Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 7292020 Session II

July 29th meeting.

The Select Budget Committee will come back to order and proceed with its business.

The time is 2.02 p.m.

Again, I'm Teresa Mosqueda, the chair of the Select Budget Committee.

Will the chair or the clerk please call the roll?

Morales?

Here.

Peterson?

Here.

Swant?

Here.

Strauss?

Present.

Gonzales.

Here.

Herbold.

Here.

Lewis.

Present.

Chair Mosqueda.

Here.

Eight present.

Thank you.

She didn't call my name.

Deborah Juarez, remember me?

I apologize.

I apologize, Juarez.

Yeah, thanks.

Yeah, I'm here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez, and thank you all for joining us.

We have a full select committee today.

I appreciate you all for being here and for also participating in this morning's three-hour public comment.

This was our extended public comment period related to the rebalancing budget.

I know that my council colleagues join us in thanking the Lynch Department IT and communications staff who helped steward us through.

That extended public comment period we got through every single one of the individuals who are present from the 336 people who signed up this morning.

So thank you to the IOT folks and the communications folks for helping us get through that.

I know it's a lot of work behind the scenes to get folks queued up and to manage that list.

So we appreciate it and we appreciate all those folks who called in and for the public comment that continues to be sent in.

We were going to continue with our meeting as published on the agenda, and before we do so, before I turn it over to Director Irsa, I'm also going to ask Lisa from Central Staff, Lisa Kay, to walk us through a short presentation, just as a reminder, if we want to queue up the presentation, just as a reminder of where we are at in the current SPD inquest process.

We started this inquest really immediately on the heels of George Floyd's murder and wanted to just provide folks with a quick analysis of where we've been and where we are headed over the next week and a half here.

Lisa, I'll turn it over to you for this brief reminder to folks both in the viewing public and for our council colleagues on where we are at in the SPD inquest.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just checking to make sure that you can hear me.

Great, okay, so my name is Lisa Kaye.

I'm on the council central staff.

Today, as the budget chair mentioned, I'll just describe for you where you've been and where you're going with respect to the budget review process of the SPD inquest.

Next slide, please.

So the Select Budget Committee is considering 12 pieces of legislation transmitted by the mayor on June 23rd.

That legislation would support the mayor's efforts to rebalance the 2020 budget in light of revenue shortfalls and unanticipated spending required to respond to the COVID-19 emergency.

The Budget Committee has been meeting at least weekly since June 10th, when the committee started discussing police accountability and reinvestments in racial justice policies.

We'll go to the next slide, please.

The committee's initial meetings included briefings from executive staff from the City Budget Office and the Seattle Police Department.

On July 15th, council central staff provided over 20 issue identification papers, summarizing impacts from the mayor's administrative changes and proposed legislative changes to the adopted 2020 budget.

The budget committee's SPD inquest has included detailed presentations on the Seattle Police Department's budget, research into other city practices and recommendations from local groups, including looking at council actions around the country, research on alternative models of public safety, a proposed roadmap to defunding the police and investing in the community, and presentations from Decriminalize Seattle and King County Equity Now.

So for the next few meetings, I'm just going to summarize what we're looking at, the next steps for non-SPD amendments.

Today, we're hearing central staff's point-in-time analysis of the mayor's proposal and presenting new non-SPD amendments.

On July 31st, the committee will vote on all non-SPD amendments.

and I'm holding those over to August 10th when the committee will approve and the council will adopt all the legislation, all the budget legislation as amended.

Looking to the SPD specific amendments, over the next two weeks, the committee has established three meetings to consider and vote on amendments to the Seattle Police Department budget.

I would note that, and we'll see you've got August 3rd and August 5th, I'm sorry, July 31st, August 3rd, for continued review of amendments and then August 5th a vote.

And I want to note that the August 10th meeting shown here is intended to allow the committee to approve any technical changes required to ensure that both the SPD and non-SPD amendments have been properly incorporated into the legislation.

Finally, I just want to go over some deadlines for processing these amendments to the Seattle Police Department budget.

The slide shows the deadlines by which central staff must have obtained legal review and sponsor approval of an amendment in order for it to be published with the next day's agenda materials.

Dan Eater and Greg Dawes on our central staff are leading a team of staffers, central staffers, in drafting these amendments for their sponsors, so please reach out to them if you have questions about whether your amendment is anticipated to be ready for one of these meetings.

That completes my presentation, Madam Chair.

I'm happy to answer questions now or offline if that's more timely.

Okay, thank you very much, Lisa.

Really, I just wanted to make sure folks had that information in front of them.

This is sort of a deconstructed presentation of the memo and calendar that I've sent as well to our council colleagues.

I want to quickly thank Lisa and central staff both for your work on the SPD inquest and for all of the amendments that we've discussed so far and the amendments that we will be discussing on Friday related to SPD as well.

We are aware of how much work you have been doing and we want to thank you again for this effort.

I know that we're close to finishing with SPD-related amendments for our discussion on Friday.

And this budget process is always incredibly busy.

And we recognize that our central staff and our office teams are going through this twice this year, given the summer rebalancing process and then the fall budget.

So wanted to make sure that we highlighted where we were at in the process so that people have that orientation.

If there's no questions for Lisa, OK.

I'm going to ask Madam Clerk to read into the record item number one.

Thank you very much, Lisa.

And thank you, Patty.

He put together the presentation for us as well.

I appreciate your time, Patty.

Agenda item one, review of proposed amendments to the 2020 proposed rebalancing package for briefing and discussion only.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Before we begin our discussion on the amendments that are related to the 2020 rebalancing package that are non-SPD related as a carryover from our last conversation, we're going to turn it to Director Aristad who's going to provide us with a I believe we were calling it a point-in-time update, an analysis on where we are at in the rebalancing 2020 budget based on the overview questions and comments raised during last week's meeting.

Director Aristad, I'll turn it over to you for this brief update before we go into the amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the record, I'm Kirsten Aristad, Central Staff Director, and as you mentioned, In follow-up to last Wednesday's budget committee meeting, I noted that council received on June 23rd a set of rebalancing measures from the mayor as part of her 2020 proposed rebalancing package.

Some, as you know, have expressed concerns that the information was provided in such a way that it is difficult to see the full financial picture.

So to respond to these concerns, central staff have created a comprehensive balancing tool that reframes the information by calibrating the mayor's proposal to a specific point in time.

Central staff has also crafted an amendment to Council Bill 119825. That is the 2020 budget revision ordinance.

This amendment, which we have titled as Amendment A in the package of materials attached to the agenda, will allow the council to modify the mayor's administrative spending reductions.

So Tom Mikesell of central staff will now walk through the balancing tool.

He will describe the broad framework of the executive's proposal and highlight funds that are not yet balanced.

And after his presentation, then I will come back with just a very short closure.

Thank you.

Tom.

Thank you, Director Aristad.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Select Budget Committee.

So what we have up on the screen is the center staff memo for this agenda item.

It includes a number of embedded tables that are going to really be the meat of this topic.

Because the balancing tool is structured in a way to kind of make more clear the shortfalls that we started with in this process and the measures that are before you for decisions about how to balance those shortfalls.

Good news is that we have been able to demonstrate that data presented by CBO to date can be reconciled with the revenue shortfalls that we are aware of, as well as the expenditure information that we have received as of the June 23rd transmittal of that data.

As previously communicated, the executive has not yet fully addressed revenue shortfalls in some funds with the measures that are at hand currently.

Those funds would be the general fund, the parking recreation fund, transportation fund, and the schools on camera fund.

So the next five tables, we'll start with the revenue shortfalls and then walk through various measures that have been proposed to address those shortfalls.

And so what you have here on the screen is the forecast that the city budget office presented in April of this year and then later updated in June of this year.

So if you look at the grand total row, you'll see that in April the forecast was identified as $296 million across all of these funds.

If you look at the June forecast column, you'll see similarly in the change from adopted column, a revised forecast in June of $311 million across all of these funds.

And you can also see, so that is the change from the adopted budget in 2020. So you can then reference back from April to where we are now in June and see that the changes by fund.

So if you look at the general fund total, so the first total in this table, You can see what transpired between the April and June forecasts that were presented to City Council.

So between those two forecast points in time, the shortfall from the adopted budget is $184 million, which in fact was slightly better than the information that we received in the April forecast update.

In April, when forecast information was presented, the Seattle Center Fund and the Parks and Recreation Fund were facing $9 million and $23 million shortfalls, respectively.

And then you'll see now, if you look at the June 2020 forecast, those numbers did not change.

They were essentially still those unfortunately bad numbers, but there was no movement up or down.

Most of the negative impacts that lead to the grand total shifting from $296 million in all funds to a lower $311 million figure was in the short-term rental tax, the admissions tax, real estate excise tax, and the city's transportation fund.

If you look in the change, percent change April to June, you can see some fairly significant double-digit decreases from even the poor revenue performance that was expected in April in those categories.

And so you have seen this information before, so I think it's helpful, particularly for this exercise, to kind of calibrate ourselves with the information that's been presented so far before we then dive into the next set of slides that show the different measures that seek to solve this challenge.

So, if you could go to the next attemptment one.

So, this is what we refer to as the balancing tool.

It is set up And again, there will be similar tables for a set of funds.

Any fund that was identified as facing a revenue challenge, we're going to be talking about using this tool.

And so to calibrate and to orient you with this table that each one of these tables, which has a large set of numbers and it's fairly detailed, lets you know how it works.

We start with the revenue forecast numbers that we just we just discussed or that I just presented.

We then moved down in each column for each one of these funds, the different bills that are currently introduced.

So the Coronavirus Relief Fund Bill, Council Bill 119824, the Budget Resilience Ordinance, which contains some of the mayor's proposed rebalancing measures.

And then so there's a revenue piece and an expenditure piece for both of those.

And then you move down to the Amendment A changes that are also part of this agenda.

These are those executive administrative funding proposals that were not put in the bill that we have built into the Amendment A to Council Bill 119825. And then for all of these tables, you'll get to a bottom line shortfall that compares the revenue the revenue shortfall at the beginning, all the measures that are either currently introduced or embedded within the amendment, and then a bottom line shortfall.

This set of this page is slightly different than some of the others, because there are some other planning concepts that I'll discuss in a few minutes.

But generally, that's how these tables work.

And also, one final point, it may seem intuitive, but Negative numbers are bad and positive numbers are good in every sense.

So, actually, yes, back to slide one, please.

So, this is a set of funds that you may have heard referred to as general fund and general fund adjacent.

So, the general fund is for the largest general purpose operating fund that covers a lot of a wide array of general government services.

And then moving from left to right, you have other funds that provide also very vital services of a general nature, but many of them in normal times are more reliant on their own set of resources to fund the services that they provide.

However, they do have some intersection and support from the general fund.

The executive proposal for dealing with these shortfalls is that the services that are provided due to the intersection with the general fund are vital in nature.

And if they can't meet the shortfall on their own, the general fund steps in to help with the challenge.

And you'll see that a little bit lower on the table and later in the discussion.

So working from the top, the total general fund and adjacent fund shortfall was approximately $241 million, as identified through June 23rd.

And the set of bills that have been currently introduced, the Coronavirus Relief Fund Bill and the Budget Revisions Ordinance, through both revenue and expenditure changes, address approximately $108 million of that starting financial problem.

What we have done, as I said, with Amendment A is started to build in and put into an amendment the changes that are in the mayor's administrative cuts section, which were covered in an attachment to issue ID memo delivered when we started the process earlier in June or in July, but weren't built into law yet.

And so those are captured in this table in the proposed amendment expenditure changes.

So there are about $61.6 million across all of these funds of different changes that are in Amendment A. So when all of those measures are applied and looking at the total gamut of funds, there is still a $23.6 million shortfall for this suite of funds.

Breaking down on a fund-by-fund level, $2.7 million of the general fund is yet unaddressed in things that we have received so far.

A much more significant $21.6 million shortfall exists in the Park and Recreation Fund.

Good news is that, at least at this point in time analysis, other funds show as either balanced or having a slight beneficial amount against the shortfall.

So that's the point as of a legislation that's either currently introduced or in the amendment A that's drafted and attached to the agenda.

But then I need to also speak to the items below, the proposed or two from other funds.

So as I mentioned in the general fund adjacent category of funds, These are viewed as funds that are important enough that the general fund can come in and backfill in the event of significant challenges.

The numbers that you see, the finance general hold for center, finance general hold for cross fund, and arts and culture, these are planning numbers that the city budget office is using to establish sort of a an intention to generate additional savings in the general fund, either through expenditure reductions or revenue solutions to assist the shortfalls within those funds.

Those are not currently part of the amendment, nor the introduced legislation, but those are just signals of intent.

If those measures were included, then that would actually bring the general fund shortfall to be to $12 million.

So I'm going to pause before moving to see if there are any questions from the committee about this very complex table, either in how it works or in any of the specific details that I've covered thus far.

Thank you very much, Tom.

Are there any questions, council colleagues?

I'm not seeing any hands, Tom, if you want to continue.

Thank you, Chair Merceda.

This next table is similar.

It's capturing transportation funds.

So this is a suite of funds that are used by the Seattle Department of Transportation to fund both operating and capital expenses.

Based on the forecast through June, so the numbers at the top in red, this set of funds had a total $41 million shortfall on that that needed to be addressed.

There is no explicit changes that you can see in any of the legislative columns, though I would note that Council Bill 119825 includes in the new Seattle Levy Fund a neutral shift of about $10 million from the from capital that's funded from the MOOC Seattle levy to operating expenses in the MOOC Seattle levy.

And that actually is then offsetting a similar reduction to operating expenses that show up in the general fund column that we discussed in the prior slide.

So again, there is activity going in within that levy fund, and that's one of those types of levy swaps that have been discussed in the CBO presentation in the past.

And it shows as a zero, but it is impactful and beneficial to the overall city financial solution.

So now to the proposed amendment, there are in fact several administrative adjustments that were included in the mayor's rebalance package that just weren't built into legislation.

There's a total of $32 million across these funds of capital changes that are in amendment A.

and $6.4 million of operating budget reductions, totaling $38.6 million of remedies against the shortfall in revenues.

So at the bottom line, the shortfall is $3.5 million, though you'll see that that is actually the result of a more significant $9.6 million shortfall in the transportation fund but actually an excess revenue result in the Seattle Levy Fund.

So the executive proposal, the actual budget that was submitted for 2020 identified about $32.7 million of transportation fund balance.

And you don't see that on this table at this time because it is not explicitly identified as part of the executive's funding solution, though Moving into the third and fourth quarter, it's likely that those types of balances would be identified to help solve these challenges.

So that's the look at transportation funds at a high level, getting, calibrating to what the shortfall is at this point in time.

If there are any specific questions that I can answer, I'd be happy to do so.

Our subject matter expert, Calvin Chow, is also online.

to answer more specific details.

Okay, thank you very much.

And just for folks following along, we are on page 8 of 12. Though the number of the slide does not show up on the presentation, you will have that memo in hand.

Any questions, Council Colleagues?

Seeing this Council President Gonzalez, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Just really quickly, I just want to make, obviously we just passed the levy related to the Seattle Transportation Benefit District.

I'm assuming that's not reflected in this chart as we see it, and just want to know what the, sort of from Council Central staff's perspective, what the interplay is between that ordinance, which is subject to voter approval, and what we see here on table for attachment to transportation funds.

Members, this is Calvin Chow, central staff.

The STVD revenues are completely separate from these funds.

They are voter restricted and can only be used for the transit service and the transit programs, so they have not entered the analysis.

Well, there's a separate third column, fourth column here that highlights those pieces, but those are not really fungible for other projects.

There was a small amount of capital fund money that could be used to fund transit improvements specifically.

And those are reflected in some of the capital savings.

You'll see that $7.88 million that we are proposing to memorialize through legislation.

But it should have no bearing on the legislation that was just passed on Monday.

I do hope that that's helpful clarification.

I know that there was a comment made earlier about the council voting to decrease funding for transit services.

And I think if anything, our vote earlier this week was a vote to increase the availability of funds for transit and subject to voter approval, of course.

Any additional questions on this?

Okay, seeing none, let's continue.

So this next slide from attachment three, which is on e-page 10 of the memo, is for the real estate excise tax.

So these are the two funds that are funded on a quarter percent tax on real estate sales in the city.

They're dedicated for capital and debt service purposes.

Based on the June forecast update, those funds were facing a $40.2 million shortfall.

Based on beneficial activity in 2019, so basically revenues came in higher last year than they were expecting, there's about $18.2 million of fund balance that can be used to help with this problem.

Also, in the budget revisions ordinance.

This is kind of, again, since it's a negative number, it's going in the opposite direction.

One of the solutions to help the general fund was to shift debt service expense from the general fund to the REIT fund.

And there's actually a policy change that's part of the rebalance legislation that's currently before you in the rebalancing package that allows for this shift.

So by virtue of shifting that debt service expenses to REAP from the general fund, it actually increases the shortfall by $3.4 million.

As far as the proposed changes in Amendment A, there are, it's largely capital in nature because these are capital funds, $20.7 million of capital project reductions.

that were proposed for an administrative basis by the executive that are now built into the amendment and 300,000 operating changes for a total legislative change in the amendment A of $21 million.

And so finally, there are two reserves, a reserve in each one of these refunds of $5 million.

They're there to help for financial challenges in times of diminishing revenues.

And the executive proposal, as we understand it, is to use $2 million from each one of those reserve funds to help balance the remaining shortfall, bringing the final balance against the shortfall at $0.

Thanks, Tom.

Before we move on, Council Member Herbold, I believe I saw your hand.

Thank you.

I have a question about the amendment related to REIT.

Tom, you may have covered this.

I apologize if I'm asking something that you already shared.

How much general fund service would be shifted to REIT?

and how much REIT is available.

And just for everybody's information, if you have not already been briefed on this, REIT, SDOT is going to be looking to REIT as a funding source for bonds for the West Seattle Bridge and will be sending legislation to the council very soon.

And so given that this is a future use of REIT, I want to note that.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

With regards to the SHIP, I am only aware of the SHIP that you see in the legislative expenditure change, which is the $3.4 million of general funds, that service that SHIP did to REIT.

I do not have the information of the total resource left over in each one of those REIT funds, though we can follow up with you afterwards unless there's someone on this call who has that information and can jump in at this point.

Following up after is fine.

Thank you.

I did see, Brian, did you have a quick answer?

Thank you, yeah, Brian, good night, Council Central staff.

So I think it might be something we should follow up on afterwards anyway, because actually cash leaving the funds is different than the remaining balance.

But after all of the expenditures and changes that Tom discussed, both of the REIT funds would be left with a $3 million reserve, and then the unreserved any fund balance is less than $400,000 for each of the funds.

So that's kind of the total balance.

You'd assume all of the programmed REIT money is spent.

But that's a little bit distinct from what you were asking, which is how much cash they have on hand in order to loan to other funds.

So we can certainly follow up with that.

Thank you.

So, Patty, if you could mute.

So this is our final table.

This is the utility funds.

which had a $32 million shortfall identified in June.

A large part of the solution is use of fund balances, which are set aside for this type of purpose to help with financial challenges.

$12.3 million across all of the utility funds are helping solve the $32 million problem.

The coronavirus relief legislation actually included 71 $1,000 of money into the FPU funds, so water, drainage waste water, and solid waste, though that same ordinance spends those monies out for COVID relief purposes.

So it's a neutral impact on the funds.

As far as Amendment A, the final row at the bottom, there is a total of $19.8 million of operating changes across all of these funds that help bring the balance to zero.

And so that's the conclusion of the discussion of how the balancing tool works.

I would say and point out that the detail behind all of the proposed Amendment A changes can be seen as an attachment to Amendment A, and it's the similar level of detail that was sent to us by by CBO on June 23rd.

And it's all it's essentially what we used to build the amendment that's Amendment A attached today.

And so — And I'll turn it over to Director Harris — oh I'm sorry.

Yeah.

There's just no there's just one wrap up slide and I think Kirsten and I our Director Harris and I share a role on this final slide.

And so if you have that Patty available So this is the next step.

So I'll handle the technical piece, so the tracking tool and how it's going to, how we intend for it to work for the remainder of this process.

So what we've talked so far about are the information that we had as of June.

But as we all have learned and know, the COVID situation continues to develop and it's an ever-changing forecast situation.

We expect to get an August forecast, and then we will also get a second forecast with the budget that's submitted in September.

So as those updates come in and new information becomes available, we'll update this tool to continue to track progress against the shortfalls.

Also, similarly, we'll do that for technical revisions that may be necessary as we work with CBO and also the decisions that this body makes and the City Council approves to help address the shortfalls that we know we have and the progress that we make against those.

And so now I'll turn over to Kirsten for the kind of wrap-up of this piece of the agenda.

Thank you, Tom.

We just heard a lot of technical detail and Tom and I would be happy to answer any questions offline, meet with folks remotely, go through those balancing tools that Tom just referenced.

But in closing and in the context of these discussion, I just wanted to raise a point that Council, Madam Chair, will be faced with an overarching decision concerning rebalancing the 2020 budget.

not the incremental, like what to add and what to cut, but the overarching decision concerning rebalancing the budget.

The choices include either fully balancing the 2020 budget, you know, for this point in time that we've selected of July 23rd, or balancing the bulk of the 2020 budget as the mayor did.

And for this latter option, the council would work with the executive to make adjustments in the third and fourth quarter supplemental budget so that the budget is fully balanced by the end of the year.

But I raise this because it's been important to some of the council members who have raised issues and concerns that the information that we received from CBO was less than transparent or maybe complicated, you know, to understand.

But And also that when they were asking for council members were requesting information with regard to specific fund balances and details of cuts, they discovered that not everything was balanced as Tom just mentioned.

So these two decisions, Madam Chair, the central staff team and I will be talking with you about this further and the pros and cons of these choices.

So I just wanted to raise this point here in the concluding comments so that we are being as transparent as we can be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you both, Tom and Director Estad.

We appreciate this deep dive and the tool that you have provided to us.

I also want to thank Director Noble from CBO for providing additional information and working with us on this effort.

Is there any additional comments, folks?

Okay, I am seeing no additional.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

So this question is for central staff, and thank you for breaking down the budget, building it back up, showing the June comparison, breaking it out by funds.

wanted to just get the net takeaway in terms of the remaining deficit that you're seeing.

Is it to, um, cause your memo mentions, uh, some numbers, but then I'm, when I add up a couple of charts that have negative numbers on it, I'm, I just wanted to reconcile it.

So what is the, what is the bottom line remaining deficit that you're, um, quantifying now?

And this is prior to obviously getting the August revenue numbers.

Mm.

Would we just be adding up the two negative numbers of the $32.9 million plus the $3.5 million?

Yes, Council Member Peterson.

Technically, we would use the $23 million in the general fund and general fund adjacent, so the first attachment table.

And then we would add the $3.5 million of the transportation funds table.

But then, you know, then there's a bunch of complexity about the ability of one fund to support another and things like that.

But in terms of the unmet shortfall, that would be the combination of those two numbers.

Okay.

Any additional questions?

Council Member Peterson, follow up?

No, not at this time.

Okay.

I believe there will be some follow-up questions, and we will continue to have conversations with folks as we continue to get additional information in about the revenue forecast and any future updates that we would potentially need to make.

Okay, I want to thank Director Erstad and Tom from Central Staff.

Tom, I still really appreciate you walking us through that presentation and providing us with that comprehensive analysis based on the questions that we received in the last week or so.

Let's go ahead and move on.

are now at the point in the agenda where we will be walking through members new amendments on non-SPD related items.

Central staff is going to read each amendment into the record and summarize the effect of the amendment.

The amendment sponsors are going to have the opportunity to speak to the amendment and we will be able to ask questions as a body.

I'm then going to ask if there's any council members who would like to add their names as co-sponsors, as we did last time.

Please raise your hand, say your name, and I'll repeat it for the clerk's record.

We're going to vote on these amendments on Friday, Friday morning, Friday, July 31st.

So in two days and then we will also begin our discussion on the SPD related amendments.

As you saw from today's conversation, we were trying to get through all of the non SPD amendments before going into the SPD amendments, given that there's eight additional non SPD amendments.

We did need to conclude this conversation before we feature all of the amendments we're considering for SPD.

So that's why it's important that we provided the updated presentation on where we are at in the SPD process so that everybody can anticipate that robust discussion on Friday.

We are going to ask central staff to walk us through the amendments before we do so.

Are there any additional questions on the process?

Okay, seeing no hands, turning it over to Lisa.

Lisa, thank you again and your team at Central Staff for walking us through this.

The first amendment we are looking at is amendment number four and the bill that we are starting with is Council Bill 119818. Council colleagues, 119818 is on the screen and you see the amendments in front of us related to that bill.

Lisa, let's take it away.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So we have five amendments to this council bill.

This is the fourth quarter supplemental, as we'll recall.

I'm sorry, second quarter supplemental.

Getting ahead of myself here.

And you'll see the five amendments.

I think Jeff Sims will speak to the first one and Cal will speak to the next four.

I just want to note that these are in addition to the amendments that were discussed on the 22nd and 23rd last week.

whole conglomeration of all these will be before you on the 31st.

So I'll turn it over to Jeff.

Okay, just before you do, I want to make sure that there was no question on that.

So council colleagues, um, whatever gets, um, voted, I'm sorry, whatever gets, um, discussed today will be listed as a full slate of possible amendments for our consideration and vote on Friday.

Um, this is our opportunity to ask the questions, have a discussion, have people add their names as co-sponsors, but you will see all of the non SPD related amendments as one full slate from the 22nd and the 23rd.

In addition to anything that we discussed today, that will be listed as a menu of possible amendments to non-SPD issues for our vote on Friday morning.

Okay, let's go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Jeff Sims, Council of Central Staff.

The first amendment that you're looking at It requires a little bit of background.

As council members are aware, in the 2018 adopted budget, the council provided $1.3 million to support a community health engagement location, or a CHEL, or sometimes called a safe injection site.

And then an additional $100,000 was provided for that same purpose in the 2019 adopted budget.

As the council was preparing the 2020 adopted budget, it was confirmed through communication with the executive that The intention was to continue carrying all $1.4 million in both locations into the subsequent year.

But after going through the subsequent legislation and the package that's before the council, it was identified that that was not done for the $100,000 in the Human Services Department.

I've gotten no indications that this was an intentional action.

In fact, everything points to that having been an oversight or an error that has occurred.

And this amendment addresses that by taking $100,000 out of the Human Services Department and putting it in Finance General, where the bulk, the $1.3 million, already are located at, so that this would not occur again in the future.

And tracking those funds would be easy.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Herbold, as the prime sponsor, would you like to speak to this?

Sure, briefly, as Jeff explained, this amendment will preserve the resources that the council has previously appropriated for the community health engagement locations.

This intervention is one of the many recommendations from the Seattle and King County heroin and opiate task force.

The council has previously received a number of city council briefings on these recommendations.

The recommendations have been made not just to benefit individuals suffering from substance use disorder, but to benefit also the community.

health and safety at the center of these discussions and decisions.

The human services department has performed an assessment of the project including a full cost estimate scope and citing recommendations and also including the cost associated with necessary capital improvements.

And the Department of Public Health and Seattle King County was going to form a community planning group that will provide more operational details, locational criteria, and a proposed timeline for the siting of two cells, one in Seattle and one outside of Seattle and King County.

No decisions have been made at this time.

And I've been inquiring with public health as to the status of this work group.

I really appreciate both Jeff and my staff, Christina, in identifying what looks like was just an accounting mistake and their support in putting the full funding expected and supported by the council back into the budget.

Councilmember Herbold, are there questions or comments, Council colleagues?

Seeing no hands, Councilmember Herbold, I'll just ask one quick question as a long-time supporter also of the safe consumption sites or overdose prevention sites.

I think one of the things we're concerned with is the ongoing non-spend of these dollars year after year.

I appreciate you putting this forward.

I just want to know If you've had any conversations with the Public Defenders Association, I know that there was some questions about whether or not there was flexibility given the resistance to spend it in the way the council continues to direct it from the executive's office and whether there was a conversation at all about flexible funding for methadone or bup medications as well.

Yeah, again, this is something that we have just recently checked in with King County public health about I was under the impression that the next step was to form this community planning group that.

I did not ask about the flexibility for use of these funds for another purpose.

resides in action with the executive.

But like I said, I'm starting with public health right now and will continue to make inquiries.

And if folks listening in have other information that I don't have, please do reach out and share with me.

Thank you.

Excellent, thank you.

Public health led analysis, I like it.

Is there any additional comments or questions?

Okay, I'm not seeing any hands.

I know that Council Member Juarez would like to add her name as a co-sponsor, so we will add Council Member Juarez.

Is there any additional co-sponsor that would like to, Council Member Lewis, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, council colleagues.

I have Council Member Juarez and Council Member Lewis as co-sponsors to Council Member Herbold's amendment number four.

Wonderful.

Moving on.

Council Member Strauss, you are in the next suite of amendments here.

Amendment number five.

We'll turn it back over to central staff to walk us through amendment number five.

Good afternoon, Calvin Schell with Council Central staff.

Amendment number five is sponsored by Council Member Strauss and it would restore $400,000 of funding for the Fortson Square CIP project in SDOT.

It would use transportation fund balance, as we discussed a week ago or so, There are a number of proposals here that are all proposing to draw down on fund balance.

In my effect statement, I've just highlighted the cumulative effect of the council members' proposals in addition to the mayor's rebalancing package.

This would result in a total use of fund balance for these total council proposals of $4.7 million, and it would leave a unreserved fund balance at the end of 2020, of $18.3 million and $1 million in 2021. And with that, I think I will turn it to the sponsor to speak to the amendment.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Calvin.

Your work on this has been very helpful.

What I will say about the entire suite of these next four amendments is that it is important we retain them as line items in our budget, even if those dollars are not spent this year.

Each of these projects has a significant impact in our community, and I'll start with Fortson Square.

This amendment restores the $396,000 to the Fortson Square redevelopment project, as Cal stated, with SDOT's unreserved fund balance.

Fortson Square is at the intersection of Yesler Way and 2nd Avenue Extension next to the Chief Seattle Club.

This funding is the city's contribution to collaborative work that was done over the last two years.

working with King County, Sound Transit, and Chief Seattle Club, as well as the Alliance for Pioneer Square and others.

We need to keep this budget item to do our part and keep our contribution in a multi-jurisdictional partnership.

SDOT, Chief Seattle Club, and the Alliance for Pioneer Square have been working together to redesign and redevelop Bolton Square.

Based on the work that came out of a public life study Council Member Bagshaw and SDOT conducted in the area.

I was able to work on this project on behalf of Council Member Bagshaw and the Public Life Study, and I know how important it is for this project to move forward.

This project is complementary to Chief Seattle Club's redevelopment of the adjacent site, which will create affordable housing, a health care clinic, and an art gallery and gathering space.

As the affordable housing comes online and a new gathering space for the community opens, It is important that the city maintains the investments it is committed to in making this block work for everyone.

The changes this budget item funds will take what is a very difficult to activate public space.

It's on a slant with literally cobblestones.

The grade is not consistent and not easy to gather in.

And so we'll take what is difficult to activate public space and turn it into a place where community can gather and engage with one another.

In particular, this site is the historical edgewater where First Peoples gathered.

This funding will allow us to redevelop the site and do a culturally appropriate investment honoring our First People.

We're creating a gathering place so that that honor and education is is a continued experiential activity into the future.

Thank you, Calvin, and thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, and I'll just say off the bat, I know that Council Member Juarez is interested in being a co-sponsor of this amendment, so she'll be adding her name.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Council Member Strauss.

I had similarly inquired about all the projects in the suite, as they are District 7 projects, and had been told that you had an interest in pursuing these amendments.

And I'm just really grateful to you and the institutional knowledge that you bring from your previous work for the people of District 7 and Council Member Bagshaw's office.

and really excited today to also affix myself as a co-sponsor to these essential investments.

And really want to thank you for taking the lead on this.

It's greatly appreciated to a lot of the communities in District 7 who have been in frequent contact with my office about all of the projects in the suite.

And I really look forward to partnering with you on this and supporting these measures here at the budget.

So thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis, and I noted your co-sponsorship as well.

Any additional comments?

Councilmember Herbold.

Oh, Councilmember Herbold, sorry, I think you're on mute still.

Thank you.

Let's see here.

So this is more about my question about sort of all of these new transportation projects taken as a whole.

I appreciate, Cal, that you provided the information that I had requested at the last meeting about what the sort of historic transportation fund balance is from year to year.

So I could just get a sense of how big of a deal, drawing it down.

I think it is around $18 million.

Estaw is planning on coming to council for bond issuance next year with that bond issuance being repaid by REIT.

But to get through to next year on the West Seattle Bridge project, they are going to be proposing to council an interfund loan very soon.

And I don't have a good sense of where the funds for that interfund loan are going to come from.

and I'm just trying to understand whether or not voting on these projects reduces the funds available to SDOT for an inter-fund loan.

My understanding is SDOT and CBO are looking at other funds outside of transportation to provide those bridge funds to get to the bond issue, so this should not have an impact on the West Seattle Bridge financing.

Okay, thank you.

And then just sort of, again, globally, If it's okay to ask the question about all four projects, it's the same question.

I just want to ensure that if we're taking this action to restore funding for these projects, do we have confirmation that SDOT will be spending the money and performing the work in 2020?

And then, Calvin, in your memo, you state that the Mayor's proposal doesn't balance the SDOT specific funds and doesn't reduce appropriations.

And so SDOT would have administrative ability and flexibility to move eligible program expenses in between funds.

How does how does this proposal tie into that recognition in the memo that you've drafted?

I think there There's somewhat two different questions.

One is about how much money is actually sort of available.

And then the other question is, how much flexibility does the executive have to kind of move things within and manage?

I think they really are different questions.

The 18.3 million is what would be left on paper based on what we saw in the last year's budget.

what we now know to be the revenue estimate and the mayor's proposed spending.

And now this proposed 4.7 million of council additional authorization from council to spend this money.

We don't know necessarily what, how that would be used in the budget conversation we'll be having in the fall.

And that really is the resource sort of, uh, uh, backstop to helping more flexibility when we get to the discussion for next year's budget.

So I think that's just in the context of what we've done historically and the risks we have since we're not out of the COVID recovery yet.

The issue about SDOS administration flexibility, if they do not abandon the appropriations, then they will have spending authority within those funds, and they could find program expenses that could be spent for a legitimate BSL purpose and spend those dollars.

With the proposal to sort of memorialize all the spending that the mayor has proposed, then the executive will have to either propose, they may have to propose additional supplemental changes in the rest of the budget year to explain what they're doing or potentially at the end of the year to sort of match up with what the accounting shows.

I'm sorry, did you ask answer the question about whether or not if if we vote on these, whether or not that means that the That the S dot the executive intends to do this work in 2020 I do not know that they are explicit about how they will handle changes they have made these proposals to

preserve as much funding as possible.

And I think they will take it as a symbol of the council's interest in seeing these projects going forward.

But I have not had any affirmation as to exactly what they will do.

Are the projects ready for this level of spending?

I guess maybe rather than ask a question of How do they feel about these proposals?

I guess it's more, I'm thinking more technically, are the projects ready for this level of spending in 2020?

The projects were put on hold in the spring, and so there may be some delay in getting started again, but they were slated to move forward this year, so presumably they would move forward again.

It may mean that they would have a delay however long we've been in this, probably three months now.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

Councilmember Strauss, did you have a comment?

Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for those excellent questions.

What I can say, and I'll address each project individually, with Fortson Square in particular, the Chief Seattle Club's redevelopment of the adjacent building is currently underway, and to ensure that we remain on the is scheduled to redevelop Portsmouth Square in collaboration with the redevelopment of the formerly yellow building there.

It is important that we do keep these funds targeted towards this project.

Thank you.

I see you now.

Thanks.

Excellent.

Thank you.

As a sponsor of this, I just want to let you know that I will also be adding my name to this.

This is, I think, a excellent complement to the Chief Seattle Club Affordable Housing Development in Pioneer Square to make much needed safety and livability improvements for the individuals living down there and the future neighbors in the area.

And these are the type of complementary investments that we want to see, especially as we just wrapped up our conversation around Jump Start.

This is exactly the type of investments in infrastructure and the public right-of-way in areas where we've envisioned investing in affordable housing and also making sure that our public dollars stretch even further by supporting good jobs and creating healthy, walkable, affordable living.

So happy to add my name there.

So far, council colleagues, I've heard Council Member Juarez, Council Member Lewis, and myself, Mosqueda, added to this, Council Member Herbold.

We're just talking about an amendment five.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to amendment number six related to the market to MOHAI.

And then six is sponsored by Council Member Strauss.

It would restore $400,000 for the market to MOHAI project.

A lot of the same discussion we just had probably applies here as well.

So I think I'll just turn it to Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Cal.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Again, this amendment will restore $400,000 dollars to the Market to Mohai pedestrian improvement project with funds currently in SDOT's unreserved balance.

Market to Mohai is a project to make improvements along the pedestrian corridor, which is demarked from the public market to the Museum of History and Industry, linking the waterfront with Belltown, Southlake Union, and Mohai.

I will be straightforward.

with you as my colleagues of these four proposals in terms of an equity lens, this project does score the lowest of all four.

That said, with the massive population growth in the areas adjacent to this Mark to Mohai pathway, great pedestrian infrastructure is needed in between these new population centers and the transit that serves the neighborhood.

This is also a project that I worked on with Councilmember Bagshaw and was the last bit of funding needed to create, to finish the Market to Mohi project, which was mostly funded by private contributions and local grants.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Additional comments or questions, colleagues?

Okay.

Councilmember Strauss, you sort of spoke to the question or concern that I wanted to raise was just regarding the tough choices that are in front of us right now and the scoring that this did receive on the racial equity analysis.

Wondering if you could comment just a little bit further about why particularly this project, given some of the other projects that we know are slated for reductions across the city, especially in the south end?

Thank you, Chair.

And this along with the other amendments is in the same vein of a project that I previously worked on and was the last bit of funding in a collaborative process with many different stakeholders.

The reason that I was forthright with you regarding the equity lens is because I just want to be completely transparent in what I'm bringing forward to us as a body.

That's fair.

Thank you.

I don't have much more than that.

That's fair.

Thank you.

And I think that, you know, we all have that lens that we're bringing towards the work with trying to see things that we've invested in previously not be cut off at the last minute.

That's why I'm going to be supporting the Thomas Street amendment as well.

But thank you for that answer and for calling that out.

I appreciate that.

Any additional comments or questions on this?

We are looking at amendment number six.

Any additional folks would like to add their name as co-sponsors at this moment?

Councilmember Lewis, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Lewis as a co-sponsor.

Let's move on to amendment number seven.

$697,000 for the Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Project.

I think I'll turn it over to Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Cal.

This, along with the other projects amendments, would restore, in this case, $697,000 to the Route 7 Multimodal Corridor Project, which will upgrade Metro Route 7 to eventually become the new RapidRide R line.

Of the suite of these four amendments, this is a project that I did not previously work on, And it is important to me to be able to protect Route 7 because it is an important route within our city.

SDOT is currently coordinating with King County Metro to make street improvements on Rainier Avenue South, including bus-only lanes, signal upgrades, pedestrian and bike crossings improvements, and other safety improvements.

Having reliable, frequent transit that you know how long it will take once you get on the bus to get to your destination is what allows people to be able to truly rely on transit, which is why spot improvements and corridor improvements such as this are very important to me.

Prior to the pandemic, Route 7 served more than 11,000 riders every day.

This makes it one of the highest ridership routes in the city.

As Council Member Morales noted earlier this week, Route 7 is used for short and long trips.

It's used to get to and from the grocery store and other errands, and is also used to get to and from home to downtown locations.

Route 7 also serves many diverse south end neighborhoods, communities of color, and it seems contrary to our RSGI goals to cut funding from this important transit corridor project.

Route 7 is oftentimes delayed by street conditions and traffic, and this is why it is important to me that we create a road network and set up our right-of-way so that we're able to move the freight of people using transit in a reliable fashion.

These improvements will make the route more frequent and reliable.

The funding for this project is proposed to be cut in the rebalance, and I believe that it is critical to maintain it in this rebalancing exercise.

Thank you, Chair.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Are there additional comments on amendment number seven?

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

I want to thank Council Member Strauss for bringing this forward.

I will have lots of questions as these improvements actually start to get implemented.

Part of the challenge with the seven, well, not with the seven, but with Rainier Avenue itself is that it is a feed highway.

And so the pedestrian improvements that are so critical here are things like many more crosswalks across the avenue as people get from the food bank, for example, to their homes or trying to cross the street to go the opposite direction.

So this is critical infrastructure and improvements that we're going to need.

it's going to take a lot of work to make sure that we are especially paying attention to pedestrian improvements that support people's ability to get to the bus stops and get where they're going in the neighborhood safely.

So I appreciate this work and will be supporting this amendment as well as making sure that We're having many conversations with Metro and with SDOT about how to implement the kind of infrastructure improvements that keep people safe and help us meet our Vision Zero goals.

Thank you, Councilmember Morales.

Are there other questions or comments?

Seeing none, I will also add That's I think that this is a really important add back.

I think the rapid are sorry rapid ride.

Our line is we talked about earlier this week as it related to.

I'm trying to preserve as much services and frequency as possible.

It's important to note that especially during this time of COVID, the R line is one of the most used by essential workers during the pandemic.

It serves communities of color, especially in the South End as Council Member Morales pointed out in her district, and it has been delayed before.

So in an effort to try to not repeat that pattern, I think it's really important that we continue to emphasize the investments in the South End and especially for communities that have been disproportionately transit dependent, and we must ensure that their service is being reinvested in.

So happy to be adding my name along with Council Member Juarez.

Are there other folks who would like to add their names?

Council Member Morales, did you also indicate that?

Okay, and I saw Council Member Sawant, and I see Council Member Lewis.

Okay, and I see Council Member Herbold.

Okay, so to summarize, for amendment number seven, related to route seven, multimodal corridor project, we have council member Juarez, Morales, Sawant, Mosqueda, Lewis, and Herbold as co-sponsors.

Okay, moving on.

Council member Strauss, your final amendment in this suite is amendment number eight.

Amendment No. 8 sponsored by Council Member Strauss would add $777,000 back to the 2020 budget for the Thomas Street redesigned project.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Cal.

And again, this is intended to ensure that the project does not fall out of our budget, even if dollars are not spent this year.

As State Route 99 transitioned from the Battery Street Tunnel into the Deepwater Tunnel, three streets were identified or were reconnected over what used to be Aurora.

These streets are Harrison, John, and Thomas.

Harrison was designated for transit and cars.

John is used as a standard streetscape.

And Thomas Street was designated as the pedestrian and bike street.

In 2013, our understanding of what pedestrianized spaces is completely different from what we understand as pedestrianized spaces today.

And so when this was originally designed as a pedestrian corridor, the sidewalks were expanded just barely.

A protected bike lane was put in that does not adequately meet the pedestrian and bicycling needs that we have today.

Thomas Street is a crucial connection between the Seattle Center, South Lake Union, Cascade neighborhood.

It links Lake Union Park.

It links West Lake Union Cycle Track.

It links Dexter Street all to the Seattle Center.

This really can be viewed as an extension of the Seattle Center campus as the skate park, which Seaskate, was transferred out of Seattle Center which was adjacent to the key arena to now being on Thomas Street on the old Broad Street right of way.

And so the Seattle Center campus is now expanding and Thomas Street is an important entrance and exit and expansion of the Seattle Center.

This is While it is in a high access to opportunity neighborhood, this is a last mile connection to transit that connects all across the city.

While Seattle Center is very similar to our Central Park, this Thomas Street connection next to the C and E lines, so all the way up to Shoreline, all the way through West Seattle, It connects the Route 40, Route 5, Route 62, Route 28, Route 70, Route 3, Route 26, Route 594 to Tacoma, and Route 578 to Puyallup.

So this one street, by pedestrianizing it, it really creates access to many, many communities throughout Western Washington.

It will be even more important in the coming years as we rely on Thomas Street as the Seattle Center becomes a much more activated space.

Last year, again, working with Council Member Bagshaw, we worked with community advocates, SDOT, the mayor's office, and others to initiate planning process, reorganizing past planning efforts for Thomas Street as they weren't effective.

There was a complete street, and maybe, Cal, if you could help me with the technical term of the former street planning effort that we used, which is now no longer used because we have streets illustrated as our framework for how we pedestrianize spaces.

And so this is an important project because it takes an outdated model and updates it to our current understanding of what pedestrianized spaces are.

Last year, a community design shred was hosted by, and we had over 50 people in attendance, and it led to this Thomas Street Redefined Plan.

The plan proposes new investments in the pedestrian and bike connections, including the public closet Fifth and Thomas next to the future Seattle skate park, Seascape.

It includes a 36 foot wide pedestrian walkway and bike promenade and a protected intersection at Dexter and Thomas.

This investment is the city's general fund contribution to a partnership with Seattle City Light to improve the pedestrian experience outside of their substation.

We have adjacent developers contributing, private entities in the local area, and land conservation local improvement investment program dollars.

So this is really the city's general fund contribution to a multi-jurisdictional effort.

This project relies on partnerships with private development and grant sources as well.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Strauss.

Are there questions or comments for Councilmember Strauss on Amendment 8?

Councilmember Strauss, I will be supporting this amendment as I alluded to earlier.

I think, if my memory serves me correctly, in my first year on council, this is a amendment that I sponsored to make sure that that corridor was connected on Thomas Street.

And I appreciate you lifting up the fact that the work is still yet to be done.

Calvin, is there any additional comments that you would chime in on regarding that tool that appears to be outdated?

Just to, I think it's a fair statement that when the decision to put the State Route 99 in tunnel and what the planning was at that time when that decision was made is, has, they didn't spend nearly as much time as the recent efforts to actually figure out how we would implement the pedestrian improvements along Tom Street.

And that's especially important as Council Member Strauss alluded to because of the individuals who need to connect to the E line, one of the most popular bus routes in Seattle, connecting to the Seattle Center and the new arena.

and it's high impact, this is a high impact project that will help workers get to their jobs safely and make sure that there's more mobility around the core.

So happy to work with you, really excited to have been able to work with you both in this role as a council member and your previous role and in partnership with Council Member Bagshaw as well.

So happy to co-sponsor this amendment.

Any other co-sponsors or comments?

Council Member Lewis.

Any additional co-sponsors or comments?

Okay.

Council Member Lewis, Council Member Mosqueda, adding to amendment number eight.

Thank you very much.

All right, Lisa, I believe that that wraps us up with Council Bill 119818. Are we ready to move to Council Bill 119825?

Yes, Council Chair.

We have three amendments there.

Council Bill 119825 is the 2020 budget revisions ordinance, and so Ali will kick us off.

Thank you, Lisa.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

Ali Panucci with Council Central staff.

Amendment 13 to Council Bill 119825, sponsored by Council Member Strauss, would impose a proviso on $10,000 in the Department of Finance and Administrative Services 2020 budget that would be lifted after the department completes analysis and submits a report to the council describing how changes to the business and occupation tax obligations for certain small businesses could be implemented and how such changes will impact the city's budget.

To lift the proviso, the chair of the Finance and Housing Committee would submit a certification to the city clerk confirming that the report has been received.

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

Thank you.

We are moving quickly today.

Thank you, Chair.

As you've heard me say before, I'm interested in exploring providing V&O tax relief to small businesses who are struggling with the impacts of this pandemic.

I've heard from many restaurants, breweries, and small businesses in my district that V&O taxes are particularly burdensome right now, given the loss of profit they are experiencing.

This amendment would impose a proviso on a portion of the FAS budget until the complete analysis of the feasibility for us to provide V&O tax relief or deferrals in 2021 for small businesses at various thresholds.

Since bringing this amendment forward, I have been assured that these questions can be explored and addressed by the CBO and central staff working together as part of our pre-budget questions.

Given that, I will not be moving this amendment forward.

And I have, again, been assured that we will have this information in time to make important decisions in our fall budgeting process.

Thank you, Chair.

OK, so just to confirm, Council Member Strauss, you are withdrawing amendment number 13 here?

Correct.

OK.

And you'll keep us updated on the information that you received back along with any messages from central staff on this issue.

I know Council Member Juarez and myself were interested in this as well.

Yes, it's been relayed to me that we can achieve the results.

that this amendment intends to find without provisoing important FTEs in CDL.

So I want to be collaborative in my working relationship with colleagues and other departments, and I believe that we are able to still receive this information.

All right, that sounds good.

And we have another chance to raise the question about provisos in the fall process if necessary.

OK.

Let's move on to amendment number 14. Is that the next one you have there, Lisa?

Yes, and that will be Asha speaking to that, please.

Thank you, Asha.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

Asha Venkatraman with your Council Central staff.

Amendment 14 is sponsored by Council Member Lewis, and it would add $1.7 million to HSD for non-congregate shelter.

That would come from $1.7 million in potential estimated forecasted savings if King County decides to grant a waiver for the King County jail contract.

The proviso limits spending of this amount on non-congregate shelter.

That could include tiny home villages, enhanced shelter, or hotel rooms.

And the proviso doesn't prevent HSD from partnering with another department or organization if they decide that that is the best way to move forward with these funds.

I'll turn it over to Council Member Lewis for further comments.

Thank you so much, Ashton.

Thanks for your work on this.

You know, I think it's been a common theme throughout the spring and the summer with this council.

You know, all of us, you know, Chair Mosqueda, Councilmember Morales, Councilmember Kerbal, I mean, all of us, have been very adamant that we want more non-congregate shelter options to get folks off the street, to live in a place with dignity, to be able to live in conditions that are safe and socially distanced so that they're not being put at risk of contracting and spreading COVID.

and this is another source of potential resources to accomplish that.

$1.7 million would be a significant additional investment on top of the investments this council has already made.

We know that the demand is overwhelming.

And despite a lot of the movements we've made under Chairman Mosqueda's leadership on Jump Start and other projects, we know that we still have a long way to go to get sufficient resources out there to really make meaningful progress on our homelessness response during COVID and even before.

So I think that this, the city has already received a waiver for the first half of the year.

balancing savings.

So this would really be for going forward for the rest of 2020. You know, we do anticipate that the city of Seattle will not be utilizing as much of the space that we lease in the jail as we sort of alluded to and discussed last week.

I'm going forward in 2020 as COVID continues to be a massive public health crisis here.

And de-intensification of the King County Jail remains a priority for King County.

So, you know, hopefully we will get this waiver extension.

We will realize this 1.7 million and be able to defer these resources into non-congregate shelter opportunities for our neighbors experiencing homelessness.

And I don't have anything else to add now, but would be happy to take any questions and let central staff clarify things too.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

And as chair of the Select Committee on Homelessness Response, thank you for your leadership on this effort as well over the last five or six months to try to get additional funding into non-congregate shelter options.

Councilmember Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Two questions.

One, last week in Budget Committee, we discussed, I believe it was Chair Mosqueda's amendment for funding for this purpose.

How does this amendment relate to that one that we kind of did a show of hands on?

support for it.

There was some issue about the funding source and a bunch of interest in that funding source.

Is this additive to the amendment that we already discussed, which then is additive to the money in Jumpstart, which is additive to the money that we approved in the Commerce Bill?

So I just want to get a sense of how much money we're putting aside to spend in the next four months.

for these pressing needs, but just trying to get a handle on, of these pressing needs, how much money can actually be spent in the next four months to address them.

And then my second question is, the Choose 180 expansion to include folks over 25 years of age that I proposed last week.

Also, a modest amount of $25,000 that it proposed using the I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on how we can use funds from a jail contract, assuming we get an extension of the waiver, for that purpose as well, and just wondering how much are we anticipating drawing down from that, and are we creating, again, another conflict here with a proposed fund source

I can answer some of those and then central staff can answer the rest.

In response to your first question about whether this is intended to be additive, this is definitely intended to be additive.

My quest during this entire balancing exercise and going on until the fall has been how can we find every opportunity to create I think there are some advantages to that approach.

one, I think it increases the I think that the second thing that I would say is that, you know, if we have multiple different sources and enhances our power as a council to work out with the department and with the executive, actually getting some of this money spent and some of these additive services set up, I think that is a good point.

I think the advantage here with this source is I have intentionally, and this is sort of related to your As currently written, this is at the lower end of our anticipated spread of what might be realized from the waiver extension.

My understanding is that goes from 1.7 to 2.1 million.

I am also potentially looking at this as something where on Friday I'll propose some grant funding for exploring a Kahoot style first response system from as well.

I have no problem drawing down and making it even more conservative to accommodate the Choose 180 Proviso if we want to be even safer and maybe make this amendment.

I will let central staff jump in on that.

Yeah, thank you.

I would like to hear from central staff on this, but specifically, so given that this is additive to the amendment that Chair Mosqueda made last week, and given that we've put funds aside in the Jump Start 2020 spending plan, and given that we've authorized additional funds in the Commerce Bill for this purpose, I'd like to know how much that totals.

And again, I still need to hear an answer to the question of whether or not those dollars can be spent in the last four months of 2020. Because as I understand it, the way our budgeting process works now is We don't just, unspent funds don't just carry over to the next year for the purpose of which we allocated them for in the previous year.

They go back and are available for the mayor to, as I understand it, for the mayor to propose in the 2021 budget.

So I'm just a little bit nervous about putting From just my rough recollection, maybe $5 million for this purpose to be spent in just the last four months of the year.

when there may be other needs that those dollars could be spent immediately.

Because I just don't want these funds, if they're not spent, to sit somewhere and then go back in a pot to be reallocated according to the executive's wishes in the September budget process.

First off, Jeff Sims, who's also on the line, may be able to answer some of your questions around the totals here.

I would just add, the only thing I would add additionally to Council Member Lewis's comments is that the spread of savings is from 1.7 to $2.1 million.

And so this 1.7 plus the 25 would just be a little bit over 1.7, but I'm happy to adjust that as is appropriate.

but I would kick it over to Jeff.

First to your question about how our ability to implement that many investments in tiny home villages or hotel rooms or other approaches to non-congregate shelter.

We have asked for previously, but not given a response on how many locations are available that we could develop for a tiny home village.

The startup costs are estimated to be around $600,000 or less for that type of an approach.

And then, of course, you have hotel rooms that are already being utilized to some degree, especially through county resources, but also with some HSD support.

And these funds would be permissible for that as well.

Between the one point last week, you referenced the discussion last week, that revised amendment looks like it will likely be $1.1 million by the time we sorted out the variety of funds available and uses.

So this amount plus that would add up to $2.8 million.

Not counting the coronavirus sorry I was supposed to say Coronavirus Relief Fund but I know that that's not the proper name.

The fund of no past association with Jump Start Seattle.

So please.

Please chair.

You're good.

You're good.

We know what you're talking about.

The Coronavirus Relief Fund associated with the Jump Start has been planned for 2020.

Thank you.

So I can't speak to exactly how many, but looking at those multiple different uses, I think that would, there's a variety of ways that I could envision the executive choosing to implement the expenditures.

And then I want to clarify that the commerce bill, which was passed by the council previously, did not actually include funds for this purpose.

The funds providing shelter supports in that context were only for congregate shelter de-intensification.

we have moved people from some of our other congregate facilities into that in order to allow for more social distancing and those funds were to be supported.

the first vote that we took on holding back the $1.4 million back in May of this year, if not earlier.

when the dollars became available from the Department of, well, let's just say when dollars were available, and I can't remember if it was CDBG funds at this point or not, but we really worked hard as a council to allocate $1.4 million.

And I believe what we saw from the proposal that came from the mayor's office this last go around was that they decided to not use the money as the council had directed.

Jeff, if you could just remind us about that.

You're correct.

So the $1.4 million that you're referring to There's essentially three bills that all dealt with CDBG or commerce funds.

In this case, initially there was an addition of $1.4 million supporting some of that non-congregate shelter.

The executive didn't move forward with that.

And then when the commerce dollars were accepted, that provided funds for homeless services providers to address their COVID related needs.

And the executive through administrative action is going to use that $1.4 million still for homelessness prevention and rental assistance supports rather than initially, than the use that the council had requested back in May.

It would have been even more additive had the 1.4 actually been spent the way the council had directed, but Council Member Herbold.

And so for the jumpstart code relief bill for specifically for non-congregate shelter de-intensification efforts, as I understand it, that mirrors this use as proposed for this use, and that was $10.8 million for 2020. Is that correct?

Council members, this is Ellie Pucci.

Yes, in the COVID relief bill, Council Bill 119812, there was $10.8 million included in that bill that authorizes spending in 2020 for shelter deintensification activities.

and housing or shelter options for unsheltered homeless individuals and families in non-congregate settings.

So could somebody speak to my question of like, so it's much more than my back of the envelope, 5 million.

What happens if we don't spend all of these dollars, about $13 million, $14 million in the next four months.

Am I correct in my recollection that it doesn't just carry over for that purpose for 2021 and it's the mayor who gets to spend the money or gets to propose how to spend the money first?

That would be correct, Council Member, that the mayor could propose either carrying forward or reallocating that funding for other uses, but the council ultimately gets to decide on whether or not you agree with that proposal.

So specific to the COVID bill, that would be money that is currently in the city's emergency and reserve funds, and so it would remain there and be available for, you know, continued emergency response and other needs in 2021. Okay, thank you.

Council Member Herbold, follow-up?

No, no follow-up.

Okay, Council Member Lewis, any comments on that?

No, not at this time.

I mean, I guess I would just reemphasize that my understanding is a lot of our community partners are in a position where this is support that they could use and that there are things that they could stand up and investments they could make if this money can get out the door.

I do agree that it is something we always have to be mindful of, of how quickly the department could to get this money and then turn it around to get it in the hands of those providers to actually use it.

And I think that that's certainly a worthy consideration.

But just the scope of the need and the eagerness of some of our community partners to be able to take additional investment and then turn it around to use it to provide that we have appropriated this money for this purpose, and really creating the pressure to get it out the door and get people inside is something I'm going to continue to advocate for.

I also just like the symbolic importance of divesting from a jail contract to put that money into non-congregate shelter and housing alternatives for people experiencing homelessness.

I think it's an important step that also meets the challenge of this moment.

And for those reasons, I'm proud to bring this forward for the consideration of the council and look forward to our discussion later on this.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Agreed.

I appreciate you summarizing that.

And I would also note that we have heard from folks who you've noted are ready to stand up and use these dollars immediately.

They also already have contracts with the city.

So perhaps there's something that we could look into there about just quick amendments to get these dollars out the door for folks like DESC, REACH, LEAD, Catholic Community Services, partners that are already working closely with the city.

I will be adding my name as a cosponsor to this.

Okay, Council Member Morales.

Okay, thank you very much, Council Member Lewis.

We have Council Member Sawant, Morales, and Mosqueda.

Did I miss anybody?

Oh, wonderful.

Let's move on to amendment number 15.

Council Member Calvin Chenoweth, Council Central Staff.

I'm sorry, just before you begin, was that you, Lisa, that you spoke?

I'm sorry, Cal was just jumping on because

I just want to make sure I didn't miss a council member.

Okay, please go ahead, Council Member Calvin Chow.

Amendment number 15 is sponsored by Council Member Morales.

It would restore $40,000 for the Soto Trail CIP project in SDOT.

To make funds available, it would cut $30,000 of general fund from the Department of Neighborhoods and $10,000 of general fund from Finance and Administrative Services.

The $30,000 from Department of Neighborhoods was to be used for basically discretionary spending in their Find It Fix It program.

The department is not doing neighborhood walks due to the COVID emergency this year, so that money should be available.

And the $10,000 is expected to come from additional vacancy savings from FAS.

The mayor's proposed rebalancing package assumed salary savings through June.

So there presumably will be additional salary savings for the rest of the year.

I'll turn it to Council Member Morales to speak to the amendment.

Thank you, Calvin.

I appreciate your support on this.

So as Calvin mentioned, this is funding for the Soto Trail, trying to restore funding for the Soto Trail, which is a the spine of a planned bike network that has yet to be completed.

As we know, we've been having challenges for quite some time in this city completing our bike master plan.

It's an off-street facility from the stadiums southward through the train yards down there.

And, you know, especially now as I've been talking with folks in Georgetown who are really impacted by the West Seattle bridge closure and looking at the you know, dramatic increase in traffic that they're experiencing there.

I think everybody is looking for ways to mitigate some of the car traffic.

So preserving this trail, which really is essential for safe through bike routes from Georgetown, South Park, West Seattle, and local access to the Soto Station.

Folks are looking for ways that safely separate pedestrian and bike traffic from the truck and train traffic that goes on down there.

And as I said, now I think there are estimated about 100,000 cars and buses that were using the West Seattle Bridge daily, who are now looking for alternate routes, and people on bikes can still get through.

So this is, you know, for many reasons, including trying to meet some of our Vision Zero goals.

We really need to finish some of these connection points that most of the trail is already there.

There's a segment that needs to be completed.

And this amendment would just deliver on a commitment to connect that existing infrastructure to meet both our Vision Zero goals and our new goal of trying to help people get out of West Seattle.

So I am offering this to our neighbors.

and to West Seattle to come visit and shop and see all our amazing parks.

Okay, Council Members, thank you Council Member Morales for bringing this forward.

Council Members, are there comments or questions?

Okay, Council Members, that is surprising.

We are always full of comments on West Seattle and West Seattle bridge-related issues, so I'll just add you are singing my favorite tune as you talk about protecting folks who are biking in that area.

Many of us have had that bike route as we commute into the city and know the importance of having that connector continue.

And especially as you talk about Soto and South Park with more cars going through that area and the congestion that's currently occurring, we want to make sure pedestrians and bikers are safe.

I'm happy to add my name as a co-sponsor on this.

Is there any additional folks who would like to add their name as a co-sponsor to amendment number 15?

Okay, here we go.

Council President Gonzalez, Council Member Strauss, and Council Member Sawant.

Okay.

Council Member Lewis.

Okay.

To summarize, amendment number 15, we have Councilmember Lewis, Councilmember Morales, Council President Gonzalez, Councilmember Strauss, Councilmember Sawant, and myself, Councilmember Mosqueda.

That concludes the numbered amendments.

Let's go now to amendment number, I'm sorry, amendment A, letter A that was described in the memo that Director Erstad and Tom spoke to earlier today.

And I will turn it over to central staff to walk us through Amendment A, if that's correct, Lisa.

I am just checking.

I think I was under the impression that Tom and Kirsten covered that in their earlier presentation.

OK, great.

Any additional questions or comments on Amendment A given the robust presentation this morning?

All right.

We will go ahead and move forward with that.

Council colleagues, that brings us to the end of our agenda for today.

Are there any additional comments or questions for the good of the order?

No.

Council members still want, please go ahead.

Oh, good.

Thank you.

I just wanted to say, I mean, the amendment includes the $16 million cut to the police that my officer also sent in as an amendment.

I had a question.

I mean, we heard previously that Seattle police had spent $6.3 million in overtime in of policing and I would say attacking the protest movement in the first 12 days, you know, between May 29th and June 9th.

And then we heard that the mayor had claimed that she was going to spend no more money this year on police overtime.

I just wanted to flag that question for Friday.

How did the Seattle police pay for the militarized response to Saturday's protest this past Saturday?

Thank you, Council Member Sawant.

I'm not sure that we have Greg on the line, but I will see if Director Aristad has any comments or would like to direct that to anybody on central staff here.

Correct.

Thank you, Council Member, for that question.

And as Council Member just mentioned, we will have an answer to that question on Friday.

So we'll be prepared to speak to that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant, for highlighting that.

A big concern, I know, on behalf of this council.

So thank you for flagging that.

and a good segue into our conversation that we will have on Friday.

So we have a huge amount of appreciation for all of the central staff for the work that they've done on the non-SPD related amendments.

Council colleagues, we've had a chance to ask questions, provide comments on all of the non-SPD related items, which we will start our council meeting with on Friday morning.

My hope is that we will get through these relatively quickly.

Obviously, there are a number of amendments for our consideration that council central staff will be Um, summarizing for us.

Thank you to the prime sponsors and the co sponsors for all of your work and support so far.

Um, and to the extent we have already had some of the debate and questions, I'm hoping it will be a relatively smooth conversation on the non SPD related amendments so that we can really dive into the SPD amendments that are being drafted and will be summarized on friday.

That is the plan.

I want to apologize for Friday meetings that are going to be long.

I know many of us have been, all of us, every single one of us, including community, has been working around the clock.

It's not easy to ask you to work all day on Friday as well on these Zooms because we know that that adds a level of additional work and stress.

So thank you for making your Friday available and to your staff as well.

speaking of our teams, I want to thank the central staff for this presentation today and upcoming on Friday.

Our IT team and clerks and the communications team who've made this robust public comment period available at today's meeting and also at all of our meetings in the past.

We will have a shorter public comment period on Friday and in the upcoming meetings given the robust nature of today's public comment, but we will continue to have public comment.

And I want to thank all of you for your incredible participation on these long days.

We're going to end this with our next meeting on Friday, July 31st at 10 a.m.

Short public comment period, but there will be public comment.

You can sign up starting at 8 a.m.

With that, today's meeting is adjourned, and thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.