Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee Session II 11/18/21

We are recording.

Thank you very much and welcome back.

The Select Budget Committee meeting of the Seattle City Council will come into order after our one hour recess.

The time is 2.02 p.m.

The date is November 18th, 2021. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Peterson.

Here.

Sawant.

Strauss.

Present.

Gonzales.

Here.

Herbold.

Here.

Juarez.

Here.

Lewis.

Present.

Morales.

Here.

Chair Mosqueda.

Present.

And Council Member Solant.

Present.

Nine present.

Councilmembers, thanks so much for joining us and thank you Councilmembers Sawant for being with us.

I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you all again in our second part of day one of two of considering the amendments in front of us.

Just to catch up the viewing audience, we are on group B of our agenda, group B, which starts with items 160 through items 189. Colleagues, as a reminder, Group B consists of amendments that are amendments to the balancing package.

Most of these are slightly different options from items presented last week as part of the initial balancing package.

These include some new items that I believe will generally be supported by the committee and I'd like to provide an opportunity for central staff to describe each of the items included here in Group B. Some of these are items that for the first time folks will be hearing a little bit more detail about so central staff will walk through each item.

And again, colleagues, for those who are sponsors and would like to lift up elements of their amendments that are included in this possible consent package, I would encourage you to speak to those items as central staff walks through each one of the amendments included in Group B. Again, these are items on our agenda, listed items number 160 to number 189. The concepts will be familiar in large part because they touch on things that we've talked about over the last few weeks here, but want to make sure that you have a chance to hear about them in more detail.

Colleagues, after we are done walking through all of the items in group B, after each of the council members has had a chance to lift up and explain some of the items that the central staff will be Summarizing for us, we will then have the opportunity to consider removing any item from this consent package before you vote on the consent package.

Again, you will have the opportunity to remove any item if you so desire to have a single vote on it, but you do not have to remove an item in order to speak to it.

So with that, are there any questions about group B?

Okay, wonderful.

With that, I'm gonna move to have group B in front of us so that we can consider items.

And then again, we're gonna walk through each one of those items.

If council members do have amendments that they'd like to offer as amendments to items in group B, we will then have you remove that item so that you can have that specific discussion about that item.

We'll consider amendments at the end.

along with any additional items that would like to be removed.

Okay, in order to get Group B in front of us, I move to approve Group B's consent package.

Is there a second?

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to approve group B, the consent package in front of us right now, consisting of items 160 through 189. Central staff is going to provide a brief overview of the items in group B.

In a chronological order, we will have the prime sponsor speak a little bit more if they so desire to any of these items here.

Once we get done with the summary and overview of the items, then council members will be welcome to ask to remove any of these items before we consider voting on it as a package.

Allie, welcome back.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Welcome back, council members.

As Chair Mosqueda said, we have about 30 items in group B, and I will have my central staff colleagues briefly describe the item and what has changed, starting with my colleague Anne Gorman on the first item.

Good afternoon, Anne Gorman, Council Central staff.

This item is CSCC 2B1, and it is sponsored by Council Member Lewis.

A previous amendment proposed funding in the Human Services Department at the $3.1 million level to work with city public safety departments on a request for proposal, select a community provider, and implement the provision of the referenced response.

This alternative approach essentially commits funding in the Community Safety and Communication Center for response planning only rather than for both planning and development.

Planning and deployment, excuse me.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis, would you like to add anything else to this summary?

I appreciate and summary, I would just briefly say that I think this is going to be a really important investment to work towards our common goals of council, which is to resource our 911 response center to to stand up and deploy.

I would like to make a motion to approve the alternative responses for things that a lot of us agree an alternative response could go to, to respond to our current public safety crisis.

I appreciate working with Ann on this.

I don't have any other technical things to add to it.

I will reserve some of my other comments for the discussion.

Hello, hi, this is Eric McConaughey.

I'm the Council Central staff.

This is a slide, FAS 3B1.

This would request that the Finance and Administrative Services Department report on increased efficiencies in animal control patrolling.

The purpose of this is to down the line increase and improve patrolling on leash laws and scoop laws in the parks.

It's sponsored by Councilmember Herbold.

Councilmember Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you so much.

Just super briefly, I have a another budget action in the earlier round that would provide the funds to be consistent with past practices that the council has taken in efforts to increase funding for the animal control to actually focus on the work enforcing the leash and scoop laws in the parks.

Unfortunately, despite our efforts over two budget years, those funds are still being used to support other animal control functions.

Since taking office, I've consistently heard from constituents who are concerned about better enforcement of scoop and leash laws in the parks.

In 2017, the budget we worked on got funding for an additional position and funding for a vehicle.

In the 2019 budget, we added another ACO position.

Since these budget ads, there's been no increase in the number of ACOs patrolling parks.

there's just one team of two ACOs patrolling all of Seattle's parks and just hoping that since there wasn't support in the earlier round to proviso funds that we've already allocated for this purpose to ensure that they were actually going to be used for this purpose since there wasn't support for that in the prior I'm just hoping that a report from the animal filter will shine a light on this issue and allow for more conversation in next year's budget process.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Let's move on to 162.

Item 162 is CBA FAS 5C1.

It would add $110,000 of general fund to FAS and $250,000 general fund and a one FTE senior grants and contracts specialist to HSD for a victim compensation fund and community based organizational support.

FAS 5C1 differs slightly from FAS 5B1 in two ways.

First, it adds the Senior Grants and Contracts Specialist to HSD and uses some of the funding that would have gone to the community-based organizations to support that position.

It also includes a little bit of additional language that asks for reporting back about the number of cases that would have been eligible for victim for diversion, if not for restitution requirements.

It is sponsored by Councilmember Lewis and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold, Morales, and Strauss.

Thanks so much.

Councilmember Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

And Asha, thank you for queuing that up.

Victim compensation is a foundational value of restorative justice practices.

Restorative justice does not ask for anybody to go on without being made whole as a victim of crime.

It seeks for a holistic understanding and making victims whole as a foundational part of how we're accountable to each other.

Despite those principles being core to restorative justice, the city of Seattle to this date has not had in our criminal legal system any way for victims to access some kind of support of this nature, despite investing very heavily in a significant amount of diversion programs, community courts, and other restorative ways to adjudicate criminal legal matters as alternatives to the traditional courts and surveillance and and probation, this will allow us to make sure that this critical component of victims walking away feeling like they've been heard and that an injury they've sustained has been made whole to the best ability that we can do programmatically for misdemeanors.

This will close that gap in our current system.

I really look forward to this being part of the various tools that we have to have a more just city and appreciate the community stakeholdering in this.

Asha, appreciate your work, your diligent work on this as well as the co-sponsors, so thank you.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Lewis.

And I know that you mentioned a few names from central staff.

Councilmember Herbold, I do want to note, we're just trying to do a quick overview orientation.

And then if there's more to add to an item that we're really excited about, I'm going to ask for those comments to be held until we summarize all of our excitement for group B, if that's okay.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Herbold.

I'll put you first in the queue.

Okay, let's go on to the next item.

The next item, 163 FG1C1.

This is the omnibus amendment that would restore jumpstart fund expenditures to the amounts and purposes prescribed in Ordinance 126393, as well as reallocating one-time funds and acknowledging 2021 carry forward to support community-led investments.

We spent a fair amount of time discussing this amendment in committee, so I won't go into all of the details or all of the items that are covered in this amendment.

I'm just going to highlight A few things that have changed since the last since the last discussion.

So changes in this option for this amendment include some modifications.

The previous version included $4.4 million of one time federal dollars coronavirus local federal relief funds, clipper funds to be used for services paired with emergency housing vouchers in city-funded or non-city-funded buildings.

For some technical reasons and for program implementation, the chair has submitted an amendment to modify that.

Those services are now supported by Jumpstart.

funds and was increased to $7.3 million, and that's included in Amendment OH15A1.

So with that, the $4.4 million of Clipper funds that were previously proposed to be used to support those services are used for other purposes.

This includes $1 million to the Office of Housing for services and capacity funding.

for nonprofit housing providers operating non-permanent supportive housing projects.

Council Member Herbold also submitted an amendment to that piece sponsored by both Council Member Herbold and Council Member Mosqueda.

$308,000 to the Office of Sustainability and the Environment for a pilot prescription food program administered by a community health center specializing in the care of American Indians and Alaska Natives, such as the Seattle Indian Health Board.

That proposal was submitted by Council Member Morales and included in Council Member Mosqueda's omnibus amendment.

And $435 excuse me $435,000 to the Seattle Public Libraries to support repairs from vandalism that have occurred over the last couple of years.

The combination of these actions allowed Chair Mosqueda in her revised balancing package to change some of the resources that were originally supporting the package.

That includes no longer making reductions to the Seattle IT departments and in the next item, no longer relying on a reduction to the contribution to fiscal reserves.

In addition, in the final hours of putting the revised package together, Central staff identified an error, which identified a very small amount of Jumpstart Fund dollars that had not yet been allocated.

And so in this omnibus amendment, Council Member Mosqueda has also included Jumpstart Funding for a proposal submitted by Council Member Morales that would provide $120,000 to SDOT for investments to improve the Columbia City patio.

Thank you so much.

And also this is in response to the conversations that we've been having with folks at the Regional Homelessness Authority.

Thanks to Mark Dones and their crew for all of the work that they've done to help flag how we can make sure that these dollars are resonating with what the community partners need to see in terms of stability.

Happy to have been able to work on this and apply this modification for a short-term modification so that we can address some of those concerns.

And with that,

I think we can go to the next one.

Okay.

Item 164 is budget action FG6B1-2022.

This action would add $400,000 general fund to finance general for the purpose of increasing the transfer to the Revenue Stabilization Fund.

The budget as proposed included $15 million to the Revenue Stabilization Fund.

add $400,000 bringing the total to $15.4 million which is $12.3 million higher than would be strictly required in the reserve policies.

And so I would just note on a purely technical basis that the transactions and the titles are correct on this.

However the description attached to the agenda reflects to a prior deliberative draft and that will be updated and through a technical adjustment on Monday.

Thank you very much, Tom.

I want to also just say thank you.

We've talked about this at the top of the agenda a little bit.

Colleagues, you know that we've seen a continuous economic downturn, a revenue forecast that left us with a $15 million hole that we tried to fill.

And this year, like last year, we continue to try to make sure that we're aligning investments right now with our commitment to making sure that working families have support in case there is additional downturn.

I'm excited that we were able to not only protect these reserves but be able to add a small cushion back makes me feel like we are helping to protect working families in the situation we may find ourselves in if there's continuing variance and our economy doesn't recover as fast as we all hope it will, this will help us very much.

So adding to the existing reserves there was something I'm really excited about and wanted to lift up for all of you.

Okay, I think we can move to 165.

For the record, Jeff Thimms, Council Central staff, item 165 is a statement of legislative intent, number home.

10C1.

This requests a report from the King County Regional Homeless Authority analyzing the theory and process to integrate homeless services and how peer navigators have been incorporated into homelessness outreach.

Compared to the prior version, this adds an assessment discussing the theory and process underlying the proposed system of integration that the regional authority will come up with for all homeless services.

as the RFP for homeless services is developed next spring and then issued and ultimately responded to by providers.

All of the pieces that have been previously discussed related to peer navigation and homeless services are all retained.

It's just adding a more comprehensive assessment that covers the whole gamut of investments.

This was proposed by Council Member Mosqueda.

Thank you very much.

And I should say thank you to Councilmember Lewis who was the original sponsor along with Council President Gonzalez for the request that came from the Regional Homelessness Authority.

I'm very much excited to have been able to work with them on the language related to how we assess a more cohesive and coordinated system for serving those who are experiencing homelessness and how we begin to build up and integrate more peer navigators or outreach workers into our homeless services.

I'm excited that this amendment allows for us to do two important things, provide that system-wide needs assessment, discussing the theory and process for underlying the proposed system changes system change integration that King County Regional Homelessness Authority has been leading on, especially with their commitment to racial and social justice and how we analyze the system to address those inequities we've seen in the past.

The second thing is to identify ways to incorporate the peer navigator model into additional service delivery systems, working with the Lived Experience Coalition, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, the advisory committee, and service providers along with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority Implementation Board and their community partners to better understand and incorporate how people with lived experience with homelessness, incarceration, work in the sex industry, substance use, and other relative experiences can really help navigate and inform our city's systems as we seek to improve an individual's journey from homelessness to housing.

Again, I want to thank the folks over at the King County Regional Homelessness Authority.

Thanks to Mark Jones and the leadership team there for working to help identify ways that we are planning to issue a redesigned RFP for all homelessness services for contracts in the spring of 2022, and changes made to those service deliveries and the RFP being incorporated into all contracts for homeless services beginning in 2023. This is a system-wide assessment that will enable King County Regional Homelessness Authority to identify strengths in the system, areas where additional capacity is needed, and how the KCRHA will seek to advance human-centered, anti-racist approach that allows more individuals to thrive.

Thank you very much.

Item 166, HOM 18, HOME 18A1.

Request that HSD provide a quarterly report on activities responding to unsheltered homelessness.

This continues reporting that was received by the council in this calendar year on the HOPE team, Homeless Outreach Provider Ecosystem.

It's all, all the data provided is specific to the number of referrals, recommendations for referrals and placement into shelter and similar types of activities.

This was put forward by Council Member Peterson.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amy Gore, Council Central staff.

Agenda item 167 is HSD1C1.

This action would add $5.6 million to HSD for one-time appreciation pay and capacity building.

It is a revised version of HSD1B1, which is in the balancing package.

It has been modified to include a proviso and to revise the narrative description.

It is sponsored by Chair Mosqueda and co-sponsored by Council Members Herbold, Swatt, Juarez, Straus, Lewis, and Council President Gonzalez.

Thank you very much, Amy.

Colleagues, I really appreciate the broad support that all of you have provided for making sure that our human service providers received a cost of living increase that was a few years ago.

Here today in front of us in our balancing package, we had included a one-time appreciation allotment, an increase for our frontline workers, our human service providers.

This helps to make sure that HSD's negotiation with RHA and the transfer of the council's intent to use this money for human service providers really aligns with the one-time nature in which this amendment was intended.

Thanks again to the CEO, Mark Jones, at the Regional Homelessness Authority and members of the KCRHA last week for their help and really helping to flesh out additional details that needed to correspond with these dollars.

So it was really clear how we wanted to make sure providers received this one-time support and having that factor into the future conversations that we will be having about provider wages.

I think this is a nice item that goes hand in glove with what Council Member Herbold described earlier, and that is the overall wage assessment that we need to do.

But this is a one-time appreciation note.

Thank you.

Number 168.

agenda item 168 is HSD 5C1.

This action would add 5.1 million to HSD to sustain 2021 levels of food and nutrition program funding.

This item is in the chair's balancing package, but has been modified to add a term limited senior grants and contracts specialist at HSD to support the new investments in the 2022 proposed budget.

And it is sponsored by Council Member Herbold.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Amy, the explanation.

I don't have anything to add.

Excellent.

Thank you.

169. Agenda item 169 is HSD 8B1.

This action would reduce funding for a hot meal program serving the Finney Ridge and Greenwood neighborhoods from $175,000 to $90,000.

and would add that $85,000 to HSD to maintain vehicle resident outreach and parking offense mitigation.

This $85,000 would be in addition to $100,000 for this purpose included in the chair's balancing package in HOM 4B1.

It is sponsored by Council Member Strauss.

Excellent.

Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.

Thank you chair and thank you chair for including both the vehicle outreach team and the hot meals program in your base chairs package having conversation you were able to through the chairs package we were able to maintain funding through the vehicle outreach team.

And unfortunately not the expansion, we were able to fund the hot meals program out of the Greenwood neighborhood center Greenwood Senior Center that is operated by the Finney neighborhood center.

Speaking to the Finney neighborhood center.

with the $80,000 to increase their hot meal program to have a meaningful impact because the hot meals program is not just meals, it's also a place where seniors are able to connect with other services from dental to mental health to everything.

So in speaking with Finney Neighborhood Center and the vehicle outreach team, making this change will not have an impact, a deep impact on the hot meals program and will have the vehicle outreach team.

I think it is an incredible impact on the vehicle outreach team.

Thank you, chair.

Councilmembers, let's continue.

Item 170 is HSD 22B1.

It adds $750,000 general fund and a strategic advisor to position to HSD for expanded pre-filing It is different from the previous version, HSD22A1, because it adds in a strategic advisor to position.

Some of the $750,000 is intended to support this position, as well as the position that was added in FAS5C1.

That CBA had added a grants and contracts specialist.

we're going to continue to work with HSD to make sure that these two CBAs in combination will fund two HSD positions intended to address these new scopes of work for HSD.

Wonderful.

Please go ahead, Councilmember.

Thank you.

Again, Asha did a great job of explaining.

I don't have a whole lot to add.

Appreciate HSD being proactive and allowing us to ensure that they have adequate funding to support our service Wonderful.

All right.

I think we're on 171.

Is that right?

Item 171 is HSD 25C1.

It would add $50,000 of general fund to HSD to contract with an organization to survey national best practices on interrupting gun violence.

It's sponsored by Councilmember Gonzalez and co-sponsored by Councilmembers Herbold, Peterson, and Lewis.

It's different from the previous version, HSD25B1, in that it adds language that would have the survey aligned with recommendations that came from the auditor's office.

Excellent.

Thank you, Council President.

Please go ahead.

Not much more to add there.

Thank you, Asha, for the strong description there.

Again, the big difference here is...

Excuse me?

Let's just make sure the IT system is muted, if we can make sure to mute our IT team.

Thank you.

Okay, Council President, please go ahead.

Sorry about that.

Oh, no, that's okay.

So the biggest difference here is that we're including some resources for the city auditor to follow through on some of the recommendations that they have, but we want to make sure that there is connectivity between that body of work and the work that's going to occur through this contract.

Appreciate Council Member Herbold bringing this change forward.

And of course, it was at her request that we are making this particular change and supportive of the proposal that the city auditor participate in the development and evaluation of the Human Services Department's Community Safety Cohort.

And so connecting these bodies of work will serve to ensure that as the city continues the work of finding responses to community safety outside of traditional law enforcement, that our endeavors are all landing on the same page and highly coordinated.

So this is reflective of that intent.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, number 172.

Item 172, just procedurally, Council Member Morales, did you want to speak to this one?

Sure, so I'm not sure what the correct scripting is here, but this is Morales.

If you are interested in pulling this item, we can skip it for now and then we can pull it at the end of the summary.

OK, no problem.

Thank you.

We will note coming back to this one.

Thanks, let's go to 173. Item 173 HSD 30 A1.

This is a new item, but it's fairly technical in nature.

It adds $600,000 in EFTs to HSD.

for their finance team.

The 2022 proposed budget included $600,000 in finance general reserves as the city budget office worked with HSD to determine what additional staffing resources they needed on the finance team to provide additional support to ensure that the department is complying with federal grant requirements and city standards for accounting.

This is a reflection of the significant growth in HSD's budget over the last few years.

So this is an amendment sponsored by Chair Mosqueda in order to ensure that those positions are added and funding for the first part of the year is provided.

And we expect either underspend or a supplemental budget action in 2022 to provide the remaining funding.

And I'll also just note that these positions have already been authorized on an emergency basis by the city budget director, who has the authority to do that under limited circumstances.

And so this would make this make those pockets permanent and moves the funding out of reserves.

Thank you very much.

Ali, I will also just note that this is an item that was flagged for us after the budget was transmitted from the mayor's office.

It was flagged for us by the executive and CBO as a need, and we are trying to work to accommodate that request here.

So I don't have anything else to add to what Ali just noted, but making sure that we're complying with federal grants in addition to making sure that the grants that we are authorizing here in the city go to the right people is really important.

Happy to include this here to make sure that there's additional capacity.

Okay, let's do 174.

Item 174 is CBA HSD 50 C1.

That's $500,000 in one-time funding to HSD to expand behavioral health services.

Compared to the previous option or version, this specifies that the program that would receive funds is the community-based partnerships program.

And whereas the earlier version, which we were still working at that point to obtain specific information on certain programs, was more general and just talking about behavioral health services.

This now provides the exact program.

the sponsor here is Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Herbold, anything to add to this?

Maybe not.

No worries.

Nothing to add.

Okay.

No problem.

I appreciate Jeff's work on this.

It's just, again, a fine-tuning from the version that we heard in round one.

Excellent.

Wonderful.

Okay, thank you very much.

And Councilmember Herbold has the next one, so we will keep you on the screen.

Please go ahead, 175.

Item 175, HSD 51C1, adds $3.9 million general fund to HSD to maintain a pre-arrest diversion program and post a proviso.

And this is similar to the previous CBA in that this is essentially the envisions of the LEAD program.

The prior version only added $3.5 million.

This adds an additional $400,000 for a total of $3.9 million.

And the Council Member Herbold is responsible.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

Just my profound thanks to Madam Chair for her work on trying to assist the council in fulfilling its commitments in prior resolutions to work to scale up the LEAD program.

We have received reports on what it would cost.

We're not quite there yet, but we are definitely moving in the right direction.

I think that is due in a great part to Madam Chair's commitment to focusing on this item in this particular budget.

Thank you.

And 176 is Sly Law 3A1.

It requests that the City Attorney's Office work with HSD to plan for the transfer of community-based diversion contracts.

It's sponsored by Councilmember Morales.

This is a new statement of legislative intent, but one that asks the City Attorney's Office to work with the Human Services Department on a plan to transition over the existing contracts that the City Attorney's Office has with community-based organizations doing the pre-filing diversion work.

and so rather than transferring them immediately to avoid any kind of service disruption in the current existing pre-filing program, the slide asks that HSD and law work together to figure out how to most smoothly move these contracts over without any, as I mentioned, without any service disruption, and do that hopefully by the mid-year supplemental.

Thank you very much.

Please go ahead, Council Member.

I don't have very much to add.

Asha did a fine job there.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Wonderful.

Let's keep going.

All right, this is Yolanda Ho, Council Central staff.

On to agenda item 177. This is OED 11A1, sponsored by Council Member Morales.

This is a new statement of legislative intent that was not previously discussed.

This statement of legislative intent would request that the Office of Economic Development, Office of Housing, and the Office of Planning and Community Development create a plan to coordinate their strategies for funding development projects intended to prevent community displacement to ensure that the city's investments are strategically aligned and responsive to community needs, with a specific focus on the new $7.6 million Small Business Ownership Fund in OED.

This report would be due to the Community Economic Development Committee or successor on June 3, 2022.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, Council Member.

Thank you.

Colleagues, this is really just about trying to increase the intentionality with our department resources and initiatives.

We do have a new initiative here in the Office of Economic Development, and it's really critical that every department really focus their work on how to serve the goals of anti-displacement.

So whether we're talking about economic development or land use or housing, I want to make sure that our departments are acknowledging their role in keeping Seattle affordable for everyone and working together.

So these departments have been coordinating on sort of an ad hoc basis and this slide is asking them to really just develop a plan for how they will coordinate their approach to funding community projects and Honestly, I just feel like they could benefit from a little bit of structure and clarifying goals together about how they will do grant applications and how they will respond to community requests for funding.

So that is the intent behind this slide.

Thank you, Council Member.

Let's continue with the next one.

≫ Thank you.

housing vouchers for individuals involved in the criminal legal justice system.

The only change here is replacing office of housing with the human services department, office of housing seems the more appropriate agency to be working on housing vouchers since they have more involvement with those than HSD does.

Otherwise, the slide is the same.

This is sponsored by Councilmember Lewis, with co-sponsors Councilmember

Thank you so much for scaling that up there, Tracy.

I don't really have all that much to add.

I mean, just to underscore that this really came out of working with Judge Gregory and Judge Shadid at the Municipal Court who have indicated a long-running interest to be able to divert people directly into some kind of housing placement as an alternative to the criminal legal system.

This is currently not something they have resources for or the ability to do to their great frustration.

And they see lots of people continue to cycle through their court where housing instability is frankly the reason they're engaged in survival crime and constantly stuck in that cycle.

So something like this could be a great resource to allow those judges to bring some resources to bear to get folks out of the criminal legal system and out of their court and on a path to stability and to break that cycle.

And I think this is a good start to look into how we can bring that around to a reality.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, rule number 179.

This CBA would cut $6 million of jumpstart funds in HSD for services paired with emergency housing vouchers, cut $1.3 million of jumpstart funds in OH for multifamily lending, and add $7.3 million of jumpstart funds to OH for services paired with emergency housing vouchers.

and for services and city funded housing units.

This concept or this funding was previously included in the jumpstart redistribute or reprioritizing or reprogramming CBA.

And we just pulled it out as its own separate CBA to be really clear about that funding and where it's going.

And then the amount was slightly increased to accommodate thoughts from community about the need for services funding, both for the emergency housing vouchers, support of housing and permanent affordable housing units for homeless individuals that will be coming online in the coming months and that needed services dollars as well.

Councilmember Mosqueda is the sponsor.

Thank you very much, Tracy.

Thanks for your work on this.

And colleagues, as Tracy noted, this was part of the omnibus amendment that we had considered over the last two weeks here.

We did want to pull this out and make a slight tweak to the fund source per conversations with folks in the community and the Regional Homelessness Authority.

We are trying to make sure that we're addressing overlapping service needs.

throughout this budget and making sure that there are opportunities with the turnkey rapid acquisition and permanent supportive housing projects that are online at the end of this year and beginning next year and to support the emergency housing vouchers that have been allocated to the Seattle Housing Authority on a very tight timeline.

that ends in July of 2022. So using the Office of Housing Expertise and service provisions for city-funded buildings and the relationship with state and funded partners and in deep partnership with the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, we are looking forward to leveraging the Regional Homelessness Authority's connections and focus, especially on smaller service providers.

This CBA will allow us to meet these related service needs in the timeline in front of us.

and also provides flexibility to the city to work in partnership and to contract with King County Regional Homelessness Authority on the tailored approach that they're contemplating to provide culturally informed and continuous services to especially those who are the highest risk and most marginalized populations to ensure that individuals housed with vouchers have the services they need.

Greatly appreciate the conversations that we've had with King County Regional Homelessness Authority and the role that they are working on building to continue to create an administratively consolidated and streamlined system for contracting services with those who are experiencing homelessness and look forward to making sure that we continue to identify ongoing revenue needs in the future to continue to address this so that we can pair these emergency housing vouchers with non-city funded units.

Thank you so much.

Lish Whitson, Council Central Staff.

Item 180 is a new statement of legislative intent sponsored by Council Member Morales.

It requests that OPCD report on opportunities to support community investment trusts.

Community investment trusts are alternative development financing tools that allow members of the community to make small-dollar investments in community development projects in their neighborhoods, building wealth, and supporting community investment.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

Thanks so much, Lish.

Yes, so the interesting and exciting opportunity here is that this kind of investment tool provides both an alternative source of financing for these projects, but also ensures that the profits from these development projects are returned to community.

And so we did have a few proposed projects for both EDI and for the strategic investment funds that indicated an interest in using this kind of a tool.

And so this slide requests that OPCD work with at least two community partners who are interested in using this as a funding model and report back on the opportunities that the city might have to continue to support these efforts.

Thank you.

Let's go on.

Okay, next item is OSC 3B1 sponsored by Councilmember Peterson.

It is a statement of legislative intent that was discussed previously as OSC 3A1.

This statement of legislative intent would request that the Office of Sustainability Environment and the and recreation, develop a plan to phase out the use of all gas-powered leaf blowers in Seattle within two years.

The difference between this version and the previous version or that option was that the due date is changed from June 3rd to September 2nd, and there is some additional language to consider impacts of the plan on worker health and safety.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thank you, Yolanda, for that summary.

I want to appreciate the chair including it in this consent package.

We've had dozens of constituents send emails to us in support of this effort to phase out harmful leaf blowers.

As we know, the two-stroke gasoline-fueled engines are terrible noise polluters and particulate matter polluters.

And we've seen an increasing trend across the nation to restrict these machines, including a brand new law phasing them out in the state of California.

As Yolanda mentioned, this slide adds language regarding health and safety impacts on workers who use gas-powered leaf blowers as compared to other methods of leaf removal.

Unfortunately, the effectiveness of quieter and cleaner electric-powered leaf blowers has improved a lot since a previous city council considered this idea several years ago.

We look forward to receiving a solid plan to implement a new policy that is friendlier to our environment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, and thank you for being amenable to adding the language about the impact on health and safety for workers.

I think it will also be interesting to see.

All right, let's continue on.

Item 182 is SDCI 7C1.

This action would add $145,000 in general fund to SDCI for consultant support for a rental market study.

A previous option discussed by this committee would have added $75,000 for a study and with the remainder of the funding for 0.5 FTE to provide policy development support to SDCI's code compliance group.

This option focuses the investment on the study itself to provide a broader scope for council consideration of policy options in the future.

This is sponsored by Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

This is my amendment to fund an outside consultant to conduct a study of Seattle's rental market to replace data we used to receive from Dupree and Scott.

Unfortunately, Dupree and Scott stopped producing this report.

The balancing package that you created, thank you, included this work, and it's split between a study and the 0.5 FTE, as Ketil just mentioned, in the property owner and tenant relocation group.

After speaking with stakeholders and other sponsors, we decided it would make more sense to focus the funding on the study for now so that we can ensure we receive that comprehensive data set for us to take action on in the future.

Thank you to all the colleagues that worked on this.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Let's keep going.

Alvin Chow with Council Central staff.

Item 183 is a new statement of legislative intent, S.11A1.

it would request that SDOT provide monthly reporting on the West Seattle Bridge Immediate Response Program, which is expected to reopen to traffic in mid-2022.

This is a continuation of a statement of legislative intent on reporting that Council approved in last year's budget.

It is offered by Councilmember Herbold.

Councilmember Herbold, please go ahead.

Thank you so much.

So, yes, this is...

The latest and greatest on the West Seattle Bridge slide, it's very similar to the request that we made last year reporting requests that we that the report monthly about the progress on the.

repair which the notice to proceed should be issued any day now.

I think the main difference from the updates requested in this that mirror those from last year is that it also includes an expectation SDOT will alert councilmembers as soon as possible if there are any changes to the schedule for the mid-2022 completion target and any changes to the schedule for opening up the bridge to normal traffic.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Next item, please.

Item 184 is SFD 4A1.

It is a statement of legislative intent requesting that the Seattle Fire Department report on its work and costs to launch the triage one program.

This is a new amendment.

It establishes dimensions and dates for SFD to provide a series of reports on its implementation of the triage one program.

including its alignment with other departments and stakeholders and with related funding commitments.

This item is sponsored by Council Member Herbold.

Excellent.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you so much.

So this slide is issued because of some of the information that we've learned about the status of standing up the triage one program through the budget discussions.

Folks may recall that in the mid-year budget adjustment that was made in early August, we'd actually included some funding for the triage one program out of the understanding that the funding would help them in the development of the program, and with the understanding that at that point that launching triage one would likely, based on the number of weeks and months it would take to complete each of the steps, associated with launching this program, that we would be able to launch the program probably late second quarter 2022 or early third quarter 2022. We're now learning that that's not the case, despite the fact that when there was this launch earlier this year in the spring, it really sounded like it was, or rather in August, it sounded like the launch was something that was imminent.

So what this slide does in recognizing that the launch isn't imminent and there are a lot of steps that the executive hasn't been able to start taking yet, it requests that the fire department report back to the Public Safety Committee with a series of progress reports on the launch of the program that was announced in August.

Reporting dates were estimated from information received by our department on the steps needed to stand up the program with the first report being due at the end of January.

I also request that the CSCC report back to Council on the implementation of the protocol set system.

funded by the council in the mid-year supplemental.

The report is due at the end of June, and if council members will recollect, the acquisition, implementation, and training on the protocol system is a prerequisite for additional non-police responses, whether or not you're talking about triage one or you're talking about another crisis response whether or not it's a program outside the city or another program from within the city.

So that protocol system and the status of it, it's really, really important to our ongoing work here.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Let's continue.

In 185 is CBA SMC 3A1.

It provides those $88,000 of general fund in the Seattle Municipal Court for electronic home monitoring and requests reporting on its use.

This is a new CBA.

In the proposed budget, the mayor had added $88,000.

to subsidize electronic home monitoring.

This would allow defendants that were otherwise indigent and couldn't afford EHM to be able to use that in lieu of incarceration.

What this CBA does is places a proviso on that funding that requires the Seattle Municipal Court to submit data on the use of EHM in the past.

The data such as demographics, which offenses EHM is used on the stage in the criminal legal system, a variety of other data points, and asks that SMC continue to report that data back on a quarterly basis to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee or its successor.

The sponsor is Councilmember Morales.

Thank you so much.

Councilmember Morales, please go ahead.

Thank you.

I don't have a lot to add except to say that I do think it's really important for us to get a good understanding of who is using this.

Part of the reason for funding in the first place is because if you are given the option to use electronic home monitoring rather than stay in jail, you have to pay for it.

And so this is allowing folks who would not be able to pay for it to have that option so that they don't have to stay in jail, but we really want to get a clear understanding of who is using it and use that information down the road to make an assessment of whether this is a tool that we should continue to use or if there's some other option for keeping folks, supporting them as they're moving through this journey.

Excellent.

Thank you very much, Council Member.

Moving on, 186.

Greg Doss, Council Central staff, here to talk about a couple non-controversial slides.

Item number 186 is a statement of legislative intent that is new.

It is sponsored by Councilmember Herbold.

The statement of legislative intent would require that SPD provide quarterly reports to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee on the department's effort to identify a potential non-sworn response for 911 call types that are identified in the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, or NICJR, report that categorized many different call types as potential call types for appropriate civilian responses.

And that would be provided quarterly on April 1st, July 1st, and October 1st.

Excellent.

Thank you, Greg.

Please go ahead, Council Member.

I don't have too much to add.

I appreciate Greg's characterization of this as non-controversial.

I hope that proves to be the case when we get the report back because I feel like there is a little bit of a mismatch on the expectations that the council has based on statements that SPD itself has said about the speed at which we can begin transferring some of these calls to to non-sworn response, but I agree with Greg that the slide itself is not controversial.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Let's move on to the next non-controversial item.

I thank you councilmembers.

I just mean it's good to be staffing two things in this session that are not controversial.

And the next one is 187. It's a statement of legislative intent by the chair councilmember Mosqueda.

And it is a new statement of legislative intent that would require SPD to report on a specific activity.

of officers that serve on a number of inter-jurisdictional task forces.

Officers regularly serve on inter-jurisdictional task forces with various departments of the federal government.

And this particular slide would ask for more detail on what they do as part of those inter-jurisdictional task forces.

The officers also typically receive reimbursement for participation on those task forces.

And this particular slide would have a statement of intent that would say that council would like to find out more about these task force and would seek community input on the activities of these task forces before determining whether to provide ongoing reimbursement for the activities.

And again, back to you by Councilor Mosqueda.

Thank you very much, Greg.

And for as long as I've been on council, I know that there's been council colleagues who've been trying to get a better understanding of the role that our city officials have on these various task force.

Thank you to Council Member Herbold, Council President Gonzalez, and others who have been raising questions just about how we are, what activities SPD is performing under these programs and the task force.

and these various task forces.

So this slide is intended to really gain greater clarity before we receive those requests.

Thank you so much.

Item 188 is SPR 10C1.

It is sponsored by Council Member Strauss.

It would add $1 million in REACH 1 to Seattle Parks and Recreation for park remediation work at the $900,000 level and planning for a new dog park at the $100,000 level.

This revised amendment adds a total of $1 million in REACH to SPR.

As I said, the larger increment would fund park remediation work, and $100,000 would provide initial funding for a new dog park in Ballard's Leary Triangle area.

A previous option committed the entire $1 million to park remediation work.

Thank you very much.

Let's talk parks and dogs.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and thank you, Anne.

I may have inadvertently made a mistake as we have been moving quickly in this budget process.

When the Dog Park amendment did not pass, did not make it in the budget's balancing package, and I understand all of the things that you are weighing, we did still want to make sure that there was remediation and or planning improvement dollars available for The Leary Triangle.

Leary Triangle is an interesting piece of property that is owned by SDOT because it's in our right-of-way.

However, it functions as a park-like setting.

My worry here is that the remediation dollars would not be able to be used at this location because it is not a park.

It is technically SDOT.

I wanted to just make sure that we had dollars to be able to spend to continue moving the community's efforts forward.

The community has been working to make capital improvements to this area, including closing 9th Avenue Northwest to make that more of a public space.

They've been working on this for six years.

Dog Park seems to be their I think there are other options to include a food truck corral and possibly a skate spot.

A lot of options on the table.

This $100,000 would keep that moving.

Thank you, chair.

This would request that Seattle Parks and Recreation report on the potential expansion of the Seattle Conservation Corps.

A previous option of this amendment provided a position and funding to help grow the Seattle Conservation Corps.

This item is a statement of legislative intent requesting that SPR provide a report on that program.

It lists several specific reporting dimensions asking for information about the current state of the program and its potential future opportunities if additional funding were available.

Excellent.

Council Member Strauss.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Anne.

Very well said.

Previous iteration of this request was to add staff and request the report.

This iteration is just requesting the report.

We know that the Seattle Conservation Corps is a proven program that Seattle operates that meets people leaving homelessness or incarceration, gives them the job case management that they need to find a permanent job and find success in life.

This Seattle Conservation Corps gives people a paycheck, gives them meaningful work, and the support that they need to be successful.

So I do want to expand it.

I wanted to double the program this year.

They weren't ready for it.

So I'm asking for a report to structure the next year's worth of work to be able to get us to a place of expansion.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Council Member Strauss.

And colleagues, I think that that reaches the end of Group B. I want to thank central staff for walking through that.

And I see Council Member Herbold with the first comment to provide general comments on our package.

I do think Council Member Herbold...

I have a question, I'm sorry.

Yeah, please.

Just in terms of process, I would let you know we are going to remove, ask colleagues to remove items that they'd like to see from Group B first.

We will put those to the side.

We will then have a conversation about the entire package as amended.

I'm not speaking about the overall group B right now.

I should have asked the question when we were on 187.

For for 2021 for this year, the grant authorization legislation for SPD that would provide reimbursement for.

some grant activities that have already occurred.

And some of those activities, I believe, we act as a pass-through agency, so other jurisdictions that we're in partnership with might be waiting on us for funds.

And I also want to just flag that the report date is February 2021, so that

I am happy to have questions answered and addressed before a council member makes a decision to remove an item procedurally.

I wanted to confirm with the clerk, I am allowed to have council members ask questions and if they decide they would like to remove it, we can make those decisions.

to make a verbal amendment to that date.

Is there any additional

Sure, happy to provide some context there.

First, as to the reporting date, of course, it should be 2022 staff.

I checked the wrong box in the system, and I've already corrected that in the system.

I don't know as to whether or not that needs to be corrected officially with a verbal amendment.

I would ask Ali to speak to that when I'm done here.

As far as the year-end supplemental and the acceptance of grants and task forces for SPD, the year-end supplemental contains about $500,000 worth of task force reimbursements for SPD for the year 2021, for this year.

And what is happening there is SPD has put in for reimbursement for money that it has already received from the federal government for the task force that it has worked on.

So it is the case that if the council does not provide the appropriation authority for the activities and the work that SPD has already done, then it's SPD's in the hole for the work that they've done and that they've charged to the federal government and are looking for reimbursement for.

So this particular sly is designed to tell the department that next year, before they start charging funding start charging money to the feds and just assuming that they're going to get reimbursement from the council, they should come to the council first and describe what they're doing.

But in terms of this year, all of the reimbursement funds are provided for in the mid-year supplemental, knowing that if they weren't, it would just mean a $500,000 hole to SPD's budget for 2021. In terms of the grant funding, All of the grant funding for all of the major grants, all the federal grants, whether it be Internet crimes against children, or whether it be the grants or the.

Homeland security grants, all of the grants are accepted in the mid year supplemental.

They are all appropriated with the exception of one $3.2 million grant.

That is the grant that allows the department to spend federal funding on equipment of its choice.

And that is the grant that last year the council wanted to see the specific equipment list for for the grant and how the department was going to spend its money.

So this year, working through the chair and with the public safety chair, the other grants, all of the other grants are included in the year supplemental except for that one $3.2 million grant, which will not be included and will be It's a multiyear grant.

And what I mean by multi years, it runs on the federal fiscal year.

So it goes from October to October.

So it's multi-year for us here at the city.

in January and the department can spend money in 2022. And so that's the approach that's being taken with the grants and the task forces.

Yeah, I just wanted to thank Greg for that.

That is, that tracks with my understanding of previous conversations that we've had with just one.

I want to just, again, I want to just really make sure I'm tracking this.

I thought I heard you say that the grant acceptance ordinances had already moved forward with the mid-year supplemental.

Did you mean the third quarter supplemental?

I don't think we acted on the grant acceptance ordinance in the mid-year supplemental in August.

And here's Ali.

Council Member Herbold, the year-end, so we don't do a third quorum.

Moving away, yep.

The year-end supplemental grant acceptance ordinance and the year-end supplemental budget ordinance is in group A.

So you've already acted on that.

Aha.

All right, perfect.

Thank you so much.

And then I would just note, too, in terms of the due date for the statement of legislative intent, If it's incorrect in that, the version posted on the agenda, you could make a verbal amendment because the committee structure will change.

In February or March, the council will adopt a resolution for the statements of legislative intent, and we will adjust the committee assignments if the committee structure changes in 2022, as well as adjust due dates after talking with the executive about what's possible.

So it's not.

technically necessary to make the correction, but that really is up to the sponsor and the committee.

I also appreciate all the work that you've done.

No problem with how fast things are moving.

I would just want to double check, Ali, if in the technical fixes that you all are doing prior to Monday's vote, if that's also an item that could be fixed in the technical fixes.

Yes, we can make that correction.

And what that will mean is on Monday morning, we'll be asking the committee to rescind this amendment and adopt a new version that corrects the due date.

So yes, we can add that to the list of technical corrections.

OK, well, we will consider that before we decide whether or not to remove various items.

It might be cleaner to do today.

I'm happy to consider that with you all.

Council Member Morales and Council Member Strauss.

Hands?

Council Member Morales?

I'm just seeing if this is the time to remove an item that I need to amend.

That would be welcomed.

Okey dokey.

I move to amend HSD 28A-001.

Thank you very much, Council Member Morales.

Moving 28A-001.

As a reminder, this does not need a second.

Council Member Morales confirming that is item 172. Is that correct?

That's right.

Thank you.

OK.

Number 172 has been removed.

Is there any additional items Councilmember Morales that you would like to remove?

No.

Okay, wonderful.

We will come back to folks to talk more broadly about anything else they'd like to highlight in Group B here in a moment.

Councilmember Strauss, any questions or items that you'd like to see removed?

Thank you, Chair.

I am just speaking to item, making sure I have this, 188 SPR 10 C01, the dog park in which I was just speaking about.

I'm wondering, do we need to make changes in the budget language to allow for remediation of the Leary Triangle that could include a dog park, but not limited to?

defer to central staff on whether or not we need to offer a verbal amendment on that.

Council Member Strauss, Chair Mosqueda, I would defer to my colleague.

And I am not in the deep in the details on what this means, but that sounds like a slightly different proposal than what this is.

And so, Yes, if that's what you intend is just have a million dollars for park remediation work that could include improvements at Leary Triangle, that is different than what this action is.

Sorry, Allie, may I just jump in?

It's the second half of the sentence planning for a new dog park after and it could be remediation or planning for a new dog park.

I think there was just a technical, during the drafting, there was a technical mistake.

Councilmember Strauss, I'm going to suggest that we do go ahead and remove item 188, and perhaps as we consider these other items that have been removed, if you want to work on a verbal amendment to that with central staff, I think that would probably be the cleanest way.

So is that, would you like to make a motion to remove item 188?

Yep, would like to remove item 188.

Okay, item 188, CBA SPR 010C00.

Councilmember Herbold, I just want to ask you a moment and a question here in real time.

Do you have a preference of whether or not we do a technical amendment over the weekend, or would you like us to go ahead and remove the item 187 for a verbal amendment to strike 2001 and replace it with 2002?

22.

I have to admit, I made the same mistake with your amendment, Councilor Muscata.

Tell me more about that, Councilman Central.

Instead of checking the 2022 box, I checked the 2021 box.

That's OK.

Is that item number 187?

Yeah, it's the one that directly follows it.

So if you're going to do a verbal amendment, you're going to need to do it on both of them.

Or as Ali said, you could just let us correct it in the resolution next January.

Okay, not and I apologize.

No problem.

That's goodness.

There's so many different moving amendments.

That is not a problem.

Um, Ali, do you have a preference?

We just want to make your lives easier.

So what's cleanest for central staff?

Cleanest for central staff would either to be make a verbal amendment or just to hold it to the resolution in the spring and not have to bring it back on Monday.

So if you'd like it to be clean as voting out of the budget, I would suggest you remove it and I can talk you through a verbal amendment to make that correction.

All right, colleagues, let's just go ahead and do a pull to make it clean and just confirming we would need to do that to items 187. Is that also true of item 186?

Yes, it's both the SPD ones.

OK, colleagues, I will go ahead and remove items 187 and 186 so that we can make a verbal amendment just to the date change.

Okay, so my notes say that we are removing items 172, 188, 187, and 186. All right.

Council Member Strauss, please go ahead.

Chair, my apologies.

I think if possible, we'll just leave 188 as it is.

Okay.

We'll just keep moving forward and see what happens.

Okay.

I'm going to wing this hearing no objection.

We're going to continue to maintain item 188. in the consent package in front of us.

Hearing no objection, 188 is still maintained.

So items 172, 187, and 186 have been removed.

Any final changes on that?

Okay.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Is there any additional discussion on group B before we consider those individual amendments?

hearing no additional discussion, thank you all for your work.

This is really great additions that we've been able to include in a consent package for your consideration.

I think they will have meaningful impacts in the community for livability and resilience.

Thank you so much.

We're gonna now vote on group B, the consent package as amended.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on group B, consent package as amended, removing items 172, 186, and 187. Please call the roll.

Peterson.

Yes.

So on.

Councilmember salon.

Stroud.

Sorry.

Yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzalez.

Yes.

Her bold.

Yes.

Or as I Louis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Nine in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion carries and Group B consent package as amended is approved.

We will now move on to items for individual consideration, starting with amendment number 172. Council Member Morales, would you like to initiate this process?

Yes, I move to amend Council Bill CBA HSD 28801.

Council Member Morales, let's go ahead and move to approve the Council Bill first and then we will amend.

Yes, I move to approve HSD 28801.

Okay, second.

Wonderful, it's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Morales, you are recognized to consider your amendment to address this item.

Thank you.

So colleagues, with apologies and thanks to Councilmember Herbold, I realize that the positions that we just added in her amendment before, the funding for that needs to come out of this proviso.

So the original amendment would have provisoed all $750,000 for contracts with community-based organizations.

And what we have realized is that some of that funding does need to go to the staffing that we just added.

So I'm amending, I'm moving to amend the title as follows, Proviso $585,000 in general fund in HSD for prefiling diversion contracts with community-based organizations.

and amend the budget description and transactions to reflect the changed amount of funds on which the proviso is imposed.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Morales, are there any comments or questions on the amendment in front of us to HSC 028A001, agenda item 172?

Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the amendment?

I don't think I got a second.

That's right.

Excuse me.

What was that?

I don't think we got a second.

Councilmember Herbold seconded you.

Thank you for double checking.

Any additional comments or questions on the amendment as described by Councilmember Morales?

Hearing none, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment as described by Councilmember Morales?

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Chamuska.

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and the amendment has been adopted.

Is there any additional comments or questions on HSD028A001 as amended?

Hearing none, Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll on the adoption of HSD028A001 as amended?

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Gonzales?

Aye.

Herbold?

Yes.

We're as I.

Louis.

Yes, Morales.

Yes, tremble scatter I 9 in favor and opposed.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk colleagues.

We do have two minor amendments in numbers of 186 and 187 simply to change the date from 2001 21 to 2022. I will try my best to wing it here.

Colleagues, I move approval of.

HSD, excuse me, I move approval of SPD 017A001.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you, it's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to make the motion for the verbal amendment?

Ah, look at you putting me on the spot.

Um, I move to, let's see, amend, uh, PD 0 1 8 0 a 0 0. Um, with a new date of February 2022. Thank you.

And I think you meant as PD 0 1 7 a 0 0 1 cause we will do the next one here in a second.

Unless, okay.

So, SPD 017A001 has been moved into strike 2021 and replaced it with 2022. Is there any additional comments or questions?

Central staff, do you have anything?

Okay.

Hearing none, all of those in favor of the verbal amendment to change the date to 2022, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on that?

Peterson?

Yes.

Salant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Could you please call, are there any additional comments and questions on the amendment as amended?

Hearing none, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the adoption of SPD-017A-001 as amended?

Peterson.

Yes.

So want.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

I her bold.

Yes.

Whereas I Louis Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we will now take on number 187. This is SPD-018A-001.

I move to consider approval of CBA, SPD-018A-001.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

I would like to strike, I would like to offer a verbal amendment to strike the date 2021 and replace it with 2022. Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any additional questions or comments?

Hearing none, let's go ahead, Madam Clerk, and please call the roll on the amendment to SPD-018A-001.

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzalez.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Could you please, the amendment carries.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment as amended?

Peterson.

Yes.

Swant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

General scanner I 9 in favor, none opposed.

Alright, the motion carries an item 187 has been amended and I believe that gets us through all of our amendments in Group B. Is there any additional comments or questions?

OK, colleagues, thank you so much.

Let's move on to Group C. Madam Clerk, I don't believe we need to read any items into the record.

Shall we just transition?

Is that correct?

Okay.

Again, Group C, colleagues, consists of items that are standalone proposals that do not impact items that we just took a vote on.

We will consider each of these items as standalone votes.

We will have the chance for the central staff to present the item, for us to be able to walk through the item with the prime sponsor speaking to it, Then we can have questions, discussion, and debate, and then we will consider each item and vote on it before moving to the next one.

I appreciate all of the work that you have done, colleagues, so far.

Trying to stay true to my initial comments this morning about keeping some of the Seattle Police Department items connected together.

If there's no objection, to be consistent with my earlier comments that we try to keep related items together so that there's a cohesive policy conversation.

I would like to amend the agenda in front of us to move two items from group C to be included in group D.

This would include the agenda item number 192, that's CBA FG901A001.

I am the prime sponsor of that.

To move that to the top of the list for group D to be heard before item 201, because it will have an impact potentially on the other two coming.

And then I move to move item 199, that's CBA SPD 012A001 to be heard in group D after item 203 as it is related policy-wise but does not have an impact on the same revenue stream.

Hearing no objections, the agenda is amended.

All right, colleagues, we are now into group C as amended here, which means we'll be starting with item 191. Madam Clerk, thank you for helping to keep us on track here.

Do you interrupt me if I have any need for corrections on the procedural here?

And I wanna thank central staff for all the work you've done.

Let's start off with item 191, excuse me, 190.

Item 190 is CBA Arts 5A1.

It would add $1,125,000 of coronavirus local fiscal recovery funds to Arts for the Cultural Space Agency Public Development Authority land acquisition fund and cut the same amount of CLFR funds from HSD for the Salvation Army Enhanced Shelter Project.

The proposed budget had provided $2 million for capital renovation costs, 5 million for operations in 2022 and 5 million in and this is sponsored by Councilmember Morales.

Councilmember Morales, I'm going to turn to you to move consideration of the amendment first, and then we will speak to it.

Councilmember Morales, you are on mute.

Thank you.

I move amendment item number 90, Arts 5A1.

Is there a second?

Is there a second?

Councilmember Morales, I will offer you a courtesy second as I did earlier today to make sure that we can have a process of discussion.

It is seconded.

Please go ahead Council Member Morales.

I appreciate that.

So colleagues, I have spoken about the Cultural Space Agency Preservation Development Authority in the past.

As you know, we chartered this in 2020 to develop and steward long-term affordable commercial space for arts and culture.

This work came out of years of deep community work to maintain the city's vibrant arts and culture and arts industry.

This CBA would provide initial funding to the PDA for land acquisition and development of long-term affordable cultural commercial space.

Two projects have been identified for the initial investments.

One is site development to create a new home for legacy cultural institutions, Northwest Tap Connection and Union Cultural Center in Rainier Beach.

And the other would be seismic upgrades and accessibility work for the Columbia City Theater to secure an arts anchor and create a home for youth training in creative industries.

in partnership with Rainier Avenue Radio.

This is, we've been talking about the need for acquisition funds all year.

We had a number of applicants for the strategic investment fund requesting acquisition.

And though we chartered the PDA, there was no initial funding provided to the organization for acquisition for capital projects.

So that's what we are trying to amend here.

As Asha mentioned, this would use out-year funding for the Salvation Army and we are trying to keep with the intent of the chair to make sure that we're shifting out-year funding to the shelter.

We are looking at things that are needed in 2022. So by rightsizing this proposal, we can dedicate 1.1 million Clifford funds to this PDA and continue to provide resources for the shelter through the beginning of 2023.

Thank you.

I appreciate the effort to focus funds that we have now that could be used in 2023 because CLFR as a fund source permits it to try and focus the use of those resources on our needs now.

But I feel like that goal that we have of using funds for needs now are That goal is really related to, for me at least, to funding needs associated with either COVID or with like just, you know, human needs that are going lacking right now.

I'm, you know, really excited about the cultural space.

Agency PDA, worked on it myself when I was I'm just really concerned with this item and the other two items that would cut the entire 5 million Clifford funds for 2023 SOTO shelter operations.

I appreciate the chair has made commitments that if there isn't another source of funds for 2023, that she would work to find those funds.

what we know about, one, the fact that there are unlikely to be future federal funds, and two, that we may be looking at some tough budget years starting next year or continuing next year.

I just wouldn't want to take an action that assumes that we're going to be able to find another $5 million for the needs of the Soto Salvation Army shelter.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

I will also add some comments along a similar vein.

Councilmember Morales, I want to thank you for the work that you've done in this effort, and you and the Vice Chair who just spoke, very much working to make sure that there was investments in arts and culture in our earlier Seattle Rescue Plan that Council President Gonzalez and I had the privilege of sponsoring earlier this year.

So I want to thank you for that work.

I also will have to unfortunately note that among the various priorities that we're considering right now, making sure that folks have a stable shelter even in 2023 when we're hoping that we're going to be in better years is still a big priority here.

I would love to see a PDA to support arts and culture and I look forward to additional conversations for how to secure revenue to accomplish that.

Unfortunately, I will be a no as well.

Love the concept, but I think it's just a matter of these tough choices.

Council members, any additional comments before Council Member Morales wraps this up?

Okay, hearing none.

Council Member Morales, any additional comments?

I appreciate the conversation.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on consideration of amendment number 190. Peterson.

No.

Sawant.

No.

Strauss.

No.

Gonzales.

No.

Herbold.

No.

Juarez.

No.

Lewis.

No.

Morales.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

No.

One in favor, eight opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Let's move on to item 191. Council Member Herbold, would you like to move the item so that we can consider it and then consider any additional walk-on?

Thank you so much.

I move council budget actions 512A001.

Is there a second?

second?

Councilmember Herbold, I will offer you a courtesy second.

Thank you so much.

Please go ahead.

Appreciate that.

So I'm probably going to need a courtesy second on the amendment too before we can discuss the substance.

I move to amend CBA 5-1 to amend the title of CBO 512A001.

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

Did I hear a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead and speak to your walk-on.

So I'm first going to speak to the amendment, if we could, and we could vote on the amendment and then do the substance.

Is that right?

Yeah, Council Member Herbold, you're welcome to speak to the concept as well, because the underlying bill is in front of us and the amendment is also there.

So wherever you'd like to start.

Okay, well, as it relates specifically to the amendment, there's a need to correct the recital, which refers to a $61.6 million decrease in revenue for 2022 that should actually read a $61.6 million increase in general fund revenue in 2022.

We will consider that technical correction in front of us right now.

Council colleagues, are there any additional questions on this technical correction that Councilmember Herbold has described in her walkout amendment to the recital?

Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the amendment to the amendment as described by Councilmember Herbold?

Gonzalez.

Aye.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Aye.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Scher Mosqueda.

Aye.

Nine in favor, nine opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion to amend the amendment has passed.

Council Member Carbold, the amended amendment is now in front of us.

Would you like to speak to the underlying concept?

Very much.

Thank you.

So this amendment is just related.

It's not related to the funding piece associated with hiring bonuses.

It is only related to the emergency order that the mayor has issued.

And what this item does is it amends the mayor's executive order regarding bonuses for both police officers and 911 dispatch hires.

It amends the order on these hiring incentives, one, to limit the duration of the emergency order.

through the end of 2021. So allowing the emergency order to continue as drafted and issued by the mayor through the end of 2021. It does limit expenditures pursuant to the order to $500,000.

This is the amount that the mayor's office estimates would be needed in 2021. And so The concept being that in the chair's balancing package, council member Mosqueda has sponsored a request for a report from the city budget office to the council on a potential citywide hiring incentive for city workers in recognition of what I think you've heard me say many, many, many times is that we have a lot of vacancies in a lot of departments throughout the city, and some real challenges in several departments in filling those vacancies.

And so this proposal allows for hiring bonuses to continue through the end of the year for both SPD and 911 dispatchers, but holds the continuation of the executive order in 2022 I'm going to call the meeting to order.

I'm going to call the meeting to order pending this report as referenced in the

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I want to thank Public Safety Chair for bringing this modification of the mayor's emergency order forward.

I want to thank Council President who got the ball rolling and central staff to do some analysis of that emergency order.

I think that these proposed modifications are reasonable and fiscally prudent.

Considering the fact that 300 officers have left the police department already, I do support some form of hiring incentives such as those originally proposed in the mayor's budget for 2022. There are a couple of amendments in group D on our budget committee agenda which could retain some of those more modest hiring incentives.

So I would need to see what happens with those before I act on this.

I'll be ready to vote on this on Monday.

I'm leaning toward it for sure, but I'll just be abstaining in this vote until I know what happens to the other hiring incentives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional comments?

Yes.

Council Member Strauss.

Excuse me.

Did I hear somebody else as well?

Council Member Strauss, please.

Okay.

Council Member Juarez, we'll go after Council Member Strauss.

Council Member Juarez can go first.

Oh, thank you.

You're respecting your elders.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

I am going to take the same tact as Council Member Peterson.

I'm concerned about or have some comments and what's going to happen with when we're looking at numbers 201 and 202 for the modification for the how it affects item number 191 on the modification of the mayor's civil emergency order that was issued on October 29th, which I think that means that it's been in effect.

for about 18 days, and also I don't have any information, maybe you do if you have something to share, Councilmember Herbold, of what in fact has, we don't know, I don't know the update or the status about how that's been implemented as far as the incentives and hiring in the last 18 days.

I don't have any information.

That's precisely why this action allows it to stay in place.

Because it's working.

And as it relates specifically to CSCC, they have seen three times as many applicants since it was announced.

And so this action leaves the emergency order in place through the end of the year.

But it assumes that we might want to make some changes for 2022.

OK, well, thank you for that quick reply.

But I will still abstain.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Council Member Swann, please go ahead.

Oh, excuse me.

I'm sorry, Council Member Swann.

I did have Council Member Strauss in the queue.

I will come to you in just a moment.

Please go ahead, Councilmember Strauss.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

My comments are going to be very similar.

I'm interested to see how we vote on the remaining questions about hiring incentives.

I do think that Councilmember Herbold has done smart work here to leave it up to the next administration to understand if they want to put forward an executive order, because they would have the ability to do so on day one as well.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmembers Swamp, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I will be voting no on this budget amendment, but first, I just wanted to apologize to members of the public for missing the morning section of today's budget committee meeting.

I am unfortunately on the third day of a three-day migraine and now also have the flu, and so I needed to go to urgent care this morning.

And I also will not be able to speak extensively to explain my votes than I normally would.

I want to let members of the public know if they want more information about my vote, they should feel free to contact my staff.

I will be voting no on this item because it is a resolution that essentially approves the mayor's emergency order from October to create hiring bonuses for police officers.

I have on Monday's city council agenda a resolution that I introduced two weeks ago that will do the opposite.

Thank you.

Get better Council Member Sawant.

Yes.

Thank you Council Member Sawant for dialing in.

I do hope you feel better as well.

Okay.

Council Member Herbold, you do have the last word.

Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks.

I appreciate hearing from council members who are planning on abstaining.

I just want to again emphasize that whilst we do have some pending discussions around the funding for an incentive program, this is a standalone action that is completely separate from that conversation.

This is only about the extension or the amendment of the existing executive emergency, executive order.

And as we heard from Council Member Sawant, she has another version on Monday that we'll be considering.

And as she characterizes the competing amendment, I would like to settle the question for once and for all here within the budget deliberations on how it is we are going to either accept, amend, or reject the mayor's executive order as it stands for the rest of this year.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Council, Madam Chair, may I respond?

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you, Councilor Herbold.

And I guess my point was this.

Originally, I was just going to say no, because I felt that this wasn't modifying the civil emergency order during budget, for me anyway, I can't speak for anyone else, just didn't seem like the appropriate time to get more information as it was coming in.

I do know that they had, as you say, an influx of more people for the 911 positions, but I wanted to explore more First of all, we're hearing from the new administration and also just how we were going to look at these other amendments that are coming up.

So I do appreciate the work you put in and I do understand what you're doing.

So that was my original intent.

So thank you.

Okay, Council Member Herbold, we need to keep moving on, but do you want one last second?

Yeah, I just want to explain why I bring it up during budget is because it is connected to Madam Chair's amendment.

about a potential 2022 incentive program that might continue to help the departments under the current version or might add new departments.

And so I've been saying, I think, pretty consistently through the budget process and through the When we've received any questions about whether or not we're going to propose changes to the executive order, I have been saying, I believe, because the executive order could go into 2022, I believe very firmly that this is a budget issue, and that because we don't know what the impacts are for 2022, that this council should consider through a statement of legislative intent, a sort of a work plan item for the executive to look at other departments and the needs of other departments and then to bring back to us a recommendation for a citywide bonus program to assist other departments in 2022. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

I think this is a tough conversation to have absent knowing sort of where the Councilmembers stand on the existing executive order.

I do appreciate the work that you and I have done to identify what information is needed.

There is a slide included in our proposal here that requests the City Budget Office to report on the citywide hiring incentive program, and that report should include an analysis for the need for citywide hiring incentives.

make sure that we get recommendations on varied strategies for addressing difficulties in hiring, including but not limited to hiring bonuses, and include a race and social justice analysis of the impacts of the recommendations regarding citywide hiring incentive.

I agree with you that this is not something that should be a blanket authority for the next administration in 2022 to solely decide, and I think that it requires a larger policy conversation.

For me today, I'm going to hold off on voting yes on this because I am interested in getting that report back.

I also don't want to have a policy signal of support for the existing proposal for hiring bonuses when we've heard directly from frontline folks, especially at SPOG, that they are not interested in this incentive.

So for me today, I will be a no on this.

Council President, I see your hand.

I'm sorry, I didn't see you before.

Oh, I raised it when you started speaking, so no need to apologize.

I just, just procedurally for people, because this, this has been sort of put out in the on the table here is that.

I just want to make make really clear that should council member or bolds.

proposed budget action that we're debating right now pass, then advancing the resolution as proposed by Councilmember Herbold out of committee today would effectively supersede the resolution that Councilmember Sawant flagged in her comments and that was introduced a couple Mondays ago.

So just want to make really clear from a procedural perspective that if Councilmember Herbold's resolution appears on the City Council agenda, that would supersede the aforementioned resolution that was first put on the table by Councilmember Sawant.

Thank you, Council President.

Okay, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the adoption of CBO1, excuse me, on CBO512A001 as amended by Council Member Herbold.

Peterson?

Abstain.

Salant?

No.

Strauss?

Abstain.

Gonzales?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez.

No.

I'm going to abstain.

Sorry.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

No. 4 in favor.

3 abstentions and 2 opposed.

Thank you very much.

That is the majority of the voting council members.

The amendment as amended passes.

Thank you very much, Council Member Herbold.

The amended version of CBO 512A001 has been adopted.

Let's move on to the next item, number 193. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you

This differs from the previously introduced version, which was not in the balancing package, that would have provided $4.1 million.

So it would have been not only the $1 million to acquire and do some work on the land, but then also $3.3 million for the site improvements, as well as some funding for initial operations in the first year.

The $1 million reduction in CLIFR funding is related to the SOTO emergency shelter that was actually previously discussed two or three amendments ago, I'm sorry, where the second year of funding for this program would be reduced so that the program wouldn't be able to operate for the full calendar year of 2023. And instead, the funds would be used here for this one-time purpose.

The sponsor here is Council Member Morales.

Thank you very much.

And then as a reminder to the viewing public, if they're wondering why we're on 193 instead of 192, it is because 192 is at the top of group D now.

Council Member Morales, would you like to move item 193 for consideration in front of us today?

Yes, I move item 193, CBA HOM 14B1.

Thank you.

It's been moved.

Is there a second?

Is there a second?

Council Member Morales, I am not going to be offering any more seconds because we've got to keep moving here.

So I'll ask one more time, is there a second?

Okay.

Council Member Morales, this item has not received a second for consideration today.

We will go ahead and move on to the next item.

Item number 195, please.

Madam Chair, we're on 90, oh yeah, okay.

I had pulled, if I did it too late, I apologize, but I had pulled item 194.

Thank you, Council Member Morales.

Item 194 has been withdrawn.

It was requested after the agenda was already in publication, but that one has been withdrawn.

Thank you so much, Council Member Morales, for helping to educate folks on where we are at.

I had already taken it out of my script, so apologies for skipping over that.

Thank you for noting that.

We're on number 195 now.

CBA OH-116A-001.

This would cut $2 million of coronavirus local physical recovery funds, the NHSD for the Salvation Army enhanced shelter previously discussed, and would add $2 million of the Clifford funds to OH for development of a new city-run social housing acquisition program.

This CBA is sponsored by Councilmember Morales and would have the same implications in terms of the operation of the Soto enhanced shelter as previously discussed.

Thank you very much, Council Member Morales.

Would you like to move this item for consideration?

I'm not going down without a fight.

I move CBA OH16A1.

Item number 195 has been moved.

Is there a second?

Is there a second?

Hearing no second, Council Member Morales, for not receiving a second, this item will not advance on our agenda for discussion.

We will go ahead and move on to item 196. Hello.

Hi, this is Eric McConaughey.

I'm the Council Central staff.

Item 186 is a statement of legislative intent sponsored by Councilmember Peterson.

It's SCL 2A1.

This would request reports on the pole replacement project.

and another report on the office space reworking project in the Seattle Municipal Tower from Seattle City Light at the same time at the end of March of 2022. Thank you very much.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to move this item for consideration?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I'd like to move this slide, which is SCL 002A001.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you very much.

It has been moved and seconded.

Councilmember Peterson, would you like to describe the amendment?

Thank you, Chair Muscat.

I want to thank central staff for their assistance in crafting this statement of legislative intent.

It requests two reports from Seattle City Light to the city council, and it's about two different capital projects.

The recent wind storms occurred after we had already submitted a bunch of budget amendments, and those wind storms were a reminder about the need to focus on replacing utility poles that are aging before they fall down.

And so this requests a progress report on the status of City Light's plans and results to replace and or upgrade the system of utility poles throughout Seattle with a separate analysis of the poles on East Marginal Way.

This would include recommendations for expediting the replacement of those poles.

The second report is about a line item in the capital budget to add $8 million for office space, and so on its face, it would seem that replacing utility poles would be more important than that.

There are, however, some financial savings in the long run by reducing leasing costs to Seattle City Light.

So we want to get these reports at the same time so we can we can do a deeper dive on this issue and look at whether we need to accelerate the replacement of those utility poles.

The head of Seattle City Light is fine with these requests.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Okay.

Council Member Peterson, I will note I am supportive of this amendment.

I appreciate the work you've done to follow up with City Light since the October 19th, excuse me, October 2019 audit that we had put forward in the conversation that we've been having about the number of light poles that were failing, especially on East Marginal Way.

Appreciate the consultant's investigations and recommendations on how to mitigate the risks of light pole failure in the future.

So I will be supporting this as a timely progress report towards the pole replacement efforts across the city.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of SCL 002A001?

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Gonzalez?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Torres?

Hold on.

Okay, yes.

Thank you.

Council Member Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Aye.

None in favor, none opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries and amendment number 996 passes.

All right, we are on to item 197.

Item 197 is S.009A002.

It is a statement of legislative intent that requests that SDOT report on the impact of overweight vehicles by September 1st, 2022. It is offered by Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson, would you like to move this item?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I'd like to move item, it's a slide, S.009A002.

Okay.

I would like to speak to your amendment.

studying damage to Seattle's streets and bridges mainly by construction vehicles and other vehicles that seek exemptions to weight limits designed to maintain the useful life of our investments in Seattle's multimodal streets.

This request came up during discussion of the comprehensive plan, but it was decided this would be more appropriate for a budget statement of legislative intent.

So understanding the relationship between the damage by overweight vehicles and then the costs repair our city's multimodal streets will help to improve asset management planning and budgeting and could yield creative and cost-effective solutions to minimize such damage from some overweight vehicles in the future.

I hope that you can support this slide.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Peterson.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Councilmember Pedersen, I don't see any additional hands.

I'm going to let you know that I do still have concerns on this item.

We have heard from some of our regional partners about whether or not this could be addressed outside the budget.

They'd like to get a report from SDOT to look at the Transportation Committee without having this be tied to a budget action.

I understand that it is just a sly and understand if there is support for it today.

the concerns that I have heard from some of our regional partners today, I will be a no on this.

Wanted to flag that for you and our council colleagues.

Please go ahead, Councilmember Herbold.

Thank you.

I appreciate Councilmember Peterson is bringing this forward as a slide because there was a previous request that it not be dealt with within the context of comprehensive plan discussions.

So I'm just concerned.

continuing to say, oh, don't bring it up this way, don't bring it up this way, don't bring it up this way, it's going to just result in us not getting this information.

And I have, you know, I have areas in my district, I'm sure other people do throughout the city, where heavy vehicles are a real issue.

And I think getting this information could be helpful in a number of different ways, whether or not it's getting partnership from other jurisdictions to maintain our streets, as well as limiting the use of our streets inappropriately in areas like South Park, where we see so many large freight vehicles going through residential neighborhoods.

as Council Member Peterson says, really messing up the streets and also, you know, creating safety issues as well for the community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Any additional comments or questions?

Okay, hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of Amendment Number 197S.009A.002?

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Jean Gatza, COB Host, she or her.: : Dollars.

Yes.

Her bold.

Yes.

Jean Gatza, COB Host, she or her.: : Whereas Yes.

Jean Gatza, COB Host, she or her.:

: Louis Yes.

Morales Yes.

Jean Gatza, COB Host, she or her.: : Sure, most scanner.

I know.

Jean Gatza, COB Host, she or her.: : Eight in favor one opposed.

Okay, well, congratulations.

Council member Peterson, it does pass the flying colors you We do have the adoption of S.009A002.

Thank you very much.

Let's move on to item 198. 198 is S.107A1.

It would cut $2.4 million of general fund for the Center City Streetcar Project and would redirect those funds, $400,000 to Department of Early Education and Learning for bus routing technology and $2 million to the Finance General for Citywide Hiring Incentive Program.

It is offered by Council Members Herbold and Council Member Peterson.

Thank you very much.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to move the item in front of us?

I would.

Thank you so much.

I move CBA S.107A.001. Is there a second?

Second.

Please go ahead, Council Member Herbold.

Great, thank you.

So as we have discussed both today and in previous budget meetings, I think there is a agreement that hiring and retention of city staff are important issues.

There's been special attention to the question of hiring and retention.

of Seattle Police Department with the mayor's initial recommendation for a citywide hiring incentive program, and then adding the CSCC in the mayor's second proposal for a hiring incentive program with the emergency order.

I have been arguing that we really need to do an analysis of vacancy issues among frontline workers, specifically focused on those that are causing a service issue with the public or inhibiting a department from filling a core function, as well as recommendations on varied strategies to address difficulties in hiring, including but not limited to hiring bonuses, coupled with a race and social justice analysis on the impacts of the recommendations regarding a citywide hiring incentive program.

So this action would put some funds and put those funds aside because the chair's balancing package does not include those funds for a subsequent 2022 action to support a potential citywide hiring incentive program.

Again, my original budget action would have reserved one $1.09 million, moved it out of SPD and moved it into Finance General to support a 2022 hiring bonus incentive.

Again, that's not in the balancing package, so I'm proposing to fund this program otherwise.

This would provide $2 million in funding for a citywide hiring bonus plan.

Mayor's proposed budget did not include sufficient funding for hiring bonuses for 9-1-1 dispatchers because, again, she, after the budget was already proposed, made a new proposal that was not sufficiently funded.

The second part of this package would provide funding for an item originally proposed by Councilmember Peterson.

I'll let him speak to that.

I think these are much better uses of funding than as proposed to restart the Center City Streetcar.

I've noted my position on the Center City Streetcar previously, so in the interest of time, I will not repeat that.

As it relates specifically to questions that I've heard about the funding source, I just want to clarify that the funds proposed here are a one-time investment only and would not impact the revenue stream beyond 2020. Thank you.

Thank you.

I see a few hands.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

I'm in full support of this with Council Member Herbold.

I want to speak to where 400,000 of these funds would be reallocated if this council budget action were to pass.

It would help with an emerging issue.

Well, it's been a longstanding issue, but we've really heard a lot about it this fall with the school bus crisis with Seattle Public Schools.

with a shortage of drivers, but it's also this, it's a technology solution to help, because right now the new routes are printed out on paper, and as drivers change routes, as their new drivers come in, this GPS technology would enable Seattle Public School bus drivers to implement a much more efficient system.

It's a one-time investment that we would be providing to our mutual constituents, the parents of all the children in public schools would benefit from this, knowing, you know, being able to track the buses and where they are as well.

So it benefits the school bus drivers, as well as the parents, as well as Seattle Public Schools in general.

And I want to echo what Council Member Herbold said about the source of funding.

This is a one-time, these are both one-time investments, and I think it's a good use of these funds right now.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Strauss, I see your hand up.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Councilmember Herbold, for bringing this amendment forward.

I wholeheartedly support the citywide hiring incentive, and I also wholeheartedly support Councilmember Peterson's request regarding the $400,000 to go to school bus routing.

Where I have issue today is the funding source.

I know that we don't always agree.

I know that there's still a lot of conversation to be had about the streetcar.

I just find it hard to kill the project in some senses through doing good elsewhere.

And so if there was another funding source, I would wholeheartedly vote for this.

I can't support it in its current iteration.

I do have a voice vote to a voice amendment.

If you would be interested, I know that the other revenue source is one that this is a poison pill revenue source for me.

And I know that the revenue stabilization fund is a poison pill for yourself and others on the council.

But that is the voice vote that I would have available to me today.

I would bring that forward at your direction.

Councilmember Strauss, I believe it's your call.

If you are wanting to make a voice vote, you need to offer it as a proposed amendment.

If you're suggesting that for purposes of discussion, obviously we'd welcome that as well from the prime sponsor.

I think that folks know very well how I feel about those reserves and also do have some concerns about the existing revenue source that's identified in this amendment as well.

So I'll put that out there.

And if you decide you want to offer an amendment, that is your prerogative.

Yes, I'd love to.

I do have, I don't know if you need me to share screen for The language, or if the clerks can, I have the script before me.

So I'd like to move to amend CBA S.107-A-001, agenda item 198 on the agenda as follows.

Amend the title to CBA S.107-A-001, cut $2.4 million general fund contribution to the revenue stabilization fund, add 400,000 general fund to deal for bus routing technology, and add $2 million to general fund finance general for a citywide hiring incentive, amend the budget description and transactions to reflect the changes sourced to be a reduction to the contribution to the RSF rather than cutting the 2022 general fund appropriation for the streetcar.

Thank you.

Councilmember Strauss has moved by voice amendment to amend the source of the revenue to come from the Revenue Stabilization Fund as noted in the screen in front of us and described by Councilmember Strauss.

Is there a second to this voice amendment?

Is there a second?

Councilmember Strauss, is there a second?

Councilmember Strauss, hearing none.

Councilmember Strauss.

Councilmember Strauss, I would ask

that we consider this item if it's going to relate directly to reserves in group D.

I'd like for the council to consider holding this item until group D, so colleagues, I'm going to make a motion to consider that.

Colleagues, I'd like to go ahead and consider including S.107A001 as part of our conversation in group D.

This would be included in the discussion after the newly added number 199. Is there any objection?

Hearing no objection, we will consider this item in group D given the seconded amendment that relates to the revenue source.

Okay.

Thank you, colleagues.

To be continued, let's move on to the next item.

Hi Greg.

Chair Mosqueda, I think this next item 199 was moved to group D.

That's correct.

After item 20. And after the other SPD items.

Yeah, it's at the end of the SPD block.

OK, shall we continue?

The next item.

Item 200 is SPR 15 A1.

This would add $190,000 general fund in three positions to Seattle Parks and Recreation to restore the use of Laurelhurst Community Center and cut the same amount.

to eliminate pay increases for some non-represented executives, managers, and strategic advisors.

The 2022 proposed budget ends the public use of the referenced facility.

Instead, it will become available for community members to rent for discrete events and programs.

This amendment, which is sponsored by Council Member Peterson, would restore its community-centered use.

Because the staff previously assigned there have been reassigned to other SPR programs, the amendment would add new positions to staff the facility.

And these position costs would be offset by cutting the amount that is currently budgeted for 2022 annual wage increases for a subset of SPR staff.

Thank you very much.

Please go ahead.

Council Member, would you like to move the item?

Yes, colleagues, I'd like to, thank you, Chair.

Yes, colleagues, I'd like to move this item 200, which is SPR015A001.

Thank you very much, it's been moved.

Is there a second?

Going once, is there a second?

Going twice?

Second, I wanna learn more about it.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

It has been moved and seconded.

Council Member Peterson, please go ahead.

≫ Thank you.

to close this community center, and they did it with no advance notice to the community or outreach.

And I really appreciate everybody's support for the addition to a program in Magnuson Park as part of our earlier approval of the consent package.

This amendment is asking that we retain for the general public an existing community center so that programming can continue to be provided at a time when another community center in the area is going to be closed for most of The proposed closure of the $190,000 cut to this was a surprise to me and to the community.

And I think we should restore it.

The source of funds is from the highest paid non-represented employees in the parks department.

There is an ad for a to pay raise for these non-representative executives, managers, and strategic advisors.

So we'll be taking a portion of that to pay for keeping the Lower Hearst Community Center open.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Are there any additional comments or questions?

Council Member Juarez, please go ahead.

Thank you and thank you for acknowledging that I'm having technological problems here so I appreciate that.

Councilmember Peterson, thank you for bringing this up again.

Let me just explain why Parks and myself will be voting, I'm voting no on this.

It's an amendment, of course, that would restore the Laurelhurst Community Center, which was eliminated in the mayor's proposed budget.

Seattle Parks and Rec operates 26 community centers across the city.

Laurelhurst is one of the smallest and is located within three miles of three other community centers.

It doesn't have an attached gym, though the facility hosts some limited recreation programming and short-term facility rentals.

It does not host licensed childcare either, nor showers.

The return on the investment with this amendment is extremely low compared to that of the mayor's proposal.

The mayor's proposal eliminates two part-time positions from Lowellhurst Community Center and uses those resources to create capacity for the Wreck in the Streets program, which activates over 6,000 participants citywide compared to the limited programming of events at the community center in Lowellhurst which has around 200 participants.

If the community center is closed and transitioned into a full-time rental facility, Seattle Parks and Recs will continue to offer some programming at the adjacent Lower Hearst Elementary Gym following the mayor's proposed change.

I do not support this amendment because it would limit the potential of the building to be used as a rental facility similar to that of Golden Gardens Bathhouse and the Pritchard Bathhouse, which is in high demand by groups like Rec in the Streets Program.

The Rec in the Streets program delivers programming in partnership with community using neighborhood-based data and equity maps.

And this is something that we've been working on since 2000, and at least since I've been here, 2016. So in voting against this amendment, you will be allowing Seattle Parks and Recs to eliminate two part-time positions and use those resources to create capacity for Rec in the Streets.

There are no layoffs associated with these changes.

The change is a net zero reallocation of existing resources, and I know we do this a lot.

So, following in your footsteps, Madam chair, I do want to thank council member Peterson and we've had some offline discussions about the community center and its position in the lower host community.

And I do understand the importance and the need of community centers.

But I also want to add that we have revamped what the public benefit is and the race and social justice equity analysis that accompanies that for community centers that they are used citywide and the programs are citywide.

And we have worked very hard to instill that the public benefit piece is explained completely.

So it isn't just that neighborhood, but all the neighborhoods.

Again, I've had discussions with Superintendent Aguirre.

and Council Member Peterson to discuss alternatives, opportunities, what the future could look like for the Laura Hearst Community Center.

We had the same thing happen with the Lake City Community Center where we didn't get total funding in which we were renting out space to Sound Generations, Boys and Girls Club, Children's Home Society, particular events.

So with that, and I know Council Member Peterson that you were You were concerned that you were not told that it was going to shut down.

I wasn't either until I saw it in the budget and then had a chance to talk to the superintendent and then a chance to talk to you.

So with that, I will be voting no.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And just to clarify, in the proposed budget from the mayor's office.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Okay.

Council Member Peterson, is there anything else you'd like to add?

Yes, thank you, Chairman Skeda.

I appreciate that, Council Member Juarez, as chair of our parks committee.

And yeah, this, to clarify, this cut came from the Durkin administration and, you know, the Laura Hearst Community Center is connected to the elementary school nearby, which, 45% of those students are black, indigenous, or people of color.

31% of the students are low income.

And, you know, I support the Rec in the Streets program.

I think, well, I don't support the highest paid executives in parks department giving themselves a raise while they close community center in my district.

I do appreciate the dozens of emails that we've received from We have a lot of folks in the community trying to keep this open and we'll look forward to working with the next administration to see what we can do to expand programming there and provide the best possible access and equity at that center.

Thank you.

on the adoption of the amendment in front of us.

Peterson.

Yes.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

No.

Gonzalez.

No.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

No.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

No.

Chair Mosqueda.

No.

Four in favor.

Five opposed.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson.

Council Member Peterson, the motion fails and the amendment is not adopted.

Council Colleagues, we are at the end of group C, if my notes are correct.

My notes are correct.

We are at the end of group C and it is about 423. I would very much like to ask for your dancing nods from friends on the screen here.

I'd very much like to ask for your consideration of continuing this conversation so we can have a wrapped up discussion by the end of the day that allows for our central staff to be able to get right to work with finalizing the proposed budget so that we can be ready to act on Monday.

I'm hoping that we will be able to get through the next section D here with some robust discussion, respectful dialogue.

I know that we all are very interested in continuing to ensure the health and safety of not only our community, but also those reserves.

So with that in mind, Let's go ahead and go on into items D on our group list here.

Allie, would you add anything else for context as we consider group D in front of us?

I would also like to make, oh, thank you very much, Allie and Patty.

I do see that you have provided a revised list in front of us so that we have all of the items that have been moved to group D in front of us for the purposes of following the conversation, both for council members and for members of the public.

Allie, would you like to walk us through this?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

So there are several of the amendments in this group.

The majority of them are proposing to use the fiscal reserve.

So before I describe the first item, I'll just note that I will be tracking along the way as each amendment is before you, if they pass, whether or not, at what point we reach having overspent the amount of The fiscal reserves or the sort of total amount that the council could reduce the contribution to fiscal reserves in 2022. So I will be tracking that as we go.

The first item in this group, if you want me to just jump in.

That'd be great.

Great.

Is item 192. This was removed from Group C, FG901A1.

This is sponsored by Council Member Mosqueda.

And this would cut $2 million of Clipper Fund that was included in the proposed budget as a FEMA contingency.

and reallocate for general fund to address additional revenue shortfall in the sweetened beverage tax, as well as restore the funding for the proposed expansion of the community service office program.

So this action combined with the omnibus amendment we discussed previously has supported changes in the chair's balancing package to not to continue the proposed expansion of the community safety officer program in 2022 to address the revenue shortfall in the sweetened beverage tax.

And this is also again supported by some of the actions in the omnibus amendment.

And I will leave it there.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

I'm going to go ahead and move the item so that it's in front of us.

I do have a verbal amendment that I have sent around early this morning about 9.30 to make a small modification based on some conversations that we had with community partners and the reality of when to stand up that program.

So let me put that in front of us first.

Colleagues, I move to consider FG901A001.

Is there a second?

second.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

It has been moved and seconded.

As Ali described, this initial amendment was offering the ability to do a number of things, one of which is to make sure, as we have continued to hear from council members, there has been strong support for the I would like to see if it's more appropriate for me to pause for a second to see if someone should describe the walk-on amendment and then I can move it.

Would that be

my colleague Greg Doss to help explain this one, but I can provide the initial overview.

In general, this would change the proposed reduction from the FEMA contingency to 1.6 million.

And it would assume a delayed or staggered hiring dates for the proposed expansion of the community safety officer program.

So it would, it would provide about $900,000 of funding in 2022 for the Community Safety Officer Program, which is about $400,000 less than what was proposed and would retain some funding as a FEMA contingency should some of the FEMA-backed expenditures the city has been undertaking not be reimbursed at some point in the future.

And then what I would have to add to that is that the reduction in the community service officer funding, you may be familiar that it was proposed in the mayor's 2022 proposed budget at 1.3 million, the 400,000 reduction would assume that the police department would have some delay in getting those folks on board through the hiring process and through the background process.

And that those folks would be coming in staggered later towards the end of the second quarter and through the summer.

And then the $400,000 adjustment is a salary adjustment under those assumptions.

Thank you very much.

So colleagues, in order to make that adjustment, um, and the slight reduction, thank you very much, Patty, for putting this on the screen here.

Colleagues, my verbal amendment to FG901A001 is to instead, uh, cut instead of two, I would reduce, um, the Clifford funds by 1.6 million for the FEMA contingency and reallocated for general fund and the sugary sweetened beverage tax revenue replacement for food and nutrition programs and provide funding for salaries and vehicles for the SACRED expansion starting in quarter two of the community safety officer program that would allow for the scaling up and expansion of the program as originally suggested.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues appreciate the opportunity to have this verbal amendment in front of you.

It does a number of things, so I do want to point out the importance of having been able to offer stability and funding back to the sugary sweetened beverage tax.

We know that the intention here for sugary sweetened beverage tax is to continue to see declining revenue if we are successful at getting fewer people to drink sugary sweetened beverages.

But in order for us to respond to the sharp decrease in revenues that they've experienced because of COVID and fewer people eating out and ordering sodas and things like that.

We wanted to make sure that we responded so that the programs that they're currently serving and the assistance they're offering does not see a rapid decline.

We did not want to reduce any of the funding for the sugary, sweetened beverage tax recipients.

We're also very excited about the opportunity to work with members of Teamsters 117 and the community to identify ways for us to add an additional six FTEs.

These are non-sworn, non-officer positions We know that these are largely being filled by individuals who are coming from communities of color who ostensibly have more trust, who have more opportunities to engage with community with not having a gun in hand allows for us to create that more trusting engagement.

And as we've said before, a council that was city council who really worked to prioritize getting those CSOs stood up in the first place.

I see our vice chair's hand here who was I would very much like to be able to have a community-oriented house or department for and to really expand those services beginning in a quarter or two, and appreciate the work that you all have done in the past so we can build on this.

Thanks so much to Teamsters 117 for their conversation about this amendment and their support.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Yes, I wanted to speak to the base motion, but first I think because we have an amendment before us, I had a question about the amendment.

Can I ask that?

Yeah, please go ahead.

Um, so as it relates to the amendment, I'm just curious as to the amount being 400,000 in this case.

Um, we had determined I, I had a, uh, back when we were amending the mayor's budget, as opposed to making changes to Madam Chair's balancing package, I had an amendment related to the mayor's proposed funding for the CSO expansion, allowing the expansion to move forward, but provisoing dollars associated with the gap in time that was estimated that they would not be able to hire for This particular action cuts 400,000.

I was instructed if I wanted to, I think, do the same thing that you're doing with your reduction, if I wanted to proviso the funds, that the dollar amount at the time was 200,000.

So I'm just wondering why that number has changed in the last couple weeks.

I can offer some.

Oh, please go ahead.

That's because the assumptions are different.

Your assumptions were that it was going to be the end of the first quarter, that you would have all of the members, all the CSOs on board, and that would be equal to $200,000.

And the assumptions behind this one are end of second quarter for $400,000.

Thank you.

And by allowing for that staggering language in, we also recognize that they probably won't come all at the same time.

So if some of them come midway through quarter two and some of them come at the end or some of them come at the beginning of the next quarter, then the staggered opportunity allows for the funding to be there when they do come.

I also would say we're not putting any provisos on the language as you currently see.

So they will be able to continue to hire.

We hope they can hire at a faster rate, but obviously we'll continue to adjust I would like to thank you for bringing this amendment forward.

I appreciate you bringing this to be here today.

I had prepared a similar but different CBA effectuating a similar result and withdrew it in anticipation of supporting this amendment today.

I appreciate the opportunity to do so and I appreciate you bringing this forward.

I appreciate your comments there and also your work on the amendment that you had initially submitted for the CBAs and Council Member Herbold for your initial, initial amendment from the get-go here.

I do want to note a note of appreciation as well that we've received from Teamsters 117 and their support for this amendment as amended as well.

We do have the amendment in front of us.

Is there any additional comments on the amendment to the amendment?

Okay, hearing no additional comments on the amendment to the amendment, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the verbal amendment made to FG901A001?

Peterson?

Abstain.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Gonzalez?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Morales?

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda?

Yes.

Eight in favor, one abstention, none opposed.

Thank you, colleagues.

The walk on, excuse me, the verbal amendment to FG901A001 is adopted.

We now have the amended amendment in front of us.

Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Just really quickly, I want to recognize that in the earlier rounds of the budget discussions, I had a draft amendment that I didn't end up bringing forward that would have moved the CSOs into the new Community Safety and Communications Center.

I had met with Teamsters and the representative CSOs, and learned from them that they weren't ready to make that move.

And I assured them that I did not believe that the fact that they weren't ready to make the move would not have an impact on the council's support for their expansion.

So I'm really, really, really appreciative of Madam Chair's action here today in just allowing my anticipated reaction from my colleagues to the fact that they weren't ready to move to be the action of record that we end up taking today.

I was feeling bad when it wasn't in the chair's package, and so really appreciate correcting that here.

The CSOs are very, very I think it's really important for us to make sure that they are supported in the community and really want to work with them in everything that they do to represent community safety in our city.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Herbold.

I appreciate that.

I look forward to working with you on those future conversations, too.

on amended version of FG901A001.

Peterson.

Abstain.

Sawant.

Yes.

Strauss.

Yes.

Gonzales.

Yes.

Herbold.

Yes.

Juarez.

Yes.

Lewis.

Yes.

Morales.

Yes.

Chair Mosqueda.

Aye.

8 in favor, 1 abstention, 0 opposed.

Thank you very much.

The motion carries.

And the amended amendment is adopted.

Thanks, colleagues.

I believe that puts us at number 201 in voting group number letter D.

Apologies.

201. Right.

I've been asked to provide an overview of this block of SPD amendments, and so I'm going to do a quick overview here.

We're going to go into about four amendments, actually three amendments.

We've just handled one walk on and.

We're going to have another walk-on proviso that is Councilmember Peterson walk-on that is tied to some of his amendments that will be coming up.

We'll only reach that one if some of his amendments pass.

Each of these amendments is sequenced and is designed to work work in conjunction with the amendments that passed in group A.

So as the amendments in group A passed particular cuts to SPD, these amendments would restore those cuts and add them back.

they would add them back depending on the particular amendment, some partially or some whole.

And we'll be going into each one to talk about that.

As we progress through the list, the earlier amendments will affect the later amendments.

And so that's something that Allie will be keeping track of, both from a use of fiscal reserves standpoint And I will be keeping track of as to the relevance of whether we need to reach the later amendments.

So just wanted to give you that as an overview and then go ahead and jump into the next item, which is 201. So this item is an omnibus amendment that at a very high level restores nearly all of the cuts made to the Seattle Police Department.

The total amount of cuts that are made to the Seattle Police Department in the chair's budget is about $10.8 million.

This particular amendment would restore $10 million.

There is in the Seattle Police Department about $850,000 of salary savings that both the department and the council acknowledge is unprogrammed at this point.

And SPD-006, Council Member Herbold's CBA cuts $850,000.

So that's acknowledged as salary savings.

And that piece probably wouldn't be captured here, but every other CBA and every other cut to the tune of $10 million would be captured by this CBA.

And so I'll do a quick run through of all the components that we're talking about here.

The first one we're talking about is the assumptions that the chair's budget makes around hiring.

And as you'll recall, SPD-008A-001 makes some different assumptions about hiring from the mayor's proposed budget.

The mayor's proposed budget believes that there are only going to be 94 separations, and the chair's budget believes that there are going to be 125 separations.

the 125 separations consisting of two parts, the first being 12 COVID-related separations that will happen in January, and then the rest being a hiring separation plan or a separation plan that would more or less equal 113 separations, the same that happened last year that would mirror last year's council separation plan.

You put those two things together and it would allow the council to cut $2.7 million.

This package would restore that $2.7 million.

This package would also restore the $1.3 million for personnel costs and vehicles for CSOs.

And so given your actions on the last amendment, this would be something that if you're considering this amendment, either the sponsor or another council member may want to consider a verbal amendment to take that piece out.

Otherwise, you would be double funding the CSOs.

This particular action would also reverse the overtime cut.

As you'll recall, there's $7.8 million of new overtime funding in the budget.

And CBA 006A001 cuts $3.2 million.

This particular action would restore that entire $3.2 million.

There is in the chair's budget $475,000 of administrative cuts.

That breaks out into $300,000 of discretionary purchase cuts and $175,000 of travel and training cuts, respectively.

Those, again, are in SBD006A001.

Both would be restored entirely.

And then there is also in the mayor's proposed budget $5 million for technology projects.

The chair's budget would cut 1.24 million of those technology projects and two projects specifically that we have talked about in the past when we've gone over the chair's budget.

This particular amendment would restore those two projects.

And all of those things added together come to $10 million, and they would be funded by the Revenue Stabilization Fund.

I think it would be important for us to put the chart back on the screen that you walked through on Friday, though.

We did use the word cut again, and I know we're talking about how we change our language for next year.

But again, these are reduced increases in some cases, a reduced increase to overtime, a reduced increase to technology.

and we have maintained funding for certain areas like travel and training.

We have maintained the investment amounts in the mayor's budget in a number of places.

So I'm not sure if we have the opportunity to pull up that chart or if we need another few minutes, but could you offer any additional information about the use of the term cut versus what as it relates to the mayor's proposed package.

And I'll offer that clarification that we heard so clearly last Friday.

Yeah, happy to do so.

So the big picture here again is that the mayor's proposed budget did two things.

It restored some baseline cuts that were made by the council last year, and it also refunded or funded 134 vacant police positions that cannot be filled, not even under the executive's proposed hiring plan.

And so what that did is it created $19 million of salary savings in the department.

And then that $19 million of salary savings is redistributed along with the baseline ads redistributed towards a number of these areas that we have talked about.

So it is the case that those redistributions of that money of that salary funding.

It is the case that it is a cut from the mayor's proposed budget, but it is in actuality redirected salary funding that probably should have in the baseline process gone back into the general fund, and some of these items like say the technology items, should have been proposed to the council as their own distinct new items.

And so it's not so much making a cut as it is choosing to not make an ad.

Thank you so much.

And we will take questions about the overview of those three that you noted.

Because you did note the 134 vacant positions that the mayor's budget continues to assume, even if they are redirecting the use of those dollars for one-time purposes, by having those vacant positions repeatedly there, we allow for near $20 million to carry over year over year.

So do you mind, in your summary here, very briefly also touching on amendment number 199, which will trail those three that you just summarized?

Amendment number 199. Is that the abrogation of the 101 positions?

That is SPD-012A-001.

So that is an amendment that is brought by Councilmember Gonzalez and Councilmember Morales as a co-sponsor and that is an amendment that would abrogate 101 positions and it would, by abrogating those 101 positions in future budget years, it would make it, well, it would make it technically not possible for the executive to send over a budget that is funding vacant positions and then moving that money elsewhere for other things.

Thank you, Greg.

We'll get more into the details on all of these.

Council Member Strauss, I see that you have your hand up.

So before we consider any of the amendments that were just described, again, we're starting with number 201 as we get into this.

Do you have any additional questions for Greg on this macro perspective?

Stepping back a few layers here, go ahead and ask any questions.

Thank you, Chair.

Noting what Greg said, it brought to my attention that the CSOs are part of this amendment, as well as some of the other aspects.

There's an amendment from Councilmember Lewis to assume executive staffing plan separations.

And then Council Member Herbold's amendment regarding citywide hiring incentives.

My request here is if we could put D1 and D2 at the end of the list because I'm going to support these other bills on the table right now.

And I think that the outcome of those bills will influence my decision about D1 and D2.

Process wise, there's been a request to include item D1 and D2 at the end, so I believe that that would mean after number 198. Hearing no objection to moving D1.

And if you have an objection, please say objection because there's a few hands up that have.

I think are in the queue.

I would object to that.

OK, I wasn't that as well.

Thank you very much.

I want to make sure we got through the procedural motions there.

Council Member Strauss, we will continue with the items as listed on this sheet because of the objections.

No problem, colleagues.

We will get a chance to get to every one of them.

All right.

I appreciate the overview.

We have three hands for questions, and I do want to make sure that we get into the heart of each of these items.

So do you have any clarifying questions that you have for Greg before we consider individual amendments?

Council Member Luce, your hand's up first.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just really quickly, Greg, can you remind everyone what the two technology ads we declined, or sorry, that Council Member Muscata declined to incorporate into the balancing package as an ad were?

Sure.

There was one called the Active Workforce Wellness Management, and it was for about a half a million dollars, and it was one that would purchase biomedical devices and software that would measure physiological indicators, meaning the heart rate, respiration, skin responses, etc. of stress and nervous system responses that police officers might give off as they were heading to calls and listening to live 911 coming over the speakers from the dispatchers or just in general as they were heading to the calls to be able to assess whether or not there would be negative reactions from listening to 911, live 911. And then the other one was called the Equity, Accountability, and Quality Forum and Trulio Software.

And the idea there was that software would be purchased that would be able to take the body-worn camera video and specifically the audio that those devices are capturing and transcribe private into written documents, and then software would be able to analyze those documents for various kinds of disparity or other kinds of disproportionality in policing.

And that would be something that would be done in conjunction with the OIG.

and that is a project that would cost $740,000.

And those two particular projects are not funded in the chair's package and they together cost 1.2 million.

Thank you.

Clarifying questions, Council Member Herbold, please go ahead.

Not a clarifying question, more a statement around all of the items, just so I don't need to talk on each one of them, just an overarching point on all of the items that rely on the use of fiscal reserves.

even though some of those are items that I've supported and co-sponsored in earlier rounds.

But I just feel very strongly that I want to support the direction from the chair and what we've also heard from central staff and our budget director, Dr. Noble.

The most recent revenue forecast raised a note of caution about 2022 revenues with the continuing impact of COVID pandemic regarding payroll tax revenues and commercial parking tax.

We also face the risk of the chamber's lawsuit against the jumpstart payroll tax, which is on appeal and could blow to the fiscal reserves last year.

I will not be supporting a $200 million hole in the 2022 budget and leave the 2021 budget out of balance as well.

Council added additional funds to the fiscal reserves last year after again under the leadership of chair Mosqueda.

Councilmember Herbold, I appreciate those comments and thank you for summarizing so succinctly the concerns that our city faces from an economic forecasting perspective and your support for the maintenance of the reserves.

Councilmember Peterson, clarifying questions or macro comments?

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda, and appreciate Greg's very thorough overview of all of these.

Just a heads up in terms of the community service officers, I really appreciate the Chair, her work, Chair Mosqueda, for restoring that or maintaining that the expansion of that program.

So there would be an amendment I would be making to both 201 and 202 to not to double count the community service officer program.

So those amounts would be adjusted accordingly in an amendment to the amendments.

And there will also be a proviso on the overtime.

for both of those amendments for 201 and 202. So there'll be a somewhat complicated motion that I would be making, but I just wanted to give a heads up since we were starting with the $10 million, it'll actually be 8.7 million because the 1.3 of the community service officer is already elsewhere in the budget.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Colleagues, I'm not seeing any additional questions for Greg on the overall concepts and issues that he has raised.

So let's go ahead and get into this.

We have in front of us D1, I'm going to move it, including those adjustments that I would like to move the bill as it is listed on the agenda.

If there is a second, you can work to include your verbal amendment.

It's been moved and seconded.

Council Member Peterson, you are welcome to now, if you'd like, make the motion for your verbal amendment.

Thank you, Chair Mosqueda.

Now I'd like to move to amend CBA SPD 015A001 as follows, be substituting the council budget action title to read as follows, to add 8.7 million general fund to SPD to restore the cuts in the chair, restore the reductions in the chair's balancing package and to $3.2 million in general fund contributions to the revenue stabilization fund.

Thank you very much.

It's been moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Greg, would you have any additional clarifying on comments?

I see your hands up.

Yeah, I just want to say that the proviso Councilmember Peterson is actually a separate action.

I'll ask Ali to confirm this for me, but I think I think in this action, you're just amending the dollars to to take out the CSOs.

So they're not double funded.

And then when you reach your proviso, you would change the dollar amount, depending on whether.

015, SPD 015 passes or whether SPD 016 passes.

Sorry, excuse me, Greg.

I think actually the motion that Councilmember Peterson just made essentially moved his proposed walk-on into this verbal amendment.

And so it would mean if that passes, if this amendment to the amendment passes, the walk-on amendment would be, and then the overall action passes, the walk-on amendment would be removed for consideration, from consideration.

Okay, great.

So then the walk-on is now part of this as well.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Okay, colleagues, we have the amended version of SPD-015A-002.

I will turn it back to you.

Thank the chair for her inclusiveness in this budget process and the collaboration and just to remind the viewing public of.

how much we have agreed on today and the unity on so many important issues, and this issue is always a tough one for the council, but it's worth the discussion and the debate, and so I appreciate the grace in putting forward this amendment.

I'll explain it now.

So we have various options before us today on how to address the mayor's budget request for Seattle's police department.

And this first option would essentially restore the mayor's original request.

Appreciate Chair Mosqueda, elsewhere in the budget, making sure we do continue to expand the community service officer program, hence the change in the amount here to $8.7 million for the restoration.

Again, this is essentially is trying to restore what the mayor had originally requested.

Police Chief Diaz reiterated their rationale for each of the items requested in the budget.

And the incoming mayor has also publicly talked about an interest in preserving these resources for the department in 2022. The mayor had originally proposed an overall SPD budget of 365 million for next year.

which was an increase of about $3 million over the 2021 adopted budget of $362 million.

The various budget reductions already in play would reduce the mayor's request by about $9 or $10 million.

Again, thanking the chair for keeping the expansion of the community service officer program.

And we could certainly dissect each line item further, but the theme of this is to honor the executive's total request.

The goal in my mind is to send a positive message to those city government employees in uniform, officers and detectives who remain committed to Seattle, knowing that we have much work to do on police accountability issues.

I believe that honoring the original budget request from the executive will help us to retain officers after Seattle has already experienced a net loss of 200 officers, the 300 who left and the 100 who have since been hired.

I think there's a lot of interest potentially in the next items, such as items 202, 203 on today's agenda.

So I don't want to belabor the point here on this particular amendment.

Again, I believe the issue of how we allocate funds for public safety is an issue of timing.

I'd like to see more alternatives scale up first, and I believe we need to have a police contract revamped.

And I do want to note that this proposal would tap the Revenue Stabilization Fund, not the Emergency Fund.

The amendment leaves intact the Emergency Fund.

Thank you.

Okay.

Council Member Swatt, followed by Council Member Lewis.

Council Member Swatt.

Oh, excuse me.

Council Member Swatt, one second, please.

Allie, did you have a clarifying comment you'd like to offer?

I just wanted to take a minute to just read the proviso into the record so it is clear for the public what the proviso does as part of the conversation, if that would make sense.

Please go ahead, and then we'll go to Council Member Swatt.

Thank you so what is on the screen in front of you is the walk on amendment that Councilmember Peterson distributed before five o'clock yesterday that he just verbally included in this amendment with a slight modification in terms of the amount, but they provide what the proviso would do.

It would say, of the appropriation in the 2022 budget for the Seattle Police Department Special Operations Budget Summary Level, I'm not going to read the code, $3.2 million may not be spent until authorized by a future ordinance.

So I just wanted to make sure that was clear on what the restriction would be imposed on their budget by this action.

Thank you.

Thank you for waiting, Council Member Sawant.

Please go ahead.

Thank you.

I know we have discussed both the amendment to the amendment and then the amendment itself.

So I just wanted to speak to all of it all at once.

I will be voting no on the overall budget amendment, but I believe we will be doing an amendment, a vote on the amendment to the amendment, and I'll be voting yes on that.

Just wanted to clarify to the members of the public that regardless of the result of that vote, I will be voting no on the overall budget amendment.

Thank you so much.

Okay, and if I could offer just some clarification, right?

You're voting yes because of the sort of technical nature of the reduction in the amount.

Is that correct, Council Member Sawant?

Is that what you're flagging for both?

Yes, I am.

It is a technical amendment.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Council Member Sawant for that background.

Ali, I see your hand up again.

Did you have another clarifying comment?

Okay, carry over hand, no problem.

Council Member Lewis, please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Actually, following on Council Member Sawant's comments just now, are we, is what's before us voting to reflect the addition back of the CSOs?

So if I have comments on the overall amendment, should I wait?

Just clarifying.

If I can answer, and maybe central staff has a comment as well, this is just, the technical aspect of it.

I think if you would like to speak to the overall budget implications, you're welcome to, um, maybe just as soon as we get through this technical amendment.

Yeah, let's, let's dispense with this first and then I'm happy to make more comments later.

That's appreciated.

Is there any other additional comments on the amendment to SPD 0 1 5 a 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 in front of us?

Hearing none.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the adoption of the amendment to item number 201 in front of us?

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

Yes.

Strauss?

Yes.

Gonzales?

Yes.

Herbold?

Yes.

Juarez?

Yes.

Lewis?

Yes.

Councilmember Perkins?

Councilmember Morales?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Happy to jump in and have this discussion and appreciate that Councilmember Peterson has brought this forward so we can have this conversation since there's been so much scrutiny of this area in the news recently.

I want to start just by doing a little bit of table setting and talking about this and really hold up the balancing package that council member Mosqueda has put forward to just recognize things that I don't think have been fairly recognized in some of the public scrutiny.

And like this will be disappointing to some members of the public on both sides who've been following this discussion, because no matter how these amendments go today, there is a fully funded hiring plan for SPD that Councilmember Muscata has funded that has not always been fairly recognized in the discourse we've been facing.

So for folks who are advocates of deeper defunding, no matter what with these amendments from Councilmember Peterson and Councilmember Juarez and myself, there's going to be a fully funded hiring package whether these amendments pass or not.

And I think it's important to note the restorations of overtime funding relative to 2020. And other additions that have been requested by the department and by the mayor that Councilmember Metzgeda has incorporated into our baseline package.

And I just want to express my gratitude at the opening here.

I do think there are things in these amendments that I would I cannot support this particular amendment from Councilmember Peterson.

And I do have three reasons and wanted to go on the record why I will not be supporting this particular $8.7 million amendment.

The first one was alluded to by Councilmember Herbold referencing a November 18th The revenue stabilization fund is going to be an important component of making sure we can balance and sustain really prioritize looking into what we're doing at this moment right now to make some final additions to the chair's balancing package in the message that we're sending on the Revenue Stabilization Fund.

I do think it is appropriate, and I have sponsored several ads this afternoon seeking to take from the fund, so I'm not, obviously I'm not a stickler about it.

But to the extent that we can triage in talking specifically about this fund in terms of what we want to send a signal we're willing to fund, I think it should be limited to things that are most essential, things that lead to increased accountability in city service delivery, or things that leverage external funding opportunities.

And I'll talk about some of that in some of my other amendments.

I think that with this amendment and the way I think it is distinct from Councilmember Peterson's next proposal that I will be voting for, and I'm going to go into the details on why I'm voting for that next, is the most important considerations In front of us that could have an impact in terms of service delivery on the street for public safety systems.

Is really the items that are baked into that second amendment and really the things that we have been talking about in the public discourse that the public is concerned about it's hiring incentives.

to make sure that we can continue to attract and retain given our hiring challenges in the Seattle Police Department.

It's increased overtime for events, seeing the Seattle Kraken now playing and a large return of significant community events and sporting events in 2022 relative to 2021. And a change in the attrition assumptions, which I have brought a separate amendment to discuss even further and which I would just like to plan for the contingencies in regards to now rather than waiting for potentially a supplemental if our predictions are wrong.

And I'm happy to talk about more of that in future amendment discussions than right here.

But those are the most important considerations.

that are included in this amendment, but they're also included in Councilmember Peterson's second proposed amendment, and they are included to a certain extent in an amendment that I have brought.

And that brings me to my third and last consideration, which is I frankly do think there are some things that Councilmember Mosqueda did not add that were prudent decisions to not add at this current time given the information that we know.

And I did ask Greg Doss some questions at the beginning here just to clarify specifically the technology investments, which is a component of this amendment that Councilmember Peterson has brought.

I think it's important to note that we are looking forward today of two technology projects that I think this Council largely agrees and chair Mosqueda has indicated her thoughts on this multiple times, that these are good technology investments that would be nice to have, but given the variety of budget pressures that we are facing this cycle, they are things that we should continue to look So I think that the thing that is really going to deliver the essential public safety services that a lot of us are talking about in the public discourse are included in the upcoming amendment from Councilmember Peterson that I believe, once amended, will come in at 4.02 million.

That amendment, I think, is a prudent and effective response to the public safety challenges we're facing in the city right now.

I think that it also balances the pressure on this particular funding source, given the concerns that have been expressed by the city budget office and by central staff.

And I will be voting no on this amendment, but voting yes on that coming amendment.

So, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lewis.

Are there any additional comments or questions on this amendment?

Okay.

Hearing none, I would encourage a no vote as well.

I will not underscore again the points that were made by the Vice Chair and Council Member Lewis just a moment ago about the use of the reserves.

But especially trying to weigh the importance of getting prepared for the downturn in the economy coming, if that materializes and or a uptick in coronavirus cases, we really need to be prepared.

So for that and other policy considerations that I've articulated before, I will be voting no.

And thank you, Council Member Peterson, bringing this forward and for allowing this discussion.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the adoption of SPD-015A-001 as amended?

Peterson?

Yes.

Sawant?

No.

Strauss?