Select Budget Committee 11/14/22 (continued)

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you very much for coming back to the Select Budget Committee meeting.

The time is 1 p.m.

on November 14, 2022. I'm Teresa Mosqueda, chair of the Select Budget Committee.

We have been in recess for the last two hours, and I would ask the clerk to please call the roll so we can reconvene here.

Council President Juarez.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council Member Nelson.

Present.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Council Member Sawant.

Present.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Council Member Herbold.

Here.

Chair Mosqueda.

I am present a present.

Great.

Thank you.

And I believe the council president will be joining us momentarily.

We do expect to have everybody at full these select budget committee meeting today.

So we're going to go ahead and get started.

And I will note when the council president joins us.

Colleagues, thanks for your patience and the members of the community for allowing us to take a recess to join the hundreds of students who gathered at the plaza today to call for gun violence measures, gun safety, and more importantly, getting guns out of schools in the first place.

Appreciate all of the organizers from Ingraham High School and students from around the city and community members at large, including school board members and the Seattle Education Association president as well for all of the participation in the rally.

Wanted to make sure we were able to participate and hear directly from students.

And again, thanks to the council president for her words in welcoming the students and especially opening up the city hall plaza for the students to be there.

Council president, thanks for being here.

Did you have anything else you'd like to add?

Oh, I first of all, I apologize for being late, Madam Chair.

I got I was calling it at the wrong number.

I don't know everything that you said, but I'm just going to say a few things quickly.

Besides, thank all our colleagues for appearing today at the rally for our students and giving them a space that they are welcome that we hear their voice.

And I don't know if you said this, Madam Chair, but What as a parent, as you know, as I tease you about saying kiddos, but students should not have.

In their vocabulary, the terms, active shooter, sheltering in place, a reunification area.

None of these should be common words and it has become common words, but we also found out and shared and I shared this with customer herbal as well.

the 20 laws that we have passed since March of 2018, when we first marched with the Ingram students and marched to Red Square after the Parkland shooting.

And so I just want to thank my colleagues, and particularly a huge shout out to our communications staff, Dana and folks, and Jesse and Joseph, who were there to make sure that the speakers were up, people were welcomed.

We worked with the students on their run of show.

We also had many representatives from Seattle Public School Board And we also heard from our Deputy Mayor Wong and our Director at Diehl, Mr. Chappelle.

And so this issue will not go away.

It's going to continue.

And so I'm hoping that we can have more spaces and more opportunity to hear from these young folks who, as you know, soon will be voters.

And hopefully we can change this horrific thing where children get guns and go to school and kill other children.

So thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm a little bit emotional about that, but that's just kind of the vibe that we're all feeling down here today in City Hall.

So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Council President.

And again, thank you for representing the full council in your welcoming comments and for all of the students for their heroic efforts to organize, to demand more than thoughts and prayers.

incredible organizing and show of support that they received for today.

We will get into the outline of the select budget committee balancing package here in a moment, but especially in the last week as students have begun organizing and formulating items that they would like to see in terms of investments from city, county, state, and congressional representatives.

We have worked very hard over the last 72 hours to make some final additions to the budget and wanted to flag for all of you a part of the deliberations and discussion we will have today.

include highlighting that we are making a new investment, a new investment of specifically allocating an additive $3 million across the biennium, specifically for mental health services for youth in high school.

This will be part of the school-based health clinic investments.

And with this new and additive funding that we have been able to secure from underprogrammed funding that I pulled out from Jump Start's administrative fund, putting commitments into action, recognizing that this is a critical investment area.

I worked very hard to make sure that we had additional funding.

that we could squeeze out of the administrative category from Jump Start so that we could keep our proposed balancing package balanced in these last few days, but ensure that there was additional funding going forward for mental health for school-based clinics and specifically for high school students through the school-based health clinics.

This is funding that goes through the Department of Education and Early Learning that gets passed on to and the existing contracts that they have with the school-based health clinics.

Again, this total investment then for school-based health clinics would be $8.9 million in 2023 and $9.1 million in 2024. And I will acknowledge as well, this is not enough.

This is a down payment.

This is a significant investment in this initial balancing package, but we will continue to work to do more and also in partnership with other levels of government as we seek to address not just these school student demands, but the growing call for action across our country as we continue to see gun violence be pervasive in the United States.

Thanks again, Council President, for your words this morning.

And to the students for all of their organizing and holding us accountable.

All right, colleagues, We are here at the select budget committee meeting to go through the balancing package.

I just want to make sure I didn't hear somebody raising their hand.

Okay, we are here to go through the select budget committee balancing package balancing package has been.

Um, published, thank you to Patty.

We're going to their information is available online.

As of this morning, we did have an opportunity to walk through the proposed balancing package with members of the press and have a technical briefing as well for members of the audience for folks who are not muted.

I would just double check.

I'll ask you to double check that you are muted if you're not interested in speaking.

And at the technical briefing, we did have the opportunity to answer a set of questions, but I look forward to answering your questions to working with central staff today to help pack the initial balancing package that we put in front of us and to.

begin the process of considering your feedback as well as possible amendments.

I want to start with this.

I want to center us on the looming economic uncertainty and the heightened inflation, the instability that was really underscored in the November revenue forecast.

That was just two weeks ago.

Two weeks ago, the city council received this dire economic forecast projecting a net $64 million decrease in the real estate excise tax, a net $9.4 million decrease in general fund, a net $4.5 million decrease in sugary sweetened beverage revenues.

That was on top of the already existing operating deficit.

2023 alone was $141 million in operating deficit that we had to account for in a balanced package.

And today we are unveiling a package that I believe centers anti-austerity measures, focuses on historic investments in affordable housing and addressing homelessness, and prioritizes a city of the future through investments in climate resilience, small business, and supporting our most vulnerable.

Over the past seven weeks, the council has engaged in community dialogue about the mayor's proposed budget, convened two public hearings, eight public meetings, listened to hundreds of community members, and council members themselves have proposed 100 amendments.

That constant dialogue informed the budget that is in front of us today.

We will work together to finalize it, but I believe that this foundation in the balancing package sets us up to have a budget that invests in core and emerging needs.

I want to thank you all for the ideas that you brought forward, the brainstorming that you've done with my office and central staff, and for the community for their feedback and their ideas.

We are revealing a balancing package that I believe rejects austerity and prioritizes keeping our community cared for and housed, connected and resilient, healthy and safe.

I would say that there are no easy answers baked into how to address the budget crisis and the shortfall that we see.

There are a plethora of services needed to address the growing trauma and stress that our community continues to struggle with.

While there were no easy answers, there were core values to start from to build this proposed budget in front of us.

That includes accountability and transparency, investing in key and core city services for working families and our smallest businesses, and preventing cliffs in services and avoiding austerity measures to ensure that we are resilient in the wake of this situation we are currently facing, that we emerge more equitable and more just.

Much of the 23-24 budget investments protect heavily stakeholder policies and balance with the support from higher than anticipated revenue from the historic jumpstart progressive payroll tax that we passed in 2020, and also uses short-term uses of the short-term rental tax and the transportation network company tax to help balance this budget.

As you were here, our colleagues, this balancing package immediately ends the use of those revenue strategies after two years.

It immediately ends the temporary use of these funds at the end of the biennium to allow for investments to grow in affordable housing, economic resilience, Green New Deal, transit investments, and equitable development initiatives as Jumpstart and TNC and short-term rental taxes had originally been envisioned.

This is why it is so important for us to have the Economic Revenue Stabilization Task Force be successful in their efforts to come up with strategies for the council to collectively deploy in the upcoming year.

For this budget, I was focused on three pillars.

And as we looked at the mayor's proposed budget, I continued to try to keep us focused on the categories I mentioned.

Cared for and housed, this means making sure that we're investing in homeless services, human service investment, tenant protections.

The second category was connected and resilient.

This means economic revitalization and equitable growth, clean, livable, connected communities, and sustainability and investing in Green New Deal investments to protect our environment and our local economy.

And finally, health and safety.

Investing in community health, community safety, traditional public safety, as well as alternatives, like investments upstream.

Investments that our youth need, like the folks that we saw today in gun violence prevention, health investments, educational opportunities, and investments for our entire community in arts and culture.

We had to make tough choices in this budget to balance.

I cannot underscore that more.

We had to make very tough choices to make the revenue situation that you all heard earlier this month balance.

But I did so.

being thoughtful and deliberative.

I hope that you see in this proposed budget that I've identified and prioritized programs and services that could have had cliffs, reductions, or end when ongoing need is still present in our community.

Before investing in new pilots or brand new programs or initiatives that did not provide a direct service or direct care in this moment of increased need, we had to put some of those on hold.

Regarding addressing the real estate excise tax shortfall, we similarly had to look at projects and spending categories for infrastructure, transportation, large capital projects.

If they did not have dedicated projects in development already initiated or fully planned, some of those did have to go on hold.

But in every way, I tried to move us forward and move us away from major policy decisions that did not need to be embedded in this budget process.

I believe that this is not the year for major policy changes or policy distinctions that move us away from already established strategies in the midst of economic uncertainty.

This is the year for taking the temperature down, depoliticizing policy choices, and really being intentional about our actions tied to the budget so that we can collectively address the shortfall and invest in our city's pressing needs.

So again, if something was new or not fully developed, we did have to put a hold on some of those things, but that is not an indication that they were not good ideas.

And similar to council member priorities, many of you had suggested strategies that you'd like to see incorporated in the budget.

Not including them is not necessarily an indication of not supporting.

We absolutely had to prioritize basic necessities versus nice to haves or shifting from previously determined policy.

I applied the same lens across departments for consistency.

So if it was not tied to existing statute, if it was a major shift in policy, if it would benefit from a larger discussion, if it wasn't furthering something that was already indicated as a potential pathway forward that had the majority of support.

I tried to hold back on those actions for future thoughtful deliberation in partnership with you all, the mayor's office, impacted parties, and the community.

That's true from everything from revenue to policy choices.

So we did have to say no to some things and what I hope you see is that we helped Over the last few weeks, with the help of central staff and all of your feedback, we helped to find the common ground.

In some ways, this is not a feel-good budget.

It cannot be in the midst of economic downturn.

But overall, I feel good about the policy decisions that we've made in this initial balancing package and how we balance budget investments and policy priorities.

So I want to thank all of the folks who made it possible for this to come together, the community for their patience as we worked with an additional week to try to adjust for especially the decline to the staff in my office who spent endless hours and community roundtables and individual meetings with community members, council members, your teams, and members of the community to make sure that we were pulling from the leadership of community and folks affected.

So thanks to Chief of Staff, Sejal Parikh, policy director, Aaron House, operations manager, Farideh Cuevas, and policy analyst, Melanie Cray, in my office for their incredible work.

And I hope folks tuned in this morning to see some of the initial comments that were made about the balancing package in my release comments.

But this would not have been possible without the incredibly brilliant work of the nonpartisan analysts from central staff, under the leadership of director Esther Handy and budget lead Ali Panucci, I think there's a notable change I want to thank him for the collaboration and partnership with his team, with the city budget's office, and with the entire department teams who are dedicated to looking at the budget in these times.

That collaboration with our office, in my office, with central staff, and with CBO and the mayor's office is very much appreciated.

It is in the midst of this ongoing stress that we see growing in community and a local economy that sees greater instability that we need to come together, solve these tough problems, come up with creative solutions, and recognize as well that doing so still appreciates and respects that we are different branches of government, separate but equal branches of government.

But in these times, on tough issues, we have tried to come together to address policy, and revenue needs to redirect some of those revenue needs in these unprecedented times to ensure that our growing needs in the city are addressed.

We've had open, honest, and transparent conversations, especially as we are jointly concerned about how we close this revenue gap.

I look forward to continuing to work with you colleagues to make sure that we continue to protect our most vulnerable, protect from cliffs and program services and layoffs and austerity, that we buoy our local economy by investing in core city services, which help us as the public sector sustain hardship better, and help the private sector rebound faster.

That is proven, it's what we looked at when we passed Jumpstart, and it is still true today.

We must continue to invest in core city services in order to not only protect the most vulnerable, but to help our private and public sector sustain economic downturn.

There are decisions in this budget that have been discussed openly with many of you.

I appreciate your confidence for those who we worked with and maintain that confidence to help us figure out a way to work forward to address items in this budget.

And I'm really excited that we were able to include some additional items in the last few days in partnership with the mayor's office, Senior Deputy Mayor Harrell.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks again to senior to Deputy Mayor Washington, the mayor himself and the city budget budget office for their collaboration as we work to crunch these last numbers, but it truly is a heroic effort.

Central staff being able to put this all together so our values.

Priorities and the amendments that we've agreed to so far are reflected in this budget.

I am very excited to be able to and they have prepared a packet of information as you've all received this morning around 930. Again, now that the balancing package has been released, both you as council members and members of the public will have the chance to weigh in.

There is a public hearing tomorrow at 5 p.m.

That's Tuesday here at City Hall.

But we are strongly encouraging people to continue to participate remotely.

Very much appreciate that about two-thirds, three-quarters of the folks who have testified in the last two public hearings and eight committee meetings where we've accepted public comment, the vast majority of folks have been online.

Doing so helps us prevent transmission of COVID and other communicable diseases out there.

As noted, you've heard me talk about my sister who has MS. She just got diagnosed with COVID yesterday and her two kiddos as well.

So if you have been vaccinated, if you have not been boosted, get that booster.

And if you're hesitating for any reason, please think of folks who are immune compromised, like my sister and her family, who are now in isolation and hoping for their speedy recovery.

But this is why we continue to have remote and hybrid meetings.

Council members, as you also know, this week is when amendments are due.

Those amendments will be due Wednesday to central staff at noon, Wednesday, November 16th.

And then next week, the council will vote on amendments.

Starting at 9.30 AM, we will have at least an hour and a half of public comment.

And please do plan for the entire day for us to go through the various amendments that may be coming forward.

In the past, we've had two days for amendments, and what we're really gonna strive to do is do it in one day.

So we are going to be efficient with our time, and we are going to also hear from members of the public before we begin those deliberations on November 21st.

Final votes will be the following week, Monday, November 28th.

We will do the technical cleanup vote and get that out of committee.

And Tuesday, November 29th is our full council, where our fearless leader and current mayor pro tem, we'll help guide us through the process and get this budget over the finish line.

Thanks so much again to the communications team.

They have provided links to the budget committee pages and a guide on the council's budget process, and they're making it possible for members of the public to closely follow along with where we are at in the budget process and how to track amendments.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to central staff.

Madam Clerk, could you please read item number 1 into the record.

Agenda item 1, initial initial balancing package for briefing and discussion.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Welcome, Director Handy.

Thank you again for your leadership during this budget time and to Budget Lead and Deputy Director Panucci.

Again, I also want to thank the Council President.

Thanks for your flexibility and offering to work with us for an extra week so that we could crunch those REIT numbers.

It was very helpful because significant projects got included in the proposed budget that didn't seem possible a week and a half ago.

So thanks for the extra time there.

Please go ahead, Director Handy, and thanks again.

Please pass on our appreciation to your team.

Thank you, Budget Chair Mosqueda.

For the record, Esther Handy, the Director of the Council's Central Staff, I'm joined by our Deputy Director, Ali Panucci, for this opening presentation.

And then we also have our entire Central Staff team on the line for the latter half of this committee meeting, where we will walk through each amendment included in this balance sheet package.

Next slide.

Patty, this is the visual that the budget chair was just referencing about our budget process.

As a reminder, we are at step four of that process.

On September 28th, Budget Office Director Julie Dingley provided an overview of the executive proposed budget.

The council then hosted a week of department by department hearings in October, followed by a discussion of possible amendments to the proposed budget and the balancing package we will brief on today.

is a compilation of those amendments proposed by all nine council members and put together by Budget Chair Mosqueda.

There will be an opportunity to amend this package next Monday, November 21. Next slide.

This again, Budget Chair Mosqueda just covered these dates, but showing them visually on the screen of a public hearing tomorrow.

Council member proposals due by Wednesday at noon, and votes on amendments next Monday.

Next slide.

And here is our agenda for today.

So we're going to cover initial issues proposed in the budget.

I'll provide the briefest overview of the November revenue forecast.

We will take a look at a few tables about the balancing package by investment area, and then talk about some of the resource-specific spends in this plan.

And then we will turn it over to our team and go section by section, housed and cared for.

We will read in each of the amendments in that section.

Council members will have a chance to ask questions about each of those.

Great.

So next slide, I'll begin with a reminder about the initial issues in the proposed budget as transmitted by the executive.

The first was relates to human service contracts issued by the city as we have discussed extensively in this committee.

Current law requires HST to inflate service provider contracts annually based on that consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers call that the CPI W required CPI W inflationary rate for 2023 is 7.6%.

And the forecasted inflation for 2024 is 6.7%.

The executive proposed a change to this law that would place a cap on inflationary increase for these contracts at 4%.

And this balancing package follows current law and provides the full inflationary increase on these contracts.

Second, the executive proposed fund policy changes to several funds, including the short-term rental tax and the transportation network companies fund to reflect changes in state law and provided some flexibility to balance the budget.

those changes are largely retained in this budget.

The most significant policy changes were to the jumpstart fund that would change the current formula for spending the jumpstart fund and allow more revenue to be used in the general fund to address the operating deficit in perpetuity.

We'll look at a table on jumpstart fund later in the presentation.

I'll note here that the balance of package recommends passage of an ordinance that would allow a transfer from the jumpstart fund to general fund of approximately $30 million of higher than anticipated revenues in 2022, 71 million of 2023 projected revenues, and 84 million of 2024 projected revenues over in 2024. And then finally, the other big policy change that came with the budget was that earlier this year, the city's 120-member parking enforcement unit was moved from the police department to the Department of Transportation.

The executive proposed to transfer them back to the police department, and this penalty package retains the parking enforcement unit at the Department of Transportation.

It makes an immediate investment to support parking enforcement officers, such as funding to allow full use of overtime, for new uniforms, and some non-labor direct costs, and asks an interdepartmental team that includes representatives of the council, the executive and the parking enforcement unit to make a recommendation by April 15th about the permanent home.

Next slide.

As we were understanding the budget and thinking about those issues, the city received an updated November revenue forecast that reduced revenues by $80 million over the biennium.

I'm just going to briefly cover two slides from the Office of Economic and Revenue Forecast, both for the council and for the public.

to better understand what this change is about.

As inflation has stayed high in our community and nationally, the Fed has responded by continuing to increase interest rates with the intent to cool the economy.

And the short story is that it appears to be having an impact.

This first slide looks nationally.

The summer forecast had assumed that we would be in a place of modest economic growth in 2023, 0.9% growth.

And that has changed to forecasting that we are entering a mild recession, assuming the economy will contract by half a percent next year.

These are employment numbers.

If you look at the bright red line at the beginning, that's the start of the pandemic.

You see a sharp drop in employment in 2020. You see that we have climbed out of that and have returned to pre-pandemic employment levels The light pink line projected what the budget was built upon, that employment would slowly grow over 2023 and 2024. The bright line shows instead the beginning of a drop of employment in 2023. The next slide looks at that regionally, and it is a similar shape.

We see a significant drop in employment during the pandemic, a climb out of that.

The light pink line shows this summer what was projected as employment, sort of a slow and steady growth in 23 and 24. And the bright red shows the current forecast where we see employment drop in 2023. The construction sector is a significant part of the local projected slowdown and part of the impact on our revenues.

Next slide shows what the overall impact looks like.

The first is a $9.4 million reduction in the general fund over the biennium, driven by drops in property tax due to new construction.

Sales and B&O are the other two significant players here, as we think about loss of employment and a paired loss in consumer demand.

I'll note for the Council that a $9.4 million decrease over the biennium on a $1.6 billion budget, it's not great, particularly given the operating deficit, but on its own, it's not a crisis.

That part of this forecast could have been solvable.

The larger challenge is the real estate excise tax.

The proposed budget was built on an assumption of $106 million of REIT in 2022 and $95 million in 2023 and 2024 each year.

Those forecasts dropped by 25% for a total loss of $64 million over the biennium.

This is a tax on real estate transactions, and the change is driven both by a projected drop in prices and seeing fewer transactions in the market.

Excuse me, can I ask a quick question?

I'm sorry.

Yes, please, and I apologize as well.

I can't see everybody on the screen today, so please do go ahead and raise your hand or jump in.

Council President, go ahead, please.

Thank you, Esther.

I just want you to go to back up again on the 106 million drop of REIT.

And then the next number was 95, 106 was the 2022 number.

95 was what was built into the 2023 budget and a similar number in 24.

And the forecast dropped a total of.

By about 25%, so over the three years, 22, 23, and 24, 64 million.

Okay, that's how, okay, thank you.

Yeah, no problem.

So as a reminder, REIT funds capital projects, transportation, parks, some libraries, and we are gonna show a slide that shows how the balancing package addresses this in a moment.

Before we do, I want to note that there were also significant decreases in the sweetened beverage tax and commercial parking tax.

So when we use the number of a decrease in over $80 million in revenue over the biennium, it is a total of each of these funds.

Great.

So the next slide is a snapshot of the compilation of all of the changes to the proposed budget in the balancing package.

It is organized.

You see the numbers in 23 and 24 where there are adds and reductions by each of the category areas.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this slide here because we're going to talk line item by item about each of the changes but happy to refer back to it later in the presentation if it is helpful.

The next slide I believe is JumpStart.

Great.

So this is a summary of the JumpStart fund in the balancing package released today.

So when you look at the 2023 line at the bottom that total number shows that there is $320 million of JumpStart fund resources in this budget.

This is a combination of revenues projected for 2023 and carry forward of higher than anticipated revenues in 2022. Of that 320 million, 100 million is used to balance the general fund and address the operating deficit.

And the rest is invested per category per jumpstart policy.

So you see the percents on the right, 62% into affordable housing.

9% each into Green New Deal and Equitable Development Initiative, 15% for economic revitalization, and 5% into administration.

I'll note that the package makes several swaps between Jumpstart and General Fund to address issues and expenditures that did not align with the Jumpstart defined categories.

And it allows, just in this biennium, certain items that are not fully aligned with the categories to use Jump Start admin funding.

For example, the Jump Start fund is used to backfill the reduced revenues from sweetened beverage tax.

And overall, the proposed package meets spending consistent with the original spending plan by category, while supporting the general fund to avoid reduction in key programs.

Okay, great.

Let's pause here for a second.

Council Member Lewis?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And maybe this is a question for Madam Chair or Esther.

I recall some discussions in the spring that it was possible that the administration number on our original jumpstart spend plan might be higher than our anticipated ongoing administration needs to administer the spend plan at 5%.

Is that not something that has come to fruition?

I see the 5% reflected in In this chart.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

For the record, I'm Ali Panucci of your central staff.

I would say that the proposed budget actually proposed to use less than 5% of the Jumpstart Administration Fund for administering the tax.

The only reason that it even reached 5% in the proposal in the balancing package is because just for this biennium the chair has allocated some funds that would have been part of that 5% to support expenditures that are not aligned with the jumpstart spending plan such as to increase mental health support for schools.

And so I think what we are seeing so far is that it will not require the full 5% to administer the jumpstart fund.

I'd also just flag, though, that the executive departments are still figuring out how to stand up all of the new programs and services funded by this major new revenue source, and I don't expect that number to decline significantly over time, but so far it has not surpassed 5%.

And as a reminder as well, it was up to 5% for administrative costs.

We also went through that and tried to similar to the other policy categories align to see if there was a direct nexus to jumpstart administration in what was being proposed.

That's where we were able to identify some areas that did not have a direct tie to jumpstart and have offered in most cases to fund those through a different revenue source.

Again, as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting here and following Council President's remarks about the school students demands for responding to the shooting at Ingraham High School, we did work within the last 24, 48 hours.

It seems like it's all running together at this point over the weekend to try to make sure that the final budget reflected higher investments, especially into mental health support through the school based health clinics.

So recognizing that we had additional.

We also, as you'll hear, use some of that portion food security and food access because of the reduction that those programs would have taken due to the sugary sweetened beverage tax reduction and revenue hit in the revenue forecast.

And finally, as well, we used about half a million for eviction prevention strategies, recognizing that these three areas, food assistance, eviction prevention, mental health for kiddos in schools, I believe that within the administrative category, if there's unprogrammed funding because the administrative costs were not fully up to 5%, that the broad coalition of folks that have supported the temporary use of Jump Start to help prevent against austerity, just like we have in the first two years, that investing in these core categories for our most vulnerable is something that aligns well with how we are investing in using Jump Start funding in this two-year period.

But all of those programs as well are not intended to be ongoing.

We just really wanted to make sure that we made initial investments where there was available revenue.

And I I made the decision to free up that administrative category for those three investments specifically.

So we'll talk more about that when we talk about Jump Start as well.

But those are three examples.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I recognize that we're probably going to talk more about Jump Start, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Chair.

We had had some discussions in August about how we should look at our Jump Start policies.

The existing I just wanted to say thank you so much for the work that you're doing on the codified spend plan versus the strategy that we used last year during here now.

This is a good demonstration of the flexibility that you brought to this conversation while recognizing that we do want to still maintain our investments in Jump Start according to the spend plan.

I think it's really important for us to make sure that we have something needed to give with the additional funds above and and the policies that are part of the passage of Jump Start and the huge coalition that you are so good to always remind us of, this huge coalition of folks who guided us in those discussions.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair, and I want to thank you as well for being a thought partner on how to address this early on.

In our August meeting, we did tee up the possibility of using higher than anticipated revenue to stem any program reductions to prevent austerity, prevent cuts and appreciate that the colleagues gave us some.

some opportunity to begin dialogue with CBO as to what that should look like.

Obviously, there's some areas where we're trying to basically realign with what the initial offer was and still also offer that flexibility.

So that's what we've done here.

And the chair mentioned the sign on letter that's been circulating again.

I just want to quote from it since it's been pulled up in reference here in August.

This letter was circulated And in part, it says, given that Jumpstart is projected to raise revenue above what was estimated in 2020, we support the request made by Councilor Mosqueda to look temporarily at addressing Seattle's budget shortfall in 23 and 24 with excess Jumpstart revenue only to continue equitable core city services.

They go on to say that they recognize higher than anticipated returns and using the higher than anticipated returns is only a short-term measure and that we must continue to support ongoing progressive revenues and remain true in out years, not only to the spend categories that we have helped to protect in this budget, but to building back the full amounts as well.

So thanks again to 350 Seattle, Civic Ventures, Chief Seattle Club, Downtown Emergency Services Center, Downtown, excuse me, Housing Development Consortium of Seattle, King County, Low Income Housing Institute, MLK Labor, ProTax 17, SCPTA PDA, the Coalition on Homelessness, SEIU 775-925-1199, Statewide Poverty Action Network, Solid Ground, Teamsters 117, UAW 4121, UFCW 3000, Unite Here Local 8, Washington State Budget Policy Center, Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, and Working Washington.

Just as a reminder of the folks who and the organizations in the community that was really helping to help us stay true to the The last thing I'll say on this

This budget does, the balance of package does retain a $15 million jumpstart reserve that is held for any fluctuation in future forecasts.

The next slide breaks down other resources that were used to fund the programs in this package.

So there is $7 million in reductions in changes of assumed underspend from the year-end supplemental ordinance.

There is about $8 million in sort of technical adjustments and fund swaps.

There's $7 million in 23 and 6 in 24 that is about limiting the expansion of new programs and realigning policy.

Again, we'll see this in the CBAs that we move to next, but a couple examples here is it reduces new proposed programs for community health workers and equity action plan, and it scales back the expansion of Affordable Seattle, an online portal to apply for multiple city program and it retains investment there but focuses on building out the technology and getting more programs on the platform in 23 before a larger community engagement effort.

This section also includes about $2.5 million in reduction to the Seattle Police Department, which we will break down in the CBAs.

And then reducing new and vacant positions, about $1 million there.

Many of these are internal.

So reduce the addition of two staff in Department of Human Resources, two in the City Budget Office, one at the Civil Service Commission, and three at Seattle Public Utilities for expanded graffiti cleanup, retaining the $2 million in existing staff in the base budget for that function.

Then finally, the biggest number on this table is about a revisit of reserve.

The proposed budget included a $10 million a year contribution to the emergency fund, which is being rebuilt over a five-year period post-pandemic.

The balancing package contributes $1.5 million in 2023 to that emergency fund, suspending $8.5 million of that contribution, and it fully suspends the $10 million contribution in 2024. It also uses $9 million from planning reserves and about $4 million over the biennium from SDOT emergency reserves.

Our next slide is about REIT balancing.

And council members, we shared a memo this morning that spells this out in more detail.

And our staff is, of course, happy to field questions about this.

So as I mentioned, oh, sorry, I keep skipping this slide.

Other funds used to balance the general fund, we talked about the jumpstart fund.

We also, this balance sheet package accepts the proposed changes to suspend the requirement that would direct a portion of the transportation network company tax revenues to affordable housing near transit and modifies the short-term rental fund to support the equitable development initiative at $4.4 million annually.

Great.

Now we can go to REIT.

So as we mentioned, a $64 million decrease in the forecast of REIT over the biennium.

The first place that resources were drawn from were reserves.

So this package removes $15 million from a REIT revenue stabilization reserve.

It retains $10 million in that reserve per financial policy.

Second, it looks at two major capital projects.

The first is Memorial Stadium.

The proposed budget included $20 million in cash financing for the stadium and debt service to support another $20 million of debt financing.

That is scaled back in this package to be just $20 million of debt financing in 2023. The second major new capital project is the Waterfront Operations Tribal Interpretive Center, the purchase of the Bakken building on the waterfront.

The proposed budget included $13 million a week cash financing for the purpose, for the purchase of this building.

The balancing package changes that to debt service and, sorry, for debt, $13 million in debt financing for this building.

and includes the debt service starting in 2023. After those major projects, there was a swap of REIT funding for other sources.

There is some swapping in the transportation fund and then a more significant swap in the Office of Housing.

Let's go to the next slide.

In the office, oh, sorry, a hand.

I have a hand up, I'm sorry, you probably didn't see it.

Yeah, please.

I know we've been through this, but I just want you to just slow down just a little bit.

Absolutely.

I'll come back later on the Memorial Stadium issue, because there's some questions I can ask you offline.

So on the Waterfront Operations issue, when you have the sentence on the reduce the $13 million, increased debt service, so about a million in 2023. Then you say approximately 1.3 million in 2024 and beyond.

Does that mean and beyond, is that the commitment level until you hit 13 million?

I'm confused, I'm sorry.

Yeah, no problem.

The proposed budget assumed that we spend $13 million in cash to buy the building next year.

We took out that $13 million in cash, And assume that the city will issue debt to buy the building, issue $13 million worth of debt.

And so what is in the budget is the debt service to pay back that $13 million of debt.

That debt service in 2023 is 937,000.

We assume it will be a $1.3 million, essentially our debt payment in 2024. And then it is built into the out years of the financial plan at that rate.

And those are the kind of debt financing debt services, the tax exempt debt services that is backed by.

The city of Seattle, so those are major regular debt financing for government, that's right.

OK, thank you.

I what I had done is I had pulled from the big paper document The memorial stadium redevelopment and then the waterfront operation.

So I thank you for helping clarify the language for me on the on the financing piece, because obviously the commitment is still there, but we didn't see the 6564 million dollar wave coming.

So, if I'm not using the correct language, that's what it sounds like to me.

That's correct.

Thank you, Council President.

I do have comments on this that actually come back to comments that you made before, and I'm going to turn it to Ali Panucci quickly to provide additional context as well.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Council President, I just want to clarify, they're not necessarily, in this case, they wouldn't be tax exempt.

Um, bonds, but it would be through the city's limited, um, bond ordinance.

So the package includes a number of changes, both to add this debt service as well as modify the policies and amend the bond issuance ordinance to support this.

Thank you very much.

And as you noted, we will have more conversations about REIT overall, but specifically I'm sure these two projects.

I did want to take a quick second to thank the council president.

In another select budget committee meeting, you spoke to the importance of both of these.

So I want to thank you for your leadership on these efforts.

When we saw a $64 million REIT hit in early November, these are the two largest investments that we're using REIT cash.

And I want to thank the central staff team for all of the work they've done because it is through their difficult tasks in the last three or four days that this is late-breaking information that we were able to build back into our budget because we were able to figure out a way to make this balance.

We want to make sure that it is abundantly clear to our community partners, including Seattle Public Schools, for example, our union laborers who are working together for the next iteration of Memorial Stadium, that we are strong partners.

And so there should be no question when they see $20 million being set aside for debt financing for this project and the continuation of this in the CIP, that the city is committed to Memorial Stadium.

Similarly, we want to keep our commitment to the general public and especially the Muckleshoot Tribe for the Waterfront Operations Interpretive Center We have committed to working with the tribe to ensure that they have the space there.

And we want to make sure that that commitment and partnership is solid and strong.

And that's why both of these items are built into the budget.

I want to repeat that.

They are built into the budget and they are using debt financing with our precious few dollars to ensure that those commitments remain there and that our partnerships remain intact.

Council President.

Just again, I don't want to belabor the point, but I just want to be able to we disabuse people of the notion or at least get away from some narrative that the city of Seattle is backing away, because as you know, these two are big projects are near and dear to my heart.

But we listen to Seattle voters when they pass the education levy and when the voters committed to saying we want Memorial Stadium to get redone and then we want to be good partners.

This is a discussion that has been going on since 2016 that I've been a part of.

So I can tell you, I'm comfortable.

I'm positive that the commitment is there.

We heard the voters with a partnership.

And I think we share this, too, a little bit offline.

If you don't if I can just take a moment, Madam Chair, is that Memorial Stadium for the school district in partnership with the city of Seattle is also an economic engine that will generate revenue not only for the school district, but for the city of Seattle.

And it's only a win win situation.

So thank you so much for articulating that the commitment and the intent is still there.

We are not shovel ready.

We're moving forward.

And so I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Seattle Public School and the mayor's office on this very important project.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And thanks again for your leadership on that and expressing support for these two issues.

I think we can move on.

Great.

So let's look at the next slide, which shows my department.

what these reductions look like.

A couple things I haven't yet named.

In housing, there is a swap of REIT money in the Office of Housing with mandatory housing affordability dollars.

The state provided some limited flexibility to the city during the pandemic to use REIT for affordable housing.

The city used that flexibility in 2020, I believe, financed $25 million worth of projects backed by repayments of $5 million a year for five years.

In this, the balancing package, the REIT payments, repayments in 2022, 2023, and 2024 are switched with mandatory housing affordability dollars In parks, in both parks and transportation, there are reductions in line items in the capital improvement program, which were prioritized for areas where there were not direct programs tied to the dollar.

So there wasn't a sidewalk, a play field, something explicitly that had been promised to community.

in these line items.

And in all of these line items, I believe there is funding in the base or in the future beyond what was reduced here.

So in transportation, those reductions are in CIP lines for bridge painting and sidewalk safety.

In parks, they are in line items for major maintenance and asset preservation, ADA compliance and playfield renovations.

and a reduction to the city's contribution to Green Seattle Partnership.

The city has contributed to this public-private partnership over the years.

We had paused our contribution during the pandemic, and this delays the reinvestment in that partnership.

What have I not named?

In libraries, a small amount of REIT alongside Levy investment dollars for a couple of seismic retrofits at libraries that are still in the process of developing scope and finance plans.

And I think that that covers.

I know we are all very protective of the So in 2021, the state authorized cities to use a portion of REIT to fund affordable housing projects for the period between 2021 and 2026. The city of Seattle made the decision to forward commit 25 million of REIT funds to be available and able to help invest in projects as soon as possible since there was projects ready to go with the commitment to pay that funding back with $5 million a year using REIT.

Situation has changed a little bit with the decrease in REIT, with the downturn that we saw just this month.

What we're suggesting here is shifting to use MHA funds to backfill that 5 million a year commitment.

With MHA coming in and projected to be well over projections over the next few years, excuse me, over the last few years and the projection that it's going to continue to be robust.

we are choosing to identify this source to help pay back that commitment.

And if REIT recovers, we will be able to shift back the original plan to the $5 million a year using REIT.

So this is a key decision, but it's also opportunity for us to revisit if we see REIT recovery.

But given the higher than anticipated, I keep using that term, given the robust returns from MHA that we've seen over the last few years and the projection that there will continue to be increase in that revenue source, that is why we were trying to figure out how to pay back this forward commitment that we had already made.

So I wanted folks to have a greater context on that.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

As far as the parks line items, these are some significant numbers and there's three bullet points providing some details.

Do we have information from parks on what particular major maintenance and asset management CIP projects they're proposing to cancel or delay?

And do we also have an indication on what the implications are for the City Hall Park improvements?

We just went through a year-long process on City Hall Park to address some of the longstanding issues.

And my understanding is the county agreed to a different course.

part of that process and I wonder how materially this action is changing since it does say in the bullet point reduce fund sources for the city hall park improvements.

So regarding City Hall Park, the $300,000 that was initially requested for 2023 is protected for 2023. That's immediate action to help take down the fence and help activate the park as good partners with King County.

I have reached out to Council Member Janie Cole-Wells, who was stewarding the effort to try to make sure that we were activating the park and not keeping up this fence, turning it into a beautiful place for residents downtown and also visitors and our community at large, and let her know that a million dollars of REIT is still being programmed for 2024. What we had heard is that there was a lot of community stakeholdering processes that still had to take place throughout next year.

So yes, let's activate it.

Let's take down the fence.

Let's ensure that there's people able to access that lawn as we're in partnership with King County in building out a plan for 2024 and beyond to ensure that there is ongoing programming, activation, improvements to the facilities, et cetera.

So, we know that part of the investments were to invest in things like.

in opening up, improving and maintaining a bathroom, perhaps creating a stage for arts and cultural events.

So we maintain the million dollars with the recognition.

We did not have that funding to deploy anymore, but wanted to, again, signal to our partners at King County that we are here to be good, good stewards of that land with them and in partnership with them with them.

To make sure that we can create an activation plan that then allows for some seed money to be there in 2024. so it was really just a matter of reducing the funding while also maintaining a 1Million dollars commitment, given that the planning still had to happen.

Obviously, we can continue to add to this if there is improvements or additional revenue available.

But this is really about kind of sequencing those conversations.

And I see Tracy Raskliff off mute, so I will stop talking and let central staff fill in the details.

But that would be my that would be my response.

And please, of course, feel free to correct that or add anything.

You did a great job, for the record, Tracy Raskliff, council central staff.

So as it relates to your first question about do we know what projects parks would look at delaying with the reduction in the funding for the major maintenance and asset management, CIP and the Seattle partnership?

The answer is no. because they just found out basically today kind of what the proposal was in terms of the rate reduction.

So I am sure they would be happy to tell us what they would ballpark as the kinds of projects that they might have to delay.

We have looked at this category.

This is their kind of major funding category for taking care of major maintenance and asset management.

It's everything from roofs to doing play area renovations to doing bathroom renovations, and then there's a bunch of things like, you know, asset management planning.

So there's a number of different categories that might be the first things that they might look at in terms of reducing their funding, but I'm sure they would be happy to tell us what they would think would be the things that they would deal with in terms of the reductions.

for major maintenance and asset management.

And just to be really clear, the amount for major maintenance, and we'll hear about this more with the actual CBAs, 2.2 million in 2023 and $3.5 million in 2024. The Green Seattle Partnership is only a $500,000 reduction, one year reduction in 2024. As it relates to deferring funding or delaying funding for the ADA compliance and play area renovations, Both of those would in fact be a delay.

That is that the funding that would be proposed would be proposed to be restored in out years, presuming that REITs funding recovers.

The ADA compliance would have additional budget remaining after taking out that $1.5 million.

about $1.9 million in 2024. So additional funding that would be available for doing some ADA work and for play area renovations after taking out the $322,000, just about $900,000 that would be left in 2025. Again, both of those would see restorations of the funding reductions in the out year should the REIT dollars recover.

And then I think Council Member Esqueda did a fine job of describing the City Hall Park fund swap of sorts, except just to be clear that the million dollars actually would be jumpstart funding, it would not be REIT funding, and it would be in 2024.

Thank you.

Yes, I appreciate that.

This was another area where we were trying to align priorities of this council We are looking at ways to show partnership and commitment to some of the items that no longer had funding.

We are freeing up the use of $1 million in 2024 for the activation of city hall park.

And there's, I think where you can see strong support for trying to make sure that this actually comes to fruition.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

If you already answered this, forgive me, but I have two questions.

The first is about this deferring for ADA compliance.

If that puts the city at risk at all for not being in compliance for ADA.

accommodations, you know, sort of what are those accommodations?

So that's one question.

And then the second question is, in the transportation bucket, if you have information about the sidewalk safety improvements, if there's information about which improvements will have to be cut, where those are, what's the impact of these projects not being completed?

So I'll answer the question about the ADA compliance.

We have millions of dollars of ADA compliance projects to do in parks based on the audit that we had done by the Department of Justice.

We are doing our best to work through those projects, and they are a myriad of different types of improvements from adding handrails to, I think, ramps to, I can't name all the different kinds of improvements, door openers and things like that.

I don't think that we are at further risk for this one-time reduction any more than we would be for where we are currently in terms of the number of projects that we need to do.

Yeah.

Can you also remind me for central staff, go ahead, Director Handy, did you have something to add to that?

I was just going to address the SDOT issue.

Just very quickly, I know that when we were looking at this, and I talked about impossible decisions, hard trade-offs here with the refunding that we do not have anymore.

The question was, first, are there any projects that are specific projects tied to some of these investments that would no longer be able to move forward?

And generally, If central staff can comment on I think Councilmember Morales' last question.

Generally, is it the case that we have identified pots of funding that don't have specific projects yet identified?

So it puts on hold a category of investments, but we really tried to move forward where there were specific line items or projects identified.

I think that for certain categories of the parks proposals, you can say that.

I can't say that, for example, parks didn't have an idea of some projects that they would like to fund with the major maintenance and asset management, CIP project, for example.

And I can't say that they didn't have any, maybe for the ADA.

I haven't asked them for that list.

I have seen a draft list of the major maintenance and asset management.

So I think you can't say it for all of the categories.

I think for the community center reduction, I think that they are in a pause or a moment of needing to revise and to revisit what kind of improvements they would be doing and at which community center so I think That one was clear that they had not yet made some specific allocations to projects, but I think it really depended on the category.

And again, we can certainly ask them for what they had intended or what they might intend with these proposed reductions to delay in terms of some of these projects.

And again, for some of these where we're actually just delaying the funding, that's what we're talking about.

But for others, it might be that they would have to cut some projects or those might get pushed to a later date as well.

I know we asked specifically in transportation.

Did you have anything else to add, Dr. Handy?

Yeah, and I see Cal's hands up.

Do you want to address the sidewalk issue?

Probably be more precise than my response would be.

Sure, I'll give it a shot.

I think it might be a little bit confusing on this table because this is showing the net total of all the re-transactions that are affecting the balancing package in transportation, and that's why I believe it's showing a positive number.

But the proposal does make targeted cuts to bridge painting and to the sidewalk safety program.

For the bridge painting program, I believe the reduction is 3.2 million in 2023, and that would reduce the proposed 8.5 million for the program down to 5.3 million for 2023. And then for the sidewalk safety program, this would reduce the proposed budget has 7.4 million in 2023 and 9 million in 2024. And this proposal would reduce it by 2 million in each year down to 5.4 million in 2023 and 7 million in 2024. And in both these cases, these are programs that have, they are, there's a number of small projects that are funded by these programs, and I do not have a specific list of to which specific subprojects might be impacted.

Yeah, and I want to add to that.

I think that the key word is reduce because you're not seeing in this chart the funding that's still there.

And that's really important as well when it comes to ADA compliance and play spaces for youth.

So I know we did not take the full amount of reduction that we were, that is there.

And we just tried to take some haircuts in various places to try to make this balance.

Director Panucci.

Thank you.

I just wanted to add that in general if you're looking across the departments with, you know, some technical assistance from the executive, the, the goal was to try to one, look at how resources are currently allocated across departments so like the number in Parks, for example, if you take out the debt, you know, the $13 million for Bakken building for FAS looks larger because they receive a larger proportion of REIT resources as well as SDOT does.

And SDOT, as Cal explained, there are a number of moving pieces to address not just the REIT revenue issue, but the commercial parking tax, which is why ultimately it looks like net positive number.

But overall, these projects were included for reductions or delays to try to minimize the impact of projects as much as possible.

So in the case of sidewalks, for example, SDOT doesn't anticipate that it would significantly impact the work in 23 and 24. They also have noted on the bridge painting piece that there did receive an $8.2 million federal grant for bridge painting.

And so that helps sort of push the local investments out into future years.

So there was an eye to trying to minimize impacts on projects that are sort of in the works right now, but with a $64 million projected reduction over the biennium, there's going to be some impacts.

Thank you very much.

I also, just before going to Council Member Peterson, I also think that part of the analysis as well was whether or not there was the staffing already on board to complete the projects.

I know that that came up as an issue for maintenance upgrades and would suggest we could follow up on that if there's not central staff that want to comment on that right now, but that was part of the analysis that we also looked at.

in terms of what projects were ready to go and had the staffing needed.

We're going to move forward.

Again, this is part of why we ask for an extra week.

This chart is informed in partnership with the city budgets office and the departments because absorbing a $64 million hit to REIT five days before releasing a proposed budget is near impossible for central staff to do alone.

So part of the analysis is asking departments, where is there some opportunity for us to either delay, reduce, reschedule?

And again, I want to thank them for helping to identify a series of possibilities so that we could make some really tough choices, but also continue to invest in some of these areas.

So we can add to this chart perhaps central staff to show what the reduction was, but also what's in the base and where the existing funding continues.

Thank you for your hard work and the hard work of your team and central staff for rebalancing the budget, putting forward this package.

I have some other comments later about public safety items but I wanted to address this transportation item here.

Thanks for answering the question about why the numbers are shown as positive instead of negative.

I am concerned that the budget goes in the wrong direction on bridge maintenance when we consider the four items that the city auditor highlighted as being necessary to maintain our bridges.

This is one of them that prevents erosion and rust and things that impact the structure.

It's one of the most efficient ways to preserve the exterior bridges.

So I just want to signal I'll probably try to restore some money to strengthen our bridges for bridge safety.

But, and, you know, one of the benefit of these capital items is that they can be funded, any from any source of funds they are typically one time issues that we can address.

So I'm not so even though REIT I think there are other sources of funds that I hope to find to boost that as an amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I wish you luck with finding those additional sources as well.

If it goes in the wrong direction, it's because there was multiple revenue streams that went in the wrong direction in November.

So looking forward to working with you on that.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I understand both from the remarks you just made, Madam Chair, as well as when the announcement that we would be taking an extra week to deal with this forecast update, particularly the loss of REIT funds.

And I understood that you were working closely with the CDO and the individual departments in hearing from them what their recommendations were.

And so I just wanted to understand a little bit more about what central staff, Tracy Ratcliffe, said about parks.

She seemed to say that they are just getting this proposal, and that is not sort of my understanding of how this was developed.

I was wondering if you could say just a little bit more about that.

Yeah, I just want to clarify that in this process, we did receive some technical assistance from the budget office and departments.

And on a very quick turnaround timeline, there was a generation of options.

The departments did not make any recommendations, neither did the city budget office to us.

They helped us identify places in the capital improvement program or the base budget where there may be less impact than others, and then it was central staff and the budget chair who needed to make choices from that menu.

And so in that context, we did have some conversations about specific line items and sort of to the best of our ability, looking where there would be minimal impact.

But there has not been the kind of robust analysis about these that would normally happen in the development of the proposed budget or amendment.

Definitely some back and forth, definitely some information from departments, but not recommendations with and with a depth of analysis.

Thank you for that clarification.

Appreciate that.

Yeah, thanks.

Thanks for sharing.

I was.

trying to scratch my head too because I need more sleep, but I definitely didn't want to use the word recommendation either.

I think in my earlier comments, I was trying to reference the respect and appreciation for the separate branches of government, but given the revenue shortfall that we face, we did try to identify kind of a series of options and none of them are good options.

There is no recommendation from a department, but in a two to three day period, we were able to identify ways in which this could possibly be mitigated.

If there was puzzle pieces, that is really all that was put out there.

And my effort here was to try to make sure that we really were not eliminating funding completely where we could spread the peanut butter and keep programs and projects moving forward.

We would want to do that.

And if there were items that were not specifically programmed and ready for, shovel ready, ready to go.

That is where I tried to take some reduction.

So that's the process.

And the last week definitely helped with that.

But there has been, I think, recognition that they're not in the recommendation period.

That was what the mayor transmitted to us.

And now it's up to us.

Thank you.

And that was my word.

I don't think it was your word.

I'm so tired.

It could have been me.

OK.

Great, well, let's keep going.

Okay, the next slide just shows a brief touch on two other funds that we discussed earlier, the sweetened beverage tax.

The balancing package backfills reduction in sweetened beverage tax with two strategies.

The first is reducing the reserves that are set aside specifically for the sweetened beverage tax.

And the second is that use jumpstart funds to, avoid those reductions.

As a reminder, these are largely kind of food, health and equity programs funded by the Sweetened Beverage Tax, a prenatal to three-grant program, Fresh Bucks to help families access fresh foods at farmers markets, and community and senior meals programs.

And then the Commercial Parking Tax The last couple of slides, I would like to walk the Council The two charts that I'm going to show are about the general fund.

As a reminder, that is the $1.6 million fund where the city has the most flexibility in revenues as a part of our overall $7.5 billion budget.

On this chart, the blue line is projected expenditures.

The red line is projected revenue.

This first slide is the executive proposed budget and you can see a projected ongoing average operating gap in our out years of $193 million.

The next slide is the balancing package as currently constructed.

You'll see that the sustainability issue becomes about $57 million worse than the proposed budget, increasing that average operating deficit to $250 million.

This is due to a couple of factors.

The first, which accounts for about half of that increased sustainability issue, is just straight due to the revenue forecast.

The forecast decreased general fund projected revenues, and that means there is less each year for our budget.

The council's action proposed in this balance sheet package to rescind the heating oil tax has an impact, those revenues were assumed this in 2023 and in out years.

There is new ongoing spending of about $24 million and suspending the transfer to the emergency fund, which were one-time investments in those emergency reserves.

And so what is to be done?

This last slide, you know, reminds us there are a couple of things.

Temporary, next slide, Patty.

The temporary provisions included in the package that allow the council to balance the general fund budget over this biennium without significant reductions to critical programs and services.

Those short-term strategies include suspending the repayment of emergency reserves and higher reliance on jumpstart fund, give some more time to look for efficiencies in the city budget and think about how to right-size appropriations with our revenues.

In addition, there is a statement of legislative intent in this package that asks central staff and the city budget office to work together to update policies around budget development and building this six-year financial plan to ensure that we are using the very best practices to budget and give the very best information to both the council and the executive when they are making decisions about vacancies, about in future inflationary costs, about all of these things.

So we're making the best decisions that we can.

And then finally, providing time, the temporary strategies over this biennium provide time for the Revenue Stabilization Work Group to make recommendations on new progressive revenues that the city could implement to ensure that general fund revenues keep pace with both inflation and expenditure growth.

And that's the end of our opening presentation.

Next, at the chair's direction, we will do a walkthrough of each of the council budget actions in this package.

All right, let's get into the details of where each of the council members' budget actions were included.

I will ask folks to show restraint.

We have over 160 actions to walk through.

So if you have a clarifying question that you need answered, please feel free to Go ahead and ask that I'll remind folks that we're going to have a full conversation, a full debate day, discussion, dialogue, deliberation day on amendments and what the underlying proposal is on Monday next week on the 21st.

So this is this is really a time to ask clarifying questions.

at this juncture.

And again, if it's your amendment, please try to hold back on expressing the why you put it forward at this point.

If it's included, fantastic.

But let's have the debate on policy next Monday.

Thanks so much for letting me know if you have clarifying questions as we go through this.

And I think I will turn back over to central staff.

Great.

And I'll just a little just one more word on how this is going to go.

We have a couple of central staff members who are going to read sections.

Amy Gore is going to read our first section.

If there are questions that come up, the analyst who is working on that specific amendment will field those questions.

Ali, anything else you want to add before I before we go?

Great.

Then Amy Gore, I will turn it over to you.

My name is Amy Gore with Council Central staff.

We will start off with HSD 1B1, which would add $7.1 million general fund in 2023 and $7.1 million general fund in 2024 to the Human Services Department for service provider contract inflation and impose a proviso.

The primary sponsor is Chair Mosqueda and the co-sponsors are Council Members Herbold, Morales, Lewis, Sawant, and Council President Juarez.

The second CBA is HSD 2A2, which would add 5.6 million general fund in 2024 to the Human Services Department for service provider contract inflation.

The primary sponsor is Council Member Herbold, and the co-sponsors are Chair Mosqueda and Council Members Lewis and Swamp.

The next one is HSD 30B1, which would add $3.9 million general fund in 2023 to HSD to maintain homelessness services.

It is sponsored by Council Member Morales, with Council Members Peterson, Lewis, and Sawant as co-sponsors.

Next is HSD 31A1, which would add $220,000 general fund in 2023 and $220,000 general fund in 2024. to HSD to provide behavioral health outreach in the Chinatown and International District neighborhood.

The primary sponsor is Councilmember Morales, and it is co-sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold and Lewis.

Next, we have HSD 32B1, which would add $2.8 million general fund in 2023 to the Human Services Department to support existing tiny home villages.

That is and so on as co-sponsors.

Next is HSD 34B1, which would add $107,600 of general fund in 2023 to HSD for vehicle residency outreach and parking offense mitigation.

That is the primary sponsor is Council Member Strauss, and that is co-sponsored with Council Member Peterson and Council President Juarez.

Next, we have HSD 35 B1, which would reduce proposed position authority by 5 FTE for the expansion of the unified care team in HSD, repurpose $812,000 general fund in 2024 in HSD to increase funding for the King County Regional Homelessness Authority for homelessness outreach.

It would also add $400,000 general fund in 2023 and $400,000 general fund in 2024 to HSD for KCRHA outreach data support and program coordination and impose two provisos.

The primary sponsor is Chair Mosqueda, and it is also co-sponsored by Councilmembers Lewis, Herbold, and Council President Juarez.

The next CBA is HSD 36B1.

It would add $68,000 of general fund in 2023 to HSD to correct an error that omitted contract inflation.

It is sponsored by A1, which would add $101,000 general fund in 2023, and $124,000 general fund in 2024 in the Human Services Department to fund wage parity across crisis responders.

That is from Councilmember Strauss and co-sponsored Councilmember Herbold and Lewis.

And I'll turn it over to Ali.

Thank you, Amy.

Chair Mosqueda, I think, Amy, your sound input is dropping in and out, so I wonder if I should just read in the last couple in your group to make sure.

And so just to clarify, you just read in HSD40, is that right?

Okay, maybe I'll just take the next couple that were in your assigned group just so we get all the information read in, if that works for you, Chair Mosqueda.

Okay.

The next item in the group is HSD 906A1.

This would reduce proposed funding for the Soto Shelter expansion by 5.2 million general fund in 23 and 5.4 million in 2024 in HSD.

This is funded by the budget committee and this was proposed for an expansion that is no longer moving forward.

The next item is OH100A1.

This would reallocate $6.8 million of Jump Start funds in 23 and $7 million in 24 in OH from multifamily rental production to homeownership development to correct an error in the proposed budget sponsored by the Budget Committee.

The next item, OH300A2, would request that OH review options, excuse me, the Office of Housing would review options for non-permanent supportive housing services funding and pre-development and or organizational capacity funding in development of the proposed housing levy renewal package.

This is sponsored by Council Member Herbold, with Chair Mosqueda, Council Member Strauss, and Council Member Lewis joining as co-sponsors.

SDCI 1C1 would add $1 million in 2023 to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections for rental assistance to be administered in conjunction with eviction prevention.

This is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda, who is joined by Council Member Morales, Herbold, Sawant, and Lewis.

And the final item in this group is SDCI 2B1, which would add $450,000 of general fund in 23 and again in 24 to SDCI for eviction legal defense.

This is sponsored by Council Member Sawant, who is joined by Council Member Morales and Council Member Lewis.

So this is the end of the cared for and housed group, and I will turn it over to my colleague, Asha Venkatraman, for the next group reading.

One second, let me just pause.

I know we asked folks to be restrained in their comments, but if you have questions, if you need technical answers, I'll just pause here.

I do also want to note that third to last item, this is in the care for in-house category.

I want to thank the Office of Housing, who's been doing some really good work with trying to identify additional resources available to complement affordable housing and emergency housing needs.

and the ways in which we want to build towards that in the levy, but they are already very much in the process of identifying a path to supporting additional supportive services.

So that's not part of the budget line item you're seeing, but there is some great work that's underway that will take place later this year.

So thanks to them for that work.

I'm not seeing any additional hands at this point.

So I think we can go on to connected and resilient

This is 2A.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

Asha Venkatraman with Central Staff, and I'm speaking to, yes, 2A, Connected and Resilient Economic Revitalization and Equitable Growth.

CBO 901A1 would reduce proposed funding and position authority for one FTE for affordable Seattle expansion by $290,000 of jumpstart fund in 2023 and $290,000 Jumpstart Fund in 2024 in CBO, sponsored by the Budget Committee.

Next item is Seattle Center CEN, sorry, CEN 901A1, reduced proposed funding for Bumbershoot Workforce Development Program by $100,000 Jumpstart Fund in 2023 and $100,000 of Jumpstart Fund in 2024 in Seattle Center, sponsored by the Budget Committee.

The next item is Seattle Center 903A1, reduce proposed funding for the Memorial Stadium redevelopment CIP projects by 4.3 million of REIT 1 in 2023 and 4 million of REIT 1 in 2024 in Seattle Center and add 10 million of LTGO bond funding in 2023, sponsored by the Budget Committee.

And just just want to pause for a second.

It's always a challenge, right?

To orient ourselves to the reduced proposed funding.

That doesn't mean it's a cut to the existing funding.

So, for example, if there's an increase in the proposed budget, and we're reducing the proposed increase, there's still an increase over previous years.

We talked about how there's funding still here for.

the memorial stadium, but it's just listed as a reduced to the proposed increase.

So there's still funding being allocated.

I just want to make sure that's clear.

Some of these that say budget chair, that's because we are trying to make these maneuvers happen to make sure everything fits.

But in case you are wondering if reduced proposed funding equals cut or elimination, most of the time that is not the case.

And we are just reducing the proposed increase over the base funding.

we will work towards one day having a budget document where you will be able to see an actual budget bill.

And you will be able to see a line and then the actual amount in the base budget.

That will happen one day.

At this point, this is our process that we use.

So please keep that in mind.

It's a reduced proposed increase in most places.

Thank you.

Next item is DAWN 2A2, reduce proposed funding for equitable economic opportunity program implementation by 1.85 million jumpstart fund in 2023 in finance general and add 1.85 million of jumpstart fund and 2.5 FTE to DAWN for the generational wealth initiative and impose two provisos.

Sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and co-sponsored by council members Morales and Lewis.

FAS 903A1 would reduce proposed funding in FAS for WIMBY technical assistance by $300,000 in Jumpstart funds in 2023 and $300,000 of Jumpstart fund in 2024. It's sponsored by the Budget Committee.

And FAS 905 A1, which changed the fund source for $250,000 in 2023 and $250,000 in 2024 for the one Seattle day of service in FAS from jumpstart fund to general fund.

It's sponsored by the Budget Committee.

FAS 907A1 would reduce 12 million in REIT for 2023, add $13 million of LTGO in 2023, and add $1.4 million of REIT I funding in 2024 to the back-end building in FAS.

This is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

HSD 27A1 would add $100,000 of general fund in 2023 to HSD for tax preparation assistance.

This is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

HSD 28A1 would add $200,000 of JumpStart funding in 2023 to HSD for equitable recovery and capacity building sponsored by the Budget Committee.

HSD 29A1 would add $350,000 of JumpStart fund in 2023 and $350,000 of JumpStart fund in 2024 to HSD to support workforce development for youth experiencing homelessness sponsored by the Budget Committee.

HSD 300A2 requests that HSD provide a report on contracting with human services providers, is sponsored by Council Member Herbold and co-sponsored by Council Members Mosqueda and Morales.

HSD 902A1 would reduce proposed funding for the Equity Action Plan by $250,000 of general fund in 2023 and 250,000 of general fund in 2024 in HSD, sponsored by the Budget Committee.

ITD 3A1 would change the fund source for $126,000 in 2023 and $507,000 in 2024 for Affordable Seattle in ITD from the Jumpstart Fund to multiple utility funds.

This is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

OED 2B1 would add $120,000 of Jumpstart Fund in 2023 and $120,000 of Jumpstart Fund in 2024 to OED to support the MLK labor hiring call.

is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and co-sponsored by Council Members Strauss and Lewis.

OED 301A1 would request that OED provide a report on the Seattle Job Center, is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

Item OED901A1 would reduce proposed funding and position authority for one FTE for the export accelerator initiative by $250,000 of jumpstart fund in 2023 and $250,000 of jumpstart fund in 2024 in OED sponsored by the Budget Committee.

Item OED902A1 would reduce proposed funding for the Seattle Job Center by $250,000 jumpstart fund in 2023 and $500,000 jumpstart fund in 2024 in OED sponsored by the Budget Committee.

OED 903A1, reduce proposed funding and position authority for two FTE for affordable Seattle expansion by 312,000 of Jumpstart Fund in 2023 and 312,000 Jumpstart Fund in 2024 in OED.

OIRA 1A1.

Sorry.

May I speak?

Thank you.

So some of these

These reductions, are there, some of these are reducing jumpstart funding.

Should we assume that unless it said here that it's just a reduction, they're not being paid for by a different source?

Because I remember some items on the omnibus suggested that there could be reductions or alternate sources.

Councilmember Nielsen, that's correct.

If it's just described as a reduction, it is just reducing the proposed.

For example, in the case of the Seattle Jobs Center, I believe there was $750,000 proposed in 24 and 250 proposed in 23. It's reducing the funding for 23 entirely, reducing 500 of the 750,000.

in 2024, and there's an accompanying slide, I think, somewhere in the package asking for some additional information about what that would be.

But yes, you are reading that correctly.

If it says a fund swap, it is simply just swapping.

If it's a reduction, it's either reduction the proposed spending entirely or partially.

In your packet, there's more details for each of the reduction items that outlines if there's any remaining funding for the specific item.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'll continue.

I think I was on OIRA 1A1.

Add $78,000 of general fund in 2023 and $78,000 of general fund in 2024 to OIRA for the new citizen program that's sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and co-sponsored by Council Members Morales and Strauss.

OLS 1A1 would add $552,000 of OLS fund in 2023 and $527,000 of OLS fund in 2024 and three FTE to OLS to implement the app-based worker minimum payment ordinance and provide enforcement support for all labor standards.

It's sponsored by Council Member Herbold and co-sponsored by Council Members Lewis and Mosqueda.

OPCD 1B1 would add $250,000 of Jumpstart Fund in 2023 to OPCD to support the creation of community investment trusts.

This is sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Council Members Lewis and Strauss.

OPCD 3A1 would add $415,000 of short-term rental tax in 2023 and $415,000 of short-term rental tax in 2024. sorry, excuse me, in 2024 to OPCD for equitable development initiative grants sponsored by the Budget Committee.

And SPR 901A1 would reduce proposed funding for improvements at City Hall Park by $2.5 million in REIT 2 in 2023 in SPR, and that's sponsored by the Budget Committee.

Another good opportunity to say it just shows reductions in the proposed investments, so there's still $300,000 in 2023 and $1 million set aside from Jumpstart in 2024 for City Hall Park, just a reminder.

Hey, Council Members, Calvin Chow with Council Central staff, and I'll be walking through the next series of items for the Connected and Resilient Livable, Clean, and Connected Communities.

Item Center 501A1 would pass centers 2023-2024 facilities fees ordinance.

The next item is ITD 1B1, which would add 225,000 of general fund in 23 and again in 24 to ITD for the technology matching fund and digital navigations grants.

And this is sponsored by Council Member Peterson with co-sponsors by Council Member Juarez and Council Member Morales.

Next item is OED 904A1, would reduce proposed funding for the Downtown Mobility Study by 250, excuse me, 350,000 of Jumpstart Fund in OED.

This is offered by the Budget Committee.

Next item is City Light 501A1.

This would pass the City Light 2023 Bonds Ordinance.

It's offered by the Budget Committee.

The next item is SDOT 1A1, This would provide 500,000 of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District Fund in SDOT for waterfront shuttle service.

This is offered by Council Member Lewis with co-sponsorship from Council Member Strauss and Council Member Nelson.

The next item is SDOT 2B1.

This would add 250,000 of general fund to SDOT for streetscape improvements to Ballard Avenue Northwest and pedestrian safety improvements in the Ballard Brewery District.

It's offered by Council Member Strauss with support from Council Member Lewis and Council Member Nelson.

Next item is SDOT 103B1.

This would add 1 million of school safety fund to the SDOT pedestrian master plan school safety project and would also add 1 million of school safety fund and 1.7 million of school safety fund in 2024 to the Seattle Police Department to expand the school zone camera program.

This is offered by Council Member Peterson with support from Council Member Herbold and Council Member Morales.

Next item is S.302A1.

This is a slide requesting that SDOT estimate the cost of manufacturing and installing historic street name signs.

It's offered by Council Member Strauss with support from Council Member Morales and Council Member Peterson.

The next item is S.303A1.

It is a slide requesting that SDOT provide recommendations on city and state parking brake policy.

It's offered by Council Member Lewis with support from Council Member Peterson and Council Member Morales.

The next item is S.304A1.

This is also a slide that would request SDOT and SPD to provide an implementation plan for the expansion of the school zone camera program and to make recommendations for expansion of other camera programs as authorized by state law.

It is offered by Council Member Mosqueda with support from Council Member Peterson.

The next item is S.305A1.

This is a slide requesting that SDOT address council's priorities in the development of the Seattle transportation plan.

This is offered by Council Member Mosqueda.

Next item is S.306A1.

This is a slide requesting that SDOT report on the downtown Seattle mobility needs.

This is offered by Council Member Mosqueda.

The next item is S.502B1.

This item would amend legislation that was transmitted by the mayor for the Seattle transit measure material scope change.

It would increase the amount of funding that could be used on transit capital projects from the proposed $6 million in the proposed legislation to $9.3 million, and it would make corresponding adjustments to the S.capital projects.

is offered by Councilmember Peterson with support from Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Nelson.

Next item is S.505B1.

This item would pass legislation to increase the vehicle license fee by $10 to a total of $50 per year.

And it would create a new CIP project for the Northeast 45th Bridge Street crossing.

And it would add funding, 1.5 million of funding for that project and additional funding of 461,000 in 2023 and 2 million in 2024 to the structures major maintenance CIP project.

It would also add $2 million in 2024 for the Vision Zero CIP project in SDOT and would impose two provisos.

It's offered by Council Member Peterson with support from Council Member Strauss and Council Member Lewis.

The next item is SDOT 903A1.

This item would reduce proposed funding for emergency response in SDOT's budget reserve by 2 million in 2023 and 2.1 million in 2024 in the Seattle Department of Transportation.

It's offered by the Budget Committee.

The next item is S.906B1.

This item would reduce 2.6 million in 23 and 2.8 million in 24 of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District's fund for five different S.CIP projects.

And then it would add a corresponding amount of REIT funding in place of those projects.

And then it would use that That STD funding which is vehicle license fee funding to replace jumpstart funding for the sound transit free project.

This is offered by the Budget Committee.

The next item is S.907A1.

This item would swap 2.9 million of transportation fund, reduce 2.9 million transportation fund and replace it with 2.2 million of REIT 1 and 700,000 of REIT 2 for S.structured major maintenance project.

and reduce $655,000 of transportation fund and add $655,000 of REIT one for the seawall maintenance CIP project.

This essentially swaps REIT to make up for the commercial parking tax shortfall is offered by the budget committee.

Item 908A1, SDOT 908A1 would reduce 300,000 STBD fund in 2023 and add 300,000 of REIT 1 for SDOT's Vision Zero project.

It would also reduce 300,000 of general fund and add 300,000 of VLF funds in SDOT major maintenance, which is essentially swapping REIT for general fund as offered by the budget committee.

And SDOT 909A1 would reduce proposed funding by 3.2 million of REIT 2 in SDOT's bridge painting program and reduce proposed funding by 2 million of REIT 1 in 23 and 2 million in 2024 in SDOT's sidewalk safety repair project.

This frees up REIT to deal with the REIT shortfall as offered by the budget committee.

And that concludes my section.

Thanks Cal.

I think we, unless there are questions, we're handing it over to Tracy for the next.

This is a lot of information, so if people have clarifying questions, please let me know.

But for members of the public, please know that these are like the short titles, right?

Every 1 of these amendments has at least a page of explaining of an explainer document that goes along with it.

So it's really important to put into context, especially in this tough budget year where it says reduce proposed funding, that there is still funding included and that there is an entire document that goes with each one of these CBA council budget amendment numbers.

So please note there's additional context to go with each one of these and don't just read into the short title that you're hearing here.

For example, When we look at the proposed amendment, and I believe Councilmember Peterson, this was your proposal when we look at the proposed amendment for school zone cameras.

Yes, we are putting this into the proposed budget, appreciate the revenue, the public safety aspect of helping to slow down traffic around schools, and also the way in which this funding can help invest in transportation mitigation projects around schools.

We have also added, in conversation with the sponsor, specific language to address equity issues.

So we are placing school zone cameras across the city.

No longer will it be the case that there's higher proportions of school zone cameras in especially communities of color.

We want them equitably placed across the city and we have also included language to direct the department to have a grace period, right?

We don't want those school zone cameras to immediately begin ticketing people.

We understand the impact.

of those, the ticket costs there.

So in an effort to do an education campaign, once those school zone cameras go into effect so that people perhaps get a first warning, a grace period before a ticket is actually issued is part of what we've suggested so that there is a window before those tickets start.

Some of those ideas came directly from community to say, that we needed to help better address some of the equity issues.

And that is the type of language that you would see associated with that amendment as an example.

So it was okay to lift that up just to make sure that people know that there's more context behind each one of these short titles that are being read into the record.

Again, reduced proposed funding still often means an increase over the base.

Council Member Lewis.

Thank you, chair Mosqueda.

So going to the OED 904 A1 2023, the mobility study, it says it's reduced 350,000.

What's the amount that's anticipated to be left under that item?

I believe that item is, I do not believe, I believe that's the entire amount for that item that was proposed.

So that one gets zeroed out under that amendment.

And there's a slide that goes along with it.

So the language that directs the department to look at the at least two recent studies for mobility, especially in the downtown core, asked for a report to come back to council so that we can have action quicker.

I want to know what is the response from the existing mobility studies out there instead of recommissioning yet another mobility study.

We want to know what the takeaway is now.

And so, yes, in these tough times, we have not put funding in for yet another study, given that there's multiple studies out there.

Some of those are recent.

We do not have revenue.

Just tell us what you'd like to do if there's existing studies out there, and we will work with this administration to help advance some of those.

But these are the tradeoffs that we had to make where direct funding was being.

weighed against investments in another study when there was recent studies on the book.

So we are asking for feedback and recommendations from those existing studies.

And there is a slide that corresponds if, Cal, if you can note that slide, please.

I believe it is S.306A1.

Thank you.

Additional comments?

Okay, let's keep moving.

Okay, moving on without delay, Tracy Russell, Council of Central Staff.

SPR 1A1 would add $3.7 million of Seattle Park District funds in 2023 and $6.7 million of Park District funds in 2024 to Seattle Parks and Rec to align with the final Seattle Park District six-year spending plan that was adopted by the Park District Board on September 27th.

And this is a budget committee sponsored CBA.

Moving on to SPR 3B1, this would impose a proviso of $200,000 on Seattle Park District funding in 2023 in SPR to support community planning costs for the Garfield Superblock Project.

This is sponsored by Council Members Want, with co-sponsors Council Members Strauss and Morales.

SPR 109B1 would reduce proposed funding for City Hall Park activation by $300,000 general fund in 2023, and add $300,000 of Jumpstart funding in 2023, and then would add a million dollars of Jumpstart funding in 2024 to Seattle Parks and Rec for the City Hall Park activation.

And this is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

SPR 301A1 would request, this is a slide that would request Seattle Parks and Rec to report on funding for an afterschool program for resettled and immigrant children living in subsidized housing in Magnuson Park.

And this is sponsored by Council Member Peterson, along with Council Members Strauss and Lewis.

SPR 500A1, would be a due pass for Council Bill 120437, which is the Parks Fee Ordinance, and this is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

SPR 902A1 would reduce proposed funding for non-labor supplies and costs related to the Unified Care Team by $70,000 of general fund in 2023 and $70,000 of general fund in 2024 in Seattle Parks and Rec.

SPR 903A1 would reduce proposed funding for the major maintenance and asset management CIP project by $1.2 million of REIT 1 in 2023 and $1 million of REIT 2 in 2023 and then $2.6 million of REIT 1 in 2024 and $920,000 of REIT 2 in 2024 in Seattle Parks and Rec.

SPR 904A1 would reduce proposed funding for the Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance CIP project by $1.5 million of REIT 2 in 2024 in SPR.

SPR 905A1 would reduce proposed funding for the Community Center Rehabilitation and Development CIP project by $2.8 million of REIT 2 in 2024 in Seattle Parks and Rec.

And this is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

SPR 906A1 would reduce proposed funding for the Play Area Renovation CIP project by $322,000.

Tracy, somehow you went off.

You went on mute.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I hit a button.

I'm sorry.

SPR 906A1 would reduce proposed funding for the Play Area Renovation CIP project by $322,000 of REIT 2 in 2024 in SPR, and this is proposed by the Budget Committee.

And finally, SPU 900A1 would reduce proposed funding and position authority for enhanced graffiti abatement by $1.2 million of general fund and three FTEs in 2023 and $1.2 million of general fund in 2024 in SPU and would add 243,000 of solid waste fund in 2023 and $254,000 of solid waste fund in 2024 to restore indirect overhead appropriations.

And this is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

I'll add a little bit of context to this one.

This is an area where there is not the proposed increase, but I want to call out specifically to graffiti abatement.

There is still $2 million in the base budget that we allocated in previous years that continues to be an investment that is available and included in the base budget that we are offering here.

$2 million still included in graffiti abatement.

I have a question.

Yes, please go ahead.

Oh, good.

I'm sorry.

I didn't know my Microsoft.

Tracy, this is I'm hoping you can answer.

It's kind of a little bit scrambled and I'm sure customer.

Lewis is chair of the Metropolitan Park district may want to help us out here.

So remember when we did the Clean Cities Initiative and we set aside 9.3 million, it was supposed to go to the December of this year, right?

And in 2023. So you just read through all these SPU, SPD, the graffiti, the cleaning and all that.

What form will that take place going forward?

And we're still keeping the intent and the goal of the the operations are still going to continue.

I'm just not sure how they where they continue and what you just rattled off.

So the only, so I think we only can, I think my colleague, Brian Goodnight, will have to address the graffiti abatement and whether this is even part of Clean Cities.

I'm a little confused about how graffiti abatement, whether it's part of that or not.

The only proposal here that you have seen that has any impact to the Clean Cities is the $70,000 general fund reduction in parks in 23 and 24. And that's on the non-labor supplies and costs.

That includes things like dump fees, supplies, trainings, and so forth.

It is only a $70,000 reduction there still remains about $1.3 million I think of those non labor supply revenues to cover those costs.

So this is a $70,000 reduction in that $2 million budget item.

Will we still see the operations with parks, SPU, SPD, SDOT, and doing the cleaning?

It's just not called Clean City Initiatives anymore.

I believe that's correct.

I don't believe that there are any other reductions that get to or impact the cleaning teams that are being proposed and the concept of the unified care team, as I understand it.

Allie, you can let me know if I'm mischaracterizing this, and maybe I am.

I just wanted to clarify that the proposed budget included making permanent the clean city surge that the council had funded in the last couple of years and expands it.

This 70,000 reduction is a minor reduction to the total increase.

Overall, it is maintained in the package and it's an expansion even beyond the surge levels that had been funded with one-time funds and now would be made permanent.

Then my understanding is it's getting rebranded as part of the unified care team slash clean Seattle, and that graffiti abatement is not considered part of that program based on the discussion and presentation to the committee.

Although occasionally the Clean Seattle team may call upon the graffiti removal team to address a situation that they're working on when they're cleaning up an area.

If I may, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Allie.

We're much more sophisticated in articulating what I was trying to get at.

The operations are still going forward.

There's not a big reduction.

We knew that we had that surge.

We're kind of flatlining a little bit on the cleaning, but we're going to continue to go forward.

It's still a policy.

It's still a commitment.

It's going to be absorbed into the unified care team and this district representation that they want to do, not actual city council district, but their own district, which pretty much lines up with our seven districts.

OK, good.

That's what I needed answered.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Great clarification.

Okay, um, please go ahead.

Okay, I have the next group Yolanda ho Council Central staff.

Next is OSC three be one, this would add 455,000 dollars of jumpstart fund in 2023 to OSC for a climate resilience hub in South Beacon Hill, sponsored by Council Member Morales, with sponsors Council Members Herbold, Lewis, and Sawant.

OSC 5B1 would add $147,000 of jumpstart fund in 2023, $190,000 of jumpstart fund in 2024, and one strategic advisor, three to OSC for a city urban forester position.

This is sponsored by Council Member Pearson with co-sponsors of Council Member Herbold, Strauss, Lewis, Nelson, Mosqueda, and Swamp.

OSC 6A1 to add $3.5 million of Jumpstart Fund in 2023 to OSC to implement the Climate Resilience Hub Study.

This is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

OSC 7A1 would add $2 million of Jumpstart Fund in 2023 and $1.6 million of Jumpstart Fund in 2024 to OSC for Indigenous-led sustainability projects.

This is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

OSC 8A1 would add $1.2 million of Jumpstart Fund in 2023 and $1.2 million of Jumpstart Fund in 2024 to OSC for the Environmental Justice Fund.

This is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

OSC 301A2 is a statement of legislative intent that would request that OSC provide report citywide funding for tree planting, stewardship, and other urban forestry related activities sponsored by Council Member Strauss with co-sponsors Council Members Peterson, Verbold, and Lewis.

OSC 510A3 A2 would pass Council Bill 120453, which would repeal the heating oil tax and reduce revenues of $1.4 million of general fund in 2023 and $1.25 million of general fund in 2024. This is sponsored by Council Member Morales, sponsored by Council Members Sawant, Council President Juarez, and Council Member Nelson.

Next is CL301A2.

This is a statement of legislative intent that would request that the Seattle City Light report on new sources of green power.

This is sponsored by Councilmember Swatt, with co-sponsors Councilmembers Peterson, Morales, Herbold, and Lewis.

Next, SDOT 5B1 would add $250,000 of Jump Start Fund in 2023 to SDOT to plant trees in the public right-of-way.

This is sponsored by Council Member Strauss, with co-sponsors Council Member Peterson, Morales, and Lewis.

SDOT 307A1 is a statement of legislative intent that would request that SDOT collaborate with Seattle City Light to complete the street frontage improvements for the Thomas Street Redesign Project.

This is sponsored by Council Member Lewis, with co-sponsors council members Morales and Strauss.

Next we have SPL 901A1.

This would reduce proposed capital improvement program funding for decarbonization and resilience hubs by $3.5 million of jumpstart fund in 2023 in SPL.

This is sponsored by the budget committee.

SPR 900 A1 would reduce proposed funding for decarbonizing Seattle parks and rec facilities by 3.5 million jump start fund in 2023. This is sponsored by budget committee.

SPR 907 A1 would reduce proposed funding for the urban forestry Green Seattle partnership project by $500,000 of REIT 2 in 2024 and SPR.

This is sponsored by the budget committee.

And finally, SPU 313A1.

8.1 is a statement of legislative intent that would request that SPU support the Lake Washington sockeye salmon co-managers as they assess the ongoing feasibility of transporting sockeye salmon through the Lake Washington ship canal and to provide a report describing those efforts, sponsored by Council Member Lewis, co-sponsored Council Members Herbold and Strass.

With that, I have completed my section.

Okay, I want to offer some additional context on some of the OSCE items here.

So if you could scroll up a little bit to the top of the OSCE column.

Thank you so much.

I need to use this as an opportunity to clarify some things because I think that there's some misunderstanding out there about what is being invested in.

I first want to say thank you to the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

Their board, the partnership that we've had with them, the conversations that we've had with members of the board over the last few weeks, they have identified priorities and provided feedback on some of the iterations of the budget concepts that we were contemplating.

And because of their feedback and priorities, we have tried to align investments in the Jumpstart Green New Deal funds to align with what the Oversight Board has specifically called for.

A large portion of the amendments included here come directly from the Green New Deal Oversights Board recommendations.

I have it printed right here.

If folks don't have their handy copy.

Yes, there's notes all over there.

And it is within the oversight board's recommendation and it is from the feedback that we received directly from them.

We have identified ways in which we could shift funding that was being proposed for investments that might have a green nexus, but did not align directly with the Green New Deal spend plan and priorities.

that were called for and pushed for by the Oversight Board.

So I want to call out a few examples.

The recommendations that came from the Green New Deal Oversight Board included adding a near $4 million combined effort into the Climate Resilience Hub so that we could invest in hubs designed by and led by communities most impacted.

That is OSE 006A001.

Now, about half a million of that goes to what Councilmember Morales had identified for the Beacon Hill Resilience Hub, again, designed by and led by communities most impacted.

And then directly from the Oversight Board, we heard instead of going with what the mayor had proposed for 3.5 million for Climate Resilience Hub, please align the recommendations with what our report and our recommendations identify for Resilience Hub.

So we redirected the 3.5 to be in alignment with what the Oversight Board's Climate Resilience Hub priorities were working towards.

We have added a total of 1.8Million to increase environmental justice funds.

That's 08001. Again, some of the recommendations that we received over the last few weeks was if there is any additional funding in the Green New Deal investments, we need additional funding to go to the environmental justice fund to be programmed later.

That gives additional flexibility both to the oversight board.

and the folks stewarding the Justice Fund to have greater flexibility, but that is in alignment with what the Oversight Board said that they wanted us to do.

Additionally, as you see, we're adding $3.6 million to support Indigenous-led sustainability projects.

Over the biennium, OSC007A001 identifies unprogrammed funding to specifically support Indigenous-led sustainability projects as defined by the folks at the table.

The folks who are most impacted by harm caused by climate change and led by the indigenous community led projects and organizations, we were asked to put additional funding towards that investment so that more things like, I'm forgetting the name of the Duwamish investment that was raised by one of the colleagues and partners at the Green New Deal Oversight Board, but they wanted to be able to pull from this pot of funding for future projects that had a nexus to Indigenous-led sustainability projects.

So we put a large portion of the Green New Deal funding towards that recommendation for future programming.

This is per the Green New Deal Oversights Board recommendations, the initial conversations that we've had with them, the report that they submitted earlier this year, and the funds that are proposed here for climate resilience investments in parks and Seattle Public Libraries were shifted to still create Climate Resilience Hub, but to also follow the 2022 Climate Resilience Hub study that will be implemented and led by community through the community-identified resilience hubs.

So to reiterate, we are not cutting resilience funding.

We are shifting to Green New Deal Oversight Board recommendations, the community-led climate resilience investments, as directed from our conversations with the Oversight Board.

And as a reminder, the Green New Deal Oversight Board is intended to help direct the Green New Deal Jumpstart funding.

This is about self-direction self-determination and control and giving the Oversight Board the ability to help us redirect where some of those funding went to, they absolutely helped improve where some of the possible investments were gonna go and we shifted to real align with some of their initial feedback.

And again, thanks to that feedback, I think that the Green New Deal investments here better align with what we saw and heard from the Green New Deal Oversight Board.

Investments into frontline and fenceline communities to create greater crime I'm happy to take additional questions.

indigenous-led sustainability projects.

One of those is the Lifting Springs project that was lifted up to us as one of the projects in development from the Green New Deal Oversight Board members.

I hope that offers some clarification on that, and I look forward to talking more with folks who have a very similar goal in trying to make sure that we're shifting more funding to Green New Deal investments, but wanted to clarify that there is not a reduction and really just trying to lift up where the investments were made to align with Green New Deal Oversight Board recommendations and directive.

Let's continue.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Council members and Gorman, Council Central staff.

I will be reading the next set of amendments into the record.

The first of these is CBO 320A1.

This is a statement of legislative intent requesting that CBO's innovation and performance team provide recommendations for a permanent home department for the city's parking enforcement unit.

This is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

Next, CSCC 2B1.

would add 717,000 general fund in 2024 to the CSCC to implement a dual dispatch program and impose a proviso.

The primary sponsor is Council Member Herbold, and she is joined by Council Members Strauss and Lewis.

Next, CSCC 3B1.

This is another statement of legislative intent requesting that the CSCC report on staffing and call answering.

It is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

Deal 2A1 would add $1 million in jumpstart fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024 to deal to expand mental health services in schools.

It is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

DAWN 3A1 would add $100,000 general fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024 to DAWN for a Ballard Community Safety Hub Coordinator.

It's sponsored by Council Member Strauss and it is co-sponsored by Council Members Peterson and Nelson.

Next FAS 3A2 would provide a 2.9 million general fund in FAS for contracted jail services.

It is sponsored by Council Member Herbold and co-sponsored by Council Member Morales, Council Member Lewis, and Chair Mosqueda.

HSD 38B1 would add $4 million general fund in 2023 in HSD to contract with the Public Defenders Association for the Let Everyone Advance with Dignity Lead and Co-Lead programs.

It is sponsored by Councilmember Herbold.

Her co-sponsors are Councilmembers Lewis and Morales.

HSD 39B1 would add $300,000 general fund in 2023 in HSD to expand the scope of a gun violence reduction program and impose a proviso.

Council Member Herbold is the sponsor.

She is joined by Council Members Morales and Lewis.

HSD 41A1 would add $167,000 general fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024. for addressing anti-Asian hate crime, and it would reduce proposed funding for the Seattle Neighborhood Group Safe Communities Program by $167,000 general fund in both years in HSD.

It is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

HSD 903A1 would reduce- Let me just take a pause real quick.

Council Member Herbold, did you have a question?

I do, thank you.

As it relates to the item described as HSD041A001, just want to flag that I'm interested to know what is left in Seattle Neighborhood Group's Safe Communities Program for funding.

I'm not aware of any other items that are in the budget cycle.

They did reach out to me earlier in the budget cycle about the fact that the proposed 2022 budget includes a cut for them already.

And so I just want to have a better understanding of how

I can, do you have that information, Anne, or I can provide it?

Not right in front of me.

If you have it, that'd be great.

Thank you, Ali.

It is, as Chairman Skater referred to, alongside this table, there are about 487 pages of supplementary materials.

So I can't believe Council Member Herbold, you've not made it through yet, but just teasing.

This council budget action would reduce the amount in the 23 proposed budget to 221,000.

So that's what would be remaining for this in the proposed budget.

Okay.

Thank you.

The cut in the mayor's proposed budget reduces their funds from 513,000 for 2022 to 388,000 for the next two years.

And some of that funding includes, as I understand it, I just want to say thank you for the opportunity to be here.

It's a beautiful safe place for youth and I'm just raising these issues within the capacity of my role as chair of the committee with oversight of safety and I recognize that all of these public safety investments are really important to communities and these are really hard

I will continue.

The next item is HSD 903A1.

It would reduce proposed funding for group violence intervention technical assistance by $50,000 general fund in 2023 in HSD.

It is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

HSD 904A1 would reduce proposed funding and position authority for one FTE for case conferencing.

by 176,000 general fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024. It is also sponsored by the budget committee.

And finally, law 301A1 is another statement of legislative intent.

It requests that law conduct a racial equity toolkit on domestic violence prosecutions and report to the council on how it can implement domestic violence work group recommendations.

That one is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

Let's just pause real quick.

Deputy Director Panucci, did you have something to add?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I just wanted to return to the question Council Member Herbold asked related to the reduction to the neighborhood group state communities.

There are a number of ways some of these programs are funding and my understanding from my colleague, Liz Schwitzen, is that the Rainier Beach Project is funded through the Department of Neighborhoods and is not cut in the proposed budget.

So this is a separate pot of money.

Lish may have additional details on that, but I just want to clarify that sometimes there is more to the story than seems, you know, at just at just the title level of the of the proposal and happy to answer clarifying questions offline.

Really appreciate that.

Thank you.

All right, Madam Chair, Greg Doss, Council Central staff, ready to continue if you'd like.

OK, going to go ahead and continue at OIG 1A1, which would add $232,000 in 2023 and $244,000 in 2024, and $1.5 FTE for surveillance technology review, audit capacity, and public disclosure at the OIG.

S.020B1 would reduce proposed funding and position authority for the city's parking enforcement unit by $20 million in 2023 and $20.5 million in 2024 and $123 FTE and SPD and add to S.28.3 million in 2023 and $28.8 million in 2024 and the 123 FTE that would otherwise have been transferred to Seattle Police Department under the proposed budget.

And this is one that I noted this morning and in our briefing to release the budget.

We are trying to take down the temperature and depoliticize some of these broader policy discussions and really have appreciated the conversations that we've had both with the mayor's office and community and the affected members who want to see immediate change within the work environment at SDOT.

So while we're asking folks to stay with us for the next five months to do the interdepartmental task force analysis to come up with recommendations on what the unit needs and also where the best placement is, I wanted to immediately invest in services and resources to support them.

So some of these were already noted, but I just want to lift up a few that Director Handy noted in her comments.

We are increasing funding for the administration for overtime, recognizing that there's been not as many individuals hired as we all originally anticipated that there was.

New information that we received this budget, given the administrative costs.

So we're bringing up the FTEs to 90 FTEs.

We're adding funding for administrative overhead, adding funding for supplies, for things like paper and envelopes so that ticketing can happen and people can actually do their job without limitations.

And lastly, we are putting in the funding for the new uniforms, the badges on the uniforms that the PEO unit has themselves crafted.

There was a commission that came up with a recommended image, and we want to make sure that they have that as well, no matter what department they end up deciding to go to.

We want to make sure that they have that.

So those are some of the investments we're trying to make to show immediate action while we also go through this process of having an interdepartmental task force.

Greg, I hope I didn't step on some additional items you were going to share, but we know that this is a complementary piece to this item as well.

So if folks haven't had a chance to look at those two documents side by side, they do go together.

No, Madam Chair, thank you.

I did forget to mention that this is, of course, sponsored by you and that the prior CBA OIG 1A1 is sponsored by Councilmember Nelson with Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Warren signing on.

Excellent.

Thank you.

So moving along SFD 2A1 would add $4.7 million in 2023 and $5.6 million in 2024 to SFD to maintain current emergency response capacity in West Seattle.

And that is brought as a primary by Councilmember Herbold and as co-sponsors by Councilmember Morales and Councilmember Nelson.

SFD 3A1 would be a proviso that would proviso $200,000 in SFD for consultant registered nurse practitioner services to HealthONE to the HealthONE program and that's brought by the Budget Committee.

SFD 300A1 is a slide that would request that SFD report on staffing, overtime, finances, and performance metrics.

And the primary sponsor is Council Member Herbold, with co-sponsors being Council Member Peterson and Council Member Lewis.

SPD 101A1 would add $50,000 in 2023 and the same in 2024 to SPD for an affected persons program.

And that's sponsored by the Budget Committee.

I would also note on that when I know Councilmember Herbold was working on an amendment as well.

We've talked to similar stakeholders.

There's a.

this is an analysis of what would be desired from community if we were to develop the effective persons program and look forward to continuing the dialogue with members of the community.

I know Councilmember Herbold, this is close to her heart as well.

I wanted to note that she was working on a similar concept.

Thank you, Councilmember.

And also note that there were a couple updates that didn't make it last minute into this particular CBA.

So there'll be a technical amendment next week that will bring this up to speed with a couple more requirements that your office asked for.

Next is SPD-102A1, which would abrogate 50, I'm sorry, 80 FTE and SPD and make one-time reductions ongoing.

Next is SPD-201A1, which would proviso salary savings at SPD.

The last one and this one are both brought by the Budget Committee.

The next one, 304A1, I'm sorry, 303A1 would request that SPD report on emphasis patrol, a statement of legislative intent brought by you, Councilor Muscata.

The next one, SPD-304A1, would request that SPD report on backgrounding services, a statement of legislative intent brought by the Budget Committee.

SPD-902A1 would reduce proposed funding for retention initiatives by $450,000 in 2023 and $400,000 in 2024 brought by the Budget Committee.

SPD 903A1 would reduce proposed funding for the recruitment media plan by $750,000 in 2023 and the same amount in 2024 brought by the Budget Committee.

SBD 904A1 would produce proposed funding for the gunfire detection system by $1 million in 2023 and the same in 2024. And that's by Councilmember Sawant with co-sponsors of Councilmember Herbold and Councilmember Muscata.

SBD 906A1 would reduce proposed funding for police equipment by $450,000 in 2023 and the same amount in 2024. And that's brought by the Budget Committee.

And then finally, SB907A1 would reduce proposed funding for assistant city attorney position $191,000 in 2023 and the same amount in 2024 and abrogate one FTE and SPD.

And that's brought by the budget committee.

And that's, yeah, thank you.

And that's specific to the HR legal side.

I wanted to pause for a second and say just a point of personal privilege to sort of add some context to a few of these.

And Greg, feel free, of course, to add anything or correct anything.

When we received the budget, one of the questions that I asked was, what is necessary to implement the ordinance that the council approved earlier this year regarding recruitment and retention?

I wanted to make sure that there was a budget that aligned with the minimum requirements to make sure that we could implement that into statute.

And if there was anything that was above and beyond maybe nice to have or additive to what was tied to the ordinance, I would like that to be part of what we were considering for possible haircuts here and there, just like we did with other areas throughout the budget that have been a challenging discussion.

But in order to make sure that we were fully adhering to the hiring plan and retention plan, as proposed by the mayor in this budget, but also as passed by the council earlier this year, I wanted to make sure that we weren't making reductions to those areas that could help fulfill the intent of that statute.

So that is why you are not seeing any proposed changes to the items like bonuses, et cetera, that would directly impact the ability to follow through on the implementation of the hiring and recruitment plan.

However, when there was an item that was to me appear to be additive and beyond what was needed to directly implement that ordinance, we had to weigh that with just like other areas in the in the in the budget to see if it was an immediate impact things like a PR firm for.

a PR firm for contract or revamping a website, we just had to put those on balance with some of the other investment areas.

So again, not speaking to the value of those investments or not, but really just trying to weigh where there was investments that we could scale back on given the budget situation, but fully maintain the hiring and retention plan.

Again, the SPD department here does maintain, in addition to the full hiring and recruitment and retention plan, They also maintain 120 FTEs in terms of positions within the department that we are not proposing to touch here.

Okay.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you.

And I just want to also uplift that there was a potential CBA that was proposed earlier.

Well, I don't know if it was actually ever proposed.

It was an option that central staff identified that was looking at potentially we've seen in the last couple of years, we've seen fewer hires, a greater number of separations in 2022, as well as 2023, and at that point, there was a potential of, I think, about $1.3 million in salary savings, but we've now, thanks to central staff, Greg Doss, gone back and you know I I don't think it is airing to to vote in favor of SPD's staffing projections and in favor of the goals associated with with the the 2023 and 2024 hiring plan.

So just wanted to flag and thank you as well, Madam Chair, for moving forward in this way, as well as central staff's, Greg Doss's analysis that led to, I think, what is a good decision here.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I appreciate that.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, chair Mosqueda.

Appreciate all the hard work that you've done as chair here and your team and city council central staff on these items.

I know the mayor's office and the city budget office, of course, put a tremendous amount of thought and work into their original budget proposal.

And I'm really grateful for the efforts to restore some of the transportation investments we talked about earlier.

And at the same time, I wanna address these public safety items here.

I am concerned about the changes to the mayor's original budget concerning public safety.

What I'm seeing is the mayor's proposed additive investments.

Thank you for the context earlier about the baseline, but I'm seeing the additive investments in graffiti abatement removed and the gunshot detection technology removed.

I feel like we're revisiting the debate in 2020 and 2021 by deleting or abrogating I see the proviso that takes away the police department flexibility to use savings to 850,000 over a two-year period.

That's the leadership academy.

And one of the big ticket items was the mayor's proposal to return parking enforcement officers back to SPD.

I thought that's what the parking enforcement officers had wanted.

I'm seeing this rebalancing not do that.

And so I guess I have a question for central staff about how that works mathematically, because I thought there were some savings inherent in moving the parking enforcement officers, returning them to SPD.

I thought there was at least $5 million.

So I'm wondering how that savings was found.

And if we were to move them to SPD, would that then generate $5 million that we could then deploy to some of the other ads that didn't make it into the package?

Yeah Councilmember Peterson let me, let me see if I can take a crack at that.

First of all, I want to, I want to talk about the term savings.

It's, it's not really savings.

The Department of Transportation charges overhead on their.

on their expenses.

And that overhead is allocated to all of the fund sources that fund SDOT.

And that would be the transportation levy and the transportation fund.

And so by keeping the PEOs in SDOT, there is a general fund requirement.

A general fund has to come in and fund the overhead costs for the PEOs in SDOT.

And what that does is it alleviates some stress, a like amount of stress from the other funds, from the transportation fund, from the levy.

Now, if the PEOs are moved back to SPD, what it will do is it will free up the general fund that is supporting the overhead.

And in the chairs package, that's $8.3 million.

but it's not savings per se.

It would free up 8.3 million in general fund, but that same amount of overhead in SBD or in SDOT, I'm sorry, would just be reallocated to the other funds.

The 8.3 would come available in general fund for the council to use, but then the other funds, the transportation, the levy that support SDOT would have to pick that up.

It's not necessarily a savings per se.

And I'd look to my colleagues, Cal or Ali, to add anything to that that might clarify it.

If I could just add to Greg's explanation, you know, for SDOT, their cost allocation really is, it is built into how they They collect their cost allocation off of the labor that individual employees in SDOT, what they work on.

So if they work on a general funded project, then the general fund hits it.

If they work on a levy project, then the levy carries that portion of overtime and it's all of overhead and it's all allocated by the hours worked.

So really it comes down to the fact that this 123 division is completely general fund supported.

And so it shifts a number of those costs onto the general fund if they are in SDOT.

Thank you very much.

Okay, I see a few hands.

Council Member Nelson.

So two questions, is there any funding?

I'm not seeing the before the badge program in here, the the training.

I do see one training program that is being reduced, but I just want to confirm that before the badge is not materially impacted by any of these cuts.

And then the second one, I am just now reading the statement of legislative intent, which is SPD 304 about backgrounding services.

And clearly it's designed to find out what efforts are being made to diversify the force.

And I just wanted to note that the the cut to the the marketing line item I think could impact their ability to diversify the force, because it's my understanding that they were they were trying to get the word out in alternative communities that, you know, there are positions available in SPD.

Councilmember Nelson to your first question that before the badge program is fully funded at the level that the mayor proposed in the 2023 24 budget.

There's no reduction made I believe it's 464,000.

In addition, there's a grant in the year in supplemental of 170,000 that will supplement that funding.

That program is fully funded.

The backgrounding proviso that you reference actually is a little bit different.

It is designed to make sure that when SPD is conducting background checks on potential officers, that they are looking at affiliations with organizations that have history of domestic terrorism.

in particular.

So if an officer was affiliated, if a soon-to-be officer or potential future officer was affiliated with a hate organization that had engaged in domestic terrorism as defined by the FBI, what that slide is asking for is whether or not the backgrounding processes for SPD would look for that information if those questions would be asked.

Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you, Councilmembers.

Okay, I think we can move on.

Making good progress.

Okay, good afternoon, Councilmembers.

I'm Brian Goodnight with Council Central staff, and I have the next section.

So the first one of those is Arts 1B1, which would add $250,000 of Jumpstart Fund in 2023 to the Office of Arts and Culture for the Station Space Project.

The next item is Arts 2B1, which would add $50,000 municipal arts fund in 2023 to arts for improvements to the AIDS Memorial pathway.

Oops.

And that one is sponsored by Council Member Nelson, and co-sponsored by Council Members Sawant, Peterson, Lewis, Herbold, and Strauss.

And my apologies for skipping the first one.

The first item, Arts 1B1, is sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Council Members Herbold and Lewis.

The next item, the third item is Arts 3A1, which would add $250,000 of Jumpstart Fund in 2023 to Arts for the Cultural Space Agency Public Development Authority.

And that one is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

The next item is Deal 301A2, which is a statement of legislative intent that would request that the Department of Education and Early Learning provide draft legislation for council consideration to prioritize enrollment in the Seattle Promise Program.

that is sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and Council Member Herbold.

The next item is deal 302A3.

It's a statement of legislative intent that would request that deal create a proposal for the use of all remaining Families Education, Preschool and Promise Levy underspend through 2022 to go toward early learning and K-12 programs.

This item is sponsored by Council Member Morales and co-sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and Council Member Herbold.

The next item is FG2A1 that would add $500,000 of general fund in 2023 and $500,000 of general fund in 2024 to finance general for potential operating and maintenance costs of the Waterfront Operations and Tribal Interpretive Center.

And this item is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

The next item is FG903A1 that would transfer $1.2 million of Jumpstart Fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024 to the Sweetened Beverage Tax Fund for revenue replacement.

This item is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

The next item is HSD4B1 and that would add $1.25 million of General Fund in 2023 to the Human Services Department for abortion access.

This item is sponsored by Councilmember Morales and co-sponsored by Councilmember Sawant and Chair Mosqueda.

The next item is HSD 10A1, which would add $200,000 of general fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024 to the Human Services Department for a free fresh produce program in the Central District.

This item is sponsored by Councilmember Sawant and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Morales and Peterson.

Next item is HSD 12 B1, which would add $650,000 of general fund in 2023 to HSD for an emergency food fund.

This item is sponsored by Council Member Strauss and co-sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and Council Member Sawant.

The next item is HSD 20A2, which would add $238,000 general fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024 to HSD for a dedicated phone line for crisis prevention and intervention services for first responders.

This item is sponsored by Councilmember Strauss and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold and Lewis.

The next item is HSD 21A2, which would add $200,000 of general fund in 2023 in HSD for therapeutic services for survivors of commercial sexual exploitation, domestic violence, and sexual assault and would impose a proviso.

This item is sponsored by Council President Juarez and co-sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and Council Members Nelson, Herbold, and Lewis.

And the last item in this section is HSD 901A1, which would reduce proposed funding for Healthy Seattle Initiative community health workers by $335,000 general fund in 2023 and the same amount in 2024 in HSD.

And that item is sponsored by the Budget Committee.

Thanks, Brian.

That ends that section.

Without further delay, I can move to the administration section if you'd like, Chair Mosqueda.

Great.

Okay, this is the last group of amendments.

The first item in the administration category is Auditor 1A2.

This would add $32,000 of general fund in 23 and 24 to the Office of City Auditor for anticipated staffing costs.

This is sponsored by Council Member Lewis and with co-sponsors Council Member Morales, Nelson, and Peterson.

The next item, CBO 1A1, is errata corrections to the proposed budget and CIP, the capital improvement program that's sponsored by the Budget Committee.

And these are technical errors that have been identified by executive staff or central staff that are included in the balancing package.

CBO 500A1 would recommend passage of Council Bill 120463. This is the legislation that would provide temporary flexibility on the use of certain city funds to balance the city's budget over the 2023 and 2024 biennium.

This is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and I would just highlight here that In addition to the short-term and limited flexibility that's been discussed related to the jumpstart fund, it also relates to flexibility on use of the transportation network company tax proceeds and modifies the formula slightly for the equitable development initiatives, the contribution from the short-term rental tax fund.

I only highlight that because the one good news piece of the forecast that was delivered by the forecast office in November was related to some increased revenue from the short-term rental fund that allowed an additional $400,000 in both 23 and 24 to be added to the Office of Planning and Community Development for that program.

The next item, CBO 502A1 would amend and recommend passage as amended of Council Bill 120450, the 2022 year-end grant acceptance ordinance sponsored by the Budget Committee.

CBO 503A1 would amend and pass as amended Council Bill 120451, the 2022 year-end supplemental appropriations ordinance revising the 2022 budget.

The next several items are sponsored by the Budget Committee, so I'm not going to read in the sponsors until I get to the next one that is sponsored by an individual member, if that's okay with the Chair.

Great.

The next item, CBO 504A1, would pass Council Bill 120452, the 2023 Recurring Grant Acceptance Ordinance.

CBO 505A1 would pass Council Bill 120445, the long property tax 2023 ordinance.

CBO 506A1 would amend and pass as amended the CBO short property tax 2023 ordinance.

CBO 900A1 would reduce proposed funding and position authority for two new FTE for payroll expense tax evaluation in the city budget office.

This would be a reduction of 509,000 of general fund in both 23 and 24. That was general fund supported by transfer of jumpstart funds for administration.

CEN 904A1 would reduce proposed CIP funding by $2 million every one in 24. from Seattle Center for multiple capital improvement program projects in Seattle Centers 2023-28 CIP.

Civ 901A1 would reduce proposed funding and position authority for one FTE for strategy and policy work and $175,000 in both 23 and 24 in the Public Services Commission.

FAS 303A1 would request a pre-budget report from the Department of Finance and Administrative Services and the Law Department on the use of judgment and claims expenses, or excuse me, on judgment and claims expenses that is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda.

And then we will return to a whole batch sponsored by the Budget Committee.

FAS 501A1 would pass Council Bill 120442, the Transportation Network Company Tax Rate Ordinance.

FAS 502B1 would amend and pass as amended Council Bill 120439, the Multi-Purpose Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds Ordinance.

And I'll just flag here that the amendment to this bill is necessary to include debt financing for Memorial Stadium and the Tribal Interpretive Center.

FAS 906A1 would reduce proposed funding in FAS's facility maintenance and improvements funding by 950,000 of REIT 1 in 23 and 2.8 million of REIT 1 in 2024. FG1A1 would add 500,000 of general fund in both 23 and 24 to finance general for an elections posted cost reserve.

I'll just note that this funding was included in the proposed budget, but it was included as part of the unappropriated planning reserves.

And this is part of the effort to make more transparent some of the items that have historically not been appropriated that are in the planning reserves and are not sensitive in nature.

FG3A1 would recognize the November forecast.

Update, FG900A1 changes the fund source for $490,023 and $490,024 in finance general for city hall security reserves from the general fund to the FAS fund.

FG901A1 would reduce by $8.5 million in 23 and 10 million in 24, the proposed emergency fund transfer.

FG 902A1 would reduce proposed funding for the Seattle Police Department's court appointed monitor reserves by 500,000 in both 23 and 24 from finance general.

FG904A1 would transfer $14.7 million from the Jumpstart Fund reserves for revenue replacement.

This is funding that is higher than anticipated 2022 Jumpstart revenues.

HXM901A1 would reduce proposed funding for a case management system replacement by $2 million general fund in 23 and $1 million in 24 for the hearing examiner and amend the associated CIP project.

ITD 2B1 would add $387,000 of IT funds in 23 and 980,000 in 24 for the record points records management project.

This is sponsored by council president Juarez and co-sponsored by council members Nelson and Strauss.

Then the remaining items are all sponsored by the Budget Committee.

Ledge 322A1 would express council's intent to update policies related to the city's annual budget process and to apply the 10 million underspend assumption included in the proposed budget for 23 and 24 to unappropriated general fund planning reserves.

Ledge 503A1 would adopt resolution, and I'm going to fill in the blank here, 32075, the CRS policies resolution.

This is a resolution to modify the REIT policies to allow REIT funds to be used for debt service for non-public safety projects.

OH900A1 would reduce proposed funding for multifamily rental production by $5 million of REIT 2 in 23 and 5 million in 24 in OH and use mandatory housing affordability funds to backfill the reduction.

RET 501A1 would adopt resolution 32071, the valuation and actuarially required contribution for 2023. RET 502A1 would adopt resolution 32070, the credit interest rate resolution PB, Lisa Smith-Miyazaki, she or her.

SDHR 901A1 would reduce proposed funding and a position authority for two FTE for public disclosure and citywide human resources investigations by $325,000 general fund in both 23 and 24. SDOT 501A1 would pass Council Bill 120435, the restricted parking zone fee increase.

SFD 500A1 would pass Council Bill 120436, the Seattle Fire Department's Permit and Fee Ordinance.

SPL 902A1 would reduce proposed CIP funding for building upgrades by 320,000 every one in 2024 in Seattle Public Libraries.

SPU 510A1 pass Council Bill 120440, SPU's 2023 Drainage and Wastewater System Bond Ordinance.

And the final item in the list, number 160, SPU 520A1 would pass Council Bill 120441, SPU's 2023 Water System Bond Ordinance.

Thanks, Sally.

Is there any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

Have we reached the end?

We have reached the end of the list.

All right, Director Handy, Deputy Director Panucci, any additional comments?

I will remind folks where we are at again in the process, and you saw this in the slides from Director Panucci, excuse me, Deputy Director Panucci and Director Handy.

We are going to have an opportunity now to read all, what did you say, 500 pages?

480-ish.

480 pages.

So please do read these details so that you have a better, fuller picture, I should say, of what the individual short titles really reflect in the attachments and the actual documents that come with this.

For lack of a single budget bill, this composes the budget bill because these are changes to the base and they have been worked in, I was going to say painstaking detail.

I don't know if that's the right term, but every word was specifically chosen by central staff to make sure that they were trying to communicate the specific purpose as outlined in the CBA.

So if you have any questions, of course, central staff is available.

We will have the next, you know, this budget was released at 9.30 a.m.

We had our meeting initially at 11, so we have a 48-hour period to craft amendments.

If you have any comments, questions, concerns, follow-up needed, central staff is at the ready, as well as my team.

And you can always reach out to me directly, and Sejal Parikh, Chief of Staff, is lead in our office on all things budget.

So please do let us know how we can help, and we can get you connected to the right folks within our office as well, or stakeholders that we have worked with on some of these pieces.

to provide a fuller picture as well.

Amendments are going to be due at noon on Wednesday.

That's Wednesday, November 16th.

In the meantime, there will be a hearing tomorrow, an opportunity to hear directly from members of the public.

at 5 p.m., and we are very likely to have one-minute public comment, given that it starts at 5 p.m., and we'll want to hear from everyone.

Last time we had 140 people sign up for public comment, and it was about a four-hour meeting, so we will want to try to hear from everybody who signs up.

No, let me rephrase that.

We will hear from everybody who signs up.

So we may have to scale back the time, though, to make sure that we can do that.

If you wish to provide public comment, we are strongly encouraging people to do so by signing up online.

That sign up sheet will be available starting at three o'clock in the afternoon.

If you decide you want to come to Council Chambers, the sign up sheet will be outside of Council Chambers at four thirty.

So really, really encourage folks to do the online presentation and appreciate that so many have done that in the past.

And please do if you are coming in person, please do bring your mask.

and encourage N95 or KN95 masks, as well as as much social distancing as possible.

Is there any additional business to come before the Select Budget Committee?

Okay, can you all please join me in a huge round of applause for central staff?

Yay!

I can't be here alone, Council President, where you at?

Oh, okay, I see you're sharing.

I'm still the only one on audio sharing, but we really appreciate you.

Yay.

We really appreciate you.

We know that this has been a lot of work and it is always in a tough budget year where we only are given eight weeks to process the budget and turn it around, especially hard this year with the revenue forecast.

So thank you for all of the patience and support you've offered to us.

And we look forward to working with you on those amendments.

And I look forward to working with all of you colleagues over the next two weeks to wrap up this budget.

We'll see you tomorrow at 5 p.m.

for the public comment.

Today's meeting is adjourned.