Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 10/30/18 Session 1

All right, we're ready to go here.

Good morning.

Good morning.

This is October 30, 2018. This is our budget committee meeting continued.

It is 9.40.

I want to say thank you to my council colleagues who are here.

We're expecting three others.

And I'm going to say something now, just as introductory remarks.

And when my colleagues arrive, I may have to repeat some of this.

But I want to, first of all, extend thanks to Council Central staff.

I know you've done a ton of work to all my council colleagues and their staff who've gotten us this far.

And you know for the past several weeks, we have been reviewing the mayor's budget.

than last week and week before we've been doing budget issue identification.

Today we're diving into what we call green sheets.

And these are specifically requests that are coming from my council colleagues and myself recommending sometimes an increase or a decrease of the level of funding for a particular department or establishing restrictions on the use or certain expenditure authority.

We sometimes do those through provisos.

We may revise our capital project spending plans.

or create new employment positions, or eliminate positions, or to pass or amend certain legislation.

But the green sheets that we're going to air today, tomorrow, and Thursday will set us up for what is called our initial balancing package.

And what that is, is that we take all of the ideas that are coming from our council, add them to what we have been hearing for the last several weeks, and then revise and repackage what the mayor proposed to us.

And of course, we're going to have to have a balanced budget ourselves.

So, and I do appreciate all my council colleagues' great ideas.

I think that there's many, many, many millions of dollars of requests that we're not going to be able to specifically address unless we do something drastic.

So here's one of the things that I want to ask my council colleagues just to pay a bit of attention to.

As we're considering the green sheets today, we're going to be doing them somewhat differently than we have done in the past.

Under the current interpretation of the Open Public Meetings Act, we have not widely circulated the green sheets.

So in some cases, the green sheets will arrive today with just one sponsor.

The request is if you want to add your name to that, That we will make that opportunity known, you can raise your hand and we'll add your name to it.

Now, some of the green sheets are very specific, specific to a district.

You don't need to have a co-sponsor on these for them to be considered further.

but it'll help me get an idea about priorities here within our and among the nine of us.

So, specifically if there's a green sheet that's coming before you, Council Central staff will introduce it.

The sponsor may speak to it.

You don't have to speak to it if you don't want to.

In fact, towards the end of the day, I suspect you'll get extra points if you don't.

But if it's something important and you want to see monies invested into that, Then I'm going to ask you to raise your hand, we will add your name.

Allison down here will take account, which this weekend when we're doing the balancing package is going to be very important.

Also, I want to talk a little bit about statements of legislative intent, also known as slides in our lexicon.

We know that we oftentimes use these slides to gather more information or data in the next year.

What has happened in the past, I think, is that sometimes we ask for slides, departments provide us information, but it's not clear at the time that we ask for the slide or we pass the slide what it is that the outcome we're looking for.

So I am going to ask this budget cycle, if you're the primary sponsor of a slide that you actually provide to us a short statement, it can be a one pager, but what is the scope the schedule, what is the budget or the information you are really seeking?

Or in Lisa Herbold's lexicon, what is the theory of change that we're trying to enact?

So that we have a road map next year when the information comes back, we know specifically what it was that we were asking for or the individual council member.

It also will help council central staff as part of the work plan for 2019. So with that said, we've got about 50 items we'll be discussing today.

As I said, Council Central staff will give a very brief description of the items, and then the sponsor can speak to it or not as you choose.

And if it seems to have some interest among my colleagues, I will ask that you raise your hand if you want to add your name as a sponsor.

All right, everything clear?

All right, then I guess Eric, and if you would like to kick it off and then we'll just move on from there.

Hello, Chair Bagashow, members of the committee.

Happy to be here.

My name is Eric Sund.

I'm on your council central staff.

I won't eat up a lot of time since there are many items to discuss today.

I will simply defer to the first of what will be a procession of central staff members who will be speaking to the green sheets and slides that they prepared for you.

Thank you.

Very good.

Go ahead.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

Good morning, Ali.

Everybody should know, like...

Go ahead.

Ali Panucci, Council Central Staff.

Item number one on the agenda is Green Sheet 13A1.

This is a statement of legislative intent requesting that the City Budget Office, in coordination with the Office of Housing and...

Excuse me, the Office of Planning and Community Development and the Office of Housing explores the feasibility of issuing additional bonds for equitable development initiative projects that include an affordable housing component.

dedicating future short-term rental tax revenue to pay the debt service.

The intent is to develop a strategy that would ensure that dedication of future short-term rental tax revenue would support EDI program goals and provide stable funding for the EDI program while providing advanced funding for projects with affordable housing components.

This is a proposal from Council Member Mosqueda.

Council Member Mosqueda, would you like to speak to this?

Yes, thank you Madam Chair and I also want to thank Council Member Herbold for speaking to this last Monday and appreciate her support as well as Council Member Johnson's support for this slide.

This slide gives us time to take a look at the new short-term rental tax and see if it meets our expectations.

If it does meet our expectations, I am hoping that we can bond against this new tax revenue.

The desire would be to issue bonds as soon as possible.

We know that bonds can only be issued once a year, I believe in April.

So if there's significant information that comes in the door early next year, we would like to very much bond against this revenue tax.

If, for example, we bonded just against the $5 million that are coming in the door and we issued bond over a 10 to 20 year period we could see somewhere between the total of 40 to 65 million dollars in hand if we bonded against the full 5 million.

What this slide does is it allows for us to ask whether or not bonding against the full 5 million is the appropriate amount and it allows time for the EDI team and the Office of Housing to work with the community to identify equitable development initiative products and that have a housing component so we can better understand how we can front load and boost housing projects coupled with community investment.

So last week I believe we heard from Councilmember Herbal, I'm sorry, Council President Harrell that he is very interested in both protecting cultural icons and creating more cultural hubs.

We definitely want the EDI fund to continue to do this.

With the potential of additional bond dollars, we could now couple housing above these cultural centers so that we could create more opportunities for people to live in the city they love.

Again, for example, if there was 15 EDI projects and 11 of them had a housing component, we could front load those projects with housing that might otherwise have to wait years for investment.

So, I'm looking forward to working with you.

I appreciate some initial conversations I've also had with the mayor's office and the CBO about this possibility.

We know our biggest priority is trying to make sure that folks can live in the city and that we address the affordable housing crisis.

So, Madam Chair, to your request, we will definitely be creating a one-pager for your review.

Great, thank you.

One quick question, Council Member Mosqueda.

You have put down here that you want to have this information by June 19th, yet you said that if you're wanting to do bonding, that we need something by April.

Are you thinking about this being a cycle that would go around until April of 2020, or would you like to consider revising that June 19th, 2019 date?

Madam Chair, I'm sorry, I was focused on the first part of the amendments that we made to the legislative intent statement that said, if determined feasible, the statement of legislative intent response should include a detailed plan outlining the actions necessary to issue bonds as early as possible.

My hope was still that we might be able to do this in 2019 if we were successful.

I understand, though, for financial stability, it might be preferable to look at quarters one and two.

I don't know if you have more to add.

Madam Chair, may I?

If I might offer a thought here, I think because we are working on an estimate about short-term rental tax revenue that is based on theory right now as opposed to fact, I think it might be prudent for us to get at least a couple quarters of actual revenue underneath our belts so that we can understand exactly how much revenue might be coming in.

So I think a sly response date of June allows us to have at least a quarter and a half, if not a little bit more in the mix before we make some determinations.

As you have outlined for us, we've got some projects that are potentially already being funded through the short-term rental tax revenue.

So I would feel more confident in our ability to contemplate bonding against this revenue if we had a little more background and history about what we actually know we can generate.

That will also, you know, fully transparent be the least likely time when visitors are going to be visiting the city of Seattle.

So January through April or May.

So, the numbers are probably going to be a little lower than what we would expect if we were doing that evaluation, let's say, in October, and we've considered the summer months, too.

So, we still won't have a full picture, but I think a June response date allows for us to contemplate this as part of the 2019 budget process for 2020, and will allow us to get a little more data about how much revenue we're actually generating with the short-term rental tax and how much money the state's given to us.

Madam Chair, thank you for the reminder councilmember Johnson and because we are collaborative and inclusive and we take advice from our experts the last line on here as you stated does say that The director of CBO is requested to submit a report to my committee and to the executive director and council Central staff by June 19 2019 so I would not be moving to amend that okay

So, I'm just, based upon what I'm hearing from Councilmember Johnson, if he wants two full quarters, that would take us through June 30th and probably another 30 days to get that information.

So, do you want to say after the second quarter?

And maybe we don't have to get this detailed on every one of these, but I think it's important that we're clear about what it is we're requesting and when it would be available.

If I might so it certainly we could push the data out and that would give us more certainty about the revenue in the first two quarters We'll really know around this time next year We'll have a better sense of what those revenues look like but in looking at the feasibility of doing this bond issuance it is not just looking at the revenues and and hoping that frankly, that our estimates are an underestimate and that there's additional revenues to pay additional debt service, but also looking at the feasibility of issuing bonds for these specific types of projects.

And there's also other work that CBO does throughout the year to identify projects, to work with the Bond Council to get all of that vetted.

The initial thinking was that by June 19th, they could at least have a general sense of what the first quarter, potentially the second quarter is looking like, as well as laying out that plan.

But likely that legislation would be forwarded with the budget, but that would provide time for the council to provide some input on where they're going and start providing direction for the budget proposal next fall.

Very good.

Thank you for that.

Council members want.

Thank you.

Ali, just a clarifying question based on what you just said.

So part of what this study would look at is the feasibility of using bonds for you said specific projects, but I'm trying to ascertain what you mean by that because in general we know bonds can be used for affordable housing because we did that with the Build 1000 Homes campaign which through which we won 29 million for affordable housing, but those were not designated equitable development or anything like that.

So do you mean specifically that kind of thing?

Yeah, in general the equitable development initiative is looking at public and private investments in neighborhoods and support like sort of cultural components.

So primarily those grants have been provided to support the non-housing component.

of those developments and not all EDI projects have a housing component.

And so what we want to be certain of is that we can issue bonds to finance the entire project and not just the affordable housing component because the equitable development initiative is focused primarily on the non-housing.

And so it would be sort of prioritizing those EDI projects that have both the non-housing and affordable housing component.

Okay, so are you ready to move on and we'll yeah, just to wrap this up So I think that the process that has been outlined Follows the intent of this council prior to ensure that there was funding for equitable development initiative Which we know there's very limited dollars for that type of project when the state legislature passed their short-term rental tax explicitly authorizing funding to be used for short-term rental for EDI projects and affordable housing.

I think this is exactly the type of collaborative effort that they were hoping for, that we would have money freed up to create the actual housing above these types of centers.

So, I look forward to working with you and I appreciate Councilmember Johnson's clarification and timeline.

That's very helpful.

Thank you very much.

So, we have primary sponsor, Councilmember Mosqueda and Councilmembers Herbold and Johnson have signed on already.

Does anybody else want to add their name?

I can add.

Okay.

And this doesn't have to be a popularity contest every time.

So I just I want to urge you not to feel like it's a crisis every time if you don't have three or more.

So we'll we're going to be considering everything this weekend.

All right.

The next one item number two is sweetened beverage tax proceeds.

Yes.

Good morning at Yolanda Council Center staff.

So next item is item two green sheet one for a one pass.

Council Bill 119376, amending the uses of SBT proceeds.

This is a piece of budget legislation to amend Ordinance 125324, which established the sweetened beverage tax.

This council bill would decrease the share of the SBT's net proceeds set aside for one time and limited duration expenditures from 20% to 10%.

In 2019, 2020, 2021 and 22. This change is in response to revised SBT revenue projections and is expected to provide sufficient funding for one time and limited duration priorities while allowing for greater investment in ongoing uses of SBT revenues.

Thank you.

As council budget chair, I have nothing to add.

All right.

Item number three is a statement of legislative intent, 15A1.

Request to CBO for legislation creating a sweetened beverage tax fund and establishing spending guidance.

So this slide would, as the title indicates, request that CBO create draft legislation and this legislation would create a separate fund for SBT proceeds and also provide guidance for the spending of SBT revenues.

And so this guidance would consider funding recommendations developed by the SBT Community Advisory Board and which is an independent body staffed by the Office of Sustainability Environment that advises and makes recommendations to the mayor and council, including recommendations for the allocation of SBT revenues to programs.

And also this legislation should consider prioritizing creating new or expanding existing programs that align with SBT spending priorities.

Great, Council Member O'Brien, would you like to speak to it?

I'm sorry, I thought you were done.

Quick, draft legislation should be submitted no later than March 29th, 2019, end of first quarter.

Thanks Yolanda.

We've talked a lot about the sugar beverage tax, so I won't go on a length here.

The intent was pretty clear when we passed the legislation last year about how the funding would be spent.

What we saw in this year's budget was some fund swaps that may have technically met the letter of it, but certainly not the spirit.

And so the idea here is to set up a structure so that the revenue from the sugar beverage tax goes into a dedicated fund with very specific Guidelines on how that can be spent Instead of dictating that ourselves were giving us back to the budget office and say you understand what we want to do I hope tell us the best way to do that and If we don't like what they tell us we can come up with our own way, but that's the next step great councilmember swan I

Yeah, just to echo what Councilmember O'Brien said, I just wanted to express the support from my office to organizations like God Green and many community groups that have correctly insisted that the funds that are generated through this tax should be used to meet the spirit of what was intended, you know, and even if the letter of the law is satisfied, that's not the intent of the community groups who pushed for this tax.

And so if my office is not already officially supporting this, then I would like the name to be added.

And I think that this is an important thing.

Thank you Council Member Swant.

Council Member Worth.

Just briefly, thank you Council Member Ryan and Council Member Swant for your support and thank you Council Member Ryan for following up on this.

And I will take back my bait and switch comment.

Okay.

So do you want to add your name to this Council Member Worth?

Yes I would.

Okay.

Very good.

Anyone else?

I'd like to add my name.

Okay.

Your name's already there Council Member Muscat.

You don't get twice.

Anybody else like to add their name to the screen sheet?

It's not, but it could be.

All right, let's move on.

Item number four.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Item number four is Green Sheet 1-6-A-1.

This statement of legislative intent requests the city budget office to provide an analysis by June 30th of 2019 of the city's contracts for services above $100,000 for the past four years.

The analysis should identify the scope, work, duration, and price of each contract, the criteria that the city uses to decide when to contract out versus do work in-house, information about who in each department has the decision-making authority to contract in-house or go out, and a comparison of the number of employees, the cost, and the hours used for doing work outside versus doing it in-house.

Also, asking for any incidents in which contracting out resulted in the loss of city positions.

Okay.

Council Member Misquita.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I mentioned this statement of legislative intent last week.

We think it's critical that we do have the opportunity to contract out, especially in situations where we know community partners can be the best trusted entities to go around and do outreach to either vulnerable communities, workers, or small businesses.

We also know that sometimes we don't have the capacity in-house or the expertise and there's good reasons to contract out.

However, in an effort to try to both be fiscally responsible and make sure that we are building capacity and knowledge in-house, and streamlining our processes, we'd like to take a look at what the process of contracting out has been over the last few years.

And I will also note that at the past Labor Management Leadership Committee meeting that Councilmember Herbold and I had the chance to attend, which has been reinvigorated after the last four years what we heard directly from some of the workers and some of the folks on the front line is that they are very interested in having a better sense of how Contracting out has been used in the past and luckily enough.

We had a sly in the process here to evaluate that I do want to note three changes that we have made since speaking with you all last week at this full council meeting and One, we are doing a look-back period of just three years and not over ten years.

Two, we are looking at contracts of more than $100,000 or more and not $10,000 or more.

And number three, in response to the desire to have a better sense of what the timeline is, Madam Chair, we are asking for a response back by second quarter of 2019, by the end of second quarter 2019.

So on those look-back contracts, the three years, are you asking for outcomes?

What specific information would you like to see?

If I might read a few of the outcomes that we're looking at, if that's helpful, and please chime in.

Is it something other than one through six?

No, you have it exactly, yes.

Okay, so the scope of work, duration, and price of each contract, and then the criteria.

What I'm looking for, level of final decision-making authority.

Did we accomplish the goal, is really what I want to know.

Did that contract that we entered into result in either better processes, more information, some follow-up from a department, and not simply a good feeling because somebody asked for it?

That's great, that'd be very helpful.

Council Member Juarez.

I'll be very brief, and I believe Councilmember Gonzales brought this to our attention at our last meeting.

I appreciate the statement of legislative intent and the six areas that we'll be looking at, but I would again push that we are mindful about geographical parity, because we, since we've gone to a district system, have never looked at, we have these funds, these are all great variables and good things to look for in measurements and data points, but I'd also like to see where they're being dispersed throughout the city, and as you know, particularly in the north end, now that we have the LUMA report out, and know that the demographics and the needs have changed dramatically.

Thank you.

And the last census.

Thank you.

You know, one thing I might like to propose as a very friendly amendment here is that we've got a due date of June 30th on this.

I would be totally happy if we tried it in two batches so that the first batch may be of, you know, whatever departments are chosen, come back to us at the end of March, and then the second batch at the end of June.

It's going to be, I think, a significant body of work to do this, and if it's coming back to my committee, I'd like to have enough time to look at it, to have you involved and engaged in this.

And since I don't believe, unless things change, that you will be on that committee, I'd like you to be there so that you can help us describe next steps.

I would love to do that.

Thank you.

That's a great addition.

Very good.

And so is the geographical period.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other additions on this?

All right.

Please, let's go on to number five.

Item number five is a statement of legislative intent 1-7-A-1.

This would request that the city budget office submit a report evaluating the feasibility and the revenue impact for the city of exempting menstrual hygiene products from the city's portion of the sales tax.

That assessment would include both an evaluation of the opportunity for action that is within authority of the city as well as within that of the state as the sales taxes administered by the state.

The report would be requested by May 15th of next year.

Great.

Council Member Mosqueda, another one for you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a new slide that we've added to the mix based on conversations and feedback we've received from community.

and advocates asking for greater accountability and reform in our tax system.

This is really about making sure that we are creating opportunities to have a more equitable tax system.

The slide requests the executive to examine whether Seattle can independently exempt menstrual hygiene products from our portion of the sales tax.

or whether or not this requires the state to take action.

A number of years ago, I was part of an effort to try to make this change at the state level, and we know that there is an interest there, but Seattle has led in the past.

I think we can lead again in making this fix.

This also requests an examination of the revenue impacts of such an exemption so that we have the information in advance of any changes locally or attempts to make changes statewide.

This tax is commonly referred to as the tampon tax and there are several significant equity issues raised by extending a sales tax exemption to these products particularly given that most women or most users are women who also are being paid 76 cents on the dollar compared to men in King County.

I want to note just for the council's background since we didn't have a chance to talk about this last week, there are nine other states that are currently exempting tampons and pads from the sales tax.

Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Florida.

And most recently, in the states of Nebraska, Virginia, and Arizona, they are considering such a tax.

Around the world, this trend began in Kenya, which exempted sales tax for menstrual products in 2004. Other countries have followed suit, including Australia and Canada.

And Ireland started their value-add tax system without extending the tax to menstruation products.

So at best, I think this is an opportunity to move forward with reform to act tax policy that removes a tax on a necessary product for so many of our Seattle residents.

And I think at the very least, we'll walk away with a better understanding of what the tax revenue looks like from the sales on products that we believe are necessary.

We currently do not tax food.

We know that food is necessary.

And the initiative that is out there also does not tax food.

Nobody is talking about taxing food.

We also know that this is a necessary product for a large number of our population.

And I'm hopeful that we can get some analysis back from this study to follow the suit from other states and countries.

Thank you very much for doing this.

I'm 100% supportive of your efforts here.

Council Member Wuerz and Council Member Sawant.

I'll be very brief.

We had these discussions before, and I think it's known as the pink tax.

And so I was briefly discussing this with Council Member Mosqueda.

I would also like you to explore the exemption of diapers as well.

What we're learning in our food banks and the baby pantries, one of the first items to go besides baby food is diapers.

And we don't have enough of them, and they're very expensive.

And I would put that in there with this also imposed pink tax, and I'd like to see an exemption for baby diapers as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm very happy to support this.

You can add my name to this, but I also want to add that my office had looked into the, you know, what ability municipalities have to exempt various products from a humane standpoint.

And obviously the question of menstrual hygiene products is paramount among them.

And at that time, it seemed to us that because the state administers the sales tax, that the change needs to happen at state level.

But I would support any effort to look at what municipalities can do in this effort.

But I also hope that in this budget, the council also talks not just about studies, but actually real options for raising progressive taxes at the city level.

Great.

I appreciate that, Councilmember Swann.

I am also urging as we're going through all of these that we spend less time planning and more time actually trying a pilot if it's something that we have the data to support.

Councilmember O'Brien.

I'd love to add my name to that.

Okay, great.

So I'm seeing Councilmember Juarez, Swann, and O'Brien as being added to this.

Anybody else?

Okay.

Yes.

Yes, I would like to be supportive of this particular request.

My office had looked into potentially doing something similar just this year.

So excited about the more judicious approach being proposed by Council Member Mosqueda in terms of studying it.

And, you know, I would just, Punctuate my remarks by saying that I don't think I've ever heard the word menstruation and menstrual products used as much as it is today in these chambers and I applaud that Way to go.

I appreciate it I think you're getting some snapping fingers over here.

Well done.

Okay, so I am supportive of this.

I'm not going to be adding my name to most of these since as budget chair I'm going to have to be making some decisions, but I'm just on the record very supportive of this direction and studying it this year with a plan to move forward with legislation as needed as soon as we can get that.

And whether we want to work with OIR this year to begin thinking about statewide approach as well, I'm fine with that.

Okay, let's move on to the next.

Okay, Dan Eater, Council Central staff.

Item number six is Green Sheet 415A1.

This budget action would recommend adopting a resolution establishing Council's intent to use some tools in its oversight of the city's capital projects.

The resolution is a follow-up to Resolution 31720, which established a work program to enhance the city's capital project oversight.

The two of the tools that are identified in this resolution are quarterly reports, and for that one, there would be a process, timing, and format for the executive's enhanced quarterly project reports.

This will ensure that the council and the public have useful and timely information about project status.

The second tool is stage-based appropriations.

The legislation identifies risk factors and other considerations for when council may decide to consider imposing certain kinds of spending restrictions on capital projects.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to take this one on?

Absolutely, thank you.

I'm so excited about this body of work and thank you Dan Eater for working with my staff Noel Aldrich and bringing this forward.

As Mr. Eater noted, this is an update to a resolution by the Council in 2016 that initiated our effort to act on our wishes to have enhanced oversight.

And the resolution in 2016 specifically spoke to instituting new rigor and capital project oversight that will increase appropriate and timely oversight and provide more transparency to the public.

As Mr. Eder noted, this resolution creates new financial policies for the city as it relates to capital projects and identifies two particular areas in which we would have enhanced oversight.

This resolution would state the council's intention to work with the executive to create a watch list and projects on the watch list are projects that the council and the executive would together identify for enhanced reporting.

There is a template that we have created with the budget office for that enhanced reporting.

The resolution also identifies and gives us guidance on how and when we might use an approach that Councilmember Johnson has brought to my attention from his work on Sound Transit called stage gating.

And that's a process by which we get information from the executive in a timely basis according to our and the executive's identified benchmarks.

And only at that time do we release money for the next stage of the project.

So those are two different types of enhanced reporting that this resolution sets up as new financial policies for the city.

And I just want to note that we received a letter from the Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee, both to the council and mayor.

And one of the items that they note in regards to the updates to the MOVE levy is a request for more robust project cost tracking and speaking to the fact that they are requesting that SDOT commit to regularly reporting on progress and challenges as projects move through their development process, especially as the true cost to deliver these projects comes into greater focus, potentially forcing tradeoffs between desired outcomes.

This issue came to this council's attention with a couple of projects, one being the Customer NCIS, the new customer information system, which was millions of dollars over the original budgeted and planned cost, as well as the Elliott Bay seawall project, and really brought into fine focus the need for council to work collaboratively with the executive in getting a handle, basically, on increased costs as these projects move forward.

I don't think I have anything more to add.

Again, just really excited about moving this forward.

Thank you for doing that.

And I know last year, and I want to give you kudos again for acknowledging early on that there were problems with the First Avenue streetcar.

that probably would have been helpful if we had had information about that in advance.

Do you have a visual on what it is you're looking for?

I know I've seen some dashboards that, and we got this multiple times during the waterfront project, whether it was on schedule, was green, if there was problems, there was yellow, if it was either out of the schedule.

It became red.

If the budget was exceeded, same thing, green, yellow, red.

Do you have a visual on what you're looking for?

Absolutely.

The enhanced quarterly reports for projects on the watch list show projects that are green, yellow, or red based on risk factors.

And the risk factors are scope, schedule, budget, coordination, community impact, and political risks.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you for that.

I think it's a very heads up move and something that will be beneficial to this council and to our taxpayers.

Anybody else want to say anything on this?

Okay, nothing then let's move to the next one.

Thank you very much Council Member Herbold for that.

Number seven is Judgment and Claims Fund.

Thank you, Council Member.

I'm Lisa Kay, Council Central Staff.

This green sheet 12-20-A-1 would amend Exhibit A to Resolution 31847, which you will be considering next week, which revises the Judgment and Claims Fund policies and recommends that the Council then adopt the resolution as amended.

As you heard last week, resolution 31847 would revise the claims fund policies and request a 10-year policy review cycle.

The major changes that are proposed would be to set the budget for that claims fund at an amount to cover expenditures 90% of the time by 2023. to increase the threshold for claims reported to counsel from $100,000, which is a figure that was set in 2001, to $200,000, and to establish a Judgment and Claims Finance Committee to review expenditures, reserves, and forecasted future trends.

The amendment proposed by Council Member Bagshaw would amend policy 14 to add the council's central staff director or designee to the membership of the Judgment and Claims Finance Committee.

Great, thank you very much.

So my experience in my past life in the prosecuting attorney's office in King County was that they had an approach to risk management that I appreciated very much, and that is that they had a small committee that included their, it's now Dwight Dively, but his predecessor, the risk manager, the chief of the civil division, which I had the pleasure of serving, and Then we would meet quarterly, go through upcoming claims, see if there was anything out of whack, or if there were any issues with insurers that we needed to know about.

So I'm suggesting that we have this committee, but that we added the central staff director, and Kirsten Aristat is willing to do this.

And I think that she has demonstrated how important it is for us to have regular information.

between the executive and council.

So, that's the recommendation and I think that it will help tighten up some of the policies and procedures that we have been wanting to have tightened up.

Anybody else want to speak to it?

Okay, let's move on.

Oh, sorry, Council Member Johnson.

All right, thank you.

That was the protocol, right?

Yeah, if it's something important.

Raise your hand if you want to be added.

Yeah, thank you.

More Councilmember Musqueda.

Thank you.

Councilmember Juarez.

Councilmember Gonzalez.

I'm loving this.

Thank you very much No, he's cool cool And now that one is certainly a controversial one.

Okay, we're moving on to the office of the City Auditor.

I

Thank you Madam Chair, Lisa Kastel, Council Staff.

Item 8 is green sheet number 3-1-A-1.

This green sheet would add about $278,000 to the Office of the City Auditor for a year 2 report on the Secure Scheduling Ordinance.

That ordinance...

Very good.

Thank you.

Council Member Gonzalez, would you like to take this one?

Since it has your name on it.

Sure.

I spoke about this kind of ad nauseum last week.

So I feel like if folks need a reminder, I'm happy to do it.

But this is just a quick, brief highlight.

It's to add back to the city auditor's budget an amount of $278,410 in order to continue the legislated study in the existing ordinance regarding our secure scheduling ordinance.

And essentially, we committed to doing two years' worth of study.

The first year would be a baseline evaluation, which was completed by the city auditor's office.

The second year was intended to evaluate actual impact to workers and employers of the Secure Scheduling Ordinance.

And again, this is something that was legislated in the ordinance.

And I believe that we have a ongoing legal and statutory commitment under our own Muni Code to do the second study.

We can have conversations and debates amongst ourselves as to whether the full amount should be funded.

But in my mind, there's no question that a second year study has to happen.

The scale and scope is something that I am happy to talk to you, Chair, about how to move the dials there.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you, Council President.

Just a question, and I applaud the scope of work we're trying to achieve here.

Is the 278, is that ideally for headcount or is that a contract outside or do we know where's the numbers come from?

These are consultant dollars that would go to the city auditor's office.

And so in the first year they contracted with two different university researchers, which is why I'm raising the issue of scope and scale.

So perhaps we don't need to do the Cadillac version of the year two study, but in my mind there's no way around around the study because it is specifically legislated that we would do one in city law.

Thank you, and I also would like to repeat words that I said last time that we talked about this.

I think it would be really important for this council to come up with a way of communicating to the executive our expectation that when legislation includes a requirement, a legislated legal requirement for a study on the effectiveness of a bill, and the mayor signs that bill, that we expect that the funding for that study be included in the mayor's proposed budget.

Between the last time we talked about this item and today, I have learned about another study that was not included, funding for it was not included in the mayor's proposed budget, and that was the study on fair chance housing that this council passed, reducing housing barriers for people who have criminal backgrounds.

And I just think it's really important that when the council legislates and the mayor concurs with her signature, putting these policies into law, that we want to study the effectiveness of these laws, that the funding for those studies be incorporated in the mayor's budget so we're not looking for crumbs to figure out how to do what we have required by law and mandated.

Thank you.

Very clear.

I don't know how we're going to do that, but I think we should.

Okay, so I'm suspecting you want to add your name to this one?

Okay.

I think my name already is on it.

I'm not seeing it, so it is now.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Council Member Mosqueda?

I just wanted a name, not a comment.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

Let's move on.

Asha Venkatraman, Council Central Staff.

Moving into the Office of Arts and Culture.

Item number nine is Green Sheet 2-1A1.

It would add $75,000 to the Office of Arts and Culture to support racial equity alignment.

And this one would provide some funds for an organization that supports artists of color as well as immigrants and others experiencing structural oppression.

to do something like a series on creative strategies for racial justice and equity, or strategize with community organizations who are vulnerable to cultural displacement due to gentrification.

Council President Harreld, do you want to add anything?

I'll just say that we've sort of been piecemealing this kind of approach together for years out of individual budgets and I'm hopeful because of our commitment to Try to eradicate as much as or reduce as much as we could displacement issues that we could support this It's not a lot of money, but the impact on communities particularly communities of color are preserving their their cultural Sort of identity and their artistic expression goes a long way.

So I'm hoping we can get this through this year.

I

Okay, so I'm supportive of this effort.

Can I ask you when you want the funding will be used for investments such as expansion of the turning commitment into action model and strategizing with community organizations and individuals who are vulnerable?

You're talking about displacement.

This strikes me more as an investment in particular art projects.

And I think you've got another green sheet that's coming up that also is adding in video arts and 150,000 to support the museum.

Do they tie together or are they separate?

They're separate and what I'm, the larger issue for me is, and thanks for the opportunity to say, the larger issue for me is we continue to fight for housing and we fight for Again, to stop or stall displacement, I think now in 2018, 2019, it becomes almost critically important to look at some of the organizational activities out there that are occurring.

This is one example that we talked about on the green sheet was what happens at Martin Luther King Civil Rights Park.

The name has recently changed to the Civil Rights Park to commemorate different civil rights leaders.

that it becomes equally important now to start intentionally investing in these numerous activities that pull all these communities together.

And it's through this kind of activity that, again, grassroots efforts and other types of political strategies are developed.

So the museum is a separate project.

This one here, ideally, would be the many events that take place in the different community parks where there are activities.

There would be a process, of course, evaluation of what activities take place.

But we wanted to give an example.

So those are separate green sheets.

But again, many of us sponsor these events both personally and through budget.

And so this is an intent to be much more intentional about this investment strategy.

So those are different projects.

All right.

Thank you.

And this would go into the Office of Arts and Culture.

So as distinguished from the Department of Neighborhoods.

All right, anybody want to add on?

Yes?

Council Member Sawant, you want to speak?

Yeah, I would like to add my name to nine and I can go ahead and say about ten as well because I kind of wanted to speak to both.

One thing I was curious about is Why, why did the, any idea why the mayor's proposal did not include these?

Because I feel like these, like sort of these are annual things.

And, you know, like one of the examples that Council President Harrell mentioned was the MLK Celebration Committee.

I mean, so I'm just a little confused as to why these small amounts were left out.

Well, that was my main question, and you can add my name for both 9 and 10.

I don't believe that these were cuts that we are restoring.

These, I think, just came through the African-American Museum and MLK.

commemoration committee, or I'm sorry, the commemoration committee hasn't received funding from the city before through the Office of Arts and Culture.

And I believe the African American Museum has received funding before through arts grant programs, but I don't think those are ongoing grants.

So they tend to be year to year applications.

And so this would provide more ongoing funding, or at least for the next two years.

Thank you.

Okay, Council Member Heroult.

Thank you and I am signed on to as a sponsor to this.

I have been requested by the Director of the Arts Office to to share with council members the fact that the arts office has a cultural facilities fund that a lot of people believe is only for capital projects, but actually is also eligible for grants associated with programs.

And the funding is awarded on a competitive process and they make decisions in alignment with the city's race and social justice initiative.

And much like we don't fund you know, we don't fund sort of one-offs in human services.

They also would prefer to fund organizations' capital needs as well as their programmatic needs in a way that is consistent with a competitive RFP process that is, again, guided by one of the city's most deeply embedded race and social justice lenses.

And I would love to share with council members the recipients of those funds in recent years.

I do support this funding, but I would like us to consider it being only one year instead of two years so that we are in alignment with the Arts Office commitment to a process that treats treats folks seeking arts funds in a way that is fairly, and I have that same hope for items 10 and 11 as well.

Okay.

Council President Harrell.

Joe, I appreciate those comments.

Right now, I've actually helped navigate a group through that facilities grant for capital improvements, so I'm quite aware of that process.

The group I'm facilitating is literally 100 African-Americans trying to get simply $35,000.

And the problem with that approach, and this is why I think it needs to be sustainable, and this is why I think it should be for two years, is an example, again, is that huge event will take place every year.

And there's a lot of planning that goes on.

And what many of these organizations are trying to do are activate a park.

In this case, it's the Martin Luther King Syl Rice Park.

Again, the name has recently changed.

There's no restrooms there, for example, and what they're trying to do is not only do these one-off activities, but have it more sustainable, a series of events, a series of cultural gatherings where, again, civil rights leaders are brought in and different types of activities take place.

So it's not just a once-in-a-year celebration.

They're trying to have a sustainable model.

And to expect these grassroots organizations, many of whom are run by volunteers, every year to apply for a competitive grant is very distinct from intentional investing in activity that could preserve the culture of these communities.

So to say, go apply for this grant.

And sometimes, quite candidly, that particular group, and I've had conversations with members in that department, they are somewhat removed from these organizations.

And so they have people competing against each other, they can't do annual planning, and so I don't think what we're trying to achieve through this investment effort is quite different than, hey, go apply for this grant and hopefully you'll get lucky and get it.

So I get why that money's there, why we put the money there, I get that process.

That is distinct from investing into cultural preservation in 2019 and 2020, when all these folks Can't even, could barely even afford to live in the city.

So I think we need to, that's the old paradigm.

Go and apply for that money and cross your fingers and hope you get elected.

That's the old paradigm.

What I'm suggesting is we shift the conversation to intentional strategy, investing in cultural preservation.

Quite different than the grant program.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay, let's move on to the related item number 10.

Number 10 is Green Sheet 2-2A1.

This, as we mentioned, would provide $75,000 through the Office of Arts and Culture for an African American museum to support public programming, small businesses, and community organizations vulnerable to cultural displacement.

Great, thank you.

Council Member Harreld, do you want to speak?

Yeah, my blood pressure's high now all of a sudden.

Just joking.

Once again, we're trying to, I'm not going to get on a high horse or, what did we have last week, the soapbox?

Is that word, the soapbox?

I want to remind you that I'm a sponsor of both of these items.

I know.

I'm supportive.

But I didn't say this during the introduction of these is why, you know, I've gone through many budgets and I've looked at how we, In my mind, we have to start looking at themes of investment strategies.

And the African American Museum, I think, now becomes so much more culturally relevant than perhaps it was decades ago.

Right now, to tell the stories that are very real in the city, and then to couple that with modern activity and bringing in the youth and the elders, becomes critically important to what's happening in Seattle right now.

So I hope that, and these are modest sums, but again, the dividends that are paid off for cultural preservation are huge.

And again, modest amounts with a huge payoff.

So I hope we can support this and get it through the budget.

Great.

Anybody else like to add your name to this?

Okay, Council Member Warreth.

And Council Member Sawant, I've already added your name.

Okay, very good.

Thank you for that.

Council Member Herbold, your name's not as a co-sponsor.

Would you like to add it?

On item number 10.

It was intended to be, but yes.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

Thank you for your support during this process.

Okay, very good.

Number 11. Item 11 is Green Sheet 2-3A1.

It would add $50,000 to the Office of Arts and Culture for video educational programs.

It would support programs through expanding the reach of film organizations collections, providing materials to educators, increasing access to collections, and creating and facilitating lectures and film talks for the community.

Great.

Thank you.

This is Councilmember Johnson.

I just want to say thank you for inviting me with you to go see Scarecrow and to see the work they're doing.

So I appreciate what you're doing here.

Go ahead.

Great nonprofit doing good work.

I know when I was out at regional meetings last week that several of my colleagues voiced concerns about the use of the admissions tax to fund this particular item.

I have offered to the chair several different concepts about additional revenue that could come in, both general fund revenue and then specifically related to this, maybe we could look at alternatives like the Office of Film and Music as an alternative funding source.

So continuing to try to drum up additional revenue that's non-ad tax related.

Okay, could Council Member Herbold?

I also, on this one, had indicated to staff that I would support it.

My name's not on the sponsor, but I'm happy to sponsor it.

Great, we'll add it now.

Anyone else?

Okay, could we move to item 12?

Item number 12 is a statement of legislative intent 2-481.

It requests that arts submit a report after they review memorials, plaques, and artworks on city-owned land that reference, honor, or display Native American culture.

It would, the objective of the slide is to figure out principles and recommendations around the appropriateness or suitability of such art and monuments.

And it would partner with the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Departments of Neighborhoods.

Great.

Thank you.

This is something that was brought to my attention.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

that we have many things, many representational art, whether it is a stone, whether it is a totem pole around the city that has been here sometimes for over 100 years, that may have passed not only a useful life, but may have now moved into what is politically offensive to many.

Council Member Juarez, I'd like to ask you whether you want to speak to it today or whether you want to talk over the next few days.

Is this the best way to handle what we're trying to accomplish?

Because what I don't want to do is to have, to get this bogged down so that, you know, people are saying we haven't done a full study across the city.

What I'd like to be able to do is establish some principles working with you, with local tribes, with other organizations.

It was brought up to me last night that the Filipino organization would very much like to participate in this as well.

then for us to be able to make decisions one by one when they come to our attention.

Because otherwise, I can imagine somebody saying, well, we haven't looked at all of our 6,000 acres of parks.

So how would you like to approach this?

Do you have suggestions?

Make some general comments, and then I'll come right back to your question.

This really underscores the whole purpose why we added Native communities to our committee, that the needs of the indigenous folks and people that have been here go beyond human services or social services, but they do include art and, of course, economic development and a lot of other issues that are Native.

communities are native nations.

Sovereign nations engage in every day as a government, but we do have native folk that do live in the city of Seattle.

What I'm particularly struck by is that this finally, and thank you Councilmember Bagshaw, we finally have some place in the city family where we have, if you will, a portal, if you will, a process where groups like in city departments like OPCD, the Seattle Historical Society, the Seattle Design Commission, the Pi Place Market Commission, the Landmark folks, Office of Arts and Culture, Department of Neighborhoods, and of course, Department of Parks and other city members, where we actually have a committee where we look at things through, as you said and we talked about, not just a racial equity lens, but answering these questions to these communities about what is historical, what is cultural, what gets built, what gets saved.

And I think we had the discussion during Save the Showbox.

And so to me, this is more than just a if you will, a race or culturally based.

It is about the city and what it represents and having a place in the city government where we have actual discussions and go to those communities to determine those issues.

It begins the process to review not just art or memorials but other commissioned pieces and it also gives us an opportunity to look at through a true This is more to the indigenous piece, doing a true indigenous and authentic lens.

And it's forward looking and it's backward looking.

And I think that this is a really good place to start.

Good.

And is this something that we could bring through your committee?

Oh, absolutely.

In fact, that's why when we included Native communities, I think a lot of people thought that that was just restricted to, again, not that that's not important, human services, social services, housing, Medicare, Medicaid, all of those things that we talk about when we work with all of our organizations.

But we also work closely with six tribes within King County, and more importantly, we work closely with Muckleshoot, Tulalip, Swinomish, Suquamish, Snoqualmie, I mean, Puyallup.

So Indian country is far and wide.

It doesn't stop at the county line or the city line.

These are all regional issues and, of course, statewide issues.

And so I'm proud that this city and the legislative branch is, I think, one of the first cities to have Native communities in a committee and now to have a slide that would actually talk about How do we honor or display Native American art and culture?

Because we do have some mishaps, and that's a whole other conversation.

But I think one of the things about, and I'll let Council Member Sawant add something to this as well, without sounding too sanctimonious, one of the things about when we say decolonize isn't about some radical theory or thought.

It's basically just about telling the truth.

And it's about talking about who was here first and what really reflects this city and this art and this history and this heritage.

And it just is an Anglo-American European art and culture.

I'll leave it at that.

Very good.

Council Member Sawant and then I'd like to just put a postscript on this.

Thank you.

I would like to add my name to support this report that should be submitted to conduct a review, as Council Member Juarez has said.

And I agree with Council Member Juarez.

It is about telling the truth.

And what has happened with Native American cultures, arts are among them, but you know, culture is a much bigger phenomenon than just art.

It's about life itself, their way of life, and their, you know, heritage of how they have built their communities.

And I think it has gone from virtual erasure of their culture to then other, the ruling elite telling the story of what is actually native culture.

And instead, I think we should have native communities themselves talk about what it is that they want as cultural representation.

So I welcome this slide and I'm happy to support this.

Good, thank you very much.

My postscript to this is, Council Member Woods, I would suggest that you and I as Chair and Vice Chair of your committee get something going as soon as budget is over.

Let's put our heads together, figure out how we can in December have a first meeting, invite whomever that you would point to to say, let's come sit at a table together, talk about what principles that we can agree on, invite the mayor's office to participate through OIR.

But I'd like us to get going as soon as budget's over so it doesn't like lapse.

Very good.

All right.

So Council Member Sawant, we'll add your name.

Anybody else?

Councilmember Morris, you're there?

Councilmember Muscata?

Okay, please let's move to the next item.

Madam Chair, may I ask a quick question just in terms of process?

Since many of us have signed on to these documents already, in the introductory comments, would it be possible to ask that the prime sponsor and the co-sponsors be named as well just for the record?

Right, and of course we can do that.

The prime sponsor for this one is me and we've got Councilmember Juarez, Councilmember Muscatin, Councilmember Sawant identified as as Councilmember sponsors as well.

Oh, yeah, that's perfect.

No, I just meant that as we go forward to the next ones if the if the staff doesn't mind doing the introduction as well.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That way as they get read in folks have a general orientation.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the next one is the imposing a proviso on arts for capital facilities.

It's item number 13 and the primary sponsor is Councilmember Herbold.

Go ahead.

So this item would add $150,000 to support Town Hall's renovation.

In previous years, the council has supported funds to help Town Hall with its renovation that's supposed to be completed in the next couple months.

And so adding this $150,000 would take the city's total contribution to Town Hall to $1 million.

Very good.

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

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Just referencing an email I received from Board Member Yasmin Mehdi this morning.

She explains that a series of recent construction setbacks have tacked an additional eight weeks and $1.5 million onto the project's budget.

And these were, again, unanticipated construction related overruns that, from their perspective, the architect should have identified, but it relates to seismic reinforcement that was not, needs for seismic reinforcement in the enhanced steel program in the attic that was not, was not identified earlier in the project.

And this is a project that is a $30 million project.

They have received almost $25 million in private funds through fundraising.

1,100 people have contributed this nearly $25 million.

They have, in the past, through the Cultural Facilities Fund, applied for funding from the city and received funding.

And they've also received significant funding from King County, as well as from Washington State.

From King County, I think they've received nearly $2 million, and the state of Washington has given $3.5 million.

They are requesting an additional $150,000 from the city of Seattle to round out our contribution to $1 million.

And if with the city's continued commitment, they believe that that will allow them to leverage additional support from the county, as well as from folks who have already contributed on their private fundraising list.

And, you know, Town Hall is 20 years old in March 2019. It's a really important piece of our civic cultural infrastructure and support for Town Hall is leveraged across the audiences and organizations who rely on it every day.

They have really amazing low-cost admission, $5 or free, and their programs are are sort of a, it's a community curated calendar approach.

And for the investments that the city has made in the past, they always commit to significant public benefits in exchange for those commitments.

And there would be a public benefit requirement associated with this funding if the council supported it.

Very good.

And just for clarification, there's nothing in for 2019, and this puts the 150 in, correct?

That's correct.

150 to 300 is 0 to 150. OK, very good.

Let's move to 14. Tab 14, I should say.

Any other comments on that one on the town hall?

We have a hand up over here.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm doing the thing I'm supposed to do.

I raise my hand.

Sorry about that.

I should have asked for that.

Any other support?

I'd like to support that too, since one of our colleagues said I was hard on you on the other ones.

I'd love to support you, Council Member Herbold.

Public apology.

Okay, let's move to tab 14.

Item number 14 is Green Sheet 221A1.

This is for the Office of Economic Development.

It's a proposal by Councilmember Herbold, supported by Councilmember Johnson and Councilmember Juarez.

This Green Sheet would add $185,000 of general fund in 2019 and in 2020 to the Office of Economic Development for a transgender economic empowerment program.

The funding would support a nonprofit organization that works with transgender and gender nonconforming residents to help them receive health care, legal, and employment assistance.

This is related to the Seattle Transgender Economic Empowerment Program that is run by the Ingersoll Gender Center.

In 2018, the adopted budget had added $100,000 for a pilot expansion of this program at the 2019 and 2020 proposed budgets.

This does not include funding for this.

Okay, three people signed on.

Councilman Hurwud, do you need to say anything on it?

It's pretty self-explanatory, but would you like to say something?

Thank you for the overview.

I'm sensing a strong prompting from the now budget chair for us to move on, and I will follow his lead and show leadership.

And Council Member Swatt, do you want to sign on?

Yeah.

Council Member Swatt, you're already on.

Council Member Ware, do you want to say something?

I just want to say something.

Oh, please do.

I'll be really quick.

I just want to say I'm with Council Member Herbold.

And I'd like to sign on on this one as well.

And Council Member Bryan.

All right.

See, that's how you dispense of the That's leadership there.

Okay, let's move on to tab.

Which one?

Item number 15.

Item number 15.

On the agenda is green sheet 22-2A1.

This would add $110,000 in 2019 and $60,000 in 2020 to OED for our legacy business designation program.

This is a proposal from Councilmember Herbold and is supported by Councilmember, Council President Harreld.

This builds on the legacy business work that OED has undertook with resources added by the council in 2017 and 2018, and program elements could include but are not limited to developing and launching a nomination process, developing a marketing and branding plan, promoting technical assistance tools that have either been designed specifically for legacy businesses or could be programs that legacy businesses could benefit from, as well as looking at the potential development of a memorandum of understanding with existing community development funds that currently provide business assistance and have interest in supporting legacy businesses.

So this would be working with community partners to look at their funds as another opportunity to support these legacy businesses.

Very good.

And I think the key paragraph that Ali talked about, At the end is this program would prioritize the most vulnerable businesses likely to be ethnic minority and immigrant owned businesses rather than providing benefits only to businesses which are already thriving and stable.

So Council Member Herbold, would you like to add to that?

Thank you.

Much like Councilmember Gonzalez in a previous meeting referred to a budget item that she would fall on her sword for, this is mine.

I've been sort of plugging along on this since pretty much day one in my time as a council.

It was one of the first constituent meetings I took.

was with a constituent who was promoting that Seattle should establish a legacy business program like other cities have done as a way, you know, changing city to recognize that sometimes, much like landmarks are a bridge to our city's culture and history because of their physical form, sometimes businesses as gathering places, also are a bridge to our city's history and culture.

I have, in the last two budget cycles, squirreled away a little money for OED to begin to develop and work with consultants in identifying what legacy business program might look like after two years of study.

Office of Economic Development has identified some concrete next steps in developing the program, and it's time to, as Budget Chair Bagshaw said, go beyond studies and move into action.

Thank you.

Well said.

Anyone like to sign in on this green sheet?

I see some hands going up.

Who'd like to sign in on this one?

Councilman Juarez, are you in?

Yeah.

Councilman Juarez is in.

Brian, you in?

You're not supposed to do that.

Mr. Chair, may I ask a quick question?

Yes, Council Member Esqueda.

Thank you.

Just a quick question for the sponsor.

Are you also envisioning that some of these legacy businesses could be preserved and potentially housing could be built above it if the first or second floor of a building were to be protected?

Office of Economic Development is working on a number of different tools that would be used to help legacy businesses either stay in place or move if there is a redevelopment of their location.

The tools that are necessary to preserve legacy businesses are really unique according to the circumstances, but in the instances that The threat to a legacy business is related to redevelopment of a piece of property where that legacy business is located.

Yes, the notion of co-locating a legacy business in a development with other uses, such as housing, is part of a legacy business.

of how other cities have worked and how in some cases there have been a couple of really notable examples.

Hugo House is one recent example where they were forced to move and they were forced to move and were then later integrated by a developer who developed housing in their new space.

So there's a suite of tools that can be developed with this program and that's one of them.

I appreciate that and Councilmember Herbold I'm I'm also laughing about the conversation we had about this yesterday and I kept asking you well could this business be and you're like that's what we're trying to do is to develop the process but thank you for that I think it's a great idea.

All right so we'll move on to item number 16.

Great.

Item number 16 is Green Sheet 22-3A-1.

This would add $150,000 of general fund in 2019 to OED for economic development support services for small businesses.

This would provide funding to contract with an outside organization who provides services to support greater economic stability, security, and growth for small businesses, such as the Equity Empowerment Center at Tabor 100. This is a proposal from Council President Harreld and supported by Council Member Herbold.

Council President Harreld, do you want to speak to it?

Just real quickly, this funding, if accepted, puts structure or infrastructure and capacity building around organizations that could advocate for small minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses.

We saw a group like cable 100 as an example come out strongly for minimum wage and ban the box and other types of legislate progressive legislation that we support but in addition to that giving minority contractors an opportunity to Collectively go over work plans bring in companies when they're bidding on jobs that kind of activity, so I think it'd be a very beneficial investment for the city Thank you anybody else like to add their name

Was that you, Council Member Johnson?

Johnson and I got good eye contact.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

I'm glad you do.

Okay, let's move on to 17.

Patricia Lee, Council Central staff.

This is Green Sheet 271-A-1.

Prime sponsor is Council Member Gonzalez, supported by Council Member Mosqueda.

This Green Sheet would add $205,000 general fund in 2019 and $190,000 general fund in 2020 to the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs for the Legal Defense Fund.

The legal defense fund was started in 2018, co-funded with the city and county.

In 2018, the city provided $1 million.

In the 2019 proposed budget, that amount has been reduced to $795,000 in anticipation Matching funds from the county the green sheet would increase the city's commitment to a annual 1 million dollar Contribution similar to what was provided in 2018.

Very good.

Um, council member gonzalez.

This is yours, but I support you wholeheartedly on this.

So, please go ahead Thank you so, um I feel really strongly about making sure that, as a city, we don't cut the existing funding available for the Legal Defense Fund.

In 2017, during a third-quarter supplemental ad, we were able to work with the City Budget Office to identify $1 million of additional revenue and appropriate it to creating a legal defense fund here at the city of Seattle for the first time in the history of our state, designed to specifically provide civil legal aid to immigrants who were at risk of removal proceedings and deportation.

This was done in part as a response to extreme amounts of concern being expressed by our undocumented brothers and sisters in this city who both live and work here.

in the aftermath of the election of 2016 where Trump was sent to the White House.

And then this morning I wake up and the first thing I see on my news feed is that this president is now proposing to unveil and roll out an executive order to violate the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution by denying people who are born here to undocumented immigrants their right to be a U.S. citizen.

That is shameful, and it is a flagrant violation of the rule of law and our Constitution and everything that I believe this country can be.

And so now is not the time for us to move away and back away from the Legal Defense Fund.

Let me tell you, if I could find an additional million dollars, I would make this thing $2 million every year for the next two years, because that is the scale of need we're going to continue to see as it relates to this funding.

I just cannot express how important it is going to be for us to continue to invest in this space and to make sure that King County and the state of Washington also do the same because Trump is coming for our families, he's coming for our communities, and now he's even putting himself out there to incite his white nationalist base to rip away our natural born rights when we are born to immigrants in this country.

It is shameful.

And I hope that I can have and count on your support.

And I'll just add to that, you know, that since we have launched this in 2018, we have screened 896 people with $1 million.

We have accepted nearly 500 clients who were at risk of deportation and being removed from this country and separated from their families.

These are asylum seekers, much like the moms and children coming from Honduras to the United States right now.

They are survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

And this is how we make sure that we live our progressive values, is by investing in this huge need for civil legal aid, because the government has a lawyer 100% of the time, and people who are being subjected to being torn apart from their families and removed from this country are never provided a free attorney and this is I think the single most important way we can help immigrants and refugees in the in the face of this horrific administration who Just when I think they have gone as far as I think they could go, he goes further.

And it's just getting to the point where it's unimaginable the ripple effect and the terror that this man and his white nationalist supporters are creating in our communities.

Thank you.

Do you want to speak to it or just add your name?

I've got everybody's name on it so far.

No, I just had some quick...

Thank you, Council Member Gonzalez for your passionate support and we are all with you on this because we are afraid not to.

Let me just say this.

I'm just going to say this quickly because it's so, and I believe this is citywide and not just citywide, but now in particular for District 5, as I talked about the other day when our LUMA report came out and we were just again blown away by the statistics on our immigrant and refugee community that has exploded in the north end in the client group according to our report 90% of our students are immigrants and refugees and They're from all social economic levels and according to the luma report several organizations that provide social welfare services That were surveyed result in a 16% need for immigrant refugee or citizenship assistance in North Seattle alone and that isn't just particularly in in district 5 and that What we are seeing, as I said and I shared, of the four main groups that we are focused on are the study found one of the four was immigrant, refugee, and new citizens in our country.

And I'm really ashamed that our president does not understand the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

And I was horrified to think that he thought that somebody told him that he could change it with an executive order.

So I'll leave it at that.

Yes, I agree with you.

All right, I think you've got unanimous support on this one.

Let's move on to the Office of Intergovernment Relations.

If I may, Chair Begich, does that unanimity include yourself?

I don't know if you want to stay office chair or.

I'm going to be supportive of it.

Get everybody's name on it and we'll move it forward.

So number 18. Number 18 is Green Street 27-1A1.

It would add $88,000 in 2019 and 2020 to the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs for contracts with community-based organization addressing poverty.

This funding was cut in the mayor's budget as part of a wider cut cutting state lobbying efforts.

And so this would restore a portion of that funding at $88,000.

The current contract is held by the Statewide Poverty Action Network.

And so these funds would support such an organization in 2019 and 2020. Council Member O'Brien, do you want to speak to it?

Thanks.

We have contracted with Poverty Action Network for the past number of years as an ally down in Olympia.

I think we've all talked at various times about the crisis we're facing around homelessness and the role poverty plays in that.

And we also talk about how we need to have good partnerships, including with the state.

And I think having an ally like Poverty Action Network, or someone else that's an expert in this we could contract with, To be another set of eyes and ears and voices down in Olympia in the budget session, I think, is critical to our success for potentially millions and millions of dollars of investment in our community.

And I think this is a smart investment.

So I hope folks will restore it.

Can I just ask, how does Office of Intergovernment Relations contract with Poverty Action Network as contrasted to other consultants and advocates that they contract with.

Do you know, is it competitive or is it just they go out and hire or contract with this particular organization?

I don't know the distinction between how they do this versus others.

My understanding, but I'm not an expert, does anyone at the table want to speak to this?

I don't know for sure, but I can check in with them and get back to you.

Good.

I'd like to know because, you know, of course we've had conversations around whether or not we continue to fund Our involvement with the Association of Washington Cities, there's been some concern that AWC is not 100% an advocate for the city of Seattle because it also represents small communities.

I'd like to have a real clarity around who else we contract with.

Yes, I can get back to you all.

And apologies, I forgot to mention the co-sponsors on this are Council Member Herbold and Council Member Johnson.

Thank you.

Anybody else want to add on on this one?

Okay, please continue.

Anything else you wanted to add, Mo?

Okay, good.

Number 19 is our Office of Labor Standards.

This is Green Sheet 28-1-A-1.

The prime sponsor is Councilmember O'Brien, supported by Councilmembers Johnson and Mosqueda.

This would add $250,000 in 2019 and $250,000 in 2020 to the Office of Labor Standards for the Labor Standards Community Outreach and Education Fund.

In 2015, when the Office of Labor Standards was identified and established as an independent department in the city, the city also established funding for community outreach.

This was in recognition that a lot of these workers and people who need to know about what their rights and protections are, are not going to be reached through a government office.

They're going to be reached out of community-based organizations.

The current funding is a hefty $3.2 million for the Community Outreach Fund.

However, we also, in the Mayor's 2019 budget, provided five additional staff to the Office of Labor Standards, two of whom are specifically for the new Domestic Workers Ordinance.

This funding would allow these community-based organizations to provide that same kind of specific outreach for the Domestic Workers Ordinance.

Council Member O'Brien.

Yeah, I think folks are generally aware of this.

As we continue to provide more protections for workers in our community, it's important that we both invest in city staff to provide the regulations and also the outreach work.

And so, this is simply trying to match the city investment with the outreach work we're doing on the outside.

Anyone else like to speak to this?

Just to support it.

Sure, okay.

Good, we have council members who want to be added to this.

Thank you.

Let's move on to item number 20, and this is to increase funding for Office of Housing, and the primary sponsor is Council Member Swann.

Council Member Tracy Ratliff, Council Central Staff.

Moving to tab 24-1A1.

This would increase funding in the Office of Housing for affordable housing by $480 million, and this would happen through a let-go bond issue.

This would require $19.5 million in general fund in 2019, and $40.5 million of general fund in 2020 to pay the debt service on that bond.

Council Member Sawant.

Thank you.

Just to give a little bit of a background on why my office has been trying really hard to find various options for expanding affordable housing, publicly owned affordable housing or social housing on a large scale, not just a few hundred, but having thousands of units built up front in a year or hundreds of units on an ongoing basis every year.

I mean, obviously the background on this is the massive unaffordability of Seattle here.

We know that just one statistic, there are hundreds of statistics, but just one statistic is that nearly half of Seattle renters are cost burdened, meaning they're paying rent at an unsustainable rate.

They're not homeless yet, but they are on the path to homelessness if something is not done.

urgently, and we know that the cost of housing, the burden of rent, skyrocketing rents, falls disproportionately on the shoulders of the indigenous community, black and brown families, and the LGBTQ community, not to mention that a big swath of working families is caught up in this deadly trap of having to pay your rent and then having very little left over for your other needs.

And this is also in light of the upcoming three-year anniversary, unfortunately, the three-year anniversary of the declaration of the Emergency on Homelessness, and we are still, the city is still in a very dire situation.

And I think it is extremely important for this council to look seriously at as big of a solution as possible this year to implement, you know, going forward for next year and the years after that to address housing affordability because we cannot We are all united against the Trump administration and all the horrific policies that they are bringing forward, but we cannot say that Seattle genuinely is a welcoming city unless it's also an affordable city, and it is really incumbent on us to make massive investments on affordable housing.

So this proposal is one such proposal.

It will, if it is moved on forward, it will make a massive investment on affordable housing.

It would issue bonds to build 3,000 to 5,000 homes up front that would also be, by virtue of funding construction of homes, it will also be a green, unionized, living wage jobs program.

It would authorize bonds to build 3,000 to 5,000 homes up front.

Obviously, it will take time for the Office of Housing and the non-profit housing providers to build up the capacity to do that construction.

And all of that needs to be taken into consideration, which is why this green sheet would authorize the bond.

But as always, we would give the department the discretion to build the housing as rapidly as they can given their constraints.

I would also point out that $480 million is what my office and the People's Budget Movement is proposing.

If council members are not comfortable with that amount and would rather propose a larger amount, hey, I would be delighted.

But if you're not comfortable with this large an amount and you want to talk about a smaller amount, I would be happy to work with you on that.

We chose $480 million because that is what it would be necessary to build a minimum of 3,000 affordable social housing units.

At this stage of the budget deliberations, it is not expected that council members will identify how things will get paid for.

But we have gone above and beyond what is required at this stage because, so even though the green sheets today are not required to have a funding source, because we're talking about a major project, my office has taken a lot of effort to look at this seriously and get numbers to support the idea.

As we discussed last week, I'm bringing forward three potential ideas for how affordable housing can be paid for.

But if there are other ideas and better ideas, I'm happy to support that.

What is not acceptable to me or the movement that's fighting for this is to do nothing or do very little.

It's unfortunate, it's deeply unfortunate that the mayor's proposal for the budget does not include one dollar over what is absolutely required through the levies and state and federal grants and so on.

So this idea uses bonding.

The other two will be discussed in items 21 and 26 of today's agenda, and I will speak to those items when they come up.

Last week, there was some discussion about whether a bond of this magnitude is possible.

Erickson is here from central staff to prepare to answer any questions about that.

However, just the short answer is that the city uses bonding all the time through something called the LTGO bonds, which is limited term general obligation bonds.

The state sets a cap on how much a municipality can bond against, but the proposal is well under that limit.

And including what we have already used as bonding capacity, plus this proposal is still well under that limit.

I will, yeah, I have points for the other items which I will, and actually just to add one, a few points before Eric comes in.

Clearly we have to also make proposals to pay off the mortgage, you know, pay off the debt for the bonding to be a serious proposal.

I mean, I'll make specific points on items 21 and 26, but I just wanted to state for the record that it is my overwhelming preference to make debt service payments by bringing back either the Amazon tax or by proposing other big business tax rather than trying to figure out small amounts that can be cut, that can be diverted from other departments, and obviously I don't expect agreement on all the proposals we have to divert funds in the item number 21. So my overwhelming preference would be to do actually what is the most sustainable and the most required, which is a big business tax like the Amazon tax.

However, we could make those payments by redirecting funds from less important or even harmful city expenditures, and that possibility I will discuss in number 21. Again, I'm happy to support any options for large-scale affordable housing that council members may have that I am not aware of.

I'm happy to sign on to that, but in the absence of other ideas, I would really urge council members to support this and also ask questions because we're working on an ongoing basis.

It's a work in progress, but we want to address the crisis of homelessness and the crisis of skyrocketing rents and unsustainable rents for those who are not already homeless.

And so what we need is a sizable solution that is in scale, in proportion with the crisis.

Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak to this?

Yeah, please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the sponsor of this.

You encouraged us to ask questions, so I might just ask a few.

First, I want to say I think it's really important that we continue to look for large-scale opportunities to build affordable housing, and thank you for trying to continue to push the envelope on what's possible.

You mentioned some of the payoff questions and then the stream questions and I just had two quick questions that I'm hoping someone can help me address and I first also want to apologize that I wasn't able to ask these questions in a way that was helpful last week.

So number one, are there any revenue streams that are currently available besides the possibilities of revenue streams on the horizon that the sponsor mentioned that could support a 20-year bond if it was issued to raise 480 million up front?

I think Council Member Sawant has given a couple of options, the big business tax or there's a list I think of a couple of different cuts that you may want to speak to.

I can speak to that, but I would ask the Chair to advise me on when I should speak.

But I think the question is, is there anything aside from that that could generate that kind of funds?

Yeah, currently in hand.

Which I would actually be very interested as well.

Okay, it's okay.

It sounds like probably not.

If you'll forgive me, it's a perfectly legitimate question, but it's also somewhat expansive.

The city's general fund budget is, I actually forget off the top of my head, it's 1.3, 1.4 billion, 1.6 billion.

Six billion.

Six billion now.

So within that level of appropriation, there are other places that one could look for an offsetting cut for that level of debt service, which is about 40, million dollars a year.

Customers who once made some, certainly not all of that full amount is available for reduction without strings due to any number of causes such as need for the expenditure, contractual obligations, that sort of a thing.

And then again, on the other hand, there are revenue directions.

The city's explored a number of new revenue streams over the last few years.

Some of them are being collected.

The sweetened beverage tax is used for other purposes, but that's a recent tax increase.

There's the short-term rental tax, which is being programmed for more similar purposes, but not at that level of revenue.

The city has also pursued a high income or high earners income tax and of course the employee hours tax that was investigated earlier this year.

That's helpful.

I think I'll hold my other questions for some of the other.

I'm sorry, Council Member Muscat, I didn't hear.

Oh, that's okay.

That's helpful.

I'll hold my other questions.

Well, I will say this, that for the last year or so, I have been really beating the drum about having a regional approach that I think our City of Seattle taxpayers keep telling us over and over again.

They've hit that point where they say we shouldn't be shouldering this all by ourselves.

And Councilmember Mosqueda and I have spoken many times about looking to Los Angeles as a model, what they did with Proposition Triple H, and with their Measure H, which really brought their community together saying, we can't just keep nickeling and diming this.

And with that, I completely concur with Councilmember Sawant.

We can't have, you know, add a few millions of dollars.

We know that round numbers, if we want to add a permanent supportive housing unit for 100 people, that's a $30 million investment.

So 100 people at a time isn't going to do what we need to have done.

Council Member Sawant talked about $480 million.

You know, that number is really underscored and supported by the McKinsey Report, which came out last spring, saying if we're going to make a big difference, it has to be multiple counties.

It can't just be King County by ourselves, and we know that we have underproduced a whopping 175,000 units to address the need of people who are here and jobs and employers who are coming.

But we need to have everybody at the table to say, yes, we're going to make that kind of big investment.

Two years ago, we looked at just a property and sales tax, and it was something that our former mayor proposed in conjunction with Dow Constantine.

I think Nick Hanauer was also supportive of that.

It just folded from lack of support.

So I think part of what we've got to do is really recognize that we need to have a big investment.

The whole community needs to be engaged in this and we can't simply do a long term government obligation bond.

without having a clear revenue source on how we're going to pay that back.

So I am totally open to working with Councilmember Muscata and Councilmember Sawant on looking at this going forward.

I am not in favor of trying to issue almost a half a billion dollars of LTGO on the city of Seattle alone.

Thank you.

I just had a question.

It was mentioned that there is a cap in LTGO bonds that we are allowed to issue per year.

I believe it was said there was a state cap.

I'd be interested to know what that cap is as well as also would like to know for sake of comparison what a typical year, and if you can't say what a typical year is, maybe what last year's LTO issuance was, LTGO.

I can address both those.

The statutory cap from the state is equal to 1.5% of the city's assessed property value for tax purposes, and it's currently about $3.2 billion, against which there's less than $800 million of outstanding debt currently that counts against that LTGO cap.

So that's not really a practical binding constraint at this point, even for three figure, or however many figures if you add all the zeros in, issuance.

The practical constraint is the ability to actually pay the debt service on the issue.

And as for your second question, I don't recall the 2018 figure, but the proposed, the mayor's proposed 2019 budget has a little less than 55 million of proposed new LTGO debt.

$55 million for all of the debt-issued projects for the entire year across several, I'm assuming, several capital departments.

So yeah, there's some IT project bonds, bonds to support some FAS projects for like various facilities and some transportation projects that are backed by a commercial property tax.

So that's the LTGO issuance that's proposed there.

And do they all have an ongoing revenue source to pay them off?

So for LTGO, the limited tax general obligation is the term there.

The city is pledging Ultimately, it's property tax authority, but broadly speaking, it's a full range of available resources to make that debt service.

And so, in some cases, like the transportation projects where we're using another source instead because that is available and an appropriate source for a transportation project.

commercial property or parking tax revenue.

But in general, it is the city's general fund resources that are backing that debt service.

And so the resources available for that debt service is all of them.

And therefore, that debt service is in competition with all the other all the other purposes to which the city devotes general fund.

That's why it makes it a very kind of expansive question.

I'm going to ask Dan and then come back to Council Member Swann.

I just wanted to emphasize what Eric was saying.

The proposed budget includes a debt service for the anticipated bond issues, both the bond issues that are proposed to happen in 2019, as well as the outstanding debt, which has been issued in past years.

So the proposed budget, in answer to your question, Council Member Herbold, includes the debt service for all of the outstanding debt, including the expected new debt that would be issued next year.

So that is a line item in the budget.

It happens every year.

Ultimately, we don't have a choice about whether to pay the debt service, but that is handled year by year.

And this year, all of the debt service has been accounted for.

Would you remind me, On a pie chart, how much of that pie is debt service that we're paying out of the general fund?

It's about $30 million that is LTGO debt service.

I'd have to get back on some of the other.

I think that it was a significant percentage of the pie that is being committed to paying back what we have already committed.

So I'd like to have that number.

We have financial policies established for how big that wedge of the overall general fund pie can get, and we are within the limits of the financial policies, but I don't know offhand what

Yeah, I know that we're not in any trouble that our, the folks that look at our financial system give us a thumbs up.

But I think it's really important for us to be looking at that and that what we're doing is committing future councils and future taxpayers to be paying back things that we would be committing for now.

So I just would like to have a reminder of what that is.

Can I follow up my line of questioning here?

Sure.

I've got one more.

Thank you.

Council Member Swann.

I appreciate that.

So it's pretty clear to me that with perhaps the exception of the bond that is backed by the commercial parking tax that We don't, as a matter of policy, and we do have policies related to LTGO debt, as a matter of policy, we don't require there to be a fund source to pay off the issuance of bond debt as a prerequisite for taking out bonds.

So you're talking about a dedicated source?

Right.

Is that the case?

That's correct.

So there's a statutory limit again on the amount of debt that can be issued and then the practical effect, the practical limitation ultimately at this point is can enough resources within the general fund be devoted to the collective debt obligation, the general obligation there.

as opposed to unlimited tax general obligation bonds, UTGO bonds, which are not issued by council authority, but rather have to be approved by voters and they get a dedicated property tax stream to support that.

The city does issue also some utility bonds that are revenue bonds that are, that have a, they're a different kind of bond and are, have effectively like a dedicated particular identified revenue stream for that.

But on the general fund side, no, that's not a requirement.

So I'm bringing this up because I feel like when we've raised this issue before about issuing bonds to pay for affordable housing, we've sort of tied ourselves in knots around identifying a ongoing revenue source to pay it back.

And as a matter of policy, we don't do that for issuing debt generally.

So I kind of want to make that point.

Make sure that we're thinking about our housing needs in the same way as we're thinking about the other needs that are met on a yearly basis with bond issuance.

I don't support a bond of this size, but I do support ongoing housing bond investments in housing.

And I believe you were the main sponsor of the $29 million bond that we issued two years ago during a budget cycle.

Excuse me a second.

Council members, I'm going to ask you to close off this conversation.

I just want to point out to my colleagues, it's getting close to 1130. We still have nine items to go forward and to discuss before we take our break and then we're back at two o'clock.

So if anybody has new meetings scheduled, we're closing in on it.

Thank you.

Please go ahead.

So I appreciate Council Member Herbold clarifying that.

I think that is an important clarification that the council should use the same standards for when we talk about bonds for affordable housing that we use for bonds to fund other priorities that the city might have.

Just want to respond to a few things.

One, you know, just to also point out that the 29 million was won because the movement really fought for it to build 1,000 homes.

campaign that came out of the Block the Bunker campaign.

I mean, those $29 million became available because young people from the Black Lives Matter movement fought to stop the police bunker from being funded.

And it was really good for Council Member Herbold and my office and others to work on that to actually make that possible.

Council Member Baxhaw mentioned the regional approach.

I would not like anything, I would love to have a regional approach, but as you yourself pointed out earlier, Council Member Baxhaw, the one table effort has yielded us very little, and furthermore, Whether we talk about citywide or regional, it is a question of who pays for it, and it is not a neutral question, and it's not a geographic question.

I think big business and the super wealthy should be paying for it, because that is the only sustainable way to do this, because too much burden is falling on ordinary working people.

And as far as also putting this number in perspective, As I said, I welcome council members to make a proposal for something lower than this, but just to explain why we're talking about this, as you said, Council Member Bakhsha, the study, ironically sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce itself, talked about the scale at which we need to work, and this is the scale at which we need to work.

But I also remind council that Projects like, for example, the Mercer Street redevelopment project that was a priority for Amazon, that became a priority for the council, and we supported that, and it was partially funded by the Seattle levy.

It was not a bond of this size, it was partially funded by bonds, but it was spread out over time much more than I'm proposing here.

But the point is that when something becomes a priority, the council acts on it.

So I would urge the council to make the need for affordable housing, which is the biggest crisis that the vast majority of our constituents are facing, to make that a priority and not be held back by the question of debt service.

I mean, I agree with Eric, there is a competition for debt services, but again, it is a question of priorities and staff don't decide the priorities, the elected representatives have been voted into council to decide those priorities and I really would ask what is a bigger priority right now than affordable housing and can we work together on making sure that we do the maximum possible in this year's budget and then again try next year and so you know like keep building on it.

in order to actually make a dent into this problem.

And I would really like to also hear if there are any council members who support this green sheet in the spirit that we may work towards possibly a smaller number that is palatable to council members, but your support for this green sheet politically would indicate to the people's budget movement, to everybody out there who's eager to have some action from the council, that you're committed to that action.

Thank you for that.

Does anybody want to add your name to this now?

Okay, seeing none, we're going to move on to 22.

Moving to 24-2A1, this would add $48 million of general fund in 2019 to the Office of Housing for the Development of Affordable Housing.

Okay, Council Member Swann, I think many of the points that you've been making, you'll also be making now, so please proceed.

I have an updated version of the table I had shared with council the last time, which is, and many of the updates are from what I had said before, which is that we were still working with central staff to get more details on the numbers.

And so what we had provided last time was our best understanding at that time from whatever knowledge we had.

And so now this table is updated and it's reduced an amount, but it's because we were, you know, we want to make sure everything is, clear in terms of the actual numbers available, not just an aspiration of numbers that are available.

So this this green sheet would redirect funds from other city projects that are either less important than the housing crisis or in my opinion in some cases actually harmful like the homeless sweeps.

So, as I said, since we discussed this last week, my office has been working with central staff to vet every line, you know, every line in that table to make sure that we have the correct information, we have refined many of them, and we are prepared to discuss the challenges and the strengths of the others from between now and the final budget vote.

I just wanted to quickly walk through the table with some explanations, and as I said, I do not expect that the council will, many of you will agree with all of them, but hopefully you will agree with some of them, and then maybe we can fund a smaller housing program, but still much larger than what we have now.

Line item one is, of course, the funds that would become available if the council stopped the sweeps of homeless people.

And in my view, they should be stopped because they are inhumane and ineffective and harmful use of funds.

And that would make available roughly just above $7.5 million.

And the minimum possible funding, the rightmost column that shows sort of more accurate numbers from what we can glean from having more details for each line item.

And one thing it points out is that 1.6 million of that 7.6 million is duplicative with line item six, which talks about slowing new police officer hiding.

So we are making these- Can I ask you a question about item number one?

I think we talked about this extensively last year, but I just want to make sure I understand.

When you say stop the sweeps, are you saying that we should allow people to camp in their tents on the city sidewalks, in parks, or on school property?

What I'm saying is that the sweeps...

That's just, I mean, it's just yes or no.

Is that, are you...

No, it's not a yes or no because when you present it that way, it makes it sound like stopping the sweeps is a bad thing.

The reality is that the sweeps aren't working because there's really nowhere in terms of permanent housing for the people to go to.

So rather than spend the funds on sweeps, I would much rather use that for affordable housing.

So I think what I'm trying to make clear is, like you, I want places for people to go.

Like you, I want to have 24-7 places where people can go and get the services that they need.

If we're not approaching people to say, look, I've got a place for you to go, and we've got 500 more supposedly coming online by the end of the year, and if our NAV team or outreach workers can reach people who are in tents, do you consider that to be a sweep when they are approached and offered some other place to go?

Well, the reality is that a very, very small number of people who are reached out, to use your language, in these sweeps are actually offered solutions that work for them, including 24-7, including shelters that they're not going to be kicked out of after a few days or a few months, and which is another reason why people refuse these options, because if after a short spate of time they have to come back on the streets, then it's not an option for them because they end up building a supportive community as such as it can be.

I mean, obviously, living on the streets is extremely dangerous and it's a devastating experience, but in the face of no other options, that is what people end up doing.

But here's what I will say also, that if council members don't agree with stopping this, then let's look at something else.

Let's look at funding this through the Amazon tax.

As I said, this is not my preferred option.

So you have to do something.

We cannot just close the doors on all the options.

That is my appeal to the Council.

Let's not close the doors to all the options.

If you don't agree with one thing, let's look at another thing.

Can I ask Council Central staff, you said that these have been vetted.

Council Central staff have something you'd like to weigh in on these?

I think some staff are coming to the table.

We're prepared to answer questions that council members might have.

We have generally reviewed the information that Council Member Sawant is presenting to you and provided some feedback.

And, Chair, I would urge you to let me finish walking through the table because I know there are human service providers and other housing advocates that are watching this that want me to walk through this right now.

So I would ask you to let me walk through points 2, 3, 2 through 7.

Okay, and then I'm going to ask whether people want to sign on and then we can decide what we're going to do from there.

Item number two in terms of funding social housing through diverting less important or harmful funding is, item number one, as I said, was stopping the sweeps of homeless people.

That is a big chunk of the funds.

Item number two is not funding new computers in police cruisers that would result in something like 7.1, but there's a clarification here again.

where the rightmost column is looking at the minimum possible that we can use given all the restrictions.

And I won't go over each restriction to save time for the council right now, but I'll just say that with all the restrictions taken into account, we are using the most conservative number, which is 2.3 million.

Item number three is no toll the study that you know the one million dollar study for tolls on city streets.

I do not support that this is tolls are regressive taxes and we should not be doing that in general and I certainly do not support spending a million dollars to study that.

And just a technicality these are obviously as council knows these are funds from the commercial parking tax which can only be used for transportation and other related purposes.

But there's a way for, you know, SDOT to offer funds from there to the general subfund.

So, you know, it's all legal and technically viable.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Item number four would be to generate a small amount of funds.

And again, I know this will be the least popular item, but as a matter of principle, I want to include this.

Raise about $665,000 by, lowering mayor and council member salaries to the area median income, which is $70,200 a year.

And of course, I'm not doing this without having done this myself.

I only take the average worker's wage, which is $40,000.

And so the area median income is much higher than that.

And one of the points we're including in the minimum possible funding column is that We know that per city charter this cannot be done, the earliest this can be done is in 2020 because the salaries of elected officials can only be changed between terms and so we, you know, But, you know, the question is not is it possible this year.

The question is, is the council willing to prioritize housing over, you know, lavish salaries?

Question of item number five is capping city executive salaries at no more than $150,000 a year, which I think is a very generous salary.

And again, there are some caveats there about, you know, some of those salaries are negotiated through union contracts.

And given those restrictions, we're looking at a more conservative number there than the middle column.

Item number six, slowing new police officer hiring because we believe just through economic and sociological studies that funding affordability and addressing economic inequality as a whole and social and racial inequality as a whole has a much, much bigger positive impact for public safety than deploying police officers.

So we believe that this is actually a good way to address public safety as well.

And the last item is reducing the number of city executives because, and this is what I say here is something that I've heard from a lot of workers in the city of Seattle, which is everybody has too many bosses, so too many, you know, managers overseeing the work that the workers are actually doing.

Again, we have looked at a very conservative number.

So with all these caveats being taken into account, we come up with a minimum possible funding option of $24.8 million.

Again, this is reduced from our original goal of 48, because we are trying to be very, very clear on every line item.

But just to give a sense of what that would do, this minimum funding of around $24.8 million would be sufficient to fund about 150 to 275 homes every year, in one year, obviously, because this is for one year.

If it was used for the first year of debt service for an affordable housing bond, it could service about a $350 million bond using, we did back calculations using Eric's estimates, and that $350 million bond could build 2,000 to 4,000 homes, depending on what kind of homes we build.

Council Member Sawant, thank you for your passion around this.

I want, before we get to Council Central staff, I want to ask, does anybody else want to sign on to this?

Okay, seeing none, I'd like to move on to the next tab, which is tab...

Council Member, if I might, there is a related green sheet that, because of my numbering of the green sheets, didn't fall sequentially, that is on a related topic.

I wonder if I might just go ahead and address that, and then we can move on to the others.

Okay.

That would be 24781, and this would add 48 million...

What number is that, 26?

Sorry, is that number 6?

Oh, 26. Yes.

Oh, yeah.

This would add 48 million dollars of general fund in 2020 to the Office of Housing for development of affordable housing.

This would anticipate the passage of an ordinance to implement a big business tax such as an employee hours tax or business and occupation tax for larger businesses like Amazon sufficient to support the 48 million dollars in annual spending.

All right, just so you're asking to go back and review the employee hours tax?

Yes, absolutely.

But just to add to that and just sort of to repeat one small thing, but a very important thing that I mentioned the last time we met, which is that despite the repeal in Seattle, we have San Francisco that has a ballot initiative on this November's ballot, which is called Prop C, which is to raise a much bigger amount, like over $300 million through taxing big business and many of them big tech just like here and then measure P in Mountain View, California which is also it's on a smaller scale but the same kind of measure and it will be or I think it's a combination of employee hours tax and something else but it would be to fund infrastructure and The only clarification I would add here is that in this option, I've set the funding to start in 2020, assuming the time it takes to pass and implement a big business tax.

And if the Amazon tax is not palatable to many council members, then we should look into doing a B&O tax on the biggest businesses in Seattle, not on small businesses, on big businesses.

And this is partially on the ballot and on Mountain View.

And if we need to go to the ballot, to do this, then I think we should do that.

But the point is, we should be prioritizing affordable housing.

I like your suggestion about going to the ballot.

That's what Council Member Mesquite and I are talking about.

I think part of it could be something like this.

And I would like to work in 2019 to figure out if there's something that can go to the ballot that would be a big enough number to do the kinds of work that you're talking about.

But let me just ask right now, does anybody on item number 26, does anybody want to sign on to that?

I have a question.

Thank you for some of these ideas and we can look at different kind of funding proposals.

So you called it, is it prop 6 in Mountain View that we can look at?

No, measure P in Mountain View.

Measure P, I'm sorry.

and proxy in San Francisco.

Okay, can you give me that information?

Yeah, I can do that.

That'd be great.

Thank you.

Okay, so I'm seeing no one wanting to sign on to 26 or 21. I'd like to move on to 22. And it's the home repair loan program.

Item number 22 is Green Cheat 24-3A-1.

This is a request for a statement of legislative intent asking the Office of Housing to prepare recommendations for a one-year pilot that would expand the Home Repair Loan Program.

The existing Home Repair Program provides low-interest loans and grants to address immediate health and safety issues and structural deficiencies for low-income homeowners.

This pilot would expand that program to allow loans to low-income homeowners who want to create additional habitable space on their property to house a family member, community member, or generate rental income.

The slide requests that by the end of February, the Office of Housing report back on any necessary amendments to the Affordable Housing A&F Plan.

I'm not sure what the...

Administration Finance Plan.

And as well as develop a plan and timeline to launch the pilot in 2019, there are funds available within the existing loan program to use for this pilot.

And this is sponsored by Councilmember O'Brien and supported by Chair Bagshaw and Councilmember Esqueda.

Could you also read the next tab, which is 23, the 80,000 for outreach and engagement efforts.

It's likewise the primary sponsored by Councilmember O'Brien and the Go Hand in Glove.

24-4A-1 would add $80,000 of general fund in 2019 and in 2020 to the Office of Housing to conduct outreach and engagement to low-income underserved communities.

These resources would be used by OH to contract with community-based organizations to assist in our outreach and engagement efforts that inform communities about new and existing OH programs that assist low-income homeowners to stay in their homes.

The mayor's proposed 2019-2020 budget does include $20,000 in annual funding in 2019 and 2020 to support OH's outreach and engagement efforts about OH's programs.

So these $80,000 would be in addition to that.

And OH has also recently hired a staff person to specifically assisting in doing outreach and engagement.

And Council Member O'Brien is the primary sponsor and Council Members Herbold and Muscat are our co-sponsors.

Thank you.

So these are recommendations that came out of the racial equity toolkit we recently concluded as part of the work on the backyard cottage and mother-in-law legislation that will hopefully be coming to the council early next year.

The first one doesn't have a budget impact because we believe that within the existing funding in OH, we should be able to create a pilot program to allow low-income homeowners who want to create extra living space, maybe a mother-in-law, maybe just a room, to access that.

And Office of Housing has said that they think that's something that they can accommodate.

So I appreciate folks' support on that.

The second green sheet, which would add $80,000, is a reaction to, through the Racial Equity Toolkit, we interviewed a bunch of low-income homeowners and had focus groups with some organizations that work with low-income homeowners.

And what we heard almost across the board was no one was really aware of the existing program to help folks weatherize and maintain their existing homes for low income homeowners.

And so what that did was highlight a need that we have.

We have this great program that does some amazing work and has over the years and yet a lot of the population and certainly the organizations that should be promoting this are not aware of it.

And so a modus sum to help promote that to make sure folks have access to it would be another tool to help us maintain people in their housing.

Great.

And Council Member Moran, I had asked the question yesterday.

Is this something that is going through our Office of Environment Sustainability, through Office of Housing and or our Department of Neighborhoods to see what we can coordinate?

Yeah, I mean, the intent at the moment would be to go through the Office of Housing, but certainly open to exploring other ideas.

If we wanted to write it more broadly to let the executive departments come back to us and state what they think would work best.

This has been done in collaboration with at least conversations with Office of Housing, but I'm certainly open to other suggestions if folks feel there's a better way.

I don't see a date on the second one on your $80,000.

So from general fund, do you want to align these two so they both come back in February 28th, 2019?

No, I think the second one, the money would simply be available like all budget items on January 1st.

And as far as I had proposed setting a date for the time they'd get a contract out the door for the outreach work.

Regardless of what they do in the first one, the outreach work around the existing program can still go on.

So they're related in their sense that they're same department and same projects and came out of the recommendations of the racial equity toolkit, but they can also stand alone too.

Okay, very good.

Does anybody want to add their names to either of these or both?

Okay, please continue.

Moving on to item 24, 5A1.

This would add $250,000 in general fund in 2019 and in 2020 to the Office of Housing.

This funding would be allocated for capacity building of community-led housing projects specifically targeted for communities in areas at high risk of displacement.

It is anticipated that the city would, OH would distribute these funds via request for proposal and OH has requested to submit the draft RRP to Council for review before finalizing and issuing the RFP.

Council Member O'Brien is the prime sponsor and Council Members Herbold and Mosqueda are co-sponsors.

Very good.

Council Member O'Brien.

Thanks.

So we did something similar last year.

The scale, I think, was at $150,000.

We continue to want to, well, I continue to believe that one of the solutions to affordable housing crisis is to create more homeownership opportunities.

And we certainly have money in the housing levy that we can talk about in the ANF plan about that investment, but that's pretty well defined.

The challenge has been, especially in this market, trying to find creative ways that are within our budget to allow people to get into affordability.

And one of the leading contenders is limited equity co-ops.

There's currently a project happening at Othello that Homesite is running.

And some of the work around capacity building was funded last year.

I think that's a really exciting pilot.

Homestead, the community land trust, has also been working with communities both in the Duwamish and Africatown to explore ownership opportunities.

And so this funding would continue those investments moving forward.

Anybody want to add your name to that or comment?

Council Member Sawant.

I do want to add my name to that.

I think it's extremely important to create home ownership opportunities where they're available.

I would say, though, in addition to all of that, is that home ownership is also basically out of reach of people because it's not just rents, but home prices that have also gone through the roof.

So we still need to work on affordable housing.

Yes, Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

I was honored to sign on to this with Council Member O'Brien and appreciate the work that you did last year and working to clarify and expedite the process this year.

I think this dovetails nicely with number 23 as well that we just discussed and we will also be advancing similar principles in the updated administration and finance plan that we will hopefully bring to our committee in early 2019. Part of it was making sure that we didn't sell public land at the highest price.

And thank you for your support on that past legislation and make sure that it was prioritized for building affordable housing and the public good.

I think these two policies that Council Member O'Brien is advancing really dovetail nicely with the overall goal of making sure that not only is the land available, but that individuals can have help accessing the ability to build through the community priorities as defined on the ground.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to item 25, which is the Home and Hope Program and primary sponsor is Councilmember Gonzalez.

This is tab 246A1.

This green sheet would add $250,000 of general fund in 2019 and in 2020 to the Office of Housing to continue funding of the Home and Hope Program.

This program identifies publicly and or privately owned tax-exempt land that is appropriate for development of affordable housing and affordable child care facilities.

The city has provided $400,000 in funding for this program from 2017 to 2018. If we were to add the additional funds in 2019-2020, that would bring the city's total investment to $900,000.

Other funders of this initiative include the county at $125,000.

I believe they provided that in 2018. The Gates Foundation provided $1.6 million.

And then I think they've also added some HUD funding that Enterprises received to help with some of the projects in the city of Seattle.

Council Member Gonzalez.

Not much more to add there other than I appreciate, Tracy, you giving us a sense of what other both philanthropic and government agencies have invested in this space to allow this type of development site work to occur.

As we continue down the pathway as a city of identifying publicly available lands to develop through our own surplusing opportunities, but also through the surplusing opportunities presented by some of our other co-located government agencies, I think it's really important for us to continue to make it as easy as possible for affordable housing developers to continue to have viable projects.

go both through our Office of Housing funding process, but also through other funding processes.

So I think this is a smart way for us to leverage our city dollars in conjunction with some other state, county, and private partners.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

So there are a number of items listed on this green sheet that make up the list of pre-development services that this funding proposes to support.

You mentioned that there was $400,000 in funding for this program for the two years of 2017 and 2018. How many projects did that support?

You know, I can get that information for you.

I think they helped with the K-site up on Queen Anne.

They've helped with the Goodwill site in Southeast Seattle.

I know that there's some other, oh, I think they're helping with the Lake City site as well.

I can get you the full list, though, Council Member.

Okay, yeah, that would be helpful to know.

the number of projects that these pre-development services have already occurred on, so we can just get a sense of, like, what a project costs.

And if this is going to be something that we do on an ongoing basis, Is there a better way to fund it so that it's not an ad that we make to the budget every year?

If this is going to be something that we want the city to be funding and working with the owners of publicly owned property moving forward, we're going to probably have more publicly owned property that is going to be available in upcoming years with Sound Transit and the various staging sites not being needed anymore and being available for housing.

I'm just wondering, rather than, why not make this a line of city business moving forward if this is something that we want to do?

Well, I would suggest with these additions in 2019, 2020, you're almost beginning to do that.

Whether the executive will take that as a baseline, add to the Office of Housing, I think that's the question.

And perhaps the debate for future years.

I can also tell you that on average, what they look at in terms of a site, $50,000 to $100,000 per site on some of these pre-development costs, that was the number I got from Enterprise this morning.

Some obviously a little bit more expensive than others, but that's kind of the range of what the sites use in terms of their resources.

And does every site become a project, or do some fall off?

I think it would be safe to say that there are some projects that are still in process.

And I think there's a hope that those will end up as housing projects, but I think some of them are in process.

But the pre-development services are only done once we know something's going to be a project?

Well, not necessarily.

You know, so there can be feasibility work that's done to see is a site viable for housing?

If so, how much?

Can they bring all the parties together to actually come up with a proposal for a site?

So I think that the work that Enterprise has done has included many aspects of that and it really, each site is very unique as you might imagine.

And I can give you more details about the sites.

When you provide information on, how the money was used in the past.

I'd also be interested to know if we're spending these resources on potential projects that never come to fruition.

Yeah, okay.

That's a very good question.

I'd also like to ask, is this essentially $500,000 over the next two years, is it earmarked for enterprise community partners or are there others that do this type of work in their field?

I think this is intended to fund the Home and Hope program.

I think we would likely have to go through an RFP process just because of the dollar amount, unless we have the ability to expand an existing contract.

I can check on that to see.

But I think this was intended to fund the Home and Hope program, which is operated by Enterprise.

And it's something we already did an RFP on, correct?

A couple of years ago?

I think we did with the initial $200,000.

I believe we might have, yes.

But it would be my intention that this would be a continuation of the existing contract with Enterprise.

And I'll see whether we have the ability to actually expand an existing contract or whether we would have to reissue an RFP.

Just to be clear, this is the same amount that we did in the last cycle, 200 and 200. In addition to that, there was some funding designed for the same exact purpose, advanced by Council Member Juarez, that was specific to the geographic of Northgate.

We did not RFP those dollars.

So maybe they're a sole source that does this?

They're the only agency?

I can check on this and verify that it can be put out directly to Enterprise.

I don't know what the situation is about that.

So I'm just going to tell you that.

I'm going to check and get you the information back.

I hear what your wishes are.

Great.

Council Member Morris.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Gonzalez, for bringing that up because we have had the experience and the success with the Home and Hope program because of Light Rail and D5 with two stops and working with Sound Transit.

And also our focus on transit-oriented housing and transit-oriented now, which I'm glad we have listed here, or we have in my notes, focusing on the child care facilities for both the Northgate branch And hopefully when we look at the 130th stop.

This has been very successful in D5 in the Northgate neighborhood in identifying affordable housing options.

And this money in this program, as Councilmember Gonzales pointed out, and what Councilmember Herbold has said is making it a maybe a line item, is that once we start having, we've been kind of the Petri dish for this of how when light rail or density come in, how the community comes in and makes a decision of what they want that to look like, and Enterprise has been phenomenal in being that group in those communities at Northgate, and we're anticipating when we have light rail, hopefully much earlier on 130th, at looking at the same issues and looking at the same amount of providing the same housing stock.

So I would ask that it be added on this as supportive.

Thank you.

Thank you, and I just would, Tracy, as you're doing your work, I'm looking back at the action plan, what we had approved the last time that we supported this.

And Enterprise was one of the objectives was to catalyze the redevelopment of ten sites within King County to create approximately 1,500 affordable homes and five to six early learning centers.

Can we just give me an update on were they able to accomplish that?

Yes.

Very good.

Can I just say, I just want to be really clear that these dollars aren't allocated to capital investments and like building the thing.

The reality is that all affordable housing projects in the city need to have some sort of design specification occur in order for them to be even considered viable in the NOFA process.

And so these dollars are designed to give those potential projects an opportunity to be competitive.

This is work that needs to happen and it's scoping and specifications that need to be designed regardless of whether the city invested dollars here or not.

So if we want to be able to accelerate some of the housing and education development on publicly owned land, then I think it's a wise decision from a policy perspective for the city to invest in this nominal way and allow organizations like Enterprise to leverage those dollars with philanthropic dollars and state dollars to be able to do that design specification work to advance it.

So I mean, I think there's a little bit of I'm a little concerned that what we're wanting to say is like, okay, well, how many units of housing did the 250 produce?

And I just want to be really clear that that's, you know, the hope is that this will create a pipeline of affordable housing units that will be competitive and be able to be funded through the Office of Housing Funding as well as other, you know, federal tax credits and state dollars.

And so I just don't want to conflate those purposes.

They're related to each other, but we're not saying that these are, you know, gonna...

guaranteed turn into housing because that depends on our competitive RFP housing process.

Actually, Council Member Gonzalez, I completely support this and where you're going.

What I wanted to be able to say and confirm is that they've already done this.

They said these were the things they were going to do and just confirmed that it's been done because like you said, they produce an inventory and design plans as they're organizing community partners and helping build the capacity.

They're not doing this, and I understand that, but I would just like to be able to have in my pocket an understanding of what has been accomplished since we funded them last year.

And I have that information that I actually just received from them this morning, so I will send the email that has all the information about what they've done in the city, what they've done in the county, and you can also see which projects are actually coming to fruition at this point and which ones are still being explored.

Good.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to echo my support for the sponsor putting this forward and was honored to co-sponsor this with her and appreciate the work that you have done in the past from this council to support Home and Hope.

I do have a one pager that I think helps to articulate exactly the vision that we're talking about as we were talking about the previous green sheets.

We have begun to expose the underbelly of how difficult it is for some of our community partners to be able to both get all of the capital and meet all of the requirements in order to get the green light to go ahead and begin building.

And what I am excited about with Home and Hope and having them as a partner through enterprise is that they do exactly what they say on the bottom of this first page.

They identify sites, they pull together partners, they figure out the best and highest possible use for that parcel of land, they help cobble together the funds, and then they build, which we know is most important.

So I'll pass this down just as a gentle reminder about some of the opportunities that we have in front of us.

But for example, on the horizon, there's Pacific Tower North, which is 270 units, Youth Opportunity Center, 84 units, Mary's Place in Burien, 210 units, Roosevelt Sound Transit, 245 units, Madison Boyle, 300 units, Othella MLK, 165. I could go on and on, including Chief Seattle Club, but I won't go on and on because I know our time's limited.

That's really helpful.

That was the specificity that I was hoping for.

You've just read it, Tracy.

Are you saying no?

I have a different list than...

This is prospective.

Prospective, yes.

And you have what was done in the past.

I've got what they've worked on in the last year or two.

Very good.

Yes.

Okay, well, I'm supportive of this.

Council Member Misquita's name on it.

Anybody else wants to add your name?

Council Member Johnson?

If I may, I just think, you know, we have asked our nonprofit housing development partners to really open the floodgates.

to respond to a crisis.

And in order for those folks to actually get out there and build buildings, we need pre-development dollars to allow us to do all the technical work necessary to get these projects out of the ground.

So I think that this is an appropriate set of investments to a good partner who's worked with all of those nonprofit housing developers to get their projects ready to go.

So I'd love to add my name to the list.

Very good.

Okay.

Let's move to number 27.

Okay, we are now to the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

So item number 27 is a green sheet 31A1, add $50,000 general fund in 2019 and $116,902 in 2020 for one FTE equity and environment initiative program coordinator in OSC.

So this position is currently a term-limited temporary position in OSC.

And so this green sheet will effectively make that a permanent position.

And the work of this PREEM coordinator would be to support the equity and environment initiative, which has been implementing actions from the equity environment agenda, a blueprint to advance racial equity in Seattle's environmental work.

This position would coordinate support coordination of the Environmental Justice Fund pilot project, support the work of the Environmental Justice Committee by researching new opportunities and developing implementation strategies for committee priorities, support city staff in integrating the environmental equity assessment into decision-making processes, develop strategies to build capacity of community-based organizations to work with city environmental programs, and participate in city environmental planning processes.

partner with the Office of Planning and Community Development's Equitable Development Initiative to review potential projects and ensure recommendations include an environmental justice lens, assist both OSC staff and staff citywide with integrating environmental equity objectives into program and project planning and data collection and analyses, and assist with any other council-initiated priorities related to environmental justice.

The sponsor for this is Councilmember O'Brien with support from Council President Harrell and Councilmember Mosqueda.

Council Member O'Brien, do you want to lead it?

Yep.

Thank you, Yolanda, for reading in the long list.

A couple things I just want to highlight, colleagues.

If this cut goes forward, without adding this position back, I should say, the equity and environment initiative would be down to just a single staff person, the program manager.

She does great work, but to be able to really carry this work forward, it's very helpful to have the program coordinator in that position.

I'll also add that the Equity Environment Initiative is poised to release about $250,000 in grant funding to support environmental justice using an equitable funding model developed over the last couple of years with community.

And the coordinator position is key to that ongoing work and the successful work of the grant funding of environmental justice work.

Okay, anybody else want to add your name to this?

All right, please let's move to the next.

Okay, item 28, green sheet 30, 20. a 20, oh wait, 32A1, add $164,000 in general fund in 2019 and 2020 to OSC to fund a Green Pathways Fellowship Program for community-based organizations.

Sponsor is Council Member O'Brien with support from Council Members Herbold and Johnson.

So this green sheet would add that funding to the Office of Sustainability and Environment to support a Green Pathways Fellowship that provides career development opportunities for young leaders and increases organizational capacity at community-based organizations committed to environmental justice and restoration.

So these fellowships advance the Green Pathways strategy, which are part of the equity environment agenda, and the Green Pathways resolution by creating support structures for underrepresented communities to lead in environmental policy.

and program work.

This funding is expected to support 20 fellows over the two years in a program that provides training and mentorship to emerging community leaders and places them in community-based environmental organizations.

Council Member Ryan.

Yeah, this is something that I'm really excited about, and I think it's one of the best investments we can make in our community, especially when we're talking about how to make the environmental work we're doing as a city more accessible and more inclusive, and have a much stronger equity lens.

The model we're following here is the Rainier Valley Corps model, and this is a partnership between Rainier Valley Corps and Got Green.

They do, each individually do amazing work and the fact that they're coming together in this I think is really exciting.

I want to just explain specifically what this funding would do and how this program works.

The model is that they would identify young leaders in their community, largely in the Rainier Valley, who are interested in working in the environmental field.

They would, through a competitive process, select up to 20 fellows for two-year programs to be placed within organizations doing the type of environmental stewardship work that people from the community want to do.

I want to step back and just remind folks, you know, so many young people today who often are stuck in a position where they have to choose a job that can support them, but is maybe doing some destructive work to their community, or choose to be able to follow something that they're passionate about that's going to improve and strengthen a community, but it may not pay enough to support them.

Wealthier young people have that option to make those sacrifices to do that, but sometimes low income folks do not have that opportunity.

What this would do is get this cohort going, place them with organizations doing the type of green investment work that we want to do, including potentially people positions at the city, but also with non-profit organizations.

The organizations that would hire these would be paying for their salary for the year.

With the money that we're proposing to put in there would be to fund the support structure that needs to go around if we want folks to be successful.

So part of this cohort model is recognizing that when you take someone from a community that doesn't traditionally have exposure to these environmental organizations, and environmental organizations who often haven't worked from people that come up from communities like those in the Rainier Valley, there's often you find that like, well, we were all well intended, but it didn't work out so well for a variety of reasons.

What the Rainier Valley Corps and Got Green are doing is saying, no, this is critically important.

We're going to find the support structures for the individuals and for the organizations to make sure that after two years, we have really well-trained individuals and organizations that understand better how to work with communities and can do their work better.

And what we've seen through Rainier Valley Corps is many of these individuals often get hired full-time going forward and believe the same can happen, folks doing this environmental stewardship work.

Can I ask a question?

I love this concept.

During our public comment period, we had groups of people and I think the leader was named Dom.

Is that part of his work or is he Budget for Justice?

I'm just, what's the group and how do we support their work too?

Yeah, so the Community Passageways, which is who Coach Dom runs, is part of the Budget for Justice, which is separate from this.

Got Green is the one that is promoting this, and they've had folks come out and testify at both the budget hearings.

Got Green is also a partner in Budget for Justice, but this piece of work is not.

part of the Budget for Justice proposal.

That said, individuals going through Coach Dom's Community Passageways or any of the other restorative justice programs, those individuals may be individuals that would be the types of individuals that would be interested in a program like this.

And so they could collaborate in that way, but they're not tied together.

The other thing I'll mention is that the funding requirement for this program is about a little over $300,000, and what I've put forward in this green sheet is about a 50% contribution to that.

with the expectation that Got Green and Rainier Valley Corps would need to go to the funding community out there, foundations and others, to get the other half of the funding.

And so the city's funding proposal in this is somewhat of a match, to be matched with community investments to leverage that.

and Council Member Swatt, then Council President Harrell.

Mine's very brief, and I'll just direct a right to Council Member O'Brien.

So this would come out of the Office of Sustainability and Environment, correct?

And you said we're using the Rainier Valley model, and one of the examples was Got Green.

I guess one of my concerns is there's reasons why people of color are underrepresented in environmental organizations.

And without going into all of that, and one of them, of course, is access.

And what's important is we often find ourselves dealing with other issues that are, quite frankly, more emergent.

However, we're trying to change that trend, and I understand that that is what this would be for.

So two things.

Would an organization like Tiny Trees, the pre-K program, nonprofit working in the park system for kids to get them in the environment, would that be a nonprofit that would be eligible to apply in this cohort group?

Yes, so my understanding, I'm not an expert on this council member, but right now, Got Green is recruiting organizations who would be interested in hiring someone out of this cohort group.

And the idea is those positions would start sometime next August.

and be two years after that.

And so from what I know of Tiny Trees, which is they do amazing work, is that I think there would be alignment.

There's obviously an education component to that, but clearly these youth that are essentially going through preschool completely in the outdoors and our wonderful weather we have around here, they get amazing exposure to.

the natural environment that we live in.

So I think that would be a great marriage, and I'd love to connect with you on how we can make that connection.

Okay, quick follow-up then.

Met with the board, did the tour, met the kids, but more importantly, met the young teachers, and their board told me that their commitment was to get more people of color, not only on the board, but more children of color.

into these really wonderful outdoor classrooms in which there are no children of color.

So I'll leave it at that.

And then how would you measure success out of OSCE?

How does that look?

So I think one is success would be that we keep people in the program for the two years, and that we don't find people saying, hey, there's harm being done to me in my position in this organization, and saying, I can no longer do this.

I need to leave out.

So to keep, I don't have specific metrics, but to keep the vast majority of those 20 through there.

And then another metric would be at the end of those two years, how many of them Ongoing career work in the types of fields that they've just interned maybe with that organization or a sister organization.

Thank you I just want to add my name to it and also I think there must have been some miscommunication because I thought my name was already on it But in any case

And if that's my team's fault, I apologize for that.

Council President Harrell.

I just want to add my name at the top of that one.

Primary sponsor, Council Member O'Brien and President Harrell.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am excited about this proposal.

I'd like to add my name as well.

I think that we're not all on it because everybody wanted to add their name and we can't do that.

Yeah, so one of the things I'm most excited about is the opportunity to pull from the I think leadership and experience of those who've been on the front line doing some of this work, for example, through the Blue-Green Coalition.

In the Blue-Green Coalition, there's three core principles, bring together labor, bring together environmentalists, and make sure that there's a racial equity lens.

given that we know communities of color are both on the front line of experiencing the changes of global warming and on the fence line because they're more likely to be located to some of our biggest polluters and in the most polluted neighborhoods in our city.

So I'm really excited about the opportunity to partner with you, Council Member O'Brien, and the entire council, it sounds like, on this potential opportunity because I think we know that we also need to create a pipeline.

We need to look at recruitment.

We need to look at retention.

If we want more of these, whether it's industries or sectors or organizations, to look like the communities that they're intended to serve, we definitely need to create apprenticeship-like opportunities for folks to get into that type of work.

So, excited to work with you.

Nice.

Thank you.

This is a kind of enthusiastic response I appreciate getting, because now we know not only is it a high priority for Councilmember Ryan, but for many of us as well, so thank you for that.

We have one last item for this morning and that moves us on to number 29 and its primary sponsor is Councilmember Muscata.

So this will be green sheet 33A1, add $158,611 general fund in 2019 to Office of Sustainability Environment for Beacon Hill Air and Noise Pollution Study.

So this green sheet would add $158,611 of general fund to OSC's budget for a detailed study of air and noise pollution from roadway traffic and aircraft affecting the Beacon Hill neighborhood.

Currently, the Port of Seattle is preparing an environmental impact statement for over 30 near-term projects in Sea-Tac Airport's sustainable airport master plan, including a new terminal with 19 gates.

These near-term projects are expected to be complete or under construction by 2027. With this study, Beacon Hill residents will have data and findings to inform their input during the EIS comment period in fall of 2019. This amount would fund $139,611 for equipment and labor related to this study and $19,000 for community engagement.

Thank you.

Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you.

I want to also acknowledge support from Council Member Harold, Council President Harold, I'm sorry, and Council Member O'Brien.

I spoke about this yesterday.

I don't have a ton more to add except for I think this is exactly what it looks like when we take priorities that have been rooted in community and then have been elevated to policymakers for us to then take action on.

As I mentioned last week, El Centro completed a two-year analysis.

and noise reduction and air pollution was among the top three things that the community recommended for the Beacon Hill neighborhood.

As we mentioned last time, Beacon Hill has the highest asthma and hospitalization rates for children.

They have some of the highest low birth rates and shorter lifespans.

So as we take a look at what it means to make sure that our zip codes don't determine our health outcomes and our life expectancy, I think this is a great opportunity for us to partner with organizations on Beacon Hill and recognize that this is not us doing it alone.

This builds on their past work and also there has been additional funds identified to match this work and on a pro bono basis so we could see this type of analysis go forward with a small investment from the city coupled with a potential investment from King County and potentially the Beacon Hill Community Health Indicators Review organization.

Thanks again, and hope to continue that enthusiastic support that you mentioned.

Really.

Anybody like to add anything or add your name to this?

Okay.

Wait, wait.

Did you guys hear that question to this?

Yeah, we'll sign on again.

Yeah.

Okay.

We've got we have plenty of sponsors going forward.

And we don't know I'm not something else.

Okay.

I just have a housekeeping matter just a quick one before we wrap up.

Okay, so do the council member.

Harold's gig.

Okay well I have a couple of points and then you get to do a housekeeping matter.

Okay.

So it's now 1222. This afternoon we have 21 more items to go through in categories of Department of Early Education Early Learning, Seattle Center, our Seattle Information Technology Department, the Department of Construction and Inspections and Seattle City Light.

And then there is a bunch of related legislation.

Do you know, Eric, whether is Council Central staff going to be going through that or is it simply there for our information?

So the attached legislation is, it's the actual council bills that are associated with some of the green sheets that recommend amendments or passage.

So if we, they're really there as a reference.

The number of, the numbered items are the things that we would plan to cover.

Very good.

All right.

Council Member Juarez.

Just very briefly, I forgot to raise my hand for President Harrell's item number 16, Empowerment Center at Table 100 to support.

Okay.

Apologize for that.

Very good.

Thank you for that.

And the last one, too.

That's right.

We're going to trade some horses here.

I'm loving Council President Harrell's efforts.

So we're going to take a recess here.

We'll be back at 2 o'clock.

Public comment will be after we conclude.

And we are at recess.

Thank you very much, everybody.