Select Committee on 2024 Transportation Levy 5/21/2024

All right, good morning.

We have quorum.

The May 21st, 2024 meeting of the select committee on the 2024 transportation levy will come to order.

It is 1035 a.m.

I'm Rob Saka, chair of the transportation committee and chair of this select committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Kettle?

Here.

Councilmember Moore?

Present.

Councilmember Morales?

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Rivera.

Present.

Vice Chair Hollingsworth.

Present.

Chair Saka.

Here.

Chair, there are seven committee members present.

All right, and I note that Council Members Strauss and Wu are excused from today's meeting.

Colleagues, if there are no objections, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing no objections, the agenda is hereby adopted.

Colleagues, a few quick remarks.

This committee, as we know, is charged with overseeing the transformative and hugely impactful piece of legislation, the 2024 transportation levy renewal proposal.

And we are just completing the eighth year, I think the ninth year of the 2015 move levy This levy was passed by voters.

Our voters entrusted us, the city leaders and departments to ensure that our transportation priorities and the urgent needs were being met.

And at the conclusion of this, rounding out the basis of performance of this particular levy, it is my firm belief that this levy has, this past levy has delivered to the voters substantially all of what we have, uh, promised and committed, and what we have received.

We also have received briefings and reports from the Levee Oversight Committee recommending a new levee, and here we are.

So I want to thank members of the Levee Oversight Committee for their diligent stewardship over these past years.

I also want to thank the mayor and his team for their efforts to help bring forth the levee renewal package in all its complexities and to present This levy proposal in a way that the public can understand in terms of those framing the categories presented, etc.

Now it's our turn.

Today we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to meet the developing needs of our fast growing city and as chair of this committee.

It is my privilege to help lead this hugely important process working closely alongside you all.

and collaboratively with you all, and direct engagement, of course, from members of the public and the community.

And, you know, my initial sort of impressions of this levy, it's a, as I mentioned before, it's a strong, at a high level, it's a strong back to basics levy.

levy package.

And, you know, I think over time, over the course of the next couple of sessions, we'll have an opportunity to more closely examine specific investment, proposed investment categories and the adequacy and sufficiency of various investment categories in relation to other investments and priorities, including sidewalks, freight cargo mobility, EV charging, roads, and, of course, the stuff that is not going to get any headlines whatsoever, but it's what I think voters elected us to do, and that's just good old-fashioned, good governance provisions, the unsexy, unglamorous things that help drive performance and help, therefore, drive impact.

Those type of things will have an opportunity, I think, and more to closely examine and strengthen as part of this process.

So big decisions, including the appropriate size of this levy, await us, which we'll be directly confronted with no later than the very next meeting.

And, again, we're going to have to roll up our sleeves, work together, and weigh the priorities, and also being very mindful of the non-trivial financial impacts that this levy has on everyday voters, the ones many of us are fresh off the campaign trail and talking to and engaging with.

And whatever...

Whatever the size of the investment we have, they want us to spend wisely and make sure we're getting good return on investment.

And that is my commitment as part of this process to make sure we're doing exactly that.

And, you know, sidewalks and safety and equity, all these things are top of mind for me personally.

As is, again, freight mobility, cargo mobility.

I've heard that theme before.

hammered over and over by many of you colleagues.

And I agree, that's a huge economic development driver and supports the backbone of our economy.

One of our public commenters famously said, which I appreciate, I haven't heard of a, and I'm getting the words wrong, I'm paraphrasing, but he said, I haven't heard of Anyone being able to effectively deliver a fridge on a bus, and I take the bus, but it's true.

So we need to support all modes.

And I think we'll have an opportunity to do exactly that.

So in addition, again, to EV charging, to help us better achieve our climate goals amongst other things.

So that said, we will now open the hybrid public comment period.

Public comment should relate to items on today's agenda and within the purview of this committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up today?

Chair, we currently have seven in-person speakers signed up and there are two remote speakers present.

You said seven?

In-person, yes.

Okay.

All right.

Each speaker will have approximately two minutes.

We'll start with the in-speakers first.

Clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

Speakers will alternate between sets of in person and remote speakers until the public comment period has ended.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

and the public comment period is now open.

We will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Chair, did you want to begin with in-person or remote speakers first?

Let's begin with in-person, please.

All right.

Megan Cruz.

Good morning.

Can you hear me?

How about this one?

The other one seemed marginally better.

Hello.

Sounds good?

Yep.

You'll want to come real close to the mic.

All right.

Here we go.

I'm Megan Cruz speaking today, as a matter of fact, on public safety and the freight budget.

Everyone we know relies on freight, as you've pointed out, to get their goods and services every day.

And we know with increased density comes increased freight deliveries.

In the last levy period, just during five years of it, we doubled downtown deliveries two and a half times.

So in this new levy, and by the way, that had a huge impact on the safety and functionality of all the streets and other transportation modes.

So deliveries continue to rise at that level today citywide.

Yet in this new levy, the funding is dead last for freight.

Just 2%, less than 2% of the entire levy, and that is no increase from the last levy period.

The Seattle Freight Advisory Board has written to the mayor recommending that this be doubled and talk about back to basics.

This would cover ensuring the safe design and repair of major truck arterials so that it doesn't interfere with transit and other modes of transportation, as well as fixing smaller streets that go into our neighborhoods where trucks and vans plow.

So we need this because there are no other sources for some of these smaller streets.

Today, I'd like this committee to ask just two questions.

Why is freight the lowest priority on this huge budget?

And what is the city's plan to manage its exponential growth?

Thank you.

Thank you.

And by the way, I do have a copy of this freight advisory board letter, and I'd like to have you read it and talk about they'll go into detail about what's missing and what really could be used.

Thank you.

I reviewed it.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

The next speaker is Claudia Mason.

Good morning.

My name is Claudia Mason, and I work at the Elliott Bay Book Company, and I've been part of that business since 1987. My husband, Rob Mason, was a member of our bookstore family for 20 of those years.

He was always proud to tell people that I worked at Elliott Bay.

The reactions were always positive, and they would often tell him how lucky I was to work there.

I did feel very lucky, that is until July 15th of 2022, the day that Rob was killed by a hit and run driver while riding his bicycle home from his work as a massage therapist in West Seattle.

The driver was traveling at more than twice the posted speed limit and Rob was killed instantly.

From one moment to the next, I lost my husband, my best friend and the love of my life.

The companionship we shared is irreplaceable and now I'm left alone with my memories and photographs of him.

Rob's horribly violent death left a wake of devastation, not just for me, but for our families who are scattered across the country in Europe and South America, for our friends, for my workplace, for his workplace, for his clients, and for the cyclists in our community.

Every day, hundreds of cyclists have no choice but to follow the same route he was riding when he was killed.

Many must wonder if they might become the next victim.

Riding a bicycle is only as safe as the most dangerous section of the journey.

And many cycling routes in our city expose the cyclist to unnecessary danger at some point.

While no amount of money could ever make up for what I have lost, I do believe that money could help prevent future deaths and injuries.

I urge the council to fully fund Vision Zero and the proposed bicycle safety projects so that we may redesign our way to a safer city where no one else has to live like.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Alex Zimmerman.

Ze heil.

Ze heil, my dirty, damn Nazi fascist junta, bandit and killer.

My name Alex Zimmerman, I'm president of Stand Up America.

Another people money to who?

To stupid?

Drunk seller?

What does I see for last 20 year here?

You don't understand about your token?

We spend money for nothing.

I'll give you a couple of examples.

I'm a businessman.

Money is important.

Red light camera, what did you approve 10 plus years ago?

It's $100 million move out from the people to Amazon Corporation.

End.

Ticket is $47, not $135.

Change this.

Doing something.

Stopping this idiotic situation.

When you spend $100 million for nothing, for $135 you can buy 40 gallons of gas.

It's number one.

Number two, and I talked about this many times before, I live in many cities, big cities in Europe.

We have only big buses who empty all day.

All day empty.

I see this every day because I come here and see around.

All civilized cities, except Seattle because you are freaking idiot, I know this for 40 years, have small buses.

Small buses for 10, for 20 people.

This can bring us back a million and million dollars.

And I'm talking about this many times, no decision.

Guys, you understand what I'm talking about.

Stop acting like an idiot.

You need to have a brain, a business brain.

You know what it means?

Because it's for people.

It's money from people.

It's money for people.

You understand what I'm talking about?

If you've done nothing for the last 20 years, you will do nothing for another 20 years.

You have a big inertia.

You are impotent.

You understand what is I'm talking?

Everything what is you can do in only masturbation.

Bye.

The next speaker is Stu Hennessy.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Stu Hennessy.

I'm from West Seattle.

I have a perspective I was born where the Space Needle now stands in a place called Seattle General Hospital.

And I've lived here all my life watching Seattle grow.

I was one of the spokes that actually helped in this big wheel that actually helped create Seattle into the most livable city in the United States.

We don't get talked about in that context so much anymore, do we?

So I hope that you see that this levy is a part of a 20-year plan.

It's a starting point.

And in 2045, will we be ready?

Will we meet our climate goals?

Will we be able to take on any of the climate refugees that are bound to come to Seattle?

WILL WE BE ABLE TO CUT OUR COSTS OF ROAD MAINTENANCE?

BECAUSE THAT IS THE BIGGEST PART OF OUR BUDGET.

I REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE IN 2045. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.

BUT WE CAN DETERMINE THAT WE NEED TO BE PREPARED REGARDLESS.

AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER INVESTING MORE INTO LOW MAINTENANCE INFRASTRUCTURE, INFRASTRUCTURE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE LION'S SHARE OF THE TRANSPORTATION BUDGET.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Thank you.

The next speaker, Cecilia Black.

Hello, my name is Cecilia Black and I am a wheelchair user and community organizer with Disability Rights Washington.

And I wanna first just thank this council for being so supportive of sidewalks.

I don't think we've ever had such a vocal push to finally tackling our sidewalk crisis.

You unanimously passed the STP that commits the city to building all missing sidewalks by 2044. This will transform the city, but now we need to fund it.

The mayor's proposal is a first step to addressing the massive task of building 11,000 blocks of sidewalks by setting up a process for future funds.

but this will only have an impact if the council fully commits to addressing the scale of our sidewalk problem, starting with this levy.

And part of this needs to be in the form of a bigger levy.

New polling shows Seattle voters not only support, but prefer a $1.9 billion levy.

Council has said they want a once in a lifetime investment in sidewalks, but that will not happen if we leave money on the table.

We cannot say we are doing everything to address the safety, the climate and accessibility crisis of our transportation system if we refuse to acknowledge all available resources.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Gordon Paddleford.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Gordon Padelford.

I'm the executive director of Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, and I want to just leave you with one number today, which is 79%.

Beginning of May, Change Research conducted a poll of 647 likely voters, and it had a margin of error of 4%, and they found that 79% of those voters in Seattle want to see a levy that is at least 1.7 billion, potentially up to 1.9 billion in size to invest more in sidewalks and safety and in transit.

And that is a really exciting opportunity.

We all know the, urgency around Vision Zero.

We heard about that earlier.

We know the urgency around sidewalks.

Cecilia just talked about that.

And this is, I think, our opportunity to invest in a major way in the future of Seattle that I think we all believe in.

This is not particularly a controversial topic.

We all want to see additional pedestrian safety and accessibility investments.

And the question is, how much can we go into that investment?

And the good news with this new research is that 79% of voters would like us to go bigger because they believe in a future that's more accessible, safer, and it's more equitable.

So please keep that 79% figure in your mind and I'm happy to provide additional details offline as well.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

The last in-person speaker is Steve Rubisdello.

The Aurora project is low priority and should be.

There's a lot of development.

If you've noticed muck boards, buildings, sites being prepared, and it probably would save developers a lot of money, but Aurora has been repaved recently, spending a lot of money and breaking it up.

for a period of time is probably not a good idea.

It's one that I really dislike because if you're going to reduce the number of lanes, I live on Fremont and when Aurora gets stacked up, Fremont becomes a parking lot and it's happened all around.

So I think that that project should be dropped from the list and regardless of what numbers have been said and seen before, I really think that if I started talking in the North End about clogging up Aurora, you probably would find a certain amount of people who would not appreciate that.

Because they used to say two-thirds of the commuter traffic was on the freeway, one-third comes in the Aurora corridor.

And I used to remember Aurora being not too busy for a good part of the day.

You had your commutes.

Getting harder and harder to find a part of the day where Aurora is not busy.

Now, the city has been reluctant to really think about transportation and developers don't like to put freight loading docks on their buildings.

We just put the trucks out in the street and people have to live with it.

and uh the city has pretty much been on their side i continue to say that big buildings need to carry their own weight and the rest of the neighborhood shouldn't have to suffer and mobility should uh go forward thank you the next uh speaker is remote and we're starting with eliana horn

Good morning council members.

My name is Eliana Horn and I'm here on behalf of Puget Sound stage.

We know that without intervention, especially light rail expansion leads to gentrification and displacement of BIPOC low income communities.

And this is a story that has been far too often true here in Seattle.

Houston Soundstage has worked for nearly a decade with nearly a dozen BIPOC immigrant organizations in the Graham Street area called the Community Action Team.

And these organizations have worked tirelessly to build a clear plan that will ensure that residents in their neighborhoods get to stay and actually benefit from transit improvements and the new light rail station at Graham Street that is coming soon.

SAGE also works with residents across the CID who have been advocating for the north-south stations so that the CID is not shrunk, disrupted, and by having the north-south stations even has the ability to grow.

Organizations and residents are continuously planning to improve life in the CID, and the new stations present a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the city to lead equitable transit-oriented development.

It's for this reason that we're asking councils to include $30 million for these communities to both continue their planning efforts and have funds to acquire land in these neighborhoods.

As community members described in a recent op-ed in The Stranger, over 55% of potential voters indicated that the inclusion of this $30 million would make them more likely to approve the property tax overall.

Funds for land acquisition are crucial because as neighborhoods become more desirable, land values increase, and we need the capital dollars now to acquire land in these station areas that are by and for the communities that live there.

The Graham Street Action Team has identified that they need at least 10 acres of land to stabilize crucial neighborhood resources and build sufficient housing for community.

Please expand the levy up to $1.7 billion and consider this funding.

The next remote speaker is James Mikulak.

Hi, my name is James Mikulak.

My wife and I recently moved to Seattle in part because we were able to sell my car.

We kept my wife's car to use on occasion.

By selling that car, we were able to afford the cost of living increase that comes with moving to Seattle.

We like to bike or take transit instead.

However, we are currently struggling with that choice that we made.

We travel on bikes, and oftentimes the bike lanes that we are on suddenly stop, like on Pine and Yesler, and the two of us find ourselves in the middle of three or four lanes of traffic without bike lanes or any kind of defense.

That concerns both of us.

Also, when we take the bus, the bus is often late by 20 minutes or more.

And even when the bus is running on time, it often takes three or four times as long to travel as it would if we took a car.

If we need to eventually buy a second car, I'm not sure we'll be able to stay in Seattle.

And I also don't like the idea of adding my wife to the tragic story like you heard earlier.

I think that the budget needs to be increased to $1.7 billion or more.

I think that that's a smart choice for both me and you.

I don't require expensive parking spaces when I visit stores, restaurants, or my place of work.

Bike lanes don't require resurfacing or patching nearly as often as roads.

Infrastructure for pedestrians and bicycles are good for your budget and for mine.

I'd please ask you to invest in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure heavily and increase the total .

Cool, so I think, thank you.

There are no additional registered speakers as I understand it.

So we will proceed to other items of business.

Let's move on to the first item of business.

Will the clerk please read the short title of item one into the record?

Item one is Council Bill 120788, which is an ordinance relating to the transportation levy.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Calvin Chow with Council Central staff and today I'll be doing a presentation on the issues that for your consideration as you consider the legislation.

Last or two weeks ago you heard on select committee the levy oversight committee's recommendations as well as a summary of the mayor's proposal.

So today I'll do a short summary again of what the legislation provides as well as identified seven specific issues for your consideration.

All this information is explained in a bit more detail in my memo to the council that's also attached to the agenda.

The mayor's proposal is a $1.45 billion eight-year property tax levy.

It would renew the existing Move Seattle levy.

For comparison, if Move Seattle was proposed to be renewed at inflation-only numbers, it would be $1.2 million.

The property tax bill for the average Seattle median assessed value home would be roughly $470 and this is up from the current level of about $300.

The mayor's proposal includes spending for 10 different categories of levy programs, and these are identified in attachment A to the legislation that would also go to voters.

It provides a little more detail on the specific programs as well as the deliverables that would be COMMITTED TO AS PART OF THE LEVY.

ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU, I'VE IDENTIFIED THE FUNDING LEVELS AND THE SHARE OF EACH CATEGORY FOR MOVE SEATTLE IN COMPARISON WITH THE MOVE SEATTLE LEVY WITH THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL.

AND THERE IS MORE DETAIL AGAIN IN ATTACHMENT A. The main things of note that you can see, a significant increase in street maintenance and modernization, a significant increase in Vision Zero, as well as a new program for people, streets, and public safety.

The legislation that's in front of council is Council Bill 120788, and this is legislation to put the measure on the November ballot.

It establishes all the terms and conditions that we would be authorized to collect property tax and use those property tax proceeds for.

And once the voters approve the levy, We cannot change it without going back to voters.

So there is, for your consideration, I wanted to highlight sort of three approaches to how you think through issues that this levy raises.

Any sort of amendments or changes to this legislation would be binding on us without going back to voters.

So to think about that as the highest level of change.

We could also consider a separate legislation to identify any issues that require some follow-up or some...

some council direction that we don't necessarily want to lock in stone with the levy.

And as well, any spending will have to come to council for future budget action over the course of the eight years of the levy.

So you will also always have that to constrain how spending works within the constraints of what the levy voters approve.

with that i'm going to turn through and talk through seven different issues and uh council members with your permission i think it would be easier to take questions as we go for each one of these issues if if you'd like the first issue i wanted to raise is the general terms of the levy so as i mentioned before the legislation is 1.45 billion for eight years it does include the minimum general fund appropriation requirement that was established with move seattle This is essentially a commitment to voters that we wouldn't supplement or supplant existing general fund dollars that go to transportation.

So there is a level established for the first year and an inflationary adjustment, and it is essentially the same line that Move Seattle promised.

So those options, I just want to identify.

You could change the size of the levy, you could change the term, and you could make other changes, other provisions to the levy terms.

Yeah, go ahead, Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Um, if we're going one by one, I'll just start.

Um, so on this slide, can you, uh, be, um, if we did raise, we've heard from several commenters, um, that there is support for increasing the levy.

So can you talk about what the cost would be if we raised it to 1.7 and to 1.9?

So I did a back of the envelope calculation and I'll confirm with, uh, with staff later, but, As I mentioned, Move Seattle today, the bill for the Move Seattle levy in 2024 for median AV is about $300.

The mayor's proposal would be the first year would be about $470.

So that's 1.45.

At 1.7, it would be about $550 per year.

And at 1.9 billion, it would be about $615 per year.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll move on to issue number two.

The second issue is about the legal spending requirements.

The legislation currently before you does describe all the anticipated spending in Attachment A, but these are not required or mandated spending levels.

This provides a little more flexibility than was with Move Seattle.

Move Seattle added specific amounts of spending for three categories of funding, as well as identified a minimum requirement for one specific project.

The benefit of not including it at this time is that it gives a little more flexibility as we go through budget to respond to changes.

With Move Seattle, we did have to make some ordinance changes to address COVID-19 impacts on our budget and our levy spending.

So I did want to add as options for you, you could consider spending requirements for the different categories of levy spending.

You could specify spending requirements for specific projects or programs of concern to you.

or you could make no changes and defer to future budgets and levy oversight and reporting.

Calvin, can you just clear?

Oh, sorry, Jay.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, just please be recognized.

Yeah, go ahead, Councilmember Rivera.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If we...

If we...

allocate the spending to a certain category, for instance, during the budget process, can we, we could do updated legislation to move it from one category to another.

Is that correct?

I just...

The point of clarification.

Yes.

Currently, all the spending would be dictated by future council budget action.

Right now, you have the most discretion.

Move Seattle said over the course of nine years, there was, say, 300 million for this broad category of projects.

That legislation said that council could change by up to 10% with the future ordinance, or it could change by more than that with the three-fourths vote.

So in some ways, it wasn't an absolute anyway.

There was still the flexibility to change.

It was really largely about making the commitment to voters that here's what the spending was.

That's largely been established by attachment A.

That's what the oversight committee has reviewed.

That's what our dashboard and other reporting is all predicated on.

So in some ways, that sort of purpose of making that commitment has been established by how we've operated for the last nine years.

But it is still a choice for you and you could make those types of legal requirements if desired.

And we could always also change it later on in the budget process.

Or does it lock it in?

Council Member, can you speak into the microphone, please?

Sorry.

Does it lock it in now and we can't make changes later via legislation during the budget process?

I would suggest if you wanted to make a stronger commitment to voters that we would add sort of an emergency clause that would let council back out if there was extenuating circumstances.

So I would suggest that we have some way to do that, but it depends on how strict you want those provisions to be.

Thank you.

So can I just say, This is another one of those kind of threshold issues on the specificity and detail and formalizing requirements in the levy legislation.

And the Levy Oversight Committee specifically recommended that we not be super prescriptive.

We're not bound by that recommendation, obviously, but the independent levy oversight committee who evaluated and assessed the performance of the move levy over the course of nine years.

In their final report, they recommended that we not be very prescriptive and instead leaving room for downstream decision-making by the city, namely us colleagues.

And so I think that is an important policy area that we're gonna be confronted with.

My own personal preference would be to, you know, as much as possible live up to that recommendation because once we lock in ourselves, you know, and commit to any number of obligations or adding more detail and being very prescriptive, we're locked in.

And we box ourselves in.

We limit our ability to be flexible, nimble, adapt to changing circumstances, the existence of a force majeure sort of provision or not.

So this is one of those things where striking the right and appropriate balance between making sure voters know what they're going to get up front in exchange for this investment that we're gonna make sure is invested wisely.

Whatever that size is, whatever these categories, wherever we land with that, they need to have an initial understanding of what they're gonna get in exchange for.

At the same time, we need flexibility, but it's an important policy consideration, so I'm glad you all have questions about it.

Any other questions or comments on this, colleagues?

I'm not sure if it's this slide or the next slide, Cal, but I am interested in a lot of the language as it's drafted right now is fairly squishy in terms of how much we spend.

So I'd be interested in...

you know, there's a lot of language that says we could spend up to a certain amount for sidewalks or for safety.

And I would be interested in getting a little clearer on how much we will spend at least X amount to make sure that we're providing safety for our neighbors.

So I don't know if that's, you know, it's an issue that I think we need to figure out how to address.

And I'm not saying we need to just do a complete analysis switch of language, but I would be interested to know how we get a little more clarity on the minimum instead of a maximum.

And you could be more selective in the programs or projects that you subject to that scrutiny.

So for instance, in Move Seattle, there was one project that was called out, the Lander Street overpass, of which not less than $20 million had to go to that specific project.

It was the only project that was called out individually.

Everything else was these larger categories.

So that might be a model to consider if there are items of specific interest to you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council Member Moore.

Thank you.

So when you're talking about categories, would sidewalks constitute a category?

Yes, there is.

In this pedestrian safety category in attachment A, there is a specific line item for new sidewalks.

And I don't, off the top of my head, remember exactly what that number is right now.

63 million.

Thank you.

So that number is specified in Attachment A and would be the promise to voters.

Over the first four years only, currently, as proposed.

So it might make sense to add some, you know, a little more clarity and specificity around certain key priorities while leaving.

I don't know.

But it's an important issue that we're going to be grappling with.

Any other comments, questions?

Yes, so if I may finish, under categories, we have, I don't see sidewalks, so you're saying under one of these categories, sidewalks is included?

Yes, attachment A includes a specific line item under this pedestrian safety category.

Okay, but we could actually make sidewalks a category in the levy itself and set a specific amount of money.

you could call out specifically in the levy for new sidewalks, no less than a certain amount of money.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So, and just, it's a great question, Council Member Moore, thank you.

And just to clarify from my perspective, yes, that is a policy choice that we do have.

We can up-level any one of these subcategories or sub-subcategories and up-level it to its own independent standalone category, and that would be more of a structural change of somewhat limited, you know, I would argue somewhat limited...

The value add, the value proposition of doing something like that would be to highlight and boost the significance of one of our established policy priorities.

And yes, we could in tandem with that or without doing that, also add some requirements to spend that amount for any particular category.

In this case, new sidewalks.

But great question.

Thank you.

Awesome.

All right.

Oh, Council Member Rivera, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

So, Cal, the Attachment A is just, it says anticipates, the department anticipates funding has the categories, and it says annual budget appropriations will be made through the city budget.

So, this is through the budgeting process.

So, Attachment A doesn't actually do that legal spending.

So, you're saying if we wanted to, we would have to add Attachment A say we would have to lock these in?

Otherwise, this is an anticipated projection of what the department thinks it would spend on these particular categories.

Am I reading that right?

Okay.

It is true that Attachment A is not binding currently, but I think it is a stronger than just a you know, a vague promise.

This is the attachment A that the Levy Oversight Committee will be reviewing.

This will be the promise to voters that we'll be holding ourselves accountable to in all of our reporting.

So if there are deviances, if there are changes, you know, the expectations will have to explain why that's necessary.

So I think it is a little bit higher than just, you know, just putting a number out there.

I think that...

You know, all of this will have to come to Council for future budgeting every year.

So the older way of doing things where we had a nine-year for the full length of the budget on appropriation count, that didn't really affect in-year budgeting because we only budget year by year.

So it mostly mattered at the end of the year as sort of a true-up issue.

It didn't really have a dramatic impact on how the Council engaged in the budget.

So all of the way that I think viewing this as the promise to voters and then trying to identify which specific commitments are of such importance that you would want legal requirements for would be an appropriate way to approach it.

Thank you, Cal.

Looks like no other questions.

Go ahead, Mikael.

Okay.

The third issue I wanted to highlight comes to the allocation or the different spending across those Attachment A programs.

Attachment A, in addition to being that reporting structure, It is what the voters are allowing us to spend on.

So if there's something in there that is not listed that we wanted to consider in the future, unless it's listed there, we would not be able to spend levy proceeds.

Attachment A does identify some specific deliverables, some locations for initial development, and that might be something that council members want to consider.

Are those the right ones to make the promises to voters?

Are those the ones to highlight to that level?

And two programs that I know will be of interest to you, there is a new district project fund proposed.

The details of how that's administered are to be determined, so that's an issue I want to get to a bit later on, as well as a neighborhood-initiated safety partnership program, which largely replaces the neighborhood matching fund, neighborhood street fund program.

Largely tries to do the same types of projects, but is intended to be administered in a different way, and that project has not been those administrative details have not been completely detailed yet.

So you mentioned the new, I forget what it's called offhand, but from your perspective, is that intended to be In my mind, and just comparing the qualitative characterizations of each of the respective programs and how it shows up and how it's been administered historically, how it showed up in the first draft proposal versus the final draft, it seems to be a form over substance distinction, functional equivalent.

How would you characterize, or rebranding even, how would you characterize that?

I believe the main difference between the Neighborhood Initiated Safety Program and the old Neighborhood Street Fund projects process is it's meant to be more in dialogue between SDOT and the communities about what projects get developed.

It does not go through the voting process or the more the administrative process that was set up for the old program.

Again, the details have yet to be determined, but my understanding is the idea is provide more opportunity to address equity concerns, provide more opportunity to focus a bit more on safety-specific issues, but the details are still to be determined.

Thank you.

So I've identified three options for your consideration.

Again, if there are any other programs that you don't see listed here, you should consider amending the attachment A to include them.

Item B, you could adjust the spending levels across these different proposals or these different categories or programs.

And you could modify the specific project commitments, the initial locations in identified or attachment A.

Yeah, go ahead, Council Member Morales.

So I am very intrigued by this new district project fund.

You know, I think the idea of having the ability to allocate resources by district is great and important and could really help us meet some of the many challenges that we have in our different parts of town.

And also, can you tell me what we can do for $250,000 a year?

Those would be smaller projects for sure.

I'm blanking off the top of my head, but that's in the place.

I think of traffic circles and crosswalks and those types of improvements, you might get two or three of them out of that.

Depends obviously on the specific location, how complicated those are.

But at currently proposed at 14 million, that's 250,000 per district per year.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, no, it's a great question because, colleagues, I know you all get requests from our constituents about smaller scale, and I think that's the intent and goal of this, is smaller scale, not large capital improvement projects or expenditures, but smaller scale crosswalks, you know, or we need a new lighting signal here or something, and...

rather than wait to potentially write that in during the budget year, during the budget process, you know, we could, I think the idea is we could ideally have space to, you know, make appropriations on the spot for certain critical needs.

And, you know, so I think it's a cool program, but in any event, go ahead Council Member Kettle.

Thank you, Chair Saka.

I just wanted to commend the mayor and his team, everybody related to this new program.

I think it's fantastic.

As you know from our District 7 Neighborhood Council, you've already gotten the priorities, and that also includes people who've come directly to my office.

And so it's really important to do that.

And those in the neighborhood really know those little pieces, whether it's a four-way stop sign that really makes a big safety difference.

These little things on both parts, obviously the neighborhood and the program, that's more, but both will be beneficial to the, particularly on the safety front, to the various neighborhoods within the district.

And District 7 looks forward to working these issues with you.

Thank you.

All right, go ahead.

So the fourth issue I have for you is the levy oversight committee.

As you heard at the last meeting, the recommendations from the Move Seattle Levy Oversight Committee, there was a list of recommendations, many of which are reflected in the proposal.

One recommendation that is not included is specific levy funding for oversight capacity, auditing or other professional services that is not currently included.

And in addition, the proposed levy composition, the oversight committee composition is changed.

And so the proposal actually would, you can see here the comparison between Move Seattle and the mayor's proposal.

It does increase the number of council appointed residents from five to seven and has each one from each council district.

It adds a get engaged youth member.

It does remove the previous requirement for one appointee being an engineer with bridge and structures experience.

And it removes the chair of the transportation committee from the oversight committee.

So with that, some options for you to consider, you could include adding back direct council member representation on the committee.

You could revise the other roles or requirements of the committee, or you could consider allocating levy resources for oversight as well.

So, thank you, Cal.

I have a question on the proposed levy oversight committee.

And this kind of ultimately ties back to the sort of good governance opportunity that we'll have to, amongst other areas, to kind of closely examine and figure out the best fit.

But can you, so obviously this is the levy oversight committee that would govern and oversee the administration and implementation of this levy if passed.

But no doubt there are any number of levies in the city on any number of programs and priorities.

And that's just the city.

There are other levies regionally as well, of course.

So can you just comment on, at a high level on your impressions of the Levee Oversight Committee structure as proposed.

Its structure, its governance, responsibilities, scope, and just kind of overall approach to oversight compared to one, other city levy oversight committees that we have here, right here in this city.

And then two, to the extent known, comparable oversight or governance, independent oversight, levy oversight structures that exist in other jurisdictions.

Well, two thoughts immediately come to mind for me.

One is just a reminder that these oversight committees are advisory to the council and the mayor.

They do not have a governance responsibilities of their own.

They are really sort of watchdogs, if you will.

And so that's a lot of their focus is to make sure that they understand the spending, understand the deliverables, and frankly also are in a position to opine on how well we have accomplished that goal when it comes time to think about potentially renewing.

The transportation levy I think is a little bit unique from many of our other levies in how much attention and how much our residents and stakeholders care about transportation and the direct implementation.

It feels to me as if that is something that generates a bit more attention than even our levy housing or other focused levies, which maybe have a more specialized delivery, if you will.

I think transportation just always gets more engagement.

It is a large body.

It's proposed currently at 18 members, which is quite large, although the Move Seattle levy was also a 16-member oversight committee.

I think that's just reflective of just how many different stakeholders there is of interest.

I think a lot of currently we're really focusing on residents because it is the property owners who are paying the property tax and so making sure that that is reflected there.

And then lastly, I'd suggest that the direct council representation on the levy just puts the council in a better position to follow along with how that oversight is doing and seeing it more in real time and engaging with the members, I think can help build some camaraderie and some trust between the council and the oversight committee itself.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Council Member Morales.

Yeah, thank you, Cal.

Oh, did you have your hand up?

I'm sorry.

Go ahead, Council President.

Did you?

Go ahead, Council President.

Okay.

Well, I have a question about potential conflict of interest on the oversight committee.

And I'm asking because when we voted on the housing levy, there was an editorial in the Times that did point out that there had been a change in the oversight committee.

And I don't know if it was a change, but it...

The criticism was that members of the oversight committee included organizations that would directly gain from decision-making decisions of how that money was spent.

And so is there anything in the resolution that accompanies the legislation when it talks about the oversight committee that there is any provision to make sure that I mean, obviously, there are interests.

There are people like on the freight, on the bicycle, etc.

Those people are committed to the issues that brought them into their service on those different bodies.

But when we're talking about direct organizations, is there a provision for that?

There is no language specifically in the legislation about it.

We would rely on the ethics office and for advice on specific candidates if there were potential conflicts of interest raised, but there's currently no specific language in the legislation in front of us here.

There may be other language in code or in our regular administrative rules.

So I can look into that for you as well.

Well, yeah, and this is not an...

Well, apparently there wasn't an ethics issue with the housing levy composition, so I think that went beyond the regular...

things that the SEC would weigh in on.

So I was just wondering if there was anything that would prescribe that.

But you answered that question.

I have a question about the five versus the seven council-appointed residents.

Makes sense, because there are seven districts.

But previously, those council-appointed residents included a licensed engineer with bridge and structures experience.

That is no longer a requirement.

And I also noticed that the bridge seismic retrofitting is not called out on Attachment A. And so do you know why that specialty was discontinued?

I don't know in specifics why.

I do know that in some cases it can be difficult to attract the level of attention sometimes.

These are volunteer advisory positions, and so that can sometimes play a factor, but I don't know specifically why that provision was dropped.

Okay, because I was wondering if it was related to not being able to find that line item in the bridges section with seismic upgrades or improvements.

I can find that out later.

I don't believe it was tied directly to the proposed spending.

I think it was more about how they view administering the board and wanting to provide a bit more flexibility in how they solicit.

But again, I don't know.

We do have SDOT staff available if you would like me to bring the executive to table to answer.

I think that your initial response was probably right on, which I don't know very many bridge and structures engineers.

So I'll go with that unless somebody else gives me different information.

Thank you.

And so thank you, Council President.

Cal, we're having a little difficulty just hearing you at the dais here, some of us.

So if you wouldn't mind just making sure you speak into the mic.

And I don't know about...

people watching on or on Seattle channel, but yeah, speak directly into the mic, please.

My apologies, sorry.

Yeah, and friendly reminder for all of us as well to do the same, speak directly into the mic.

Anyone else have any, oh, you had, okay, go ahead.

Thank you.

So I do have a question about the potential funding for the Levy Oversight Committee in reading the recommendation memo that they sent.

Part of what they are suggesting is that in order for them to do the work of providing oversight on this project, billion dollar project it would be helpful if they did have a small amount of money to support data collection audits you know and just being able to provide the kind of oversight so I don't know if that's something we would need to amend legislatively to include some portion of it?

Yes.

Okay.

So, so currently I believe the executive proposal is thinking that there might be other, uh, department resources available, but for us to spend levy resources on this, we would have to amend attachment a to make that legitimate, uh, use of levy funds.

So something like a administrative category that says, um, oversight responsibilities, levy oversight administration, something like that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Go ahead.

OK.

The next issue is issue number five.

It's reporting requirements.

And so the legislation does require annual reporting.

That is consistent with Move Seattle.

However, Move Seattle was more specific about what the requirements should look like.

I think it is fair to say that over the nine years of Move Seattle, we've gotten into a bit more of a expectations of what that should look like and how to make that work.

There is now a dashboard both for the levy spending as well as the capital project delivery.

There are a number of supplemental reports that are also provided by the department to support levy oversight.

And the expectation is that these would continue with the new proposed levy, even if they're not specifically called out in the legislation.

But I wanted to highlight that for you.

specific requirements for reporting, for dashboard reporting or other reports.

You could specify specific information that you wanted to see in any of those reports.

You could identify specific issues.

This might get to the issue that Council Member Nelson raised where the previous Move Seattle levy identified bridges as a key function for additional reporting.

Or you could do no change to the legislation and defer to the oversight committee and the continuity of the existing reporting.

Go ahead, Council Member Morales.

We've talked about this a little bit.

I appreciate that right now the reporting that happens is on deliverables and on blocks of sidewalks, et cetera.

For me, what is really important about this and what I think voters and constituents really want to hear is how are we performing in these investments?

How are we changing safety?

How are we increasing pedestrian safety?

How are we reducing fatalities?

How are we ensuring that our freight gets through efficiently?

So I'd be interested in...

having a better sense of what reporting requirements could look like that actually demonstrate we are achieving better outcomes for our neighbors rather than just a reporting that looks at widgets or outputs.

So that's a big question, but do you have a sense of how we might change some of the reporting language so that we're really understanding how our neighbors are best served?

I think it would be about highlighting the reporting requirements that are with the Seattle Transportation Plan, which really are more focused on those outcomes and how much are we moving the needle.

I think the distinction that I would make is that Seattle Transportation Plan is very policy-level goals, and we want to know how we're doing on those things, but it was not a funding plan.

This is the funding plan.

So now the delivery has to be tied to how much money we're gonna be proposed, and there's a certain amount of widget tracking that we're gonna have to do to make that work.

So I think...

maybe part of the way to answer this is to hold up some of the things that are in the Seattle transportation plan.

That's already in baked in with that plan already.

So it could be just making sure that that information is provided and included in all those reports.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

The next item, item six, is the transportation funding task force.

So this is a proposal that is not included directly in the legislation, but the mayor's proposal did call for establishing a transportation funding task force to look into how we would fund sidewalks, bridges, and other transportation assets.

The legislation does have some funding that helps support this work, but we would expect separate legislation to actually establish the task force, and that is not currently in front of the committee.

That type of legislation could go on a separate timeline.

It does not have to necessarily be decided right now.

There may be some specific issues that you want to make sure are in the scope of what the task force looks at.

You'll probably want to care greatly about who is asked to be or invited to be part of that task force, the makeup of that committee.

But it is an option for you to consider developing legislation for that task force.

I understand that the executive is looking to present at a future select committee meeting their ideas of how this task force might work.

And so that could be part of an ongoing conversation that leads to future legislation.

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Calvin, can you please explain, is this not work that the Oversight Committee can engage in?

I mean, this would create a whole separate set of folks.

Yes, so the Move Seattle Oversight Committee did identify a number of different revenue options that they thought should be delved into more.

I think the point of this task force is to really focus down on, you know, to really focus down on actually coming up with a proposal.

Frankly, the biggest revenue option out there is to consider a longer-term property tax levy to support a bond issue.

That would be how you would generate a significant amount of money to really address some of these key assets.

If that is the focus of a task force, then it really is about, can you come up with that proposal within two years that we can go back out to voters?

That's probably more work than the oversight committee for delivering on the existing levies, and so it doesn't seem to warrant being a separate body.

There are other revenue sources that could be considered, but many of them don't raise that same level of funding.

So they may be helpful, but they probably won't move the needle as much as a bond would.

The only other one that I can think of off the top of my head is if we were seriously thinking about congestion pricing.

That again would also be a potential way to pay bond service, debt service on a bond.

And without that sort of opportunity, I'm not sure how you would raise enough money to really move the needle.

It's a great question, Council Member Rivera.

And so it's one I've been kind of grappling with as well and sort of where I'm at today is these two separate but related bodies, the task force and the oversight committee, I think both can coexist and are complimentary, but they fundamentally perform different scope and roles.

And so the oversight committee oversees, is the watchdog of the levy, whereas, and maybe an ancillary thing might come up, not explicitly, well, it was explicitly part of the remit, but it was, you know, identifying funding, potential funding sources.

But, you know, we saw the list, we knew there was no major surprises on that list.

I think on the task force, and that's why it's good to put back it with funding, is that, you know, there's, The volunteers aren't solely responsible for thinking through all the conceivable issues, including our ability as a city to implement and operationalize some of these things like we can do and some we can't do.

So like back with resources and including consultants, you know, PMs as needed, namely legal advisors to help validate and flesh out, you know, and validate some of these great ideas.

Cause yeah, anyway, so yeah.

Really, really, really important, separate, related, but fundamentally different at the same time is kind of how I currently see it, but might also be right for clarification in some other regards as well.

So thank you.

Go ahead.

Well, you still have your hand up.

Are you?

Okay.

Council Member Moore.

Oh, thank you.

So, Cal, you mentioned an option here is develop legislation to establish task force.

So, that's something could be done.

Could that be done in attachment A, or would that be separate legislation that we could vote on at the same time?

It would be separate legislation.

I would suggest that maybe we could do some things to establish direction on that.

I'm not sure that we will have...

It's going to take a lot to get through this particular piece of legislation.

So it may be something that takes a little bit longer timeline to resolve, perhaps in September, perhaps before we actually go to voters to have this lockdown.

But it doesn't necessarily have to go along.

But if we could develop it fast enough, you could consider it in select committee.

Okay, thank you.

And then I guess just one of the things that I'm thinking about is right now in the proposal, wonderful, we've got a commitment from SDOT to build 250 sidewalks in four years as opposed to the eight with an additional 30. And then in four years' time, the task force will figure out what to do next.

I guess in thinking about how big we go on the levy, there's also the thought about maybe we go bigger because we are still going to be in the process of figuring out how we're going to fund the remaining the way it's set up now.

And there are so many variables in basically letting this cliff happen and only making a four-year commitment.

So that's just something to keep in mind in thinking about the size of the levy as well.

Thank you.

Council President.

Personally, just speaking for myself, before I start thinking about more money for a task force and potentially more consultants and attorneys and everything for the task force, in addition to that, which the oversight committee might need, I think that we need to have a conversation about what is this...

So this is sounding a little bit like the progressive revenue workshop, looking at different sources of money to...

to continue to fund transportation in a different way.

We need to understand how much more money do we need, how much is, how well is the existing levy performing when it comes to the things that are continually increasing our costs year over year, levy after levy, which is deferred maintenance, because a stitch in time says nine.

And the more we don't keep up with our maintenance needs, the more money it costs to fix those roads and bridges, et cetera, that everybody use.

I'm not talking about privileging a mode.

I'm talking about how do we keep from How do we dig ourselves out of this hole?

And so that is the kind of analysis that I think that we should have before we start talking about next steps.

This information needs to be solved, and I do think that the Oversight Committee has looked at this, and I need to do my own homework by finding out what information is available.

I do believe that we have to find a way to fund our bridges, et cetera, but I would like to see some of this information first and talk with you more about what side piece of legislation would we need to and when would we implement that to get at some of these other funding needs.

I'm not saying that we don't need it.

I've been calling for bridge attention for a long time.

Does this have to be a parallel voted out at the same time?

Or would this have to go to the voters?

No, this can be a standalone, et cetera.

That's what I want to know.

So currently, there is some money that would be eligible in the levy to help support these kinds of things, but it's not required.

It wouldn't necessarily be that way.

I think you will want separate legislation to set up a transportation funding task force that could identify all of those same issues, all the things that we would want to be In your consideration of that legislation, we could address some of those issues, Councilmember Nelson, about how much our asset management programs, what that tells us about the level of funding necessary.

We do know that we're not able to hit all of our priorities with this levy.

So that is something that we're seeing in real time about sidewalks and bridges and pavement and bike lanes and all our other asset classes.

SO THERE IS INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT COULD BE PART OF THAT DISCUSSION.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE THAT AND BE PART OF A SEPARATE DISCUSSION ABOUT LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY ON THIS TASK FORCE AND POTENTIALLY HOLD THAT.

I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET INTO AS MUCH DETAIL ON THAT AT THE TIME WE HAVE LEFT WITH US IN SELECT COMMITTEE SO THAT MAYBE WE MAY WANT TO COME BACK TO THAT AS SEPARATE LEGISLATION.

I will, thank you very much for that answer.

I will just want to put it on the record that we do need a way to pay for the big projects that we've been not, that we just don't, that the levy can't get to.

I recognize that and just making sure that we know what we're, what is the universe of need we're looking at that this task force might be able to address and find funding for.

And just speaking exactly to that point, you know, it is things like bridges, which are very big, high capital project dollars at once, and we have a number of them that are ending the end of your useful lives.

You know, you want to spread that expense over the next generation of the value of that asset, and those are not going to be able to be funded by a small levy annually.

Thanks.

So it's...

Thank you, Madam Council President.

Excellent feedback.

I'm not a strong fan of additional overhead and administrative costs either.

I prefer to spend as much dollars on actual deliverables.

I'm also a strong proponent of efficient and effective delivery of whatever we're whatever programs and deliverables we've committed to and sometimes these important operational costs, they help drive and advance that.

I would not personally characterize this as the sort of transportation equivalent of the Revenue Stabilization Task Force simply because unlike that body of dedicated volunteers, this has resources back to it.

This is like those lawyers, Shout out to lawyers.

But there's lawyers to actually think through the legality or funds to potentially hire lawyers and consultants to think through whether we can actually implement those.

So like we can't actually do, because didn't have someone looking through, they showed up on this list in the final report.

but no one actually was able to kind of think through because it didn't have resources to help think through.

Can we actually, for example, have a vacancy, implement a vacancy tax in Seattle?

The answer is from my initial understanding, no.

And so it's a thought, it's a resource back approach to good governance.

That's how I characterize it.

And if I may add.

Yeah.

Yeah.

If I may add, also, with legislation, you can establish exactly what parameters you want to be evaluated.

So if you want to focus down on very specific items, you can do so and give direction to that task force of what type of advice we're looking for.

I think the oversight committee did a laundry list of all options that are out there, some of which might require future state authorization, those types of things.

That's more speculative.

You may want to really focus down on things that we know we have the authority to do, and it's a question of whether we, can put together a proposal that would actually make sense.

And so these, the ideas, you know, at least how I kind of envision it, you know, would love to hear as we go through this process together, colleagues, your, you know, wonderful ideas as well.

But the idea is that it would be funded.

So nothing would show up in the final report that hasn't been thought through that like, yes, if we green lighted it and gave it the Julius Caesar thumbs up today, we could, yes, do this if we want.

And the members, like people of the public paying attention can understand this is a valid policy choice that we could do today if we so choose.

So in any event.

Dead horse.

Do you have any other?

No.

Okay, thank you, Council President.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Well, sort of in line with the conversation happening with the Council President, my understanding is that this levy, as you said, is not sufficient.

We know that we have $3 or $4 billion worth of bridge needs, sidewalk needs, things that need to be repaired or replaced.

I think which is why this task force is being considered to help us think through how are we gonna pay for all the things that need to get done.

My question about the task force itself is if there's $5 million that's being contemplated to help support this, right?

Is that right?

It is lumped into a $5 million line item.

All of that money is not just for this task force.

It's for a number of different things.

Okay.

but there is a small line item in there to support this work.

Okay, and I guess what I'm trying to understand, and maybe this is something that will come through legislation to establish the task force, whether that's us or the executive, is over what period of time are we considering this task force to be working?

We've already had two different revenue panels in the last several years that help us understand what some options are.

Not for this specifically, but we know what some options are And given what council member Moore was saying that, you know, right now the sidewalk construction, for example, is front loaded for the first four years, and we're not really sure what's gonna happen after that, is the idea that this task force would be in place for the entirety of the levy or they're gonna work for a year and figure some things out and then we're gonna try to pass a bond measure or whatever the option is.

Can I just say, I think as proposed, the idea was that this would, this committee, this task force would conclude its work in 26. So in a couple of years, by the way, all that subject to our direction and oversight.

And, you know, we can expand the scope.

You can narrow it, whatever.

We want to set this task force.

If we if we think as a policy matters is a good idea.

You know, we want to set them up for success and have a reasonable time and turnaround.

Also, like it's not intended to be a forever kind of thing either.

So and that would be part of the charge in the legislation recommendations by a date certain.

OK, thank you.

Okay.

All right, go ahead.

The last item I wanted to identify is that there may be a number of issues that you want to pursue or explore about how levy implementation goes that we wouldn't necessarily want to put in the levy legislation itself because they can't be changed without going back to voters so you may want to consider companion legislation we've done this on other levies to help identify council direction on things this could include direction to come back with a proposal for the task force for example but would just want to put that out there that you could consider a companion legislation with this levy legislation to establish those council directions or implementation issues that you want to see more of and that's all in my presentation all right thank you um colleagues any other

very collaborative and iterative discussion we've had here and good call out.

I think it made a lot of sense for this specific presentation to ask questions on a continuing rolling basis.

Colleagues, any other questions, comments, feedback?

I have one final thing.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

I just want to say one of the things I appreciate about the memo that was sent out by the oversight committee is the...

need for us to assert bold leadership throughout this process.

And I just wanna read from the memo itself.

These checklists and plans can only be effective when they're actually implemented.

This Transportation Safety Plan indicates that safety-related proposed changes have widespread support, but we need the mayor, our city council, and other city leaders to ensure that these actually get implemented, and SDOT staff need the bold and unwavering support of our leaders when facing opposition to safety projects when they're based on best practices, industry standards, and ongoing sound data collection and analysis.

So all that to say, as somebody who, you know, the commenter who was here earlier to talk about the loss of her husband because of unsafe roads for cyclists, we have commenters here who are wheelchair-bound and who need us to step up and make sure that we're creating safety for them so that they can navigate our city safely.

And I think...

My colleagues who have been on this council with me before this year know that this is really important to me.

I am tired of coming to briefing and talking about my constituents who have been killed because our roads are not safe.

So...

I want us to remember that we're here for all of our constituents, but we are really here for the folks who are not typically at the table and really not able to advocate for themselves because they have busy lives trying to do other things.

And I think it's gonna be really important for us to step into our leadership and make sure that we're protecting everybody in the city.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

All right.

Well, anyone else?

Madam Vice Chair, any final comments, questions for the good of the order?

I do not have anything to say, Chair Sack.

I really appreciate the opportunity.

You always put me on the spot.

So I don't, but I do echo Council Morales' comments.

There's a lot of people that don't have the opportunity to engage here at Council or on social media or on Twitter or on the different outlets in which a lot of us are on.

And a lot of us...

you know, reach out to community in different ways and just really encourage our colleagues to go beyond that.

There's a community that doesn't have access to email or doesn't have the time to do that, and they are out in the community.

They are at churches.

They are at community centers.

They are at schools.

And so we really need to continue to make the city safe.

And my parents live in South Seattle, so I understand...

Councilman Morales' comments regarding the safety around, you know, MLK and Rainier.

I drive and go along that every day when I go to my parents' house.

So understand that piece as well.

So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And yeah, I put you on the spot because you're good at it.

And so thank you for those comments and Council Member Morales, thank you for your very thoughtful, sobering comments.

It's a sobering reminder for all of us.

the huge opportunity that we have here before us today and throughout this levy renewal consideration process.

And let us strive to do the work, rolling up our sleeves to meet the unmet and unarticulated needs of the residents of this city.

And those that show up and are able to carve out time and testify, and I'm grateful for them.

And also those who don't and who historically have been left out of the process or just for any number of reasons have other things going on in their lives.

And starting with the most vulnerable people, including, as you aptly called out, some people who are suffering from some, who have experienced the devastating impact of some some less than ideal policy choices to invest or not invest in certain cases and safety improvements for all, including new sidewalks.

And so huge opportunity in front of us.

And let us also not forget that, you know, like starting with the most vulnerable, but also we need to be mindful of safety the tax-paying public and their wishes.

They sent us here to do the right thing and invest and spend wisely in whatever safety or equity or accessibility enhancements and features.

Let us do that and also be mindful of impacts of our decisions on people, especially given this revenue stream, not particularly progressive.

In any event, well, thank you.

I guess, unless there are any final thoughts.

Go ahead, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

I really actually just wanted to recognize Calvin for his work in this issue paper.

It is, as most people know, it is really hard work to synthesize, read the entire issue, transportation plan which does have an impact on what moves forward in the levy because the goals are we're trying to meet the goals of the plan in this levy so that was a sizable material document and then having to synthesize the levy for us and I thought the issues were very articulately pulled out and importantly pulled out and I super appreciate Calvin's work.

So we don't always recognize the folks behind the scenes.

And I really wanted to give an opportunity to know how much I appreciate the work and how helpful it is personally to me.

thank you very much no it's a wonderful reminder cal really appreciate you as well as chair of this committee i think you know that plus one of that um we work together very closely uh outside of these committees so uh i i agree uh plus one uh the the the sentiment of everything they expressed there and i really appreciate your like i know this is a lot of time i know this is a lot of sort of What we do is not really a night and weekend or a nine to five job, but there are certain periods where it's more intense than others and this for you and our teammates and central staff that focus on transportation.

This is one of those times where it's kind of an all on hands on deck effort, but I appreciate your thoughtful sage, insightful analysis.

I read every memo you sent across, every link that's included to another, cited document that's nested in there.

I read that too.

And so I really appreciate very, very, very thoughtful analysis and glad that we're grateful that we all can rely on your expertise and your transportation policy planning expertise to help guide our really important policy decisions that we're going to be making in this body.

So thank you again.

And I even read your spreadsheets.

Although as a lawyer, like, you know, like I went to the law school and they expressed promise I wouldn't have to be good at, you know, specific numbers, math and all that.

But I want to bang my head over the...

No, I'm joking.

But really, really thoughtful analysis.

And I want to thank you and Art.

And it's not just you.

There's other people involved too.

You're the kind of primary face of all this.

But...

appreciate our engagement and our experts we have here.

So, I guess, unless, all right, no one's, all right, so we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Final, final, is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

All right, hearing no further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned, it is 12.03.

Thank you.