Good morning.
It is October 31st, 2018. This is the Budget Committee.
We are reconvening from yesterday and our good work around green sheets.
I'm Sally Bagshaw, chair of this committee.
Thank you to all my council colleagues for being here.
It's 9.38 this morning on Halloween, and we're going to get going continuing on the green sheets to help us lead towards a a balancing package this weekend.
And as I described yesterday, what we're doing this morning is to go through the green sheets that have been proposed by all of us, and then there are prime sponsors, there are people, one or two that may have signed on.
And you have an opportunity here to add your name to it if you'd like.
But remember, we're trying to prioritize here, too.
Since we don't have unlimited budget funds, we're going to have to make some decisions.
So feel free to raise your hand and let me know if you want to add your name.
But at some point, we're going to have to decide what is going to be our top priorities in addition to all of the green sheets that I have put forward, which I know that all of you are.
Just thinking our top priorities.
Okay, just kidding Councilmember Gonzalez.
So I have also been asked to provide a prototype.
I've said yesterday that if you're asking for a slide that we provide to Council Central staff a one pager that summarizes First of all, the return date when you're expecting the information, the scope of the request in a brief scope, what council central staff engagement might look like and for their work program, and then what the anticipated council committee follow-up will be.
So I'm providing to all of you just a prototype that I've done for my slide that's requesting Seattle Center to pursue opportunities with skate parks.
So this will be sent to your staff electronically, but just so you can see What I am hoping that we will do, and the goal of this, of course, is to be real clear when we're asking for departments to come back to us with additional information, what that information, what we're asking for, but also how we're going to use it.
It will help them target, oftentimes, that they will try to do everything that they possibly can to make you happy.
But if they know in advance what it is you're gonna do with it, it makes it easier for them.
Okay, so you thought we had a lot of work yesterday with over 50 items.
Today we have over 70. So we're gonna have to move quickly.
But I will ask you to do the same as yesterday.
Council Central staff will summarize what the green sheet is.
The sponsor will have an opportunity to speak.
Don't feel like you have to speak if it's clear.
Then we can proceed and we have over 70 as I said, so that's half again what we did yesterday.
And it may be the opportunity just to raise your hand and say you want to participate, you want to sign on, without comment is fine too.
So not to say that I'm trying to rush us, I'm just watching our time.
All right, with that, item number one for today.
is tab 40 in my book.
And Eric, would you like to start introductions?
And I suspect Calvin's gonna speak, because a lot of this is as taught in the beginning.
Yes, hi, I am Eric Sundervier, Council Central staff, and that's all I'll say for now.
Brian Goodnight, Council Central staff.
Calvin Chow, Council Central staff.
Well done.
Allison McLean, Council Member Begshaw's office.
And again, thanks to all of you, and special thanks, Allison, for coordinating all of this for us.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
The first item is for Seattle Public Utilities, or SPU, the Statement of Legislative Intent 40-1A1.
Last fall, during the update to SPU's strategic business plan, council requested that SPU produce an affordability and accountability plan, which is due to the council next June.
This slide would request that SPU work with Seattle City Light to include in that plan an analysis of the utility discount program and its eligibility criteria, as well as the concept of a tiered discount system.
This item comes from Councilmember Herbold and is co-sponsored by Councilmember Mosqueda.
Great.
Councilmember Herbold?
Thank you.
This is similar to a change that we made to the UDP eligibility a couple years ago, really recognizing that some of the practices for qualifying participants in the program, you know, don't really meet the realities of people's lives.
A couple years ago, we made sure that the Medicare income that shows up on people's Social Security checks, older people's Social Security checks, that was counting as income even though it's not money in people's pocket.
We changed the eligibility requirements so that that, those dollars, those numbers would not be considered as part of eligibility.
Now we are proposing to take a look at which median income is used by the city.
I've got a message from Mac Davis in Fremont, who many of you know.
He wrote to us.
several months ago and writes that the rising cost of homeownership is beginning to drive my wife and I out of Seattle by just pegging the public utility discount program to the city's medium instead of the much lower state median income that would allow many of us living on fixed incomes to continue to contribute to the culture and well-being of Seattle's creativity community.
The city uses the state of Washington, 70% median income for a household of two, which is about $42,000.
Compare that to the city's median income, which is about $80,000, 70% of that would be $56,000.
And so many people who live, as Max says, in the donor hole between the state's median income and the city's median income, are really, truly struggling to pay their bills.
And I would like the city to move forward in looking at making sure that our programs that are all about making sure that we're dealing with affordability issues, that in qualifying for those programs, we're really qualifying the people who are in need.
Thank you, Council Member Herbold.
I fully support this and I want to just also highlight what you were saying.
I received an email from somebody I know from Magnolia who says she earns $37 a month more than what the cutoff is for the UDP and that she is on a fixed income and it's tough, so I think you're on the right track.
Thank you.
Okay, any other comments?
Just support it.
Okay, great.
We'll add Council Member Juarez to this.
as well.
Thank you.
Let's move to two.
So the next item is Green Sheet 42A1, which recommends passage of Council Bill 119395, SPU's 2019 Drainage and Wastewater System Bond Authorization.
This bill would amend Ordinance 125454, which was approved along with the 2018 budget, to authorize up to $350 million of bonds to fund capital expenditures.
SPU anticipates selling the bonds in mid-2019, and the annual debt service is estimated to be approximately $16.5 million.
And as a piece of budget legislation, this item is sponsored by the budget chair.
Great, and Budget Chair has nothing to add.
The next item is Green Sheet 43A1, which recommends passage of Council Bill 119396, which would authorize up to $68.1 million of bonds to support the city's water system capital expenditures.
These bonds are expected to be sold in late 2019, and the debt service is estimated to be $4.7 million.
And again, this is sponsored by the budget chair.
Thank you.
I have nothing to add, but Council Member Herbold, do you have anything you would like to add?
I do not.
Thank you.
Okay.
I do.
Just very briefly.
Council Member Wars.
This is dedicated to Brindell.
This is why we should support this.
Reliable water system infrastructure is critical to government function.
Remember, the City of Seattle burnt down without one in 1889. Thank you, Brindell.
Okay, item number four.
The last piece of SPU budget legislation, which is also sponsored by the budget chair, is green sheet 44A1, which recommends passage of council bill 119397. This bill would authorize the director of finance to refund or refinance the city's water system bonds if interest rates change in such a way that would allow the city to save on interest expenses.
The director is required to notify the council president at least 30 days in advance of any refunding.
Very good.
Thank you.
And just to underpin this, we have a special finance committee that includes our bond folks, our bond council.
Ben Noble is there.
We have regular meetings to review these.
All of these last three were reviewed and approved unanimously by the committee.
So thank you for that.
Let's move forward to five.
Council Members, Calvin Chow with Council Central staff.
The next item is Green Sheet 35-1A1.
This is a Green Sheet sponsored by Council Member O'Brien with support from Council Member Johnson.
It adds a proviso to SDOT spending on adaptive signal control.
The proviso does not allow any appropriations to be spent for next-generation intelligence systems that do not support the testing and further development of passive detection of pedestrians, bicycles, and transit modes.
The green sheet also describes council's intent to have SDOT convene a stakeholder group to work with community stakeholders on the implementation of adaptive technology.
Great, thank you.
Council Member O'Brien.
Yeah, I think we've heard folks testify about this a number of times so far in this budget cycle and I think we've all received a number of emails.
Mercer is an example of where it seems that the system is changing in ways that make it harder for pedestrians to use those roadways.
And so part of this is the technology is evolving and I think the technology for tracking cars is much more mature than it is for tracking pedestrians or number of people on a bus or bicyclists.
Part of it is also just new algorithms that I think we're working through and I think that some of the advocates would like to better understand how those are being worked.
And so I think slowing the, not necessarily the deployment of new technology, but of using the adaptive signal technology to prioritize modes until we have a better understanding of how that works and how community members have a better understanding of how that works.
So what is your schedule and anticipated timing on this?
The hope would be before the end of the year we can start convening folks and having conversations.
Before the end of 2018?
Before the end of 2018.
Good.
Do you anticipate coming back to the council with recommendations?
What I would imagine is we would have discussions in our committee.
I don't know that...
I don't know that we would need legislation to change anything on this.
I mean, I guess I suppose if SDOT made the case that they wanted to use adaptive signal technology and it didn't detect pedestrians, but they thought it was better and community members thought it was better, that would require us to do something to change that.
But that's possible, but I don't anticipate that at the moment.
Yeah.
Okay.
So what I would request is that we add some dates here on the budget action description.
And you said that you are anticipating having a first conversation in December or at the last week of November.
And then keep us informed about if and when you're having conversations in your committee that We'll all know about that, and if there's going to be action taken.
Absolutely.
There have been a lot of conversations that have happened.
We just haven't convened a specific group to talk about that yet, and we have not set a date, but...
Great, but you will.
We will.
Great.
All right.
Any other comments?
I'd like to sign on.
Oh, Council Member Mosqueda, just add your name.
Next item is Green Sheet 35-2A1.
This is also Council Member O'Brien's Green Sheet with sponsors by Council Member Johnson.
This Green Sheet would add a proviso on SDOT spending for the Ballard Bridge pedestrian bicycle safety improvements.
It basically sets aside $1.5 million for the intersection of Emerson and 15th Avenue.
Great.
This is the, I get my directions mixed up, southeast corner of the Ballard Bridge crossing, as Ballard Bridge folks would head off to Fisherman's Terminal.
Very dangerous crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists there.
They have a design that they're working on that would Improve it they're planning to do this work as my understanding and This this is a little bit of a belt and suspender thing just to make sure that they do it And I don't think there's anything controversial from what I understand so I'll ask the same question on this and maybe Calvin Do you know what the timing is what quarter?
of 2019 that this will be either discussed, determined, or acted upon by SDOT?
I know it is in the 2019 work program, but I cannot recall what time in the year that is.
Great.
If you'd just get back to me about that, because this is a corner that impacts a great number of people in my district as well.
Thank you.
All right, let's go on to item seven.
Next item is a slide 35. Oh, sorry.
The next item is a slide 35-3A1.
It's Councilmember O'Brien's with support from Councilmember Johnson.
This slide requests that SDOT report to council on policy analysis for accommodating emerging technologies for mobility options in the right of way.
Talked at length about this a week or so ago, so I won't take up too much time here, but just to refresh folks' memories and for the public that are watching for the first time, We know there's a lot of new technology coming out, transportation technology, about how folks are going to get around.
And I anticipate that in the coming months and years, we will see new and new modes that we weren't really anticipating.
And I think these modes have the potential to radically transform how people get around in really positive ways, positive ways that will enhance our mobility options and allow us, allow hopefully all people better mobility choices, positive in that they will use much less energy and the energy they use will hopefully be electric and carbon free.
and also reduce congestion by getting people on the right size tool to get around as opposed to driving oversized vehicles by ourselves.
But our right-of-way is designed for the last 100 years or 50 years and we're going to need to rethink that and obviously folks are doing this but we want to make a concerted effort.
Council Member Bagshaw, I anticipate you asking me a question about the timing of this.
So there we go.
We want to get this moving because I think there's already technology that's waiting to figure out where they're going to fit into the system.
And as people develop stuff, I would love for the Seattle to say, hey, we've thought proactively about this and would love folks that are coming up with creative ideas to think about Seattle as places to pilot it.
Nice thank you and I think I greatly appreciate this and I want to signal my full support and to SDOT as we talked about in the last couple of weeks that in order for us to accommodate these kinds of alternatives we need to expand the bike network and connect it particularly downtown because this is where people are riding the scooters where they're riding the wheels.
My hope would be that if we have the network connected that people will use the bike lanes, but also that we want to have the speed limits like we did at Burke-Gilman to make sure that everybody's safe.
So those would be my hope and my urging to SDOT is that we get the network connected, even if that means moving faster on some of the bike lanes, and that we decide, yes, that people can and should use the bike lanes, and let's put a speed limit on it.
And it wouldn't surprise me if in the next year or two, the bikes make up a minority of the users of bike lanes, and so, because of other technologies that will be being used.
And so, I think we also may want to consider what we actually call them, but that's probably less important than how we design them.
Good, thank you.
Question, Madam Chair?
Hi.
Just a question for the sponsor.
The June 1st, 2019 date, is there, is that informed by conversations with SDOT?
Is there any way for us to do this earlier given the period of maximum constraint?
We could.
I would love to see it happen sooner.
One of the challenges is we don't have a director of SDOT right now and I think that If a new director comes on in the beginning of next year and inherits a vision that's not theirs, we may not get the type of buy-in, so I want to create a little space for a new director to get their feet on the ground and be part of this and hopefully lead this conversation.
This is something that I would hope to be part of a...
kind of interview questions for a new director.
I imagine that folks that are applying for directorships of transportation cities in cities like Seattle are thinking about this stuff already.
So my dream would be that there would be someone there today and we'd be talking about this and by the middle of the first quarter we could have something.
So I would say we let's push as hard as we can to get something as soon as possible and interim reports But I'm not sure I would just like to maybe have a slightly different spin on that I would like for this council to have a policy that says this is something that we feel is is very important and whether we call them mobility lanes or whatever that I Yes, I want to honor having a new director to have some space for his or her department.
That said, this is a policy that's really important to us.
And we have a very excellent interim director in Linnea Laird, who is supportive of this.
I would say, let's move this forward.
Let's make the message clear that, yes, we want these.
And yes, if we're looking for a new director, that director is going to implement the policy we're talking about.
How they do it is up to them, but that we make it real clear this is something we'd like to see and we'd like to see it no later than June 1st of 2019 that there's a plan in play.
So why don't I commit as chair of the Committee that Oversees Transportation to work with Director Linnea Laird to start figuring out who we want at the table and what a process looks like.
Like anything in the city, that will probably take a few months.
And if we can have that landscape all laid out, we can be ready to go.
So maybe Linnea kicks that off or maybe the new director is, but let's just start the work that we know that's going to be done.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Council Member O'Brien.
Okay, item number eight.
The next item is a SLY 35-4A1.
This is Council Member Brian SLY with support from Council Member Herbold and Council Member Johnson.
This requests that SDOT submit a report on transit speed and reliability improvements and rapid ride implementation around the planned and future Move Seattle rapid ride corridors.
We are going to get a report in about a month from SDOT, which is their kind of I'm not sure how to characterize it or what term of art they're using these days, but they're the proposal for moving forward with the rest of the Move Seattle levy and want to make sure that we're prioritizing investments around speed and reliability for transit in there.
Originally, as we talked about, the levy anticipated seven new rapid ride corridors with full rapid ride treatment.
because of federal funding changes, challenges, and maybe overly ambitious assumptions on the city's part, and also a change in strategy at King County as far as timing of deploying that.
Full rapid-ride treatment will likely not happen within the framework of the levy, but that doesn't mean we still can't be making the speed and reliability improvements.
So this will be requesting that we see what those are and can evaluate them and hopefully move forward as quickly as possible in making those investments.
Thanks.
Any other comments?
All right, next item, please.
Next item is Green Sheet 35-5A1.
This is also Council Member O'Brien, co-sponsored by Council Member Johnson.
This would add $25,000 to SDOT to continue participation in the Downtown Transportation Alliance Partnership.
The partnership funds Commute Seattle work and has for, I don't know, a long time, longer than I've been on the Council, which is a really long time.
This is a partnership between the City, the County, Downtown Seattle Association.
For some reason that's not clear to me, the Mayor's budget cut our match in that funding.
which either means the other partners have to pick it up or they would correspondingly cut their portions, which I don't think serves us well, especially with all the stuff that's going on downtown.
And so this would make sure, there's some other funding that was cut out of the budget too, but this would make sure that at a minimum we're participating as full partners with the other partners and making sure the work that Commute Seattle does to, frankly, amazing work, you know, kind of national reputation for, we're down to 25% of Commute trips to downtown Seattle are taken by single occupancy vehicles And over 50% is on transit which for a city like our size with our investment is pretty amazing Thank you for doing that.
Councilmember Johnson.
Do I have anything you want to add?
Okay, please let's go on to item 10
Item 10 is a SLY 357A1.
This is Council Member O'Brien with support from Council Member Herbold and Council Member Mosqueda.
This would request that SDOT and the Human Services Department report on the opportunities to provide transit passes for city-contracted human service workers.
We've talked a lot about human service workers and their wages and how our human service providers are struggling to retain and recruit quality people to do that work because the wages are not as competitive and not compatible with the cost of living in Seattle.
One of the things that we could do to help the cost of living, because I think we're familiar that transportation is often the second biggest cost of living after housing, is to help some of our human service providers with transit passes.
This does not have a budget ad because we could fund that through the Transportation Benefit District, or that's what we'd like to explore.
There's obviously a lot of complications about how that would work but the intent of this slide is to explore that and if there's a path for us similar to like we've done for school kids to get them passes, to get our human service workers transit passes and hopefully take some pressure off those individuals and help some of our agencies retain and recruit human service workers, this might be a path that is a step in that direction.
Good.
Council Member Juarez?
I'd just be supportive.
Okay.
I'll add Council Member Juarez's name to that.
Calvin, could you get back to me about what is the cost of our ORCA passes to the students?
What are we paying for?
Or maybe, do you know?
Are we up to $4,000?
Sorry, $4 million a year?
That sounds right, but Calvin would know.
Yeah, I'm just looking for.
In round sums or in per?
If it's between 4 and 5 million, I'm just trying to get a handle on what we could anticipate for this coming forward.
So, it would just, I'm curious just to know what we've spent and what we anticipate.
I don't know how much the student's population matches up with what the population human service workers are.
See what you can find for me, that'd be helpful.
Okay, item 11.
Item 11 is screen sheet 358A1.
This is Council Member Johnson's with support from Council Member Bryan.
This screen sheet would add 10,000 to SDOT for installation of suicide prevention hotline signs on the 30th Ave.
Northeast Bridge.
Mental health providers in our region and around the country are seeing record numbers of people contacting them for assistance.
I've identified one particular location in my neck of the woods where we've had multiple suicides over the last several years.
I think suicide prevention hotline signage would certainly help folks experiencing crisis.
My intention here isn't to have $10,000 worth of signs on one bridge, but rather have these resources be distributed throughout the city on places where we know we've had suicides in the past and allow for us to do installation in those locations.
Councilmember Johnson, is there any data background that says if there is a sign and there is a number that people call?
It certainly worked when we had them on the Aurora Bridge.
It was used and then, you know, thankfully the state funded the large-scale fences that are up now on the Aurora Bridge.
And so, you know, that's the best data point that I have to go to and I think a little bit of resources here will go a long way.
Thank you.
Just supportive of this as well, because we are familiar with those of us with a couple suicides that have happened on this bridge.
OK, thank you.
All right, so Council Member Musqueda and Juarez will be added.
The next item is Green Sheet 35-9A1.
This is Council Member Johnson's with support from Council Member O'Brien.
This green sheet would add $50,000 to SDOT for a Third Avenue configuration study.
Pretty self-explanatory.
The objective here is, as we're seeing more and more people use buses to get into and out of downtown, how do we distribute those resources out well throughout the downtown core and allow for us to set up a study to contemplate capital investments if necessary on both 3rd Avenue and other north-south corridors downtown?
So nobody wants us to work more than I do.
My question is that I have seen multiple studies on Third Avenue in the last few years actually looked at some designs.
in the last two weeks.
What is this going to add that we don't already have?
The request has come from the Downtown Seattle Association who believes that a little bit of extra resources here could allow for a lower scale set of non-capital investments that could result in better throughput and potentially also better public safety outcomes on 3rd Avenue, which is something I think all of us would like to see.
I'm very interested in how all this is working in a coordinated way, because I've seen multiple, as I just mentioned, I've seen multiple studies, multiple illustrations, and we've got to get this right.
But I also feel like sometimes we're spinning our wheels on Third Avenue, that at some juncture we need to say, this is what we're going to do and get started doing it, as contrasted to just continuing to study it.
I look forward to hearing more from SDOT about what the plans are.
Okay, item 13. The next item is screen sheet 3510A1.
The screen sheet is Councilmember Johnson's with support from Councilmember O'Brien.
It would add $500,000 in SDOT for the Neighborhood Park Street Fund Your Voice, Your Choice CIP project.
Great.
Extremely popular project as my colleagues are aware one of our most frequent constituent emails or phone calls is about Neighborhood safety projects that folks would like to see in their neighborhood your voice your choices the way that we our office and I'm sure many other offices direct that energy and this would put another half a million dollars into the plan.
It's got a corresponding green sheet that we'll talk about later on this afternoon because it would require some additional staffing in order to respond to the Your Voice, Your Choice project.
But this is a great way for community members to come together and identify some way that the city can fund a project that they care about that doesn't require, you know, sort of the political rigmarole of getting your into the S.Q.
and then getting somebody to design it and then move it on along.
So Your Voice, Your Choice has been really popular and I think a small ad here would go a long way.
I will definitely support you in this.
I know how popular it is, how much people want it.
Question I have is, how is this going to reduce what you said, the political rigmarole?
Again, the great thing about Your Voice, Your Choice is it allows for districtification.
So the funding is distributed equitably across districts, but also, you know, we know that the applications far exceed the number of projects that we can fund.
So this would allow for the department, I think, to achieve some community objectives without having council members from individual districts step in during the budget process and say thou shalt fund a sidewalk or a crosswalk or a roundabout here and instead allows the your voice your choice process to Act on our behalf as opposed to having us walk all the way down to that level of funding within our own budgeting processes
Thank you for that.
Yes, Council Member Morris.
I'd like to echo what Council Member Johnson and thank him.
This is one of the programs that has been wildly successful and popular in District 5. And again, I like what you said, Council Member Johnson, that we're not up here doing green sheets about this sidewalk, this curb, this stop sign, this gutter.
It's been phenomenal.
We've had nothing but success.
Good.
Thank you.
If I may, just for clarification in the record, were there some additional requests to sponsor or just general enthusiasm?
General enthusiasm for me as chair.
I think councilmember Juarez is adding her name The next item is green sheet 3511 a1 This is councilmember Harrell's item with support from councilmember O'Brien.
This would add 500,000 in 2020 for s dots phase 3 Rainier Safety Valley project Thank you Did you want to just real quickly?
Again, a critical part of the Vision Zero CIP project.
I think many of you are following some of the issues we've had in Rainier Valley and District 2 traffic safety-wise.
And so, this is $500,000 in 2020 for Phase 3. I spoke about it earlier during the earlier round, so I won't beat the push on it.
But a critical investment, much needed in District 2 for safety issues.
Sign on.
Okay.
Council Member Mosqueda is signing on.
The next item is Green Sheet 3512A1.
This is Council Member Mosquerez with support from Council Member O'Brien.
This item would add $350,000 to SDOT for a home zone pilot program.
Thank you.
Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This item is going to transfer $350,000 from the ITS budget to support a home zone project in Seattle.
As you all know, home zones offer an opportunity for community around residential streets to implement traffic calming devices so that we can divert or slow traffic.
We heard a lot about this when we did a tour up in D5, and I know it's not unique to just D5.
Many of our communities are facing this.
with app-based technologies that reroute many cars through our residential streets.
We see a lot of cars driving through areas that would otherwise be places where kiddos play, where people bike, where people have their scooters out, and where families are walking.
So this would give us an opportunity to partner with, as Councilmember Johnson described, the opportunity that SDOT has for the community to identify certain areas of the community where we could see a home zone projects go into place.
Sweet.
Thank you, Councilmember Johnson.
Just adding on.
Great.
And OK.
Council Member Juarez and I will once again express general enthusiasm for this.
And I want to add a focus on what Vancouver B.C.
has done which is sometimes it's a mid block.
It actually is a diverter for cars entirely as long as the fire department and first responders can get to the homes that they've actually put little parklets right smack in the middle of an intersect or right in the middle of a block.
And it creates slowdowns on both ends of the block and allows the neighborhood to plant trees and gardens in there and then do a little bicycle path and pedestrian paths right through the middle.
And once again, I'll provide visuals.
If anybody wants to see it, it's totally consistent with what's being proposed here.
All right.
Next item, please.
Next item is slide 3513A1.
This is Councillor Mosqueda's slide.
It asks us not to report on the implementation of the Thomas Street Greenway.
Great.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This description was relatively short.
I think many of you know about this project already.
This is the intersection that currently has McDonald's near the Seattle Center and Space Needle.
We know that this is going to provide one complete and east-west connectivity so that we're making sure we're connecting areas.
of South Lake Union and Uptown, making sure that's a more bikeable and walkable neighborhood.
Right now, if many of you bike through there, you know that there's incredible bike lanes coming from Queen Anne into that area, and then it sort of drops into nothing.
When this is complete, it's going to be an incredible way to make sure that our infrastructure is meeting our community's needs and that people are better able to get to, for example, the Key Arena so we can see the new Seattle Freeze when they come.
And also, the scope of this project, Madam Chair, you asked for that, would really just to be making sure that we as a city have reliable funding, that we're identifying any gaps earlier, and that we're not getting that intersection delayed.
Thank you very much for that.
We know that WSDOT is responsible for paying for the intersection, I believe, at Dexter and Thomas.
But then beyond that, we don't have identified funding.
So this is really critical.
Council Member Morris.
Yes, I'm going to support Councilor Muscat in this because, you know, we have gaps between what OVG and what we're, what they're contractually going to do and then what SDOT's going to do.
And so I'm glad Councilor Muscat is finding that these gaps for where we can go watch the NHL Steelheads.
I heard that they're going to the, it's called the Grunt Sculpin.
That was the other name that I heard recently.
All right, next item.
Council Member Johnson, just add on.
Okay.
The next item is screen sheet 3514A1.
This is Council Member Bagshaw with support from Council Member O'Brien.
This screen sheet would add $250,000 to SDOT for urban freight mobility and alley congestion reduction efforts.
Great.
Thank you.
We talked a lot about this in the last few weeks.
We know that downtown during this period of maximum constraint, we need to continue with this work we're doing on our frame analysis to be able to move the last 50 feet, provide places for trucks and Council Member O'Brien, you mentioned about UPS yesterday and their bicycles.
This is the kind of thing that we really want to encourage.
So that's what the $250,000 would go for.
Okay, Council Member Herbold.
Okay, thank you.
The next item is a slide 3515 A1.
This is Councilmember Bagshaw with support from Councilmember Mosqueda and Councilmember O'Brien.
This slide would request that SDOT submit a report on the Interbay Corridor Transportation Improvements, Maintenance Needs, and Financing.
Thank you.
So in the last few months I've been meeting with our 36 district delegation including Senator Reuven Carlisle, Noel Fraim, Gail Tarleton, and our Port Commissioners and King County Metro to design a funding mechanism for this entire quarter.
We recognize it's a multi-year effort.
We need the help from the state, but this would help us identify funding possibilities for Ballard Bridge, Magnolia Bridge, up to about 105th, which gets across to I-5 and to Aurora and I-5 as well.
So, I want to continue the good thinking of this group and to request that SDOT continue to assist us on this.
We were able to get some help, but what the overall transportation corridor improvements are going to be is a many, many, many million dollar deal.
So we've gotta be on top of it up front and be requesting help from the county and the state.
And Fed's where we can get it.
Okay?
Thank you.
Please, continue.
And happy Halloween.
I'm Eric McConaghy.
I'm with your Council Central staff.
This next item is a slide.
It's 3516A1, sponsored by Council Member Bagshaw.
This would request that the Department of Transportation and the Office of the Waterfront report on planning for potential use of the area in Belltown after the decommissioning of the Battery Street Tunnel.
Thank you.
Oh, excuse me.
I just wanted to mention the other sponsors on this are Council Member Johnson and Council Member Mosqueda.
Thank you.
Good.
Thank you very much.
All of you know that in Belltown, Belltown specifically has an opportunity right now to really green up Belltown.
The neighborhood is excited about the possibilities.
Remember last year we looked at something called recharge the battery where they wanted to keep the battery street tunnel open.
That was given a thumbs down by WSDOT and SDOT.
But there are opportunities now, after the tunnel comes down, I mean, after the VITA comes down and the tunnel is closed, to actually use the area on top of that battery street to green it up.
opportunities where it's about an acre and a half that is between Western and First Avenue, potentially for an elementary school, if not to potentially have green space, what Belltown would like to do is make it an orchard and a pea patch.
We don't know what that looks like, but we want to make sure that the potential is there and that it doesn't get lost.
So it's a slide, and I will be providing my own little request for what's going to happen afterwards and that it will come back either to the Finance Committee or to our Parks Committee.
Madam Chair?
Yes.
May I ask a question before I answer?
Of course.
Because I think we were the only two that voted yes for the Save the Batter.
Right.
So that's gone.
Right, I know.
But can I ask you a question about this?
I'm going to ask you what, oh, you did put a date in here, I'm sorry.
Did you put a date in here?
I did, at the end of first quarter.
Okay, so just the end of first quarter.
Correct.
So one of the things that we know is that if we're going to be doing street trees, because we may have to do above ground street, like the containers that we did down on the waterfront temporarily, We need to get water, drainage, electricity if they're going to do street lighting there.
That needs to be in the planning phases.
We know that it costs a little bit more money, but it costs a lot less to plan it and do it than it does to dig it up later on.
So that's part of the request is to get that included.
and SDOT's plans as they're going forward working.
And it's, you know, it's a year or two out because it's that particular parcel of land, that 1.3 acres, is where WSDOT will be scaling its project, and that's where large equipment will be held during the time that the viaduct is coming down, so.
Good.
Thank you.
Next item is Green Sheet 3517A1.
This is Council Member Herbold's Green Sheet with support from Council Member O'Brien.
This Green Sheet would create a new CIP project for the 35th Avenue Southwest Paving Project.
It also identifies $35 million of to-be-determined funding in 2023.
Great.
Thank you.
As the green sheet explains, the original 2016-2024 paving plan included a couple segments.
In particular, Avalon and Avalon to Alaska, 35th, and Roxbury, 16th to 35th, and 35th between Roxbury and Morgan in 2023. The first segment is done, but now SDOT is proposing to revise the paving plan and to take off both the Roxbury segment as well as the Morgan to Roxbury segment on 35th.
I passed out, last time we talked about this issue, a dashboard summary of the MOVE levy projects that were being completed in each district.
found it pretty alarming that so little work is occurring in District 1. I probably get more constituent complaints about the condition of 35th Ave Southwest than any other major arterial.
The draft paving assessment study that SDOT has shared through the budget process shows the majority of the segments on 35th in that area from Morgan to Roxbury to be either very bad or failed, and they are proposing to not include it in the next six-year paving plan.
So what this does is this holds them to their original commitment.
And although the funding source is TBD, I believe it would be the funding, the levy, the transportation move levy, and specifically the element of the levy that relates to the asphalt paving program.
Any other additions?
Councilmember Herbold I appreciate your your focus on this and I certainly support that I think the one thing I just want to flag is without adding new resources and adding new projects in
It's not a new project, though.
This is a project that they're proposing to defer.
And also, of the 18 projects planned through 2024, two of the nine projects proposed for delay are in District 1, the two that I just named.
Sure.
I understand.
I know that was a, you described last time that was a swap for Delridge or something.
And so my point is not so much that it wasn't on the list before, but if there's a fixed amount of money and a set list of projects, as we add more lists to that projects without any more money, something's going to give.
And I just, which is fine.
I think, you know, the capital improvement projects list is not a list of, that's fully funded and we know it's going to be built.
But I just want to make sure folks are aware of that.
I think both projects are good projects.
There are a lot of good projects.
I just want to make sure when we get to the actual funding that we're using an appropriate prioritization metric that I think they do.
And I think we'll be having more of that conversation when we get the recommendations in December.
on the roof Seattle levee.
Madam President, Councilmember Herbold, can I ask you a question about, because on 35th, that's one of the main throwaways, right?
I have a couple of questions.
What street is it on when you're going up 35th where it It splits off and it's the county side, it's the unincorporated side.
That's Roxbury.
That is Roxbury.
That's the dividing.
Yeah, that's the southern point of the area on 35th that I'm proposing.
Okay.
Receive this repaving.
Yes.
And that's an area that is identified in the assessment as a failed segment.
And when was this, and I'm sorry, I apologize if I didn't hear you correctly, this was placed on the CIP list when?
So under the Move Seattle?
Under the Move Seattle levy, it originally was planned in the 2016 to 2024 Move Seattle levy, it was planned to be done in 2023. Actually last year, they had been talking about actually moving it up to 2021. Now they're talking about taking it off that six year period altogether.
I am going to support Council Member Herbold on this, and I just want to thank her because going up and down 35th is the main thoroughfare, and obviously it's a transit-rich spine on that area and those neighborhoods, and the dividing line is pretty stark.
about the have and have-nots, if I could say that openly, about where some of the curbs and some of the sidewalks are being rebuilt and where the other parts are just completely neglected.
So I would be supporting Councilmember Herbold in this.
Thank you.
I appreciate your support.
Okay.
Thank you.
Councilmember Gonzalez.
I'm just...
Oh, just adding.
Okay.
The next item is SLY 3518A1.
This is Council Member Herbold's SLY with support from Council Member O'Brien.
And this SLY states Council's intent to review and consider legislative approval of SDOT's proposed revised Move Seattle work plan when it's provided in December.
The SLY also identifies specifically the arterial paving plan as well as the other modal plans as elements that the Council is interested in reviewing.
Great, Council Member Herbold.
I don't think I have anything more to add.
It builds on the resolution that passed out of Councilmember O'Brien's committee a couple months ago.
It just basically says, in addition to reviewing the plan, that we expect to actually approve it.
Good.
Thank you.
The next item is slide 35, 19A1.
This is also Council Member Herbold's.
It requests that SDOT include performance measures and identify construction, excuse me, construction funding in any center city streetcar operating agreement.
The executive has stated that as it re-ups its operating agreement with King County Metro, that that may be coming to you in the second quarter of next year.
This is pretty much a replication of the budget proviso that we passed last year on the Center City Street card, basically asking for the answers to the same questions.
Thank you.
And I certainly support you in that, Council Member Garoldi.
Thank you.
The next item is Green Sheet 3520A1.
This is also Councilmember Herbold's with support from Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember O'Brien.
This Green Sheet creates a new CIP project for the Highland Park Roundabout project, and it also amends the CIP page for the Vision Zero project where the funding currently exists.
Yeah, and just to clarify, again, there are no new dollars associated with this CIP project.
This is simply parking the dollars that have already been committed to the project.
So what are we adding?
We're just making a CIP project for this project where one does not exist in the CIP.
I see.
So there's money there?
Yep.
Okay.
Thank you.
Next item is Green Sheet 3521A1.
This is Council Member O'Brien's.
It provides a, it adds a proviso on SDOT spending to strengthen the streetcar reporting requirements.
The Executive has not provided a report to Council on the operations of existing streetcars since June of 2017. Okay.
Council Member O'Brien.
Yeah, again, this isn't intended to slow anything down, but rather speed something up.
We've been waiting on this report for a while, and I'm not sure what the holdup is.
It should be relatively straightforward to meet the terms of this proviso, but it's just kind of unacceptable that we're, you know, 15 months out from the last report we've heard on operations of those two pieces of the streetcar system.
Okay, thank you.
The next three items are budget related legislation under the budget chair's sponsorship.
Green sheet 3530A1 passes council bill 119388, which establishes SDOT street use permit fee schedule.
Nothing to add.
Green Sheet 3531A1 recommends a passage of Council Bill 119380, which extends the term of the Interfund Loan for the Seattle Streetcar Operating Fund.
There's currently about 3.6 million outstanding, and the executive intends to pay this back with proceeds from the Mercer Mega Block Sale.
So, can we talk about what Councilmember O'Brien said was under tab 25 where we're putting a proviso on this money and at the same time here there is a recommendation that we move forward with an inter-fund loan.
Does, what does one impact the other?
They're not related.
One is really about the reporting requirement.
This one is the existing terms of loan expire at the end of this year.
So, without extending this term, we would be in default of the loan.
So how do you see them working together?
Well, my proviso simply says give us the report that you were supposed to give us a while ago.
And if you don't do that, you can't spend any of the money.
This is considering to say that the money will be there, but you still can't spend it until you lift the proviso.
So they're not exclusive of each other.
Right, because it strikes me that what we're saying is that we're going to authorize the Interfund loan for another year, but you can't spend it until you get council member...
It's already been spent.
Oh, perfect.
This is a loan on last stuff that we just keep renewing and rolling over until it's paid off.
It goes back a few years, right?
Zombie loan would be the Halloween-oriented term for this.
Say it again, Eric?
Zombie loan.
Perfect.
This may predate us on the council too, I believe.
All right, but I'm concerned about this, that if on one hand we're saying we want this report before you're spending further operations money, we are paying your zombie loan back.
What do we do going forward?
Are we saying no additional funds?
I think there's a couple different issues here.
The loan we're talking about, I believe, was back for the capital projects of it.
And at the time, the assumptions were made about the operation revenue would pay for certain things.
It was established in 2006 when the operation started.
And I think it was originally a $2.4 million loan.
Over the course of years, that fund balance actually ended up being about $3.6 million negative.
And that's been on the books for, well, basically since 2006.
So there's been an ongoing, well, there was an original assumption about certain revenues that would be available to pay it off that never materialized.
And a series of mayors and councils, I guess, have considered to just roll that thing over.
My understanding is this mayor has indicated a desire to clean that up in the near future.
and resolve it because the assumptions have shifted, which is great.
So I want to applaud that.
My understanding is we have to reauthorize the loan because it was a one-year loan, and so this carries it to next year.
We could add some language if we want to get more firm, although I think this mayor is intending to do this.
It just says, look, we really don't want to reauthorize this.
Find a way to pay this off soon.
But for the ongoing operations is the priority that I'm talking about.
And again, the intent is not to stop the operations.
It's really just saying, get your act together and send us that report.
and which I think they have and can do.
Council Member Johnson, you just thumbs up?
Okay.
All right, very good.
Thank you.
Then I have nothing to add as budget chair here.
We'll move on to the next item.
The last SDOT item is Green Sheet 3532A1.
This is a piece of legislation that's generated by council which conditions SDOT's grant applications in 2019 for grants that are over $5 million.
Okay, very good.
Thank you.
Nothing to add.
to Neighborhood Matching Fund Guidelines?
Yes, Lischwitz and Council Central staff.
This first screen sheet 9181 for the Department of Neighborhoods would pass legislation proposed by the mayor to adopt new Neighborhood Matching Fund Guidelines.
It's sponsored by the budget chair.
Okay.
So, there's not much addition to add.
I think we're all very supportive of neighborhood matching funds.
This will help move forward, I think, faster is what we're hoping to do because they're so popular.
We've clarified, made it simpler so people know where to apply and essentially a one-stop shop.
And then I'm also very supportive of the Your Voice, Your Choice that we've brought up previously.
So, we want to just make sure that they're all in sync.
Is there anything else to add to that?
Okay, thank you, Lish.
All right, item 29.
Green Sheet 92A1 adds funding and a strategic advisor position in the Department of Neighborhoods for 2019 and 2020 to coordinate Seattle's response to the 2020 census.
Council Member Mesquite is the sponsor with Council Members Gonzalez and O'Brien.
Great.
Council Member Mosqueda, did you want to address this?
I know we've talked about it a lot.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And just to address a few questions that came up, I think we won't repeat the importance of having an accurate census.
Just for the fiscal argument, I think it's important to note that Without a full and fair accurate account, we could lose up to about $2,000 per person if not counted in our city.
Council Member Gonzalez spoke to the city's responsibility in this as well previously.
I did just want to address two questions that came up before, if I might.
We know that the mayor's office has provided additional dollars for community outreach, and I think that's incredibly important.
We want to make sure that those dollars stay intact because we know many times, especially for some of our most vulnerable populations, those community partners are our best messengers.
But the city does have several roles.
We're talking about coordinating the city's response, pulling together materials that will be needed by those organizations, making sure that the organizations have the best material, both from our national partners and from our King County partners here.
And we're also looking for non-traditional partners so that we can provide them with additional resources and staffing to be responsive to our city's need to count everyone.
And when we did some inquiring about where the potential partial staff could come from, we heard that there are portions of staff from the mayor's office that will be working on this, including at DON.
But there is no single person dedicated to staffing and making sure that we're working on the census full-time and working in partnership with our community partners.
And next year, you can tell, we are going to continue to see an onslaught of various policy changes and rhetoric coming from the federal administration.
We need to make sure that our 2020 census responds to that by making sure that we are, at this level, getting information out accurately to our community partners and doing that key coordination work.
Just by way of example, we looked at what other cities have done in terms of in-house staffing in addition to external community partner funding.
In the city of Phoenix, they have one full-time staffer.
And in San Antonio, they have two full-time positions.
In Denver, one full-time program coordinator, and in San Jose, one system analyst and one assistant director.
So I think that we're all really interested in making sure that we get access to accurate data, both for the fiscal responsibility element and making sure that we're representing all residents.
I hope that helps answer a few of the questions that came up.
Lastly, Rick Politan sent a really compelling letter regarding the need for a full-time staffer, and he just writes, Please support a dedicated full-time staff position for the census.
We need someone in local government that will ensure that work is coordinated across the city so that communities like ours will not have to shoulder this burden.
Yes, I would like to join Council Member Mosqueda in this.
And I think we saw this even before when we decided to move to a district system and we roughly looked at how we carved up the city into around 100,000 folks.
And then I think it was the Seattle Times that had done this, what the demographics were and how people were really really shocked how much things had changed.
So, having some, working with Department of Neighborhoods who are on the ground in our communities and with our community councils, I think this can only better our city and reflect who we really are and who we are serving.
So, I would be happy to support this.
Great.
Thank you.
I'd like to be added as well, please, Bruce Harrell.
Thank you.
Bruce Harrell.
Bruce Harrell, thank you.
Okay.
Very good.
Bruce Harrell would like to be added.
That's nice.
Thank you very much.
This is a high priority.
Thank you very much.
Yeah.
All right.
Moving on to the next item.
All right.
And this is the next item.
Oh, it just so happens I have one coming up.
Right.
Exactly.
And I got good will established.
Yeah.
Good.
Green Chief 9-3-a-1 would add $500,000 to the Department of Neighborhoods for Historic Preservation Seed Funding.
Council President Harrell with Council Members Herbold and Mosqueda sponsoring this and the intent is the funds would go to Historic Seattle Public Development Authority.
Describe 30, 31, 32, they're all related.
All right.
They're all related.
Screensheet 94A1 would add a position in the Department of Neighborhoods and funding to support the position to maintain the historic preservation database and to support community outreach related to historic preservation.
And statement of legislative intent 95A1 would request that the department submit a report on that database.
Thank you.
So, in a nutshell, the green sheet, and thank you for the co-sponsors.
You've heard a lot about Historic Seattle and preservation of certain gems in our community and what we're not doing.
You've heard some testimony and you heard Historical Seattle come out and talk about that.
So, what this is trying to do is, again, be very intentional about allowing Historic Seattle to sort of be nimble, to be able to preserve many structures and buildings in communities, particularly those that are being underserved and there's no preservation of historical resources such as District 2, and that's only one example of many we can give.
So this allows DON to both be staffed, ready to be nimble to, number one, look at what we're preserving and what we're not.
It also allows, and this is coming from the community, it allows DON to use a database that that isn't used, this Washington Department of Archaeology, this wizard database, for example, is run by, I think, on a state level.
Am I correct on that?
Well, the city has its own database, but it doesn't reflect data that we know is in the state's database.
So it's reconciling the two.
So the data that's used by many communities and historic preservation specialists and property owners to identify potential historic and cultural sites and clusters, we want to be able to include that kind of work.
So we're looking for both the resources and a slide from the DON coming back to us around December of 2019 on the work that they can do.
So again, It's preservation for many of the, in many of our districts that are not getting the same kind of attention that others do for historical preservation, and I think it's a good investment.
Green Sheet 9681 is related to the Your Voice, Your Choice program.
It adds funding and a position to support that program.
Councilmember Johnson with Councilmember Bagshot proposed this.
Just corresponding to the $500,000 ad that we proposed earlier, this would be the staff members necessary to implement that additional increase in your voice, your choice.
And did we check with budget to make sure that we've got the numbers accurate for the staff member?
There will be a very slight adjustment, a couple thousand dollars.
Okay.
All right.
Council Member Juarez wants to be added.
Very good.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Any other comments?
No.
Welcome to the table, Allie.
Good morning, Council Members, Ali Panucci, Council Central staff.
Item number 34 on the agenda is Green Sheet 29-1A-1.
This recommends passage of legislation that will be introduced on Monday that creates a fund for revenues remitted from the state's short-term rental tax that are generated from short-term rental activity in the city.
This fund would ensure that monies deposited into the fund are expended in areas intended by the City Council and in accordance with the statutory restrictions.
And specifically, it would provide very explicit language ensuring that the first $5 million of revenues generated from this tax would be directed to the Equitable Development Initiative grants.
This is a proposal from Councilmember O'Brien with Councilmember Gonzalez and Councilmember Herbold co-sponsoring.
Could you read the next one as well?
Green Sheet 29-2A1 provides close to $1.1 million in general fund to pay for equitable development initiative grants to provide a full $5 million for grants to community.
Council Member O'Brien with Council President Herold and Council Member Herbold support this.
So do you want to speak to them?
Great.
Thank you for reading both those in, because they're related, obviously.
Folks remember that when we passed the short-term rental tax, we made a commitment that the first $5 million after administrative costs was going to go into grants for equitable development initiative.
The mayor's proposed budget, as we've discussed, didn't do that.
It put a little less than $4 million in grants and redirected a million of that towards staffing in OPCD for the equitable development initiative.
And so the first action to create the short-term rental tax fund would be to create a fund where the money goes to really make it clear that this money is intended specifically for these needs.
And the second action would undo what was done, at least on the spending side, and restore a full $5 million in equitable development initiative grants.
I want to just put this in the context, you know, we have a really amazing process that's working well so far about this Equitable Development Initiative, and the reason it's so amazing is in large part because we have an amazing set of community groups that have been actively organizing about trying to do anti-displacement work for their communities in the city.
And they have a long list of really great projects.
Some of these projects are related to housing, and some of them are not.
And I think you're all familiar with a variety of them, but the Rainier Beach Food Action Coalition the Africa Town Work, Filipino Community Center, Ethiopian Community Center, the Multicultural Community Center that's proposed near the Othello Station.
There were, I think, 17, I can't remember whether there were 17 applicants or $17 million worth of requests.
significantly more requests than they were able to fund this year.
And when you look at the list of projects, I would generally say that, at least for myself, just about everything on that list is a project that I would like to see funded.
So the demand is great.
And while we may look and say, well, going from $5 million down to $4 million, that's still a lot.
When you look at the amazing work that has the potential to be done around anti-displacement and the urgency around anti-displacement, I do think we should be prioritizing this.
I recognize, Budget Chair, that this is not an easy one to fix this year, so I hope there's a way we can do it, but I certainly want to make sure, agenda item 34, the legislation, that we're not in this situation in future years.
Any other comments?
Both of you, okay.
Council Member Arbold, Council Member Johnson.
I just want to echo Council Member O'Brien's thoughts and statements here.
I think it's really important that we maintain the commitment that we made in passing the legislation and the commitment that we have made to communities.
I think the original legislation was clear, but I think by creating this fund moving forward, It leaves no question of what the intent is for these funds.
And I do hope also that we can address this this year with the passage of this particular green sheet as well as the action to create the fund.
Thank you for building on Councilmember O'Brien's remarks.
Councilmember Johnson.
As the person who ended up with a lot of scars on their back from the passage of this legislation, I want to concur with support for item 34 and ask a question about item 35. The way that I understand the budget proposal has been handed over to us is that some version of the funding that would have been from the short-term rental tax is going to support staff members within the planning department, is that correct, Lesh?
Correct.
And then if we were to adopt item 35, that would take that funding from those staff positions and put them into the funding that we would then put out to community as part of the $5 million worth of funding, correct?
So the mayor's budget proposes to swap current general funds with short-term rental tax proceeds, which are also general funds, in order to pay for existing staff in the department and $200,000 of consulting funds.
The screen sheet would return those onto the main general fund in order to provide $5 million for grants.
very supportive of the idea that we are spending $5 million out in community for many of the reasons that my colleagues outlined and a couple more that they didn't say, which is the EDI fund is oftentimes a place you can go to to get funding and support in ways that you can't get that funding from the Office of Housing's process, whether that is funding for ground floor retail that is required for OH, but wouldn't be required as part of the EDI fund, pre-development work, et cetera, et cetera.
What I want to also make sure we do, though, is that we have an appropriately funded planning department to administer this fund.
So I want to just put a fine point on that, Madam Budget Chair, that as you contemplate these decisions in concert with one another, let's not lose sight of the fact that we want to have enough staff within the planning department to also administer the program.
Which I know is consistent with the, I think, proposal from Council Member O'Brien, but a million dollars is a million dollars is a million dollars, and if we're moving that million dollars around, we just want to make sure that it gets backfilled within the departments to make sure they've got the staffing necessary to implement the program.
And I, let's correct me if I'm wrong, but this action simply would, this is a one-sided ad.
This would add a million dollars back.
It doesn't say that we would cut the planning department.
So where we come up with that one million dollars is an open question that is going to be really hard to answer.
But I absolutely agree with you that I think the funding level for this department is appropriate and it's an ongoing funding that my expectation was the mayor would cover that in the ongoing budget or call out of his cut, but the displacement of funds.
And I'll just say, you know, it's pretty clear that I think everyone knew this and I think the mayor did this intentionally not because I want to speak for the mayor.
I don't think it's because she doesn't like EDI.
I think she's just struggling to make the budget balance, so I'll acknowledge that.
But this is a priority, and I think we've seen this both with the sugary beverage tax and with the short-term rental tax, that the credibility we have with our community when we say, we are going to impose a new revenue stream, and here's how we're going to dedicate it.
And then in less than a year later, someone says, we're going to dedicate it a different way.
I think that is problematic from a much larger scale than just these programs.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
Thank you for those words.
So everybody signed on to these who wants to sign on?
Then let's move forward, please.
All right.
Green Street 29-3-A-1 is from Council Member Johnson.
It would add $50,000 to the Office of Planning and Community Development to study the Pike Pine overlay and its applicability to other commercial districts around the city.
Great.
Do you want to speak to it?
Just briefly, this would provide funds for OPCD to contract with groups like the Capitol Hill Eco-District who created a pike pine conservation overlay tool.
That tool was intended to address some of the business district challenges around accommodating growth while also preserving some of the human-scaled character.
of the Pike Pine neighborhood.
We've heard from a lot of folks throughout the community around small business districts and the desire for us to create buildings that have smaller footprints with interesting facades and prioritizing.
desired ground floor uses, the Pike Pine Conservation Overlay District did a good job with that.
This funding would allow for OPCD to create an overlay district that could be applicable to other small business districts throughout the city, which I think at a time when we're having a lot of conversations about growth and preservation not being oppositional but being complementary this would allow for more of those conversations to happen in a complementary fashion.
Thank you that's very I appreciate that.
The Pike Pine Corridor was really important because we did after many years and thanks to I think Council Member Nick Licata got this started with and art and culture overlay district up there.
Council Member Johnson, how do you see this working with Council Member Herbold's recommendation about the small business historical efforts?
I don't think they're mutually exclusive, but I think one of them speaks to sort of the existing business community and the other one speaks to the development community.
So this is a little more focused on development.
For example, You know, there's been a lot of conversations in some of the small business districts about what happens when a new building goes in.
This conservation overlay district would allow for some better design guidelines that I think meet community needs around some of those small business districts.
Again, particularly around square footage on the ground floor, footprint, et cetera.
So, they are not contradictory, but sort of intending to get at different parts of a similar problem.
Great.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
So, I'm an enthusiastic supporter of where you two are going.
Thank you.
Item 37.
All right.
And with the chair's approval, I'd like to talk about 37 and 38 together.
Okay.
Please.
Statement of Legislative Intent 2941 is a request for a report on a racial equity toolkit related to the city's growth strategy.
And Green Sheet 295A1 provides funding and positions for the Office of Planning and Community Development, Department of Neighborhoods, and the Office of Civil Rights to carry out that work.
Council Member Mosqueda with Council Members Johnson and Juarez.
Great.
Council Member Mosqueda, do you want to speak to both of them?
Yes, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So we spent a little bit of time talking about this last time.
We've discussed before how we do need to do an evaluation on the urban village strategy, which 24 years ago was initially implemented and has not yet had a racial equity analysis or toolkit completed on it.
As we discussed before, these two components would fund the staffing and outreach support to conduct the robust public engagement that's needed for a complete racial equity toolkit with the goal of identifying equitable growth strategies.
We have been involved in robust conversations with central staff.
We appreciate that.
And also with folks at OPCD and Department of Neighborhoods.
And what we've heard is a strong desire to do this and to do it right.
So we have incorporated here adequate funding for staffing, community engagement, and recognizing that this should also include translation services, potential child care meetings, evening meetings, and other methods to make sure that we're reaching people.
I do think that as we implement and utilize the racial equity toolkit in a way that helps make sure that we're evaluating our current policies, we can better plan for our future policies.
And I hope that this will be just the beginning so that in the future we're actually incorporating this type of analysis into the work that we do going forward.
Any other comments?
All right.
Please continue.
The last screen sheet is 29-6A1.
It's a statement of legislative intent requesting a report on scopes of work for community planning in Council District 1. Two reports are requested, one in 2019 and one in 2020. Council Member Herbold with Council Members Johnson and O'Brien are the sponsors.
Good.
Council Member Herbold, do you want to...
This is, I think, pretty self-explanatory.
This is simply following up on a slide report.
You should like that, Council Member Bagshaw, Chair Bagshaw.
We're following up on a slide report from this year where we asked OPCD to identify the areas that they are going to be doing community planning.
They have identified particular areas that they are going to commence community planning in 2019 and another area in 2020. And this is simply for them to provide a scope of work for both of those planning exercises, one in Highland Park Westwood community and the other specifically focused on planning necessary for light rail with the the Delridge as well as the Avalon Junction communities.
Great.
Thank you.
Any other added comments?
I'd just like to be added.
Please.
Okay.
Very good.
Thank you.
Okay.
Well, that brings us to the end of what we had intended to do this morning.
I've asked the boss down here whether we could continue, but the answer was no, that since we have posted this, we have to stop.
We'll pick it up at 2 o'clock.
Thank you very much for moving forward as quickly as possible.
And I just want to remind those of you, remind all of us who are proposing slides that I had distributed this, which is just a prototype.
It's not a slavish requirement on how you, but what I'm trying to accomplish here is that If we're asking for statements of legislative intent that we focus on what we're going to do with that information when it comes back to us, which council committee, what dates, what we're going to do next, just so that it provides the departments with, you know, an opportunity to sharpen their pencils when they're responding and that we've got a roadmap that we can share with council central staff.
when we're expecting additional assistance from them, if we are, and whether it needs to be in the work plan.
So if you are proposing a statement of legislative intent, if you would please, by Friday, provide an additional bit of information that we can look at this weekend.
Okay, so we are in recess.
We'll come back at two o'clock.
Thank you everybody for participating.
We'll see you then.