>>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE,
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US ON
JULY 10, 2019, THIS IS OUR
FINANCE AND NEIGHBORHOODS
COMMITTEE, I AM SALLY BAGSHAW,
AND LORENA GONZALEZ, MIKE
O'BRIEN AND BRUCE HARRELL.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT
ITEMS, I WANT TO GO OVER THE
AGENDA QUICKLY.
AN ORDINANCE TO FUND HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS, PART OF WHAT WE CALL
THE 2019 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, A
PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, YOU HAVE A
HEARING, OPEN IT UP, PEOPLE CAN
SPEAK TO IT, THEN WE WILL CLOSE
IT, AND I WILL ASKED MY
úCOLLEAGUES TO ALLOW US TO BE
ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY,
PROBABLY THE REASON MOST OF YOU
ARE HERE IS THAT WE ARE ALL
THAT'S WE ARE GOING TO BE
CONSIDERING TWO ORDINANCES, THE
EQUABLE FUNDING INITIATIVE, EDI
FOR SHORT, DEALING WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CREATING
A FUND FOR SHORT-TERM
INVESTMENTS FOR OUR RENTAL TAX
REVENUE, AND OUR THIRD ITEM OF
BUSINESS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT
IS GOING TO LOOK AT THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX
REVENUES, AND HOW WE ARE GOING
TO SPEND THAT MONEY.
AND I WILL SAY THANK YOU TO
COUNCILMEMBER MIKE O'BRIEN,
WHO HAS BEEN THE SPONSOR, THE
ADVOCATE, IN MY COMMITTEE AND NO
SMALL PART BECAUSE HE WAS
INTERESTED IN MOVING ON THE
SUMMER.
WE WILL GET ITEMS FOR POSSIBLE
THAT LATER.
>>> WITH THAT, WE CAN TAKE
PUBLIC COMMENT, WE HAVE ABOUT A
DOZEN PEOPLE ON THE LIST, IF
YOU SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, I WILL
CALL THREE NAMES, MOST OF YOU
KNOW THE DRILL ALREADY, THE TWO
MICROPHONES IN THE MIDDLE, PICK
WHICHEVER ONE IS MORE
COMFORTABLE FOR YOUR HEIGHT,
THEY ALL ADJUST, AND MOVE, PULL
THEM TOWARDS YOU, CLOSELY, AND
YOU EACH WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES,
YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THE
CLOCK, SO IF I CAN CALL TANIKA
THOMPSON, LINDSAY RITA, AND LYNN
HOVEND. AND JIM KRIEGER WILL BE
THE FOURTH
>>.
WELCOME BACK, THANK YOU FOR
WORKING WITH GOT GREEN.
LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A
CHEERLEADER SECTION BEHIND YOU?
>> MY NAME IS TANIKA THOMPSON,
I AM THE FOOD AXIS ORGANIZER AT
GOT GREEN, I AM HERE IN SUPPORT
OF THE LEGISLATION OF A
SEPARATE FUND FOR THE SUGAR AND
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX FUN, THE
VOUCHER EXPANSION PROGRAM HAS
HELPED 2000 LOW INCOME PEOPLE
OF COLOR, AND WORKING FAMILIES,
HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTHY,
AFFORDABLE FOODS.
HOWEVER, WE COULD, AND SHOULD
DO MORE.
WITHIN 30 MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC
SITE OPENING, 700 AND ROMAN
SLOTS WERE FULL, THERE IS
CURRENTLY A WAITLIST OF 3500
PEOPLE, WHICH HAD TO BE SHUT
DOWN AFTER ONE WEEK, DUE TO THE
HIGH VOLUME OF PEOPLE SIGNING
UP.
ASKING THE 122,000 IN ADDITION
TO THE 3500 FAMILIES IN THE
FOOD SECURITY GAP TO WAIT UNTIL
2021 FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD,
SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION.
GOT GREEN STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS
KNOCKED ON HUNDREDS OF DOORS IN
SOUTH SEATTLE, HAVING
CONVERSATION WITH OUR NEIGHBORS
CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY THEY SHOULD
NOT SEE IT AS JUST ONE MORE
REGRESSIVE TAX.
WHEN PEOPLE EXPRESSED THEIR
CONCERN ABOUT REVENUE FROM THE
TAX GOING TO THE GENERAL FUND,
WE PUT THEM AT EASE, BY TELLING
THEM ALL ABOUT THE PROGRAMS
THEIR MONEY WOULD GO TO FOR
THEIR BENEFIT.
WE TOLD THEM THOSE THINGS
BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE
TOLD BY YOU.
THE COMMUNITY IS HOLDING GOT
GREEN ACCOUNTABLE, AND WE ARE
HOLDING YOU ACCOUNTABLE.
YOU MAKE COMMITMENTS, AND WE
EXPECT YOU TO HONOR THEM,
VOTING AGAINST THE SOLUTION
HAPPENING IN 2020 WILL CREATE A
RELATIONSHIP WITH ON DISHONESTY
BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND CITY
COUNCIL.
YOU MADE A COMMITMENT TO
REINVEST THE REVENUE FROM THE
SPT BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY IT
CAME FROM, AS OUTLINED IN THE
ORDINANCE.
VOTING IS TO A SEPARATE FUND IN
2020 WILL ENSURE THAT THIS
REVENUE WILL BE PROTECTED FROM
GOING TO THE GENERAL FUND AND
BEING SPENT ON WHO KNOWS WHAT.
GIVE ME ONE MOMENT.
>> CAN I ASK YOU TO WRAP UP?
>> NO PROBLEM, WAITING TO PUT
THIS LEGISLATION IN PLACE UNTIL
2021 WILL PUT THOSE WHO HAVE
ALREADY WORKED SO HARD IN THE
POSITION TO START OVER AGAIN,
IS THIS THE LEGACY YOU CHOOSE?
PLEASE, LET'S FINISH WHAT WE
STARTED.
>> LINDSAY RITA -- LYNN SERETA?
>> MY NAME IS LYNN SERETA, I
HAVE A SHOP AT THE FARMERS
MARKET SINCE IT STARTED, I
THINK IN 2010, ADDITIONALLY, I
QUALIFIED FOR THE VOUCHER
PROGRAM, I WANT TO TELL YOU
THAT IN MY APARTMENT BUILDING,
THERE ARE THREE FAMILIES I THINK
THAT ARE NOW USING THOSE
VOUCHERS, THEY HAVE WORKING
PARENTS, DID NOT QUALIFY FOR
FOOD STAMPS, BUT THEY HAVE
BILLS TO PAY AND EVERYTHING,
AND THE VOUCHERS MEANT SO MUCH
TO THEM.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE
THE FRESH VEGETABLES AND FRUIT,
AND I WANT TO SAY GENERALLY I
DO NOT LIKE REGRESSIVE TAXES
LIKE SALES TAX, BUT I LIKE IN
THE SPT TAX TO THE TAXES THAT
WERE USED ON CIGARETTES.
-- LIKEN THE SPT TAX.
THIS TAX HAS IT RIGHT, THE
MONEY IS GOING DIRECTLY TO THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE OFTEN AFFECTED
THE MOST BY LACK OF ACCESS TO
HEALTHY FOOD, AND I WOULD BE
EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IF YOU
PUT THE MONEY IN A GENERAL FUND
AND END THIS PROGRAM, BECAUSE
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY WORKING, OVER 65, I
HAVE NORMAL BLOOD SUGAR, ALL OF
THAT, AND HAVING THE VEGETABLES
AND FRUITS HAS HELPED TO
IMPROVE MY HEALTH.
THAT IS WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.
>> I AM GLAD YOU ARE FEELING
WELL.>> ALL I GOT IS ARTHRITIS.
BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I'M
GOOD.>> GOOD FOR YOU.
LINDSAY, THEN JIM KRIEGER AND
IT LOOKS LIKE VICTOR COLEMAN.>>
THANK YOU, THESE FELLOW
ADVOCATES DID SUCH A BEAUTIFUL
JOB, I AM LINDSAY HOVEN, THIS
WOULD RESTORE 100% OF SPT
REVENUES TO THE COMMITMENT THEY
MADE IN 2017 TO GROW AND EXPAND
FOOD AXIS AND EARLY LEARNING
PROGRAMS, LET'S REMEMBER THE
TAX IS OFF TO A START,
MEANINGFUL INVESTMENTS IN FOOD
AXIS AND EARLY LEARNING,
ALTHOUGH ACTUAL REVENUE HAPPENS
TO BE HIGHER ON REJECTIONS,
PLEASE DON'T DIVERT FUNDING
FROM THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL
ORDINANCE AND THAT COMMITMENT
THAT YOU MADE TO THE COMMUNITY.
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE
PROPOSED ORDINANCE, WITH
IMPLEMENTATION BEGINNING WITH
THE 2020 BUDGET, RESPECTFULLY
ASKING THAT YOU NOT ADOPTED TO
PUSH IT TO 2021, ENSURE NO MORE
REVENUE IS DIVERTED, AND USED
TO FULFILL THE PROMISE TO
COMMUNITY TO EXPAND FOOD AXIS
AND LEARNING PROGRAMS IN THE
COMMUNITIES THAT NEED IT THE
MOST.
THANK YOU.
>> JIM, AND VICTOR.
>> I AM JIM KRIEGER, COCHAIR OF
THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
FOR THE SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX,
AND THE NONPROFIT FOCUSED ON
EQUITABLE AND HEALTHY FOOD
POLICY.
THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
TO SET UP A SPECIAL SPT FUND,
AND PROHIBIT THE USE FOR
GENERAL FUND SUPPORT FOR HEALTHY
EATING AND EARLY CHILDHOOD
PROGRAMS.
MOST SPECIFICALLY, WORTH
SETTING UP THE FUND TO MONITOR
HOW THE REVENUES ARE BEING
SPENT, AND ALLOCATED TO SUPPORT
A SPECIFICALLY NEW AND EXPANDED
HEALTHY FOOD AND EARLY LEARNING
PROGRAMS FOR COMMUNITIES, WITH
THE EARLY LEGISLATIVE CONTENT
-- INTENT.
WHO SUPPORTED THE TAX IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
WE WANT TO SEE THAT THEY ARE
NOT USED FOR SUB PLANTATION
EFFECTIVE IN THE 2020 BUDGET.
COMMITTED TO SEEING THAT THE
REVENUES ARE ALLOCATED TO
PROMOTE EQUITY, THEN THE
DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN OF
HEALTH PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH
SSB'S, AND DEVOTED TO THESE
USES.
WE WANT TO SEE THAT IT IS
ALLOCATED SO THEY MITIGATE ANY
REGRESSIVE TAX EFFECTS, INVESTED
SPECIFICALLY IN LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES AND NOT GOING TO
THE GENERAL FUND.
IT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANT TO
SEE THAT THEY ARE USED AS
INTENDED, ONLY THEN WILL IT BE
A PROGRESSIVE RATHER THAN
REGRESSIVE POLICY, ONLY THEN
WILL IT RESPECT THE VALUES OF
THE COMMUNITY, AND HONORING THE
PROMISES AND COMMITMENTS MADE
BY CITY GOVERNMENT, AND
MAINTAINING FAITH IN OUR
DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES, HONORING
COMMITMENTS NOW, NOT WAITING
UNTIL 2021.
WE ARE OPPOSED TO ANY DELAYS IN
THE PROHIBITION OF SUB
PLANTATION, -- SUPPLANTATOIN. WE
SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL, BUT NOT
THE AMENDMENT.
>> MY NAME IS VICTOR COLEMAN,
THE CHILD OBESITY COALITION,
AND SEATTLE HEALTHY KIDS
COALITION, TESTIFYING IN
SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE REGARDING PROTECTING
ALL OF THE NEW REVENUE FROM THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX.
THIS IS NEEDED TO DEEPEN THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PURPOSE
TO THAT OF THE ORIGINAL SPT
ORDINANCE, TO ENSURE TO THE
COMMUNITY THAT THE REVENUES ARE
GOING TO CREATE, EXPAND, KEY
PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES.
WHILE THE CITY HAS, FOR THE
MOST PART, LIVED UP TO THE
INITIAL PROMISES ON THIS
INITIAL REVENUE, THE USE OF
SOME OF THEM IN LAST YEAR'S
BUDGET TO SHORE UP IMPORTANT
PROGRAMS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY
SUPPORTED BY THE GENERAL FUND
IS PROBLEMATIC.
THAT IS WHY THIS ORDINANCE IS
NEEDED.
TRUST IN GOVERNMENT.
IT IS A CRITICAL PART OF A
VIBRANT SOCIETY, AND THE HARM
DONE WHEN IT IS BROKEN OR
SEVERED HURTS CITIZENS AS WELL
AS THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION,
THIS ORDINANCE CAN HELP REBUILD
THAT TRUST, SO WE WOULD
STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO
SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE, AND IT
IS IMPORTANT THAT IT BE PASSED
IN BE APPLICABLE TO THE
FORMATION OF THE 2020 BUDGET,
THANK YOU.>> ABDI?
>> I ORGANIZE A COALITION OF
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS,
OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE
HAVE SEEN THE MASS DISPLACEMENT
THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN OUR
CITY, HOW IT IS AFFECTING OUR
COMMUNITIES AND FAMILIES, AND
THE INSTITUTIONS, AND GETTING
PUSHED OUT, AND PRICED OUT OF
OUR CITY.
THE EDI IS THE ONLY FUND THAT
ADDRESSES A COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-
DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY.
WITH A RACIAL JUSTICE
FRAMEWORK, OUR NEED TO GROW AND
PROTECT THIS IMPORTANT FUND.
THE FUND HAS RECEIVED OVER $30
MILLION OF ELIGIBLE ASCOM
DEPLOYMENTS THAT ENABLES THE --
A DEPLOYMENTS.
AND WE WILL SEE 20% LESS MONEY
THAT WAS ALLOCATED, WE SUPPORT
THE AMENDMENT THAT IS BEFORE
YOU TODAY, AND WE SUPPORT
CREATING A DEDICATED FUND FOR
THIS WITHIN THE BEVERAGE TAX AS
WELL TO PROTECT THE REVENUE FOR
THE SLATE OF PURPOSE OF THAT
FUND.
THANK YOU.
>> SIMONE, AND MARTY, AND MARON
.
>> I'M SIMONE, JUSTICE AND
CLOSING THE GAP, I AM HERE TO
URGE THE COUNCILMEMBER AND THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE YES ON THE
PROPOSAL TO CREATE A SEPARATE
FUND FOR THE SUGARY TAX
REVENUE, AND I URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO NOT WAIT UNTIL
2021, BECAUSE WE CAN'T LET
SEVERAL YEARS GO BY BEFORE WE
CAN GET PEOPLE TO ACCESS
HEALTHY FOOD, BEFORE THEY CLOSE
THE SECURITY GAP, IT IS A
OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE
ACCOUNTABILITY, ORGANIZATIONS
HAVE BEEN ON THE GROUND TELLING
PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST IMPACTED BY
THIS TAX, COMMUNITIES OF COLOR
AND LOW INCOME, THAT THE
REVENUE IS GOING TO EXPAND AND
INCREASE CITY FUND A -- FUNDING
TO REACH MORE PEOPLE IN NEED.
THAT COMMUNITY LED AXIS
PROGRAMS WILL GET SUPPORT, AND
THAT THE TAX WILL BE EQUITABLE,
PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IMPACTED
BY AN UNJUST FOOD SYSTEM WILL
BENEFIT FROM A REVENUE ON TAX
ON SUGARY BENEFITS --
BEVERAGES.
THE PROPOSALS ARE WORKING,
LET'S NOT LET ANOTHER BUDGET
PROCESS OR MONTHS OR YEARS PASS
WITHOUT COUNCIL BEING
ACCOUNTABLE ON THEIR COMMITMENT
TO INCREASE THE FUNDING,
INSTEAD OF MOVING THEM TO OTHER
PROGRAMS.
IT IS THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL'S
JOB TO FUND IMPORTANT WORK AND
IT SHOULDN'T BE AT THE COST OF
ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE
COMMUNITY.
WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EAT
HEALTHY FOOD, PLEASE HELP CLOSE
THE SECURITY GAP, AND PASS THIS
BILL.
>> MARON?
>> MARTY, I'M SORRY, I JUMPED
YOU, YOU ARE A. THANK YOU.
PLEASE GOTTEN NICE TO SEE YOU
AGAIN.
>> HELLO MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE
AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE, I
APPRECIATED THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MEET WITH YESTERDAY WITH A FEW
OTHER REPRESENTATIVES TO TALK
ABOUT HOW THE EDI FUND HAS BEEN
A CRITICAL RESOURCE TO EQUITY
DESPICABLE COMMUNITY DRIVEN
PROGRAMS, --
>> EQUITY AND COMMUNITY DRIVEN
PROGRAMS.
I AM HERE TO AFFIRM MY SUPPORT
OF THE AMENDMENT, TO USE THE
FIRST $5 MILLION FROM SHORT-
TERM RENTAL REVENUE TO FUND EDI
PROJECTS DIRECTLY, AS WAS THE
ORIGINAL INTENT AND USE OF THE
FUND.
THE FUND IS THE ONLY ONE OF ITS
KIND THAT HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS FOR COMMUNITY LED
CAPITAL PROJECTS SUCH AS THE
OLD FELLOW SQUARE, AND AFRICA
TOWN MIDTOWN CENTER.
THE FUND CANNOT MEET THE
DEMANDS OF THE COMMUNITY, AS IT
HAS HAD OVER $30 MILLION IN
ASSETS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.
ANY CUTBACK IN'S DEDICATION
WOULD HELP THE FUNDS AS PACK --
FUNDS' IMPACT, AND WE SUPPORT
THE CREATION OF A DEDICATED
FUND FOR THE SWEETENED BEVERAGE
TAX AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING.
AND ALSO I WANT TO SAY THANK
YOU FOR COMING TO MY OFFICE
YESTERDAY, IT WAS GOOD TO SEE
YOU.
MARTY, WILL COME BACK.
>> THANK YOU, I WORK FOR THE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSORTIUM,
I'M HERE TO SHOW THE SUPPORT OF
OUR 180 MEMBERS FOR THE FUNDING
FOR THE EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE, A TESTAMENT TO OUR
COMMITMENT TO EQUITY ANTI-
DISPLACEMENT, COMMUNITY
EMPOWERMENT, AND WE NEED THE
FUND TO MATCH THE NEED.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
PROPOSALS THAT ALLOCATE THE
TAX, THE FUNDS FOR THE EDI
PROGRAM AND GRANTS, AND WE NEED
STRONGER AND MORE SUSTAINABLE
FUNDING SOURCES, THIS IS A STEP
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
NUMBERS HAVE BEEN, AND WILL
CONTINUE TO BE, PARTNERS ON
PROJECTS, RECENTLY AT OUR
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT, WE JOIN
TOGETHER TO DIVE IN TO THE
IMPORTANT WORK OF COLLABORATING
AS WE WERE TO MEET THE NEED FOR
HOUSING AND ENSURE IT IS
REFLECTIVE AND OWNED BY THE
COMMUNITY.
WE KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
WORK, BUT IT CAN'T HAPPEN
WITHOUT THE FUNDS TO ENSURE
THAT COMMUNITIES HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO OVERWHELM THE
DESTRUCTIVE FORCES OF
DISPLACEMENT, WHETHER THAT BE
ECONOMIC, PHYSICAL, OR
CERTAINLY CULTURAL.
TODAY, I AM REMINDED OF A
FAVORITE QUOTE OF THE DAYS I
USED TO WORK WITH THE NATIVE
PEOPLES INITIATIVE, IF YOU'RE
HERE BECAUSE YOU FELT -- COME
TO HELP ME, YOU'RE WASTING YOUR
TIME.
IF YOU ARE HERE BECAUSE YOUR
LIBERATION IS BOUND UP IN MIND,
THAT IS WORK TOGETHER, THE EDI
IS A FIRST STEP, AND WE NEED TO
KEEP MOVING FORWARD
AGGRESSIVELY.>> THANK YOU, ONE
MORE
>>, KATIE WILSON?
THAT'S ONE MORE SPEAKER, -- ONE
MORE SPEAKER, KATIE WILSON.
>> REPRESENTING THE TRANSIT
RIDERS UNION.
ASKING THAT ALL FUNDS THAT THE
SUGARY BEVERAGE TAX BE
PROTECTED AND USED FOR FOOD
SECURITY INITIATIVES, AS YOU
KNOW, THE TRANSIT RIDERS UNION
IS A STRONG PROPONENT OF
AGGRESSIVE TAXATION, AND WHILE
WE RECOGNIZE THERE ARE SOME
OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND
TAXING SUGARY BEVERAGES, IT IS
ALSO A REGRESSIVE TAX.
IT MAKES IT SO IMPORTANT THAT
THE REVENUE BE REINVESTED IN
THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE MOST
IMPACTED, ESPECIALLY LOW INCOME
AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, AND
IF THAT IS NOT HAPPENING --
HAPPENING, WE ARE BASICALLY
TAXING POOR PEOPLE, WE URGE YOU
TO PROTECT THOSE FUNDS AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE.
>>> COLLEAGUES, IF THERE IS NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA THAT I
MENTIONED BEFORE WILL BE
ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, IT IS
ADOPTED.
>>> NOW I BELIEVE WE ARE GOING
TO HAVE ALLISON READ IN ITEM
NUMBER 1, AND OPEN IT UP FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING.>> COUNCIL BILL
119550, AN ORDINANCE RELATING
TO FUNDING FOR HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS,
ADOPTING THE CITY OF SEATTLE
2019 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN TO THE
2018-2022 CONSULTED PLAN FOR
HUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZING ITS
SUBMISSION TO THE NICETIES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT.
>> BRIEFED ON THIS LAST
DECEMBER, 2018, SO WHAT WE HAVE
NOW IS JUST A CONFIRMATION
ABOUT WHAT THE ACTION PLAN WILL
BE AND WHERE THE INVESTMENTS
WILL GO.
I AM OFFICIALLY OPENING UP
PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANY
DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK TO
THE ACTION PLAN?
SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE
THE PUBLIC HEARING.
NOW WE WILL INVITE TO THE TABLE
THE SPEAKERS THAT ARE GOING TO
BE INTRODUCING AND DISCUSSING
THIS, IF I CAN INVITE AMY AND
DAN FROM HST.
THANK YOU BOTH, AMY DO YOU WANT
TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF FIRST?
>> I AM AMY GORE WITH COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF.
>> DAN BURTON, HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT.
>> YOU CAN MOVE THIS FORWARD
AND BACK AND CLOSER TO TWO MAKE
YOURSELF COMFORTABLE.
>> I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE TO
SAY, COUNCIL BILL 119550,
ADOPTING THE ANNUAL ACTION
PLAN, ALLOWING US TO SEND IT TO
HUD, AND MAKE CHANGES BASED ON
IT, AND THEN I CAN GIVE YOU THE
DETAIL.
-- COUNCIL BILL FROM --
COUNCIL BILL.
>> WE HAVE $750,000 MORE THAN
WHAT WE HAD AT THE END OF 2018.
MAYBE GIVE US IN -- AN
OVERVIEW, AND WE CAN PUT IT TO
A VOTE.
>> THE ACTION PLAN WAS
DEVELOPED LAST YEAR WITH THE
2019 BUDGET, WE USED PROJECTED
REVENUES, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ADOPTED A
BUDGET UNTIL FEBRUARY OF THIS
YEAR, IN APRIL WE GOT AN
ALLOCATION, ABLE TO UPDATE THE
BUDGET, PROJECTIONS WERE CLOSE,
THE 4 GRANTS THAT THIS ACTION
PLAN COVERS ARE THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, THE
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT,
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR
PERSONS WITH AIDS GRANT, AND
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS
GRANT.
THERE WRE ONLY SMALL CHANGES,
THE TOTAL WAS $750,000, AN
EXTRA $60,000, ON TOP OF THE
MONEY, AND IT WILL GO FOR THE
SQUARE PROJECT, THE EMERGENCY
GRANT WAS INCREASED BY $26,000,
GOING TOWARDS EMERGENCY SHELTER,
FUNDING EMERGENCY SHELTER AND
RENTAL ASSISTANCE MOSTLY.
IN 2014, THE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH
AIDS FORMULA ALLOCATION PROCESS
WAS MODERNIZED.
AND OUR COMMUNITY SAW A HUGE
INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
THAT WOULD COME IN BASED ON
THAT, SO THIS YEAR WE HAD AN
INCREASE OF NEARLY $600,000,
THE BULK OF THE CHANGE FROM THE
PROJECTED REVENUES.
THAT MONEY WILL BE RELEASED IN
A BIANNUAL RFP IN SPRING 2020
IN CONJUNCTION WITH PUBLIC
HEALTH.
>> WE DISCUSSED THIS A LITTLE
BIT YESTERDAY, THERE WILL BE
SOME ADDITIONAL MONEY GOING TO
A RAINIER VALLEY SITE,
EMERGENCY SHELTERS, ANYTHING
ELSE YOU WOULD SPECIFICALLY
LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT?
>> NO, THERE IS A LARGE AMOUNT
OF PRIOR YEAR FUNDS THAT WERE
IDENTIFIED IN 2017, DISTRIBUTED
AMONGST SEVERAL PROJECTS WHO
THEN TURNED IT DOWN, THAT IS
GOING TO BE RERELEASED IN AN
RFP THIS SUMMER, TO EXPLICITLY
DESCRIBE WHAT THOSE FUNDS ARE.
AND GET COMMUNITY FACILITIES
THAT CAN USE THE MONEY.
>> SO THE 2019 ANNUAL ALLOCATION
IS GOING TO BE A TOTAL OF $21
MILLION?
>> YES.
IT IS ABOUT $50 MILLION, THEN
$6 MILLION OF THE PRIOR YEAR
THAT IS AUTHORIZED BY THE
ADOPTION OF THIS.
>> VERY GOOD.
I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE GOT
DESCRIPTIONS IN THIS REPORT
ABOUT WHERE THIS MONEY IS
GOING, ON PAGE 3. COLLEAGUES,
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
THIS?
ESSENTIALLY WE ARE ACCEPTING
$21 MILLION.
>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
NOT SEEING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR CONCERNS, SO IF YOU HAVE NO
MORE QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE IT AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR
SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
NO DISTINCTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH DAN.
THANK YOU AMY FOR YOUR HELP, A
GOOD REPORT.
>>> DO YOU WANT TO READ IN
119402?
>> NUMBER 2, 119402, AN
ORDINANCE RELATED TO FUNDING
FOR THE EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, CREATING A FUND FOR
SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX REVENUE,
BRIEFING, DISCUSSION, AND
POSSIBLE VOTE.
>> COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE COUNCIL PRINT --
COUNCILMEMBERS AND PRESIDENT
KNOW THAT I WAS PROPOSING AN
AMENDMENT, I AM SUPPORTING
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIENS, I
SUPPORT WHAT YOU ARE DOING, WE
ARE CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THERE IS
NO USE MAKING US EVERYONE, I
WILL BE WITHDRAWING MY
AMENDMENT AND SUPPORTING HIS.>>
YOLANDA , COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS,
A TAX ON -- GENERATING AT LEAST
$5 MILLION ANNUALLY FOR GRANTS
TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR
THE EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE PROJECTS, ALSO KNOWN
AS EDI, THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED
BUDGET, 2019-20, ALLOCATED
REVENUES THAT DID NOT FULLY
ALIGN WITH THIS INTENT AND MADE
IT DIFFICULT TO MEND THE
SPENDING PLANS WITHOUT REDUCING
FUNDING FOR OTHER PRIORITIES.
COUNCIL BILL 119402 WAS
INTRODUCED DURING THE FALL
2018 BUDGET LIBERATION PROCESS,
IN RESPONSE TO THIS, TO ENSURE
THAT THE INTENT WAS CLEAR, AND
CREATE A FUND THAT WOULD ALLOW
FOR THE TRACKING OF THIS
REVENUE SOURCE.
THEY DECIDED NOT TO ACT ON THE
COUNCIL BILL, BECAUSE THEY
COULD NOT FIND ONGOING
RESOURCES, THEY WERE ABLE TO
FIND ONE TIME RESOURCES IN
2019, BUT NOT ONGOING, TO FULLY
ALIGN THE SPENDING PLAN WITH
THE ORIGINAL INTENT, AND ALSO
AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY
BUDGET OFFICE.
>>> IN REFERENCE TO THE MEMO IN
TABLE 1, IT SHOWS A DETAILED
BREAKDOWN OF HOW THE SHORT-TERM
RENTAL TAX PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN
ALLOCATED, AND THE ADOPTED 2019
AND ENDORSED 2020 BUDGETS.
THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH
COUNCIL INTENT IS THAT FUNDING
FOR EDI STAFF AND CONSULTANTS
SUPPORT ARE TAKEN FROM THE $5
MILLION, INTENDED FOR EDI
GRANTS, LEAVING THE GRANTS
ABOUT $4 MILLION, AND FUNDING
FOR EXISTING SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
PROJECTS AND THE RENTAL HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PIE LIGHT INSTEAD OF
NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS,
AND PAYMENT OF DEBT SERVICE ON
BONDS ISSUED FOR ALL THE
HOUSING PROJECTS. THAT IS KIND
OF THE BACKGROUND OF THE BILL.
AND AS THE CHAIR HAS NOTED, SHE
IS WITHDRAWING HER AMENDMENT,
WE WOULD JUST BE DISCUSSING
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN'S
AMENDMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL
BILL FROM LAST YEAR WOULD
ESTABLISH A SHORT-TERM RENTAL
TAX FUND REGAIN JENERA FIRST,
2020, ESTABLISH FINANCIAL
POLICIES THAT WOULD BEGIN ALSO
IN 2020.
DIRECTING THE FIRST $5 MILLION
TO THE EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE GRANTS, DIRECT THE
NEXT 2.2 MILLION DOLLARS TO
DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON BONDS,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE NEXT 3
POINT FORMING DOLLARS,
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
-- $3.4 MILLION. AND $1.1
BILLION FOR -- MILLION, FOR
EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE GRANTS.
THE IMPACTS ARE THAT UNLESS THE
REVENUES ARE HIGHER THAN THE
PROJECTED $10.5 MILLION IN
2020, THIS COULD RESULT IN A
SHORTFALL OF $1.1 BILLION --
MILLION, AND CONSULTANT
SERVICES NEXT YEAR.
IF GENERAL FUND OR OTHER
REVENUES ARE NOT GENERATED TO
BACK THE SHORTFALL, THIS -- WE
EXPECT THIS WOULD HINDER THE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S ABILITY
TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM.>>
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN ?
>> YES, THANK YOU FOR THAT
UPDATE YOLANDA, AND THANKS FOR
CREATING A FORUM FOR THE PAST
COUPLE OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS,
GIVING THE SPACE FOR THAT, I
APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
COLLEAGUES, FAIRLY
STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT THE
HIERARCHY OF WHAT WERE DOING,
MY TOP PRIORITY, IS THAT THERE
IS NO OTHER SOURCE FOR THESE
EDI GRANTS, THAT'S WHY THERE IS
$5 MILLION AT THE TOP OF THE
LIST.
THE EXPECTATION IS WE CAN GRANT
A LEASE THAT EVERY YEAR GOING
FORWARD AS LONG AS WE ARE
COLLECTING THE SHORT-TERM
RENTAL TAX TO FUND THAT, AND AS
YOLANDA OUTLINED, THE HIERARCHY
WOULD BE PAYMENT OF BONDS, AND
SUPPORT HOUSING, STAFF,
CONSULTING SERVICES, AND IF
THERE IS MONEY IN EXCESS, WHAT
WOULD BE $11.6 MILLION WE GO TO
ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDING.
LAST YEAR, THERE WERE 25
SOMETHING GRANT APPLICATIONS,
WE FUNDED MAYBE 20% OF THEM, A
SMALL FRACTION, A LOT OF GOOD
PROJECTS OUT THERE, AND IF WE
HAD GOOD MONEY, WE WOULD BE UP
TO DO MORE MEETINGS OF, I'M NOT
SURE WE WILL BE ABLE TO COLLECT
$11 MILLION CAPITAL LEASE WE
HAVE A PATH FOR THAT.
>> VERY GOOD, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT, WE
WOULD LIKE TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> MOVING TO ATTACH AMENDMENT
1.>> I WILL SECOND THAT, ANY
CONCERNS?
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THERE ARE NONE OPPOSED, NO
EXTENSIONS, SO NOW WE CAN MOVE
FOR PASSAGE OF 119402 AS
AMENDED.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE.
>> I WILL SECOND IT.
>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED, NO FURTHER
COMMENTS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR
SAY AYE.
NO OPPOSED, NO EXTENSIONS, IT
CARRIES AS AMENDED.
AND COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, I
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO BE AT THIS NEXT
MONDAY'S MEETING, SO WITH YOUR
OKAY, AND OUR COUNCIL
COLLEAGUES CONCURRENCE, I WILL
SUGGEST TO PUT THIS OVER UNTIL
YOU RETURN ON JULY 22, AT WHICH
POINT YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT AT
THE COUNCIL .
>> I JUST WANT THE PUBLIC TO
KNOW I'M SAVING MY REMARKS IN
FULL SUPPORT OF THIS UNTIL WE
PRESENT TO THE FULL COUNCIL, SO
THE SPEECH WILL OCCUR, BUT I
WANT TO THANK HIM FOR THIS.
THESE ARE CRITICAL INVESTMENTS,
AND I THINK THE COUNCIL IS
APPROACHING IT SO, LOOKING
FORWARD TO HIS RETURN.
>> AND I'M SORRY, MARON, I'M
SORRY THAT SHE LEFT, THEY WERE
IN MY OFFICE YESTERDAY, AND I
FOUND THEIR STORIES VERY
IMPRESSIVE, I WANT YOU TO KNOW
AND THINK ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE
COME, HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.
>>> WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE LAST
ITEM OF BUSINESS, AND ALLISON,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THAT IN?
>> NUMBER 3, COUNCIL BILL
119551, AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO
CREATING A FUND FOR SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX REVENUES, ADDING
A NEW SECTION, 5.53.055 TO THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT, AND
IF YOU WILL READ THAT YOLANDA,
WITH A BACKGROUND.>> I WILL
HAVE A BACKGROUND ON HOW WE GOT
HERE, SPEAK TO LEGISLATION AND
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS, THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX IS A TAX
ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF SUGAR
SWEETENED BEVERAGES, IT WAS
INTENDED TO EXPAND PROGRAMS THAT
EXPAND ACCESS TO HEALTHY
úAFFORDABLE FOOD, CLOSE THE FOO
SECURITY GAP, AND PROMOTE
HEALTHY FOOD CHOICES, AND
EVIDENCE-BASED CHILD
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS,
PARTICULARLY TO REDUCE
DISPARITIES FOR CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES BASED ON SOCIAL
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
THE 2019-20 PROPOSED BUDGET, A
SURPLUS SWEETENED TAX FUNDS
WERE USED TO FUND GENERALLY --
GENERAL FUND PROGRAMS, AND
DOING A LITTLE MORE DIGGING
INTO THIS, THE ACTUAL TOTAL
SWAP AMOUNT IS $6.3 MILLION,
NOT THE $5.7 MILLION WE
PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.
AND WHEE THIS OCCURRED, IT WAS
IN CHILDCARE VOUCHERS, THAT WAS
FULLY SWAPPED, AND SUPPORT FOR
CHILD CARE PROVIDERS
PARTICIPATING IN THE VOUCHER
PROGRAM, FOOD BANKS, OF WHICH
52% OF WAS -- OF IT WAS WELL
FOR OTHER GENERAL FUNDING
SOURCES, FARM TABLE, NURSE
FUNDING PARTNERSHIP, OUT OF
SCHOOL NUTRITION TIMES.
FRESH BUCKS, AND ALSO THE FOOD
POLICY PROGRAM HAD A SMALLER
PART OF SUPPLANTATION. BY DOING
THESE FUND SWAPS FOR PROGRAM
THAT WERE CONSISTENT BUT NOT
EXPANSIONS OR CREATIONS OF NEW
PROGRAMS, THEY WERE ABLE TO
DIRECT THIS AMOUNT TO THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR VARIOUS
HOMELESS SERVICES AND OTHER
PROGRAMS.
>>> COUNCIL BILL 119551 WOULD
ESTABLISH A FUND TO RECEIVE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX REVENUES
AND
>>> -- TRACK, IN 2020, AND
CODIFY THE SPENDING POLICIES
THAT ARE IN ORDINANCE 125324,
AND AMEND THEM TO INCREASE
FLEXIBILITY FOR ALLOCATION OF
FUNDS TO ONE TIME OR LIMITED
TERM EXPENDITURES, AND PROHIBIT
THE USE OF A SWEETENED BEVERAGE
TAX PROCEEDS TO A GENERAL FUND
OR FUNDING SOURCES, DEDICATING
THE PROCEEDS TO BE USED SOLELY
FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING OR
CREATION OF NEW PROGRAMS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROGRAMS
IDENTIFIED.
AS THAT LAST POINT, IT WOULD
PROHIBIT THE USE OF SBT IN THE
USE -- IN THE GENERAL FUND, ON
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
ORDINANCE, IMPACTING ANY
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGETS IN 2019,
AND THE ENDORSED 2020 BUDGET.
ESSENTIALLY, ANY INSTANCES
WHERE PROGRAMS WERE FUNDED BY
OTHER RESOURCES, AND SBT WAS
USED AND HAD -- INSTEAD, WE BE A
PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY -- IF
NEW REVENUE SOURCES ARE NOT
IDENTIFIED TO BACKFILL.
>>> SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE THREE
AMENDMENTS, THE TWO OF THEM AND
THEN THE THIRD ONE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ WILL BE
SHARING.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS JUST
TECHNICAL, CLARIFYING AMENDMENT,
MOVING THE WORDNET IN REFERENCE
TO SBT PROCEEDS, IT IS NOT A
RELEVANT USE OF THE TERM HILL
-- HERE.
IT DOES MEAN SOMETHING BUT NOT
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
AND CLARIFYING THAT THE REVENUE
SHOULD BE USED TO EXPAND
EVIDENCE BASED CHILD
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, ADDING
THAT, AND ALLOWING THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX PROCEEDS
TO BE USED TO COVER COST
INCREASES FOR SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX FUNDED PROGRAMS.>>
CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE
OF THE IMPACT ON NET, YOU SAID
IT DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPACT HERE,
BUT GENERALLY THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN NET AND GROSS DOES MAKE
A DIFFERENCE?
>> YES, I BELIEVE IN THE
ORDINANCE, IT WAS IN REFERENCE
TO GROWTH, ALL THE PROCEEDS,
ALLOCATED, BUT I BELIEVE AT THE
TIME OF THE DRAFTING, I'M NOT
REALLY SURE, BUT THE BUDGET
OFFICE, THEY EVALUATED THE USE
OF THE TERM AND NOTED THAT IT
WOULD MAKE SENSE IN THIS
PARTICULAR INSTANCE, BUT IF
SOMEONE WAS SAYING NET OF
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE ARE NOT
SAYING THAT, BECAUSE WE ARE
ALLOCATING CERTAIN PERCENTAGES
AND THEN SAYING WITHIN THOSE,
ADMINISTRATION WILL BE
ALLOCATED.
THERE IS NO NET, IT IS JUST THE
PROCEEDS.>> UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
SECOND MOMENT IS, CAN YOU
DESCRIBE THE THIRD?
>> OH YES, I WILL GO THROUGH
THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BECAUSE I
DIDN'T SPEAK TO THAT YET.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT, SPONSORED
BY THE CHAIR, CHAIR BEGSHAW,
WOULD AMEND THE POLICIES TO
ALIGN WITH THE BUDGET,
REQUIRING THAT ANY SURPLUS
UNALLOCATED SWEETENED BEVERAGE
TAX REVENUES BEGINNING ON THE
EFFECTIVE DATE BE ONLY USE FOR
EXPANDING EXISTING PROGRAMS,
CREATING NEW PROGRAMS, AND
COVER PROGRAM COST INCREASES.
BEGINNING IN 2021, ALL REVENUES
WILL BE USED FOR EXPANDING
EXISTING OR CREATING NEW
PROGRAMS, INCLUDING COST
INCREASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE STATUTE.
THIS WOULD GIVE THE COUNCIL AND
MAYOR TIME TO CREATE NEW
REVENUE SOURCES TO BACKFILL
PROGRAMS, OR TO OTHER CUTS TO
BACKFILL THESE PROGRAMS, WHERE
THE SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX WAS
USED TO SUPPLANT OTHER FUNDING
SOURCES.
>> CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT
MORE ABOUT IN THE LEGISLATION,
WHAT IS SECTION A AND SECTION
B, AND WHAT THE EXPENDITURES
ARE?
>> SECTION A IN THE SPENDING
POLICIES, THE FINANCIAL
POLICIES, IT IS ABOUT THE
LIMITED TERM, ONE-TIME
EXPENDITURES, SO THAT IS --
CURRENTLY THERE ARE 10% OF THE
PROCEEDS OF ALL THE PROCEEDS,
MAY BE USED FOR EITHER A ONE
TIME COST NECESSARY TO ENABLE
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TAX,
THOSE ARE DONE AT THIS POINT,
UP TO $5 MILLION FOR THE 13th
YOUR PROMISE SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM, AND UP TO $1.5 BILLION
FOR JOB RETRAINING AND
PLACEMENT WORK PROGRAMS FOR
WORKERS WHO MAY BE ADVERSELY
IMPACTED BY THE TAX, AND IT
WILL BE IDENTIFIED DURING THE
PROGRAM EVALUATION, AND FUNDING
FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS TO ENHANCE
CAPITAL -- FACILITIES.
THAT IS FOR THE FIRST FIVE
YEARS THAT THE TAXES COLLECTED.
AND ONCE THOSE ELAPSED, AFTER
2022, ALL THE PROCEEDS WILL GO
THAN TO T█HEN -- TO THE
EXPENDITURES, FOR THE LIFETIME
OF THE TAX, THESE ARE THE ONES
ABOUT EXPANDING ACCESS TO
HEALTHY AND AFFORDABLE FOOD,
CLOSING THE FOOD SECURITY GAP,
PROMOTING HEALTHY FOOD CHOICES,
AND THE EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS
THAT IMPROVE THE SOCIAL,
EMOTIONAL, EDUCATIONAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN.
THERE ARE A FEW MORE ITEMS UP
THAT -- UNDER THE,
ADMINISTRATION, AND ENSURING
FOR SUSTAINABILITY ENVIRONMENT,
AND THE SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX
COMMUNITY OF -- ADVISORY BOARD.
AND THEN THE REPORT CONDUCTED
BY THE AUDITOR.>>> THANK YOU.
>>>I WILL MOVE ON TO AMENDMENT
THREE.
>> DO WE HAVE THAT?>> I HAVE
COPIES AS WELL, IF NOT.
>> MINE ENDS ON 2.
>> THIS WAS JUST CENTER AROUND
RIGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.
AMENDMENT THREE IS ALSO WHAT I
WOULD CONSIDER A CLARIFYING
AMENDMENT, SPECIFYING THAT
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX PROCEEDS
SHOULD BE USED TO EXPAND BIRTH
TO AGE 3, AND KINDERGARTEN
READY SERVICES, AMENDING
SECTION B THAT WE WERE JUST
SPEAKING OF, ONGOING
EXPENDITURES IT IS JUST
CLARIFYING THE TARGET SERVICES
THAT WOULD BE FUNDED BY THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX CUT
WHICH I BELIEVE IS IN AGREEMENT
WITH THE BOARD, AND THE TAX
REVENUE --
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR,
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ IS
AMENDMENT -- GONZALEZ'S
AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH
BOTH, BEGSHAW'S AND O'BRIEN'S
AMENDMENT?
>> YES.
>> NOT INDEPENDENT -- >> ALL
THREE OF THEM, THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION IS COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN'S INTENT.
SO IT IS -- COUNCILMEMBER --
THEY WOULD NOT BE IN CONFLICT.
>> IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDMENTS 1
AND 3, FIRST, AND THEN DISCUSS
YOURS.
I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ'S INTENT, AND BOTH
THESE CHANGES I THINK ARE
PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
I WOULD LOVE TO GET THOSE OUT-
OF-THE-WAY.
>> SO YOU WANTED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT AND COUNCILMEMBER --
>> JUST GOING IN THE ORDER 1,
THEN 3, AND 2.
>> BUT SOME DISCUSSION FIRST.
[ LAUGHTER ] ARE YOU FINISHED
WITH THE INTRODUCTORY, I DON'T
WANT TO TAKE THE --
>> I'VE GOT STUFF TO SAY ABOUT
AMENDMENT 2. BUT OVERALL, I
KNOW THAT WE ARE STRUGGLING
WITH A LOT OF GOOD CAUSES HERE,
I SAID AT THE LAST MEETING, I
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE RIGHT NOW,
FOR COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, I
DEEPLY RESPECT YOUR COMMITMENT,
AS A MATTER OF INTEGRITY, YOU
BELIEVE YOU ARE PUTTING FORWARD
SOMETHING THAT YOU STRONGLY
SUPPORTED AND THAT YOU FEEL
THAT YOUR WORD IS ON THE LINE,
AND I RESPECT THAT VERY MUCH, I
WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.>>
BEFORE YOU START TO SUBTLY
ARGUE YOUR AMENDMENT, THE ME
MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE
ISSUE, IF I CAN PARAPHRASE IT.
FOR ME AT LEAST, VERY LITTLE
DESIRE TO DEVIATE ON THE
INVESTMENTS, THAT WERE THE
BASIS OF THE SWEETENED BEVERAGE
TAX, CAPTURING THAT SPIRIT, THE
COMMUNITIES THAT WERE TRYING TO
IMPROVE FROM A HEALTH
STANDPOINT, THE REGRESSIVE
NATURE, A PURE SENSE, IF I'M
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE PRACTICAL
ATTEMPT OF THE AMENDMENT WAS,
THAT MAY CAUSE, AND CORRECT ME
IF I'M WRONG, THAT BY
SUPPORTING IT, WE MAY BE
REQUIRING THE EXECUTIVE TO BACK
OFF THIS YEAR IN 2019,
INVESTMENTS AND SOME OF OUR
HOMELESS HOUSING INVESTMENTS, I
THOUGHT I HAD SEEN FROM YOU THAT
THE IMPRESSION THAT WOULD CREATE
A WITHDRAWAL FROM PRETTY
VERTICAL INVESTMENTS.
I UNDERSTAND FROM COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW'S AMENDMENT, SHE'S NOT
PULLING BACK, SHE JUST WANT TO
-- WANTS TO STAY THE COURSE
THIS YEAR AND THE NEXT YEAR --
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT YEAR?
I WILL STOP THERE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> NONE OF THIS WOULD CHANGE
2019.
WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS
2020 AND 2021.
>> THAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME,
OKAY.
>> WHAT YOU SPOKE TO WAS MY
UNDERLYING LEGISLATION, THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH I'D LIKE
TO GET OUT OF THE WAY, BECAUSE
I DON'T GET IS CONTROVERSIAL,
JUST REMOVING THE WORD NET, AND
ADDING EXPANDING IN FRONT OF
EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAM, IS THE
NET EFFECT.
I WOULD LOVE TO MOVE THAT, AND
GIVE COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ A
CHANCE TO MOVERS, THEN WE CAN
GET TO YOURS.
>> THEY ARE JUST TECHNICAL
AMENDMENTS.
>> I WILL MOVE AMENDMENT NUMBER
1.
>> I WILL SECOND IT.
>> I THOUGHT YOUR AMENDMENT WAS
THE BIG ONE.
>> [ LAUGHTER ]
>> I UNDERSTAND.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1, DELETING
THE WORD NET AND EXPANDING
EVIDENCE, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED
PROGRAM COSTS.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I AM SUPPORTING IT, I THINK
I HEARD YOU SAY THERE IS NOT A
HUGE DOLLAR AMOUNT, BUT IT
INCREASES BECAUSE YOU TAKE OF
THE DOLLARS THAT GOES TO THE
ADVOCATES AND THE
ORGANIZATIONS, IS THAT TRUE?
>> NOT IN REGARDS TO THIS
AMENDMENT.
>> THE WORD NET.
IS THERE ANY EFFECT?
>> WHAT ARE WE DOING IT?
>> IT IS A CLEANUP, KIND OF A
LINGERING WORD THAT HAS NO
MEANING IN THIS SPECIFIC
INSTANCE.
>> GOT TO, THANK YOU.
>> EARLIER I HAD ASKED HER,
SOMETIMES NET, SOMETIMES GROSS
MEANS A LOT, BUT IN THIS CASE
IT IS NOT AN ISSUE.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> ARE WE ON 1 OR 3?
>> THIS IS 1, THIS IS
CONSIDERED A TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT, WHICH I SUPPORT,
THEN MOVING TO AMENDMENT 3,
WHICH COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ
PUT FORWARD, WE CONSIDER THAT A
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
AND THEN ITEM 2.
>> ITEM NUMBER 3 OF THE AGENDA,
THE SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX.
>> THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO
CLARIFY.
>> WE PASSED THE OTHERS
UNANIMOUSLY, NOW WE ARE ON THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX.
ANYMORE DISCUSSION ON 1? IT HAS
BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE
COTTON UNOPPOSED, NO EXTENSIONS.
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT NUMBER 1,
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO NUMBER 3?
>> I AM NOW SPEAKING TO MYSELF,
I THINK IT'S FABULOUS.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 IS SIMPLY AN
AMENDMENT THAT CLARIFIES CITY
COUNCIL'S ORIGINAL INTENT AS IT
RELATES TO PROGRAMS THAT WOULD
IMPROVE THE SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL,
EDUCATIONAL, AND PHYSICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH OF CHILDREN, IN
RELATION TO EARLY LEARNING IN
PARTICULAR.
A STRONG HISTORY OF INVESTING
IN THE 0-3 SPACE, AND OBVIOUSLY
THE PRESCHOOL PROMISE, STRONG
INVESTMENTS AND PRESCHOOLS THAT
CATER SPECIFICALLY TO THREE-
YEAR-OLDS AND 4-YEAR-OLDS.
AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE AFFIRM THAT
WE DO NOT PUT PROGRAMS RELATED
TO THE NURSE AND CHILDHOOD
PROGRAM FOR EXAMPLE, CHILD CARE
ASSISTANCE, AND PARENT AND
CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS ON THE
CHOPPING BLOCK IN THE EVENT THAT
IT IS SOMETHING THE
MINISTRATION IS INCLINED TO DO,
A FURTHER CLARIFICATION THAT
THESE INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TO BE
NOT RELATED TO ANYTHING.
SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON EARLY
LEARNING FROM 0 TO 3 AGES, AND
WITH PROGRAMS THAT HAVE A FOCUS
ON MAKING SURE THAT OUR YOUNGEST
ARE READY FOR KINDERGARTEN.>>>
[ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ]
>> FIRST LET ME SAY THANK YOU.
GOT GREEN.
I HAVE ALL THE RESPECT IN THE
WORLD FOR YOU AND WHAT YOU'VE
BEEN DOING.
JIM, THANK YOU.
AS YOU SAID ON THE MICROPHONE
IT'S BEEN A PROMISING START.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT MY
AMENDMENT IS ABOUT.
MY AMENDMENT WOULD SAY, FINISH
OFF OUR BIANNUAL BUDGET BEFORE
WE MAKE CHANGES IN THE
AMENDMENT.
THE REASONING BEHIND THAT IS
THE MONIES PUT IN DURING OUR
LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, FOR BOTH
2019 AND 2020, OR FOR PROGRAMS
THAT ALL OF US LOVE AND
SUPPORT.
THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT
THAT.
YES IT WAS SUPPLANTED MONEY.
IT WHEN INTO PARENT-CHILD HOME
PROGRAM.
CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
NURSE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP.
IN THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, AND YOU REMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, HOW
PASSIONATELY COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ ARGUED FOR MONEY IN
THE FOOD BANKS.
OUT OF SCHOOL NUTRITION TIME
MONEY.
SENIOR MEAL DELIVERY, THERE IS
NO DOUBT THAT THESE ARE THINGS
THAT ALL OF US SUPPORT.
JUST AS WE SUPPORT WHAT THE
SUGAR BEVERAGE TAX ARE GOING
INTO.
IS DESIGNED.
MY RECOMMENDATION AND
AMENDMENT, WHAT HE WOULD DO IS
SAY KEEP THE MONEY THAT IS
GOING INTO THE PARENT-CHILD
HOME PROGRAM, CHILD CARE
ASSISTANCE, NURSE FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP, FOOD BANKS, OUT OF
SCHOOL NUTRITION AND SENIOR MEAL
DELIVERY AS WELL AS THE FRESH
BUCKS PROGRAM, $2.7 MILLION
INTO THAT FRESH BUCKS PROGRAM,
I WANT TO KEEP THAT FOR 2020.
IF WE MOVE FORWARD AND CHANGE
THIS, $6 MILLION, THERE IS NO
GUARANTEE OF BACKFILL MONEY FOR
IT.
I THINK THAT IS IRRESPONSIBLE
AND NOT ONLY IRRESPONSIBLE TO
THESE PROGRAMS, THAT WE SHOULD
BACK OUT FROM THEM, BUT IT ALSO
DOES NOT STRIKE ME AS BEING AS
RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF THE
PUBLIC FUNDS AS WE COULD AND
SHOULD BE.
THAT SAID, UNDER MY AMENDMENT
WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD IN 2021
AND INVEST ALL THE MONEY INTO
WHAT THE SUGARY BEVERAGE TAX IS
DESIGNED TO DO UNDER THE
ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.
WE ALSO, UNDER MY AMENDMENT, WE
WILL KNOW WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL
REVENUES ARE IN SEPTEMBER, ALL
THOSE MONIES WOULD GO FORWARD
TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU HAVE
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, AND
INTO THE ORIGINAL INTENDED
INVESTMENTS.
ALL THE FRESH BUCKS AND THINGS
WE HAVE IDENTIFIED, WE MAY HAVE
MORE MONEY TO DO THAT.
I AM JUST VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
MIDWAY THROUGH OUR BUDGET
CYCLE, OUR BIANNUAL BUDGET
CYCLE, CHANGING WHAT WE ARGUED
SO STRENUOUSLY FOR LAST OCTOBER
AND NOVEMBER.
THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY
AMENDMENT.
I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER OTHER
QUESTIONS.
ALLISON, DO YOU WANT TO PASS IT
AROUND?
WE DID, RIGHT BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE GET THIS FROM THE
BUDGET OFFICE.
PEOPLE HAVE SAID, WE DON'T KNOW
WHERE THE MONEY WENT AND WHAT
INVESTMENTS THE GENERAL FUND
WENT TO.
HERE IS WHAT IT WENT TO.
ONE-TIME COSTS FOR HYGIENE -- I
CAN PASS THIS ONE OUT.
I CAN USE ALLISON'S.
THANK YOU.
IT WENT TO THINGS SUCH AS
HYGIENE COSTS AT OUR
ENCAMPMENTS.
WE HAD SOME ASSISTANCE IN
BUILDING MORE OF THE TINY HOMES
AT 18th AND YES LETTER.
MONEY SUPPORT ASSISTANCE WITH
BASIC SHELTER TO SUPPORT THE
ANNUAL INCREASE IN RENT FOR THE
QUEEN ANNE SHELTER.
THE MONIES ALSO WENT TO BAILEY
HOUSE TO ASSIST AT THE CITY
HALL SHELTER.
THE SMT SHELTER THAT WE
PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL
SERVICES.
YMCA LATE-NIGHT MOTEL VOUCHERS.
PIECE ON THE STREET FOR KIDS ON
THE STREET, ADDITIONAL SUPPORT
FOR THEIR FACILITY.
ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR THE
NAVIGATION CENTER.
AND THIS WAS SOME CONVERTING
OFFICE SPACE TO SLEEPING SPACE
FOR PEOPLE.
WE OPENED HADDON HALL THAT IS
AN ENHANCED SHELTER.
WE INCREASED CASE MANAGEMENT AT
LINCOLN SPRINGS.
INCREASED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SERVICES.
ASSISTED LEHI WITH ON-SITE STAFF
. WE INCREASED CASE MANAGEMENT
AT THE INTERBAY FACILITY.
MANAGEMENT AT THE NORTHLAKE
FACILITY.
WE INCREASED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SERVICES AT WHITTIER.
WE ADDED NURSING CARE WHICH IS
SOMETHING SO CRITICAL AND WILL
BE ONE OF MY TOP PRIORITIES FOR
THE BUDGET COMING UP.
ADDITIONAL NURSING SERVICES AS
WELL FOR RESIDENCE AT WHITTIER.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS A SINGLE
ONE OF US AT THIS TABLE THAT
WOULD DISAGREE IT'S ALL
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
THE QUESTION IS ARE WE GOING TO
DISRUPT SOME OF THIS NOW,
HALFWAY THROUGH 2019 AND THE
2020 BUDGET.
IT'S MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE
MOVE FORWARD WITH MY AMENDMENT
WHICH PRESERVES THE FUNDING WE
HAVE PUT INTO THIS BUDGET AND
ALL GOOD THINGS WE ARE
SUPPORTING.
SO, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FOR
THE COMMENTS.
>> I HAVE A CLARIFICATION
QUESTION BEFORE WE GET INTO THE
ACTUAL DEBATE.
IS THAT OKAY?
OKAY.
>> IS THAT OKAY MADAM CHAIR?
GREAT.
SORRY.
I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE
I AM SEEING THIS CHART OF THINGS
THAT ARE ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN
FUNDED BY GENERAL FUND DOLLARS
THAT APPARENTLY CAN BE STRAIGHT
TRACKED BACK TO SUGARY BEVERAGE
TAX BUT I THOUGHT THE REASON WE
WERE DOING THIS WAS BECAUSE YOU
COULDN'T TRACK THE DOLLARS BACK
TO SPECIFIC USES.
AND LEFT WITH THE CONCLUSION
THAT THE EXECUTIVE CHERRY
PICKED THESE EXAMPLES TO PULL
ON THE HEARTSTRINGS AND CREATE
AN UNTENABLE SITUATION AND
DYNAMIC, IF YOU STAY TRUE TO
THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE AND
MOVE FORWARD, YOU HATE HOMELESS
PEOPLE.
AND I FEEL LIKE THAT IS AN
UNFAIR NARRATIVE TO TRY TO
BUILD AT THIS POINT.
I JUST DON'T HAVE A LOT OF
CONFIDENCE IN HOW SUDDENLY WE
CONTRACT THESE DOLLARS WITH
THIS LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE AND
ACCURACY.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT
THERE IN A WEEK OR TWO WEEKS,
SUDDENLY WHERE WE CAN TRACK
EVERY SINGLE PENNY BACK TO
THESE PRECISE INVESTMENTS.
NUMBER TWO IS, I WOULD LIKE TO
GET A SENSE FROM COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF EVALUATION WHAT
THE LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IS IN
TERMS OF THE TRACKING THAT IS
BEING NOW ASSERTED AS BEING
100%, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE
DOLLARS WE CAN TRACK BACK TO
SUGARY BEVERAGE TAXES AS
OPPOSED TO OTHER DOLLARS THAT
COME IN FROM OTHER SOURCES.
THAT IS ONE QUESTION.
TWO, COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW YOU
LISTED OFF A BUNCH OF OTHER
THINGS YOU SAID WOULD BE CUT
THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR
INCLUDING FRESH BUCKS AND THE
PARENT-CHILD PROGRAM AND THE
NURSES, AND I THINK YOU MADE A
CLAIM THOSE ARE ALL -- BECAUSE
THEY ARE ALL INCONSISTENT WITH
THE ORDINANCE OF THE SUGARY
BEVERAGE TAX.
I THOUGHT THOSE WERE THE THINGS
WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE FUNDING
WITH THE SUGARY BEVERAGE TAX.
I AM UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT THE
LIST YOU GAVE INITIALLY AROUND
SORT OF, THE PARADE OF
HORRIBLE'S THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF
WE PASS THIS ORDINANCE, OF THE
THINGS THAT WOULD SUFFER.
AS A RESULT OF PASSING IT.
>> THIS CAME FROM THE JUNE 24
STAFF MEMO THAT YOLANDA
PREPARED AND WE WENT THROUGH
QUITE EXTENSIVELY AT THE JUNE
24 MEETING.
>> I RECALL THAT.
>> HER LIST IS THE ADOPTED 2019
BUDGET SUGARY TAX BEVERAGE TO
-- TOTAL SBT NOTED IN
PARENTHESES.
IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 2 AND THREE
OF YOLANDA'S MEMO YOU SEE SHE
IDENTIFIED DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, HUMAN SERVICES AND
THE OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY.
>> I POINT IS THEY WILL
CONTINUE TO BE FUNDED.
I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU
CHARACTERIZE IT AS THESE WILL
NO LONGER BE FUNDED IF THIS
BILL --
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO BACKFILL
WITH GENERAL FUND MONEY.
THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED
TO THIS POINT.
>> MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT THAT MEANS.
>> THE ISSUE IS THAT THESE
PROGRAMS WERE ALL EITHER
GENERAL FUND SUPPORTED OR,
MOSTLY GENERAL FUND SUPPORTED,
SO THESE SPECIFIC PROGRAMS ALL
EXPERIENCE AT LEAST A CERTAIN
PERCENTAGE IF NOT A COMPLETE
SWAP OF THAT GENERAL FUND FOR
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX.
IT WAS A ONE FOR ONE SWAT.
ASA PLANTATION.
IN THE EXAMPLE OF FOOD BANKS,
THE $1.795 MILLION, THAT WAS
JUST A SWAP OF SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX BRINGING UP
GENERAL FUND TO BE SENT
ANYWHERE IN THE BUDGET.
BACK TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION,
THERE IS NO WAY OF TRACKING
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A
DEDICATED FUND SO WE CAN'T SEE
WHERE A TRANSACTION HAS
OCCURRED NECESSARILY.
WHILE THIS IS A LIST OF THINGS
THAT WERE FUNDED BY GENERAL
FUND, --
>> WERE $1 BILLION WORTH OF
OTHER STUFF.
>> IT'S TRUE.
SO ONCE IT'S GENERAL, IT'S KIND
OF ANYWHERE.
IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY THAT
THE $6.3 MILLION THAT WAS FREED
UP BY DOING THESE SWAPS, WHERE
THEY WENT, THEY COULD'VE GONE
HERETO ANY OF THESE PROGRAMS OR
TO ANY OTHER PROGRAM FUNDED BY
THE GENERAL FUND.
>> RIGHT. SO THAT INCLUDES
POLICE DEPARTMENT, FIRE
DEPARTMENT, ANY OF THE PROGRAMS
THEY DO.
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
APARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> CORRECT.
>> LEGISLATURE, CITY BUDGET
OFFICE, MAYOR'S OFFICE.
PARKS.
ANYTHING REALLY THAT ISN'T
RELATED TO REIT OR OTHER
DEDICATED SOURCES OF MONEY.
>> BACK TO THE DISCUSSION , THE
EFFECT OF THIS LEGISLATION,
SHOULD IT PASS WITHOUT
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW 'S
AMENDMENT IS THAT THE SUB
PLANTATION THAT OCCURRED WOULD
NO LONGER BE ENDOWED -- ALLOWED
IN THE 2020 BUDGET.
FOR INSTANCE, THE $1.759
MILLION THAT WAS USED TO
SUPPLANT FOOD BANKS WOULD NEED
TO BE FILLED BY SOMETHING ELSE.
AND THEN SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX
COULD THEN BE USED TO AUGMENT
OR SUPPLEMENT, TO ADD ONTO,
THAT WAS THE INTENTION I
BELIEVE OF THE ORIGINAL
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX REVENUES
WAS TO SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT.
THAT IS WHERE THERE WILL BE
FUNDING CUTS IF OTHER CUTS ARE
NOT IDENTIFIED OR OTHER NEW
REVENUE SOURCES.
SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS WILL BE
AFFECTED TO A GREATER OR LESSER
DEGREE DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH
SUB PLANTATION OCCURRED.
>> FOR THE PROGRAMS LISTED IN
YOUR ORIGINAL DEMO FOR THE LAST
HEARING, THE IMPACT IS THAT
WHATEVER WAS SUPPLANTED, WE
NEED TO COME UP WITH THE
DIFFERENCE OF THAT.
CORRECT.
>> SO, DEALING WITH THIS BILL
NOW WOULD PROVIDE THE MAYOR IN
HER PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A
PROPOSED BUDGET, TO THE EXTENT
THAT SHE STILL HOLDS THESE
PROGRAMS AS PRIORITIES, AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE NEXT
SEVERAL MONTHS BETWEEN NOW AND
SEPTEMBER TO IDENTIFY OTHER
RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO KEEP THOSE PROGRAMS
WHOLE.
AND IF SHE DOESN'T DO THAT THAN
COUNCIL CAN DO THAT THROUGH
OUR OWN BUDGET PROCESS BY
EITHER IDENTIFYING A NEW
REVENUE SOURCE IDENTIFYING CUTS
TO THOSE THINGS THAT WERE
PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR IN ORDER
TO PRIORITIZE THOSE PROGRAMS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST TO
BE CLEAR, PERHAPS EVEN CONCISE
BUT MAYBE NOT.
A COUPLE POINTS I WANT TO MAKE.
FIRST I WANT TO TALK TO THE
ISSUE OF SUB PLANTATION.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT COMES UP
FRANKLY WHENEVER WE ARE TRYING
TO RAISE NEW REVENUE.
IT IS NOT UNIQUE TO THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX.
FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE PASS THE
MOVE SEATTLE LEVY, THERE WAS
CONCERNED THAT WHEN WE WENT OUT
AND RAISED GOES TO $100 MILLION
IN YEAR IN NEW TRANSPORTATION
DOLLARS WE WOULD SIMPLY USE
THAT TO SUPPLANT THE BASE $40
MILLION PER YEAR WE WERE
SPENDING OF GENERAL SPAWNED --
GENERAL FUND TRANSPORTATION.
THE FOLKS ADVOCATING SAID WE
ARE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THIS
INITIATIVE THAT WOULD RAISE AN
ADDITIONAL NEARLY $100 MILLION
PER YEAR BUT WE WANT THAT TO BE
ADDITIONAL.
AS PART OF THAT INITIATIVE,
WILL BE COMMITTED TO WAS WE
WOULD MAINTAIN AT A MINIMUM THE
EXISTING GENERAL FUND
COMMITMENT.
I DON'T HAVE -- THAT'S ABOUT
$40 MILLION PER YEAR.
I THINK WE AGREED IT WOULD GO
UP ADJUSTED TO INFLATION EACH
YEAR.
EVERY YEAR IN THE BUDGET WE DO
THAT SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR THAT
THOSE MONIES THAT WE RAISED, IN
THIS CASE FROM PROPERTY TAX,
WOULD GO TO BE ADDITIONAL
INVESTMENTS IN TRANSPORTATION,
NOT SUPPLANTED TO FREE UP
THINGS FOR OTHER THINGS.
I THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING THE
SAME HERE.
I THINK THIS IS MORE CRITICAL
TO BE DOING IT.
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT TO
THE ISSUE OF, SO WHERE DOES THIS
COME FROM RELATIVE DOOR 2020
BUDGET?
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW CALMLY
YOU MADE A GOOD POINT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PRIORITIES
IN THE BUDGET AND HAD A WEAK
FIGURE OUT WHAT THOSE
PRIORITIES ARE AND WHAT MIGHT
BE CUT IF WE REDEDICATE THIS
REVENUE SOURCE TO THE THINGS IT
WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO GO
TO.
THERE IS A QUESTION THERE.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN ACTUALLY
ANSWER THAT TODAY.
I ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT THIS
LEGISLATION DOES IS TELL THE
MAYOR, DON'T DO THIS AGAIN.
AND COME BACK TO US WITH A
BUDGET IN SEPTEMBER AND YOU
WILL DEMONSTRATE TO US, WHAT
YOUR LOWEST PRIORITY IS IN THE
EXISTING BUDGET.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR AS WELL THAT
THE BUDGET HAS HUNDREDS OF
MOVING PARTS.
WE ADOPTED AND ENDORSED BUDGET
LAST YEAR FOR 2020 THAT ASSUMED
A CERTAIN REVENUE STREAM FROM
REVENUE TAX, AND MORE, THOSE ARE
ALL UNDOUBTABLY WRONG.
AS THOSE CHANGE, WE DON'T KNOW,
WE HAVE AN EXTRA $3.2 MILLION
IN SALES TAX, WHERE DID IT GO?
IN THE BIG BUCKET.
B&O TAX CAME IN LATE.
WHAT CUT?
WE DON'T KNOW.
IT GOES INTO THE BIG BUCKET.
THE MAYOR LOOKS AT ALL THE
REVENUE AVAILABLE TO HER AT THE
TIME AND SENDS US A BUDGET
BASED ON WHAT SHE PRIORITIZES.
I LOOK AT THIS LIST, I DON'T
BELIEVE -- CERTAINLY FOR ME
THESE ARE NOT THE LOWEST
PRIORITIES IN OUR GENERAL FUND
BUDGET.
I WOULD NOT BELIEVE THE SHOULD
BE CUT.
I ALSO DON'T BELIEVE THE MAYOR
BELIEVES THESE ARE THE LAST
THINGS.
>> I THINK THAT WILL BE
CONSIDERED TO BE FUNDED.
>> AS WE HEARD TODAY TANIKA
SPOKE ELOQUENTLY ABOUT THAT.
WHILE THE TAX MAY FALL ON YOU
SIGNIFICANTLY, WE ARE GOING TO
INVEST BACK IN YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD SIGNIFICANTLY.
BECAUSE OF THAT WE WERE ABLE TO
GET PEOPLE COMING OUT FROM THE
COMMUNITY SAYING I KNOW I WILL
BEAR THE BURDEN OF THIS TAX BUT
I'M OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE OF
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT WILL DO.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE WANTED TO
UNDO THAT.
BUT ALL THE PRESSURES THAT CAME
UP IN THE BUDGET, THIS IS WHAT
WAS MADE.
I WAS PART OF THE COUNCIL THAT
APPROVE THIS BUDGET LAST YEAR.
I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A
POSITION TO HAVE TO DO THAT
AGAIN THIS YEAR.
WHAT I'M ASKING US TO DO IS
TAKE THIS OFF THE TABLE.
REESTABLISH THE COMMITMENT.
SET UP A DEDICATED FUND SO IF
MONEY COMES OUT WE WILL KNOW
WHERE TH DOLLARS WENT BECAUSE
IT WILL HAVE A DEDICATED FUND
WE CAN TRACK.
HOPEFULLY THE MONEY THAT COMES
OUT OF THAT WILL ONLY GO TO THE
THINGS PRESCRIBED IN THIS
ORDINANCE.
THE MAYOR CAN PROPOSE WE DO
SOMETHING ELSE.
AND THEN HAVE THE MAYOR SAY, OF
ALL THE OTHER BILLION DOLLARS
PLUS GENERAL FUND MONEY, NOW
WITHOUT THE SWEETENED BEVERAGE
TAX, NOW TELL US WHAT YOUR
PRIORITIES ARE.
MEANING SEND US A BUDGET FOR
THAT.
I SUSPECT MOST IF NOT ALL OF
THESE ITEMS WILL BE IN THAT
BUDGET.
IF THEY ARE NOT, WE HAVE THAT
BUDGET PROCESS WHERE WE CAN
CHOOSE TO REALLOCATE.
IF WE DECIDE AS A COUNCIL, IF
THE MAJORITY DECIDES
EVERYTHING IN THIS BUDGET IS
SUCH A HUGE PRIORITY, AHEAD OF
SOME OF THE THINGS LIKE CLOSING
THE FOOD SECURITY GAP, AND WE
WANT TO CHANGE OUR MIND, AND GO
BACK ON THAT, WE COULD DO THAT.
I HOPE YOU DON'T.
I DON'T THINK I WILL BE IN THAT
POSITION.
BUT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO
THAT IF WE SO CHOOSE.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE WANT TO TAKE
THE MONEY FROM THIS COMMUNITY
AND USE IT ON OTHER GOOD
THINGS.
I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION
YOU'RE ASKING WHICH IS A FAIR
ONE.
IF WE TAKE THIS AWAY, WHERE
WILL IT GO?
THE ANSWER IS WE DON'T KNOW
UNTIL THE MAYOR SENSOR BUDGET.
BUT WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO IS
NOT TAKE THE TAX REVENUE WE ARE
GETTING FROM A POPULATION THAT
IS BEING DISPROPORTIONATELY
TAXED, LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES
AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, THEY
ARE PEOPLE MAKING BAD
DECISIONS, THEY ARE PEOPLE IN A
POSITION THAT THEY ARE MARKETED
TO HEAVILY BUY SODA COMPANIES,
THEY LIVE IN FOOD DESERTS DON'T
HAVE ALTERNATIVES TO GREAT
DIFFERENCES.
WE WANT TO FIX THAT.
THERE ARE NO SHORTAGE OF GOOD
PROGRAMS TO INVEST THAT MONEY
INTO.
I HEARD WITHIN ONE WEEK THERE
WERE 3000 PEOPLE ON A WAITING
LIST TO GET ACCESS TO FOOD
PROGRAMS.
I IMAGINE IF WE OPEN THAT FOR
ANOTHER WEEK WE WOULD GET
ANOTHER 3000 AND WE ARE JUST
FUNDING 700 PEOPLE.
THAT IS JUST ONE OF THE
PROGRAMS.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF ROBUST
PROGRAMS WE CAN SPEND THE MONEY
ON TO LIVE UP TO THE WISHES AND
COMMITMENTS WE MADE TO THAT
COMMUNITY.
AND THEN WE HAVE TO STRUGGLE
WITH THE REST.
THAT WILL NOT BE EASY.
WE WILL ARGUE ABOUT THAT.
MAYOR DOESN'T WANT TO BE PUT IN
THAT BOX, SHE STILL HAS $1
BILLION PLUS OF GENERAL FUND
MONEY TO SOLVE THINGS AND LET'S
SEE HOW IT COMES BACK.
I REQUEST WOULD BE TO SAY NO TO
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW 'S
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO, AND LET'S
SEE WHAT THE MAYOR DOES.
AND WHATEVER IT IS, 2.5 MONTHS,
WE WILL SEE THE BUDGET AND THEN
WE WILL DIVE IN AND FIGURE OUT
WHAT TO DO.
I HOPE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX REVENUE
WE WILL TALK ABOUT IT
EXCLUSIVELY IN THE TERMS OF HOW
TO ALLOCATE MONEY BACK TO THE
LIST OF PRIORITIES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, YOU
ARE SO PERSUASIVE.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE , IN
ALL SERIOUSNESS, I REALLY
APPRECIATE -- JUST HOW STRONGLY
YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS.
NOW MY DIRECTION IS REALLY NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH WHERE WE WANT
TO GET.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE TIME TO
ALLOW US, WHEN IT GETS INTO
BUDGET TO REALLY THINK ABOUT
THIS APPREHENSIVELY.
I BELIEVE THERE WILL BE
ADDITIONAL REVENUES.
WE WILL FIND OUT IN SEPTEMBER
WE CAN PUT INTO THIS DIRECTLY.
CONCERN IS THE THINGS WE HAD
AGREED TO LAST YEAR, AND AGAIN
I'M LOOKING AT $1 MILLION FOR
THE PARENT-CHILD HOME PROGRAM,
CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
THESE ALSO HELP OUR MOST DEEPLY
DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES.
AND TO SAY, LET'S JUST SAY
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND
ADDITIONAL MONEY, WE'RE GOING
TO US THE MAYOR FOR ADDITIONAL
MONEY, I WOULD RATHER KEEP IT
THE OTHER WAY.
I WANT TO FUND THESE THINGS
BECAUSE WE PUT MONEY IN THE
BUDGET TO FUND IT.
AND THEN WHEN ADDITIONAL
REVENUES COME INTO SAY, ALL
THESE GOOD THINGS THE SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX IS DESIGNED TO DO,
LET'S PUT MORE MONEY IN IT
THEN.
WE HAVE MONEY FOR 2019.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
WE WILL I BELIEVE HAVE MORE
MONEY IN SEPTEMBER WE CAN
DEDICATE TO THIS.
COME 2020, OUR SUCCESSORS WILL
BE ABLE TO SAY, WE WILL HAVE
THE BUDGET IN 2019 BUT OUR
SUCCESSORS WILL BE ABLE TO SAY
WE WANT TO FLOOD THE COMMUNITY
WITH THESE OTHER BENEFITS WE
HAVE DESIGNED TO DO.
I AM ASKING MY COLLEAGUES TO
HOLD THE COURSE, ALLOW US TO DO
WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO
EFFECTIVE 2021 BUT WE CAN
DEFINITELY ADD MORE IN THIS
BUDGET COMING UP.
>> CLARIFYING.
I FIND COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN'S
POSITION VERY COMPELLING.
MY QUESTION IS IF WE SUPPORTED
HIS AMENDMENT , I THOUGHT YOU
SAID EARLIER WHEN I WAS GIVING
MY DESCRIPTION THAT IT DOESN'T
AFFECT FUNDING THIS YEAR BUT IS
THE PRACTICAL EFFECT THAT THIS
YEAR THAT WILL BE A SHORTFALL
ON SOME OF THE -- WHETHER THIS
IS CHERRY PICKED OR NOT, THIS
LIST IS AN EXAMPLE?
>> THERE WON'T BE ANY IMPACTS
ON THE ADOPTED 2019 BUDGET.
ANY SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGETS, IF
THERE IS SUPPLEMENTATION
PROPOSED BY THE SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX PROCEEDS FOR ANY
OTHER GENERAL FUND, WE HAVEN'T
SEEN IT IN THE RECENT
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET THAT WE
HAVE RECEIVED.
IT WOULD IMPACT THAT BUT NOT
ANYTHING --
>> NOTHING AND 2019.
>> SO LET ME ASK THE CHAIR THIS
QUESTION.
IF WE WERE TO SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN'S
AMENDMENT ,
>> MINE IS THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION.
>> IF WE SUPPORT THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION --
>> WITHOUT MY AMENDMENT.
>> AND THERE MIGHT NOT BE A
SHORTFALL THIS YEAR BUT WE ARE
SETTING A POLICY STATEMENT
TEMPLATE ON VALUES AND I THINK
I HEAR YOU SAY YOU AGREE WITH,
WHY WOULD YOU OPPOSE IT?
OR WHY WOULD YOU AMEND IT?
>> I AM NOT OPPOSING THE
UNDERLYING, WITH THE MONEY WILL
GO FOR.
I AM SUGGESTING WE NOT CHANGE
COURSE NOW, 2020.
WE HAVE AND ENDORSED BUDGET AND
I WANT TO KEEP THE ENDORSED
BUDGET INTACT AND NOT HAVE TO
GO BACK INTO GENERAL FUND MONEY
TO REDO WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR.
THE GENERAL FUND MONEY HAS GONE
INTO, IN MY MIND, SOME
TREMENDOUS THINGS AROUND
INCREASING HOUSING AND
SUPPORTING SERVICES WE NEEDED.
THE $6 MILLION, BECAUSE WE
DECIDED TO USE THE MONEY THIS
WAY, THERE WAS $6 MILLION THAT
WENT INTO HOUSING AND
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
HOMELESS.
WE DON'T HAVE AT THIS MOMENT A
DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE TO
BACKFILL THAT.
>> I'M NOT HEARING AND NEED TO
REDO ANYTHING.
THERE IS A DISCONNECT.
>> BUT WE WILL IF MY AMENDMENT
DOES NOT PASS.
BECAUSE THEN THESE THINGS WE
ADOPTED LAST YEAR THAT WERE
SUPPLANTED, WE WILL HAVE TO
FIND GENERAL FUND MONEY FOR
THAT.
THE GENERAL FUND MONEY WILL
HAVE TO COME FROM OTHER
PRIORITIES.
IT'S WHAT COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ SAID.
>> I THINK IT'S A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW
IS SPEAKING ABOUT THE ENDORSED
2020 BUDGET, NOT THE ADOPTED
2019 BUDGET.
>> CORRECT.
>> WE ENDORSE THE BUDGET IN
2020 BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO A
2020 BUDGET PROCESS THIS YEAR.
I SAY WE WILL REVISIT THIS.
ONE THING, COUNCILMEMBER
BAGSHAW , I HOPE, AND I
BELIEVE YOU ARE LIKELY TO BE
RIGHT THAT THERE WILL PROBABLY
BE ADDITIONAL REVENUES AS WE
GET TOWARDS BUDGET.
SOME OF THAT IS JUST BECAUSE
THE ECONOMY CONTINUES TO GROW
AND WE TEND TO BE CONSERVATIVE
IN OUR ESTIMATES.
WE WILL SEE ADDITIONAL BUMPS IN
CERTAIN THINGS.
THERE IS ALSO TALK ABOUT OTHER
RUMORS OR SOMETHING OF NEW TAX
REVENUES THAT MAY COME FORWARD,
CERTAINLY PROPERTIES THAT MAY
BE SOLD.
BUT I AM ALMOST CERTAIN THE
MAYOR WILL NOT SEND US A BUDGET
IT SAYS, AND HERE IS THE $20
MILLION OF EXTRA MONEY, GO
FIGURE IT OUT.
IT WILL BE ALLOCATED. AND IF
SHE DOES NOT ALLOCATE IT AS WE
WANT, WE WILL BE FORCED TO DO
WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR.
AND SAY, I REALLY WANT TO FUND
WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO
FUND BUT NOW I HAVE TO CUT
OTHER THINGS BECAUSE THE MAYOR
MADE A PUBLIC PROMISE TO PEOPLE.
THAT IS TOO HARD FOR US TO DO
TOO OFTEN IN A SIX WEEK PERIOD.
I DON'T WANT US TO BE IN THAT
POSITION.
I BELIEVE THE MAYOR WILL HAVE
ADDITIONAL REVENUES AND SHE CAN
USE THAT TO BACKFILL THESE
THINGS WE ARE ON BACKFILLING.
SHE CAN USE IT TO EXPAND OTHER
PROGRAMS.
BUT SHE WILL NOT, ALMOST
CERTAINLY SHE WILL SAY -- WILL
NOT SAY HERE IS $10 MILLION,
YOU CAN DO IT YOU WANT WITH IT.
WE WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY, IN MY
10 YEARS EXPERIENCE, HAVE TO
UNDO SOMETHING ELSE OR FIND A
NEW REVENUE SOURCE AND THAT'S
NOT A POSITION I ENVY WHICH IS
WHY WANT TO DO THIS TODAY.
>> I THINK I'VE HAD EXACTLY THE
SAME FEELINGS YOU DO.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO UNDO
THINGS WE HAVE DONE.
IF WE HAVE ADDITIONAL REVENUES
THAN I AM IN FAVOR OF PUTTING
IT IN THERE, ALL IN FAVOR OF
MOVING FORWARD AS YOU ARE
DESCRIBING.
I'M SUGGESTING WE DON'T UNRAVEL
THIS NOW MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT
YOUR PLAN IS IN 2021.
>> I GUESS I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH
THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT WE
ARE UNRAVELING SOMETHING.
BECAUSE THE 2020 BUDGET IS
ALWAYS KIND OF A FAKE BUDGET.
EVERY YEAR WE ARE LIKE ARE
DOING A FINAL BUDGET, IT'S 2019.
2020 IS KIND OF SORT OF REAL,
WINK, WINK.
IT'S THERE FOR PLANNING
PURPOSES BUT NOT ACTUALLY
COMMITTED DOLLARS.
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOCATED.
THEY CERTAINLY HAVE NOT BEEN
SPENT.
AND SO EVERY YEAR, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THIS IS A SHARED
FRUSTRATION BY MOST OF US
WHO'VE BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL
BUDGET CYCLES, THERE IS ALMOST
AN INHERENT RESTORATION WITH
HOW WE DO BUDGET BECAUSE IT'S
NOT AND ENDORSED BUDGET.
GENERALLY LOOK AT EVERY BUDGET
YEAR AS THOUGH IT'S A NEW FRESH
BUDGET YEAR AND MAKE DECISIONS
AS THOUGH IT'S A NEW FRESH
BUDGET YEAR WITH WHATEVER
REVENUE WE HAVE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY
WE ARE UNRAVELING SOMETHING FOR
2020 WHEN WE ALL KNEW IN 2018
YOU ARE SIMPLY VOTING ON EIGHT
2020 BUDGET FOR PURPOSES OF
PLANNING THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN
CONTINGENT ON HAVING THE
REVENUE TO SUPPORT THE THINGS
WE INDICATED WOULD BE A POLICY
PRIORITY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS
DURING THE BUDGET SESSION AND I
THINK IT'S BETTER FOR US TO
ADDRESS THIS BIG POLICY
DECISION IN ADVANCE OF
RECEIVING THE BUDGET AND
CERTAINLY IN ADVANCE OF GETTING
INTO THE THICK OF THE BUDGET
WHERE WE WILL THEN BE PUT INTO
A POSITION OF MAKING THESE
DIFFICULT POLICY DETERMINATIONS
AROUND THE DEDICATED RESOURCES
AND ALSO MAKING THE TOUGH CALLS
AS DESCRIBED BY COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN.
>> I THINK MY SENSE FROM THIS
COMMITTEE IS WELL INTENTIONS ON
ALL PARTS.
WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO SOLVE
PROBLEMS.
I THINK WE SEE THEM SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENTLY.
I DON'T HAVE ANY DOUBT YOU'RE
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME
THING, TO USE THE MONEY AS
BROADLY AND WIDELY AS POSSIBLE.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS
ON THIS, COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO,
?
>> THIS IS MY FIRST TIME GOING
THROUGH THIS.
THE ENDORSED BUDGET, ASSUMING
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY,
MAKE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON WHAT
WE HAVE ENDORSED AS A CITY, AND
SO THEN THEY USE THAT PLANNING
DOCUMENT TO SAY THESE DECISIONS
ARE HOW WE AS AN ORGANIZATION
TO PLAN THE FUTURE.
>> THERE IS A PLANNING TOOL BUT
THERE IS NO COMMITMENT, LIKE
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ SAID.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE DO NOT
EARMARK FUNDING FOR
ORGANIZATIONS.
SO THERE IS NO COMMITMENTS IN
OUR 2020 BUDGET OR ANY OF OUR
BUDGETS THAT SAY, WE HAVE TO
MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS.
THIS PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION
GETS 100% OF THOSE FUNDS.
IT HAS BEEN A DISCOURAGED
PHYSICAL PRACTICE AND POLICY.
>> TO MY POINT, DO WE THEN, DO
YOU HAVE EXAMPLES IS BUDGET
CHAIR, WHERE ORGANIZATIONS USE
OUR ENDORSED BUDGET TO THEN
BEGIN TO PLAN FOR THEMSELVES
MOVING FORWARD?
>> OF COURSE.
THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES I THINK,
WE WOULD LOOK AT HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY, BUT WE
DON'T SAY, HOUSING WE ARE
PROMISING YOU ASK NUMBER OF
DOLLARS.
BUT WE HAVE A GOOD NUMBER OF
IDEAS, SOME PROGRAMS, LAW
ASSISTANT -- LAW ENFORCEMENT
ASSISTED DIVERSION, FOR EXAMPLE,
THEY KNOW AND HOPE THE MONIES
THEY HAVE ARE SOMETHING THEY
CAN COUNT ON.
AND THEN HOPE THAT WE WILL
INCREASE THAT IN YEARS TO COME.
THAT IS AN EXAMPLE WE COULD SAY
ALSO WITH I AM THINKING OF
YOUTH CARE, WE WORK CLOSELY
WITH YOUTH CARE TO GET THE STATE
TO GET MONEY FOR THEM.
WE GOT MONEY FOR THE CHIEF
SEATTLE CLUB.
THOSE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS, BUT
THEY ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNTIL
THE BUDGET IS SIGNED.
>> I WOULD ALSO SAY THERE IS A
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ONE TIME
FUNDING WHICH CLEARLY SIGNALS
YOU SHOULD NOT BE RELYING ON
ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS ONE
TIME.
AND THEN THERE IS ONGOING
PROGRAMMATIC INVESTMENTS.
I THINK WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO
ACCOMPLISH HERE THROUGH THIS
UNDERLYING BILL IS A FOLLOW
THROUGH ON A COMMITMENT WE MADE
TO BOTH SETS OF INVESTMENT BUT
IN A PARTICULAR AREA AND SPACE.
I THINK THERE IS CONCERN
AMONGST US AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS
THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY
FULFILLING THOSE COMMITMENTS
THAT WE MADE.
IN BOTH THE ONE TIME AND LONG-
TERM FUNDING.
I WOULD SAY I THINK IT'S FAIR
FROM A FISCAL POLICY GENERAL
BUDGETING SENE ORGANIZATIONS
WHO RELY ON PUBLIC FUNDS TO
CONTINUE TO DO THEIR WORK ARE
PRETTY NIMBLE AND UNDERSTAND
THAT THEY CAN RELY ON FUNDING
THAT IS ACTUALLY APPROPRIATED
IN THAT YEAR AND THAT
EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE THE
FOLLOWING YEAR.
WHICH IS WHY ADVOCATES SHOW UP
DURING OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BUDGET
PROCESS TO ADVOCATE FOR NO CUTS
AND ADDITIONS.
BECAUSE THERE IS A CLEAR
UNDERSTANDING AND EXPECTATION
THAT EVERYTHING IS BACK ON THE
TABLE EVERY SINGLE YEAR WHICH
IS WHY THE 2019/2020 ENDORSED
BUDGET PROCESS IS I THINK A
MISNOMER.
>> IT'S NOT A TRUE BIANNUAL
BUDGET.
>> BEFORE WE GO FURTHER WITH
MAYBE YOUR PROPOSED AMENDMENT,
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW , I
SHOULD SHARE A FEW THOUGHTS. I
COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ 'S POINT
THAT THE BUDGET IS PLIABLE IN
NATURE.
WE LOOK AT HOW WE ARE VESTING,
WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT'S NOT.
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN'S
ARGUMENT IS VERY COMPELLING.
I'M STILL A LITTLE HUNG UP ON,
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THIS IS A
STRONG POLICY STATEMENT THAT WE
ALL AGREE THAT THAT'S WHERE HIS
LEGISLATION IS INTENDED 2.2,
THAT HE'S INTENDING TO DRIVE.
I AM STILL, ALTHOUGH I MIGHT'VE
DESCRIBED TO YOU, A SUPPORTIVE
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, NOT
UNRAVEL SOMETHING, I FIND THAT
ARGUMENT WEAKENING BECAUSE
NUMBER ONE, IF I AM
UNDERSTANDING THE BASE
LEGISLATION, WE ARE NOT
UNRAVELING ANY INVESTMENTS THIS
YEAR.
WE ARE SORT OF SETTING AN
INVESTMENT POLICY STATEMENT IF
YOU WILL, DIRECTIVES IF YOU
WILL, FOR NEXT YEAR.
ONE OF WHICH I SUPPORT.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS
CORRECTLY, I WOULD NOT BE
SUPPORTING PERHAPS THE AMENDMENT
AND WOULD BE SUPPORTING THE
BASE LEGISLATION BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT UNRAVELING ANYTHING.
AND IT IS AND ENDORSED BUDGET.
BUT I COULD BE CONVINCED THE
OTHER WAY IF YOU LIKE.
[LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK I HAVE SAID WHAT I
FELT COMPELLED TO SAY.
FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN, THANKS.
AND SECONDLY, THIS IS NOT TO IN
ANY WAY UNDO WHAT THE SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX IS DESIGNED TO DO.
I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT 2020,
COMMITMENTS WE HAVE MADE. AND I
AM THINKING AGAIN, I DON'T WANT
TO KEEP SAYING THE CHILD CARE
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, HOWEVER
THEY ARE DESIGNATED IN TERMS OF
HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAD SET FOR
THEM.
IF WE OPEN THIS ALL UP AGAIN
DURING THE BUDGET CONTEXT, YES,
WE CAN PUT MORE MONEY IN HERE.
BUT AGAIN WE ARE GOING BACK AND
LOOKING AT THE GENERAL FUND
MONEY AND WHERE IT WENT AND AT
LEAST I'VE BEEN TOLD THE OFFSET
HERE IS AROUND SHELTER AND
HUMAN SERVICES.
>> IF I CAN JUST RESPOND.
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO IS WHAT FINANCERS TRY TO DO
AND SHOW FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND
GUIDE INVESTMENTS.
BUT IF THIS WORKS, IF THE
LEGISLATION WORKS, THE MAYOR
CAN'T APPROVE A BUDGET, ALL
THEY CAN DO IS PROPOSE IT.
THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT,
REALLY IT JUST CREATES MORE
WORK, BUT GOOD WORK FOR US IN
ABOUT THREE MONTHS.
AND THAT IS OKAY.
THAT'S THE WAY AND LOOKING AT
THIS.
I DON'T SEE US PUTTING, QUITE
FRANKLY, MUCH PRESSURE ON THE
MAYOR AT ALL THROUGH THIS.
I SEE MORE PRESSURE ON US WHEN
SHE SIMPLY PROPOSES A BUDGET.
THAT'S THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT
THIS.
CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR KIND
OF LEGISLATION BECAUSE WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO BE THE ONES TO
MAKE THESE TOUGH DECISIONS IF
IN FACT THE REPRESENTATIONS ARE
THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE
ANYTHING SIGNIFICANTLY THIS
YEAR.
CORRECT?
>> I AM SAYING CORRECT.
>> HE IS LETTING IT SINK IN.
>> WE WILL NEED TO SEE YOU BACK
HERE IN THE FALL.
HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE A BETTER
STARTING SPOT.
>> I THINK I AM SEEING THE WAY
THE WIND IS BLOWING.
I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A VOTE
UNLESS COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO
YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WOULD
LIKE TO ADD.
>> I APPRECIATE THE PASSION
THAT COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN
BROUGHT TO THIS CONVERSATION .
YOU KNOW, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT
FOR ME TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT
HOLISTICALLY ABOUT HOW WE GOT
HERE.
I CERTAINLY WAS VERY MUCH
FRUSTRATED THAT LATTES AND DIET
SODAS WERE NOT INCLUDED WHEN
THIS WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED
BECAUSE WE'VE NOT ONLY MADE A
COMMITMENT TO COMMUNITIES, WE
USED THE MONEY TO SUPPLEMENT
FOR OTHER GENERAL FUND
PURPOSES.
WHY I WAS TRYING TO BRING MY
POINT ABOUT THE ENDORSED BUDGET
IN REGARDS TO CONVERSATIONS IN
THE FUTURE, I THINK IT BEHOOVES
US TO KIND OF THINK OF IT
HOLISTICALLY AS WELL BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN ASKED,
AND I WILL SAY THIS IS A
PERSONAL COMMITMENT, WHAT I
PLAN TO BE DOING NEXT YEAR.
ONE OF THE THINGS I HOPE TO BE
SPENDING SOME OF MY TIME ON IS
TO SEE IF WE CAN WORK WITH THE
STATE LEGISLATOR TO PROVIDE AN
EXEMPTION FOR US TO REVISIT
THIS SODA TAX SO WE CAN THEN
INCLUDE DIET SODA AND LATTES.
I THINK IT WAS A BIT OF AN
INJUSTICE.
HAVING SAID THAT AS WELL, MY
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AS A
COUNCILMEMBER, AND NOT BE
MINDFUL OF A HOLISTIC
RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE WHEN WE
THINK THROUGH THE BUDGET.
ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE RELIANT
ON OUR BUDGET AS A CITY ALSO
HAVE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.
SO I AM HAPPY TO REVISIT THIS
AND TRY TO PUT MORE MONEY INTO
THE SODA TAX SO WE MAKE
COMMUNITIES WHOLE, BUT I THINK
IT'S BEST FOR US TO DO THAT
WHEN WE HAVE THE PROPOSED
BUDGET IN HAND AND MAKE THOSE
TOUGH DECISIONS HOLISTICALLY
WHEN WE CAN MAKE THEM ALL AT
THE SAME TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO MOVE MY
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.
DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> THE MOTION FAILS.
WITH THE ABSTENTION.
IT WOULD FAIL IF YOU SAID NO.
BUT NOW WE HAVE AN AMENDED BILL
IN FRONT OF US WITH AMENDMENT
NUMBER ONE THE PASSING.
AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE PASSING.
ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION ABOUT
THIS?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THIS
DELAYED UNTIL THE JULY 22?
>> AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR
REMINDING US, AND JUST FOR MY
COLLEAGUES, THIS IS BECAUSE
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN WILL NOT
BE HERE ON MONDAY WITH THIS.
I WANT TO HONOR THE FACT THE
YOU HAVE BEEN BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND WE WILL HAVE A FULL
VOTE ON JUNE 22nd.
I'M SORRY, I MISSED IT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL
AS AMENDED SAY AYE.
>> AYE.
>> NO OPPOSED AND KNOW
ABSTENTION'S.
THANK YOU FOR THE EXCELLENT
DISCUSSION.
WE WILL BE BACK. ALL OF YOUR
POINTS WILL BE EXCELLENT AND
WELL-MADE.
NOTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA?
OKAY.
THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU.