Select Budget Committee 11/14/18 Session 2

Good afternoon everyone and welcome back.

This is the afternoon session of our budget committee we met this morning.

It is November 14th.

I'm Sally Bagshaw, chair of this committee.

Thanks again to all of my colleagues for being here, central staff and all your genius.

I appreciate you so much and helping us through what's going on.

Now, the first thing I understand that we have to do is actually go back and reconsider the agenda this morning on those first 105 items that we passed.

Apparently, this is a cleanup for item 1210B1.

Jeff, you're at the table.

Maybe you can describe this.

And for my colleagues, my understanding is there was one word change.

from what we passed this morning to what we're going to substitute.

So, Jeff?

Jeff Zients?

Essentially, that's the case, yes.

If you could explain that, and this is about PetPoint and what we're doing next.

Sure, yeah.

This was an edit that was requested to, earlier it had stated that we were delaying work on the PetPoint project for one year, and we've been asked to clarify that we are not providing funding for pre-design work in 2019, just to make sure it was very clear what we were doing.

Okay, so does anybody have any questions about this?

To me it's it's a technicality important but nonetheless something that I don't think we have to spend a great deal of time on.

So if there's no further comments I would like to move we substitute.

Oh for God's sake.

All right.

I apologize.

Thank you.

What am I doing here?

There will be some ritual incantations that we have to proceed through.

I believe Because the first, because the item was, that will be.

undone and redone was already approved.

The first step would be to move to reconsider the agenda.

It's basically it's not the item that Jeff will describe or has described is not before the committee yet.

So the first thing we need to do is to get approval to reconsider the agenda for this afternoon.

Second, thank you very much.

All those in favor of reconsidering this agenda, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No abstentions.

All right.

That incantation seemed to work.

Yes.

So what's the next thing?

Next is the motion.

First a motion to adopt the agenda again.

And then once if that is seconded, then a motion to amend the agenda to add.

Green Sheet 12-10-B1.

All right.

Thank you for that.

So, we do have a motion that passed in front of us that would allow us to reconsider the agenda.

So, now we have agenda in front of us again that I would like to move.

If I can have a second.

Thank you.

All those in favor?

Now we want to amend the agenda.

So why don't I propose to amend the consent agenda by adding green sheet 12-10-B-1.

Okay, and that, that we're going to add immediately after Green Sheet 38-8A1.

Do I understand that?

Okay, so that is going to be added to the agenda by Council Member Gonzalez in just a moment.

So, in a moment, in a moment.

So I have a motion to add the green sheet in front of, it's actually green even.

I moved it.

Yeah, mine are.

This is not mine.

I'm just stepping in to help you out.

Thank you.

Okay, so I'm seconding that.

Great.

All right, so we now have a motion in front of us.

To amend the agenda.

And we've added this green sheet, 12-10-B-1, which we will consider after the item that Council Member Gonzalez is going to bring forward.

We should vote on the amendment first, right?

All those in favor of this amendment, say aye.

Aye.

Good.

Any opposition?

No?

So we're good.

Is to adopt the agenda as amended.

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Okay.

I am now moving to adopt this agenda as amended with the assistance of Council Member O'Brien.

Second.

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposition?

No.

All right.

And you're there.

So now the next item is a green sheet 38-8A1.

And then after that will be the item you just added 12-10B1.

Okay.

So we're now moving on to the proposal that Council Member Gonzalez, you put it on the agenda.

Am I not talking about the substance?

You may move the adoption of Green Sheet 38-8A1 if you wish.

I'm going to think about it for a minute.

I'm just kidding.

I'm going to move the adoption of Green Sheet 38-8A1, which would add to SPD's budget $40 million in 2019, $50 million in 2020 to fund the Seattle Police Officers Guild contract.

So I can second that and then we'll be turned to Council Central staff at this point.

Do you have anything else you would like to add?

No, you can say no.

I think that was a good summation of the green sheet.

There was, of course, yesterday with the passage of the contract, Council Bill 11368 appropriated $65 million, and that was for 2015 through the end of this year.

And the green sheet you have before you will do 19 and 20, as the Council Member said.

Okay.

Council Member O'Brien.

Good question.

The numbers in the title that Council Member Gonzalez read, those are just rounding numbers?

I said 40 and 50 million, but I noticed the numbers are much more specific than that, is that accurate?

Yeah, okay, perfect.

All right, so I apologize, that's 40,039,177 in 2019, and 49,816 and 681 in 2020. I'm curious about the cents, but we'll talk about that later.

Yeah, I think we can arm wrestle over that.

I know that I am into the granular details on this one, but I do not know the cents.

All right, so can we move forward now that those in favor on this committee, so do we recommend the adoption of this particular item?

Yes, it's, I believe, was the motion seconded?

Yes, it was.

Okay, so we'll just have to vote on that.

All those in favor, raise your hand, say aye.

Aye.

Things are getting silly, we still have 80 items to go.

Any opposed?

No?

We didn't catch the vote.

Can you please one more time raise your hand?

Thank you.

All those in favor of supporting this, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

OK.

Those opposed?

No.

OK.

So the motion carries.

Green sheet 12-10-B-1 is adopted.

Are we good?

That was Green Sheet 38-8-A-1.

Green Sheet 12-10-B-1 is the next item on the agenda, the one that was just added.

Okay.

So we just finished 38-A-1.

That's correct.

And now do we need to move forward with the second one that we've already dealt with again?

So are there any further comments on this?

So I'll go ahead and move.

For consideration, green sheet 12-10-B-1.

Thank you and I'll second that.

I don't need someone else.

We've already, Craig already explained it.

So that's explained previously.

Okay.

Any other comments?

So those in favor of this committee recommending adoption of item 12-10-B-1, signify by saying aye, raise your hand.

Aye.

Any abstentions?

No.

All right.

All those in favor say aye and raise your hand please.

All right.

So now, let's just make sure where we are.

So this would return us to our regularly scheduled programming, if you will.

That completes the items that were removed from the consent package or added to the group one set of green sheets and would bring us to Section C, individual votes on other items.

Subsection I, items proposed for substitution.

These are, this is items 106 through 117 on the agenda.

These were the items, these were part of your chair's balancing package last Wednesday and are still on the agenda as part of that package.

However, you chose to have them removed to facilitate the proposals that other council members have indicated they wish to make to substitute other green sheets in the place of these items.

Now these I think we're going to take one at a time and vote on one at a time.

I think that's going to make it much simpler than trying to go through again.

So do you want to read in item number 106 and then we will have discussion and vote appropriately.

So agenda item 106 is Green Sheet 9-6A2, which appropriates about 116,000 general fund in 2019, 117,000 in 2020, and provides position authority for a Planning and Development Specialist II in the Department of Neighborhoods for the Your Voice, Your Choice program.

And it is our understanding that there may be a proposed substitution from Council Member Johnson.

Okay, Council Member Johnson.

In direct opposition to the request the Chair just made, I wonder if we could also talk about 107 because they are inextricably linked.

Absolutely.

Do you want to read that one in too?

Item 107 is Green Sheet 14-7B1, which appropriates $37,539 of Sweetened Beverage Tax Backed General Fund in 2020 for the Human Services Department to increase food delivery capacity.

Okay, so do we need to move these first?

Madam Chair, I'd love to substitute on blue paper, if you're following along here in Council Chambers, Item 9-6-B-1 for 106. So substituting 9-6-B-1 for 9-6-A-2.

Thank you for that.

Now, I understand that we have to vote on this just to have the make sure that we are in agreement that we're going to substitute.

And then we speak to it and then we vote again to see if we want to adopt it.

Yes, so the process is to move the item that is on the agenda.

Then after that's seconded, you can move the substitution.

Then if that motion is seconded, then you can vote on the substitution.

If the substitution is successful, then the item that is on the agenda originally is no longer available.

It is just gone, can't be voted on.

But the new one is available to be voted on.

All right, well, I thank you for that.

So those in favor?

I think we did it down here.

It's been seconded.

So those in favor of the committee substituting item number 96B1 for 96A2 and then we will do the second one.

And so we're substituting 96B1 for 96A2.

Those in favor of the substitution, substituting it, vote aye.

Raise your hand and vote aye.

Aye.

Okay, any opposed?

No.

So the motion carries and the new green sheet 96B1 on food bank delivery is in front of us.

That's correct.

So Madam Chair, now that the green sheet is in front of us, let me talk about what this actually does.

Okay, thank you.

So, One of the priorities that was included for me in the balancing package was the hiring of a new staff member in the Department of Neighborhoods to administer half a million dollars in grant funding for the Your Voice, Your Choice program.

Another item that was included in the balancing package at my request was funding for food bank delivery capacity.

in the year 2020. It did not make sense from my perspective to have us decrease the amount of funding for food bank delivery in 2019 only to increase the funding in 2020. So what I've asked and what these two green sheets effectively do is eliminates one quarter worth of funding for the item in front of us right now, i.e. it says we're going to hire an individual in the Department of Neighborhoods to administer the Your Voice, Your Choice program in the second quarter as opposed to the first quarter.

And it takes that $25,000 in savings and puts it into food bank delivery capacity in 2019 so that there is no gap year between this year and the year 2020 when we would increase capacity for food banks to deliver to their clients.

So adoption of this screen sheet cuts my own priority by one staff member one quarter and uses the proceeds in the next screen sheet to increase 2019 funded food delivery capacity.

Okay, very good.

Any other comments?

So we now have the substitute bill in front of us.

Council Member Johnson, would you like to move to adopt the substitute?

I would happily move adoption of Green Sheet 96B1.

Good, it's been moved and seconded.

Those in favor, recommending adoption of this item 96B1, raise your hand, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, so I think we've successfully done 106.

Now, Madam Chair, I would like to move to substitute for green sheet 1417B1 and instead consider substituting item 1417B2.

All right, it's been moved and seconded, any comments?

All right those in favor of substituting item 14 17 b2 for 14 17 b1 raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right so the substituted motion is in front of us council member Johnson.

If I may speak to this one again what this does is it takes the 25 000 that we just cut in general fund from the your voice your choice staff member by hiring them in the second quarter as opposed to in the first and puts it to the Human Services Department to increase delivery service to five additional food banks in 2019. Okay, very good.

Would you like to move?

Any other comments?

Okay, would you like to move to adopt the substitute?

You have something you want to say?

Just a quick comment.

I want to thank Councilmember Johnson for kind of realigning this and respecting the sugar beverage tax commitment and finding another source.

So I appreciate that work.

Nice.

Thank you very much.

I hope, thank you for that.

And I hope that other members will maybe cut from their own priorities as I have to find their own other priorities.

But that's just an editorial aside.

So I'd move adoption of 14-17-B-2.

I'll second that.

All those in favor of adopting this substitute 1417B2, raise your hand, say aye.

Aye.

Any nos?

All right, that moves unanimously as well.

The next one is item number 108, and I believe this is Council Members Gonzalez and Council Members Mosqueda.

That's right, that's green sheet 12-22A2, which reduces finance and administrative services, jail services appropriations by $60,000 general fund.

Appropriates roughly the same amount in 2019 and in 2020 and provides a half position authority for strategic advisor one in the office of civil rights and requests the executive terminate the city's contract with Snohomish County for jail services.

Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilmember Mosqueda, who wants to move to substitute?

Councilmember Mosqueda is on deck.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to make a motion to substitute Green Sheet 1222A2 for Green Sheet 1222B1 that has been passed around on orange paper.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded that we substitute 1222B1 for 1222A2.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, so it's now in front of us to substitute.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much to this entire Council.

It's been a pleasure to work with Councilmember Gonzalez, Councilmember O'Brien, and Councilmember Herbold as we've tried to make sure that we are more efficient and streamlined and consolidated some of the work that you've heard us discuss over the last few weeks, specific to the criminal justice effort that has been brought forward by the Community Coalition this session to call for more equity in our criminal justice system.

We learned that there are currently not, we learned that we are currently not actively sending folks to the Snohomish County Jail, which is a good thing, and this became an opportunity for us to invest the small amount that we were sending to Snohomish County into alternatives from the formal justice system.

So the green sheet, that is orange in front of you, provides us with an opportunity to put our state of values into action because we know that the formal criminal justice system It continues to be reformed and we appreciate the efforts that have already been underway.

But as Council Member Gonzalez has spoke to in the past, we're looking forward to how we both center race and justice in our analysis and that we do this in a more comprehensive way.

This is one element of that approach in this year's budget.

The efficiencies that we found from the Snohomish County Jail Contract in partnership with the proposed funding that we'll talk about in a minute, will help create one FTE in the Office of Civil Rights that will be tasked with bringing with being a member of the criminal justice equity team or work group tasked with defining similar principles, working with the legislative advisor or criminal justice team and assessing the Seattle Municipal Courts program and services including probation against developed principles at any best practices that are centered on race and those most impacted.

Thank you.

Any other comments on this?

Council Member Herbold.

Yeah, I just want to thank Council Member Mosqueda for bringing this forward, as well as the support from Council Members Gonzalez and O'Brien.

I also want to speak to my appreciation of the clarification in the Green Sheet Particularly in item 1c that this position is to work with but not in lieu of the position managing the zero youth detention work That's really important work that we Work to restore that that position in this in this budget cycle at the direction of the council so appreciate you calling that out Okay, any other comments?

So would you like to move to adopt your substitute bill?

I move to adopt my substitute bill.

Okay, so item 1222B1 has been moved and seconded.

All those in favor of adopting the substitute bill, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Seeing none, please.

So the next one is also yours, number 109. This one's mine.

Okay.

Please, Council Member Gonzalez.

Would you like to describe it, Mr. Sun?

Green Sheet 19-182 appropriates about $166,000 general fund and authorizes two term limited positions in the legislative department and cuts $166,000 or thereabouts in the Seattle Municipal Court budget in 2019, makes a similar adjustment for about $215,000 in each year.

This provides funding in the legislative department to develop a criminal legal system plan.

Thank you.

Council Member Gonzalez, would you like to move to substitute?

Yes, I would, Chair.

I move to substitute Green Sheet 19-1B-1 in place of Green Sheet 19-1A-2.

Thank you.

I'll second that.

Do you want to speak?

All those in favor of moving forward with the substitution, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Did I go too fast on the other end?

Yeah, I think so.

We didn't get any votes on this end.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Do you need me to do that again?

I'm sorry, Patty.

I didn't see any votes.

Okay, so we're going to, once again, I'm going to move to substitute.

19-1B1 has been moved and seconded.

Please raise your hand long enough so Patty can make a count.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, so the substitute is in front of us.

And if you would like to proceed.

Yes, Madam Chair, I am bringing forward this green sheet.

I'd like to thank Councilmember Mosqueda and O'Brien for their support.

This is, again, a continuation of our effort to make sure that we have alignment within our criminal justice system, as we've talked about at length in previous committee conversations.

The City Council and the Mayor in both current and prior years has advocated for many Many green sheets and slides related to developing recommendations to be responsive to the needs to address and support harm reduction approaches in our criminal justice system.

This funding would allow the legislative department to continue that work by adding a strategic advisor position to the legislative department and $15,000 from the general fund for community engagement to the office for civil rights.

In order to be able to bring on someone to the central staff that would facilitate in creating a strategic plan to implement recommendations already provided to the city about the criminal legal system.

The strategic advisor would have professional and or lived experience with criminal legal system and strong racial equity analysis as a basis of their skill sets.

The individual would engage with stakeholders and staff in relevant city departments, the law department, and the Seattle Municipal Court in creating a strategic plan and the strategic advisor position will report directly to the director of city council central staff and would then help us facilitate the process of reimagining the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.

So this is a continuation of the work.

The way we fund this is by making sure that by, excuse me, cutting $42,739 from the Seattle Police Department's General Fund 2019. and adding $40,712 from the general fund to the ledger department and $15,000, as I mentioned before, to OCR through an additional $55,000 cut from SPD in 2020 for criminal legal system planning.

And if there's no questions, I'm happy to move it.

Okay, thank you.

I will second.

Are there any other comments?

So those in favor of this committee recommending adoption of item 19-1B-1, please vote aye.

Raise your hand long enough so we can get the count.

Aye.

Thank you.

Any nos?

All right.

Looks like that passes unanimously.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Council Member O'Brien will be up for number 110. Eric, would you like to introduce us?

Item 110 is Green Sheet 14-8B1.

This adds $519,500 of SPT-backed, that's Sweden Beverage Tax Revenue-backed appropriation in 2019 and $700,000 of SPT-backed appropriation in 2020 for the Human Services Department to support food banks, reduces appropriations for media campaigns in 2019, and imposes a proviso on the funding for food banks.

Okay, so Council Member O'Brien, would you like to move to substitute your 14.8b1 for 14.8c1?

Correct, so I would move that we substitute, the way folks say substitution is a little different than I foresee it, but I would like to replace 14.8b1 with 14.8c1.

Okay, so that's been moved and seconded.

Those in favor of moving and moving forward with the substitution, say aye, raise your hand.

Aye.

Any nos?

Okay, that passes.

So please proceed to discuss.

Great, thank you.

So this would, we talked about this a little earlier in the budget process about the, public awareness campaign for sugar beverage tax.

And I wanna just clarify some of the comments I heard.

Central staff, if I get this wrong, please correct me.

The community advisory board had originally proposed that 9.5% of the sugar beverage tax revenue be dedicated towards a public awareness campaign.

In the mayor's budget, there was only 1.4% allocated.

So instead of $1.6 million for public awareness, the mayor's budget allocated $250,000 for public awareness.

My understanding is in conversations with Seattle King County Public Health as to whether that entity would be interested in doing the public awareness campaign.

They said that they did not have the capacity.

I think that was a good fit.

But I want to be clear, the Citizens Community Advisory Board still believes this is a top priority and we should find another entity to do that.

And I believe that city entities could run a $250,000 public awareness campaign.

Additionally, there were unallocated funds left over at the end of the mayor's budgeting process within the sugary beverage tax.

And this green sheet would allocate those funds.

Specifically in 2019, it would take the unallocated funds of $269,500 and allocate them on a kind of pro rata basis to four programs that were underfunded relative to the community advisory boards.

recommendations in the mayor's budget.

Of course this is not restoring the funding they asked for but it would be modest increases to all the categories that they have already identified as priorities and similarly it would allocate funds for 2020 that haven't been allocated yet.

Okay, I think Council Member Juarez, you have some comments?

Thank you.

First, I want to thank Council Member O'Brien because I know that he's been working on this issue well before I arrived here, and former Council Member Burgess.

As you know, I of course oppose this, I oppose this substitution in which Councilmember O'Brien is proposing.

The City of Seattle was fortunate to have a $6 million surplus over and above the anticipated revenue from the sweetened beverage tax, and yet it did not expand the food access and food security to those most in need.

So basically, out of the $6 million surplus, 8.7% of the surplus is dedicated to food banks.

And if I can just state a few issues here that I think are important, besides stating the obvious that the city of Seattle is still in a state of emergency, and we still believe that these enhanced food bank service centers are the portal for people receiving not only food, but housing and medical needs and other issues.

But I want to go over a few numbers before we move forward.

And I also want to thank, on the record, the Community Advisory Board for being there and offering their expertise.

So in the balancing package, it was originally, and please correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers, in the original that came out of the Community Advisory Board, there was $17.4 million.

The mayor rebalanced that, but it still came out to $17.4 million.

And so today, what we're looking at is actually an increase.

And please, Chairwoman Bagshaw, please correct me if I'm wrong.

It looks like that we went up to $17,667,000, that we have an increase in the balancing package.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

It's 670,000 rounding.

Rounding, okay.

$17,670,000 is what we have that the Community Advisory Board has been tasked to give us recommendations.

And for 2020, what is the anticipated number that we're looking at?

The total that's currently in the budget, the balancing package?

Yeah.

$21.5 million.

OK, so for 2019, we're looking at $17.6 million.

We have an increase.

So in 2020, the Community Advisory Board will be looking at also designating $21,500,000.

So we have an increase in 2019 and 2020. So I'm going to focus why this is important.

So the community advisory board made six recommendations or six priorities and funding targets.

All but five of those six are funded in 2019. So all of them got funded.

The one that didn't get funded was their media campaign.

And that media number, I believe the mayor's budget came down to 250,000.

And I believe in the balancing package that was removed for various reasons, but will be in the 2020 packet.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So in 2019, We have an increase of $520,000, which, I'm sorry, yeah, $520,000, which brings up to $17.6 million.

We have in 2020, we have an increase of $3,830,000, which brings up to $21,500.

It's important to note that in 2020, all six funding issues or priorities of the CAB, the CAB are fully funded.

Now, I want to go back to that surplus of $6 million.

The mayor allocated all of that $6 million except for $600,000.

Chair Bagshaw allocated $520,000 of that $600,000 to food banks.

So as it stands, what concerns me is with the surplus, only 8.7% of the surplus is going to go to food banks.

And so this is why I've been pushing so hard.

We have 39 food banks in this city.

30 of those food banks are enhanced service centers, as I said before, as a portal that provide eviction services, homelessness services, medical, social services.

Of those 30, we have 17 contracts with this city.

So my point is, essentially what Councilmember O'Brien's substitution would do, it would zero out what little increase the, I was going to say Facebook, I have FB down here, the food banks would receive from the six million.

And I think that when we go back, and I said this before, I know you guys have heard my speech a thousand times, but I'm going to say it again.

Going back to the original ordinance, closing the food gap, making sure that there is a line item number for food banks and access programs, I don't think it's asking too much that for 2000 and for 2019 that we ask for an additional $520,000 for 39 food banks, or that in 2020, we ask for an additional $700,000 when we know that for 2019, we're looking at well over $17 million, and in 2020, we're looking at over $21 million.

Again, I can't stress this much more.

I know that the Community Advisory Board isn't happy that $250,000 of their media campaign was shifted over to food banks, but I continue to need to point out that it's only for one year, and for 2020, we will be looking, as I said, over $21 million in which the CAB, the advisory board, can again reallocate and come back to this board, and certainly the mayor, and talk again about what media plan that they have laid out.

I am just focusing, and I want to be very deliberate, that I am really, continual advocate that when we have this kind of money that it should go to direct services.

I thank the Community Advisory Board for all the work that they've done.

I should note that there's still money left in there for their opportunity fund.

of the items that they've asked for.

The healthy food and beverage access is still funded.

The birth to three services in kindergarten is still funded.

The community-based programs and activities to support good nutrition and physical activity is still funded.

The support for people with obesity and diabetes is still funded.

Public awareness, the $250,000 was just taken out for 2019, will be back in the 2020 budget.

And of course their evaluation support for community-based organization is still funded.

So basically they have gotten everything that they've asked to be funded, funded.

They may not like the way some of the allocations came out, but again, I want to stress that the whole point of passing this sugar tax was one of the main reasons was to talk about food scarcity, lack of food access.

Certainly we have that in my district.

I know that we have it district wide.

I also know in Council Member Johnson's district, We have issues down in Magnuson where there isn't even a grocery store, where we're looking at food delivery programs, and I cannot in good conscience say that a chunk of this money should go over to a media program when the program hasn't even been designed or promoted or given to us.

And I want to point out one side issue that I think is important and I want to

Councilmember Morris, before you do the side issue, could I ask Eric to offer an explanation on something that I think might be useful for you?

So the motion to substitute Councilmember O'Brien's green sheet 19-1B-1 was approved by the committee.

And it seems like there's reason to believe that there may not be unanimous support for that substitution.

If that is the case, if any council member who voted in favor of the substitution would make a motion to reconsider that substitution.

And if that is seconded, then you could in fact vote again.

Right now it's 14-1 or rather 19-1.

It's 148C1 is currently what we have.

Thank you.

I've got that in front of me.

Now I'm confused.

What were you saying about 191B1?

No, that was my mistake.

I don't have...

So Council Member O'Brien's substitute is 14-8C1.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Item 110.

So that is the item that was substituted for 14-8B1?

Yeah.

If there are council members who would wish to oppose that substitution, then a motion to reconsider that motion to substitute would be potentially appropriate.

If I could translate here.

So I think what Eric is saying is that item 110, which was Council Member Juarez's original green sheet, is no longer on the table.

It is effectively dead because this city council voted to approve the substitution, which means that the only thing before the city council currently is Council Member O'Brien's substituted sheet, which is green sheet 14, 8C1.

Thank you, Council Member Gonzalez.

Anytime.

Somebody has to move a motion to reconsider.

So the path would be, Council Member Juarez, I think there may have been some confusion.

If you would like to move to reconsider that and get a second, then that decision will be back before us.

Or we call this to vote and there is a no or yes vote.

And if it fails, then there can be a motion for reconsideration.

Any of those paths are viable.

So yes, I think the...

What is the point that you were trying to make to Councilmember Juarez?

I hear some testimony indicating a support for the item that was originally on the agenda 14 8 b 1 which has been substituted by the committee.

It has been removed by the committee and replaced by 14 8 c 1. I believe that we may have gotten ourselves a little ahead of ourselves in that and based on that based on the testimony and so a motion to reconsider The substitution of 14.8C1 for 14.8B1 would be a way effectively for council members to choose between which item they would like to have.

As of this point, 14.8B1 has been removed from consideration and replaced by 14.8C1 on the pink or salmon, I'm not sure, paper.

Go ahead and ask your question.

Okay, just for clarification then.

What I should have done is voted no on the substitution?

Yes.

Okay, that wasn't made clear.

So...

It appeared as though we were considering competing green sheets.

I think that's what the confusion was.

But procedurally what we did is removed Council Member Juarez's original green sheet from consideration and debate.

And so functionally, I think what we want to have is a policy debate between these two.

Correct.

And there's a number of paths to do that.

Any of those are fine.

Right.

And so we can proceed with the discussion and vote up or down on this one or go back to even just the consideration of the substitute and undo what we did.

Unless Council Member Juarez is only advocating for us to oppose Council Member Bryan's screen sheet.

So I believe, I have been informed that the first thing to do, and you can complete discussion of whether or not to vote on 148C1, the substitute version.

If there are Council Members who prefer 148B1, they should vote against the adoption of this pink 14C1.

148C1, and then after, if it is not adopted, then you may make a motion to reconsider the substitution to bring 148B1 back.

Okay, got it.

That's what I said.

All right, so if there are no further comments on that, shall we do that?

No, we have a lot of comments on the one that's before us.

So what's now before us is the substitute version of the 14.8C1.

Did you want to continue your comment?

Just quickly, just so I understand.

So what I want to encourage my colleagues to do then, please correct me if I'm wrong, is to vote no on the pink one.

That's correct.

Okay, so I'm asking you guys to vote no on the pink one for all the stuff I just said.

And can I have closing comments after I hear what the rest of my colleagues have to say?

Because the original sheet, which we had confusion on, was already in the balancing package.

It was already done.

We already debated it.

It was balanced.

That is where we were in the balancing package.

Council Member O'Brien then came forward with a substitution.

And that's where we had the confusion.

We should have, well, I would have liked everyone to vote no on the substitution.

But I thought we were voting to give Mr. O'Brien an opportunity to discuss his substitution.

Did I clarify that?

Was everyone else as confused as I was?

I think that's okay.

Question in the midst of the crossfire here.

In the spirit of collaboration here, is there any middle ground between these two or we just have to go one or the other?

The two of you talked and tried to work it out at all?

I think why don't we continue debate a little bit.

We've chatted a bit.

Well, our staff's chatted a bit.

I'm going with warriors on this one, so let's start.

Okay, Councilmember Johnson.

So I'd like Jeff to spend a little bit of time talking about the differences between the two because the numbers don't add up in the same way.

So, you know, in the original proposal, let's just call that the Councilmember Juarez proposal.

For example, there is $520,000 in Sweden beverage tax backed appropriations in 2019. But in Council Member O'Brien's pink proposal, there's only $269,000 worth of 2019 appropriations.

But those numbers are not only different, they go towards very different things.

Ditto the appropriations in both of them for 2020. So it'd be helpful to have a better understanding about the policy trade-offs between these two options.

Absolutely.

So let's first talk about Council Member Juarez's proposal, which was originally in the balancing package.

That proposal would take, let me step back one step further.

There is amounts of sweetened beverage tax revenue that have not been allocated in the mayor's budget.

in 2019 for ongoing expenses, that's about $270,000.

Council Member Juarez's proposal would take that $270,000 that is not allocated for anything currently and also reduce the $250,000 that the mayor had proposed for media campaigns, put those two together and spend all of that funding on food banks in 2019 for a total of $520,000.

And then in 2020, there continues to be a large amount of unallocated sweetened beverage tax revenue.

Council Member Juarez's proposal would take $700,000 of that and allocate it towards food banks, but would not be allocating any of the remaining unallocated sweetened beverage tax funds.

Great.

And Mike.

Council Member O'Brien's proposal would begin in 2019 with the $270,000 that is not currently allocated by the mayor and dictate that we should allocate those funds in the way that the Community Advisory Board would tell us to.

And that is actually broken down in the green sheet itself and amounts.

but it goes across a variety of areas.

And then in 2020, we'll take all of the unallocated revenue that is available for ongoing purposes, about $1.4 million, and again, instruct us to follow the CAB's priorities for that.

However, the CAB has not at this point told us exactly how they want those amounts spent, and therefore, it's just noting that we would be following what the Community Advisory Board would direct their recommendations towards.

I want to say I think that that was an excellent overview, Jeff, of what is a complicated set of proposals in front of us.

And I think it highlights the difficulty of choosing between these options.

As somebody who has witnessed the extreme wonderful collaboration between community advisory board members and their recommendations about how to spend our resources, but who at the same time realizes that in a time where we have more resources than we expected, putting those resources towards food banks should be a priority.

I also am concerned that the allocations of dollars towards a media campaign are not going to be as effective as what would be necessary in order to really get some good saturation in the community about the negative externalities associated with consumption of sweetened beverages.

So I'm with Council President Harrell.

I'd love for us to find some way to find a collaboration between these two.

But at this point, since we have to have a forced choice between one or the other, I think that the investments that we have originally included in the balancing package to support food banks Is the direction that I would hope we would go.

Okay council president harold then council.

Um member herbold I just had a question.

Um when we originally set up the advisory board, um, I can't recall how we Decided what amount of the revenue they would have within their discretion It was a percentage wasn't it or was it a dollar amount?

Do you recall jeff how we originally set that up?

It was There was just remember they were getting so much money and that was within their discretion.

So irrespective of how we computed that That was I thought that was by ordinance or by design and so if I'm just following what we're trying to do councilmember Brian's basically his proposal is just increasing that No.

No, he's not.

So I thought you were increasing the percentage of everybody.

Maybe if I could jump the queue of council chair, or of the chair.

Just answering my question.

Yeah, to clarify.

Oh, and maybe he'll answer it.

I believe the ordinance, Yolanda, are you here to speak to the ordinance?

Well, I was going to answer a council president's question about Yolanda and council social staff.

So originally there was a reserve of about 2.7 million that was set aside for the CAB to distribute as they saw fit.

And so actually about the roughly $250,000 that is in the media, mass media campaign.

was that portion of the allocation of their reserve.

So there was no additional money that the mayor's budget proposed to add to that.

So that's kind of the money that the CAB had designated for that purpose.

And when we came up with that 2.7, was that sort of in perpetuity, they are always going to get like 10% or 20%.

How did we decide that 2.7, was that just sort of arbitrary?

What was our thinking when we decided what the portion would be that they would have discretion over?

We must have addressed it in a language.

I don't require, I don't recall quite exactly all of the details, but there was, it was in the current year budget that there were various allocations of the funds made and there was a certain amount set aside basically because the community advisory board had been established in the ordinance, but it didn't actually exist yet.

And so it wasn't in a place to recommend how those funds might be programmed in 2018. So a portion was held in reserve.

That's that, I believe 2.7 million, although I don't recall the number quite exactly.

And a good portion of that was programmed in, I believe, the second quarter supplemental.

So if I can chime in, because I think that is my understanding too.

Last year when we passed this, the intent in the legislation was that the community advisory board would be giving us advice on how we spend all of the money.

We needed to make allocations and get some spending going in 2018, earlier this year.

And we didn't want to rush the community advisory board and all their process making and team building to make recommendations.

And we didn't want to slow down investments.

So in last year's budget, we allocated a sizable chunk of what we anticipated and then reserved some that said, later in the year, come back to us and tell us where You would like to make your recommendations.

But my understanding is, on an ongoing basis, we want them to make recommendations on the whole body of it.

Now, obviously, we are the ultimate deciding authority, which is what we're into.

And so their recommendations have been clear that, and I'm happy to share a letter I emailed it to you all last week, that 32% of the revenue should go to healthy food and beverage access.

30% should go to birth to three services and kindergarten remedies.

sorry readiness, 15% to community-based programs and activities to support good nutrition and physical activity, 10% to support people with obesity and diabetes, 9.5% to public awareness campaign, and 3% to evaluation support for community and support for community-based organizations.

Now the mayor's budget did not follow that.

And I think an area where I believe Councilmember Juarez and I are in alignment, but let me get through this.

The mayor shifted and put more money into healthy food and beverage access.

But she correspondingly cut general fund money to food bank programs and supplanted it.

So on this sheet, it looks like they got more, but essentially they came out whole.

Because she replaced it, added extra money from the sugar beverage tax to supplant other general fund money that freed up other things.

But the other five programs, well sorry, the mayor also increased money for birth to three services and kindergarten readiness.

The other four programs on this all got funded significantly less than the community advisory board had recommended we do in the mayor's budget.

And so now we're left arguing over whether food bank is a good thing versus these other issues.

The sugary beverage tax is funding more than its share of food bank and other healthy food and beverage access.

Again, it's at 42% in the mayor's budget as opposed to the 32% they recommended.

And those cuts came from things like support for people with obesity and diabetes, community-based programs and activities to support good nutrition, physical activity, the public awareness campaign, and again, a modest amount for community-based organizations to do evaluation support.

What I believe, I believe one, we shouldn't be in this fight because we shouldn't have supplanted food bank money with this money.

But none of us have figured out a way to undo that because it freed up general fund money for other things that we haven't shown the will to undo.

But with the money that's left, I believe that the food bank money is a competing good.

I want to fund food banks.

I have food banks in my district that want more money, too.

But they have significant funding, and there's other programs in here that the Community Advisory Board has said, these are top priorities for us.

And the relative scope of things, even after the mayor's budget, we want to see those things funded, including the public awareness campaign.

Well, I understand that they don't have the $1.7 million they wanted to run a full public awareness campaign.

The mayor cut that to $250,000.

I don't believe our response should be, well, now it's cut so little, we should just gut the thing entirely.

I think we should continue to invest in it, or say, You know, Community Advisory Board, we don't like your recommendations.

We think you're misguided.

We want to replace you and have folks that have a different focus.

But what we're doing is saying, here's an amazing group that's connected to the communities most impacted by obesity and diabetes caused by this beverage.

They have made a set of very well thought out recommendations to us.

The mayor chose to do something different with those.

And what I'm asking folks to do is partially restore their recommendations.

And it appears that those restorations are coming at the expense of food banks because the actual decision between Council Member Juarez and I is that, but that's unfortunate because food banks did receive a significant portion of this money.

The mayor chose to cut other general fund money for that.

Council Member Herbold, did you want to add anything at this point?

I had a question, and I don't know how relevant it is, but if you total the 2019 and the 2020 dollars in both of the actions, there's a about a $450,000 difference.

What is that?

And does it even matter?

So the pink one, the one that we were calling the pink one, is almost $1.7 million.

And the version attached to the agenda is $1.2 million.

That's correct.

So the big difference is coming from 2020. And that's because the proposal that I'm calling the Council Member Juarez's proposal only takes 700,000 of the unallocated funding that is in 2020 and allocates it to a specific purpose.

There is still money left over after that 700,000 is allocated.

assuming your math is correct, it's about 400,000, that is still unallocated in 2020. And that's why you see a difference.

The proposal to have the Community Advisory Board, which is what I've been referring to as Councilmember O'Brien's proposal, to give guidance on how to spend all funding would cover all of the unallocated funding.

And it's okay, you know, from Councilmember O'Brien's perspective, considering the argument he's making about the importance of the recommendations, that's OK to do in 2020, because it's consistent with the percentages that have been recommended by the.

So I believe my action, help me if I'm wrong, simply allocates it to this broad, but doesn't specify the buckets, because the community advisory board has not made a set of recommendations for 2020. The distinction here is probably more nuanced than real, I'm choosing not to leave it in unallocated because when it's left in unallocated people are grabbing it and using it for other things.

And I want to say this should go to the Community Advisory Board.

We will be back here next year debating this exact same thing for 2020 and discussing whether we want to follow their lead or not.

And so whether it stays in unallocated or gets allocated to them for a future number is really symbolic at the moment.

And just broad picture, they recommended how much for the awareness program and how much does your proposal, Council Member O'Brien, have for the awareness program?

So they had recommended 9.5% of the 2019 budget.

go to awareness, which would have been little over $1.6 million.

The mayor's proposal put 1.4% of the sugar beverage tax into awareness, which was $250,000.

My proposal is to just keep that 250 and not cut it.

The discussion we had last week was, I believe there was some feedback from King County Public Health that they weren't interested in running the program, and that was interpreted by some as, We can't actually do anything with it, so we might as well do something else with it.

And talking to the folks on the community advisory board, they said, no, there's a lot of things you can do.

We just won't go through public health.

We can go through OSC or other city departments or city council.

So if your motion passes, that will mean there's $250,000 for public awareness?

That would be 250 for public awareness plus the 260,000 that is currently in unallocated that under Council Member Juarez would be reallocated to food banks would be allocated across the four programs.

So there'd be an additional 21,000 for, sorry, an additional 68,000 for public awareness.

So that would bring that up to 320,000-ish.

It would add another 71,000 to support for people with obesity and diabetes, which currently has 250,000.

It would add an additional 107,000 to community-based programs and activities to support good nutrition and physical activity, which currently has 1.4 million.

And my last follow-up is, if Councilmember Juarez's were to be reconsidered, And well, I guess, no, it would be, yours would be reconsidered and voted down.

If we end up talking again about Council Member Juarez, how much money would be left for the community awareness activities?

Zero.

So it's a difference between the mayor's proposal, which we don't have before us anymore, which would have 250,000, yours, which is about, ends up to be about 320,000 for public awareness and zero for public awareness.

All right.

Thank you.

Does anybody have clarification?

I do.

I wanted to clarify a little bit about the public awareness campaigns and what I reported last week.

So to clarify, last week when this came before us, I used the word not viable, which is what was reported to me by the executive.

Since that time, in order to make sure I had everything clearly covered and make sure I also could convey to you what the Community Advisory Board envisions these funds being used for.

I've spoken both to Jim Krieger and Christina Wong, as well as the staff for the Community Advisory Board and King County Public Health.

My understanding from that is that, initially, the Community Advisory Board, when you were talking about a number in the 1.6 million range, was certainly envisioning something in a mass media kind of a campaign, similar to what we would have seen for, like, tobacco cessation, things like that, with ads and posters, things like that.

As they saw a lower amount that was available in the mayor's budget, their vision for what could be accomplished with those funds shifted and they began to focus more on what might be characterized as more relational type of outreach rather than doing those broad public media campaigns which would require more money overall to accomplish them.

And so that's something like when you have the Affordable Care Act outreach workers or with WIC, the promotores, that do individual relationship outreach.

So those are, that's the direction that the Community Advisory Board envisions at this time.

And King County Public Health, from what I understand, I haven't been able to get a full response at this point, was that they initially heard the new direction that the Community Advisory Board was going, and felt not that it was not impossible to do, however, that to contract with them, to then contract with non-profit agencies that do these type of outreach activities already, would just be an additional layer of overhead that was unnecessary, and that a different option should be explored, and that's why they had said no.

All right.

I think we've got two things happening here.

Three things actually.

Council Member Swat wants to speak.

And also Allison's been flagging me down saying that we actually didn't get the motion to adopt the substitute.

All right, so what was it that you were trying to tell me?

Sorry, I was just saying in the future moving forward to not have the mistake that we did earlier before we make the motion to actually substitute.

we have to have a conversation about it.

So open it up for comments prior to moving forward with the motion.

Great.

All right.

Thank you.

Council Member Swant and Council Member Juarez.

Well, just to clarify, we're talking about money for food banks, a small amount of money for food banks versus a small amount of money for the various purposes stated by the Community Advisory Board related to the Sweden beverage tax.

Is that right?

That's correct, yes.

So I just wanted to point out to members of the public that this very, very long and incomprehensible discussion was about a very small amount of money to be fought over by two completely legitimate and necessary community efforts.

And I'm going to abstain on this substitution because it's a false choice to present.

Do you want food banks or do you want communities to be able to have some sort of autonomy in actually improving food choices and so on and so forth, which is all laudable.

this council is spending interminable amounts of time on this sort of discussion rather than actually acting on progressive taxes like big business taxes so that we wouldn't have to have this kind of debate between food banks and should communities have autonomy on food choices.

Thank you.

Council Member Warris.

Can we just take a breath here?

I think that we have been at a disadvantage because we made a mistake on the substitution.

Had I known that, I would have voted no, and then we would have not.

So I'm having to go back over, which has caused some confusion.

But let me just say this.

First of all, thank you, Council Member Sawant, for your comments.

And what I want to share is that, number one, We do not have significant funding for food banks.

That was one of the reasons we fought so hard to get food banks in the ordinance, so that there would be a line item of revenue to the 39 food banks in this city that don't just come there for food.

They're enhanced food bank service centers.

So it isn't just going there for a bag of groceries, and I don't want to go through all that again.

The second piece is a public awareness campaign over $250,000 that was taken out in the balancing package was only for one year, 2019. It doesn't take it out for 2020. So that's important.

Also, the public awareness or media campaign, which they don't have one, I think that's why it got zeroed out, saying, OK, you don't have a plan right now.

Looks like you might have one in 2020. In 2020, we'll have over $21 million, and you can reallocate how you deem fit, community advisory board.

But the public awareness campaign or media is not in the ordinance.

Food banks are.

The other issue that I have is that, no, I was not happy about the supplementation.

But I want to propose, and I continue, and I probably, if I would have understood the rules better, would have just objected to a substitution, is that we maintain the balancing package because that, up until this day, is what we have been discussing.

In fact, this is what we have been discussing since we passed the ordinance this year.

Again, I just want to stress, I can't stress this anymore.

We came and found ourselves with a windfall, basically a surplus of $6 million.

And all I'm suggesting, and the chair accepted it and put it in the balancing package and why I think we should keep it as it is, is that we're not taking away money from the Community Advisory Board because it's not their money.

They're there to advise us, and we rely on their expertise.

As electeds, we can call the question, but what we really have to do is answer the needs of our people.

And right now, the needs of our people in the state of homelessness is when they go there for food, they're also going there for sheltering services, health care, eviction, you name it.

That's why I'm pushing so hard.

So basically, and harking back to what Councilmember Sawant shared, Again, I have to state this.

In 2019, out of $17,667,000, we're only asking that $520,000 go to an enhanced food bank service center.

In 2020, out of $21,500,000, we're asking only $700,000 go to the food banks.

Now, in 2020, when we have over $21 million, the Community Advisory Board can deem fit to come back to us to explain to us what their media plan is, and that would be fine.

And so I'm not, I mean, we have 182 items, I believe, in this balancing package, and now we're deliberating.

which ones we want to maintain or substitute, I'm gonna really encourage my colleagues that we maintain the balancing package that we have been working on and that the chairwoman has put forward that was accepted.

And but for the mistake in what happened with the substitution, I should have voted no and stated that up front.

So with that, I would hope that my colleagues reject Council Member O'Brien's substitution or his, whatever we're calling the pink sheet, and maintain the balancing package that I have been talking about since we started this process on September 24th.

Thank you.

Okay, so I see several things that we can do.

Is there a way, Council Member Juarez, Council Member O'Brien, that if we said to the two of you, get together between now and Monday and reach some kind of a compromise, because all of us up here are we're hearing that Hobson's choice and I would like to see if there is some compromise because I think we're talking about relatively small amounts of money but I would like to see if there is something that we can do here otherwise I'm going to move forward and go through Council Member O'Brien's substitute, and then we would come back and revisit yours.

But I'd like to hear, is there anything the two of you could work on?

Chairwoman, I would like to share our state for you, in all deference to you as the chairwoman, I would oppose and object to this as a Hobson's choice.

It's not.

It's the balancing package as it stands that we have negotiated, that we have debated.

The Community Advisory Board doesn't like that $250,000 got taken away for something they wanted, which they will get back in 2020. So I have to take exception to that narrative.

The narrative we have is the narrative that you put forward in your balancing package, that we increase and that food banks benefit from the $6 million surplus that came upon this government.

through the sweetened beverage tax in which food banks were specifically noted in the ordinance.

I cannot be any clearer about that and I do not think that there's a way because quite frankly, I think it's petty and it's unconscionable that we're sitting here fighting over $250,000 when what we're talking about is the Community Advisory Board's job is to advise the elected.

It's up to us to deliver to the people.

And this is what I'm trying to do.

Uphold the spirit and the intent of these sugar tax that we impose on the people of the city of Seattle.

Okay.

I think that's clear.

If I may.

Please.

Thank you, Chair.

So.

Much like Council Member Sawant, I find this conversation a little unsatisfactory.

And I find myself evaluating two green sheets that, frankly, I feel are both imperfect in their own unique ways.

And I'm really struggling with this because I don't think that there is any disagreement or opposition to the need to continue to fund food banks.

The question is, I see a couple of policy questions here.

One is, what does the city council want to do about making sure, through a public awareness campaign, that communities who are disproportionately targeted by sugary beverage corporations understand what the health impacts are of their choices?

And until we are able to sort of reach deeply into those communities to educate communities about why soda is really astronomically bad for their health, we're gonna continue to see these revenues increase.

And so I think that a public awareness campaign isn't just a giveaway to the community advisory board as described by Council Member Juarez, but I also don't think that it's the thing that's gonna solve all of the issues either.

And so my hope is that there could be some compromise between these two green sheets that recognizes that there is some value to making sure that we are educating consumers of sugary beverages with public health information that is necessary for them to understand and appreciate the public health impacts of their choices.

And my hope would be that these two council members could get together and come up with that level of compromise.

And then the second issue that I think Council Member Juarez is really highlighting is one that is sort of just rooted in the concept of governance.

Who gets to make the choices about how these investments are made both when there is just the expected forecasted revenue but beyond the forecasted revenue.

And so I'm I'm struggling with figuring out how to reconcile those two policy issues because this is the first year we've had this revenue source to really figure out what to do with this revenue source.

And then my hope would be that we could just have a conversation between now and Monday to figure out how we can find some sort of consensus around something that meets food bank needs, but also the need to make sure that we are educating our communities about the impacts of these sugary beverages.

Thank you for that very clear description.

Council Member O'Brien seems to have an idea.

So I have a suggestion in the spirit of compromise.

And I'll first look to my colleague Council Member Juarez to see if it's something that you'd be open to.

But the Council Member Juarez proposal would take 270,000 of unallocated funds and put it into food banks and cut the public awareness program by 250 and allocate to other food banks in 2019. And what I would suggest is, what if we allocate the $270,000 or $269,500 to food banks that's currently unallocated?

Sorry, in the mayor's budget was unallocated.

Allocate that to food banks, but leave the public awareness campaign at $250,000.

That's fairly compromising.

And then for 2020, I would suggest we just leave everything in unallocated because we will undoubtedly be back here with a different set of recommendations from the Community Advisory Board at that point.

And we'll be having this conversation all over again.

And so I don't know how to make green sheet adjustments on the fly, but maybe it's something we come back to at the end of the agenda.

But maybe let's see if there's interest in that path forward.

Okay.

Council Member Juarez, are you comfortable in discussing that or would you like to...

Is it possible at this point for us to table this and move on?

giving a little more time to think this through.

I can see at least four ways to go.

There's a path for those who wish to approve one.

There's a path for those who wish to ultimately see the other prevail.

If there were agreement, I don't necessarily sense that there is, but if there were agreement on some other path and if it were clear enough what it is, we could potentially table it until later today even and prepare a

I would like with my council colleagues concurrence like to do that.

I'd like to see as we're working through these other categories of potential monies that may or may not be available if there's something we could do at the end.

We've spent almost an hour on this.

This is item you know just at the front end and we haven't even gotten to the tough stuff.

Can I just suggest that if there's interest in what I'll term the compromise I proposed, it'd be great to signal that.

And if there's not interest, let's not waste any more time on this coming back to it.

So can we just hear from folks if they think that path is of interest and if there's a majority we can pursue it?

Yes.

I think it would be great if we could find a number between zero and $320,000 for an appropriately sized public information campaign so that we can also fund increased resources to food banks.

I recognize it would be a smaller number than I think Councilmember Juarez is seeking, but I would support that approach.

I would as well with the understanding that funding the food banks is my top priority.

And with that, I want to say to Council Member Juarez that if I had to do one or the other, it's funding the food banks.

But I think the point that Council Member Gonzalez just made of the outreach to the community is really critical.

And that's really one of the reasons why we passed the sugary beverage tax in the first place was to improve health outcomes.

So perhaps we could just I mean, with that, if my colleagues will give me a head nod that we can table this.

Eric, if you can give me or Amelia the what...

So, yes.

So, we could...

You could have a motion to hold this until Monday's committee meeting in the morning if you don't sense that there is a path forward that is imminent.

And if on the other hand, and I don't get the sense, but if there was a compromised position that was kind of gelling in concept, then we could potentially work that up for you, and you could hold it until the end of today.

So it's.

So do we have to make that decision right now?

Can we just hold it and say?

What's that?

Okay, but can we do it for less than?

You can hold it till this afternoon and we can re-hold it.

Okay, very good.

So then with that, I would like to move that we hold this item, both the substitute and the underlying bill, which we may come back to until we have a little bit more time to work through the compromise.

So it would be, because of the motion to substitute, it would be holding 14-8C1 until the end of today's meeting.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

And then all those in favor of holding say aye.

Aye.

Any opposition?

No.

Did everybody vote?

Okay.

Great.

So.

One ten is still out though, right?

Correct.

One ten is what we've been talking about and that is on hold until we can come back to it later this afternoon or if necessary Monday.

All right, thank you for that, colleagues.

I mean, that, as much as we all are wanting to move forward with this budget, I think it's pretty critical that we had a chance to review that.

All right, on 111 then, let's see, this is Council Member Mosqueda's.

So this is Green Sheet 14-9B1, the item that is on the agenda currently.

It appropriates $424,000 nearly in 2019 and 666,411, both general fund in this one in 2020, to increase contract inflation amounts in human services department contracts, directing that those funds be given priority for wage increases and requests a report.

I would just note that So since this is the item on the agenda, just to kind of clear the slate on this, the chair or another council member could move the item that is on the agenda.

If that is seconded, a council member, such as Council Member Mosqueda, who has a substitute, may move a substitute.

And there's an opportunity to discuss that if it is seconded, but before voting on the substitution.

Wow.

Okay, so Council Member Mosqueda, I believe that you have a motion to substitute on the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move to substitute green sheet 14.9C1 in place of green sheet 14.9B1, which is orange.

And then do you have a second one?

We have a second there.

So before we jump into comments, Amelia has something she would like to ask.

Okay, very good.

But did you want to bring something forward now?

Yes, thank you very much Madam Chair.

I would love to just do a brief overview of this to clarify how we came up with this funding mechanism here and really thank you.

I wanted to start with a thank you to our chair for your effort to include additional funding in your chair's budget to try to bring HSD provider wages that the city contracts with with general funds to about a 2.5 percent inflationary adjustment in your budget.

As we all discussed last, just yesterday, yesterday afternoon, we all on this committee are in this council are committed to making sure that those who work in the city, especially those who work for the city, should earn a fair wage.

This also means that the city's contracted out positions need to make sure that they're contractors are getting paid a fair wage.

And there's been a number of efforts in the past to try to address our contracted out human service provider wage gaps, where we know we have a high level of turnover, a high level of vacancy, and with an extremely vulnerable population, it is so critical to create trust there.

I know you all understand this issue and have worked on it in the past.

Again, we thank the Mayor for including a 2% inflationary adjustment in her budget as well that applied to all general fund contracts and the Chair for creating a 2.5% increase.

But in an effort to try to create parity among all of the human service provider contracts that the city contracts with, we are interested in applying a 2% increase to all of the city's general fund contracts.

Those are contracts that will be up for renewal next year.

And to Councilmember Johnson's point, Good, he's still there.

We are also looking at trying to reduce our expectations and our funding asks from our own buckets this year.

Instead of asking for an inflationary adjustment of 3.5%, which is what we originally asked for, and instead of being satisfied with just the 2.5% that the council chair has suggested, We are willing to go down to 2% and try to apply that to all of our general fund contracts.

So we're spreading the peanut butter a little bit thinner over all of the contracts.

And the reason is because we heard directly from human service providers that parity is the most important thing.

We are lucky that many of these human service organizations are able to draw down some funding from the feds, some funding from the state, but the reality is they need to be able to create parity across all of the contracts that are serving this incredibly vulnerable population.

In an effort to try to do that, we are looking at this proposed budget and identifying that there is a possibility of making a slight reduction in the proposed increase to the navigation team.

And this slight reduction in the navigation team would be a $480,000 cut in 2019 and then less of a reduction in 2020, which would just be $244,000 in 2020. And I want to be very clear about something.

The navigation team is critical.

As you see in this document that we're handing out here, this is the existing budget and the proposed budget for the navigation team.

You all as a council have made commitments through funding to make sure that the navigation team has field coordinators and communication folks, data analysts, outreach efforts, and the proposed additions would include critical services.

But what we're trying to do is be really cost efficient and identify ways for us to go upstream in a way that also respects the continuum of services that are needed.

So while we continue to see a proposed increase of around 26 FTEs for the whole navigation team, What this proposed budget would do would be to ask that the navigation team reduce their spending again in the first year by 480,000 and reduce it again by 244 in the second year.

It doesn't have to come from a specific FTE section.

And in fact, we think that this coupled with increasing service provider inflationary adjustment amounts across all of our contracts and creating parity is essential for going upstream and helping to prevent more folks from falling into homelessness to potentially prevent more folks from living in tents on the sidewalks and in parks.

And if we can help organizations to help individuals stay inside, get access to housing quicker, less people will be outside.

We received a letter from our friends at Youth Care who specifically provide services to those young adults and teens who are at risk of becoming homeless, are homeless, and they help them with job security, job training, they give them a safe place to stay at night, and they said to us that it is critical to make sure that we are addressing the fact that right now agencies are not able to pay the wages in order to have enough staff so that staff can get paid to live in the city they work, and that this low wage and high turnover and high vacancy rate impacts quality of care and fuels a negative cycle of burnout and turnover.

In fact, what we've included in this proposed green sheet in front of you also has a midyear report back and it couples together with our desire to make sure that we're hitting the right balance and the service providers understand how important that is and they said a midyear report back to HSD will help everyone understand how agencies have maximized these resources to support staff.

Lastly, I'll say that per the suggestion of many on this council, we've also made sure in the green sheet that we are prioritizing funding going into wages.

It says, HSD is instructed to prioritize wages and benefits for workers with the lowest wages and positions that have the highest turnover and vacancy rates.

Again, I think this is a nice complement to some of the other components in the budget, including the remainder of the navigation team, and also including the support that we are going to be providing to some of our most vulnerable community members through the addition of a mental health professional.

Thank you to the chair for her effort to get that in the budget.

and for her leadership on making sure that there's a low acuity team that's out there serving our most vulnerable who are in the street.

I think all of these investments show the continuum of care that we need, and we're very interested in making sure that all of our human service providers have the ability upstream to help prevent more people from falling into the streets and into homelessness.

So I really appreciate your feedback and, again, want to echo the importance of all of these pieces coming together.

Thank you.

Comments?

Council Member O'Brien.

Thank you.

Council Member Esqueda, thank you for your ongoing leadership on this issue and I really appreciate the strategy you've brought forward and fully support it.

I want to just speak briefly to why I support it.

The success of the navigation team is in part determined by having places to refer folks to.

And the success of places they refer folks to is largely determined by having high-skilled workers in there.

And we know that that's been an ongoing challenge.

By supporting this measure going forward, I want to be clear that I'm still supporting what will ultimately be over $1.5 million expansion of the navigation team, and the majority of that going to outreach and cleanup crews.

And this specific action doesn't tie the mayor's hands in any way as to how she makes that reduction.

My hope, and I want to signal this clearly, is that the folks that are on the front line out there working with individuals that are living outdoors, that we retain as many of those positions as possible.

Again, we're still talking about over a million dollar expansion to the existing navigation team.

We're just shifting some of that expansion on top of that to go towards wages.

And I also want to be clear that a 2% wage increase for human service providers across the board that have city contracts to the general fund, that alone is not going to solve a crisis that's going on, but it's a step in the right direction and we have a lot more work to do there.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Could I clarify one piece, just to make sure it's clear that the contracts that we're discussing and terminology that we use.

The mayor's proposal provides a two percent cost of living increase for all contracts at HSD that have general fund support.

And this proposal would be, and the mayor's budget does not provide any increase for contracts that are not funded with general fund dollars.

This proposal would add that 2% increase.

There's been a little variance with how we refer to general fund.

I wanna make sure we're clear that the mayor's budget is providing general fund.

This is providing for non-general fund resources.

Good.

Council Member Herbold, Council Member Gonzalez.

Thank you.

A couple weeks ago when I was working with the executive through the budget director, it was in particular on the proviso related to the navigation theory of change report back structure that we were negotiating.

It was pointed out to me that one of the Sort of one of the levers that we have to sort of address our expectations for meeting that proviso and that report back schedule relates directly to the added funding in the mayor's proposed budget for the navigation team.

You know, it was suggested to me that it would be more difficult to meet those objectives in that proviso if the navigation team was cut.

And so I, at that time, talked to Council Member Mosqueda about that concern and asked that she ensure that the green sheet that she put forward not target the positions that are directly related to data.

And it's not just data for the sake of data.

It's really data for checking their HSD's own sort of metrics and outcomes.

In the first quarter report, HSD reported that between February 20th and December 31st, 2017, 675 people accepted offers of safer shelter as a result of the NAV team's work.

but yet the city auditor in its report stated that the executive's quarter one response to the navigation team reporting plan provided 2017 data for a subset of results such as acceptance of offers of safe shelter and due to limitations of the navigation team data systems described previously, our office could not verify these results.

And so we really want to verify the outcomes that are being being presented to the city as the outcomes of the navigation team as it relates specifically to moving people into safe shelter.

And we can't verify those outcomes now with the resources that HSD currently can provide to providing that data.

And these are the same sorts of outcomes that we ask HSD to verify when our nonprofits are reporting those as outcomes.

This is really important to me, and right before this meeting, I got an email saying that the general, the green sheet, the proposed green sheet would take four positions that go straight to our ability to gather, analyze, and present data and results for council committees, accountability to the public, and to meet requirements set out quarterly for the proviso that Council Member Herbold is sponsoring.

And I just, is it your understanding that your proposal would do that, would have that impact?

Madam Chair, if I could make a few technical clarifications.

First of all, to Council Member Herbold, your proviso, the proviso that the Council is suggesting to adopt would need to be changed so that the funding that is tied up is reflective of Council Member Skater's green sheet if that goes forward.

But the number would need to be changed.

And that can happen before Monday.

In terms of how the cut is allocated, at the moment the green sheet makes a cut of $480,000 in 2019 and the executive would make the choice of how that cut would be implemented, whether they would implement it against the data analysts or whether they would implement it against members of the original navigation team would be entirely up to them.

to the end that you're receiving that information?

You said to the existing navigation team.

There is an expansion of the navigation team of nine positions, I believe, in this proposed budget.

So it wouldn't need to come from the existing navigation team.

It could come from any of the nine positions that are proposed to be expanded.

The $480,000 can come either from the proposed expansion or it can come from the team that is currently in the budget.

As it is, the executive has indicated that they used some money from King County and have already hired up the ad that's being proposed in the budget.

So in terms of people, everyone is already on staff.

And so where the executive would choose to make that cut is entirely up to them.

It's not specified in the green sheet.

And just one other point about this.

I want to remind folks that The passage of the theory of change for the navigation team last year was intended to inform our decisions about the existing navigation team.

And instead, we have a budget with funding for the existing navigation team and a sufficient, significant, I should say, expansion without having all of the checkpoints for the year.

And one of those checkpoints that we asked for for purposes of, again, analyzing the effectiveness of the existing team prior to even considering an expansion, one of the checkpoints, which we should be getting, I think, in December, relate specifically to the size and composition of the team.

So if this budget action move forward, we could conceivably reconsider the question of the size and composition of the team after we get the quarter three checkpoints.

Thank you for that.

Council Member Gonzalez, President Harrell, and then Council Member Sawant, and then me.

putting yourself in the queue.

So Greg, I heard you say that all nine additional positions that we're considering to fund through this budget process have already been hired.

Is that what you said?

Yes, that's what the executive has indicated, is that they hired the positions using King County money this year and that this money is money that would keep them going forward.

Okay, and how is that possible if we haven't actually created the positions?

It's probable that they hired, that they're working people out of class or that they're double pocketing.

That'd be something I'd have to find out.

I just heard this information about an hour ago.

Okay.

So I think, and do you have a sense, Greg, based on the information that has been provided to you from the executive, when these folks were hired and when the decision about hiring them, even though we haven't approved the positions, was made?

No, I do not.

I think it would be important for us to have that information.

But I just wanted to say that I have had an opportunity to talk to the mayor and some of the mayor's staff, and I've also had an opportunity to talk to Councilmember Mosqueda as well.

about this green sheet, and I think that first and foremost, it's really important to emphasize that the city council is not interested in sort of moving away from the NAV team, and that's not what this green sheet is about.

This green sheet is really about trying to figure out how to find additional revenue sources that are theoretically available to be able to sort of fund other aspects of the human services delivery system that are also critical and important to making sure that we are able to transition people from living outside to living inside or being inside.

And so I just want to make sure that, I mean, I think we're getting a lot of emails ascribing a motivation and intent to the city council that is not based in reality or truth.

And I just wanna really push back on that type of misinformation that's floating out there.

The city council is not interested in abolishing the navigation team.

I'm not gonna speak for everybody, I'll speak for myself.

And I think what we're trying to do is be cognizant of the balancing act that is necessary to be able to understand that there are other aspects of how we deliver human services that are also critically important to the success of the city's response and approach in this space.

Now, that being said, I appreciate and respect the fact that the executive has concerns about utilizing this type of revenue to be able to fund the additional human services funding as proposed by Council Member Mosqueda.

And I think that it would be important for us to just hear from Council Member Mosqueda a commitment to continuing to pursue conversations with the mayor and with the chair around other potential revenue sources that could be identified that meet both the interests of continuing to support the navigation team while also making sure that we are staying true to our previously stated commitment around funding, you know, identifying this additional funding to not artificially suppress wages of our human service providers that we contract through HSD.

So you have once again put your finger on the dilemma that we face, that we want to continue funding for the outreach and the folks that are actually boots on the ground, and at the same time recognizing that we have a great deal of money that if we are going to be doing the peanut butter approach, on contracts that are flowing through but aren't necessarily having the general fund support that the cost and the revenues looking out in the future are something that we're going to have to get our arms around.

So, Council President Herold, I believe you're next.

Council Member Sawant, and then I'm going to come back for a couple of points.

Thank you.

Just a clarification before I sort of state an opinion, on the green sheet, On the package that's in the package now that's being asked to be substituted that I've signed on, that would have resulted in an increase of 2.6% to the wages that we're trying to address on the CPI.

It's 2.6, correct?

I believe it's 2.5, actually.

It says 2.6 here, so is that, am I misreading it?

It says the increase in addition to the support by the general fund to 2.6%.

If I could add, I think the good chair had an attempt to try to get us to 2.6 in her original proposal.

We ended up having to go back down to 2.5 for just the general fund contract.

So I think it was 2.5.

Okay.

The calculation amount was 2.5%, but I might've had a typo somewhere that said 2.6.

Okay, so 2.5, maybe I have an old version or something.

So the one that Council Member Skates asked us to look at now would result in that increase would go from what to what?

five to a higher percentage, correct?

So the contracts supported with the general fund are currently supported in the mayor's budget at 2%.

Okay.

And we no longer have any higher levels.

It goes lower, I was just told by my esteemed colleague, it goes lower to 2%, but it goes, it's wider.

Yes.

Thank you.

So, and I agree that the issue is not The NAF team, I think, but she's trying to find money from cutting the NAF team.

That's not effective, if I'm reading the screenshot correctly.

It's just cutting the NAF team by 500,000 or so, and how, what cuts are made, there's some discretion there, but it's still a cut to that.

And for those reasons, I cannot support that at this point.

I'm looking at, I think the NAF team, if they're doing the job correctly, that I'm hearing a lot of outcry on both the cleanup efforts that we're not doing adequately.

Still unauthorized encampments in certain areas, particularly in District 2. I'll just speak to that one that I'm just getting.

And Soto area is just incredible outcry.

And so what I've been saying is it is the investments in a navigation team that both handle this humanely and efficiently and effectively, that that is why we're trying to, I don't want to say double down, but we're trying to use that as a tool, and that's the smartest tool that we've had to deal with the crisis at hand.

So while I continue to want to support the increase in wages, that's why I signed on, taking away from the NAF team and where we're trying to go for 2019, 2020, I don't think is ill-advised for me, and so I could not support this green sheet for those matters.

Thank you.

Councilmembers, what?

Madam Chair, may I just offer a quick clarification?

I appreciate that, Council President.

Just in terms of the terminology, it really is a smaller expansion in the first year and then even more of an expansion in the second year.

It wouldn't be a cut to anything existing.

I just think it's important to note that.

If you think of it in FTEs instead of nine FTEs, it would be about six FTEs in the first year and then seven FTEs in the second year.

That would be the addition.

Just want to make sure that that was clear.

Thank you.

I'm sorry.

Sort of multitasking.

So there's not cuts.

You're saying the expansion is smaller.

And I understand that.

And what I was suggesting, what I've been saying at some of these gatherings that I've been going to in the last couple of months is that we're trying to use a tool we think are working.

A lot of them, quite frankly, are not even happy with some of those efforts.

I mean, if we're going to be honest here.

But I think that how we're going, that's a different issue.

That's the different policy work we can do when we're looking at what tools we're using out there in the field.

However, I thought this was an investment that as a city we were getting behind, I was getting behind it, making sure we had the right people with the right backgrounds, right communication skills to deal with the crisis at hand.

So I wanted to keep the investments moving in that direction, certainly not cut $500,000 from them.

Thank you.

Council Member Swann.

I will be supporting the substitute budget amendment.

Too often governments that are dominated by corporate politicians take the services that really should be public.

and unionize jobs and offload that responsibility for those various services to various non-profit organizations.

And once the establishment politicians have washed their hands off the direct responsibility, then they start underfunding those services, those non-profits more and more.

And part of that underfunding comes obviously from either underfunding or outright elimination of the programs that actually help the people who are supposed to be the targeted population.

Part of that underfunding comes out of the wages of the highly capable and hardworking social service workers, some of whom are in this room.

Tragically, that also means that the social services have a huge turnover in their workforce, a workforce that is actually extremely dedicated and talented, but they also need a living wage job, which harms the quality of care that can be provided when more and more workers are newly hired.

Just to give an example, Ted Verdone, a policy analyst from my office, he used to work as a mental health social service worker.

That job required a bachelor's degree, had odd hours, the staff faced very tough working conditions on a daily basis, and the pay scale in that job maxed out at $12.50 an hour.

So we know that this is unsustainable.

And in addition to decent living wages, social service workers also need a union in the workplaces where they do not have one.

and the agencies they work for need the resources to raise the wages.

This substitute budget amendment takes a very small and necessary step towards increasing that funding.

I also want to point out that I do not absolutely do not share the views of many of these council members here who have extolled the supposed but mythical virtues of the navigation team.

Keep in mind the navigation team does nothing but sweep homeless people and I certainly support I'm sorry, Council Member Baksha.

Everybody has spoken at length.

We spent an hour on something that nobody understood.

I think I have the right to speak about the NAF team here.

We're talking about, as Council Member Mosqueda said, we're talking about a reduced expansion of the navigation team at a time when we haven't met a single homeless person who actually thinks homeless sweeps works.

Council President Harrell talked about SOTO area people, well these are business owners, wealthy business owners who have used a very anti-homeless and anti- poor approach towards the question of homelessness.

And if you want data, go to homeless people, ask homeless people, do homeless sweeps work?

Is the navigation team working for you?

You will find out that not a single homeless person will tell you, yeah, the navigation team helped me get out of homelessness.

That has not happened to date.

It is a mythology that council members are, and the mayor is perpetuating.

And I think that, One of the best possible uses, instead of funding the navigation team, is to actually give cost of living increases to the social service providers who actually do this work.

And no, for the record, the navigation team does not do humane work.

Homeless sweeps are completely inhumane, and they are completely ineffective in preventing or reducing homelessness.

Council President Harreld, did you have a comment?

know what mythical work the NAV team's doing.

I do know that when we have them to the council, we ask very direct questions and we're trying to be data driven.

That's why we're investing in people to do the analysis.

And many of these people impress me as being fine human beings committed to those on the streets.

And so my support for them has very little to do with grandstanding or corporate rhetoric about corporate people.

It has to do with many small and almost marginalized business owners in the area, too, that have come forward and said, can't you do something?

And they think the navigation team is the right way to do it.

So I don't think now is the time for grandstanding.

I think now is the time to look at what investments, even the small ones, matter.

Reducing the navigation team, to me, makes no sense at all at this point.

And so for that reason, I can't support it.

other intent other than that that is the tool that we're using now to try to clean up the city and help those that need shelter.

Thank you.

So I want to say just a couple of things.

First of all, Council Member Mosqueda, I am grateful that you are continuing to look at options with me.

You and I have talked about this a zillion times that finding more places for people, getting more housing, is so critical.

I believe that our NAV team is part of that way to success.

These are people who are on the ground.

They have the mental health skills that we've been talking about.

They have behavioral health skills.

They are folks who are getting to know the region, the geography, so that they can actually find Find out who is there.

Identify them.

Know what the problems are moving forward.

If we weren't cutting NAV team money, I'd be here with you.

But I am not going to support this at this point.

I don't believe the NAV team should be reduced.

I think that it needs to be expanded and multiplied.

I'm looking at what San Francisco had done recently.

And they have probably twice the amount of money that we have in their navigation teams.

And then we can applaud them for the good work that they've done with their Proposition C. But the fact of the matter is, what you've got here is going well.

I'm just not going to be able to support it with that napkin cut.

Thanks.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the whole council.

And first, let me express a strong message in response to some of the questions around where the dollars come from.

I am very interested in working with you and with the mayor's team as we identify any possible funding source and reiterate my interest in making sure that we continue to have a strong navigation team and expansion on the ground.

This is not to be one versus the other but again that continuum of need.

When we invest in making sure that our human service providers have more stable workforce and that they have those trusted relationships and they can help prevent people from either falling into homelessness or help them get that housing that they need, we reduce the number of individuals who are on the street and hopefully reduce the workload and the numbers of people that the navigation team is trying to serve.

So I am reiterating my interest in making sure that we have all funding options considered and would love to make sure that we advance this out today to keep this issue alive for Monday.

Secondly, I want to say I really appreciate, especially the chair, It's leadership and others on this council who've continued to call for us to have a San Francisco or LA-like approach to trying to get additional dollars in hand.

I agree.

If we had additional dollars, we'd be doing all of these items today, right?

And then lastly, this is truly, I hope, an effort that will be seen as a partnership, as part of this continuum of the services that we need to make sure that we're treating those who are truly our most vulnerable.

and also those who are helping to serve those individuals who are out there.

And let's be real who they are again, mostly women, mostly people of color, individuals helping to qualify people for food stamps and housing when they themselves are eligible.

We've heard a number of people come forward and say obviously 2% is a drop in the bucket, but we appreciate it, especially if it can be applied evenly throughout.

And to Council Member Herbold's point, We need that data to make sure that we are striking the right balance.

When we had FAS and the whole team here talking about the navigation team, we asked a lot of questions about the right balance.

What I'm hoping is that through Council Member Herbold's proviso that we are looking at the right balance and the data.

I would be very happy to support any efforts to clarify that we need that data.

What I am hoping is that when we add to the navigation team, and we add potentially six positions next year and then seven positions the year after instead of nine both years, we are still ramping up our services just at the same time that we're also putting more housing online.

When we're creating more housing and shelter options online, that's when we're gonna also need more folks on the ground through the NAB team to help get those folks in the door.

So I know all of your heart is there and I know we're making tough decisions today.

I would still ask for your support today to move this out.

so that we can continue to both look at making sure we have the right funding sources and that we are protecting the data that is critical.

And I commit to you that I will do that between now and Monday.

And I know you will.

And I thank you for that.

Council Member Johnson, Council Member Herbold.

I just wanted to add one small thing for perspective, but I can wait.

OK, please, Council Member Johnson.

Then if I can, I'm hoping that we can vote and move on.

Just briefly, I want to say this has been a really hard one for me.

As somebody who comes out of the nonprofit community, I'm very aware of the challenges of making ends meet, particularly when you have made the good decision for you and your family to go and get an advanced degree that qualifies you to do hard work, but then are not compensated in a way that allows you to pay your bills, let alone pay back that debt.

at now 40 years old still have $35,000 worth of outstanding student debt based on the fact that I spent, you know, 12 years working at a nonprofit.

I prioritize that for my community.

I'm still living the financial consequences of those decisions.

I struggle with this in addition because of the information that I heard today from you, Greg, that some of these folks are actually already on the ground doing the work.

I hear from constituents regularly about the benefits that they think that the navigation team has in their community.

And the work that I think that we've heard from the navigation team when they've come here has been inspiring to me.

I know that that is not a universally thought of or held viewpoint, both up here on the dais and out here in the community, but this is really hard work.

And in the end, I land in the same place that I think Council Member Bagshaw, you've landed, which is to say, if this half a million dollars in increases in 2019 and 2020 had come from other places like let's say an increase in the short-term rental tax or other resources, I would have been happily here supporting that, but I'm happy to continue to roll up my sleeves and identify other resources between now and Monday, but I don't think that this is the right place for us to cut in order to fund these increases in salaries.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Just some numbers for perspective.

Council Member Musca may have already gone over them, but I just want to just The total current base budget in the council's 2018 adopted budget is about $5.6 million.

With the ad, the proposed ad, we're looking at a budget of nearly $7.7 million for this work.

Councilman Marsqueda is only proposing that we cut $420,000 of nearly $7.7 million.

I think putting this request in perspective and to support the work that the navigation team is doing and the care that they exercise and their responsiveness to me when I have questions, when I ask for them to, like I did last week, to prove to me that when they did an encampment removal, that there were adequate number of spaces for the numbers of people who were being removed.

I really value that work, and as I said earlier, whether or not this doesn't move forward and we bring it up on Monday or if it does move forward, I am just expressing my commitment to take another look at this staffing model when we get the quarter three report back on the theory of change, which is specifically about the staffing model.

Thank you very much.

All right.

So to our sponsor, Council Member Mosqueda, would you like to move to adopt the substitute and for us to vote on it?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move to adopt substitute version 149C1.

I'm getting some head shakes.

We have not agreed to substitute for the original green sheet yet.

So you have, so do we just ask?

So to move the substitution, not the substitute, it's a fine point.

Okay, so we're would you like them to move the substitute?

All right All right on on the substitution, okay.

All right 14 But yeah, the substitution is a substance

If we don't want to do it, we like to vote on the substance of the substituted 1491. All right.

Thank you for that.

And we have a second.

So all those in favor of recommending adoption of this item, say I raise your hand recommending substituting.

Yes.

The act of putting the new one on the agenda instead.

We'll just say that.

Say it one more time, Eric.

This is the vote to put the proposed new item on the agenda in place of the item that was originally there, is there now.

Okay, so we're not just substituting 149C1, we are putting forward this item that, what are we doing?

Giving it a number?

We're substituting it.

And you would vote for the substitution if you want to get rid of the existing one and you like this one.

And then we'll have to approve it once we substitute it.

But if you don't want to, vote no on the substitution.

I'll tell you how it works.

Literally just did this.

Because apparently those rules don't apply to other people's stuff.

If I may, I think where we're confused is that the motions have been said to adopt and we are just substituting at this moment, not adopting.

All right.

It's basically the same thing, though.

Yes, correct.

Yes.

If you vote to substitute.

I think this is just a, I think we're just complicating it unnecessarily.

If we are voting for the substitution, then it means it's adopted.

Otherwise, what would it mean?

Well, we have to take a certain action to adopt it, though.

It'll have to be a subsequent action.

That's the rules.

All right.

It's an absurd.

It's like an amendment.

Well, I beg your pardon for the absurdity.

I'm trying to comply with the recommendations that I've been given here.

So we are moving now, voting on the substitution?

Correct.

Okay.

You're voting to substitute at this point.

All right.

Then I will leave the fact that we've had a substitute substituting.

So all those in favor of the substitute, vote aye.

Raise your hand and vote aye.

Those that oppose, vote no.

No.

No.

Okay, so it passes.

And now we are moving to all those in favor.

Move to adopt.

Okay, but this is we're moving to adopt the item 14.9 C1.

Those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

And those opposed say no.

No.

So this one passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for bearing with me on that one.

Okay, so if I can just say, you know, I didn't want to belabor us getting to a vote, but again, I want to reiterate that I have heard clearly from both community members and from the mayor that she would like to find a way to effectively hold the navigation team harmless, as proposed in her budget.

It is regretful for me to learn that these positions have already been hired before we even authorized these positions, so I have some concerns about that little dance, but the reality is that the dance is off and running, and so now we are in a situation where this budget action is being characterized as a cut, where ordinarily it would just be not appropriating authority to hire these positions, and that is problematic in my mind in terms of just basic Governance, and so I mean I have heard clearly that folks want to hold this Some folks want to hold this program harmless and and I think both councilmember Mosqueda and I are committed to working with the executive to find a pathway before Monday to Accomplish that hold harmless concept to the extent that we can identify an appropriate path to do so great Thank you very much in my understanding on this councilmember Gonzalez, and I also I'm just trying to

catch up with information that's flowing in, is that the four positions that were funded by King County, funded last year for 2018, and that the mayor's budget did allow for those positions to go forward, but the increases are where I don't understand or where they're coming from.

So we'll work on that and continue to do so.

So let's move on with item 112. And item 112, I believe that Alan's going to help us with this.

So I'll let Alan speak to this.

The items 112 and 113 are balanced across items.

And so while the motions to adopt or substitute will be individual for each item, you may wish to have Alan speak to both.

OK.

Great Allen Lee council central staff so item 112 green sheet 1419 a1 Cutting 67,000 general fund in 2019 from HSD for executive three salary the proposed substitute green sheets would reduce that cut based on additional information given by the city budget office to reduce that cut down to $16,000.

And that is because of the availability of fund from that source.

All right, anything else that you would like to add?

Eric?

No, that's fine.

So that is a net loss.

That is a net loss of 51,000.

But that would be made up in the next item.

That's all I wanted to indicate.

Okay, so do we need to move to substitute this one first and vote on it just as we have been?

Yes, so first would be the movement or the move to for the act of substitution.

1419B1, for 1419A1, all those in favor of affording a recommendation for this particular substitution, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, I think we're good.

So now item 14-19B1 is before the committee.

Okay, are there any comments?

I have none to add, Eric.

Okay.

So if there's a motion to adopt it.

Okay, so I will move to adopt the substitution of 14-19B1.

Need a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

In front of us.

Okay, so we will adopt the substitution.

Next item is number 113.

I would like to point out that we did one in two minutes.

So maybe that we've got, we're on a roll here.

Oh, and by the way, council members want just to ask me if our intention is to power through.

And my intention is to power through this budget so that we're getting through and I'm sorry that everybody has to stay late again, but I think that's what we need to do.

Green Sheet 14-20A1 would cut $99,000 in general fund appropriation in 2019 from the Human Services Department for three positions in the leadership and administration division and delay hiring.

Alan can speak.

And so the substitution would increase the cut by $51,000, delaying hiring by four and a half months rather than three months.

Okay, so I'm going to move that we substitute 1420B1 for 1420A1.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Allowing substitution, okay.

The motion would be to adopt 14-20B1.

Right, so now we move to adopt the substitute since it's been approved.

Second.

Okay, all those in favor of, yeah, sorry.

Sorry, thank you, Amelia.

Thank you.

Is there any comments up here?

Okay, I didn't think so.

All right, so we'll try it one more time to move to adopt the substitute 1420B1.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, any no's?

All those in favor say aye.

I'm sorry, this is item number 113, right?

113, 1420B1 substitute.

Okay, any no's?

Any abstentions?

Do we have everybody?

All right, thank you.

So the next item is item 114. It is Green Sheet 14-97A2.

This adds $44,000 in general fund in 2019 and the same amount in 2020 to the Human Services Department to fund a contracted mental health professional for the navigation team.

And if I may briefly, I certainly don't want to interrupt the flow, but there is, as I understand it, a proposed substitution from Council Member Sawant, and I would like to briefly preview.

There are, this is in the substitution section we're currently doing, but after that there are two additional sections of green sheets.

The second section is The last section in group one will be items for which there's a competition for resources.

I just want to briefly point out that the substitution here is, that I understand will be proposed, will be to replace Green Sheet 14-97A2 with Green Sheet 43-3A1, that motion has not yet been made, but that item would replace this $88,000 over two-year add with a $14.4 million reduction.

for the navigation team, for navigation team funding.

So this is just a preview of some of, and this item feeds into some other, is a part of a suite of options that may be, that will be considered later in the agenda that provide funds for affordable housing.

And so there are some implications here for this vote to substitute, and that is the only.

point that I wish to make.

I can explain please and I think we need to move here uh for the substitute.

So I mean are we are we ready for that?

If if I can I explain before I move because I don't because partly because of what Eric just said I mean in what he explained because it's one part of it is here and the rest of it is in another section of the agenda I'd just like to explain.

Okay.

So, you can explain, but it strikes me that in order to keep Amelia happy that we need to move to substitute now.

So, if you would like to.

I can move to, but I will need a courtesy second for.

I need to be able to explain it.

Okay, I will second that.

So I move to substitute green sheet 42-3A1.

Okay, and 14?

14-97A2.

Those in favor of the committee substituting this.

No, no, I can speak.

Sorry, you may wish to have discussion prior to voting.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So just to explain, as we've discussed throughout the budget discussion this autumn, the People's Budget Movement is putting forward many options of how the council could fund affordable housing in this budget, and that's what Eric was referring to.

I've broken those amendments down into their different parts so that any council member who supports any funding source for affordable housing has the ability to vote yes on that particular option and you're not tied to the rest of the, as Eric said, the suite of options.

You know, there may be things you support and there may be things you don't support.

So...

Of the options that we have brought forward, it is my overwhelming preference, as I've said many times before, to fund affordable housing by bringing back the Amazon tax, the tax on big business, or some other type of big business tax, and I will go into more detail about that when we discuss that item.

But this green sheet has another option to fund affordable housing.

and some of it was just referenced in a previous item.

The mayor has allocated $7.2 million in her budget to fund what is called the navigation team, but in reality is the sweeps of homeless encampments, which we have shown at length to be an ineffective and frankly cruel use of city funds.

It spends millions moving homeless people from one street corner to another, people with nowhere to go.

This money could instead be used to build around 75 affordable housing units every year.

Providing a place for people to go would be a far more effective way of getting people off the streets and also meets people's needs.

This green sheet eliminates the sweeps and ends the funding for the navigation team.

It is being proposed as a substitute here because the green sheet it is replacing would add $44,000 to the sweeps to fund a mental health worker.

I mean, obviously I spend, I mean, obviously I support mental health.

professionals being hired by the city, but it would make no sense to add someone to the team that carries out homeless sweeps.

I mean, we can hire the mental health professionals somewhere else.

And since I don't support the sweeps in the first place, I don't think we should be adding staff to the sweep to carry out the sweeps.

If the substitution fails, then I will support the mental health worker, but I want to stress again that the entire institution of sweeps is a failed model.

There were a thousand sweeps last year in the city, and they cannot demonstrate a single transition to permanent housing.

Every other homelessness intervention is measured by its transition to permanent housing, except for the sweeps, even though the sweeps is specifically about moving people.

In reality, the sweeps probably have a net negative number of transitions to permanent housing because we have talked to encampment residents who, because of sweeps, have directly, as a consequence of sweeps, have lost the papers they were using to get back on their feet during sweeps.

They have lost medication.

They have lost other clinical equipment that they need, some of them who need insulin equipment, who are diabetic.

So instead of spending on such a cruel use, 75 new units of affordable housing every year could be built.

Or you can continue moving homeless people from one corner to the next and making them worse off than they were before.

And I just wanted to clarify that when I talk about ending the funding for the navigation team, I do not mean costing jobs to individuals and impacting their families.

The people who are working in the NAV team can easily be moved to other open city positions and other positions that can be created if we actually had a council that was willing and, you know, politically able to fund affordable housing.

There could be a number of jobs created and the people who are working in the NAV team could be moved to doing something much more humane.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Okay, Council Member Swant, do you want to move the substitution?

Yeah, the motion for the act of substitution is before you.

If you wish to take a vote, you may call it.

yes it is okay yeah we should be voting on the substitution all right um so you are making a motion to adopt the substitution it's already been moved and seconded no no i think staff want us to separate substitution and adoption so right now we've already had a motion to uh for the substitution that has been seconded So now it remains for the vote to be taken.

If a majority of the council votes in favor of the motion to make the substitution for the act of substitution, then the $14.4 million NAVTEAM cut green sheet 42-3-A-1 will replace 14-97-A-2, which adds $88,000 for a contracted mental health professional.

So those who are in favor of adding the $88,000 would want to presumably vote against the substitution and those who are in favor of the navigation team funds being moved to affordable housing may vote in favor of the substitution.

So I just want to make clear what you just said, Eric.

So we have the substitution motion in front of us and it has been spoken to by Council Member Swant.

So now we are at the point of moving forward whether or not we want to adopt the substitute.

I think we should vote on the motion that has already been made and seconded, which is the substitution itself.

If that succeeds, then there will be a motion to adopt.

Okay.

So those in favor of the committee substituting the items that we have spoken to, signify by saying aye.

Yes.

Aye.

Can you repeat that please, Chair?

Yes.

All those in favor of substituting the item on green sheet number 42-3A1 for 43-3A1 say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

All those opposed say no.

No.

No.

Okay, so that one fails?

Yes, so that means the green sheet 14-97A2, the $88,000 ad is still available for the council to adopt if you wish to.

Okay.

I'd move approval.

Second.

So the underlying legislation or I'm sorry the underlying 1497 A2 is now in front of us, has been moved and seconded those in favor of supporting, uh, 1497A2.

Say aye.

Can I... Sorry, before...

Sorry, Chair Bagshaw.

Before we take a vote, can I just make a one-sentence clarification for my...

I'm also going to support...

support this, but I just want to clarify that it's only on the basis that the council voted against ending the sweeps and to put that money into housing.

And I'm voting yes only because this is going to add some funds for a mental health professional.

Okay.

All right.

I think that's clear.

Let's try it again.

All those in favor of the underlying 1497A2 say aye.

Raise your hand.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed?

All right, so the underlying 1497A2.

Green sheet, 153A2 is the next item.

This imposes a proviso on the Human Services Department regarding homelessness outreach services in certain neighborhoods by the Metropolitan Improvement District.

There is a proposed substitute from Council Member Gonzalez.

Good.

Council Member Gonzalez.

Thank you, Chair Bagshaw.

I am going to move to substitute green sheet 15-3-B-1 in place of green sheet 15-3-A-2.

Good.

So all those in favor of...

I need a second.

I'm sorry, I'm seconding it.

I will second that.

Any comment?

And now we would like, may I speak to the substitution?

Please.

Alright, so this green sheet would impose a proviso on the Human Services Department regarding homelessness outreach services.

This would effectively generate a proviso that would indicate as follows.

Of the appropriation in the 2019 budget for the Human Services Department, $255,000 is appropriated solely for homelessness outreach service programs that were recommended for funding by HSD consistent with its 2017 homeless investments RFP memo.

And I think all of you also received an attachment from the a letter from the First Hill Improvement Association supporting this particular green sheet.

Effectively, what this does is it increases the mayor's original proposed budget of having $200,000 for homeless outreach service programs in the Chinatown International District, Little Saigon, First Hill, and Capitol Hill, and increases that from $200,000 to $255,000.

But instead of funneling those dollars through MID, which did not rate highly in the competitive homeless investments RFP process, and in fact, rated very lowly with having, I believe, out of the 45 contacts that they had with folks experiencing homelessness, they were, no, excuse me, with all of the people they were, they were able to contact who were experiencing homelessness, they placed 45 people in permanent housing with 11 of those returning to homelessness within the first six months.

So this moves us back towards the I would like to make a quick acknowledgment that we need to have homelessness outreach services in other downtown adjacent neighborhoods while also lifting up the council and the mayor's continued commitment to having these investments be made through a performance-based lens and metrics.

a proviso that would accomplish that and still provide those homeless outreach services to these neighborhoods in a model that they are going to choose that is, again, still consistent with our performance expectations.

So I just want to express my gratitude to the chair for allowing me some time to get additional information and to work with some of the neighborhood representatives to make this a successful model.

So thank you so much for that.

Thank you and I appreciate having met with those neighborhood folks also and I do want to extend my Thanks.

Also, to the mid, I think that the mid-downtown has done some tremendous work, both cleaning up, making sure I've seen, I have done walkabouts with them, making sure that the individuals they talk to have some opportunities to go forward.

Anything else?

Any other comments?

All right, Council Member Gonzalez, would you like to?

I've already moved and seconded it, and we just had comments, so I think the chair may now call this to a vote.

Very good, and what we are doing- For substitution.

For substitution, good.

Those in favor of the committee substituting our item?

15.3B1 for 15.3A2, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, it's good.

Do you have any other comments at this point?

If not, you can move to adopt the substitute.

I will move to adopt substitute green sheet 15.3B1.

I'll second.

Any other comments?

Those in favor of the committee recommending adoption of item 15.3B1, Please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Good.

Well, we can move on to the next item.

Item 116, Green Sheet 15-15B1 cuts a little under $100,000 general fund and $29,000 in other funds in 2019 and 44,000 or thereabouts general fund and about 14,000 in other funds in 2020 from Seattle Public Utilities and eliminates a executive two position replacing it with a manager three position.

I understand there is a proposed substitute from Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Herbold, please.

Thank you.

In the spirit of discussing first and making the motion to substitute later, I'm going to speak to it very quickly.

This item does not make any change to the dollar amount that was already included in the Chair's balancing package.

Instead, what it does is it responds to a request from SPU to change the position that we're reducing the funding from, that we already agreed, that you Chair Bagshaw already agreed to reduce the funding from, changing the name of the position from Manager 3 to Executive 1. Is there no further questions?

I will move to substitute Green Sheet 1515C1 in place of Green Sheet 1515B1.

Second.

All those in favor of approving the substitute, getting it in front of us, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Any other comments?

Would you like to move forward with the adoption?

Would you like to move that?

Thank you.

I move adoption of the motion to substitute Green Sheet 1515C1.

And I'll second that.

All those in favor of recommending adoption of this item number 1515C1 say aye.

Raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you very much.

Item 117 is Green Sheet 22-4A1.

It applies a $312,000 general fund reduction in 2019 and the same amount in 2020 from the Office of Economic Development's budget.

It's my understanding that Chair Bagshaw has a proposed substitute 22-4C1 that if substituted might be held until after item agenda item number 128.

Good uh yes I will um and I will like to just describe this briefly.

So within my own uh package that I brought forward last week I took and this is in the spirit of Council Member Johnson that I reduced what I had asked to spend on a variety of things by ultimately $100,000 to go into Greater Seattle Partners.

Greater Seattle Partners is an organization, fairly new, that will be focusing on getting new businesses and sort of the middle income businesses into our region.

I have spoken to the new executive director and told him that I was very interested in partnering with his work around additional affordable housing as well.

So that is what the proposal is, but I think we can move it and hold it until after consideration of Green Sheet 36-3A-1 when we get to the fire levy swap.

That's right.

So I think you would want to move the substitution.

Okay.

And then if the act of substitution is approved, you can move to hold until after item 128.

Okay.

Thank you.

We have some comments.

I do.

I have a question about what reads to me like a pretty big hit to OED.

And just wanting to know, what was the cut that was in the mayor's proposed budget from the base 2018 OED budget, if you know off the top of your head, Ali?

I don't have that exact number off the top of my head, but between the cuts and the ads, it was very small.

It was like a 1% cut.

get that in a moment, but it was a small cut.

So this proposal, the substitution would actually, what was in the chair's package would cut an additional $312,000 from what was proposed in the mayor's budget.

This substitution would actually reduce the amount that is cut from OED's budget.

By about $105,000.

Thank you.

May I?

Please.

And so the $105,000 that is being restored in this proposed substitution would go to funding what?

So the cuts in this screen sheet originally were proposed just to fund council priorities generally.

So it funded $312,000 worth of things that were in the chair's original balancing package that were funded by general fund.

What this would do is it would, instead of taking a $312,000 cut from OED, it would take about a $207,000 cut from OED.

It would reduce ads in two green sheets that Chair Bagshaw proposed by $75,000.

And it assumes passage of a green sheet that comes later in the process, which is why this one would be held, that would free up $406,000 from the 2003 Firefighters Fund.

of which 30,000 would be assumed to help offset the, to keep the total $312,000 cut whole.

So it would equal, it would equal 300, it would still result in $312,000 cuts total, but it would reduce, from OED it would be 212, from HSD it would be a $75,000 reduction in two green sheets proposed by the chair, and then $30,000 from the money freed up in the firefighter.

by our facilities fund balance.

Eric?

And so you could either make the substitution to put the new version on and then hold that until after 1-28?

Eric, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I am not ready to talk about process yet.

So if you can hold on process, I'd appreciate it if we can finish answering questions about substance.

So walk me through why we are reducing appropriations in the Human Services Department for a public health clinic and first responder triage program and why we are reducing appropriations in finance general for a mobile health response team in order to restore funding for OED?

So those three items you just, so those three items you just described were proposed ads in the chair's balancing package.

So they would be smaller ads for each of those three things in order to not take as big of a cut to OED's budget.

So let me try one more time.

No, I understand.

I'm just not.

I mean, it's your green sheet.

I just don't agree with it.

Fair enough.

So I think that I will move forward with recommending the motion to substitute and then we can hold it.

Chair?

Yes.

Can I just ask one more question?

Sure.

How much is remaining in these two ads that you are proposing to cut of your own?

Right.

So how much is there still existing for the public health clinic remodel and how much would be still existing for the first responder triage program?

So for the capital costs for the public health clinic, it would be a reduction from the proposed $100,000 to $50,000.

And for the triage program, it would be a reduction from the proposed $215,000 add to $190,000 add in 2019. Other comments?

So I would like to move to substitute this 22AB1 for 224A1 and then we will hold it till we move it to the end of the fire levy swap conversation.

Yes.

If I may, I think the motion is to substitute 224C1 for 224A1.

This is B.

4C1 is the option.

Okay, 22 4C1 to substitute for 22 4A1.

The version that I am looking at is 22 4B1.

So there are two potential substitutes for it to restore this $100,000 in OED.

I have it.

It's just that we were originally talking about 22-4B1, and now suddenly we've switched to 22-4C1.

So I was talking about 22-4C1, but I apologize for the confusion.

Can I get a copy of 22-4-B-1?

Wow.

Thank you.

No?

Here's the difference between 22-4-C-1 and 22-4-B-1 is that 22-4-C-1 assumes that $30,000 would be fulfilled by the offset in the fire facilities fund swap.

Green Sheet 224B1 would take the cut from the two HSD green sheets we discussed previously and would also reduce the funding for the mobile integrated health response team from $475,000 to $450,000.

Alison, did you want to add something?

Sure.

I just want to add that I think we did two, just because originally there were competing green sheets for the fire facilities, and we didn't want to put all our eggs in one basket, so to say.

So our hope is to move forward with the fire facilities, and then not have the additional cut to our program, but want to have a backup within our own cuts if necessary.

Okay.

Any other comments?

And I will come back and seeing if we can move to substitute and see if I get the right number this time, Ali.

Move to substitute 22 for C1 for 22 for A1.

Okay.

Those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Abstain?

One no.

So that is substituted, and so I believe your next intended motion would be to hold the 22-4C-1 until after green sheet 36-3A-1 is considered.

Good.

Thank you very much.

I will move to hold that 22-4C-1 until we get to the fire levy.

Second.

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

So that at least for the most part brings us out of the business of substitution.

So hopefully we have one more Councilmember Herbold in 173.

Oh yes, there will be one more substitution that takes place in the group two section with statements of legislative intent.

So mostly out of the business of substitution, not entirely.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

And thank you for everybody for working through this in such a good way.

So now do we have the next items?

Do you want to explain this?

So items from the original agenda, items 118 through 127 are what we have identified as non-competing items.

That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't debate, but purely that these items aren't using the same resources to fund themselves.

So all of these items are new.

They were not a part of the Chair's balancing package.

They're self-balancing by identifying resources for which there is only one proposal in each case.

And so the first of those items is number 118. uh, Green Sheet 2-5B1, which appropriates $150,000 of admissions tax fund money in 2019 and imposes a proviso on those funds for the Office of Arts and Culture, uh, to support capital facilities funding at Town Hall.

Great.

And I think, theoretically, this is going to be a little bit simpler.

Um, and Council Member Herbold, would you like to, uh, address this one?

Very much so.

I first just want to make note that there were nine individuals here today, this morning, who were signed up to do public comment that did not get to speak.

And I just want to acknowledge them by name.

Zachary Cohn, Scott Birkin, Susan Trapnell, Mary Cutler, Francisca Garcia, Megan Castillo, Jeannie Palmer, Jean Silverman, And Leticia Lopez.

I just want to make note that they were here to speak in favor of this item earlier today.

As it relates to the need for this funding, this is not a normal course of business for Town Hall.

As it relates specifically to the Community Facilities Fund, normally they would go through the competitive process.

Within the course of what is about a $30 million project, it just in the last couple months discovered a problem in the roof related to seismic conditions that their contractor really should have anticipated.

And again, this is a project that has a lot of private funding in it.

and has done a really good job of uniting the community in their capital campaign to support it.

Again, had this been identified earlier, they certainly would have applied to the Capital Facilities Fund.

And I think that's, I could go on, but I think I'll just leave it at that for now.

Okay, very good.

Any other comments?

I think the one comment that I would like to make, Council Member Herbold, I'm going to support you in this.

Interestingly enough, that initially when I looked at this and I had heard from Randy Engstrom, I thought that there was a bigger concern about retaining the admissions tax so that the reserve was higher, but I haven't received anything from them that says what they would use the reserves on or why we know that Town Hall is an important institution and growing.

much more so in our region.

And since I haven't received anything from anybody who suggests that this money wouldn't be well spent, that I would like to support you in this.

Thank you.

As it relates to the reserves, just as background, they are working on accumulating a reserve to deal with the anticipated reduction in revenue associated with reducing less ad tax.

during the period of time that KeyArena is going to be under renovation.

The budget office and the arts office both expressed concern about what was at the beginning of this budget process looking to be a nearly, Asha,

It was about $550,000.

How much?

About $550,000.

A year.

I worked with both Council President Harrell and Council Member Johnson for their arts-related ads to make sure that those arts-related ads did not rely on the ad tax, thus not hurting their reserve to anticipate a reduction in ad tax in the future.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

So, it's been moved and seconded.

At this point, those in favor of the committee recommending adoption of item number 2-5-B-1, raise your hand, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, very good.

Item 119 is Green Sheet 8-2B1, which appropriates $60,000 in 2019 for the Department of Education and Early Learning to support the Community Learning Center Program at Concord International Elementary School.

Pardon me.

Okay, Council Member Herbold.

So this is also a item that is revenue neutral.

This brings back former Green Sheet A1 I'm sorry, 8-1-A-1.

That was discussed earlier in the process.

But instead of using general fund, this green sheet uses families and ed levy underspend from the old levy to provide $60,000 in funding for Concord Elementary Community Learning Center.

It also presupposes that in 2020, as it relates specifically to Ed Levy applications, that Concord Elementary will actually, in their allocation that they get from the city for Ed Levy funding, that they will actually apply those dollars to this function.

They have done so in the past.

They chose not to do so this year because They had support from the YMCA to provide this service.

The YMCA has withdrawn.

And so, again, with the condition that this is one year funding and we expect them to use the application process the following year.

OK.

Thank you.

Would you like to move adoption of 82B1?

Yes, I move adoption.

Oh, I've lost my place.

Will somebody else move for me?

Because I don't have the number.

I will move adoption of green sheet 8-2-B-1.

I can second it.

Okay.

All those in favor of the committee recommending adoption of this item, say aye, raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, seeing none, we will move forward.

Item 120 is Green Sheet 8-3A1, appropriates $100,000 in 2019 for the Department of Education and Early Learning to support renovations for a school-based health center at Nova High School.

Okay.

Council Member Swann.

Thank you, Chair Baksh.

This budget amendment provides necessary capital funding to the NOVA LGBTQ plus health and wellness center, which is an amazing project that NOVA High School is creating.

And council heard from some of the students who spoke in public comment today.

So I wanted to thank them.

They're not here today, right now, but I want to thank them and also their educator, Matt Mailey, who has really been instrumental in a lot of the work that the students are doing.

For background, the NOVA LGBTQ Plus Health Clinic and Wellness Center will provide culturally competent and trauma-informed holistic behavioral and physical health services on site to all students enrolled in NOVA High School, which is part of Seattle Public Schools, and to provide these same services to the broader LGBTQ Plus youth community in Seattle and King County.

As you all probably know, NOVA has a central location in the Mann Building, which is located at 2410 East Cherry.

in the Central District with space to house the clinic or, as you might want to call it, wellness center.

The wellness center will have behavioral health, physical health, including gender health, social work support to connect youth to housing, food, and educational resources, and a dedicated health educator.

LGBTQ plus youth have higher rates of suicide, as we know through data, self-harm, STDs, pregnancy, trauma, anxiety, and depression.

Approximately 70% of Nova students' population have LGBTQ plus identities, which includes approximately 25% students who identify as transgender, non-binary, and or gender non-conforming.

The wellness center or clinic is supported by the Seattle Public Schools Board along with Nova students, staff, and the PTSA.

It is currently included in the recently passed Families and Ed Levy, sorry, which funds one third of its operating costs.

However, funding has not been identified yet for the required capital renovation that is needed to prepare the Nova campus for the clinic.

$100,000 has been estimated by Seattle Public Schools facilities as the necessary amount to create a secured space that is accessible to that public after school hours, as well as to build the clinic in our building.

in their building.

This green sheet will fund those capital costs with funds left over from the old expired ad lib.

Good.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

I would like to acknowledge the students that came here today.

but also Mark Perry, who's the principal, the folks that are involved in that school, and also to say thanks to Amy Nguyen, who had been working with me.

She had been a graduate of the Nova High School, and she was somebody that was instrumental in helping us get it on to the Ed Levy, and thanks, Council Member Johnson, Council Member Gonzalez, for helping us do that.

So, Council Member Swamp, would you, well, first of all, any other comments on this?

Council Member Swatt, would you like to move adoption of your Green Sheet 8381?

I would like to move for adoption of Green Sheet 8381. Good, I'll second that.

All those in favor of the committee recommending adoption of this item, say aye.

Raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Great, thank you.

Item 121 is Green Sheet 12-11A2, which recommends adoption of resolution 31856 related to mutual and offsetting benefit leases.

Okay, and this is Council Member O'Brien.

Councilmember Herbold and I have been working on this, but I'm going to give Councilmember Herbold's vocal cords a rest.

This resolution relates to the mutually offsetting benefit the properties which the city owns and have been operated for a number of years on behalf of the city and under an arrangement called a mutually offsetting benefit where these nonprofits provide services that the city wants in exchange for use of the property.

There was a commitment a number of years ago to transfer those properties, the ownership of those properties, to the underlying organizations that have been housed there for a long time for a variety of reasons, some of which I'm not totally clear on.

This has failed to happen over a series of mayors and attempts to try to do it.

This resolution would, well let me read the section one of it, the city council will collaborate with the executive to complete transfer of city-owned properties at, and then it lists some addresses, I believe it's Bird Bar Place, the Central Area Senior Center, and the Greenwood Senior Center.

with mutual and offsetting benefits, sorry, with, sorry, complete the transfer of these areas with mutual and offsetting benefit leases to the non-profit organizations currently residing in those facilities no later than March 31, 2019, as recommended in prior consultant reports to the City of Seattle.

City of Seattle Section 2 says the City Council will establish, document, and communicate clear criteria and timelines for entering into long-term leases or transferring the remaining properties with MOB leases if the executive has not taken action regarding these properties by March 31st.

The attempt here is hopefully pretty clear.

We really want some clarity from the executive on a timeline for how this can happen, and we're setting a deadline by March 31st.

I'll say personally that if the executive wants to make the case that there is a compelling reason why we shouldn't transfer these, or there's other evidence or information, we should all know that, including those organizations, so we don't proceed under the expectation that this is about to happen like they have for a number of years.

Council Member Herbold, do you want to add something?

Yeah, I just want to add it's been a pleasure to work with Council Member O'Brien, his staff, and my staff on this.

I want to make a point that in particular there's a lot of urgency for Bird Bar Place if they don't obtain ownership or a long-term lease.

by 2019, they will lose a nearly $1.5 million grant from the Washington Department of Commerce that was actually approved two budget cycles ago, but they put a hold on it and gave them an extension to give them more time to work this out with the city.

So I really appreciate the spirit in which we're moving forward on this to give some certainty to these three organizations that have already been identified in previous consultant reports that the city has paid for that these transfers should occur.

This work dates back to 2012. And then finally, as it relates to the section 2, I just want to state that if we do need to adhere to the provisions in section two where we agree that we will establish document and communicate clear criteria and timelines for entering into long-term increases.

I'm aware and I know council central staff wants us to be aware that that will take resources if we go that route because we will very likely need to look at our own budget, our own consultant budget, to look at hiring somebody to actually negotiate the terms of those transfers.

So just for transparency's sake, I'm aware of that.

I want central staff to know that I'm aware of that as well.

Great.

Any other comments on this?

Would you like to move adoption?

I will move adoption.

And I'll second it.

Okay.

All those in favor at this point of adopting our resolution 12-11-A-2, please say aye and raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Good.

Thank you.

So, let's move on to item number 122.

15-16 c1 which would repurpose some funding in Seattle Public Utilities budget.

It would cut funds from Seattle Public Utilities and add them to the Seattle Department of Transportation in both 2019 and 2020 and expand the RV remediation pilot program.

Okay.

Very good.

Who's speaking to this one?

This one yours as well.

Yeah.

Okay.

So the executive has begun an RV remediation program.

It's been going for about a year.

And the goal of the program is to prioritize locations throughout the city where there are an accumulation of vehicle dwellers, folks who are living primarily in RVs.

and to rate those locations each month according to the very similar types of criteria that we use for the encampment protocols, really focusing on health and safety, focusing on issues related to criminal activity, focusing on issues related to obstructions.

So they go through this exercise once a month.

And for the top six, every month, they target those top six locations for remediation.

And remediation usually means having the RVs move and SPU going in and cleaning up the area.

This budget action would allow SPU to do one more in addition to the six.

Very good.

Thank you for doing that.

Any further comments?

Well, then I will move adoption of this item if you'd like to second it.

Second.

Okay, so this is green sheet 1516C1.

All those in favor say aye.

Raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, this passes.

And let's move on to number 123.

That is Green Sheet 22-3B1, which appropriates $25,000 general fund in 2019, same amount in 2020 in the Office of Economic Development for economic development support services for small businesses, and that is offset by cuts of $25,000 general fund per year in the Office of Arts and Culture.

Okay.

It sounds to me like we've got Council President Harrell on this one.

Just real quickly, this is budget neutral, basically following Councilmember Johnson's lead.

I looked at some projects that you all had supported and reduced some and moved some over.

So it's revenue neutral and we're trying to make it work and keep our package together.

Okay, any other comments?

Those in, oh, I guess we have to move this one.

Council President Harrell, would you like to?

I move to adopt or substitute, I'm getting a little lost.

22-3B1.

I move to adopt.

22, 3B, 12019.

Very good.

I second that.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Raise your hand.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to item 124.

Green Sheet 26-1B1 would impose a proviso on $88,000 of general fund appropriations in 2019 in the Office of Intergovernmental Relations, restricting them for anti-poverty contracts.

Okay, I believe this is yours.

It is mine.

And I think you've got a substitute already.