Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 7/8/2020 Session II

again for coming back.

The recess July 8th 2020 Select Budget Committee will now come back to order and proceed with this business.

I am Chair Teresa Mosqueda and I will ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Council Member Gonzalez.

Here.

Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Juarez.

Here.

Council Member Lewis.

Present.

Council Member Morales.

Council Member Peterson.

Here.

Council Member Sawant.

Council Member Strauss.

Present.

Chair Mosqueda.

Present.

Six present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Council Colleagues, again, this is the City Budget Office presentation.

We had a presentation scheduled last Wednesday, and our Director, Ben Noble, was so kind to offer to do the presentation instead today because we had a packed agenda.

Thank you and your team at the Executive Office and the agencies for agreeing to participate in today's presentation instead of last Wednesday.

We really appreciate your flexibility.

For the viewing public, again, we do not have public comment at 2 p.m.

as usual, because we are having a robust public hearing that will start again at 4 p.m.

today.

It is after 2 p.m., so sign up for the 4 p.m.

public hearing has begun.

If you would like to present and share your public testimony at 4 p.m., the line is now live, so you can go to the link on our agenda and sign up for public testimony.

Again, that will begin at 4 p.m.

Without further ado let's read into the record item number three.

Will the clerk please read item three.

Agenda item three.

City budget office overview of the 2020 rebalancing package for briefing and discussion.

Thank you very much.

Director Mendoza why don't I turn it over to you and you can introduce the lineup of folks that are here with us today to share with us additional information on the 2020 rebalancing package that was submitted by the mayor's office a few weeks ago.

We appreciate you all being here and thank you for your time in helping to answer our questions that we have had as as we've learned more about the proposed budget that was sent down.

Thanks Director Noble.

Thank you and my pleasure.

So joined today by Julie Dingley from the Budget Office lead on housing and human services and other areas as well, but answering questions in those areas today.

And then also, Dwayne Chappell, Director of the Department for Education and Early Learning, and Tiffany, excuse me, Tiffany Washington from DEEL as well, to answer some questions related to some specific funding proposal there.

and expecting and hoping to be joined by Deputy Mayor Rankadasan later, hopefully soon, to answer some questions there.

And we may, as we move through the slides, if we get there before she's signed on, we may defer that and come back.

So without further ado, I'm going to move to the slide presentation.

So what we have for you are answers to some specific questions that were posed at the last session or immediately following that have been forwarded from central staff.

So we were going to go through the, we've put the question up a couple times, paraphrased it, just to make it more clear for viewing audience.

And then we have a written answer and then obviously some narrative that we can add and embellish, if you will, as well.

So with that, I'm going to do this screen sharing thing and get started.

Okay, thank you.

And again, thanks for making this easy for the audience at home to follow along with your presentation.

We appreciate that.

So can you see the slideshow now?

I'm going to ask to make sure that other people don't see it as...

Yes, we can.

Perfect.

If folks go to fit window, you should be able to see it.

Okay.

So I'm going to keep going then.

So again, just cover slides.

So, you know, we're responding to your questions.

Oh, and now I'm having an issue that I don't understand.

So one sec.

There we go.

Couldn't page for a moment.

So first, and we try to categorize the questions as well.

So there were a couple of questions regarding the overall balancing strategy for 2020. So the first of which was why we were only using a small, 25%, maybe not a small share, a quarter roughly of the city's emergency funds as part of the balancing strategy for 2020. And the short answer as described here is that the challenge we have is that the, The fiscal crisis that we are in, every expectation will continue into 2021. The economic downturn that has been caused by the COVID virus is not expected to end this year.

All the forecasts we have are for an extended period, actually beyond 21 into 22 as well.

So we are trying to pace, if you will, the use of our reserves into 20 and 21 as well, leaving potentially a very significant challenge for 2022. But it's obviously a dynamic situation and one that's hard to manage.

And we think there are enough pressures and needs that we could foresee for the next two years that it makes sense to draw upon those funds for 20 and 21. So the proposal would use 25% of the reserves, which total about $125 million in 2020, to preserve the remainder to use in 2021. And without them, we're already looking at very, very significant reductions in the order of $160 million for 2021. Without the additional emergency funds that we're proposing to use, that would be closer to $250 million of reductions.

That's why I would note that we are proposing to use other one-time resources, excuse me, in 2020. And in fact, the next question concerns some of those resources.

So we're doing, we're leaning a lot on reserve, on reserves generally described for 20, and then we'll be doing the same again for 21. And we're just trying to pace our way through the use of those reserves.

The second question was specifically about one of the things that we had cited as some of the one-time resources we were going to deploy in 2020 were some year-end, and then we generally refer to some other one-time resources.

And there was a question about additional documentation on those one-time resources.

The slide where we presented them, we'd rounded the number to 36 million.

The exact, the more exact total is 35.7.

And the bullets here highlight the specific components of that.

Again, these are one-time resources that are either left over from 2019 or we think are dependable for 2020 that we would deploy to close the gap this year.

So the largest of which is simply undesignated fund balance from 2019. That is largely the result of revenues exceeding forecast, also some underspend.

So we hadn't expected to finish 2019 with a significant fund balance.

We ended up with about $20 million.

To remind you, in the context of roughly $1.4, $1.5 billion of general fund, $20 million is a very small piece, just barely 1%.

It's great to have now, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't, it's not unusual for us to end a little bit ahead of where we anticipate.

That's in part because we're conservative, because you don't want to end up on the other side, just to stay short.

So it's about 20 million there.

In truth, the total amount was closer to 25 million.

And I can explain this in a second.

As we had developed our initial revenue assessments and budget forecasts for 2020, we had anticipated approving requests for carry forward.

So these are items that departments hadn't completed in 2019. that they had hoped to continue into 2020. And one of the initial actions we took is to reject many of those carry-forwards.

You have before you an ordinance that approves some carry-forwards, so we weren't eliminating them all, but things that we thought were discretionary or not essential, again, in the current context, we rejected.

in order to have more resource to sustain just basic activities this year.

So that was an additional $5 million.

Then the next two items, we're anticipating, we use a set of, this gets a little technical, a set of internal rates.

So we charge departments over the course of the year, essentially give them a monthly bill to cover their information technology costs to cover their health care costs.

There are also costs for things like their space, the space we charge them rent.

as a way to keep the books clean and to use appropriate restricted sources of money to pay appropriate costs.

What we can tell now, again, looking at our reduction strategies, is that on the IT side, we expect that IT will underspend its budget, which means that the rates we set are, in some sense, overcollecting for what needs to get paid out.

So we're anticipating that and capturing those savings in advance.

And that's part of our one-time savings there.

One time because we will reconsider the appropriate spending level for IT for 2021 so that rates will be set to better match what we anticipate their spending next year to be in this more constrained world.

Similarly, the healthcare fund, we bill departments for the health, the city self-insures for healthcare.

So we all have providers, but the actual bill for the services It's not an insurance scheme.

It comes directly to the city.

And again, we set rates and collect money in anticipation of those costs.

As we hold vacancies and look at actual healthcare costs, we are forecasting that we will, again, have more resource there than we need and are anticipating that savings in advance, if you will, in order to preserve as much basic operational spending in 2020 as possible.

And the last item is that we have some planning reserves, and we had some planning reserves for the 2020 budget, to address things that we know will come, but we don't know exactly in what amounts.

So, for instance, we regularly have a reserve to cover elections costs.

The city is billed, essentially, proportionally for costs when we are on either, well, any of the ballots.

Typically that is August or November.

The actual costs depend on how many items we put on the ballot and also how many items other entities put on the ballot because King County elections is defraying the costs of like the election book.

And it depends how many things are in the book as to how many, what your actual costs are.

So we expect some savings there relative to what we'd set aside.

And then we also had some reserves to address some unresolved labor issues and actually Once we settled this out, we realized that we had sufficient fund balance in some departmental budgets, IT as an example, to handle those costs.

So that's where the nearly 36 million in one-time resources that were either 2019 year-end or some forecasted 2020 resources.

So some more detail there essentially.

The next question was about specifying the amount of reprioritized levy and MPD.

sorry for the acronym, Metropolitan Parks District.

So this slide is meant to, again, highlight how much of the levy resources we're redirecting towards more basic activities.

And again, the way I think about this, the way I think it's appropriate to think about this is that the general fund, the levies in the park district were designed to be additive to a base level of funding to be provided either by the general fund or in the case of the parks department, the general fund and some earned revenues, so user fees and the like.

With the general fund revenues and the user fees not meeting forecasts, the NPD, to which the NPD will now be added to a much smaller base.

And in that context, it makes sense to reconsider what are the appropriate priorities for the NPD.

Should it be for added services at some level, or should it be at least in part to support the basic services that we no longer have the resources to maintain?

So that is what, for both the Moose Seattle Levy and the Park District, that's really where the major moves here are, where what we're essentially doing is deferring capital projects to free up resources that can be used to maintain some basic operations.

Families in Ed, 2 million, and there's a subsequent question on this, so we'll get back to that in some more detail.

And then you can see the library levy, and we had included in this category also some funding that we reprioritized from some grants.

We were able to use some grant funding to support some basic activities rather than enhanced activities.

Again, all to the aim of preserving as much 2020 basic services as we can.

Next question had to do with the expenditures regarding COVID-19 and how many have already been made versus what are proposed for future.

So as I described here, approximately 143, so 140-ish of the 230 plus that we have, have already been spent.

So, and then about 90 million of what remains, of the 90 million that remains, excuse me, 40 million is committed to some what we regard as critical services, shelter, hygiene, testing, and the like.

So I wanted to give you a sense of the flexibility there.

Again, I would note that overall, and we've included it in the 143, is that there's 65 million of the total spend here is supporting city functions and particularly city personnel who have been redirected towards COVID.

So for simplicity, we've put them into the spent category.

But anyway, this gives you a sense.

And again, happy to provide more detail directly to you or to staff about this.

And we actually have been doing that.

Central staff has asked for more detail in this area, and we have and are providing it.

Next question had to do with, and that's why I didn't go into detail earlier, education levies and what projects are affected by the $2 million in levy reprioritization.

I'll answer this, but obviously we have Duane and Tiffany here, and they could also perhaps add some.

But of that total, $1.3 million is savings from the essentially from the fact that schools have been closed and much of this programmatic spending that we had intended has had to happen in modified form or isn't going to happen.

So we're able to save money just because of what we had intended to move forward with isn't possible under the current educational environment.

if you will, preschool as well as elementary.

Then there are also some salary savings from vacant positions at the Department of Education and Early Learning.

We are all trying to manage staff costs, again, in the context of understanding that the city's overall finances, our financial footprint, if you will, is going to shrink.

So bringing on staff when we don't yet know what resources we'll have going forward isn't necessarily the best move.

And again, given that certain educational activities have been curtailed by the virus itself, able to manage the work with fewer staff.

And then a small amount was related to consultant contracts.

And then a question about how the reduction squares with our commitment maintaining investments that are particularly directed around issues of racial justice.

And what I emphasize here is that that's exactly what we are trying to do, actually, with this redirection.

So the $2 million that isn't being spent out of levy resources and instead being redirected towards what would have been general fund expenses allow us to protect and preserve things like the Nurse-Family Partnership and the Parent-Child Home Program that are particularly targeted towards BIPOC communities as an example.

So, and again, as described here, the programs that are not proceeding have a minimal effect on the overall service delivery.

So, and that has been our goal.

So these are all difficult trade-offs, but we've been able, as described here, have been able to maintain things like the anti-bias training and English language learner professional development.

So again, additional training.

So even though the general fund is down, we're able to use levy resources to maintain the really key levy functions, and then to use some of those levy resources to help preserve funding for general fund items that might otherwise be threatened by the lack of resource.

So again, the overall goal was consistent with maintaining investments in community and a focus on racial justice.

Next is an area where I'm going to turn this over to Tiffany and Duane.

As we identified in our presentation, there were questions about as much as $5 million that we've identified to move towards to fund mentoring programs and some other related educational enhancements.

And I thought better for you to hear from the experts in this area.

So with that, I'll turn this to Duane and Tiffany to describe this work.

Thank you, Director Noble.

Yes, so before I even describe this, I just really wanted to just make sure that you know, that you all know that my commitment is to making sure that my personal commitment and for DEEL, that we're going to be focusing on those for some educational justice.

And when we say that, you know, that we're focusing on African American, Latinx, and our Native American brothers and sisters.

And this right here, what we're looking at, this is just a pre-slide until for the next one.

And we really wanted to make sure that you all know what culturally specific and responsive programming is happening right now within DEEL.

Just as a reminder, this programming right now basically is focusing on racial and cultural diversity within students here in Seattle, and we have three current programs that we're focusing on.

And I'm just this is just like I said just a reminder because I know you all know this we have the Kingmakers program Kingmakers is currently happening in four schools four schools in Seattle Public Schools, and we're looking to expand The Kingmakers into two additional schools this upcoming school year and this is an african-american male achievement program that provides in-class support around black culture and leadership.

We also have some mentoring and the mentoring is new and it's currently a community co-design process right now.

And then the last culturally specific and responsive program we have that's happening is our educational diversity and that's we're looking we're working with Seattle Public Schools and and increasing the number of of teachers of color that are going into the profession.

Director Noble you can go to the next slide.

So part of the reason I wanted to share that with you was because As you know, we're in a critical time where we're looking at making sure that we're focusing some funds on BIPOC for 2020-21.

And right now, what you'll see is that we have some $5 million in savings from our 2011 fund balance.

And we're looking at using this to focus on students for some educational justice.

And we're going to make sure that our spending is consistent with what the voters of the FEPP levy have already approved.

Our funding is going to support a community-developed Saturday Academy for young black men.

And we're looking at also, as far as community engagement is, So, what DEEL is going to do is we're going to basically continue, or I shouldn't say continue, excuse me, we're going to work with our community stakeholders and looking at our best advisory committee recommendations that are out and bringing individuals from the advisory best committee together, which already consists of about 50 African-American individuals, folks from philanthropy, nonprofit, and other organizations together, and looking at the recommendations that was put forward a while ago.

Director, excuse me, Deputy Tiffany Washington, did I miss anything on here before we go?

I just want to make sure I'm clear about it.

Yeah, I just want to be sure that folks know that the funding to support the Community Developed Saturday Academy for Young Black Men will come from the $5 million.

For those of you that are familiar with the We Want to Live rally that happened in South Seattle a month ago, it was organized by the 1,000 Black Men Initiative.

They actually contacted DEEL and asked us to support a program that the Thousand Black Men requested.

They wanted to do the Saturday Academy for Young Black Men, and so they requested that they partner with Ace Academy to launched this program, which is currently being planned right now.

And so just want to make sure that folks know two things.

One, that funding for that academy will come from the $5 million, and that that academy was birthed from grassroots organization.

And the last thing before I pass it back over to Director Noble, I just wanted you to know that the Levy Oversight Committee have already expressed their support for these dollars and Council President Gonzalez should have received an email or a letter stating that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Real quick, Director Noble, is there any questions for the folks at the deal?

hearing none, thanks so much, Director Neville, and thank you very much, Director Chappelle, for all of your work.

Oh, Council Member Strauss, did you have a question?

You just waved, okay.

Just signaling my appreciation for Dillon, Director Chappelle, and Tiffany.

The work that your department does is just so fantastic.

I continue to receive really great accolades for both of your work.

So I was just waving in excitement to see both.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That is appreciated in a remote world that we operate in.

So thank you for that.

Okay.

Director Noble I will turn it back over to you.

Thank you and thanks again to Director Chappelle and Deputy Director Washington.

So moving on the next set of questions have to do with homelessness and I'm going to turn this over to Julie Dingley at CBO who is an expert in this area from a budget office perspective.

Good afternoon, council members.

So the first question in the homelessness area was, does the city intend to keep the two shower trailers and additional hygiene facilities through the year end?

And the answer is yes, that we have our plan as it currently is, is to leverage FEMA for as long as possible, as long as they are reimbursing expenses.

And then we have built into the commerce grant spending plan that you all passed this past Monday, an additional two months should FEMA call the emergency earlier than the end of the year.

So we should be able to cover that through year end.

The second question was around the proposed COVID spending, including $2.53 million for non-congregate sheltering.

And I'm wondering what this was referring to.

So in hindsight, I could have been much more clear in that presentation, so I apologize.

So non-congregate shelter is a term within the context of federal FEMA reimbursement.

And it refers to shelter that provides individual living arrangements so so separated walls as opposed to congregate shelter, which is what FEMA is typically used to providing in emergency settings.

So if you think of a big flood, they set people up in.

in a sports arena with cots, that would be congregate shelter.

That's what they're used to.

And so non-congregate was a new area for them to have to dive into and figure out how to reimburse in this particular emergency.

So that's why we have that distinction between the two shelter types in our response overall.

Julie, I'm going to pause right there.

I think the council is familiar with what non-congregate shelter was.

I think the question is more along the lines of, Are we talking about hotels and motels specifically because there's been pushback on using hotels and motels as non-congregate shelter options given that they are ready-made shelter options for folks, especially given the low vacancy rates right now.

And from some of the community partners that we've been engaged in, we know that there are specifically motels in the Seattle region that are available and would like to make themselves available if there was funding immediately.

Are we referring to putting folks into motels and hotels here?

So this particular funding, this 2.53 is talking about the tiny home villages that we stood up and the Bitter Lake facility that has that non-congregate sheltering.

The other hoteling that has happened as a part of the COVID response has been in partnership with King County.

And so any additional shelter would be coming in the form of those new funding vehicles that are on their way.

We are also looking at the commerce $4.85 million RFP that is out live right now for existing providers.

That is a look there.

And also with the new ESG emergency solutions grant that the city is going to be receiving.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

And please, Julia, could you correct my information?

I thought that the two tiny home villages in the lakefront shelter had been set up with dollars that were budgeted in last year's 2020 budget before COVID began.

Is that correct or incorrect?

We're pursuing FEMA reimbursement for those as part of our COVID strategy.

We stood them up much faster than we would have ever dreamed of doing absent trying to leverage those resources.

And what we're hoping to do is make sure that we have enough left to be able to operate those if FEMA is going to pull the plug even sooner on their reimbursement.

That's helpful.

I think the point that I'm trying to dive into is that those three shelters were already identified as investments by the previous city council that the city should be making.

And so my question is, I absolutely hear you that they were able to be stood up faster because we knew that additional dollars were coming in.

But I guess my question is, should we not then be expanding with more shelter at this time?

This is Ben.

I think another important point to recognize in this is that although there were funding decisions made last fall, we don't actually have the revenues to meet all of those funding commitments.

So some of what we're doing is taking advantage of the resources that have been provided from state and federal sources and to use them and deploy them as we can to sustain as well as to be additive.

And as Julie's described, there is now, yet again, additional funding from federal and state sources that may provide an opportunity to further expand.

Because the other thing that's happened, I mean, there was an allocation for additional tiny homes and at the same time we've we've also incurred additional expenses as we've de-densified the existing shelter system and again we're relying on state and federal sources particularly federal sources to help pay for that but it's it's a complex web now that we're trying to take advantage of the resources that are available to both sustain what we has had in our base but not can't necessarily afford in our base and then also opportunities from we need to be setting up the shelters as fast as possible.

We need to be setting these Okay, I have a follow-up question, though, because I think this raises more concerns.

I mean, the CARES Act dollars are intended to be additive to help address the crisis that is COVID.

Because of the public health crisis that presents itself from congregate settings, we are getting CARES Act dollars to create additional non-congregate shelter settings.

That should be in addition to the money that the city council has already allocated for tiny house villages.

Again, I think this gets back to the questions and the concerns that the council members were raising before, that we are not actually adding beds or adding non-congregate settings if we're just shifting people around.

So what I think I heard you say is that we are using CARES Act dollars to pay for tiny house villages that were already planned in last year's budget, but are being now funded with CARES Act dollars because of a decrease in resources.

I think we are also concerned about the decrease in revenue coming in the door.

but specifically to saving lives and getting people into housing so that they can stay home to stay healthy.

I'm very concerned that we're talking about using CARES Act dollars for additional tiny houses instead of using the money that was allocated for tiny houses to fund tiny houses, and then to use CARES Act dollar for additional non-congregate setting options.

So are you suggesting that, you know, here we are mid-July, that the money that we allocated for tiny house villages in last year's budget has not been spent and is not planning to be spent and we are going to use CARES Act dollars instead and not be additive in the number of beds created but use those dollars to create the tiny house villages.

We're supplementing the general fund resources that we have left to us to both to maintain to maintain a shelter system that's been changed fundamentally is it's been de-densified.

So we've been standing up, as you know, city facilities, things like at Seattle Center and community centers.

and also tiny home villages.

And we now with the additional, and this is just an example of the additional costs that we're facing.

So the RFP that just went out, which is largely to be funded from state resources and is to identify the additional costs that have been associated with just maintaining or with operating shelters in the COVID environment.

So again, those are not things that we had budgeted for.

within our base budget, but which we think are very real expenses that providers are facing.

And we may see in response to that RFP some thoughts about additional capacity as well.

And I don't know if Julia, if you have anything to add on that front.

Yeah, the only other thing that I would like to add is that in this particular case, we are trying to pursue FEMA reimbursement, which is an unlimited resource.

There's no limit to how much we can request.

We don't know how much they're going to end up reimbursing.

And our charge in CBO was to not leave a single dollar on the table from the federal government or from anywhere really just to make sure that we had as much as possible available to help our neighbors in Seattle.

And so that's really the driving force behind trying to leverage these federal funds where we can and then If they end up covering this which all indications point that they will then we will have more resource and that's that's not been a bad thing.

So it's that's what we're trying to pursue at this point.

All right.

I mean I'm pausing just because I think I'm frustrated that we're not talking about adding new beds here to what we had already been allocating from before.

And I think, you know, the appropriate shelter that you all want to fund with COVID dollars is absolutely an appropriate use of those dollars, but it should be additive.

And when we have hotels and motels and tiny house villages that all need funding, you know, Where are we, what other types of funding are we trying to get into creating more non-congregate shelters?

Are we looking at dorms?

Are we asking folks who have vacant dorm rooms what we can be doing?

One of the things that we heard from Director Hayes when she presented a few weeks ago was, no, they don't love it, but even having the large tents that are spaced further apart gives people a place to be that are still stuck in congregate settings.

So I guess especially for the high-risk population that's still stuck in congregate settings how many extra beds can we say for certain that these CARES dollars are going towards if they're now being used to supplant what was otherwise city funds previously planned for.

And I think what I'm trying to suggest is that they're not, it's not mutually exclusive, that because we're pursuing FEMA here does not preclude us from pursuing FEMA elsewhere.

It also doesn't tie up.

So we're going to be part of the RFP that's out right now for existing providers through the State Department of Commerce funds is for them to make those improvements to reconfigure their living, sleeping, and hygiene spaces to meet public health requirements.

We also have the nearly $50 million in additional resources from emergency solutions grant, which I'm going to go into in a couple of slides, the specific purposes for that grant, and more resource actually from State Department of Commerce as a joint application with the county.

So this is the plan that we developed and executed in the immediate days of of the COVID response and this is the plan to pay for that.

It is not the end of that plan and so we're going to be engaging with providers and with stakeholders and community and with you all on how to use those new funds that are coming in.

So this is not the end of that story by any means.

Thank you Julie.

I don't mean to be directing the questions just at you so you know please feel free to Tell me if you need to come back to me with additional information but Director Noble you know none of this is a surprise to you.

I think my my biggest frustration with the comment that we have additional time to engage with folks is we just we don't we do not have time when people are dying because they are not able to isolate and they're especially people who have high-risk conditions who are elderly who are more at risk of contracting COVID What I am hearing directly from the service providers is we can do so much more and we can do better if we get people into individual rooms.

The concept of shifting beds to be six feet apart is just not congruent with what actually happens in shelters.

People do not stay six feet apart.

And even in addition to that, the latest news from over the weekend is that this virus may be able to live within the air.

And just the fact of being six feet apart is not good enough.

So I appreciate, Julie, what you said.

I really do.

And I appreciate that there's going to be ongoing conversations, especially with direct service providers.

But we began this conversation three months ago.

And I'm really concerned that we're not being additive here.

I think you'll see as we move forward that there are resources that provide an opportunity to be additive and a strategy about determining how to deploy them.

But at the same time, I hear you as well, and some of the challenge here is that neither Julie and I are directly involved in the service provision.

It's work that's led by HSD in particular, so again, encourage and have continued to provide, sort of be a bridge here about the need for the ongoing dialogue with you and your colleagues about how to deploy that, how to deploy those additional resources.

Again, I do want to emphasize, and it's a very painful reality that, you know, we are, we don't have the resources within the general fund to support all the activities that we had hoped to and planned to for 2020. So it is, and we are being as strategic as we can.

And I hear you very loud and clear about the need for additional shelter.

And again, I'm at a loss for a better description because it's not my area of expertise per se, but understand the issue.

Let me ask just a simple math question.

How many additional shelter beds nights do we expect to add in 2020?

with the CARES Act funds, with any additional federal dollars, and the dollars that were appropriated from the city last year.

Do you have a sense of how many additional beds we're talking?

I will have to get back to you on that.

It depends on a couple of different factors, so it'll have to be a bit of a nuanced response that I don't have at my fingertips right now.

Okay, I just want to make sure to see if my colleague, Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Thanks.

One of the things that I think I've heard you say, Director Noble, that perhaps you could give us a little bit more detail on.

You've referred to the partnership with King County on their non-congregate sheltering at Red Lion, and that's with DESC.

And I think it wasn't previously understood that city dollars are going to help fund that non-congregate sheltering that is additive and is in response to COVID-19 and it is in adherence with sort of best practices around social distancing.

So can you confirm my recollection that when you talk about the partnership with King County, you are referring to the fact that our funds, our COVID-19 response funds, some of them have gone to help buy those hotel rooms?

My understanding, and Julie, correct me quickly if I'm wrong, is that, in fact, it's less to buy the hotel rooms and more to provide the support services for the individuals who are there.

So none of the federal money, excuse me, the FEMA money, big correction here, the FEMA money is not not eligible to use for those kinds of support services, but we all know that they are a critical component of providing and addressing the needs of our neighbors who find themselves experiencing homelessness, both in the immediate term and also to help them to further stabilize their lives.

So that is the nature of that partnership.

King County has taken the lead on the shelter, if you will, itself in the city on the support services.

and specifically the support services for people who are in non-congregate sheltering situations in hotels?

Correct.

Thank you.

However, I think it's important to point out that the presentations from King County have indicated that their hotel rooms are going to INQ, isolation and quarantine.

They're not trying to do this de-densification as a preventative strategy, from what I understand.

And so, again, I think what the city is being asked to do is to be additive to what King County has already done.

And I think Councilmember Herbold's point is well taken, that we have put some funding towards providing the support services that go along with the rooms that King County has made available.

But isolation and quarantine is not the same thing as being preventative and getting the additional 500 people who are still in congregate shelter out.

And I know we're pausing on this for quite a long time, and you have a number of other slides that you'd like to get to.

But I think that, quite literally, this question is making a decision between life and death for people who are going to be in potential situations where we see COVID continue to spread, especially in congregate settings, and we learn more and more about how that disease is spread through the air and not just from contact or from particles.

I think it's really important for us to talk about how we're going to be reallocating funding to get into non-congregate settings.

So yes we have a budget in front of us but I want to again make a plug and Director Noble I'm not trying to also direct this at you because I know you are a conduit of the information and I'm sure we'll be hearing from HSD who I'm sure is tracking this.

But I don't think we could be any more clear from the council's perspective that non-congregate settings are a priority for us.

And whether that's additional tiny homes or additional money going into hotels and motels, we want to be additive to what the county is providing.

And we also want this to be done in an expedited way, given the high rates of COVID contraction that's occurring, especially among our most vulnerable community.

and the increased rates that are happening among the general population, we can only assume that those folks who are living houseless in our community are going to continue to see that spike.

And about three weeks ago, I said, from the conversations that we were having with people who provide direct services to those who are houseless, they are very fearful that they are just weeks behind where the long-term care facilities were at the very beginning.

So, you know, we can follow up with them as well, but my understanding is they are desperate to try to get more of the people that are in congregate settings at this point still into non-congregate settings.

And that was about 500 people who needed to be relocated.

So let's plan to bring this conversation to HSD and I would appreciate if they're watching for them to get back to this council as soon as possible on how we're going to get additional dollars out the door.

And perhaps Director Noble you know this is this is a elements of the 2020 rebalancing package that we just need to elevate and get answers to as we consider the larger package on the horizon here.

But I just I'm still frustrated that we don't have that answer from HSC.

Yeah, just a couple observations and not to be just some further piece in this.

I mean, one is that I think we need to be conscious of the sustainability of whatever system we set up.

Again, that there's a sense, I think the reality that the COVID pandemic isn't going to disappear by any means.

And that's becoming more apparent.

So I don't think we can assume that whatever we established, for instance, not be needed to extend into next year.

And I think there are difficult decisions to be made about how well we can manage some level of congregate shelter with appropriate precautions versus moving folks singularly into non-congregate settings.

And part of that is making sure we have sufficient and robust testing and the like.

And again, what I know for sure is that I am not an expert in these areas, but I think that those are all among the considerations that need to be taken into account, describing both kind of the longer term financial ones, but then also the appropriate ways to manage risk and how and whether it can be managed and in what settings.

Again, it's not intended to be a distraction, only to point to the complexity of the public health issues that need to be managed through all of this.

So just some other observations or thoughts.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

And I'm not at all trying to suggest that there isn't a lot of complexity around this priority of the council, but we do have a hotel motel voucher program.

What is keeping us from boosting funding for that existing program and making those vouchers available for people who currently are in congregate model shelters?

I mean, I just imagine there are a lot of hotel rooms in the city that aren't being used and motel rooms.

And we have an existing hotel-motel voucher program that we know is under-resourced already as it relates specifically to helping people move from living unsheltered.

You know, like the navigation team, you know, the removal of the encampment at Cal Anderson Park last week, 17 vouchers were given to residents leading up to the encampment removal.

But by the time Wednesday came around and it was time to remove the encampment, there were no more vouchers available.

So it seems like there could be a really good purpose serve by expanding that program not just for people who are living outside but also for people who are currently in congregate care that we want to get out of the shelters into non-congregate sheltering.

I'm not just to give you a A detailed answer.

I mean, there again, we were facing the complexities around the service, the services needed to support folks who may who are Experiencing homelessness and what are the most appropriate housing housing for them.

And then there are also resource constraints here as well.

So Again, I remind you that general fund and related funds projections are off almost $300 million.

We have significant resources from the federal and state government, but not sufficient to both make up, well, they're not really directed to make up that shortfall, never mind the additional expenses overall for things, the variety of things we're doing on the COVID front.

So we're about to get to some slides that highlight some additional resources to use for shelter that will be available.

I would say, again, we are continuing to invest heavily in the areas of testing and monitoring to ensure that we don't have a significant virus spread within our existing shelter system.

And to date, that's not happened.

But again, I'm not the medical expert to give you the details of that.

But the relative success of that ongoing monitoring has been part of the considerations about how best and how most effectively to address and provide services to those who are experiencing homelessness.

First of all, I would definitely love to hear more on the slides that are coming, but there's two points that I want to make real quick.

Number one, we've heard from direct service providers that it is because of their work to find additional in-kind resources and to do everything that they can to de-densify their existing shelters that they have been so successful at reducing the number of individuals exposed.

And, you know, we should not be not investing in them because they've had relatively successful rates of keeping COVID down.

We should be doing everything we can right now to get them additional support because they've been working overtime around the clock to try to reduce the number of people exposed.

Number two, I didn't hear you say this, but I have heard this in conversations prior with folks from the executive office about the concern about what happens on the horizon.

And I think this came up in a previous presentation, the concern about putting people into hotels or motels, not knowing how long those funds will be there.

And I didn't hear you bring that up, but I appreciate that.

I do want to push back on that notion though, because I think when we are asked what happens in two to three months, if the funding is not there, the first answer that I'd like people to recognize is that more people will be alive.

Fewer people will have contracted COVID.

fewer people will have been exposed to COVID in our community at large when we do more to get people who are most vulnerable into individual rooms.

And so I am appreciative that I didn't hear you say that today, and I would continue to encourage folks at HSD and anybody who does follow up with us to not use the excuse of what happens in the horizon in two to three months as a reason to not put people into hotels and motels right now, because quite literally, that is how we will save lives.

And if the question is what happens in two to three months, more people will be alive and fewer people will have contracted COVID.

So we will look forward to the upcoming slides here in a second and to any folks at HSD who are watching this presentation and will be following up with us in the near future to provide us with more information about how we provide additional assistance to those nonprofit homeless service providers who because of their hard work to do more with less have kept the numbers down.

If you want, we can transition to the slide.

As we do, I just wanted to say thank you collectively to the Council for having approved the Commerce Grant funding, which actually provides some resources to do exactly what you described, to offer up some resources to the providers who have been operating shelters and are experiencing the challenges of operating them and managing the COVID risk at the same time.

So a small step in this direction, but again, I couldn't have done it without you.

So I just wanted to express that.

Well, thank you for mentioning that.

And I know Council Member Herbold and I were waiting eagerly for that legislation.

And we, I think expressed frustration that it had taken as long as it did to get those dollars out the door.

Can you, since you mentioned it, can you provide us a quick update?

How soon will those providers be able to receive funding from that commerce grant that was approved on Monday?

Ben, I can take this if you want.

So, thank you for the question.

HSD actually immediately after council took action on Monday, they posted the RFP for providers to be able to apply for.

And I believe it's open for 10 days.

And so they will be reviewing those applications in the in the coming week.

And we'll have those responses.

So they'll actually be able to access it very quickly.

Did you have a question about them?

Again, those dollars were available to us at the end of March or mid March.

So Yeah, we want to hear back from direct service providers about the RFP process.

If you have any feedback from any of the folks who are watching, please do let us know how that process is going.

And then, Julie, if you can tell us how quickly after that 10-day period those dollars are planned to get out the door, that would be helpful, and to how many organizations.

Happy to, yeah.

All right, so I'll go on to the next question.

The proposed CRF spending includes $8 million for rental assistance.

Is this intended for Homebase or other similar programs?

So overall, the allocation for the rental assistance dollars using the Coronavirus Relief Fund is going to be split in a similar way as the CDBG funds that were previously provided.

So $4 million will go to HSD and $4 million to OH.

The HSD portion will be devoted partially to home base and then a portion to the existing contracts for homelessness prevention.

And then OH will invest in the rental housing assistance for city-funded affordable housing projects.

We need to rename that.

I recognize it's not a very catchy title, but those projects have been going well.

The next question was, what is the total amount that will go toward direct rental assistance in the rebalancing package?

So just including here the total of about $14.3 million and then the different funding sources that feed into that.

And there was a table in the first presentation from two weeks ago.

If folks who are listening would like to look back, they can see the full table and how all that breaks down.

The next question was, will there be any impact on the plan transition to regional homelessness authority in terms of timing or staffing levels?

From a funding perspective, the rebalancing package leaves the startup funds intact.

So council had provided 1.65 million.

And so those funds are intact.

Now from a timing perspective, there will be a brief delay in hiring the authority CEO.

And then with them coming on board likely in September rather than this summer as originally had been planned.

Some of those activities for obvious reasons with COVID, we're just delayed by a couple of months.

And then the final question on this slide is what assets and strategies are available for the expansion of tiny house villages?

So we've discussed this already, but of the new resources coming to the city, the commerce funds are likely the best of those.

I need to correct us the wording on this slide.

So that's this is on me.

So my sincere apologies.

So CDBG is is not I'm sorry, ESG is not eligible to buy tiny home villages, but it would be available for the operations of such a village.

So that's just a nuance to that answer.

And then on the following slide, I wanted to just give you a little bit of a preview overall of the ESG dollars coming forward.

So typically the city receives only about $800,000 of ESG awards annually.

So this new money coming to us is a significant increase.

So in round one, and this is all from the Federal CARES Act, in round one, the council, you have already appropriated 2.8 million of those funds.

So 2.1 went to emergency meals for emergency shelters and then $750,000 was for a general fund swap to be able to continue to support a rental assistance pilot.

The second round is $26 million coming to the city and about $11 million, just shy of $12 million coming to King County.

for to be available for two years from the point when we adopt the new plan.

So that's great news.

And then I just have here some allowable uses just for educational purposes, broadly for street outreach, for emergency shelter.

Again, this is not to purchase.

but rather you can provide services at the shelter.

Rapid rehousing, homelessness prevention, HMIS data collection and analysis, and then certain administrative activities which are capped.

So then I'll go on to, I think there were some other questions.

Could you pause real quick?

Oh yes, of course.

Thank you so much.

Just question about round two allocations.

Yeah.

Has the transmission of legislation already happened to counsel for this?

No, not yet.

And when do we anticipate it?

We're going to be working on this in just the coming weeks.

HSD has been assigned, because we were one of 19 cities that was selected nationwide for a very large sum of this money, we've been provided with technical assistance experts from Housing and Urban Development, from the feds.

And so we're working with that technical assistance provider on the most strategic ways to deploy this resource.

Obviously, that's also going to be in in close partnership with community and with our service providers and with the county.

So figuring out how to best leverage these so that that legislation will be forthcoming.

I don't have a date for you, but.

Back of the envelope.

Are we talking weeks or months?

I would say it will be probably at least a month or two before.

And the time does, the clock doesn't start on those funds until we have an approved plan from HUD.

So there's no, we don't, obviously there's urgency in getting solutions.

And I don't wanna minimize that urgency, but we don't lose out on dollars from a timing perspective.

So we're balancing that right now.

Great.

And then also I just want to mention for the viewing public and for council members who have been eagerly awaiting the Home for Good contract to be finalized, I understand that the Office of Housing is actually finalizing that contract this week and that is part of the the round one funding that we mentioned earlier.

So that new program that the council initiated in the budget process last year is actually going to be up and running.

Yeah.

I don't want to cut you off if you're done with this slide.

Okay, just a quick question on this slide.

Sorry.

Sorry, Director Turnbull.

My understanding is that the National Alliance to End Homelessness had sent an email around to cities specifically recommending that ESG dollars only be used to shelter people, not for prevention.

Have you received that letter?

Yes, we've seen that and that's consistent with other experts that we're hearing in the field.

They're encouraging these funds to be used to tackle literal homelessness and focus on housing as opposed to focusing on prevention.

I know we all are interested in additional funding for rental assistance and have been constantly trying to toggle between adding additional money to rental assistance and then responding to the immediate crisis for those who are experiencing homelessness.

Can you talk a little bit more about where other funding is available for rental assistance versus using ESG funds for this purpose?

The biggest source that we've been tapping, we've used CDBG for rental assistance and then also we have it proposed in using the Coronavirus Relief Fund.

Council Member Herbold.

I just want to make a point that we use the term rental assistance in a way that I think is interchangeable between prevention and serving people who are literally homeless.

So for instance, the rapid rehousing program is largely serving, it is rent assistance, but it is largely serving people who are literally homeless.

But then we have rent assistance programs that prevent evictions for people who are tenants and are faced with a pay your vacate notice and they can access those rent assistance funds.

So I just want to want to clarify that when we say rent assistance it's not always preventative rent assistance.

Sometimes it's rent assistance for people who are literally homeless.

Good reminder.

Thank you Council Member Humboldt.

And Julie or Director Noble do you have comments then about how this $750,000 swap is supposed to be used for this rental assistance.

How are we defining it here.

This was for that home for good pilot that Councilmember Herbold just mentioned that the council put in with general fund.

And so we, in order to keep that program going in light of the revenue reduction that we are experiencing, we swapped it out for ESG funds in the first round.

So using that 2.8 million that first came across.

Councilmember Herbold, is that more of the rapid rehousing type of assistance?

It is not.

It is really to assess people who are, I think it can help sort of the spectrum of people.

It can help people who are currently housed.

It can help people who are waiting for housing.

I think the reason why, and maybe Director Noble or Julie can speak to this, my recollection is why we agreed to allowing this source of funds for the Home for Good program is it allowed us to resource a new program in a way that would be sustainable rather than what we, the council, funded with was with one-time funds.

And so I think we just took in good faith that the swap was intended to facilitate an ongoing annual funding of this new program, whereas the council had only provided one year's funding.

Just to add that this is also an example of us being, creative is the word I would use, but I'm not sure it's a sufficient word.

The general fund does not exist in the way that we had thought.

So we cannot fulfill all the general fund commitments with general fund resources.

And we are choosing not to fulfill some commitments.

So we're doing things like the redirection of levy resources.

We're holding a lot of vacancies.

We're doing other things, but we are, recognizing that we have a general fund forecast now and that it might yet deteriorate further, we thought that securing this program with a source of funding that was not at risk, given the importance of the program, was worth doing.

So again, this is part of managing the fact that the general fund does not exist in the way that we had all planned and hoped.

All right, thanks.

And my last question on this slide, it says street outreach as one of the allowable uses.

Yep.

That's the allowable uses under H, the housing and urban development.

Or is that?

yes so this is a this is no sorry so these are just broad i just wanted to provide um for esg in general these are the broad allowable uses um of esg from the cares act and it's it's a menu of options that we will be um pulling from as we work with the ta provider and community and provide and um service providers to come up with the plan and obviously with you all uh the plan that will come to you eventually but this is just this was just educational just to share with you what these funds are allowed to be spent on.

Okay, great.

And then among the allowable uses, I fully support the 750 swap that we've been talking about.

Just wanted to make sure that we were clear in what we're talking about.

I think clarification on the two types is important, but fully support that.

We're not talking about any funding going to the navigation team with this funding, are we?

No.

Okay.

Was there another question Council Member Morrella?

Any other questions?

I was going to ask about the street outreach as well and trying to get an understanding of what we're currently spending and whether some of this could be used.

I think you covered my question.

Thank you.

Just before we leave, I wanted to emphasize again the point, these weren't easy decisions, but they are necessary decisions that using these funds to backfill for the general fund was the reality that we face now to sustain specific programs.

The revenues are simply not there, and they're not coming back this year or next year or likely the year after that.

So we're not going to be able to do all the things that we had hoped to do.

And this was, I think, a smart way to preserve this particular program.

But we're not going to be able to do it with all programs.

And you'll see, as we discuss the reductions we're making, you'll see a list of projects here at the end.

These are simply things that we can no longer afford to do.

And I recognize the council's recently adopted a revenue package, but that is fully insufficient to cover the revenue drop that we're facing.

There are really painful and frankly, ugly decisions to come.

And I'm not trying to overemphasize that, but I don't want to understate it either.

Councilor Kerrio?

Go ahead.

To your point, Ben, what we're trying to understand with a lot of these questions is I think for the sake of understanding the transparency that we're trying to get from from these questions is if there is a like a master spreadsheet, we got 13 different bills.

There's lots of different spreadsheets that were attached to them.

But I'm wondering if there is kind of a master list or place where we can actually see, you know, that pulls together all the reductions and the fund swaps and the additions, um, and just, you know, allows us a snapshot in one place so that we're not trying to piece together all of the different, um, elements of what we are, uh, of how we are trying to fill the hole that we've got in the city budget.

Is there one document where we can find all the information in one place?

There is, it's sort of two documents.

There is a list of all the operational reductions, and then there's a list of all the capital reductions.

And those have been provided most directly to central staff, but to you.

So we have been as transparent as I think we can be about all of those things.

The short answer is yes.

And I'm proud of you here in some ways.

Just a quick note for our IIT folks.

I think that there's some folks that are off of mute.

If we can have them muted, if they're not processing, that'd be helpful.

Comptroller Morales, did your question get answered on that?

Well, I don't have as much clarity about where those documents are.

So maybe I will follow up offline and see if I'm looking at something differently.

Thank you.

And I can send them to you directly.

Your central staff has them.

The last thing I want to do is keep them.

We provide them so you would have them.

No other, you know, so.

Yeah, I think a challenge with us working all remotely here is we usually provide a budget binder for everybody that would have all the materials included.

So I know there's an electronic house that we are trying to keep all the documents in, but Council Member Morales, your point is well taken, trying to sift through all the materials is challenging.

So we'll recirculate that.

Director Noble, I think I know what you're referring to, but having not had the, you know, the presentation earlier, maybe, you know, folks couldn't identify where there's gaps in information and not having a hard copy binder sometimes makes it challenging to go back to previous material.

So we will endeavor to try to get all that information sent out.

in a coherent way.

That's a good point.

Okay, Director Noble, let's keep going.

Next slide covers a few questions and they're not random, but several topics.

So one was a question about the mayor's commitment to $100 million for BIPOC communities.

I'm just going to ask you for a quick favor.

I'm sorry to interrupt you just for some folks who might be I'm trying to follow along on the TV.

If you could angle your video down a little so people can read your lips in case they're having a hard time understanding.

Thank you so much.

Sorry about that.

No, no, no.

I shifted to a different room because my toddler woke up.

So I was hoping to find a quieter space.

Does that work?

I have this set up in a way where I can't actually see myself at the same time.

It sounds great and we can see ya.

Perfect.

Perfect.

So question about the mayor's commitment to 100 million dollars for BIPOC communities.

How much is new?

How much is carried forward?

And so I think this proposal is still under development.

So the intention here is to engage in a community driven process to determine how the dollars would be invested, but also the sources that will be used to support that.

And we do absolutely anticipate a significant portion to be new resources, whether it's every dollar will depend in part on that community engagement and understanding about priorities overall.

Next question was about funding for, particularly for our hotel, but funding for first responders who required isolation and or quarantine.

And I have to admit that the information we provided was a bit confusing, so this is actually a great opportunity to provide some clarity.

The question noted that there were two different line items that we identified there.

One was about, it was $325,000 that was for first responders, and another was $3 million that was for essential workers, and what's the difference?

So I'm going to use this as opportunity to clarify that and also to provide some additional information.

The short answer is that the way the things have been presented, the 325 was actually a subset of the 3 million.

So what happened here is we'd signed a contract in either late February or March, running through June, that was to be used for first responders and then depending on capacity, other essential workers.

And the way the contract worked is that we had essentially purchased the, for a period of time at least, the full set of rooms in the hotel.

And so there was a fixed cost for that.

There was then a variable cost depending on which rooms, how many rooms were occupied because the contract then provided for food and cleaning services for the rooms that were actually occupied.

So as it turns out, and when we developed information, we provided you that the contract was still running.

We've now reached its end.

So we're able to estimate, and it's now pretty much nailed down, that the total cost will end up being about $2 million.

And that is for both the first responders and other essential workers who used the hotel in that time period.

We're submitting the total cost for FEMA reimbursement.

We're quite confident on the first responders piece in terms of receiving reimbursement, less certain about the remainder, but we will know soon.

And I would add that we've changed, at the time we struck that contract, there were more, there were limited options around hotels.

These were, if you will, early days, and there was concern about using among the among those in the industry, but using our facilities for isolation and quarantine.

Bottom line is going forward, we have a contract that is just charging us on a per night basis for first responders.

And we expect significantly lower costs moving forward.

Next question is what I think.

I'm sorry, Council Member Herbold.

Sorry about that.

No, no.

Sorry, just for transparency's sake, and you did say this, Director Noble, I just want everybody to be really clear on what we're talking about here.

So moving forward, our contract will only require us to pay for the rooms that are actually used.

Correct.

Going backwards, we had an obligation to pay for all the rooms that were reserved, whether or not they were used or not.

The reason why that's a problem beyond there just being rooms that we've sort of booked, if you will, and haven't been able to use, the larger problem is that the FEMA reimbursement is only for the rooms that were actually used.

So we've outlaid about $3.1 million.

And we're only going to be able to get reimbursed about $325,000 of that.

Is that right?

Are those numbers right?

Again, the total cost is $2 million.

We have requested the full amount from FEMA.

The question will be how they process the request.

I have seen in one of the weekly reports a definitive statement, a declarative statement that we will only be reimbursed for FEMA for the rooms used.

If that's not the case, that's good to know.

I think it was the weekly report we get from Adam out of your shop.

At my shop and I review it generally.

So let me confirm or not that I wasn't trying to be evasive about it.

I just I didn't know there's a lot going on.

So I didn't don't have necessarily the most current information.

I just I only want to be sure that I think that that you do, if you will.

I would love to be wrong about this.

What I was going to say, just to be candid, is you and me both.

I'm the budget director.

But I think it is important to remember the circumstances.

FAS went out looking for a facility.

We didn't know.

I mean, you recall, we had an emergency hospital almost set up because we were anticipating potential surge.

I do, yes.

We were preparing for the kind of experiences.

Again, I don't mean to be.

This happened in New York.

This is happening in Texas.

This is happening in Florida.

So, this was not unreasonable by any means.

And the understanding, and I don't have a better word to put it.

fear, concern, whatever the word should be, that existed then and is arguably different now, at least in terms of facilities.

So FAS went out looking for facilities, looking for a contract arrangement, and that was the one they were able to find on short notice in an emergency context.

So I think that it needs to be sort of seen in the light of the circumstances that it was struck.

Can you clarify, again though, why are you mentioning 2 million, Director Noble, when I think the numbers that come from Herbold and I continue to see are the 3.07 million?

The 3.07 was an estimate of assuming a higher level of occupancy.

Because again, there was a fixed charge for the rooms, if you will, and there was a variable charge And we're only, as a contract was winding down, we were able to see what the total variable charges were over that time.

So and I actually am being provided some information in real time here.

So FEMA is apparently open to reconsidering the reimbursement here, because as it turns out, we weren't the only city who found itself in this situation at that time.

So $3 million with the initial estimate $2 million is the final number.

This is me putting my fingers up crossed.

Now, again, I mean, for what it's worth, it has largely been to the good.

The federal government has had an evolving set of standards around reimbursement in general, both for FEMA and also for the CRF.

and have been more flexible because, again, I think they are seeing municipalities and states struggle with these issues all over.

And again, thanks to the collective work of the community, we dodged no small bullet.

And again, their lives have been lost, so I don't want to overstate that, if you will.

We were responding in February and March to an emerging crisis.

One of the bigger risks we'd seen play out in other places was the loss of first responders.

I mean, we initially saw that here as well.

There were numbers of firefighters who were who had to be isolated in quarantine as protocols around PPE and how to approach situations.

And again, Chief Scoggins is a much better place to tell you this, but I participate regularly in some update meetings.

So we've been able to reduce that number, but the early indications were that it could be quite a significant problem and we needed facilities to provide services.

Okay, great.

Thank you for that question, Council Member Herbold.

Okay, let's keep going.

The next question I think is one that we've talked a fair amount about.

So these resources have not yet been allocated, but with the additional resources now from both the federal government, so what Julie was just describing, and the additional state resources, we're well positioned to evaluate opportunities to expand further shelter services overall under different strategies.

including congregate and non-congregate ones.

And the next question I'm going to turn to Julie because I think that she's better able to explain here and the context around the answer.

No problem.

It hasn't updated on my oh there we go great.

So the next question was how many total increased housing units and what type are funded as an emergency response?

So the city overall has investor plans to invest over 16 million from federal state and levy resources for housing and homelessness prevention overall.

These investments include the critical supports for permanent supportive housing and rental assistance and homelessness prevention dollars that we've spoken about previously today to keep our neighbors healthy and securely housed.

And these are in addition to the joint efforts with the county to stand up the new and de-densified shelter spaces.

So in addition to all of those, The office of housing has issued a special permanent supportive housing NOFA, which we anticipate will actually bring on 500 additional PSH units by fall of next year, which is faster than they've ever done it before.

And that's funded by the housing levy.

And then not on this slide, but as I've referenced previously, there are a number of opportunities with the additional resources with ESG and the new state commerce funds coming that we could invest in housing solutions as well.

Um, uh.

The next set of questions has to do with Parks Department and the Metropolitan Park District.

So how much money is being redirected from the MPD for general fund supported activities?

As we discover, as I highlighted earlier, $10 million being redirected, and I want to emphasize this, from parks, largely from parks capital projects to parks operating.

So that's both to replace lost general fund and the lost earned revenues that won't be realized due to COVID-19.

So things like athletic fees and swimming pool fees and the like.

So Parks' loss of revenue is in excess of $20 million there.

So they're also making a number of reductions.

Next question had to do with the the reductions in operating costs that we'd highlighted around mowing and weeding and some other things, and are those sustainable?

Just to give you the context, a fuller context here, what Parks has done is to not hire its seasonal labor that would be involved in those kinds of maintenance activities.

I mean, they generally, in a way, I think we all recognize this, more mowing and cleaning to be done in the summer, given the things are growing and that people are using the parks more historically.

But they do have permanent staff who are involved in that work.

And so they're able to maintain a level of maintenance, not the same high level or higher level that would normally be the case using those folks, the permanent staff.

And again, as we're developing better protocols around safe work environments, there are some folks we may be able to bring back into that work as well.

So sustainable over the short run, perhaps not over the longer run, if you will.

Then there was a question about specific capital projects from parks that are being deferred, and I have two slides worth of list.

I wasn't intending to go through each of these.

We'd be happy to answer questions either now or maybe better offline about individual proposals, not trying to cut this short, but not sure how you best want to review those.

Well, I'll just say thank you for providing that level of detail.

So again, colleagues, there's two slides here that talk about the capital investments or I think we have a couple of questions that are on hold related to our parks department.

Just pausing to see if there is a quick question.

Thank you.

because it was kind of pinging back and forth and I'm looking again.

Okay, yeah, here it is.

The next cycle of the park district.

When you say completed with funding from the next cycle of the park district, do you mean the one that we were expected to review and approve in the fall or some other one later down the line?

So that gives me a chance to provide additional piece of information as well.

So other things being equal, it would have been one that we were gonna bring you in the fall.

What we decided to do here, again, given the, let me back up a sec.

So the Metropolitan Parks District is actually, is a permanent source of funding.

It does not require returning to the voters for renewal.

That's the fundamental distinction.

of it relative to one of the voter approved levies.

It's a voter approved taxing district whose borders are those of the city and whose governing board is the city council.

So the spending for that, the initial spending for the parks district was established as a six year spending plan that was approved by the council separately in its role as the as the city council and as the governing board of the MPD.

So there's a, there's an agreement between the MPD and the city and it set out this six year spending plan.

This is the last year of that initial six year plan.

Um, and other things being equal, we would have, um, been engaging earlier this year, um, in a community process to identify, uh, and then ultimately to propose to you a new, uh, and what likely would have been a six or maybe slightly longer spending plan slightly longer because of some of the plan or potential capital investments.

Given that we're not in a position to engage the public in a meaningful dialogue, again because of COVID, and also because, and I'll be direct about this, the likelihood is that there would have been requests for an increased level of funding for for the parks district, which would have translated to increased property taxes, didn't think this was the best time to do that.

So the plan that we'll bring forward is for a proposal to continue essentially the current level of spending, but then we will, again, we're gonna play this a little bit, but the plan is to engage public starting early next year.

Again, depending on COVID, that may or may not be possible, but that's the plan.

And then to bring you a plan spending plan for next fall for 22 and beyond.

But again, the idea here is that it's the nature of capital projects.

We don't have the resources to deal with these now, but the projects can can be held, if you will, and we can, when again, we have sufficient resources, we can pick them up and complete these investments or complete these plans.

So that's the reference here.

Okay, I'm not seeing any additional questions on that.

Council Member Lewis, did that answer your question?

And I've purposely switched to the next slide so you can have a little time with that as well.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Dr. Noble.

And whenever you're ready, we can move on to it.

I think you can go ahead.

Great.

So next questions had to do with SPD.

First one had to do with the community engagement process around SPD reform and how that process will run.

and the resources that will be allocated for that.

And Deputy Mayor Anganithana is here to provide an update on what is planned there.

Thanks, Director Noble, and thank you, council members, for having me.

So the question was, who is leading the community engagement process for SPD reform?

Who has been asked to participate?

Details about the process, expected outcome.

And then a question around the $500,000 that the mayor has committed to be allocated towards this community engagement process and whether or not participants and folks who are experts who are participating.

would be remunerated for their participation.

So I thought it would be helpful to give a little bit of a context around several work streams that are in process right now.

First is obviously related to the SBD budget itself.

You all had our you know you had your engagement.

There is a community led process around that.

And in addition, as the mayor prepares to transmit her 2020 2021 budget.

We are anticipating a community engagement process on the budget so that's one.

Sort of tied to that is the piece around police reform and more broadly and reimagining community safety.

The third piece is around the commitment that the mayor has made that was referenced earlier in the presentation around a $100 million investment in BIPOC communities and what that process will look like.

and we intend for it to be community informed.

So I thought I would just give that context and of course we also want to engage with the community on COVID recovery as we sort of continue this work around COVID response.

So all of these things will require meaningful community engagement and what we want to make sure is that it's not a one-off engagement.

And so we're anticipating that this community engagement process will happen in several phases.

The first phase, which is already ongoing, which is less community engagement, but basically we have been collecting the, you know, community has already made demands that we have, the mayor's office has and SPD has.

And so the work there is ongoing with the policy team and others to basically be able to collate and organize those requests because they've been numerous and what we can make sure to how do we be responsive to that.

That's one.

The next level of engagement we anticipate will be related to the SBB budget process.

As you all heard from presenters earlier this morning there is a community led process through King County Equity Now as well as Decriminalize Seattle and other organizers.

We respect that independent process.

And really, I think the city role there that is being led by the Office of Civil Rights will be focused in on specific technical assistance as they need as it relates to the budget itself.

And we have offered up the resource of CDO in that role, as well as being able to resource groups that are participating in that process, which is separate and independent from any city process.

As you all heard from the timeline, that timeline, they anticipate working through that to the fall.

In addition, we are anticipating that the city-led process, which is in partnership with the Department of Neighborhoods and the Office of Civil Rights with support from SPD as it relates to sort of technically related to their budget, We'll focus in on on kind of high level kind of a functional analysis of the of the SBB budget that you all are going through as a council and seek from the community and have that community participate in the conversation on sort of high level priorities and values as it relates to that.

Many of those have already been shared by the community, so our intention there is to not reinvent the wheel.

We anticipate both honoring people's time to participate in those workshops, both community-based organizations, as well as we will be engaging our several boards and commissions that the city has in this process and supporting that work.

So that's sort of the SPD budget process, which of course will then lead to the executive transmitting her budget late in September for your consideration.

What we then anticipate doing is sort of phase two, because recognizing this is going to be very initial engagement.

The longer engagement through the fall will be really diving into the details of kind of what reimagining policing looks like.

our hope is to work with an external facility, a community facilitator and a group of facilitators to be able to have that broader deep dive conversation with the community and in parallel also have the community-led process around the investments in the $100 million investments in BIPOC.

And so we anticipate that work will go through the fall, probably into next year realistically, and then we'll inform the very specific community investments that are focused in on that.

The other piece to add is I think where the executive is also wanting to make sure that this is in partnership with other entities that will also be conducting their own outreach.

Community Police Commission comes to mind as they work through their efforts related to police reform and, you know, broader reimagining of policing and, you know, how can we be complementary to that effort?

And, you know, I think finally, the goal here is to approach this community engagement as sort of a layered process.

We want to be mindful around how we bring this information to community, how we are seeking feedback, and how do we take that feedback and translate it into policy proposals as well as budget proposals, and not sort of go back to the old well of, you know, going back to community over and over again.

So how can we be thoughtful and iterative in this work, and how do we make sure that we are recognizing community expertise, honoring that time, both from the community-based organizations and organizers that have been working on this work for a really long time now, but also making sure that the city has an opportunity to resource that and be able to help support some of these independent processes that are taking place.

that also are helping to inform a broader community vision around community safety and investments in Black, Indigenous, and people of color communities.

So I'll pause there.

That was a lot.

Happy to answer any questions that you may have on that, on those different processes.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

I'm sure that there are a handful of questions I want to flag for folks we have about 20 minutes left and then we have a hard stop.

We need to start our public hearing at 4 p.m.

I feel like we could probably spend the next 20 minutes on this and Director Noble I know you provided a number of other slides here so I think given the urgency in which the SPD inquest requires us to respond to community issues if we take a handful of questions if it appears that we I need to circle back with you with the additional slides.

We can do that, or I can take the temperature of council members to see if we should go on at that point.

But let's entertain a few questions on this.

Council member, oh, sorry, Ben, go ahead.

I just told you, you're totally flexible to send it.

I'm going to peek ahead at how many slides we got, because I actually don't recall.

OK.

Council Member Morales, I saw your hand go up.

Thank you.

So I've got a couple of questions.

I think I'll start from the end and work backward.

I think I heard you say, Deputy Mayor, that the phase 2 will begin in the fall.

You'll be looking for external facilitation.

And at that point, the process would be to determine then when the $100 million investment in BIPOC communities would be made.

Is that right?

Yeah, so that's a good question, Council Member Morales.

I think what we're trying to be mindful about is that if we work back from when the executive delivers the budget for your consideration in late September, it is not enough time to actually have meaningful community-led engagement around the determination of those investments.

So what we're hoping to do, and Ben, I will sort of lean on Ben and kind of the mechanics of this, but to basically put down a marker around the intent to make those investments, but then to work through the fall to actually, uh, sort of bring life to, to that conversation in terms of the specificity of, uh, where those investments and what community, where community wants to see those investments being made, uh, and anticipating that, that, that process will sort of lead into sort of end of year and early next year.

and I'm not sort of looking ahead a little bit of a peek into the future.

Imagine that we would come back to council with some sort of supplementary request to specifically allocate those resources, but to be able to allocate that, to make that commitment in the budget, but then have a community driven process to go into the specifics.

And so that is a separate process than the city-led process that DON and OCR will be Uh, it sounds like we'll be leading.

Is that right?

So I think the deal in an OCR will have, uh, sort of, they will help, uh, the way to think of them as sort of sequential, right?

So the initial work will be focused in on the SPD budget as the mayor transmits.

The deeper work into the fall, we are hoping to leverage a community, you know, work with a community partner with expertise on this to help facilitate the deeper conversation and deeper dive.

And so OCR and DON will participate in that, but that's meant to be kind of a, you know, a broader piece of work.

And then, you know, And they will sort of dovetail into each other, but we are we recognize that they are separate and distinct and that SPD budget is very focused in on.

A different way of realigning functions that are now housed within SPD and what could that future hold.

versus the $100 million investment, which is meant to be a broader conversation around economic, you know, building economic and social security for BIPOC communities as outlined by communities and investments in housing and education in other types of community supports.

And then my last question then is, is more directly related to the KCEN, the community, King County Equity Now coalition and the work around their community process.

And I believe I heard you say, I just want to confirm that there is an intent to resource those groups to do their own community process, the participatory budgeting process.

Yes, and so SOCR is in conversation with Casey and others on what that could look like.

But yeah, we welcome the opportunity to support in whatever way it is appropriate for the city.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions, Council Colleagues?

I'm not seeing anybody pop on.

Deputy Mayor, I have a few questions here.

Overall, I think we need to see this in writing to better understand the timeline that you're talking about, especially given that the community organizations who presented this morning have already publicly stated that their proposal is in process.

And I don't want to do anything that is a distraction or detract from the work that they're currently doing.

And that's true for the recommendations that they're providing to us for the supplemental budget discussion on the 2020 rebalancing and also for the fall activities.

You mentioned that community organizations constantly get tapped for information and feedback.

And while you said that we don't want to do anything that overburdens the community organizations because there's been a pattern of that, this, if I understand what you're talking about, it just seems repetitive.

And I want to make sure that we're not repeating a process that the community itself is already leading through the grassroots organizations that are presenting and sharing information with us already.

So would you, would you like, would you like to offer additional clarification on that piece?

I mean, it does not seem like.

Yeah, the intention is to not be, to be duplicative of that process.

As you know, there is, that work is focused in on the SBD budget, the court budget, and the, the city attorney's office.

I think there's, you know, and I think Council Member, I mean, Deputy Mayor Fong sent this letter down to you all earlier today.

The process and the sort of the base level work around the SPD budget is complicated.

It is, SPD is a complex organization.

Their functions are complicated.

And I think part of what we are hoping to do to this work is to be able to provide some foundational information around that.

and then to be able to seek priorities.

So like I said, it is not meant to be sort of duplicative, and we are working, and SOCR is taking the lead on that, on coordinating kind of what, and as we get more detail from them on kind of how they are anticipating their process moving into, you know, the existing process plus what they plan to do with the fall, my hope is we can adapt our process to that because Again, that is going to be a community-led process.

And as a city, we want to be able to provide information to folks who may not necessarily be part of that process, but also how can we support that process with technical assistance and other types of resources.

Will you be providing to the council a timeline calendar and the information that you shared verbally with us in writing.

Yes it is my hope to do that.

You mentioned an email that we received from Deputy Mayor Fong you know to be honest that was sent in the midst of the presentation we received this morning so I don't expect that council members have had a chance to digest what was just I just want to make sure that we are not doing anything that appears to be a offering, I think, as you are, to provide information and details to potentially answer questions.

That's one piece.

But if we're talking about doing something that would appear to be a parallel effort, that would be problematic.

Again, Council Member, our intention is to try and be complimentary to that effort and to provide information to the public in a transparent way.

We have received lots of existing feedback already from the community on kind of what they see as sort of I think priorities for both SPD's budget and sort of alternatives to policing.

In order for the executive's budget to be informed by that, I think what we do want to do, and again, I think we want to do this in, I would say this again, in compliment to that, but recognize that that is an independent community-led process and we don't want to sort of in any way try and, you know, interfere in that process is really focused in on the SPD budget is incredibly complex and the functions of SPD are incredibly complex.

And our goal here is to work to get it to inform the budget, which will be transmitted at the end of September, some high level priorities that are maybe a level deeper then you know and I'll give you an example like sort of 9-1-1 as an example of any proposed shifts or changes to that.

How how are we making sure that that is gut checked with the community before that is transmitted as a potential proposal in the executive's budget.

But yeah I hear you loud and clear again.

Our intention is to not be duplicative or in competition with the community in that process.

I think what we're trying to figure out is how do we also leverage the sort of reach of the city in some ways through DAWN and SOCR.

And also, again, you know, there are several community members who participate in our boards, on our boards and commissions who also bring their community perspective.

What is the opportunity to engage with them in that format too?

Okay.

Deputy Mayor, thank you for that summary.

We'll look forward to the written explanation that may help with the details may help with us understanding how this is not a parallel process.

So thank you for being with us today and presenting that information.

I will also just flag it.

I think it's important for us to carefully talk about what community demands look like.

I think the groups that have presented this morning, especially coming from decriminalized Seattle, have done a really good job of pulling together various recommendations from black and brown led organizations and work directly within black and brown communities so that there's not maybe a misrepresentation of what community demands are.

I know that there's been some press coverage of that have been presented to the mayor's office in the past, that people were raising questions about where those demands came from.

And when we work with the organizations that have trust and community, I think, long-standing community relationships and people understand where those demands are coming from, then it makes it much easier for us as elected to take those recommendations and apply those to our budgeting processes and follow through with those policy recommendations.

I hope we are doing a better job of identifying true community leaders and who we are inviting to the table to listen to those demands to make sure that they are rooted in what the trusted organizations and community organizations have tried to lift up and synthesize in terms of their recommendations.

Okay, seeing no additional comments, thank you, Deputy Mayor, for being with us, and we look forward to following up with you on this important topic.

I know it was just one bullet on this presentation, but it is obviously, the largest item that is looming over us in the presentation.

Director Noble, I was remiss, or I misspoke.

You only have one additional slide.

So that's good news for our timing.

Yeah, timing seems to be perfect.

So moving on to the last slide on SDOT.

Question, particularly about the streetcar and whether there was potential for additional savings beyond the $8 million that we've identified.

And the short answer is no.

There's also a follow-up about what it meant to be completing procurement.

So essentially, we're looking to have spent, we'll have spent about eight, excuse me, spent about one million of the eight of the nine million that had been appropriated for the streetcar for 2020. So what remains, completing the procurement is the work that's needed to actually terminate the contracts.

So there are a couple of contracts that require some work in termination and negotiating those terms.

And then there's also some coordination that needs to be done with the FTA.

There were grant dollars that went into the project, and we need to identify what share of those will need to be repaid, whether there's opportunities to avoid that and the like.

So we went back and sort of scrubbed that, if you will.

One million of the nine is either been spent or needs to be spent in order to complete the work.

And at the end, that leaves eight million to be redirected towards other priority issues at SDOT.

And that's actually the last question that had been posed.

So the next slide was just about any further questions.

So happy to answer here or anything else as we run against the clock.

Great thank you.

Additional questions on SDOT or SPD our last two slides here.

Okay I don't see any additional questions on these slides Council Colleagues.

We do have about five more minutes and we want to extend our appreciation to Deputy Mayor who's with us still and Director Noble and his crew.

Julie I see you are still on the line as well.

Are there any additional questions as we think about the present the presentation that was just offered to us.

So Director Noble and Deputy Mayor and team, I want to thank you again for your time.

We will be following up with you if there are any additional questions, but at this point, Council Colleagues, just a reminder that we have now gotten the presentation from the CBO.

It is now on us to come up with recommendations for how to potentially reallocate or amend the 2020 rebalancing package as it has been submitted.

Are there additional questions that we might be able to answer for you right now, Council Colleagues, as we look to continuing to meet every Wednesday?

We will again have our afternoon sessions devoted to the 2020 rebalancing package and ideally having more information coming from central staff.

I don't see our central staff on the line here with you, As a reminder we did send out the calendar.

Appreciate all of the chairs of all of the committees for your willingness to engage in the budget discussion throughout the remainder of July so that we can ideally get that passed on the first day or the first Monday of August.

Seeing no additional questions.

Any additional comments.

Okay.

Director Newell thank you very much and for our central staff team.

We will follow up with you all again in writing with a reminder of what that calendar looks like and the next steps as it relates to the budget making process here.

And just a huge thank you in advance for all of the questions that you have already answered but will continue to answer as we endeavor to get a 2020 rebalancing package finalized and sent back to you by the beginning of August.

Okay.

With that, we will take a three-minute recess.

And for those who are able to stay with us for the public hearing presentation, we will take as many individuals as we possibly can.

Again, ideally, one-minute presentations so that we can get through all the folks that are signed up to testify.

We have a hard stop at 6.30 p.m.

tonight.

It's been a very long day, as every Wednesday and Mondays are.

So thank you for hanging in there with us.

And again, if you have additional obligations and you're listening in, And soaking it all in while doing your other family obligations we appreciate that.

And if you are not able to be with us you will be able to tune in via Seattle Channel's recorded line to hear a public presentation.

Anybody who is able to join us again appreciate you being there.

But it's going to begin in just a minute here.

So a quick bathroom break and we'll be back at 4 p.m.

The special I'm sorry the Select Budget Committee meeting will be in recess for two minutes.

and we'll be back at 4 p.m.

for the public testimony.

Thank you all.