our long-standing partners in the food distribution business, if you will.
So there's some direct allocations to several specific food banks, but then also a sum of money that would be made available to others to apply for.
So we didn't just want to provide funding to those who had asked, but recognizing that others might have needs as well.
And as long as they're one-time capital needs, I can imagine tenant improvements, maybe even perhaps a vehicle purchase, something like that, they would also be eligible.
What is the total?
It's a total of $1.2 million.
I think it's about $400,000 that is unallocated, if I recall.
I can get you the details.
So $400,000, I'm just prepping for the expectation that organizations will come in and be asking for that money.
So that's put together, that's put in essentially a reserve for food banks and others to come in and request that.
HSD will be providing, will be reaching out to the folks at contracts to make it clear what's available and the types of opportunities that there are.
Good, thank you.
And what the limits are.
Exactly.
Thank you.
So continuing along the along that thread of the sweetened beverage tax revenue.
There's $680,000 to the Office of Sustainability and Environment for, to increase utilization of FreshBooks.
And also going to OSC is $489,000 for pilot efforts to expand eligibility for FreshBooks.
What I'm hearing you say is that the money is being, from the sweetened beverage tax, is being used on things that we specifically said we were going to invest in.
Food banks.
Yeah, this is entirely consistent.
These are new and expanded programs.
I'm not having to revisit a lot of this stuff in any more detail.
So, I mean, what happened here is that the Fresh Bus program has proven to be more popular and more successful than we had thought it would be, and that there are resources available, and given what we see about increasing revenues going forward in the Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund, we know we can sustain this as well.
So I'll move now to just another kind of set of adjustments, and these would be increases to the Seattle Police Department to provide services for other government agencies, including $81,000 for Marine Patrol for Hunts Point and Medina, $100,000 for traffic control at the Coleman Ferry Terminal, excuse me, And then $232,000 for traffic control associated with the Alaska Way Viaduct Project.
So I don't want to get too deep in this, but I can anticipate that others of my colleagues are going to want to know more about the Hunts Point and Medina payments.
So can you explain that?
What's the quid pro quo for this?
So we provide some emergency response service to them.
per an agreement and get compensated.
I mean, I could provide additional details, but I'd have to do further research.
The essential dynamic here is that SPD has a police boat out on Lake Washington and is willing to respond when calls come in from other than just the city limits of Seattle.
But in exchange for that willingness, we have a contractual arrangement.
And so Medina and Hunts Point is providing $81,000 to the city of Seattle for the services that are being provided to them.
And you can appreciate mutually beneficial.
It's going to be costly for them to have their own staffed boat.
We are going to have the boat out there anyway.
It helps us defray the costs.
Great.
That's right.
An unrelated item but also in the general fund is $775,000 to the Seattle City Court or the Municipal Court.
This is using monies from the State Administrative Office of the Court's Trial Court Improvement Account, which funds improvement efforts.
These are monies that are distributed from the state administrative office of the court to local courts.
We have accumulated an amount totaling $775,000 that is now being directed towards RSJI training at the court.
I could say a little bit more about this one.
This is a specific request from the Municipal Court itself.
We are in large part passing through to you.
We had an opportunity to review it as well.
And a little more detail, $40,000 in RSJI training, $250,000 to do strategic planning and community outreach.
So they're in response to Concerns about probationary services and other issues, they would be, their goal is to go out in the community and get a better sense of what the community thinks about the municipal court and how the municipal court could work better.
for the community, and then actually $135,000 to do an evaluation of probationary services specifically, and then also $350,000 to do some space reconfiguration at the courthouse.
Those are the individual items within that 775, and the court can actually give you more detail as well as we can.
All right.
I'm sure we'll be talking more about that.
Thank you.
So next increase to note is a $250,000 increase in the law department.
So this relates to a budget reduction that was scheduled for this year.
This relates to, it was supposed to be a salary savings cut.
However, law department reports that they don't have sufficient vacancies to meet the salary savings cut.
So this provides the resources to pay the salary for the year and not make the cut.
So yeah, this is a specific request of the city attorney.
We've reviewed and understand the dynamics.
And this is, again, I was describing about a half a million dollars of truly new expenditures.
This is a share of that.
So this is indeed new money.
We had otherwise counted on a reduction here, but at this point I don't think it's realistic for the department to be able to achieve it.
So explain the $250,000 is going back for how many positions are we funding?
It gives them the flexibility to provide appropriate compensation for more than one position.
It's just trying to manage overall compensation structure within the office so that they're not looking for position authority
Are they dividing it up for some of the high performers, as an example, or what's the plan?
I would defer to the city attorney in terms of the strategy and compensation philosophy.
I think, yeah, the city attorney would be the best source for that kind of philosophical approach.
The idea here, though, is that there was effectively a reduction put into the budget for this year, last year, and if that is left in place, then they're going to have less money for all purposes.
And what they've indicated is that being an organization of the kind they are, the most logical place they can go is salaries.
And so unless they actually were forced to make the reductions, it will not necessarily be clear what it is that they would do, what they would spend the lesser amounts on.
Great.
Eric, I will also reach out to city attorney Holmes about this going forward.
But if you have any more specifics between now and when we vote, it would be helpful.
Of course.
Excuse me.
So just moving down the list, there's a $219,000 increase to the Office of Economic Development.
So what this does gives them the ability, well, there was an audit in the Community Development Block Grant Program in 2017 that found that money that was spent from the CDBG grant on the Only in Seattle Program didn't meet the requirements for the CDBG.
money and so that had to be repaid by OED which they did so however that leaves a hole in their budget for 2019 then this this backfills that payment for
for our Office of Economic Development.
That's where the money's being backfilled.
I know last year in the budget was one of the first times that I'd seen this.
It was almost a wholesale request for people, especially nonprofits, that were looking for money that they asked not to be given CDBG money because the Community Development Block Grants had various strings attached to it, whether it was reporting requirements or how they got the money.
and there were real requests like don't do that to us.
So I hope that going forward we can get that figured out in advance.
The issue here is actually a slightly different one in that the Community Development Block Grant, there are two colors of Community Development Block Grant money.
programs and one is projects.
And the programmatic spending is more constrained.
We use it a good deal in the human services area.
And so what had happened here is that we had thought that the money that OED was spending was appropriately characterized as a project rather than a service.
Actually, that's the difference is project and service, not program.
So we had been attributing to the project side of the community development block grant.
The audit revealed from the federal government's perspective that that was really a service.
So we had to fix this.
And then we're actually going to need, and we're working on now considering how to to deal with this issue going forward because OED was using community development block grant monies for what are now characterized by the federal government as services in a number of areas that, again, we had previously thought of as being projects.
So we can't use that funding source for those programs in that way anymore.
So we're looking at both other alternative ways of funding and other alternative ways to structure the program to meet the federal requirements.
In addition, just so there is, in the context of construction projects, for instance, the federal government, even if you are appropriately characterized as a project and receiving the funding, there are a number of complications potentially that prevailing wages and bidding requirements and the like that make it, do make the money tricky to use, particularly if you're pretty far into a project.
Because if you know about the restrictions at the outset, they're easier to work with than if you're partway through.
All right, Tom.
OK, so now I'll actually move to some other funds.
So move off the general fund.
And there's a fairly sizable adjustment, which is $30 million increase in the Office of Housing, so the Housing Support Program Fund.
And so what this is, is this is money that was from the 2018 sale of the Convention Center.
I will need you to direct me back to the memo.
I'm on page 7 of 9 at the end of your CDBG.
It's in attachment A.
It's on page 5. Page 5 of the memo or page 5 of the attachment?
Page 5 on the memo.
Going back.
Right near the middle.
Thank you.
So there were awards given for
for the housing support program in 2018. However, the monies weren't actually dispersed in that year.
The money will be dispersed this year, so this just provides the appropriation authority to do that.
So there are a number of public benefits payments that were associated with the convention center.
So they're actually these housing dollars, 30 million housing dollars, very significant.
Also on the SDOT side, there's some payments as well.
Other items, we don't have to touch on them, but just to highlight that the convention center agreement included a number of public benefits.
This is just one of them.
I mean, that was a big deal.
What did we end up with, $48 million public benefits?
I was just asked for that and I don't have the top of my head.
But there are a number of improvements related to the streetscape as well.
Elsewhere in these ordinances there is acceptance and appropriation of some of those dollars as well as that project has moved forward and is under active construction.
I know that you, Ben, were a big part of this and I just want to acknowledge what a difference this is making as the convention center is moving forward but we have The 1.5 that was allocated for the LID I-5 design and then the work, I think it was $10 million for our freeway park.
Those things are making a big difference downtown.
So I just want to acknowledge.
I think the 1.5 for the LID is among the items that's actually carried forward here as well.
We didn't call it, I think earlier, but anyway, just to give you a sense that there's a number of elements associated with the convention center.
Great.
Thank you.
Okay, we're back to page five with weather and home repair.
Yeah, so I'm back on track on the with in sync with the memo So there's 1.6 for 1.6 million for housing support program fund This is technical corrections to the office of housing's program.
So this is funded with previously received grant revenue There's $275,000 in the Office of Housing for the Multifamily Tax Exemption Program.
So this is actually working with the technology, dealing with facilitating use of data and the applications for the program.
So this is funded with program fees.
There's a large chunk of Seattle IT increases in the IT initiatives program, so this is similar to the FAS program, the pass-through authority, and the earlier pass-through authority that I touched on.
So there's a set of projects that's covered in the memo that are on the behalf of departments that IT is working on, so this provides the authority to do those.
Is that part of this?
Okay, but it's coming in.
Sorry Tom, I just wanted to highlight that there's another grant of $300,000.
I'm sorry, we don't have to accept those grants.
They went directly to LEAD, the LEAD grant.
So we're not accepting that.
So they've got the money, but there's going to be some additional IT requests to help implement that grant, which is part of the LEAD program.
Because part of what we have been struggling with for years is around this data sharing and making sure we've got the right data that We're working with King County and LEAD program on, so I think that's gonna be an amendment that we just discussed.
So we will come back to that, but I just wanted to highlight that Seattle IT isn't done yet.
Yeah, I think that we'll probably be discussing the bulk of the amendments on next Friday the 9th, but it's always good to have a preview when possible.
Thank you.
Coming soon.
Yeah, I think if anyone wants to highlight amendments at the end of Tom's thing, we can do that.
And if they want to wait, then that's fine too.
So now I'll move to page six of the memo.
Thank you, that's helpful.
And so just touch real quickly on customer requested tenant improvements program.
So this is kind of the, whereas previously we were talking about in the exceptions ordinance, the kind of truing things up with what happened last year.
This is actually adding stuff that's being requested for 2019. So there's a $5.4 million increase in FAS to do that work.
And again, the funding for that has been appropriated to the individual departments as part of the 2019 budget.
We just wait till we see what FAS is able to do and increase their authority as they're ready to move on to the work.
There's a $3.5 million increase in the transportation fund that's included, which supports construction in two projects, the North 34th Street protected bike lane and the Melrose protected bike lane.
and Neighborhood Greenway.
So these are both funded by federal grants.
There's actually something going in the opposite direction, and it's a $721,000 reduction in the SPD body worn camera project.
And so actually in the 19 through 21 budget capital improvement program, there was a shift of this amount from what was intended to be from body-worn camera to in-car video.
So the in-car video project received a $721,000 increase.
However, the body-worn video program did not get decreased at that time.
So this just trues those two things, two sides of that transfer up.
Very good.
Thank you.
Welcome Councilmember Gonzalez.
I apologize for my tardiness You've got a few other things on your plate today Okay, thank you.
And just to give you a heads up of where we are We are on page six of Tom's good memo, and we are looking at item Number five.
Thank you So
I've actually talked about several of the things on item six.
So these were some of the general fund increases So if you move to page seven halfway through the page I or so, that'll catch us up.
So there's a $6.9 million, I apologize, increase in the 2002 levy multipurpose fund.
So this goes to the Office of Housing to support creation of housing units for first-time buyers.
The funding for this is actually from unspent balances from prior years.
There is a $425,000 increase in the Seattle Center Key Arena Fund.
And what this is is to repay amounts owed to Seattle University and University of Washington for the lack of use of the key arena while it's being worked on.
There were plans to have Seattle U games, basketball games, and a host of U events.
We're pretty clear on that.
Can I go back to $6.9 million on the subsidies to create affordable units for first-time homebuyers?
Is this, that $6.9 million, going to OH to be spent in 2020?
In 2019, in potential, so I can give you some more details, so that they are predicting loan closings in 2019 for 68 homes at El Fallo Square, nine homes at the Yakima townhouses, 16 homes in Lake City, and then they're going to look to purchase two properties from City Light that are a total of eight homes each that they would then make available.
So this is low-income homeownership program and coming to fruition.
They've been funding historically and now see opportunities to deploy the resources.
Excellent.
Thank you.
So we're on the home stretch.
There are a number of net zero, so there's no fiscal impact transfers, but I chose to highlight a few of them for you as they touch on finance general.
So there's a $500,000 going to Human Services Department to support Broadway Youth Opportunity Project.
And there's $250,000 also going to HSD for an RFQ process to start a pilot program dealing with resettling indigenous people to their communities after incarceration.
Also in the area of net zero transfers, there's $488,000 that is transferred from the city auditor to HSD.
So this is sweetened beverage tax money that is housed in the city auditor's office right now.
However, a portion of that evaluation work is going to be done by the programs receiving the money.
And so that's what this represents.
And so those are the appropriation changes.
There are a number of position changes.
Was that 26 new full-time positions?
26 new full-time positions, correct.
So half of them, right off the top, are in Department of Construction and Inspections to work on the high level of construction activity and master permitting processes.
I believe the intent is to sunset those positions in 2022 as stated in the legislation.
And you may recall that I provided a memo to the council indicating that we were actually moving on these with emergency budget, emergency position authority on the understanding that there is a shared interest in keeping the permits moving that uses permit dollars.
And again, we've sunset the positions so that if and when, presumably when a permit volume declines, we can move the positions off the books as appropriate.
And you keep expecting that year after year.
And not wanting it, but yes.
So again, this is a recognition that it's not happened yet and that we still have a responsibility to move permits.
So.
And I can speak to a couple of the other position ads as well, because I think it might be helpful.
On the SPD side, a request for a position to assist with the Internet Crimes Against Children's unit, the volume of work there.
A request for two positions related to public disclosure requests.
SPD receives a huge volume of public disclosure requests.
They've been meeting this need with temporary staff, but it is a real and ongoing need.
And I recall it's well more than half of the total public disclosure requests that come to the city go to SPD.
And then there's also a position, I'll take it back.
So then there are a couple of positions, oh, I'm sorry, there's one.
It's labeled SDHR 11.8.
It's a civilianization of a position in the police department.
That's something that we had negotiated, if I recall.
So EEO complaints now to be handled that way.
And then a couple positions in the Department of Human Resources related to the new investigations units that is going to take on the responsibility for workplace investigations for the city overall.
So this is not the Office of the Ombud?
That is correct.
It is not that.
So you may recall that there were, I think, two significant moves in terms of employee protections and, again, in this case, investigations that were made in the 2019 budget.
One was the creation of the Office of the Employee Ombud, the OEO, if you will.
that is designed to be a unit that is independent of SDHR and is, to the extent possible, independent of any other part of the city so that employees have a place to go to have a safe conversation and get advice for themselves.
That office just is now open and actually they had an open house just, I think, this week or late last.
In addition, the budget provided for a shift of workplace investigations that are conducted by city personnel and personnel functions.
In the past, individual departments had potentially been doing their investigations within their own ranks, if you will, What we did in the budget was to centralize and to fund a function that in SDHR, so in the centralized HR units, that would take on that role.
So to avoid any concern about conflict of investigations being conducted by a department within a department, have those done outside.
We looked into whether we could be transferring staff from other departments to do that, but we discovered that in large part there were not dedicated staff in other departments to do that.
They did it occasionally on a one-off basis or had been hiring outside expertise.
So in the end it makes sense to create a couple positions if we're going to stay true to the effort and the goal of having a centralized investigative function, again, where conflicts are less an issue.
Okay, very good.
Anything further on this 26 new full-time positions?
The only thing I would further add is that the bulk of these positions don't actually have an increase in the expenditure.
So in many cases, the budget authority already exists, so this just creates a pocket to fill.
So we have monies reserved?
Yeah, in several of these situations, what's happened is we had been providing the functions being provided by temporary staff, and we built that funding into the budgets, so it was recognized as potentially ongoing bodies of work.
And some of them were realizing what had, what we may have hoped to be temporary is actually ongoing.
So, for instance, the PDR staff at SPD, turns out that those requests are not decreasing in volume, and we really ultimately need to step up to that work, so.
Thank you, Council Member Herbold, thanks for joining us.
I wanted to return to something in this attachment A under the section 3, and that is item 1.5 and 1.6, and Allison had a comment or two that she wanted to make.
Yeah, they didn't make it into the memo.
They're smaller amounts, but I think they both have critical purposes.
I'm glad to see that we're funding them.
1.5 is homeless child care programs, and 1.6 is gender-based violence prevention.
I don't know if, Ben, you wanted to take some time to highlight the good work that we're going to appropriate funding to.
Yeah, so these are again a couple of specific ads from the, that we're proposing on the, the gender-based violence side, we received a quest from community-based organizations and with limited, fulfilled that with some new general fund resource, a limited amount.
But as described here, the goal is to provide programming in capacity building for youth and young adult prevention programming.
And then in DEEL, we are, in some ways we're addressing a technical issue or a timing issue where we had a contract, as you can see here, for a homeless child care program that ran through the middle of the year and we didn't have appropriation for the full year.
So we're correcting that.
And the funding for this is from the Families in Ed Levy.
So it's not a call in general fund, but rather a use of those dedicated resources.
Did you want to add anything to that?
No, I was just, for the gender-based violence, I thought it was fantastic that they're funding specifically culturally specific outreach and education efforts.
I'm happy to see that.
Yeah, no, that was the specific ask that came in and we recognized there was a shortfall there.
Very good.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, let's move on to item, I believe it's number five.
It's Council Bill 119576.
Yeah.
Actually, could I, since we, I came in late, before we move on to the next item, I want to speak to two potential amendments.
Okay.
We certainly can.
I had also thought we could do that at the end of the presentation.
That works for me too.
But if you want to do it.
If that's what your plan was, I just didn't have a chance to connect with you.
Sure.
Let's keep going and then we'll come back.
We'll make sure we reserve time.
I'm very impressed that we've gotten this far.
Yeah, conveniently this last piece I think will be fairly quick.
There's not a whole lot going on with it.
What this is, it's agenda item five.
It's council bill 119576 and this is the abandonments, capital and grant abandonments.
What this does is it reduces the 2019 budget for non-lapsing appropriation authority or appropriation authority that we otherwise don't need.
what the lapsing appropriation is and where it comes from.
Great.
Yeah, so the abundant portion of the city's budget is a quote-unquote lapsing appropriation, so it only lasts for the fiscal year for which it's granted, which is why earlier in the meeting we did things like discuss carry-forwards, and so we're, you know, using that lapsing single-year appropriation authority and taking it into future years.
Capital and grant appropriations in some cases are unique in that they do not lapse.
So they either get fully used up or they persist until action is taken to defuse them, so to speak.
And so that's what this does is it looks at areas in the budget where there is perhaps money or authority to spend money that we no longer need and it reduces that authority to true up our projected need with what our expectations are.
So, just in the, kind of in the framework of looking at the big stuff, as an example of this type of thing is a $14.6 million in the trap, not 2018, limited tax general application bond.
Item 2.7 on the attachment.
And so this is, there were going to be bonds issued in 2018 for the Elliott Bay Seawall project.
However, they re-evaluated their needs and they don't anticipate needing the authority to issue those bonds, and so they were requesting to reduce the appropriation to true up with what the expected need is.
And so, I mean, there are a number of individual items in this legislation, but that's just an example of the type of thing that we're doing.
So it's really kind of a technical cleanup.
So is the 14.579618 as we see it in 2.7, is that money that they had planned on, they were going to go to the bond market to get that $14 million, or do they have the $14 million in their hand?
As I understand, there is actually no cash.
It's the former.
We expected we were going to issue bonds.
And now the plans have changed.
We're not going to issue bonds.
Don't need the authority to say.
It does occasionally happen.
However, just to give you a sense of how that would have been resolved otherwise, if we have sold bonds and then discover we don't need them in their full amount, the standard thing to do would be to reprogram them.
We tend to do a bond sale every year.
So we were like, oh, well, we were going to, we have 20 million left over from last year that we didn't need.
It has to be used for capital purpose.
Oh, we were planning.
We were planning to issue 60 million this year.
Now we only need to issue 40. So that's generally how that would happen.
So what's, we're, in these cases we're abandoning appropriation.
We're not leaving cash on the table.
What we're doing is taking away the appropriation authority.
It's really as described a clean up.
In part because departments have administrative authority to shift some of their existing appropriations.
So when we pull that back then they can't do that without checking in with, with either you or me, depending on the level at which they want to do that.
So it's important cleanup, but that's really what it is.
And you see this with capital because of the automatic carry forward, as Tom was describing, that happens with those appropriations.
But also, in this case, there's a 2018 LTGO bond fund, and there's not going to continue to be proceeds going into the 2018 LTGO bond fund because We're moving into other years.
And so this prevents there just kind of being like a zombie appropriation that 15 years later is still on the books.
I think many of us were looking at 14.5 thinking, hmm, is that available?
So you're telling us it's not.
We never sold the bonds to get the cash.
And if we had, that would have been restricted in any case.
So that completes comments on that bill.
Nicely done, Tom.
I really appreciate it.
Okay, well, that is the end of the five items of business we had here.
So now I'm going to open it up to Councilmember Herbold.
This will be sort of an early trailer of coming attractions and what we'll be asking for.
in supplemental.
Please go ahead.
All right, fantastic.
So I have two items that are both arts-related items and they are addressing a shared issue as it relates to how the Department of Neighborhoods has recently changed its maximum award for the Neighborhood Matching Fund.
And so One is funding for the AIDS Memorial Project.
The AIDS Memorial Project recently presented to a joint committee of my committee and Councilmember Juarez's committee.
And this is a project that the Council has supported in the past.
has developed, passed a resolution to ask the executive to pull together an IDT.
That IDT has been doing great work at this Lunch and Learn.
A couple weeks ago, we learned about the work of the IDT and the progress of the AIDS Memorial Project.
The shortfall that they have now is because of they were anticipating the ability to apply to the Neighborhood Matching Fund for $100,000 as they had the previous year.
And the limit this year for that fund is $25,000.
And that's per quarter, right?
You still could come back and ask for $25,000 more.
multiple times a year?
I think that is the case, but the issue is the timing of the money and the ability of the project to move forward without having to do that quarterly application.
Yes.
And so this particular funding would be focused on the narratives project part of the plan, where there's a work of sort of storytelling.
The consultant has gathered self-determined personal narratives related to HIV and AIDS from survivors and family members of people who have passed.
Phase two of the project will continue gathering those narratives, broaden inclusivity, and apply learned narrative gathering behaviors.
And we'll also work to specifically to reach out to people who self-ascribe as emigre, refugee, living with disabilities, transgender, queer, youth, people living with HIV, AIDS, and others from without the LGBT community.
And then the idea is also about trying to have a way of working with a local institution in ensuring that those narratives live somewhere.
They have some various ideas about how to integrate those narratives in with the arts project itself.
sort of self-guided tours that you can have.
Listening devices as you're walking through the pathway is one item that they're exploring.
The other amendment is for the Seattle Reps, specifically for their public works initiative.
This is their second year of doing public works theater.
It's modeled on New York City's public works theater.
And it's when, rather than working with professional actors, they're working with people who come from various communities and people who have not had an experience with theater, with a theater production.
They've worked with groups like Mary's Place and a lot of the trying to integrate people's lived experiences with the experience of theater.
And so it gives folks the opportunity to not only take classes, attend performance and events, but again, join in the creation of participatory theater, building community through long-term and mutually beneficial arts engagement partnerships with local nonprofits.
And they also, last year, at the culmination of their public works production, well, their preparation before They went live, also presented in my committee last year for their inaugural Public Works Theater program.
And they also applied to the Department of Neighborhoods, right?
And they got $25,000, but they were expecting and hoping for $100,000.
And you're just advocating for this because you think they're doing important work for the community.
They're doing important work, and this was an unanticipated shift of the Department of Neighborhoods funding policies.
Thank you.
And I have two also that I'd just like to bring forward.
And one is for an evening nurse at the downtown emergency services center.
One of the things that we have learned over the years is when the nurse is on site, that there are much dramatically fewer calls for our emergency services, for the first responders.
And we've got data to demonstrate that in terms of just charts that have been created by the, hold that please, by our Chief Scoggins and crew.
So we're going to step up because we believe that this is going to save our fire department and our first responders a significant amount of money And it's a much better outcome for the individuals who are there.
So that half of an annual salary for this is about $70,000.
We're working with Harborview just to be able to say we want to build on this.
And I think that it's a good expenditure.
And I also want to say thanks to the mayor when I talked to her about this.
She actually, as my understanding, is intending to include this in her budget.
but expanding the program.
She recognizes the value of this.
So that's our first request for that, half of the year.
And the other is our LEAD program, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, that with huge thanks to LEAD and to Dan Satterberg, our prosecuting attorney's office, they asked for and received a $300,000 grant from Microsoft to provide them with software, the software that will come that will actually help them with the data sharing platform that they need.
Great.
It's wonderful news because part of what the LEAD program has been struggling with, but also people on this end have been frustrated by, is we've not been able to have the collective data that's talking to the other programs so that we know who the individuals are, that we actually can follow the outcomes, have some measurable data, and then determine whether or not we are reaching success.
This software is going to help us do that, but in order for our IT department to help, there's a request to fund a halftime project manager and a halftime business analyst for approximately eight months to assist with getting this LEAD program implemented.
We do not want to delay this.
a ridiculous waste of this software if we can't get it effectively incorporated into the bigger process.
Because this is what we've all been asking for, is to divert people to what we have to know, who we're diverting, how they're being used, how are they being connected with their case managers, and where they're going, where their housing is, and how they're doing.
We'll come back with more information, but those are my two and do we have a third or this is okay Lisa stuff Okay, very good.
Well councilmember herbal.
Thank you for bringing that forward councilmember Gonzales.
Did you have something?
Okay, very good councilmember Pacheco.
All right, gentlemen.
Thank you very much for all your help Tom your Memo was terrific.
Did we do the CIP already?
That's in do we do the CIP already?
Yes, we did Okay, everything else.
Do you want to add anything bless you?
Yeah, can I go ahead?
Agenda items two three and four So I did have a CIP adjustment as it relates to the Highland Park roundabout.
We created a CIP page for them for that project in the budget process last year.
But in doing so, we didn't capture the full commitment that SDOT has generously made to the project.
So this particular amendment does two things.
It captures the full $500,000 commitment to the project.
The adopted CIP that we added this page last year only listed 200,000 of the 300,000.
But it also adjusts the total price of the project.
and allows for an increase in the estimated cost for a roundabout and the potential in the description for a stoplight at a lower cost at the same location.
And SDOT has been consulted and is aware and supportive of this update.
Oh great, thank you.
So is there going to be a budget impact?
I'm not quite understanding.
You said they've spent $200 out of $500 and there's no $300?
They've not spent, they've allocated.
So this is a future allocation.
What's that?
So a future allocation for I'm looking at the wrong page.
There's actually two pages associated with this one.
So future allocation for 2020, and again, I should add that the $300,000 is contingent on us receiving funding from the state because it is considered to be a match to a state grant that SDOT will be applying for.
All right, so is that something that Eric you can incorporate and Tom in our CIP information for coming forward to the full council?
What is going to need to happen here?
So amending a CAP project page, the sort of formal legislative process for that is much like any other amendment to the supplemental, but what it would do is basically add an attachment with the revised page to the ordinance, to the supplemental ordinance.
So we can facilitate that, technically.
And that's good.
That works for me.
Okay, very good.
Thank you for that.
Colleagues, thank you for participating.
Thank you for going through this with the fine-tooth comb, and I appreciate the briefings that you provided me in advance.
Very helpful.
Okay, nothing else for the good of the order.
Thanks.
Meeting's adjourned.