Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 11/1/18 Session II

It goes no talker.

Okay.

Good.

Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome back.

This is our sixth session, and we are continuing with our budget green sheets.

Welcome, everybody, for being here, and thank you so much.

I have one item that I'm going to move, and this is a Form B. It's a green sheet that Council Member Gonzalez and I are bringing forward.

It's the ambassadors for the Ballard Park as we're bringing in the Portland Lus.

And for reasons that I cannot tell you exactly how or why that this got set aside earlier in this week, but it is in tandem with the Portland Lus effort that we've already done.

So I'm going to move to include this budget action request and then later at the end, we will ask Council Member Gonzalez to lead us through it.

Okay, all those in favor of adding this to the agenda say aye.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So, that agenda is modified.

It'll be at the end.

I have one quick question for my good friend, Allison, and that is the introduction.

My table of contents that I have been working on is not sitting in my notebook here, unless you have moved it.

Could you see if you can help me find it?

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

And I believe that we are on item 38. Is this correct?

Thirty-nine, I think.

Thirty-nine?

Okay.

So I look forward to starting here on item 39, and I'm just going to ask you to proceed since my checklist isn't here.

Happy to.

Council Members, Tracy Ress of Council Central Staff.

So starting with item number 39, this is Green Sheet 10, 1A1.

This green sheet would add $140,000 of general fund in 2019 and 2020 and three part-time FTEs to the Department of Parks and Rec to increase public operating hours at Magnuson Park Community Center.

Hold on just a moment, please.

Mr. Zimmerman, would you please take a seat?

You can have any seat.

Take a seat.

Thank you.

All right, please proceed.

This funding would increase public operating hours at the community center from an average of 46 to an average of 57 hours per week.

Additional staff will plan and coordinate recreational programs.

Excuse me one more time.

Council Member Gonzalez.

I would ask that you not invade our central staffers personal space.

Director Aristad works for this city council and I am seeing you put your hand in her face.

If I see you doing that again and making her uncomfortable, I will ask security to remove you as being disruptive and interfering with people's ability to enjoy this chambers.

Do you understand?

Do you understand?

Oh, Mr. Zimmerman, don't do this.

Okay, please, go ahead.

And if we hear anything from you, we've got security, two people back here.

We asked to excuse you yesterday.

We'll do it again.

We're not afraid to do it again.

So please, Tracy, go ahead.

Council Members, in 2018, you added funding to actually add these FTE and hours at the Magnuson Park Community Center, but that funding and staff were not included in the Mayor's 2019-2020 budget, and so this green sheet would essentially refund or continue funding of that activity in 2019 and 2020. Okay.

And this is Councilmember Johnson and Juarez and O'Brien as sponsors of the screen sheet.

Very good.

Councilmember Johnson, would you like to speak to this?

Yes, I would.

Most of the parks-related issues you'll hear from me this afternoon are related to funding of Magnuson Park in particular.

So rather than repeat myself, I'll just spend a minute or two talking about the context.

And this context applies to most of the investments that I'm asking for in Magnuson Park.

When the Sandpoint housing opened several years ago, we moved about 500 individuals into Magnuson Park.

With the building construction of Building 9 and a set to open the Mercy Housing project in Magnuson Park next year, that's going to add another 500 individuals to the park.

This Council worked really hard to find some capital resources to redevelop the Magnuson Park Community Center.

But that community center is very over prescribed right now.

Subscribed.

Oversubscribed.

And we are asking for a continuation of the number of hours that are currently The proposal that the mayor sent down reduces those hours back down to in the 40-hour-a-week range.

We'd like it to go back up to the current level that we're at with the 60-hour-a-week range.

That corresponds with what we expect to be a very significant increase in utilization in the community center when the new 500 residents start using that community center next year when they move in across the street.

Very good, thank you.

Council Member Juarez and O'Brien's names have already added to this.

Council Member Mosqueda and Council Member Gonzalez, are you raising your hand or are you?

I was stretching.

Okay, very good, thank you.

Any other questions?

Let's move on.

Item number 40, this is Green Sheet 10-2A-1, sponsored by Council Member Johnson and co-sponsored by Council Members Juarez and Mosqueda.

This Green Sheet would add $490,000 in general fund in the Department of Parks and Recreation in 2019 and 2020 to operate 22 wading pools seven days a week from late June to early September.

This funding would support the staff and utility costs of operating the wading pools.

The 2019-2020 proposed budget includes funding for 15 pools to operate from late June to early September, with four open daily and the remainder open between two and four days a week.

The council added one-time funding in the 2018 adopted budget to operate an additional seven wading pools, and they're listed in that green sheet.

bringing the total number of wading pools operating in 2018 to 22. The proposed budget did not include funding to continue the operation of those seven wading pools, so this funding does really two things.

It reinstates the funding for those seven wading pools, and then it adds funding to actually have all 22 wading pools operating on a daily basis.

Thank you.

Can I ask a quick question?

Wading pools cover spray parks, or are those different?

Those are different.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Do you want to proceed?

Just briefly, we talked about this a couple weeks ago, as the summer gets hotter and the city gets more expensive, the need increases for more affordable locations for kids to cool off.

We only have four waiting pools open daily in the proposed budget.

This would take it to all 22 waiting pools being open daily.

It's a big ask, but I think after doing a little bit of research, this puts us in line with our peer cities around the country, and having those waiting pools open daily between mid-June and mid-September would be not only just an important geographic distribution of the wading pools that are open on a daily basis, but also really focused on, I think, those folks who may not be able to afford to get access to some of our private or community pools.

So I think it's a good proposal.

I hope we can count on your support.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Let's proceed.

Moving to item number 41, green sheet 10-3-A-1.

This green sheet would add $60,000 in general fund in 2019 and 2020 to the Department of Parks to fund operation of Coleman Pool for an additional four weeks a year.

The additional funding would provide support to operate the pool on weekends, either earlier in May or later in September.

Currently, the pool is budgeted to operate for approximately 14 weeks of the summer.

This budget action conservatively assumes that no operating revenues would be generated from additional attendance during those additional operations.

I will tell you that we have had ongoing conversations with the executive about this, and they actually think that, one, the cost will likely be less than 60 grand, and they actually think that the revenue may come pretty close to covering the cost, so this actually may be a revenue-neutral green sheet.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes, we got a sort of a late-breaking communication and they have confirmed that they do prefer the weekend-only model.

They're actually really excited about doing this.

The projected cost would be $40,000.

It's expected to return $20,000 in revenue and they are happy to fund the rest with unallocated fund balance.

Nice job.

Okay.

Can I add my name to that?

Please.

And the whole team.

Okay.

Thank you.

But no one would have been there anyway.

Yeah.

Was that true?

Did everybody want their name added to that?

I think everybody wants to be added.

Okay.

I mean, how can you?

I think Allison actually wants to get a count, so would you raise your hand if you want to have your name added?

Correct.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Do you want to proceed with the Magnuson Park?

Okay.

Moving on to item number 42, 10-4A-1 by Councilmember Johnson.

This green sheet would add $300,000 in 2019 to the Department of Parks and Recreation to fund installation of lights along 62nd Avenue Northeast in Magnuson Park.

Department of Parks would be working with City Light and SDOT, I believe, to determine the appropriate type of lighting to install in the area that would provide the greatest level of security for residents and users of Magnuson Park.

Councilmember Johnson.

This one is important to me for a couple of reasons.

One, we've had some major safety issues in and around this section of Magnuson Park and with the change of bus routing to serve this street inside the park for the majority of the nights and the weekends, it is critical for us to do better lighting out there in the park.

There has been A little bit of a confusion about whose real responsibility is lighting on this section.

Is it parks?

Is it SDOT?

Is it someone else to be determined like City Light?

Is it SPU?

Who knows?

But our hope here is that we can really help provide a lot more safety for residents in the park and park users by improving the lighting along this busy stretch of the park.

Councilmember Johnson, like your idea, do you have a date that you want a report back?

This is not something that I'm told will take very long to install if we don't have to do historic light poles.

If we do have to do historic light poles and historic light pole retrofits, then it gets more complicated and certainly more expensive.

So depending which of the alphabet soup folks actually does end up taking ownership of this will depend on the answer to that question and therefore the funding.

So we're being extra conservative here on the assumptions about the cost because we're assuming the most expensive option.

But our hope is that we don't need to go down that route and can do something for less money and more quickly.

How did I do Tracy?

Very good.

And I would just like to say on this, I would very much like to have a report back.

Somebody can just tell us when and which department is assuming responsibility for this, so if we can signal the executive that we would like to see that, perhaps by the first of the year.

Just tell us who's doing it.

We can only ask.

Let's try.

Moving on to item number 43, tab 5A1.

This green sheet would add $400,000 in 2019 to the Department of Parks and Recreation to fund installation of a new multi-sport flooring in building 30 at Magnuson Park.

Initially we had thought that this would be a read eligible activity and we have found out that it likely is not so we would have to find an alternative funding source for this ad if that was to be included in the council's proposed budget changes.

Again, with a high increase in the number of residents living in the park, there will be even larger increases in the number of folks who are going to be asked to use additional gym space.

So we hope that this installation of multi-sport flooring in one of the lower utilized buildings inside the park will go a long ways in helping to alleviate some of the space concerns that we have inside the park on nights and weekends in particular.

Great, and we will proceed.

Does anybody want to add your name to this?

Okay, seeing none, it doesn't mean it's going away, but let's keep moving.

Moving into item number 44. Council Member Herbold's adding her name to this.

And Gonzalez.

Moving to tab 10-6A-1.

This green sheet would add $50,000 of general fund in 2019 to the Department of Parks for a community planning process examining enhancements to trail access points along Southwest Brandon Street in West Seattle as recommended in the North Delridge Action Plan.

This is Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Johnson as co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

As mentioned, this is a recommendation of the recently finalized North Delridge Neighborhood Action Plan.

We have also received some late-breaking news from Parks on this one.

They have indicated their support for the community planning process and said they would fund this request.

So that's fantastic news.

I just want to work on maybe determining how we can firm that up.

Yep.

That's really good to talk about that.

Quick question.

Everybody loves this.

May I ask a question?

Do we need to have more planning or is there already a plan in play that you said?

They need to do a community engagement process around the actual design.

Okay.

I appreciate your hope that we could actually begin building.

Actually do some things rather than just put them on paper.

Yeah, you've got it.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

I think Council Member Juarez, Council Member Gonzalez want to add their names to this.

Yes, please.

I don't think there's going to actually need to be a green sheet.

If we decide to do something like a slide, then I presume you might want to have your name on that, but we won't have to have a green sheet because the department is saying they can do it with existing resources.

Good.

Thank you.

Okay, next item.

Moving on to item number 45, tab 10-7A1.

This proposed green sheet would impose a proviso on funding for the Yesler Crescent Improvement Project.

The 2019 proposed budget includes $500,000 in REIT funding to be used for planning, design, improvements, and potential activation activities in the Yesler Crescent Corridor.

The council, wanting to make sure that the funding is spent consistent with their intent, would impose a proviso to require the executive to return back with a spending plan, and we would then authorize their expenditure of those funds after receiving that spending plan.

Great.

Thank you.

We don't have to go too deeply into this.

I have actually asked the executive to be included in these conversations, and we know that As part of the waterfront, there has been an RFP issued to identify people that are working on the connections between the waterfront And Second Avenue, I'm working with Lisa Howard and others from the Pioneer Square Alliance.

We want to coordinate these efforts and see what we can get on the ground.

And working with the folks that own some of the dilapidated buildings, what we can do to get those buildings back into the mix for affordable housing and other contributing things that they can do in Pioneer Square.

We've got a lot to do.

I just want to make sure that we have a good solid plan on what to do with this $500,000.

and not just draw more pretty pictures.

Sorry.

Okay.

Moving on to the next item, 10.8.A.1.

This would amend the capital improvement pages, program pages for the Department of Parks and Recreation's Lake City Community Center Improvement Project.

It would first revise the project description to reflect that the project will construct a new community center.

that a feasibility study is underway to develop different options for the new community center that will include cost estimates for the different options, and that funding for construction of this project is anticipated to be included in the 2021 through 2026 Seattle Park District Spending Plan that the council will be, or that the Park District Board will be considering in the fall of 2020. In addition, it modifies the funding table in the CIP page.

It adds $2 million in state grant funds.

Mr. Zimmerman, knock it off.

Councilmember Juarez, I think you are about to speak.

I'll let Tracy finish.

Finish your sentence, please.

So it adds $2 million in state grant funds in 2019 that was inadvertently left out of the CIP page by the executive.

It adds $5 million of Park District funds in 2021. It adds $1 million in REIT 2 in 2020, which reflects the mayor's proposed budget and again was inadvertently left out of the CIP and then modifies the spending plan just to reflect all of those funding changes.

Thank you.

Mr. Zimmerman.

You are acting like a two-year-old.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I know that you love having the attention, that you wave your sign.

Would you please move off camera about three rows back, and then we can have the staff come in.

Security, would you invite him to move about three rows back?

We don't need you on camera, Mr. Zimmerman, waving your sign.

Thank you.

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

I know you've all heard about this ad nauseam, but I'll just say a few brief items.

In 2016, the Community Center's strategic plan looked at 27 community centers, and Lake City Community Center was one of the two recommended for demolition and rebuild.

I personally have been working on this issue as a community member since 2015, and then after three years we've cobbled together, we're hoping up to at least $11 million.

This additional $5 million will put us where we need to be, even though we're looking at a 2016 number, which was originally, Tracy, correct me if I'm wrong, was $16.4 million to rebuild under 2016 numbers.

So basically, as you all know, Lake City Community Center, what we're hoping, besides what we're already doing there with child care and feeding elders, we're hoping that the Lake City Community Center, with the community's input, what their hope is, is that we build this center not only to have a gym and a wonderful new kitchen to feed our elders and continue to feed our elders, which we're already doing, But we have community rooms and offices in which we are looking at other organizations, such as Children's Home Society, Boys and Girls Club, Sound Generations, and I would hope at some point, since I've tried in three budgets now, to get a navigation team in there.

So it isn't just about playing basketball.

It isn't just about where we park kids after school.

This is really gonna be the hub since we just also opened up the Tony Lee house with 70 units and one floor of four classrooms are pre-K.

And we also are in the midst of rebuilding, renovating our Lake City library.

That little corner in our world has become the magnet and the hub and the civic hub and we hope it grows.

So I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Council members Johnson and Muscata have signed on to that.

Any other comments?

Thank you.

I have a quick question.

Okay, Council Member Gonzalez.

Thank you.

You know, I had an opportunity to visit the Lake City Community Center recently and I mean, they really are truly doing a lot of amazing programming within that community center and it is one of the few places within Lake City that is And so I think that's something that's going to be as heavily used, I think, as I have ever seen.

And one of the things that I recall hearing from folks who do programming, both as partners to the Seattle Parks and Rec Department, the need to make sure that there is some ADA compliance at the Lake City Community Center.

So there's a upstairs section that is basically inaccessible.

And so does this plan, would your proposal include an evaluation and analysis and potential improvements of accessibility?

I'm going to let Tracy respond before I do.

Okay.

So not for the existing facility.

This money that is going to be allocated is for the new community center.

They did do a series of ADA improvements, but I think because they're planning for a new one, they are not going to be doing any further.

I'm not positive, but I'm fairly certain that's the case.

Right.

And the community has been meeting and without spending a whole lot of time.

But you're right, Council Member Gonzales, that is a number one issue because we feed elders twice a week and we do have elderly people that cannot, you're right, access the upstairs.

And that was one of the variables that went into why we need a new community center because, you know, the first time it was built in 1955, nobody contemplated that or certainly not the federal ADA law.

And I also want to thank you for bringing something up that you sparked my memory is that District 5 is the only district that does not have a senior center, and it has been acting as a senior center forever.

And so I hope you will all join me in support of this.

Thank you.

And if just to put a fine point on what I was commenting on is that, you know, I think it would be important to make sure that we sort of call out in this green sheet potentially just some language around making sure that there's accessibility for all ages and all abilities so that we don't end up in the same place we are now with the current facility.

I'm sure that we would never end up in the same place that we are now because it's a whole different, Lay of the land as it relates to ADA laws and our compliance and all of those things.

But I do think it would be in terms of acknowledgment of the fact that this community center oftentimes serves a significant number of seniors.

I think it would be important to call that out and be intentional about it.

I want to thank Council Member Gonzalez for bringing that up, because I wasn't going to share this part, but I'm glad she brought up the issue.

One of the things we're looking at, too, and again, it's going to be community-driven and it's going to be organic, is that, and working with Speaker Chopp and other electeds in the 46th, is we want to put affordable housing there as well, but we want it to be organic from the community, but that definitely is one of the issues right up there with the ADA adaptability.

So, thank you for bringing that up.

No further comments, let's proceed.

Moving to item number 47, this is Green Sheet 10981, and it's sponsored by Council Member Herbold.

It would amend the Parks and Recreation's South Park Campus Improvement Project to revise the project description to identify the total project cost.

It also notes that the funding for this project from private and public resources and the city's contribution of REIT in 2019 is expected to fully fund the project.

Madam Chair, I'm going to ask that Mr. Zimmerman be removed because he is continuing to be disruptive and he is continuing to harass people who are sitting here trying to get through public comment and it is very distracting and is very disrespectful and quite frankly I think we're all tired of it.

Just invite him to leave.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Goodbye.

No, I want for this policeman to come and take me out.

Why are you doing this?

You're asking me, huh?

Antisemite is exactly who you are.

Oh.

Let's go outside.

Antisemite, Nazi.

Okay.

Well, now that the room has returned to some decorum, thank you all for supporting that action.

Would you like to proceed?

I have nothing more to add.

Okay.

Very good.

That was

Moving to item number 48, this is Green Sheet 1010A1.

And due to a technical glitch, the actual description of this budget action page disappeared from CBIS and from your agenda, so my apologies.

This would recommend a due pass for Council Bill 119383, the Parks Fee Ordinance.

The proposed fee increases would generate $857,000 in 2019 and $1.5 million in 2020. It includes fee increases for the Japanese Garden, Amy Utenis Center, aquatics facilities, athletic fields, event scheduling, and other indoor facility rentals as well as community center and other parks facility rentals.

Very good.

Budget chair has nothing to add.

Moving on to the next item, 1011A1.

This would be a do pass screen sheet for Council Bill 119375. This is the legislation that would authorize the amendment to the interlocal agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Park District regarding interest earnings from the park district funds.

And I described this earlier in my issue identification session.

Okay, any comments?

Okay, let's proceed.

Okay, moving on to item 10.13.A.1, Council Member Juarez is a sponsor with Council Member Bagshaw as a co-sponsor.

This would add $150,000 of Park District Fund balance in the Department of Parks for a performance evaluation of the Capital Planning and Development Division.

And this would be another follow-on evaluation similar to the two that the council has done.

looking for potential efficiencies and improvements and how Parks does its capital planning and construction work based on just some initial observations about some of the lag in funding and concerns about delays in project throughput.

Okay.

Council Member Warren, do you want to speak to it?

Yes, briefly, I will.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll just be brief.

One of the things that we found when we did the capital evaluation is we learned a lot from that and I think we started under Superintendent Agare.

And so, asking for the $150,000 supports a performance evaluation of the Capital Planning and Development Division.

So, getting back to what you're saying, Madam Chair, earlier, and Council Member Herbold and Gonzalez as well, is that when we talk about these things, let's not only plan them, but let's actually get them shovel-ready and turn dirt and build these projects that we keep talking about.

So, the reasons to support this is a performance evaluation of the capital program is long overdue.

The evaluation will benefit council by providing information on capital programs as we move toward review of the park district budget, which by the way, I think is next week, correct?

The MPD, Metropolitan Park District?

Next two weeks, actually, yes.

Next two weeks, I'm sorry.

An evaluation could potentially identify ways to save and or get overall better value out of funding.

And would this be the appropriate time to suggest or to share that we are going to pay off the $10 million loan earlier?

Of course, there's never a time not to be able to talk about that.

It was the reason for that happening.

So we're paying that off early, guys.

So we're saving money.

All right.

Thank you.

Are you adding on or are you raising your hand?

Okay.

No.

Council Member Johnson.

All right, let's move on to the next item.

Okay, item 1014A1.

This would amend the CIP project page for the Department of Parks and Recreation's Magnuson Park Athletic Field 12 conversion project to accelerate the project by two years, moving it from 2023 to 2021. This is Council Member Johnson and with Juarez as a co-sponsor.

Thank you, Council Member Johnson.

A couple of years ago, after the tragic shooting of Charlene Lyles, this project was accelerated from out years to 2021, the current CIP moves it back to 2023. We're just asking it to stay where it was when we put it in there a couple of years ago.

Okay.

Anything else?

Okay, let's move on.

Okay, moving on to item 10.15.A.1.

This would add $20,000 in general fund in 2019 to the Department of Parks and Rec for research on barriers and opportunities for youth access to sports, physical activity, and outdoor recreation.

This screen sheet is sponsored by Council Member O'Brien.

Councilmember O'Brien.

Thank you.

So I want to just be clear what this is intended to do and not do.

There's an organization called the Aspen Institute who has a national initiative trying to get young people more active and specifically this is not so much about getting young kids to join select teams and play the same sport for the rest of their life.

Rather, it's focused on making sure people have access to essentially the benefits we see from physical activity and sports.

So that's to your physical health, that's to your mental health, that's to building networks, that's a sense of self-worth.

There's a whole host of benefits folks get from just staying in motion.

The $20,000 would be to work with organizations like the Aspen Institute that are doing this research to figure...

Aspen, yes.

To understand what are the...

When we're looking at communities who have lower percentage rates of accessing sports, what are those barriers?

We know that in our school system, historically, a lot of people got activity through that.

Over time, as the school's focusing on other things, there's often fewer opportunities, or there's only opportunities that are performing at a certain level to qualify for certain teams.

And so trying to understand what those barriers are so that we can look at future investments to make sure that everyone who wants to and what young person doesn't want to be involved in playing and being active.

Thank you.

I just, without being in the least bit facetious, of course, in the late 1950s, we went through the Sputnik era, and a lot of effort of trying to get people more physically active.

We did it in the 60s and the 70s.

Now we're trying to keep kids off of screens and outside, and REI has been working on this.

So, I'm interested to see what kind of results there are, build on what's already been done.

What kind of a report are you expecting back?

Yeah, so the- I mean, that's a question.

What kind of a report for your $20,000 are you expecting back?

What I anticipate is some analysis of who doesn't have appropriate access to these activities and what neighborhoods those are in or what demographics they're from and understanding what it is.

Is it like, oh, we don't have a place to go?

Is it the existing programs are too expensive?

Is it there's not enough field space?

Some of the stuff that I think we kind of know some stuff about, but really digging in and finding, so we're gonna be very targeted on how do we eliminate some of the disproportionality and frankly, just across the board, get all youth having access to physical activity.

Okay, no further comments, let's move on.

Moving to item 53, the final Parks and Rec item.

10-16A1 would amend the CIP project page description for the Department of Parks Green Lake Community Center and Evans Pool replacement project to indicate that funding for the construction of this project is intended to be included in the 2021-2026 Park District Spending Plan.

Council Member O'Brien.

Sorry, hang on one second here.

The Green Lake Community Center was on the top of the list along with Lake City as far as community centers that are in need of significant repair or replacement.

The mayor's budget included, I believe, half a million a year for the next two years, is that right?

Correct.

To do the design and planning work in anticipation of the next Metropolitan Parks District set of investments.

And so my goal here, there's not a dollar amount to essentially put this project on that CIP list in anticipation of that design work.

Essentially, it's a signal to the community This remains a priority, and we'll figure out what the design looks like and how expensive it is and when and if and how we can fund it, but I'd like to put it on the list.

So I know that in our first Metropolitan Park District assessment, this was one of the top, one of the top six.

The swimming pool has been held together with Band-Aids and gum, as far as I can tell.

And we really need to decide what we're going to do with this.

I support what Councilmember O'Brien is trying to accomplish here.

And I also think that it's going to be time in 2019 to begin that conversation around what do we want to do with our 27 community centers.

Are we going to have a hub and spoke, continue to have like what I refer to as a super center, one in every district and then others that are, may serve different needs.

But I really know that our community centers need to have a plan, and every year I keep hearing that the plan's coming, but I've not seen the action.

So, Council Member Warris.

I'd just like to briefly respond because when we went back and looked at the CIP program and the framework, and we know that the Capital Improvement Program is a six-year financial planning tool with the intent to identify future capital investments, So we went back and looked at what were the variables that parks and what people looked at to determine how we come to these brick-and-mortar decisions and particularly now with parks and looking at a resolution that was adopted in 2010. And that is just going back and looking at preserving and maintaining existing capital assets, supporting the goals of the city's plans, economic development, whether or not they're matching funds.

And I could go on and on, but one of the things that's important is that historically assessing which projects are funded are significantly influenced by whatever the revenue forecast is.

You know, two to three years of proper planning, the urgency, what is the landscape, where have the demographics changed, one of the things that Councilmember Gonzalez has raised.

Is there ADA accessibility?

And also needs of time, needs of the district, like in D5 with population growth and child care services.

And also one of the more critical questions was, are we spending more money on upkeep rather than renovation or rebuild?

So I just want to make it clear that when they did that six-year plan that this is kind of the lens from the executive and DPR that they ran these particular programs through, which I am supportive of.

I was supportive of the executive setting aside $500,000 to look at Green Lake and come back and tell us what they need and how much that will cost.

So, thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Let's move to the next item.

That's all I have.

That's it for you?

No, we got mine.

Okay.

Number 54.

So that was it for Tracy.

Do you want to stay at the table, or you want me to walk through it?

You want to walk through your form B, your late-breaking form B?

Yes.

OK.

If I may, Chair.

OK.

So I just distributed this green sheet.

I have been talking to the Chair about this green sheet, and I'm not sure exactly what I did to.

not have it included, but I did something and I take responsibility for that.

So I appreciate everybody's indulgence.

So this is a green sheet that is yet to be numbered, but it would add $130,000 in 2019 and $130,000 in 2020 to the Seattle Parks and Recreation department to fund two park concierge or ambassador employees.

So these individuals would be assigned to the Ballard Commons Park, and it would be aligned with the anticipated installation of a Portland Lou style public restroom in that park, which is slated to occur sometime before or during the summer of 2019. And really what we have done is engage with the parks department and really ask them whether they felt that a park ambassador model would benefit positive use of both the restroom and the rest of the green space.

And they said pretty loudly and clearly that they do believe that in order to make this to have these two park ambassadors working at this particular park to do active programming seven days a week.

add those two positions and it would result, the addition of these two positions would result in programming seven days a week for nine hours a day at Ballard Commons Park and the estimates assume a 25% closure for weather-related incidents.

Okay.

Council Member Mike is, Council Member O'Brien is signing on here.

Council Member Mike is on board.

Council Member Gonzalez, thank you so much for bringing this forward and I appreciate the tension in your work with parks to identify this.

It would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood there.

Great.

Thank you.

And I fully support this also and in no small part because we've been trying to get more Portland loos around.

I know Ballard has requested one.

This is great but having something like a park ranger that's monitoring and making sure that it's being used properly is going to be very helpful.

And I did have an opportunity to discuss this proposal with Mike Stewart over at the Ballard Alliance before coming out here.

He was very enthusiastic about the green sheet.

He mentioned to me and reminded me that Ballard Alliance has been doing some programming of the park.

They were able to do about four different events this past summer through a small grant a small only in Seattle grant.

And they really, he shared with me that those activation opportunities over the summer were very well received by the community and produced a lot of goodwill and positive engagement.

And really what they hope to be able to do with Ballard Commons Park is what we have been able to successfully do in a couple of our downtown parks.

working on our third downtown park.

So he's really looking to sort of the Westlake and the Occidental Park models as something that could be replicated and that needs to be replicated at Ballard Commons Park.

park due to ongoing significant public safety concerns there.

And also this just fits in really well to some of the other improvements that are occurring at the park besides the Portland Loo.

There's going to be a child's play area, children's play area, and then there's a spray park there as well.

So all of that together with funding for outreach services to those folks experiencing homelessness and businesses is I think going to allow for a really productive positive use of this open space.

So I appreciate the support.

Great.

Thank you Also, I received today Something from our parks department that there's going to be a public open house.

I believe it's Saturday.

I'm just trying to get it November 17th maybe let me just double-check November 17th 11 to 3 And it's for people in Ballard who want to talk about the park, want to talk about the potential loo, and we will be getting close to having a budget passed by then, and we'll appreciate public input at the same time.

Very good.

Thank you.

So, let's move on to the next item.

So the next group of green sheets are the green sheets that would recommend passage of various pieces of budget legislation that were transmitted by the mayor as a part of the way to, as pieces of the puzzle to implement her proposed budget.

By a variation on tradition, they are all indicated as being sponsored by the budget chair.

The first item, number 54, was actually covered on, I believe, Tuesday by Dan Eder.

I guess I can answer some questions if you have them to the extent that I am aware of the issues in question.

But basically, we got a little enthusiastic there and double booked it.

So with your permission.

Because it's such an awesome idea.

I think that we might want Council Member Herbold to weigh in on this.

No, I think it was an error to be put on the agenda twice.

Okay.

So then I will move on to item 55, which is Green Sheet 41-6-A-1, which would recommend passage of Council Bill 119377. which would establish a B&O tax deduction for revenue from grants, contracts, and subawards for organizations doing life sciences research.

The city provided a deduction of this sort from June 2012 through June of 2017, last year.

It expired at that point.

That was provided under Ordinance 123-877.

Non-profit entities were already covered or rather were allowed to deduct income from direct grants from government sources for life sciences research, but the legislation from 2012 expanded that to include contracts and subawards and also incorporated that deductibility for private sector life sciences organizations.

The revenue impact that is anticipated as a result of passing this legislation and reestablishing that deduction is approximately $500,000 per year general fund.

And that forecast impact is incorporated in the mayor's proposed budget and the balancing of it.

Thank you very much.

We had significant discussion about this last year.

I support this.

Any further comments?

I have just a couple of quick technical questions, Eric.

So as you described it, there was an exemption for federal or other government grants, and then that exemption was extended to broader types of funding and beyond just non-profits.

As it stands today, if this doesn't pass, is there no exemption at all, or is the existing federal grant exemption still in place?

So non-profit organizations would still be eligible for pure grant deduction, but not for the kind of more complex forms of contracts and subawards from other recipients of grants.

And so by adding back in the other types of revenues and allowing for-profit life science that are getting grants access to it, that delta is about $500,000 a year is what we anticipate.

Yeah, and I believe about 85% of that is associated with nonprofit organizations.

Great.

Thank you.

OK.

Let's move to the next.

The next item is green sheet.

41-7-A-1, which recommends passage of Council Bill 119390, the third quarter 2018 grant acceptance ordinance, which would authorize a number of city departments to accept funding from outside sources totaling about 8.3 million.

The largest single item is a grant from the Washington State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board to support the East Marginal Way Heavy Haul Corridor project of SDOT.

The two second biggest items are both for the Seattle Fire Department, one from the Department of Homeland Security for air quality monitoring under the BioWatch program.

And another from Sound Transit for $344,000 to support the development of training materials and supporting documents for emergency response along the link light rail system.

Great.

We always like to accept grants, so I have nothing further to add.

Quick question.

What's the BioWatch air quality monitoring program?

It is a source of funding, a program for funding that comes from the Department of Homeland Security and it is intended to monitor air quality for biological hazards, bioterrorism.

I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on that, but it's looking for nefarious substances that could be distributed through the air.

And do they, I don't want to belabor this, but is it a constant air quality monitoring effort that they do?

Well, that's the impression that I have, but I have to confess that I'll have to get back to you to confirm the nature of that program.

Any other questions?

I'm on the website.

It sounds like exactly what it is.

Very good.

I just wanted to make sure because I'm not in the business of trusting the Department of Homeland Security very much these days.

The next item is Green Sheet 41-8-A-1, which would recommend passage of Council Bill 119391, the third quarter 2018 Supplemental Appropriations Ordinance.

So this is the other part of the supplemental package for the third quarter.

So this makes revisions to the 2018 budget as is often the case in the third quarter supplemental.

Many of the transactions that are proposed in this ordinance have to do with freeing up resources in various funds, particularly the general fund.

to make additional fund balance available at the end of 2018 and therefore at the beginning of 2019 for the mayor's proposed budget.

So it is very much a part of the overall package that the mayor's proposed for 2019, 2020, even though it's amending the 2018 budget.

And you are actually reducing $127 million?

Yes, however, 126 million of that is the first item I would note, the largest item in terms of absolute magnitude, which is a reduction in SDOT that has to do with the rebasing of Move Seattle Levy projects, the retiming, I believe, I would defer were he here on any questions related to that to Calvin Chow, but I know he spoke earlier about how a lot of the, there's, Basically appropriations being recalled from a number of transportation projects and then reissued to reflect new expectations about timing great So I think that last sentence was what's important is that the money's not going away.

The projects aren't going away We're just simply unable to complete them by the end of this year.

And in many cases not start them until 2019 or 2020.

That's my understanding.

Yes Thank you Councilmember Muscata

Dramatic pause.

No kidding.

We're all waiting.

It's a very important question.

I'm on bated breath here.

You could speak to some of the larger items in the supplemental package if you'd like.

Sure.

I think she needs a little filibuster moment here, so.

Sure.

So, again, large in order of magnitude, but technically a reduction and not an increase.

There's a $4 million reduction for the budget for the Seattle Police Department that reflects the basically correcting for the actual level of hiring that has taken place.

You've heard about how there have been some issues with recruiting and some unexpected departures.

So this is a $4 million reduction, again, sets the stage for the 2019 budget by reducing the authorized spending for SPD.

And you've heard about some of the proposed increases to try to bring more staff on board in 2019 and 2020.

That was a sufficient filibuster.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Sorry for the pregnant pause.

So we do see some of the key large projects that you just mentioned included in the mayor's budget.

If we decide in the final budget that we're not going to include some portion of those, if there was one item that really relied on some of the funding from this bucket, would we just go back and amend this resolution prior to final passage?

So if I understand the question properly it is if We were to reject some of the funding proposed by the mayor for 2019 or 2020 that that was tied to a Item in the 2018 proposal would be I think then we could go and amend this piece of legislation and pass it in amended form in a way that matches up with whatever the Revision is in 2019 to 2020 Councilmember Johnson

Eric, is the net effect, absent the SDOT budget issues, is the net effect here that we have a slightly larger fund balance in 2018 that carries over into 2019?

That's right.

In general fund terms, it's a $3.8 million reduction in appropriations, which I don't know how appropriations will necessarily actually be utilized, but the authorized level of expenditures of general fund resources for this year is $3.8 million lower, limits the maximum amount of actual expenditures and therefore we can count on 3.8 million more of general fund.

I would note that those resources are programmed in the mayor's proposed 2019-2020 budget, so these are not for you.

So you're suggesting that we can't grab them?

Yeah, correct.

These dollars have been spent.

They have been proposed for expenditure, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions on this one?

We're all looking for it under every rock.

Item 58.

This next item, excuse me, I'm Eric McConaghy.

I'm on your Council Central staff.

Good afternoon.

This next item is 41981. This is a budget action that would pass Council Bill 119393. This would authorize the issuance of 55 million dollars in limited tax general obligation bonds.

These are assumed in the 2019 proposed budget and the proposed 2019 to 2024 budget.

Okay, any questions?

It's sponsored by the budget chair as typical for this sort of thing.

Correct, I understand.

Thank you.

Any questions down there?

To my right, to my left?

No?

All right, let's proceed.

Thank you.

Number 59. Item 4114- Sorry, I was just saying thank you as he was leaving.

I'm sorry, that's our name thing going on.

I'm sorry, of course.

Tab 41, or rather, green sheet.

4140-A-1 would recommend passage of resolution 31848, adopting revised financial policies for the cumulative reserve sub fund.

There are two changes here.

One of them has to do with basically the bucket of funds that can be counted against a target of resources dedicated to the preservation of non-transportation, non-utility city assets.

That's buildings and all that sort of thing.

And so allowing both the capital projects accounts, CPA funds, which is heavily populated by REIT money, but also allowing the counting of other fund sources against that target to fund 65% or more of that average annual need for resource preservation.

rather asset preservation.

The other change and the one that I think we heard a little bit about maybe earlier in this in October here in committee is that it revises the allowance under policy for the use of capital project account money or which often means reap money to pay debt service on public safety facilities rather than fire facilities, neighborhood fire facilities.

So this means you could use it for police facilities essentially as well as fire.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Council Member Mosqueda.

Is there any concern that we're not going to have enough funds in the CRS fund?

Is that, are we trying to be proactive here?

Well, I believe the last time that these, I don't recall, it's been some years since these policies were adjusted.

I believe that the expansion to allow for the police facilities is just to allow for a lot more flexibility in the programming of, again, primarily REIT money because the collections have actually been fairly high, so that's less to do with scarcity and more to do with abundance.

The other, I think, is just to give, again, more flexibility in meeting the financial policies target for how rather than whether or not resources are allocated at a given level for asset preservation.

You okay?

Okay, let's proceed.

We have one more item and then we're going to talk about budget for justice.

Item 60 is green sheet 4115-A-1.

This would recommend the passage of a council bill that has not yet been introduced, and therefore I have not given a number for, but which would amend certain provisions of the business license tax and business license tax certificate fee, commonly referred to as the business and occupation or B&O tax and business license fee.

to conform with state law.

Basically the state passed a law in 2017 requiring some simplification and standardization of business license requirements and fees throughout the state.

And so this makes a number of changes, including establishing a minimum threshold of $2,000 of annual revenue for the requirement to get a business license.

And it also makes some changes to the technical definition of when someone is engaging in business within the city.

It has to do, I think, primarily with businesses that are operating both inside the city and outside the city, but don't do a lot here.

All right.

It looks like there's nobody jumping to the microphone.

I do have a question.

OK.

Thanks.

As it relates to the minimum threshold, do we have one currently that we use?

I imagine we must.

There is a minimum.

There's basically an exemption for $100,000 a year of gross receipts for the B&O portion of the tax, the business license tax.

But for the business license fee, there is not a minimum threshold.

So there is none, and we're establishing one.

There are now, I think, five tiers.

There used to be two tiers, and there is a lower tier, which is, I believe, $55, but there's no minimum threshold.

Zero is the minimum threshold, or a cent, something like that.

Okay, thank you.

And I know our former council colleague, Sally Clark, had been working on this for years, and then the Association of Washington Cities picked it up in the last year or two, and I think really pushed it over the finish line, and people seem pretty happy that they've got this is an option and they don't have to be, businesses don't have to be doing multiple sets of books for multiple cities.

Asha, do you have anything else you want to add?

Not on that item.

Okay, so do you have another item?

Yes.

This is Green Sheet 219A1.

It should have been circulated earlier today when the motion passed to add it to the agenda.

It is related to the items we discussed yesterday during our discussion of the Office for Civil Rights and the Budget for Justice, the Budget for Justice Coalition.

Essentially this adds $1.1 million in 2019 and the same in 2020 to OCR for them to equitably distribute this funding to community-based organizations that are providing alternatives to the criminal justice system.

So what this green sheet does is combine five of the green sheets that we talked about yesterday that were allocated to each organization that does work like this and combine the funding amounts so that the, amount that eventually gets distributed isn't decided by individual group or council member, but is done through an equitable process through the Office for Civil Rights over the next year.

Asha, excuse me just one moment.

Yes.

I was just handed this three-page document.

I want to make sure that everybody's got a copy before we continue.

We'll make copies if need be.

Everybody's good?

It's 219A1.

Okay.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Please go ahead.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

This is sponsored by Councilmember O'Brien and supported by Councilmembers Herbold and Mosqueda.

Good, thank you.

Okay, Councilmember O'Brien, do you want to lead?

Sure, I'll start.

So just a reminder to the public, yesterday a series of green sheets came up around budget for justice.

I think there were five.

And through our discussion on the dais yesterday, we decided to consolidate that into a single green sheet, identifying the broad scope of the work and compile those.

So Council Herbold and I, actually our staff, were tracking those conversations out here and trying to get the comments that people were making and incorporate that into the scope of this green sheet.

The total amount of this green sheet is a little bit less than what the sum amount of the other items were.

We essentially, the organizations that had made a series of asks had ranges, and this is essentially the low end of the range for each of the organizations.

But again, it's not identified as dollars per organization, but rather an overall amount.

I want to give space for Councilmembers Mesquite and Herbold to say things, and I want also other folks who made some comments yesterday to see how successfully we're incorporating people's comments into the intent of this and make sure we got it right.

Because this is something that I think just about everyone here has expressed various forms of interest and different aspects on it, we can, I guess, just kind of play this out in real time as we work through this.

Councilmember Muscata, would you like to start or Councilmember Herbold?

I can go.

I think the only piece of this that we haven't captured in writing, because it's awkward to do so and I don't think a green sheet is the appropriate place to do it, is the fact that Given that the balancing package that will be brought to the council by the budget chair next week may include a different dollar amount than the dollar amount that is on this piece of paper.

We are expecting to hear some guidance from the community advocates for this funding package to give us on how to how to prioritize the projects, the project types and the work that is described with what might be a fewer number of dollars than we are currently proposing.

So, you know, that's guidance that we, I think, would benefit from receiving sooner rather than later.

Okay.

Council Member Muscato.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I really appreciate the warm welcome that this council has provided to these concepts, the individuals that came forward.

I think you yourself said it yesterday, there's a lot of sympathy and empathy for wanting to make sure that these programs get the desired funding so that we can change our systems and truly have a restorative justice model.

So I hope that that's a big takeaway here from these last few weeks.

What I think that this proposal does is it identifies ways that we can package together various programs that really look at providing alternatives to addressing the criminal justice system and also a harm reduction model that's incorporated through these organizations because of their trusted partnership with community.

Just by way of background, just so that we all can see these and imagine them as a collective package, we're talking about programs that support marginalized or supporting marginalized survivors of violence through healing and accountability, restorative pathways for ensuring that youth and young adults have access to stability, trauma-informed and healing-centered youth development programs, public education and engagement for better safer communities and support for those suffering from excessive force and building immigrant and community capacity to secure alternatives to the justice system and avoid disproportionate impacts from basically being targeted due to their immigration status.

So I know that we collectively want to see each one of these funded and if given the restraints of this budget it makes more sense to package them together if the overall amount were allocated and some decision-making were identified with me perhaps within community to prioritize those I think it's maybe a healthy way to say we all want these programs and we all hear what you're saying and Clearly, this is an important element to our pathways towards reducing incarceration overall and wanting to make sure that the community leads.

I would love for us to have the money to do all of these, but I recognize that this is potentially an alternative, recognizing we might not have the full funding for each one.

So I thought it was a creative way to package it together for the budget chair's consideration.

Thank you.

Any further comments on this?

Council Member Johnson.

Just add my name.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, if we have no further comments, that brings us to the end of our conversation today.

I want to say congratulations and thank you, all of you.

for not only being really thorough and reading this, and thanks to Council Central staff for your good work.

We will be applying all these recommendations, ideas, suggestions starting tomorrow afternoon and over the weekend so that next week I will have a balancing package for you.

So, the next opportunity we have here is for public comment.

And we've got 13 speakers we're going to ask for 13 speakers minus one who's been ejected.

So, it looks like Queen Bee, Nitra Freeman, and Jason Gee are the first three.

We don't have 13 people in here.

So, can I ask you to raise your hands if you're here?

Queen Bee and Nitra or Jason?

Okay.

Egan?

Anita?

And it looks like the budget for Justice somebody.

It was probably put in the morning, so we just signed up it again in the afternoon, so if there's other people who think we need to sign up.

Jody, do you wanna see, is there something else there?

Is somebody else signed on that sheet?

Okay, Mr. Zimmerman has invited himself to leave.

It looks like Cindy Pierce, Jennifer A., and Cy from Budget for Justice.

Welcome back, and thank you if you'll give us your names.

Thank you.

My name is Sai Samaneni, and I direct operations for Community Passageways.

I'm here standing by myself right now, but I'm representing all of the coalition members who could not be here due to limited organizational capacity.

That includes Creative Justice, Scott Green, and Not This Time.

We just wanted to have you consider today that neither the reentry report released by the mayor nor the zero youth detention resolution passed by the council have had any significant investments to support those recommendations.

And we've listened to what you had to say today and know that you know that those recommendations are important.

So we're asking that since in the three years that the resolution has passed, the council has not made any efforts to further that work, that today you follow through on the promises in that resolution to fund Budget for Justice.

Budget for Justice stands before you asking that you invest in our proposal because we are not waiting for the city to act.

And our meeting needs identified by your constituents, but put more plainly, the black and brown bodies of your communities who are currently being hurt by incarceration throughout the city.

Our work aligns with many of the work groups funded by the city and is repairing serious harms caused by incarceration, especially in those communities that are most marginalized, including the 98118 zip code and many other places that are suffering from the effects of gentrification.

So, we are asking that along with the current benefits offered by folks who reflect these historical harms, that we be allowed to lead a consortium of community members to come up with a comprehensive strategy that reflects the criminal justice reforms that have yet to happen since the resolution was passed.

Many of you have already heard from the youth and young adults whose charges were dropped without requiring any court or jail.

A lot of those young adults are working on the criminal justice reform strategies that are funded by the Office of Civil Rights.

Budget for Justice also wants to extend our acknowledgement and gratitude to the council members who have supported our proposal and are investing to take these immediate actions to further zero youth detention.

Thank you.

I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up.

Okay.

We urge that the remaining council members not trade on your community's goodwill with a resolution that has not been backed by investments.

So today we're asking the council to either rescind your resolution or invest in Budget for Justice to make the City of Seattle a leader in restorative justice.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Okay, it looks like Cindy and Jennifer, Sai and Mark.

What's that?

Okay.

All right.

Good afternoon.

Hi, Cindy.

Small group here.

Small but mighty.

Small but mighty, yes.

I've been watching you guys for the last three days now.

Could you start Cindy's time, please?

Pardon me?

I'm asking Jody.

Okay.

Before you put the ink to the paper on the CHEL sites, I want you to at least let the public know the answer to a few of the following questions.

They're related to Insight because that's the model that you have at least said that you want to go towards.

Out of the 6,440 prevented deaths at Insight, could you get the information for us as to how many people are alive today out of the 6,440?

If you put a chell site here, will you arrest drug dealers immediately if you see them outside the doors of the chells?

And what amount of drugs will be legal to bring into the location, and will you allow minors and pregnant women?

The dollars you're planning to spend on this simply are not going to be accurate.

You must take into account the consequences of your justification for these sites, and there are many.

You also have over 80,000 people in the county who signed a paper saying no to these CHEL sites.

Also, I see that you are now about to house 50 HIV-infected men who have been living outside into the Bailey Boucher.

Why does the public not know about this revitalized epidemic?

Okay, it's true.

We are finding needles everywhere in this city and we are now just finding out that we have more HIV infected homeless than we originally thought.

It's best that you put out something for all the citizens as they try to enjoy our parks, our sidewalks, our lawns, wherever we are, we see the needles found on a daily basis around here.

And on a side note, who is in charge of the needle exchanges?

Because if we have somebody in charge, we would truly be doing these exchanges and maybe those needles counts would be a little bit less.

I look forward to your immediate communication with the citizens as this entire crisis has been out of control for many years.

Thank you, Cindy.

Jennifer?

But the lady before me got more than a minute, so I wanted to finish.

She got like two minutes or four minutes.

She was up here.

The time went by.

Yeah, she was up here.

Yeah.

You gave her two minutes, didn't you?

Okay.

I've also been given many stories about LinkedIn's closing, and I think we all know what the real reason is.

And as long as you have existing contractors running these businesses that Barb Poppe told you not to do, these fiascos won't stop, and our money will be a waste of time, and the homeless will not be going in any advanced direction.

Thank you.

That's, I think...

And I just...

Would you cut off her microphone, please?

I'm here today to address item number 23 on the agenda regarding a mobile injection van.

As many of you are aware, addiction affects a diverse group of citizens.

I'm here today to ask you to invest funds for a mobile fixed heroin narcotics van to be used to fund substance abuse treatment and mental health services.

Caleb Banta-Green, one of your experts who served on the Heroin Task Force and who was recently interviewed a couple of months ago by Cairo about injection sites.

His comment regarding recent injection site studies led to this quote, it, in parentheses, safe injection sites may not help with mortality rates.

Vantagreen admitted to Cairo 7, I suspect it does, but it is small.

If you continue to pursue this avenue of services, the Feds will most likely step in utilizing a statute called the Crack House Statute to go after cities and states that permit safe injection sites under the law, which dates to the crack cocaine epidemic.

It is illegal to knowingly open or maintain or manage or control any place for the purpose of unlawfully using controlled substances.

And since I have more time, the funding of providers needs to be performance-based, and that discussion has been brought up by many of you today and over the last weeks.

Considering criteria for funding to providers should be based on performance, it's my opinion you should remove the green sheets to fund Share Wheel.

The most recent announcement of Licton Springs closing is an example of a provider, as in share wheel, not meeting expectations related to positive outcomes.

Licton Springs was a disaster.

In closing, I'm hoping you all like prison food because the feds will be coming if you continue down this path of allowing injection sites.

Thank you.

Mark.

Mark Cummings with Life Science Washington.

We represent life science companies and the medical research institutes in the city of Seattle here.

I just want to provide some clarifying comments on the CB 119377, the deduction for medical research.

grants.

So historically, while it's labeled a deduction, this is really a technical fix to a technical problem.

We've never taxed medical research historically in Seattle at the state level or frankly anywhere in the country.

A number of years ago when federal agencies began using different contracting vehicles in addition to federal grants, they would have grants, awards, contracts, and other things.

At that point, somebody made the determination of the city that while the grants are clearly deductible, that the subawards and contracts were subject to tax.

That's when the ordinance was passed previously.

So this put us in the awkward situation where UW or Fred Hutch gets a research grant, it's not taxed, but they partner with a small research institute in the city, that is taxed.

If they partner with a research institute outside the city, it's not, which puts them at a disadvantage, doesn't make a lot of sense.

The other challenge here is that most of those organizations, they can't pass through that tax onto the federal grant.

So they have to use other funds to come up to repay that.

which you can see would be an awkward situation if you're trying to raise money for cancer research, but instead you're asking people to raise money to pay taxes.

So this is, Seattle's now has a distinction sort of being the only place in the country that taxes medical research this way, and so we're just asking to reinstate the ordinance that was already in place that would put it back to the way that it had frankly been treated for the past 20 or 30 years.

Great, thank you.

Yep.

Thank you very much.

And would you like to speak?

I'm sorry.

And what's your name?

Okay, Egan, please.

And does anybody else want to speak?

If you do, please sign up.

Thank you, Egan.

Yeah, for sure.

My name is Egan Orion.

I'm the director of the Broadway BIA.

and I represent a coalition of organizations across several neighborhoods, including Capitol Hill, First Hill, Chinatown International District, and Little Saigon.

We did have, for a couple of years, homeless outreach services that were funded through HSD.

They were mid-homeless outreach services.

And those were discontinued earlier this year when funding was not renewed through the HSD funding process this last year.

So a coalition of us came together in order to look at what our options were to figure out what the current funding provided for population-based homeless outreach.

In the end, we ended up putting together a proposal to fund outreach services.

We decided that working together as three, four neighborhoods would work better than for us just going it alone.

So we put together a proposal and we started to talk to the mayor's office and to a couple of council members.

The mayor's office did pick it up.

She put $200,000 in funding of the 300,000 we need into her budget.

We were not specific about who we wanted those services to be provided by.

We did reach out to REACH and to the MID to provide estimates for those services.

In the mayor's budget, it was designated as the MID.

So I think that there's a couple of green sheets going around.

I think the council members who supported our 55,000 and expanded coverage.

The neighborhoods ourselves have committed to putting in 45,000.

to reach our $300,000 goal per year.

I know that Council Member Gonzalez, you have a green sheet, 15-3A-1, that was discussed this morning by Council.

And we don't disagree with some of your conclusions in there.

I'm sort of concerned about waiting for a report and then waiting for Council's reaction to the report.

And then who knows, maybe we're going to get to the end of 2019 and there still won't be any homeless outreach services in our neighborhoods.

And just because we're away from downtown, we do have a lot of the same issues as downtown faces when it comes to homeless outreach.

And so we need these critically in our neighborhoods.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you very much for coming and waiting.

Sure.

Absolutely.

And just as a reminder, next Tuesday is election day.

I want to make sure everybody gets their ballots in and remembers that it has to be postmarked by 8 o'clock if you're not putting it actually into one of the bins at King County Administration Building or others.

The balancing package will be officially presented next week.

Of course, I'll be talking to you Monday and Tuesday after we have something in writing.

The following Monday is Veterans Day.

It's a holiday.

So, Tuesday the 13th, Wednesday the 14th, we'll be voting on the balancing package back here in council chambers with a hope that on Monday the 19th, we will be adopting that budget.

Okay, thank you all again very much for working through all these issues with me, and this meeting's adjourned.