Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 10/30/19 Session I

Great.

Good morning, everybody, and good morning, colleagues.

Thank you for being here.

I'm Sally Bagshaw.

This is our budget committee.

It is October 30th, 2019. Our meeting will come to order.

It's 935. And I want to say thank you to Council Member Juarez, President Herold, and Council Member Herbold down there.

And I thought that I saw Mr. Pacheco somewhere around.

He'll be back, I'm sure.

Thank you all for being here.

I know my other colleagues, when they do come in, I'm going to have to exhort the same thing.

We are going to have roughly a minute for Council Central staff to introduce the items that we're going to be hearing today, and then Our job is to talk very briefly about why this is important to us and then move on because we've got over 160 items, I believe, that we're going to be looking at.

So what's going to happen today, this is what has formerly been known as green sheets or Form Bs.

We have an opportunity here to increase or decrease funding for a department or program, to establish restrictions on spending authority, which would come in the form of provisos, to revise a capital project plan, to create or eliminate city employment positions, never a good thing or one that anybody takes lightly.

We can also establish statements of legislative intent that request a specific report from a department or other budget-related ordinances or resolutions.

Now, I've talked with many of you.

I'm going to be circling back and talking with each council member again about priorities for budget.

A week from today, our balancing package, our first balancing package will be presented back to you, which means I'm working all weekend with Council Central staff.

Thank you so much for that.

And colleagues, one of the things that I want to be clear on at this point from what I'm hearing from you is a real interest in funding issues that will help us resolve homelessness, to provide more housing and better hygiene facilities.

So I am thinking of that as an overarching umbrella over our conversations.

today to figure out how much money we can possibly have and squeeze other items that are of importance to you within that umbrella and then if there's something outside that you feel like this is really critical to help promote the work we're doing for you to be able to articulate what that is.

So we're going to move forward After each item is addressed or introduced by Council Central staff, I'm going to beg you to please just try to keep it concise to about 30 seconds or a minute why this is important so we can keep moving forward.

So with that, We have council central staff.

Lisa are you going to be leading?

I just wanted to ask you if you wanted me to speak to the notion of co-sponsorship.

Please do.

Last year anyhow what we did at this time was after each council member spoke to the proposed budget action item you would ask members to identify by raising your hands if you want wish to co-sponsor.

Okay, thank you for that.

And so what I would like to ask is that we recognize what I'm trying to do is get a sense of real support for an item and as I said originally are that we know that There's a lot of enthusiasm around funding LEAD, providing other alternatives to jail, but at the same time making sure that we have the extra housing that we need and funding options for people who have housing now but may be struggling, some of the diversion money.

If you raise your hand for every single item, it's really not going to help me prioritize.

So what I'd like you to be able to do is say, you know, something like, yeah, this is important to me, and raise your hand, or this might be of Tier 2 importance.

We hear it's important, but it isn't as important as something else.

So let's, if we can do that, and I will ask for a Tier 1, Tier 2 if it gets to be problematic, okay?

Thank you.

What are you making a face at me for?

Just because you know it's not going to work, don't you?

I was making a face at her.

She was just giving it back.

I understand.

All my fault.

OK.

OK, so that kind of changes things up, everything.

OK.

Since I'm first, so.

Look, everybody loves Coyote Central.

You're going to be great.

All right.

So, elsewhere at the table, do you want to get started, Lisa, or how do you want to do this?

Okay, Asha, thank you.

Asha Venkatraman, Council Central staff.

I'll start us off with the first department here, which is the Office of Arts and Culture.

And so Council Budget Action Arts 1A1 would add $50,000 of general fund to the Office of Arts and Culture for the expansion of Coyote Central to the Lake City neighborhood.

And this is sponsored by Council Member Juarez.

Yes, thank you.

So first of all, thank you for letting me be number first, because I've never been number first ever, so I appreciate that.

In keeping with the chair's request, what I want to share about this is we've been working with Coyote Central for two years, and we're really happy to say that Coyote Central is moving north.

They actually purchased a building on Lake City Way in the heart of Lake City.

They have been working successfully in the Central District for over 30 years, and we plan to replicate that with them.

And I've also handed out a letter to you on the ORCID, I understand, piece of paper from the director and the folks that we've met, Claudia Stell at Coyote Central.

I know I don't have a whole lot of time, but let me just say this.

We are so ecstatic that Coyote Central has now come up to the North End.

they have some of the best high quality programs and are expected to serve approximately 1,300 youth in the North End alone.

Equity is a core value and it is just so evident in their material and their programs and in their success.

Between 42 and 61 percent of the participants in any given program identify as youth of color.

What I am really impressed with and I've been working with their board is their commitment to equity inclusion and respect and so far the cost of the program or to move north they purchased the building is 2.4 million they've raised six hundred and eighty seven thousand five hundred dollars already towards their capital and programming goals.

This is a one time ask of $50,000 and let me just end with this.

Coyote Central is moving to Coyote North and what I love most about them and their programming, it is at little or no cost for families and money is never a barrier.

Thank you.

I will support this.

How are you going to move forward with asking for hand raises and all that?

Yeah.

Either I can or you are welcome to obviously ask members if they would like to raise their hand and hold their hands for just a minute if they wish to co-sponsor.

Okay, so I'm going to ask for your help on this because you can see us, but I'll start off by and Councilmember Gonzalez, thanks for joining us and for any who didn't hear my previous message, the Folks at the table are going to try to give us a framework about what the issue is.

Then I'm going to ask the sponsoring member up here to try to keep it 30 seconds about why this is important.

And then we will ask for a show of hands if you want to support it.

But I'm really trying to say, Let's do a tier one, tier two.

If you think it's a good idea, but maybe not a tier one, we'll figure out how this is going to work.

But what's not going to work is if we all raise our hand for every item, because then I'm right back to trying to prioritize this weekend.

So with that, item number one, council member was $50,000 for Coyote Central to move to Lake City neighborhood.

All those who would like to join on as a co-sponsor, please raise your hand.

Thank you.

I should get points for being really fast.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Council Member Harrell, get your hand up.

Thank you.

Great.

All right.

Please move on to item number two.

Okay.

Council Budget Action Number 2A1 would add $25,000 of general fund to arts to support racial equity alignment.

And this is sponsored by Council Member Harrell.

Okay, Linda, put the clock on me.

I'll show you what 30 seconds looks like.

So we did this last year, and it was an incredible success.

And I'm asking that we invest a modest investment to the Office of Arts and Cultures for this theory of turning commitment into action.

And it's particularly for the Afro-American community dealing with cultural displacement.

Last year, what we did was one time funding, but I want to do it again.

I think we should do it again.

Last year, the Urban League partnered with the Martin Luther King organizing committee and had an incredible celebration for the MLK events.

And they have a sustainable program now that, again, is called Turning Commitment into Action.

And it deals with the issue of displacement and how to deal with gentrification issues, particularly in the central district.

Thank you, well done.

All right, all those who would like to support Council President Harrell, raise your hand.

All right, looks like.

How are we doing so far, Council Member Bakeshaw?

Just great, we're all perfect.

Just a little bit longer.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'm two for two after my speech, right?

Can I ask a question here?

Where is the request for history link?

Where did we put it?

Because it's also under arts.

This next one coming up.

Okay, just didn't say, I'm sorry.

That would be me, wouldn't it?

Yes.

Okay, go ahead.

It's Council Legit Action Arts 3A1.

It's to add $25,000 of ad tax to arts for access to online historical resources.

This is Council Member Bagshaw.

Great, so this is HistoryLink, and they had requested an additional $25,000 to assist with all ongoing sustainable work they're doing.

You remember they did the book for 150 years in Seattle.

They do similar kinds of projects all around, and as far as I know, they're unique and nobody does what they're doing.

Okay.

All those who want to join me, $25,000 for HistoryLink.

Nice.

Oh, thank you very much.

We'll move into the Office for Civil Rights.

This is Council Budget Action OCR 1A1.

It would add $25,000 of general fund to OCR to fund Indigenous Peoples Day celebration and impose a proviso on those funds.

This is sponsored by Council Member Sawant.

Aisha, do you want to go on and describe it?

Sure.

So every year the city puts on the Indigenous People's Day celebration.

Often OCR is asking other departments to get funds.

They spend time trying to get funds together so that they can do the celebration on an every year basis.

This funding would allow them to forego all of that extra effort to get to other departments and scrape together funding.

and instead give them ongoing funding to be able to fund those celebrations.

Can I ask a question?

The next three items are similar.

OCR, $16,000 for Human Rights Day, $25,000 from general fund to fund the Martin Luther King Unity Day celebration.

Can I ask if those are scalable?

I mean, there's 125, 116, 125. Has anybody done the, well, obviously.

25, 16, and 25. Can those all be 16, or can you just tell me why do those numbers differ?

My assumption is that they would absolutely be scalable.

I believe this is the amount that council members have requested, so we can certainly have a discussion about how much of each of those would be appropriate for your balancing package.

Okay, thank you.

Please, Council Member Hurdle.

So these three events are citywide events that have been going on for several years and I'm a little at a loss as to why the departments need to come to us every budget year to get funding to put on what are citywide events.

Why haven't they just been wrapped into the city's budget in recognition that these are events that are important to the entire city and we all support them.

That's a very good question.

Do you have answers?

So I'm not sure why this hasn't, the mayor's office has not wrapped this into existing budgets, but I, the information I do have is generally that they are They are tasked to the Office for Civil Rights, and then the Office for Civil Rights comes to council members or to other departments every year to get together the funding for this.

And so, for example, last year's ads, because there was only one-time funding, it was just the one-time funding.

These are all designated as ongoing, and so if those were ongoing funds, then they would have some dedicated resources.

It's not clear whether they would need to ask further for other departments to continue to fund the celebrations, but this would give them at least a minimal level of dedicated funding.

I'd like to respond to one of the things that might be not as transparent to many of you on many of these events, particularly the ones coming up as well.

In addition to Indigenous Days, what I've had to do for the last couple of years is literally call department heads work with the budget office, get monies transferred over, basically asking every time.

And it's a lot of work and a lot of resources to piecemeal this together.

So that's what we've been doing.

And it's just a lot of work.

And I think OCR is really taxed.

I have to use our staff and my staff to just beg, borrow, and scrape to put these meaningful events together.

I was going to make a similar comment that I mean, I'm sure this is true in general, unfortunately, but I can tell you just from having directly interacted on the Indigenous People's Day celebration question, from the very beginning, it's been a struggle to have it funded.

Every year, not only the staff, but the community members and my staff member, Adam Zimkowski, they have been at the table every year, and every year we mount the same arguments about funding it, and every year we have this problem.

And that is why we want this to be a dedicated funding, and also the proviso basically says that this, exactly along the lines of what you were saying, Council Member Herbold, that there should be dedicated funding, and that part of money should not be used for other things.

It's supposed to be for this, because the city has agreed these are our city-wide celebrations, and they are extremely important to us.

And I can also just one last thing I can add is every time, every year we have this discussion and it's not an unfortunate discussion, it's a real struggle to get it through.

It's always sort of nickel and dime like, you know, is the salmon dinner at the Daybreak Center going to be funded or not?

I mean, it's little things which shouldn't be this way.

It should be just, it should just be funded and it's not a big amount of money.

Okay, good.

Do we, can we vote on all three of them simultaneously or do we need?

It would be easier for your staff if you could do one at a time.

Okay.

We want to make it easy on you.

Number four is $25,000 to OCR to fund indigenous people's day celebrations and impose a proviso.

Those in favor of that, raise your hand please.

Great.

Do you have everybody?

Yes, thank you.

Good.

The next number five is 16,000 general fund to OCR for human rights day.

Those in favor?

And the third is General Fund OCR to fund Martin Luther King Unity Day celebration.

Thank you.

Okay, number seven is $252,876 of General Fund OCR for two FTE positions to address capacity issues.

And this is sponsored by Councilmember Herbold.

Okay, Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

So, SOCR, the Office of Civil Rights, has a backlog of 61 cases and is anticipating increased complaints.

The department has implemented administrative changes to respond to the backlog, including terminating a HUD contract that required the city to deprioritize cases that were singularly filed with the city.

They've also imposed a performance plan involving the reduction of high administrative impact.

With the passage of two new laws, the domestic workers and closed captioning ordinances, SOCR anticipates an additional 10% increase in the number of complaints.

And these new positions are intended to mitigate that through positive education and creating added capacity by implementing the restorative resolution model as a new tool to resolve cases.

So all cases don't have to be treated as investigations and litigations.

The restorative resolution model is a mediation model to resolve civil rights cases.

Per a recent inquiry from my office, an incoming consideration would be to make these full-time positions, the increased appropriation to do so would be, as stated here, about $237,000, partially for the restorative resolutions model mediator and the other for the community outreach position.

The reason why this is linked to investigations is that currently because SOCR has no dedicated outreach and education staff, they're investigators, both do policy work and do outreach and education.

And this leads to the backlog that I mentioned earlier.

Last year, this council requested that the Office of Civil Rights do a race and equity toolkit analysis of the structure of the Office of Civil Rights and to make recommendations to us about how to address some of the structural issues.

And one of the recommendations that came out of that was to actually begin to fund outreach and education for this office like we do for the Office of Labor Standards.

We robustly fund outreach outreach and education for the Office of Labor Standards, and that is a good thing, but we need to do that as well for the Office of Civil Rights.

As part of the RET, they did focus groups, and what they learned in the focus groups is that many, many people in this city, particularly people in low-income communities and communities of color, are unaware that there is an Office of Civil Rights, and they're unaware of our civil rights laws.

They added funding to do more outreach and education would help address that.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

So, anything else you want to add?

All right.

Those in favor of supporting Councilmember Herbold's number seven for $252,876 for two FTE positions, raise your hand.

Good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, the next item is why I think we actually have an audience today.

So this is our law department and there are two requests for paralegals.

Would you, is this yours, Asha?

Council Budget Action Law 1A1 would add about $113,000 and an FTE for a paralegal position to the city attorney's office for a domestic violence technology expert.

This is sponsored by Council Member Pacheco.

Okay, Council Member Pacheco.

This request came from many discussions with organizations and departments supporting DV victims.

This new position would respond to the increased use of technology by abusers to harass and abuse survivors.

Given the 3,500 cases the DV unit receives a year, advocates and prosecutors often do not have the time and resources needed to provide adequate evidence of tech-based abuse or to help victims disconnect themselves from that abuse.

Dedicating a position to providing this expertise and working with survivors would increase capacity and take a step towards modernizing city processes.

Very good.

Thank you.

Any questions on this?

I have one question and that is, is the $113,000 fully loaded, is that the cost of a paralegal and then plus insurance, vacation and everything else?

That does include the ongoing cost for the position is about $110,000 and the traditional $3,000 for equipment training, that sort of thing.

Okay.

Those in favor of supporting item number eight, raise your hand.

Okay.

Okay.

Council Budget Action Law 2A1 would add about $113,000 to the City Attorney's Office, also for a paralegal position, but to be a trauma-informed advocate for the Domestic Violence Firearm Enforcement Unit.

This is sponsored by Councilmember Gonzalez.

Council Member Gonzalez.

Thank you Chair Bagashaw.

As I've discussed in prior Select Budget Committee meetings, this unit does life-saving work to confiscate firearms from people who are intent on harming themselves or others.

In its first full year of operation, the unit increased firearm surrender over 400% from previous years and this unit had success removing hundreds of firearms last year from dangerous situations and individuals in particular.

including those who were making threats of suicide, in domestic violence situations, and or potential domestic terrorist situations.

A couple weeks ago, I shared a news story with you all about how the unit was absolutely integral in removing several military-style rifles and shotguns from an avowed neo-Nazi, threatening a race war, and I am really proud that this unit is doing this work.

It is innovative, it is regional, And it is literally saving lives both in our city and across the region.

I'm really proud and excited to be pushing this forward with a proposed expansion to this particular unit, which this paralegal position would be dedicated to.

And I'm doing so with the support and encouragement of many of our gun safety advocates and friends in the community, including the Alliance for Gun Responsibility.

And I hope that folks will support this potential ad.

Very good.

I will be supporting this, but I also want to acknowledge Chris.

Thank you so much, Mr. Anderson out here, because he worked on this with me three years ago.

And I know you've gotten national recognition for the good work that you and your team are doing.

So all those who are in favor of supporting Councilmember Gonzalez's recommendation on number nine, raise your hand.

Great, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez.

Office of Hearing Examiner, $23,000 for HXM improvements.

Who's taking this one?

That's me.

Amy Gore, Council Central Staff.

We have one council budget action for the Office of Hearing Examiner from Councilmember Pacheco.

It is $23,000.

8,000 of that is one-time funding for portable recording equipment, and 15,000 of it is ongoing general fund to pay for the participation of a planner in the mediation process.

Very good.

Council Member Pacheco.

This amendment was requested by hearing examiner Ryan Vancell in a letter he sent to the council earlier this month.

It would make two small investments that would go a long way in improving hearing times for appeals that are considered by the hearing examiner.

$15,000 of ongoing funding would restore a pilot program that allows city planners to participate in a mediation proceedings without the appellant bearing those costs.

This will make mediation a much more accessible option and will allow more cases to be decided outside of the hearing process.

$8,000 of ongoing funding will support the purchase of portable hearing equipment, which will alleviate capacity constraints by allowing the hearing examiner to set up a temporary hearing room and handle multiple large cases at once, as well as giving his office the ability to hold hearings in the community.

As an example, from my understanding, Had this funding existed last year, the Fort Lawton appeal process, appeal hearings could have had been moved forward months sooner rather than having to wait months of MHA hearings to conclude.

Very good.

Thank you.

All those wanting to support the Office of Hearing Examiner's recommendation, say hi or raise your hand.

Thank you.

All right, next item is ORARA, Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs.

Yes, and we have three council budget actions for this office.

The first is an add of $750,000 in one-time general fund for a rapid response fund, and that is from Council Member Gonzalez.

Council Member Gonzalez.

Thank you so much.

I have had an opportunity to speak about this in the past.

I think we were all listening with a keen and compassionate ear when the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs was here giving their budget, their department overview in terms of their budget.

This particular ad would be a one-time ad to establish what we are referring to as a resilience fund.

It would be administered by the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs and would effectively reestablish a rapid response.

funding stream that would allow people to, allow our community-based organizations to be able to tap into these dollars to be able to do really critically important outreach and education in the face of the onslaught of policy changes we're seeing out of the federal government that directly and indirectly impact our immigrant refugee residents here in the city of Seattle.

We have been talking to OIRA and community-based organizations about the ongoing need for these dollars and feel that this is an absolutely important, critical use of our taxpayer dollars to continue to support the resiliency of our immigrant refugee community here in Seattle.

Great.

Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez.

Those in favor of supporting the $750,000 one-time ad, raise your hand.

The next council budget action is OIRA 2-A-1, which is an add of $116,000 for one FTE, which would be a strategic advisor to support the policy team at OIRA as they respond to some of the federal policy changes that are occurring.

Thank you.

I think Ms. Gore did a perfectly good job of describing the technical pieces of this.

Again, as we heard, OIWR make a presentation about their department budget.

We, I think, all walked away with a sense that they are doing mighty work on a shoestring budget, and I think this is an opportunity for us to increase their capacity in a reasonable but modest way to allow them to have an additional FTE to be able to really dig into and focus on supporting the work that I think community envisions would be done through the Rapid Response Resilience Fund that I just spoke about a few moments ago.

Great.

Thank you.

Those in favor of supporting item number 12, raise your hand.

Great.

Thank you.

So, let's move on to item 13.

Great.

Our final council budget action for OIRA is 3-A-1, which would add $50,000 in one-time general fund for support of applications for people who are renewing DACA or TPS applications.

Those applications, depending on your circumstances, can range from $85 to $495, which is quite expensive for people.

And it's based on a program that existed, I believe, in 2018. Great.

Council Member Gonzales?

This one's not mine.

Okay.

Just me.

Council Member Pacheco?

As we get closer to the Supreme Court ruling on DACA, which could ultimately sunset the program, I believe that we as a city need to be taking proactive action to ensure we are protecting DREAMers and our undocumented community members in every way that we can.

One way we can do that is to help current DACA status holders renew their status.

In 2018, OIRA used $20,000 of one-time funding to partner with 21Progress to provide grants to DACA renewal applicants who are challenged by the $495 application fee.

There was no funding in 2019 to continue this work.

This application fee can be the biggest barrier to renewing your application.

Since the renewal process was reopened, 99.2% of applications have been approved, but not everyone can afford the application fee.

Next year alone, 157,000 DACA recipients will need to renew their status by June.

In the Seattle metropolitan area, we have approximately 7,300 DACA recipients.

This amendment would add $50,000 of one-time funding for IHRA to reinvest in this crucial work next year.

In addition to the city's $15,000 one-time investment, I have heard that multiple private sources may be interested in matching whatever funding the city provides.

Okay, good work.

Those in favor of item number 13, $50,000 general fund for deferred action, raise your hand.

Good, thank you.

Okay, so let's move on to Office of Planning and Community Development.

Is that you?

What's that?

Okay.

The first one is OPCD 1A1.

It's a proviso on $150,000 in the proposed budget that is intended to be used for Comprehensive plan outreach and engagement it provides an opportunity for the council to respond to The executives response to a statement of legislative intent 29 4b 1 prior to The executives starting to spend those funds.

This is councilmember miss Gata.

I

Is it?

Oh, Council Member O'Brien speaking for Council Member Muscato.

I thought I was.

You may, if you'd like.

Why don't we let Council Member O'Brien speak, since he's been quiet this morning.

Okay.

Don't mess that up, Council Member O'Brien.

I feel the eyes bearing down on me.

So the statement of legislative intent passed in last year's budget requested that OBCD, DON, and the Office of Civil Rights prepare a racial equity analysis of Seattle's strategy for accommodating growth as part of pre-planning work in anticipation of the upcoming major update to the Comprehensive Plan.

The Office of Planning and Community Development has requested $150,000 in the 2020 proposed budget to fund community engagement for the Comprehensive Plan, including the racial equity toolkit requested by the council.

So this provides to ensure a robust, culturally responsive, inclusive engagement plan that addresses the historic and present day inequities that are together driving equities and access to housing and displacement of communities of color and low income households from Seattle.

would provide us with $150,000 pending a presentation to council of a community engagement proposal and spending plan based departments.

I'm looking to you Councilwoman Gonzalez.

That was good.

Fairly good.

It was adequate.

May I add something to it, though?

Because I think it's important to really understand that the city has done some work around racial equity analysis as it relates to the strategy for accommodating additional growth.

And this has all been part of the pre-planning work in anticipation of our next major update to the comprehensive plan.

But I think it's really important for us to make sure that we are being very intentional and directive in the need to do a racial equity analysis in particular as it relates to how we envision our city being able to grow and to be able to grow in a way where we can quite literally create space for people who have been historically excluded from certain areas in our city, including single family home zones, from being able to reside there and prosper in those spaces.

So this really comes from a place of trying to dig into and create a analytical framework to be able to address some of the past discriminatory policies that have driven many of the present day racial and economic segregation patterns when we are in a situation where we have 75% of residential land dominated by exclusionary zoning throughout our city.

So I am really supportive of this particular request.

I think It's important for the budget chair and for our colleagues as you deliberate whether or not you want to raise your hand this morning, that it is a revenue neutral proposal.

It is a proviso of $150,000 of OPCD's budget.

So this is not additional money.

It is simply using our budget authority as a city council to reserve $150,000 of the existing OPCD budget who is intending to do a lot of outreach and engagement in this space for comprehensive planning.

Okay, those in favor of supporting this revenue neutral proposal, item number 14, raise your hand.

Okay, we'll move on to the $500,000 option.

This is related but distinct.

It's OPCD 2A1, and I'm Lish Woodson with the Council Central staff.

This would provide $500,000 in OPCD for the environmental impact statement for the comprehensive plan.

It would not stop the department from spending money, but instead it would require that they include a couple of different alternatives.

in their environmental impact statement including one that considers zoning changes in single-family zones across the city and another that looks at additional strategies to reduce racial equity and displacement effects of growth.

Great.

Councillor O'Brien.

I'm just going to tag on to Council Member Gonzales' talking points on the last one because I think it overlaps significantly here.

And again, both of these are revenue neutral, but it's just trying to insert the Council into that process to ensure that we're getting options that we want to see.

And as Lish said, I'll just read here, this would require that there's an alternative addressing additional housing capacity and diversity, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and row houses in areas of the city currently zoned exclusively for single family homes.

And so this just ensures that as we're moving forward on that plan that there will be options that include looking at that to try to as one option to To expand the options and undo kind of the disproportional burden of the additional housing that certain areas of the neighbor of our city have provided and compared to others and

I have a quick question.

I know that the budget action description says analysis of growth, alternative addressing, additional housing, capacity and diversity including, and then you list duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, row houses.

Can I make a suggestion or if it's already included, would townhouses be included in that?

Because we've been meeting with the Master Builder folks and their concerns about townhouses and the zoning and I understand Council Member O'Brien, you probably have something to say about this as well.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot.

No, I mean, I can't speak for Councilor Muscata, but from my perspective, absolutely.

And they are distinct typologies, row houses and townhouses, although to a lot of us, we use them interchangeably because I can't always tell from the street which is which.

So I think that is appropriate.

I think the goal is really to address the need to get that missing middle housing.

And so my sense is that this is not a complete list of those potentials.

They're simply examples of the type of missing middle housing that should at a minimum be considered.

Good.

I agree with your interpretation of that.

Okay, well, this is item 15. It would apply a proviso of 500,000 OPCD for the comp plan environmental impact statement.

Those in support?

Raise your hand.

Okay.

And the next item is 35,000 general fund for OPCD for a natural capital valuation study.

Is that Lish?

Is that yours?

This one is from Councilmember Herbold.

It's related.

It's seeking to insert issues related to natural capital and ecosystem services into thinking regarding the next conference of plan update.

Great.

Councilmember Herbold?

Thank you.

So this budget action derives from a statement of legislative intent response from FAS from a previous budget cycle.

At the last meeting, I circulated a letter of support signed by a number of organizations.

As that letter notes, treating our green infrastructure as an asset aligns with the city's many environmental intentions and commitments, including carbon reduction and increasing Seattle's tree canopy.

Earth Economics, one group that could do this work, has submitted a proposal and work description.

What I've just shared with you is a copy of that proposal and work description.

Of the two approaches mentioned in the green sheet, they believe that the second approach would be the most productive, and that's to to embed the concepts of ecosystem services into the scope of the major update of the comp plan next year.

The EIS scoping begins next year, so this would be timely.

And let's see if there's anything more to add.

I think, like I said, I mentioned the letter the last time.

that we met and circulated a copy of it with the couple dozen organizations including Seattle Audubon, PCC, Open Space Advocates, a whole bunch of folks signed on to the letter asking for us to do this work.

Great, thank you.

Those in favor of supporting a number 16 35,000 general fund OPCD, raise your hand.

Sorry.

Were you going to support it?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

The next item 17, please.

This adds $1,075,000 to OPCD to support central area community development and organization with roots in the central area neighborhood would be added to the list of equitable development initiative projects.

All right, thank you.

Yeah, just to quickly describe this, this idea came from a number of senior pastors of black churches in the Central District, and they've been having conversations with the Low Income Housing Institute for a year or two now, actually.

The fact is that many of the historic black churches in the central area are themselves facing displacement and are finding it hard to maintain.

a foothold in the district that has seen such incredible gentrification.

And they would like to build affordable housing on their property.

Many of them have parking lots and other small lots that could be converted to affordable housing projects that Lehigh is interested in, very excited actually, in partnering with.

I've talked personally to Sharon Lee and Reverend Robert Jeffrey of the New York Missionary Baptist Church, both of whom are extremely eager to see such projects get off the ground, but they are part of this Black Dollar Days task force, which have other pastors and community leaders as well.

And what they have recognized is that it's possible to actually provide affordable housing for many black families to come back to the Central District, but at the same time allow the churches themselves to survive from the revenue that they might earn from the affordable housing projects.

They've come together as a coalition to help fund this.

And I was just talking to actually Council Member O'Brien, and I know that there are concerns that maybe this is not being put through the same sort of queue as the EDI, all the other applicants, and I totally get that.

But I wanted to put this forward for two reasons.

One is that such projects need to be funded fully and we cannot, I don't think it's right for us to continue to tell them that, well, you have to compete for this very, very limited $5 million or whatever fund of EDI.

And furthermore, for specifically why we brought this forward, even though it's part of the EDI, framework is that this is the central district where the black community has been so gentrified out of.

I mean, it's just stunning what has happened and it feels like this would be a priority for all of us.

I definitely think that many of you will agree whether it is funded in this way or not, that this should be funded.

So I think it's important to recognize that.

Very good.

Those in favor of supporting a million dollars to OPCD to support central area community development, do you need to?

Can I speak to it just for a second?

Sure, go ahead.

Yeah.

I'm not going to raise my hand on this, and I just, I feel I would be very supportive, and I think when we get to other parts of the budget, we'll be talking about ways to add funding to the equitable development initiative.

Because I know that there are significantly more projects than there have been funding available for.

Or to use a similar process for some of the other funding that's coming through from the Mercer Mega Block Sale.

But I really want to honor the community-driven process that they've come together on prioritizing.

And I'm looking at last year's awardees, $75,000 for the African Women Business Alliance, just over $1 million for Africatown, almost $1 million for Chief Seattle Club, $1 million for the Filipino Community Center, Duwamish Valley Affordable Housing.

United Indians of All Tribes, and Refugee and Immigrant Family Center.

Again, those are projects that just reading really quickly about them, they sound amazing.

I know that there are a number of other projects that also sound amazing.

This project sounds amazing.

I am not in a position to pick right now.

I think there's an outstanding process that does that prioritizing, not just for which projects should get funded this year, but also to help the projects that don't get funded advance successfully in subsequent years, because there are a lot of amazing projects.

And I agree that $5 million is not enough to meet the demand, and we need additional funding in there.

But earmarking it for a specific project is something that I would not raise my hand for right now.

Council Member Morris.

Thank you.

First of all, I want to thank Council Member Sawant for bringing this forward.

I remember when Black Dollars Day started over 20 years ago in the governor's office, and it's been a program that's been around for a long time, so I appreciate that and the history, but I'm going to be supporting what Council Member O'Brien shared.

Unfortunately, I cannot raise my hand to this, at least not to the tune of $1 million.

I do want to respect and continually support the community-driven process that we have in place for the EDI funds.

We know that when that property, when the sale happened, all the community groups that we met with and when we were meeting with OPCD on their scoring and how they were looking at projects and why some projects got money and why some projects didn't, a lot of it was all of them were great projects, but they had to make choices.

And this is what we had.

actually assigned to OPCD to do, this is what we looked at, this is what our oversight was, and I think that's where our accountability is.

So, unfortunately, I cannot raise my hand to this.

So, I'm going to suggest we do this in a two-tier.

One is, okay, this is a high priority, and then the second will be you, obviously, we all want money to be going into EDI so that you still can raise your hand to say you want to support the general process, I think what Councilmember O'Brien was talking about.

Okay, tier one, this is a high priority, raise your hand.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Swat, Council Member Herboldt, I mean, Herboldt Council, President Hiro.

And those tier two priority?

Meaning that we're not want to earmark them funds for a particular organization and circumvent the application process, but we do want more money for EDI.

Correct.

Just to clarify it because of the way you laid out.

Yeah, right.

I'm going to have a vote.

Okay, good.

Fair enough.

Okay.

Yes.

Great.

Exactly.

Okay.

Got it.

The next $100,000 one-time OPCD to support community-driven development.

This is a proposal from Council President Harrell.

It would provide additional funding for consultant support to the EDI program.

to contract with an organization with a deep history in the african-american community in the central area to provide real estate assistance.

Council President Harrell.

Let me distinguish this one.

It's a lot smaller number money number one money amount but number two there are organizations out there and I'll give one a shout out called Urban Black that are basically real estate, African American owned real estate entities that really specialize in the area of land trust and coming out with the smart tools to deal with gentrification and cultural displacement, displacement and affordability.

And the concept here is to fund these organizations to work with the other organizations that are trying to do this.

At church, I've represented As an attorney, Mount Zion, Goodwill Baptist, First A.M.E., First A.M.E. Housing Corporations, I have a lot of experience in working with the church community, but their competency is not real estate.

And so as their attorney, I remember years ago, it was nice to bring in these kinds of groups.

So this is a modest investment from the EDI that I think could bring aboard an organization like urban black to deal with all these organizations, particularly with capacity planning and the actual tools on how to deal with displacement.

Great.

Thank you.

Before we vote, I just want all my colleagues to know that I had asked central staff this morning to help get a list together of all of the requests that we have made for capacity building.

So we just have a sense of how much money that we've requested on all of these areas.

So, Council Member Gonzalez, do you want to say something?

I just have a question because it's It's unclear to me based on Council President Harrell's remarks and the written language in the form B what is being proposed here.

So is the proposal to add $100,000 from the general fund to the equity development initiative or is it to carve out $100,000 from the existing EDI fund for purposes of doing this work.

So it's adding additional dollars.

Okay, because I was trying to reconcile the difference between this one and Council Member Sawant's request for the million dollars and I just wanted to make sure that we're not, that we're being consistent.

You know, thanks for that clarification.

That's a good question.

So it's an add to the EDI, particularly for this very focused approach.

In my impression, quite candidly, the EDI is a great tool.

I'm glad we're doing this.

It's very meaningful work.

But within that EDI umbrella, There are organizations, I don't say they're fighting with each other, I was trying to do what they can, but I'd like to see a consultant in there being able to help them with some of the tools that are available to them as well.

So it's an addition.

Would that be an independent consultant that you?

Yes.

Okay.

Absolutely, 100%.

All right.

Those in favor of supporting number 18 for $100,000 general fund, raise your hand.

Thank you.

Shall we go on to 19, please?

And just as a reminder, OPCD 100A1 is to extend the Interfund loan for one year that funded the first round of EDI projects.

And who's speaking to this?

This is budget legislation.

It's proposed by CBO.

I believe because the property across the street still hasn't sold but hopefully in a few months that will be done and then the Interfund loan can be paid off.

Okay.

Thank you.

We have to move forward with this Interfund loan extension by vote?

You will at the end of the process.

Okay.

You don't need to.

Alright.

We don't need sponsors at this point.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we're on to D.O.N.

D.O.N. 1A1 adds $75,000 to the Department of the Neighborhoods to support the Seattle Reps Public Works Seattle program.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

So knowing that there's Knowing that folks in the last budget committee had some questions about how this proposal affects Seattleites all over the city, I wanted to provide some additional information to what was provided at the last committee meeting.

As we all, I think, are aware, Public Works, through the Seattle Rep, serves Seattleites of all ages and backgrounds, including youth, seniors, long-term residents, recent immigrants, women, and families experiencing poverty, and individuals recovering from homelessness, trauma, and addiction by building community through long-term and mutually beneficial arts engagement partnerships with local nonprofits serving neighbors in need across Seattle and the region.

But here's a little bit more detail about the geographic impacts.

that I think we all care about here, both as district council members and citywide council members.

So they've worked with the Central District and other Seattle residents who are struggling to make ends meet by working with the clients at Bird Bar Place in District 3. They've worked with women experiencing poverty and recovering from homelessness or domestic abuse in their location on the Jubilee Women's Center's location on Capitol Hill, as well as with residents of Sojourner Place.

from both District 3 and District 4. They've worked with diverse students of all ages at their campus on Capitol Hill at the Seattle Central College in District 3. In Districts 5 and 6, they've worked with the Boys and Girls Club, working with North Seattle Boys and Girls Club.

to engage middle school youth, also at the Robert Eagle Staff Middle School.

And then also in District 6, working with older adults and adults with disabilities at the Ballard Northwest Senior Center with Sound Generations as well.

And then in District 7, working with people recovering from homelessness, addiction, other trauma from the Path with Art Pioneer Square headquarters.

while drawing participants from all over the city as well.

Also, they've worked with Compass Housing Alliance, working with veterans and their families.

Again, drawing participants from all across Compass Housing Alliance's nine Seattle locations.

And then finally, the Women's Refugee Alliance.

This fall, Public Works is planning to work with teen women at the Rainier Vista location of the Refugee Women's Alliance in District 2. And then earlier this spring, the program worked with early learners at the Refugee Women's Alliance in Lake City's Early Childhood Center in District 5.

Thank you.

All those in favor of supporting the $75,000 to Dawn, raise your hand.

Next item, please, for the South Park Public Safety Coordinator.

D.O.N. 2-A-1, add $75,000 to the Department of Neighborhoods to continue the work of the South Park Public Safety Coordinator.

Council Member Herbold.

So this funding continues a position that is a high priority to the residents of South Park.

It's very similar to the public safety coordinator position that this council has provided funding for numerous years in the CID, Chinatown International District, but this position is specifically dedicated to South Park is a top recommendation of the South Park Public Safety Task Force back in 2017. This position is a bilingual public safety coordinator.

They have continued to meet and help coordinate the work of the community to drive towards better public safety outcomes.

Again, the task force itself was a council generated and funded proposal and allowing the continued funding of this position will continue the implementation of the task force's recommendations on a number of other public safety and SEPTED priorities.

At the issue ID round of meetings, I distributed a packet of materials that included a detailed budget, a 2018 report that lists the numerous community partners that the public safety coordinator works with, and letters in support of this position from each the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition and Concord International Elementary School.

Those in favor of supporting item number 21, $75,000, oops, sorry, Council Member Weiss.

I just have a few questions.

Are there other areas in Seattle that have a public safety coordinator?

CID, the Chinatown International District.

Okay, and my second question is, are these coordinators paid for by the city funds or private dollars?

This is a city funded position and the city funds a Seattle Neighborhood Group and the employee themselves works for the Seattle Neighborhood Group.

So how do we measure whether or not this position has been successful?

So we have basically an outcomes report that I'd be happy to provide for you that they have to provide to the city, to Department of Neighborhoods to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the objectives in the original grant proposal.

Do we know how many people have been served by this funding in the past?

I don't have the grant, the funding outcomes report at my fingertips, but I'd be happy to share it.

So I know Councilmember Herbold, you've brought this up many times, both last year and this year, and indicated that there was tremendous community support for it.

Yes, there is.

It's a lifeline.

Thank you.

So as the chair of the Public Safety Committee, I recognize that this is a really important public safety investment.

We have, I think now for the third, maybe even the fourth year, we'll be funding the Chinatown International District Public Safety Coordinator in the same fashion.

They are a little further ahead because they've had a couple additional years over South Park to really establish that program.

But I continue to hear from residents within South Park that it is as Councilmember Herbold just whispered, a lifeline for that neighborhood to be able to meaningfully connect to public safety services.

And when we considered establishing the Chinatown International District Public Safety Coordinator, one of the questions that I got is, or one of the comments that I got from a colleague at the time was, That perhaps we shouldn't fund this because other neighborhoods would want it and I just don't think that that's a good reason to not fund Something if it's working and if it's a good strategy and if it's addressing the public safety Issues in a meaningful way in neighborhoods that don't typically have that connector I think it's really important for us to make these modest investments to allow for that to happen.

So I South Park and Chinatown or International District are both very unique populations in the sense that they are generally immigrant communities, refugee communities, communities whose English is a second language and who have really significant ongoing public safety concerns.

And this was a community-driven solution to that.

So I fully support This particular proposal is something that I think is working in terms of addressing the public safety needs of these neighborhoods.

And I think we've seen unprecedented outreach and engagement within both the CID and the South Park community as it relates to ongoing connection between those communities and public safety services.

I'm not questioning, you know, okay, I get it, public.

and I get it, Chinatown.

I understand that I've been paying attention the last couple of years.

That's not what I'm getting at is, and again, if we're gonna talk about neighborhoods, Lake City is one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the city.

We have more than 50 languages spoken.

25% of Lake City is made up of immigrants and 30% of Lake City residents live in poverty.

So my point was when I was asking these questions is that I think it would be great if everyone could have a public safety coordinator.

I'm not saying that, you know, That's not, I wouldn't say just because one city, one district has one that everyone should get one.

Not everyone gets a pony, I get that.

I guess my point was, I just wanted to know, and I'll certainly be supportive of this, obviously.

But my point was, is that this is the reason why we went to a district system.

So those of us that represent districts that have not been heard from on particular issues, that we can dispel some notions that we have some of the same issues in the north end that we have in the south end.

And so I'm not trying to pit the North against the South.

I'm merely trying to raise the question and the dialogue to let's start talking about some of these kind of positions in other areas of the city as well.

So that's my point.

And I'm also hearing from all three of you that this probably should be baked into the budget and not come back year after year to have to ask for additional funding.

Council President Harrell?

I'll stick to my 30 seconds and be unique up here.

I'm supporting this, and I like it, and I think that the coordination, one thing we're not talking about is the coordination between these positions and the CSOs, because we have implemented a CSO strategy.

Different jobs, different skill sets, but I think there could be some coordination, so perhaps in future years we could look at how those Positions coordinate with one another they're trying to get to a same place, which is a good safe communicating And you're talking about community safety officers in your CSOs not combined sewer overflows, right?

Right community service officers community service officers to CSOs because we have a CSO strategy now and if we start going down this road these public safety positions are awesome and and I agree with Councilman Juarez that I guess we're sort of looking at expanding them, but I support this one.

Great.

Can we move on or do you have to, do you need something?

I just wanted to add two points.

Okay.

One is I absolutely agree with Council President Harrell.

Maybe that buys me a few more seconds.

Yeah, just two minutes.

I do think there needs to be some intentional connection between these coordinators.

There's only two of them in the city, one in South Park, one in Chinatown or International District.

to coordinate with the community service officers.

And I think that this is a both and situation in the sense that the public safety coordinators are really people from the neighborhoods and from the community that really have strong connections to both residents and business owners.

And that's different than the community service officers who may or may not live anywhere near the area that they're serving.

But the difference between these coordinator positions is that they really are people who are embedded.

A lot of times they live and work or were legacy residents of that particular space and have really meaningful, deep connections with community.

Who chooses?

It's granted to a community-based organization.

So in the Chinatown or National District, for example, it's Skipda that houses the position.

And in South Park, it's Seattle Neighborhood Group.

The Seattle Neighborhood Group, which does a lot of SEPTED work across the city.

and has been spending a lot of time in South Park in particular.

So I think it's very complementary to each other and really does give us that full network of bases we need to cover in order to really get a good understanding of what the neighborhood level, sort of at that micro level, public safety concerns are.

And then the last thing I just wanted to say really quickly is that These two public safety coordinator positions flowed directly out of public safety task forces that were driven, one by the mayor at the time and the second by the city council.

I hope that's a model that folks will, on this dais, consider in the future to really dig into at the neighborhood level what some of those public safety concerns are that could lead to the creation of a public safety coordinator if that's what the task force for specific parts of the city wish to see as an outcome.

Great.

All those in favor of item 21, $75,000 to South Park Public Safety Officer, raise your hand.

Very good.

Thank you.

And thanks for all the good thoughts on that.

I think we're moving in the right direction.

Item 22, 34,000 general fund one time for hub in a box.

And I believe this is yours, Council Member Gonzalez.

Do you have anything you would like to add?

I'm supposed to be asking central staff first.

I can provide additional information if necessary, but Council Member Gonzalez I'm sure has this.

All right, please, Council Member Gonzalez, you're on.

Okay, so Hub in a Box provides secure equipment to support community responses in the case of a disaster.

The Hub in a Box program places supplies in areas where people are not typically engaged in the city and are less likely to want to navigate city processes as it relates to emergency management and preparedness.

Priority of these dollars will be placed on communities that have lower rates of individual household capacity for emergency preparedness.

And I'm happy to be able to bring this forward.

And once again, I think this is the fourth year I've asked for, third year, Cindy's reminding me in the audience, that this is the third time I've asked for these funds to be added.

But really, it does fund this volunteer program that, again, is within the neighborhoods at the grassroots level that allows neighborhoods to, you know, to invest in their own resiliency in the face of a disaster.

So I see this as a critical part of our ongoing citywide emergency preparedness plan.

And there are hubs, I believe, and Cindy, you can nod at me one way or the other.

There are now hubs across the city.

So this is a citywide program that, for the district council members up on the dais, you can have confidence that there are, There are hub-in-a-box programs in your districts.

Very good.

Those in favor of supporting Councilmember Gonzalez's recommendation, one-time funding to the Department of Neighborhoods for hub-in-a-box, raise your hand.

Okay, thank you.

Good, and the next item is a slide.

Yeah, Sly DON 4A1 requests that the Department of Neighborhoods work with the City Budget Office and Seattle Parks and Recreation to identify long-term funding opportunities to preserve and enhance pea patches.

Council Member O'Brien.

So colleagues, I'll speak just briefly to the PPETS program, which I think is an amazing program.

There are so many aspects of this program that do amazing work, and I think that's a huge benefit to communities throughout across Seattle.

In the current budget the mayor's proposal puts about three million, puts three million dollars of the sweetened beverage tax into a fund dedicated for P-Patch investments and we will later get to some proposals I'm making to change, to shift that in response to concerns I've heard from the community advisory board for the sweetened beverage tax and specifically the concern is consistent with some of the work we did earlier this year around that fund is that funding that's coming from that tax source which is disproportionately low-income communities of color that are over consuming these sweetened beverages because of marketing and lack of access to healthy foods in some communities should be dedicated back to those communities to help.

And specifically, we've been very clear that it should be dedicated for food.

I'm working to refine some language that would continue to allow some of that money to be dedicated to P-Patches, but specifically targeted towards low-income food access, which is a piece of what the P-Patches do, but not all of it.

And the P-PATCH program does, I believe, need ongoing revenue beyond what is in the current budget to meet the needs.

I just don't think that the sweetened beverage tax is an appropriate place.

I think something like a property tax, which is much more equitably distributed across the city, is a much more appropriate place for that to be.

And so this slide would ask that the as the council next year prepares to update spending from the Parks District that look for opportunities to use that funding tool for an ongoing support of P-Patch needs beyond just the low-income food access that we will talk about later, but we might be able to do this here.

Good.

Council Member Ross.

Thank you.

I thank you Madam Chair.

I understand that this is budget neutral, but let me tell you why what my concern is as the chair of the Metropolitan Park District and remembering last year when Department of Neighborhoods attempted to move the P patch is into my committee for parks and the language of looking at funding for P-Patches via Metropolitan Park District.

And I'll just tell you what my concern is.

I think we have to remain true to the intent of the Metropolitan Park District and what the voters asked for when we passed that law and we created the MPD in which we're all members of.

And our focus on our six-year cycle for maintenance and capital and community centers and libraries, or I'm sorry, community centers, and what that was set aside for.

And I understand what Councilmember O'Brien is saying, and I obviously support and commend him for that.

But as some of you lawyers on the dais will know, my concern is I don't want to go down the slippery slope or the, as they say, the camel's nose in the tent.

where all of a sudden we're looking at MPD funding, that's the Metropolitan Park District, funding, complete funding, or picking up the tab for pea patches when they belong in Department of Neighborhoods.

That is the concern I have.

So, unfortunately, I cannot support this slide.

Could I just add one more thing?

Just to be clear, the language in this asks that, and I overstated, so I'll correct myself here, that the Department of Neighborhoods work with Seattle Parks Department and the Budget Office to identify funding opportunities either through the Parks District or other ongoing sources of funding.

And obviously, this is just a sly, so it'd just be them to do some work and make a proposal back to the council next year.

Okay, good, Council Member Herbold.

And as I read the sly, there is Metropolitan Parks District funding to support pea patches currently to the tune of $200,000.

So it's not a departure to look at this source of funding.

And it's also, this sly is, as you say, not specific to the Metropolitan Parks District alone or exclusive to it.

So I think we have more to unravel here, but I'd like to just call for the vote to see who wants to be added as a sponsor on this.

Raise your hand.

Thank you.

Clearly, there's some confusion about this and the direction it's headed, so between now and the weekend, maybe we can get some clarification to my office.

It'd be helpful.

Okay, so the next is item 24, the add $250,000 general fund to DAWN for a community-led place-based violence prevention initiative.

This would be focused in the Westwood and South Delridge neighborhoods and would be modeled on Rainier Beach, a beautiful safe place for youth, which is a program that's been run out of the Rainier Beach neighborhood for the last four years.

Okay, very good.

I assume that's Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

And this proposal aligns with the work that's currently being done out of the safe and healthy community subcabinet in the Mayor's office.

A reply to a question asked to the Council Budget Office recently notes that this subcabinet has expressed strong interest in applying this model in other neighborhoods.

At their November 19th meeting, the Seattle Neighborhood Group and other members of the Rainier Beach, a beautiful safe place for youth core team will share a budget proposal and other details about the approach.

And the $250,000 proposal was developed in collaboration with the Seattle Neighborhood Group.

This proposal also ties in with the recommendation included in the Human Services Coalition budget priority letter where they recommended investment of $2 million per year in youth development services for the city of Seattle.

They encourage investment from ages 5 to 18 to sustain the gain.

As we all know, the community safety RFP for youth released in the spring focuses on young adults 18 to 24. And so this effort is focusing on diversion from the impacts of the criminal justice system for that younger group of folks.

The model uses evidence-based informed strategies to address the place-based causes of youth victimization and crime at five focused locations known as hotspots through non-arrest interventions.

These interventions include business engagement, school campus safety, positive behavioral interventions and supports, crime prevention through environmental design, and safe passage activities, and youth and neighborhood engagement.

I've met with the principals of both Denny Middle School as well as South High School about putting forward this approach.

And I understand that the chief is considering placement of the, I forget what it's called, the observation tower that's movable from neighborhoods to neighborhoods.

I'm looking at you, Council Member Gonzalez, do you remember what that's called?

The observation tower, there was a lot of controversy.

No, not the shot spotter.

It's an observation tower in order to do enhanced enforcement in areas that are considered crime hotspots.

And they're looking at moving it from its current location to the Westwood Village Shopping Center.

And shoplifting has been identified as a key challenge in the Westwood Shopping Center and the Denny and South schools are right up the hill from Westwood.

And so I'm really concerned that our youth are going to be caught up in this enhanced enforcement.

And so that's why I feel that it's really critical that we look at designing A program that gets these young people into other more productive activities and using these place-based strategies will help do that.

Great.

Very good.

Those in favor of Skywatch.

What?

Did you say something?

It's called the Skywatch surveillance towers.

So those in favor of item 24, $250,000 to Department of Neighborhoods for the community-led place-based violence prevention initiative in West Seattle.

Raise your hand.

And this is sponsorship, by the way.

We're just adding our names to sponsors.

Okay, very good.

We're on to SPU.

Okay, thank you.

Brian Goodnight, Council Central staff.

So the first item for Seattle Public Utilities, or SPU, is its agenda item 25, and it's Council Budget Action SPU 1A1.

This action would add $30,000 of ongoing funding to SPU in their water fund to improve the notification process for residents of multifamily buildings when a building is facing an imminent water shutoff.

It would fund this addition by cutting $30,000 in ongoing appropriations from a reserve account in the water fund.

SPU's current process for multifamily building shutoffs is to inform residents with a 30-day notice that's taped to a building's main entrances and exits.

The department also notifies the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, or SDCI, 10 days before the shutoff is scheduled to occur.

So the funding in this action would enable SPU to perform three additional actions.

One would be to mail a seven-day notice directly to residents.

The second would be to tape a 24-hour notice to the building's entrances and exits.

And if the building has 15 or fewer units and SPU staff is able to gain access, they would also place door hangers on individual units.

And the third item would be to notify SDCI 24 hours before a shutoff is scheduled to occur and to identify an SPU point person to handle any calls related to that action.

And this proposal comes from Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

That was a Very complete explanation.

Thank you, Brian.

I also want to thank Seattle Public Utilities for helping us to identify funding for this improved shutoff notification policy.

The funding would come from SPU's water reserve account, so it is not a general fund drain.

I've been working with Seattle Public Utilities to get their shutoff policies since last November after a constituent brought the issue to my attention of what happens when SPU notifies the property owner, not the tenant.

And then even more recently, there's some news coverage of a 59-unit building in Magnolia that had its water shut off.

We saw firsthand how tenants bear the cost when a building owner does not pay the Seattle Public Utilities bill, and the tenants are unaware of the pending bill.

I think Brian did a great job of explaining what the current practice is and what the intended new practice is.

And I would love your support for helping to fund that new practice.

Those in favor of adding your name as a sponsor.

I was just going to say comment if I may.

Please go ahead.

I'm sorry I didn't realize.

I was going to say it's a small amount and it makes good policy sense.

But it just seems to me that in such a huge revenue stream that SPU has, they could very easily find money to do this.

They are funding.

It's a, it comes from, the funding would come from the SPU water reserve account.

It's not a general fund draw.

So we're, so it's not an, is it an ad?

It is an allocation from an existing fund.

Oh, so it's not a.

It's a, it's a, it's an ad in one area, but it's, it's taken from somewhere else within the waterfront.

So it's budget neutral overall.

I see.

Very good.

Thank you for that clarification.

Those in favor of supporting, this is number 25, to improve the shutoff notifications, we're adding their names as sponsors here.

Sorry, I didn't read the second line of it.

Good.

Very good.

Thank you.

And just as a quick note to all, it's 1055, so we've been here for close to an hour and a half.

We have, I think, 60 some to get through.

And the idea was, is that the 65, is that morning and afternoon?

Yes, you only have four more, or five more, I guess, for this morning.

Say it again?

There's only five more for this morning.

You need to answer item 30.

But is that the plan?

Because my notes had said we're going till noon to keep going.

as many as we can so that we have longer time this afternoon.

But I'm happy to.

I think if we could take like a 10 minute break, we could probably continue going.

How do you how do people feel?

Do you want to?

Would you prefer?

I mean, the question is, would you prefer to have more time this morning or do you want to have more time this afternoon?

We keep going.

Okay.

Afternoon.

I was going to make it true.

I'm agnostic about that.

As long as, you know, if we decide to go until noon, I don't think that should mean that we all then try to fill up extra time.

No, that's exactly right.

That's the point.

Yeah.

If we could check a few more off this morning.

Yeah, that'd be good.

I would like to end our meeting in the afternoon.

There we go.

That's okay.

What are you guys looking down at this end of the dais when you're saying that, by the way?

I think it has something to do with, remember we were going to talk at one minute.

Yes.

So again, I'm going to ask everybody to try to, we don't have to,

We're not arguing pros or cons here.

We just want to know whether we want to sponsor this, this morning.

So, all right.

Yes.

If I could, so my rationale for just asking for a 10-minute break is Brian is staffing the deal items, which would be the next Department of Education items, which would be following the City Light presentation, and he just needs a few minutes to get his materials together to be able to come back.

After City Light.

Okay, great.

So we'll do that.

After the City Light.

After, we're going to finish through Seattle City Light, 10 minute break, no. five minute break because everybody will take 10 anyway, so five minute break.

Okay, so let's move on.

We're now at 26 on the feasibility using the city's water pipe infrastructure for a municipal broadband.

This is a slide.

Yes, thank you.

So this is, the item number is SPU 2A1.

The statement of legislative intent would request that SPU and Seattle IT explore the feasibility of using the city's water pipe infrastructure for developing a municipal broadband network.

The City of Anacortes is developing a municipal network and has recently deployed fiber optic cable with inside of its water lines as a method of building out the system.

This alternative to traditional deployment techniques is intended to save costs and result in less disruption.

So the slide would request that the department evaluate a few things.

The first is the feasibility of installing fiber optic cables inside of city-owned water pipes.

The second would be the cost for installing those and how that compares to the cost of traditional deployment techniques.

And the third would be any secondary benefits that could accrue to the city from having fiber installed in this manner.

And the slide request letter report be presented to the council by August 3rd of next year.

Very good.

And who would like to speak to this?

This one comes from Council Member Herbold as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't have a whole lot to add other than the fact that the feasibility of a municipal broadband network has been very limited by the city's analysis of the cost.

And this, conceivably, is an approach that would drastically reduce the cost.

So I'm really excited and looking into whether or not we could do something like that here.

Good.

President Harrell.

As I told Councilman Herbold, I strongly support this slide.

Particularly, I've been looking at what they've been doing at Anacortes.

You know, cities invested already probably over a million dollars in actually looking at the feasibility of municipal broadband.

We've commissioned report after report, and there's been some excellent work looking at both the take rates that's needed for consumers to pay it back, looking at cities that tried it and failed.

But there are so many benefits to having municipal broadband.

The issue for me has been over the years is simply whether it be a stranded investment and whether the city is capable of competing as a private market.

But I'm thinking, I'm seeing now, and of course it's a lot smaller, it's around 15,000, 16,000 people.

But in terms of the technology and the sort of waterproofing, if you will, of the fiber and some of the other technology used.

This shows a lot of promise, and so I think we're very wise to look at this as a possibility.

Great.

Those in favor of adding your name as a sponsor to number 26 on the feasibility of the water pipe infrastructure, raise your hand.

Good.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold and Council President Harreld.

All right, the next one is requesting SPU negotiate with the provision of every other week garbage.

That's right, thank you.

So this is item SPU 3A1.

It is a statement of legislative intent, as you said, that would request SPU to work with the city's solid waste contractors to negotiate the provision of every other week garbage collection.

The intent of the slide is to pursue an action that may reduce collection truck emissions consistent with the council's recent adoption of Resolution 31895, supporting a Green New Deal for the city.

In 2012, the city conducted an every-other-week garbage collection pilot, including about 800 customers in four neighborhoods.

At the time, SPU estimated that if every-other-week collection was fully implemented, there would be an approximately 35% reduction in emissions related to the vehicle fleet that's used for garbage collections.

In terms of the overall fleet, if you included the vehicles that also collected for recycling and for yard waste, the emission reductions would be approximately 15%.

The city's current solid waste contracts, which took effect in April of this year and are in effect until 2029, do not contain a provision for the city to implement a permanent change to every other week collection.

The slide requests that the council be provided with quarterly reports on the status of the negotiations with the first one due to the council at the end of March.

Great, Council Member Warras.

Just a clarification, so the contracts that we have now are up in 2029?

That's correct.

Okay, so we wouldn't be looking at with vendor contracts any kind of re-opener or anything on those lines?

That's what this request would be for the department to work with the contractors.

To reopen the contracts.

That would be a problem.

So the second thing is if we're going to do garbage.

I had a discussion with both of the contractors.

Can I finish?

Please just let me finish.

Thank you.

So my second point is if we were to do that and we picked up garbage, I understand the reduction in emissions and if we were going to pick up garbage every other week instead of every week, does that result in reduced costs to the customer?

I believe it would.

The cost wouldn't be necessarily proportionate to the, I think they estimated something like a 10 to 15% reduction in customer bills back in 2012, but I don't have the details in front of me on that.

So we don't know then, you're guessing 10 to 15% reduction in the bill for the customer if your garbage is getting picked up every other week instead of every week?

I'm not guessing.

I believe that's what they cited before, but I would be happy to get that information from you from the 2012 pilot.

2012. Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Did you want to respond to that?

And I just wanted to say that our providers, our contractors, Waste Management and Recology, are both open to the idea of reopening the contracts prior to 2029. I've met with them.

They recognize that other jurisdictions have been doing this for a very long time.

And in some cases, it's these contractors themselves providing these services in other jurisdictions.

Renton, Tacoma, Olympia, and Portland all have every other week garbage.

In the case of Renton, they've been doing it for more than a decade.

All right.

Just a clarifying question.

This sort of intrigues me.

So this is a slide, and I'm going to support it.

But the owners, the neighborhoods, and the people that would experience this, how do they decide whether they want it, whether this is something they're interested in?

Do we just poll them or have them vote?

Or how does that play out?

Or is that the kind of thing they're

Yeah, I mean, I think that would be part of the process, would be a community engagement process.

That would be really important.

But again, we don't want to begin that work, that community engagement piece, until we have more of a formal, official conversation with the contractors around what the cost savings would be so that when we go out to the communities and talk about the impacts, we're able to do so with some actual data based on those conversations with contractors.

Just sort of hoping that Council Member Wuerz's point that the neighborhoods and the people actually realize some savings, not just the policy of trying to prevent more waste, and cut some slack on their bill.

Right, and to be completely transparent, when we did this pilot in, I believe it was three neighborhoods in 2014?

Four neighborhoods.

Four neighborhoods.

We actually surveyed residents after the pilot, and one of the things that people were disappointed in is they expected, they anticipated that their bill would be halved, because, and that's logical, right?

You're having half as much service.

But there are definitely savings.

And so I think part of the engagement process with the public prior to doing this is to really get folks to wrap their arms around what the savings are above and beyond the savings in their bill and why that's important.

And I think the city's feelings around climate change and that of our residents in our city is very, very different than it was in 2014, and I think people are able to see what the benefits are besides just the benefits to the pocketbook, but that's a conversation that I want to be able to have, and this slide would allow us to do so.

Madam Chair, I'd just like Council Member Warren.

Just give me literally 10 seconds.

Is it 2012 or 2014?

Because you were saying 12. Council Member Herbold was saying 14.

The pilot was conducted from June through December of 2012.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

OK.

That makes my point even more so.

I'd say the opinions around climate change have even increased, I mentioned before, between 2014 and now, even more so between 2012 and now.

I can confirm that they have increased since 2000.

I don't want to be coy on the point.

I hear what you're saying and I agree with you.

However, my support of this lie assumes there will be a monetary savings to the consumer and not just doing it for the environmental sustainability policy reasons.

There will be, but it won't be half.

A third?

No, I'm just kidding.

Those in favor of adding their name as a sponsor to this slide for SPU, raise your hand.

Thank you.

Next item is for SPU and solid waste rates.

Thank you.

So this item is a piece of budget legislation that's sponsored by the Budget Committee.

The action item is SPU 100A1.

It would recommend passage of Council Bill 119672, an ordinance that would establish solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers for the period of April 1st of 2020 through March 31st of 2023. If approved, solid waste rates would, on average, increase 3% in 2020 and 2.9% in 2021 and 2022. For a typical single-family residential customer, this equates to about $1.50 increase per month in 2020 and 2021 and about $1.60 per month in 2022. The proposed rates are below those projected in the 2017 Strategic Business Plan.

Okay, do you want to speak to that?

Good news.

I don't want to lose the headline.

The rates are less than what were proposed in the strategic business band two years ago and I want to thank Seattle Public Utilities for working on a lot of the items within the strategic business plan that myself and the The customer review panel identified as elements that can help reduce rates, and this is we don't often see the actual rate ordinance coming in at a lower rate than anticipated.

It is an increase, but it's a lower increase.

Great.

Those in favor of adding your name as a sponsor to item number 28, raise your hand.

Do we need to do that?

I mean, right now, it's a piece of budget legislation that's sponsored by the Budget Committee.

You're welcome to add your name if you want.

You know what would be really helpful?

If you tell us that up front, so I'm not wasting your time.

So if we don't need to be adding our names to sponsors, just let me know.

Is there a committee vote, though?

It's not a committee vote.

So is it just an item of interest for us here?

We'll have to vote on it.

It's budget legislation.

We will have to vote on it eventually.

Right, but not today.

I guess if anyone has concerns with the rates, this would be a great time to say it.

But short of that, we have to pass some rates.

All right.

Seattle City Light.

Good morning, I'm Eric McConaghy and the Council of Central Staff.

There's two items here for Seattle City Light.

The first one is a statement of legislative intent sponsored by Council Member Mike O'Brien.

This would request that Seattle City Light report on the electrification of all transportation and buildings, those sectors.

And I can say a few more things about it, Council Member, or I can let you take it from here.

I will take it if that's okay.

So colleagues, this slide is a bit of a work in process, sorry, progress.

It follows up on our commitment we made when we passed the Green New Deal for Seattle resolution back in August.

And it actually does two things, which I believe after a conversation with the department this morning, I will be proposing to split into two different slides.

Why don't I speak to what I believe this slide will do going forward, which is the number two on the Statement of Legislative Intent, which is to ask City Light to look at the strategic planning process, which they're in the middle of right now.

Actually, they're more like towards the end of it.

but it'll be coming to the council in the spring, which would be the strategic plan update for the years 2021 to 2026, which the council next year will likely be asked to approve.

And it asks that as part of that process coming back to the council, that the rate design is consistent with the goals of our Green New Deal for Seattle, including making Seattle free of climate pollutants, Prioritizing investments in communities historically most harmed by economic, racial, environmental injustice.

Advanced and equitable transition from an economy based on extraction and exploitation to one based on regeneration and cooperation.

Also, how it creates stable, well-paying jobs that prioritize likelier hire and are protected by project labor agreements and labor harmony agreements to ensure high quality work and fair treatment for workers.

I will likely be asking for a second slide, which is the first part of this, and at the request of the department would make this a slide that's directed jointly towards Seattle City Light, Seattle Department of Transportation, and the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

My understanding is that there is a interdepartmental team that I believe even met this week talking about these types of things, about how the departments could come together to work on the Green New Deal.

And what that slide would do would be to specifically ask about if we're going to fully electrify our transportation and our building sector by the year 2030. which is, I believe, the logical step to eliminating all climate pollution by 2030. What would that mean for our electric grid?

And having a comprehensive study that would look at Can we meet the demand?

What is the transmission lines?

What are the distribution lines?

It will almost certainly require additional investments.

Some of those investments are probably investments that are already planning to happen.

There may be additional investments, but essentially laying out a roadmap for what it would take to make that happen.

My understanding is they believe they can do that work.

It'll probably be a little bit behind the strategic planning process, and it's something that the council would likely see maybe in July or so.

So I would suggest, but I'll defer to you, Chair, that I will be asking for support on this slide, which I would say would likely not include the line one, but just focus on line two about the strategic plan.

And then later in the process, I will be bringing back another slide to address what is currently listed as line one with some more detail and more departments.

Okay.

Certainly makes appropriate sense.

Any other comments on that?

Council Member Herbold.

Just a question.

As it relates to the objective of transitioning to an all-electric transportation system, are you including consideration of maritime transportation, specifically as it relates to the port activities?

That's great.

Another thing we want to clarify is what we're talking about is I'm not sure what the proper language I should use, but not air travel, not marine travel.

It's really talking about the things that we have, not necessarily direct control, but much more control over.

And so it would be the private automobile, light duty vehicles.

It also would include our public transit system, which is largely electric, but we still have a lot of buses that aren't, and they're moving in that direction.

But we want to incorporate that analysis because as we convert those diesel buses to electric buses, that will certainly have impacts on the grid too.

So just to follow up on your question, Council Member Herbold, I know that the Port of Seattle has been doing a lot of work to make sure that the cruise ships that are coming in can plug in rather than running their diesel the whole time when they're here.

Any comments on that?

Are we coordinating with them?

Yeah, I mean, I know there's ongoing work with Seattle City Light and the Port of Seattle for the electric hookups for the cruise ships.

I know they're also looking to electrify a lot of their on dock equipment and at the freight yard equipment.

And so if folks would like, and I think it actually might make sense to incorporate the language around that, because again, that's another major place that could have load and investment requirements for Seattle City Lights.

for comprehensive.

What I would hate, what I want to avoid, and I think that your suggestion, Council Member Begichon, Council Member Herbold, is along these lines, would be that Seattle City Light would say, yes, we can meet the needs of our transportation system, but we wouldn't be able to do the ports then.

So we want them to say, like, no, these are all the things that need to happen.

Tell us what it would take to meet all the needs that we're thinking of electrifying everything.

Very good.

So, those of us who would like to add our name to this slide as a sponsor, raise your hand.

Okay.

And was that your five-minute break, Brian?

Well done.

The next is an item, it appears like we do not have to vote on this because it's another council bill that we will be dealing with later.

So, do you want to just address it briefly?

Yes, please.

This, as you said, is to the Budget Committee.

This is for Seattle City Light.

It would pass Council Bill 119674, authorizing City Light to issue up to $250 million in revenue bonds to support City Light's capital program.

And that would occur, it would be anticipated to occur in October of 2020. The proposal relies, excuse me, the proposed capital budget for Seattle City Light relies on the passage of this bill.

All right, seeing no further questions on this, let's move on.

And we don't need to take a 10-minute break.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So again, Brian Goodnight, Council Central staff.

So this, we're moving on to the Department of Education and Early Learning, or also known as DEEL.

And the first item would be agenda item 31, and the budget action is DEEL, or sorry, it's a statement of legislative intent, DEEL 1A1.

So this slide would request that the Department of Education and Early Learning conduct stakeholder engagement meetings as a first step toward implementing labor harmony provisions into the city's child care assistance program, which is also known as CCAP, provider contracts.

In addition to other recent examples where the council has incorporated labor standards into city contracts in April of this year, The council added a provision to the Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise levy, or the FEPP levy, requiring that DEEL consider a contractor's adherence to labor laws and a commitment to labor harmony in evaluating proposals.

So this slide would request that the stakeholder meetings include, at a minimum, family child care providers, child care center directors and teachers, and labor organizations, and that the meetings be used to gather information and solicit feedback on proposals, or sorry, potential options for implementing labor harmony into those contracts.

And the request is that deal provide a report to council by May 1st.

Council Member Gonzalez, do you want to add anything?

Yeah, so I am speaking to this particular sly on behalf of Council Member Mosqueda, and she would like for me to share with the full committee the following points.

It has long been a value of the city that our money should be used to support living wage jobs, jobs with benefits, and jobs where workers have a voice on their jobs.

The city has implemented priority hire and community workforce agreements in its public works construction projects of $5 million or more, resulting in prevailing wages, benefits, union recognition, priority hire from economically distressed zip codes, and apprenticeship utilization.

The city has also asked that labor harboring be considered in our waterfront operations and management and in the FEPP levy that was passed last year.

This slide would request, as Brian described, deal to take the first step in including labor harmony language in their vendor service agreements with providers by engaging with family child care providers, child care center teachers, and directors, and labor unions on current labor harmony provisions, and how to best ensure uninterrupted care through labor harmony.

And as Brian mentioned, the work it is hoped would be done by May 1st of 2020 in anticipation of changes to the vendor service agreements in later on in 2020. I support this request.

I think it's a reasonable measured approach.

I think the original approach was originally going to just require labor harmony.

And this, we've, I think through additional engagement heard that it would be best to take an approach where we study, learn, engage, and then move forward with this.

So I think it's a good, reasonable approach and would request that other folks support it.

Okay, Council Member O'Brien.

Just briefly, I'm also supporting this and I just, the Labor Harmony has the potential to be a win for everyone in the sector and so I think this is a great approach and I hope that with the constructive dialogue that this lays out that we'll have an opportunity, that the Council will have an opportunity next year to incorporate Labor Harmony agreements in these contracts.

Very good.

Those who would like to add your name as a sponsor to this, raise your hand.

Okay, and let's move on to adding 3.88 million to deal.

to expand eligibility for the Child Care Assistance Program.

Brent.

Thank you.

So this council budget action is numbered DEAL 2A1.

And the budget action, as you said, would add approximately $3.9 million of general fund and 10 FTE to DEAL to expand eligibility for CCAP.

The funding is intended to target the expansion efforts towards three areas.

The first is creating supply in areas of the city where child care provider gaps exist.

The second is allowing program participation for students that are enrolled in advanced degree programs.

And the third is allowing program participation by those who work but do not reside within the city of Seattle.

To staff this expansion, this budget action would provide deal with 10 additional positions, all of which have an assumed start date in the budget action of April 1st.

And as a quick reminder, the 2020 proposed budget includes approximately $6.1 million for CCAP, an increase of $3 million over the 2020 endorsed budget.

And the program is expected to serve approximately 1,400 children per year.

And this proposal comes from Council Member Gonzalez.

Can I ask a quick question before whomever is going to speak to it speaks?

And this, you said that it would add 10 positions.

What are the job duties of those 10 positions?

Well, there's a variety of them.

Let me get the list for you.

Ultimately, in order to have more students or more children in the program, you need intake reps and a new manager for the position.

So there's one manager, one position, three early education specialists, four program intake representatives, a grants and contract specialist, and an account technician.

So those are the 10 positions.

So how much money after we pay for the positions, how much money is left over to expand the actual child care facilities?

Or is that a different capital request?

No, in the council budget action, approximately $850,000 is for staff and just over $3 million is for additional vouchers.

Great.

Thank you for that.

Council Member Gonzalez.

Thank you.

This is a budget ad that I'm advocating for.

So I have spoken a lot about, and we have spoken a lot about, collectively, the realities around the fact that Seattle continues to be a childcare desert.

CCAP is one of the tools that we use to subsidize childcare in our city.

I think it's a really important program.

We are appreciative of the fact that Mayor Durkan has, in her original proposed budget, included an expansion of CCAP.

But as we continue to dig into the details with regard to that budget, we came to learn of some pretty astonishing numbers in terms of the average monthly count of children that are served by age category and by provider type in this space.

And it became really surprising to us that in the infant category, we are only serving 12 children a month.

in the city with our CCAP program dollars.

Toddlers, we're only serving a total of 56. Preschool is at about 170 children, so those are our three and four-year-olds.

And for kids who are five to 12, we are seeing about 234 children being served.

So, and I think most people have the concept in their mind that CCAP is being heavily accessed and is intended to be accessed by people seeking infant care or toddler care.

And the reality is, is that the way that the model is structured right now, we have really skewed towards elementary age children and children who are currently participating in our preschool program.

And so I think this is an opportunity for us to complete the spectrum of investments that we are making in this space.

We have spent a lot of time, and I'm grateful for that time, on continuing to expand and build a quality preschool program.

But the quality preschool program only serves three- and four-year-olds.

We are missing many of the birth to three aged children.

And this is an opportunity for us to make a significant investment and provide deal with the resources they need, both in terms of the subsidy, but also in terms of the staff that they need to be able to do a focus on both preschool and addressing the childcare needs throughout the city.

big ask and I recognize that and it's a big bold move that we can make in the budget to really meaningfully address the needs of the lack of affordable child care throughout our city and so when I hear stories about people who are looking at a $2,500 bill a month just to access infant care when they could potentially be qualifying for this program.

If one, they knew about it, and two, they qualified for it, we could be helping a lot of working families stabilize.

while also making sure that these kids in the zero to three age show up ready to learn and thrive in our preschool programs, which are also slated to expand significantly over the next seven years.

So I'm really excited about this.

I hope I can garner the support to advance this, and I'm ready, willing, and able to roll up my sleeves and to work with you, Chair Bagshaw, on helping to identify an appropriate revenue source to make this happen.

Thank you so much.

All right, those who want to add your name as a sponsor to this number 32 for 3.88 million, raise your hand.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Item 33 is another DEEL childcare assistance program.

So this is a council budget action that's numbered DEEL 3A1.

The budget action would impose a proviso on approximately one quarter of the appropriations in DEEL related to the mayor's proposed expansion of CCAP.

To lift the proviso, the budget action requests that DEEL explore and report on strategies for increasing access to infant care through CCAP or other city programs.

Additionally, the department is asked to evaluate whether the CCAP subsidy amounts for families with infants could be increased.

The proviso specifies that council authorization via ordinance is required to release the funds, and the budget action requests that DEEL provide the report to council by the end of March.

And this item is sponsored by Councilmember Gonzalez.

Good.

And Councilmember Gonzalez, as you talk about this, would you explain how these two interconnect?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

I appreciate the cue there because that's exactly where I was going.

So, you know, with the understanding of the statistics that I just laid out in advocacy of the previous item where we see that there isn't a lot of access in the zero to three space to the CCAP subsidies, this is an opportunity for us to, regardless of whether or not my prior proposal is included in a balancing package.

This would nonetheless require that all dollars proposed for expansion of CCAP be proviso'd until we have a plan from DEEL that shows us the roadmap on how they are going to ensure that existing dollars for tuition subsidy are addressing the needs of infant care in particular.

So this is a, I see these as complimentary, so it's an opportunity for us just to get a work plan essentially from DEEL to make sure that we are addressing in an appropriate and balanced way the needs of people who need these subsidies for infant care.

Great, thank you so much for doing that.

All right, those that want to add your name to this proviso, raise your hand.

This is number 33. All right.

Thank you.

The next one is $375,000 to DEAL to expand the city's role in connecting families with child care.

So again, as you're talking about it, we'll see how they intersect.

Okay.

Thank you.

So this council budget action is numbered DEAL 4A1.

The budget action would add $375,000 of general fund to DEAL to expand the city's role in connecting families with child care.

One of the challenges that families face in trying to obtain childcare is a lack of access to information and resources that could assist them in selecting childcare that's appropriate for their situation.

So with these funds, a deal would be directed to examine this current state of access to infant and childcare throughout the city and evaluate the role that the city could play in connecting families with childcare providers.

And in evaluating strategies, a deal would be requested to consider best practices from other jurisdictions.

And this item comes from Council Member Gonzalez.

Very good.

Thank you, please.

So this particular proposal is really exciting to me because it would allow the Department of Education and Early Learning an opportunity to have the resources they need to take that 30,000 foot level view of what other tools and resources are needed to be able to provide our working families with an opportunity to connect meaningfully with childcare that is suitable for them.

That could be subsidized childcare, it could be market rate childcare, it could be home-based childcare, whatever it is that that family needs could be addressed through strategies.

Developed by deal in this space that really has that citywide view to make sure that we are again taking meaningful and demonstrable action to to support families in the city of Seattle who will continue to struggle to find childcare and throughout the city.

So this is unlike the prior two budget items that I'm advocating for, which are specific towards providing subsidized tuition dollars for child care, this one is really about providing deal direction and funding to be able to come up with a strategic plan and an action plan on what additional resources are needed in addition to tuition subsidies to allow families to have their child care needs met.

There are lots of jurisdictions throughout the city that are looking at this currently.

New York City, for example, recently established a child care resource center.

that provides case managers or sort of counselors, if you will, at the center that connects families with whatever child care resources are available throughout the city and really helps them navigate the bureaucracy of what it means to apply for child care at the city, for example, that might be subsidized or at the state or or just connecting with other types of childcare models that might be suitable for that family.

So I think there are other jurisdictions that are doing really innovative work in this space that we could learn from, and this is an opportunity to give DL the resources they need to be able to evaluate and look at those models and come back to the city council with some meaningful proposals for potential implementation in the next biennium budget.

Great, thank you.

Council Member Pacheco.

I just fully support this proposal in part for multiple reasons.

One, I was reading an article this morning about how approximately 60% of Washington State families are in childcare deserts, and so we know we need to do more.

Secondly, a number of young people within my district, when they think about just where they are in their stage in life, myself included, and where their next stage in life may be, they think about not just what the world that their children would inherit due to the issues of climate change, but also how do we support and maintain our families.

And so I think this is a great idea.

I applaud Councilmember Gonzalez for leading this effort.

And then, Chair Bagshot, if I can just add one last thing.

The other reason why I think this is really important is that I know that the state legislature is seriously looking at expanding funding in the early learning space.

And I think it's really important for us as a city to be ready for that potential revenue source in either, you know, being able to directly receive funds or to be able to leverage those funds that might be coming from additional revenue sources at the state.

More to come on that.

I'm happy to talk to you about that offline, but I've been having conversations with members of our delegation here in Seattle and even members outside of the delegation who are leading at the state level on early learning and education on what they're thinking about this next session.

And so I really see this investment as an important you know, preliminary work for the city to be ready to take advantage of some of those additional revenue dollars that might be available in this space.

And so, I'm hoping that this can go sort of hand in hand with those efforts as well.

All right.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

Those who would like to add their name.

I have a question.

I'm sorry.

Oh, dear.

Okay.

Yeah.

This might be a little bit of a stretch.

I mentioned this the first round when this statement of legislation of intent was proposed.

And just tell me if it's too much of a stretch.

But, and I think I may have, we had talked about doing some follow-up language in this statement of legislative intent, but we may have lost in the transition of my staff.

But I'm interested to know whether or not diaper access might be a barrier to families in addition to not having access to sufficient funding through the voucher program.

Whether or not having diaper access is an additional barrier to families seeking to access childcare.

In other words, people are keeping their children home rather than sending them to a place that is expecting them to have their kids come with diapers.

And so I'm wondering whether or not this slide could be expanded to look at whether or not using our childcare facilities as a distribution center for free diapers might help address those barriers.

Again, if it's stretch, it's just a question I'm really interested in asking D.O.

to look at, and this seemed like a good home to put it in.

So this isn't a sly.

This one's not a sly.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, this is the proviso.

No, this one's a proviso.

addition of 375.

Okay, I've just totally lost my way.

It's number 34. Yeah, but I think setting, if I may Chair Bagshaw, I think setting aside the semantics of the budget talk, I think I understand what the spirit of your request is, Council Member Herbold and appreciate it.

I think there could be an opportunity to, as part of this 300 and $75,000 ad that looks at the overall strategies around Coming up with how you know a citywide strategy around access to child care it could also evaluate And I would imagine would evaluate existing barriers to accessing child care and certainly diaper access could be identified as one of those happy to take a look at this in the form C process to add some language that that enumerates that concern in particular and There's also an opportunity to, in the context of the Proviso, ask, especially because the Proviso on the Child Care Assistance Program expansion funds are specific to looking at how to.

Increase access to infant care that could also be a easy place to add the concerns around um Diaper access in terms of making sure they specifically address that if it's an issue good I know that we talked about this at the time of form a as well So I don't know if that has been incorporated in in one of the recommendations at this point again Um, I have had a transition of staff and I think it got lost in the shuffle Okay, I think it was inadvertent.

We intended to connect on this and then we didn't so I don't I see it as a friendly amendment and suggestion and we'll work together to figure out how to incorporate that.

Brian, if you can help us keep track of this, this would be greatly appreciated.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Very good.

So any other questions or comments on this one?

So those who would like to add your name as a sponsor, raise your hand.

And this is item number 34, $375,000 to deal.

Okay, very good.

All right, next item is $125,000 in one-time funding for Concord International Elementary School.

I know Brian's been doing this, and as soon as he's done, Council Member Herbold, this is yours.

Okay, thank you.

So this is Council Budget Action Deal 7A1.

The budget action would add $125,000 of one-time funding from the general fund to DEEL to support the creation of an access ramp at Concord International Elementary School.

The ramp is part of the second phase of a group of infrastructure investments at the school, known as the Greening Concord Project, and will address unsafe access to the school grounds at its southwest corner.

The project intends to replace a dirt path with a well-lit, tree-lined access ramp that is ADA compliant, and the total project cost is estimated to be approximately $355,000.

At this time, the project sponsors have raised $49,000, and they are continuing to seek funding from other sources as well.

And this proposal comes from Councilmember Herbold.

Please.

Thank you.

And to be...

Upfront, I don't know that DEEL is the most appropriate department for this budget ask.

This is clearly a capital request, funding for a capital project.

And it's a really high priority for my district.

The PTA has raised $270,000 over two years to improve the school grounds and address safety at the southwest entrance.

There's a steep eroding dirt path leading to the school's parking lot, which is hazardous for small children.

And it's, as Brian mentioned, it's part of a three-part project.

And the other two portions of the project have been fully funded.

I distributed at the previous meeting a program description, a support letter signed by Thatcher Bailey and other advocates from South Park.

The ramp itself is estimated to cost $354,000.

$50,000 has been raised so far.

I've made a request of the school district to partner as well in this project.

And 86% of Concord students are people of color, 50% are English language learners, 59% are Latino, and 70% of South Park residents are below the federal poverty line, with 73% of students qualifying for free or reduced price lunch.

This, again, is part of an overall project to better green the campus in a neighborhood that is beset with environmental hazards so much so far that it is very nearby a Superfund site.

And I think this is consistent with our investments in that neighborhood to improve the resiliency of the community there.

And in this case, our young learners.

Any other comments?

Council Member Harrell, then Council Member Pacheco.

Just had a question.

Are they applying for like simple grants and other types of DON grants and other available funds as well, do you know?

So the PTA has raised $270,000 to do the other parts of the program, and then another $50,000 for this element.

Again, in the information I passed out last time, which I don't have in front of me this time, the budget that was submitted shows the other Sources of funds.

I'm happy to share that again, but they have been going out to a variety of sources of funds I don't know if Department of Neighborhoods is one of them though Okay, Councilmember Pacheco

This is just a question.

Brian, how are these projects typically selected, and what's this process for ADA ramps for Seattle Public Schools?

What's that process that they go through?

As far as I know, the city hasn't been involved in these projects before because they're school district property, so I don't have information on how they select their projects.

I'm sorry.

So it's unusual.

It is unusual.

Council Member Wirth.

Just a point of clarification for Council Member Herbold.

So is this, is Concord a public school?

Yes.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Seattle Public Schools, I know we had some concerns last year about selecting one public school that we were adding money to, but Council Member Herbold has made a persuasive argument that they need some additional help from ADA.

for ADA purposes.

So, Council President Harrell.

Again, so the group is the PTSA, that's the group to be funded?

Correct.

Okay.

Just from a policy standpoint, I really appreciate you listening to the constituents and trying to meet what's an apparent need.

I'm not disputing the need at all.

I do think it's a little, I'm a little leery of getting into capital investments for a PTSA.

Having been a member, active member, I should say, for years, I'm just not sure that's the space, just the right method to do it.

But anyway, be that as it may, I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

Fair enough.

All right.

Any other comments on this one?

All right.

Those who want to add your names to the $25,000 deal for the access ramp at Concord International Elementary School, raise your hand.

Great, let's move on to the SLI requesting DEEL to develop an implementation plan for Washington State Opportunity Scholarship.

OK, thank you.

So this item is numbered DEEL 8A1.

And this statement of legislative intent would request that DEEL coordinate with the Washington State Opportunity Scholarship, also known as WSOS, and industry partners to develop a plan for implementing a municipal match scholarship program in Seattle that complements the city's Seattle Promise Program.

WSOS provides scholarships to low and middle income students pursuing degrees, certificates, or apprenticeships in high demand trade, health care, or STEM fields.

In the 2019 state legislative session, the program was modified to allow municipalities to contribute funding to the program, which along with state matching funds would then be awarded to students from that municipality.

Seattle would be the first municipality to partner with WSOS to design a program.

The slide requests that DEEL provide a report to council by March 31st, summarizing their work with WSOS and including the following information, the partners participating in the process, a recommended focus for the scholarships to be offered, recommended eligibility criteria and strategies for promoting the opportunity, and recommended funding levels, including funding sources and the potential number of students that could be served.

And this item comes from Council Member Pacheco.

All right, Council Member Pacheco, please.

Colleagues, the Washington State Opportunity Scholarship provides scholarships to low and middle income students who are pursuing an education in trade, healthcare, and STEM fields, which is science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Earlier this year the state allowed cities to essentially buy into this program with the state matching any funding awarded by the city to qualify students from Seattle.

I think the city should be jumping in opportunities to leverage our own investments with state dollars and this is an exciting opportunity that I had the privilege of working on in the past.

This statement of legislative intent would express the council's interest in participating in a WSOS matching program and would request that DEEL report to the council on progress implementing the program.

Very good.

Any other comments on that?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Is this program exclusive to STEM programs?

No.

So they've expanded in the last two years, three years, two or three years, to include apprenticeship programs, career and technical education programs, as well as healthcare degrees, which are our highest need in the state.

So, Seattle's nonprofit social service sector is working to figure out ways to better provide key employment opportunities for people with lived experiences of homelessness and poverty who are driven to mission-driven work.

They currently have a successful asset program that moves people who have direct experience with homelessness towards certification programs that increase their employment opportunities.

Similar to that program, CCS Plymouth Housing and Seattle Central College are partnering to pilot a similar model that would be available for a cohort of 24 employees in entry-level positions without high school or post-secondary degrees.

And the idea would be facilitate enrollment and completion of certificates germane to the social service sector that would count as a two- or four-year degree.

I'm wondering, again, this might be a reach-in, just tell me if it is, whether or not there might be a way to fold in some of this work with this particular tuition program.

I mean, I think it's part of the engagement process that a deal would have to undergo in the sense that, you know, when they evaluate or develop the plan by which it integrates to the Seattle promise and partnering, so I would say I would leave that, defer that to Director Chappelle.

Okay, so I should ask Director Chappell and if it's an appropriate match, we can talk more?

Yep.

Okay.

And since this is a slide, I think it's all that input is going to be really important.

Council Member Gonzalez?

I would just say really quickly that because this slide is specifically connected to Seattle Promise, the populations that you're referring to, Council Member Herbold, would have to be, for example, students who are currently experiencing homelessness, who would have access to Seattle Promise through our public school system in Seattle in order to be able to create that connection that perhaps you're seeking.

But I see the remarks that you just made, Council Member Herbold, in terms of the potential for that other program seems to me to be addressing more of an adult population.

And the proposal that I'm seeing from Council Member Pacheco is specific to youth who would qualify to participate in the Seattle Promise Program and really making sure that there's intentionality around creating additional access to scholarship dollars to support high school graduates to be able to pursue the career that they want through these scholarships.

I'm not sure that I'm seeing it sync up, but maybe I'm missing something.

I think you're probably right.

If this program is only for, if Council Member Pacheco's program conceivably would be only for folks who qualify for Seattle Promise and Seattle Promise candidates are high school graduates.

This would not sync up.

These are older folks and in many instances are not high school graduates.

The cohort is specifically 24 employees in entry-level positions without high school or post-secondary degrees.

Well, it sounds to me like we have described well what we're trying to accomplish, and it may not fit in here, but thank you for bringing that up.

If there's no further comments, we are on item 36 here, and it is for the Washington State Opportunity Scholarship.

Those who want to add your name as a sponsor, raise your hand.

Okay?

Thank you.

So, let's move on to item 37. And I'm going to propose, if we can, that we get through the Fire Department and the Office of Inspector General and then call it a morning.

Please.

So, item 37 is actually DEEL's last item, which is Statement of Legislative Intent.

It's numbered DEEL 10A1.

The slide would request DEEL to provide a report or presentation to council by May 1st, describing its demographic data collection and analysis process.

As part of the FEPP levy's implementation and evaluation plan, DEEL has committed to disaggregating data in order to promote equity in the city's education investments.

In June of this year, DEEL created a data workgroup with the goal of creating a unified strategy and guidelines for collecting and presenting demographic data of the students, families, and providers being served.

The results of this data workgroup should inform much of the response to this slide.

So the slide specifically requests information regarding how data is collected, who DO partners with for data collection and sharing, how data are disaggregated for evaluation activities, the data sources and considerations for determining target populations, and opportunity gaps currently present in areas where the city invests FEPP levy funds.

The slide would also request additional information about how DEEL uses this data to inform funding allocations and to support students that are experiencing the largest opportunity gaps.

And this item comes from Councilmember Pacheco.

Councilmember Pacheco, thank you.

And if you will enlighten us on what your expectations are that once we have the data, what we're going to do with it.

So colleagues, my background before being appointed to the council, being with the Office of Minority Affairs and Diversity at UW, has been to improve access to education for students struggling academically to resource gaps that we know impact black and brown youth.

I appreciate that the FEPP levy is focused on many of these populations.

We've had some questions from community about the data that informs the deals, investments, strategies, and the organizations funded.

There is a data work group developing a report of disaggregated data practices to the FEPP oversight committee, and this slide would bring that information to a council committee discussion.

The slide also asks for more clarity on how the data is used to inform the creation of funding opportunities and allocations.

as well as how DEEL ensures students experiencing the effects of the largest opportunity gaps are served.

Just enough on a personal basis, many of the programs as well as educational opportunities that have been afforded to me have allowed me to be where I am today.

And so my particular interest has been in trying to ensure that we're expanding those opportunities, that we're tracking and measuring what is getting done, and we're elevating that to a discussion at the council level continue improving the educational outcomes for kids of color.

Great.

Any further comments on that?

Okay, Council Member Warris, please.

I didn't get a chance to, you didn't see my hand on 36, but my comments are 36 and 37 very briefly.

I appreciate what Council Member Pacheco has done on 36 and talking about the state and the city working together.

On 37, my comments are this.

I'm really glad that we're starting to see, but what we've been struggling with, what I've been struggling with and watching since I've been in office is sometimes the disconnect between Seattle Public Schools and DEEL.

What are we doing?

What are they doing?

What are we filling gaps for?

So one of the issues here for me is that having this data is something we've been asking for, for at least since I've been in office and certainly before that, collecting data and using data on these particular demographic groups.

to achieve and to close the gap.

And of course, they're always the same groups.

It's the African-American, Latinx, Native American, Pacific Islander, refugee, immigrant.

So it would be, I'm fully supportive of this because I'm hoping that with the slide on 36 and 37, that we not only get this data, and be able to interpret it and use it, but we use this data and share this data with the state for the Washington State Opportunity Scholarship and then, of course, with the city and working with DEEL when we report on the data collection and what we do with it and how we start targeting and make strategic investments in those particular groups so we see these young folks, these children graduate at higher rates than what we have been witnessing for at least the last two decades.

So thank you, Council Member Pacheco.

Great.

Any other comments?

Council Member Gonzalez?

I just want to make sure that as we're having this conversation, it's within the context of dispelling any belief that FEPP isn't, that DEEL isn't currently doing this work.

They are currently doing this work.

So, you know, I'm going to support the statement of legislative intent, but I want to make really clear, and we've communicated this to Council Member Pacheco's office, that DEEL and the FEPP LOs, Levy Oversight Committee, have been doing this work as part of the implementation and evaluation plan that is required in order to evaluate the metrics and deliverables for the FEPP levy.

So I think the only difference here is that Council Member Pacheco-Slye is asking that the Report be delivered to a city council committee my my committee at the at this moment for public discussion and and Daylighting but but I do want to just acknowledge the work that deal has been doing in this space around making sure that it is tracking data appropriately to be able to make sure that we are laser focused on addressing the opportunity gap for the populations that we know experience disproportionate impacts of our education system.

Excellent.

Council President Harrell.

I appreciate those comments from both Councilmembers Gonzales and Pacheco.

I'm supporting this slide and thanks for like Councilmember Gonzales sort of the work is being done but it's been my opinion at least when I was chair of the committee that we're tracking the data but as the Seattle Public School District now seems to be doubling down rightfully so on this area of underachievement.

particularly on people of color, but underachievement generally in men of color, African-American kids, etc.

They seem to be doubling down on their efforts from the rhetoric that I'm reading, and the city understands that and are trying to be good partners.

I have not been even remotely satisfied that The department are really, I don't know what they're doing with some of the investments.

Tracking data is fine, to your point, if we're doing something about it.

But I just attended so many meetings where I just wasn't happy with the outcomes and the outputs.

I just didn't see what we were doing.

And I did everything that I could, I thought, to at least encourage it.

I never thought about.

Not funding them or not supporting them, I just continue to worry about our effectiveness and what we're doing in our department to either partner with or even, dare I say, lead some of the work that's being done at the district.

So I support this because it's bringing attention to what I think is not the strongest work being done by the department, and I think we can do a lot better.

Other comments?

All right.

Those who want to add your name to request your report on this data collection, it's a slide number 37. Raise your hand.

Okay.

Thank you.

Let's move on to Seattle Fire Department.

And nice to see you.

Hi.

Thank you, Council Chair.

This is the Fire Department and the Office of Inspector General that I will be talking about today.

Greg Doss, Council of Central Staff.

Greg, is your mic on?

Thank you.

Greg Doss, Council Central staff, here to talk about the Fire Department and the Office of Inspector General.

Start with the first proposal, which is CBA SFD 1A1, which would add $1.2 million to, in 2020, for the Seattle Fire Department to receive a third recruiting class.

The 2020 proposed and 2020 endorsed budgets both have a base level of funding for firefighting recruit classes.

There are two.

Each one has 30. recruits in it.

This proposed budget action would add a third class that would have 20 recruits in it.

I should say that if this moves forward, the fire department has asked that it would be modified.

Instead of having a third class, they will break up the 20 and add those to each of the two that are now running.

I imagine that's to create some efficiencies.

This one is brought by Council Member Herbal.

Good.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

So when asked at the fire department presentation earlier this month, Chief Scoggins said we asked for three classes but they're happy with what they've got.

But he also highlighted the reality that 25% of the department is 53 years of age and eligible for retirement.

And 38% is at 50 years of age and eligible for retirement.

The chief did say that they would be able to take the new recruits.

215 firefighters need to be on duty every day.

Currently, because of the need, they're meeting that requirement with overtime.

For the last six recruit classes from 2016 to 2019, there were 187 recruits and 147 or about 79% successfully completed the class.

And so that averages out to about 23 to 24 recruits out of each class of 30. realize efficiencies by increasing the class size rather than adding a third class.

I think that's really a positive move forward.

This ad for me was inspired by the fact that Several years ago, we increased the business license tax fee in order to fund additional police officers because we are currently in a bit of a recruitment crisis on the Seattle Police Department side of things, although we're making progress.

I feel that we still should be allocating those funds towards a public safety purpose.

And we do not have the same sort of recruitment crisis with the Seattle Fire Department that we have over at the Seattle Police Department side of things.

And so I think this proposal would be in keeping with our commitment when passing the increased business license fee, our commitment to use those dollars towards a public safety objective.

All right.

Any questions or further comments?

Those who would like to add their name to adding $1.2 million for third Seattle Fire Department recruit class?

Raise your hand.

Very good.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

And let's move on to Inspector General.

All right, the first one under the Inspector General is OIG 181, which would add $150,000 in general fund in 2020. to the OIG to allow it to contract with outside legal counsel.

There's also a proviso that I'll get at in the end.

This proposal would allow $150,000 to be set aside for the Office of Inspector General and there are similar proposals also in the Office of Police Accountability and in the Community Police Commission.

The idea here is that this money would be set aside and it would be restricted by proviso.

such that there was an instance where one of the accountability agencies would need to contract with an outside attorney if they found themselves in conflict with the Seattle City Attorney.

That did happen once this year regarding the consent decree.

So the proviso would just simply say that of the money appropriated in the budget, $150,000 is appropriated solely for the retention of outside legal counsel and there must be an attorney-client relationship there.

And that's all I had.

That's by Council Member Gonzalez.

Council Member Gonzalez, you want to add anything?

Greg, thank you so much.

I think that was an adequate description of it.

Again, I just want to remind folks that we are still partially out of compliance with the consent decree, specifically as it relates to the accountability provisions that this council passed in May of 2017. I anticipate that we will continue to be under supervision of the federal court as it relates to those components.

for the next two to three years.

And so there can be a reasonable expectation that additional legal briefings, legal memoranda, and representation in court is going to be necessary.

Unfortunately, this year we have seen a situation where these three agencies have had a differing position, legally and otherwise, from the city attorney's office and the mayor's office.

And I think it's important for us to, in the spirit of maintaining the independence of these accountability entities, to make sure that they have access to funds for independent legal counsel in the situation that a conflict of interest arises.

This is contemplated by the accountability ordinance and does require the city council to appropriately resource all three of these agencies, including the IG.

to fund private legal counsel in the event that their existing legal needs are not met.

Again, if these dollars are not utilized in the way that they are provisored, the funds will revert back into the general fund.

So it's a provisor of $150,000.

If they don't use a single penny of it, it goes back into the general fund.

I really want to express and thank Council Member Gonzalez for this proposal to add for outside legal counsel.

She graciously allowed me to be on the selection committee when we hire the Inspector General and we all know what an Inspector General does and we've certainly seen it in the news a lot lately but my point is is this independent legal analysis is critical.

It creates trust, consistency, independence, and transparency.

We do have these conflict of interest.

People can agree to disagree, but I think having an inspector general is crucial in having outside counsel in the success as we move towards police reform.

So I will be supporting this.

Thank you.

Council Member Gonzalez.

Great.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

I too am very appreciative of Council Member Gonzalez's work in this area and specifically for this budget action.

I'm wondering whether or not this funding could conceivably, in addition to funding outside legal counsel to assist the Office of the Inspector General, whether or not this budget action could also conceivably support the Community Police Commission's request for the LRPC to have subject matter experts advising the council members of LRPC given that you're anticipating an attorney-client privilege relationship here and that that would create a consistency with our expectations that the LRPC negotiations are confidential.

I'm wondering whether or not there might be a way to address that concern prior to going into SPOG negotiations.

So I'm happy to answer that question.

So I think I see that as a mutually exclusive effort.

So the Labor Relations Policy Committee is a creature of city ordinance.

It includes both mayoral representatives and city council members, five city council members in particular.

I think if there's an interest, and I think there is, of having subject matter expertise to facilitate the city council's deliberation on the LRPC and our own independent analysis of that body of work, then I think that that is something that would be appropriately considered within the budget of the legislative department to provide us those resources.

But I really wanna emphasize that these proposals, both for the IG, for the OPA, and for the CPC, is really designed to meet their specific internal legal needs, specifically within the context of the consent decree, but obviously they can use them in other ways, as long as there's an attorney-client relationship there.

I think there is going to be a need for that, but I think there might be a different place for us to address that specific need.

Great.

Council President Harrell.

And I have to go downstairs to present something at 12 o'clock.

I'm a little late.

I just want to say I support the concept of I support the idea, basically.

I think that this is a good method to get independent advice, particularly when needed.

I was just wondering, from a budgetary standpoint, was there another way to get there?

And the thought being, since it's an ad and a proviso, whether, I think more times than not, there may not be a conflict, whether we could have provisoed the law department.

to have them render legal advice and then, because that's, if this legislation had, if this idea had not come forward, the law department would have been the party.

And so since now we're relieving them of work they would ordinarily do, that we just provide, provides 150 and to the extent, The officer inspector general thought they needed outside legal advice.

They could tap into that.

And we're not adding anything.

We're just provisoring existing budget.

I'm just making that as a possibility offline for the chair to think about our balancing package.

We get there the same way, I think.

But anyway.

OK.

Any other comments on this?

All right.

Those who want to add their name as a sponsor to this is number 39. Raise your hand.

So, you can count me in on that.

Good.

And that includes Council President Harrell as he's walking out the door.

Okay, we only have one more item for this morning, and that is the one point, the FTE, one FTE for OIG to create an operations, excuse me, manager position.

This is the one we heard from Amy Tsai on, and Greg, maybe you can speak further, but my understanding is that there's no financial ask here.

There is an FTE ask.

Thank You chair, you're doing my job for me.

I appreciate it.

Yes, that's exactly right.

This one is just an FTE for an operations manager position It would be a strategic advisor.

It was contemplated in an ask to the executive as part of the budget development phase for the 2020 proposed and was not funded.

The office has indicated that it is understaffed for human resources for budget, finance, and public disclosure and needing to lean on the legislative branch positions to be able to fulfill those functions.

And the ad of this operations manager would allow them to fulfill them in-house.

The office has indicated that they're going to have salary savings sufficient to pay for this position next year.

And so the only thing they ask of the council at this point in time is the one FTE.

Great.

Any comments?

I think Greg's covered it really well.

This is just position authority, revenue neutral, really important for them to get this extra body in there to maintain their ongoing independence.

Excellent.

Those who want to add your name as a sponsor to this, raise your hand.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you for that.

We are now in recess.

We will come back at 2 o'clock.

I think it was unanimous up here.

We'll be back at 2 o'clock.

I think we've gotten almost two-thirds of the way through, so well done, Dean, and see you back here at 2 o'clock.