Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee Session I 10/27/21

Welcome to the Select Budget Committee meeting.

Today is October 27, 2021.

Present.

Morales.

Here.

Peterson.

Here.

Sawant.

Strauss.

Present.

Gonzalez.

Here.

Herbold.

Here.

Juarez.

Here.

Chair Mosqueda.

Present.

Gates.

Present.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

And when our final council member joins us, I will make sure to announce them.

Colleagues, thank you very much for being here with us today.

Again, this is day two of the city council's budget discussions and deliberations about possible amendments that council members have been working on with community.

We will have an overview of the budget amendments in the following three categories today.

First category is affordable housing and homeless services.

This will include the office of housing and homelessness response.

The second category is livable and healthy communities.

This will include a number of priorities under Seattle Parks and Recreation.

And finally, we will have public safety and alternatives to policing.

This will include Seattle Police Department, Community Safety Communications Center, Fire Department, Inspector General's Office, Seattle Municipal Court, the Law Department, the Office of Civil Rights, and concluding with the City Budget Office items related to Seattle Police Department and the Community Safety and Communications Center.

Another full day, again, anticipating that we will have the first half an hour here for public comment.

We will then go into recess at 1 p.m.

and we will reconvene at 2 p.m.

with the hope of getting everyone out on time.

That would be 5 p.m.

tonight.

I do have an amendment to the agenda, which will include the ability to walk on seven, seven amendments.

So first I'm going to move the agenda so that we can then make that amendment.

I move to adopt today's agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda.

I now move to amend the agenda to add the following seven walk-on amendments from council colleagues.

This includes amendments one and two, walk-on amendments to the Office of Housing.

Amendment one to the walk-on amendment to the Homeless Department.

Amendment one, walk-on amendment to Seattle Parks and Recreations.

Amendment 1 and 2 to Seattle Police Department.

And finally, Amendment 1, walk-on amendment to the Office of the Inspector General.

And place these items under the associated agenda sections on today's agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to add these seven walk-on amendments under the associated section.

Are there any additional comments?

I just want to thank central staff for their work on these walk-on amendments and appreciate the summary email that was sent this morning as well from Allie to have all of these amendments in one place.

Much appreciated.

There's no further comments.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment to the agenda?

Lewis?

Aye.

Morales?

Yes.

Peterson?

Yes.

Strouse?

Yes.

Gonzales?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Aye.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Eight in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and the walk-on amendments are added to the agenda under the associated section.

Are there any further comments on the agenda for today?

Hearing none, if there's no objection, the amended agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the amended agenda is adopted.

Thank you very much, colleagues, and look forward to our robust discussion.

It's now 9.37 a.m., and we're going to go into public comment just like yesterday and every day in our public committee meetings for the Select Budget Committee meeting.

We have allowed for there to be public testimony at the beginning for at least half an hour.

This time we're going to open remote public comment period.

I know that many folks want to provide public comment to us today.

As a reminder, we do have the opportunity for public comment again tomorrow.

You obviously have the opportunities to call in on Mondays and the larger committee public hearing dedicated solely to public comment is going to be in the evening on November 10th at 5 30 a.m.

So if you don't get the chance to speak today we're going to look forward to hearing from you at any of these other opportunities.

For folks on the line, you are going to hear a chime that says that you have been unmuted.

That's your indication.

Hit star six on your end to unmute your own line.

Please speak by starting with your name and the item in which you are addressing.

All items should relate to the 2022 budget in front of us.

You will hear a 10-second chime at the end of your allotted time.

That is one minute.

You'll hear a 10-second chime.

And that's your indication to wrap up.

Please do conclude your comments so that you don't inadvertently get cut off, and if you have additional comments, please send them to council at seattle.gov.

I'm going to call two names at a time in the order in which they appear on today's agenda.

Please be prepared to hit star six.

It is possible we could get through everybody today.

There is 34 people who signed up for public comment.

We are going to do our best here, so thank you for being with us this morning, and we will go until 10 after 10. Howard Gale will be followed by Peter Conant.

Good morning, Howard.

Good morning.

Howard Gale speaking on the budget and police accountability.

This afternoon, you will consider the public safety budget.

You will be considering at most 3.65% cut to an SPD budget that is over $365 million, with most of these cuts being only potential.

It is bad enough to continue to fund an entity which has done great harm to our community, but to do that in the context of failing to mitigate the harm through real police accountability is a profound moral failure.

to make the situation worse you will continue to fund the cpc the opa and the oig at ten point eight million dollars without evaluating their failures and scandals over the last few years in fact the council's proposing to add a quarter million to the oig budget despite the current scandals the appearance of numerous whistleblowers and their staff fleeing are you aware the oig whose primary mission is the oversight of the opa investigations is now having to contract out its oversight to a high dollar law firm because of OIG conflicts of interest and gross incompetence.

Will you continue to fund them to basically farm out work?

Thank you, Howard.

Good morning, Peter.

Peter's followed by Reverend Jeffrey.

Good morning, Peter.

Good morning.

This is Peter Condit in District 6. It seems like the mayor and police chief are trying to deceive us.

SPD's capacity has plummeted this year.

They lost the 911 call center and parking enforcement.

Their proposed budget, however, is larger than last year, and include $65 million that are simply unaccounted for.

First, in administration and special ops, they reduce full-time employees, but the units associated budgets remain disproportionately high.

Second, department-wide, they include 134 FTEs that they do not plan to fill at all.

And third, they use a $14 million technical adjustment to exclusively protect additional funding that is not tied to personnel.

This adds up to a $65 million slush fund.

SPD has no track record of budget accountability, and they will have no incentive to improve unless City Council reduces their budget and holds them to it.

Black lives matter.

Indigenous lives matter.

I support the solidarity budget and any amendments that defund SPD or the Municipal Court.

Thank you very much.

The next person is Reverend Jeffrey, followed by W.L.

Hines.

Good morning, Reverend Jeffrey.

Good morning, my name is Robert Jeffrey.

I'm on the New Hope Development Institute, a housing development entity in the central area.

And I'm calling to support Council Member Sawant's budget proposal to give the Office of Housing Authority $10 million to provide a bridge loan to secure the Squire Park plaza, which is at risk right now of being lost to gentrification.

and residents evicted if the city does not intervene immediately.

60 families, 75% are people of color, will be evicted if this bridge loan is not given.

As a black organization, we are ready to act along with Lehigh.

And we ask your support for the budget proposal to stop displacement and gentrification in the central area.

Thank you.

Thank you for calling in.

Davido, followed by Camille Gix.

Good morning, Davido.

Hello, thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, thank you.

Hello?

Hi, Davido.

My name is David Haney.

Hello?

David, go ahead.

Thank you.

The budget reflects the policies of city council and has proven that they don't want to solve the homeless crisis for another seventh winter of oppressive suffering that intensified and destroyed during COVID.

Yet the federal government gave $60 million to alleviate the unnecessary suffering and city council introduced an amendment yesterday that redirects all $60 million away from the homeless crisis and the need for 21st century first world quality shelter capacity and resource that could end the crisis this winter.

Instead, city council gives George Floyd protesters over $60 million under the guise of equitable community initiatives, community safety investments, and participatory budgeting for certain people, while using homeless crisis to increase budget for Office of Housing and Human Services Department, only to redirect the money to something other than homeless.

The OH Office of Housing amendments two and three seem similar.

$45 million for social acquisition fund, $25 million for tenant opportunity purchase fund.

Sounds like more protest.

Thank you, David.

Camille is followed by Teresa Dillard.

Good morning, Camille.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Camille Gix.

I'm with the advocacy team at Real Change and I'm speaking in support of budget amendment OH2A1 to add $45 million for a social housing acquisition fund.

The city of Seattle has spent decades working towards various solutions to our housing and homelessness crisis with no success and a growing number of people living outside and workers leaving the city due to a lack of affordability.

Meanwhile, cities around the world like Paris, Toronto, and Vienna have adopted social housing programs getting thousands of residents into subsidized homes that allow them to rent at a small portion of their income.

The solution which has been successful all over the globe is one of the only options that the city has yet to consider.

Time and time again when asked what their top priority is our vendors consistently tell us that they need deeply affordable housing with systems of support.

It's time the City of Seattle pivots away from reliance on the private market to solve the housing crisis.

Everyone needs housing and we should not only recognize this fast but start investing in as a human right.

Council Member Morales' budget amendment is a recognition of this and an important investment in beginning to lay the framework for Housing for All.

Thank you very much.

Teresa is next, followed by Tara Camp.

Good morning, Teresa.

Good morning, Council, and thank you.

My name is Teresa Dillard, and I'm the Director of the Housing and Essential Needs Program, also known as HEN, with Catholic Community Services.

This morning, I'm calling in support of funding for the Home for Good Program.

The Home for Good program provides a shallow housing subsidy for clients age 50 and up who are awarded SSI and SSDI.

Once these folks receive Social Security benefits they are no longer eligible for HEN and will most likely end up homeless.

We have identified 170 City of Seattle residents who are at risk of losing their HEN eligibility next year.

They are currently eligible under waiver and without the Home for Good program these folks will likely end up homeless.

Additionally, we would like to ask that council consider lifting the age restriction.

Again, it's currently age 50, because we identified 110 of those 170 City of Seattle residents who are under the age of 50 and would be considered ineligible.

We appreciate the foresight of council in funding the Home for Good program, and thank you for your time this morning.

We look forward to continuing.

Thank you, Teresa.

Tara will be followed by James Lovell.

Good morning, Tara.

Good morning.

Hi, my name is Tara Camp, and I live in District 7. I'm calling in today to advocate for support on the amendments to the Green New Deal.

These amendments for transitioning low-income homes off oil heat, Indigenous-led sustainability projects, and community climate resilience planning are all fundamental in ensuring a clean, healthy, and equitable future.

Climate pollution is a serious issue of which we are all hopefully aware of.

The $13 million that would help transition low income homes off oil heat and into clean energy options would not only benefit community health but additionally would provide good jobs that pay a living wage.

Climate issues are inherently tied to every other battle we are collectively trying to face and I urge you not to disregard the importance of your support on these proposed amendments.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much.

James will be followed by Ursula White-Oliver.

Good morning, James.

Good morning.

My name is James Lobel, and I'm an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, and I'm also the development director for the Chief Seattle Club, and I'm speaking on behalf of our executive director and organization.

Today, I'm offering comment and support for a number of items that fall under the scope of affordable housing and homelessness, and I'd first like to offer a round of gratitude to the City of Seattle for support with our All All Housing Project opening next month.

This past week, City Council has ensured timely activation of the building, which has 80 units of permanent affordable housing.

Many of these units will be covered by housing vouchers from Seattle Housing Authority, which will greatly contribute to the sustainability of this model.

And today we're asking that the City Council continue to invest in responsive, innovative, and sustainable affordable housing, including budget amendment OH2A1, which is for the social housing acquisition program, which provides responsive, high quality housing developments to providers who are closest to the issues facing our relatives and communities.

We'd also ask that the council add $4.1 million to the general fund for one-time funding to create and operate transitional housing specializing in services to American Indians and Alaskan Natives, which is budget-dependent HOM 14A1.

Thank you again for your continued support, and we look forward to working with you on these projects.

Thanks for dialing in today.

Ursula will be followed by Aiden Nardone.

Good morning, Ursula.

Good morning.

I'm Ursula White Oliver, a board member of the New Hope Community Development Institute, NHCDI.

NHCDI supports council members to launch a budget proposal to give the Office of Housing Authority $10 million for a bridge loan.

The bridge loan will aid in purchasing Square Park Plaza, which is at risk of coming to gentrification and its residents economically addicted if the city does not intervene quickly.

Currently, Square Park Plaza, located in the central area, is home to 60 families.

75% are people of color, with the majority being African-American.

given our history of redlining racial segregation and displacement, we must act to save the building.

As an African-American-led organization, we are ready to act, along with Lehigh, with your support.

The budget proposal provides the opportunity to stop displacement in the central area, making the housing units affordable, and allowing these families to thrive there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the next person is Aiden, followed by Naveen Jastiq.

Good morning, Aiden.

Just star six, Aiden, one more time.

It looks like you're still on mute.

Star six.

There we go.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Yesterday, during the discussion about convening a stakeholders group to address some of the issues mom and pop landlords are dealing with, one of the city council members went on a vile and vehement personal attack directed to one of the speakers who testified during public comment.

She continues to incorrectly identify him and his company as a corporate landlord.

The chair of this meeting allowed this diatribe to continue for five minutes.

This city council seems to enjoy these antics.

However, many constituents are not amused.

About 4,500 rental units have recently dropped off the RRIO database.

The bleed continues.

It's time to knock off the circus acts and get to work.

Naveen, you're followed by Jason Turner.

Good morning, Naveen.

Star 67, thank you.

Please go ahead, Naveen.

Oh, Naveen, it's really hard to hear you.

If you're on speaker, maybe just try to take it off speaker real quick.

Can you hear me better at all?

Yes.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Okay.

I'm calling to support the solidarity budget and three Green New Deal proposed amendments.

Specifically, I want to talk about $13 million to transition low-income homes off of oil and heat and onto clean energy sources.

I've been living in my unit in Lake City for a year now, and last September through December, I had no heating in my unit.

I would sit huddled at my desk in two sweatshirts and two sweatpants, just trying to stay warm.

I started developing small blisters on my fingers and toes and tried to figure out what was the optimal way to tuck my socks into my sweatpants to ensure warmth and circulation.

Fortunately, the situation resolved itself, but it helped me realize how fundamental warmth is to have Everyone needs heat that is safe and reliable.

Switching to clean energy heating will reduce pollution, get better health, and reduce the cost of heating.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Jason will be followed by Ivan Tellez.

Good morning, Jason.

Just star six to unmute.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, thank you.

All right.

I'm Jason Turner.

I'm on the board of the new hope community development Institute.

And I am aware of, um, the need for low income housing because I have had to, um, benefit from it as a child and as an adult, um, and, and, uh, and as an African African American African American new hope community development Institute supports council members who wants budget proposal to give the office of housing authority to provide a $10 million bridge loan.

Squire park Plaza is.

At risk of being lost to gentrification and its residents economically evicted.

If the city does not intervene, it is home to 60 families.

75% of our people of color and the majority are African-American located in the central area.

Given our history of redlining racial segregation and displacement, we must act to save the building.

As a black-led organization, we are ready to act and ask your support for this budget proposal to stop displacement in the central area.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Ivan, good morning, followed by Derek Bonafidia.

Good morning.

I will be reading on behalf of Juana Maas, as she could not attend today.

My name is Juana Maas.

I am here in support of the youth job readiness training program with El Centro de la Raza.

I have been part of this program for the past two years.

As an immigrant youth, I have seen firsthand how this program has helped me and benefited me, not only economically, but also with my education.

This program has provided useful information on how to create a resume so I can look into future jobs, as well as creating mock interviews so that I could be prepared when the opportunities came along.

I was given information on where to look for scholarships and how to continue to college from high school.

This program allows us to learn new careers paths through internship focused in areas of maritime construction and many more.

I've had the opportunity to be part of these internships through the Center of Wooden Boats in the Consulate of Guatemala, where I have gained different and unique skills.

As a young entrepreneur seeking for more information, I've also seen how I've benefited from these opportunities.

These are just many more of the things that I have made

Thank you very much for dialing in today.

And if you could email us with your full name, that would be wonderful, and the rest of your comments.

Thank you.

Good morning, Derek, followed by Michael Sherwoth.

Hi, my name is Derek.

I'm a renter in District 6, and I'm calling in today to ask council to support the budget amendments to spend $13 million transitioning low-income homes off of oil heat, $380,000 on Indigenous-led sustainability projects, and $100,000 on community climate resilience planning, as well as to express my support for divesting from policing in the municipal court.

But in particular, I want to talk about the amendment to transition low-income homes off of oil heat.

After the climate marches in 2019, the city council passed an amendment to add a tax to oil heat in the city and said they're aiming to completely phase out oil heat by 2028. At the rate the mayor's 2022 budget is transitioning homes, it's going to take 150 years to get all of the homes in this city off of oil heat.

I think what we know is taxing the energy source of low-income households isn't going to help the city meet its climate goals, but transitioning low-income homes off of oil heat and then solid heat pumps will.

And it'll reduce energy costs, improve air.

Thank you very much.

Michael will be followed by John Grant.

Good morning, Michael.

Good morning.

My name is Michael Syrath.

I'm the Executive Director of Southeast Effective Development, or SEED.

I'm here this morning testifying in support of OH5A001, a budget amendment supporting funding for resident services for affordable housing.

And I'm here in this request is supported by a constellation of nonprofit affordable housing providers.

Thanks to Council Member Herbold, Mosqueda, and Morales for sponsoring this.

This is made up of two items, $1.5 million for resident services, staffing support, and non-permanent supportive housing providers, so those of us nonprofits serving people living at 30 to 60% of AMI, as well as a slide asking the Seattle Office of Housing to determine the size of the need.

These, Resources for affordable housing are essential.

We have no federal or state or local support.

Thank you.

Please send the rest of your comments in as well.

John will be followed by a penny.

Good morning, John.

Good morning, Council Members.

My name is John Grant with the Low Income Housing Institute.

I'm testifying both in support of Council Member Sawant's bridge loan proposal to save the tenants of Squire Park from displacement for SLI on tiny houses, and also in favor of Councilmember Herbold and Lewis's funding proposals for tiny house villages.

The Herbold amendment for $300,000 will provide much-needed site improvements at Camp Second Chance, adding paved walkways for people with mobility disabilities, replace a worn-down kitchen, and other critical capital improvements.

This will also make it possible to add 20 houses on the site, serving even more people.

Lewis's $1.9 million dollar proposal is essential to the operation of our villages and all of these proposals are linked.

This dramatically raises the standards of living for people living in our tiny houses.

We have a responsibility to make sure homeless people who are in our care receive adequate support.

Please vote to stop the displacement of Black families at Squire Park and adequately fund our tiny houses.

Thank you so much for your time.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

Penny will be followed by BJ last.

Good morning Penny.

Good morning.

I'm Penny and I live in District 6. I'm calling in support of the solidarity budget.

Proposed amendments are a good start to reducing SBD's billowing budget.

Yet they still leave SPD with $18 million of salary excess for positions that SPD has itself said it will not fill.

These are phantom positions.

They leave the department with a huge $18 million fund to basically spend on anything they want without oversight.

No other city department has this kind of access to resources and lack of accountability.

What has SPD done to earn this kind of privilege?

excess SPD money should go to black and brown communities fund truly affordable housing and Green New Deal priorities such as transitioning homes off fossil fuels.

Thank you for working to more equitably equitably distribute money from the general fund.

Our priorities are shifting to reverse a long history of criminalizing people most in need of resources and support.

Keep going.

No more gifts to SPD.

Thank you.

B.J.

will be followed by Yadria Alvarez.

Good morning, B.J.

Good morning.

My name is B.J.

Lass.

I'm a Ballard resident.

I'm calling in support of the solidarity budget.

Proposed amendments are a nice start to reducing SPD's bloated budget, but the amendments leave SPD with $18 million of excess salary for 134 positions that SPD has no plans or intention to fill.

No other city department gets funding and position authority for positions it has no plan to fill.

All other departments give funds for positions they won't fill back to the general fund.

SPD should be treated like every other city department and not get funded for phantom positions it doesn't plan to fill.

Funding SPD for these phantom positions gives SPD a massive slush fund that allows SPD to bypass getting council approval for spending.

We've seen SPD do this repeatedly over the last few months.

There have been multiple instances where SPD has started spending on new technology without getting council approval for the spending.

Instead of being a slush fund for SPD, these dollars could be used for green housing and additional public bathrooms.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you very much.

Yadria will be followed by Stephanie Ingram.

Good morning.

Yadria, just push star six.

Yadria, star six.

Yadria, you can go ahead.

Buenos días.

Mi nombre es Yadira Álvarez.

Trabajo como asistente en el programa de capacitación para el trabajo juvenil en el centro de la raza.

Yo voto por la continuidad del programa en el centro de la raza.

Considero que este programa ofrece grandes bondades, no solo para los chicos, sino para sus padres, que redundan en toda la familia en general.

Los padres reciben entrenamiento de información sobre diversas áreas que de otra manera les resultaría difícil conocer.

y que son fundamentales para el apoyo y el soporte que deben brindar a sus hijos para que continúen estudiando y no los presionen para abandonar sus estudios, para ingresar tempranamente al mundo del trabajo.

Mediante este programa, los padres aprenden a involucrarse en el progreso educativo de sus hijos y su responsabilidad en este proceso.

Aprenden a comunicarse de manera efectiva con sus hijos adolescentes, lo cual ellos aprecian y agradecen porque les resuelven una gran problemática en el hogar.

Por su parte, los chicos conocen las oportunidades de estudio que este país ofrece y entienden que no es un sueño ir a la universidad, que son elegibles para estudiar en una universidad en los Estados Unidos.

I'm going to try to translate here.

Thank you very much for calling in today.

My name is Yadria Alvarez.

I am calling in support of the program at El Centro de la Raza.

I'm calling to make sure that You continue to support the child care and educational programs at El Centro.

These educational programs are not only good for the parents and the kids, it makes sure that the parents also have educational information.

Parents get information that's fundamental to making sure that they have the information they need for accessing good jobs and economic security.

This allows for children to be able to study and for parents to be able to access the workforce.

This is your responsibility as council members to support programs like this.

This is a great program.

Kids are able to learn.

It helps our families and it helps the overall community.

Thank you for calling in.

Stephanie, good morning.

Stephanie is followed by Peter Fink.

Hi, my name is Stephanie Ingram, and I'm calling to support council member Swann's proposal to allocate $188,000 to the Garfield Superblock Coalition so they can continue being strong community advocates for this project.

The timely funding for the project received in the fall will fund design and engineering such that the project will be shovel-ready by the end of 2022. However, due to the nature of the funding, the all-volunteer coalition that has been championing this project was not able to use those funds to support our advocacy work.

This park is unique in that the vision for the park truly comes from the community.

Our coalition sees our role as fiercely defending the community voice in the design process and ensuring that the artwork is thoughtful and representative of the history and community of the area.

In order to do this work we are ready to engage professional help for project management art planning and fundraising.

The $188,000 will allow us to produce a comprehensive master arts plan run a public art boot camp for emerging artists effectively write grants and fundraise, and run several community outreach events in the park.

Please help us ensure that Garfield Superblock is truly a park by the people and for the people.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And folks, we have about eight more people signed up for public testimony.

Colleen McEllar, Sharon Costola, and Jesse Darns are not here.

We're going to try and get this in in the next six to eight minutes here.

Peter, you will be followed by Robert Steffens Jr.

Hello, thank you for letting me speak today.

I'm calling in support of a solidarity budget because I believe that it is vital that we begin enacting on some of the policies that we have agreed as a city need to be taken in order to address the climate crisis, a climate crisis which is disproportionately affecting our frontline community members here.

In particular, there are a few budget items that are absolutely vital that cannot be left behind.

The most important is the $13 million that is needed to transition low-income homes off the oil heat and support impacted workers in the process.

And this is the most key important part, I think, of the Green New Deal aspects to the solidarity budget and a budget that is going to really see that forward in Seattle.

But as well, $38,000, just a measly amount of money for indigenous life sustainability projects, is also vital.

And the final thing that I think is important in this budget is about $100,000 for community climate resilience planning because we.

Thank you, the next person is Robert, followed by Brooke Broad.

Good morning, Reverend Robert.

Star six, Reverend?

Star six.

We're going to keep you on the screen here, Reverend Justar 6, to unmute yourself.

And we're going to go to Brooke.

Reverend Roberts, I can see you.

Please go ahead.

Hello.

Hi.

Thank the council members for making this time.

There are many budget amendments I am in favor of but I want to call attention to Councilmember Peterson's amendment to the OSC budget to develop a plan to phase out gas powered leaf blowers.

Noise pollution from these instruments have become really deafening.

I regularly experience three to four hours of continuous leaf blowing noise in my neighborhood that makes being outside deeply unpleasant, not only due to the noise, but also to the fumes which walk through the neighborhood.

The amendment points to the environmental impacts of leaf blowers, but I also really want to call out attention to the impact on workers, which is another good reason to implement this ban.

According to the EPA, gas-powered leaf blowers expose workers to a number of carcinogens, and I never see workers with protection from these pollutants.

So I really think that there are multiple reasons to enact this amendment.

Thank you, and good morning, Reverend.

Robert Stephens, Jr.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Robert Stephens, Jr., creator of the Garfield Superblock Renovation Project, calling in in support of Council Member Swartz 188K for the Garfield Superblock.

We appreciate the funding previously provided for the project, but we're ready to move towards implementation, which call for skills beyond, uh, the abilities of our, uh, coalition group.

We want to keep this project moving because we promised it to the community and we're on our way.

And with your continued support.

we will get this project done, especially our art component of it.

So thank you very much for your previous support and hope that we can continue getting support from the council.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Shannon.

Shannon Perez-Darby followed by Pat Chaney.

Good morning.

My name is Shannon Perez-Darby, and I'm a domestic violence survivor and longtime anti-violence advocate.

I'm here to ask council to support the creation and staffing of the workgroup to explore alternatives to criminalization for people who have been accused of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Too many survivors of domestic and sexual violence have been hurt by the criminal legal system rather than helped by it.

There is too much we don't know about the impacts of this criminalization on people surviving domestic violence and those who are abused.

Misalignment of these systems has resulted in too many survivors being criminalized rather than helped.

By including $120,000 to support the Office for Civil Rights to create a workgroup to explore these issues, we can all learn more about how to build a city where people experiencing domestic violence are met with resourced, community-based support, and where every person in our city lives safe and thriving lives.

Thank you.

And Pat.

Pat will be followed by Michelle McCarthy.

Pat, good morning.

Hi my name is Pat Chaney and I'm calling about the parks and recreation budget for community centers.

I believe that Seattle's community centers are part of what what makes Seattle so great.

In the budget proposal the Lowellhurst community center is slated to be closed and become an exclusive private rental facility.

My friends and family and neighbors from all around North Seattle use this community center heavily and attend classes and meetings and neighborhood events.

So why are you targeting to close this one community center.

This isn't just a one-neighborhood community center.

It serves a wide-ranging community.

In my many years of going there, I have met several families of patients from Seattle Children's Hospital, UW families with young children living at Laurel Village, senior citizens needing to get out and socialize, and people attending programs for disabled family members.

I would like to see funding for all Seattle Community Centers increase to keep our neighborhood strong, healthy, and engaged with city services Please restore funding for the local.

Thank you.

Michelle will be followed by Summer Carlton.

Good morning, Michelle.

Good morning.

I am calling in in support of the people's solidarity budget.

In a perfect world, we would have a lot less crime because we would have a lot fewer traumatized human beings.

Our police budget our police process further traumatizes those most vulnerable and has proven to have been used in bad ways, including the unleashing of chemicals banned by the Geneva Convention on peaceful protesters during the Black Lives Matter protest.

The People's Solidarity Budget divert funds away from this traumatizing process and into processes and places that would help heal that trauma.

All of the items mentioned and petitioned for would be able to be covered if we defunded the police as

Thank you so much, colleagues.

We did say we would go till 1010. It is 1010 right now.

We have six more people signed up for public testimony.

I'm going to ask if there is any objection if I extend public testimony for six more minutes.

Seeing no objection, public testimony is extended for six more minutes.

Good morning.

Summer, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Summer Carlton, and I'm calling regarding the closure of the Laurelhurst Community Center.

I agree with all the points that the earlier caller mentioned.

I'm asking that you do not close it or if possible that we could get just a delay in the closure so that the community could come up with some alternatives to closure maybe less hours or things like that.

I live in View Ridge and it's a really important community center for the Northeast Seattle area.

It's across the street from a school which an elementary school which Children are able to walk across the street after school for programs which is huge for working parents.

Also in the summer children are able to walk to programs.

It has a very large elderly community that uses it as well as low income housing which is nearby.

I just ask that you please do not close it.

It's it's been closed during COVID and I think people in the community aren't are not aware Thank you.

Kyle, Kyle star six unmute will be followed by Sharon Koleslaw.

Good morning, Kyle.

Hi there.

My name is Kyle Hall.

I'm a full-time dispatcher for the CSCC.

I'm a 911 dispatcher and have been for over four years now.

I just wanted to provide testimony as to the floor, the general floor's well-being and to discuss to the council our work-life balance.

I'd like to advocate for more wellness time and work-life balance benefits.

The last two years, I think we can all acknowledge, have been very difficult for various reasons and from various perspectives.

However, most of the conversation has revolved around SPD and their budget.

Very little of it, in my opinion, has been revolved around the CSCC's budget and specifically 9-1-1.

And we've had many people, experienced people leave over the last year.

And I think that will continue to happen without further wellness benefits.

And I think that was to our city, losing that those valuable staff because 911 call takers are the first responders.

We're the first one you call when your mom has died when you're.

Thank you very much, Sharon, followed by Alice Lockhart.

Good morning, Sharon.

Star six to unmute.

Star six, Sharon.

We'll do Alice Walker.

Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

I'm calling in this morning to ask Council to support Council Member Solange's amendment for capacity building for the Garfield Superblock.

Both Council Member Mosqueda and Strauss are also co-sponsors on this amendment.

This funding will give our volunteer community group the ability to hire key staff to keep this project moving forward in the most thoughtful way.

It is our intent to keep community at the front of this project, and we can only do this with thoughtful planning and coordination.

Without this funding, we could be at risk of allowing the design to continue without critical feedback from the community.

It's our commitment as a coalition to make sure this never happens.

This is a part for the people, for the people, by the people.

We appreciate all the support you have given this project thus far, and we need your help to keep us moving in the most equitable way possible.

Thanks.

Thank you.

The last three speakers are Alice Lockhart, Angie Gerald, and Colleen McAller.

Good morning, Alice.

Good morning, Council.

I was here to speak to defund SPD, but earlier speakers, BJ and Penny, spoke my mind of the, you know, obviously the excess, it would be great if the complete excess of salary to SPD be allocated to solidarity budget needs.

An expansion of the amendments from today would be Awesome.

Um, I didn't know about the earlier speakers, uh, reference to the, uh, proposed leaf blower ban.

Um, it's a great idea.

Thank you.

Council member Peterson.

And I urge you to acceleration.

Uh, there are great examples of, uh, in cities similar to us of, um, success.

There we can do likewise.

We can do it in one year, not two.

Thank you so much.

You Angie followed by Colleen.

Good morning Angie.

Star 6. Star 6 to unmute you.

And let's tee up Colleen.

We'll keep you on the line here.

Angie.

Star 6. Colleen and Angie.

Okay Angie I see you.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

Hi my name is Angie.

A grassroots landlord from District 6. Yesterday I called to support SDCI budget amendments for a small landlord stakeholder group and a rental market study.

Later, I heard a portion of Council's deliberations on the archived video, and I was astounded at the lengthy misrepresentation and disdain expressed by Council Member Soquant, who stated the only city interaction small landlords or the local property managers who sometimes represent us should have is to learn how to comply.

Seattle is in the midst of a housing crisis, and we need as many small property owners as possible to offer rental housing.

According to the auditor's 2018 study, the majority of landlords make less than 75,000 per year, far less than council members to want.

Yet she thinks our independent voices as housing providers have no value in policymaking or programmatic feedback.

No other council members spoke up yet.

There are many reasons why fewer people are offering rental units.

Please support the small landlord stakeholder group and the rental market study.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The last speaker is Colleen.

Good morning, Colleen.

Star six to unmute.

Star six.

Star six, Colleen.

It looks like you're still muted on my end.

Okay.

Colleen, one more time, star six.

Colleen, si hablas espanol, estrella seis.

Star six, Colleen.

Okay, playing once, twice, sorry, Carlene, we weren't able to get you back in.

Thank you all very much for calling in to provide public testimony today.

Looks like Colleen is still muted, so we are gonna go ahead and conclude public comment at this point.

Thank you all for offering additional time.

It is our commitment to make sure that we offer 30 minutes of public testimony and given that we went over for amending the agenda this morning, I appreciate your generous time and then we've extended as well.

We do have a full agenda though today, so I would like to get us started.

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

agenda item one, office of housing for briefing and discussion.

Thank you very much.

And I want to welcome council member Sawant to the dais as well, who has joined us.

I appreciate you all being here today.

Today is this day two of three days where we're looking at the council's possible budget amendments.

Thank you for all of the budget amendments that you've worked on with central staff.

As a reminder, we're going to go over 11 departments today.

As we noted yesterday and on Monday during council briefing, if you have additional information about your budget proposal that is either more persuasive or dissuasive in nature, you can provide that description to the full council here by making sure that you share it the night before, before 5 p.m.

Central staff is working to prepare these budget amendments that are factual and technical in nature.

and their information is non-partisan and non-biased.

So if you have additional information that you'd like to send that accompanies anything that's coming from Central Shop, of course you're welcome to do so.

But I want to underscore that that is not necessary.

This does give us an opportunity to allow for a robust discussion on any data points that you wanted to highlight or any additional information that's not in this to be distributed separately in a day in advance of the committee meeting.

And this will be added to the legislative record after the committee meeting.

As I mentioned yesterday, we do have a total of about 200 amendments, including those walk-on amendments that council members are working on.

So thank you.

Yesterday, you were very judicious in both signing on to additional council budget amendments.

Thank you for exercising some restraint on that so that we can get through the summaries, the explanations, have a chance for discussion and questions both from central staff and the prime sponsors.

Thank you for keeping your remarks short and concise yesterday and I hope that you will continue to do that today.

so that we can be mindful about the time.

We do also, as you noted from the amendments, from the amended agenda this morning, have seven walk-on amendments.

There was one replacement amendment that central staff sent around so that we had the accurate text in front of us as we walk through those walk-on amendments.

Each of those will be considered at the end of the time frame for the department that they impact.

We are going to make sure to get through all of these amendments today and we'll guarantee you a one hour lunch break as every one of us needs to make sure that we are honoring rest and meal breaks for all workers and that includes everybody in this call and all the folks making this presentation possible today.

Thank you for reading item one into the record already.

If there's any questions about process, Hearing no questions about process, I'm gonna turn it over to Tracy.

Tracy, thanks for getting us kicked off with Office of Housing.

You bet.

Good morning, Council Members, Tracy Ratzliff, Council Central staff.

I'll try to maintain my glow as I go through 10 of the proposed amendments to the proposed budget, as well as two of the walk-on amendments that she mentioned.

So let's go to the very first CBA, which is 1A1.

This would add $200,000 of fund balance in OH to fund the Home and Hope Program.

which does have a $200,000 appropriation included in the mayor's 2022 proposed budget.

And this is sponsored by Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Lewis, any additional comments?

Yes, thank you for queuing that up, Tracy, and good to be back here for day two, everybody.

So the Home and Hope program is a really important cornerstone of some of our broader projects around building and expanding social housing in the city of Seattle.

You know, what the last year and a half on councils really taught me is, you know, I used to think that acquiring affordable housing was just a money problem, that we're not putting enough money into it, that we don't have enough money for acquisition, and that is totally true.

It is a money problem, but I've increasingly learned it's also a logistics problem.

And when you have partners like Enterprise Community Partners, who can help to identify parcels, accelerate the development of sites once they have been identified, to work on initiatives to co-locate early learning and other important facilities on the same campuses as social housing, that you really need to lean into the ability to have that kind of acceleration partnership to make sure that we're realizing these assets as soon as possible.

Enterprise Community Partners has done a great job through the Home and Hope program of doing that.

I want to give a shout out to Speaker Emeritus Chopp, who's been a big leader with developing Home and Hope and securing dozens of sites in the city of Seattle that will be permanent social housing for people to enjoy in perpetuity in the city of Seattle.

And by investing in Home and Hope and by increasing the amount of money we're putting forward, we are allowing us not just to acquire these sites and build more social housing, but to do it faster, to get it online faster, and to make sure that in addition to the housing, we have early learning centers.

integrated into these new social housing developments.

So this modest amount of money should be seen as a accelerant for these kinds of programs.

And it's something that we should be doing as a council to realize and get these assets online as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis, appreciate it.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I'd like to add my name as a co-sponsor to this.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson adding his name to Office of Housing, 001. Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Gonzales, Council President.

I'd also like to add my name as a sponsor to OH-001A.

Thank you, Council President Gonzales.

Council President Gonzales adding her name to 001 from Office of Housing.

Any additional questions?

Excellent.

Thank you very much, Council Member Lewis.

Tracy, let's continue.

Moving to OH2A1, this would add $45 million of general fund to the Office of Housing for a social housing acquisition fund.

This is sponsored by Council Member Morales.

Council Member Morales, any additional comments?

Thank you.

Thanks, colleagues.

And I do want to thank Council Member Lewis and Council President Gonzalez for co-sponsoring this.

We have been talking a lot about development and the need to acquire land.

which we definitely need to do, but we also need to take existing housing off the speculative market.

And that's part of what we're trying to do with this amendment.

And as some of the callers mentioned, there are cities across the world who are doing just that so that they can provide more affordable housing options to their communities.

The idea here is that this fund would allow us to, excuse me, would allow us to start acquiring existing buildings that could then be rented to tenants in the city.

And we need to do that so that rent increases are predictable, and especially for those who are low income or for working families, so that they have that kind of predictability that can really only come with city-owned social housing.

This would allow us to start building a portfolio where tenants can live long term, or from which buildings from which organized renters could purchase directly from the city at a fair price.

And we have another option that we will consider next that could help support something like that.

We know that tenants in Seattle are disproportionately people of color.

We know that over 60% of black and native households are currently the city.

And we know that based on the 2018 losing home reports from the King County Bar Association, women of color are disproportionately represented in eviction filings.

A lot of this stems from the fact that people are getting pushed out.

So establishing a program that would remove housing from speculation by bringing housing under the city and community ownership, allow tenants in these buildings to live without fear of erratic rule changes, you know, crazy rent increases that can often lead to displacement and eviction.

And over time, the idea is that we would have sort of accumulate properties for public and community ownership that would offer tenants an affordable housing option and could eventually provide incentive for property owners on the private market to lower their rents so that they can compete with housing.

And this is what we have seen happen in other cities that have done this.

So I'm excited to offer this amendment.

I do think this is kind of a 21st century model for social housing.

And it's the kind of program that when we combine it with some of the land acquisition for community control that we're also talking about for community development, it could really change the tide of what affordability in Seattle looks like.

So I, again, wanna thank my co-sponsors and look forward to the discussion about this.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

I would like to add my name as a co-sponsor to this amendment, as my office has already informed Council Member Morales previously.

There's also a walk-on amendment that I will be speaking to when it comes up at the end of this Office of Housing section of the agenda.

to fully restore the $106 million to affordable housing from the payroll expense tax that should have been in this budget if the initial spending of the tax was adhered to.

Finally, I would note that this budget amendment does not identify where the $45 million will come from.

I think the best solution to increase the big business tax rate of the Amazon tax, the payroll expense tax, is to increase progressive revenues by raising the tax rate on big business in order to raise those funds.

Otherwise, these things will be good ideas but unfunded mandates, as we have seen in previous years, or we will be robbing Peter to pay Paul, meaning different needs of the community will be competing with one another.

We obviously don't want that to happen.

So we do need to identify concrete progressive revenue sources in order to fund these urgent needs and affordable housing.

Social housing is absolutely a big part of why the tax Amazon movement fought for this in the first place last year and in 2018. And lastly, I just want to apologize for being late.

My office was doing a press conference alongside rainier coat tenants in Mount Baker who eloquently and movingly spoke about the problems they are facing, which also shows why we need to continue funding for social housing and for renters rights.

Thank you.

Thank you.

In reading the budget description action, it describes that the action would allow OH to acquire buildings from the private market and preserve them as permanently affordable homes, and then the buildings may stay in public ownership as rent-stabilized housing and create opportunity for tenant ownership.

Currently, we do this, but We fund OH to fund non-profit housing providers to do the acquisition and then to preserve the housing that they acquire with Rent Stabilized Housing and partnering with organizations to Preserve community ownership.

This sounds to me like it's what we're talking about doing is we're talking about moving the office of housing into the role of owner and manager of housing.

And I'm just trying to understand what the problem.

we're trying to solve with our current scheme, which is that 08 funding organization who funds nonprofit housing providers to do this work.

And it was just really helpful for me to understand that.

Council Member Rawls, I see you have your hand up, but please go ahead and address the question.

Yeah, I first want to address Council Member Sawant and say that we do, and this is the first two amendments that we have today are big, we realize, and I do want to assure everybody that we have a plan.

for how to pay for this.

That wasn't part of the discussion for this week, but we will be presenting that at the appropriate time.

So never fear.

We don't have anything that is unfunded in what we've been presenting.

But regarding your questions, Council Member Herbold, I would say a couple of things.

Yes, the city can own these buildings for some time and contract for management, and we can sell buildings to community organizations who want to acquire and preserve affordable housing.

We can also sell these to tenants via our notice of intent to sell, which might be part of what you're referencing.

The social housing programs that are happening in cities I mentioned before are a combination of city ownership and nonprofit ownership.

The other thing is that the Office of Housing has been acquiring land for development for some time.

And here in my district, for example, we have the UW Laundry site where it is being targeted by community for activation.

So the Office of Housing is already looking at how They can move into the management space and definitely realize that that is something that is a little bit different for them, but it is a conversation that we're having.

And I know that, you know, owning a building and contracting management isn't Totally different.

It's not a new concept for the Office of Housing either to provide social housing.

So I think we have a lot to learn from other cities, from our sister city, Nantes in France.

It offers lots of great examples of how to do this and how to do it really well.

So we are possibly moving a little bit in a different direction, but the conversations that we're having with Office of Housing so far There is an acknowledgment that there's, as we do more of this kind of work, management is a space that they might need to grow into.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

Yeah.

Yeah, I get that it's different.

I'm trying to understand why.

I'm trying to understand what is not working with the current approach, that it seems like it would be a better approach to fund OH to acquire and manage property.

and potentially, yeah.

I mean, part of it is affordability and the ability to preserve a greater amount of housing.

You know, we have, it is really about taking land out of the speculative market.

And right now, you know, even the nonprofit affordable housing developers that we have in the city don't have that as an option.

And so that's a big a key piece of what we're trying to do is provide the stability in rents and to provide an acquisition fund that allows us now to preserve existing buildings or to preserve, you know, or to purchase buildings so that we can just remove them from the speculative market and have that as an option for developing into housing that is more affordable.

Okay, colleagues I'm going to recognize that there's three people still to say comments, and we are on number two in our housing discussion.

We had slated this to go to 11 o'clock, including the various amendments that were Councilmember Sawant.

Councilmember Gonzales.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Yes, not to take up too much time, but just very quickly, I'm happy to hear from Council Member Morales that there are plans to fund this proposal, which I would, of course, completely support.

I mean, obviously the plan from my office is to increase the big business taxes from the payroll expense tax rate, but if there are other progressive revenue ideas, then it would be great if Council Member Morales shared that with our office.

I'm happy to contact her.

If there are other progressive revenue sources, happy to support them.

Thank you.

Council President, please go ahead.

Just really quickly, I am sensitive to the issues that were flagged by Council Member Herbold in terms of, you know, how does this change the function of the Office of Housing?

And so I just want to sort of offer up the opportunity to have Perhaps a conversation about, you know, whether this should be the office of housing or whether we should, for example, consider running something alongside this that would establish a public development authority that would be responsible for the social housing so that we aren't so radically modifying the.

Um, mission and the purpose of the office of housing, who has primarily been a funder and not an owner of housing.

And so I just want to sort of decouple for a moment the conversation about sort of.

Who and where this should be housed from should the city pursue programming.

that takes housing out of the speculative market so that we can create truly affordable housing that is owned by the people of the city of Seattle.

And my motivation to sign up for this particular item as a co-sponsor was fundamentally about my belief that so long as we allow the market to drive our affordable housing we will continue to see affordable housing that is important but that is still not deeply affordable at the level that is truly needed for those working people and their families across the city.

So happy to have a conversation with you Madam Chair about sort of the how we achieve this and certainly welcome that conversation with the prime sponsor Council Member Morales around how we may be able to thread the needle here to address some of the concerns that have been expressed by Council Member Herbold in this discussion.

Appreciate the opportunity to

be able to have that conversation.

Thanks, Jeff.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Council President.

And a lot of the conversation we have does relate to other items on the Office of Housing Amendment list here.

So let's try to be very judicious in the short explanation and then any specific questions or comments.

Appreciate it.

Tracy, let's go to 03. Yes, 381. Oh, sorry.

Excuse me, Tracy.

I'm sorry.

I do.

I want to repeat for the record.

Council Member Swann, Council Member Swann has added her name to 08002. Thank you, Council Member.

Thank you, Tracy.

On to 003.

CBA would add $25 million of general fund to the Office of Housing for a Tenant Opportunity Purchase Fund.

This is sponsored by Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Please go ahead.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

So this amendment would support the notice of intent to sell that we already have on the books by providing funding to help implement it.

And I recall that when I joined South core and Puget Sound Sage, and I think it was 2017 or 2018. to discuss the updated ordinance, one of the primary drivers was anti-displacement.

So at that time, we met with the mayor's office to share the frustration of hearing that buildings that the community may have been interested in purchasing were never even listed because brokers were trading information among themselves and finding buyers before the community even knew that a building was being sold.

So I'm glad that we have an ordinance in place to address this.

So far, only one building has been purchased through the program.

And when my office spoke with the city auditor, with the lead of the program at the Office of Housing and with the community members who pushed for this, There's agreement that it really could benefit from having the funds for tenants to actually buy their homes.

That's a huge hurdle.

Even the most organized tenants haven't been able to overcome that.

So the intention here is for the funding to be in the form of grants.

It would allow tenants to purchase their homes if those homes qualify for the Notice of Intent to Sell program.

and would address one of the issues that the auditor's office acknowledged, which is that there is no easily accessible funding associated with the program that could help tenants purchase or maintain their buildings.

And so the intent here is that the funding would be available regardless of a landlord's compliance with the program.

So as I said, we've looked at how this could work.

The auditor sent us a great report in September And one of the recommendations is that the Office of Housing should explore methods for assisting tenants in purchasing their buildings.

And the recommendation also, they also recommended exploring different ways to get this funding to tenants.

So that is what we're trying to do here, is to make sure that low and middle income folks get the help they need to be able to purchase their homes so that they can, you know, be assured some predictability and some stability.

So that's what we're trying to do here is set up a funding model that will ensure the success of the program.

Thank you very much.

And I see Council Member Herbold has her hand up.

I do want to offer this, colleagues.

This amendment and the amendment that I have next are similar in terms of desired policy changes.

I will just hold some of my comments for the amendment that will come up next to walk through the proposal that I'm suggesting.

I think that there is overlapping interest in pursuing a policy to make sure that we have the structure and the department's capacity to put forward a proposal so that early next year we can craft policy together as a legislative branch and move the new executive to make sure that we are implementing the strategy so that there is more funding for tenants to be able to purchase their buildings if they come up for sale or for you know a collective co-op to come together so very similar in nature and I'm going to be holding some of my comments for the next item but I do want to thank you for your enthusiasm for the notice of intent to sell ordinance that we passed and also for I think our joint area our joint interests and expectation that because of some of the law changes we can take this to the next level now, but I'll save some of my comments to come here in a second.

Council Member Herbold, then Council Member Szilagyi.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate Council Member Morales bringing this forward.

And Madam Chair, I also appreciate your commitment to working on the deficiencies and the notice of intent to sell policy as identified by the City Auditor that I know you'll be talking about next.

As it relates specifically to this particular recommendation, the city auditor identified the primary problem with the Notice of Intent to Sell program is a lack of compliance.

Funding to acquire properties would flow after compliance, because it is compliance with the notice of the intent to sell that allows tenants to know that their property is being sold and that they have certain rights to make an offer.

So when property owners are required to use notice of intent to sell, they often don't, which results in this missed opportunity to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing Even in a situation where there is infinite number of dollars to do so.

So, co sponsoring this amendment, I expressed my hope that the fund would not just be available to building owners had complied with the notice of intent to sell, but also.

with those owners who should have.

And I'm just concerned the language in the amendment might not reflect that.

But I'm happy to hear otherwise from the CBA sponsor, Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant, to close us out on this topic.

Council Member Sawant, you are still on mute.

I apologize, I just wanted to add myself as a co-sponsor.

Okay, great.

Council Member Sawant, Council Member Sawant adding her name to OH003.

Council Member Morales, anything else?

I just wanted to respond to Council Member Herbold.

I don't see that that would, if there's an omission there, I'm happy to address it with you, because it was not our intent to leave that out.

So we can follow up.

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Tracy, let's move on to the next related item.

Yes, that would be OH4A1.

And that would request the Office of Housing and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to report on the Notice of Intent to Sell Policy and Program Development.

This is sponsored by Council Member Muscata.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Council Member Morales' amendment just a moment ago does have a lot of nexus with this amendment that I am also bringing forward.

Again, I want to first thank Council Member Morales and the co-sponsors of the previous amendment for the enthusiasm and interest in continuing to expand and improve upon the Notice of Intent to Sell Ordinance.

that we fondly refer to as NOICE.

This amendment that Council Member Morales had put forward is in a similar vein to the one that we have in front of us now, which is 004. I'd like to make sure that we are continuing to tee up the policy work and the opportunity to partner with you all and the executive at the beginning of next year as we set aside specific funding for a policy that allows for us to expand upon the Notice of Intent to Sell.

The important questions that I think both the previous amendment and the one in front of us are addressing is the ability to create secure revenue alongside of developing funding strategies specifically that would correspond with improved policies so that tenants can actually have the opportunity to purchase.

following up on the recent auditor's report that the council members have noticed and noted, and the Ninth Circuit court ruling that impacts the policy, we have an opportunity now to make greater enforcement and technical changes to make sure that more nonprofits and community members themselves have the ability to purchase.

And that the policy that I think is needed to go along with this strategy needs to be put in place so that we then have the right funding mechanism in early I want to thank Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Juarez for sponsoring the amendment in front of us, 004, as well as the sponsor and the co-sponsors for 003. I am very interested in making sure that we follow up on the conversations that I've been having with our community housing roundtable conversations.

We meet with folks on a quarterly basis, and this is an area that they had originally put on my radar when I first joined office in 2018. Because of the work that the Community Housing Roundtable had been advancing, and thank you, Tracy, for being part of those conversations over the years as well, in 2009, I sponsored and the council then passed the Notice of Intent to Sell Ordinance, strengthening this notice requirements next year and tailing the ordinance to include both nonprofit affordable housing providers and tenants as potential purchasers and working with the Office of Housing to conduct better outreach and education about the program and including the response from the auditor about how to identify programmatic improvements for development and will allow for us to adapt and improve the legislation in early next year.

I think that this is a big policy change that is needed and I think that it's a really important opportunity for us to harness the shared interest in this council And we have the opportunity to do so now.

We have the opportunity to take advantage of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that paved the way for the City of Seattle to now consider the imposition of the right of first refusal that we got close to in the noise ordinance but were not able to accomplish.

I think what folks are really looking at from areas like Washington, D.C., their Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, San Francisco's Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, these provide tenants and nonprofits with the ability to have right of first offer and the right of first refusal for certain properties.

I really appreciate Tracy Radcliffe's work with us in 2018 and 2019 that got us very, very close to there.

And I think that we can be proud to say that we have noise ordinance that is very similar in nature to these TOPA ordinances, but we absolutely want to work to improve the technical assistance for nonprofits.

Support tenants will be available funding, as I think we have been discussing over this amendment and the previous amendment.

and strengthening enforcement requirements.

This slide in front of us expresses the intent to work with Office of Housing, SDCI, and community partners to update the noise legislation to do the things that I think this council is interested in.

Clear right of first refusal offered now under the Ninth Circuit ruling, which has passed again since we passed the noise ordinance.

and number two, respond to the auditor's recommendations beginning in early 2022 with the goal of passing legislation in the first half of next year.

I hope that the process that I've outlined here notes the importance of moving quickly and providing robust policy development, work with community partners and other cities and deep stakeholder engagement to make sure that we are able to craft policy in the beginning of the year next year to answer the following questions.

What should be modified for improving enforcement?

How can we develop assistance for supporting tenants financially?

And what's the technical capacity to purchase buildings?

Identifying the technical capacity needed.

to make sure that organizations get access to these funding and pair the funding if it's with existing funds that we have freed up through the acquisition fund offered by Jump Start and or if there's additional funding mechanisms, fantastic.

But I think that this is a larger policy conversation.

So this slide really tees up that opportunity to get into those details in early 2022. Again, shared interests, shared priorities, and wanting us to have a more in-depth policy discussion early 2022. Questions on this or comments?

Fantastic.

We will go ahead and move on to the next item.

On to OH5A1.

This would add $1.5 million of general fund to the Office of Housing for services and capacity funding for non-permanent supportive housing providers.

And this was sponsored by Council Member Hubel.

Thank you very much, Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

We heard a little bit from folks during public comment.

My office has been working with and hearing from workforce affordable housing developers about the emerging need for services for their residents, specifically in non-permanent supportive housing.

Earlier this year, you may recall that council appropriated $1 million in ARPA funds through the Seattle Rescue Plan to the Office of Housing in order to fund this emerging need for services associated with workforce affordable housing.

That RFP attracted applications from 14 different affordable housing providers, asking for $2.5 million, two and a half times the amount available.

In addition to adding funds to the Office of Housing in order to fund more of the applications through that RFP, this budget action asks the Office of Housing to provide a report to council that includes the projected size, cause, and duration of the need for services, funding for the non-PSH affordable housing providers, recommendations to the city council on whether additional funding may be needed for this purpose on a one-time or an ongoing basis, identification of future funding sources to in the future support services if in fact ongoing resources are recommended.

Thank you very much and we will add your cat's name as a co-sponsor.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

I want to thank you Council Member Herbold for bringing this forward and look forward to working with you to fully flesh out this idea.

and happy to have been supporting it.

Council Member Juarez, please go ahead.

Sorry, I should have said this on the outset.

I wanted to add my name as a sponsor.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Juarez adding her name to OH005.

And I should add, Madam Chair, if I'm coming in late, I'm still having problems with my mute and my camera button, and I don't know what the dealio is.

I'm still trying to fix it.

So if you see me waving frantically at you, that's what's going on.

Thank you.

Yeah, I will keep a lookout for that.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Also would like to add my name to this budget item.

0-0-5.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Strauss adding his name to 0-H-0-0-5.

Council President Gonzalez?

I would like to also add my name as a sponsor to 0-H-0-0-5-A, and I missed the opportunity to also add my name as sponsor to 0-H-0-0-4.

Thank you, President Gonzalez.

Comes with President Gonzalez, adding her name to OH004 and OH005.

Thank you very much.

All right, Tracy, let's go on to 006. Yes, 006A01 would add $200,000 of general fund to the Office of Housing for the Home for Good program.

And this was sponsored by Council Member Herbold.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Please go ahead.

Thank you so much.

So the funding here is intended to help solve a problem that the Home for Good program has started really helping folks who are on temporary state disability benefits, and they move to permanent federal benefits.

They experience this drop in income.

And when that happens, folks may situation have experienced homelessness and the state benefits had allowed them to find housing.

When the federal benefits kick in, many can no longer afford their homes.

And so Home for Good is intended to and has been stepping in and providing that shallow rent subsidy that allows them to keep their homes during that transition.

In the pandemic, the state fairly allowed folks who relied on on hand to keep those benefits so folks didn't experience the drop in income that would have put their housing at risk.

But the state Commerce Department has indicated that in 2022 they will resume transitioning people off of hand.

So this CBA would allow home for good to continue serving a couple dozen folks or so who entered the program since its establishment, all of whom retained their housing because of our partnership with stakeholders in creating this program a couple years ago.

And it would add about 40 more people throughout 2022. Community Services operates home for good, and they have requested that the current age requirement of 50 and above be lifted to allow them additional flexibility in serving the folks most at risk of losing their housing, most vulnerable in that case that they may lose their housing.

I'm very supportive of that change as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That was one of the questions that I had for you as the prime sponsor or perhaps for central staff on the question of the age lifting.

Is that already included in this proposal?

No, okay, but you're interested in potentially adding it.

Thanks for that clarification and for the public testimony this morning.

Questions on this item?

I did have a, I didn't want to just tee up.

Council President, excuse me, Council Member Juarez, please go ahead.

I think I shared with you that I would like to be a co-sponsor as well.

Yes.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Juarez adding her name to OH006.

And Tracy, since we're gonna have another item here in a moment that has similar language, could you just please remind folks of the difference between home for good and home and hope?

So as was described in 001, Home and Hope Program is the funding that goes to enterprise to help with really the pre-development of sites for affordable housing.

The Home for Good Program is actually a shallow rental subsidy and case management program for people who are sitting in housing and who are potentially facing a loss of income as they transition off of the state and program, the Housing Essential Needs Program.

to federal SSI, and so it really is oriented towards rental assistance and case management for existing low-income tenants who might be at risk of losing their housing.

OK, wonderful.

And this is a program, Home for Good, is a program that the city will maintain.

It's not envisioned that this will transition at some point in the future to the Regional Homelessness Authority.

Correct.

OK.

Correct.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Okay, let's continue.

To 0807A01, this would add $1 million of general fund to the Office of Housing for development costs for an affordable housing project at North Seattle College.

This is sponsored by Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tracy, for that great introduction.

I'm going to keep coming back to this a few times that I spoke about yesterday.

So let me start by saying that I'm sponsoring two budget actions this year related to the North Seattle College campus, the North Seattle College Housing Development, working with our state partners, Dr. Crawford, who's the president of North Seattle College, Chancellor Pan, Representative Frank chop and King County Councilmember Jeannie Cole.

Well, so this is a big project that's been going on It's a ninety nine million dollar project The city of Seattle would contribute $1 million in capital costs of the housing and $2 million for the capital costs of the Longhouse.

So a $3 million contribution in total to a $99 million project.

Our state and local partners involved in this project include, besides the folks I just mentioned, Bellwether Housing, North Seattle College, Chief Seattle Club, and support from our state and county governments as well.

This development will include two four-story buildings with 200 units of mixed income housing on a two-acre parcel of land, this is state land because it's a college, focused on supporting families, youth exiting homelessness, in which we are working with youth care, and foster care, and those students attending North Seattle College.

The housing will surround an outdoor courtyard and a 6,000 square foot long house, which I spoke about yesterday.

The development is strategically located next to important amenities.

On the campus is the Washington State DSHS Opportunity Center for Education and Employment, which is great because they have light rail there now and the bus stops right in front.

And residents can quickly access the Northgate Mall and the greater Seattle region by walking across the John Lewis Memorial Bridge to light rail.

So this is a great example of transit oriented development and housing.

And we hope to have move in our new residents.

It's scheduled to happen in early 2025. Big thank you to Council Member Sawant and Council Member Lewis for supporting me on this project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any additional comments or questions?

Please go ahead Council Member Herbold.

I'd like to add my name to sponsor this item.

Council Member Herbold, Council Member Herbold, adding her name to OH007.

Council Member Strauss.

As for all of the reasons Council Member Juarez stated today and yesterday, I also would like to add my name to this CBA.

Thank you, Council Member.

Council Member Strauss, Council Member Strauss, adding his name to OH007.

Council President Gonzalez.

Ditto.

Council President Gonzalez, adding her name to OH007.

Thank you, Council President Gonzalez.

Okay.

Let's move on to 008. Moving on to 08A01.

This would add $13 million of general fund to the Office of Housing to support Green New Deal programs, such as the Office of Housing's Heat Conversion Program.

This is sponsored by Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Please go ahead.

Council Member Sawant, it looks like you're still on mute.

Tracy, I may ask you a question as Council Member Sawant comes off mute here again.

008, Green New Deal programs such as heat conversion.

So as soon as I see Council Member Sawant pop in, I will transition over to her.

Tracy, can you remind me how this dovetails with the existing investments from Jumpstart for Green New Deal investments?

Because in the initial plan that we have in front of us with the amendment that we discussed yesterday, we would have items such as heat conversion already being funded.

So can you tell me how what the overlap is there?

I'm hoping Allie might pop in here because I actually see her.

I'm in charge of the housing bucket.

And now that makes sense about the Green New Deal bucket.

I'm sorry, I don't have it all memorized.

No problem.

And Allie, I see you on the line and then I'll turn it over to Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

Allie, go ahead.

Good morning, Council Members, Chair Mosqueda, Alec Coochie of your Council Central staff.

So the proposed budget, or excuse me, the amount of money proposed from the Jumpstart Fund for the Green New Deal investments in 2022 is about $14 million, and that is maintained in the amendment we discussed yesterday, FG001.

This amendment would add $13 million, which is I believe slightly more than what we would have anticipated based on the spending plan had general fund revenues rebounded in 2022. So it's about 9% of the jumpstart funds that are meant to be allocated for Green New Deal investments.

And so this amendment would sort of be a little bit more than I think what would be anticipated.

Great, thank you very much.

So Council Member Swatt, I will turn it over to you.

It sounds like this is intended to be additive to bring up the total amount.

Okay, wonderful.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, and yes, that's exactly right.

And thank you, Ali, also for your explanation.

When the payroll expense tax was passed in 2020, 9% was intended to fund Green New Deal programs, which in 2022 would be 21 million Green New Deal activists who helped the movement gather signatures for the ballot initiative that at that time for the tax, they were fighting for those funds to transition Seattle buildings off fossil fuels like oil and natural gas used for heaters and hot water.

We know Seattle's latest greenhouse gas emissions report published by the Office of Sustainability and Environment found that Seattle is nowhere close to on track meeting the city's goals to reduce climate change.

And it's one of those things where if you look at it since 2008, there has been some reduction, but that reduction is nowhere on track.

And on top of that, more troubling is the news that since 2016 actually building emissions have gone up so that that puts a lot of pressure on us as a city to really put our best foot forward to you know make up for the last time and then make sure that we are on target in the near future.

The mayor's proposed budget has $1.5 million to convert low-income homes from low-oil heat to electric, and there's $6.5 million reserved for Green New Deal Oversight Board recommendations.

This budget amendment would add $13 million to the funds that Office of Housing has available to support low-income households to get off fossil fuel energy and go to clean renewable energy.

I would also add that members of the Green New Deal Oversight Board have been discussing the best application of these funds and recommend that one or two million of these 13 million be used to support the workforce training initiatives for a just transition for the workers in the fossil fuel industries, which of course is extremely, I mean, it's a critical component of if we're actually going to beat the climate catastrophe.

that is not reflected in the draft of this draft of the budget amendment, but I just wanted to raise that as a consideration for the balancing package and for the later rounds of budget discussions.

And just lastly, this budget amendment is for $13 million because I see that as the best reflection of what we have seen in terms of our commitment to fund Green New Deal infrastructure, but obviously it would be remiss of me if I didn't say that far more is needed to seriously address climate change.

And my office has also sent all council members a draft budget amendment to increase the big business tax rate to raise an additional $85 million per year for Green New Deal programs, as supported by the People's Budget and the Solidarity Budget.

but we haven't got co-sponsors for that amendment, but I just wanted to mention that.

But however, even this $13 million would be a substantial expansion of the city's funding for building decarbonization, and I believe it should be a priority.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Swann.

Any additional comments or questions?

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to O09.

O09A1 would add $2.8 million of general fund to the Office of Housing to fund operations and maintenance costs for new permanently affordable housing projects serving homeless households.

This is sponsored by Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

So in 2021 affordable housing providers in Seattle used state funds called rapid acquisition funds to buy five older rental housing buildings in Seattle to use for affordable permanent supportive housing.

Three buildings on Capitol Hill, one in Fremont and one in Beacon Hill.

Typically when Seattle's Office of Housing funds affordable housing projects, the funding for operations and maintenance of the building are built into the budget, which we all I'm sure would agree is crucial to prevent affordable housing from rapidly becoming dilapidated.

However, the operations and maintenance funding for this rapid acquisition buildings is less clear.

The Office of Housing does have funding that could be used to support these operations and maintenance.

through emergency housing choice vouchers.

However, the service providers are concerned that the housing choice vouchers are tied to individuals who may or may not move into these buildings.

And they're concerned that because of that, the funding for the Office of Housing will not be sufficient to cover the operations and maintenance of these buildings.

So this $2.8 million reflects the low-income housing providers' estimates of the operations and maintenance funding that will be required for these five buildings.

Thank you very much.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

I do want to thank you, Council Member Swann.

I think that there is a lot of overlap as well and synergy here on the need to make sure that there's dollars freed up for the permanent supportive housing using the housing vouchers as a way for us to make sure that the permanent supportive housing is there.

I would love to work more with you and with central staff to make sure that we're addressing this issue.

And I think that in part, we are saying similar things in the First Amendment that we discussed yesterday, making sure that there's funding for the turnkey ready permanent supportive housing, using rapid acquisition as well to bring more housing online.

We know that there's going to be a number of new buildings that, excuse me, buildings and housing units that will be open later this year and early next year.

And we know that there is a gap for funding for making sure that they have the services needed to accompany folks who are moving into those facilities to make sure that they're stably housed and have access to services that they need.

So the amendment that we discussed on Monday yesterday also attempts to address the service gap by providing direction that the $6 million that was going to support emergency housing service vouchers actually be included into our progressive revenue jumpstart proposal that adds, I think, over $50 million into making sure that there's capital and supportive housing services, but specifically calling out that $6 million should continue to be used for the supportive service element.

And I think we anticipate a portion of those affordable housing projects will be filled by the services paired with the vouchers.

So I think we have a similar strategy to make sure that we're closing that gap.

And I guess I would ask central staff, Allie or Tracy, if you have any additional information about where there might be similar approaches with this proposal and the one that we discussed yesterday morning.

And we can always talk more offline if needed.

Sorry, I didn't tee up that question for central staff in advance.

You have it exactly right, Council Member Mesquita.

That is surely in the conversation about the $6 million of services and then zeroing in on what we think the services gap will be, making some assumptions about vouchers, about state dollars that are to be allocated yet, as well as some federal dollars that we are hoping to secure for these purposes.

So yep, you are absolutely right.

We will address it in that conversation about the services funding in particular.

Okay, wonderful.

So thank you very much, Council Member.

for flagging this, and I think as we look at the ways in which we're pairing the $58.7 million that we freed up in the amendment yesterday, we've also added to that $6 million specifically for the housing services.

So we'll crosswalk that with this amendment as we get into the details.

Thank you for flagging this gap so explicitly.

Let's go on to the next item.

OH10A001, this is a slide that would request that funding decisions for OH's fall 2021 notice of funding availability, recognize the availability of 2022 affordable housing appropriations, and also that it would request OH to recommend modifications to the housing funding policies.

And this is co-sponsored by Council Member Mejia.

Sorry, Council Member Mejia.

And co-sponsored, thank you very much, Council Member Herbold and Council Member Strauss.

And I see Council Member Morales on the screen as well.

I think there's a lot of overlap in the conversation we had at the beginning of the O.H.

amendment presentation here.

I wanted to, again, reiterate that this policy that is in front of you comes directly from the Affordable Housing and Community-Oriented Development and Displacement Roundtable conversations that we've been having.

The Office of Housing's 2021 Notice of Funding Availability, or the NOFAs, as we talked about yesterday, are intended to provide funding for the production and preservation of affordable rental housing, and currently we know that there's only about $35 million in that bucket.

However, we know that there was over 14 projects that applied for this pot of funding.

More than $100 million was requested.

And for context, as you probably saw in the budget amendment here, we provided a comparison to previous years.

Last year, we offered near $100 million in NOFA funds.

The year before that, $110 million.

The year before that, near $80 million.

And the year before that as well, near $100 million.

So we're under.

investing in an area we know that there is shovel-ready projects, and where we know that there's shovel-ready projects, we should be doing everything we can to front-load funding to bring those housing units online as soon as possible.

That's exactly what this amendment does.

It allows for us to front-load the Jump Start investments to invest in those shovel-ready projects that we know are ready to go because of the NOFA submissions, but for the lack of funding right now in 2021, they weren't able to move forward.

So this investment helps to make sure this slide would authorize Office of Housing to forward commit 2022 dollars from Jumpstart Investments where we know that there are shovel ready projects that have applied for the 2021 NOFA and allow for the Office of Housing to forward commit those dollars.

This really I think is a smart to help reduce barriers, especially for those smaller community-based developers who are directly helping to try to fund projects in communities that are at highest risk of displacement and creating greater, I think, self-determination and direction in terms of establishing the housing that they know that they need.

Thanks so much for letting me explain that, and we'll go Councilmember, Council President Gonzalez, and then Councilmember, so on.

Council President, please go ahead.

Thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

I know we've been talking about this issue for quite some time and appreciate you bringing this forward and would like to add my name as a co-sponsor.

Thank you very much, Council President Gonzalez.

Council President Gonzalez adding her name to OH010.

Council Member Sawant.

I also wanted to add myself as a co-sponsor.

Thank you very much, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Sawant adding her name to OH010.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

Let's move on.

We have one more item.

Actually, we're moving now on to the walk-on amendments.

We have OH walk-on amendment number one that would request the office of housing to provide a bridge loan for the acquisition of Choir Park Plaza housing project.

This is sponsored by Council Member Sawant.

Excellent.

Council Member Sawant, please walk us through your walk-on amendment number one, OH walk-on one.

Thank you.

So Squire Park Plaza containing 60 mostly affordable homes was recently put up for sale to prevent the displacement of the Squire Park Plaza residents.

The New Hope Community Development Institute is partnering with Lehigh to purchase the building and guarantee the ongoing affordability of all 60 units, Lehigh being, of course, low-income housing institute.

Over 75% of the residents are from marginalized communities and many are very low income.

This is not the first time that these tenants have been at risk of losing their affordable housing.

In fact, in 2015, their building was also put on the market and the tenants organized to get an affordable housing provider to purchase the building in collaboration with a bank.

But now the bank is putting the building back up for sale.

The New Hope Community Development Institute and The Low Income Housing Institute have been selected to buy the building, which is good news for the renters there.

However, they need to close before the end of this year, before the end of 2021. And the building was put up for sale after the Office of Housing's deadline for funding applications for this year.

So the affordable housing providers need a bridge loan this year so they can close on the building and have the time to do more permanent funding applications.

This budget amendment would authorize the Office of Housing to make that bridge loan this year in 2021. I would really appeal to council members to support this.

Thank you very much Council Member Sawant.

Thanks to the folks who've also called in today and yesterday on this topic.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Okay, thank you very much Council Member Swann.

And as I think our office chatted with your office, we are doing some internal work right now with the Office of Housing to see if there's any immediate funds that could be freed up in advance of the budget deliberations here.

And I want to thank Emily Alvarado and her team at the Office of Housing for continuing to be responsive and quickly trying to identify additional sources.

So look forward to continuing to work with you Council Member Swann on that availability if that is a possibility as well.

Okay, let's go on to the next one, walk on number two.

Yes, the final amendment related to the Office of Housing walk on number two would add $106.8 million to the Office of Housing low income housing programs.

This is sponsored by Council Member Swann.

That's my response.

Thank you.

And just on the previous one, I wanted to say that my office really looks forward to working with you, Chair Mosqueda, and making sure that we have the funds for the Esquire Park Plaza are purchased by and to close that deal for New Hope Institute and Low Income Housing Institute.

So I really look forward to working together with you on that.

For this walk-on amendment, when the payroll expense tax was passed in 2020, we know 62% was intended to fund affordable housing.

62% of the expected payroll expense tax revenue would have been $145.45 million.

Unfortunately, Mayor Durkan's proposed 2022 budget dedicates only $38.6 million.

of that expected $145.45 million of those funds in 2022, a reduction of $106.85 million in funding for affordable housing.

And as has been discussed, those funds were instead used to increase the general fund, essentially balancing the rest of the mayor's proposed budget.

Part of that $106 million was used to backfill other parts of the mayor's proposed budget.

Part of that was authorized by the legislation.

that the council passed over the summer.

But my office has been consistently advocating for stopping budget cuts by increasing the big business tax rate of the payroll tax.

And I think we should be comparing the funding for affordable housing and the Green New Deal to the initial commitments that the council unanimously made in the spending plan of the payroll expense tax last year.

and using that as the minimum benchmark.

Those were the commitments made to all the organizers that gathered the ballot initiative signatures to win that progressive revenue.

And that intended $145 million should have been in addition to other funds for affordable housing.

It should have been in addition to the federal funds.

and the levy funds and the MHA funds, because the reality is even that 145 million we know is actually far less than it's truly needed to address the consequences of the devastating housing and homelessness crisis in the city, which predates the pandemic, as we all know.

This budget amendment would increase the big business tax rate of the payroll expense tax to raise the additional 106.85 million required to fully fund the affordable housing commitment that the council made last year.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay, thank you so much.

Council Member Sawant, I thank you for The comments that you made about how the funding from Jump Start is supposed to be additive.

And I really think that this council has been very clear that our expectation was that the Jump Start funds should have been additive, especially in relation to housing.

should have been added to the levy, to the federal ARPA funds, to MHA fees, as you noted.

I also want to make sure that I emphasize the importance of the legislation that we as a council, including Councilor Swann, that we all passed earlier this year to create a transparent fund and codify our spend plan in anticipation of those funds being swept for other items.

That was an important piece of legislation that we all made a commitment to keeping those percentages in place.

Part of the language that was included in that legislation that unanimously passed by council for the spend plan was also recognizing that if we have shorter than anticipated revenue, we have shortfalls from the revenue, that are less than anticipated funds, we could be in a situation where an austerity budget would be in front of us.

So we did allow for a portion of those funds to be used on a temporary basis if revenue falls below a certain threshold.

And I too want to make sure that we're committing not only to the percentage amounts, but to the actual dollar amounts.

And I know that we will continue to do so in future years.

The importance of making sure that we've allowed for that vow is so that we could avoid austerity budgeting.

I think we heard the central staff note earlier in our presentations two weeks ago that because of the ability to make sure that we were creating that valve, the entire balance budget that we have in front of us is only possible because of jumpstart.

However, we want those jumpstart dollars to go to the places that we said that they would go.

That is why we're freeing up the 50 million that had been basically backfilled by federal dollars to make sure that we're keeping true to that 62%.

And I know that we're going to continue to see the amount grow in the future.

But we did allow for the temporary use of Jumpstart in emergencies where we see much lower than expected revenue because we want to avoid austerity budgeting.

We want to keep parks and community centers and child care services and food assistance available to folks.

So I too want to make sure that we're continuing to build that back up.

And I know that it will happen as we see our revenue projections be more on track.

and we have codified our spend plan so we won't see swipes at the jumpstart funds like we have in the proposed budget.

And I'm hoping that the amendment that we discussed yesterday, make sure that we maintain our commitments to those investments.

But I do wanna underscore that we did pass unanimously that spend plan so that we could avoid austerity budgeting and absolutely committed to those percentages remaining in track in our codified spend plan that is now our law.

So I think there's a lot of overlap here in terms of intent with that first amendment we discussed yesterday and I look forward to working with you all to make sure that we stay true to those pieces as well as prevent against austerity budgeting.

Okay, not seeing additional comments, let's go on to the next section.

Tracy, thank you for all the work that you did on the office of housing pieces here.

We're running just a little bit behind schedule, but I think we can make up some time.

We have office of, excuse me, we have homelessness service related items as our next category.

I want to thank Jeff Sims for being with us and Again, we are gonna try to get through this set of items before 1 p.m.

If we can move on to another section, even after that, that would be fantastic, because we only have a few items under parks, but we will see what we can do.

Let's kick it off, Jeff, with our first item under homeless services.

Excuse me, Jeff, I'm sorry.

Let me ask the clerk to read item number two into the record.

Agenda item two, homelessness response.

That was short and sweet.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Jeff, please go ahead.

Sure.

The first section would be HOM001A001.

It was proposed by Council Member Lewis.

It would add $200,000 in general fund one-time funding to HSD to continue hazard pay and COVID leave at an agency that provides services for youth that experience homelessness.

In this case, it'd be such as Youth Care youth care as the recipient, they previously received a PPP loan, a federal PPP loan, that allowed them to provide these benefits and increased hazard pay to their employees.

That loan won't be renewed, and so that's the basis for this funding gap that they're looking for.

And I'll turn it over to the sponsor, Council Member Lewis.

Thank you.

uh...

thank you jeff unfortunately have sort of an anti-climactic response here uh...

but yet has given uh...

conversations with the chair uh...

that have happened since introducing the amendment it seems clear that this is going to be within the scope of the provider pay increase that Chair Muscat is going to be proposing in, I believe, tomorrow's session, which would make this amendment actually moot at this point.

So I'm actually withdrawing this amendment Given that we're not only going to be addressing this issue for youth care, but for many of our great frontline providers and really appreciate that proposal coming together with Chairman Skater and looking forward to having more remarks on that tomorrow in the context of all of our providers.

Thank you very much, Council Member Lewis, and we look forward to your comments as well tomorrow on that discussion.

Really appreciate the work that you have done, especially with youth care and other providers, and look forward to helping to create greater stability across our provider network.

So thank you for that news.

Let's go on.

I don't see any additional questions.

Let's go ahead, Jeff.

HUM00281 is adding $600,000 in one-time funding, a general fund, to HSD to support COVID modifications and services at a youth engagement center.

Again, this would be for an agency such as Youth Care.

In this case, the council provided, over the course of 2021, an additional $800,000 for these type of programs.

Many of youth care's programs would be considered a day center and then complemented with a basic shelter program.

And so the additional funding that HSD has been providing for shelter programs that are enhanced shelters to maintain de-intensification isn't perfectly lining up with youth care's programs, which end up being kind of a day center merged with shelter and become more holistic.

So this would add $600,000 to the cost like, such as, Sorry, it was thrown off a little bit there.

This would add $600,000 for things such as increased rent and utility costs, things like that.

And I'll turn it over to the sponsor, Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Jeff.

So this is just another story of one of our providers continuing to be in a position where they need to adapt to the new realities of operating services in a world defined by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This has involved, as Jeff just sort of gave an overview to, converting former day center spaces into 24-7 engagement centers and allowing longer term engagement and 24-7 stays.

and This is another example of of if there is a silver lining to COVID, it's the improvement of the space and the service level that some of our providers have had to, by mandate, step up to.

But as we know, it's hard to meet those mandates without requisite resources.

So this is a opportunity for us to step in and make sure that we can sustain and support youth care and their new leadership team in providing this new engagement and 24-7 service on a more sustained basis going forward, and really enhance the mission of serving a a group of people experiencing homelessness that we don't often discuss, but that is a huge part of the population, which is youth experiencing homelessness.

So really appreciate the opportunity to bring this forward and work with the new leadership team under Colleen Echo Hawk over at Youth Care and hope to see some support from colleagues to make sure we're meeting this critical service gap.

Thank you very much, Council Member Lewis.

Any additional comments or questions on this item?

I'm not seeing anything.

Thank you very much, Council Member.

Let's move on to 003. HLM003A1.

I'm so sorry.

I'm sorry.

Council Member Morales, I did not have a chance to see you.

Please go ahead on 002.

I was late to the game, sorry.

Yes, I would like to add myself as a co-sponsor, please.

Okay, thank you, Council Member Morales.

Council Member Morales adding her name to HLM002.

Appreciate it.

Let's go ahead, yeah.

Sure, HM 3A1 is adding $700,000 to HSD to support two workforce development programs for youth experiencing homelessness.

The example here would be, again, youth care programs.

In this case, both the programs that would not have funding have previously had grant funding that the grant source, the program's just not a good match for.

One of them is a Department of Labor program.

One of them was funded through HSD's Youth and Family Empowerment Division, and the funding stream was recently re-competed.

because these are programs that focus on youth experiencing homelessness rather than youth overall or other types of dynamics of the funding streams.

They have not continued to receive funding through those, and this ongoing funding would allow those programs to continue.

Thank you very much.

Please go ahead, Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So this is really a great opportunity to partner with youth care on protecting and expanding a critical function of their programming, which is workforce development for folks who they do casework with.

Lots of young people experiencing homelessness tend to be in a transitional state of homelessness.

And it gives us the best opportunities to work with young folks, to give them the skills, the jobs, the connections, and the opportunity necessary to not fall into a state of chronic homelessness.

And this is really one of the biggest value adds from the work that youth care is doing, is being able to respond to this unique positioning that young people experiencing homelessness have as being overrepresented, which is a strong connection with this workforce component.

So this funding is going to allow, as Jeff said, the programmatic continuation, given that there's some unreliability of some of the other external funding opportunities and grants that youth care has historically had to rely on.

And, you know, as we all know, the more folks that we can exit from homelessness, the fewer folks that we have to plan for in terms of caseload for chronic homelessness, which becomes a much bigger issue.

So this is really a really critical upstream investment, and youth care is a good track record of doing a lot with a little.

So this $700,000 I think could also really be seen as a strong homelessness prevention program, and looking forward to seeing what the new leadership team over there does with this resource.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Lewis.

Councilmember Morales, I believe your hand might be carried over from the last time, so I'm going to ask a quick question just to give you some time to let me know or lower it.

Thank you.

I do actually have a question here for central staff related to Councilmember Morales's amendments from yesterday at the office of economic development.

We saw the creative industry amendment specifically focused on youth and workforce development support as well.

Is there overlap directly with this amendment proposal in front of us?

And I see Allie on the line here too.

Go ahead, Allie.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I would defer to the sponsor on whether or not it is there The sponsors, I need to talk more to understand if there's direct overlap, I would say.

I think one of the amendments is also looking at sort of creating an overall strategy for workforce development, which also pairs nicely with your proposed investment in creating a plan for investments in the economic revitalization dollars within the Jumpstart Fund.

So I think what you're noting here is there is some spreading across several departments, our investments in workforce development, and we'll be continuing to have conversations as we work with you, Council Member Morales, and other council members on the balancing package, because I think the intent, and Council Member Morales, correct me if I'm wrong, is a part of the work in 2022 is to really take that head on and come up with a more holistic strategy for how the city is investing and supporting workforce development.

That's right.

Thank you, Allie.

Wonderful, and Council Member Lewis, does the sponsor have anything to add or flag about that overlap?

I think it goes more to how we would effectuate getting the resource to youth care.

I could conceivably see them being eligible for some of those resources, but I don't know exactly how it would work.

I think my bottom line is wanting to make sure that they get the money necessary to continue their economic development work.

what department they get it from, I'm ambivalent on.

Wonderful, thank you.

And as I mentioned to the folks at Youth Care, having toured and seen the way in which their training facility is coordinated with their day services and just really creating a nice educational opportunity for youth.

I am very impressed.

So thank you for helping to flag the intersect between those two central staff and co-sponsors, excuse me, sponsors of those different amendments.

I think we can move on to HLM 004.

$770,000 to maintain and expand vehicle resident outreach and parking offenses.

The scoff lot mitigation program had been funded at $100,000.

This would continue funding because there's not funding for that program in the proposed budget.

It would not only continue that, but also increase it and add funding for safe parking lots to be operated by that program in conjunction with its fiscal sponsor, U Heights.

So let's turn it over to the prime sponsor, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Jeff.

Very good description of what this amendment is.

Last year, it was $100,000, and there were some issues with the fiscal sponsor.

In that time since last year, the new fiscal sponsor is able to provide greater resources to ensuring that this program is set up for success, which is why we are ready to start expanding the program and tying a place for people to go in with the outreach, and a place for people to go.

So this amendment seeks to invest $770,000 to expand the vehicle residency outreach team and the supportive safe lot pilot.

The vehicle residency outreach team is an important piece of the homelessness outreach strategy since 40% of our city's homelessness population lives in their cars and RVs.

The City of Seattle's Count Us In report showed that showed a doubling of vehicle residents from 2017 to 2019. So the vehicle residency outreach workers regularly make hundreds of contacts annually to people living in their vehicles.

They help people regain stability by ensuring that they have car tabs, licenses, providing vehicle repair to keep moving, and providing referrals to other services including shelter and housing.

The supportive safe parking pilot is a program that gives temporary, overnight, or 24-7 safe location to park for individuals and families living in the vehicles while providing access to services that will transition them into more stable housing.

The goal of the safe parking lot is to offer stability and reliable transition space for program participants to prevent them from falling further into poverty and ultimately a pathway to housing.

Safe lots reduce the number of vehicle dwellers along public streets, reducing stress and frustration for them and the business owners and residents in the areas where they park.

With an average of three to six month stays in lots, this program plans to host a minimum of 80 to 120 people in the 2022 pilot year.

The vehicle residency program and the safe lot expansion will work in tandem.

Outreach workers will act as referral agents to safe parking sites as well as provide additional follow-up support.

In turn, vehicle residents will be provided with a stable place to reside with access to hygiene services and case management to ensure that the program is both a road to stability and to housing.

I want to just call out the fact that for many people living in their cars or RVs, it's their last piece of property.

And so moving straight into shelter or housing is often something that is scary to them because it requires them to give up their last piece of property.

By creating the safe lot parking pilot and combining it with the Scott Flatt Outreach team, we have the ability to help transition people out of their cars and into homes.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Swatt and then Council Member Herbold.

I just wanted to say that I would like to co-sponsor this amendment, H.R.M. 4A.1, because ticketing and towing of vehicles that people depend on for shelter because they have become unhoused is an unmitigated disaster.

Having your car towed, even for house people, is miserable.

It's miserable for anyone.

If you ever had your car towed, you know what I mean.

But for people who depend on their vehicle for shelter, that it is much, much more than that.

For vehicle residents, it means losing not only your car, but also your home and all your belongings.

Really, the city should not be ticketing and towing vehicles that people live in.

And my office has repeatedly and publicly urged Mayor Durkin not to enforce a 72-hour parking ban.

However, as long as the city is going to be ticketing and towing vehicles people live in, we at least need these mitigation resources.

So I wish to co-sponsor this budget amendment.

I also have a question, which is probably for Jeff Sims.

Later into this agenda, the budget amendment proposed by my office for safe parking lots and the costs that we've been quoted are higher than what we see in this amendment.

So I'm just wondering what the source of that cost discrepancy is.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, Jeff.

I'll be, actually, as I introduce the next amendment, which is the one that Council Member Swant refers to, I can address that directly.

Okay, that sounds good.

Council Member Swant, Council Member Swant, adding her name to HLM 004. Thank you very much, Council Member.

Council Member Herbold?

Thank you.

I'm inclined to add my name as well, purely as it relates to the $110,000 in this budget action to support the scofflaw mitigation program.

I do have a question about the additional funds associated with the safe lot program.

My recollection is that We have allocated funds for 2021 that we've been told by King County Homelessness Authority and by the mayor's office that those RV safe lot dollars are transferring over that we've already allocated for 21. They're gonna transfer over to KCHA for the 2022 budget and will be implemented by the Homelessness Authority in 2022 for the purposes of which council considered for an RV safe lot, and I think that was about $700,000.

So I'm just trying to understand, is this additional $660,000, if my recollection is correct, in addition to the approximately $750,000 that the council already authorized?

Yes, it would be, Council Member Herbold.

First, I want to make sure it's clear.

I've been saying because of the way we write our actions that this would go to HSD.

But as council members, I'm sure I'll notice that every single one notes that that would then get contracted to the regional authority.

And I want to make sure that was clear to respond to your question that, yes, in the end of this calendar year, 2021, it's $500,000 that the Seattle Rescue Plan 1 provided for RV and vehicle services.

Those funds have not been spent.

No RFP has to this point been issued.

The Regional Authority on Homelessness has committed to doing so and issuing that RFP.

It's unclear how many or how long or even the type of services that $500,000 would provide.

When it was formulated, we were assuming a total with that of 25 vehicles of some kind and not for a full year of services necessarily.

I think it was a half year of services is what we We assume with that.

So a difference between the proposal that you're looking at in HOM 401 would add to that $500,000.

So you'd have, if this were to be passed in its entirety, it'd be $1.2 million, almost 1.3, and would be an even larger number of safe lots.

And because it's unclear how the authority will end up implementing the $500,000 it will already have, It's not possible for me to say how the services might complement or interact with each other.

Thank you.

You know, I think one of the things that would be helpful to understand is we have heard from the King County Homelessness Authority that they do intend to move over our existing HSD or HSI contracts and to honor the funding intent behind them.

I don't know if we have that commitment for changes that we're making to the budget now.

And I only raise that because as it relates specifically to the RV safe lot proposal, there's been much said about both the executive's position and I think the regional homelessness authorities position that they are still searching for a safe lot model that does more than provide a safe place for folks to exist or to avoid being ticketed.

I support those outcomes.

It's not clear that the executive or Or the Homelessness Authority supports a program that has those outcomes exclusively and is really looking, as I understand it, for a program that also is successful in getting people out of their RVs.

and into permanent housing.

And they seem to be saying that such a model doesn't exist anywhere in the country.

And so I'm just concerned about continuing to identify money to park in the regional authority with this sort of uncertainty around their commitment to this particular type of intervention that I think this council has shown support for.

I do in the interim, I'm going to say that I'm adding myself as a sponsor to this item, but I would hope that we could get some of those questions answered over the next couple weeks.

Thank you.

Thank you very much Council Member Herbold, Council Member Herbold adding her name as well to HOM004.

Before I take the next Council Member, I do want to just reiterate the importance of the questions that Council Member Herbold just noted.

I appreciate the sponsors and Council Member Lewis as well who has been working with RHA.

I too have had conversations with the Regional Homelessness Authority and I know that there's been ongoing opportunities for the Regional Homelessness Authority team to have visited with folks from various safe lots that do exist in our city right now and clearly not enough.

So I'm very appreciative of this amendment also being brought forward.

I thank the sponsor for wanting to expand those services and Council Member Herbold and I as well earlier this year had been working very hard to try to make sure that those RV safe lots and the RV storage, was that last year's funding, not earlier this year?

Okay, that was last year.

At this time, we passed the RV safe lot and RV storage.

And was it earlier this year?

It was earlier this year, Council Member.

It was part of the Seattle Rescue Plan 1.

It's been a long year.

Earlier this year, we passed the RV safe lot and the RV storage, appreciate the work here to expand the safe lots.

And then last year at this time, we did also have to build back into the budget, the protection for the scofflaw mitigation project this year and the year before that.

So obviously this is an area that we want to seek the additional support for those who are living unsheltered and only have a vehicle to reside in right now.

I too am wanting to make sure that there is follow through on the commitments to stand up these safe lot options and greatly appreciate the work that the RHA has done with the providers on the ground to learn more about the existing programs, but want to underscore what Council Member Herbold noted, which is the quickness in which we need to be seeing these dollars deployed versus recreating programs.

And it looks like we have an opportunity to do that with a a commitment from RHA to move forward, but I think the question for me is how quickly and with how much direction can the council continue to offer on this area?

I did see another hand.

I'm sorry.

I see Council Member Lewis, but perhaps someone lowered their hand.

Council Member Strauss as well.

Thank you, Chair.

Just in response, I always think it's important to bring solutions that are full.

And as Council President oftentimes says, it doesn't matter how many outreach workers you have, unless you have a place for people to go.

Those outreach workers are not going to be as successful as they can be.

And so that's why this request.

from the providers is a tandem request of having outreach workers and setting them up for success with having a place to go.

So all of those other questions still stand, and that's why this is tied.

Also just clarifying that we are expanding the outreach beyond $100,000 and happy to follow.

So it's not $600,000 for the safe lot.

I'm happy to follow up with more information after the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This won't be a question.

This is just going to be a brief statement of support for this amendment, and I appreciate Council Member Strauss bringing this forward and collaborating with our office on some of the details.

You know, I think that this is an area that is emblematic of a lot of our homelessness implementation issues as a city where things get delayed because the good is the enemy of the perfect.

I don't know that there's a great national model for this.

I understand that when we tried something in the Murray administration five years ago, it didn't work very well, but that has to be weighed against the status quo of not supporting people at all who are in this position of living in an RV or providing any kind of support or guidance for neighbors who are concerned about having large concentrations of RV campers on their block.

And, you know, I think we've got to get away from sort of the roadrunner logic of like Wile E. Coyote trying one thing once and it fails and you don't fine tune your proposal.

I think that this is a good example where experimentation and trying new things is better than a status quo where we're not doing anything.

and Council Member Strauss's proposal puts us further in that direction of interaction and proactivity and I really appreciate this and I think it's really important given the massive number of our neighbors who are living in vehicles.

Well said, thank you and I think that helps transition to the next item as well to continue to show the show of support for the safe floods here.

Council Member Strauss, a final comment on this?

On another topic, I'm not sure if I raised my hand for HOM003.

And if I did, I wanted to note my co-sponsorship of HOM003.

Council Member Strauss adding his name to HOM003, which is the work with youth experiencing homelessness.

Thank you.

OK, thank you so much.

I'm going to move us along to HOM005.

Just have to say as well, even even though we may have had some pushback and 2000, excuse me, five years ago, prior to my time on council, I think there's been a lot of changes in sort of the understanding and the appreciation of some of the temporary housing solutions that.

the council and the city and other cities across the country are trying to pursue.

I think there's been a lot of evolution on tiny homes, for example, and the desire to see more tiny homes across our city.

So I think that it is absolutely important that we continue to expand the support for these safe lots and have a safe place for people to go as we work to stand up additional non-congregate shelter options and ultimately that permanent supportive housing that we are going to be able to invest in.

um, in 2022 and beyond.

So with that customer respond, I know you have a similar related topic.

Let's go on to a 005.

H1M5A1 would add $2.7 million in ongoing funding and $1.9 million in one-time funding, so a total of $4.6 million to create and operate three new safe parking lots.

The primary sponsor on this is Council Member Salwant with Council Members Morales and Lewis as the co-sponsors.

And per your question previously, Council Member Salwant, the primary difference here is the number of vehicles that would be served, whereas the immediately preceding budget proposal of H1-4 would serve three lots ranging from five to 10 vehicles.

So let's say between 15 and 30 vehicles, your proposal covers between, is estimated at around 75 vehicles.

So it's somewhere about three to five times as many vehicles would be served.

That's the principal difference.

There is a slight difference in the types of services.

The proposal here on H1-5 would also incorporate pump-out services for RVs.

So that was a little bit of the inclusion for some of the startup and ongoing costs to provide those services, which I don't believe are currently provided by U-Heights and the Scott-Fall mitigation team.

They do focus on other types of things, but not pumping out RVs.

So hopefully that, I think that also serves as a way of introduction.

So I'll turn it over to the primary sponsor, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you very much, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, and thank you, Jeff, for that explanation.

That was extremely helpful to hear what the differences are in terms of how many vehicles will be, vehicular residents, rather, would be supported.

So as you said, with this amendment that I'm speaking to right now, up to 75, vehicles would be supported.

And also, I appreciate you also clarifying that the pump-out, RV pump-out services are not currently being provided.

And I've definitely, you know, intentionally made a, underscored that point when I spoke to the other budget amendment from my office of, in relation to vehicular residents.

I specifically underscored the need to provide pump out services because that that is something that I mean just you can imagine that that is a dire need in order to make sure that the people are sustainably able to stay there as long as they are in lack of permanent affordable housing.

Obviously the best program for affordable housing is to provide affordable housing But short of that, we need to make sure that the people who are forced to live in RVs, they're not doing that by choice, they're doing that because they don't have access to affordable housing, that they have the immediate services.

And as I mentioned yesterday, Support from house neighbors for those services specifically pump out and garbage services is actually high because everybody has a shared goal that we need to make sure that the neighborhoods are able to survive for the time being.

And so those are important points.

This budget amendment would fund three new safe parking lots to the tune of 75 vehicles.

Safe parking lots we know will provide a safe location for people to park their car or RV, where they will not be towed, where there can be bathrooms, garbage collection.

pump out services of course, case management, services of that kind.

I also mentioned yesterday that half of our homeless neighbors shelter in their vehicles and there are simply not nearly the resources necessary to support those neighbors.

This has been a demand of the people's budget movement and is also supported by the solidarity budget.

And we know safe parking lots and services for vehicular residents is also something that Real Change has consistently advocated for.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member.

Are there any additional questions or comments on this item?

Wonderful, thank you.

I do really appreciate the scale at which you're talking about expanding the RV safe lot, excuse me, the safe lots in general here.

Given the difference in the size that we're talking about, even the RV safe lot we talked about last year was 25 vehicles total.

Council Member, does your office, have you have been able to have conversations with some of the operators to see about this scale?

Are they able to do a safe lots to 30 or so vehicles in one location?

Or do we need to think about more locations to serve that same number of people?

I mean, I'm not sure exactly the response to your question, but I appreciate that question and my office can inquire on that specifically.

But I also know that the need is so high that I have no doubt that the providers One, if they have the funds to do something, they would be flexible on that.

My office is certainly flexible on that, you know, whether it is up to 30 vehicles in one lot or a fewer number of vehicles in more distributed lots.

You could probably make good rational arguments for both, you know, because it's also a question of having them available throughout the city as well.

So I'm personally very flexible on that, but would very much like to connect with the providers, and then we can be in touch with your office.

Thank you.

Okay, wonderful.

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead.

You know, jumping in on that point, Madam Chair, and maybe this is a question, well, this is a question for central staff, so get ready, Jeff.

But I was gonna say that, it there's no shortage of sites for these kinds of things and there's no such shortage of sites that are in city possession is just a matter of the will of city departments to make them available to meet the biggest emergency our city is facing So I do wonder if there might be a way to put a tandem statement of legislative intent here or some kind of request for finance administrative services to compile a list of city-owned sites that would potentially be suitable sites to host some kind of use like this and to report back to the council so that we have it and the public can see or the regional authority could take advantage of it.

You know, just sort of a thought, because a lot of a lot of the land that the city owns for a lot of departments is procured and maintained for the purpose of parking large trucks or parking vehicles, it's it's sort of naturally acquired.

for the work that, you know, Seattle Public Utilities or SDOT or Seattle City Light does.

I don't see any reason why some of those sites, if they're not currently being utilized, couldn't be used for a similar function, which is the parking of RVs with attendant on-site services.

And maybe finance administrative services, The keeper of all of our real estate secrets could compile a list of suitable sites.

Just throwing that out there as a possible suggestion.

And then Mark, Mark Jones, if you're listening, you can take advantage of that list.

Thanks.

Excellent.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, yes.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis for raising that point about looking at the potential for using city owned or leased lots for this purpose.

I would, of course, completely support that.

And I don't see why we couldn't do what, as you said, in tandem with this amendment, a statement of legislative intent to look into it.

I would definitely support that and would look forward to working with you on that.

Wonderful, thank you all.

Let's move on to HOM006.

HOM006A1 adds $212,000 in one-time funding to maintain and expand day center services in the downtown and Ballard neighborhoods.

The lead sponsor for this is Councilmember Strauss, with Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Lewis as co-sponsors.

This would, essentially, the envisioned provider here would be Lehigh.

It would allow Lehigh to add, which currently operates these two programs, it would allow Lehigh to add approximately three employees to support their existing services at the downtown rest stop, and then expand hours into the evening and to the weekend at the Ballard rest stop.

So I will turn it over to Council Member Strauss for further description.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Jeff summed up almost all my talking points.

Good job.

Thank you, Jeff.

This amendment seeks to significantly increase the hours of operation at the Ballard Urban Rest Stop location and downtown location as well to expand into evenings and weekends.

The Urban Rest Stop is a hygiene center providing free restroom showers and laundry facilities to unhouse individuals and families by providing access to essential hygiene services with a clean, safe, and dignified environment.

The Urban Rest Stop improves self-sufficiency of individuals and their families.

The Urban Rest Stop also helps nearby businesses as it alleviates the need for people to use those businesses' bathroom facilities in the evenings or weekends when the urban rest stop is currently closed.

Based on past counts, this amendment would add another 10,000 showers, 1,000 loads of laundry, and another 500 to 600 people able to benefit from the rest stop services.

Thank you, Jeff.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Lew, excuse me, Council Member Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I'd like to add my name as a co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson adding his name to HOM006.

Question for central staff on this.

Given the transition to the Regional Homelessness Authority, I have this question for a number of the upcoming homelessness-related amendments.

We say in here, for example, these services are currently provided by Lehigh.

Do we have a mechanism to ensure that the contracted providers continue so there's continuity of care and those relationships and the services as we think about how these services will be ultimately managed by RHA?

I think there's two steps that the council can ensure such kind of provisions are followed.

First would be, as appropriate, adding a proviso to the funds to ensure they're used in that way.

And then also, as council members have heard me say before, there will be a master services agreement set up between the Human Services Department and the King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

And that contract will stipulate a variety of conditions for the use of funds, including potentially these funds.

So there would be two steps to make sure such a requirement was incorporated so that when KCRHA enacts it, that could be imposed.

And additional note that the regional authority has already said that there's not an intention to recompete or change existing contracts that will be received.

So to the degree that this would be supporting, especially in the downtown rest stop, to the degree that this is additional funds necessary to maintain those existing services.

Presumably there would be a discussion about how to ensure those continued in some kind of marrying or matching together of services, of contracts to make sure that there was a single action that would provide the funds to Lehigh.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for that reminder.

Let's go ahead and move on to HOM 007.

Item 7A1 adds $36,000 in one-time funding to increase shelter staffing capacity.

This would be, in particular, again, Lehigh, and looking at Lakefront House, which is in the Bitter Lake neighborhood.

And the program exists currently.

This is additional staffing needs that Lehigh has identified.

Council Member Juarez is the prime sponsor, with Council Members Sawant and Council Member Lewis as co-sponsors.

I'll turn it over to Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

So thank you for giving that great introduction.

This is kind of came in the late breaking, but we got it in on time and under, as you shared, what our timelines were, Madam Chair.

So this is for the Lakefront Community House, which is 28 unit shelter, which can house up to 50 people.

It's operated as Jeff said, by Lehigh, the Low Income Housing Institute in the Bitter Lake neighborhood.

It provides hygiene, case management services, as well as shelter.

It is currently experiencing a staffing shortage.

The small request will boost the salary for a supervisor position at the site, specifically 0.45 FTE additional support.

to correct oversight and administrative shortages at this location.

So I should say that we've been working closely with those folks and I appreciate them.

I know it doesn't seem, it isn't a lot, but it really means a lot because it came in a little bit late.

We got it in, it's 36,000 on one time funding.

So we can continue to level up or front load a lot of the tiny house villages that we see happening up in the North end.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

And Council Member Juarez, you actually noted one of the things that I had a question about, $36,000 for one-time funding to increase staffing.

So are we looking at like a third of a position?

Looks like almost a half.

And that's the information that we got from them.

And I can certainly come back with more, Madam Chair.

So it seemed very modest, you know, 36,000.

And a lot of it just, I think you know this as well as Council Member Lewis and Council President Gonzalez, Is that when we get these programs up and running, then you kind of shake things out.

Then you find out where the gaps are.

And that's kind of what this is doing.

We figured it out.

This is where the gap was to plug it.

So to be more candid.

Yep.

OK.

Thank you for flagging that 0.5 FT.

OK.

I don't see any additional questions on this one.

I think we can move to 008.

8A1 adds $100,000, again, one-time funding, to expand Homelessness Day Center services.

In this case, the envisioned recipient would be God's Little Acre in the north side of Seattle.

And that program has previously received funding for the last, since 2019, typically around $100,000, though that amount changed to a degree that I'm still trying to determine last year.

The primary sponsor for this is Council Member Juarez, with Council Members Sawant and Council Member Lewis as co-sponsors.

And I will turn it over to Council Member Juarez.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

This is a success story.

I know we don't always hear a lot of that.

God's a Laker has been in the North End.

I wish I had the date.

It's got to be well over a couple decades.

They didn't come into our budget family until 2019, and we work closely with them.

And it's a day shelter, because we never had one, 24-7 day shelter for those experiencing homelessness in the Lake City neighborhood.

Like I said, we funded them for the first time in 2019. They've been successful in providing services for our unsheltered neighbors.

This is a great need in Lake City.

The point in time count in January 2021, identified 178 people experiencing homelessness, 138 who were unsheltered, and that's a 126% increase from 2020. So what we're saying is, like all over the city, the increase in the unsheltered in our communities has obviously grown.

So this program, which I'm really proud of, primarily serves single adults.

So averaging, we're averaging anywhere between 40 and 50 individuals a day.

These are our neighbors.

And at this location, like we did at Aurora Commons, people can shower, they can do their laundry, they can cook a meal, they can warm up.

They have access to a phone and the Internet and services.

And, you know, just being able to provide the basic needs and access to services as we do at the North Helpline Food Bank, which is more than just a food bank.

It pays off in dividends and how we can meet people's needs.

So anyway, this investment would allow the center to pay for operations and personnel costs.

So that's where we're at with this organization.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member.

And I appreciate the history on the investments here that we did in the budget deliberations in 2018. I remember sitting by you when you were talking about this for the first time, and I was supportive back then.

Thank you.

I also wanted to note for our materials, I think that there was inadvertently a Council Member Juarez's name dropped to the co-sponsor list.

Yeah, I saw that.

I wasn't going to say anything, but you know.

for page 16 just for viewing public.

If you aren't following along with us, you can place Council Member Juarez's name as the primary sponsor and Council Member Sawant and Lewis as co-sponsors.

Any additional comments or questions on this?

Seeing none, let's go ahead and move to HOM 009.

9A1 adds $600,000 in ongoing funds for administrative costs at the King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

This was previously discussed as part of my identification pieces.

The primary sponsor here is Councilmember Lewis with Councilmembers Morales and Gonzalez as co-sponsors.

So I'll turn it over to Councilmember Lewis.

Thank you very much, Jeff, for queuing that up.

And it is good that we were able to get some background in the issue identification stage on this so that there's been a little bit more lead up to a lot of these King County Regional Homelessness Authority issues.

You know, when when we originally had that staffing plan that was presented to the governing committee, which Councilmember Gonzalez, Council President Gonzalez and I serve on, we didn't have the final information on administrative funding.

And this additional funding will increase staffing for the Office of the Ombuds, which is incredibly important for any organization to have a built in feedback loop to to get assessment from the community on how the entity is performing and particularly from people of lived experience who are going to be interacting a lot with the authority and also some support for the sub-regional planning process which is going to be a critical component of bringing the constituent parts of this authority together.

I'm happy to make Jeff available to answer some additional questions around the background of the fund if there's technical things that Jeff would be better positioned to answer.

But the long story short is there are funds to cover an unexpected shortfall in administrative expenses.

I think in the scheme of things, it's fairly modest given a lot of the process delays in getting this authority set up.

As a lot of folks know, I think it leads to six months, potentially eight months behind in the timeline of where we were hoping the authority would be.

So I'm sure that Council President has some additional context to add to as a governing committee member and I'm happy to answer any additional questions.

Thank you, Council President Gonzalez.

Thanks.

And I think it would be helpful if, after my remarks, Jeff answers the question around how much we anticipate or how much King County Executive Dow Constantine is proposing to add on this sort of unexpected overhead expenditure ticket item.

I think that might be helpful information, and I'm hoping that Jeff has it.

But I do want to say that when we originally allocated in our budget a couple years ago initial dollars for operationalizing the RHA, we were very much making an educated estimate as to what we thought the overhead expenses and the administrative expenses would be to Stand this new regional entity up and to ensure that it is successful.

Now that there is a CEO in place and that staffing is occurring and that work plans are being pulled together.

I think we have a more accurate forecast of what the actual expenses are related to the overhead and administration expenses of the Regional Homelessness Authority.

And, you know, if in order for this regional effort to truly be successful and get off on the right foot, then we need to make sure that they have the resources needed to be able to actually operationalize many of the investments that we've been talking on other line items related to homelessness.

And so I think making sure that we appreciate the fact that the first time we funded this entity, it was an estimate, and now we have a better sense of what the real forecast and cost is related to actually operationalizing many of the investments that we are talking about potentially adding that would go over to the REJ.

So if we want these programs and the implementation of these programs to be successful, We have to make sure that the Regional Homelessness Authority is appropriately resourced and staffed to facilitate the implementation and the operation and operationalizing many of these efforts.

So hopefully I bought Jeff enough time through my longer than anticipated comments to sort of identify any additional information you might have, Jeff, that would give us a greater sense of understanding of how much the county is intending to invest on any related administrative costs.

Thank you for taking a little bit longer.

I needed a minute for that.

As I highlighted during issue ID, the initial projections back in May had substantially less money.

We were thinking about $5.5 million, $6 million in admin, and now we're talking more in the $10 million range.

As those additional costs for administration, I'll note especially something like operating HMIS have been identified.

There was equally funding that was coming from the county, or in this case, the continuum of care, which was housed in the county, for most of those costs.

So there's been an increase relative to last May of $2.7 million in county funding.

Almost all of that is continuum of care money.

In terms of the after arriving at that point, and now that the regional authority has identified this $600,000 funding gap, King County at this time is not, to my knowledge, being asked to provide any additional funding on top of what is already committed and identified.

So only Seattle right now is being asked to provide the additional $600,000, though the increase that the county over some prior actions was about $2.7 million, whereas the increase the city has made would be around $800,000 plus around $1.1 million.

So let's call it almost $2 million, something like that.

Does that address your question, Council President?

It does, I appreciate that.

So I think that's a good example of sort of what we're talking about here in terms of the need for, we're hearing from Jeff that the county is identifying almost $3 million worth of additional investments to support the operationalizing the department in this proposal.

would add $600,000.

So just think it's important for the chair in particular to have that additional context as we're sort of continuing to thread the needle and find the balance between funding necessary for program services and workforce capacity issues in the human service provider world and sort of the needs to fund some hard operations and management costs that are going to be needed to ensure that the response system as a whole is going to be successful.

Thank you, Council Member Stilwant, then Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

Sorry not to change the subject, but I had intended to raise my hand to co-sponsor HOM 6A1, so I just wanted to register that.

Thank you, Council Member Stilwant.

Adding her name to HOM 006, that is the HSD maintaining and expanding the day services in Ballard.

Correct, Council Member?

Yes, that's great.

Okay, thank you.

Coming back to 009, Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Following up on Council President Gonzalez's remarks, I'd like to add my name as co-sponsor to 009.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson, adding his name to HOM 009. Council Member Peterson, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I would also like to add my signature to HOM 009 and HOM 010, both for the King County Regional Homelessness Authority that have increased funding.

As Council President noted, when we originally funded them, we had a general idea and we now have more specifics on what their funding levels are needed at this time.

Thank you.

Wonderful, thank you.

Council Member Strauss adding his name to his HOM009 and proactively to HOM010.

Jeff, I do have a few questions for you.

I would at some point love to have a comparison between the administrative costs for our Regional Homelessness Authority compared to the Los Angeles Regional Housing and Homelessness Authority.

They have a different level of investments that they also provide as it relates to housing development at the county level but I believe that their city is dedicated to providing homeless services in the region and it was one of the examples that we looked at when we were standing up the regional homelessness authority that I think is most similar in nature so I'd love to have a comparison at some point in terms of the administrative cost.

In terms of the percentage that the city is contributing versus the county I just wanted to double check on the timeline for when the county's investments are happening.

I thought I understood you to say that the county is not in its budget deliberations for this year at this exact moment, but I believe Council Member Judenko Wells from King County Council had indicated that they are having budget meetings right now.

So is there the possibility of knowing you know, in November, what the King County Council may also be able to contribute if they're able to give up to this $3 million allotment.

My understanding is that the county is just beginning their supplemental, so their mid-biennium process for revisions, and that it is unlikely that they would complete their process before we would complete ours.

But I don't know.

I know their first budget meetings are just happening now.

I'm not an expert on how long their deliberations and process go.

Great, okay, if we can double check to get any indication of where that may land in terms of timing for understanding their contributions as well, that'd be helpful.

Council President Gonzalez, please go ahead.

Yeah, I just wanted to let you know that Councilmember Lewis and I did have an opportunity to meet with folks from the King County Executive and King County Council.

We met with Chair Balducci on Monday afternoon to have a conversation around creating some some synergy and connectivity here to make sure that we aren't working at cross-purposes.

They are having conversations now about their mid-year supplemental budget.

As Jeff just mentioned, their annual budgeting process won't actually be until next year.

But there are things that have been proposed by the executive in that mid-year supplemental budget that are currently being discussed and briefed.

Council members on the county side are being briefed on those items, but we do have a sense, which is why I asked Jeff the question.

We do have a sense of what the executive is proposing be done through the mid-year supplemental budget in this area.

And I think that it's fair to say that, you know, based on my understanding of the conversations that we had on Monday, that they do intend to make additional investments, but that would be done through their annual budget process, which will happen sometime next year.

So I think we'll have some indication, but as Jeff indicated, it doesn't appear that we will have a complete picture available until well after we have voted on our budget.

Thank you very much.

And I'm excited to hear about those conversations you all had with the county as well as some of these other items up for discussion.

I think that that concludes our discussion on this one.

And if I'm not correct, yep, let's move on to HOM 010.

$1.9 million to enhance tiny home village services.

I just want to make sure we're on number 10. Is that correct?

We are, sorry, I was scrolling to 10, adding a co-sponsor, sorry about that.

H110 adds $7.6 million in one-time funding to create a peer navigator program.

This again is something that I highlighted details on during the issue identification portion.

It's a request from the King County Regional Homeless Authority.

The program sponsors Council Member Lewis with Council Members Morales and Gonzalez as co-sponsors.

So I'll turn it over to Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Jeff.

So this is an innovative idea, which has come from the King County Regional Homelessness Authority to supplement our outreach by providing longer term engagement with our neighbors who are moving from homelessness into permanent housing.

Currently, case managers only work with a client while they are in a particular program.

And then there is a warm handoff to another case manager.

For example, like an outreach case manager might transition someone to case management in a tiny house village who in turn would transition someone to case management with a permanent supportive housing provider.

Whereas with this, there would be a trusted peer with lived experience in homelessness who would navigate a person through the entire process until that person goes from essentially contact in an unsanctioned encampment to placement in permanent supportive housing.

You know, this is a longer-term engagement approach that has a lot of merit and is very much supported by the Lived Experience Coalition.

Obviously, it's coming in at a pretty big price tag, and I'd be remiss if I did not say that there are still issues to be discussed with our existing outreach provider network about how this would be reconciled with our current outreach practices.

So that is an ongoing discussion, but as a long-term goal for the authority, this is very much a new way of doing this system navigation that would make a big difference.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I am co-sponsoring this.

I think it's important that we have a chance to talk about this.

This is a new model.

I think it is the right way to go in terms of really partnering somebody who is experiencing homelessness with someone who has experienced it as we're trying to help folks navigate through these systems.

This is listed as one-time funding.

And so I'm curious to hear a little bit more about what happens after that.

And also interested to hear a little bit more about, the indication here is that we would expect Medicaid reimbursement.

So I'm interested to hear about what degree of certainty we have about that.

I think that there is a lot of, A substantial reason that this is proposed to be managed directly by the Regional Authority on Homelessness is to address a lot of areas of uncertainty related to Medicaid funding.

There's a desire to try to design the program such that Medicaid reimbursement could be received for these services, utilizing these funds to initially stand up and do the program, perhaps pay for something that Medicaid in the long term wouldn't reimburse for.

but then knowing that, okay, the tweak would be made, so in the future we wouldn't do that service, we'd do it in a different way, such that this one-time funding would allow the creation and the experimentation in that way, and then long-term, seek Medicaid reimbursement.

But there is a lot of questions regarding that potential, and I think it's a process that, obviously, the authority at this point is not an agency that can build Medicaid, and there'd be a lot of other steps that would have to be done there as well, in addition to just the program design.

follow-up questions?

Well, Jeff, I appreciate you flagging that.

I've spent a lot of time working with the Medicaid program and expanding Medicaid services.

I'm very appreciative that there's a lot of folks out there advocating for how Medicaid can be used as a reimbursement tool for a number of areas, including ensuring that we have peer navigators working to house more folks.

I too have a handful of questions that are out on this certification process and the amount of reimbursement that occurs.

I understand that Medicaid reimburses, for example, for 50 minute allotments only.

And what I understand from some of our community partners who provide similar peer support systems, outreach and engagement systems, It often takes two to three hours in these detailed discussions that folks are having in community.

And so I really look forward to learning more, working with the co-sponsors here, working with the Regional Homelessness Authority and with the human service providers out there who provide very similar services in terms of peer navigation.

outreach and coordination.

We know that there was a handful of requests that were submitted for the human services grants that we just expanded earlier this year, for example.

And so as the Regional Homelessness Authority is standing up and anticipating and crafting new proposals, I'm also aware that we want to make sure that these services are getting deployed very quickly.

And so looking forward to having more conversations with community partners and the Regional Homelessness Authority about ways that we can enhance existing support services that we have as we think about building additional complementary services that may or may not be housed within RHA as this proposal is anticipating.

I will say I think there is a unanimous interest in making sure that the population that this CBA is intending to serve absolutely gets the services that they need.

And so looking forward to having those conversations with you all over the next week and you all meeting as well, the RHA and community providers.

Council President Gonzalez, please go ahead.

Yeah, just a quick question, because this Medicaid issue is is being lifted up and maybe Jeff you can help me understand.

What the what?

What the connection is here so so the peer navigator program, although we are still working through.

Some programmatic related questions in terms of the funding mechanism.

It is is.

Is the peer navigator program proposal sort of fade on complete if it doesn't qualify for the Medicaid reimbursement?

Yeah, I think that in the long term, we'd be looking at needing to find a different way to pay for this type of an approach if it's not eligible for Medicaid reimbursement in any way.

For Council Member Mosqueda's comments, there might need to be substantial changes, even if it is eligible.

If it's only eligible for 50 minutes instead of two, three hours at a time, that may require a substantial redesign of how the program works.

I don't have the answers to that question at this point.

But to your point, the main question is that, yes, we would be in a gap.

Yeah, so really the concern is the sustainability of the program and sort of a concern that if the Regional Homelessness Authority is determined to pursue the Medicaid reimbursement as sort of the long-term funding mechanism, then that would have programmatic implications that could compromise the efficacy of the program as proposed.

I think that's a possibility.

Without having, until we have actual implementation of it, I think it'll be difficult to answer that with certainty.

Okay, thanks.

and i think that i think it was president and i think that it's a it's a great idea for us to continue to think about ways to pay it can burst that uh...

be to make sure that were coordinating more with uh...

federal programs that offer uh...

financial assistance and then see though finally also in in this moment figuring out what is available to stand up and potentially deliver on right away as we answer some of those questions.

So I definitely want to make sure that we are exploring the ideas here but in in the moment serving the population that this program is intending to serve through the peer navigator and outreach system I'm hopeful that we can both build a program like that and also enhance some existing services in the community that we know if we're given resources could come to scale and provide services to the population that's intending to be served here.

And Council Member Lewis as well, I wanna make sure that we are lifting up the population that this CBA is intending to serve to see how we can get those resources delivered as we also answer some of these questions and support the Regional Homelessness Authority and standing up the services, the contracts and the staff that they are working on doing in early 2022. So I'm looking at it as a kind of dual approach, if you will.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay, so more to come on that.

And Jeff, thank you for the research that you've done on this.

And Council Member Lewis, Council Member Gonzales, Council President Gonzales, Council Member Morales, for your sponsorship on this.

I have added Council Member Strauss as well, just for the record.

Wonderful.

Let's do 11 now.

HM11A1 adds $1.9 million to HSD to enhance tiny home village services.

This would focus on mental and behavioral health services at the three new villages that are currently in operation.

The Rosie's Village, Friendship Heights, and then the expansion of Inner Bay.

And then I guess Interbay is actually an expansion, so I guess I shouldn't say additional or new.

And then potentially two other villages as well.

And the primary sponsor here, as I mentioned, is Council Member Lewis, with Council Members Herbold and Council Member Gonzalez as co-sponsors.

So I'll turn that over to Council Member Lewis.

Thank you so much, Jeff.

As we've been talking about yesterday as well, there's a lot of effort that we can do in this budget this year to really bring all of our tiny house villages up to parity.

Yesterday we were mostly talking about Camp Second Chance, but there are service gaps in some of our other tiny house villages that this $1.9 million would seek to fill.

to make sure that there's behavioral health, case management, and 24-7 staffing needs that are at a good ratio of villager to caseworker.

My office also recently learned there is an additional $35,000 shortfall at Rosie's Village for services.

And I wonder, Jeff, if you might be able to comment on whether this $1.9 million would accommodate That service shortfall, I imagine it would, given the low amount.

So presumably that's one case manager additionally is needed at Rosie's Village, I guess, based on that number.

But I wanted to take this opportunity to, I guess, ask the first question by asking you that.

But otherwise, this is really just about making sure that we're continuing to work on uh...

enhancing the services and uh...

by extension the uh...

the pass-through rate and the efficacy of the tiny house village system and that's what this investment would do

Councilmember Lewis, to your question, there's a little confusion about how much funding is provided for Rosie's Village in 2022. The current contract to operate it in 2021 does include some one-time funds for behavioral health services, which could be provided here.

I don't believe the $36,000 that you're referring to would actually be these behavioral health services.

Lehigh actually contracts out for behavioral health services.

It's not a service that they provide.

I believe it's Therapeutic Health Services that provides that.

My understanding is that in the various places where $36,000 was requested, it was to add administrative staff at Lehigh that would split their time between multiple locations, not just at one location at a time.

So if you look back at an earlier request, they would add $36,000 for Lakefront House, for example.

It's not clear to me exactly what is included for Rosie's Village.

It's difficult to determine, partly because the Rosie's Village contract is not likely to move to the regional authority, whereas all the others will.

And that's due to the lease arrangement with Sound Transit for obtaining those grounds.

Because of the way that the lease has been arranged, Rosie's Village would probably be retained, whereas the others can be transferred over.

Does that address both of your questions then?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

Further confusion to this item, which I really appreciate Council Member Lewis bringing forward.

I'm already listed as a co-sponsor.

I understand that this amendment would provide about $200,000, I think it's $198,000 for additional operations for Camp Second Chance, for 20 additional tiny homes and a understand from central staff that they believe that the operations cost will be higher than that.

So I just wanted to flag that as an issue.

And apparently the number that central staff is suggesting is the appropriate amount for 20 additional tiny operations associated with 20 additional tiny homes is more around $400,000 for the year.

So I think I am going to be bringing on a walk-on amendment for consideration of the gap.

Thank you.

Yes, Council Member Herbold.

Lehigh, which operates the villages currently, all of them, has provided an estimate that expanding Camp Second Chance would be about $198,000.

That's assuming an addition of 20 new tiny homes to that location.

As council members are aware from yesterday, there's other requests for additions to Camp Second Chance as well.

Over the last three years, I've worked extensively with HSD, which manages these contracts and does the direct negotiations with Lehigh, to come up with what would be an agreed upon framework for how much to budget.

We usually utilize a 40-unit tiny home village and assume an annual operation of $800,000.

That was something that we've worked through, looking at existing contracts.

and even getting the specifics, like how many security staff, how often are they there, how many case managers, how much trash pickup.

And so because of all of those factors, I'm reluctant to depart from what HSD is telling me is the required amount.

I will also note that there are other places where we are seeing that Lehigh is saying, as implementation has occurred, there's been a need for additional staffing.

Not only the $36,000 that was just brought up for Rosie's Village, but an earlier space for Lakefront House.

So we do see a pattern where there's been some refining going on as a program comes online that has been requiring additional funds.

So there could be some risk if we assume the $198,000 that there would not quite be enough for the full operations of 20 new units someplace.

And it would depart from what we've worked with HSD as the agreed upon placeholder when we established these, which aligns with even the existing contracts that were set up this year.

Can you just restate the standard ratio of operations funding to a particular size tiny house village?

Yes, but normally we would use a 40 unit village and we would assume $800,000 in operations.

So my simple math took 20 new homes at Camp Second Chance and I used $400,000.

And can you just review for us what the operations budget includes?

Yeah, it includes meals.

It includes utility costs.

A more substantial portion is staffing.

You have to have case management services for the people that are there to help them to assist in their searches and moving into housing.

Then there's also the on-site staff that are necessary to to manage just regular operations.

To some degree, that might include things like the, you know, there's many of these camps that not can't have a second chance currently, have a hygiene trailer that would be utilizing water, things along those lines.

I do have more details, I don't have them open on my screen right now, but I could go into other pieces of it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Council Member Swat.

Just wanted to say that I'd like to co-sponsor this amendment.

Thank you.

Council Member Sawant is adding her name to HLM 011. Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

All right, let's move on to item number 12.

H1-12A1 adds $19.4 million in total.

That's 17.9 million in ongoing funds and one and a half million that is expected to be one-time funds to create and operate a high-acuity shelter.

This is something I covered again in issue ID.

It was proposed or requested by the Regional Homeless Authority.

The primary sponsor here is Council Member Lewis with Council Members Herbold and Gonzalez as co-sponsors.

So I'll turn it over to Council Member Lewis for further comments.

Thank you very much, Council Member Lewis.

Thanks for carrying this up, Jeff.

So this is one of the most essential investments I think we'll make in this budget this year to really respond to the massive service gap of people experiencing chronic homelessness with very, very high acuity needs that are not being met by the current system.

I think there's still some things that need to be worked out in reconciling the ambitions of the authority with the capacity and ability of our provider community to adequately staff and stand up a shelter that is so envisioned.

And those are discussions in full candor that myself and I know other council members are having with the broader community to try to to make sure we can identify the feasibility of implementing this should it be included in Madam Budget Chair's balancing package.

But as all of us know, There are so many of our neighbors experiencing homelessness, very much in need of this level of high acuity care and assistance to transition from the street into permanent supportive housing.

This investment will go a long way toward making that a reality.

And I hope for the support of colleagues to take this critical step forward and give the authority, the tools they need to make a meaningful impact on our regional homelessness crisis.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

I really appreciate this amendment being brought forward and for the work that you're continuing to do to identify ways to make sure this population is served.

I know that we have talked about the ways in which, for example, the high-need services that DESC had offered prior to COVID had been scaled back because of the need to create non-congregate shelter options, but that we had a net loss of over services beds in the wake of COVID.

If we're wanting to add additional services, I think this is one important component, but look forward to hearing more as you and the other council members and community and RHA finalize the ideas here.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay, let's move on.

Next item is H.M.

13A.1.

So proviso $9 million that is currently in the proposed 2022 proposed budget.

The funding that is currently provided is for the operation of Tiny Home Villages.

And this proviso would require that the funds continue to be used for the operation of Tiny Home Villages.

This is proposed by the lead sponsor as Council Member Sawant, with Council Members Morales and Lewis as co-sponsors.

Welcome to the sponsor, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Thank you, and thank you to co-sponsors Morales, Council Members Morales and Lewis.

Thank you for your description, Jeff.

As you said, this budget amendment places a proviso on Seattle's tiny house village funds to make it clear that those funds can only be used for tiny house villages.

It is completely unacceptable that Mayor Durkan has not yet used the funds to establish tiny house villages that the People's Budget Movement and many other activists who pushed for it, housing advocates and homeless advocates, pushed for and won a year ago, especially because tiny house villages have been one of the most successful supports for homeless people in Seattle.

Tiny houses provide the safety and privacy of your own space with a locked door and safety from the elements, safety from all other dangers, and this is especially acute for women, families with children, and LGBTQ community members.

And the villages provide the community that allows people to get back on their feet, the case management that provides them the best possible opportunity for affordable housing.

And the community, very importantly, provides an alternative to the isolation and alienation of homelessness, which can be truly crushing and also be in itself a barrier to our community members coming out of that situation.

Lehigh, the low income housing institute has for years identified many locations for new tiny house villages.

And I want to be clear that I do not think we should trust the excuses that are constantly given for why it is taking so long to set up new tiny house villages.

Some of the permit types for tiny house villages do not even require SIPA review.

Villages should be able to be set up in days or even weeks or maybe weeks, certainly not months or years.

People are living unsheltered at the side of the road in parks and the political establishment has shown zero sense of urgency in this and I think it is important the progress that the City Council has made on tiny house villages and we need to keep doing that.

But I think in that framework, establishing that the funds assigned to tiny house villages should be used for tiny house villages is, I think, extremely important.

No proviso has the power to force the mayor to use the funds that have been allocated, but at least the proviso will say that these funds can be used for no other purpose.

This budget amendment currently applies to $9 million, but if budget amendments pass to increase the funding for tiny house villages, which I absolutely hope happens through this budget, then the intention is to include those funds in the proviso also.

Also, this version of the proviso does not include the $800,000 in the budget for non-traditional encampments like those operated by Nicholsville and Cherville.

And I want to clarify that I intend for that to be included in the final draft when the provisos are adopted in November.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any additional questions or comments on this?

Wonderful.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Let's move on to item number, are we on number 14 at this point, Jeff?

Yes, we are.

Okay.

I'm going to navigate my screen back to that.

H1M14A1 adds $4.1 million in one-time funding to create and operate transitional housing that specializes in services for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

This is a proposal that was the lead sponsor's council member Morales with council members Juarez and Lewis as co-sponsors.

The vision is that this would actually support the Chief Seattle Club in obtaining a property that would be used as transitional housing for our AIN community.

And I will turn it over to the lead sponsor for additional comments.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jeff.

As he said, this funding would allow for an organization such as the Chief Seattle Club that serves indigenous neighbors experiencing homelessness.

The idea is to allow them to build and operate a reentry transitional shelter program in Soto that offers a culturally responsive way to heal community and plan a pathway to long-term stable housing.

Colleagues, you'll recall, Six weeks or so ago, I mentioned in briefing that my office was contacted by a property owner in Soto, who was looking to sell his property to the city for the purpose of providing.

housing for our homeless neighbors.

We don't get those kind of calls very often.

I wish we got more of them.

But we went down and met with him.

My office met with him.

We took the provider down with us so that they could get a sense of what might be possible down there.

And there is a real interest in providing space for folks who need to be, for whom being in a a bigger facility where there are lots of people at an earlier stage of substance abuse treatment.

This housing would be for folks who are further down that path and need to be away from that population.

So there's a lot of excitement about this project.

And we know that given the very small, I think about a half percent of our community identifies as Native American, yet 32% are experiencing chronic homelessness.

This is a real opportunity for us to provide a service and really provide some security and stability for the population.

So that's what we're hoping to do.

And this funding would allow them to acquire the property and begin the process of remodeling.

And I think the plan is actually to just rebuild so that they can provide that service and provide the reentry programming to the community.

Sorry, it's getting late already.

We haven't had lunch yet.

I don't want to keep you off from your lunch, so we're going to try to get through the next item, and then we will probably go to recess just slightly early to start with parks right when we come back.

I do want to see if there's any questions on this item.

We're on HOM 014. Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to add my co-sponsorship to HOM 014 as well as 012.

OK.

Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Strauss is adding his name to HOM 014, which is the item we're on with specializing, expanding one-time services for services to American Indians and Alaska Native community, and 012, which was creating a high-acuity shelter that Councilmember Lewis is sponsoring.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss for 012 and 014 co-sponsorship.

Councilmember Morales, I did have a question you started to speak to at the end here.

Can you tell me just a little bit more about what the $3.4 million for site improvements would include?

Sure, so right now the building itself, I think it's about a thousand square feet.

It is an old warehouse and the footprint of the building is adequate for what they want to do, but it's pretty run down.

And so the initial drawings that they have would be to create a second story and provide adding in a kitchen, adding in bathroom facilities, adding in some gathering space in the front of the building so that there would be kind of a community healing and meeting space for folks.

It is a pretty extensive remodel of the existing building that they have in mind so that they can increase the capacity of the number of people that they'd be able to serve there.

Excellent, thank you very much, Council Member.

Any additional questions or comments?

All right, let's go to HOM 015.

H15A1 adds $220,000 in one-time funding to hire additional homeless as outreach workers.

This is proposed by Council Member Strauss with Council Members Peterson and Juarez as co-sponsors.

And it would add what's envisioned as two additional outreach workers to work in Northwest Seattle and the Ballard neighborhood, similar to the outreach workers that were added in last year's budget by the council that have neighborhood-specific focuses.

I'll turn it over to Council Member Strauss for further information.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Jeff.

Well said.

This amendment would add funding to contract with a group like REACH to hire two homelessness outreach workers for District 6 specifically.

Last year, as Jeff mentioned, a number of district council members joined together on an amendment to hire district-based outreach workers across the city.

And in the time since then, the need for outreach workers in District 6 has only grown, particularly in Ballard, Green Lake, in the Fremont industrial area.

Reach outreach workers dedicated to downtown Ballard currently are the only reason that we have a census and needs assessment for the people living in downtown Ballard and we need these services across the district.

While homelessness is a citywide and regionwide crisis, District 6 has been bearing a larger burden than most places in our city And this is a resource needed during this point of inflection, which is also why this is a one-time funding request, because I foresee in a year from now, the environment in this crisis will be reduced, and these outreach workers are gonna be how we get there in District Six.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

I just want to speak to the fact that I really appreciated how we approached this issue last year.

In a way, a couple of council members at that point had proposals for outreach additions in their respective districts.

And if I recall correctly, Madam Chair, you sort of combined those and what was actually in the balancing package had some geographic equity because I think I think we all throughout the city representing all the council's districts could benefit from additional place-based, geographically focused outreach capacity.

And so I'm just hoping that as we move into the balancing package, we could consider a similar approach that strives for geographic equity.

Thank you.

Wonderful, appreciate that.

I see Council Member Strauss, I see Council Member Juarez, and then I will speak to that as well.

Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.

Council Member Juarez had her hand up first.

Oh yeah, thank you.

Council Member Juarez, please go ahead.

So for those of you, because you know I talk about the geographical equity, this is what we learned from last year.

So I want to be very cautious, and another caution to HSD and the contracting It's important to have geographical equity and services, but it's also equally important that we hire those people that live in that area, those social service organizations that have relationships with the people.

It doesn't do us any good to have someone way south who is not familiar with Northgate, Lake City, Bitter Lake, to come up here and not be part of the community that provides social services and knows the individuals.

And I'm not trying to slam HSD, but if there's anything I've learned from the last year about putting these, what Council Member Strauss is doing for D6 with the outreach workers, again, I think it has to be a balance of, geographical equity, the district itself, or the north end or the south end, but also utilizing those organizations that are based in those districts that know the people.

Like for me, I know who, where the food banks are, social services, housing, all of that stuff.

So you gotta have people, HSD has to be mindful and hire those organizations or if they put in those RFPs.

because they know the people that are up here are in any district, quite frankly.

So that is what I, as Council Member Hurt would say, lessons learned.

That is what I've learned from last year's budget cycle.

So thank you.

Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Juarez summed up my thoughts in a better way than I ever could, so.

So my question actually was related to the effect of last year's outreach and engagement efforts.

As Council Member Herbold noted, we worked with every council member to try to make sure that there was geographic representation across the city.

The need for those direct outreach workers is something that many council members have requested, and the CBA in front of us notes that there was two new outreach workers provided for Northwest Seattle and Ballard.

We did something similar in the South End, and I believe we did something similar in, I don't know, like around the ship canal areas.

Jeff and or district council members, can you tell me more about the dollars were deployed, the people were deployed, the concern sounds like they weren't necessarily from organizations within the district, is that?

Okay, Jeff, please go ahead.

So last year's budget action was kind of a two-part kind of an ad.

There were some There was an addition of funding so that staff could be hired that would maybe float or have the ability to be redeployed as necessary for that equity focus, as Council Member Herbold spoke to.

There was also the call out of specific neighborhoods that would have minimum receipt of additional workers, such as Northwest Seattle, Ballard, and Lake City.

So both were components there.

I do know HSD has provided information on the agencies that have been contracted with and were given those funds.

My understanding is that the two workers in Lake City were hired and are currently active.

My understanding is that not all of the staff are currently hired in the Northwest Seattle and Ballard area, though I don't know if they've never been.

That's a level of detail that is Far more in the weeds than I would ever get.

So I can't speak to how far we've gotten with an agency that we're contracted with to hire someone.

But there were those two specific workers there.

I believe there were six total.

So there was four more that I'm not thinking of.

But I'd have to go back to last year's action to recall exactly how we defined the deployment for those staff.

But all of the funds were awarded via contract.

All of the funds were awarded via contract, but potentially four out of the six weren't hired?

No, I just don't recall how we said the other four needed to be provided.

I don't remember if it was.

I imagine the council members could help me remember this.

For example, in D2 versus D1, were there two here and one there and two floating?

I don't remember that allocation off the top of my head.

I can find that out.

It's in the CBA.

It's been a year since I've looked at it.

Right, I think I'm more interested in the implementation aspect of it.

And if they were indeed hired and if services were provided, Council Member Juarez, please go ahead.

Just to answer, and again, I'm not trying to pick on any particular city department.

So if we're going to look at geographical parity and we want to focus on hiring social service people that are actually in the area and know the services and the people, a heads up to HSD, before you set those contracts out, it might be good to loop back with that particular council member in that particular district and say, hey, we have these five RFPs, it got down to three, what are your thoughts?

Because some assumptions were made and they weren't local people that were hired and there's nothing wrong with how it ended up to some degree, but it caused a lot of problems where if you could just have picked up the phone and maybe made a phone call, the implementation piece could have gone a lot easier and I think been much more efficient.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you.

Building on Council Member Juarez's comments just now, this is in part why I'm seeking a one-time increase for additional outreach workers in District 6. Yep.

Great.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Thank you for all of your Your comments, colleagues, as well.

I know that this continues to be an important issue.

And Jeff, I appreciate the work that you've done.

And we'll follow up with you also offline to see if we can track down more information about the implementation concerns that are being raised.

I do appreciate this amendment in front of us as the need continues, especially if we weren't able to actualize the vision of those six outreach workers with the two floating.

I have one more amendment for you all, and then I will let you go to recess.

But we have one walk-on amendment, Council Member Herbold.

Let's do that, and then we will go to recess.

All right.

Staff, what's the first?

Yeah, so this, actually, I- Throw me into the breach.

It's okay.

I know the amendment, but I don't know the proper language I need for this to be introduced.

Allie, hopefully you can bail me out.

That's no problem.

Jeff, you can just describe it like any other amendment.

It's home walk-on one.

Yes, that's correct.

Yeah.

It's already been added to the agenda.

So you can go ahead and proceed.

All right, great.

So Home Walk-On 1, sponsored by Council Member Herbold, adds $300,000 in one-time funding to HSD for the improvements and expansion of a tiny home village.

In this case, that village would be Camp Second Chance, also sometimes called Myers Way Village.

And this was alluded to in some of our earlier conversations.

This would allow the expansion of Camp Second Chance by 20 tiny house units.

And that it would not be providing the operations.

That was the conversation we had earlier.

This is only for the actual expansion itself, its capital costs.

So I'll turn it over to Council Member Herbold.

Let's see here.

I don't have a whole lot to add.

We have talked about this a bit.

As I understand it, the capital investment needs include kitchen improvements to replace appliances, improve common areas, upgrade power distribution, make accessibility improvements with paved walkways for people with mobility issues.

And the combined improvements would make it possible for an addition of 20 new tiny houses on site, as well as to improve living conditions for the existing villagers.

I just want to remind folks that Camp Second Chance has been operating with the support of the greater district one community for five years now.

Um, and it is a, um, a location for, uh, folks who desire to support cap camps at the chance to gather and, um, and give their volunteer time in mutual aid to the residents and the efforts of folks living there to move on to permanent housing.

So appreciate folks for it.

Thank you.

I see some hands, Council Member Sala and then Council Member Lewis.

Just wanted to register that I would like to co-sponsor this amendment.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Sawant adding her name to HOM Walk-On 1. Thank you, Patty, for putting that on the screen.

Very helpful.

Council Member Lewis.

Similarly, very supportive of this and would like to co-sponsor.

Wonderful.

We have you recorded.

Appreciate that, Council Member Lewis.

Any additional comments or questions?

Seeing none.

Jeff, thank you for getting us through Homelessness Investments.

Colleagues, please come back prepared to talk about Seattle Parks and Recreations, Seattle Police Department, and the Seattle excuse me, the Community Safety and Communications Center, ideally will be able to get us through additional sections throughout the afternoon here, but those are the three big ones I want us to get us through this afternoon.

We do have a little bit of time baked in for tomorrow if we need to carry over any agenda items, but let's do our due diligence to try to get through as many as possible in our last section here to come.

If there's no objection, we will be in recess until 2 p.m.

Go Perks!

Have a wonderful lunch break.

We'll see you in an hour.