Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the very last Finance and Neighborhoods Committee for 2019. Very glad that you are all here.
It's December 11th.
It's 2 p.m.
I'm Sally Bagshaw, chair of this committee, and I will be quickly, quickly Very good, thank you so much.
Joined by my good colleague Council Member Gonzalez, thank you for being here.
And we are going to have a very short Chair's Report, but the first thing I'm going to do, if there's no objection, I'd like to amend the agenda to add an item 20, it's Council Bill 119, 7-1-2 relating to the FAS transfer of jurisdiction to SNAWT.
It just got left off the agenda.
No objection.
Very good.
Hearing no objection, the agenda is amended as I've stated.
So we'll just move forward.
We'll adopt the agenda.
And since there is no objection, it has been adopted as amended.
Thank you so much.
We have 22 items on today's agenda.
The bulk of them are appointments and I am delighted to see so many of you here.
The first group we've got are appointed and reappointed to the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority and the Pike Place Market Historical Commission.
And then we're going to have a briefing and discussion and possible vote on a number of things, including a compensation program for the city's chief technology officer.
I want to say thanks to the mayor's office who asked us to do this before the end of the year.
Adrian Thompson brought it to my attention and we agreed that we would get it on our agenda for today.
Then our Department of Human Services Department, a little redundancy here, will present on their action plan for using grant money from HUD.
in 2020, and we'll also have a public hearing on that item as well.
So the way that works is we're going to have public comment.
When I get to item number 15, we're actually going to pause, see if anybody has signed up to provide comments on that item number 15. Council President Harrell, thank you for joining us.
And then we're going to have an ordinance authorizing FAS to lease a piece of property in Georgetown.
And finally, we're going to, I think, have our last conversation about the Q4 supplemental budget.
And we discussed that last week.
And thank you, Council Member Gonzalez, for your good questions.
So we have just one person who has signed up for public comment, Stephen Kovach.
We've got to approach the microphone, sir, and we'll, I see what you're doing.
It's a great delight to have you here.
Thank you.
If you'll clock two minutes.
Okay, we're going to get your mic working here.
We're working on it.
Try that.
Thank you there.
Thank you.
Thank you, council members.
I'm Steve Kovac with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
I'm a business representative.
I represent nearly 400 IT workers for the city of Seattle.
I was also on the committee that recommended Saad to the mayor.
I think we were lucky to get Saad.
He came in to a hastily, I would say a hastily new department that had been reorganized from other city departments.
It wasn't done very well, it was a very toxic environment for most of the employees.
They did not look forward to coming to work.
SOD in a year now has completely changed that.
I used to be putting out fires three, four times a day.
I'd be on the phone to HR at IT trying to put out fires.
Now I talk to HR rarely.
And it's most of it's good things that I'm talking to him about.
Saad, when he got here, he's met with nearly 70% of his staff since he got here, one-on-one meetings.
I know my members really appreciate that.
They feel heard.
They're much happier, like I said, to come to work.
They feel respected by their management now.
They feel they can come up with ideas and they'll be heard.
Got on board with the mayor's desire for more telecommuting, work from home, alternate work schedules.
And I'm constantly hearing from members of how much more work they're getting done because they're able to telecommute.
It's quiet at home.
They get a lot of work done.
Other department heads, I routinely talk to them.
It used to be, IT just told me it's going to cost us $3 million more next year for our services.
Now I hear, I got a meeting with Sod tomorrow and they've got a smile on their face.
I think that's very important.
Culture change, I was a city employee for 33 years.
I've been around the city now for almost 40 and There's only one other time I saw this type of culture change take effect, and that was when City Light hired Randy Hardy.
They have a lot of things in common.
They really listen to their employees.
They're not afraid to have their management be accountable for their actions, and I would recommend highly that you recommend as compensation package move forward to the full council.
And thank you very much for your time.
Steve, thank you for coming.
It's refreshing to have the kind of relationships being built, and I've heard that from many others as well.
I want to recognize Bobby Humes.
I know that working with your department as well, there's been a lot of positive change.
So thank you for that.
Thank you for coming, Steve.
So that's the only person who signed up today.
Anybody else for public comment?
OK, then we're going to move on to our next item, which are a list of appointments.
And as I said, the first ones are, I'm going to invite Hillary to come up from Department of Neighborhoods and anybody else who's planning to speak.
And if you'll go ahead and read in the ones that have to do with, first of all, the Community Involvement Commission.
This is appointment 01507, appointment of William H. Southern to the Community Involvement Commission.
Thank you.
That doesn't look like a good chair to be sitting in.
It's all right, I'm here.
All right.
And still with us, thank goodness.
Exactly.
Thank you.
Well, would you like to start introductions, please?
Yeah, thank you.
Thank you for having us here today.
My name is Hillary Nichols.
In addition to being the coordinator of the People's Academy for Community Engagement, I'm also the staff liaison to the Community Involvement Commission.
Here, I have the pleasure of coordinating the appointment process of William, aka Bill Southern.
Bill is going to be filling in a vacancy for our council-appointed D5, District 5 position.
I'm going to read a little bit from his bio.
Bill originally came from the state of Rhode Island, moved to Seattle in 1978, and lives in the Meadowbrook Wedgwood area.
He has a background in media, public affairs, community relations, and outreach.
He worked for the Washington State Department of Transportation as an affirmative actions officer and was later promoted as the public affairs officer for a $1.46 billion interstate I-90 completion project, where he gained notoriety as the department spokesperson during the infamous sinking of the I-90 bridge in 1990. Bill went on to serve as the Public Affairs Director for WSDOT's Northwest Region, and he's also served as the Director of Public Affairs and District Communications for the Seattle School District.
Bill retired in 2013 from Special Olympics Washington, having served as the Director of Public Affairs, and we're very excited to have him.
Thank you, Hillary.
Well, welcome.
Nice to see you, Bill.
You and I actually worked together, I think, about two decades ago when I was with the Minority and Women's Business Enterprise Office.
But thank you for being here, and tell us a little bit about why you want to join the Community Involvement Commission.
We're glad you do.
As you heard, I've had quite a bit of work in this area, and I really appreciate the city.
I moved here in, like she said, 1978. And I've been in love with the city ever since.
It's amazing to watch the challenges that come up and also the changes that are happening.
So the challenges, I think I might be at least lend a voice there and reach out to some people, but more importantly, listen to what people have to say and relay that information.
Great.
Any comments, any questions?
I think it's a fine candidate and I'm really excited whenever we have an opportunity to provide space for folks to bring their lived experiences and their past experiences to these commissions.
I think a lot of folks think that the commissions don't have influence or power over the work that we do here at the city, but that couldn't be further from the truth.
I think this particular commission plays a really important role in making sure that council and the mayor and constituents, people in neighborhoods understand what it is we're doing at the city and why we're prioritizing certain things and likewise why we might be shifting in different directions and so it's a really critical.
role to stay connected with folks who live in our city.
So thank you for your willingness to serve.
Thank you.
Council President Harrell, you were reaching for the microphone.
I was just going to say thank you for all of your service, your Air Force service, your service with the school district, your service with the Special Olympics.
Your reputation precedes you.
And so I'm delighted when I, and you know I've been in forums where a lot of people do a lot of complaining.
You're one of the people that will put their skin in the game and try to create some outcomes, so thanks for serving.
I just regret I won't be around when you're doing all this great work, but I will be around.
I'll still be around.
But thanks for signing up.
I believe that.
Excellent.
And Hillary, I want to say hello and thanks to you from Lena Tebow in my office.
She said she worked with you on the PACE program and that you did a fabulous job in that.
It was great to have Lena.
Yep, she's something else, that's for sure.
In a good way.
In a very positive way, no kidding.
So I would like to move that this committee recommend the confirmation and appointment of Mr. Southern.
Second.
Okay, all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
None opposed.
So this recommendation will go forward to our last and final council committee of the year next Monday.
Thank you, Mr. Southern.
Thank you for coming.
Okay, we'll go to the next item of business and we have several Are we needing additional chairs?
She's taking the dangerous one.
Don't fall over.
I think I can fix it.
Very good.
So the next items we have reappointments for the Pike Place Market Preservation Development Authority.
Would those who are here like to come up and join us?
First, we'll just do this one.
Nice to see you, Hannah.
This is appointment 01493, reappointment of David Gadoosey as member to the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority.
Good.
Please.
We know you, but introduce yourself, please.
Hannah Smith from the Office of Intergovernmental Relations.
Good.
Thank you.
And the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority was chartered in 1973 to preserve, rehabilitate, and protect the market's buildings, create opportunities for farm and food retail, incubate small business, and provide services for low-income residents.
It's governed by a 12-member council.
Four of them are mayoral appointments.
Four are by the Council itself, and four are by the market constituency, at which any resident of Washington can become a member.
My reappointment today is out of that market constituency.
Very good.
And he is not here with us today.
Do you want to talk a little bit about him?
Because usually with reappointments, we move pretty quickly.
So if you'd like to add something.
Sure.
David Gaddusi has been a second generation owner of Lionheart Bookstore and Records, which is in the market for the last 20 years.
Prior to that, he worked at his family's bookstore and antique shop.
As a business owner in Pike Place Market, he brings that unique perspective and experience to the PDA.
He's served on the Pike Place Market constituency elected by the PDA Council since 2005, so this represents his fifth term.
Good.
Well, that's quite a labor of love, and I appreciate that very much.
Colleagues, any questions?
So this is his fifth term?
It will be.
It will be.
And I'm assuming there's no term limits.
There is not for these.
They are elected by any member of the public.
Yeah.
OK.
Great.
Any competition for this?
I just wanted to make sure since it's a fifth term reappointment.
So we're just glad to have him step forward.
Very good.
Well, if there's no further questions, I'd like to move the committee recommend confirmation of the reappointment of Mr. Caduce and that the appointment be sent to our December 16th meeting.
Second.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
None opposed.
Good.
Thank you for coming, Hannah.
Bless you.
Okay, so that motion passes.
We're on to items number three.
Do you want to read the ones in that have to do with the Pike Place Market Historical Commission?
Yes.
Appointment 01411, appointment of Sonia King to the Pike Place Market Historical Commission.
Appointment 01413, appointment of Lisa Martin.
Appointment 01415, appointment of Golnaz, and let me sure I'm getting her last name correct, Mohamedy.
And the appointment 01412, reappointment of Rachel Kitagawa Hoshide.
Appointment 01409, reappointment of Samuel Farazano.
Reappointment 01414, reappointment of Lauren Rudak.
Appointment 01410, reappointment of Michael Hammond.
All right, very good.
Sarah, do you want to start with introductions down on your end?
Sure.
So I'm Sarah Sote, and I'm the city's Historic Preservation Officer.
And I'd like to introduce you to Minqiao Li, who is our interim coordinator of the Pike Place Market Historical Commission.
So this is her first time being before the committee for appointments.
Great.
Welcome.
And so the Pipe Place Market Historical Commission is the commission that was established by Seattle residents when they voted to preserve the market in 1971. It's comprised of citizen volunteers.
There are 12 folks on the commission.
There are two representatives each from the Friends of the Market and from Allied Arts.
There are two architects.
one owner of property within the commission or in the historical district, two merchants of the market, and one at-large member.
And the commission meets twice a month to review applications for change of use and for design in the market.
So I'll let everybody else introduce themselves.
Great.
Thank you.
So please, can we start introductions down on the end?
I think it's that.
Hi.
My name is Sonia King, and I live and work at the Pike Place Market.
Great.
Thank you, Sonia.
My name is Gomez Mohammadi.
I am a business owner.
And remind us of your business.
Pizza and Pasta Bar.
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Lisa Martin, and I've been a business owner, consumer, and now a building owner.
Thank you.
Well, thank you for volunteering, all of you.
Shall we start, Sonia, with you?
Just tell us a little bit about your interest in this board.
I found out about it by a letter I received.
I've always been interested in history.
I love the Pike Place Market.
I've been shopping there since I was a teenager, even though I haven't always lived in Seattle.
So it's important to me.
Great.
Well, thank you for being there.
And you said that you're living at the market as well.
Which residence are you in?
Market House.
Beautiful.
Nice.
My background is architecture, so knowing about any project, it's my interest.
I always love and enjoy learning about new projects.
And as an architect, I believe market is heart of every city, so I hope I could be able to help and preserve the market.
Great.
Thank you.
I have no doubt that you will.
Thank you.
So third generation market.
My grandfather was here before.
It was historical.
And so I've just always been a love since I was a child and want to keep that preservation going on.
Very good.
Thank you.
Well, thanks to all three of you.
Do you want to add anything for the people who aren't here?
Yeah, so the people who aren't here, Rachel, Sam.
So Rachel is in the architect position, and this will be her second term.
Sam is one of the allied arts.
I would like to say thank you to the mayor and council for all of the referrals to the mayor and council.
Lauren is a business owner in the market and Michael Hammond is a resident and they have been all doing a great job and we appreciate their service.
And these are all the ones for the Historical Commission?
Correct, for the Commission itself.
So I am going to move the appointment of Sonia King, Lisa Martin, which is one more time.
Say your name for me so I get it.
That was exactly the right one.
The reappointment for Rachel Kitagawa Hoshide, the reappointment of Samuel Farazano, the reappointment of Lauren Rudek, and the reappointment for Michael Hammond, all members of the Pike Place Market Historical Commission.
And they all have the same term.
Nope, they don't.
Some of you have it in a term through...
The designated term on the agenda.
Thank you very much.
As she said, Second okay all those in favor say aye aye any opposed no And there's no abstentions, so I'm going to recommend that all of your appointments go forward next Monday Thank you so much for your willingness Your name changed from these original documents, so it's your my husband family's name is you like yeah, I
I prefer to go with my own name.
I want to make sure your preference was honored here because I'm looking at it different than what we just described.
So maybe we could have that change reflected in time for full council on Monday.
Very good.
Thank you.
Because one of these documents is clear with the name that you prefer and the other one is not so we will make sure that they're in alignment.
You're going in the official archives of our city.
We want to make sure it's to your preference.
Very good.
Speaking of historical.
Thank you so much all of you for your good work and just know how much we appreciate the work of you as a commission and frankly what goes on at Pike Place Market which is just four blocks away from where I live and it's important.
Very good.
Thank you Sarah.
Anything else for the good of the order?
Not for this one.
Thank you.
Very good.
Okay.
Thank you.
So you don't have to be here on Monday, but you're welcome to be so if you want.
Very good.
All right.
Do you want to move on to the next one?
Read in the next item for us?
We have a number of appointments to the Landmarks Preservation Board.
Would you like me to read them together as well?
I would.
I would.
Thank you.
All right, item 10, appointment 01495, appointment of Harriet Wasserman to Landmarks Preservation Board.
Appointment 01498, appointment of Roy Chang.
Appointment 01499, appointment of Matt in Panbuter.
Appointment 01496, reappointment of Jordan Keel.
Appointment 01501, reappointment of Russell Coney.
Appointment 01502, reappointment of Kristen Johnson.
Very good, thank you.
So Sarah, would you start introduction?
So I'm going to let Aaron lead off here.
Aaron Doherty, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, Landmarks Board.
Nice to see you, Aaron.
My name is Matt in Pan Boot.
Thank you, Matt.
You can pull this.
This moves.
Bring it really close to you.
Great.
Thank you.
Nice to have you here, Matt.
I'm Harriet Westerman.
Of course you are.
Nice to see all of you.
Harriet, why don't we start with you.
And I appreciate the fact that you are volunteering for the Landmarks Preservation Board.
Tell us your interest and what brought you to us.
I probably have had an interest in preservation since before I knew there was such a thing.
I come from a little tiny town in California, which was full of wonderful old Victorian houses that people were knocking down right and left when I was a child.
And it bothered me.
And my parents and other people, they're old.
They have to go away.
And I thought, it just seemed wrong.
And so I've always had that interest.
And then I moved to Seattle about more than 50 years ago.
I live in a 1909 house on Capitol Hill, which is fun.
And when I retired from being IT director at Seattle Central College, I volunteered and then got a part-time temporary interim job at Historic Seattle for six months, which told me much more.
And I learned about this board while I was there and thought, that would be a really cool thing to do someday.
Then I saw the vacancy.
And I think the challenges there are preserving things, which are so important to keep, don't want to become a suburb of Los Angeles looking city, while allowing development that we have to have and the density that we need to do.
You can put an awful lot of people where one old house was.
And so I love when we make good use of the preserved properties.
Great.
Thank you.
I really appreciate that.
So let's start with you.
Okay, so I moved to Seattle in 2006, and I've seen the bit of growth that's happened since then in the years.
And from our city's growth and how it's flourished, I've benefited quite a bit in my line of work as a structural engineer from things being built.
and also buildings being preserved in different ways.
My specialty in my work is seismic design and retrofits of existing buildings.
So I've worked with a lot of combination of new development with existing structures and historic structures at that.
So I've seen how the two can work hand in hand.
I think I'm interested in serving on the board so I can be on the other side and conversely use the growth of our city and help shape that with my work.
Great.
Well, thank you.
I very much appreciate that.
Ms. Chang, you know, we've been working hard on unreinforced masonry buildings and trying to both get the state to work with us to get some state interest in this and also, frankly, some resources in order to preserve these buildings and keep them up and make it a safer place, both for people inside the building and outside.
So thank you for your good work on that.
And I have no doubt that we will be tapping you for more on what we can do there.
Thank you.
Yeah, really, really appreciate your coming.
Matt?
Yeah, so my experience is pretty similar to Roy's.
I moved here about 13 years ago, been at a small architecture firm ever since.
So I've had the pleasure of going in front of landmarks board a number of times, representing Seattle Public Libraries and a lot of other institutions around the city.
And I just recognize that there's an immense challenge right now with the density and growth and climate change.
There's any myriad of ways to tackle some of these issues with our existing buildings from seismic issues and energy code and accessibility.
I'd like to be a part of that conversation.
Excellent.
Thank you so much.
Any questions for my colleagues?
These wonderful candidates.
Do you want to talk about their reappointments as well?
Yes, thank you.
So we have three reappointments.
Jordan Keel, who is a local architect.
Russell Coney, who is retired but has a background in finance and real estate.
and Kristen Johnson who is also a local architect.
All three of them have been serving on the board for the past three years and are hoping to serve a second term and we hope to have them.
They've both been wonderful, all three of them actually.
So is this commission full now?
We will be close, but we will not be entirely full.
I think we will have, we have some appointments that we're hoping to schedule in early 2020. There are some individuals whose paperwork has gone to council, but they weren't able to be here today.
So they're hopefully going to be in early 2020, and then we'll still have potentially one vacant seat, which we will start seeking to fill.
Great.
So any further questions?
I just want to say thank all of you.
You're keenly aware of the issues we're facing and can't do it without you, so thank you very much for serving.
Very good.
Well, no further questions.
I'm going to move the appointment of Harriet Wasserman.
Thank you.
The appointment of Roy Chang.
Appointment of Matt Impambuter.
Impambutes.
Silent R. Thank you.
and the reappointment of Jordan Keel, reappointment of Russell Coney, and reappointment of Kristen Johnson, all as members of the Landmarks Preservation Board.
for various terms as printed in the agenda.
Second.
Thank you very much.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Then oppose.
No abstentions.
Thank you.
These appointments will be referred to the committee on or to the full board on Monday.
Thank you so much.
Thank you all for coming.
Thank you and thank you for your time on this committee.
I appreciate it.
It's great.
Thank you.
Really appreciate Department of Neighborhoods.
It's great.
Okay, well, we're going to move on to item number 16, if you'd read that in for us.
This is Council Bill 119725, an ordinance relating to city employment, creating a compensation program for the chief technology officer.
Very good.
And I believe I saw David Mosley come in.
I know Bobby Humes is here.
Thank you.
And I think Karina Bull.
Aha, all of you here.
Thank you.
And Lisa.
You okay?
Not leaving me, are you?
Nothing we said?
I appreciate that.
Sarah, do you want to start down there and do introductions, please?
Sarah Butler, SDHR Policy and Legislation Advisor.
Lisa Gardner, Compensation Program Manager, SDHR.
Thank you.
Bobby Humes, Director, Seattle Department of Human Resources.
David Mosley, Mayor's Office.
Karina Bull, Central Staff Analyst.
Very good.
Thanks to all of you.
Karina, do you want to start this?
Yes, as noted, this is Council Bill 119725 proposed by Seattle Department of Human Resources.
And this legislation would create a new discretionary pay program known as the Chief Technology Officer Compensation Program.
And it would be for the director of the Seattle Information Technology Department.
And this compensation program would replace the director's current designation as Executive 4 within the Accountability Pay for Executives program.
The compensation is proposed to be $82.03, all the way up to $135.34, so that translates annually.
to about $171,000 to $282,000.
This represents an increase of 15% from the high point of the executive floor position for 2019 and 11% for 2020. SDHR indicates that this amount was informed by a nationwide compensation study of similar positions and that study included data from 15 comparable public agencies and areas identified as technology hubs, two salary surveys from third party salary providers and internal comparison of single incumbent and pay grade positions in the city.
This data was provided today by SDHR, thank you, shows that the compensation program for this chief technology officer is within the band of other public comparators.
It is at the top end and aligns with the highest paid comparator in City of Santa Clara.
And it is higher than comparator positions in San Francisco and in King County.
Thank you, and Karina, thank you for this two-pager, very helpful.
Well, Deputy Mayor Mosley, would you and Bobby Humes like to describe what's and why?
Absolutely, so as Karina said, we're here to talk about the legislation that would authorize the city to create a compensation program for the city's technology officer.
In our review, a comparative Q4 2019 review of private sector CTO salaries show that the city is 32% below the total cash compensation in the competitive market for this role.
Now, we took a look at private sector salary placement because of the hot market status of information technology.
Typically, in a hot market, there are adjustments made for high demand jobs, high turnover, variable pay, bonuses, long-term adjustments, and absent that, we would basically look at base pay adjustments, and this is a standard practice in compensation analysis.
Any authorization you approve for salary adjustment would be paid through current information technology department resources.
I want to give a brief background of the last time we recruited for this position.
The committee reviewed 24 candidates.
The selection process took a total of three months.
And during the recent selection process, we had a top candidate withdraw prior to interviews due to salary.
The majority of our candidates did not have public sector experience.
We recommend that the city attempt to compete with private sector employer for that competitive talent.
We know that finding candidates for jobs of this magnitude is difficult, and retaining the right CTO is even more challenging.
This is a matter of retaining a highly effective CTO, and in this competitive market, effective CTO leaders are regularly approached by recruiters for private sector jobs.
And I'll turn it over to David.
Thank you.
Thank you very much members of the council, Madam Chair.
This issue really is basically about the city's ability to attract and retain high quality IT professionals.
I think you, I remember when our current CTO came around and I introduced him to members of the city council and all of you had very direct and honest questions for him about the status of the IT department.
And I think our new director, Saad Bashir, inherited a severely underperforming IT department.
In less than a year, it's almost a year, but in less than a year, he has put the department on a positive path forward, including creating a strong relationship labor partners, as I believe you heard in public testimony here today, improving staff morale and productivity, and providing a level of engagement and customer service with the various departments of the city that has greatly improved how the city does business.
I think one of the things that was very clear to me when we were recruiting and looking at people for the ITO position was the frankly disconnect between the IT department and the other departments of city government that they were charged with serving.
That has turned around.
Frankly speaking, we want to make sure we are positioned as a city to retain high quality people like Saad in service to the city.
We want SAAD to continue to provide innovative and outstanding services to our city departments and residents.
And I hope that you will approve this ordinance so that we can be competitive in retaining top quality IT talent like SAAD Bashir.
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you for those kind words.
I don't know exactly how to ask this question, so I'm just going to kind of bluntly put it out there.
We sometimes are criticized for approving salaries that are significantly high and whether or not they're within the band like you described.
How do I talk to somebody about a salary of $282,000?
How do we make sure that we're getting the talent that you're asking for, but that this individual will stay?
Because even at $282,000, I understand you could walk down the street and see something significantly higher than that.
So can you just give us some confirmation and assurance that the individual who sounds like a superstar will stay?
Uh, let me just and then Bobby, you can I have had a conversation with side about this exact issue last week, and he said that his he and his family are putting down roots in this community and want to stay.
That said, he can stay in Seattle and attract a very high salary.
I think he is a public sector person.
He came to us from public sector.
And so I think he, and he has clearly indicated an ability to connect with not only his employees, but the departments of city government that he serves.
So I think that his intention is to stay.
Please, go ahead.
So I have some questions, and then just really quickly, you know, I want to make sure that we are having this conversation, which is about this policy change, from the perspective of it being a systems change.
So it's not about one person.
It's not about SOD.
It's not about the previous CTO.
It's about, making a policy decision that isn't based on a particular personality or individual, but on what is appropriate from an HR perspective and a personnel perspective for the city moving forward.
And so while I recognize that Saad is doing a great job and I continue to hear good feedback about him, which I really appreciate, I'm sort of asking questions from the perspective of a permanent change to the system that is going to be in place here as opposed to about a particular personality or employee who currently works for the city at the pleasure of the executive.
So really, really, and I think that's a fair assessment.
Okay.
Really, there's in Karina's memo and in some of your remarks, you talked about public comparators, and I just want to get a better understanding of how you're defining those comparators, because I don't ordinarily think of Santa Clara as a comparator to the city of Seattle.
So just give me a sense of what criteria you all were utilizing in your analysis and evaluation to identify comparator cities.
And the memo only lists from what I, it says that there were 15 comparable public agencies, but it doesn't say who those comparable agencies are.
So I'd just like to get a better sense of that component of your work.
Sure, thank you.
So the criteria for comparable agencies in our study included size, thinking about budget and population, complexity of operations, technology hub, and growth, considering housing, jobs, and overall economics of the area.
What does tech hub mean in the way that you're looking at it?
Brookings Institute study that report that Seattle is one of five cities that between 2005 and 2017, 90% of IT jobs were created.
And so there are very few, quote unquote, tech hubs around the nation, which Seattle is one of the most prominent.
So that's what we're considering.
And Santa Clara is one of those, right?
Silicon Valley, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, and Santa Clara or the Silicon Valley.
And the fifth one was?
I think it was Denver.
We'll list the agencies that we contacted.
Of the 16 agencies that we contacted, 12 provided information, four did not respond or participate.
Seven included Atlanta, Georgia, Austin, Texas, Chicago, Illinois, Columbus, Ohio, Denver, Colorado, Houston, Texas, Jacksonville, Florida, King County, Long Beach, California, Portland, Oregon, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, California.
Okay, and then in terms of size, were you looking for cities that were of similar size to the population of the city of Seattle?
Is that what you were looking for in that criteria?
Yes, we were looking at...
We're looking at cities of similar size and the full service cities, cities that offer the same services where some cities are contract out on services.
Seattle is a full service city, so we looked at those as part of the criteria as well.
And so when you say full-service city, you're talking about the technology departments within that public agency.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And then complexity of operations, is that related to this full-service concept or is that something different?
From a city perspective, it's comparable.
We also look at, from an IT standpoint, org charts to determine the size, the scope, the complexity of that organization.
And that's largely to sort of identify whether
They're true comparables.
Right.
So it's more of an operations management perspective, right?
If you're an executive or a CTO, are you being called upon to manage in sort of a similar management style?
Exactly.
Environment.
OK.
And then I thought it was interesting that there was a mention to competitors.
you know, doing comparisons to the private tech industry.
And so just wanted to know a little bit more about how that factored into this analysis, particularly since we know that we have an oversized representation of tech companies.
Here in Seattle, I mean, there was an article in the Seattle Times recently that talked about how we've got, you know, there's three or four real major global tech headquarters, and Seattle's at the top of the list.
And so I just want to make sure that we're not running into an inflation concern.
Sure.
It is that very reason for the tech hub geographic location of Seattle that we wanted to look at private sector organizations.
We believe that we are competing for top talent with the private sector.
And why do you believe that?
How many CTOs have we lost to the private tech industry?
I don't have any information on how many CTOs we've lost to the private tech.
industry.
The basis for this is the comparison that when we look at CTO salaries and understanding that this is a tech hub where people want to come and work and that these jobs are competitive and individuals have a lot of opportunities, understanding that what we're positioning is still, or excuse me, the current salary of our CTO is 32% below a competitive range for private sector.
So I think it's a risk that yields a lot of opportunity for any CTO to be poached to go to another organization.
So we haven't necessarily lost any CTOs to the private sector that you can tell me about now, but you're identifying a risk.
Absolutely.
I don't have any information.
until I think of more.
Let me give you some time.
So thanks for doing the research and thanks for your memo, it was greatly helpful.
So I actually support this, just to cut to the chase and I'll tell you why.
To some extent, for a little different reasons that you described, Dave.
I've looked at the, first of all, the world of technology and municipalities, in my humble opinion, has drastically changed in the last decade.
When I looked at what happened to Atlanta and Baltimore, and I think there's another city in Florida where cities are being held hostage by ransomware.
When I look at the sophistication of having a compromised network, When I look at how we have for decades operated in technological silos in the city, which are largely governed by some labor rules and some other structural issues, that what the city has been looking for is sort of a transformative leader to help integrate something as simple as how we purchase and retire equipment, for example, all of these different schedules.
So there's huge cost savings involved in what I'll call a true leader.
And I agree with Councilman Gonzalez that it's not about sod, but it's like a person likes sod, that I think we need to attract the top talent.
And I don't know if my colleagues are paying attention, but I'm going to keep, I'll start over.
But because of the challenges as the technology chair that I've seen, and there have been many initiatives we've gotten through, I think Bill Schreier and Matt Miller and some other folks down the line have actually done a phenomenal job at that point in history.
But where we are now, going into 2020, we need the best practices in both the private industry and in the world of municipality, municipal technology.
And like I said, the stakes are very, very high.
So I think we have to, whether we're anticipating losing someone or However we get the talent, we have to have top-notch talent here.
And we are competing, as a technology hub, we are competing against all of these technology companies around this kind of talent.
So my support for this, just because I realized, and I read everything I get my hands on in terms of how technology is misused.
And even the privacy and the surveillance work that we're doing, as we use new tools, we're going to just need someone on the cutting edge.
So I think it makes sense.
And I think in 15 years ago, 10 years ago, the position of the CTO, I think we needed someone really, really great to do some work.
But the stakes have just gotten much higher now.
And we're competing with all of these companies around here.
So that's the reason why I support it.
comments any further questions councillor all right uh if not i'm going to move the committee pass council bill one one nine six seven two five second all those in favor say aye The motion is passed.
So the committee will recommend to our full council on Monday, your recommendation.
Thank you for your hard work and your analysis.
I appreciate it.
And I have heard such good things about sod.
So even though we haven't had I haven't had the pleasure of working particularly closely with him.
Just the fact that the department feels so positive about him just speaks volumes.
So thank you for that.
And I would just say you also passed a, or we also settled a number of labor issues that have been troubling the department for a number of years.
The wage study going back three and a half years, and it was really with Frankly, Bobby and Saad's leadership that we have resolved that issue.
You'll be getting briefed on that at the Executive Labor Committee next week.
So it's the example of what you're saying, Councilmember Harreld, that We do need a dynamic person that can solve these problems for us and work with our labor partners and the other departments to do this work.
And that's why I appreciate Customer Gonzalez's point.
If it's not him, it's someone of that skill set.
And I think from a policy standpoint, this makes sense.
And thanks for doing the homework.
Thanks for your time.
Can I add just really quickly?
I think the reason why I brought up some of the comparison questions the private sector in particular is because I really do believe that as public servants we make choices and we engage in a cost-benefit analysis to evaluate why we want to do public sector versus private sector.
And so while many of our employees who are extremely talented could make a lot more money working in the private sector, they've made very deliberate intentional choices to work in the public sector for the public good.
And so I think that there is value to that.
And so I worry about an over-reliance or pushing too much of a narrative that we're competing with these private sector companies, therefore we'll never find good talent because I just don't think that that's true or representative of our current workforce.
There are many, many people, including in our own offices, who could be working anywhere in the city.
And they've chosen to dedicate their work to the people of Seattle.
And I think that also has great, great value.
Your points are very well taken.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Very good.
Thank you all for coming.
So the next item on our agenda is Council Bill 119716. And this is our Q4 employment ordinance.
And if you would be so kind as to read this in.
No, I'm just turning it.
Thank you.
This is Council Bill 119716, an ordinance relating to city employment, commonly referred to as the Fourth Quarter 2019 Employment Ordinance.
Very good.
Thank you.
Sarah and Lisa, thank you for briefing me on this.
I appreciate your coming.
And Karina, thank you for the good memo.
So since I've just half introduced you, why don't we start on this end, Karina?
Carina Bull, Central Staff at City Council.
Very good.
Sarah Butler, SDHR Policy and Legislation Advisor.
Thank you, Sarah.
Lisa Gardner, Compensation Program Manager, SDHR.
Excellent.
So, Carina, do you want to tell us what is in front of us?
Yes, so again, this is Council Bill 119716. It is legislation proposed by the Seattle Department of Human Resources, who I will refer to as SDHR for the rest of my short presentation.
This legislation would accomplish three distinct buckets of employment actions.
The first one would be designated eight positions as exempt from the civil service system.
So SDHR Director Bobby Humes determined that the work performed by these positions was re-evaluated and it was determined that they met the exemption criteria under local law and personnel rules.
These are eight positions across five departments.
Some examples are positions that have been re-evaluated to be a strategic advisor three, a strategic advisor one, a manager one.
These are all discretionary title positions that have been determined to be exempt from civil service.
And I can go into more detail if that's helpful.
The next bucket of employment action is returning one position to the civil service system.
This is a position at the Seattle City Employees Retirement System Department.
And it's an information technology professional A that was re-evaluated.
And it was determined that the complexity and the responsibility of the position had decreased over time.
And so the recommendation is to reclassify it information technology professional position B, which would return it back to civil service protections.
And last is creating a new job title and corresponding rate of pay in the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.
And this is a result of SDHR director receiving information that the overnight shift for a noise control specialist which the shift ran from 10 p.m.
to 7 a.m., was creating recruitment and retention issues at the current compensation that it was receiving.
Not only is it a hard shift to work, but they also received feedback that the nature of the work was different.
So the end result was a new compensation program that had a slight elevation of salary, and then the total cost of implementing all of this legislation is around $135,000.
This is money that is going to be funded through each department's 2019 adopted budget.
Very good.
Thank you for that summary.
Sarah or Lisa, do you want to speak further to this?
I don't have anything to add.
I think two of the questions I asked you yesterday is one, are we budgeted for these, and the answer was yes, that we're not looking for a supplemental at this point, that there's money in the department budgets to cover the costs.
And then the other question I had asked was whether there are any collective bargaining issues.
That was...
We met with the union and worked very closely with them and their labor partner on the new classification.
And the rest don't have any labor impacts.
Okay.
Any other questions?
I just want to sort of understand what we're doing.
You did a good job of explaining it.
That doesn't mean I understand it.
From a practical standpoint, these are all empty positions.
These are just categories.
There's not a human being that was once in an exempt position and in a civil service system now they become exempt.
These are just positions.
Most of them are vacant.
Is there one or two filled positions?
I think at this time there's one position that's filled.
Okay, so if I'm in the civil service system and now I'm exempt, What does that really mean for me in terms of I don't get the benefits of the appeal process and now am I exposed and I'm terminable at will?
I lose the exposure that I gain exposure and I lose some of the protections I would have if I'm not in the civil service system.
This is, so we, correct?
Am I close?
Am I warm?
Okay.
And so these eight positions now will fall out of the civil service system for the reasons you described.
And then there's one position that for whatever reason we determined would go back into the civil service system.
Okay.
And do we do this like every year, just do a examination?
It's on a quarterly basis as these come through.
That's right.
I thought it was on a quarterly basis because I looked at you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Very good.
Any other questions?
All right, well, since this is the kind of thing that we have done a few times this year, I'm just going, unless there's any further questions, I'd like to move that the committee pass Council Bill 119716, which follows the recommendations of SDHR.
second.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
So there is no further discussion.
Nobody is opposed.
So this motion passes.
The committee is going to recommend full counsel pass it on Monday.
Very good.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
I think the next item of business is we will now have a public hearing, correct?
Correct.
And if you could read this item in and then I will ask if there is anybody who will speak to it.
This item does not have an item number, but it is the Human Services Department draft annual action plan for federal funds.
Very good.
Is there anybody signed up for public comment?
I am going to open the public hearing.
Ms. Gore just stepped into her old habits of clerking committee.
You saw that, how fast it moved.
Like the ringing of a bell.
Exactly.
Pavlovian almost.
Indeed.
There's nobody signed up.
Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak?
Okay, I'm hereby closing the public hearing.
So, would you, Amy, like to start introductions?
I'm Amy Gore with Council Central staff, and we are here to discuss briefly the draft 2020 annual action plan, which is something that we submit each year to the Department of Housing and Urban Development to articulate how we are planning to spend federal grant monies.
And Dan Burton from HSD is going to talk a little bit about what is in the plan.
Thank you, and welcome, Dan, and welcome, Amy.
Thank you for accommodating me today.
This public hearing allows us as a city to pre-spend federal dollars from the Community Development Block Grant, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, Home Investment Partnerships Grant, and Emergency Solutions Grant.
Because our program year starts on January 1, federal appropriations have not yet happened.
They're unlikely to happen before then.
Even if they did, we wouldn't have a grant in place before then, so they have accommodations to allow us to pre-spend.
The 2020 plan is the third year of our five-year consolidated plan.
It governs circa $19.3 million.
The programs are very similar to what we did this year.
There are a couple changes, one of which is the...
OED, Economic Development, have shifted their focus from business districts to tenant improvement and single business assistance.
These programs and the funding levels were all approved in the budget.
This is an application to HUD to say this is what we're going to do with this money.
And it's for money.
The plan has changed now.
In 2015, they changed their process to be You have to say in the plan what you're going to do with that year's allocation.
In the past, we would say, what are you going to spend federal money on?
And so now we have to go back and amend old ones when we make changes to old allocations of money.
So we'll be coming back in the spring or summer of next year to adopt the actual 2020 plan with the real numbers and also amend the 2019 and 2018 plans to accommodate some changes that were made through this year's budgeting process.
So Dan, do you need any specific action from us at this committee?
It's just you're briefing us about what the intentions are?
Yep.
Okay.
Any other questions?
because this is a fairly significant document, many attachments.
I don't want to give you, I don't want to shortchange you, let me put it that way.
Is there anything specific that you would like to focus on, any one major thing that you think that the public would like to know about as well?
I don't believe so at this stage.
All of these programs went through the budgeting process for the city, and we'll be actually coming back to really dig into it and formally put this work to the federal government in the spring.
Okay.
Amy?
No, I was just gonna mention the same thing that this is part of the public comment process and the more full discussion by council will be in the spring when the final plan is up for adoption by the council.
Okay, Council Member Gonzales.
Yeah, I was just gonna say, do we have an actual document that tells us what the timelines are so that we can keep ourselves accountable to that process?
Yeah, so we have to, the Federal Senate needs to pass all their bills, then they have to be reconciled, and then all that has to happen.
We're relying on the Senate?
Yes.
All right.
There's not going to be much of a delay in January and February about that.
Right.
Last year, I think they got their appropriations done and allocations done by around May.
We got our actual grant in October.
Okay.
Wow.
And so that was better than the year prior.
So hopefully- Practically a full year behind.
That's the kind, the schedule we're looking at, I think is spring, we'll know better.
Summer, we'll be getting the work done and then the grant will come in.
And then all this pre-award spending that we're authorizing now, we'll be able to just pay with those grants.
Got it.
Okay, so if I have a clearer picture now that we're sort of at the mercy of how the federal government does or doesn't go through their appropriation process.
So we'll just make sure that we stay in close touch with Amy around things as they move around so that we can avoid unnecessary additional delay from this city council on making sure that the gears move as quickly as they need to move for you all to continue to do your work.
Thank you.
Good.
So nothing else?
Okay, we'll appreciate you coming.
Thank you for the discussion.
Thank you.
And we'll look forward to seeing you in the spring, or at least one of us on this table will look forward to seeing you in the spring.
Very good.
All right, do you want to read in item 19 for us?
This is Council Bill 119711, an ordinance relating to the Department of Finance and Administrative Services authorizing the department to negotiate and execute a real property lease amendment with Georgetown LLC.
Very good.
Well, nice to see you.
Hey, everybody, thank you.
Hillary, do you want to start introductions, please?
Sure.
I'm Hillary Hamilton with Finance and Administrative Services.
Very good.
I'm John Overt with Seattle Public Utilities Facilities Division.
Thank you, John.
Bob Gamble, Senior Real Property Agent for Seattle Public Utilities.
Thank you.
And thanks to all three of you for being here.
So Hillary, would you like to kick this off and describe what we're doing?
I will do that.
And then my compatriots are good subject matter experts and would be happy to answer more questions as well.
We are here to seek authorization to enter into a second amendment on an existing lease.
And this is actually OK.
Okay, this is a lease for a storage yard for materials used by Seattle Public Utilities water operations.
The property is located at 5821 First Avenue South in the Soto area.
And the stored materials that are located here are used to excavate, repair, and construct water lines by the Seattle Public Utilities Water Operations and Maintenance Group.
The function is distributed by SPU to have a north end and a south end, and this location has been very good for being central to service the south end of Seattle.
As I mentioned, this is a second amendment to an existing lease.
Originally, the lease was executed in 2006, seven years.
And there was an option for an additional seven years, which was extended and executed.
And the lease will expire at the end of February 2020. So we're glad that we could bring this forward for your review.
The second amendment has a five-year term and an option to extend for an additional five years if needed.
Specifically, this is a lease with Georgetown LLC.
It covers 53,000 square feet of yard space, so over an acre.
And that is one reason that we need to come to you today.
As I mentioned, five years term with one five-year option.
The negotiated rent of 13,250 is the starting point, and there'll be an increase in years three and five.
If we do take out the option, that rent would be readjusted.
Remind us what we're paying right now per month.
Actually, we're going to achieve a slight reduction for the first year.
So it's very modest.
It's just under the $13,000.
It started at $10,000 and then went up to, I don't have the exact number, but close to $13,000.
Started at $10,000 in 2006?
No, the $10,000 was seven years ago.
So our last slide really just talks about what Seattle Public Utilities hopes to accomplish.
We have not been able to identify any city-owned sites in the south half of Seattle that would be suitable for such an operation.
And the city, I mean, it makes sense for SPU to have a site under ownership.
The owners of this site would not consider a sale.
They were happy to lease it to us, but they would not like to sell the property to the city, and FAS is helping SPU with that site search.
We believe that if you talk about acquiring, choosing a site, negotiating, bringing that forward to council, working on permits and relocation, that would, take around five years before we could actually move in.
So we're comfortable that the term of the amendment is adequate.
And if there's any difficulty, we do have that option to extend.
Good.
Do we have any option within the terms to reduce the first five years?
So let's just say the miracle happened and you find the perfect parcel of property.
Are we able to get out without having to pay a significant penalty?
That was considered.
Usually there's some kind of a financial penalty, so to speak, if you ask for that termination out.
Because, as I said, we think it would probably take five years to be ready to move in.
It didn't seem necessary.
Council Member Gonzales, you were reaching for your microphone.
Maybe not.
I think I did, but I already forgot what I was going to ask.
I'm sorry.
I will pass.
I will ask John and Bob, anything else you would like to add?
The material that's stored in the shard is material that our water crews require within maybe 30 minutes of being Dispatched from an operation center as you probably understand our water crews open up major arterial streets if there's a water leak Etc that material needs to be available to the utility without regard to holidays time of day and We looked at several properties that were outside.
This property that we are talking about today is relatively close to our operation control center down in Soto.
It is really important for us to keep that material as close to that yard as possible.
And so we did a search, we've been looking for Well since May of 2018 for properties and this is This yard.
We had hoped to purchase they wouldn't buy they wouldn't sell to us but being near the Operational control center is really important.
And so this yard is useful as a lease until we can secure property great.
Very good Bob Anything you'd like to add?
Nothing specific, okay
Colleagues, do you have anything else?
Any other further questions?
Okay, I'd like to move the committee pass Council Bill 119711. Second.
All right, so the motion has been moved and seconded.
No further good discussion.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
None opposed, no abstentions.
So the motion passes.
The committee is going to recommend full council on Monday.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for coming.
All right, if you'll read it in the next item, please.
This is item 20. This is the item that was amended to the agenda at the beginning of this meeting.
It is Council Bill 119712, an ordinance relating to city-owned property authorizing the transfer of jurisdiction from the a lot of words in this title, from the Department of Finance and Services to the Seattle Department of Transportation.
OK.
Very good.
Hillary, you're still here.
It's great.
I'm here again.
And I have new compatriots.
Excellent.
So may I ask you to introduce yourselves?
Yes.
I'm Mary Jung.
I'm SDOT Right-of-Way.
Great.
Thank you.
I'm Janet Mayer, SDOT Project Manager.
Thank you for being here.
So do you want to give us the overview?
Start with you, Hillary.
Yeah, I will try to be brief.
These are potential transfers of jurisdiction, four of them, from FAS to SDOT.
And the properties would then be dedicated as public right-of-way.
Just a bit of some of the terminology is different.
So we wanted to cover the base.
When the city acquires real property jurisdiction is assigned to a specific department and that usually reflects either the intended use of the property or the funding source used to pay for it.
And over time, you might see a change.
A lot of these properties we've had for 50 or more years.
And sometimes the change in the use of the property justifies assigning it to a different department.
And that is known as transferring jurisdiction and requires an ordinance to formally transfer the property.
So that's why we're here.
Just to clarify the missions, SDOT's mission is to deal with street rights of way, public streets, bridges, street landscaping.
FAS manages non-utility city property, police and fire, offices, and we also have acquired over the years some what are called remainder properties that don't Otherwise serve a specific municipal purpose and part of the reason for that is the there is a There are laws that require if you if you were to take 60% of a property to do something whether it could be widening a street You you damage the rights of the owner you damage the value of their property and so we are obligated to pay that individual for the full property, but if, for example, transportation funds were used to purchase the right-of-way property, but they aren't using the remainder, then they get assigned to us, and typically it's general fund.
So that's why we're here in many of these cases.
As I said, there are four properties.
I just want to run through real quick and give you an illustration for each.
The first one is located in the stone way to North Wallingford area east of 99. It is a street triangle of just under 2,000 square feet and actually goes back to 1914. It's mostly landscaped, but the reason Janet's up at the table particularly is that SDOT is planning some transportation improvements, and they're going to improve pedestrian access.
And so we are pleased that SDOT is willing to take this back.
We can move on and then we can go back and circle around that project if you like.
This one is located in 8th Avenue South.
It was acquired in 1973 for street purposes.
It doesn't appear that anything was done at that time, but would be very useful for street widening along 8th Avenue.
This third one is located in South Seattle, 3601 York Road.
It is another island and goes back to 1915. This has some potential to improve the street geometrics and again, possibly good for public safety over time.
And lastly, this one looks a little different.
This was acquired in 1977. It's large, it's about 12,000 square feet, but very unusual dimensions, and basically serves as street access for the homes along here that are somewhat landlocked otherwise.
And this one was acquired through a local improvement district foreclosure.
There was probably a local improvement district to do some paving, and somebody along the way failed to pay property taxes, and the county ultimately transferred it to the city.
And it is used for street access, and therefore, it makes sense to transfer it to SDOT.
Finally, all of these four properties through the ordinance will be dedicated for street right of way.
They will be laid off, open, extended, and all those sets of terms that make a property a street.
And that is our presentation.
Thank you for that.
I'd like to ask a question about the 51st Place South.
That's the one, the last one.
Yes.
It looks like an L and a T or a Tetris as Councilmember Gonzalez just whispered to me.
Is there any way that this can be made into like the greenway, the public park kind of thing where pedestrians have more of a priority or is it just from this particular photograph, it looks like some additional green space would be welcome, but I don't know what's there.
I think what makes this one unusual is some of the houses are landlocked, specifically the three in the upper right corner.
do not really have any kind of access other than probably an unpaved alley at the north.
So given that they're serving primary access to at least a few homes, a formal greenway might be difficult, but maybe Janet or I don't know if Mary could speak to that.
Everybody is wrinkling their brow.
It was a question that came out of the blue.
But I'm always looking for opportunities where we can to have some way that we have multi-use on the street that it isn't just dedicated to cars.
And I don't see, maybe there's a sidewalk there, but I don't see it.
So the notion of making it, slowing the street down so the kids can play in it or that it can be more of a multi-use street occurred to me.
Whenever I see brows wrinkled as seriously as the three of you, I figure that was a question that I probably should have asked you before we were sitting out here.
I think the good news is that probably transportation is not very heavy because it dead ends in at least two places.
But that, I mean, a greenway would provide extra protection for children, pedestrians, bicycles.
So when you were here last week, one of your colleagues, we were talking about snippets, parcels of property that are small that you want to acquire.
So how are you going to move forward with these four?
What are the intentions?
The ordinance in front of you actually takes each one, section one, section two, it identifies them as suitable for transfer from FAS to SDOT and will create, will transfer them into not only their department but to make them street right of way.
As Mary pointed out a little earlier, that actually will save a tiny bit of money because when it's street, you don't have to pay surface water management fees.
But it also just provides a better match for the use to the department.
OK.
And then you have the opportunity to make your decisions about how you're going to use it or when you're going to make changes.
Okay, any further questions?
All right, I move the committee pass Council Bill 119712. Second.
Okay, thank you.
The motion's been moved and seconded.
Any further comments?
If not, all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
None opposed, no abstentions.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for helping to organize this.
The motion passes.
It will go to committee and we'll recommend passage on Monday.
Thanks.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Okay, next item.
This is Council Bill 119721, an ordinance authorizing in 2019 the acceptance of funding from non-city sources.
Great.
Thank you.
So colleagues, we have just two items left.
This one, which is the opportunity to accept a list of grants, our fourth quarter grant acceptance.
And then thereafter, we'll move into our fourth quarter supplemental.
OK, Tom, thank you for pinch hitting.
I appreciate you being here.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, members of the committee.
with your Council Central staff.
As Chair Bagshaw mentioned, this is the second committee hearing of Council Bill 119721, Fourth Quarter Grant Acceptance Ordinance.
Just as a high-level refresher from last week, this ordinance authorizes the directors of specific city departments to accept a total of approximately $39 million of grants, private donations, and subsidized loans from non-city sources.
It provides the authority to accept the funds, but the authority to spend is covered in the next item on this afternoon's agenda, which is the appropriations ordinance.
So staff is not aware of any amendments at this time, so unless there are questions.
No, thank you.
And I do want to thank you and Lisa Kaye for the briefings that we've been given on this.
Did you have all your questions answered from last week, I think?
I think so.
I know that I did have an amendment.
Is it on the next one?
It's on the next one.
Okay, got it.
Yes, no, I just want to appreciate Lisa and Greg and Brian all going to work to answer some of the concerns that I had expressed about some of the grants that were going to the Seattle Police Department.
I want to appreciate Director Barb Graff, who reached out to me directly to help answer some of my questions about the Fusion Center and what this money was designed to do.
I appreciate the responsiveness from the department and from our council central staff on making sure that I had information that allayed my concerns about potential nexus with ICE activity as a result of these grants.
So I think after reading through all the materials, I'm comfortable accepting these grants and don't seem to see any information that says that there is that level of entanglement.
Good.
Thank you.
But thank you for raising that.
You did that last year, I thought, in a very splendid way.
People took a look at it.
And raising it again this year just to make sure that you were comfortable.
I really appreciate that.
So do we have a total operating budget appropriation of over $101 million?
Is that accurate for this grant?
No, that would be the supplemental ordinance.
That'll be the next item that we'll discuss.
This just authorized gives the department heads the ability to accept the grants.
Okay.
But that would be one action and then we'll move to the next item.
Okay.
All right, shall we do that then, or do you have any further comments that you have?
All right, any other comments, colleagues?
Okay, I'm going to move the committee pass Council Bill 119721. Second.
Okay, the motion's been moved and seconded.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
None opposed, no abstentions.
Thank you very much.
This motion passes and we'll recommend Council Bill 119721 on Monday.
Very good.
So I'll move to item 22. Please do.
Final item.
Do you want to join us, or are you just like happy being in the audience?
Nice.
It's good to have somebody out there.
It makes us feel a little better.
Yeah, he's my backup, just in case.
Nice.
Very good.
Very good.
OK.
This is, wait a second.
We need a little drum roll here, because this is the last item in the last committee.
So, and Emily's gonna read it into the record.
Very good.
All right.
Thank you so much.
All right, Emily, please read item 22 into the record.
This is Council Bill 119720, an ordinance amending Ordinance 125724, which adopted the 2019 budget.
Great, thank you.
All right, Tom.
Okay, similar to the previous item, this is just the second hearing for this Council Bill 119720, fourth quarter.
So this revises the 2019 budget for capital and operating budget adjustments.
So it revises the 2019 budget and the 2019 to 2024 seat capital improvements program.
So my colleague Lisa Kaye provided a pretty thorough discussion at the last meeting.
As Council Member Gonzalez did mention, there is one amendment that has been proposed.
I can provide an overview of that if that would be helpful.
We do, and then we'll ask Council Member Gonzalez to speak to it.
Sure.
Okay, so item 2.2 of the bill as introduced added $55,000 from the general fund to the Department of Education and Early Learning's post-secondary programs budget summary level.
The purpose of that was to develop a new firefighter training associative arts pathway at Seattle Colleges.
The total cost of the program was $70,000 and the concept as introduced was that The difference of $15,000 was going to come from underspend resources in the Families Education Preschool and Promise Levy.
The actual proposed amendment increases the general fund support to that.
So the entire program is now funded by the general fund instead.
by adjusting that item 2.2 of the bill so it would be a $15,000 increase from the general fund.
It also revises the section 2 total to account for the change and adds a new section 14 to the legislation on page 23. It does the following things.
It states the city council's intent that the sole source of the program funding is the general fund, requests that DEEL provide a report on the program to the council's gender equity, safe communities, new Americans, and education committee or its successor.
by April 1st of next year, and provides that the report that is provided in April describes the program in detail, including activities funded by the city, the timeline for program implementation, any remaining activities to be completed, and the intended outcome for the participants.
So that summarizes the amendment.
Great.
Do you want to speak to it?
I mean nothing further to add on the specific amendment and what it would accomplish.
I think Tom did a great job of outlining that.
I want to thank Brian Goodnight in the audience for drafting the language and working with me in my office on making sure that we address the concerns that identified during our last committee, which was really about, it wasn't necessarily about the program, but more about the revenue source and where it was coming from.
So I think this is a much more judicious, prudent, and legal approach to funding the interest of DEEL and the executive to advance this particular program, and looking forward to So I think it's important to note that we will be seeing next year what the details of the program are.
This is, to be clear, a program that is outside of the Seattle Promise and the FEPP levy portfolio.
So this is sort of a parallel body of work that DEEL is apparently undergoing at this point.
So I thought it was prudent to nonetheless, even though we address the revenue source, concerns to nonetheless require the use these resources and their department to advance this program.
Good.
Well, you brought that up well last week, and we all thought the idea of developing a firefighter training associate of arts sounded like a good idea, but not using the money source.
that had originally been identified.
So thank you for bringing it up.
Thank you, Brian, for figuring out another way.
And once again, thank you, Ben Noble, for hiding the money under a rock that was available to us.
It's good.
Never forget.
Never forget Ben Noble.
So we'll just vote on the amendment first.
I'll move to pass the proposed amendment number one.
Second.
Those in favor say aye.
Aye.
This is just the amendment now.
OK.
Anything else that you would like to add about the fourth quarter supplemental as amended?
Nothing to add.
OK.
Then I'm going to move the committee pass CB 119720 as amended.
Second.
Good.
The motion's been moved and seconded.
No further discussion.
Okay.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
None opposed.
No abstentions.
Motion passes.
Committee will recommend it as amended to the full council on Monday.
Okay.
That was the last item of business for this Finance and Neighborhood Committee.
Thank you very much.
And this is your last Finance and Neighborhoods Committee meeting.
It is, and we have just one more committee that I will be sharing.
It is not this one.
Tomorrow.
Right, exactly.
Well, before we conclude, I just want to say it's been an honor to serve with you on this committee for the last two years.
I've actually been able to serve on committees with you the entire four years of my tenure here, and I've really appreciated, particularly in the context of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee, to learn from you and to be your vice chair on this committee.
So thank you, Council President, for giving me the opportunity to have that leadership role.
And I know that this is the last time I'll get to serve on this committee with you all.
We still have a few committees to get across the finish line.
And we will do that, but thank you so much.
But thank you so much for all your work and for being a mentor to me on this committee work.
It's been a pleasure to work with you.
Okay, nothing else.
Emily, thank you for putting it all together.
You've done a super job stepping in at the last minute on budget and this, and I really appreciate you.
Thanks, Tom.
Thank you, Brian.
The meeting's adjourned.
do