Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee Session II 11/21/22

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Today is November 21st, 2022. I'm Teresa Mosqueda, Chair of the Select Budget Committee.

The Select Budget Committee will come back to order from the recess that we just took for lunch.

The time is 1.32 p.m.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the record?

Will you please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold?

Here.

Council President Uras?

Here.

Council Member Lewis?

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Chair Mosqueda.

Present.

Nye present.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Colleagues, we are now on voting group B.

Thank you for your participation this morning.

We already got through group A.

And thanks again to members of the public for your public testimony this morning.

We got through everyone that had signed up for public comment that was present, and we did so in the 90 minutes allotted.

So thanks again for that participation.

Okay.

Going into group B, as a reminder, group B consists of council budget amendments that were included in the initial balancing package and received support without substantive changes.

The plan is to vote on all 158 items as a consent package.

Before removing items, colleagues, please consider in our deliberations today, that you do not have to remove an item to speak to it, either for it or against it.

You do not have to remove an item to speak to it.

We will first move the consent package to place it before committee and then central staff will provide a brief overview of items in group B.

And after the overview, colleagues will have an opportunity to speak to items.

You'll have an opportunity to talk about items that you like.

And if you are suggesting to remove an item from group B, you will have the opportunity to note your interest in removing an item.

Want to note as we turn it over to central staff that this will be a very brief overview of the entire package as we spent near three hours last Monday going through the majority of the items that are still included in group B here as group B.

As a compilation of amendments make up the initial balancing package that I released last Monday.

Central staff is going to highlight a few items that had updates or corrections, but they are not going to describe each item.

That is again what we did last Monday.

I do know that there were three substitutes and we talked about another one this morning.

So as we hear from central staff, I understand that there will be a handful of amendments that will be asked to be removed given the substitute nature of them.

And then we'll go on to other council members who might have other comments that they would like to make.

So before we do that, I'm going to turn it over to central staff to orient us to the process that we're gonna go through here.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

As you described group B includes items that have been discussed previously in committee for items where you have a substitute option, you will want to remove those items for individual.

individual consideration.

Right now, I was just going to briefly highlight a few changes that are included in items in Group B, but as you noted, I'm not going to walk through all 158 items, nor am I going to describe every technical correction we have made over the last week.

What I will highlight is that if you see that a Budget amendment is numbered differently.

So the last number in the series.

So let's say Arts 1B1.

If that was Arts 1B2, that's how you would understand it was a new version.

New versions are where we make technical corrections or clarifications.

We put it in the wrong budget summary level in the transactions.

there was a typo, those sorts of things.

If you see that it has a new option letter, so let's say ARTS 1B1 became ARTS 1C1, that would indicate a more substantive change but wasn't significant enough to move it to Group C. So I'll just highlight a few of those types of changes.

I have the entire central staff team on the line so they're happy to answer more detailed questions if you have any.

Any concern about any of the items in the group, but as an example items 3855 and 88 on the agenda had purely technical changes.

To correct things in the.

in the transaction details that matter for the behind-the-scenes balancing, but it's not really changing the substance of the amendment.

Another example are items 12 and 13. Those are the budget amendments related to passing the year-end supplemental grant acceptance and appropriations bill.

We found out Early last week that the Office of Housing was given a little bit more of an allocation for emergency rental assistance allocated under the American Rescue Plan Act era to and so that ordinance was amended in a for this.

for this publication to include acceptance and authorized spending of that additional award.

Another example is in item 21, which is the Seattle Center 903 related to the Memorial Stadium.

After further discussion with the budget office and the project team, it was determined that it made more sense to provide cash financing in 2023. So there's $700,000 of cash, and then moving the debt, issuing the debt and providing funding for the debt service into 2024. Overall, it is the same amount of funding in debt service, it will support $20 million of debt to support the Memorial Stadium work as well as overall in this package, a million dollars of cash to support early planning work.

And one last example is OSC006.

This is an item that was providing funding related to the from the Jumpstart Fund for Green New Deal investments based on feedback from the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

After the initial package was released, the allocation of $3.5 million to implement the Resilience Hub Plan was modified slightly to allocate $1 million to public libraries, $1 million to parks, and $1.5 million to OSC to implement the Resilience Hub Plan, and it imposes a proviso on the parks funds to ensure that facilities that serve environmental justice priority communities first.

So those are the types of changes you will see, but overall, the main intent of the original amendment included in the package remains the same.

That is all I was planning to highlight at this time, but we're happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much.

I'm not seeing any hands for additional questions at this point, so I'm going to go ahead and move the consent package in front of us for future action to get the consent package group be in front of us.

I move to approve group B consent package.

Is there a 2nd?

2nd.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded to approve group B, the consent package.

Central staff has presented this brief overview of group B items, and we currently have some council amendments that are potential substitute options for certain agenda items.

We will consider substitute amendments after the central staff describes them in the appropriate place on group B.

So these will all be moved to the end of group B if a council member decides to remove an option.

The council members who are sponsoring the substitute items will need to pull those items if they want their substitutes considered for today.

And as a reminder, council members do not need to have a second or provide a reasoning for removing items in this package.

However, if you do not have a funding source and you are looking to remove a reduction in the balancing package, that will be highly discouraged as this does create a problem with the balance package.

It will no longer be balanced.

The time for proposing additions was last week.

Removing an amendment that will cost the city additional funding means this budget will no longer be balanced, and that's why amendments were due last week.

Again, colleagues, we have only today to make these final votes and have a balanced package at the end of the day.

So I would want to make sure to remind folks that first, you do not have to remove an item to speak to it, either for or against it.

from the balancing package, and second, that there's going to be plenty of time to speak to the items that you got included in the balancing package before we take a vote on this Group B. I'll get us started here.

Councilmember Strauss, since the emergency fund contribution amendment prevailed, I will be, for procedural purposes here, asking to remove the following three items from group B that were directly related to that amendment that passed this morning.

So these are not related to other policy items on the agenda here, but only relate to that bill considered in group A, item number three this morning.

I will be asking to remove CIV901A001.

That's agenda item number 23. SPD-903A-002, that's agenda item 40. And SPD-907A-002, that is agenda item 43. So we're removing those three items, and they will no longer be on the agenda for consideration entirely, given those three items weren't addressed in the amendment considered this morning.

Is there any, oh, excuse me, let me pause for a procedural update to see if I did that correctly, Allie.

You did that.

You did that correctly.

I'll just highlight it was item 140 and 143, not not the SPD 903 and SPD 907 for Patty, who is highlighting items as in real time.

It was removing.

agenda item 140 and 143, SPD 903 and 907. These three items are no longer necessary to balance the funding for those items was sort of assumed rejection of these amendments in S.020C that the committee approved this morning.

Thank you and apologies if I misspoke.

That is agenda items 23, 140 and 143 that were removed.

Okay, I see a hand, but I also see a hand in person first.

So I'm going to turn it to Council Member Strauss first.

Thank you, Chair.

I move that HSD 020A-002 be removed for an individual vote and that I move that HSD 904A-001 be removed.

Thank you very much Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Strauss has asked to remove HSD 020A-002.

This is agenda item 51. Council Member Strauss has also asked to remove HSD 904A-001, agenda item number 71. Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

And for colleagues' reference, those two items relate to the walk-on amendment that we added to the agenda this morning that seeks to address both of those issues in one revised amendment.

So thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I see Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I request that item 31, FAS003-A002 be removed.

That will be the subject of a substitute.

I also request that item 60, HSD035C001, a unified care team be removed.

I realize that would require additional funding, I request that item 121, which is S.502B001 be removed.

That's subject to a substitute.

And then I request that item 133, which is SPD102A002 be removed.

That's about the abrogation.

And I do appreciate the chair mentioning, you know, we can speak to items later without removing them.

There are a couple items I did want to speak to, but would that be later?

That would be later.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

One second, please.

Council member.

Councilmember Peterson has requested FAS003A002 item number 31 be removed.

That relates to the jail contract.

There is a substitute for that, which is FAS003B.

We will consider that later.

Councilmember Peterson has requested that HSD005 be removed.

and that relates to the unified care team.

This would result in an increased cost to the budget, flagging that highly discouraged removal of items that would have a negative impact to the budget, but this does not need a second.

This is agenda item number 60, HSD005C, item number 60. Councilmember Peterson has requested S.502B001 be removed as there is a substitute for that that he had already circulated.

And that substitute is S.502C.

That's agenda item number 121. And lastly, Councilmember Peterson has requested SPD102A002 be removed.

That's agenda item number 133. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Councilmember Nelson.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I request the following council budget actions and statements of legislative intent be removed for an individual vote.

I may ask you if there's more than one or two to pause after each one so I can repeat it.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Item 17, CBO 900A001.

I'm pausing.

Thank you.

Okay, you can continue.

Item 24, CSCC 002B001.

Agenda item.

24. Thank you.

Okay, agenda item 27. That's deal 301A-002.

Okay.

Agenda item 35, FAS 903A-002.

Are there more?

Yes, two more.

Agenda item 134, that's SPD-201A-001.

Okay.

And item 162, which is SPU-900A-001.

All right, thank you very much, council members.

Again, if you do want to remove an item that does not have a balanced approach to it, it will be highly discouraged by the chair when we get to that item.

If there is not a proposed alternative to fund an item in the budget, this will create an out of balance budget.

Let me confirm that I have the full list, council member Nelson, six items on my list.

And thanks to Patty for tracking this in real time.

Agenda item number 17, CBO 900A.

Agenda item 24, CSCC 002B.

Agenda item 27, DEAL 301. Agenda item 35, FAS 903. Agenda item 134. SPD 201. Agenda item 162. SPU 900. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Are there any additional items that a council member would like to remove at this juncture?

Okay.

Colleagues, thank you very much.

The items that we have listed have now been moved to the end of group B.

Hearing no further requests to pull items, The full list of items removed from the consent package will be considered at the end of group B.

I'm going to ask central staff if you don't mind reading for the record, again, the full list from the council members who've removed items.

Okay.

I will give it a shot.

Agenda item 17, CBO 900A1.

Agenda item 23, CIV 901A1.

Agenda item 24, CACC 2B1.

Item 27, deal 301A2.

Item 31, FAS 3A2.

Item 35, FAS 903A2.

Item 51, HSD 20A2.

Item 60, HSD 35C1.

Item 71, HSD904A1.

Item 121, SDOT502B1.

Item 133, SPD102A2.

Item 134, SPD201A1.

Item 140, SPD903A2.

Item 143, SPD907A2.

and item 162, SPU 900A1.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you for reading that in for the record.

I see a thumbs up from the Council President.

Thank you so much.

I'm not hearing any additional comments at this time or requests for the consent package to be removed.

I'm going to pause because we have promised a long window for folks to highlight various aspects that the council colleagues have included in this consent package as presented as the initial balancing package last Monday.

Lots of really hard work went into creating the amendments that you put forward and I really appreciate the time you took to work with community members and central staff and our office to finesse the amendments so that we could address many of the pressing needs throughout our city.

So thank you, first of all, to your offices and to central staff, my office, staff members for being able to work with you over the last few weeks to address many of the amendments that you've brought forward for the underlying balancing package.

And now is the time to really lift up what's in there, given how we've talked about The challenging nature of our individual budget amendment items don't really show the full picture sometimes when we don't have the full budget in front of us.

So let's share for members of the public what was included and what you all work to champion.

Vice Chair Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you so much.

I'll get started.

I'm only going to speak to the items that remain in the voting group B, the balancing package, and will hold my comments for items that were previously in that balancing package.

have been pulled for individual discussion.

So really wanna lift up my appreciation for the fact that funding to the Human Services Department for service provider contract inflation has been included in the balancing package.

Madam Chair's amendment for 2023, my amendment for 2024, as we've discussed by law, the budget must include an annual increase for human service providers pegged to the rate of inflation so that they do not fall behind financially.

This year, that figure is 7.6%.

The proposed budget only included 4%.

During a public hearing, non-profit leaders testified that they'd already passed budgets based on their trust in the city to follow the law and really appreciate that the council is collectively doing so today.

Another item in the balancing package that I'm very appreciative of is $2 million in 2023 and $2 million in 2024 for HSD to contract with the Public Defender Association for the Let Everyone Advance with Community lead and co-lead programs, flagging that this funding The total of $4 million over the biennium is not an increase in funding, it is a partial restoration towards the reduction of funding over the 2022 base of $7.4 million for LEED.

Thirdly, I want to lift up the funding for the Office of Labor Standards to implement the APA-based worker minimum payment ordinance and provide enforcement support for all labor standards.

Some of the council voted unanimously to pass PAYUP.

And these worker protections, as well as our other existing worker protections, become so much more important as we have exited the state of emergency.

protections that were previously offered for premium pay and funding can ensure that the Office of Labor Standards is set up for successful implementation.

of pay up as well as strengthening OLS's ability to enforce other labor standards and protections.

And then lastly, certainly not least, this balancing package includes funding to maintain current emergency response capacity in West Seattle, South Park, and the other South End neighborhoods of Seattle on the other side of the Duwamish River.

These historically underserved areas to receive new life-saving assistance from our first responders at both Fire Station 37 and Fire Station 26 when the bridge was closed.

And I thank Chief Scoggins for making sure that that happened.

But moving forward, if the ladder truck leaves in 2023, there will only be one to serve all of West Seattle, and as relates to the medic units, the nearest medic units are Medic 28 in Rainier Valley and Medic 32 in the Junction, very, very far away from the Delridge neighborhood and South Park, and also reducing response times in other South End neighborhoods as well.

So really, thank you for the inclusion of these items in voting group B, the council's, the fairs balancing package.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Herbold.

Are there any additional comments that folks would like to make?

Council Member Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I did want to comment on a couple of the arts items here and really want to thank the Seattle Arts Commission for their strong advocacy.

Item five is around the station space, and I want to speak to this particularly because it has changed substantially.

The original request was for a million dollars.

The station space, which is a historic second floor renovation that happened at King Street Station, is really intended to create a creative economy kind of multiplex for partnering with youth serving organizations.

As I said, the original request was for a million dollars to support tenant improvements.

I know that they will appreciate having the 250,000 that is here.

which will continue to help support career pathways for young people through mentorship and through career connections with people who are in the creative sector.

So happy that we are able to continue to support that.

I also want to thank, as I said, members of the Seattle Arts Commission for their work in advocating for continued investment in the Cultural Space Agency.

That chair, the chair has included in this package.

The Seattle Arts Commission is working really hard to protect the vitality of the arts sector in Seattle, and that includes supporting the work of the Cultural Space Agency PDA.

which you'll recall we chartered in 2020. This is an important tool for creating affordable production space, affordable rehearsal space, and other cultural space for creatives.

So I want to thank Holly Jacobson with Path with Arts, Ebony Arunga, who's the arts manager for Ijeoma Oluo, filmmaker Vee Wah, James Miles from the Seattle Bumbershoot, and Cheko Phillips from Ford Culture.

I was gonna make some comments about deal, but I'll save that since one of those got pulled.

And the other, I just wanted to make one more comment about item 65, which is adding funding for anti-Asian hate, which I think is very important, particularly given the CID.

We know that folks across the CID have experienced increased hate crimes, some of it violent.

And so I appreciate this funding being added.

However, it does take funding from a well-established, successful community safety program that provides crime prevention through environmental design activities and workshops.

And so I do have a proposal to restore this funding to Seattle Neighborhood Group and the AFSCME program, which I hope my colleagues will support when we get to Group C. That's all I have for now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Morales, and I look forward to that amendment as well.

Are there any additional comments that folks would like to make?

Again, this is the opportunity to highlight what was included in your initial amendments that were considered and adopted in the initial balancing package.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

Thank you very much.

I have just a question for the sponsor, Council Member Herbold of item 66, which is HSD 300A-002.

The title is request that HSD provide a report on contracting with human service providers, which I completely support.

I was searching for that report just to remind folks that report was required in the legislation passed in 2019. that would tie contract adjustments to the CPIW.

And that report was due, I believe, this past March or May, I can't remember which.

But in any case, this budget item would add to that body of work and extend the deadline another year.

And I'm just wondering if there would be any openness to TAB, Tila Duhaime): Moving that up a little bit because that'll happen right before another round of budgeting etc, and I do think it i'm just wondering if there's any opening on openness to.

TAB, Tila Duhaime): Changing that deadline and this change does not necessarily have to happen right now, I did not pull that legislation.

Council member, I think that you're signaling maybe a future conversation around policy.

I, of course, will defer to the vice chair if she has a response, but I think that since the item hasn't been pulled, this is not the appropriate time to amend it.

But if the vice chair has any additional comments about the report generally, of course, I'd be welcome.

Thank you.

I was not speaking because I don't think it's within our council rules for one council member to direct questions to another without the allowance of the chair of the committee.

So thank you, Council Member Mosqueda.

I think this is a statement of legislative intent that I actually worked with Councilmember Mosqueda on developing.

And so perhaps after today and getting through today's votes, we can talk about whether or not there needs to be adjustments to the report backdates.

It is true that the bulk of the reporting back relates to a requirement in the legislation that Councilmember Mosqueda championed in past years, and that report never came.

But we are now adding some new reporting items that I know Councilmember Mosqueda specifically requested.

And so if we're going to move the date, I would not want to do so without talking about the impact with Madam Chair, because some of those reporting items are not reporting items that our own Human Services Department has control over.

They're external partners that will be delivering that work product.

That's correct.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold for fielding that issue.

And yes, feel free to keep your comments directed at me and I will make sure that we either field them here or we take it offline.

But I thank you, Councilmember Nelson, for your interest in the ongoing conversation around this and look forward to those future discussions as Councilmember Herbold noted.

Are there any additional comments?

Oh, thank you, I see more.

Councilmember Sawant, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Muscat.

I can ask you a process question first.

My comments are on the overall vote on the Group B amendments.

Would you like me to hold them for later or make them now?

This is the perfect time to do so, Council Member Sawant.

We will, after these comments, we will vote on group B, and then the items in group B that are still part of the consent package, and then we will go on to vote on the individual items pulled out.

Okay, thank you.

So for the Group B amendments that are being considered, my comments apply here.

In every budget year, I have voted yes for the balancing package because in every other budget year, the balancing package has overwhelmingly been a package that adds funds to good progressive much needed programs.

This, of course, this year also funds those programs, many of those programs, but it is different this year because the balancing package in this year is really is expressive of an austerity budget, because it also includes a long line of cuts to funding for the basic infrastructure that working people depend on.

And I just want to make sure working people are listening to this also understand the just the overall arithmetic of this we're talking about, cuts to the meager funding that would have been in place had we not had a projection of a recession for next year.

But that is on top of just the chronic and endemic underfunding for a lot of the needs of Seattle's working people and the most marginalized community members, all the way from affordable housing to the question of addressing climate change.

This balancing package includes cuts to libraries, community center repairs, decarbonization, and resiliency hubs, play areas, and parks.

ADA infrastructure for our disabled community members, urban forestry, bridges, and sidewalk repairs, and many other things.

Not to mention the $100 million from the funds won by the tax Amazon movement in 2020 that has been used to prevent deeper austerity rather than going where it was intended to fund affordable housing and the Green New Deal.

The reason for all these cuts is the manufactured crisis of a budget shortfall that was only made that only became a reality because the Democrats on the city council have been totally unwilling to increase the paltry taxes big businesses like Amazon and Starbucks are asked to pay.

I will be speaking to this point as I mentioned earlier this morning in today's agenda in voting group D when the city council will have the chance to vote on an amendment from my office and from the people's budget campaign to reverse all of those budget cuts.

So I will speak more to that when we get to that item.

I think I believe it's item 185 on today's agenda.

This balancing package also includes many amendments that I do support strongly, such as restoring inflation adjustments for human services providers, and also restoring cut funding to many crucial services, and amendments that were proposed by the People's Budget Campaign in my office, such as funding eviction defense attorneys, The Clean Greens vegetable program for low income neighbors in the central area, asking Seattle City Light to plan expanding its publicly owned clean and clean electric electric generation resources for future years.

In discussion with City Council Central staff, my office, I wondered if we should individually pull out for separate board all of the budget amendments from the balancing package and increase austerity, or in other words, impose cuts, and then counterpost all of those items to the budget amendment from my office, increasing the Amazon tax, which is listed as item 185 on today's agenda.

However, my office heard that that would be unnecessarily complicated for central staff and the clerks who have already had to prepare 1233 page agenda packet for today's meeting, therefore instead.

I will be voting abstain for the balancing package because it includes items that I do support strongly and other items that I oppose and that I have an alternative for.

And then later in the agenda, I will move to increase the Amazon tax.

And if the council votes yes on that agenda item, then it will effectively reverse all the budget cuts that I oppose.

So for now, I will be abstaining on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thank you budget chair for all your hard work, hard work you and your team have done on this budget.

Want to thank city council central staff and of course to the city budget office for months of investment and crafting the mayor's proposed budget.

I know putting together budgets like solving a 10 sided Rubik's Cube in a windstorm.

And I'm really glad to see digital equity, add the funding for urban forester position, lots of creativity and trying to save various transportation projects.

I did want to take the chair up on our offer to speak to a couple of items.

Without calling them out for a separate vote.

So item 127. This colleagues is an s dot item in the balancing package to cut back on structural structural exterior painting of bridges.

Just wanted to note it's not a cosmetic item that's vital to keeping out physically damaging rain and rust.

that erode the safety of these structures.

Our own city auditor and U.S.

Department of Transportation consider exterior protection of bridges a vital part of regular and cost-effective maintenance.

Because this amendment as is would essentially cut an already underfunded important aspect for bridge maintenance, I do attempt later with other items to backfill this, including item 165 on the agenda.

So I'll be speaking to that later.

Regarding item 141, which is the gunshot detection system.

While there are current limitations to certain types of gunshot detection systems I supported the mayor's proposal to pilot this type of system in Seattle, especially given what we've heard with strong support from organizations like mothers for police accountability led by Reverend Reverend Harry Holden, and the African American Community Advisory Council led by Victoria Beach.

But as the budget chair said we would need to find alternative funding for such items it's not clear where I could find that at this late hour, but I did want to know my support for the mayor's proposal.

Finally, item 146, colleagues, just to be consistent with my no vote against the increase in property taxes for the Parks District on September 27, I just want to be on the record today that I don't support item 146, which effectuates the Parks District increase.

That's SPR 001A, 002. But again, didn't want to have to pull that item and then have a separate vote on it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson, for adhering to that suggestion.

We really appreciate it.

Okay, are there any other items that Council Members would like to feature, highlight, the work that you did on your initial balance, on your initial amendments?

Not hearing any.

All right, Council Members, I think that the Council President is really wanting to say something right now, but I'm going to jump in.

Okay.

I'm going to jump in.

I want to thank you.

I will say my robust list of thank yous, as you all know, for the very end.

But really, I want to thank the central staff, my team, Sejal Parikh, Aaron House, Melanie Cray, Freddy de Cuevas for the work that they've done with central staff led by Esther Handy and Ali Panucci.

I hope that what you saw from me was a thoughtful and deliberative process to creating a balanced budget.

This is not an austerity budget in that it does not lay anyone off.

that did not provide an immediate direct service and delivery of care to our most vulnerable communities and smallest businesses in this time.

Regarding addressing the REIT shortfall, we looked across all spending categories that had a direct nexus to the use of REIT and in every way possible tried to direct other sources of funding to projects in development already initiated or fully planned.

I'm very proud of some of the investments that we put in here and I'm going to highlight six of those.

Affordable housing.

This budget includes a combined total of over half a billion dollars over the biennium for affordable housing.

Again, a 400% increase since 2016 for first-time home ownership options, the support of housing services that go along with additional units, both rental and first-time ownership options.

It includes addressing homelessness services, invest millions more in solving and caring for those experiencing homelessness in partnership with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, and it keeps our promise, as Vice Chair Herbold noted, to the human service providers who are on the front line of delivering care and who at least deserve a cost of living increase as codified in statute, anything else would have been a cut.

It invests in equitable development, includes investments for supporting community-driven projects in communities at highest risk of displacement through the equitable development initiative investments.

And in economic resilience, this budget invests in community organizations and small businesses to advance economic opportunity for all, In addition to the arts, thanks to Council Member Morales for noting those investments.

the oversight board of the Green New Deal oversight board.

In transportation and safe streets, despite the REIT shortfall, this budget invests millions in safe streets, traffic calming infrastructure, sidewalks, and major bridge repair projects, while still calling for additional revenue through the upcoming transportation levy, we know we have to continue to make massive investments and can't rely on the volatility of REIT, obviously.

In public safety, despite the grim budget forecast, I aim to stay true to our values and invest in public safety with a racial equity lens and a social justice lens, investing in upstream community safety investments while fully funding the hiring and recruitment plan as transmitted by the mayor and as codified by council earlier this year.

in health, youth, education, arts and culture on the heels of the ongoing global pandemic.

What we've invested in here helps bring our community opportunity to have social cohesion, engagement and bring our communities back together.

This is one way that we can address the ongoing hardship, trauma and stress in our community.

And the balancing package improves health, social cohesion and wellbeing of all.

I appreciate that we are going to have some more conversations here to come on some amendments that we have seen pulled out of the balancing package.

But again, I tried to move us away from major policy decisions being embedded within the budget process as I firmly believe that this budget cycle in the midst of this economic uncertainty required us to stay focused on where our investments would yield the most results and ensure that we were stayed focused on the financial solvency and stability of our city.

As chair, my goal was to try to take the temperature down, depoliticize policy choices, and given the shortfall, look at the six-year financial plan and create a way for us to create greater stability in the out years.

So I want to thank folks who made this balancing package come together in these challenging times.

Thank the members of the community for their patience as we work through an exceptionally challenging year.

And I wanna thank again, the mayor's office who we noted multiple times last week.

We discussed tough approaches and needs within our community in addition to the revenue shortfall that we all face.

And with the city budget's office and the mayor's office, central staff and my team, we collectively looked for ways to shore up needed investments and invest needed revenue.

I appreciate that we have more conversation to come here as we consider the rest of Group B in addition to Groups C and D to come.

So with that and seeing no additional comments, I want to thank you for your work to make the balancing package at least the foundation to build upon.

And we will go ahead and vote on Group B as a revised consent package.

And then we will take the items that were pulled out for individual vote.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on approving Group B, the consent package, excluding the items that were noted earlier in this amended and revised consent package?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Swant.

Abstain.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Eight in favor, one abstention.

Okay, thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and group B, the revised consent package is approved.

Now we're gonna move on to items pulled from group B for discussion and individual votes.

Colleagues, this is no longer procedural.

We are in final vote territory here.

So we will consider each of the items that were pulled from group B for discussion as individual votes.

Please do not second a motion as a courtesy.

I know sometimes we do that across this council and this is more than a formality.

This at this point is a final vote.

So please remember that when you consider seconding a motion.

What's going to happen is I'm going to move that the original amendment that was in the balancing package be considered.

And then the sponsor of the substitute, probably the person who has either pulled the item out or is asking for this not to be considered would make the motion to substitute it.

Again, these are final votes here.

So I wanted to make sure that central staff has an opportunity if you need to, to remind us when I move the underlying amendment that was included in group B and is now being considered as an individual amendment.

If a council member moves to substitute it, that would be replacing the existing language in the balancing package.

Central staff, do you have anything else that you'd like to offer for further guidance before we get into this?

Yeah, thank you, Chair Mesquita.

I would just highlight a few things.

One, not all of the items removed for individual vote have a substitute.

In some cases, council members just removed them from the group to take to request that each that the item is voted on individually.

So for example, the first item that would be taken up CBO 900A, I am not aware of there being a substitute option.

So that is just pulled for individual vote.

And that's an example of one if voted down, if that's a balancing issue.

Another option or another example is FAS 003. there is a substitute option on the agenda for that one.

And so that is where you may not want to provide the courtesy second on the motion to substitute.

That's really where the sort of distinction is.

And so we are prepared to describe the item and where there are substitute options to describe both options before council acts on the motion to substitute.

Okay, are there any questions before we get into this?

Okay, I'm not seeing any questions.

Again, general caveat, I want to make sure I clarify that I will be saying the same thing repeatedly when it comes to a vote or a suggested removal of an item that does not have a fund source to cover This suggested additional costs that might be needed.

I will be discouraging a vote to amend if there is no fund source.

This will throw the budget out of balance.

While you may be sympathetic to the desire for additional funding in a certain category, if an item was not flagged last week for an amendment to fund, then there is no funding source and that throws the balanced budget out of alignment.

I'm going to encourage everyone to vote to keep the amendment if there is no alternative funding source.

Just want to make sure folks know that's going to be a consistent message for me across the board.

Okay.

With that, I think we can go ahead and move on into our consideration of items for individual vote.

And I am going to move all of these as the chair that had included them in the balance package.

I move to approve Council Bill CBO 900A-001, agenda item number 17. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

The amendment is in front of us.

I don't believe that there is a substitute here.

Council Member Nelson, you are recognized to speak to this amendment.

I request that it's already been moved.

So my script says I request that Council Budget Action CBO 900A001 be removed from for an individual vote, which it appears we're doing now.

So I'll just start.

The title of this council budget action is reduced proposed funding and position authority for two FTE for payroll expense tax evaluation by $509,000 from the general fund in 2023 and 509,000 general fund in 2024 in CBO.

And so it appears to me that this budget action would delay the evaluation that's required by law for an additional two years or for until the next biennium.

And I just think that's that's just irresponsible because the payroll expense tax or jumpstart tax is the single largest source of revenue outside our traditional revenue sources, namely sales, property, you know, and utility taxes.

And we heard from the director of the forecasting office, Ben Noble, voice uncertainty about the taxes performance going forward because it is so new and because of what we're seeing happening right now in the tech sector, which is where most of this revenue is coming from.

And I also just think it sends the wrong signal not to evaluate the impacts of a council-imposed tax.

on jobs and the competitiveness of Seattle's economy.

And it also sends a message to our constituents in the business community that we're not serious about oversight.

And we're about to embark.

We have already embarked on the search for additional revenue, and we owe it to our constituents to show we care about how this one is working out.

And this required evaluation is the only way to do that.

So the amendments argument for cutting the positions and diverting the money is that until the oversight committee is established, it is premature to make decisions about how to provide evaluation support to the committee.

I just think that we should prioritize in paneling the committee and hiring the staff to support their work, because I certainly don't want to send the signal that we don't value their service.

And so we should just go ahead and get to work.

I don't know why it has been delayed, but I think that is the right move.

If the CBA is defeated, I would just suggest that we tap into the $15 million of jumpstart administration funds to balance the package.

Thank you.

Councilmember Nielsen, I will speak in favor of keeping agenda item number 17, CBO 900. I want to reiterate that these projections are for the Office of Economic Revenue Forecast.

Council President and myself sit on that.

We also have funding left in for evaluation and we also need independent oversight.

The Jump Start Seattle Progressive Payroll Tax included an oversight board with funding.

This funding is currently at the Department of Neighborhoods.

I think that we all agree that we should be prioritizing oversight and ensuring that we're following through with those commitments.

That is why I was so dogged in this budget to ensure that we were adhering to the spend plan as codified.

Colleagues, I am going to be discouraging a vote to amend here.

There is no funding source.

This will throw the budget out of balance.

While you may be sympathetic to the desire for additional funding, this was not flagged last week for amendments.

There is no additional funding source that is being proposed in this amendment action, encouraging everyone to vote to keep this amendment in the budget and support the underlying amendment.

I think we can also continue to support additional transparency in the evaluation work of Jump Start Seattle.

We will continue to do so, especially given the economic downturn.

And we have left evaluation positions and added CBO evaluation positions overall for general revenue sources at CBO.

And I do hope folks will stay with us on this amendment.

Council President Juarez.

Oh, I just I will be brief.

I just want to add.

Thank you.

Council member Nelson for bringing this to our attention.

But I just want to share the information on the payroll tax oversight committee.

We were working with the budget office or the budget chair and the mayor's office to make sure that we also included the CFO from selling and health board and other indigenous led organizations.

for the Payroll Tax Oversight Committee, which is really important, and also that it's housed in Department of Neighborhoods.

So I will be supporting that we keep it as is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, I'm not seeing any additional comments.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of CBO 900-A-001, agenda item 17. Point of order.

Oh, excuse me, Council Member Strauss.

Go for it.

Good.

It's good for clarification.

Go for it.

I know what you're going to say.

So we want to.

I don't know.

Let me try to phrase.

Yeah.

Council central staff, if if a council member wants to preserve the amendment as initially presented in the balancing package, would they be voting yes right now or no?

Okay.

They will vote yes.

They will vote yes on the amendment because it is not being amended.

It's just being pulled out for individual consideration at this point.

Correct.

Yes.

Yes to preserve, correct?

So I'm asking folks to vote yes to preserve this item in our budget and to continue to stay with me on this amendment as suggested.

Sorry for the confusion there, colleagues.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of agenda item number 17, CBO 900.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

No.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you, colleagues.

The motion carries and council budget action CBO 900 agenda item number 17 is adopted.

Next on our list is item number 23. Colleagues, as I noted, this item was previously addressed in the amendment this morning.

So this item has been removed from the agenda for consideration entirely.

We'll move on to item number 24. This is CSCC002.

I move to approve CSCC002.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded.

Council Member, excuse me, Council Central staff, I'm gonna turn to you every time to ask if there is a substitute or if this is just being pulled out for the purposes of discussion.

Chair Mosqueda, this one is pulled out only for discussion and individual vote.

Okay, thank you.

I see Council Member Herbold.

You are recognized to speak to this amendment.

Thank you so much.

As we've discussed throughout this budget process, this proposal is a proposal to augment the $1.9 million reserved by the executive for the 9-1-1 alternatives work that the mayor's office, council central staff, SPD, and CSCC are all collaborating on.

There's a presentation on the term sheet that has led to the recommendation for the development of a dual dispatch program.

The term sheet was presented by Senior Deputy Mayor Harrell in my Safety and Human Services Committee in September.

And as currently envisioned, full dispatch program, the mental health and behavioral health professional, a civilian responder that is housed outside of Seattle Police Department, likely in either CSCC or the Human Services Department, and would engage people on the scene first, while SPD either waits nearby or maintains situational awareness at a different location.

If the call can be resolved without the involvement, it will be.

That's been some confusion.

This is not existing.

This response team includes officers and the ESC professionals going to a site together.

So again, this additional funding, this additional $717,000 on top of the 1.9 million already in the mayor's budget is very, very important in moving forward that critical collaboration with the executive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member.

Thanks for your leadership on this as well.

I see Council Member Lewis.

Please go ahead, Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Council Member Muscata.

Given that we're still fairly early in our agenda, I'm gonna be really quick on this.

This is a really, really essential investment for the future of public safety in the city of Seattle.

This dual dispatch program is gonna be the acorn that plants the tree that gives us the robust alternative response that we need to keep the city safe and keep response times low.

And I really look forward to making sure that we can get this critical investment to match the work plan that I've been working with Chair Herbold on with the Harrell administration per the terms of our term sheet.

We have made more progress on this issue in the last couple of months.

than in the preceding two years.

And this investment is essential to be able to finally do this work, to move forward on first response that expands wellness in our community, first response that is based in the best practices other cities are pursuing.

And this investment will help get us there.

It's small steps, but we're moving in the right direction.

And this is one of the most important things, frankly, that I think we're doing in this budget cycle.

So I look forward to voting in favor of this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

I'm not seeing any additional hands.

Okay.

Council colleagues, I, too, will be asking folks to maintain this item, agenda item number 24, CSCC002.

I'd be asking for your yes support, and I also want to thank the two council members who just spoke and your teams, Council Member Lewis and Public Safety Chair Herbold, along with Melanie Cray in my office, who has spent a lot of time working on this with the council members' offices as well, and really appreciate Anne Gorman.

I see you on the line there.

Thanks for your ongoing feedback from central staff.

If there's no additional comments, again, asking for folks to be a yes vote to support the inclusion of the implementation of the dual dispatch program and imposing the proviso.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on agenda item number 24, CSCC 002.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Stroud.

Yes.

motion to adopt the agenda item 24 CSCC 0, 0, 2.

I'm sorry, Council Member Nelson, we are already past that agenda item.

Okay.

Okay.

Apologies for that.

I'll keep looking for your hand and note that it's final comment time.

Okay, moving right along.

Agenda item number 27, that's deal 301. And I will go ahead and move that.

I move to approve agenda item 27, deal 301. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much Council Member Morales.

It has been moved and seconded.

Central Staff, can I turn to you?

Is there a substitute here or is this for the purposes of discussion?

Purposes of discussion and individual vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Central Staff.

Okay.

I am not seeing any hands.

Oh, excuse me.

I do see a hand.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

The title of this budget action is request that deal provided draft legislation for council consideration to prioritize enrollment in the Seattle promise program.

I'm struggling to support this slide because the Chancellor of Seattle Colleges released a letter on November 9th, I believe, indicating that neither she nor Seattle Colleges had been collaborated with on this and many other deal amendments this budget cycle.

And Seattle Colleges has already been working on many enhancements to support equity recommendations benefiting low income and students of color and are in alignment with the FPP levies goals on of improving educational equity and recommendations from the city of Seattle's race equity ratio, race and social equity toolkit team so among the impacts to.

the students if some of those equity enhancements go away.

She mentioned that 184 students would immediately lose access to the equity scholarship, 78% of which are BIPOC students.

274 would lose $500 a quarter of equity scholarships.

459 students would be immediately impacted or lose funds supporting their education, re-entry and completion commitment programs would go away, support for student fees for low income students would go away.

And at minimum, I think that we should definitely be working with Seattle colleges when we're talking about drafting legislation, which would impact the equity measures that we support.

Councilmember Nelson, Council President Juarez, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I support what Councilmember Nelson is saying, and I want to thank Councilmember Morales.

I understand where this is coming from, but I just want to underscore that the data isn't all in on the Promise Program, and we haven't had data that shows that there's a claim that there's been universal, somehow inequitable with children of color.

We haven't seen that data yet, and what I've learned from the Chancellor of Seattle College the Director of DEEL, and the reason that they've pushed back against this notion that there's inequity in the program.

And it's also out of sync with the levy oversight guidance.

So I have the Chancellor, the Levy Oversight Committee, and the Director of DEEL, Mr. Chappelle, as well as a few presidents from colleges in which students are actively making decisions in plans based on the promise program.

I appreciate what Council Member Morales has put forward.

I don't know the wisdom in requiring DL to provide draft legislation.

Again, I'm going to speak just for what I'm not passing judgment on anyone, but when we have particular city departments and programs in our committee, we are certainly as the chair of that committee want to direct policy.

as an example, when I used to chair parks, I listened to what the parks oversight committee groups told me.

I also listened to, at the time, Jesus Agale, the superintendent, as well as the assistant superintendent.

And of course, I came to my own conclusions, and that's what committee hearings were for, to get to those conclusions and then draft legislation that goes through the intent of the promise program.

So I'm not sure What adding and directing a city department to draft legislation for a program in which they're already doing that they already have programs or processes in place to measure success.

And, of course, cobit set us back.

And we know that the kids that got hurt most in COVID, and this is just what I just read recently, were children in 4th to 8th grade.

But I also know from talking to the principals and North Seattle College folks, is that during COVID in those two years too, they had a little bit of a jump because kids, young folks could then attend college via online like we do with our council meetings.

And so they're hoping that when things kind of settle down post COVID, we'll have better numbers.

But as far as the goal of directing the Promise Program to children that are not wealthy, that are immigrants, that are LGBTQ, that have never had families that have gone to college, we're really doing well in those numbers.

And I think we need another year to see what that looks like.

So for me, I will not be supporting this.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

I'm going to turn to Council Member Morales.

You are up next.

Please go ahead, Chair of Education.

Thank you, a share mosquito.

I want to address the concern from Councilmember Nelson, and I do want to say that I am.

acknowledge and can assure the Council President that I understand the legislative process.

The item that we're talking about does not in fact reduce funding at all.

I think what Council Member Nelson is referring to is a CBA that is not included in this package, which would have reduced funding To the Seattle promise program.

I will say that as I said before, the reason I was trying to protect that underspend those underspend dollars is because we need additional supports in K 12. That amendment was not included in this package, and because of that we are now contemplating adding additional money from jumpstart for mental health supports, especially due to the shooting that we experienced at Ingraham High School, a couple weeks ago.

What we are talking about in this particular amendment is actually a statement of legislative intent, which has no dollars associated with it.

This would request deal provide the draft legislation to establish priorities for how levy underspend dollars, I'm sorry for how the Seattle promise dollars would be spent if demand exceeds supply for the resources that we have.

And that is already happening and it is expected to continue happening.

And the reason for that is because the program has changed from serving six high schools that had students who were furthest from educational justice to now increasing eligibility for all Seattle high school students from Seattle Public Schools.

The problem is that there is no prioritization for how decisions get made for awarding those scarce public dollars.

And I will say that this request is not new.

This is not my idea.

Council has been asking deal, council, this council has been asking deal for an analysis and prioritization since 2018. And the FEP implementation plan from 2019 request very explicitly that in collaboration with Seattle colleges deal will collect and analyze promise student enrollment persistence and completion trends to better understand how funds are being utilized.

This is work that is ongoing.

It also says that deal and Seattle colleges will use this analysis to inform the further refinement of student student prioritization mechanisms that respond to Seattle student and family needs and promotes equitable access to post secondary opportunities.

The reason we're asking for this is because we have scarce dollars, and we do have a lot more students who are seeking to use these funds.

And the original intent was to reduce barriers to tuition for students who are furthest from educational justice.

So this is not a new request.

And the fact that we, four years later, are still waiting for it is part of what you know, was the catalyst for requesting that we get this analysis and prioritization from the department and from Seattle Colleges so that we can move forward with making sure that as we allocate these dollars, we are doing it in a way that is as equitable as possible.

Great, thank you very much.

I just want to confirm, Council President, is that a new hand?

Please go ahead.

Oh, Council President, you're on mute.

Councilor Morales, thank you for clarifying that.

I understood that it wasn't, that it was a slide and that you weren't trying to find, take the, use the underspend and shift it over.

I understood that part.

So if I, Madam Chair, if I may just pose a question to central staff based on the information that they gave us.

And if Council Member Morales wants to share more information, and thank you Council Member Morales for sharing more with us, I appreciate that.

I keep hearing the term further from educational justice.

When we first did the Promise Program, the first high schools, there were none that were selected in the North End.

And they were all based on low income, reduced lunch or free lunch.

That was my understanding back then.

So we started from a position of, Who are the children that don't have the resources based on their socioeconomic status?

So if that's changed, then that's on me to learn more about that.

So maybe my question then goes to central staff, is when you say you would want legislation to come from DEEL, you would be directing the mayor's office to send down legislation to your committee, Customer Morales, requesting this information.

Is that what I'm hearing?

Can I have that directed to central staff, just in terms of the process?

The report, where does that go?

Yes, my understanding is that currently the Promise Program is a universal access program.

So to amend that, create a prioritization from the FEPP that is somewhat guided by the FEPP levy implementation and evaluation plan, we would need legislation.

So it's just, I'm not sure if the question is just why do we need legislation, or why does it need to go to, to council, but, but we would need legislation to amend the I&E plan to, to create a prioritization.

Ms. Morales, did you want to add anything to that?

Well, I will just say again that the, the plan that was put in place in 2019 was pretty explicit that tuition funds be prioritized.

I think Councilmember Council President and I are in agreement on this, that the tuition supports prioritize low income first generation.

African American or Black, Hispanic, Latino, Native American, Pacific Islander, underserved Asian populations, and other students of color, refugee and immigrant, homeless, English language learners, and LGBTQ students.

So there is a category that should be prioritized.

The challenge is that that isn't, that's a broad list of folks.

We don't know if you know the decisions, if there are not enough resources for everybody who's interested.

If the decision is based on need if it's based on the school students from certain schools, more students of color schools with the fewest students who attend college, you know how that list.

gets used is still a question.

And it is a challenge to understand now because we are hearing that it is not students of color who are predominantly getting access right now.

And so it's just important that we ask the department to take the time to really do the analysis of how this can best be used.

And that would require It would require some time and it would require us to amend the implementation plan, the policies to capture what the analysis tells us in terms of how those dollars get spent.

Okay, thank you.

Council President, any follow up from you?

No.

Okay, thank you, Council President.

And Vice Chair Herbold, please go ahead.

Okay, old hand.

Okay.

Um, thanks so much for the discussion, folks.

I am.

I am going to continue to encourage folks to support this underlying amendment.

I think this legislation requests alignment with a policy that has been passed in the levy, and I look forward to the future discussion with the Levy Oversight Committee again, just to weigh various options that come before council.

Uh, and with that, Madam Clerk, will you please call the role on the adoption Agenda item 27, deal 3001, 301. Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Morales?

No.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

Yes.

Council Member Swant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Six in favor, three opposed.

Thank you, colleagues.

The motion carries and Council Bill DEEL 301, Agenda Item Number 27 is adopted.

Moving on to agenda item number 31, that's FAS 003. I'll go ahead and move this.

I move to approve FAS 003, agenda item number 31. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Herbold, I believe this item is for substitute, but I'm going to, before I call on any council members, just confirm with central staff, is this an item that has been pulled for the purposes of substitute?

That is correct, Chair Mosqueda, there is a substitute option.

Okay, thank you very much.

Council Member Peterson, I'm going to keep you in the role here unless you have a question.

Otherwise, I'm going to put the substitute in front of us.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to move your substitute?

Sorry, point of clarification.

Oh, sure.

Chair Mosqueda, I think It is not Council Member Herbold who has the substitute option here.

And so I think what you would want to do is, well, you have a couple of options.

One is you have the item, the original item before you, you could ask, have the original sponsor comment on it and then ask if any Council Member, in this case, Council Member Peterson, I believe his hand is up because he has a substitute.

He would move to substitute his option for the, you know, option B for option A.

And this is where I'll just remind the committee, you want to say yes on the motion to substitute if you want to say yes to the substitute option.

And generally before calling for a vote on that motion, you would ask central staff to describe the two amendments and what the differences are.

So before deciding, council members have that laid out for them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

I'm just going to do my best to channel Council Central staff in remarks about this particular amendment.

We all received some information from Council Central staff, Asha Venkataraman, before her time away explaining the use of the proviso as the mechanism here.

Just a reminder, this proviso only holds the money in place until the executive does the work to determine if we can save the money.

This is an issue that the council is closely monitoring.

It's not going to fall off the council's radar.

And with collaborative and transparent communication between the council and the executive, We can keep close tabs on whether and when the funds need to be released.

If the executive determines that an agreement isn't forthcoming or will not resolve in absorption of the increase, have the option for the proviso language to transmit a statement to the council that could not reach an agreement, in which case the council will be obligated to lift the proviso and be held funding remains in place to be spent on the project.

are on the contract with regular and ongoing communication, council and the executive can work together to ensure that the proviso lift occurs in a timely manner as appropriate.

And I have heard from staff in the mayor's office that they don't have any concerns with this approach.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Herbold.

Okay, are there any questions from the sponsor on the underlying bill or any additional comments from central staff on the underlying amendment?

Okay, hearing none, Council Member Peterson, you are recognized.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Colleagues, I'd like to move, substitute agenda item 31, FAS-003, or sorry, I would like to move to substitute agenda item 31, which is FAS003A with my agenda item 163, which is FAS003B.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to substitute item number 31 FAS003 with substitute FAS003B.

Councilmember Peterson, as the sponsor of the substitute, you are recognized to, excuse me, hold on Councilmember Peterson, I apologize.

I'm going to turn to Central Staff first to describe the substitute and then I will turn it to the sponsor.

Please go ahead, Central Staff.

Sure.

Cato Freeman, Council Central Staff.

Maybe I'll set a little context here.

The proposed budget includes about $21.4 million for jail services provided by King County.

That's about $18.5 million in the base budget and an additional $2.9 million for inflationary adjustments to the cost of jail services.

Council Member Herbold described her proposed amendment, FAS-003A, FAS003B is similar in intent.

It requests a report, a work program from the mayor's office on negotiations with King County for how anticipated underspend, the inflationary adjustment for the jail services contract would be spent, a different reporting date, Council Member Herbold's amendment request a work program, not necessarily the proviso lift legislation, but a work program by January 31st.

Council Member Peterson's amendment requests a work program by March 31st, 2023. That work program will be provided to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee.

Thank you, Cato.

Anything else?

No.

Okay.

I'm going to turn it to Council Member Peterson as sponsor of the substitute.

You're recognized to speak to the substitute.

Thank you chair mosquito colleagues I support our mayor's original budget to provide the contractual payments for downtown jail operations, rather than.

a relatively restrictive proviso, which would require an ordinance later, which is suggested by the balancing package.

I believe the statement of legislative intent would provide the executive an appropriate level of flexibility to report back to us on this item.

Again, it's already subject to a contract.

So I offer this substitute.

Another concern is that a proviso could leave the impression the city does not have a use for available jail beds.

While I support the underlying concept of the proposed proviso to consider additional upstream programs with those dollars, including alternatives we're awaiting and programs we already fund, we could accomplish that after receiving the slide.

I've heard from many who consider the current booking policy at the downtown jail imposed by King County government, it's overly limiting.

In addition, we may decide funds could be used to support workers at the jail with recruitment and retention.

So converting the providers to SLI gives the executive more flexibility to comply with the contract.

And I would entrust them to do that rather than the way the proviso is written.

It has a lot of information that seems to prejudge an outcome.

So just think a SLI would be more appropriate in this case because it's already under a contract.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you so much.

I'm not seeing additional hands, but I will ask, excuse me, I do see an additional hand, and then I was gonna turn to the original sponsor of the amendment to also get feedback.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

I originally signaled my support for a proviso simply because it is possible that there would be savings from an under use of our contracted beds, and so why leave money on the table?

But since then, we've been advised that we are contractually obligated to pay this adjustment.

just as we do with other contracts.

And Ketel's circulated or sent to me the actual contract, and it appears that we pay monthly.

So I'm just wondering how we would be able to account for the contractually obligated increase that is in the mayor's budget, how we pay that if we need to wait for an eventual agreement.

Thank you.

Thanks, Council Member Morales.

Central staff, did you have anything else that you'd like to offer as context for payments?

Yeah, there's $18.5 million in the base budget that wouldn't be impacted by the proviso.

So that is money that is available to pay the city's contractual obligations until the proviso is lifted.

As you mentioned, the contract contemplates monthly payments.

So the $18.5 million would allow for monthly payments for the bulk of the year.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold, did you have anything else that you'd like to add?

I think the only thing I wanted to add was that because we've worked successfully with King County in the past, we have been able to forgo costs associated with this contract that we are legally liable to pay, but that because we've all been at the table together, we've agreed that we did not have to pay for the jail services, but could be diverted to another purpose that we agreed on.

This is simply replicating what we've done in the past and using a proviso as the best mechanism we have to drive that collaboration and negotiation.

We don't have the power to unilaterally reopen the contract.

But again, we have worked well with King County in the past, both the executive and the council as part of the jail advisory group and worked to capture savings associated with this contract to use for mutually beneficial purposes.

And I'm simply suggesting that we use the proviso as a mechanism to replicate our success in the past.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'm not seeing any additional hands and just to reorient us where we are at in the process.

This is Council Member Peterson's substitute, FAS003B.

This is substituting for Council Member Herbold's agenda item number 31, FAS003A.

So we are at the point of considering the substitute presented by Council Member Peterson.

Are there any additional comments?

Please go ahead, Ali.

Chair Mosqueda, since this is the first, I think, substitute in this group, I just want to remind people, you're voting on the motion to substitute, not on the substance, but if you vote, you would vote yes on the motion to substitute if you prefer the sly to the proviso.

If you prefer the sly, you vote no on the motion to substitute, and then the sly would be before the committee.

Does that make sense?

Let me let me rephrase that and see if it resonates with folks.

I'm going to ask for folks to vote no on the motion to substitute in favor of the underlying amendment that was included in the balancing package.

So my request is the chairs to vote no on the motion to substitute because I favor the underlying amendment in the balancing package.

So I will be voting no.

I also want to thank the council members here for looking out for the financial solvency of our city, making sure that we are maintaining good faith relationships with King County.

I believe that the vice chairs approach here is appropriate.

It strengthens our partnership.

It allows for us to use this tool and continue to work in good faith.

with King County, but also to ensure that we have some assurances around those dollars.

So I appreciate the underlying FAS 003. That is why I'm asking folks to reject or vote no on the motion to substitute here.

Seeing no additional hands, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the motion to substitute?

Council Member Herbold?

No.

Council President Juarez?

No.

Council Member Lewis?

No.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Salant.

No.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Chair Mosqueda.

No.

2 in favor, 7 opposed.

Thank you council members the motion fails and the original amendment is in front of us FAS 003A.

Council Member Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks colleagues.

I will be asking for a aye vote, a yes vote today to retain the proviso included in the original amendment for the reasons that the Vice Chair and Chair of Public Safety just noted and look forward to our ongoing conversations in good faith with King County as we seek to utilize these funds in upstream ways.

Again, I'll be voting aye.

Thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of agenda item number 31, FAS003A.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and agenda item 31 FAS003A is adopted.

Moving on to item number 35, which was pulled from the consent package.

This is FAS903A.

And I believe central staff that this item was pulled for the purposes of discussion.

There is no substitute here.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, I will go ahead and put the item in front of us.

I move to approve Council Bill FAS, excuse me, Council Budget Amendment FAS 903A, Agenda Item 35. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It has been moved and seconded to approve the original amendment FAS 903A for the purposes of discussion on this standalone amendment at this point.

Council Member Nelson, you are recognized.

Thank you.

The title of this legislation is Reduce Proposed Funding in FAS for WMBE Technical Assistance by 300,000 Jumpstart Fund in 2023 and in 2024. That's WMB or Women in Minority Enterprises.

So this CBA would basically completely eliminate the mayor's proposed increase in funding to FAS for technical services for these business owners.

And when I first was reading about this, I called Ollie Garrett, who is the president of Tabor 100, and that's an organization that is dedicated to advancing prosperity of black-owned small businesses.

And I asked her what she thought about it.

And she said that she would oppose this because her members benefit greatly from these technical services.

And she went on to say that every time that there is a disparity study on the status of women in Black-owned businesses, it says the same thing.

And one recently came out by the state, I think it was in August, and the city is now conducting a disparity study right now.

And they always say the same thing, which is more needs to be done by local government to support women in black owned businesses.

And so that is what this funding would do.

That provides services to people that want to contract with the city and also just businesses that need more help in their operations.

And so I oppose this because it flies in the face of our goals of increasing opportunities to build generational wealth.

So I would ask us to reconsider the reduction of this money because it is having a very positive impact.

The base funding is $600,000 and this would be a significant increase and it would be eliminated by this budget action.

Thank you, Council Member Nielsen.

I will speak to this.

I'm not seeing any additional hands.

Colleagues, I would ask for you to maintain support and vote yes to retain agenda item 35 FAS 903. For these reasons, the base amount in the budget for Wembe Technical Assistance is not changed.

There is not a reduction this year over last year.

It is simply that we chose I chose to help invest in I chose to help invest in maintaining existing programs instead of project expansion.

Chose to make that decision for maintenance in particular for items that we knew we're going to need additional services like wimby, but expansion, especially in areas where we saw the use of jumpstart.

that we are in compliance with the Seattle funding source that are outside of the scope of the intended spend plan, we knew that this was in violation of the spend plan.

It is not a reflection of whether or not we value this program.

We have not addressed, we have not reduced the underlying funding here.

But just simply because we want to make sure that we're in compliance with the spend plan that we retain and maintain some to Markham's shop, the office of economic development, that they are in the process of developing a implementation plan mid-year next year, 2023, that will utilize all of the economic resilience funding coming from Jumpstart.

So we're being deferential to that process that's coming.

We did not want to increase funding in this category and then create a cliff in future years.

Again, we are maintaining funding in the base budget And I have to say, I'm going to be discouraging this amendment because there is no additional funding source adopting this amendment.

Excuse me, rejecting this amendment would throw out of balance our budget.

And while we might be sympathetic for the desire for additional funding, there was no additional funding flag.

There is no additional funding source in the proposed discussion in front of us.

So I am encouraging everyone to keep with this amendment and vote yes on the underlying amendment.

I have an additional comment.

Council Member Nelson, you're recognized.

This has nothing to do with OED's programs.

We don't need to defer to the Office of Economic Development.

This is a body of money and work that exists in FAS to help these small businesses that face a lot of barriers.

to contract with the city.

So I think it's a mischaracterization to say that this is not in line with what, let me just rephrase this.

I think that we should do deference to the mayor's proposed addition of important funds to help these small businesses.

And dragging OED and what OED is doing is beside the point because this is a separate office and a separate body of work.

And also one final thing is that we add funding.

This is simply adding funding.

And we do a lot of that in this budget right now, is add funding to existing programs.

And that's precisely what the mayor's proposed increase intended to do.

Okay, thanks, colleagues.

There is no funding source identified here, so I ask you to vote aye to maintain FAS 903A, agenda item 35. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of agenda item 35, FAS 903.

I'm sorry, this is my first budget.

Council Member Nelson, we've recognized you twice on this item.

I think we're gonna keep moving forward, okay?

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please go ahead.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Council President Morales.

Aye.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Council Member Swant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

motion carries.

The motion carries and agenda item 35 FAS 903 is adopted.

support to help explain the three amendments in play here so that we can appropriately sequence our discussion about it before I move to put the amendment in front of us.

Great, thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Okay, I will do my best and we'll pause for questions.

So first a little context.

The mayor's proposed budget includes 176,000 in both 23 and 2024 for a position in HSD for a case conferencing pilot.

The mayor's proposed budget did not include funding for the one call pilot or for the seaplane safety public awareness campaign.

This context will matter more in a minute.

The balancing package released on November 14 included two actions.

One was HSD 904A1 that would have reduced the proposed funding for the case conferencing pilot.

So it would reduce $176,000 per year.

And that is just that proposed reduction is used to support all the ads funded by the general fund in the initial package.

In addition, It included HSD 20A1 sponsored by council member Strauss to add $238,000 per year in 2023 and 2024 for the crisis connection one call program.

So noting that nothing in the balancing package has been adopted yet, the package was balanced assuming that there was that $238,000 per year for one call and $0 for the proposed case conferencing pilot.

What you have before you is that original, those original actions included in the initial package.

And then you have two alternative approaches to how to do this.

HSD 20 B1 that was listed on the agenda as a potential substitute and sponsored by council member Strauss.

Instead of adding funding for one call, it repurposed that funding to fund the seaplane public safety awareness campaign at $61,000.

and to assume rejection of the proposed reduction for...

It assumed rejecting the item in the package that would reduce the mayor's proposed pilot program for case conferencing.

So HSD 20-B would fund those two things and would not fund the one-call program.

HSD 20-C is a third alternative that would add funding, retain the original proposal in the package of $238,000 for one call, retain the funding in the mayor's proposed budget at $176,000 per year per case conferencing, would add the $61,000 for the seaplane public safety awareness campaign, and would offset the reduction that would come out of the package by reducing proposed funding for the Seattle Police Department at a $240,000 per year based on updated analysis by central staff that identified some additional potential salary savings that could be achieved in 2023 and 24. I'll also note that that salary savings calculation is also assumed to support other amendments that are in group C or D in the package and They're not mutually exclusive, though.

There is enough assumed salary savings to both support HSD20C1 and the other items in the package.

We'll pause there.

Thank you.

We will go ahead and move the initial HSD 020 to get it in front of us.

And in partnership with my colleague, Council Member Strauss, I think we'll be able to navigate getting these items in front of us.

I move to consider agenda item number 51, HSD 020A.

Is there a second?

second thank you it's been moved and seconded council member Strauss um you are i would like to recognize you to speak to your intent with the amendments that you had suggested and then perhaps we could tee up the possibility of the third amendment that we walked on today

Thank you, Chair and Deputy Director Panucci.

I guess these questions are directed for you just to confirm what I already understand to be true.

I just want to confirm it for a third time and on the record.

The option that has been walked on today, option C, this amendment uses 2022 SPD salary savings, not 23. Is that correct?

Council Member Strauss, I may ask for an assist from my colleague, Greg Doss.

It is projected salary savings from 23 and 24, but I believe it is based on a delay in the number of lateral hires that were assumed in the last part of 2022. And so the assumption was if those positions were filled, they would start being paid in 23 and 24. Greg, if you were on the line, could you?

Yeah, my understanding is And sorry, Greg, let me just jump in here.

I think my follow up question to that is, has the mayor's office or the police department expressed concern regarding the use of these funds?

So I'll pass that back to both of you.

Greg, if you want to share any more information, I'd be welcome.

Sure.

All right.

So the simplest way to put this is in September of this year, The police department was going to hire five laterals that was that was on their, their staffing plan.

If they had done so, those five laterals would have been drawing salary in 2023 and 2024. They failed to hire those five laterals.

And so, the money that would have paid those five laterals in 2023 and 2024 was already programmed in the proposed budget that they sent down.

It's sitting there expecting that those laterals had been hired.

They weren't, and so now the council is going to take that money and redirect it somewhere else.

It is more of a technical move than it is anything else.

In terms of responding to your question about the mayor's office or SPD, I would merely say that they acknowledge that those hires had not been made and they acknowledge that it is technically accurate that those hires will not be drawing salary in 2023 or 2024. Now, would they prefer that the money stay in SPD so that SPD could use it for overtime to cover other things?

That is a potential.

Would they prefer that the money stay in SPD so that SPD can potentially use it for if SPD somehow hires more than 120 next year?

That is also a potential.

I can't speak for them.

But what I can tell you is that this is technically accurate.

They acknowledge it's technically accurate.

Those five officers didn't get hired.

They won't need salary.

Next year's plan is fully funded.

And as long as SPD hires to their targets, they will have all the money they need to hire 120 officers next year.

Thank you, Greg.

Ali, do you have any updated information from the mayor's office or SPD?

I can't speak for the mayor's office or SPD.

Mr. Council Member Strauss, I can chime in.

You know, in the last few weeks here as we've been trying to put together a balance package, we wanted to make sure, as I mentioned, that we tried to take the temperature down, depoliticize these discussions, especially given the lack of available revenue.

So as central staff noted, this was a pocket of funding that was not going to be utilized as originally programmed in the budget that was transmitted.

And I think as we're all looking for ways to ensure additional investments, including areas that I think overlap with the executive, I believe that this has been signaled as an area where this would not reduce or impact any of the additional spots that the department intends to hire or has already on the books.

And it is an opportunity for us to make additional investments, many of which overlap with public safety.

I have not heard any concerns directly and have asked myself directly a number of times.

Okay.

And I also have heard no concerns here with the direct question.

So maybe my rhetorical question should have been a statement up front.

I appreciate both you and Greg, Allie and Greg.

Just final questions.

Does this actually, does this substitute C preserve case conferencing, preserve the mind the zone awareness campaign for seaplane landing and preserve our one call?

Council Member Strauss, yes, that is accurate.

It would provide funding for all three of those items that have been included in the proposed budget or in proposed budget amendments.

And that question and the answer was directed at the walk-on amendment that we discussed today, HSD020C, which we will be discussing here soon.

I just want to make sure that was clear for the record for folks watching.

Final comment here, Chair, thank you for bringing this forward.

I have no concerns unless I hear from the Mayor's Office in the next however many minutes before we vote.

I have no concerns with option C.

Thank you so much.

I also want to extend the appreciation to Vice Chair Herbold, also Chair of Public Safety, who watches the reports in real time, has been the author of requesting reports to make sure that we have We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

We've been working on this for a long time.

I, this may not be the right time to speak, but I really wanted to speak to why continuing to pursue an approach in this balance budget that continues funding for one call is so important, but maybe I should wait until the option C is in front of us.

I'm going to go ahead and make a motion.

and HSD 020, I've provided this walk-on amendment.

So I move to substitute HSD 020A with HSD 020C.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Herbold, you are recognized to speak to the walk-on amendment in front of us.

Thank you so much.

I really wanted to take a minute to speak in favor of an approach that funds not only the priorities of Council Member Strauss as he's lifting up here today, but also continues funding as he originally proposed for One Call.

One Call was set up in 2020 with council funds proposed in 2019. And this program is used to help police officers EMS and firefighters get support for those having behavioral health issues.

OneCall helps first responders find a safe alternative that allows individuals to get reconnected with resources that help resolve these problems.

So again, this is a number that first responders call.

SPD, select EMS officers, and Seattle firefighters are trained to use OneCall.

And then OneCall trained professionals have access to a patient's health records, homeless shelter databases, and local mental health resources.

They collect the privacy of that information, but they use it to help that first responder help the person.

A media profile on the program interviewed Seattle Fire Department's Don Ehrenfeld, who shared that they're able to use one call and connect suicidal man with with a behavioral health resource that he'd used in the past.

Aaron Feld was quoted saying, after the call, they were able to outreach to his providers and do additional assistance that way.

We've never been able to do this before.

This is just one example of how one call has helped both first responders and people in need.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair.

I do see Greg's hand on central staff and then I'm going to turn it back over to Council Member Strauss to close this out.

Council Central Staff, Greg Doss, welcome.

Yeah, thank you.

I just wanted to clarify one thing I talked about the five laterals because that that's a that's the number in the hiring plan that SPD was trying to hit.

As it turns out the three council budget actions that would be funded with salary savings.

They didn't require the money from five full laterals they only required the money from four.

It's actually for FTE that are providing the funding for these three actions.

Just so the department is clear on the salary savings, it will be for FTE.

great.

Thank you very much, Greg.

You know, Council Member Peterson, I'm going to pause real quick and ask if Council Member Strauss has anything that you'd like to add, because I recognize you didn't get a chance to speak to some of those other pieces that were going to be included in 904. Do you want to save those for the end?

I'll just speak at the end.

Okay, sounds good.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Just trying to understand the parliamentary procedure here.

So the first thing we're voting on is whether we support a walk on item C, which says in the title, it says reduce funding for sworn officer salaries and SPD.

And that is why it's so important for us to look beyond these short titles to the context that central staff just noted about why the laterals that were not hired from this year and the assumed salary need in 23 and 24 And I do understand that this was discussed with the department as well as the executive to ensure that this had no impact on the existing hiring and recruitment plan or any of the existing positions that folks intend to hire in the next few years.

that is reflected in future costs in 23 and 24. I'm sure central staff will articulate that better than I will, but I want folks to look beyond the short titles as you think about the impact of the legislation.

Yes, please go ahead, central staff.

You did fine.

That was exactly right.

Okay, thank you so much.

Council Member Strauss, would you like to speak to the underlying amendment?

Yeah, all three of these programs are incredibly important.

And I think in this budget, we wish that we could have funded everything under the sun that provides good services to our city and good outcomes.

OneCall, Council Member Herbold already spoke to case conferencing.

I've spoken about previously.

It's very similar almost in a lot of ways to OneCall where we have the highest level service providers in the city, both co-lead and evergreen treatment services true blood program with police with prosecutors case conferencing individuals who oftentimes slip through the cracks.

Anyhow, we need somebody to be able to staff this work.

And that's what this FTE is.

And then mind the zone.

I know I've spoken about this previously.

I'll keep it short.

We have a whole lot of increased usage on Lake Union.

I know it's the middle of November right now.

You can remember a time in July when the sun was beaming all day and it was warm.

New users of kayaks, paddle boards, electric boats, hot tub boats, and others.

are in the lake, which is also an airport.

And while we have the buoys set up to designate where the landing strip is, people don't necessarily know what or why it's there.

So using these public safety dollars, we are increasing public safety in alternative ways.

No further comments, Chair, thank you.

Thank you very much, Council Member Strauss.

Thanks for bringing forward these amendments, plural.

And this amendment that I've offered is just one way to ensure that we don't have to pick amongst these three items.

So they're all funded.

Thanks again, Vice Chair Herbold for your support on.

I would like to thank you for your leadership on this.

I appreciate your leadership on these efforts in the past and ongoing conversations around additional ways in which we can utilize public safety dollars within the public safety framework.

I appreciate your leadership, Councilmember Strauss.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of HSD020C.

Again, I will be voting yes.

Council President Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Lewis.

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Council Member Salant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Eight in favor, one opposed.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

The motion passes and HSD 020C is adopted.

We're moving on to agenda item 60. Agenda item 60 is HSD 030C.

And I will move to get that in front of us.

I move that the committee approve HSD 035C.

Is there a second?

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

The amendment is in front of us and I do not believe there is a substitute option.

Central staff, is that correct?

This has been pulled for the purposes of discussion.

That is correct, Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

Okay, I am going to recognize hands first and I see Council Member Peterson and then Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Peterson, you are up first.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

So this is the Unified Care Team.

Okay.

Colleagues I, I believe the original plan Deputy Mayor Washington laid out for us in the mayor's proposed budget is consistent with the mayor's homelessness action plan and is the best strategy to address Seattle's many homeless encampments.

Deploying smaller and consistent teams to Seattle's different geographic areas will maintain staff members who are familiar with the individual needs of people experiencing homelessness, so that we can get more people into housing and services.

As stated in the mayor's press release on October 13, quote, this will allow teams to build relationships with community, housed and unhoused neighbors, outreach teams, and businesses within the region, delivering better results for all Seattle residents.

So rather than chipping away at what the mayor's office said they need for interdepartmental unified care team, let's give it the resources they need and hold them accountable as they requested.

I believe that we could find sources to rebalance this in the unreserved budgetary fund balance or the planning reserves from the general sub fund on page 659 of the budget.

or if we approve any other money-saving amendments, I would encourage us to use it toward this priority of reducing homelessness.

That unreserved budgetary fund balance is about $87 million.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Lewis.

Please go ahead, Chair of Homelessness Services.

Thank you so much, Chair Mosqueda and Council Member Peterson.

I do appreciate you raising concerns about the system by which we are going to be able to efficiently and quickly respond to the crisis of unsanctioned homelessness in Seattle.

I do think that this proposal, which is supported by the mayor's office and by the Regional Homelessness Authority, is the right way forward to encourage more regional consolidation and consistency in our outreach and our practices around this to avoid accidentally creating redundant outreach or homelessness bureaucracies in this world where we're gonna be using the King County Regional Homeless Authority as the primary vehicle for this work.

And this is something, I'm that I've confirmed with the mayor's office that this this amendment is their preferred approach forward to doing this work.

This is also supported by we are in the civic group of business and community leaders who have been promoting for the protection and expansion of a regional solution to homelessness.

My understanding is if an agreement can't be reached that is amenable between the city and the regional authority on this resource that we will be given an opportunity to reassess in collaboration with the executive to make sure that there's not a gap in the service that we're providing.

But I do think that this is the regional approach that we have consolidated around and we'll be supporting this amendment today.

I really appreciate your comments.

Thank you very much.

Chair of Homelessness Services, Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Nelson, you are recognized.

I will be opposing this measure because I recognize that the KCRHA is supposed to be the agency that is addressing regional homelessness.

However, I did support the emphasis in the mayor's original proposal and for the expansion of the unified care team because it focused on better coordination amongst the providers and the county and the city, and also the development of by name lists on a geographic basis.

And during the discussion that we had, the lengthy discussion that we had about this measure, I heard a lot of questions.

I heard and I do support Council Member Lewis's forthcoming I'm sorry.

I didn't want to.

Sly on on performance metrics, but I heard questions about how this work if it's not within the original proposal will be carried out.

Concerns about whether or not this is within the focus area of the R H A because they're focused on, um on downtown work.

And I also didn't moving the resources out of the city, how will that change the nature of this work?

So I am going to be opposing simply because I believe that the mayor had a solid plan for advancing our progress in our homelessness response.

I'll make a few comments myself.

I want to thank Councilmember Lewis for your comments.

As Chair of Homelessness Services, I appreciate the stewardship that you've provided and the transparency over the city's partnership with the Regional Homelessness Authority.

And I also want to thank the Mayor's Office, specifically the Mayor himself and Deputy Mayor Washington for their work in partnership with our office and the Regional Homelessness Authority with Mark Jones and their team We've come together over the course of the last few weeks to identify ways that we can move forward with advancing all of the investments in the funding to support cleanliness and hygiene services, garbage pickup, pest abatement, making sure that our city is clean for all of those who live here, both housed and unhoused.

by channeling the city's focus on really making sure that there's cleaning services year round.

And really then focusing with KCRHA, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, which was established to respond to the homelessness crisis, to ensure that the Regional Homelessness Authority was charged with pushing forward best practices for outreach, ensuring that outreach workers are connected to the people so that more folks get connected to shelter and appropriate housing needs, healthcare and other services on site.

and creating relationships so that folks can get stabilized and inside.

Both the mayor's office and King County Regional Homelessness Authority have worked with us on this amendment.

There is a good faith effort here to make sure that we're investing in the five regions as originally proposed by the mayor's office and bifurcating the roles in the ways that I've described to ensure that the folks who currently have relationships through King County Regional Homelessness Authority, through partnerships like with REACH, do the outreach and that it's a successful model that can enhance the connection to folks being able to get to the appropriate beds and services through the relationships that already exist at King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

It is not accurate to say that this is a reduction.

In fact, this is an enhancement of the original proposal.

And I look forward to partnering with both the mayor's office, our council colleagues, and the regional homelessness authority, in addition to the Seattle coalition on homelessness and reach partners who work to help provide input on this proposal to ensure that we're moving forward.

As the mayor's office said themselves.

They are interested in solutions beyond removals.

And this joint effort here today in partnership with King County Regional Homelessness Authority and in partnership with the mayor's office, we have come together and negotiated this effort for the next iteration of how we care for folks year round.

I really appreciate the collaboration and partnership and colleagues.

I would encourage you to again vote yes to maintain HSD 035 C, item number 60 in our agenda.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on HSD 035 C?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

No.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Okay, thank you very much.

The motion carries and HSD 035C is adopted.

Colleagues, I'm gonna just ask for your patience real quickly.

On the previous item, agenda item 51, that was HSD 020. We had a lengthy discussion about the combined amendments with Councilmember Strauss and myself and a lot of support for substituting the bill.

However, I failed to ask for a final roll call on the final motion to amend.

amend the amendment.

So the motion carried to substitute the legislation.

And now we're going to ask for you to reorient yourself again, HSD 020C.

And I'm going to ask for a yes vote and ask for the clerk to call the roll on approval of HSD 020C.

Any questions?

Seeing no questions, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the approval of HSD020C?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Council President Juarez?

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Aye.

Councilmember Peterson?

No.

Councilmember Sawant?

Yes.

Councilmember Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

7 in favor, 1 opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and HSD 020C is approved.

Apologies for that.

Okay.

That means we are on to agenda We are going to move on to agenda item number 71, which was, we already considered this as part of the substitute to HSD020A, so I'm going to confirm with Councilmember Strauss, are you comfortable with pulling this amendment?

In its entirety because it has already been subsumed in hsd 020 c Thank you colleagues that moves us on to agenda item 121 which is s dot 502 b And I will, Council Member Peterson, I will move the original amendment so that you can then consider a substitute as I understand it.

Colleagues, I move to approve S.502B001.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

It has been moved and seconded.

Central staff, I understand there is a substitute option on the agenda here, and I believe it is from Councilmember Peterson, a sub to his original amendment.

Okay, great.

Just making sure I'm orienting myself.

Councilmember Peterson, you are recognized to speak to, excuse me, Councilmember Peterson.

Let's do this first.

Let's have you move the substitute before us.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Colleagues, one moment.

I move to substitute item 121, which is S.502B, with item 165, S.502C.

Second.

Okay, it has been moved and if you wouldn't mind first moving a stop 502 B and then we can move the substitute.

Okay, I apologize for that.

Did I not do that already.

We did it.

I apologize.

That's okay.

I know we're all getting we're all getting a little tired here just to to make sure folks know that there is a break on the horizon.

Once we get through group B individual votes we will take a little bit of a recess um and then we will go on with C and D just so that we can all have some maybe some fresh air for a second.

Uh Council Member Peterson uh you have a substitute in front of us.

It has been moved and seconded.

You are recognized to speak to your substitute.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Both of these items are positive.

I really appreciate the chair putting the original one into the balancing package.

So if this one doesn't pass, then the other one should because it's increasing capital, money for capital investments using the Seattle Transportation Benefit District to do that.

So the reason I have this substitute is because this deals with bridges.

And I know a lot of you have supported efforts to increase funding for bridge maintenance.

This is an opportunity to do the bare minimum of what the auditor recommended for annual bridge maintenance for multimodal bridges.

As we know from that disturbing audit we obtained in 2020, our city auditor recommends investing a range of 34 million to 102 million annually for maintenance of Seattle's aging bridges.

This amendment, this substitute would make available $12 million to lift up our investments up to that minimum amount of 34 million with this portion dedicated exclusively to multimodal bridges.

In the wake of the hard lessons learned from the two and a half year closure of the West Seattle Bridge, the bridge audit I just mentioned, and the periodic malfunctioning of other multimodal bridges, coupled with SDOT's decision to decline the $100 million in bond funding we authorized in 2021, it's disappointed that the original budget underfunded bridge maintenance again.

So it's up to us to do better.

This amendment can accomplish what's expected by residents, businesses, and workers to keep Seattle's aging bridges open and safe, Colleagues, we can also have central staff explain this amendment as well, if that would be helpful.

But it's basically- I'm sorry, Council Member Peterson, I missed that step and went right to you.

So since you teed that up, I might come back to you.

Sure, sounds good.

Calvin, thanks for being with us.

Apologies for skipping the formality of having you describe it first before the sponsor.

Would you like to describe the amendment options in front of us?

Sure, Calvin Chow, Council Central staff.

Item 121, S.502B was proposed in the chair's balancing package and it amends legislation related to the Seattle transit measure to increase the annual spending cap on transit capital spending from 6 million a year as proposed by the executive to $9.5 million per year.

And this item would further reduce $3.5 million per year for transit access programs, reflecting the implementation of free youth fares at King County Metro and Sound Transit, and then redirect those funds to additional transit capital spending.

The proposed substitute item 165, S.502C, amends the same legislation to increase the spending cap on transit capital spending from $6 million a year, as proposed by the executive, to $15 million per year.

It would reduce 3.5 million per year for transit access programs and redirect those funds to transit capital spending, and then add an additional 5.5 million in 2023 and 5.5 million in 2024 from fund balance for transit capital spending.

This would be a total increase in transit capital spending of 9 million in 2023 and 9 million in 2024. The item would then add a proviso on 12 million of the transit capital spending in the 23 budget for bridge-related or structures-related transit projects only.

The Seattle Transit Measure Financial Plan does show available fund balance through 2024 to support this increase, but SDOT would need to adjust future spending if SDOT were to maintain reserves through the end of the Seattle Transit Measure in April 2027. Thank you.

I'm pulling in now.

just sitting in for Madam Chair, she stepped away.

I think the thing I was listening for, Calvin, was the reference to the sufficient fund balance for this addition, but also a recognition that like the scope change that is required in the version in the chair's package, this also would require a scope change would be a slightly different amendment to reflect the allowance of these funds for this purpose.

Is that more or less correct?

The proposed substitute would increase the amount of the material change by an additional excuse me, by an additional five and a half million each year.

The transportation, the Seattle Transit Measure Financial Plan would be balanced through 2024, but there would not, but it would, but future spending would have to be adjusted to maintain a reserve through the end of the 2027 measure.

Thank you.

Just filibustering with some questions, Madam Chair, until you could return.

Thank you very much.

We just received special staff Gavin Chow's explanation and a follow-up question for me.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

I'm going to turn it back to the sponsor, Council Member Peterson.

I think you had some additional comments you were going to make, and then we will open it up.

Thank you, chair mosquito and thank you, Calvin from central staff for the explanation.

So colleagues again this is the, this is the only way that we can get up to the minimum amount that the auditor advised us to do.

I know we've been talking about this for three years, and we've tried multiple ways to get.

ESTA to do this.

Here we are again.

We found a way to do it.

We're tapping the reserves temporarily from the Seattle Transportation Benefit District and increasing the capital allowance even more for the next couple of years.

Otherwise, the money is just sitting there in reserves that allegedly are needed for 2026 or 2027. So the purpose of this amendment is to deploy those dollars now to fix the bridges that need our attention sooner.

Thank you.

Allegedly.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Herbold, please go ahead.

Thanks, I just want to speak in favor of this substitute.

Appreciate that there are sufficient reserves available for this purpose and appreciate the transportation and SPU chair in proposing this.

I also really appreciate that the focus is on multimodal bridges for folks who are strong advocates of other modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles, whether or not it's busing, bicycling, or walking.

And for those who are supportive of making sure that freight is able to move in and out of our city, I really think that the focus on these bridges is incredibly important to folks using all modes of transportation.

So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I see Cal's hand up.

Please go ahead, Calvin.

Council Members, thank you.

I just wanted to highlight that this is Seattle Transit Measure funding.

The funding can only be used for transit capital support for transit projects, so the proviso would require SDOT to find bridge-related or structures-related transit projects only, and that is all that could be funded with this funding.

I'm going to come back to that in a minute, Cal, and I'm going to ask you to repeat that because I want to make sure that we're fully understanding what the next steps would need to be.

But I'm going to turn it to Council Member Morales first.

Please go ahead, Council Member.

Thank you.

I guess I have a question about what you just said, Cal.

Well, I have two questions.

The first is, my understanding was that this funding could be used for staffing more, for more transit routes to increase frequency, to increase reliability, assuming we could find, Metro could find the staffing.

So I want to clarify that that is also a possible use.

But I believe that we already have the increase in the vehicle license fee also going to bridge maintenance, so I, I'd like to clarify those two things I fully support the need for us to make sure that our.

bridge infrastructure is safe and understand that, you know, we all use the bridges regardless of how we how we get around, assuming you can actually cross on foot or in a bus or on a bike.

But I think we already have supported some substantial increases in bridge funding and I believe this money could be used to increase transit reliability.

So I would like to clarify those two things.

Thank you, Councilmember.

This source of funding was approved by voters, and it authorizes four different categories of spending.

It can be spent on transit service, as you mentioned.

It can be spent on transit capital improvements that improve the delivery of transit.

It can be spent on emerging needs, emerging mobility needs.

We used it in part to subsidize additional transit service with the closure of the West Seattle Bridge.

And it can be used to support transit access programs.

So we've used it to purchase subsidized ORCA passes in the past for students among others.

And I'm sorry, I forgot the other part of your question.

The vehicle license fee increase.

And then the vehicle license fee is a separate funding source that is also transportation benefit district, but it was not approved by voters.

And there is a separate council budget action to increase that by ten dollars per year, which does produce additional resources for, among other things, the bridges.

Council Member Morales, did that answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Council Member Peterson, did you have something to add?

Yes, thank you very much.

Appreciate those questions, Council Member Morales, and the support for other bridge maintenance.

The reason this was necessary is that part of the balancing package cut $3.2 million from bridge maintenance.

on another item earlier today.

So this is one of the reasons we need to boost the funding for bridges.

And the nexus to the transit is that it would be bridges that buses rely upon so that if there's, as we learned from the West Seattle Bridge, if the bridge is not working, if it closes, it malfunctions, then the speed and reliability of transit drops to zero.

So no bridge, no bus.

So the purpose of this is to authorize STOT to go up to that amount so that we can finally do the bare minimum of what the auditor requires, considering the other cuts and other parts of the budget.

So this would get us back up to that minimum amount, even with the money from the other sources that we approved.

Okay, thank you.

I'm going to ask central staff to comment on the information just noted that the balancing package reduced funding.

Is there a cut in the baseline budget for bridges?

There was a reduction in the bridge painting program related to the REIT shortfall.

Related to the REIT shortfall.

And again, colleagues, I want to remind folks, $64 million in reductions that we received just four days before we were about to release our balancing package meant that we really had to go back and look at not just operating budget items, but also major improvements needed in capital construction and investment.

And we did everything that we could to continue to maintain investments in critical services.

including in bridge support and key infrastructure across our city.

I think that it would be helpful as well for me to have a better understanding of whether or not the existing, what did you call it, Calvin, the transportation measure funding policy, do those need to be amended if we don't have sufficient transit related bridge projects in the pipeline?

If there were, if the executive were not able to identify bridge-related projects, then the proviso would simply mean that that money would not be spent and it would stay in the project.

I should also note just for the record that the proposal to move the Park Enforcement Unit to SPD also added 1.5 million for structures.

That's correct.

Thank you very much.

Are there any additional comments?

Okay, folks, I am Council Member Peterson.

Allie, did you have something else you wanted to know?

Nope, I was just getting ready if there was clarification on which motion you were voting on next.

Okay, great.

So yes, the motion that, sorry, that's helpful.

Yes, Allie, why don't you orient us to the motion that's currently in front of us?

So the motion that is currently in front of you, I believe, is the motion to substitute Council Member Peterson's option C, S.502C for S.B.

So you would vote yes on that motion if you support the substitute option C.

Okay, thank you so much.

And again, I'm going to ask for folks to continue to maintain the language that Councilmember Peterson originally put forward in the amendment.

I do appreciate Councilmember Peterson that you put forward the original amendment, S.502B.

It was less specific about where the funds would ultimately end up and was really seeking to to make sure that we had additional resources across our city.

I am wanting to better understand what the impact of the proposed substitute would mean for equity issues in terms of investments around our city, and also whether or not there's trade-offs that are being contemplated in the proposed amendment in front of us, instead of doing X, Y, and Z, and instead investing in the bridges.

I'm going to be asking folks to support councilmember Peterson's underlying initial amendment that I included in our balancing package and that would mean rejecting the substitute.

Okay.

Let's see how this goes.

502 B.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the substitution, the desire to substitute S.502B?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Ores?

Mute.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

I said yes, sorry.

Thank you.

Council Member Morales?

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Sawant.

No.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Chair Mosqueda.

No.

Five in favor, four opposed.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and the substitute is in front of us.

Council Member Peterson, you are recognized if you'd like to speak to the substitute before voting.

Thank you, Chair.

No further comments.

No further comments.

Okay.

Thank you again.

Thanks for putting forward the original amendment, which we included in our balancing package.

I'm going to actually abstain on this vote only because I don't I don't know the full impacts on other areas of the city and want to have a better understanding of that.

Obviously, I've been.

I know the word disappointment has been used a few times in reference to the bridge investments, and I think we can all agree it was disappointing to get the REIT investment news, the REIT decreased funding, and that did have impact on our budget, but I do look forward to continuing to learn more about how this proposal will impact future investments and also support what we can do to ensure bridge maintenance.

Please go ahead, Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I held my comments earlier because in the interest of time, Council Member Peterson, you know my strong interest and desire to ensure our bridges have the funding that they need.

And you also know that I have also experienced the lack of action from our Department of Transportation in creating the plans that we need to be able to fund our bridges deferred maintenance, ensure that they are ready to receive federal funding.

I'll be speaking about a statement of legislative intent later on today specifically regarding the Ballard Bridge and other bridges in the Ballard Interbay Regional Transportation Corridor.

And so just hearing that we don't have the plans ready to implement this money is not good enough.

And also I'm voting no right now because I put forward an amendment earlier today to increase the funding for bridges in our city, which I believe is a more appropriate source of funding.

Thank you, Chair.

Good point.

Thank you very much, Council Member Strauss.

Hearing no additional comments, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of Substitute S.502C?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales.

No.

Council Member Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Peterson.

Yes.

Council Member Solant.

Abstain.

Council Member Strauss.

No.

Chair Mosqueda.

Abstain.

Five in favor, two opposed, two abstentions.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and S.502C was adopted.

I believe I have to take one final roll call vote, is that correct?

Or are we done with that one?

I think you have completed the series and this one you.

Okay.

Thank you very much again.

Thanks, council members.

So S.502C is adopted.

Moving right along.

Let's go to agenda item 133, SPD 102A.

And chair misguided this one, the next, the last three items that are removed from the package were just removed for individual consideration.

Oh, I see.

There are no substitutes.

For the purposes of discussion.

Okay.

Colleagues to get the amendment in front of us.

I move to approve SPD 102A002.

Is there a second?

Thank you very much.

It has been moved and seconded.

I understand that this has been pulled for the purposes of discussion only and there is no substitute.

So I will recognize folks as they put their hands in the queue here.

Council Member Nelson, you're recognized first.

I'm sorry, I will hold my comment until after others speak.

Okay, Council Member Nelson.

Council Member Peterson, you are recognized to speak.

Thank you, Jeremy skater colleagues I pulled this item for a separate discussion from the chairs package, I, I oppose abrogating positions from our Seattle Police Department.

Our mayor's budget transmitted to us on September 27 did not delete these at positions and.

If we trust in what the mayor asked for regarding public safety and if we trust in the budgeting knowledge and skills and best practices of the city budget office, then I don't think we should do anything differently here by abrogating or deleting these 80 position pockets, November 14 just a week ago.

The mayor's spokesperson told the Seattle Times that the mayor's office opposes the permanent change of abrogation, noting that funding the unfilled positions would offer the department flexibility when staffing levels recover.

When a similar budget maneuver was attempted last year to eliminate officer position slots, our chief of police, Adrian Diaz, said abrogation would have long-term negative impacts.

Council members who voted against abrogation 12 months ago seemed to agree that abrogating the unfilled positions could send the wrong message to the public that the council didn't want SPD hiring more officers.

According to a recent public survey, the public's concern about crime and public safety has increased substantially from 28% citing it as a top issue to nearly half citing it as a top issue today.

If you're a prospective officer or detective and you're researching departments to join, why would you join a department where its own legislative body is deleting positions from the books?

Our recruitment efforts are already struggling after losing 400 officers and detectives.

So I'm concerned this would hobble that effort with a negative signal that does not even save money.

Abrogating positions does send a clear message.

I believe it would send the wrong message.

It sent the wrong message 12 months ago, and it would send the wrong message today.

Abrogation of positions is a degradation of recruitment and retention.

Earlier today, the Seattle Times editorial board urged the city council to stay strong on building back public safety and not abrogate these positions.

I agree.

Colleagues, I'm imploring you please to vote down this effort to abrogate these 80 postal and police positions so we can move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Nelson, please go ahead.

I completely agree.

This sends we have to hope that at some point SPD, at least I do, will be able to fill these positions.

I it's true that that money has been repurposed for the next couple of years for other for other things.

I have no problem with that.

But permanently removing these positions.

will make it very difficult to bring those positions back.

It takes five votes to eliminate a position, but six votes to reinstate those positions and funding.

So I don't see why we would do this, given our public safety crisis that we're undergoing right now.

And what appeared to be a majority willingness to increase the numbers on our force through the institution of another staffing incentive program.

So this budget action would be contrary to the policy direction, I think, that was clearly stated over the course of this past year since I've been in office.

And it would also Council member Peterson is right.

Send the wrong signal to perspective to perspective recruits, but also to our officers right now.

And, you know, they've gone through the the the the turmoil since twenty twenty.

And I believe that we need to show that we actually do want to to bring our staffing levels back up to adequate.

And that will require keeping these positions on the books.

Thank you.

Any additional comments?

Okay.

Colleagues, I wanna offer some, oh, please go ahead Council Member Herbold.

Is this an okay time?

Yeah, absolutely.

Please go ahead, Council Member, Chair of Public Safety.

Please go ahead.

Thank you so much.

So, as has been made clear over and over again, SPD's hiring plan is fully funded again in this budget.

It forecasts a net gain of 15 additional officers over departures, a total of 30 officers over two years.

That is significantly lower than the 120 unfilled, unfunded, positions.

The proposed budget identified 200 unfunded, unfilled positions in the department.

Central staff has done some analysis and recognizes and let us know that SPD has an additional 40 unfilled unfunded officer positions that were not included in the baseline position number of 200. This is new information.

There is 240 unfilled and unfunded positions.

According from the central staff analysis in the budget action, if this council adopts the CDA, then the department will retain the above noted 120 police officer vacant positions in the 2025-2026 panel and have a combined 130 vacant officer positions available to accept academy graduates or lateral transfers.

The proposed 2023 budget we saw repurposed $28 million from salary savings and provided a transparent accounting where funds for those 200 unfilled, unfunded positions went.

Hasn't always been the case.

In the 2021 budget, former mayor proposed but it redirected nearly $16 million in salary savings, their priorities outside of SPD.

This was 97 positions worth of redirected funding.

It was very, very hard and lacked transparency for us to be able to tell where those dollars are going.

Using this type of budgeting approach doesn't necessarily result in maintaining the SPD budget.

It so happens that Mayor Harrell's budget identifies $28 million in salary savings and proposes to dedicate those funds for other uses in SPD.

But that's a discretionary decision of the mayor, and as I just explained, in the 2021 budget, the former mayor directed those dollars elsewhere.

The point is that this is a good budget practice last year I did vote against a similar last minute amendment, but it wasn't because I didn't agree with it.

It was because two people too few people understood that it had absolutely no impact on the number of officers that SPD could hire.

this narrative that we're hearing today about that this would send the wrong signal.

It would only send the wrong signal if we're talking about this abrogation is something other than a good budget practice.

It is in no way a message to people who are considering applying to the police department.

For those people, I think it's important for us to collectively signal that the department's plan is to hire 125 officers in this council is fully funding.

It's really disappointing that, using that word disappointing, Madam Chair, that it seems that some are unwilling to say that the hiring budget is fully funded.

That would send a positive factual message rather than dwelling on this signal that this narrative is suggesting would depress hiring.

Let's focus on what this budget does do.

rather than distort what an abrogation of positions would do for the budget.

In fact, what it will do is it will create more transparency and budgeting in the next biennium for the council to act on.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I'll speak to this amendment.

This amendment in the underlying balancing package retained the approach in the mayor's proposed budget that a determination was made by the mayor, the executive, the department that determined that within SPD, the allocated funding for 80 officers was no longer needed.

And they thankfully put that funding towards the general fund.

Our budget situation is one that is not likely to change by 2025 and 26. So this budget amendment neither questions the number of positions that SPD is aiming to fill.

It doesn't interfere with our efforts to move forward on the retention and hiring plan.

It retains 120 officers within the department in terms of pockets and the associated funding that the mayor's office had asked to be allocated in different ways.

Again, this action is about budgetary transparency.

This is not different than any other department.

And I wanna reiterate that council members and the city council can always come back and add additional funding in future years for future positions and future salary.

There's nothing that precludes us from doing so in the future if that need is there.

That is what we do every year when it comes to the budget.

That is how we make these decisions about what other departments need in terms of salary.

and pockets, and I would encourage us to continue to maintain this as a solid budgetary practice moving forward and would ask for your yes vote to keep this item in.

Madam Chair?

Yes, please, Council President.

I'm sorry, I should have, I didn't have my little computer hand up.

May I make a few comments?

Always, Council President, thank you.

First, I want to thank Council Member Peterson.

I know, Councilor Peterson, that's one thing I like about you is that you and I can actually have long conversations about these kind of issues and be okay.

We can agree to disagree.

And I think we both kind of agreed to disagree.

And I needed to drill down on something that Council Member Herbold said and was, so I understood it and not, I don't really care what the media says, but how they think it looks.

I wanted to know what the facts are.

My understanding of the facts are there are 200 positions open and we can hire 120 officers And the 80 other officers we could, we were going to use, we're using the word abrogate, and like it's permanent deleted forever.

And my understanding is that it's not.

I know that you said that we needed.

I may need clarification or whether or not it's actually six votes to bring that back but whether we.

We honestly, this time next year, September, October of next year, our next budget cycle, if we hire 120 officers, there's nothing stopping any of us.

And I talked to a budget chair about this as well, of coming forward in a budget action on behalf of SPD or with the mayor to hire more officers, if indeed we hire the 120. I guess what I'm worried about is some media folks are not putting this in context.

They're making it sound like there's 200 jobs out there and we're quote unquote defunding.

And I know that's the elephant in the room here.

And I don't believe that that's what's happening, but I do understand the nuance of it and what Council Member Peterson and Council Member Nelson are getting to about the messaging.

And I think that's powerful and I think that's true.

But our job here today is to clarify that as Council Member Herbold just did.

So we don't have a narrative or a mixed message or some political grandstanding going on, not by any of my colleagues, about what we're actually doing.

So this is a good budget practice.

And again, I can't emphasize it more.

The semantics here and the message here has to be clear based on the facts and that we do, we have 200 positions out there, we can't hire 120 and they haven't hired 120. We want them to hire 120 and maybe and hopefully this time next year, SPD is back saying, you know what, we hired 120, our media plan worked, thank you for the money for the media plan and all the other, Councilor Herbold may have to help me out on this, all the other, the other processes we put in place to attract officers, especially since we helped select the new chief of police.

I feel like we're moving in a good direction.

I was one of the folks back in last December, but that was a different kind of vote than I think we're seeing today.

I think Council Member Hurdle made that difference quite well.

that what we did in December of 2021. And I know that we've talked about this offline Council Member Peterson and Council Member Nelson.

So I just wanted to be honest and straightforward and transparent.

So for today, I will be supporting where we're at with the original plan in place.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Council President.

At this point, I see no hands.

We will go ahead and move on with the vote.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on Amendment SPD-102, Agenda Item 133?

And again, colleagues, I would encourage and greatly appreciate a yes vote to maintain the existing amendment.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

No.

Council Member Morales.

Yes.

Council Member Nelson.

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Six in favor, three opposed.

Thank you very much and thanks again colleagues for that.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted.

I want to thank the Council President as well for her grounding remarks and her leadership.

As we move forward, we can always continue to come back to issues of whether or not there's additional need for salary and pockets in any department.

And I greatly appreciate the discussion going forward.

We're going to stay with the SPD item and move on to agenda item 134. That's SPD 102. I'll move it so that it is in front of us.

I move to approve SPD 1, excuse me, SPD 201 A001.

Is there a second?

Thank you very much.

It has been moved and seconded to approve agenda item 134 SPD 201A.

I don't believe that there is a substitute for this as central staff noted, and this relates to the proviso salary savings in SPD.

I will ask central staff to provide a brief overview of this item.

If you don't mind, Greg, it's good to see you again and appreciate just grounding us on what the amendment does.

Yeah, thank you Madam Chair so SPD is currently funded for a staffing plan that would assume that they are going to hire 120 recruits, and that they will have 105 separations.

And so they're funded according to that staffing plan.

If they wind up having many more separations, let's say for instance, then 105. Let's say that they have 150, then they're going to have a lot of salary money in their budget that they're not paying to officers because the officers have left.

And so that money that will be in their budget that would have paid the officers that left, this proviso would lock that money up and say that they can't spend it on anything else until they come back to the council and ask permission.

The same thing would work on the hiring side of the equation.

If SPD was unable to hire up to 120, let's say they only hired 100, then the money that would pay the additional recruits will be locked up and they won't be able to spend that money without coming to the council and asking for permission.

So that's my basic explanation.

I'll ask if there's any questions.

Thank you very much.

I'm not seeing any questions.

I believe that hand was Councilmember Nelson.

I saw your hand up earlier.

I know you probably want to make comments.

I have you first in the queue.

I just want to confirm, does anyone have a question for Greg Doss from Central Staff?

Okay, Greg, thanks so much for that overview.

And I'm going to turn it to Councilmember Nelson who had her hand up first.

Councilmember Nelson, you are recognized to speak.

Thank you very much.

So council did this last year and we went through a whole long process over the course of the summer to lift that proviso in order to to create a plan to recruit more officers to a badly as to plug the hole of a badly short, severe shortfalls in staffing and SPD.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time talking.

Anyway, that took a lot of staff time in our efforts.

And during that process, Council Member Herbold sponsored legislation, rightly pointing out that there are staffing shortages, there are vacancies across the city in other departments.

And to my understanding, we don't provide those salary savings in other departments.

So here's the deal.

There will very likely be unanticipated needs coming up in the next couple of years.

And so, for example, the We know right now that there are some technology needs, for example, an upgrade to the computer aided dispatch system, and that will be necessary for the, for example, dual dispatch, which requires a multi user interface.

That's just one need that we know about right now.

Also, at the same time, we are renegotiating our contract with the Police Officers Guild.

And it is the desire of the city, I believe, to to have more police accountability and to strengthen our community policing model.

And so whatever comes out of those contract negotiations could very well require some expenses that these salary savings could be used for.

Same goes for our final compliance with the consent decree.

That could, you know, complying with that might very well require purchases that will improve our ability to meet the terms of that consent decree.

So the point I'm trying to make is that I believe that we should stop micromanaging the use of salary savings and exercise some humility going forward because we simply don't know what needs will will need to be met over time, for example, if there's an earthquake or a mass shooting or something.

And I know that sounds overly dramatic, but it is true that we don't know what is coming.

And so locking up the salary savings for a future ordinance that would lift that restriction, I think, is is not in our best interest.

And I will note that in this budget, there are three items already that are seeking to create that will cost a total of, let's see, $1,280,000 if they are all implemented.

And I'm talking about items 183, 174, 173, all of which are looking at salary savings to create, I think, mostly ongoing expenses.

And so I would ask that we not go forward with this proviso and allow for the flexibility of the department to use that money for emergent needs.

Thank you, I'm gonna turn it to Chair Public Safety, Vice Chair Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you, I agree with much of what Council Member Nelson said.

There are unknowns for the SPD budget.

This budget action reserves officer salary funding to be used for officer salaries and expenses related to salaries.

It assumes that the police department will succeed in meeting their hiring goals and that the funds will be needed for that purpose.

But the PRISO is a really important tool to collaborate with the executive in the department, how to use funds not needed for SPD salaries.

It's true, in the case that there are funds that are unspent for SPD salaries, there may be other needs.

public safety related needs, but we are two branches of government, and we don't typically let just one branch decide how to spend millions and millions of dollars without collaborating with the council.

And so we use this mechanism for the last couple years.

In 2021, the salary savings allow us to negotiate with the executive to fund community safety priorities that we shared with the executive.

So that was increasing positions for CSOs, funding for staff to reduce the SPD-PDR backlog, funding to support Office of Intergovernmental, I'm sorry, Office of the Inspector General's recommendations for evidence storage, community police coordinators in the North Precinct, and that's just a few of the Councilmember priorities that using a proviso like this has made it possible to fund In 2021 this year, the provide by lifting the proviso, we were able to authorize spending again for shared objectives shared.

Priorities with the executive or moving expenses for new officers.

Hiring incentives for new officers and other elements of the recruitment campaign, including redirecting funds held held by proviso in SPD for four positions in the Seattle Department of Human Resources to assist with hiring and recruitment.

Access funds can be used for overtime needed with Council actions, we've lifted the proviso in the past.

We've done it with proper oversight proviso allows use of funds of overtime.

This is, I think, a good.

practice, um, recognizing that with the department as large as SPD, um, with the fact that we are fully funding the salary.

Um, I'm sorry, the staffing plan of the department in the in that case that there are millions of dollars that go unused that we need to be at the table and helping to decide where our shared safety priorities for the use of those dollars.

Thank you.

I hope folks can vote in favor of this proposal.

Thank you very much.

Thanks to you both for sharing those comments.

I believe we are ready to move forward and I would just note, as the vice chair noted, this has been a helpful tool already and given the growing partnership with Mayor Hill's administration and commitment to continuing to build that relationship I think that this tool is just that, it's a helpful tool to ensure transparency amongst all parties and we have used it I think effectively over the last year and a half and look forward to continuing to partner with the executive on how we ensure greater transparency through our budgeting practices and this is a good tool to do that.

colleagues, again, I am going to encourage a yes vote on agenda item 134, that's SPD 201A.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on SPD 201A?

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Aye.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson.

No.

Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and SPD-201A, agenda item 134 carries, is adopted.

Colleagues, again, items 140, that's SPD-903 and 143, SPD-907, those have been removed from the agenda for consideration entirely given the earlier action taken in group A.

We are on to our last item for individual vote in group B, that is agenda item 162. SPU 900 A.

I'm going to move to get this in front of us.

I move that the council approve SPU 900 A 001. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

Again, this is not an item that has a suggested amendment to deal with any proposed inflation, inflation or additional cost to the budget.

So I'm going to turn it over to.

I think it's pretty simple.

You know, in the proposed budget, we looked at everything that was additional new funding, and we had to make some important decisions about how we could maintain investments going forward into other areas.

This is an added item.

Again, there's $2 million in base funding for graffiti abatement in the base budget.

So I want to make sure that folks don't just look at the short title, look past the short title, and remember that there's $2 million worth of funding included in the base budget for graffiti abatement.

I'm going to recognize Council Member Nelson.

Please go ahead, Council Member Nelson.

I think it's pretty clear that we need more funding for graffiti abatement, because when I look around town, it does seem as though that is a clear need.

And just last month, the mayor held a press conference about this new effort.

And it's not just about cleaning graffiti, it's also about creating a way to celebrate youth art through the Many Hands Arts Initiative in collaboration with the Office of Arts and Culture.

But as the mayor said, We have an opportunity to envision a more beautiful Seattle with murals and canvases that reflect our values of creativity, inclusion and forward thinking.

Not only does tagging and graffiti detract from the vibrancy of our city, there are tangible impacts on communities targeted by hate speech, and small business owners whose shops are defaced and residents who rely on city signage for information and guidance.

And I will just say that that as a citywide council member, I get a lot of emails from across the city of people complaining about graffiti is their number one issue.

And so I and I do know that small businesses need this extra funding because part of this will actually help them remove graffiti on private property.

And so for all of these reasons, I urge that we maintain this funding for increased graffiti abatement.

And it doesn't necessarily have to be 1.2, but I'm asking to not go forward with this decrease.

Thank you very much.

I'm seeing no additional hands at this point.

Again, I would note that there still is $2 million in the base budget for graffiti abatement.

In addition to that support for small businesses and technical assistance, we continue to support making sure that our smallest businesses can reach out with flexible dollars to address numerous issues.

But I want to encourage folks to stay with the underlying amendment in front of us.

There is no suggested revenue source at this point to compensate for this large ticket item of $1.2 million.

So I am going to discourage a vote to amend this item.

This would put our budget out of balance.

And while council members may be sympathetic to the desire for additional funding, this item was not flagged last week for an amendment.

Given that there was no amendment offered to address this with additional funding, I'm going to encourage everyone to keep the underlying amendment in the proposal and to please vote yes on agenda item 162, that's SPU 900A.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of agenda item 162, SPU 900A.

Council Member Herbold?

Yes.

Council President Juarez?

Yes.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Council Member Morales?

Yes.

Council Member Nelson?

Nay.

Council Member Peterson?

No.

Council Member Sawant?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss?

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Seven in favor, two opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and SPU 900A, agenda item 162 is adopted.

Okay, it is 440 and we have two more sections left on our agenda.

Not all of them are this long, I promise you.

We were all taking estimates on when we would adjourn today and I said I thought it was gonna be closer to, well, eight o'clock slash midnight.

So I know you all are going to prove me wrong.

We will be out of here way before then.

But unfortunately, it does not look like we will be done by five o'clock.

I want to thank Freddy de Cuevas in my office who has ordered pizza and salads for folks who are at City Hall.

So there will be lots of options, including healthy salads for folks who might not want pizza.

And we will make an announcement for when that is here.

It will not be here until probably about 5.20, 5.15.

So I want to take the pulse of folks in the room.

Would you like to have a 10-minute break or do you want to keep powering through?

What is best and also for the clerks and the IT team?

10-minute break?

Okay, great.

So let's take a 10-minute break and let's come back at 4.50, please.

I do want to note for the record that I did put in my food requests to your office, Madam Chair.

I saw the, yes, you have good taste, Council President.

We will be in recess, colleagues, until 4.51.

you

you

you Thank you.

you.

Thank you.

It is now 4.52 p.m.

I'm Teresa Mosqueda, Chair of the Select Budget Committee at the Seattle City Council.

The committee will come back from recess, and Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Herbold?

Here.

Council President Morales?

Here.

Council Member Lewis?

Present.

Council Member Morales?

Here.

Council Member Nelson?

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Present.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Chair Mosqueda.

Present.

Nine present.

Thank you very much colleagues and thanks to the clerks, IT, comms, Seattle Channel, everybody for sticking with us.

We are now going to continue with consideration of amendments included on the agenda listed under group C consent package.

Again, group C consists of various amendments that either have been discussed out here in some level of detail or similar to items that we had included in our balancing package or complimentary, and I wanted to express support for these items by packaging them together as a consent package.

Similar to what we did in the above agenda item for agenda item, well, for group B, individual council members can, of course, pull an agenda, pull a amendment out of the consent package.

Again, Group C consists of council budget actions as a selection of self-balance amendments.

And these self-balancing items are things that I reviewed and in partnership with the sponsor and central staff, work to package together here as a possible consent package for your consideration to expedite our voting process.

I'm going to make the motion to consider group C, and after it is second, I will turn to central staff for a brief overview of the council budget amendment.

I'm going to give the sponsor a brief second to speak about the amendment given that these are new amendments and may ask the sponsors to be brief in their comments as we want to get through this package and also at the end, we'll have an opportunity to pull out any.

I will turn to the sponsor to see if they have a few sentences to share with us.

We'll go through the entire list, and then at the end of the presentation, we will have the chance to pull certain agenda items out.

For sponsors, this is not the time to give us the whole spiel on why and how and who you worked with to come up with the amendment, but just a very brief overview so that folks have a grounding on it.

Because as a reminder, before we vote on group C as a consent package, you will still have a chance to speak to items.

Again, the same rule applies as before.

Please do not pull items out simply for the purpose of speaking against something or speaking in favor of something.

We will have time to vote on the package as a whole, but before we vote, we will allow for council members to speak to any aspect of group C before we go forward.

So if any item is removed, we will of course have an individual vote on that.

Okay.

Here we go.

Any questions?

Colleagues, I move to approve group C, the consent package as listed on the agenda.

Is there a second?

Thank you very much.

It has been moved and seconded to approve group C, the consent package.

Central staff, I'm going to turn it to you to walk us through this list of items that you have presented on the screen here.