Seattle City Council Select Budget Committee 10/31/19 Session I

What does that do?

There you go.

Thank you.

Bye.

Good morning, everyone.

Happy Halloween.

It's October 31st, 2019. I'm Sally Bagshaw, chairing this Budget Committee.

Today is our second day as we're going through what is affectionately known as the Form Bs.

I want to thank my colleagues yesterday for participating, being so involved, and we're going to dive in again.

Today we're starting off, I believe, with the Office of Housing.

Am I correct on that?

Yes.

And appreciate the fact that these are recommendations that we have made to modify or add to.

There are no cuts, obviously, to the mayor's budget.

Today, again, we're going to ask to have Council Central staff frame the issue.

They have committed to try to frame the issue within a minute.

I would like our colleagues, again, I know that this was not exactly what we did yesterday, but to try to stay within, of course, Council Member Juarez was always within her 30 second limit, but to have us try to keep the time that we're speaking to something about which we've already spoken to a short amount of time.

We've got about 60 issues today to get through.

We'll do the same thing as we did yesterday as check in with each other around noon to see if we want to keep going.

or stop for a two-hour lunch and then come back at two o'clock.

So thank you for all of that.

I think, any comments from my colleagues?

Anything that you want to dive in on?

Okay, Council Central Staff, thank you for being here.

Tom, do you want to start with introductions?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Tom Mikesell, Central Staff.

Lish Whitson, Council Central Staff.

Ali Panucci, Council of Central Staff.

Tracy Ratzliff, Council of Central Staff.

Lisa Kay, Council of Central Staff.

Great, and I want to say thanks to all of you for all of your hard work.

I know there's nothing easy about trying to take all the information we're throwing at you and getting it digested.

and into this forum that we have in front of us today, so many thanks.

Okay, Tom, are you kicking this off this morning or who's?

That's gonna be me, council members.

Okay, great.

Happy Halloween to you.

We're gonna try to go through these pretty quickly, hopefully with not too many tricks and maybe a few treats for you as we go along through these CBAs this morning.

Starting with CBA OH1A1, this is sponsored by Council Member Mosqueda.

This council budget action would add $100,000 of general fund one time to the Office of Housing to support implementation of community preference and affirmative marketing plans for housing levy funded affordable housing projects in neighborhoods at high risk of displacement.

Very good.

Council Member West, did you want to hit this one?

Didn't I just understand this?

Who's speaking to this one?

I apologize, you're right, this is, oh, I'm first again.

Well, two days in a row.

Isn't that something?

I did not know that.

I was busy with them.

Your 30 seconds are ticking by.

I know they are, I'm sorry.

Let me read you my notes that I have prepared on behalf of Council Member Mosqueda.

This is a, as you just said, Tracy, $100,000 one time to Office of Housing to implement affirmative marketing and community preference plans in neighborhoods at high risk displacement.

Basically, we support this.

I do not have any more than that.

Thank you.

All right.

I didn't know I was doing that.

Again, today what I'm going to be asking for is to see if you want to add your name to be a sponsor to this.

All those who would like to add your name to this, please raise your hand.

This is for community preference and affirmative marketing.

Is that correct?

This is number one.

All right.

Yes.

I'm catching up.

Yes.

All right.

You got the count?

All right, next one, number two, OH2A1.

This council budget action is sponsored by Council Member Harrell, and it would add $220,000 of general fund one time to the Office of Housing to fund pre-development costs for a proposed housing project in Little Saigon that will assist American Indian and Alaskan Native individuals and families.

All right, Council Member Hera.

Very quickly, so this is the Seattle Indian Services Commission's Pearl Warren Building.

I think all of you are familiar with a long history of the building, but we are in a unique position to invest $220,000 with the Commission to really redevelop and do some capacity building with the building.

The long-term vision that they've been working extremely hard on is revitalizing what they're calling a native village in the city of Seattle would include up to 160 units of affordable housing, child care, early childhood education, an outdoor playground and community garden, economic opportunity development training for adults in office space.

All this centered around and also what they call a hall of ancestors and welcome poles and Totem Park.

It's really an incredible vision.

And so now the Seattle Indian Services Commission, with new energy and new leadership, are in a position to do some incredible things.

This is capacity building, pre-development costs for this project in Little Saigon.

The community is excited about it as well.

And I think this will be an excellent investment for $220,000.

I think many of you have met with members of the commission, and they've shared their vision with you.

And so this is a modest investment that will go a long way, sort of a legacy project for the Native American community.

Excellent.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Item number three.

This is Council Bill 3A1, again, also sponsored by Councilwoman Harrell.

This would add $150,000 general fund one time to the Office of Housing to fund pre-development costs for a proposed affordable housing project for low-income seniors aged 55 years and older in the Central District.

So this is what is referred to as the Mount Zion Project.

And now, Tracy, correct me if I'm wrong.

I had discussions pre-budget with the mayor's office, and it was my understanding that this wasn't necessarily an ad.

This was just a identification of funds that are already in the budget.

And we're just identifying or, well, identifying the funds.

And it's not an ad, but I know this green sheet, what are we calling these now?

These foreign bees suggest that it is an ad.

But anyway, whether it's an ad or there's existing money in there that I've been assured by CBO, this is for pre-development costs for an affordable housing project in the Central District, dealing with the same issues we've been talking about for years, which is displacement, particularly in underrepresented groups, and in this case, largely the African-American community.

And here we have a project, we have land, we're ready to do some pre-development work.

And it's, again, a modest investment that will go a long way toward a huge, incredible housing affordability effort.

Can I ask a quick question?

Yes.

Of course, I support you in this.

Is this site at the Mount Zion Church next door?

Very close to it, yes.

Okay, very good.

Is it a transfer of funds or is it a new fund add?

There is funds in the reserve line that actually have to be appropriated.

So what this budget action does is appropriate those funds that are sitting in a reserve line in the budget.

Okay, thank you.

Can I say that?

Thanks for clarifying that.

So it's sort of classified it as an add, We are trying to appropriate funds that are there, but I guess we have to describe it as an ad although yes, okay Yes, it's an appropriation, and I could just as easily call it just appropriation authority, okay appropriation authority and the the executive is According to the CBO been over there on board with this Appropriation very good those who would like to add their name as a sponsor raise your hand I

Thank you.

Item four.

Okay, moving on to Council Bill Action 4A1, sponsored by Council Member Mosqueda.

So this budget action would add $15 million to the 2019 NOFA by cutting $7 million from the proposed Affordable Home Ownership Acquisition and ADU Loan Pilot Programs and OH, and cutting $8 million from the Strategic Investment Fund and Finance General.

In addition, it states the council's intent to appropriate $7 million in additional REIT II from the 2021 through 2026 period.

This additional $7 million would also be used to make financing commitments for the housing project seeking funding in OH's 2019 NOFA.

Allie Panucci has just handed out to you a table that shows what's happening here in terms of the specific reductions.

The bulk of these reductions, all of these reductions are actually coming from the funds, the Mercer Mega Block proceeds that were allocated by the mayor to some specific initiatives.

First, the strategic investment fund, a $41 million fund that actually is sitting in finance general.

There is $15 million that was allocated in OH for a home ownership, affordable home ownership program.

There was $6 million in OH money for an ADU loan pilot as well.

So the Muscata CBA actually makes reductions in those proposals by the mayor and then proposes to use those reductions to fund additional projects that are coming through the 2019 Fall NOFA.

Great, thanks.

And can I just confirm two things?

The NOFA funding are identified for projects that are already shovel ready.

So what Council Member Esqueda is, her goal here is to get more monies, the 23 million, into that fund so that that can be leveraged for more housing to be built as soon as possible.

Correct.

And then the reduction on the ADEU loan program, it doesn't eliminate it, but it reduces it?

To $2.5 million, correct.

Okay, for a pilot there.

And then the strategic investment fund, what would $8 million cut?

What projects or what?

So at this point, there are no projects that are slated to be funded with that fund.

There is a process that the executive has laid out that involves city departments as well as community organizations that will, one, and we'll talk about this a little bit later, establish criteria for selection of properties, and two, will weigh in on what properties that are in the potential mix for being funded actually get funded.

Were those public properties, Tracy, that the ones you're trying to identify?

Mix.

There's a mix of, and this is just initial screens of properties.

It is likely a mix of public properties as well as privately owned.

Okay.

Council Member O'Brien, do you want to speak to it?

I'm going to try.

I had a little dental work this morning, so I'm a little off, but if I bite my cheek, I probably won't scream because I won't notice it, but later I'll feel it.

Not for an hour, and then you will.

I'm going to move slowly.

I appreciate Council Member Skater's work, and I support this.

I want to just share what I'm trying to balance as I'm analyzing the money that we have from the Mercer Mega Block.

It's balancing a variety of things that I think are all good things, setting aside a chunk of money to help us do strategic acquisition that'll preserve our ability to make investments in additional affordable housing going forward, including some of these programs like an ADU loan program and the homeownership program.

And I think those are balanced against projects that are already ready to go, that are in the pipeline.

And my understanding that the, Tracy help me on the terminology, the intent to apply for the NOFA, some version of that, While the NOFA is scheduled to be about $90 million, there are about twice that many number of projects that have said they're thinking of applying.

And so we know there are significantly more affordable housing projects today that are all ready to go.

And so this would shift about $15 million from a variety of programs that would happen in the future to help fund housing projects that are ready to go today.

That still won't meet the demand of all the projects that are going today, but I think it gets us closer.

And I don't think there's any perfect analysis here but I think the math to me feels about right of getting a good chunk of good projects.

And if we, you know, have over 100 million dollars that would, I believe, be a new high watermark for the amount we're awarding for affordable housing in one year which I think is necessary.

And it still preserves, you know, to your question, just over 30 million dollars in the strategic investment fund which is not an insignificant amount to allow us flexibility moving forward for a variety of projects.

And there are some really interesting opportunities we don't know a ton about and some other projects that we know more about in the Seattle area that I think are looking for funding that we're excited to fund.

Great.

Council Member Herbold.

Yeah, when we heard from the Office of Housing earlier this year that they were anticipating a 55 million dollar NOFA and we had also heard the previous year from the McKenzie report that Our region needed to double our investments in permanent supportive housing as well as homelessness funding.

I made it a commitment that I wanted to work towards doubling our investments in permanent supportive housing.

And so from going from $55 million NOFA for 2019 to A $113 million NOFA I think is really important, but we also need to remember that we have to do this every year and figure out a way to pay off this bond, this larger bond, to enhance the size of the NOFA from our levy.

the MHA funds that we have available.

So let's do this this year, but then let's figure out how to do it every year for the rest of the housing money.

Great.

Thank you for that.

So I think you've put a good finger on the issue, which is we need to be looking at a regional strategy for this, that it can't just be on the backs of the monies we have now from the levy.

And in order to accomplish that, it really is going to need a coordinated response from all of the folks who are involved in this, whether it is the providers, the developers, our business leaders, our labor leaders, the neighborhoods, to say, we need a much bigger, robust ability to respond to the needs.

And the needs are not things we're making up.

And I sometimes get a little bit torqued by some of the things that I read about, well, a city council can't get its act together or a city council can't do things.

We are trying so hard to get a strategy that is a coordinated, linked strategy to address these problems.

I think this is a wonderful step to indicate that these are our top priorities, is to get more housing built.

I want to say thank you to Councilman Skagit's office, Erin House, you've been a real leader in this and I appreciate that very much.

So I'm going to support this.

If I see no more comments, who would like to add their name as a sponsor to this?

Council Member Gonzalez has a question.

Yeah, so I have been advocating for sort of the right sizing and the reduction of the ADU program to begin with.

to the tune of $3.5 million.

So I, can Council Central staff just walk me through how this particular proposal aligns or doesn't align with what I'm proposing in terms of utilization of the $3.5 million reduction?

Is this in conflict or is it complimentary?

Sure, Council Member, I'd be happy to.

So I'm going to sort of speak in part to item number seven on the agenda, which is your proposal for the ADU loan program accessory dwelling units that I'll refer to as ADUs.

So it's perfectly aligned, unless we mischaracterized your proposal, but what we received in the form B was to take the proposed $6 million to the ADU loan program and reduce that to $2.5 million that will provide The $2 million to create a loan fund with a non-profit lender to leverage it to about an $8 million fund and $500,000 for other programmatic needs like tenant screenings and landlord training and that sort of thing, and then it redirects the remaining $3.5 million to the Office of Housing.

for the NOFA, so they are in perfect alignment.

It's taking the same $3.5 million and redirecting it to the NOFA and leaving $2.5 million for the ADU loan program.

Okay, and then there's also a proviso later on for the $41.7 million Strategic Investment Fund and Finance General.

How does that relate to this particular Form B?

It relates only in terms of it putting a proviso on whatever money you all in the end decide should be in that strategic investment fund and doesn't allow it to be spent until the executive comes back with a spending plan.

Yeah, I would say there's a series of council budget actions that together provide more direction on the use of the Mercer funds in this area to meet council's priorities, and that includes ensuring that the ADU loan program is right-sized and focusing on low-income households, particularly in areas at high risk of displacement.

It looks at placing restrictions on the release of the strategic investment fund until council has seeing the criteria and understands how that money will be programmed.

So there's sort of a number of actions that are related that are trying to provide clearer direction to the executive on how council expects these funds to be expended.

So I just want to flag for the chair that one of my top priorities in this budget as it relates to housing stability is around the Home for Good program, which we've penciled out to be just shy of a million dollars.

Council Member Herbold and I are working on that together.

That's the shallow rental subsidy program.

I had, you know, I just want to flag that to the extent that these two things are going to compete in terms of what gets funded, I would want to work with the chair and Council Member Mosqueda's office on figuring out how to move some of the levers in this particular to make sure that the $3.5 million that I have been identifying from the get-go is still available to me to be able to fund some of the other priorities that I have identified.

through this process.

So, that's the one flag I just want to put out that I don't want to be in a situation where we end up not being able to find an appropriate revenue source for the Home for Good shallow rental subsidy program because the entire $3.5 million is being swallowed up in this proposal.

Great.

Thank you.

And thank you for highlighting.

We're going to be getting a lot deeper in all that tomorrow.

with a lot of different connecting pieces.

I apologize for kind of going all over the place.

No, it's actually very, it's very helpful to have it because we'll, as we're going through today, we'll be able to see where the priorities are.

That's going to help me a lot and working with central staff this weekend.

So I think I'll be seeing, we'll be talking more about that this afternoon as well.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

All right.

So anything else that anyone would like to add about this item number four?

All right, seeing no hands going up, who would like to add your name as a sponsor to item number four?

And this is Council Member Mosqueda's $15 million NOFA.

Okay, can you see hands?

Okay, got them?

All right, thank you.

All right, item five.

Item five is budget action OH6A1, which adds $500 million to the Office of Housing for development of housing affordable to households with incomes less than 80% of area median income.

This would be funded by issuing $500 million of limited tax general obligation bonds in 2020. The action includes debt service assumptions, which provide for the debt issuance costs.

What is the, Tom, if you've got your fingers on this pulse, how do we pay $500 million back?

What is, what's the revenue source?

So, in 20, in next year's budget, in 2020, it would be a half year's debt service cost, which is $22.5 million, which would be funded through, so kind of piggybacking on the discussion of the Mercer Mega Block proceeds.

So it would be a portion of the amount in the mayor's proposed budget for the strategic investment reserve in finance general.

And so that would pay the first year's debt service cost, and in the out years, since we're not appropriating any budget, there's no provision for that.

However, the amount would be $44.5 million, or $45 million.

Annually?

Annually, for the remainder of the 20-year term.

Okay.

Which would require a property tax increase, or what's the, or just cut from the?

I'm sorry, Chair Baxter, this is my item, I can speak to it.

I know, but I'm asking Council Central staff, and I'll turn to you in a moment, okay?

So can you?

It would just require some future decision of where to where to provide for that money.

Okay.

Council Member Swann.

So, you know, you all expressed a lot of nice words about how we need annual source of funds, which I could not agree with.

more, but we do need progressive revenues, and we don't have progressive revenues.

The city has the nation's most regressive tax system, so we need, if we agree that we need an annual source of progressive revenue sources, for building affordable housing, for social services and so on, then this will need to be funded, the debt service will need to be funded through a progressive revenue source and there are not very many progressive revenue sources at our disposal without changes at the state level.

The Amazon tax or the so-called head tax is one of the avenues and Unfortunately, when most of the council repealed this last year, there were statements, promises made that we will look into other sources or something or, you know, to do something in order to make up for that repeal, but it's now been over a year.

And so, of course, you know, we could take funds from here and there, but as you know, my preference is to not to use a drop beater to pay Paul kind of strategy, because most of the programs that we're funding need to be funded other than the sweeps of homeless individuals.

And that's why, obviously, you know, if you all support the $500 million bond on affordable housing, then it can be paid for by reestablishing the Amazon tax, or we can look for another source of revenues.

But I think we have a moral and political obligation to do that, just given the crisis.

Other comments on this?

My only concern, frankly, is that until we've got that strategy, I would feel that it's irresponsible as budget chair to put a $500 million ask on something that we can't pay back.

Although, conceptually, I think you're absolutely right, that's what we need.

So, who at this point would like to add your name as a sponsor?

Cut the count?

Okay, item six.

Moving on to Council Bill Action 7A1, sponsored by Council Member Mosqueda.

This would add $67,000 in one-time general fund to the Office of Housing for homebuyer counseling for first-time low-income homebuyers who will be future owners at the Othello Square Co-op Project.

This funding, in addition to $150,000 that was included in the Mayor's proposed 2020 budget, would bring the total funding for this activity to $217,000.

Great.

And this is Council Member Mesquite.

Is there somebody speaking to this?

Member O'Brien, how's your mouth?

My mouth is okay.

I actually have some notes on this, but I can't seem to find them at the moment.

So, I have Tony Toe staring at me in the front there, and I'm just looking at his notes he sent me.

Hang on one second.

Chair Baker, would you mind if we came back to this one so I don't hold folks up?

Does anybody have anything else you'd like to add?

I mean Council, Central, Staff, do you have any more details on this?

Council Member Gonzalez, do you have any additional information?

I don't have any notes on this one.

Okay.

I will dig them up if you just give me a second, but I don't want to hold up.

Can we come back to it in just one second?

Can we just move forward to the next one and then?

Okay, great.

So now we're moving on to item number seven.

We will come back to item number six.

And this is imposing a proviso of $2.5 million in Office of Housing for an accessory dwelling unit loan program.

This is Council Member Gonzalez.

You spoke to this earlier, would you?

go ahead and frame it.

I could just um I briefly described this um council budget action sponsored by council member Gonzalez um but if you would indulge me for a minute I just thought I would given the broader question that council member Gonzalez posed I would just want to note on the handout we provided it shows the ways that um the mayor has proposed spending a 76 million, over $76 million resources from the sale of the Mercer proceeds.

And I just want to note, in thinking about whether or not your proposal is competing with Councilmember Mosqueda's proposal, the mayor proposed to spend that, you know, 76 plus million dollars in four slices of pie, that this council could decide to slice that into five slices or seven slices.

So it's not just the $3.5 million that you have the opportunity to reprioritize here.

So I just wanted to note that you can look at all of that and really all of the ads are frankly reprogramming of how the mayor proposed to spend it.

And so there are some other opportunities for you to find resources here.

And so I'll get back to the the item at hand the as I mentioned before the 2020 proposed budget added six million dollars for the ADU loan program in working with council members Gonzalez's office.

There is an opportunity here to reduce that while still providing a program that focuses on serving low-income households.

This action would require a completion of a racial equity toolkit and places a proviso on releasing the $2.5 million until the Office of Housing comes back with proposed changes to the housing policies.

So it will require council action on legislation and that will be an opportunity to ensure that the program design is meeting the council's intent to really focus on households most in need and increase opportunities for affordable rental housing in single family areas.

Great.

Council Member Gonzalez.

Nothing more to add.

I think we've talked about this.

I think this is the third time we've had a conversation about this proposal.

I think it's an important thing for us to fund and to support.

But I think that rightsizing the mayor's proposal to make sure that we get the intended policy outcomes as described just right is really important.

look forward to having my colleagues' support on this one.

Okay, any other comments?

Then who would like to add your name as a sponsor to item seven?

Looks like you've got unanimity down here, Council Member Gonzalez.

Thank you.

Okay, coming back to item six.

Colleagues and Chair, thank you so much for your flexibility on that.

I have found the notes here.

This one's a little complicated, so I'll walk through what's going on.

The city has continuously funded a home buyer counseling program provided by local non-profit organizations to help potential buyers become ready to purchase a home.

through a community development block grant that's been going on for about a decade in the amount of $216,000 annually.

What recently happened is Housing and Urban Development, the federal government, changed the CDBG category designation for homebuyer education which my understanding is it allows for more flexibility in those funds.

And so, those funds in this year's budget got redirected to other homeless services.

Instead, the mayor put a one-time funding of $150,000 in this year's budget which is a $67,000 or $66,000 cut over what had been continuously funded for 10 years.

And so what this action would do, the reality that this organization is facing, and I believe they're sitting here in the audience, is that with just a few months' notice, a program that has been continuously funded for 10 years is proposed to have about a 25% cut, which would result in immediate layoffs.

It's a program that has served well.

I don't need to go into too many details about the power of homeownership for low-income homeowners, but it's something that we have supported continuously and I believe is a good thing to support.

And what folks are asking for and what Council Member Skate is proposing and I also support is keeping this program whole for 2020 to allow some time to have some longer term strategic conversations about what is the appropriate amount of funding and who's going to fund it and where it's going to come from as opposed to make this.

Which organization has it now?

It's HomeSite.

Thank you.

Any other comments on this one?

All right.

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

Okay?

Very good.

About to count, Lisa?

Good.

This next one, as Council Central staff tees it up, I believe is yours, Council Member O'Brien.

So my specific query is going to be how does this interface with the things that we've just spoken about in items five and six.

Do you have, want to queue it up?

I do.

Just to remind folks, this is the proviso that I spoke about just a few minutes ago, Finance General 1A1.

that would impose a proviso on the $41.7 million in the strategic investment fund until authorized by future council ordinance.

Again, the idea is that the executive will be going through this community process about what to fund and would be presenting a spending plan to the council in the first or second quarter of 2020. And at that point, the council would then decide whether they are okay with that proposed spending plan or want to make modifications.

and would adopt an ordinance to authorize expenditure of the funds at that time.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Council Member Brandt.

Not a lot to add.

I mean, I want to be really clear with the public and others that, you know, the mayor is proposing this money go into financial general, which is, means that that would require a council action to move it out.

So, it's not that this was proposed to be, you know, flexible funds that they would spend.

The idea behind the proviso is just to, a little belt and suspender again, but to reemphasize that there's an expectation that's come to council.

And my ultimate goal is to ensure that to the extent that the council has some criteria they really want to be considering and some of that is embedded in the proviso.

We're getting that out in front of the process.

I think we set ourselves up for harder times down the road if the executive is planning to do something with it that we're not aware of and we have different intent on it and then we end up further down a path arguing over if this is appropriate.

So trying to send a clear signal early before negotiations or proposals are coming forward is my goal here with this proviso to give intent.

And happy to work with others to make sure that we have consensus around what that intent is over the next week or so.

Great.

Thank you.

Any further comments on this?

Those who'd like to add your name as a sponsor, raise your hand.

Got the count?

Very good.

All right, so we're moving on to Seattle Parks.

Oh, actually, we have one more.

There's a second one that's related.

Yep, Finance Journal 2A1, which is a slide, again, related to the Strategic Investment Fund.

So this is the slide that would actually request the executive to come back to the council with proposed criteria for the selection of projects for the Strategic Investment Fund that are similar to criteria utilized by the Equitable Development Initiative.

and those criteria that are specifically requested to be looked at are included in the slide.

It also does request the executive to include community members on the IDT that will make the selections of those properties, and then to provide a report to the council by January 31st of 2020.

And so this is closely paired with the one we just talked about.

The talking points I made a moment ago apply here too.

The thing that I, a couple things I just want to add.

One is both these items refer to the $41.7 million fund, which in the previous items that number might change a little bit depending on what happens elsewhere.

And just want to emphasize that the work that the Equitable Development Initiative has been doing and really want to try to bring as many of those principles and maybe some of those people over to have their eyes on this process too.

We've heard from community members is a real strong desire to have community-driven projects be prioritized in some way when they're looking at this funding.

And I think EDI has been an amazing model for the last few years where more and more community groups are coming up with ideas and they're continually building the capacity to handle bigger projects as they recognize that there are some resources and have city support.

And so I think this is an opportunity to expand on that work and the language here is intended and driven by community organizations that have been part of the EDI work and have asked to make sure that that process or at least parts of those process are included as we look at this pretty large chunk of money for investments going forward.

Thank you.

Any further comments on this?

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

Thank you.

All right, now we move on to parks.

Now we'll move on to parks.

Thank you.

So moving to Council Bill Action 1A1, sponsored by Council Members Bagshaw and Herbold.

This would add $244,000 in ongoing general fund for expansion of shower services for homeless individuals at several community centers.

Great.

Council Member Herbold, would you like to speak to this?

Thank you so much.

Creating greater access to restroom and hygiene services is a top recommendation from the Navigation Team City Auditor Report as part of what is necessary to better manage the public health impact of people living unsheltered.

And this ties into the work of the Navigation Team because if the Navigation Team is out there assessing the sites where people are living unsheltered and assessing them for their public health impacts, it is incumbent on us as a city to try to mitigate those public health impacts prior to the need of the navigation team to assess those sites.

So this particular budget action builds off of work that the Parks Department is already doing with its allowance of showers at Delridge, Green Lake, Miller, and Rainier.

And those are facilities that are open to all for shower use.

And I thank the Parks Department for taking the initiative in doing that and for working with the council as well as working with the auditor on this in an item that will follow as well.

Very good, thank you.

And thanks for your initiative on this.

Thanks to our Parks Department and Tracy, thanks to you for helping us identify what spaces might be available.

I know the Parks Department had asked about wanting to provide some laundry service for towels, and I'm suggesting rather than invest in that, that we invest in some compostable towels, and I know they're available.

They are not that expensive.

For people who show up and they don't have their own towel, I think we can keep the costs a little bit lower.

And I understand that they can be used and taken home and used again, or in a backpack, whatever.

But I'd like to see if we could make the facility available, help parks with what they need in terms of additional person power for opening them up early.

One of the things I've heard from many people is that for those who want to actually go to work or Need to start their day clean that they need some earlier hours than 9 a.m.

For the shower, so I'd love to see if we could make some of that available Good councilmember Morris.

Thank you

Thank you.

First of all, thank you Councilmember Baxter and Herbold.

As you know, this has been a continuing discussion of mine since we started chairing parks, is community centers like libraries are constantly evolving and we've gone beyond just the specific needs of why we created these public assets and institutions.

decades, hundreds of years ago.

They provide, as we're seeing, not just, which I'm really glad Council Member Herbold addressed, assisting with the navigation team and when we're assessing spy areas and sites and providing services.

I guess the other issue, and you'll hear it in the next one that's coming up, and it's been a constant refrain of mine and Council Member Bagshaw as well, when we address number 11, is that in the 21st century, we have to include space for social services.

And I think 10 years ago, people didn't think that libraries would have social service workers and that community centers would be open to have menstrual products, diapers, showers.

These are all public assets.

These are all things that taxpayers have.

This is a public space for public needs.

And that may shift and change over time, but not every community just owns their community center only for their use.

It belongs to all the citizens of all of Seattle.

So I just want to thank you for that very much.

Thank you very much.

Any other comments?

Okay.

Those who would like to add their name to item number 10, raise your hand.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for that, Councilmember Herbold.

Moving on to 11, and I believe that we'll get this, Tracy, if you'd like to frame it, and Councilmember Warren.

1, sponsored by Councilmember Warren, would add $150,000 in one-time general fund for a feasibility study for an Aurora-Licton Springs Community Center.

Good.

I will be brief, believe it or not.

We've talked about this.

I have handed out this, which I understand is ORCID, and I did that so you can all read it, but it talks about the 150,000, the City of Seattle Community Center map.

I wanted to show you exactly where this would be.

It isn't just District 5. It's the north end in the Aurora-Licton Springs fact sheet that Department of Neighborhoods put together for us.

when we were placing the moratorium on storage sheds on Aurora.

But let me just say this, because everything else is in the packet and you can look at it.

This is probably the fifth feasibility study that has come out of the North End, in particular District 5, and I want to assure everybody that these studies and these feasibility studies that my colleagues have so graciously granted us, anywhere between 50,000 and 150, they have all come to fruition with programs, brick and mortar, projects that are in design phase, like the Lake City Community Center.

These conversations all started two or three years ago, where we came forward and said, can we have a study to do this?

From that data, we actually had these projects and community come together to envision a new Lake City Community Center, to have an apprenticeship program at North Seattle College, to revisit how we use Hubbard Park, to revisit how we use our pools and our community centers.

So that is why I'm hoping that my colleagues will support me on this.

Thank you.

Any further comments?

Those who would like to add your name to item number 11, raise your hand.

Very good.

Cut the count.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, Council Member Juarez.

Number 12.

Moving to Council Bill Action 4A1, sponsored by Council Member Herbold.

This would add $818,000 in ongoing general fund and four FTEs to open seven more restrooms during the fall and winter and increase cleaning of the seven restrooms and other restrooms year round.

Very good.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

Again, this is consistent with the objectives of the previous item related to showers and community centers, also aligned with the recommendations from the City Auditor in how we can do things in our city facilities that will lessen the impacts of people living unsheltered, impacts to their lives living outside, as well as impacts to the surrounding community.

And again, this is the fact that we've gotten this far with developing this particular budget action, hat tip to the Parks Department and really appreciate their partnership and their willingness to help us address these needs.

Can I ask a quick Council Central staff question?

Will this money be coming out of the Metropolitan Park District because it's ongoing?

How are we planning to fund this?

Council members, this is the decision that you will make as part of the balancing package because this is ongoing funding and so you would need to find an ongoing funding source which likely means either a cut someplace or a hope.

Okay.

And the estimate of the cost is really dependent on how many comfort stations we're seeking to open.

Great.

And we know that this is one of the things that I hear from the public so often is that they want the restrooms at the parks open.

And having that, making sure that we've got them clean, maintained, and available to people is really important.

Okay.

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

Thank you.

All right, thank you for bringing that forward.

Number 13. Moving to 5A1, sponsored by Council Member Pacheco.

This would add $1 million one-time general fund to support renovation of Eli's Park, also known as the Burt Gilman Playground Park.

Great, thank you, Council Member Pacheco.

This budget ad would benefit a community-led project in District 4, spearheaded by a group called Eli's Park.

Eli's Park was founded by Paige Reschel after her son Eli passed away in 2017 at age 3. The group is seeking to renovate Burke-Gilman Playground Park to create a beautiful nature-based park that is a model for accessible and inclusive of all backgrounds, ages, and abilities.

This park is surrounded by affordable housing built by Capitol Hill Housing and ProVal Housing, the Ronald McDonald House, the Burke-Gilman Trail, and Seattle Children's Hospital.

The group has engaged more than 800 community members through workshops and tours to shape their inclusive vision for the space.

They have also partnered with numerous community organizations including Seattle Parks Foundation and Seattle Children's and expect to raise about $2 million from private sources.

Parks and Recreation has already agreed to put $1 million towards the renovation with a total project cost of $4.2 million.

Elikes Park is seeking an additional $1 million from the city to fully fund their project.

This amount would bring the total city contribution to about 50% of the total cost to improve the city-owned public asset.

I'm very hopeful that we can secure the dollars in this budget to provide at least part of the funding needed to complete the project.

Excellent.

Thank you for that.

Any questions or additions?

So just as a landmark, it's also right next to the neighborhood greenway going north.

So we've got Burke-Gilman and we also have the connection there with the neighbors.

Those that like to add your names as a sponsor, raise your hand.

Good, thank you for bringing this forward.

I know you've been a great advocate for it.

Okay, item 14. Yes, moving to Council Bill Action 6A1.

This is a slide sponsored by Council Member O'Brien that would request a report from the Department of Parks and Rec on the status of the Green Seattle Partnership Program.

This program is a collaborative effort between the city and Fort Terra to restore 2,500 acres of Fortis Parkland in Seattle by 2025. The slide lists the information that would be required, and it would be due to the council by June of 2020.

The Green Seattle Partnership is a program that's been a collaboration between the City of Seattle, FORTERRA, and a number of other organizations.

And the original goal was to restore 2,500 acres of forested park lands in Seattle by the year 2025. They've done an amazing amount of work.

We had a great council briefing a few weeks ago.

The goal here is what will be the last five years of this program to understand fully what's going to take to fully build that out.

And so asking them to report back on, as you can imagine, some of the harder places to restore have been left towards the end.

Some of this work will be able to be done by volunteers.

probably require more technical crews that are gonna need to have certain expertise.

So I look forward to hearing about this report when it comes back because I think this program is an amazing program and I think it's one of the best ways to create more open green space accessible to people in Seattle is using our existing property that we already own and making the much more modest investment compared to new acquisition to restore that property to make it accessible.

Thank you.

Thanks for bringing this forward.

Council Member O'Brien, I support this and also want to acknowledge how important it is with our canopy effort and to make sure that these parks are healthy.

And as if you brought up many times that when we identified this about 20 years ago as a good way for us to retain and protect the parks and particularly the greenways.

that we can't do it without the volunteers and we really need Green Seattle partnerships.

And one thing that at that briefing that they reminded me of is that specifically around the canopy, a lot of our deciduous trees with the great leaves that turn color at this time of the year, those trees typically live 50 to 70 years.

And so a lot of them are just at the end of their life.

and being able to go into these areas and make sure we're planting the next generation of deciduous trees to take over as those start to fail is going to be critically important for the maintaining of canopy.

Thank you for that.

Council Member Morris, did you have an add?

Just really quickly, first of all, I want to thank Council Member O'Brien.

I know that this program started developing back in the 90s.

And so, thank you for bringing this forward.

Even without a slide, I would have supported you in this program and I didn't know that you were going anywhere.

So hopefully we'll be back in the committee when we come back with this report.

So thank you very much.

I'm sure you will be working toward solutions.

Yes, Council Member Byron is teaching me how to ride a bike.

Thank you very much.

OK.

I'm looking forward to that.

Those who want to add your name to this slide, number 14, raise your hand.

Excellent.

Thank you.

I like the I-I-I too.

All right, so the next is a council bill for Parks Fee Ordinance upon which we will not be voting, but Council Central staff.

Correct.

This is the council budget action that would approve the proposed Parks Fee Ordinance that makes some changes to the 2020 Parks Fee Schedule.

Good.

Okay.

Questions?

All right.

Department of Finance and Administrative Services.

Start with item number 16. Did you have a...

Oh, was that a thank you or did you need a question?

All right.

Thank you, Tracy.

Number 16 is related to Fire Station 31. This is the fire station that just under two weeks ago the executive announced that they had a plan to move the firefighters into an interim facility and build a new fire station.

The proposal in front of you would fully fund the fire station at $43 million and add funding for an interim station while the fire station is being rebuilt.

I've been in discussions with CBO regarding this proposal, and I think we are at a place where I would not recommend the proposal in FAS 1A1, but rather only fund $2 million in 2020 for the interim facility and have the executive come back with a more fully formed proposal for a permanent fire station next year.

Okay.

Chancellor.

Madam.

Anybody want to speak to this?

Council Member Royce.

Thank you.

First of all, thank you for the work that you've done on this.

We have met with Chief Scoggins and Captain Dan at Station 31, so I have some brief notes.

Funding the interim station is crucial for the health and safety of the firefighters who work in District 5 and north and the people who need emergency services in the north end.

The fire station is located at 1319 North Northgate Way between Northgate Mall and and Aurora Avenue North in the heart of District 5. It is one of Seattle's busiest stations and has the most, I don't know, apparatuses in all of D5, being the home to engine and ladder companies as well as a medic unit and an aid unit.

Fire Station 31 was originally built in 1973 and was renovated in 2008. Starting in June of this year, 2019, firefighters and the apparatuses have been relocated to other North Seattle stations due to environmental health concerns posed at the Station 31 building.

So we would be in support of this.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Those who'd like to add your name as a sponsor, raise your hand.

You got the vote?

Okay, thank you.

All right, moving on to item 17.

Item 17 adds $537,000 and three FTE to FAS to allow them to lower the threshold for the priority hire program from $5 million to $2.5 million.

It would place a proviso on those funds and those positions to allow the priority hire advisory committee to make a recommendation on whether or not it's appropriate to lower the threshold prior to spending any money.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

So, using city-funded and public-private partnership projects, the Priority Hire Program requires contractors to prioritize the hiring of residents that live in economically distressed areas for projects over 5 million currently.

FAS estimates that between 6 and 12 new projects every year would be added if the thresholds were reduced to 2.5 million.

There are currently about 10 projects per year.

We had an earlier proposal that did not proviso the funds pending a recommendation from the Priority Hire Advisory Committee.

We decided that it would be wise to do so.

And so this reduces the cost from the earlier proposal by assuming positions would start in April 2020 instead of January.

Some high points from the 2018 Priority Hire Report.

Workers in economically distressed zip codes earned an additional $10 million more in wages than before Priority Hire.

Apprenticeships of color nearly doubled their share of apprentice hours on CWA projects compared to non-CWA projects.

and 416 pre-apprentice graduates and individuals receiving career navigation services were placed into the construction industry through city investments.

So I'm really excited to move this forward.

And so those highlights that I just mentioned from the 2018 priority hire report, if this moves forward, we can look at doubling those outcomes.

Excellent.

Thank you for that.

Any further additions to Councilmember O'Brien?

Just quick, the program has proved to be exceeded all my expectations as a community-led program to really change how we do contracting and some amazing folks at FAS have been partnering with community all the way through and Councilmember Herbold, I really appreciate your attention to this and fully support the idea of expanding it.

I think it's a model on frankly how we should do as much work as possible.

And hat tip to you for getting it started.

Council Member Worth.

I want to thank Councilor Herbold again because when we did a study, as I talked about earlier, this Priority Hire Program, the study that we did in 2013 which resulted in a Building and Trade Actual Apprenticeship Program at North Seattle College had its first cohort.

It's completely filled for the first year and their focus is on women, low-income, Promise Program, people of color.

So to actually see this happen and on the ground and we actually got our crew hired That's building at light rail at Northgate It has been really successful.

So I want to thank you for your work on this councilmember herbal Those who would like to add your name as a sponsor to item number 17 raise your hand Great thank you Okay All right

The third theme is FAS 3A1.

This adds $2.15 million of community reserve sub fund unrestricted funding from the Washington State Convention Center alley vacation proceeds and $2.45 million from the strategic investment fund resulting from the sale of the Mercer Mega Block.

to FAS to build a four-room child care center on the first floor of City Hall.

Great.

Thank you.

And this is Council Member Mosquedez?

Yes.

Does anybody have...

I have talking points for this, Chair.

So really excited to continue the dialogue around meeting the child care shortages in our city and across the region.

by advancing this particular budget request on Council Member Mosqueda's behalf.

Just yesterday, Seattle Weekly ran an article titled, King County Parents Are Still Struggling With Child Care.

That article affirmed for us what most of us already know, which is that Washington State is one of the worst places to find child care, with only five states in worse shape than us.

Parents who can't find care for their children often end up leaving the workforce.

which removes institutional knowledge and skills in a tight labor market and perpetuates the inequities of gender disparities in the workplace.

The article references a chamber study that found that half of Washington parents found it difficult to afford child care and more than a quarter quit or left school or training because of child care issues.

About 10% were fired or let go.

In total, the report estimated that $6.5 billion is lost annually in direct and opportunity costs due to employee child care issues.

Here in King County, of the 127,500 children under the age of five, child care providers have space for only half that number.

And the number of child care slots in the county has increased with 2,300 new slots in the past five years, but the number of children under four who may need child care grew faster.

We know that the median monthly cost of full-time infant care in King County is more than $1,500.

a month and that families average about $24,000 in cost a year to pay for child care.

And this continues to grow and is even worse in many instances here in the city of Seattle.

So we've heard many stories and I can also anecdotally confirm that the wait list for infant care, child care in the city is exorbitant.

Many people have to wait up to two years for child care.

That's worse if you're looking for bilingual or culturally appropriate childcare in the city.

So I think we have a really unique opportunity here at the city level to work on a piece of the solution, which is to utilize existing city resources by virtue of utilizing space here in City Hall to advance this proposal and to make sure that we are prioritizing the needs of childcare in our busiest area of the city, which is downtown, and continues to be a primary employer hub here.

And I think it's important for us to really, really advance this, to take it seriously, and to actually begin the process of taking actionable steps to really set up this childcare center Here at City Hall and we should we should you know, I think stop studying the issue we know what the issue is and start putting our You know money to work in addressing what we know with what a clear solution is to those issues so I'm excited to continue to work with Councilmember Mosqueda and Councilmember Bagshaw on addressing child care needs.

I think this is this is a really important step forward.

Great.

Thank you for speaking to that.

And I've spent no small amount of time with our mayor's office and with FAS about this.

And what I know the mayor was asking us to do was to put more money into other already existing facilities, not necessarily this building, but to increase child care availability across the city.

Frankly, we need both.

And I will continue to support what the executive is trying to do to add more childcare facilities elsewhere in the private market.

But I do think that King County has solved this problem right next door, in the building right next door to us in the Sugar Nook.

They've got a beautiful childcare center.

And I've talked with Northwest Center, who is their operator there.

They are willing to talk with us about expanding their operations over here as well.

I do appreciate the fact that this is, it takes a long time to retrofit a building.

Nonetheless, I think it's important for us to continue to be out there looking at what the possibilities are and know, we heard from your former staffer, Josh Fote, yesterday, that it's very important for parents to have places where they go to work to bring their children.

It saves time, it provides that space for parents to continue to connect with their kids.

So let's move forward with this.

If there are any other comments on it, those who would like to add their name as a sponsor to this one, this is Child Care Center here on site.

Council Member O'Brien.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right.

I knew you wanted to.

Number 19 is FAS 5A1.

It is a statement of legislative intent that would request FAS in consultation with Office of Labor Standards to report on a plan for adding voluntary questions about business characteristics to Title VI business license applications.

The report would be due June 30th of 2020, and it is sponsored by Councilmember O'Brien.

Very good.

Thank you.

Colleagues, this is an attempt to try to collect a little more information to better understand some of the business dynamics happening in Seattle, asking folks to fill out the business return, things like how many employees do you have in Seattle compared to worldwide, if you're a franchise, and other such information that I think would be useful for policy reasons going forward.

It's not a comprehensive effort.

We will not be able to get all the information we want, but I think it would be a start in gathering some more information that could be informative.

Is there a way that our Office of Economic Development, OED, can participate in this?

Because I know that they're looking for ways to streamline, but also ways to connect with businesses to help with whatever the issues may be going forward.

Absolutely.

Opening to Conversation with OED certainly the data would be available for folks.

So that's yeah any other additions comments All right, those who would like to add your name as a sponsor raise your hand Okay, moving on to our transportation network companies, I think councilmember O'Brien So is this, Amy, you're going to frame it for us?

Yes.

Okay.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Amy Gore from Council Central Staff, and we are going to be talking about transportation network companies.

As you recall from our last discussion, there are five pieces of legislation related to transportation network companies.

First, I will go through council budget actions with you related to three of those.

pieces of legislation.

The first is a fee reduction for the FAS regulatory fee.

The second is a resolution related to spending of transportation network company tax revenues.

And the third piece is that actual tax on TNC rides.

We have three proposals for changes from council members.

because some of them require multiple council budget actions on different pieces of legislation.

I thought it would be easier if we first go through an overview of all three proposals and give council members an opportunity to discuss their amendments.

Then we will go through the legislation and the council budget actions in order of the agenda.

Very good, thank you.

So the first three we're not going to be voting on.

We can comment on it.

Is that great?

I just want to give Councilmembers an opportunity to kind of give an overview of what their proposals intention is.

Great.

Thank you for that.

And then we'll discuss the specific actions.

Excellent.

Councilmember O'Brien, are you taking the lead on this?

No, I think I am.

I don't think he takes the lead.

What tab are you starting on now?

On number 20.

I don't think it's 20 though.

I was going to give Councilmember Herbold an opportunity to discuss her proposal, and then Council President Harrell also has an idea that takes several actions.

I'm sorry.

So 20 is just the substitute.

Okay, so Councilmember Herbold, do you want to start?

I'll follow Amy.

Thank you.

We'll go to number 21.

Oh, Council Member Herbold has a proposal to remove the city center streetcar connector as a specified transit project that would be funded by the TNC tax revenues.

It adds the purchase of transit service and third party funding for West Seattle Ballard Extension as specified uses, potential uses for the funds.

This would require an amendment to both the tax ordinance and the spending resolution.

Great.

And did you want to add the third one in as well on that or just start with?

Okay, I'll go through all three kind of big picture proposals first.

The second one is from Council President Harrell, and he has what would be four actions that would make amendments to allow $1 million per year of TNC tax revenues to be used for a new transportation assistance voucher program.

The program would provide vouchers to low-income residents, seniors, and persons with disabilities to take trips from four higher licensed operators in Seattle.

This would require four actions, amendments to the tax ordinance and to the spending resolution, as well as a proviso and a sly.

The third proposal is from Councilmember Mosqueda, and it would amend the spending resolution to change the targets for the area family median income of the affordable housing funded with tax revenues.

The current proposal allows for all housing funded with the tax revenues to be affordable to households earning up to 80% of area median income.

Her proposal is to change it to 60% of area median income for rental housing, and keep it at 80% for affordable ownership housing.

And so now we can walk through the actual pieces of legislation and the council budget actions that would effectuate these changes.

Okay, Council Member Herbold.

Thank you.

So, appreciate the explanation of the amendments to the resolution.

Just want to highlight that there will be discussion later on of a separate proviso proposal that actually we'll hear tomorrow that will require an operations funding plan and a backup construction plan in the event that federal funding is not available as is anticipated from SDOT and require this by March 31st.

And in short this changed the resolution removes the Center City Connector Streetcar from the recitals and specified eligible use for TNC tax revenues.

It adds the purchase of transit service and Sound Transit West Seattle and Ballard Link extensions as eligible specific uses.

You know, an additional I think really important point to make is that With allowing these revenues to be used for the purchase of transit services, it could help reduce the size of our sales tax for bus service through the Transportation Benefit District in the future.

Alternately, you know, depending on what happens on Tuesday with I-976, it could be really an important stopgap on the impacts of that measure and the impact specifically on our ability to continue buying additional bus service from Metro.

Great, thank you.

And is one of your recommendations, I just heard that, is to reduce the sales tax?

By allowing the TNC taxes to be used for to purchase Metro bus service, it would allow us in the future when we enact a new transportation benefit district to dial down the sales tax portion of that.

Very good.

Thank you for that.

Any other comments?

Council Member Pacheco?

So I appreciate that desire to move more funding for transit projects across the city, especially if I-976 passes next week.

However, I do believe that it's critically important that we keep our commitments to the streetcar, the city center.

The center city connector is a crucial link between South Lake Union and the First Hill Lines, making each line part of a more comprehensive and complete network.

Connecting these lines is particularly important to fulfill the commitments we made to so many small businesses who endured years of construction, especially the displacement of vulnerable businesses in the Chinatown International District.

The Center City Connector is expected to carry over 20,000 passengers per day once completed.

With 40,000 more households and 60,000 more jobs expected to move to the streetcar area, and with new downtown light rail now expected in the 2030s, this investment will help our transportation system keep pace with the change in growth we are seeing in downtown.

Additionally, approximately two-thirds of Seattle voters also support the streetcar, as we've seen in recent polling.

Finally, in regards to the West Seattle Link extension, I would have concerns that this money ultimately goes to tunneling for a light rail in a relatively well-off area.

I think if we are directing more money towards a light rail, it should go to further and faster expansion rather than expensive tunnels that may not improve service times.

Thank you, Councilmember Pacheco.

I'd like, before we vote on anything, I'd love to have Council President Harreld talk about his item.

Yeah, and then we can go through each individual agenda item and talk about it in context of the proposal overview and do the vote then.

Right, exactly.

Thank you, Amy.

I appreciate that because Councilmember Harreld raises some very interesting points in light of a lot of the newer information we found out about the streetcar.

These, we are being asked to look at a scheme of TNC legislation during budget.

So this warrants a little more discussion, all part of a larger package.

So I think maybe we could look at at least some ideas that I have and others have, and then vote at the end if we like, or at least express where we are.

So should I just dive into the voucher program?

So the concept here is pretty simple.

But let me explain to you.

It's basically a proviso for a million of the revenue to a transportation assistance program.

And let me give a little more context.

So you may know that King County has a program called Taxi Scrip, and that serves low income residents from 18 to 64 who either have a disability or age 65 and over.

And if you register it, you get eight books of Taxi Scrip.

the legacy taxis from Metro at a 50% discount to meet your transportation needs.

And so, again, it's called a Taxi Script Program and it's very successful.

Right now, the King County earmarks around $400,000 for reimbursements.

And so that's the way it works, it's a reimbursement program.

As you all know, King County provides ORCA Lyft for transit fares to riders with low income.

She's got King County has a reduced fare permit And you also know that our transportation Estad under councilmember Brian's leadership started the transportation equity program and there are several components of that the city of Seattle Youth Orca program the city of Seattle vehicle license rebate program so this kind of Voucher program is 100% consistent with our equity program, and what we think it serves sort of two separate purposes.

Number one, we have to recognize, I think, that legacy taxis and four hires and those types of licensed vehicles are still around and will be around, and many people will still continue to use them as we enter into the TNC market.

So it sort of allows a graduation, a gradual transition, if you will, and allows people who need access that do not have computers, that do not have smartphones, that are differently abled to have access to this mode of transportation.

So it's a million dollar proviso.

And the one question that I'm still working on with FAS is, should the proviso be on SDOT as opposed to FAS?

I mean, FAS is, by and large, a regulatory body.

And so one consideration that I do have is whether the SLI be imposed or the SLI be imposed on SDOT as opposed to FAS.

And it is a slide.

So we're asking for this work to be done to see how this voucher program can look, who would be eligible.

We want it to fit into our equity program and then have a million dollars ready for it assuming that it's feasible.

And then we'd have the department come back in March of 2020 with a report to indicate its feasibility.

But I think it will be feasible and be a great opportunity for us given the TNC fee.

Great.

Thank you for that.

Do you know on the taxi script in King County, have they extended that to Uber Lyft?

I'm going to say no.

That's my understanding.

They do not.

It's for taxis.

OK.

All right.

Thank you.

Any other comments on this?

So now we can go through.

Quick comment.

Here, Council Member Bryan has a quick comment.

Council Member Harrell, I think the creative idea you've come up with here is something I'm really intrigued with.

I want to double back with some of the folks that have worked on this arrangement, including some of the driver representatives, just to make sure I understand how this fits in it.

So I'm kind of tentatively intrigued by it.

I think the intent is right on.

And I think figuring out how to make that work is something I'd love to keep working with you.

And just in full transparency, I've met with Teamsters.

I've met with the driver organizations.

I've met for the Legacy Taxi.

Before I hire people, we've talked to The ideas actually were generated from disability communities on what they are experiencing and what their needs are.

I haven't gotten strong opposition from anyone.

In fact, there's still a language to particularly on the, I'm going to talk a little bit about the The language in the driver resolution center as well.

But I've put all this together in a package.

I've been working the angles.

And I think it's being very well received by everybody, quite frankly.

Which is really tough to do.

But again, we've given all of these documents to all of the constituents.

There's not a shortage of constituents in this world, as we know.

And should I just go into the Resolution Center while I have the mic, or do you want to keep talking about the voucher program?

I think it might be easier to start going through the agenda and go item by item at this point now that we've kind of talked broadly about those issues.

And then when we turn it over to Karina, we can maybe have a broader discussion about the Driver Resolution Center.

If that's okay with you.

That's fine.

Very good.

So now we'll move on to the agenda items.

So the first one is agenda item 20, which is council budget action, which is called TNC fee 101-A-1.

And this is a simple one.

It just substitutes a new council bill 119685. It would substitute version D2 for version D1A.

and pass Council Bill 119-685.

And this is the fee reduction, so it would change the licensing fee from what is now 14 cents to 8 cents per TNC ride.

And so we don't need to vote on this.

Item 21 on the...

I would like to just make one comment on the amount that To say that an amount was fully negotiated, I want to describe how the city arrived at the amount.

There have been literally months and months and months of negotiations, if you will.

It's almost always hard to find a perfect number that everyone's happy with.

I've sort of been asked by many constituents, and you've heard testimony, to either lower the amount or make sure the amount goes all to the drivers.

I continue to tell drivers that Consumers are paying it, that this is much like a fee or a tax that we take, and we are well within our rights.

In fact, we are required to use this for the general welfare of the city.

So for it to just ricochet back into a driver's pocket is not the purpose of how we administer fees and taxes.

But I've been very careful not to completely rewrite what was in fact almost, I think, short of a year of negotiations and discussions.

to move forward on that.

Yeah, I think that's helpful.

I will mention that this particular bill, the TNC fee bill, that number is set by FAS to cover the cost of regulating the industry.

The taxes negotiated, as you discussed and has been in discussion for a long time, this particular fee is specifically related to cost recovery of specific activities at the city.

I forgot to make that as sort of an open point.

for all of this legislation, because that's really the driver is the amount.

So I just wanted to get that on the record.

Thank you.

And thanks for all your work on that, Council President Harrell.

Sure.

Okay, so the second, item number 21 is TENC SPN 101-A1.

And these, the next six that we will be discussing are amendments to the spending resolution, which is resolution 31914. The first one, 101-A1, is to amend resolution 31914 to change the specified transportation and transit purposes identified as eligible uses of TNC tax revenues.

And this would be the first step, one of two, to enact Councilmember Herbold's change related to streetcar funding, to remove streetcar funding as one of the specified eligible uses, and to add in purchasing transit or third-party sound transit, West Seattle Ballard extension funding to the resolution.

Thank you.

So do you want to speak more to that?

Sure.

I just want to say again, really want to underscore that we've been told for years that we had $75 million in federal funding available for this project.

That funding is now seriously in question.

And SDOT themselves have told us that they don't think we're going to be able to get it without another brand new appropriation.

This project is over budget 100%.

It is increased in cost 100% before we've even broken ground.

It is serving an area that is very well served by transit already.

It is an economic development project.

It is not a transit project.

And I think that these funds should be used to enhance transit.

To Council Member Pacheco's point, The idea of third-party funding is for the system, regardless of what the needs are for the Sound Transit system.

It is not specifically for a tunnel in West Seattle.

It is third-party needs associated with the entire Sound Transit 3 route.

It is an option.

It is not the only option.

The other option, as I mentioned before, is bus service.

The idea is to reorient these funds to true, high-priority transit needs.

I'm sorry to use such strong words, but I think it's irresponsible for us to earmark, what is it?

million dollars, I believe, for a project where federal funds that we thought we had committed are no longer committed.

We should not be talking about spending our city dollars until we have assurances that we have other partners in this project.

Thank you.

Council Member O'Brien.

So a couple quick comments to that.

One, to what Council Member Herbold spoke to on our previous iteration about flexibility for other transit with a potential of initiative 976 passing next week, I agree that if that were to happen, There's a lot of things in the transportation budget that I'm going to want to go back and reconsider.

But we have a little bit of time after the election before we finalize the budget.

Not a lot, but a little window.

So I'm going to hold on that until we know a little more clarity on what the outcome is.

On the issue of funding the streetcar specifically, at the moment I remain committed to keeping that money there.

I want to be clear that this does not give the mayor authority to move forward with funding the streetcar.

It simply says that this money would be allocated in a pool to sit there.

Not terribly different than sitting in a pool for West Seattle or Ballard link light rail extensions because we have a ways to go before we even understand what those projects look like and how much they cost.

Future councils will continue to have a lot of flexibility.

We already committed $9 million earlier this year to do additional engineering and design work on the streetcar.

We should be getting more information.

The council should be getting more information sometime later next year.

And I've made sure, as chair of the Transportation Committee, that it's really clear that the council continue to has authority over whether we move forward with the streetcar or not.

What I've heard to date is that there's a desire to keep that project moving forward so we get more information.

And I think one of the critical pieces to that is us indicating that we have a pool of money to be used to spend on this so that there's a potential that the federal funding will have more success knowing that we have put some of our money into it.

But it doesn't commit that we have to spend it on it.

Obviously, the federal funding doesn't come through.

That completely changes things.

But regardless of what happens to the federal funding, the council will continue to have flexibility at future dates to reprogram that funding if they want.

What's the timeline on that proposed additional new federal funding?

I mean, I can't imagine in this particular administration that we're going to see that.

So are we talking 2022, 2023?

a year or two, so it's a ways away because I do, I don't think they're going back to the very beginning of the process, but I do think the process is starting over as they finish this design work and show that there's funding available.

At that point, they will advance further on the, into the federal funding round, and I can't even remember if it's small starts or which grant pool it is that they're coming out of, so.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

both of you appreciate that.

So we don't need to vote on this one.

So we'll move forward.

Council Member, I think this is one that you would be looking for co-sponsors for.

All right.

We'll do that if you think that that's appropriate.

My understanding from yesterday was that we would not have to, but let's do it and you'll have it on the record.

So we're now on Item 21, Resolution 31914. And those who would like to add your name to sponsorship on this, raise your hand.

No, you're not going to be by yourself, I'm going to ask.

Great, thank you.

All right, the next item on the agenda is item 22, which is another amendment to Resolution 31914. This would be the first action that would implement the Transportation Assistance Voucher Program that Council President Harreld has spoken to.

This action would amend Resolution 31914 to add a Transportation Assistance Voucher Program with up to $1 million in funding as an eligible use of TNC tax revenues.

Any further comments on this?

I want to make a comment that my original proposal was simply to do somewhat what Councilmember Herbold did and that is just to earmark the funds to hold the to have a revenue stream go toward this having met with labor and other constituents, I thought a perhaps more prudent course would be to provide some of the money to have a study, to have the study come back to see its feasibility.

I spoke earlier about the transportation equity program and what they're doing at the county, so I continue to think it makes all the sense in the world.

But this was more of a go slow approach to make sure that future councils and mayors and constituents are all on board.

with a report coming back in March.

And so that was a more conservative approach we took, but I think a more thoughtful approach as well.

Okay.

Council President, is that, I see that there's item 22, item 23, item 24. They all get there.

I want to do what you just described.

So what do I vote yes on?

So you could describe it, but I had to re-letter them A, B, C, and D because it was a little confusing to me too.

There are four actions that are needed to effectuate this change.

The first one is what we're voting, or what we're looking for co-sponsors on right now, which is item number 22, which is the resolution amendment.

In addition, in order to fulfill kind of this vision of the Transportation Assistance Voucher Program, there are three more things that need to happen.

One is item number 23, which is a SLI requesting FAS report on the feasibility of this program.

and how exactly it could operate.

The third item that would need to be or that you would need co-sponsorship on is item number 24, which is a proviso on the finance general reserves related so that this money remains in finance general until it is spent on this program.

And then the fourth thing that would need to happen is item number 27 on your agenda, which is the TNC tax CBA 101-A-1, which is an amendment to the council bill setting up the tax, the TNC tax, and that it would amend that tax bill to change, change it so that the, I'm sorry, The fourth one is item number 28. It would be TNC Tax 102-A-1, which would amend Council Bill 119684 to add this program as one of the intended uses of the TNC tax revenues.

Do we have an amended version that we can all see?

All of these amendments are provided as attachments to the CBAs.

If I could, Amy.

So we try to figure out a very simple way to effectuate all these changes.

But because there are like five pieces of legislation, it became necessary to do four pieces to effectuate what we're trying to do.

But I want to make this clear, too, and keep me honest on this point, that the way the proviso works is we're asking for the report to come back by March.

And I said earlier that right now as we speak, the report is, we're having FAS do the work.

We can't have SDOT do the work, but it made sense since this is all FAS related.

So it does read FAS.

But if the, let's say, for example, worst case scenario that the report is done, the SLI is complied with, and they say, you know, great idea, but it's just not feasible.

We can't mirror what the county's doing, what the tax is, it just doesn't work.

The million dollars could still be released and used for other purposes.

It doesn't go anywhere, but the proviso, the new council would have to lift the proviso and say, just not feasible.

Or if this works, they say, this is a great idea.

This is how it's going to be implemented.

The money should be lifted and then go toward that end.

So that's why you have a sly and a proviso.

So did I misstate any of the intentions here, the language?

Currently the proviso states that of the TNC tax revenues, one million is appropriated solely for the transportation assistance voucher program and may be used for no other purpose.

However, so it would take further council action to release these funds for other purposes.

That was going to have to happen anyway.

because all of these funds are going into finance general to be appropriated next year.

So it will take council actions to appropriate these funds, whether it is for the streetcar, whether it is for this voucher program, and that can be done after the sly is received by council.

Just to be crystal clear, so a new council, the council can say, lift the proviso, Do the transportation voucher program or let the proviso don't do it.

Yes.

Okay.

Could I?

Yeah.

Go ahead.

Sure.

Council Member Wuoros then Council Member O'Brien.

This is very brief.

So, just quickly to make sure I understood what President Harrell was saying.

So, number 28, we would, if we were to vote on that, that's to amend number 24, to add the program to number 24. So 28 and 24 are connected.

If we do 24, then we gotta do 28.

Yes, all four of these actions would work together.

It would be...

I wanna just make sure I have these numbers correct for you.

It would be 22, it would be 23, 24, and 28. Those are the four actions related to the Transportation Assistance Voucher Program.

So, could...

And, Council Member, just at the risk of telling you what you already know, you're not voting today, you're just indicating co-sponsorship at your choice.

Could I suggest or ask that we indicate co-sponsorship as a bundle of four?

Yes.

Because I think they all go together.

And then we can check off four things at once.

Friendly suggestion.

I'm totally open to that, as long as we're not going to get our hands slapped.

in the future for not having individually voted on them.

So we're not voting.

I would ask the clerk if you see any logistical issues with that.

Because I think the point is just co-sponsoring.

I think we're complying with the OPMA and indicating our support.

We're having a public discussion since we can't meet in person.

many groups, but we're not voting, we're just talking and indicating.

This is all done on the dais and on TV.

Okay.

Do you think that if we, if you indicated co-sponsorship once, we can imply that through the other three pieces as long as that is okay with everyone when they indicate their co-sponsorship the first time?

So 22, 23, 24, and 28. Correct.

Okay.

So, as chair, you could ask if there are any objections to making that assumption.

Thank you.

Would anybody object?

All right.

Seeing no objection, hearing no concerns, I would like us to do that as a bundle.

Raise your hand if you would like to add your name for a co-sponsor on 22, 23, 24, and 28. Well done.

All right.

Thank you.

So 22. So now we will move on to item number 25. Well, maybe I should just go through what we just indicated to be very clear.

So item number 23 is a slide that requests that FAS report on the feasibility of a transportation assistance voucher program.

Item number 24 is a proviso which is imposed on the finance general reserves related to a transportation assistance voucher program and that proviso is for a million dollars but again there will be opportunities for next year's council to appropriate that money as they see fit based on the slide.

Now we are on to item number 25, which is Council Budget Action TNC SPN-105-A-1.

This CBA, this Council Budget Action would amend Resolution 31914 to lower household income maximums for rental housing funded with TNC tax revenues.

Does anybody, this is from Council Member Mosqueda, does anybody have speaking points for this?

Well, I'll bust her.

Yeah, no.

Is it item 32?

25. 25.

Oh, I don't have it.

It's pretty self-explanatory.

Yeah.

I'll just say a few words.

I mean, I think there's an open policy question for all of us on what are the, where do we want to prioritize income levels?

And I think the intent here would be to focus the investments to a lower income threshold as opposed to a higher income threshold.

And I would also support that.

I like it.

Okay.

Any further comments?

Those who would like to add your name as a co-sponsor to Item 25, raise your hand.

Very good.

Thanks.

Okay, our next council budget action is item number 26 on the agenda, and it is council budget action TNC SPN-106-A-1, and this is a substitute resolution.

It's version D2 for D1, and it would adopt the substitute as well as any changes that will be made by the council and adopt the resolution as amended.

Okay.

Any clarifications up here needed?

And we don't need co-sponsorship on that one.

All right.

Okay.

No votes, so let's move on to 27.

Item 27 on the agenda is Council Budget Action TNC Tax-101-A-1.

This amends Council Bill 119684, which is the council bill that creates the new transportation network company tax.

and this amendment would change the specified transportation and transit purposes identified as intended uses of TNC tax revenues to remove the streetcar and to add in transit purchase and potentially third-party revenues for Sound Transit 3.

Nothing more to add?

Anything else?

Item 28 we have already discussed and already provided an opportunity for co-sponsorship and this is again amending the Council Bill 119684 which establishes the tax to add a transportation assistance voucher program as an intended use of tax revenues.

We're good on that.

Yes, our final one related to the tax bill is CBA TNC tax 103-A-1.

This would substitute version D3 for version D2E and pass as amended.

I do want to point out that one change that has been made in the substitute is, if you recall from our original discussion, the Tax ordinance creates a base tax of 51 cents and a supplemental tax that would be determined by the director of a supplemental tax and establish that at six cents for a total tax of 57 cents.

One of the changes that is made in the substitute bill is to remove the supplemental tax and instead put all of that in the quote-unquote base tax so that that tax goes, so it remains 57 cents, but it is just one tax rather than a tax and a supplemental tax.

Colleagues, anybody wanna speak to this?

Brian, I know you've been involved.

29. And that does not need co-sponsorship.

Okay, thank you.

All right, then let's keep moving.

Step number 30 is a council budget action that proposes to amend Council Bill 119687. This is proposed legislation called the Transportation Network Company Driver Minimum Compensation Standard.

As a quick refresher, this proposed legislation would require Finance and Administrative Services to conduct a study.

and recommend a minimum compensation standard for TNC drivers that would be comprised of, at minimum, the Seattle minimum wage standard for large employers, along with compensation for reasonable expenses.

As part of the study, the legislation sets forth 12 areas of evaluation, and this proposed amendment would strike one of those areas and add two areas, and it is proposed by Council Member Mosqueda.

Anybody have speaking points?

I do, but I think Karina just hit all of the things I was gonna say that are on my list, so I don't wanna be repetitive.

Thank you.

You get an A for that one.

Thank you.

Does co-sponsorship need it or not?

Can we keep going?

That's a process question.

Sure.

Let's have co-sponsors indicated.

All right.

Those who are interested in adding their name as a co-sponsor, raise your hand.

The next council budget action also was proposed by Councilmember Mosqueda also to the minimum compensation ordinance and this would express an intent for the council to consider future adjustments to the minimum compensation standard if elements of the standard were mandated by state or federal law.

I was supposed to talk to this as well, and Karina just read my talking points, so nothing to add.

Thank you.

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

Very good, let's move to the next, item 32.

This council budget action would amend Council Bill 119686. This is the Transportation Network Company Driver Deactivation Rights Ordinance, which would do a number of things, including protection from unwarranted deactivations.

There would be a process set up for challenging deactivations and establishment of a driver resolution center.

So this particular amendment would clarify when the new panel arbitration proceedings are voluntary.

Thank you.

Any addition?

Nothing more to add on that.

Thank you, Council President Harrell.

I'm maybe the only one, I'm just not following what this does.

What does this do again?

So this would clarify that the transportation network company's participation in the panel arbitration process is voluntary if there is a private arbitration agreement that the driver agrees to when they sign up to work for the TNC that requires private arbitration rather than going through this process.

Why is it needed, I guess?

It doesn't seem to do anything.

It doesn't change anything in the law, this is true.

There's a section of the law that says, that reminds the reader that participation in the panel proceeding is voluntary.

And then these are words that say, except as provided in this other place in the legislation, where it sets forth that the process actually is not voluntary if there is no private arbitration requirement.

So let me ask this question.

So I think what I heard you say, it doesn't really change anything.

Substantively, but maybe it clarifies something but part of my challenge in this was The question I had asked her in early discussions whether we can mandate the driver Resolution Center be used that I understand there's contracts between the driver and the TNC But I was wondering could could a future council require that The DRC be used and there were legal issues associated with that and They've already signed a contract, but I just didn't know whether more work could be done in that area in years to come to use this as a resource center, and whether we were sort of doubling down on the fact that this is voluntary.

I don't like the fact that it's voluntary, quite frankly.

Again, I don't know why a TNC, if the TNC has all the leverage and the resources, and the driver doesn't, can't afford an attorney, It seems to me that this plays into the detriment of the driver.

And here we're saying it's completely voluntary again.

So I'm not sure why we reiterate the fact that it's voluntary when I'd rather not be voluntary.

If I can, I have the language in front of me of the proposed amendment.

I don't think that this is doubling down on saying that the process is voluntary.

I think it's clarifying that in the event that there isn't a binding arbitration contract between a driver and a TNC company in the absence of that binding contract existing, then and only then would the dispute resolution driver resolution center would be mandatory.

So where we run into legal issues, related to preemption is when a contract, a binding contract exists between the driver and the TNC company that sets up a arbitration process.

So under federal law, we get into a bit of a sticky wicket in that context.

But if there is no contract signed between the driver and the company, then this clarifies that that would be a situation where the panel arbitration process shall be used.

Right, so it is clarifying to your point, Council Member Gonzales, when it is mandatory.

It is mandatory in the absence of a private arbitration agreement.

What are the chances that there...

0.001?

That.

I mean, they're not going to allow the...

They're not going to allow the driver to sign without putting this mandatory arbitration clause in, I don't think.

But maybe in the future, maybe in the future they will.

I mean, I think it's important for us to recognize that there are big players in this space and then there are emerging players in this space.

And I think this could potentially cover some of those emerging players.

who perhaps don't have these contracts in place.

Maybe they all do.

I think that the spirit with which this is being offered is well-intentioned to allow sort of a closing of a potential gap should one arise of a situation in which there is no existing private arbitration agreement, what happens?

And I think that is a policy question.

What happens if there is that one in a million chances you've described it?

of there being no private arbitration agreement.

We would want to make clear in this ordinance, I would think, that the consequence of that is that the panel arbitration as envisioned through the TNC ordinance would be the fallback.

So I don't think there's any harm to advancing that kind of clarifying language to allow for that to be the outcome.

Okay.

Sounds good.

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

I'll go.

I've persuaded him.

I know, you're so persuasive.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

And can I just, before we move on, can I just do a check on something, time check, 1122?

The next whole session is on criminal justice and I don't know whether Council Central staff would be ready to proceed, but let me just check in with my colleagues.

What would you like to do?

Do you want to move on with criminal justice?

We will have.

I've got some more TNC stuff.

I know, I'm just saying, I'm just trying to get, give people time if we want to proceed or if you want just to close it up and start back at 2 o'clock.

I need I would appreciate if we could just end the morning session.

That's probably very controversial thing to say but if we could just get through the TNC part and take a break to sort of Get organized.

Get organized and gather ourselves before heading into criminal justice.

I would appreciate that.

Okay, very good.

So we do have two more items.

I believe we just have one, number 33, and it's a treat to have the last item on the agenda for this morning.

This would amend Council Bill 119686. Again, it's the driver deactivation rights ordinance.

This is sponsored by Council President Harrell, and this change would clarify the definition of the driver resolution center.

So again, I want to thank Dustin and others working with me on this language.

We're still trying to figure it out completely.

But here's the thought that this language reflects.

It's very simple.

Number one, I If I had my druthers, I probably wouldn't even call it the Driver Resolution Center.

I'd call it a Driver Resource Center or a Driver Empowerment Center because in my mind, this center, particularly the amount of investments we'd like to put in it, is more than just going in there and handle disputes.

And so the language talks about this organization that runs this Driver Resource Center, shall have experience in workers' rights and experience in retooling drivers and contractors and workers that allow them to compete in the current business environment.

So what I'm seeing this as an empowerment center, if you will, working with labor and other organizations, particularly those organizations that are culturally competent to be a center where many things can occur for these drivers, not just handling a dispute on the deactivation, particularly when you're talking about pouring millions of dollars in here and having advocates for these drivers.

And so this may not be the last job they may ever have, particularly when you're looking at who are doing a lot of these jobs, underrepresented groups, members of the immigrant and refugee communities.

So this language reflects that, and it also suggests that this organization that should have experience in grievance processes and the whole bit could ideally partner with other organizations that have focused on diversity and these kinds of issues that are culturally competent.

This could be an urban league.

This could be some of the East African organizations.

This could be the Table 100. But I would like to see labor and culturally competent organizations coming from these communities, partnering together on this resource center.

Well, I didn't have the ability to change the name, because I think there's five other documents I have to do to do that.

So I'm not suggesting in this one to change the name to the Driver Resource Center, plus I just thought of that this morning, that the other language, just the simple additional language, creates more of a robust center.

So you're not proposing we change the title, but you just want to help people understand.

I was told that this driver resolution center is embedded in so many documents.

But a future council can do that, but for this particular, what is this, an amendment?

It simply adds the language in there talking about partnering with organizations and retooling of drivers.

I really appreciate what you're describing.

As I've driven with Uber and Lyft drivers, one of the biggest concerns I have is that they just don't feel like they have that advocacy or the place to go, or if they get themselves taken off the platform, that sometimes it takes weeks for them to be able to get restored.

So I appreciate what you're doing here with the partnership.

Okay, any other comments on this one?

Oh yeah.

I appreciate guns, President Haralder, you're not proposing to change this to the Resource Center because I think that would be appropriating what hundreds of drivers are advocating for which is a driver resource and solidarity center, which is far, far bigger than what is being proposed here.

And I don't want to speak for them because I know that they will be coming to public comment and speaking for them.

And so I'm holding off my comments until they are able to get organized around this.

But I just want to make it clear that when the hundreds of drivers who are advocating for a driver resource center, they are talking about a whole spectrum of needs that they have, including you know, not only, you know, directly related to advocacy and training to challenge driver deactivation, but they're also looking for other services, including counseling and mental health care, suicide prevention services, legal referrals, and law clinic, emergency driver, and family assistance.

I mean, this is just a subset of, their large needs that they have because they are struggling so dramatically.

Many of them are actually are in need of suicide prevention counseling because they are former taxi cab drivers who own taxi medallions and these, you know, they took on a lot of debt.

You know, at one point these medallions were worth upwards of $300,000 and they purchased these medallions by borrowing large sums of money.

And then since Uber and Lyft disrupted the paid transportation sector, the medallions lost nearly all of their value, destroying the hard-earned assets of the taxi drivers.

And many of the Uber drivers are those former taxi drivers.

They were being driven into deep debt.

So I want to make sure we don't accidentally or intentionally appropriate what they are advocating for, which is far bigger than anything that's come up here.

So, I appreciate what you just said.

Is what you said in alignment with what Council President Harrell was saying?

Yes and no, in the sense that, of course, the drivers that I'm talking about will agree with what President Harrell said, but what they're advocating for is far more than that.

And I don't want us to call this the resource center because it's not what they mean.

All right, so.

You don't want it to be called a resource center or a resolution center?

Resource.

What they are advocating for and what I read out as a subset of is a resource and solidarity center.

Right.

And so I think we should just stick to the resolution center for now just so we keep those things.

That's what you're saying, right?

Yeah, that is what I'm saying.

No, I'm sort of saying it's called now a resolution center.

That is what I'm saying we should leave it at.

And I'm not proposing we change it, but I would, I think I would respectfully disagree just because I thought you, my mind is I just don't want to be a place where problems are resolved.

Deactivations are resolved, I should say.

In my mind, the way it was sort of described in legislation is just a place where pretty much deactivations were resolved and there's arbitrations.

And in my mind, it was what you described, which is a place where drivers can organize and get retooled and there could be resources brought in.

for them, and in my mind, that's a resource center.

But it's a little moot because I'm not proposing a name change.

Yeah, I don't disagree with what you just said, if that's what, if you're agreeing with what I'm saying.

But if you are, then I think it will require specific amendments to both the resolution and the ordinance, which I'm working on with the drivers, but I want them to have a chance to advocate for that first.

Hopefully, they will be there in public comment.

Okay, very good.

But at this point, we are going to add our names as co-sponsors to amend Council Bill 119-686 to clarify the definition of driver resolution center.

Okay?

No, we're not changing that.

Okay.

Those who want to add their name, co-sponsors, raise your hand.

Okay, good.

Was that a no?

It's a not sure.

It needs to be clarified.

Okay.

He put an elbow up.

We'll call that a not sure.

All right.

This concludes our session one for today.

We will be at recess.

We will take public comment at the end of the day.

We will come back together at 2 o'clock, and I appreciate everybody's, I mean, all of your actions, your thoughtfulness, hanging in here, council, central staff.

Amy, thank you for helping us bundle all of those.

Lisa, thank you.

Katrina, thank you very much for the good work.

See you all at 2 o'clock.