SPEAKER_15

Good morning.

The Select Budget Committee will come to order.

It is 9.31 a.m.

October 17th, 2024. I'm Dan Strauss, chair of the Select Committee.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

SPEAKER_05

Council Member Taka.

SPEAKER_15

Here.

SPEAKER_05

Council Member Wu.

Present.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Council Member Kettle.

SPEAKER_14

Here.

SPEAKER_05

Council Member Moore.

Council Member Morales.

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Council Member Rivera.

Chair Strauss?

SPEAKER_15

Present.

SPEAKER_05

Five present.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

And the members are excused until they arrive.

And Council Member Salk, I heard you're running late and you made up good time.

That's using the transit system.

SPEAKER_13

Yes, sir.

Mr. Chair, thank you.

Shout out to the transit operators out there keeping me on time, on target.

SPEAKER_15

There we are.

We were here less than 12 hours ago.

It's good to be back.

Today, just some general overviews.

Happy birthday to the Seattle Fire Department.

It's their 135th birthday today.

and public safety chair uh councilmember kettle might be a couple minutes late to the afternoon session that's pre-scheduled as well as we have city budget office director dan eater with us at the table for the remainder of these presentations uh although this afternoon and tomorrow he also has a pre-existing conflict Colleagues, we will be back Monday and Tuesday, so we've got a fair amount more time with Director Eder.

Just as a quick overview, we've got today, I'm gonna go through tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday, and then we'll come back to today.

Council Member Rivera is now present.

Tomorrow we'll be looking at participatory budgeting, Human Services Department, Unified Care Team, and Office of Economic Development.

On Monday, we'll be looking at the Seattle Police Department, Community Assisted Response and Engagement Department, CARE, Seattle Fire Department, and in the afternoon, the City Attorney's Office.

On Tuesday, we're gonna work out the logistics to have the joint meeting of the Forecast Council and the Select Budget, followed by the Seattle Department of Transportation.

Council Member Moore is with us, good morning.

Everyone gets grace, because we were here 12 hours ago.

In the afternoon on Tuesday, it is reserved if anything goes long.

And then coming back to today, we will, before I get into the agenda to have it approved, I want to note that we will be having the 2024 Great Washington Shakeout.

It is 10-17 and that will happen at 10-17.

This is an event, it's an international earthquake drill to promote earthquake preparedness in the region.

And so this will not be like the Almost Live skit where the Space Needle fell over.

We will have clear descriptions on the Seattle Channel that this is just a drill.

And so when that occurs, all of us, we will be demonstrating on live TV to drop, cover, and hold until, in this case, the announcement is made that it is all clear.

So, please be safe.

Coming into today, the agenda for today is the Office of Planning and Community Development, the Office of Arts and Culture, Seattle Channel, the Department of Human Resources, and Department of Construction and Inspections.

If there's no objection, the agenda is adopted.

hearing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now move on to the items of business.

So we have first up the Office of Planning and Community Development.

We have with us Lish Whitson, Director Ben Noble, and Director Eder.

Clerk, will you please read the short title into the record?

SPEAKER_05

Agenda item one, Office of Planning and Community Development for briefing and discussion.

SPEAKER_04

GOOD MORNING.

THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S BUDGET IS RELATIVELY STABLE.

AS YOU HEARD IN THEIR PRESENTATION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, THE ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE IS GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL GRANTS OF ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS EXTRA A YEAR OVER THE BIENNIUM.

And they are losing two and a half FTE, one position that supports the Land Use Policy and Strategic Initiatives Division, and a currently filled position that supports the Seattle Planning Commission.

Any questions about their basic budget before I switch to the issue I've identified?

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Morales, chair of the committee.

Sorry, colleagues, we got off to a fast start.

I will also turn it over to the chair of the committee to ask any questions up front.

SPEAKER_11

Sorry.

Thank you.

Yeah, it was a long night last night.

You just said two positions in the department.

So I want to clarify, because I thought there were two planner positions and then also a planning commission position.

A planning commission staff position.

SPEAKER_04

The planning commission staffer is a planning and development specialist senior position.

There is another half-time administrative support position that is also being cut, but the two full-time positions are both planning and development specialist seniors.

SPEAKER_11

Okay.

That's good clarification.

So I will just say, as I'm going to say probably every time we have cuts being proposed, that given that our comprehensive plan is late.

Next year, the department's work plan includes comprehensive plan.

We just released zoning maps.

We have the ST3 planning.

We are looking at possibly some amendments to maritime industrial land.

I think there is a lot of work for this department to do next year, not to mention all of the statewide state requirements for us to draft and pass and implement and I think it's really important for us to be very cautious looking at cuts to a department that is going to have a lot of work to do in the next couple of years and as far as the planning commission itself goes we know that that first of all is a charter requirement That staff hasn't grown since 2008, but our city has grown, the requirements of the department review have grown.

So I just think it's really important for us to be really careful in considering these cuts.

we have to hold ourselves accountable to being able to implement the comp plan, our growth strategy, all of the things that these staff help us do and hold us accountable to doing it well.

So I just want us to remember that as we're making these decisions and all that to say, I will be looking at ways that we might be able to restore funding for these staff so that next year we can actually accomplish all the work that we have to do.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Anything further on the budget overall?

Colleagues, I'm sorry I did not give you pre-warning.

We'll have central staff preview the entire department's budget.

I'll turn it over to the chair of the committee.

We'll then turn it back to central staff to walk through issue ID.

Does that work for everyone?

SPEAKER_02

That's exactly.

I was actually going to say the same.

As we go through this, as we bring these forward, we'll give you just a quick snapshot.

For the ones that are department specific, we'll give you a quick snapshot of the budget as Liz just did, giving you just a quick summary of ads and reductions.

But again, our main goal is to then bring forward the issues that we've identified, but also clearly to provide you an opportunity, as Council Member Morales has well taken advantage of, identify other issues or concerns that you might have individually had that we hadn't otherwise identified.

Both for the benefit of your colleagues, but candidly for the benefit of central staff as well.

Again, we've been meeting with each of you, but the more we hear about issues of concern, the more able we're able to follow up and staff you on them.

SPEAKER_15

Fantastic.

Bush, right back over to you.

Right.

SPEAKER_04

So I only have one policy consideration for OPCD.

Hopefully it's a fairly simple one.

Major changes to the city's zoning and land use plans require environmental review.

That environmental review is set in place and in motion through a scoping process.

The scope will set the terms and the subjects that can be analyzed under the zoning changes.

When the mayor's office was looking at the scope that was set for the One Seattle comprehensive plan, they realized that that scope didn't touch existing urban centers or urban villages, areas where we had already planned for growth.

The mayor's proposed budget includes $350,000 for OPCD to study zoning changes in those areas.

Because the scope of the EIS will be set by OPCD if this is funded, your opportunities to shape what that scope looks like are now as you are giving the department the budgetary authority to actually do this work.

So if you have things that you want to make sure are studied as part of this analysis of zoning increases inside urban centers and villages, or what will be called regional centers and urban centers, you should consider adding a proviso to these funds that directs what that scope will look like.

SPEAKER_15

Excellent.

Colleagues, any questions?

Council Member Morales?

SPEAKER_11

Yeah, I have a question about this.

I guess I'm a little confused about why additional development capacity for housing wasn't included in the first place.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, partly it is what was being considered back in 2022. The council at that point imposed provisos on the funds that were developed for the comprehensive plan.

Remember, this was before House Bill 1132, is that the right number?

SPEAKER_99

1133.

SPEAKER_04

Before the state required us to make changes in our neighborhood residential zones.

SPEAKER_99

1110.

SPEAKER_04

1110. Thank you.

SPEAKER_11

Oh, 1110, okay.

Wow, Lish, it's been a long day, I guess.

SPEAKER_04

Before the state required changes to neighborhood residential zones the council at that time felt like it was really important to consider those changes and so the thrust of the council's direction to OPCD at that time was to consider changes in neighborhood residential areas.

And if I can, I'll read you just verbatim what one of the provisos that was placed on those funds said at that time.

The EIS needed to include at least one growth alternative that addresses exclusionary zoning and supports the development of 15-minute neighborhoods, including a mix of residential and non-residential land uses and densities that support equitable multimodal local access to everyday needs and locations across the city, both inside and outside of urban villages.

And that proviso language directly led to the consideration of the neighborhood centers that are part of the mayor's proposed plan now.

SPEAKER_11

Okay.

I guess I would be interested in knowing, particularly because you mentioned an opportunity to look at increased home ownership.

And I know we've talked a lot about that this year.

So I'll just flag that I'd be interested in understanding what we might do to allow for that opportunity to be studied in this supplemental EIS.

SPEAKER_04

And if that's a question, that is a question be as simple as saying one of the alternatives needs to look at include strategies to increase homeownership in our regional and urban centers.

SPEAKER_11

Okay.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Colleagues, other questions?

I should pull up Zoom even though we're here in person.

I do see Council Member Moore and then Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for that, Council Member Morales.

I would echo that request, so thanks for bringing that to light.

And the other thing that I would be interested in, I think there have been some mention about looking at protection for the city's tree canopy.

Can we include that in the next study?

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, I think the focus of this future study will be around the urban senior centers and regional centers, areas where tree canopy is actually reduced already compared to, for example, the neighborhood residential areas.

So with that context, yes, looking at ways to support preservation or even increasing tree canopy as part of zoning alternatives could be studied.

SPEAKER_12

I would like to see that.

Thank you.

And I had another question.

So I'm concerned about the timeline for the supplemental EIS.

Is there a sense of when it will be completed?

And is that in sync with the other proposals that have been released?

I guess it just seems like we've got a lot of things on a different timeline.

SPEAKER_04

um and particularly since d5's got a fair number of regional and urban center urban villages and urban centers being able to look at it holistically um so given the state deadlines for adopting our comprehensive plan and adopting house bill 1110 legislation those have to be done by mid-summer and otherwise there will be state model code that doesn't really match up with our current code that goes into immediate effect and can potentially cause a lot of problems, at least administratively.

So I think the executive's intention is that after that's been adopted, then they will have the capacity at a staff level to turn towards this future work.

That's why you see the sort of work kicking off in mid 2025 on this SEIS.

SPEAKER_12

Okay, so we're not gonna get to do it holistically then I guess?

SPEAKER_04

No.

SPEAKER_12

Okay.

SPEAKER_04

You will be able to provide some direction through the comp plan.

SPEAKER_12

language and what it says about what happens in urban centers and regional centers um but in terms of these specific zoning changes i don't think there's a way to do it and still meet our other state mandates okay and then if i made just one last question um i'm also interested in a nexus study um is that something that we can put proviso money for because i don't i mean the executive is They've not come out and said affirmatively they are going to do a nexus study for the next leg of all of this development, and I think we do need that for MHA purposes.

SPEAKER_04

And that's the sort of thing that could be included as part of the requirement that provides all the council ads.

SPEAKER_12

Okay, thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Council Member Moore, Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, and thank you, Alicia.

I think you answered at least part of my question, but I, just to confirm, there isn't another, I mean, this SEIS was contemplated in the, before HB 1110. So given that, is it necessary to have this study, even notwithstanding the mention of the items here today, can these items be put in another mechanism?

I mean, do we need to do the tree, et cetera, as part of an actual SEIS?

Or is there, especially given the timeline, is there another avenue to get at these that is outside of this study, this particular study, since it's not going to happen for a while?

SPEAKER_04

If you want to explore changes within what will be regional centers and urban centers, those weren't contemplated in the One Seattle Plan EIS that will be published in December.

This additional funding is necessary to study those areas.

SPEAKER_10

Okay, so then it seems to me, Lish, is your recommendation then that we really do keep it but impose the provisor to include the things that we would like to see and then we really have to get our ducks in a row to make sure that we're including all the things.

I mean, this is our shot to include the things that we want in here.

Is that right?

Okay, thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, and I'll just interject as a facilitator here.

It is possible for us to proviso a portion of the funds rather than the whole set of these funds, is that correct?

SPEAKER_04

Sure, I'm not sure what the benefit of doing that would be, but yes, yeah, you can proviso any portion of a department's budget.

SPEAKER_15

I'm hearing two things that are true.

One is that there are a few different types of priorities that might want to be added to this, as well as recognizing that we got into the situation we are in today because we put a proviso on the full amount of funding previously, or the portion that needed to be used for a very specific purpose.

And so, as you're talking about the regional centers, which are different than the entire city of zones, Just wanted to focus our attention that we were able to use funding that was previously allocated for this purpose for the rest of the city We didn't have the funds to do this particular zone because the proviso which I'm not pointing fingers because it was probably my proviso In addition to that if there are other interests We can also look at whether it's providing portions rather than the whole fund we can also be looking at statements of legislative intent or provisos on other money but if we take all of this money and proviso it we may need to add more money to get at the root of what we're to solve the the very problem that we've got before us i see director eater has a response to my comments

SPEAKER_07

I am not an expert in this field.

I know that there are many experts in the city.

The mayor's office would be happy to provide a briefing to individual council members who have expressed an interest here and may express an interest offline.

Just as you say, Chair Strauss, Because I don't know exactly what is in the current thinking about the scope that came up with the budget that is included in the mayor's proposed budget, I don't know if there is enough resources to go around.

It isn't necessarily a question of limiting the use of those resources to specific purposes.

It may require additional resources.

I'd be happy to look into that and get a sense of what it would take to add the scope of work if it isn't already contemplated.

And it may be, I just don't know.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, very helpful.

SPEAKER_13

Council Member Saka, thanks for letting me jump the queue.

Yeah, no, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I guess first thought, so thank you, Lish, appreciate this presentation here.

And plus one on the concept from Council Member Morales on the home ownership piece and Council Member Moore as well really support that effort and initiative.

And then I would also add that I think it is important as we go through this process, and I've heard from colleagues from all of you, you all, in one form or the other in the past few months, that I think as a principle, everyone seems to support thoughtful planning.

Whatever that looks like, everyone supports thoughtful planning.

And as we grow, we need to be also very intentional about that and make sure we're not just adding living capacity for residences, of course, absolutely, table stakes.

But in order to truly bring to life the concept, it's a myth in most parts of the city today, the concept of a 15-minute walkable neighborhood, we need to have better access to amenities that can, again, bring that to life.

From retail to, well, really food.

Food.

So...

You know, I've heard Councilmember Hollingsworth, for example, talk about the importance of drug access to drugstores, and you can slice it any number of ways.

Once we add growth and capacity, people need drugstore access, people need places of worship, more community centers, more fire stations, et cetera, et cetera.

But I think the number one thing that we need to do as we consider how we're going to grow responsibly, be ambitious in this and to truly enable The 15-minute walkable neighborhood is ending the food deserts in the city.

So I would like to see a study in the EIS of how we can be more intentional about that and not just sort of leave it to the market forces.

The market will figure it out.

No, let us do the work right now to be intentional about addressing food deserts across our city.

So thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Vice Chair Rivera?

SPEAKER_10

Thank you.

And plus one to all the things that have been mentioned here today, thank you, colleagues.

Lish, is there a way, because it seems to me it might be challenging to To do a proviso to update this with our priorities in the short window, is there a way to do it where, as OPCD is putting together, and thank you, Director Eder, for saying, you know, OPCD is still working on with this.

SEIS will actually look like, because this is just like a statement, a policy statement.

We don't actually know what's going to get studied.

So is there a way we put the language in the department work with council so that we can contribute our priorities as they are building it because I'm afraid to your point council member Strauss that if we get very prescriptive and then we leave something out there won't be opportunity to then weigh in and so I'm starting to get concerned about that piece so is there a way to do it where I understand we don't oversee the departments but for something like this can we say with the I don't know, partnership, whatever the language is, you get what I'm getting at, I think.

SPEAKER_04

Yeah.

I mean, there are a number of different approaches you could take.

You could, as mentioned here, provide direction now.

You could ask the department to come back with a draft scope, present, for example, to the land use committee about that draft scope to provide an opportunity for council members to comment on it.

or you could hold the funds until they come back with the scope that the council approves.

That would delay the work a little bit.

SPEAKER_10

I think I'd like to see the last thing that you flagged, just seeing it and then having us approve it so we know everything's in that we that we identify just because we don't get many, many opportunities at the Apple with this.

And we wanna make sure it's as robust and well-informed by all our constituencies as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Colleagues, any other questions?

I've got a few.

Does this funding, as it's currently written, specifically fund the sub area plan creation or analysis, or was that already completed?

Is that a separate track of funding?

SPEAKER_04

That's a separate track of funding, but I think the department's intent is to take zoning ideas that are coming out of the regional center's planning that's underway now and fold those ideas into this SEIS.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

It will be helpful for me to understand if the sub area plans the analysis and the work to create those maps is or is not fully funded.

So I'm just flagging that for later.

SPEAKER_04

It's fully funded for the biennium, but I think the work is intended to extend past 2026 and that funding has not been identified for future years.

SPEAKER_15

okay colleagues this is land use that to do anything takes four years um and so you know i just when michael hubner presented either to land use committee or to the council he he answered the question in the affirmative that ballard itself already has the zoning capacity required to be a regional zone we are not currently designated in that fashion And what that does is it reduces our ability to get funding from the state and the federal government for transportation, for example.

We already meet the criteria, but we're not eligible for the funding simply because of these designations.

And so I just want to make sure that this work is continuing forward.

Fantastic.

Colleagues, those are my questions.

Thank you for this identification.

The reason I shared my story a little bit earlier about being overly prescriptive with provisos is because it is a blunt tool.

Our legislative hand, we have blunt tools that are not easy to be flexible and nuanced, and so that's why I wanted to share the option of provisoing some, rather than provisoing at all.

Also something that is a very common tool that is used is expanding the funding at a very smaller amount and provisoing that funds.

So if you are interested in trees or if you're interested in grocery stores, you can add a smaller amount of money in comparison to this entire budget line item and proviso that to add that staff capacity or the staff focus, if you will, to spend that money.

There's also the ability to pass a statement of legislative intent with a due date that meets your needs to make future decisions.

In the past, we've also used third-party consultants to do analysis.

This has had mixed results.

And at times, the auditor, we've just asked the auditor to follow up on these topics.

So not all of our priorities have to be in one of these buckets or the other.

But, Felicia, anything else to close us out?

No, thank you.

Fantastic.

We're going to click right along to the next agenda item.

Clerk, will you read the short title of the next agenda item into the record?

SPEAKER_05

Agenda item two, Office of Arts and Culture for briefing and discussion.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Welcome, Asha.

Great to see you.

Good morning.

I will turn it over to you.

We'll have you present the general overview of the budget.

We'll pass it over to Councilmember Wu as chair of the committee, and then we'll get into issue ID from there.

I see the presentation coming up now.

And just as a time check, it's 10.01, so we've got about 16 minutes until we duck, cover, and hold.

SPEAKER_09

Good morning.

I will be talking to you about the Office of Arts and Culture.

As you can see, the Office of Arts and Culture Their budget increases by about $700,000 in the 2025-2026 proposed budget.

Most of that increase is due to annual wage increases and citywide costs, as well as a couple of position adds.

The increase is also due to funding of about $2 million for arts and cultural organizations that are still struggling after the pandemic, as well as about $2.5 million for downtown activation plans.

The position increases, there are four position increases, one of which is a temporary employee, and that is offset by the reduction of one employee for, it's a vacant position, that's currently doing creative economy work.

So I will leave it at that, unless you have any specific questions.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Council Member Wu, would you like to kick us off?

SPEAKER_01

Oh, not regarding that.

When was that position vacant?

SPEAKER_09

I would have to go back and take a look when the position became vacant, but it has been, I think, at least for the past year.

SPEAKER_01

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Fantastic.

If you want to take us through issue ID...

I guess we're calling them policy considerations.

Sorry.

We have updated terminology in the last few years.

SPEAKER_09

Right.

So what I'll do is I'll provide a little bit of background about arts and then launch into each of the policy considerations, of which there are three.

So in general, arts is funded almost 100% by admissions tax funding.

And that has been the case since, I think, 2018. all admissions tax has gone to the Office of Arts and Culture.

The city levies a 5% admissions tax.

It's basically a tax on tickets to events across the city.

And that funding that comes in, that revenue goes directly to the Office of Arts and Culture.

And I'll talk a little more about the mechanics of that when we get to the third policy consideration about the admissions tax legislation.

The one other thing I wanted to mention, just as a backdrop, because it does It may be something you all want to consider as we talk about the admissions tax legislation.

And these other issues is the Doors Open program, which I think you are all generally familiar with.

So the King County Council passed a 0.1% tax that is intended to support arts and cultural organizations, historic preservation organizations, as well as heritage and scientific groups.

And that funding is intended to, or that tax is intended to bring in about $100 million a year for the next seven years to the county as a whole.

25% of that is intended to go to organizations outside of Seattle, leaving about 75% to Seattle organizations.

For this first year, the funding for the, in 2024, for 2025 is all one-time capital and operating support.

And then after that, it will go into generally an annual grant cycle, but the buckets will open up to other types of funding that organizations are eligible to receive.

And I mentioned that as it is a change in the landscape in terms of overall funding for Seattle and arts and cultural organizations.

So it may impact how you all want to look at funding on an ongoing basis for the city and for the Office of Arts and Culture.

And it's also something for the city in general to consider over the next couple of years as it looks at how to support those organizations.

The King County Council, I'll just mention, is currently considering the implementation plan for Doors Open, so we may have more detail about that once that passes.

The draft, I think, plan is out in the world for you all to take a look at.

I believe there's a link to that plan in the memo as well.

So I'll move into our first policy consideration.

The 2025-26 proposed budget has proposed to replace current funding in Seattle Parks and Recreation as well as in Seattle Center with admissions tax.

So part of the overall funding strategy to decrease general fund expenditures was to use other sources of funding to support arts-related purposes in other departments.

And so in the 2025 proposed budget, The idea is to replace about $884,000 in parks for three programs, for the Downtown Buskers Program, Arts and Parks, and Teen Performing Arts, and replace that with Ad Tax.

And then in Seattle Center, $1.3 million for Festal, the Northwest Folklife Festival, and cultural administration staff.

The issue that I've identified here is not so much about whether those funds should be swapped at all, but more about whether we should do it on an ongoing basis as opposed to one time or over the biennial.

As I mentioned, the piece about doors open has changed the funding landscape quite a bit.

This is also the first time that the city would be using these funds on an ongoing basis to replace general fund.

This is related a little bit to the admissions tax legislation issue that we'll get to in a moment.

The council may want to consider whether to do this kind of swap on a shorter-term basis rather than ongoing, so to look at it for either 2025 or just look at it for the biennium so that you can make those decisions about whether to continue making that swap over the next few years as you have a better sense of how Doors Open is impacting the funding landscape.

once we get a better sense of arts' strategic plan, which they're in the process of developing, as well as how arts and cultural organizations are doing citywide as they continue to recover from the pandemic.

So the options that I have identified are just to make those appropriations one time or over the biennium, or to make no change at all.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Council Member Wu?

SPEAKER_01

Thank you.

So I would prefer that we watch the implementation doors open and not make any decisions just yet.

But I would also prefer that the admissions tax stay within the Office of Arts and Culture versus an outright allocation.

I don't want to make that precedent that we take money out of the admissions tax out of Arts and Culture.

SPEAKER_15

Just kind of following up on that, Asha, is it possible to funnel the, even if we wanted to use the funds as they're described in the Mayor's proposed budget, is there a pathway to retaining the accountability that I know Councilmember Wu has talked to me about that is currently present in the Arts and Culture, Office of Arts and Culture.

Sorry, it's not a department, it's an office.

SPEAKER_09

Yes.

And I'll talk a little bit about this, too, when we get to the third policy consideration about the admissions tax legislation.

But that admissions tax legislation doesn't actually impact whether we can use these funds, the admissions tax funds, for arts-related purposes in other departments.

So it's really more of a process change.

So you could still, even if you chose not to pass the admissions tax legislation, these funds could still go to these offices to do this work.

It would just have to be a pass-through through arts as opposed to a direct appropriation to the department directly.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

I see Council Member Morales and Vice Chair Rivera.

SPEAKER_11

It sounds like we're all saying the same thing here, which is I also have an interest in making sure that it's still a pass-through through the arts department.

And my understanding is that maybe you wrote this in another piece of the discussion um that there are like interdepartmental agreements that's how it operates now so that it is still the office of arts and culture who has the expertise in the subject uh who is helping make these decisions and making sure that it is actually arts organizations that get funded so I would also be interested in supporting that as the option.

And then I also am interested in doing this, I don't know if it's for, just 2025 or for the biennium, but I think it would be prudent for us to wait and see how the Doors Open program gets implemented before making any of these decisions on an ongoing basis.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you.

The truth is that the Office of Arts and Culture has been providing substantial support to Festal.

I do think that the pass-through option is not ideal because it does force the department to have to do an MOU with the department that they're giving the money to, and it's a whole other level of bureaucracy that I think is unnecessary.

Excuse me.

So really if they're going to be providing that this if we're going to make the policy decision to provide this level of support to a different department it makes most sense to just give the funds directly to that department and stipulate for what purpose so that you're not double working on an administrative piece.

It just, it sounds really simple to do an MOU and it takes a long time.

And I know, cause I worked at arts, so I know what goes into that.

I have a question and maybe more, it's more of a concern in terms of we're giving money to, sorry, we're giving arts money to other departments for arts purposes.

That seems fine to me, but a lot of this money seems to be going to administrative staff, and I know a lot of the Festal money was actually going to administrative staff also at Seattle Center rather than the actual artists or organizations that are putting on these events and activations.

And I think that's really more my concern is you know, who is this money going to?

We wanna make sure we're really supporting the artists and the arts organizations on the ground.

And so I, would like more details about where this is going because I know that that was an ongoing concern when I was at the Office of Arts and Culture is, you know, the money, making sure that the bulk of the money was going to support artists and arts organizations and less so administration of all of these things that we do because then that really doesn't support folks on the ground.

So I don't know, Asha, if you know that means a sly or, or something of that nature.

But I have more a concern about that and making sure.

And in terms of giving arts funding to other departments, it does the other layer of bureaucracy is it puts the staff at arts as having to oversee a different department's work.

And that's also, in my mind, unnecessary.

especially if you're telling the department this is how you should use the funds.

So it's like double work, if you will.

And I think also giving it to the departments for arts purposes can potentially, depending upon what the money is gonna be used for, it can expand access and increase participation because there are other artists and arts organizations out there that I know don't necessarily work with Office of Arts and Culture today, but might be known and work with these other departments.

So it does expand participation.

But again, we want to make sure the money is going to support the folks on the ground.

And we want to make sure it's supporting artists and arts organizations and not other folks.

SPEAKER_09

Yeah, and I'm happy to follow up and see what information we can get about what those funds are supporting in this budget process.

If it turns out that that information is not easily available, then absolutely a SLI would make sense.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

And we are just about to reach 1015. So this is the public service announcement that in three minutes, this will be a test and only a test for the viewing public.

Everything is okay.

With that, I do see Councilmember Kettle.

I don't know if you want to get your question out.

SPEAKER_14

We can kind of stall for a minute.

Yes, I'll keep an eye on the clock at the same time.

I was just...

Listening to each of the comments made by my colleagues, I'm also mindful of the fact that arts and culture is so important for our city.

And with District 7 having such, I've been to all these various arts and culture venues and facilities and seeing the challenges that they face.

All the changes that are coming about, the note of the doors open, county tax, and looking at the next with the DAP, which has the arts and culture feature to it as well, World Cup, these are big changes.

So there's a lot of flux right now.

So as much as I definitely see the Seattle Center, and Seattle Center needs to be sorted in parks as well, it seems that in this time of flux that we should be mindful of that.

And also, and I appreciate Council Member Rivera's points from the practical point of view, but also from a practical point of view, is that there's gotta be like one point of contact.

Who is responsible for arts and culture?

And if it gets spread out too much, then if everyone's in charge, no one's in charge of arts and culture.

And then if we're looking to make those strategic changes, going back to the other point made, having a strategic plan, These things kind of point to the idea that, you know, at least over the course of this buy-in, because we have so many big things going on.

It's not mentioned was the World Cup because it's driving a lot of things.

And then all of a sudden when the World Cup's over, a lot of things are going to fall off the plate, I think.

And with the county tax and so forth, that would be my suggestion and recommendation.

And done in time.

SPEAKER_15

And this is a test and only a test.

Council Member Kettles' comments were not a test.

That was really spot on.

I think we'll just kind of awkwardly stand still for a moment as we wait for the international earthquake drill.

Don't forget her.

You know, fun fact, I was at the repertory theater for the Nisqually earthquake, an arts and culture institution here in the city of Seattle.

Emergency preparedness is public safety.

It's 10-17-2000.

I'm not hearing the noise.

So this is...

Now we're in an earthquake.

If we could all just engage.

I don't know.

Are we supposed to wait for something else?

SPEAKER_11

Do we get a text message?

SPEAKER_15

I would say let's just drop, cover, and hold.

Here we go.

SPEAKER_99

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you for participating in the 2024. We are all learning that we need to do more yoga.

Just as a reminder, if you are in an earthquake near glass, that you should move away from that said glass.

Summarizing Council Member Kettle's comments of if everyone's in charge, no one's in charge, point well taken.

Council Member Wu, I see your hand.

SPEAKER_01

I have a quick question.

I noticed in some of these websites that Office in Arts and Culture is already a co-sponsor or sponsor.

So I was hoping you could find out what the state of their involvement in these organizations, festivals, currently.

SPEAKER_09

Yes, I can follow up on that.

SPEAKER_15

Fantastic.

And Asha, I believe you have a few more policy considerations.

SPEAKER_09

Yes, I can move on to the next one if there are no more questions.

So this next policy consideration is about the $2.5 million that is proposed in the budget for downtown activation plan funding.

So in the memo there are, and in the budget book itself, there are a list of the things that would be supported by the downtown activation plan funding through arts.

Um, a couple minor corrections on that.

Um, so the, the list basically is, um, neighborhood arts and culture and festival activations.

That's about $495,000.

Um, you'll see in the memo that they, I have detailed out the, um, there are a couple specific parks, um, that we're supposed to get this funding.

Um, the executive recently, um, let me know that those are not actually the specific parks that are going to receive that funding.

They're still gonna be in process in 2025, figuring out where those funds are going.

And so I'll correct this memo for the record to make sure that that isn't reflected here, but just wanted to make clear that that process is ongoing.

Great.

The next item is community engagement and cultural inclusion for about $530,000.

And these funds are actually intended to support activation citywide, not necessarily just specific to downtown.

So I just wanted to include that clarification as well.

In addition, you've got $356,000 for Hope Corps, $195,000 for a visual arts installation at Benaroya Hall, $160,000 for alleyway activations, and about $795,000 for activation at Union Station and King Street Station.

For all of these funds, the funds are appropriated in 2025 as one-time funds, but they are intended for implementation in 2026. So throughout 2025, my understanding is the executive will be working to figure out the specifics and refine each of these ads.

The consideration for you all is this piece about whether you would like to use these funds as they have been proposed, if you'd like to use them for other council priorities that are still arts-related, or if you'd like to proviso any of these funds to make sure that allocation is in line with council priorities.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions, comments on this policy consideration?

Seeing none, we can move on to the next one.

SPEAKER_07

I just wanted to emphasize the executive's perspective that this is a critical element of the World Cup preparations, and that it's downtown focused and citywide focused, both.

This is an opportunity to center arts and culture in the city, leverage it as a tool for downtown activation, and also to use arts to create an incredible World Cup and opportunities for inclusion and celebration citywide in neighborhoods beyond downtown.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

I see Council Member Rivera and then Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to address the point about if everybody's in charge, no one's in charge.

And I very much appreciate that.

And I often feel the same way, or always, really.

In this case, I will point out that these departments already administer all of these programs.

These aren't new programs.

And so they've been doing these programs for quite some time.

They do know how to administer, in this case, these particular problems.

programs, so I don't think it's exactly, you know, I'm not as concerned, I'll say, but I very much appreciate your thoughts, Council Member Dole, because I agree, someone has to be in charge.

In this case, these departments are already in charge of these programs.

Thank you.

Just providing more context.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_01

What office would that DAP funding go to, if it sounds like a direct appropriation?

Yes.

SPEAKER_09

So as it's currently allocated, the $2.5 million would be appropriated directly to the Office of Arts and Culture.

SPEAKER_15

Fantastic.

I think we'll move on to the next policy consideration.

SPEAKER_09

All right.

The last policy.

SPEAKER_14

Yes, Chair.

I was just going to note, because I alluded to it before with the World Cup, and I'm thankful for this because this is our once in a lifetime, not lifetime, but once in a generation at least.

opportunity, and we have to put our best foot forward.

And I do believe that we can get some lessons learned out of this, like in support of the Third Avenue project, long term.

Little things that can really help the Third Avenue project, but also help our arts and culture community.

More than once, I've had conversations like, wouldn't the crosswalks on both sides of Benaroya Hall on Third be great if there were keyboard you know, sharps and, and, you know, and, and majors and, you know, and flats and, you know, bacon basically looking like a piano.

Um, I think these little things that can have dual use and really support.

And I'm also mindful, um, that this focus on downtown is probably going to end on July.

Well, after the July 1st of 2026, when the world cup's over.

Um, but right now I, I think it's really appropriate to kind of flex and, and, um, emphasize those preparations that allow us as a city to put our best face forward for the World Cup.

So I appreciate what the executive is doing with the DAP funding here.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

We'll move on to the next policy consideration.

Thanks, Sasha.

SPEAKER_09

Okay.

So the last policy consideration is related to the admissions tax amendments ordinance.

And that ordinance would propose three things.

One is to allow admissions tax funds to be appropriated to arts for the operation of the office in addition to the current uses.

The second would be to allow any revenues that are collected from the admissions tax to be appropriated to any department for use for arts-related purposes.

And the third would be to remove the requirement to develop policies with the opportunity for the Seattle Arts Commission to comment on drafts and then to submit those policies to council for approval via resolution.

So as I mentioned, the admissions tax, I believe the admissions tax began at the city back in 2000. The Office of Arts and Culture was created in 2002. And since that time, there have been gradual increases in the amount of appropriation from ad tax revenue going to the Office of Arts and Culture.

Back in 2002, it was 20%.

And as of 2018, we've moved up to 100%.

One of the things that makes this piece of legislation different from previous pieces of legislation when it comes to admissions tax is that this is an ongoing change.

Previous ordinances throughout the years have allocated pieces of admissions tax funds to other departments, but they have primarily been temporary.

It has usually either been to a specific department or for a specific purpose for a limited period of time.

So it would either be for the next fiscal year or the next two years, but not for on an ongoing basis.

And so this legislation would be the first time in which those funds would be allocated to would be able to be allocated to any department on an ongoing basis.

So in terms of precedent, that this is precedential in the sense that it's not time limited and it's not scope limited.

Currently, the funds that do get deposited in the Arts and Culture Fund that do go to arts are available for, as I mentioned, arts-related purposes.

And what the ordinance currently defines that as are programming or one-time capital expenditures, initiatives and programs to build community in the arts community, create opportunities for the public to intersect with artists and their work, initiatives and programs for youth out of school, and then payment of the city's rent obligations as related to what is now Climate Pledge Arena.

Each of these changes would allow the executive, as I mentioned, to appropriate funds to any department.

One of the things that you all may want to consider is this piece around whether this should be a long-term change, whether it should be an ongoing change, or you want to amend the legislation to create some limitations on either time period, on scope, so that you can continue to take a look at those changes as the funding landscape changes, as the city's strategy continues to evolve through the Office of Arts and Culture's strategic plan, if those are all considerations that you want to look at on an annual basis, as opposed to making this legislation a long-term, ongoing, permanent change.

The one other item that I wanted to flag is this third change that would remove the requirement for arts to develop policies for comment by the Seattle Arts Commission and then submit them to council for approval via resolution.

Thus far, the policies that the Office of Arts and Culture has proposed have been related to fiscal reserves.

And those policy changes have come through the council, and the council has approved them via resolution.

If this legislation goes into effect without amendment, that procedural piece in which any policy updates happen through the council process would change.

And that's generally in accordance with the way that the executive currently handles many funds.

They don't normally get transmitted to a commission for comments, for example.

Fiscal funds or fiscal policies are usually something that the executive just has the ability to make changes to.

So this is a, it would make it more in line with the way that other funds function, but it would remove the council's role in approval of those policy updates.

It would also remove the requirement for the Seattle Arts Commission to be able to comment or get an official opportunity to comment on those policy changes.

Let's see if I missed anything here.

I guess the last piece I'll mention is more of a technical one.

If the council does choose to pass this legislation as proposed, then the way that the funds are currently appropriated to these other departments, to parks and to Seattle Center would remain that way.

If the council chooses to amend this legislation or not to pass it, then we just have to make a technical change to have those funds go to arts and then have them reallocated to parks and to Seattle Center.

And so, but that's, it's a technical change unless you'd like to make changes in response to that first policy consideration that changes the use of those funds.

So the options before you are to pass without amendment, amend and passes amendment.

So as I mentioned, either limit the scope of the changes in terms of who gets the appropriation or in terms of how long this change would be applicable for.

The other amendment option would be not to strike the section that requires fiscal policies come to the council for approval, or you could choose not to pass the legislation at all.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

I see Council Member Moore, then Council Member Rivera.

Council Member Rivera, you're up next.

SPEAKER_10

Okay, thank you.

Asha, so even if this is passed, Council always has the ability to do a proviso or a sly for the funds for any purpose.

So there is still ability for the Council to weigh in on the policy decisions that the executive would make like we do for any other department where this isn't in place, correct?

SPEAKER_09

Yes, you'd still have the opportunity to provide those comments.

It just takes out the sort of legislative default that would automatically provide the council with the authority to weigh in sort of officially, statutorily.

SPEAKER_10

Dan, did you have something to add?

SPEAKER_15

Sure, Director Eder.

SPEAKER_07

Our perspective is that at least the intent of the legislation was to remove the advisory committee's role in reviewing.

That's what's special about the Arts Fund fiscal policies.

The fiscal policies would still come to the city council for your review and approval.

SPEAKER_15

Said another way, we still will review their budget every year.

SPEAKER_07

Exactly.

SPEAKER_02

And the financial, but more specifically the financial policies themselves.

I don't know what the actual wording is in the ordinance, but we could, I think.

SPEAKER_09

Yeah, there is the opportunity for you all to propose an amendment that would just remove the opportunity for the Seattle Arts Commission to comment, but still require the policies to come to council if that is of interest.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Anything else?

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_15

Councilmember Wu, and I have to say, Councilmember Wu, thank you for flagging the accountability issues within this proposal from day one.

We got the mayor's proposed budget, and you immediately flagged this being a priority for you.

So thank you for that.

Over to you.

SPEAKER_01

I have a question regarding the removal of Seattle Arts Commission and possibly the council.

What problem were we trying to solve by proposing this?

SPEAKER_09

That's a great question.

I don't know what the initial intent was for these policies to both get commentary from the Seattle Arts Commission and to have council approval.

Director Eder, I don't know if you have anything about the background there of that original legislation.

SPEAKER_07

I don't have anything more specific other than I think the intent was to bring this in line with the other review protocols.

My understanding is this would still come before the City Council for any changes, would come before the City Council for review and approval by resolution.

SPEAKER_01

Thank you.

My preference would be to allow for the CR Arts Commission to be able to comment on drafts.

I mean, we don't always be able to consider everything, but allowing them to be empowered and involved, I think, is beneficial.

And I also think that we should keep missions taxed within the Office of Arts and Culture.

But we'll love to get those questions answered.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Council Member Wu.

Council Member Morales, Council Member Saca, Council Member Rivera.

I'm going to go to Council Member Moore and then Rivera.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_11

I want a little bit of clarification.

So the memo says that the legislation would amend to allow admissions tax funds for operation of the arts office in addition to the things listed above which is all programming.

So my fear with that is that this would then be used to supplant other operations funds that the department already or the office already gets.

Is that a possibility?

SPEAKER_09

So currently, my understanding, I'm almost positive, is that all operations are funded by ed tax already.

SPEAKER_11

So what is the distinction there then with item number one that this legislation would allow?

SPEAKER_09

Yeah, so my understanding is the way the legislation or the code currently is crafted, it says that all appropriations from ad tax go to the Arts and Culture Fund, and they are all appropriated to the Office of Arts and Culture.

And then the different purposes for which those funds can be used are what are laid out in the ordinance itself.

This change, I think, because now the legislation proposes that appropriations can go to any department, just makes clear that the operation of the Office of Arts and Culture is explicitly stated as a purpose for which ad tax can be used.

SPEAKER_11

Okay.

I'm still not sure I'm understanding the distinction here.

SPEAKER_09

So I think currently, because all of the funding goes to arts, when trying to figure out how to use those funds, they're sort of making clear that these are the programming things for which these ad tax dollars can be used.

I think including the specifically including the operation of arts and culture, because the legislation also proposes that those funds go to other places, my understanding, and please feel free to correct me, Director Eater, if you have a different impression, but my understanding is that by specifically saying that the funds will go to the operation of the Office of Arts and Culture, it just makes that explicit that those funds can also be going to arts to support their staffing and their operations in addition to all of the other programming.

My understanding is that it's primarily a technical change.

SPEAKER_07

That's consistent with my understanding.

The intent is to just be explicit that that is an allowable use.

SPEAKER_11

An allowable use.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

And then I have a question about footnote number six, because this is a question I have been trying to answer for some time, and I finally found, thank you, Asha, the ordinance from 2002 that apparently Jan Drago passed.

that excludes receipt of men's professional football from inclusion in this fund?

SPEAKER_09

Yeah.

So I don't believe that the current version of the code contains that exclusion anymore.

I will have to go back and look at some of the legislative history to see when that change happened.

But my current understanding is that those receipts are not excluded from ad tax.

But I will have to go back and confirm that that's the case.

SPEAKER_11

Yeah, I'd be really interested to know what Where that money?

SPEAKER_02

My understanding is that we are state preempted from application of the admissions tax to both the, well, I think to both the stadiums directly south of us.

SPEAKER_11

Yeah, my understanding was it was state as well, so I'm just trying to get clarity, and I still want to know how to change that state law, because if we can get revenue from the football team for the arts department, that would be fantastic.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, I'm in no way defending it.

It was tied up in the financing plan for the stadium.

The idea being that those monies would get captured to help repay that debt.

I think that debt, well, on the baseball side, I know that debt has been repaid.

On the football side, I'm less certain.

But anyway, my understanding is it's state preemption.

SPEAKER_11

Yeah, OK.

SPEAKER_02

Anecdote that might be interesting or not, the bulk of the ad tax revenues, interestingly or not, come from the Space Needle, the Chihuly exhibit, the wheel on the waterfront, UW football, and movies.

And I forget, that's 85% or something that I just rattled off.

Thank you.

And per the deal on climate pledge, we get the amount of ad tax revenue we were getting before the redevelopment inflated year to year.

So we actually use a comparable financing scheme as part of the climate pledge redevelopment as well for what it's worth.

Sorry, I know too much about that one.

SPEAKER_11

Thank you.

No, I appreciate it.

Thank you, Chair.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Council Member Saka and Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Asha, for joining us today and sharing your very thoughtful analysis on arts here.

Really appreciate that.

I have a question pertaining to, I guess, subpart two elements of the proposed CBO legislation pertaining to this admissions tax.

So sub-element two that would basically broaden the departments that could potentially use um funding from from this and maybe this is more of a question actually it is 100 more of a question for the executive uh so director here if you have any initial thoughts or appreciate hearing but what is the rationale or or justification behind that um that proposal there just curious to better understand that

SPEAKER_07

So the proposal would allow the admissions tax to be used in other departments for arts and culture-related activities that the other departments are currently funding with the general fund.

So this was part of the executive's desire to help the general fund, and we were able to do so in the proposed budget without harming arts.

Arts continues to be funded at the same level in 25 compared to 24. So it's the extra ad tax money that has come in as the economy has started to get back in gear that allowed us to essentially stave off what would otherwise have been further reductions to general fund activities.

SPEAKER_13

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

And this also strikes me as something that would...

potentially allow and enable more flexibility as well with some of the spending at the department, particularly at the execution level.

And I do think it makes sense we have you know, single-threaded owner on arts, kind of tying back to a previous conversation and, you know, one throat to choke, so to speak, on all things arts planning, policy planning, and strategy in particular.

But art implementation and execution can and does exist today at various department levels.

And so, you know, as long as we have a a single-threaded owner on the overarching strategy and it's a coherent one, it's a clear one and consistent, then that seems to make sense in addition to the other kind of rationale that you just gave.

So very helpful.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

Yeah, I guess I'm struggling with Why are we doing this again?

It seems like if we're, we have an Office of Arts and Culture for a reason, and if we start directing the arts and culture funding to different departments, then arts and culture itself becomes weakened as an office.

And the purpose of this was for arts to, I mean, they're supposed to create fiscal policies to make sure that There's long-term fiscal health for the arts funding obligations, and I just worry that this approach is going to weaken their ability to do that and weaken the office overall.

SPEAKER_15

I mean, panel, Director Noble, Eder, Asha, anything to share in response?

SPEAKER_09

I guess the only nuance I'd add here, and obviously, Directors Noble and Eder, please feel free to weigh in here, is that the legislation itself is not actually required for these funds to go to other departments and support the arts-related purposes in those other departments.

I believe, as Councilmember Rivera had previously said, arts has been supporting I believe it's Festal for many years through that interdepartmental agreement.

And as she mentioned as well, this legislation would put this fund in line with how the executive administers other funds, so appropriations going directly to the department itself.

But as you mentioned, on the other hand, it does mean that ARTS is removed from that process of allocating funds to other departments.

That's really the policy choice in front of you, whether you want arts involved in that process as a default or you just want those funds to be appropriated directly to that department.

And I guess the last thing I'll add is that arts will have a strategic plan.

But that strategic plan, my understanding is, will apply to the funds that are administered by arts.

So if this legislation does go through, those are the things that arts will consider for the appropriations that it gets.

Whether or not the executive has a sort of broader arts strategy across the city, I'm not sure.

And I don't know that unless there is that sort of arts strategy, that when funds do get appropriated directly to other people, it will be involved from sort of a...

informal way in which to engage with other departments.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chair.

So, colleagues, just for context, the reason why Seattle Arts Commission is named in the legislation, and we have many, as you know, boards and commissions in the city, and they're not named in legislation for other departments, is because Historically, before we had an Office of Arts and Culture, it was the Seattle Arts Commission that was legislated to do the arts policy for the city.

over time that morphed into an office of arts and culture and so when that happened they left the arts commission in this advisory capacity because they had been the initial creators of policy for arts in the city and so it sits in this you know very unique space because we don't we don' t have that for other commissions and boards they' re all advisory and the truth is whether it' s named in the ordinance or not it is advisory in capacity and that would not change and all our boards and commissions can and they do and you heard them come to chambers even weigh in on policy they submit letters to us so even if this were to change to align more with the other it won't have an impact on the commission's ability to weigh in.

And so I think this is just, and Dan Eater, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like it's an attempt to clean up these remnants of the legislation that have been changed over time, but the legislation itself has not.

to align with what the city is actually doing today.

And as far as the Office of Arts and Culture versus the other city departments, as I said earlier, the items that are included here, arts and parks even, is already a program at parks, for instance.

So I think, and in terms of what I call the overage ad tax comes in, there's a...

Like any other revenue base, there's a projection for it.

It often comes over projection.

And historically, the overage, I call the overage, has been used by the executive for various arts purposes.

So all of this is already a practice.

And it sounds to me that all of these changes are to accommodate what the current practice is already.

It's an efficiency piece.

because departments that administer the funds at Arts and Parks, Parks is already administering, like I said, Arts and Parks.

They've been doing it for years.

Festal, the Seattle Center, has been doing it for a number of years now, since pre-COVID for sure.

And so, like I said, this is really just, it sounds to me like an attempt to clean up the old ordinance, to bring it up to speed, and rather than every year having to come back and say, okay, we're gonna use the overage for X purpose.

It just allows it to be part of the budget process really without that extra added having to call it out.

And also without it having to go through arts through this MOU process, which is really just a transfer of funds from one department to another.

It's a technical transfer.

So it doesn't necessarily mean that the Office of Arts and Culture is actually weighing into what Parks is doing for Arts and Parks or the Seattle Center is doing for Fistel.

Arts employees don't work on Fistel, for instance.

So I don't know if that helps for context, but I think it is important to know the history.

And I can't speak for the executive, but having worked there, I can tell you that it makes sense to me.

And it sounds like it's a cleanup of what we've been doing historically anyway, while at the same time preserving, because I do hear that or see here that point number one is to ensure that we're preserving the the operating budget for in its entirety for the office of arts and culture so that looks like to me is really making sure that the office has its current budget and is able to administer all its current programs and then one last thing i'll say is um director eater i'm very appreciative that you all did not take one of the things that arts put forward as as a potential cut to their department was the CARE program, which is a really amazing and the best program I think the department has.

So I was sort of surprised to see that they offered it as a potential cut.

Over 200 arts organizations get supported by that grants program.

And so I appreciate that you did not accept the department's proposal to cut that particular program because it is the best program, I think, in my opinion, at the department, along with Creative Advantage, which does music in the schools for kids.

But anyway, arts, that program is really great.

So thanks for not cutting that.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Council Member Wu, anything to close us out?

I have another question.

Oh, sorry.

I thought these were old hands.

SPEAKER_11

Council Member Morales.

Thank you.

So Asha, you mentioned the internal strategic planning that the department is, I think, has recently completed or will complete soon, which reminded me that they're sort of...

So that's internally focused.

And when the department was here a couple of weeks ago, they also talked about the cultural space planning that they...

had hoped to do as the next step, which I think would get to some of the questions we're asking about what is our overarching culture and arts strategy.

And the purpose of that is to do some real mapping of where are our cultural assets, where are our production spaces, where are our artists.

My understanding is that there had been, I think, $250,000 in the budget last year for that work, and they are just ready to start doing that work.

And I don't know if it's in the budget or where to look for it.

So that's a question.

SPEAKER_09

Yeah, I can definitely follow up on that piece.

I don't have it right in front of me.

SPEAKER_11

Okay, thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Seeing no other hands, Council Member Wu, anything to close us out?

Other than on this, thank you to Council Member Wu for raising this issue on day one.

Anything you'd like to close us out with?

SPEAKER_09

Just one last thing.

If you all feel that you are not ready to make a decision on this legislation itself, it won't actually change any of the funding that could go to these departments, as I mentioned.

This could be something that you look at next year in committee and have arts come to the table and talk about the impacts.

unintended consequences, that sort of thing.

So it could be a longer term decision about whether to make these changes to the admissions tax legislation without actually impacting the funding that goes to any of these programs.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Well, if there's nothing further on this, we are gonna move on to the next agenda item.

I believe it is the Seattle Channel, but I'm pulling up my script now.

Indeed, it is the Seattle Channel.

Clerk, if you could read the short title of the next item into the record, and we will transfer between Asha and Brian.

SPEAKER_05

Agenda item three, Seattle Channel, briefing and discussion.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

Welcome, Brian.

Good night.

We are still retained with Director Noble, Director Eder.

Brian, for the record, would you like to introduce yourself and then feel free to take it away?

Again, we'll do the overview and then we'll dive in.

SPEAKER_06

Okay, great.

Good morning, Council Members.

Thank you, Chair.

Brian, good night.

Council Central staff.

Looks like Ben is getting the presentation shared.

I just have a few introductory comments.

This one's a little bit different than the two previous, it's not a department we're talking about.

We're talking about just kind of a program or a service inside of a department.

So my background comments are brief.

So in 1997, the responsibility for the precursor to the Seattle Channel was moved from Seattle Public Library to the executive group that at the time ran the city's website and is now morphed multiple times into the Seattle Information Technology or Seattle IT as we call it.

Seattle IT is still where the Seattle Channel budget and staff is located, so that's where you'll find it in the budget overview papers, for example.

The service has been known by many names throughout its history, Seattle Municipal Television, Channel 28, TVC, and that's TVSEA.

And then in 2002, it finally became the Seattle Channel.

And today, as you probably know, Seattle Channel airs live government meetings like this one, press conferences, arts coverage, public affairs shows, community programs, and more.

And that kind of does it for the introduction, so I'll pause there.

SPEAKER_15

Wonderful.

Councilmember Hollingsworth, I don't think that you realize that I was gonna pass it to you mostly because I did not tell any colleagues.

If you don't have any remarks right now, totally fine.

We'll jump in because this is more than just a department.

It's a program within a department.

So if you don't have anything to share, we'll just keep rolling, Brian.

SPEAKER_00

Thank you for surprising me, Mr. Chair.

I don't have anything at this time.

I would love to jump into the presentation.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_06

Okay, thank you very much.

So there is just one policy consideration to be presented today for Seattle Channel, and that's on the proposed programming and staffing reductions.

So the operations and activities of Seattle Channel are funded by revenues from franchise fees assessed on cable providers' gross revenues.

In 2010, the council adopted a cable franchise fee of 4.4% on all franchises, and there are currently two of those in the city.

In addition, cable providers also pay the city a fee in support of public, educational, and government access, which is 0.4% of gross revenues, and they have to carry a certain number of access channels, it's negotiated in their franchise agreements, such as Seattle Channel, on their systems without charge.

The revenues from these franchise fees are deposited into the city's cable TV franchise fund, and expenditures from the fund follow guidance adopted by the council in 2001. According to the policies, the funds may be used for, and I'll just read this verbatim from the slide, administration of the cable customer bill of rights and cost the city is obligated to fund under the terms of its franchise agreements, operating in capital support for the Seattle Channel, programs and projects that promote technology literacy and access, and interactive technology to provide ways for residents to access city services.

So for many years, likely due to customers switching away from traditional cable television service towards streaming services, cable franchise revenues have been declining.

So the chart on this slide shows that decline going back to 2018 and projected out through 2028. So just in terms of orientation, so the dark blue bars on the left part of the chart are actual revenues that were received by the city.

The 2024 amount in that lighter blue is what was in the 2024 adopted budget.

Green is showing the proposed revenues for 2025 and 2026, so what we expect to receive, and then 27 and 28, and the orange bars are projected out even further according to the financial plan.

As you can see, the revenues have declined from a high of about $9 million in 2019, and then the proposed amount for 2025 is $5.7 million.

So in recognition of the declining cable franchise revenues, the proposed budget would reduce Seattle Channel's operating budget by approximately $1.6 million, down from a budget of about $3.2 million in the 2024 adopted budget.

And it would also abrogate six FTE.

In terms of people, there are seven city employees that would be impacted by the reductions, and that's due to a job sharing arrangement for one of the positions.

The reductions would eliminate all non-governmental programming from the channel, and the staffing impacts would go beyond just city staff, and that's because the city has contracts and other payment arrangements for the non-governmental programming with outside production producers and hosts and those things, and so those would be eliminated as well.

After the reductions, Seattle Channel would continue to broadcast things like the city council meetings, executive press conferences, and the like.

And then the last bullet point there shows that the proposed budget would also zero out an associated capital improvement project, sorry, capital improvement program, CIP project, which is used to maintain, upgrade, and replace technical and production systems for Seattle Channel.

The budget for that project was planned to be about $372,000 in 2025. And then in this last year's six-year CIP, it's about $400,000 annually.

When asked, the executive did state that due to significant investments in equipment over recent years, they feel that Seattle Channel is well positioned to reduce its annual budget for equipment, but did note, of course, that if critical equipment failed, if other funding couldn't be found, they'd have to come in for supplemental budget requests.

Okay, and this slide, in terms of options.

So this and the accompanying memo just highlight a few options for council's consideration.

Option A would be to fully restore the proposed cuts to Seattle Channel, which would include the city staff positions, the outside producers and hosts, and would restore the programming to today's levels.

So to do this, council would need to add approximately $1.6 million and the six FTE in 2025, and about $1.65 million in 2026. If the council also wanted to restore that capital improvement program project, it's going to be the numbers on the slide, about $372,000 in 25 and $384,000 in 2026. Option B would be to partially restore the cuts.

So in talking with the executive, just due to the nature of video programming, content production, there are some logical groupings that would be restored together in packages that would make the most sense.

So one example of that is that I explored with the executive would be to add back about $920,000 and four of the FTE in 2025 and that would be sufficient to restore about 50% of the non-governmental programming that the station currently holds.

This of course is just one example and many other flavors or options could exist.

And then option C is a little bit different, and it's compatible with any of the other options.

So the executive has indicated that staff are exploring new revenue and partnership models for Seattle Channel.

And so the council could request the executive via a statement of legislative intent to provide a report back to the council next year on its findings and conclusions regarding the feasibility of potential other operating models.

So the council could pursue that sly option regardless of the funding option that you chose.

And then option D is just the one that we always provide, and that's to make no change to the proposed budget.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Brian.

I do see a couple hands.

I also have some introductory remarks on this, which is a departure from typical procedure, but Council Member Hollingsworth, Do you want me to share?

I knew that Seattle Channel was coming, so I had a little bit of an intro for you.

SPEAKER_00

Go ahead.

Do the intro.

I'm passing you the ball right now.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

And so I'll just ask one of my questions up front.

Overall, my support of the Seattle Channel runs deeper than the inner geek watching the history of our city or the civic dialogue or watching the display of our city's unique artistic expressions.

Seattle Channel is an incredibly important resource to our city.

From day one of receiving this budget, I've been focused on how we can create a future that is sustainable, independent, and allows us to continue to create the amazing, impactful, Emmy award-winning content.

We saw last night that the community agrees.

and we need to do more than just fund the Seattle Channel.

We need to take this moment to ensure its long-term success because even if we funded the Seattle Channel at the same amount for the next two years, we're not ensuring the long-term success as demonstrated on slide two from Brian Goodnight.

The table tax as a dedicated fund allows for their independence in a way that the general fund does not allow.

And even today, we're not fully utilizing the Seattle Channel's capabilities.

We have Nancy and Brian, and they are contractors.

They're not necessarily employees of Seattle Channel.

And it's just Nancy and Brian beyond all of the other incredible programming that's going on for civic transparency.

We have studio space here in City Hall that could be used even more than it is today.

And with the cable tax revenue declining, As demonstrated on slide two, we need to chart a sustainable and independent future while strengthening the legacy that Mr. Goodnight shared from public access, CTV.

And public access was great.

It was funny.

It was odd.

It was inappropriate.

And overall, it added to the vibrancy of our city, much like Seattle Channel does in its current form today.

And we do need to bring together the right people in the future to chart this future.

We need a different, you know, the questions that stem from Jump are do we need a different dedicated funding source ensuring that the channel is not dependent on general fund and elected leaders' discretion?

Or do we need to use a different model as it has changed in the past, whether it's a TVW model or something similar.

I'll share a couple examples of our past where we've been faced with these types of decisions.

In 2008, the state park system was underfunded and we were in a depression.

And Governor Gregoire at that time said, What's the pathway forward?

Today, when you renew your car, you make a $5 donation to the state park system, a dedicated funding source, and you probably also buy your Discover Pass, whether you use it or not.

forcing of the question in 2008 set the state parks department on a different course.

Similarly, with the Seattle Chinese Garden here in the city, our sister city relationship with Chongqing is one of the oldest of our sister city relationships.

And in the 1980s, when there was international tension between our nations, The city separated their direct ties, and now it is a non-profit that works both with the Seattle Colleges, with the Parks Department, with our city and others, and they're still upholding their legacy.

And so what is clear to me is that the Seattle Channel programming and infrastructure is incredibly important to our city.

Don't take my word for it.

They're Emmy Award winning.

Funding the channel, two, funding the channel alone doesn't answer the question before us.

Three, if I'm successful, by the time I leave Council, Seattle Channel will have increased programming and utilization of their studios.

And most importantly, we need to uphold the legacy of this important public programming.

That's my statement.

Mr. Goodnight, my question is building off of that.

You mentioned that the executive indicated staff are exploring new revenue or partnership models.

Do we know how far along this process is?

What the alternatives are?

I ask this because We know when TVC became the Seattle Channel, they started creating original programming in 2002. That was a result of the recommendations from the Seattle Commission on Electronic Communication, which was made up of local journalistic experts like David Brewster, it's David Brewster Day next week, and many others.

If we're in another transformative moment for the Seattle Channel again, it seems like we would benefit from this expertise and advice.

SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So it's possible that Director Eater has a status on where they are.

My understanding was that they're not very far along.

That's my impression.

Alternative models, they did provide a little information on what that could potentially mean.

So it could be forming a consortia with other governments, libraries, the school district, that sort of thing.

The model of TVW is one of them.

They have a special funding situation, which the city isn't allowed to fundraise for itself, but an alternative body like the Seattle Parks Foundation could be set up.

And then the other one would be to pursue a partnership with some other type of nonprofit.

So those are some of the ideas that they threw out initially.

But I'll turn to Director Eder in case he has an update on status.

SPEAKER_07

I do not have a lot more information than Mr. Goodnight just put on the table.

I know that there have been ideas and some nascent discussions about the possibility of folding the Seattle Channel in with other public access channels, public access, probably the wrong word, publicly funded television channels, but I do not know the status of those conversations nor whether they are expected to bear fruit.

I think it's too early to say at this point.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

What I can say is that I know with TVW, for instance, and Olympia, it is a public-private partnership where they are able to, it's like a KEXP of transparency in government, where they can run a clip with their sponsor, but there's not movement, much like the signs at Climate Pledge Arena.

They can have static, but they can't move, right?

And so there are ways that, we can have other funding sources support this amazing programming.

Like with all of my priorities, the ease of funding, and this is a top priority of mine, the ease of funding any of our priorities will depend on THE REVENUE FORECAST NEXT TUESDAY, BUT I'D JUST FLAG FOR YOU COLLEAGUES, THIS IS THE BACKGROUND OF WHERE WE'VE COME FROM, WHERE WE ARE, AND THE FUTURE THAT I SEE US ABLE TO ATTAIN.

WITH THAT, COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH AS CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN I'LL GO TO COUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE, COUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, COUNCIL MEMBER WU, COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE.

SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just voicing my support for our Seattle channel, it creates transparent access for our community.

And a lot of people don't know the difference between transparent access and access.

Access is you can go online and find different articles from people that it's their perspective, it's their angle.

Sometimes it has a paywall, sometimes it's a blog, whatever.

But transparent access with our Seattle channel is based on facts.

facts, information.

It's also no angle.

It's just a balanced approach that I think is incredibly important considering all the things that are going on in our news cycle and information.

And so many people have obviously emailed a lot of us about the importance of our seattle channel so just fully supportive of our our seattle channel in that aspect and then the other two things i wanted to bring up and i know council um chair strauss brought this up the long-term success of finding what is what is how are we going to figure out the long-term success of it to be sustainable because i don't think our um there is so much potential with our seattle channel that we just haven't tapped into and i know especially for a They go to the Seattle Channel to get some information or I'm always constantly telling people hey go watch this interview or go get some more information or this is where you can get just the facts and so just wanted to throw that out there and Last but not least and I know that other cities have failed on this approach because we've seen cable cutting Go down since 2019 and California Nevada, some other states, they've tried to tap into the streaming services revenue to try to say like, hey, we're entitled to that because you're using public right of ways to be able to provide the service to folks.

But would love to figure out different ways we can explore models, whatever social enterprise that we can think about for the Seattle Channel to be able to be sustainable.

for the future because I just see it growing from here.

It's one of the only channels that we offer in the country that offers this type of content and information.

And I just want to see it keep going and growing.

I think it's an incredible asset to our city.

So anyways, don't really have any questions.

Looking forward to, you know, diving into these options.

The no change one, option D for me is a no, but like the other ones.

So anyways, thank you, Mr. Chair.

SPEAKER_15

Amen, Chair.

Council Member Kittle, Council Member Rivera, Council Member Wu, Council Member Moore, Council Member Saka.

SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Chair Strauss.

I'm used to hearing...

Seattle Channel is being introduced as the award-winning Seattle Channel, partially because of you.

And thank you also for the KXP shout-out as an amplifier of KXP.

I appreciate that.

I also support KOW, KNKX, KCTS.

There's too many K groups out there.

Two things I wanted to say.

One is just looking at the landing page for the Seattle Channel, we live in a time where our democracy is at risk.

And I say this as someone who's served in the intelligence world, the information warfare world, and I recognize disinformation and misinformation that that's been going on around our country, around the world, but our country.

And I don't say that lightly.

Our democracy is at risk.

And I think just looking at the landing page, you see the importance of the Seattle Channel in the sense of, you know, it's the Seattle Channel, but we're impacted by who the lands commissioner is, who the governor is.

And so you see lands commissioner candidates debate ahead of November election.

The Seattle and King County video voters guide.

You can learn a lot more.

The pamphlet is huge, but the video voter guide adds that extra dimension of like, okay, this is what you're saying, but how are you saying it?

All those little pieces.

And then you go down and the two major party state chairs are here.

And the transportation levy, massive.

And there's different pieces out there on this.

It's not getting a lot of play.

But this transportation levy piece here on the Seattle Channel is huge with respect to the levy and how important the levy is for all our very diverse needs, transportation needs that we have in our city.

And, of course, most importantly, the one at the bottom that features an inside-out that features Councilmember Hollingsworth and I, along with Mr. Callahan, the moderator.

But the bottom line is we need to have good information.

We need to have neutral information to combat what's happening in our country as it relates to, again, disinformation and misinformation.

And that needs to be part of the conversation and part of the calculus.

Now, I would like to add, from a good governance point of view, and we joke about adding a dollar every time good governance is mentioned, but part of me thinks the executive should be button 5, 10, 20 in, because...

It seems to me you should be exploring alternative models before you come with a major change to the budget.

So my recommendation to the executive is do the exploration of alternative models and then based on that, then come to us with a major change as it relates to budget.

From a good governance perspective, there's a phrase for this I won't use, but it's backwards.

So my recommendation is that we do a proper, thorough exploration of alternative models before we make major decisions as it relates to Seattle Channel.

Chair, back to you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Council Member Kettle.

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chair.

This question is actually from our colleague, Council President Nelson.

So let me, sorry.

I had it here and I lost it.

Okay, so pretend I'm Council President Nelson.

These are her words.

I'm logged in.

Oh, you're logged in.

Didn't see you.

Perfect.

SPEAKER_15

Well, then I'd say, didn't see you there, Council President.

Council Member Rivera, do you have questions for yourself?

Otherwise, we'll just put her in the queue.

SPEAKER_01

I do not, so let's go to our colleague.

SPEAKER_15

We'll move right along.

Council Member Wu.

SPEAKER_01

I just want to echo everyone's sentiment that the Seattle Channel is an asset.

And I think we can make it work.

I think there are successful models we can learn from, alternative models in terms of funding.

But we definitely need to tell our stories.

And Seattle Channel is a trusted leader in news.

I remember before even thinking about running for council, I was sending press releases to all legacy media and the Seattle Channel.

And like Councilmember Hollingsworth would say, we were also sending clips to community members to have them learn more about the government, government processes, about the issues.

And also, I used to work for Kirkland TV on their show called Currently Kirkland.

And seeing who was viewing our weekly shows, it was people from all over the world.

And one of the goals I know for Seattle Chown as well is to tell people what our city is about, what our city is like.

And so I think especially for heading into FIFA Soccer and seeing people from all over the world come into Seattle, this is our opportunity to tell our stories, to talk about our communities, and to tell them who we are.

and we have to keep this really important asset.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Council Member Wu.

Council Member Moore.

SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to plus one the comments of Council Member Hollingsworth and Council Member Kettle.

I mean, it doesn't have a lot of wide viewership, but we need to work on increasing the viewership.

And just because it doesn't have broad viewership doesn't mean it's not an important piece.

And I think it fits within the broader discussions we're having about local journalism, both print and media, and the importance of the local community supporting local journalism.

One question I had in terms of exploring alternative funding models.

Is this something that the admissions tax could be utilized?

SPEAKER_06

That's a good question.

I don't have an answer for that today.

I don't know the rules, the admissions tax.

I don't know if Director Noble has any comments on it.

SPEAKER_15

I can jump in because I know that I talked to Director Noble about this.

I think it would work for the art zone with Nancy Guppy, not as clear for the inside out with Brian Callinan.

Right.

SPEAKER_12

So we might be able to piece together different funding...

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, two thoughts.

One is the restrictions on the use of admissions tax for arts are entirely self-imposed, so you can change those as well, just since you literally make the laws.

I just would note that all the conversation we had just previously, though, about the fact that the ad tax itself is not growing that rapidly and that we're potentially directing it towards other purposes THIS WOULD THEN JUST DECREASE THE FUNDING AVAILABLE.

IT WOULD EXACERBATE THAT PROBLEM, RIGHT?

BUT YES, I CAN SEE EXACTLY IN THE WAY THAT BRIAN DESCRIBED THAT WITHIN THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS, CERTAINLY SOME OF THE, WELL, NOT CERTAINLY, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT SOME OF THE PROGRAMMING COULD BE ELIGIBLE, YES.

SPEAKER_12

JUST THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE COULD DO MORE IMMEDIATELY WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT A BROADER LONG-TERM FUNDING STRATEGY.

THANK YOU.

SPEAKER_15

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE.

COUNCIL MEMBER SACA.

SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I guess I would just echo the sentiment expressed by my esteemed colleagues here with respect to recognizing the intrinsic importance and value that the Emmy Award-winning Seattle Channel brings to our city and our region.

And it is an incredible asset.

And I certainly do not envy the mayor's position in crafting a budget and making difficult decisions.

I do think this is one that we've heard loud and clear already, that we need to take action and You know, explore options to restore the Emmy-winning programming because, look, my sense is what makes the Emmy Award-winning Seattle Channel Emmy Award-winning is not watching...

Dull, dry politicians like us, colleagues, current, past, and present in our various council meetings and any press briefing that we hold or host, it's the original thought and insight and creative insight and wisdom and journalistic excellence that goes into packaging the ideas, the various policy ideas that we're discussing, explaining it to members of the public in a way that makes sense, challenging us, holding us accountable.

Yes, we need a platform to continue to champion our things here, but the essence of what I think makes the Seattle channel so so great is is uh...

some of this what some would call ancillary programming and we need to preserve that and that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that any like any city department or agency or program we shouldn't expect and and work with them to to achieve better metrics and higher like we shouldn't be stop it trying to seek higher ratings and view like that's that's still important too it's not nothing um but just because as councilmember moore said it's arguably somewhat lacking doesn't provide a sufficient enough basis at least in my mind to uh to to do what's being proposed right now.

And so, yes, let us look—restore, you know, look at the restoration options, and then Also, work with them to improve metrics and performance and let them do what they do best.

And like I said, this is not an either-or situation.

Yes, and let us also explore alternative models and how we can make the longer-term funding for this more sustainable.

But they do provide excellent programming and content, and I don't want to minimize the work.

The hard work, it's very technical, that's involved in just like, we have a lot of work to do.

Covering these events are council meetings for example or a mayor's presser or whatever it is there' s a lot of work that goes into that too but we also need to preserve the essence of some of that creative journalistic excellence that help shines the bright light of transparency and helps hold elected officials like myself and others across the city in our region accountable.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you, Council Member Saka.

Council Member, Council President Nelson, are you still with us?

If not, maybe Council Member Rivera can ask the question.

Yes, I am.

Floor is yours.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you very much, Chair.

And I'm sorry my video is off because my action is not very stable, but it should come as no surprise.

from the person whose tagline has been .

This is a top priority for me, to restore full funding to the Seattle Channel, including the capital expenditures for both 2025 and 2026. And I said basically as much in a press release that I let out on October 2nd, in an era of constricting media landscape, our Seattle Channel programming on arts, civic life, and government transparency is more important than ever.

now i really appreciate the um the central staff memo because i dug into the uh the resolution let's see three oh uh section four of resolution three zero three seven nine adopted in 2001 sets policies for the expenditure of the cable franchise fees and the first priority after the cost that the city is obligated to fund under the terms of the cable franchise agreements is support for the city's government access TV channels, including both operations and capital equipment." And when explaining the proposed cuts in the 2025-2026 budget, the mayor and the budget director both said that public-facing services would not be cut. And we've learned ever since the cuts to Seattle Channel have been public that The public cares very deeply about all the programming on these channels and got the emails to prove it. So I continue to question the rationale for cutting all of the Seattle Channel programming, except for council meetings and press conferences and mayor press conference. A very limited set of government programming will be cut. So I notice from the central staff memo on page two that the other franchise fee expenditures that are listed in that table, with the exception of the cost to fill the Public Records Act, increase in 2025 and 2026. um i'll be i would like some background information into that um my understanding is that over the years the fee has been siphoned off and used for other expenditures and now seattle channel receives only about 43 percent of the cable fund distribution but that revenue makes up just a small part of the overall seattle i.t budget and so Could those programs be funded from elsewhere in the IT budget or other general fund or sub fund sources to fulfill my priority of restoring the full 1.65 million cut in addition to the capital funding? That is a question, and I can take it offline if you would like.

SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Council President.

I think, yeah, unless Director Eder would like to weigh in, that's something we could certainly explore.

I mean, this is one of the, you know, many things in the budget that was cut, and so we should certainly explore whether the IT fund has capacity or the general fund as part of the council's work going forward.

So I'd be happy to continue to explore it.

SPEAKER_08

Yeah, I mean, the digital equity, that is a really important program, and it seems as though that is a...

There is...

That is a priority throughout our budget.

And so that is one increase, but all of the other, like I said, all of the other line items are also funded.

I am concerned about cutting any of the existing things that are funded in this budget.

I am interested in finding other sources and or at least finding out why this large cut, disproportionately large cut was made to the Seattle Channel.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

I'm seeing head nods from Brian Goodnight that he'll follow up with you, Council President, to answer those very specific questions.

I think we covered some of it in the presentation earlier.

And will you be joining us for the remainder of committee today?

We'll see how it goes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just make sure to log with the clerk when you log off, please.

Yeah.

Colleagues, other questions at this time?

Council President, are you unmuted or are you still trying?

SPEAKER_08

I think she has a follow-up.

I am unmuted.

I'm just asking if I can ask a follow-up.

SPEAKER_15

Oh, please, yes.

You have the floor until you're done.

SPEAKER_08

Thank you.

Okay.

would be with the fire status risk for understand that it or that also include temporary folks on the web team or is increasing of all the folks are currently employees that are currently working at the Seattle Journal.

That is one thing I would like to know, but I don't know if that would include the one point restoration within any temporary or part-time employees.

I can take that answer offline.

And then also, I just wanted to make sure that the capital funding...

Council President, we're only catching...

Should I just finish my sentence?

SPEAKER_15

We're only hearing every other word that you're saying.

SPEAKER_08

Okay, that makes sense.

SPEAKER_15

We do support virtual participation in meetings when needed, but we can't hear you.

Clerk, it looks as if Council President has left.

If she re-logs in, just note it for the minutes.

And it sounds like Brian and Director Noble, if you could follow up with the Council President afterwards.

SPEAKER_02

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Rivera.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you.

I just want to actually lend my voice of support for the continuation of the Seattle Channel in full.

I will say that I appreciate Council Member Saka's point.

It's and, not or.

We need transparency and so coverage of what we do, including I will say last week I had an evening public safety meeting and the Seattle Channel was there to cover it.

There were many, even though it was in the evening, folks have families and they can't always attend and some people work.

And it was great that they were there to cover that and then post it so people could listen to the forum.

And so that is a great way to provide transparency and information to people, more information as council member, more information.

was saying for people is important, not less.

And also, I've heard from constituents who very much appreciate the additional programming, such as the beloved Art Zone with Nancy Guppy, and also Book Lust, both of which are arts programming, and is really important, especially for, you know, a lot of folks who aren't streaming and who are really relying on Seattle Channel and other public programming to get their information and also their, like I said, their programming that is not news-based, if you will.

So for those reasons, I too will be supportive and I just wanted to lend my voice to my colleagues.

Thank you.

Fantastic.

SPEAKER_15

Council Member Hollingsworth, anything else to close us out?

I've just got a brief wrap up if you want it.

SPEAKER_00

No, passing off to you, Chair Strauss.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

Fantastic.

I wanted to tag on to a couple of things other folks said.

Council Member Kettle, I share your feelings about what you expressed with this budget.

And I actually appreciate the mayor calling the question because this is a business decision when it comes down to it, when you're looking at the revenue streams.

And by calling the question, it sets us up to actuate our values on a more sustainable pathway.

which is why I'm happy about this.

And Council Member Moore, I agree with you about viewership, and I think about it kind of like transit ridership.

That's how Council Member Saka got the committee on time was the transit, because it was frequent, reliable, and you know how to use it.

And the same thing is true when we have transit lines that you know they come every 15 minutes, they're always gonna be on time, you know you're gonna get there at a certain time, you use it.

And that's what I say about the studio space being utilized even more is when we create more .

And Council Member Kettle, I can't own the award-winning moniker.

That was actually Council President Deborah Juarez, DJ D5 started the tradition of raising up their award-winning history.

And I think we've all been in there and it's not just a one or two or a couple, it's the whole dang hallway.

So, but I will say, I'm not sure that anyone is watching Seattle Channel on cable.

If you are watching Seattle Channel on cable, please email my office, I would like to know.

And we need to shepherd our award-winning Seattle Channel into our next medium.

If video killed the radio star, the internet killed cable, and Seattle's public programming and transparent civic access should never die.

And so I'll say what I said at the beginning, and I'm changing it based on this conversation ever so slightly.

What is still true is that the Seattle Channel programming and infrastructure is an incredibly important resource to our city.

Funding the Seattle Channel alone doesn't answer the question before us, and this is where I change it.

If we are successful, by the time we leave council, the Seattle Channel will have increased programming and utilization of their studios.

I hope you agree with me there, because we must uphold this legacy of this public programming.

Council President, that was last word.

We were having a hard time hearing you before.

I was going to turn it back over to the committee table if that's all right.

SPEAKER_08

Yeah, I was just going to ask if Council Member Rivera would read what I said if it wasn't legible, but I will be sure to distribute my comments at a different point.

Thank you.

SPEAKER_15

I think she did.

I don't know.

SPEAKER_10

I'm happy to.

Sure, yeah, Council Member Rivera.

Thank you very much.

Yes, okay, so from Council President Nelson, Section 4 of Resolution 30379, adopted in 2001, sets policies for the expenditure of capital franchise fees in the first priority.

after costs that the city is obligated to fund under the terms of its cable franchise agreement is, quote, support for the city's government access TV channels, including both operations and capital equipment.

When explaining the proposed cuts in the 2025-2026 budget, the mayor and CBO director both said that public-facing services would not be cut, and we've learned since the cut to Seattle Channel became public, how important the arts, civic life, and government transparency programming is to our constituents.

So what is the rationale for cutting all Seattle Channel programming except council meetings and mayor council press conferences when all of the other franchise fee expenditures listed in the table on page two of the central staff memo, with the exception of the cost to fulfill the Public Records Act, increase in 2025 and 2026 that's the question over the years the fee has been siphoned off and used for other expenditures and now the seattle channel receives only 43 percent of the cable fund distribution but that revenue makes up a very small part of the overall seattle it budget Could those programs be funded from elsewhere in the IT budget or the general fund to fulfill my priority of restoring the full 1.65 million cut to the Seattle channel and add back the 370,000 and 384,000 in capital funding in 2025 and 2026 respectively?

And that is the end of the questions and her comments, but I think she wanted to make sure we could clearly hear them since the connection was not as great.

SPEAKER_15

Clearly on the record, Director Eder, Director Noble, or Mr. Goodnight, if you're able to respond or if you'd like to take that onto SharePoint or on a one-on-one briefing, there is quite a bit in there.

SPEAKER_07

I think from the executive's perspective, we'd be happy to follow up with the council president and with the rest of the council through the SharePoint exchange.

I'll just say I appreciate the chair's comments.

I think this does call the question.

I've heard the answer from the council.

to the extent that there is additional revenue and you all are able to backfill this spending, then you all will make that choice and we will support.

SPEAKER_15

Thank you.

And I will just again end with calling the question has led us to where we are today.

That is the one Seattle approach because there's only one Seattle in this world and we are one Seattle.

I know it's corny and it's true.

Any other comments from the table on Seattle Channel today?

With that colleagues, We're getting into recess a little early, which I know no one is gonna be upset about.

And so we will still rejoin this meeting at 2 p.m.

because that's when Seattle Department of Human Resources and Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, they have on their calendar to return.

And so with that, unless there is any other business, If there's no objection, the Select Budget Committee will be in recess until 2 p.m.

Actually, hold on.

I'm going to ask Ben Noble, should we move it up at all since it's two hour, two and a half hours?

SPEAKER_02

I think we're okay.

And again, people probably have schedules set.

It's always a challenge for us to know exactly how long these briefings will take.

And there's still some flex time in other days as well.

So I think we're fine if we start it.

SPEAKER_15

Great.

If there's no objection, the Select Budget Committee will be in recess until 2 p.m.

Thank you, everyone.

SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Chair.