Seattle City Council Finance & Neighborhoods Committee 6/12/19

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you so much for being here for our Finance and Neighborhoods Committee.

The date is June 12th, 2019. It's a little after 2 p.m.

I'm Sally Bagshaw.

I chair this committee, and I'm joined by Council President Harrell and Ms. Gonzalez.

Thank you for being here.

I'm Mike O'Brien, who is here primarily to talk with us about sweetened beverage tax, so thank you so much for joining us for the entire meeting.

So we've got three items on the agenda today.

The first is a lease.

Thank you to our Seattle Public Utility friends who are here.

The second item is our sweetened beverage tax and the short-term rental tax statement of legislation intent response.

And then we have the first meeting regarding the appointment of Bobby Humes as director for the Seattle Department of Human Resources.

We will not be voting on Mr. Humes today, but this is our first opportunity to talk with him and with the expectation that on June 26th, just two weeks away at our next meeting, that we'll have the opportunity to vote on his appointment at that point.

So with that, if there's no objection, this agenda with the three items will be adopted.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted and we're going to proceed.

So public comment, we will now take public comment on the items that appear on today's agenda.

I see that we've got eight people signed up, and if I can just call you in order, we'll have two minutes each.

I'll ask you to approach the microphone, please make sure we have your name, and then the item to which you are speaking, and then we'll keep moving and ask you to either line up or be at one of the two microphones.

So the first one is Lindsey.

Second is Jim.

Oh, nice to have you here.

I know you've done a lot of work for us.

And it looks like Laika.

Lika?

Very good, thank you.

All right, well, so Lindsey and Jim, if you're ready, please proceed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Lindsey Hoven.

I'm with the American Heart Association and also here today as a member of the Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition.

Thanks for the opportunity to provide a brief comment today.

The American Heart Association was proud to support the sweetened beverage tax when this body passed it in 2017. Science told us at the time, and the evidence continues to grow, that this policy could help reduce the overconsumption of unhealthy sugary drinks and related chronic disease.

and direct critical funding to beloved, established, and promising community programs and services.

Leading up to the passage of this ordinance, there was much community conversation, and the community's desire to invest their revenue in food access and early childhood education was clearly reflected in the ordinance language.

But let's go a step further.

Let's create a dedicated account for these funds to improve transparency.

Let the community see what money is coming in and where it's going when it goes out the door.

Let's ensure these funds are used for their intended purpose to grow and to expand these learning, excuse me, these programs and services.

So more and more of our friends and neighbors can benefit.

And let's not use it simply to supplant underlying funding for existing programs.

So please uphold the city's commitment that was made to community to use this revenue to provide more access to healthy food for more people and more learning opportunities for more of our city's children.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for being here, Lindsay.

Jim, and then after Jim, we've got Lika and then Tanika Thompson and Abdi.

Yeah.

Thank you very much, Committee Chair Bagshaw and Council Members.

I'm Jim Krieger.

I'm co-chair of the Community Advisory Board for the SBT tax here in Seattle.

And as you know, the CAB was established by the ordinance and makes recommendations to the mayor and the council on how to allocate the tax revenues consistent with what the intent was of this ordinance, which is that the revenues benefit Seattle's populations who experience the greatest inequities in education and health.

And the CAB is really committed to seeing that these revenues are allocated to promote racial and health equity, including addressing the regressive and disproportionate burden of health problems associated with SSBs like diabetes, poor oral health, and obesity.

So it's really the utmost importance to the Community Advisory Board that the revenue allocation is directed towards these low-income communities and communities of color to expand healthy food and affordable food access and to expand access to early childhood support and education.

Only then will that make the Sugary Beverage Tax a truly progressive policy rather than a regressive one.

So therefore, the CAB is urging the Council to honor legislative intent to use the SBT revenue solely to expand existing programs to create new programs and not use the SBT to supplant existing funding for these programs.

But this was not the case in 2018 budget where up to $6 million was supplanting general funds and supporting existing activities rather than growth and expansion as intended by the legislation and as advocated for by the community.

So therefore, the CAB has two goals.

We'd like to see an SBT fund established that would allow for transparent revenue tracking expenditures and also assure that the revenue allocation will be spent on new and expanded programs with no supplantation.

We note that the community stakeholders who supported the SBT tax call for these revenues for expanding programs, there's broad community support for transparency in the way the revenues are spent and tracked, and this will allow the CAB to be more effective in performing its duties as well.

So the last final point is if we can get this in place before the 2020 budget process, then it will make the 2020 budget process more transparent and more consistent with how we'd like to see the tax implemented.

In closing, the CAHPS only supports a special fund for SBT revenues.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And thank you very much for your two minutes.

And I want to really recognize you, Jim and Lindsay, both from the Heart Association, for your hard work on this.

We know that you've spent untold hours and your dedication is much appreciated.

Next item, Lika, Tanika, and then Abdi.

Good afternoon.

Thank you so much.

My name is Lika.

I am a registered dietitian and I sit on the community advisory board on the food access seat and I'm also part of the executive committee.

So I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here and share public comment specifically about establishing the separate fund for the city budget to track the sugary beverage tax revenue.

This is really necessary to have transparency in the collection and investments of the fund from the tax revenue.

Ultimately, the separated fund will ensure that the city is upholding the original intent of the tax and investing these funds in an equitable way that will balance the regressive nature of the tax.

So when I first started advocating when the process of the tax was being in place, I was talking a lot with different community members and one of the things that kept coming up was people being really concerned about a tax such as this looking like the tobacco tax where a lot of money, millions of dollars would be coming in and then putting into a general fund.

And so folks were really hesitant about that because it is regressive taxing the people that are in most need of getting support.

So when the conversation shifted towards this money going towards early education, but more importantly, the food access, there was a lot more support.

And so last year when the funds did get supplanted and 6 million getting put into the general fund, there was a lot of that distrust that kind of came back up about how this was really being spent in the community and a lot of concern about that transparency and the accountability to what was originally intended for it.

And so what I'm advocating for is having these funds be put in a separate account so that there can be tracking of it, the transparency that is needed for the community trust, but more importantly that there is accountability to having equitable distribution and really investing these funds into the communities that need it most and that are targeted by the sugary beverage tax or by the sugary beverage industry and that we can have accountability to that commitment that the city has around social justice and racial equity.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Lika.

Tanika, Abdi, and then Yasmin.

Hello, my name is Tanika Thompson and I'm the food access organizer at Got Green.

We worked really hard to talk with the community and to ensure them that this was not going to be a regressive tax and something that they were going to suffer from.

did a lot of door knocking, and we promised people in the community that this money was going to come back to them because they were the ones who were going to be most impacted.

And I kind of feel like I let them down.

And that's just because there was money taken away from the tax and put into a general fund.

That was exactly what they were concerned about.

That's what they said to me.

They said, well, will they put them, they're just going to put the money in general funding and do what they want with it.

And I told them, no, there's an ordinance that states that there's going to be food security programs.

There's going to be education programs.

And I tried to break down exactly where all the money was going to go.

It's my name that's out there.

It's my job's name, God Green.

We're out there talking with community members.

And so I'm very disappointed that my accountability is not, you know, may not be intact.

They may not want to believe me the next time I go out and talk to them.

So I too, like the members of the CAB, think that there should be a specific fund to track the money and that it needs to be applied as stated in the ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Abdi, Yasmin, and then it looks like Jonathan.

Hi, my name is Abdi Yusuf, and I'm here on behalf of Butcherson Sage.

We are aware of the displacement, the mass displacement that's happening in our community, in our city, and how it affects low-income communities of color.

We also know the need for a dedicated fund for community development.

The need is too great.

Last year we had, I believe, 30 million asks for the EDI, but around 5 million available for it.

If anything, what we need is really to increase the funds available for equitable development and the EDI.

We are here to argue you to bring a legislation to this committee to create a dedicated fund for both the EDI and the Switzerland tax, a beverage tax, and if anything increase what's available for the EDI.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yasmin?

Hi, my name's Yasmin Perez, and I'm a proud member of the EDI Advisory Board.

I'm here to affirm that we need a dedicated fund for the EDI initiative and the Sweetened Beverage Tax to match Council's original intent for those revenue streams.

As Abdi mentioned, rapid displacement is happening in our communities, and one of the primary ways that we can prevent displacement is through community-driven development.

The equitable development initiative is one of the only tools the city has to address the multiple equity drivers and prevent displacement.

There's a deep need for the EDI.

So both last year and this year, we have I think over 30 applications this year that are worth over $30 million in asks, and our fund is only $5 million.

So we need a lot more funding to support this strategy and to have it be something that can actually work at the scale that is needed.

The time is now.

We need to ensure that revenue from the short-term rental tax, which council directed a portion of through ordinance to the EDI, actually funds EDI by placing that revenue in a dedicated fund.

This last budget cycle, over 20% of EDI funds were repurposed for other uses, and thankfully the council replaced those funds for 2019, but we still have a million dollar gap in the 2020 budget.

we need to resolve this issue now well in advance of budget deliberations so council doesn't have to scramble to backfill the EDI budget.

So I'm here to say that one of the first steps to addressing this is to ensure that the revenue for the short-term rental tax that's intended for EDI is placed in a dedicated fund, and we urge you to bring legislation to this committee to create a dedicated fund for both EDI and the sweetened beverage tax.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Jonathan?

And then Christopher Williams.

You, of course, are welcome to join us at the table, unless you're scheduled in.

Please, Jonathan, welcome.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

I think it was about two months ago where we made a presentation to City Council around nonprofits using Samaritan to elevate the outcomes of people experiencing homelessness.

Two quick updates from that time.

First, one of the members at the table who is with us, a currently homeless beacon holder, Raven, after 13 years of being on the street, he recently reported back that he had secured full-time work insecurity, had gotten a bank account and I was saving towards a moving deposit.

So I just wanted to let you guys know about that, which is really exciting for us.

Second, DESC, which is, of course, a city-funded shelter, wrote a statement that I'd like to provide you guys, if that's okay, talking about their desire to give more people that they serve access to a Samaritan Beacon.

So, if it's all right, I'll just hand these over to you guys.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

And they couldn't be with us today, but they've written a statement for you guys as counsel.

And if any of you are around afterwards and have a moment to chat about what could be done to give potentially 2,000 more people experiencing homelessness access to a Samaritan Beacon, love to talk to you about it.

Thank you so much for being here.

Mr. Williams?

Good afternoon.

I'm Christopher Williams, Deputy Superintendent, Seattle Parks, and it's an honor to be here today to speak in favor of Bobby Humes' confirmation as the Seattle Department of Human Services Director.

Almost a year ago, I had a chance to hire Bobby as a Parks HR Director out of a field of several highly qualified candidates.

Bobby stood out to me because of his overwhelming enthusiasm, positive energy.

Bobby was not only energetic, but I saw him as a type of leader the city should be hiring.

He is a next generation leader for our time.

I've not only been impressed with Bobby's energy and enthusiasm, but also in his vocabulary and the way he phrases, rather the phrases he uses to describe the potential we have with city employees.

I see Bobby as a leader committed to new solutions for intractable problems.

He has street credibility with employees, he's almost in an and evangelist for the city's Race and Social Justice Initiative.

I believe Bobby genuinely cares about people and puts human interest above transactional work and bureaucracy.

Bobby is a people-centered leader for our time.

Bobby not only is enthusiastic and energetic, he is strategic in his thinking, and he has a strong action-oriented bias.

He simply gets things done.

I'm happy to support Bobby Hume's confirmation as the next director of SDHR.

Thank you.

Very nice.

Thank you so much for your words.

I know, Allison, you're going to rush right over here and read in the first ordinance, the first item of business, Council Bill 119-541.

Thank you for taking the answer.

Item number one, Council Bill 119-541.

So I'd like to invite our friends from Seattle Public Utilities to come and join us.

This is Elise that I know that Ellen, you will be talking to us and Hillary, thank you very much.

Andrew, good to see you as well.

So I'll ask first for introductions and then you can dive right in.

Hello, my name is Andrew Lee.

I'm the Deputy Director for Drainage and Wastewater at Seattle Public Utilities.

Hi, I'm Ellen Stewart.

I'm with the Drainage and Wastewater Line of Business at Seattle Public Utilities.

Hillary Hamilton with the Real Estate Section at Finance and Administrative Services.

Thank you.

So, who's leading this?

I will lead off.

Alright, very good.

Councilmember Bagshaw, Harrell, O'Brien, and Gonzales, thank you for having us here today.

Within SPU, we have a group of employees who focus on what we call source control and pollution prevention.

These employees are on the front lines of inspecting businesses for pollution and also responding to spills or pollution that could impact our waterways.

As you can imagine, their field work and the 24-hour response needs of this group require facilities that can accommodate their work and position them for the fastest and most efficient response.

Today we're here to talk about a proposed lease for a building that meets the unique needs of this group.

The main driver for this proposed lease is the loss of their existing office space in Ballard because of the SPU's Ship Canal water quality project.

That mega project is a $570 million project required by our federal consent decree with the EPA Department of Justice and Ecology to address combined sewer overflows into the Ship Canal and Lake Union.

The Source Control and Pollution Prevention Group will be vacating their existing location to accommodate the construction activities for the Ship Canal Water Quality Project, which will begin at the end of the year, and hence the need for the new space.

So Hillary Hamilton and Ellen Stewart will now provide more details on the process we used to identify the space, their unique needs, and the terms of the lease agreement.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to tell you about our work.

The division plays an important role in protecting the city's drainage and sewer system and our waterways from sources of pollution.

The work is required by the city's stormwater and wastewater permit under the Clean Water Act.

We have 19 staff, a fleet of 16 vehicles, one spill response boat, and two spill supply trailers.

As Andrew mentioned, the nature of the work is very field-based.

We do 24-hour spill response for the city.

We do sampling and monitoring, and we work with businesses and residents to prevent sources of pollution.

We've made efforts to mobilize our operations so that our staff can spend as much time as possible in the field, and you'll see on your PowerPoint an example of the kind of work that we do.

I also just wanted to review some of the history, which has brought us to the point of asking you to approve this lease.

Historically, our division was split between two locations, the SMT Tower and our drinking water lab.

and they were brought together to the Ballard Operations Building in 2017. That property was purchased, as Andrew mentioned, as part of our Ship Canal Water Quality Project, and that move was always intended to be a temporary one, as the project and construction staff will occupy that building during construction.

And as Andrew also mentioned, it's really that project schedule that's driving our timeline here as the contractors will begin to move in in January, and every month of delay to that project is about $1.3 million.

The team was originally scheduled to move to the SPU South Operations Center in late 2019 with our system maintenance staff.

That project has since shifted in scope and it's no longer feasible for us to be there.

Also, that site does not provide the needed boat access and the ability for our citywide spill response as it was really intended for our South Operations crews.

So with the change in scope in the fall of 2018, we knew that we needed to move quickly to find a spot and secure a lease.

Last winter, we worked with FAS to identify possible sites that met our criteria.

We evaluated 15 sites.

We visited four of them.

We reviewed cost proposals for two and ultimately chose the Wharf building as our preferred option.

The Wharf building is located at 4209 21st Avenue West, overlooking Fisherman's Terminal in the Inner Bay neighborhood.

It offers the ability to renovate the space to match our unique field needs.

It offers an area for locker rooms, equipment repair, lab space.

We'll have an area for decontamination for our spill response, laundry, secured parking for all of our 16 city vehicles and our spill response trailers.

And we will be able to maintain our boat mortgage nearby within five minutes drive.

which is a covered in water secure boat storage.

So that's important to us.

And it allows us to respond very quickly to waterway spills.

So overall, we think this is a great match for our team's needs.

Very good.

Hilary, do you want to dive into the lease terms?

Yes, FAS has the primary responsibility for engaging in leasing activities on behalf of itself and other city departments.

And we are obliged to bring certain leases to the city council if they exceed 5,000 square feet of office space, if they exceed five years.

and if they exceed a baseline of rental rate.

And so that is why we are here today.

The lease with Broadacres LLC that owns the Wirth building provides about 7,760 square feet of warehouse locker rooms and office.

It captures all the criteria that SPU had.

It has secure parking and equipment spaces, which is excellent for city vehicles.

And we negotiated a ten-year term.

There's also a five-year option to extend.

One of the things that was important to SPU is to terminate early.

So they're hopeful that they'll be able to move back into the Ballard office building as the project completes.

But we've provided a window of opportunity in case there is a desire to do more with that other building.

other city needs.

One of the advantages here is that the city as an entity is the tenant, and so if we want to take down a little extra space for project staff or other city inspectors, perhaps we'll have the ability to do that under the authorization we've asked you for in the ordinance.

The rent is about $38 a square foot.

That was comparable with some of the other buildings of a similar type and size, especially when you take into account the fact that base utilities are included in the rent.

Also, this landlord did provide about $40 a square foot or $310,000 in tenant improvements.

That will help with some of the specialized need like the decontamination area and locker rooms and so on.

So we feel like it's a good lease.

Great.

So thank you for briefing me on this recently.

I appreciate your allowing me to do deep dive on questions.

And I wanted to underscore that you concur that this is a routine lease.

This isn't anything out of the ordinary that you wouldn't have done for other departments.

And also, if you could talk just a little bit about, and you mentioned it, We have a five-year option to renew if they wanted to extend it, but you also have the two-year prior to the end of the 10 years should SPU decide that you wanted to terminate the lease.

So do you want to describe, please, just the savings and the flexibility around that option in the lease?

We have found that most of the leases that we bring to council, we are including at least one five-year option.

And I think in this particular case with the project-based need, that was particularly useful.

And that is a pretty standard clause that we are including in leases.

The early termination is slightly different.

We have done it before, certainly.

And it, again, it's the other side of the flexibility.

The landlord wished for 10 years, and so rather than negotiate for eight, we went with 10 because then he was more willing to provide the tenant improvements and be able to amortize that, spread out that cost over the lease revenues for 10 years.

The city has the ability to give notice at the end of the eighth year.

or to leave at the end of the eighth year with one year notice.

And that just provides flexibility for the project.

And we may or may not want to do it, but it's there if we need it.

Very good.

Council colleagues, do you have any thoughts or concerns about this lease?

No further questions?

Okay.

Well, thank you for that.

Thank you all for being here.

Then I would like to move Council Bill 1195, for one.

Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

And nobody abstains.

So thank you very much.

This passes and this will move forward to our full committee on Monday.

I appreciate very much the work that you put into it and again the briefing.

Thank you very much.

Very good.

Thank you.

Let us move on to the second item of business.

Allison, do you want to read this one into the record?

And I'd like to, sorry, invite our presenters to come on up.

Item number two, sweetened beverage tax and short-term rental tax statement of legislative intent response briefing and discussion.

Very good.

Ben, did you want to join us up here?

Oh, come on up.

Sure.

Very good.

Yolanda and Ali, would you like to introduce yourselves and then Ben can chime in.

Sure.

Yolanda Ho, Council Central staff.

Allie Panucci, Council Central Staff.

Ben Noble, City Budget Director.

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here.

Allie, is this your lead?

Yes.

Good afternoon, Council Members.

Good afternoon.

The Council adopted slide 1-5-B-1 during the fall 2019 budget process, requesting that the City Budget Office submit legislation by March 28, 2019 that would create separate funds for sweetened beverage tax and short-term rental revenues and proposed financial policies for use of those funds, or excuse me, those revenues.

The slide was in response to the executive's proposed spending plans for calendar years 2019 and 2020, which did not fully align with the council's policy intent when they initially adopted ordinances establishing these taxes.

On March 28, CBO submitted their response.

But the response did not include the proposed legislation, nor did it propose financial policies.

Instead, it outlined their proposed approach, which is to transmit legislation to establish the funds and financial policies when the 2020 budget is transmitted to the council in September.

Today, Yolanda and I will briefly outline a few policy considerations for the council about why waiting to establish the funds and financial policies may not be in the council's interest, and provide some background information on the two taxes, summarize the legislation that we have drafted at the direction of Council Member O'Brien that would establish the funds and financial policies, and outline a few alternative approaches council members could consider if they move forward with this legislation.

So first I'll just provide sort of the broader policy considerations, and then we'll dive into the two specific funds.

So the main policy consideration here is that the 2019 and 2020 budget allocated tax revenues from these two sources in a manner that did not fully align with the council's intent.

And it did so in a manner that made it difficult to amend the spending plan without reducing or eliminating funding for other council and city priorities that had previously been funded with one-time funds.

The council, of course, always has the option of amending the proposed budget and associated budget legislation.

However, the primary purpose of requesting the legislation this March was to provide time outside of the compressed budget season to develop clear financial policies to inform the 2020 budget and future year budgets.

So there are several options council could pursue.

One would be to take no action now and await the legislation being transmitted with the budget.

This could be coupled with a letter or resolution expressing council's expectation for what they would like to see in that legislation.

Another option would be to introduce Council Member O'Brien's proposed legislation.

And I should note that the legislation for the short-term rental tax fund and financial policies was actually introduced during the budget process, but council chose not to act at that time and instead went the route of submitting this slide.

And of course, you could also just do legislation for one, but not both of the funds.

So you have a variety of options in front of you.

If the council chooses to go with the executive proposed timeline, which is wait until the 2020 proposed budget is transmitted to establish the funds, the mayor's proposed use for the revenues is likely to be what was included in the endorsed 2020 budget and may continue to be inconsistent with council's intent.

We would be in the same position that council was in last year in trying to identify cuts or propose new revenue sources to adjust the spending plan.

If instead the council chooses to act now to adopt legislation and establishing the funds and the financial policies, there may be some chance of those financial policies being reflected in the proposed budget.

However, it is likely given that what is in the endorsed budget is inconsistent with council's original policy intent for the funds, it's likely that the budget would be proposed in the same manner as what was in the endorsed.

But at least the council's intent would be clearly articulated, and then the discussion in trying to identify cuts or new revenue sources in the fall budget would be transparent, and everyone would be on the same page in terms of what the goal is.

So now I'll turn it over to Yolanda to provide some detail on the sweetened beverage tax, and then we'll move into the short-term rental tax.

Thanks, Allie.

So just as a quick refresher, the sweetened beverage tax was established by ordinance in 2017, and on January 1st, the city began collecting revenues, and it is a tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages.

And so the ordinance established financial policies to direct the revenues for specific purposes, some of which are one time or limited duration expenditures as described in the memo and others are ongoing.

And those are in particular to support the efforts to expand access to healthy and affordable foods, close the food security gap and promoting healthy food choices.

as well as early childhood development and some administration, supporting administrative purposes, services of the city.

So as we, as Allie just mentioned, the proposed, during budget last year, the proposed 2019-2020 budget, so based on the revenue forecast, I should back up a little bit, We had anticipated that the SBT would bring in close to $15 million, but it turned out that it actually was bringing in more than that.

And so while there had been a spending plan in place for the original estimate, given the additional revenues, what we saw in the budget last year was that Approximately $5.7 million of the unanticipated access revenue was used to supplant general fund monies for programs administered by the Department of Early Education and Early Learning, Human Services Department, and the Office of Sustainability and Environment, freeing up the general fund for other purposes, which did align with the spending guidance in the ordinance, though was not necessarily in alignment with the intent that these revenues be invested in the expansion of existing programs or creating new programs in accordance with the statute.

So instead, some of the money was then used to essentially maintain the same level of spending for programs such as food banks, childcare vouchers, and their parent child home program, which raised concern amongst some stakeholders, including members of the council and the community advisory board.

So this has kind of led us to where we are now.

And so under the direction of Council Member O'Brien, we worked on legislation that would establish a fund for SBT revenues and allowing for the kind of tracking of that money separate from the general fund.

And in addition to the existing, the financial policies that were included in the originating ordinance, what this legislation would do would codify the spending guidance.

And so it would be in the Seattle Municipal Code.

So for the public to see easily versus looking for the ordinance online and also would add some additional guidance in that it would require that the excess revenues be used solely for expanding existing programs or creating new programs that align with the SBT spending guidance.

So council can consider that as an option or potentially allowing for more flexibility for allocating excess revenues.

For instance, some portion could be appropriated according to the community advisory board, identified priorities, another for specific programs such as food banks, and the remainder left to the discretion of the executive.

So lots of different options with that.

And I'll turn it back to Ali if you have questions.

Chair, just to defer to you, should we stop at that on the sweetened beverage or should we go to the short-term rentals second?

I just had some questions about the beverage piece.

Talk about this legislation.

Okay, so let me just their context question.

So when we set up the the advisory board the We gave them a discretionary amount.

I think it was two or three million or so I'm making that part up but something for them to decide where that would go in in that group as I recall they were both food experts, if you will, and some education folks, I think, right?

That's correct.

Okay, so was their task just sort of looking at their pot that they were Just directing where to go or they all do they also have some kind of oversight function of the entire fund a week I can't recall how we set that up.

So in the ordinance they so it what happened in 2018 was that the the Community Advisory Board was so yes, there was a reserve set aside and the went once members were appointed to the Community Advisory Board they were allowed to kind of allocate that those monies as a They saw fit and also their ongoing role is to provide some of the advice and recommendations to the council and the mayor and so an oversight function Yeah, just kind of recommendations and how money so so what they did last year was provide to the council and the mayor That they wanted like a certain percentage to go to food access certain percentage to child development and so they every year they they will provide us with guidance their recommendations

Okay, that's very helpful.

I'll just add, my understanding on that first year was that it was going to take a little while to get the CAB established, and it includes both food and education experts.

And they, the understanding the money was going to be coming in immediately, and instead of having this group, you know, be formed and on day one make recommendations, we allocated some money in that first year as part of the budget and then reserve some that said after you guys get established and build a relationship with each other, we'll leave a pool of money for you to make recommendations on for this first year.

My understanding was then in subsequent years, they would be making a recommendation on the entire body.

Yeah.

My understanding too is that they've had an opportunity to review the initial proposal, initial allocation as part of their deliberations and have not made a substantive change in terms of their recommendations that where you collectively directed that first year's worth of money, because they were largely potentially ongoing programs, were things that they ultimately did agree were appropriate priorities.

And my first, last question, I was going to say my last question, let's see, is the, we, you know, we sort of had a good problem in a way, we had this surplus.

Do we project in years to come that it's going to start going, spiraling down as behaviors change, the revenues are going to go down, or do we think It's pretty much leveled out now, and it's going to be a level revenue source.

Do I have, and I know sort of guesswork.

I'm trying to get an idea.

We originally forecast a downturn and had, and actually the whole structure was originally budgeted with the idea that for a while we would take the, if you will, the first 20% and not commit it to ongoing things because we expected that we could see a downturn of as much as 20%.

So, so far we've only seen growth, but that's not, we're not necessarily assuming that's because there's more soda being consumed, but rather that as the system is, as the tax collections have become, have gone into implementation and more folks have come into compliance.

We've seen those revenues grow, but that's really much more about a compliance issue, we think, and people understanding their responsibilities.

It's a little bit complicated because the tax is actually on the distributor, not on the retailer.

So we all think it's going to continue to grow, but at the same time, we haven't seen the behavioral impact that we expected either.

So we are expecting eventually for it to stabilize and turn down, but not in a dramatic way.

So that's really the point I want to make was today we'll entertain some legislation to look at where the revenues go, but I was equally concerned about the implementation, the behavioral changes or lack thereof.

the impacts on small businesses, whether we have to mitigate them, maybe we don't.

It's just sort of what happened now that we actually have it.

And as we focus on the revenues, I'm hoping that we can work on the tax itself and where we can improve what we thought.

We've learned a lot since then, which has really been an interesting lesson.

If I could add, Council President Harrell, not to contradict you, but you made a comment that, you know, The good news was we got more money and I from a revenue perspective.

Yes The the policy especially on this was was really tricky as we heard in public comment There's a lot of economic evidence and public health evidence that by putting a tax on something we want people to consume less of, it makes that one product relatively more expensive, hoping that behavior will shift to the less expensive products, which would hopefully be, at least in a relative perspective, healthier.

There's also an economic impact that this has an income effect on people and essentially makes them poor, either because people don't have choices or it's still not enough to offset it, or for whatever reasons, maybe significant millions of dollars that are spent on marketing to certain populations that they will continue to consume and just be poor.

And that, to the extent that we collected $8 million that we know is a disproportionate tax, and it falls disproportionately on lower income and communities of color, A good thing from revenue for the city, it's really a bad thing from my perspective in that we are impacting certain communities more than we thought we were.

I have discomfort about this tax in general, just because when we're looking at our race and social justice goals, a disproportionate tax would normally be something we wouldn't want to do.

We do have experts that are working with communities, and we heard in testimony today, talking to various community members that says, we are proposing to tax you, but we want to reinvest that money in your community.

And so that's the crux.

You know, from an economic perspective, I could negate the income effect of the tax by simply collecting the money and then giving it back to the people, but saying, you can use this to buy juice and it'll be less expensive, or you can use it by, you know, Coke and it'll be more expensive.

But we can't just give cash back to individuals because of other reasons, but we can invest in ways that maybe even have a better impact, which we're trying to do.

And that's where I think I'm trying to get at setting up this fund.

In our next meeting, perhaps, we can review what we received from the University of Washington earlier this year.

I thought their analysis was great.

That team was showing where across the city we were collecting money.

And I believe they're scheduled to come back in September to talk to us more about the actual income that has been raised and where it's been raised.

so that we can have more information about this.

But I think the point that you're making, Council Member O'Brien, you've been really consistent about this, is that we're collecting money from communities.

We want to make sure we're reinvesting in things that was the original underlying intention.

And that's really what we're here today to talk about from a policy standpoint.

The other thing I'll mention, not knowing this, I'm looking at you, Ben, but then I'm also looking at your shoulder, Mr. Krueger.

I hear from you that there hasn't been a lot of evidence that that tax has been declining, but I also understand in a conversation, just a brief conversation I had with Jim a few months ago, that there is some evidence that behavior is shifting.

And so I think that it's probably premature to discuss that at this point, but hopefully relatively soon we'll get some more data on that and see where it's going.

Just for the folks that are like, is the tax working or not, I'd say let's reserve judgment on that one.

I couldn't agree more.

I mean, we really, I mean, we don't have historic data of any real lengths, so it's really hard to discern.

And as I described, in this initial phase, as the tax, we never knew what the tax base was until we applied the tax.

Right, so we were making just a...

As we come into compliance, and I don't want to imply that people are cheating either, it's just a question of knowledge and understanding, and that's taken us a while.

So we really haven't stabilized the revenue source from a collection perspective to start drawing the kind of analytic conclusions that we ultimately need to.

And two points, one is I want to commend our friend from Got Green if she's still here with us.

Just I appreciate so much that she was helping us get the word out to the community about what this program was designed to do and that we would be reinvesting.

And I like the fact that you said that your name's on the line.

I really respect the work that you've done on that.

Second point is Washington voters across the state, and I think it was like 55-45 voted that going forward, other than the city of Seattle, that other cities could not impose this tax.

And I had thought that we might be able to adjust it somewhat.

I'm not sure that we can.

Like, for example, we can't extend it to diet drinks, which is a concern for me every bit as much as sugary beverages.

But that said, I'd like us to focus back in on the policies here and what it is and why it is that we're bringing forward potential legislation.

By the way, we're not voting on anything today.

This is just informational.

And I will just add one more thing about the community advisory board also is responsible for publishing an annual report on the tax and so and programs funded by it.

So and that is expected to be completed either by the end of this month or early next month.

So that could be another additional point for adding to the discussion.

Thank you.

I'll move on to the short-term rental tax.

OK.

Any other questions on this point?

OK.

Thank you.

So just as way of some background, the short-term rental tax is a little bit more of a bumpy path.

In 2017, the Council adopted a local per-night tax on each short-term rental operator in Seattle.

The primary goal for this tax, or the intent for creating this new revenue source, was to create an ongoing source of revenue for grants provided through the City's Equitable Development Initiative Program.

that would, at minimum, provide $5 million for grants to communities annually, and then anything above $5 million to provide funding for new affordable housing projects or to be used to pay the debt service on bonds issued to develop new affordable housing.

The legislation outlined the council's intent for use of those funds in the manner I just suggested.

The first $5 million for EDI grants, the next $2 million for investments in affordable housing, and then anything above that could be split between both the non-housing and housing portions of equitable development projects.

Following adoption of the local tax, the state adopted a tax on short-term rentals with information in that legislation that if the city repealed their local tax, any tax revenue generated from the state tax in the city of Seattle would be directed to the city.

And that was a, rather than a per night tax, was based on the cost of the rental, and so it was more equitable, and frankly, then the city didn't have to implement a new tax.

So the city repealed the new local tax with the intent that the tax revenue generated from that source would be directed in the same manner as was described in the local ordinance.

The state bill was less specific about the funding.

It directed money for use for community-initiated equitable development projects, as well as affordable housing, but was not as prescriptive as the local ordinance.

The spending plan in the 2019 and 2020 budget supported several council priorities, broadly speaking, related to affordable housing and equitable development.

However, it used revenues to support staff in the Office of Planning and Community Development and consultant resources for the equitable development program, rather than providing a full $5 million in grants to the community.

and to support existing supportive housing programs and the Seattle Rental Housing Assistance Pilot rather than investments in new affordable housing projects.

So this was not entirely consistent with the council's original intent, but I think this sort of highlights one of the policy challenges here is that it is funding other council priorities and so there are trade-offs here in trying to use these new revenue sources to buy new things, essentially, and how we fund existing ongoing expenses or programs that the council or the mayor has proposed in previous budget years.

So the council was unable to find ongoing resources to fully align the proposed spending plan with the original intent.

However, we were able to ensure that in 2019, a full $5 million would be available for EDI grants by reallocating some community development block grant funds, but we're not able to fully restore the funding for 2020. So the endorsed budget only includes $4 million for EDI grants.

The legislation prepared under the direction of Councilmember O'Brien would establish the fund and financial policies for the short-term tax proceeds that would be consistent with what was included originally in the local tax ordinance.

If the council moves forward with legislation, there are some modifications to those policies that could be considered.

One change would be rather than allocating the first $5 million to EDI, you could consider directing the first $2.2 million to pay the debt service on bonds that have already been issued for affordable housing projects.

At this stage, I think it is looking like we will have more than $2.2 million coming in from short-term rental tax revenue, but in the event, in some years, if revenues were lower, it would ensure that we're first paying our debt surface prior to issuing grants.

In addition, or instead, the council could allow more flexible use of short-term rental tax revenues in 2020, essentially to reflect what was in the proposed spending plan in the endorsed budget, and then put in stricter policies that would go into place in 2021 or later.

So that's all I have on short-term rentals.

Questions?

Yeah, sure.

I wanted to provide some broader context for the proposed and endorsed budgets and how the mayor got where we got, got where she got, and then And, well, you know where you got, where you at.

But going into last fall's budget process and developing the 19-20 biennial budget, we faced a significant challenge, particularly around homelessness and homelessness funding.

So, and it just ends up, treading some paths of perhaps uncomfortable ground, but it's an important piece of the story.

So the previous fall, council had approved some significant potentially ongoing funding for homelessness services on the expectation that there would be a head tax that would provide the ongoing funding for those.

That ultimately proved not to be viable.

So the 2018 budget included one-time sources that were funding a series of ultimately ongoing services, shelters and the like, and an expansion of those services.

So that was in the base 18 budget.

When Mayor Durkin was elected, she took a read of the landscape and brought to you proposals for further expansion of homelessness services that at the time was largely supported by one-time resources as well.

acknowledge then as we presented it that this was something we'd have to sort out as we brought forward the budget.

So it was in the context of the declared emergency on homelessness and the need to find resources to support the response to that, that we started to look for, and I described this before, and I will as I say here again, creative uses of the city's available revenues.

This council as a body had in previous years and perhaps in the last fall and the previous fall, I think in the previous fall, debated the use of the emergency fund as a source to address homelessness needs given that there was a declared emergency.

The reason that you didn't, and I think you shouldn't have, and the reason that it sort of doesn't work is that the emergency fund is a one-time source.

And this is obviously a very unusual declared emergency.

We candidly don't see its end.

So to respond to an emergency, I think allocation of resources is an obvious thing to do.

But this has to be an allocation of ongoing resource to be meaningfully.

Overall city revenues were increasing, but not at the scale to support what ultimately was a $15 to $20 million effective add for homelessness.

And again, largely for shelters and for food program, a variety of things.

So we had to get very creative to be candid.

So part of the budget that you approved for 19 and endorsed for 20 uses, I don't have another better word for it, a swap to take $10 million of real estate excise tax revenue and effectively redirected into the general fund.

That's a difficult decision.

It deprives a number of important types of projects that depend otherwise on those resources.

That wasn't enough.

So we then turned to some of these other sources, in particular the ones that you were talking about today.

It is true that the proposals were, and I'm not denying it, as I sit here, were inconsistent with the council's original intent.

When that original intent was developed, you didn't know this financial situation you were going to be in, that the head tax would not prove to be a viable funding alternative.

So given that the circumstances has changed, it didn't seem unreasonable that the potential uses of the money, uncomfortable as it might be, and to be clear, I know a regressive tax source when I see it, and we're staring straight at one.

So this is not the way you want to be raising revenue just to raise revenue.

It's designed to achieve other goals.

So I just couldn't agree more on that point.

So, but again, we needed an ongoing source.

You have, for the first five years that I was budget director, at least four, we have asked general fund departments for reductions.

And we, every year we've gotten a list of those things, and in an entirely transparent and appropriate way, we have transferred that list to you once we've had a shot at it ourselves.

And this is not a critique, because we rejected the cuts as well, but you didn't pick any of them up either.

So I say that as I deliver the next line, it's instructive to me, if not painful for all of us, that as you went through the fall, the process last fall, that you weren't able to find alternative revenue sources to support these ongoing activities.

I don't think they easily exist.

I don't think the cuts that would need to be made are obviously on the table without cutting services that support those in need or, you know, a variety of city services.

I mean, obvious one, police and fire account for 40 plus percent of the general fund.

Fire is not shrinking and nor is police from a cost perspective and variety of other, you know.

So there isn't somewhere obvious.

So it's instructive to me and I hope it's instructive to you that you see that that wasn't easy and that you weren't actually able to do it.

And I'm not surprised because I wasn't able to do it either, not that you're not better than me, but just like it is that hard.

So what I worry about from your perspective as well as my own is that if you establish these policies without knowing what the implications are, that you will potentially regret them.

And that again, in the context of the emergency that we are living in now, that bending some of our broader, your broader policy objectives to meet this other overriding need is where we are.

And that's how we got where we are.

These are your judgments, not mine, but I think that context and the real rock and hard place challenge we face, you face, is relevant.

I really appreciate your comments there, Ben.

I don't know if Council Member O'Brien wants to chime in, but this is a concern every year, and as the Finance and Budget Chair coming up, I'm really concerned about decisions that we make now and how they might limit choices that we may want to take in October.

But recognizing that, I think we pretty much know what the revenue sources are.

We may not know exactly the dollar amounts, but the goal to find additional revenue sources to support some of the things that many of us want, including the good work that you're talking about right here, how do we fund, take the sugary beverage tax and the taxes that come from other legislation that we're looking at potentially today.

But then also thinking if I can just insert this that we're talking about adding some additional funding for human services providers.

There isn't a thing wrong with us considering that, but we do have to look at the revenue sources because we know that the human services providers are very interested in getting additional support.

which I think we all look at and we see their budgets and we know how difficult it is.

So as we're going through this today, I just want to be cognizant that we've got some choices to make short term and then we're definitely going to have some additional choices to make come October.

I appreciate you laying out the challenges there, and you and I have talked and agree on the challenges, disagree on the policy outcome.

The challenge for me, there's two separate issues here before us, because there's two separate taxes, and they're distinct.

I want to focus on the sweetened beverage tax first, because the decision of who's paying that tax is a really important one for me.

And acknowledging that everything Ben said is there's a bunch of important things in the budget that our council priorities that we chose not to defund, I still cannot support a tax that's disproportionate on these communities to fund those needs.

If those needs are priorities for us, and I think they are, we should find a tax source that is more progressive than that.

And there are other tax sources, you know.

There aren't a lot of great options.

We've used a number of them, but the sweetened beverage tax didn't exist a couple years ago.

If we wanted to tax something selectively that disproportionately affected wealthy people, we could do that and find sources.

And what I propose is that we get this legislation introduced and pass it and ask the mayor to present a budget that finds some solutions, whether it's cuts from things, other things, or other taxes that are more in line with our values.

And then we'll have to struggle with whatever we get, because it won't be easy.

But I don't think, I personally can't support this continuing the way it is.

On the swing benefits.

I know you well enough to know you.

I just want to understand something.

So I'm hearing you say that a tax that obviously is disproportionately paid by poor people of lower income, we turn around and take that and invest it back into the communities.

If that community is a priority, we shouldn't use their money for those particular needs.

I'm paraphrasing a bit.

No, so for me, the tax itself has an impact on consumer choice.

And part of the reason we're doing the tax is because the public health experts say we want people to shift behavior and a tax is effective at that.

But the income effect that makes them poor is bad, so let's invest heavily back in those communities so that their income is raised.

You support that?

I support that.

Homelessness is a huge problem that we need to find funding to solve.

I don't think we should tax homeless people to fund the solution.

I think we should tax society broadly to solve it.

food banks and affordable housing.

That should not be funded on the backs of low-income people who over-consume Coke and Pepsi.

That should be funded on all of us.

In fact, it probably should be disproportionately funded by people who are doing well in today's economy.

Finding a good tax for that is hard, but, you know, a yoga tax or a latte tax is certainly better than a Pepsi tax.

And so let's get creative if that's what we need to do, if we need to find a new revenue and not do it on the backs of these folks.

Thank you.

Do you have something else?

No, I just want to.

So last year, one of, for me, the difficult parts of out of budget.

was a conflict that arose around should we put more money into food banks or should we put more money into the items that were recommended by the committee, by the CAB.

And we struck a deal and there was peace in the family and we were able to move forward.

How do you suggest that we address that?

So I think that's separate than this.

How we spend the money and how we prioritize it, we are, I believe the CAB is just recently or is about to finalize their recommendations going forward.

And I believe food banks are a piece of it.

And I think they will give us direction on how that group proposes to address food insecurity, including food banks.

And I haven't seen those yet.

I'm looking forward to hearing from them, as I think we all are.

And it may be that the council and the mayor disagree with their set of recommendations, and so we will consider that again in the part of the budget.

I tend to defer to those experts, and others on the council may have different priorities, and that's totally fine.

But I think that's a separate decision about should this funding be diverted or supplant other things.

Again, not in a devious way, in a transparent way that I just disagree with.

I appreciate what you're saying.

We got the umbrella question and how we're going to spend it.

And then getting into the details is something we're going to discuss again in the council.

But I really would like us to have more conversation about that up front if we can, so it just doesn't devolve.

And so for me, to be clear, I'm happy to have more conversation, but I'd like this resolved this month.

I get you.

And I hear from folks out there.

One is, you know, Ben's told us what he wants to take back to the mayor.

I'm telling you I want to send something different back.

So that does not necessarily get resolved here.

But I think the sooner the council weighs in, not just Mike O'Brien weighing in on this, and give you clarity, it doesn't necessarily fix the problem, but at least you know what it is more than, like, a couple days before the budget's done.

If you would like this introduced and referred to this committee to come back in a couple of weeks, or I can put it into my committee.

But I do, I feel especially for Tanika who was knocking on doors, talking to community members saying, we are going to reinvest this back in your community.

And I just can't wait much longer to tell them we're still sitting on our hands.

Because not only does it hurt us for this, it hurts us for future considerations like this too.

And tell me, is this on our calendar for the 26th?

OK.

Great.

That was largely about the sweetened beverage tax.

The Equitable Development Initiative and the short-term rental is a different beast.

The folks that are being taxed, it's not a disproportional tax like this.

It's largely tourists from out of town, and who bears the cost, and all that stuff is probably a little more complex, whether it's the property owner or the guest visiting.

But some mix of those folks are paying it.

And so I have less concern about that.

I do feel that the EDI investments are a high priority.

And I think it's consistent with our investments, both in broadly the displacement that's happening.

And the distinction that I believe happened last year that we corrected was between $4 million and $5 million being invested in EDI projects.

And the endorsed budget for next year has only $4 million being invested, whereas community, the commitment we previously made was $5 million.

That's a $1 million gap, which is still a big gap, but not as big as what we're dealing with in the sweetened beverage tax.

I do think that when we hear of 30 projects, the vast majority of projects I think that we would all like to fund for anti-displacement work.

is really important.

Some of those projects line up with our affordable housing investments, too.

Some of them are completely independent of affordable housing projects.

That does raise to the level for me that it's a priority.

It's a different dynamic, and so we're talking about similar tools for these, and so I think talking about the same time is important, but the driving factor behind them is slightly different for me.

Do we know what the revenue coming in is in this year?

Is there more expected in our short-term rental tax than?

No.

At this stage, we only have a quarter's worth of data.

We're actually resolving some accounting issues.

I think we've resolved them.

So for the first quarter, we have one data point.

It works out to about the $10 million that we had anticipated.

On the short-term rental and the use of the revenues, even within the context of what you've proposed, one thing I would note is it talks about the monies being used for the grants.

I think it's important to recognize that as part of the equitable development process, staff support to the capacity building of the agencies that could be applying for the grants.

is integral to the program.

You could do it with a general fund subsidy, general fund contributions, but I think it's to distinguish the grants from that capacity building is in some ways to misunderstand the program, and I don't mean to lecture you.

I think it's, an example is the Neighborhood Matching Fund.

I think the staff support and the dollars out the door are all practically 50-50, and that's not wrong.

It's because in order to do that kind of work, So I think a slightly broader definition of what constitutes the program might be meaningful and useful.

That's fair.

And I think the challenge was that we had previously been funding staff work out of general fund money.

And when this pool came along, the community expectation was $5 million.

And when they saw that, there was some plantation.

But we could do that.

And we might say, let's do $6 million for EDI and a million that I can go to grants.

But that doesn't solve the problem.

But it's fair to say that the staff work is important work to the community.

I agree with that.

I think my sense is we're learning that ever more, actually.

It's that the capacity building side is an ever larger, ever more important part of the program, which speaks to equitable development at its core, that the communities, for historic reasons of institutional racism and oppression, have really not built their communities to a place where they can engage in the kind of standard grant making that we do.

So anyway, I've come to learn myself more about that in terms of the reality of it.

So I should say in closing before we go to the next agenda item, thank you, Council Member Bryan, for your leadership on both of these issues, your commitment.

I've worked side by side with you on these issues, and so I look forward to making sure we are protecting the communities that are near and dear to us and those folks that are being taxed, but we're trying to help and get back into the community.

So we're going to be all over that and the short-term rentals as well.

I'm glad you recognize that a lot of more affluent people

I would have a request I suspect but don't know on behalf of the mayor which is the council moves forward with this side of the Recommendation saying that this is how you'd like the funds directed It seems reasonable then to also signal to the mayor how you would like that met so if in fact there are tax proposals that you would can you think are reasonable because I've explored progressive tax opportunities and they are limited.

Or alternatively, from the funding general fund side, what are the priorities that you see as the lower hanging fruit?

Because otherwise, this is a one-sided policy recommendation that doesn't own the other side.

And as I said in a somewhat joking but honestly serious matter, the budget is not a competitive sport.

I mean, we're actually looking for your direction and advice.

I mean, so to offer the spending side without some acknowledgment of the other side isn't really meaningful direction at some level.

So it's a sincere request to understand if we're going to reprioritize this money, then what are we going to unprioritize?

Or what new revenue are we going to use, would you propose to use?

I'm open to that request and I do think we were pretty clear initially I get that if our projection was 22 million instead of 17 or 14 million We wouldn't be in this place with maybe or maybe we were also clear that you were gonna have a head tax and we haven't so like I mean I'm sorry, but they're there we could go into that with the mayor and her role to help us with that and so I don't think that's me productive here.

So I Think we should move on Council president Harold, did you have anything you wanted to end?

Well, I got a

I will look at the tape.

I understood some of your points.

Let me finish.

It didn't feel good on my end.

At the end of the day, we have our priorities.

We are trying to fund them.

The mayor is the executive.

She can understand our priorities if we are prioritizing poor people in this sense.

and we have other police and fire issues, that's quite frankly her job.

I completely agree.

What I'm describing is that the 2020 endorsed budget, you voted and endorsed, the overall revenue forecast hasn't meaningfully changed.

So if we're going to redirect these resources away from where they're proposed in the endorsed 2020 budget, something has to fill their place, and that is either a reduction somewhere else.

So your priorities, you endorse the 2020 budget.

Those were the last expression of your budget priorities.

This is a change to those, and you're absolutely positioned to make that.

I'm not, but if it's half the recommendation and not the other half, it leaves us guessing, it leaves the mayor guessing as to where you would have us meet that that challenge.

That's all I was intending.

Well, I think this is a great beginning conversation.

We will continue.

We'll plan it on the 26th.

Thank you very much, Council Member O'Brien, for being here and joining us.

Thank you, Ali and Yolanda, for your good work.

Okay, so our third item of business, would you like to read it in for us?

And please, I'd like to invite all who are here in support of Bobby Humes to come on up to the table.

Thank you.

Item number three, appointment number 01370, appointment of Robert Humes as director of the Seattle Department of Human Resources for a term to June 1st, 2023. Very good.

Thank you.

Excellent to have you three gentlemen here with us.

Mr. Robert Humes, would you like to introduce yourself first?

Never heard you called anything but Bobby.

Yes, Bobby Humes, please.

Thank you, Council Member.

I prepared some remarks, if you don't mind.

Good, and let's just do a quick introduction so everybody knows who's here.

David Mosley, Deputy Mayor.

And Christopher Williams, Deputy Superintendent, Seattle Parks.

Thank you.

All right, if you have prepared remarks, or Deputy Mayor Mosley, do you want to do a quick intro?

I will do a very quick intro.

I'm a little bit tempted just to read Christopher Williams' statement again, because I thought it really captured both Bobby and his approach to this work.

But I'll save you that, since you've heard it once.

I felt the same way, Christopher.

I was like, eight men, you know?

I agree.

I just wanted to, by way of background, we had about 118 applicants for this position.

We had a search committee comprised of labor and department HR directors across the city.

I think there are about nine or so members of the search committee.

which helped us identify the six people that we, actually we had eight people that we identified to interview, two withdrew at the last moment, so we interviewed six, and then the mayor interviewed the finalists that we recommended from there.

And Bobby came out clearly the one that the search committee recommended to the mayor, They didn't make recommendations, but clearly indicated they thought he was a very, very strong candidate for the position.

And the mayor, after doing interviews, is happy to...

provide to you her nomination of Bobby Humes as the Director of the Department of Human Resources.

Great.

And thank you, colleagues.

I also want to acknowledge Lena Thibault on my staff, who was part of the search committee.

Absolutely.

And I appreciate all of her work and insights into the process.

And also, I want the two of you to know that I have had the pleasure of serving with Bobby on our SERS committee, the Seattle I'm going to get this the employees retirement system.

That's it So it's been great to have you there.

I really appreciate the positive energy that you bring and I know that you are going to be a real asset for this department.

So if you've got a prepared statement Thank you council members

Thank you for this opportunity.

It's with extreme honor to be considered to serve as the director of the Seattle Department of Human Resources.

I believe in the department's mission to provide services for the city's diverse workforce.

In my short time as interim, I have witnessed the focus on workforce equity through the diligent response to the mayor's executive order on anti-harassment and anti-discrimination.

and the employee-centered approach to standing up the HR Investigations Unit.

I am impressed by the customer-driven approach to providing services to the nuanced situations within 18 departments with unique missions and organizational cultures.

I have witnessed centers of excellence among the ever-growing list of centralized administrative services that impact the entire city workforce, their families, and our retirees.

I've also witnessed employees who are still in need of time and attention to heal from the harm of inconsistent and task-centered leadership within our department and beyond.

I believe in the people of this department and in our fellow HR practitioners across the city.

I'm excited about the opportunity to serve in a capacity that builds communities of HR excellence and provides the city with competent and consistent HR products, services, and supports.

We have a lot of challenging and essential work ahead of us as a city in the HR space.

There are a lot of HR opportunities to increase our effectiveness with labor partners by ensuring we honor our agreements through everyday operations and are responsive to our grievance process.

We owe this to our managers and employees.

Through partnerships with IT and finance and accounting services and CBO, we have a window of time to leverage HR talent across the city to identify and implement human resource capital management systems that allow us to better manage human resource functions and outcomes.

As director, my goal will be to center race through HR services and commitments.

Most recently, I've had the opportunity to work with the mayor's office and city council staff on options that best support the city's goal of being an employer of choice.

This work has been challenging, yet extremely rewarding as it has become clear to me that there are leverage points in increasing our shared understanding of impacts of HR policies and practice through effective communication and shared accountability.

I'm eager to reinforce strong partnerships with city council staff and HR.

Again, thank you for your time today.

I'm eager to hear your questions and provide thoughtful responses and provide more context about my vision for the work of the HR practice citywide and my potential ownership of the outcomes in the role of director of the Seattle Department of Human Resources.

Thank you.

I appreciate your written statement, but I'm about to ask you some questions because what I love about you and your approach is your heart.

and your support of the people that you work with.

I also want to recognize Debra Smith.

I think you have another supporter here at the table.

So it's great.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

So one of the first questions that everybody's asked, and it was in the first paragraph question that was submitted to you, is why do you want this job?

I know that in the decade that I have been here that I've seen struggles.

I've seen that there are questions of morale within the department.

I think people have tried.

I believe that you will succeed in making this department something that everybody's really proud about.

But just talk to us a little bit about what brings you here.

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

What brings me here is what brings me to this profession, HR. in my opinion, is a calling.

And it's hard to do if you don't love people.

You can love the processes, you can love the outcomes, but if you don't love the human experience, all human experience, this becomes very hard.

And so I'm excited about the opportunities that we have to leverage the different partnerships that we have.

SDHR is looked at.

in the practice of HR across the city as the place you go when you need HR answers.

And we want to redefine who our customer is.

We want to redefine what it means to bring value to the HR space for the city, for the benefit of our employees.

And so that's my why, create value, figure out what our customer needs, and do all of that through a lens of racial equity.

Nice.

Colleagues, do you have questions?

Because I can continue.

But if you've got specifics you'd like to bring up, I want to give you the opportunity.

Just a few questions, I guess.

I'll just let it go up organically.

Thanks for responding so comprehensively to the dozen or 20 questions, 21 questions.

I was looking at one of your questions on your vision for the departments.

And you talk about with the initial passive I-1000, you don't, let me back up.

In one of your visions, you don't talk about diversity at all, that there's no mention of diversity, acknowledging that the workplace is changing demographically.

And then in your question on Channel 13, I noticed you didn't mention African-Americans some reason, and could you talk a little bit about, maybe that was just an oversight, you had a lot of information.

How do you see the changing demographics in maybe the country, the city, and how that affects the city of Seattle?

Some people say we're the widest, they were saying we're the widest city in the country for a while, I don't know how they compute some of that stuff, but this is gonna be a challenge, trying to have a diverse, workplace when you have richer demographics coming into a city, it's just going to be a challenge.

And so I noticed you didn't mention any of that in your vision and some absences in your RSGI description.

Sure, and that was probably in oversight.

So I would say that when we think about the changing demographics within the city, we have to think about what we mean by the term Greater Seattle.

And we have to understand that the forces that are shaping or redefining or reshaping what it means to be a part of the city are also the challenges that we have in identifying what we mean by demographics.

And so we had a discussion this morning with our Workforce Equity Director, our Talent Acquisition Director, and my Chief of Staff about how are we going to put the city in position to be responsive to I-1000 upon its initial passage?

And what that means is that we have to have a fundamental conversation about data and defining what our scope of human information we're going to leverage in order to tell a compelling story about our value in creating more diverse organizations.

We cannot use the demographics in our city and define what we mean by equity.

We have to think in broader terms.

We know that people are commuting into the city.

We know that we must redefine our talent acquisition practices in order to ensure that the people of the city of Seattle who work in the city of Seattle represent the large swath of people who may not live here, but would definitely work here.

That's my response to that question.

And I think we want to be ahead of whatever affirmative action reporting is going to happen.

And so we have a plan in place to bring our larger organizations together.

Deborah, you're just hearing this for the first time.

but to bring our larger organizations to the table together with us to help us define these things.

We don't want to define them on our own and then create a compliance driven methodology.

We want to have shared value in our approach to having an approach to equity that is centered around the greater Seattle definition and what that means to all of us.

So just thanks for that response.

So earlier you talked about sort of the 18 departments that you sort of deal with.

And I'm a little confused on this, that like we have our small HR department and our department and many departments have their HR, but your human resources Like police and fire, they're sort of the big departments.

You interface with them a lot too.

I mean, you're new to the job, so I'll just ask the Deputy Mayor.

What role does SDHR play in the large departments like police and fire in terms of recruiting?

Because we have a huge challenge with diverse recruiting in some of these departments.

Do they handle that themselves or would this be under Bobby's purview?

The recruitment particularly in police and fire are in those departments.

You're absolutely correct that they do coordinate with SDHR as a part of that.

I think the 18 departments that Bobby was referring to were the smaller, the midsize and smaller departments that they, that SDHR provides the direct human services services to.

Whereas the larger departments, like City Light and Parks and others, do have their own human resources staff.

But that is done in coordination with city HR.

Okay, because what I because it goes back to my earlier point is what I was hoping to see in the vision which I just noticed wasn't in there was We've had some issues on this as a city.

I'll take some ownership as well We as a city in terms of our recruiting our apprenticeship Our poor diversity in some of our apprenticeship programs It's just a big big issue.

We've been to contend with no counselor Gonzales, but a lot of energy behind this as well and And I was hoping to hear almost a champion on some of these issues coming from your spot.

And when I see a vision that doesn't even mention that, I get concerned.

Not that you're not an outstanding candidate, but it just bears some mentioning that I saw that.

And then when I coupled that with, you were talking about the initial passage of I-100, and you talk about your fostering relationships with every group in there without African-Americans.

I was thinking, how do we miss that one?

That specific line was in reference to the opportunity areas that we do not have stated strategies around those population groups.

If you read our workforce equity plan, you will see that in all the other areas we have a targeted recruitment plan for other population groups, and we have extreme deficits there.

And so there's no strategy for those groups, and that's where that comes from.

I would also say that I am a proponent of the different avenues by which people enter employment into the city.

And so that's definitely a part of my being.

That's part of who I am.

Understood.

Thank you, sir.

I have a question that dovetails to that last answer that I've been itching to ask.

So in the context of creating pathways for careers at the city of Seattle, I think that's something that we could do much better as a whole.

And as I think about this concept of a centralized HR versus a decentralized HR, I mean, I think it's fair to say that we have a fairly hybrid system currently where there are some inherent systemic inequities associated with that hybrid because a lot of the larger well-resourced and funded departments have the ability to hire their own HR and sort of do what they want to do the way they want to do it, while some of the other smaller mid-sized agencies have to really rely on HR delivering the services in a manner that's consistent with their agency's culture.

And that's also impacted by the amount of resources or morale issues that might exist at central HR.

And so I think that that makes it really difficult for mid-sized and smaller agencies to get a really responsive reaction from central HR on really critical issues that they, on really critical hiring issues that they care about.

So one example of a pathway to a career at the city that we don't talk a lot about is is the opportunity to do work-study and internships at the city.

And we at the legislative department have our own HR department, and we really utilize and value and have integrated work-study interns into the city.

many of our offices hiring practices.

I think most of our council offices have interns as well as some of our administrative offices.

And I've recently heard from some smaller mid-sized departments that they have an interest in diversifying their workforce and in creating opportunities for younger folks to consider careers in public service and in departments and agencies that might otherwise be inaccessible to them, whether it be environment or land use or, you know, community development, right, line workers.

Line workers is a little different because that's an apprenticeship program, but when we're talking about work-study internship, You know, I think there's a great opportunity to create pathways for careers, whether it's here at the city or just building their resume to be able to land somewhere upon graduation from university.

And some of these agencies that I've been talking to have said that they've heard directly from HR that work-study is not an option for those departments and have been denied the opportunity, straight up denied the opportunity to participate in a work-study internship setting under the auspices that only the legislative department does that, which I know for a fact is not true.

I'd like to hear from you what your priorities are in the space of work-study internship and aligned with that.

How do we get more alignment and understanding within central HR about what our policies are and what our policies are not.

Consistency is something that has been long flagged as a concern as it relates to interpretation of our policies, practices, and procedures at the city, specific to HR, and I wanna get a sense from you about how you tackle that.

So it's sort of a two-part, multi-part question.

I'll do my best to unpack it.

I will remind you.

Thank you.

So I would say that the organizations that have the smaller HR shops or the smaller budgets, they're part of that A team, and they receive services from our HR business partners.

So we have a team of HR business partners who are there to make sure that they're getting quality customer service.

Arts and culture is one of those departments.

And when arts and culture contacted us and let us know that they weren't getting the type of customer service that they valued, we shifted.

We listened to them and we shifted.

That's our new normal, to be responsive to our customer, to provide value.

I know I keep coming back to customer service and value, but that is at the pinnacle of what we do.

I would say my value or my belief about internships is in line with the mayor's directive for us to increase the number of internships we have citywide.

And so if there are departments out there who believe that they're hearing a no from us, we'd love to work with you on identifying who they are so we can provide some customer service to them and work with them to make sure we understand what their needs are.

I want to be really clear that I'm not talking about the Seattle Youth Employment Initiative.

That is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the work-study internship program, which is a different kind of internship program.

Bobby's at college and he, she, they want to be a part of the Seattle workforce through an internship program.

We have internship programs.

And so we are engaging our workforce equity team.

They came to me really early on in my interim role and said, hey, we know that this is not a budget priority, some of these pathways to include green pathways, but we believe that there's opportunities for us to leverage energy that's already out there around this need.

What do you think we can do?

And my guidance to them was go do it.

put your best thinking out there, let's build partnerships and let's find the individuals who we can leverage opportunities and make that happen.

So that work is happening and those numbers are going up.

We've seen in some cases, some departments doubling their numbers from last year's participation around internships.

So that work is happening.

Can I just interrupt here for just a second?

Council President Harreld has an important four o'clock event he has to get to and I wanted to pass it over to him.

I just wanted to say, I'm sorry, I can't stay for the, it's my wife's birthday.

I was just made at four o'clock.

I'm trying to keep this thing going here.

So after 30 years, so I mistimed my time.

I just thank you for this and I'll watch the rest on TV.

So I have to excuse myself.

We'd love to talk to you more about my view on diversity and inclusion.

And he and I spent a goodly amount of time talking about this.

I know you'll be impressed with his responses.

So take care of the birthday.

That's very good.

Thank you.

Continue on.

I apologize.

The second part of your question was how do we become more aligned with our HR policies and practices?

I think that's the crux of that.

And I would say that we have a charge that came from the mayor's office to provide more consistent and competent HR services products and supports.

That means that while Deborah's team has a lot of opportunity to be creative because of maybe the resources they're able to leverage, because I would say everyone has constrained budgets.

No one has a money tree.

And so where there's leverage points for people to do or for teams to do different things, how can we leverage those into pilot opportunities so we can understand how things might work across our enterprise and then scale those things to fit into the nuanced nature of different business lines?

So what may work for SBU we know may not work for parks, but what can we learn from what we pilot at SBU?

And then have that be adopted and scaled across the enterprise.

We're doing that right now with the alternative work arrangements project that was piloted during the period of maximum constraint.

showed some great numbers, we hit our goals plus, and now there's an opportunity for us to think about equity in that program, and also think about how, and when I say equity, I mean racial equity, and I'm talking about those who we know work in our communities, who mow our lawns and take care of our green spaces.

those folks who, you know, don't work in offices, how do we get, how do we leverage their opportunities into having, you know, 410s or 980s and what might that look like?

And so SPU is partnering, excuse me, Seattle City Light is partnering with us to pilot that moving forward.

Then it becomes adoption.

It's not just, you know, we all do it the same, but how do we measure the fact that we're doing it the same?

And I think that's our department's role.

I believe that SDHR's role is to audit what we implement citywide to make sure that it stays consistent.

When it comes to policy, we are looked at on the HR.

I get emails a lot about, you know, there's a policy implication to a decision, and per ordinance, it lands on my desk.

I don't just want to make yes or no decisions.

I want to understand the clients, going back to customer service.

I want to understand what their needs are based on how they're asking me to think about the policy outcomes.

And then I bring my team.

so we make sure that there's precedence.

Because I haven't been here as long as some of them have, and I wanna honor their wisdom in looking at some of these policy outcomes.

So in response to your question, I'm thinking about consistency, approachability, and then communication.

So when we make a decision that goes outside of precedence or establishes a new precedence, how do we communicate with labor to make sure that they know that maybe that's a one-time decision to go outside of precedence?

Or maybe it's something that we now think about differently.

And then how do we share that with our business partners?

And so it's not a perfect system.

There's some other, we could talk for hours about how you use shared governance to make sure that people have the same shared outcomes and same, motivations around how we look at policy, but those are some ways that I think about it.

I think Mr. Williams had a comment.

Yes, I just wanted to add to Bobby's comments that through partnership with SDHR, the mayor's office, we have increased our number of college internships in the Park Department.

Last year we had zero, this year we're going to have about 20 to 25.

And I just want to be really, I mean, SPR, Parks and Recreation, is in a very different position because you have your own HR, right?

My concern is about those departments that do not have an HR department that have to rely on central HR for the support.

So if I'm a department that's smaller, right, with 30 employees or 20 employees, And I don't have the luxury of having my own HR person.

I have to rely on central HR to deliver these services to me.

And if I go to you and say, hey, I'm really interested in diversifying my workforce, I think a great pathway for me as a director of this department is to stand up and implement a work-study internship program.

in my department that will achieve those goals and then gets told no, you don't get to do that.

I mean, I just, I think from a policy perspective, I think that's a bad policy.

And I'm disappointed to hear that that would be a response out of HR.

And what I want to hear from you is sort of a commitment and a plan moving forward about how we turn that narrative around to allow for work-study internship opportunities for students at our departments.

It's just an invaluable experience.

We all love our interns in the legislative department.

And I think some of the bigger departments will probably say the same thing.

And so it's a very successful program.

both for us and people who participate in it.

And I just think it's such a missed opportunity in this era where we are really trying to support our youth and their success.

And I just, I really feel strongly that this needs to be a priority for HR.

And it will be.

One of the things that our HR service delivery team and our talent acquisition team is doing together is going on a roadshow for those 18 departments and redefining the value that we want to create for them.

And I'm going to go back tomorrow and talk to those two, the leaders on those two teams.

and make sure that they understand from Workforce Equity, because that's where that program is owned, that they understand what the opportunities are for those departments.

So when that comes up, not only when it comes up, so that they can present proactively that part of the conversation, because it's valuable to us too.

I have a team in Workforce Equity who celebrates every one of those, you know, 25 folks.

So this is meaningful to us as well.

Yeah, and I appreciate that because I think some of the smaller departments don't have the capacity or sort of the knowledge that work-study internship even exists as a program.

So I think it's really important to proactively communicate that to directors of the agencies that rely on you all for the service so that they know that they have a meaningful opportunity to take advantage of the program if if they wish to do so.

And then, you know, that's an opportunity to connect them with some of the bigger agencies that run these programs as sort of a mentorship opportunity for those folks to be able to make sure that it's a successful work-study internship.

I'd like to shift if we may just looking at time to and by the way, you've got lots more supporters behind you now So we're working on a homelessness regional Governance approach and we in the city and working with test Colby from the mayor's office.

Thank you very much.

She's a real asset to this work and our county colleagues are getting started as well and And it's going to have an impact.

It'll have an impact on our human services department and others.

And I'm wondering, what's your approach going to be?

How do you see your human resources getting engaged and being involved?

Absolutely.

That's a great question.

Thank you.

I would say that any employee that's impacted by that valuable work that we're moving forward is a customer.

And I know I'm back there again.

And because they're a customer, we have an inherent responsibility to make sure that they transition healthy and well, and they understand what, if there's any newness to their job, what that is, if there's any training that needs to happen, that we leverage that.

And so it's our role to be, we may not be the lead in that project, But we are a part of the caring and feeding of those employees that may be impacted by that change.

And we have a team of folks.

One of the individuals, I'll call him out, Michael South, he was a part of the aquarium when we did the same thing with the aquarium.

So he has that institutional knowledge about what the impacts of a change like this can be.

And so, we're going to use good lessons learned from that experience and make sure that we communicate with labor and make sure that we're just a good partner for HSD.

And so, for their HR staff, for Jason's success, and for the overall success of this partnership between us and our partners.

I think one of the things that you mentioned yesterday that impressed me was your willingness to work with each individual who could potentially be impacted.

Absolutely.

And could you describe that?

Because I think that, to me, that spoke volumes as to how you will be approaching this and to solve it for everyone that is involved.

Sure, thank you for that.

I think it's important that, as we do that communication, that we provide some effective communication feedback loops so that if individuals, you know, have questions or, you know, there's a lot of critically at stake here.

You know, retirement benefits, pay, these things make people nervous.

It would make any one of us nervous.

How do we effectively communicate what changes are on the table potentially?

And as soon as we know what the final answers are, how do we communicate those and give people as much peace of mind as possible?

But that might also mean meeting people where they're at, and they might not have an interest in being part of that new thing, whatever that is.

And so how do we help them consider what their other opportunities might be, or help them decide what their next life choice is based on that?

I appreciate that very much and want to just reflect something that you said to me yesterday, which was we know that individuals are worried about their jobs.

They're worried about whatever their retirement is, what the system looks like, what their seniority is, and I appreciated your commitment to be working with the individuals up front.

You know, right now, we don't know what it's going to look like.

We are months away from knowing.

But for individual employees to know we're taking their concerns to heart, that when we know, we'll tell them.

But in the meantime, here are the principles we're applying.

I think that is that, to me, that was a really gracious approach.

And I want you to know that I heard it and I appreciate it.

And I just wanted to respond to that and say that, you know, it's not my inclination or an expectation on my team to be the stars of the show.

We want to be good partners.

And we just want to help our partners reflect on these nuances as we think about the human-centered approach to this change.

Thank you.

And taking us back to the Seattle City employees retirement system and the 457 plan, which is our deferred comp, which is I believe deferred comp is in your shop.

Can you talk about just how you plan to communicate to employees and frankly to get them engaged early?

Also let them know whether there's opt in or opt out.

Sure.

Tell us a little bit about that.

I think, and we talked about this yesterday in our conversation, there's opportunities to leverage new employee orientation to better educate employees about what happens.

I think there's some assumptions that employees are making because we're not telling them otherwise, right?

So in the story we were talking about yesterday, someone's been with the city for three years and thought they were in a retirement plan or part of another deferred comp plan and that wasn't the case.

And these things are detrimental when you're planning out your retirement and savings.

And so how can we be more proactive?

Not just individually as SDHR in our plan, but how do we leverage partnerships so that we are sharing what data we can to know, well, you know, Bobby may have a retirement plan, but he doesn't have deferred comp.

And so since Deferred Comp or retirement is sending out a mailer to Bobby for him to think about updating his address, maybe Deferred Comp has a stamp or something on that same mailer that says, hey, have you considered Deferred Comp?

That's not my new idea.

That's a conversation that's already happening with Deferred Comp about this.

So that's Michelle L. That's her brilliant.

And then I think there's also an opportunity to empower HR business partners to partner with us to be more proactive in regular communication about these opportunities.

One vision I have is that I see a series of events whereby you can come, you can bring your pay stub, This was an idea that was put forth at the Kent School District that worked well.

You bring your pay stub and they go line by line and make sure that you understand the different various codes and you can ask questions and you have payroll there, you have deferred comp, you have retirement.

We just, it's not our, the best value that we can create as human resource professionals is not passive, it is active.

And so how do we become more creative in creating that value for our customer?

Ms. Debra Smith, since you came down here and are sitting at the table, do you have anything you would like to add?

So, yeah, I would say that I've had the opportunity to work with Bobby quite a bit in his short time as the interim director, and it's been a really wonderful collaborative relationship.

I think Bobby's a natural leader.

He is enthusiastic.

He's genuine.

And he does have a compelling vision.

And I think that we have talked about opportunities that departments can have to work together.

And some of them are relevant to even questions raised by some of the council members here, career days and things where we bring folks together across departments so it's not just one department lifting the weight.

And I think that's the kind of thing, Councilmember, that can help with smaller departments as well because then they don't have to carry the weight.

Bobby's a great partner.

He's solutions-oriented.

He cares about outcomes, not personal recognition.

And I know that he has and will support his peers in identifying and implementing creative solutions to the issues and the priorities that we're all working on together.

He's a learner, you know, I feel a little bit mom-like with Bobby, so that's okay.

He lets me, so that's a nice thing, right Bobby?

Right on, yes.

Yeah, but he's humble, funny, engaging.

He's looking for team wins, regardless of team, whether it's his team or it's the team that exists amongst department heads.

So he's looking for that team win, not the individual win.

And lastly, I think he's a really good friend.

So he builds bridges, and I know he'll do so across the city, across between managers and employees, across departments.

And yeah, whenever he sees me, he says, hello, friend.

And I think that The importance of that really can't be overstated, because human resources is a really tough place to be, because you do have an enforcement compliance role.

And so breaking down those bridges and making it clear that you're here to help everyone succeed, regardless of their role, I think that's hard.

And I think he has the right personality to do so.

Thank you, Deborah.

Councilmember Gonzales, do you have anything else you want to add?

So just one last question and then we'll stop piling on.

Do you want to talk about the relationship with the new office of the Ombud?

Absolutely.

That is a, I'm proud of the city of Seattle.

One of my colleagues, our workforce equity director, Felicia Caldwell, was in Chicago over the last weekend at a chief diversity officer training.

And her feedback was, where Seattle is, and we're nowhere near perfect, but where we are in terms of creating a responsive employee support system is head and shoulders above cities our size.

And by hiring, I won't talk about the individual, I'll talk about the office first.

So the Office of Employee Ombud is needed.

I support it 100%.

I support its independence.

And I also support whatever partnership we can leverage together.

To me, that still remains to be fully fleshed out.

We are working and have been working with the Office of the Employee Ombud to do all the back-end personnel things.

We want to make sure that we're providing them customer service and value, right?

And making sure that they have good onboarding and that they're a strong team from the functional practice of how you bring in new folks and set up a new office.

And the benefit of it is Dr. Amara Khan, who is a friend.

I mean, she, I was in the hiring process when she was selected, and it was a long, we met a lot of people, we were introduced to a lot of people, but her authenticity, her focus on the human-centered design of the work she gets to do, I just, she made me want this job more, right?

And so that's just the ability to work with her and Steve Zwerin, our new HR, investigations unit director, there's a great opportunity for us, and we're gonna build that out together.

What's most important to me is honoring the IDT's recommendation that that office be independent, not only on its face, but in its processes.

So she's not accountable to me, I'm not accountable to her, but we're partners.

I take that back, I am accountable to her.

If she brings something to my attention that critically impacts our employees, we will respond.

And I can go on and on about her and my optimism for that office, but I'm very proud of the City of Seattle for having that office.

Thank you.

So anything else, Deputy Mayor Mosley, that you'd like to close out?

No, thank you very much for the time you've provided us today.

That's good.

Well, I appreciate the fact that your colleagues are here to support you, both at the table and in the audience.

And we'll have another chance to talk on our next meeting, which is June 26th.

And at that point, it will be up for discussion and possible vote.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for coming.

All right.

For the good of the order, thank you all.

And this meeting is adjourned.