[Music]
everyone the august 12
2020 special meeting of the seattle city
council will come to order it is 206 pm
i'm lorena gonzalez president of the
council will the clerk please call the
roll
council member peterson here council
member sawant
here council member strauss
president council member herbal
councilmember morales here
councilmember muscata here council
president
gonzalez here eight present
thank you madam clerk if there's no
objection the agenda will
be adopted hearing no objection
the agenda is adopted uh colleagues will
go ahead
and uh begin public comment at this time
we
will open uh the remote public comment
period for items on the city council
agenda and the council's 2020 work
program
i'd ask that everyone who is joining us
for public comment be patient as we
continue to learn to operate this new
system in real time and navigate through
the uh growing pains we are continuously
looking for ways to fine-tune this
remote process and adding new features
that allow for
additional means of participation in our
council meetings
it does remain our strong intent to
continue to have remote public comment
regularly included on
our remote meeting agendas however the
city council reserves the right to end
or eliminate these public comment
periods at any time
if we deem that the system is being
abused or is no longer suitable for
allowing our meetings to be conducted
efficiently and in a manner
in which we are able to conduct our
necessary business
i will moderate the public comment
period in the following manner the
public comment period for this meeting
is 20 minutes and each speaker will be
given two minutes to speak
i will call on each speaker by name and
in the order in which they registered on
the council's website
if you have not yet registered to speak
but would like to you can sign up before
the end of public comment by going to
the council's website at seattle.gov
forward slash council that's
c-o-u-n-c-i-l
the public comment link is also listed
on today's agenda
once i call a speaker's name staff will
unmute the appropriate microphone and an
automatic prompt of you have been
unmuted will be the speaker's queue that
it is their turn to speak
and before speaking the speaker must
also press
star six to begin speaking
please begin speaking by stating your
name and the item
that you are addressing after you hit
star six
and as a reminder public comment should
relate to an item on today's agenda or
the council's 2020 work program
speakers will hear a chime when they
have only 10 seconds left
of their two minutes once you hear the
chime
we ask that you begin to wrap up your
public comment if speakers do not end
their
comments at the end of the allotted time
period the speaker's microphone will be
muted to allow us to call on the next
person
once you've completed your public
comment we ask that you please
disconnect from the line
and if you plan to continue following
this meeting please do so via seattle
channel or the listening options listed
on the agenda
the public comment period is now open
and i will begin with the first speaker
on the list again please remember to
press
star six before
um before speaking today okay let's see
first speaker is maria harwell followed
by peter
shalito
hello my name is maria harwell i'm
calling today in support of the
council bill 11962
to provide community-based organizations
with three million dollars for research
to promote real public safety informed
by community needs
as you know the ordinance provides
resources for
an initial needs assessment including
language access needs
staffing and technical support community
participatory budgeting data collection
and reporting and development of a
roadmap for future equitable
participatory budget processes
related to public safety your financial
commitment for research
enables community building which is
fundamental to real public safety
thank you very much my time thank you so
much for calling
in next up is peter celito
thank you hi this is peter shalato in
seattle district 4.
it has been a busy couple months and i
want to start by thanking you all for
doing your job representing the people
of seattle
engaging in uncomfortable and difficult
conversations
and taking action through the budget to
remove power from the police
power they have shown so much
willingness to abuse this summer
we need to continue working towards
defunding by at least 50 percent
i'm calling today in particular to to
support the bill to provide community
based organizations with three million
dollars for
research your financial commitment will
enable community building which is so
fundamental to
public safety as you know this ordinance
provides resources specifically
for an initial needs assessment staffing
training administrative and technical
support
community participatory budgeting data
collection analysis and reporting and
development of a roadmap for future
equitable participatory
budget processes related to public
safety
and finally this may be beyond your
powers but after hearing comments from
chief best yesterday
i would love to see an investigation
into who gave the order for officers to
leave the east precinct
on june 8th if the command came from the
seattle police officers guild
then this city is hostage to that group
even more than i thought
the officers effectively carried out a
strike in plain sight
that's all i have for today thank you
again for your hard work black lives
matter
thank you so much for calling in peter
um that is
those are all the names i have for
public comment
today so we are going to go ahead and
close
out our period of uh public comment
thank you
to the folks who called in to provide
public comment today
okay we're going to go ahead and move on
to items of business
on our agenda for today the first item
up is reconsideration of council bill
one one nine eight one two
uh i would ask the clerk please read the
item
uh item one into the record
agenda one council one one nine eight
one two mnd ordinance one two six zero
zero zero which adopted the 2020 budget
making appropriations from the emergency
fund
for public assistance during the coven
19 civil emergency
making an appropriation from the general
fund for public assistance during
civil emergency and making
appropriations from the revenue
stabilization fund
for public assistance during civil
emergency all by three-fourths vote of
the city council
thank you madam clerk um i am
colleagues i am calling up the
reconsideration of passage of council
bill
119812
to consider the mayor's veto the
reconsideration of council bill
119812 is now pending before the council
i'm gonna go ahead and open it up for uh
comments
in a moment um and uh i would ask that
the prime sponsor
of the bill and the chair of our budget
committee councilmember moscata
um will be the first person to speak
to this particular vote for
reconsideration and then i will
happily open it up to um my other
colleagues for any
comments on uh reconsideration of this
council bill
i just like to start by saying that uh
the reason we are taking up
the reconsideration of council bill 119
812
is um because the charter of the city of
seattle under section 12 requires the
council
to take up and reconsider
any and all bills that may be vetoed by
by the mayor of seattle we have engaged
with our law department and
have confirmed that the
requirement to
[Music]
the requirement to reconsider
the veto is mandated by
the charter in other words it is it is
not
discretionary on our part in terms of
whether we consider
a veto or not and again that's under
section 12
of the city charter and i just want to
take a moment to
to make sure that the record reflects
the mandatory language
that is included in section 12 of uh
of of the charter which reads quote the
council shall
not less than five days after such
publication and within 30 days after
such bill shall have been so returned
reconsider and vote upon the same
and so i just want to make sure that the
record is clear as to why we are taking
up this vote
it is rooted in a charter required
obligation for the
full council to undergo this exercise
i am looking forward to having a
conversation about how to
move us forward on uh council bill 119
812 which was originally passed
unanimously with a 9-0
vote from the city council and
i believe councilmember moscata and i'm
also happy to address this uh
have worked over the last 48 hours on
identifying potential consensus here
to move us forward and identifying some
compromise opportunities so that we can
go ahead and move forward
and begin the process of getting this
important relief
out to eligible residents in the city
of seattle so in large part uh today
and we will reconsider this and my hope
is
uh consistent with the communication
that councilmember mosquito sent out
this morning
that we'll have an opportunity to
immediately amend it
with some language that
will reflect uh the council's
willingness to
take into consideration the new
financial information that we received
on monday
and to make sure that that those
financial
realities are reflected memorialized
and appropriately considered as we look
at
um moving forward with this particular
council bill so um hope that
you all will um
share some of your own comments and at
this point i'm going to go ahead and
hand it over to
uh council member moscata who was the
prime sponsor of um the bill
and then uh colleagues for anyone else
who would like to provide
comments before we call this to a role
please do let me know by
raising your hand or by shooting me a
quick
message to let me know you'd like to get
in the queue thank you councilman
mosquito please
uh thank you very much madam president i
want to start today
by thanking the mayor the city budget
office and all of the folks who've been
involved with this council over the last
few months as we engage in the budget
process
especially as we review the revenue
forecasts
given the crisis that we're in we
understand the realities of the changing
revenue forecasts the trying times that
we are in to both respond to the
emerging
and emergent needs in our community and
also to make sure that our city
and our city employees have the services
that they need
TOGETHER WE ARE WORKING TO
IDENTIFY THE NEEDED REVENUE TO
ADDRESS THE NEEDS IN OUR
COMMUNITY, AND TO BE FISCALLY
PRUDENT WITH THE DOLLARS IN
FRONT OF US.
THIS EFFORT TODAY IS AN EFFORT
TO WORK TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THE
REVENUE SHORT FALL IN FRONT OF
US.
MONDAY WE DID GET NEWS FROM THE
CEO THERE WAS ANOTHER PROJECTED
$26 MILLION SHORT FALL.
WE WANT TO THANK CBO DIRECTOR
BEN NOBLE FOR FLAGGING THE 26
MILLION THAT HAD PRESENTED
ITSELF IN THIS MOST RECENT
REVENUE FORECAST.
AS WE LEARNED ABOUT IT MONDAY
OVER THE LAST 48 HOURS WE'VE
BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ALONG
WITH THE COUNCILMEMBER'S
COMMENTS, I AND I KNOW VICE
CHAIR HERBLE AND OTHERS HAVE
BEEN WORKING ON WAYS WE KNOW TO
CLOSE THIS GAP, AND TO FIND
COLLABORATIVE CREATIVE
SOLUTIONS TO MAKE SURE WE CAN
STILL GET DOLLARS OUT THE DOOR.
ALL OF THIS IS IN OUR JOINT
INTEREST.
OUR INTEREST IN THE CITY,
EVERYONE IN CITY HALL, BUT ALSO
MOST IMPORTANTLY THE RESIDENTS
OF THE CITY, THAT WE WORK TO
PROVIDE IMMEDIATE RELIEF AND TO
CLOSE THIS REVENUE GAP.
IT'S A PROCEDURAL APPROACH THAT
ALLOWS US TO PUT THE JUMP START
COVID RELIEF BILL IN FRONT OF
US, AS REQUIRED BY THE CHARTER
AND THEN TO IMMEDIATELY ACT IN
OUR JOINT EFFORT TO AMEND THE
STATUTE TO ADDRESS THE REVENUE
SHORT FALL.
AS SOON AS THE BILL PASSES WE
WILL BE ABLE TO THEN
IMMEDIATELY ADDRESS THOSE
REVENUE SHORT FALLS BY REDUCING
THE COVID SPENDING BY $26
MILLION.
TOGETHER, THIS ALLOWS FOR US TO
ADDRESS THE PRESSING ISSUES
FACING OUR CITY, OUR CITY
BUDGET AND OUR RESIDENTS ACROSS
OUR CITY HERE.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE
HUNDREDS OF ORGANIZATIONS.
YOU KNOW IT'S BEEN A WHILE
SINCE WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO
THANK YOU.
BUT JUST AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR DILIGENCE IN WORKING WITH
ALL OF US TO IDENTIFY SMART
WAYS THAT WE CAN PLUG SOME
HOLES THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED
BY THE LACK OF ACTION AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL.
THE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN
LISTED A BUNCH OF TIMES, AND I
WON'T AGAIN THANK THEM, BUT ALL
OF THE SERVICES THEY ARE
PROVIDING FROM SERVING OUR MOST
VULNERABLE TO PROVIDING HOUSING
TO CARING FOR THOSE UNSHELTERED
AND TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IN
TERMS OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY
RIGHT NOW.
WE KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDING
YOUR TIME SO WE WANT TO THANK
YOU.
THE ORGANIZATIONS, THE
BUSINESSES, THE UNIONS, THE
ADVOCACY GROUPS AND
INDIVIDUALS, ALL OF YOU HAVE
HELPED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
INVESTING IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND SECURE HOUSING,
PROVIDING SHELTER OPTIONS FOR
OUR HOMELESS POPULATION.
WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT SMALL
BUSINESSES DON'T CLOSE, AND
THAT FAMILIES ACROSS THE CITY
HAVE ACCESS TO CHILDCARE.
WE'RE HELPING OUR IMMIGRANT,
AND REFUGEE POPULATION WHERE
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HASN'T
STEPPED IN, AND WE WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT
YOU'VE DONE, ESPECIALLY AS WE
TALK ABOUT ALL OF THE LONG TERM
STRATEGIES FOR THE LOCAL
ECONOMY.
I WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD,
MANY OF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THREE
LETTERS FROM LABOR, FROM
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND FROM
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS GROUPS
ENCOURAGING THIS ACTION TODAY.
WHILE EVERYONE IS ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT WE ALWAYS NEED TO SEE HOW
THIS COMPOUNDING CRISIS, THAT
IS COVID IS EFFECTING HOUSING
IN THE LONG TERM, THEY'RE
REALLY URGING OUR ACTION TODAY,
AND FROM THE CONVERSATION I'VE
HAD WITH MANY STAKEHOLDERS ARE
UNDERSTANDING AS WELL ABOUT THE
$26 MILLION DEFICIT AND THE
JOINT APPROACH, THE TWO STEP
APPROACH THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT
OF US.
THANK YOU AGAIN, MADAM
PRESIDENT, I THINK I'LL SAVE
SOME OF MY COMMENTS FOR LATER,
BUT JUST DEEPLY APPRECIATIVE OF
THE ABILITY TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION TODAY IN
RECOGNITION OF THE $26 MILLION
SHORT FALL THAT WE HAVE.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE A STRATEGIC,
COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO TRY
TO CLOSE THAT GAP AS WE ALSO
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE
RELIEF OUT THE DOOR FOR THOSE
WHO ARE IN NEED, AND RECOGNIZE
THAT IT'S A CONSTANTLY MOVING
TARGET, AND WE'LL BE WORKING
CLOSELY WITH THE EXECUTIVE AND
THE DEPARTMENTS TO RIGHT SIZE
THOSE INVESTMENTS.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU.
WE ALSO HAVE COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF ON THE LINE WITH US, IF
FOLKS FEEL THAT THEY NEED TO
HEAR OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF WITH
REGARDS TO THE RECONSIDERATION
AND THE INTENTION TO HAVE SOME
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS.
HAPPY TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO
ALLOW QUESTIONS TO BE DIRECTED
AT COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF SO
PLEASE DO LET ME KNOW IF THAT
IS OF INTEREST TO ANYONE.
COLLEAGUES, ANYONE ELSE HAVE
ANY COMMENTS THAT WE WOULD LIKE
TO MAKE ON THIS COUNCIL BILL?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLT AND
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> SO WHILE THECOUNCIL IS
VOTING ON WHETHER OR NOT TO
OVERRIDE THE MAYOR'S VETO
TODAY, I WANT TO BE REALLY
CLEAR THAT I SEE MY VOTE TO
OVERRIDE THIS VETO AS TECHNICAL
IN NATURE BECAUSE OF THE NEED
FOR A REPLACEMENT BILL THAT I
THINK ADDRESSES THE POSITION OF
THE MAYOR AND THE BUDGET OFFICE
AS IT RELATES TO PRESERVING
ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY REVENUES
IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT REVENUE
FORECAST, AND ALSO THE CONCERNS
I'VE HEARD FROM THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE AROUND INSURING THAT
THERE'S FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE
BILL THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE
ON, TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THAT
COUNCIL'S INTENTION IS THAT THE
REVENUES BE SPENT, BUT WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THEY
CAN'T BE SPENT EITHER BECAUSE
OF FUTURE FINANCIAL SHORT FALLS
IN 2020, OR BECAUSE OF
TECHNICAL ISSUES RELATED TO
SETTING UP NEW PROGRAMS AND
FUNDING, ACTUALLY GETTING THE
MONEY OUT THE DOOR, THAT WE ARE
INTENDING TO GIVE THEM THAT
FLEXIBILITY.
BUT WE CAN'T VOTE ON THAT OTHER
BILL WITHOUT TAKING AN ACTION
ON THE VETO BEFORE US TODAY.
AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT GONZALEZ
SAID, IT'S A CHARTER OBLIGATION
TO VOTE ON THIS BILL UP OR
DOWN.
WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
JUST PUT IT ASIDE, AND
INTRODUCE A NEW BILL.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS
BECAUSE THE COUNCIL'S REQUIRED
TO DO OUR ACTION IN PUBLIC.
WE CAN'T JUST SORT OF
UNOFFICIALLY SAY WE'RE GOING TO
PUT THIS BILL ASIDE, AND MOVE
FORWARD A NEW BILL THAT WE HAVE
AGREEMENT WITH ON, ON THE MAYOR
ON SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES.
WE'RE NOT PERMITTED TO DO THAT.
THE MAYOR CAN ALLOW LEGISLATION
TO GO INTO EFFECT WITHOUT HER
SIGNATURE.
WE'RE OBLIGATED BY THE CHARTER
AND BY THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN
GOVERNMENT OF A LEGISLATIVE
BODY TO VOTE THIS VETO UP OR
DOWN.
BUT AGAIN, I SEE THE VOTE ON
THIS VETO AS TECHNICAL IN
NATURE.
IT'S TECHNICAL IN NATURE
BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO TO VOTE
ON THE SUBSTITUTE BILL THAT
WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT IN A
MOMENT.
IF WE DON'T VOTE ON THE VETO,
WE CAN'T VOTE ON THE
SUBSTITUTE, BECAUSE THE
SUBSTITUTE ITSELF IS AN
AMENDMENT OF THE VETOED BILL.
AND UNDER A DIFFERENT SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES WE COULD
POTENTIALLY INTRODUCE A NEW
BILL, BUT WE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE
THE TIME TO DO THAT.
UNDER A DIFFERENT SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE COULD VOTE TO
UPHOLD THE VETO AND INTRODUCE A
NEW BILL.
BUT AGAIN, GIVEN THE FACT THAT
WE HAVE A COUNCIL RECESS.
GIVEN THAT WE DON'T HAVE
ANOTHER INTRODUCTION AND
REFERRAL CALENDAR UNTIL NEXT
MONDAY, AND NOT A LOT OF
ABILITY TO SCHEDULE ADDITIONAL
COUNCIL MEETINGS BEFORE THE
COUNCIL GOES ON RECESS, THIS IS
THE OPTION BEFORE US TODAY.
WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS
REPLACEMENT LEGISLATION, THE
LEGISLATION THAT'S GOING TO BE
COMING UP NEXT THAT AMENDS THE
VETO FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
REASONS.
THERE'S THE NEED TO MAKE SOME
BALANCING DECISIONS THAT ARE
REFLECTED IN THAT BILL, AND
WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THEM
LATER.
SO FOR ME, IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE
REASON WHY WE'RE TAKING THIS
VOTE.
IT'S NOT TO CELEBRATE THE
OVERWRITING OF THE VETO, BUT
IT'S AS A VEHICLE TO GET US TO
THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON ANOTHER
BILL THAT I'M REALLY HOPING
ACCOMPLISHES THE SHARED
OBJECTIVES OF THE MAYOR AND
COUNCIL AND MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WHO HAVE WORKED REALLY
HARD TO NOT JUST GET THE JUMP
START TAX MEASURE IN PLACE, BUT
ALSO THE SPENDING PLAN.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD FOR THOSE REMARKS, AND
I DO ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH
EVERYTHING YOU HAVE JUST LAID
OUT FOR US.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, FOLLOWED
BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON.
>> THANK YOU MADAM PRESIDENT,
AND THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD FOR YOUR COMMENTS JUST
NOW AROUND THE DIFFICULT
POSITION THAT WE'RE IN, GIVEN
TIMELINE, GIVEN THE
INTRODUCTION AND REFERRAL DAYS
THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US.
GIVEN THAT WE DO HAVE A COUNCIL
RECESS COMING UP THAT IS ALSO A
RECESS FOR OUR CENTRAL STAFF,
AND FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE HERE
ON THE VIRTUAL SECOND FLOOR WHO
KEEP THIS RUNNING AND WHO HAVE
BEEN WORKING SO UNBELIEVABLY
HARD DURING OUR SUMMER
BALANCING SESSION.
I AGREE THAT ALL OF THOSE
LOGISTICAL HURDLES ARE IN FRONT
OF US, THEY'RE REAL AND THAT
THIS IS NOT AN IDEAL TIME TO BE
HAVING A CONVERSATION
OVERRIDING A VETO THAT FRANKLY
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN
THE FIRST PLACE WHEN A
DIFFERENT APPROACH IN AMENDING,
AND CONSULTING ON THESE
MEASURES BEFORE TAKING THAT
TYPE OF AN ACTION COULD HAVE
BEEN DONE.
I AM EXTREMELY CONFLICTED, AND
DIVIDED ON THIS.
MOSTLY BECAUSE I'M FRUSTRATED,
AND I THINK IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE
I'M A FRESHMAN TO THIS BODY.
I DON'T HAVE A LONG TRACK
RECORD OF EXPERIENCE IN WORKING
IN THIS LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT,
AND IN WORKING WITH AN
EXECUTIVE THAT WE FREQUENTLY
HAVE HURDLES WITH.
I DON'T THINK THAT I AM
PERSONALLY SHOCKING ANYONE FROM
THE VIEWING PUBLIC, OR ANYONE
ON THIS COUNSEL BY SAYING THERE
IS VERY REAL FRICTION BETWEEN
THIS VIRTUAL SECOND FLOOR, AND
THE VIRTUAL SEVENTH FLOOR IN
THE RUNNING OF THE CITY.
AND THAT THAT IS SPILLING OVER
INTO EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE
DOING AS A CITY GOVERNMENT IN
TERMS OF THE ATMOSPHERE THAT
HAS BEEN POLARIZED, AND THAT
HAS BEEN DIVISIVE IN A WAY THAT
NONE OF US WANT TO CULTIVATE,
AND THAT NONE OF US WANT TO BE
PARTICIPATING IN.
AND IT IS ALL THE MORE
FRUSTRATING, GIVEN THAT WE'RE
FACED WITH AN UNPRECEDENTED
SERIES OF CHALLENGES THIS YEAR,
FROM COMPLETELY RETHINKING, AND
REINSTITUTING OUR SAFETY TO
NAVIGATING THE BRIDGE, TO THE
WATERFRONT THAT IS FALLING IN
ELLIOTT BAY, TO THE COVID
PANDEMIC THAT IS COMPLETELY
ENGULFING EVERYTHING, AND
FORCING US TO HAVE THESE
MEETINGS ON ZOOM.
FORCING LOTS OF MY FELLOW
RENTERS AS ONE OF THE TWO
RENTERS ON THIS COUNCIL TO NOT
HAVE A LIVELIHOOD, AND BE ABLE
TO PAY THEIR RENT, TO PEOPLE
THAT LITERALLY ARE STARVING,
BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOST THEIR
ABILITY TO CARE FOR THEMSELVES,
AND TO PAY FOR FOOD.
THE CITY HAS NEVER BEEN FACING
GREATER CHALLENGES, AND EVERY
DAY, IT IS JUST FRUSTRATING
THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE
THE PUBLIC HAS TO SEE THE
LEADERS OF THE CITY, NOT BE
ABLE TO REACH AN ACCORD, NOT BE
ABLE TO REACH A DEAL, AND NOT
BE ABLE TO GET RELIEF OUT TO
THE PEOPLE OF THIS CITY.
AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
I BLAME ANY OF THE DIFFERENT
ACTORS IN GOVERNMENT FOR,
SPECIFICALLY, SINCE THE VOTERS
HAVE GIVEN US DIVIDED
GOVERNMENT.
THEY'VE GIVEN US A COUNCIL THAT
HAS A CERTAIN SET OF
PRIORITIES, INCLUDING MYSELF,
WHO PROUDLY VOTED FOR JUMP
START AND VOTED FOR THIS BILL,
AND A MAYOR WHO IS CONCERNED
ABOUT LOOKING DOWN THE BARREL
OF FURLOUGHS, AND FIRING
EMPLOYEES, AND KEEPING
ESSENTIAL SERVICES IN THE CITY
GOING, AND WORRIED THAT THESE
EMERGENCY FUNDS ARE THE ONLY
LIFELINE TO KEEP THIS CITY
GOING.
AND I REALLY WANT US TO MAKE A
DEAL, AND I WANT TO FLAG AT THE
FRONT OF THIS ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT I SEE WITH THE
CURRENT ARRANGEMENT THAT'S BEEN
SET UP, WHICH IS THAT THE MAYOR
FROM HER POSITION HAS MADE IT
CLEAR THAT SHE IS NOT GOING TO
SPEND THIS MONEY.
THAT SHE'S NOT GOING TO SPEND
THE MONEY, IF WE SEND A REVISED
PACKAGE.
SHE IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO
PUSH BACK UNTIL THERE IS A
BROADER ACCOMMODATION OF WHAT
SHE SAYS AS HER CONCERNS IN THE
SPEND LEVEL OF THE BILL.
AND THAT WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE
PUSHED BACK ELOQUENTLY AND
STRONGLY TO SAY THIS RELIEF
NEEDS TO GET OUT THERE, BECAUSE
NO ONE ELSE IS SENDING IT.
THE IDEA OF FEDERAL RELIEF
COMING IN ON DOCIMER WINGS OR
OF PHILANTHROPY ALONE BEING
ABLE TO DO THE TRICK, AND I DO
APPLAUD GOVERNOR INSLEE FOR
PUTTING FORWARD A CONSIDERABLE
AMOUNT OF RELIEF FOR OUR
UNDOCUMENTED NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE
BEEN EXCLUDED FROM FEDERAL
RELIEF.
BUT ON THE WHOLE, IT IS THIS
JUMP START PACKAGE THAT IS THE
RELIEF THAT PEOPLE REALLY NEED.
THE CHALLENGE THAT I SEE IS
THAT EVEN IF WE MOVE FORWARD
AND APPROPRIATE THIS MONEY THE
WAY WE'RE INTENDING TO DO
TODAY, THE EXECUTIVE WOWED A
DEAL WILL NOT GET THIS MONEY
OUT THE DOOR.
THAT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO
FULFILL OUR PROMISES TO THE
PEOPLE THAT NEED THIS RELIEF,
AND NEED THIS MONEY.
AND BARRING LOCKING IN A JOINT
DEAL, WHERE THE PEOPLE'S
REPRESENTATIVES ON THE COUNCIL
AND THE MAYOR CAN STAND
TOGETHER AND SAY "LOOK, WE GAVE
A LITTLE HERE, WE GAVE A LITTLE
THERE, BUT THIS MONEY WILL GET
OUT AND THIS RELIEF WILL BE
SPENT EXPEDIENTLY.
WE'RE ALL LOOKING OURSELVES
INTO THIS AND WE'RE MAKING THIS
TO EACH OTHER."
I DON'T SEE A WAY THAT WE
CONVERSATION AGAIN AFTER
RECESS, BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN
ANOTHER ROAD BLOCK, BECAUSE WE
HAVE NOT REACHED AN ACCORD AND
UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
EXECUTIVE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE
COULD BE AN OPENING TO WORK
OVER THE NEXT WEEK AND A HALF
TO NAIL IN THIS DEAL, WHERE WE
WOULD GET THE MONEY OUT, WE
WOULD LOCK IN A COMMITMENT TO
SPEND THE MONEY, AND WE COULD
ALL GO FORWARD, KNOWING THAT
IT'S DONE AND THE RELIEF WILL
ACTUALLY COME FORWARD.
AND I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN
FRANTIC, AND FRENETIC
NEGOTIATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
FRUSTRATING OVER THE LAST 48
HOURS, WHERE AN ACCORD HAS NOT
BEEN ABLE TO BE REACHED, NOT
DUE TO THE LACK OF TRYING, BUT
ANY PARTIES ON ANY SIDE OF THE
CITY GOVERNMENT, BUT I DO GET
THE SENSE THAT IF THERE IS A
SUSTAINMENT TODAY, THAT THAT
DEAL CAN BE LOCKED IN, AND WE
CAN ACTUALLY GET THIS RELIEF
OUT THE DOOR.
JUST GIVEN THAT WE HAVE HAD
EIGHT MONTHS OF VERY POLARIZED
BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE
EXECUTIVE AND THE COUNCIL, I
THINK THAT WE OWE IT TO THE
PEOPLE OF SEATTLE TO TRY FOR
ANOTHER WEEK AND A HALF AND
COME TO AN ARRANGEMENT WHERE
THE MONEY WILL GET OUT THE
DOOR, WHERE WE'RE ALL LOCKING
OURSELVES INTO THAT, AND WE'RE
ALL MUTUALLY COMMITTED TO
RISING TO WHAT THIS OCCASION
REQUIRES.
AND I THINK THAT A SUSTAINMENT
TODAY CAN HELP TO FORCE THAT
CONVERSATION.
AND IF AN ACCORD CANNOT BE MET,
I'VE GOT NO PROBLEM PASSING A
PACKAGE LIKE THIS OVER THE
OBJECTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE
AFTER TRYING FOR ANOTHER WEEK
AND A HALF.
AND IF WE CAN'T COME TO AN
ACCORD, PASSING SOMETHING THEN.
BUT TODAY, I'M GOING TO VOTE TO
SUSTAIN IN ORDER TO FORCE THIS
CONVERSATION AND SHOW THE
PEOPLE OF SEATTLE THAT WE CAN
ALL COME TOGETHER, AND THAT WE
CAN MAKE AN ARRANGEMENT WHERE
THIS WILL ACTUALLY GET OUT THE
DOOR, AND THIS WILL ACTUALLY
START MEETING THE NEEDS OF OUR
COMMUNITY, AND WE CAN FINALLY
ALL DO THIS TOGETHER AS A
COUNCIL AND A MAYOR TO GET THIS
JOB DONE.
SO THANK YOU.
>>
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE WITH THEIR
HANDS UP.
I HAD COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON IN
THE QUEUE, AND THEN I THINK I
SAW COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD RAISE
HER HAND AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE LETTER
THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY
BUDGET OFFICE THAT WE RECEIVED
ON MONDAY, AUGUST 10, FROM THE
BUDGET DIRECTOR, BEN NOBLE.
SO JUST FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT
FOR WHY SOME, AT LEAST A COUPLE
OF US MIGHT BE STRUGGLING WITH
THIS VOTE HERE IS THAT WE
RECEIVED A LETTER WITH AN
AUGUST REVENUE, AN UPDATED
REVENUE FORECAST THAT SHOWS AN
ADDITIONAL DEFICIT OF $50.2
MILLION.
NOW THEY BREAK IT OUT WHAT'S
THE DEFICIT FOR THIS YEAR, AND
WHAT'S THE DEFICIT FOR NEXT
YEAR, BUT IT'S $50 MILLION,
$50.2 MILLION, AND WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO IS GET ADDITIONAL
COVID RELIEF OUT THE DOOR THAT
IS USING OUR RAINY DAY FUND.
SO I VOTED FOR THAT MEASURE.
IT WAS UNANIMOUS TO PASS THE
COVID RELIEF BILL OF $86
MILLION TO DRAIN DOWN THE RAINY
DAY FUND, LEAVING ONLY ABOUT
$13 MILLION LEFT OUT OF $125
MILLION IN THOSE FUNDS.
BUT WHAT WE NOW HAVE NEW
INFORMATION.
THIS NEW INFORMATION IS
PERTINENT TO THE NEED TO
REBALANCE THE BUDGET, AND IT'S
A $50 MILLION HOLE, NOT A $26
MILLION HOLE, AND THE RAINY DAY
FUND, ONCE IT'S GONE, IT'S
GONE.
MY CONCERN HERE IS ALSO THE
TREND.
SO WE'RE SHOWING A TREND, WE'RE
SHOWING A TREND THAT'S GOING
DOWN.
AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
BOTTOM IS YET.
IT'S GOING IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
THE BOTTOM IS YET, SO I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINING DOWN
THE RAINY DAY FUND MORE AT THIS
POINT EXCEPT THAT WE STILL WANT
TO GET AS MUCH COVID RELIEF OUT
THE DOOR AT THE SAME TIME.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET BACK TO
THIS IDEA OF REACHING AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE EXECUTIVE TO
SHOW THE PUBLIC THAT WE CAN
BALANCE THE NEED FOR
COMPASSIONATE RELIEF WITH
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT I
HEAR THAT'S WHAT SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES HAVE WORKED TO DO
úHERE.
SO THEY'VE GOT THE BILL THAT'S
READY TO GO RIGHT AFTER THIS
VOTE TO REDUCE THE COVID RELIEF
PACKAGE BY $26 MILLION OR SO.
MY CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE STILL HAVE THIS $50 MILLION
SHORT FALL, AND I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT THE CITY GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES, AND THE FACT THAT
STARTING JANUARY 1, THAT THERE
MAY BE A CHALLENGE, WHERE THERE
NEED TO BE LAYOFFS TO BALANCE
THE BUDGET, TO REBALANCE THE
BUDGET AGAIN.
BUT WE KNOW WE HAVE THIS
DEFICIT, SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
GOING AS DEEP INTO THE RAINY
DAY FUND.
YES, WE SHOULD GET MORE COVID
RELIEF OUT THE DOOR, BUT I ALSO
BELIEVE YES, WE SHOULD REACH
MORE SUSTAINABLE AGREEMENT WITH
THE EXECUTIVE.
I REALLY WANT TO COMMEND MY
COLLEAGUES, COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
AND BUDGET MEMBER MUSKEDA.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'VE
BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD ON
THIS, AND SO IS THE EXECUTIVES.
IT JUST SEEMS WE NEED MORE TIME
HERE TO WORK OUT SOMETHING
THAT'S MORE SUSTAINABLE.
I MAY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT THE REASON THERE
IS THIS CHALLENGE HERE IS THE
CONCERN OVER THE $50 MILLION
HOLE THAT WE NOW HAVE AS OF 48
HOURS AGO.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, CAN
YOU PLEASE SHOW ME YOUR MATH ON
THE $50 MILLION?
CAN YOU PLEASE SITE YOUR SOURCE
ON THIS?
BECAUSE THE LETTER THAT WAS
SENT ON MONDAY FROM BEN NOBLE
INDICATED IT WAS $26.1 MILLION.
SO I'D LIKE TO GET A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING ON THE RECORD
WHERE YOUR NUMBERS ARE COMING
FROM.
I'VE ALSO SENT A MESSAGE TO
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF ABOUT
THIS NEW ASSERTION THAT I JUST
BECAME AWARE OF, RELATED TO
THIS NOW NEW POSITION THAT IT'S
A $50 MILLION DEFICIT FOR 2020.
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE SAYING
THAT THERE'S NOW A $50 MILLION
DEFICIT FOR 2020.
>> SURE, SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS
THAT THE EXECUTIVE, THE UPDATED
REVENUE FORECAST FROM THE CITY
BUDGET OFFICE IS AT $50.2
MILLION.
THEY'RE BREAKING IT INTO TWO
PIECES.
$26MILLION IN 2020, AND $24.2
MILLION IN 2021.
MY CONCERN IS THAT 2021 IS
STARTING ON JANUARY 1st.
SO WE KNOW THAT THIS GAP
EXISTS, AND YET WE'RE ACTING AS
IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS, WE'RE
ACTING AS IF IT DOESN'T EXIST,
SO THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT
ONCE JANUARY 1 HITS, WE'RE INTO
THAT ADDITIONAL $24.2 MILLION
DEFICIT.
>> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ON
THIS COUNCIL IS ACTING TODAY IN
A MANNER THAT WOULD IMPLY THAT
WE BELIEVE THERE IS NO DEFICIT
FOR 2021, SO I'M GOING TO PUSH
BACK ON THAT ASSERTION THAT YOU
JUST MADE WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, I THINK
IT IMPLIES THAT THE FOLKS WHO
MIGHT BE INCLINED TO OVERTURN
THE MAYOR'S VETO ARE SOMEHOW
DOING IT IN A CAVALIER FASHION
WITHOUT REALIZING THAT 2021
DOES IN FACT HAVE A DEFICIT.
WE'RE ALL ACUTELY AWARE OF THE
FACT THAT THERE WILL BE
DEFICITS IN 2021.
AND SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE
ALSO LOOKING AT THE PAYROLL TAX
FOR JUMP START TO PAY BACK SOME
OF THOSE IDENTIFIED SHORT FALLS
THAT YOU JUST SIGHTED TO
CURRENTLY, AND I THINK THE
NUMBERS ARE MODEST ENOUGH TO
ACCOUNT FOR HIGHER LEVEL OF
CONFIDENCE THAT THOSE REVENUE
NUMBERS WILL COME IN, AND DO
THE BACK FILL THERE.
SO I JUST DON'T WANT ANY
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MIGHT
BE VIEWING THIS TO THINK THAT
WE ARE SOMEHOW IGNORING THE
FISCAL REALITIES OF EITHER THIS
YEAR OR NEXT YEAR BY VIRTUE OF
TAKING A VOTE THAT MIGHT BE
CONTRARY TO A SUSTAINMENT OF
THE VETO, AND JUST WANT TO
STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
>> YES, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
THAT IS AN EXCELLENT POINT THAT
THE IDEAS THAT THE RAINY DAY
FUND WOULD BE REPLENISHED BY
THE PAYROLL TAX REVENUES.
THE CHALLENGE OF THE PAYROLL
TAX REVENUES IS BECAUSE THE
ECONOMY IS GOING IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION THAT WE DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT
WE'RE GOING TO GET TO REPLENISH
THOSE FUNDINGS, AND NOW WE'VE
GOT A BIGGER HOLE THAN BE HAD
THOUGHT.
SO I THINK IT'S JUST THE
UNKNOWNS.
THERE'S SO MANY UNKNOWNS THAT I
THINK THAT'S WHAT GIVES ME
PAUSE.
WE DON'T KNOW THE MATH IN THE
PAYROLL TAX IN TERMS OF WHAT
WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT.
I THINK IT'S JUST THE UNKNOWNS
FOR ME.
I THINK IT'S VALID TO LOOK AT
IT BOTH WAYS.
>> I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY GOING
TO HAVE A CORONAVIRUS ABOUT THE
VALIDITY OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS
BASED ON THE ANALYSIS THAT
WE'VE SEEN FROM OUR OWN
INDEPENDENT COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF AS OPPOSED TO THE
ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED
FROM THE MAYOR OFFICE.
I DO THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO
THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IS TO MAKE
SURE WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE
INFORMATION THAT WE GET FROM
OUR INDEPENDENT COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF, AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY
BUDGET STAFF, WHICH OF COURSE
WORKS HAND IN HAND WITH THE
MAYOR.
FOLKS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND, I'M
GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO OTHER
FOLKS.
I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD IS
IN THE QUEUE.
IT'S HARD TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
JUMP ON FOLKS.
HOPEFULLY COUNCILMEMBER SKADA
YOU'VE JOTTED NOTES.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FOR A
SECOND TIME, EVEN THOUGH OTHERS
HAVEN'T SPOKE YET.
I FORGOT TO MENTION IN MY
EARLIER COMMENTS, BECAUSE I WAS
SAVING THEM FOR THE DISCUSSION
OF THE NEXT BILL, BUT WHEN
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS SPOKE IT
OCCURRED TO ME THAT I REALLY
SHOULD HAVE, I SHOULD HAVE
INCLUDED THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE
LANGUAGE IN THE SECOND BILL TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS ABOUT
WHEREVER FOLKS HAVE WHETHER OR
NOT TO VOTE FOR THE CURRENT
OVERRIDE OF THE VETO, OR VOTE
TO SUSTAIN THE VETO.
IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE
UNCERTAINTY THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON MENTIONED, ABOUT
FUTURE REVENUE UPDATES IN
CONCERNS THAT I HAVE EXPRESSED,
AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE HAS
EXPRESSED, ALSO ABOUT THE
ABILITY TO GET THE MONEY OUT
THE DOOR, AND TO THE CONCERNS
THAT COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS HAS
EXPRESSED ABOUT THE FACT THAT
PERHAPS WITH MORE TIME WE WOULD
BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE UNANIMITY.
I REALLY FEEL THE LANGUAGE THAT
WE ARE PROPOSING IN THE NEW
SECTION 3 OF THE AMENDED BILL,
THE AMENDED JUMP START BILL
REALLY RECOGNIZES THAT WE ARE
CLOSE IN GETTING TO A PLACE OF
AGREEMENT ON THESE PRINCIPLES,
BUT WE'RE NOT THERE YET, GIVEN
THAT WE'RE NOT THERE YET, GIVEN
THAT WE'VE HAD A COUNCIL
RESOURCE, AND GIVEN THAT WE
HAVE A STAFF WORKING ON THE
EXECUTIVE SIDE OF THINGS,
PARTICULARLY IN THE BUDGET
OFFICE STAFF THAT ARE WORKING
ON THE COUNCIL SIDE OF THINGS,
WE WANTED TO GIVE SOME
FLEXIBILITY TO THE EXECUTIVE IN
RECOGNITION THAT WE'RE CLOSE ON
AGREEMENT, BUT WE MAY STILL
HAVE SOME DETAILS TO WORK OUT.
SO THE LANGUAGE STATES THAT THE
COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM
WILL REQUIRE NEW CONTRACTS, AND
SYSTEMS TO DISTRIBUTE THESE
CRITICAL SERVICES IN DIRECT
RELIEF TO THE COMMUNITY.
AND THAT THIS MAY TAKE TIME,
AND COULD RESULT IN NOT
EXPENDING THE FULL $57 MILLION
IN 2020.
IF THE FULL AMOUNT IS NOT
EXPENDED IN 2020, THE COUNCIL
IS COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
THE EXECUTIVE TO CONTINUE
FUNDING THESE CRITICAL COVID-19
RELIEF PROGRAMS IN 2021, AND TO
ADDRESS NEWLY IDENTIFIED 2020
REVENUE SHORT FALLS.
SO IN ESSENCE, WITH THIS NEW
SECTION, WE'RE SAYING, IF THERE
ARE LOGISTICAL REASONS FOR NOT
BEING ABLE TO GET ALL THE MONEY
OUT THE DOOR IN 2020, OR IF
THERE ARE, WE'RE GOING TO GET
ANOTHER REVENUE UPDATE, I THINK
SOMETIME IN NOVEMBER, IF WE GET
ADDITIONAL BAD NEWS, WE WILL
WORK WITH THE EXECUTIVE TO
ALLOW THEM TO SPEND LESS THAN
THE $57 MILLION THAT IS IN THIS
BILL.
AND THAT IS MY COMMITMENT TO
THE EXECUTIVE, AND WITH THE
PASSAGE OF THIS LEGISLATION, IT
WOULD BE THE COUNCIL'S
COMMITMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
úHERBOLD AND WE ARE NOW GOING T
HEAR FROM COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL BE VOTING YES TODAY TO
OVERRIDE MAYOR DURKAN'S VETO OF
PART OF THE AMAZON PACKAGE OF
BILLS, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED,
AND FOR CLARIFICATION FOR
WORKING PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHO MIGHT BE WATCHING,
THE AMAZON TEXT WAS DIVIDED
INTO THREE COUNCIL BILLS.
ONE BILL IMPLEMENTED THE TAX.
ONE BILL GAVE A PLAN FOR HOW
THE FUNDS WOULD BE INVESTED,
AND THE LAST YEAR USED THE
RAINY DAY, AND EMERGENCY
RESERVES AS A TEMPORARY LOAN TO
MAKE SOME OF THE 2021 FUNDS
FROM AMAZON BE AVAILABLE RIGHT
AWAY FOR URGENT COVID NEEDS.
THAT LAST BILL IS WHAT THE
MAYOR HAS VETOED.
IN OUR EMAIL, MAYOR DURKAN
SAID, AND I QUOTE IT IS
IRRESPONSIBLE TO SPEND OUR
RAINY DAY FUNDS IN THE
BEGINNING OF WHAT IS LIKELY A
MULTIYEAR APPROACH.
LET US CONSIDER IF THIS IS
TRUE.
IT WOULD BE NAIVE TO THINK THE
IMPACTS OF THE COVID EMERGENCY
WOULD NOT STRETCH AT LEAST INTO
NEXT YEAR, IF NOT LONGER, BUT
THE REALITY IS, MAYOR DURKAN IS
CONVINCED SHE WILL NEED THE
RAINY DAY FUNDS NEXT YEAR ONLY
BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN FROM THE
BEGINNING, TOTALLY OPPOSED TO
TAXING BIG BUSINESS IN ANY
FORM, ESPECIALLY CORPORATIONS
WHICH HAVE PAID FOR HER
ANCILLARY EYE ELECTION
CAMPAIGN.
IF YOU ARE WILLING TO TAX
AMAZON AND OTHER CORPORATIONS,
THEN THERE IS A CLEAR VIEW TO
BUDGET CUTS.
AMAZON MADE $5 MILLION OF
PROFITS IN THE SECOND QUARTER
OF 2020.
DOUBLE OF WHAT THEY MADE LAST
YEAR, AND THAT'S THEIR PROFITS
AFTER EXPENSES.
THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY A
SLIGHTLY HIGHER TAX RATE THAN
THE SMALL TAX ON BIG BUSINESSES
THAT HAS BEEN PASSED ALREADY.
I FULLY SUPPORT THIS BILL TO
OVERTURN THE MAYOR'S VETO,
BECAUSE WE NEED COVID RELIEF
FUNDS TO OUR COMMUNITY NOW.
HOWEVER THE EXPLICIT, AND
CONTINUED THREAT OF DRACONIAN
BUDGET CUTS IN 2021 MUST ALSO
BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
TODAY, SEVERAL COUNCILMEMBERS
HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN AS IF THEY
ACCEPT AS ESTABLISHED FACT
THERE WILL BE FURLOUGHS AND
LAYOFFS NEXT YEAR.
I WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD,
I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT ACCEPT
FURLOUGHS OR LAYOFFS, BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY IF THE
POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT HAD THE
POLITICAL WILL TO TAX BIG
BUSINESS IN ORDER TO MAKE
AUSTERITY COMPLETELY
UNNECESSARY.
IT IS BECAUSE POLITICIANS
CHOOSE AUSTERITY THAT THOSE
LAYOFFS BECOME NECESSARY.
IT'S NOT AN ACT OF GOD.
IT IS A CHOICE MADE BY
POLITICIANS.
REMEMBER THAT WHEN THE COUNCIL
WAS VOTING ON THE BUDGET, AND
ALSO ON THE AMAZON TAX ITSELF,
MY OFFICE PROPOSED INCREASING
THE RATE OF THE AMAZON TAX TO
COLLECT AN ADDITIONAL $293
MILLION PER YEAR.
MONEY. UNDS LIKE A LOT OF
BUT AS YOU LOOK AT THE TAX RATE
INCREASE FOR BIG CORPORATIONS
THAT ARE GOING TO PAY THE TAX,
IT IS A VERY, VERY SMALL
CHANGE.
THAT WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED ALL
OF THE THEN PROJECTED BUDGET
SHORT FALLS OF 2021, AND I HAVE
NO DOUBT THAT THE MATH WORKS
OUT FOR THE BIGGEST
CORPORATIONS TO BE TAXED A
LITTLE BIT MORE SO THAT WE
AVOID AUSTERITY ENTIRELY.
I SUPPORT USING THE RAINY DAY
FUNDS TODAY TO MEET THE BURNING
NEEDS OF REGULAR WORKING CLASS
PEOPLE THIS YEAR, AND I ALSO
THINK IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE
COUNCIL INCREASED THE RATE OF
THE AMAZON TAX FOR THE BUDGET
CUTS THAT THE MAYOR IS
THREATENING NEXT YEAR, BECAUSE
OTHERWISE, AUSTERITY WILL BE A
GIVEN.
COVID-19 IS A HEALTH EMERGENCY
CAUSED BY A VIRUS.
BUT THE PUBLIC HEALTH DAMAGE IT
IS CAUSING IS ROOTED IN THE
DEEP INEQUALITY IN AMERICAN
CAPITALISM, AND ESPECIALLY
EXACERBATEDLY THE LACK OF
COVERAGE TO BASIC HEALTHCARE
AND BY THE HORRIFIC RESPONSE BY
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
THE ECONOMIC RECESSION IS NOT
SIMPLY A PRODUCT OF THE
PANDEMIC.
IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CRISIS OF
THE CAPITAL SYSTEM.
EVERY TIME THERE IS AN ECONOMIC
RECESSION, THERE'S A STRUGGLE
OVER WHICH CLASS WILL PAY FOR
THIS CRISIS, THE WORKING CLASS
OR THE RULING CLASS.
IN 2008, ESPECIALLY BLACK AND
LATINO FAMILIES WERE BAILED
OUT, WHILE WORKING CLASS
HOMEOWNERS LOST EVERYTHING.
IN 2021, EITHER AMAZON AND
OTHER BIG BUSINESSES WILL PAY A
SMALL PORTION OF THEIR IMMENSE
WEALTH THEY HAVE ACCUMULATED BY
EXPLOITING WORKERS IN OUR
COMMUNITY, OR PUBLIC SECTOR
EMPLOYEES WILL PAY THROUGH
MANDATORY FURLOUGHS AND LOST
INCOMES AND CUTS TO SOCIAL
SERVICES.
WHO WILL PAY WILL BE DETERMINED
BY THE BALANCE OF FORCES AND
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE
MASS MOVEMENTS ON THE STREETS,
AND IN PARTICULAR, LED BY LABOR
UNIONS.
BIG BUSINESS, NOT WORKERS PAY
FOR THIS CRISIS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER SAWAN
SAWANT.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
PRESIDENT.
THERE'S JUST A FEW ITEMS I FELT
LIKE NEEDED CLARIFICATION.
NUMBER ONE, THIS IS A 2020
SPEND PLAN.
THIS IS PROVIDING IMMEDIATE
COVID RELIEF IN 2020.
SO LET'S NOT CONFLATE THE
NUMBERS OF 26 MILLION, AND 24
MILLION FOR NEXT YEAR.
THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT
2020, AND THE IMMEDIATE RELIEF
THAT WE NEED TO GET OUT THE
DOOR RIGHT NOW.
OUR NUMBERS ARE CLEAR.
WE IDENTIFY 26 MILLION IN
CONVERSATION WITH DIRECTOR BEN
NOBLE IMMEDIATELY ON MONDAY,
AND HAVE BEEN WORKING
DILIGENTLY TO TRY TO REDUCE THE
AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT GOES OUT
BY THAT $26 MILLION NUMBER.
BUT IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT
2021, THE 2021 PLAN FOR THE
JUMP START REVENUE PACKAGE WAS
TO INVEST IN CITY SERVICES.
WAS TO PREVENT FURLOUGHS, AND
TO PREVENT LAYOFFS, AND TO
REALLY SHORE UP CORE GOVERNMENT
SERVICES, LIKE PARKS AND
LIBRARIES, AND CHILDCARE.
WHAT IS CRITICAL IS THAT WE
RECOGNIZE THAT THESE TWO ISSUES
CANNOT BE PITTED AGAINST EACH
OTHER.
SO IN EFFECT, THE TWO PART
PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT
OF US, BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT WE ARE FRONT LOADING 26
MILLION INTO THIS CRITICAL
SERVICE OF SHORING UP KEY
GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES AND
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BY OFFERING 26
MILLION TO BE USED FOR THAT IN
THIS YEAR.
IT THEN CONTINUES TO ALLOCATE
THE REMAINING AMOUNT, OR AS
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
ARTICULATED, THE AMOUNT THAT IS
POSSIBLE TO GET OUT THE DOOR
THIS YEAR FOR THE 2020
ALLOCATIONS.
BUT SOMETHING ELSE THOUGH IS
MISSING FROM THE CONVERSATION
OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, BUT
ESPECIALLY RIGHT NOW IS THAT
THE DOLLARS GET REPLENISHED.
SO I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.
YES, THERE'S A LOT OF
UNCERTAINTY IN OUR LOCAL
ECONOMY AND THE ECONOMY AROUND
THE GLOBE.
BUT WHAT IS CERTAIN IS THAT WE
WILL BE ABLE TO REPLENISH THE
RESERVES THAT WE ARE BORROWING
RIGHT NOW FOR THIS CRISIS.
THIS IS THE RAINY DAY.
THIS IS THE EMERGENCY.
COMPOUNDING PUBLIC HEALTH
CRISIS AND HOUSING EMERGENCY.
THIS IS THE TIME FOR US TO USE
THOSE DOLLARS.
AND IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT
WE'RE CLEAR WITH THE PUBLIC
THAT WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW WE
WILL REPLENISH THESE FUNDS,
BECAUSE JUMP START PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE, THE PAYROLL TAX
PROPOSAL, AND A CONSERVATIVE
ESTIMATE IS ASSUMING $214
MILLION A YEAR, WHEN WE START
COLLECTING THOSE TAXES BASED ON
THE 2021 PAYROLL TAX ROLL.
SO LET ME JUST PAUSE AT THIS.
EVEN THOUGH THERE IS
UNCERTAINTY IN HOW FAST THE
ECONOMY WILL RECOVER AND WE'RE
IN THIS POSITION BECAUSE WE
HAVE A U PER RECOVERY AHEAD OF
US, IF WE HAD GOTTEN EVERY
SINGLE $86 MILLION OUT THE DOOR
THIS YEAR, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO REPLENISH THOSE DOLLARS
NEXT YEAR WITH JUMP START
FUNDING, BECAUSE $86 MILLION IS
40% OF THE OVERALL TOTAL WE'RE
EXPECTED TO BE BRINGING IN.
EVEN IF WE WERE WRONG BY 60%,
WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REPLENISH
THE JUMP START PAYROLL, USING
THE PAYROLL TAX WITH NEXT
YEAR'S PAYROLL TAX DOLLARS.
SO THEN LET'S LOOK AT THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT IN FRONT OF US.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UP TO $57
MILLION.
WE WOULD HAVE TO BE WILDLY OFF,
WHICH I KNOW THAT OUR CENTRAL
STAFF, AND OUR FOLKS THAT WE'VE
BEEN WORKING WITH, BOTH AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL AND LOCALLY HERE
WHEN CRAFTING JUMP START
PROPOSAL, WE HAVE A CAREFULLY
CRAFTED PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF
US, THAT WE'RE JUST USING A
PORTION OF THE DOLLARS RIGHT
NOW, WITH A CERTAINTY THAT WE
WILL BE ABLE TO REPLENISH THE
DOLLARS THAT GET OUT, ONCE WE
BEGIN TO COLLECT THE PAYROLL
TAX.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE
PUBLIC RECOGNIZE THAT THE JUMP
START PAYROLL TAX REPLENISHES
THE EMERGENCY FUND, AND ANY
RAINY DAY FUND THAT WE WOULD
USE.
BUT AT THIS POINT, WE'RE JUST
TALKING ABOUT $57 MILLION.
SO THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CITY
NEEDS TO SAVE ADDITIONAL
EMERGENCY FUNDS FOR CITY
WORKERS OR CITY SERVICES, LET
ME BE REALLY CLEAR.
THE COALITION FOR CITY UNIONS
HAS SUPPORTED THE JUMP START
PAYROLL TAX AND IS SUPPORTIVE
OF THIS EFFORT TO GET DOLLARS
OUT THE DOOR IMMEDIATELY TO
THOSE IN NEED FOR HOUSING AND
FOOD ASSISTANCE, AS WELL AS TO
BE ABLE TO USE $26 MILLION TO
HELP PREVENT THE TYPES OF CORE
GOVERNMENT SERVICES THAT WE
RELY ON EVERY DAY FROM SHUTTING
DOWN.
THEY HAVE BEEN SUPPORTIVE AS
FOLKS THAT PROVIDE DALY CITY
SERVICES WITH THE PROPOSAL IN
FRONT OF US.
THIS BILL ULTIMATELY HELPS
PREVENT MORE PEOPLE FROM BEING
LAID OFF IN THE FUTURE IF WE
CAN REALLY INVEST NOW, AND
START BRINGING IN JUMP START
PAYROLL TAXES TO REPLENISH IN
THE UPCOMING YEARS.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF UNKNOWNS,
ACTUALLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT
OUR PROPOSAL INCLUDES.
BECAUSE ON A VERY CONSERVATIVE
ESTIMATE, WE WILL BE
REPLENISHING THESE FUNDS,
ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE EXISTING FUNDING FOR
2020, WE HAVE A CERTAINTY THAT
WE WILL BE ABLE TO PAY THAT
BACK WITH JUMP START
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE.
I DO HAVE A CHART.
I COULD SHOW YOU THAT JUST TO
ILLUSTRATE THE POINT.
BUT WHILE THE UNKNOWNS WERE
MENTIONED, LET ME JUST REMIND
FOLKS OF THE KNOWNS.
WEEK, THAT THERE ARE MORE AST
PEOPLE PAYING THEIR RENT THIS
WEEK USING A CREDIT CARD THAN
UNEMPLOYMENT CHECKS.
WE KNOW THAT CHILDCARES WILL
CLOSE DOWN.
AROUND 30% OF CHILDCARES ARE
SLATED TO CLOSE DOWN UNLESS
THEY GET IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE.
AND WE KNOW THAT MANY OF THE
SMALL BUSINESSES THAT ARE
POISED TO CLOSE WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL LOCAL FLEXIBLE
DOLLARS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
REOPEN DUE TO THE START UP
COSTS.
THOSE ARE THE KNOWNS IN FRONT
OF US.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THE
RECORD, MADAM PRESIDENT ABOUT
THE KNOWNS AND THE UNKNOWNS,
BECAUSE THE DOLLARS IN THE
RESERVE FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE
PAID BACK, USING 2,021-DOLLARS
AND THAT IS JUST AROUND THE
CORNER.
THIS IS THE EMERGENCY AND AGAIN
I DO WANT TO THANK THE CEO SO
WE COULD COLLECTIVELY WORK IN
THE PROCESS, I HOPE WE GET TO
THE SECOND BILL HERE BECAUSE IT
DOES PROVIDE A PATH FORWARD.
Obviously, no one speaks on
>>> Critical city services and
care for our most venerable.
>> Thank you, Councilman
Mosqueda.
Are there any other comments on
the reconsideration of counsel
Bill 119812?
Councilman Pedersen, please .
>> Thank you I appreciate
everyone's comments.
I know there is a lot of pieces
of information.
I think everyone is well-
intentioned to get COVID-19 out
the door.
I think all of the intentions
are good, I am approaching from
a different angle here in terms
of the revenue forecast. I
guess I just had additional
context to my original comments
what we are focused on the
people tracks replenishing the
rainy day fund.
I think what the challenges as
we know, we get our city
revenue from sources, Ian owe
taxes, property taxes, sales
taxes and the trend is bad and
negative.
The rainy day funds are one-
time funds.
I just wanted to paint a
picture and if for whatever
reason the veto is sustained
today, I commit myself to work
with all parties to get
something done in the next few
days so it is getting people
more time to craft a more
sustainable compromise so that
the executive has real dollars
out the door quickly that the
mayor is committed to getting
those out the door.
Sounds like there needs to be a
few more days to work that out.
And make it to join with folks
to get that done.
>> Are there any other
questions or comments on
counsel Bill 119812?
Did you want to make closing
remarks, Councilman Mosqueda?
I will make some comments
before that, I was seeing if
anybody else wanted to offer
thoughts.
>> Okay, I see none.
I will add to the debate and
the record here before handing
it over to Councilman Mosqueda
to close out the debate on
reconsideration the counsel
Bill 119812.
I just want to start by
acknowledging that I recognize
our economic picture is
unstable currently due to COVID-
19 and the related economic
crisis.
And yes, there are some unknown
factors and that is inherent in
the reality that we continue to
appreciate and understand the
depth of the economic crisis and
the recovery period that will
be necessary to come out of
this.
I really sit with a fact that
knowing those things does not
give me a reason to or an
excuse to shock me into
inaction.
These are uncertain times but I
think our constituents are
looking to us to take action in
this period of time that is
reasonable and that is rooted
and acknowledgment of new
information that we recently
received.
I want to encourage us to yes,
acknowledge that there are
uncertainties but these
uncertainties cannot shock us
into inaction.
We cannot just freeze ourselves
in Amber and wait for all of
the factors that we think do
not have questions or answers
to them before we take action.
Now, I believe that Mayor
Durkan and most of this counsel
share the values of balancing
budget, of appreciating the
volatility of our economic
forecast and appreciating the
depth and the breath of the
need of our constituents who
are suffering during this
economic crisis.
And, I do believe that that is
where the common ground is
where we are, unfortunately,
not able to find consensus
today is on this issue of what
the number should be for the
spending plan.
I will disclose to you
colleagues that I have spent
the last couple of days having
very long conversations with
the mayor directly, with senior
deputy mayor and my staff has
also been engaging with the
staff from the mayor's office.
I, unfortunately, we were not
able to come up with an
agreement in large part because
there was insistence on there
being a sustainment of the veto
before we can agree to a number.
I believe that we need to have
this vote on reconsideration
because the charter requires us
to do it and there was an
opportunity that unfortunately,
we were unable to achieve
agreement to but there would
have been an opportunity to
memorialize a compromise and
agreement between us and the
executive on the quality
aspects of the jumpstart COVID-
19 release pending bill but
unfortunately, we cannot get
there.
Now, I think that
unfortunately, I'm not sure
that three or four days will
yield or produce a deal but I
do think that those
conversations are still
important to have. So, I do
intend to vote in favor of an
override but I will do that in
the spirit of putting forth a
bill that represents the
councils compromise position as
a place for us to have
conversations with the
executive, that would address
her particular concerns.
I think we can both override
this veto, we can amend counsel
Bill 119812 in the fashion
that we have been describing.
And, we can still have
conversations with the mayor
and her staff around additional
amendments that might be needed
to the bill based on
information I understand the
executive is continuing
together.
I believe that's a reasonable
position.
It's a responsible path forward
. I think we have, again, done
all that we can do in the last
48 hours to identify that path
and to do it in a way that is
collaborative and that will
allow us all to feel good about
this ultimately and to achieve
the ultimate goal which is to
get these dollars into a
community.
The and friends and the
implication by some of you
colleagues that somehow have
been creating some sort of
intentional tension or have
inherently been the problem or
the holdup in terms of the
negotiations is not accurate.
I have spent hours on the phone
over the last 48 hours trying
everything I can to find and
close the daylight and find the
common ground in hopes that we
could both do an override,
quickly memorialize that
agreement in a mandatory
language and move on with
getting these dollars out to
communities.
Unfortunately, it was made very
clear to me that an agreement
could not and would not be
reached without first agreeing
to sustaining the mayor's veto.
That is not something that I
feel is procedurally
appropriate for us, too, if we
want to effectuate the
underlying $57 million
amendment today.
I feel strongly time is of the
essence and I would really like
to wrap this up today for
purposes of being able to get
the department and the agencies
responsible as much time as
possible to begin the process
of pushing these dollars out
which, at this point, I
understand would occur early
September if we take action now.
So, I just wanted to share the
information with all of you
because there have been some
comments implying that we
somehow have not tried hard
enough or that somehow, we have
presented a roadblock in terms
of the efforts that Councilman
Mosqueda and Councilman Herbold
and I have undertaken but I
feel like we have really tried
hard to come with a consensus
and that being said, I still
want to leave the door open to
conversations even after today
to further address some in any
additional concerns that might
come out of the analysis that
might continue to be done by
the city budget office and as
they continue to receive
additional information about
the economic forecast that
might be relative to this
particular question but I feel
we have addressed the substance
of policy issues both through
the reduction from $83 million-
$57 million and also
incorporating the language
which does not mandate that the
mayor has to spend $57 million
but simply authorizes her to do
so if, based on all the
information available to her,
feels that she has the basis to
do so with the understanding
that if she does not, we will
all come back together to
identify how to use those
dollars.
That is why I am supporting this
and would encourage my other
colleagues to also support an
override of this veto so that
we can move along to the second
substance of the bill pay expect
all right Councilman Mosqueda,
you got the last word.
>> Thank you , Council
President.
I want to echo your comments.
I appreciate the way you placed
this.
The way in which we try to
adjust the count concerns
brought up by the CEO and
adjust the change in number of
26 million now is include in
here.
I wanted to lift up the
comments that Councilman
Pedersen made about the good
intentions.
I appreciate you mentioning
that and within counsel, among
counsel and with our
partnership with the executive
and CEO.
That is where I started my
comments this morning and that
is where I wanted to end with
the good intentions of not just
to address the needs of city
services but the deep need
within our residents.
These two issues are not in
conflict.
It is the one, two step
approach we have with this bill
and the next bill help address
these two areas are absolutely
needing to go parallel
together.
We must be able to provide for
city services in order to care.
We must be getting the dollars
as we identify from COVID-19
emergency relief jumpstart bill
out into communities so people
can keep their house and half
and keep their small business
and make sure the kiddos have a
place to go for child care to
keep people from needing the
services.
These two go hand-in-hand.
I look forward working with you
all, making sure the
conversations continue with the
mayor's office in terms of how
we allocate those dollars and
get them out the door.
I appreciate Councilman Herbold
on the hard work to make sure
this revenue is a moving target
and we want to be responsive to
that but we must be responsive
to the urgent needs.
I will close with saying we
received over 500 emails. We
have received letters that
include over 70 organizations
on them, thousands of calls,
800 people individually signed
up to the petition in addition
to the three letters I sent you
all today urging our action
today and doing so, I think
helps us get to the next step
and investing in our community
and provide protection to our
city.
Let's do this.
>> Thank you, Councilman
Mosqueda.
We will close the debate and
called this to vote.
Before we do that, I want to
make sure that I provide an
opportunity to our counsel
central staff to remind us as to
what the parameters are related
to the number of votes necessary
for either an override or
sustainment to occur.
I will call on Allie or Dan,
whoever is prepared to speak do
that.
I believe I think I need to,
Martin clerk, do I need to
suspend the rules in order to
allow counsel central staff to
speak to us?
>> That is a practice relying--
>> Okay is there is no
objection, I would ask that we
suspend the rules to allow
counsel central staff to
address the city Council on
this matter. Hearing no
objection, thank you for that.
I think that's important for us
to make the public record and
to make sure all councilmembers
are aware of the procedural
requirements before we call the
roll on the reconsideration of
passage of counsel Bill 119812.
I will hand it to Dan and Aly.
>> Thank you identity of the
central staff, I believe the
question is what is the
threshold and effect for the
consideration of the veto ,
counsel Bill 119812 . My
understanding after consulting
with various folks in the law
department and clerk's office
is that the city charter and
the Council will provide a veto
over I consideration requires
six of the nine councilmembers
to vote in the affirmative for
the veto override on the packet.
I can answer any further
questions that may be available
.
>> Looks like we have one
question.
Councilman Pedersen, please .
>> Can you repeat the number?
>> Yes, the number is six votes
of the full council to override
a veto.
>> Did you get that information
from the city attorney's
office?
>> Yes.
>> Colleagues, I think that
language comes directly from
the city charter as well.
If you look at section 12 of
the city charter, it does read
the Council shall not less than
five days of publication and
within 30 days after such about
reconsider and vote upon the
same and if the same shall
oppose reconsideration, passed
by the affirmative vote of not
less than two thirds of all the
members.
The president of the Council
shall certify a fight on the
bill and when so certified, the
bill should become an ordinance
with like effect as if it has
not beendisapproved by the
mayor.
So, the city charter in section
12 does explicitly cite that an
override is effectuated by a
two thirds vote of the members
of the council which in this
case, would be six . Councilman
Pedersen and then Councilman
Herbold.
>> Thank you . What's
interesting about this
particular bill was that it was
an appropriations bill which
requires seven affirmative
votes.
As I understand it, the mayor's
veto then canceled the law and
the only way to resurrect that
law is to have separate votes.
I was hoping maybe the city
clerk can also chime in on
this.
>> We have some legal analysis
on that as well, Dan, or Allie,
would you like to walk us
through what occurs when there
is both an override of a veto
and appropriations bill that
requires three quarters of a
vote on the appropriations
aspect of this legislation?
>> Yes, of course.
There is some additional advice
as Councilman Pedersen was
alluding to I believe or is
asking about at any rate, when
the state law requires a three-
quarter vote for midyear
emergency appropriations and
that is what this bill,
119812, entailed, there is
some question about whether the
detailed override vote, if it
is six votes versus a seven vote
three-quarter supermajority or
two thirds supermajority,
whether the appropriations that
are in the underlying bill
become effective. That question
would get cured whether they
become effective or not
effective, there are other
provisions within the 119812
that appropriations and with
two thirds supermajority become
effective. The appropriations,
if they are not effective,
would become effective in the
next bill that you were
considering. I believe that is
one 19860, if there is a three-
quarter supermajority vote to
approve the appropriations in
that separate bill.
>> Thanks. I would add to that,
if the veto override happens
with a two thirds majority, I
will send a slightly modified
version of the substitute that
makes the same changes that
were proposed in the substitute
version distributed this
morning but I addressed those
effectuate those changes in a
technically different manner
assuming that the
appropriations sections that
Dan just described would not be
in effect effort to veto
overrides, we incorporate a
entirely new appropriations
section and a new section.
>> Thank you, Dan and Aly.
Aly, just to follow up on your
point, effectively, the
technical revision that you
would send out, depending on
the roll call results here,
would effectively be in
amendment to the appropriations
of counsel Bill 119812 if the
veto is overridden ?
>> Right, with the veto override
, sections 2 and four and
counsel Bill 119812 would not
be basically part of counsel
Bill 119812 anymore after the
override.
So, you would be amending the
bill to reinsert them.
It will appear that the
appropriations table that is
currently in section 2 of
119812 is going higher than a
new appropriations table that
is just spending $57 million to
be incorporated versus what I
distributed this morning that
is striking out individual
numbers and amending them with
new numbers.
It's effectively the same
result at the end of the day
but it is a technically
different mechanism to get
there.
>> Thank you, Aly.
Councilman Herbold, you have
your hand raised.
>> My question has been
answered , thank you.
>> Colleagues, any other
questions for Aly or Dan from
our counsel central staff?
Okay.
Hearing none.
Thank you Dan and Aly for
providing us with that
additional clarification.
I know you were all working
today on identifying answers to
those procedural questions.
I appreciate that. Okay, there
are no other comments, I will
close that debate.
The city council will now vote
to reconsider passage of
counsel Bill 119812 . To either
overwrite or sustain the
mayoral veto.
During moral called,
councilmembers will either vote
I to override the mayor's veto
or vote no to sustain the veto.
If the vote on the motion is
tight or if it is less than two
thirds, in other words six
votes, then the bill fails and
the veto is sustained. Are
there any questions on the vote?
All right, last time we did
this, it got a little confusing.
People were confused on what
yes meant or what no meant.
I want to make clear if you
vote yes, it is to cancel the
veto, if you vote no, it's to
keep the veto in place.
Does that make sense?
Everybody is clear?
Councilman Strauss .
>> Thank you in reading the
charter, it says we need to
vote and be that specific as
per the charter.
>> Madam clerk.
>> I recommend that aye is and
knows only the fact then nays
sounded too much like yays and
we cannot catch them accurately
.
>> Good question.
We are now going to vote on
this that there are no other
questions on the vote.
Will the clerk is call the roll
on the passage of counsel Bill
119812?
>> Councilman Pedersen?
>> No.
>> Councilman Sawant?
No.
>> Councilman Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Herbold.
>> .
>> Lewis?
>> No.
>> Moralities?
>> Aye .
>> Councilman Mosqueda?
>> Aye.
>> President Gonzales?
>> Yes.
>> Six in favor, two opposed.
>> The motion carries, the
mayor's veto is overridden and
the chair will sign the bill
certifying passage of council
bill 119812 and I would ask
if the clerk would affect my
signature to the bill. Okay,
colleagues, we are now, sorry,
I'm reading through my
procedural gymnastics scripts
over here, okay. Item 2, will
the clerk please read item 2
into the record.
>> Agenda item 2, counsel Bill
one 160, ordinance 126000 which
is after the 2020 budget and
the ordinance to the counsel
Bill 119812 relating to
appropriations for the
emergency fund for public
assistance during the Aly
emergency and making revenue
civilization for public
assistance during this
civilization.
>> Thank you, Madam clerk.
I moved to pass counsel Bill
119860.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Thank you. It has been
seconded to pass the bill.
Councilman Mosqueda, a sponsor
of this order to address this
item.
>> Thank you very much, Madam
President.
I would like to amend counsel
Bill 119860 by substituting
version 5 for version 3 a and I
think that has been circulated
by the central staff if I'm
correct.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> Thank you it has been
seconded to substitute the
bill.
Councilman Mosqueda, would you
be willing address the
substitute?
>> Thank you, Madam President.
Since we have suspended the
rules, I wonder if it is
possible for Allie to address
the substitute and I could add
additional comments.
>> Grade, colleagues, if there
is no objection, there was will
be suspended to allow central
staff to address the counsel. I
am hearing no objection.
The rules are suspended and miss
Aly Pelucci may address the
city council, please .
>> Good afternoon.
Central staff, councilmembers,
I just distributed a new
version of the substitute bill
that as I had just described,
makes a couple changes to the
bill is introduced.
It reduces the total amount of
spending in the bill from $83
million to $57 million and as
language recognizing it may
take time to get the funding
out of the door in 2020.
If it is not expended, the
counselor will work with the
executive to extend the funding
into 2021 for the is COVID-19
relief programs and work with
the executives to address any
additional 2020 revenue issues.
I will note this version that
was originally distributed, the
difference is it fully strikes
what section 2 and four in the
original COVID-19 relief bill
and adds an new appropriations
for a total of 57 million
dollars.
I would also add that for
example, the executive
determined the additional
spending is needed from the
revenue stabilization account
or emergency fund, this action
will be about $9.9 million in
the emergency fund and 28.7
million in the revenue
stabilization account. The
mayor will have to come to the
counsel and request authority
to spend those dollars. At that
time, if there was an
additional revenue issue that
was identified by the Council
and the mayor, you can also
introduce legislation to
further amend the COVID-19
relief spending additional
resources that were needed for
any other purposes.
I will send, I will note the
numbers in the stabilization
account also assume package of
council Bill 119862 that is
later, but if they million
dollars for the research.
>> Great, thank you so much for
the presentation.
Colleagues, any questions for
Aly?
Okay.
Hearing no questions.
We will now open it up for
comments and debate.
I will actually go back to
Councilman Mosqueda.
I think you wanted to have Aly
speak before you, the floor is
yours.
>> Thank you, Madam President.
I think of a piece of
legislation in front of us now
is reflective of the reality
that we are faced with.
This is an ongoing crisis that
requires us to both invest in
community needs in terms of
housing childcare, food
assistance, and small business
support and recognizing the
change in nature in which our
city government is trying to
respond to the need to provide
public health assistance and
financial assistance to folks
in our community.
I think of the carefully
proposal in front of you is an
offer and Jester to work to
address both the crisis
presenting itself in terms of
financing but act quickly and
invest in with our community
and families and seniors need.
When we do, data shows
repeatedly that that type of
investment into community helps
makes the recovery happen faster
. What we have put in front of
us is an equitable way to
sustain this crisis as we
weather the storm that COVID-19
is creating.
I want to appreciate the
ongoing work in front of us to
work with the mayor's office
and all of our colleagues to
get the money out the door in a
way that is received by
community but reflective of the
changing nature of our climate
and we will be looking forward
to working with the CEO and
mayor's office on that.
This piece of legislation is
really important and it includes
funding for communities like
research budgeting process
which I know Councilman Morales
has been helping to provide and
meet to the bone in terms of
what we are doing with
community organizations as we
think about a community which
is a anticipatory letter
process.
We are excited about the ongoing
support provided to COVID-19
relief just to reiterate the
importance of making sure that
we are investing and where
COVID-19 really funding went
goes hand in the conversations
we have been having over the
last two months as well.
Those who have been hit the
hardest because of COVID-19 are
black and brown communities,
folks are more likely to work
in the service sector and low
weight industries are black and
brown workers.
Those who are more likely to
have housing instability and
food instability and lack of
access to affordable childcare
our members from our black and
brown community.
This is really an opportunity
for us to use a racial justice
analysis, help get dollars out
the door and recognize our core
government services, which were
holding back money to invest in
for city employees and city
services, provide direct relief
as well.
This is a well-balanced
package.
With that, I know there was a
number of councilmembers who
provided key elements to this
amended version in front of us.
I will turn it back to you to
have other comments on this.
>> Thank you so much Councilman
Mosqueda.
Are there any other comments on
the bill?
Councilman Herbold ,
councilmember Lewis and
Councilman Morales .
>> Thank you I'm anticipating
with some of the conversations
about our vote today might sound
like coming out of this about
and anticipating sort of what
the narrative might be and
wanting to provide some context
and some prognostication about
what the appropriate answers
might be to some of those
issues.
I would not be surprised if we
hear from the executive that 57
million to be spent in 2020 is
too much.
I want to be clear that what we
are saying with this amended
language is this is
appropriation authority and we
acknowledge the executive may
not be able to get the money
out in 2020 or it may not be
the right thing to do to get
the money out in 2020.
If, in November, we get another
revenue update that shows
additional reductions in
revenue, some of these dollars
may need to be transferred over
to our emergency fund or other
things that our emergency fund
would otherwise pay for.
So, just trying to anticipate a
narrative that we did not bring
the number down to a small
enough number to be financially
responsible, I'm saying the
flexibility that we built into
this legislation allows the
branch of government that
spends the money to consider
the restraints on spending the
money.
I have been, up to these last
few minutes, having discussions
with the CBO in the middle of
this meeting about a different
number, something other than
$57 million, something lower
that they would feel more
comfortable with and thank you,
Aly, she was preparing to
offer an alternative.
I'm not bringing forward the
alternative because the message
I'm still getting from the
executive is that before there
is agreement on what this
spending plan should aim to
spend, that they really wanted
the council to sustain the
veto.
So, that was not the direction
that this council is going in
because we have a bill that
relies on amending a veto that
has been overturned and because
of the other items that I
mentioned earlier and other
councilmembers have as well
about the short amount of time
that we have before recess and
the one number of hours the
staff have been working.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilman
Herbold.
Councilmember Lewis and put
yourself on you.
>> Thank you, madam President.
My comments are fairly similar
to Councilman Herbold . I am
thrilled to vote for this new
bill today.
I want to thank Councilman
Mosqueda for bringing this
forward to cue this up. I
guess I would sort of
rhetorically pose my comments
to the executive in discussing
this to say all of us share the
common interests of getting
relief to the people in Seattle
that really need this
assistance.
I know that they are going to
be issues around concerns about
what the number is.
I guess I would just and poor
in the spirit of us all moving
together that in sending this
new bill to the executive for
consideration, we keep that
dialogue open that if there are
concerns, that that be
addressed in reaching out to us
to be able to pursue some of
the potential legislators
collaborate and be able to
discuss how we can work
together to build the changes
necessary to make sure
considerations of the condition
of the city and people who
cannot pay rent can pay the
rent.
People experiencing homelessness
can get inside and that we can
show the people Seattle that
there is a executive snapped
and we can do this together.
Getting these changes and
sending this back, this
critical conversation around
relief related to COVID-19.
I know all of us here at the
council are committed to that
and I look forward to this new
bill and these new commitments
and see if we can work
something out.
I know everyone here does.
And I think this is an
opportunity for us to
collaborate and I welcome it.
I thank you, Councilman
Mosqueda, for sponsoring this
moving to the next chapter in
providing COVID-19 relief . I
am hopeful that we can get it
out the door.
Thank you so much.
>> Thank you, councilmember
Lewis.
Councilman Morales and
Councilman Pedersen and
Councilman Sawant .
>> Thanks. I
support this bill, I think it's
important.
It helps us get real dollars
out the door to families who
are in the city.
We all know that COVID-19 laid
bare different systems of
inequity that have left
families in Seattle without
income and struggling to pay
their rent. Has left children
without childcare, left small
businesses without revenue and
it's our responsibility as a
counsel, Shirley, to address
the budget gap that we have.
I think we have worked really
hard to do that.
It's also our responsibility to
protect for our constituents.
This bill allows us to support
them through this immediate
crisis sent we are seeing
little federal action to provide
the scale and kind of support
the families need.
I think this does balance our
fiscal responsibility and at
the same time making sure we
don't turn a blind eye to the
hundreds of emails and phone
calls from our constituents and
service providers in the city.
We are doing everything they
can to help the community.
>> The last thing I want to say
especially over the last few
days, as we talked about this
issue of stability, I think
it's really important that we
are careful in the kind of
language we use to discuss what
are admittedly very difficult
policy discussions in the city
especially as women and young
girls are watching and
especially as little girls of
color are watching, I think we
need to be careful about not
giving the the impression that
you cannot just disagree
without being called on civil.
That suggestion that having a
tough policy conversation makes
you somebody who's uncivil or
in some way angry or a
dangerous person to talk to
somehow, is a message we need
to make sure we are not
transmitting to the little
girls in our community.
Will continue to have
disagreements on this counsel,
we will continue to have
different policy positions and
perspectives I'm sure but I
want us to make sure that we
are continuing to respect one
another and to respect the
executive branch and make sure
we are sending the right message
to little girls in our city but
it's okay to disagree with
people and that you can still
use our respect from them and
have respect for them.
Thank you.
>> Well said, Councilman
Morales.
Appreciate you for sharing that
sentiment and reminding us,
always, that again, these are
policy discussions, they are
difficult.
It's okay for us to disagree
and just because we disagree
does not mean we are morally
corrupt. I appreciate that
reminder.
Councilman Pedersen then
Councilman Sawant .
>> Thank you, council
President.
I wanted to thank Councilman
Mosqueda and the president for
working on this strategy here
which will reduce the spending
to recognize that there is this
additional gap in 2020.
This shows a good faith effort
on the part of the city Council
to move toward the executive to
acknowledge the new information
we have received and to get
money out of the door.
I was approaching this from a
different angle earlier.
I thought that was another path
to get there.
This is also a valid path.
I will support this bill, thank
you.
>> Thank you, Councilman
Pedersen.
Councilman Sawant .
>> Thank you. I would want to
clarify for the members of the
public who may watch in the
future or are watching that
something that has not been
clarified by any of the
councilmembers so far that the
substitute implements $26
million in austerity for $26
million in budget cuts. Every
point I have made, when I spoke
to the last agenda item,
opposing the mayors veto,
opposing budget cuts of
austerity as well.
Especially in this city which
has long been a tax haven for
the wealthiest.
The city Council and the mayor
should be doing everything in
their power to increase the
Amazon tax by whatever the
shortfall is whether it's 26
million today, 50 million
tomorrow, not cut the budget by
those amounts.
I will be voting no on this $26
million budget cut.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilman
Sawant.
Any other comments from my
colleagues?
Okay, I will go ahead and make
a few remarks and handed over to
Councilman Mosqueda in the
event she have any closing
remarks before we call the
roll on this bill.
I intend to support this bill,
this bill would amend the
appropriations found in the
previous bill reflects a 34%
reduction for 2020 spending in
response to the mayor's
concerns that it may be
administratively difficult to
spend $57 million in 2020.
We have language in this
amendment that acknowledges
that we have the aspiration of
being able to spend $57 million
in 2020 but acknowledging the
concern that was expressed to
us by the mayor that it may not
be physically possible to set
up the systems to accomplish
that.
Nonetheless, I believe that the
mayor will make a good-faith
effort to expand these dollars
and will continue to work with
her and her staff
collaboratively to continue to
identify how the council can
support those good faith
efforts to spend these dollars.
All the while acknowledging that
there are realities with how we
administer these dollars that
are new in some ways and into
existing programs in other ways.
Nonetheless, it is a source and
revenue after that will
necessitate some realities
about how the dollars are
administered and distributed to
qualifying residents and I
appreciate the difficulty and
belief this bill addresses that
policy concern that I heard
from the mayor.
I also heard Mayor Durkan
express concerns about the
potential of furloughs next
year.
The need to preserve dollars now
to mitigate against those
furloughs.
Again, this is with relation to
where we set the dial whether
it's 83 million or 87 million
or 57 million or some other
number, 45 million, 20 million.
Again, as chair of the
committee, I share in that
concern about mitigating against
furloughs of our employees.
I believe that my colleagues on
the labor relations policy
committee also share in that
concern.
I think we stand at the ready
to work in partnership with the
mayor on mitigating against
furloughs at the city and
really want to say that
publicly, I appreciate that
that is a real concern.
I am hearing from the mayor
that she would like to medicate
that as possible and is looking
for available dollars including
those in reserves to be able to
use those dollars to accomplish
that policy goal. I believe
there is common ground on that
policy goal and look forward to
working in the coming month as
we head into our fall budget
season to be able to work
together to accomplish that
goal.
I also understand that there is
another alternative that the
mayor would like us to consider
. Passage of this bill and the
action that we took on
overriding the veto does not
preclude wife and the
opportunity to have
conversations about the
spending that the mayor may be
able to practically effectuate
in the coming months.
I remain open to those
conversations to make sure that
this appropriations allocation
is right sized in a way that is
realistic and that will meet
the deep need in our community.
So, I really have appreciated
an opportunity to have
conversations with the mayor
and with her staff around
identifying how we can move
forward and I expect that over
the coming days, we will
continue to have conversations.
I hope we continue to have
conversations but I believe
this amendment to this bill,
which is effectively an
amendment to the prior bill, is
a reflection of our willingness
to be flexible and to
memorialize an alternative
proposal that takes into account
the realities around the
additional revenue forecast for
the remainder of 2020.
So, colleagues, I will be
excited to be voting in favor
of this and also excited that
we have been able to get to
this point and look forward to
the next few days of
conversation should the mayor
be inclined to have those.
Councilman Mosqueda , final word
.
>> Thank you, Madam President.
I want to Thank you, Madam
President and Councilman
Gonzàlez as a cosponsor and
person who has provided
tremendous leadership on this
iteration of the bill, I want
to thank you for your work on
this and to lift up what I
believe Councilman Morales was
saying as well, you, as the
Council President, as a woman,
a younger woman and a woman of
color, I think are providing a
great example to those young
women that Councilman Morales
has mentioned who are looking
to our city in this crisis for
leadership.
I appreciate the conversation
you lead us through today and
for demonstrating leadership
and respect.
I appreciate that.
Thank you Councilman Morales
for your comments.
And the conversation about how
we can disagree and not be
disagreeable and I'm looking
forward to continuing to do
that throughout our state and
within City Hall to make sure
we move forward as a cohesive
strategy to really provide the
relief that's needed.
I believe the bill is in front
of us today help offer that
strategy.
I want to lift up a few pieces
in this.
This bill does amend some
investments so that we are able
to invest in investments and
noncardiac shelter to actually
redirect two additional support
for homelessness prevention
programs including divergent
and wrap rehousing programs.
It also reduces the total
appropriation by 3 million
codirects 200,000 to FAS our
financing administrative
services department to begin
the process of lamenting the
jumpstart taxes so we can
ensure there is money to
replenish the funds we just
spoke about before and by
including 3 million for the
community project, we have 1.1
million in funding that can be
used for the administration and
the cost to get these dollars
out the door and invest in the
relief that we know we need in
our community.
The remaining 3 million we will
talk about in a moment as
Councilman Morales has spoken
about before, invest in led
research and budgeting,
strategy to truly take next
steps on public safety and in
this bill, it clarifies that we
are, as Councilman Herbold
spoke to, really recognizing
that there could also be the
potential, fingers crossed, but
maybe some additional funding
will come down.
Maybe they will be safe relief
at one point.
We want to be safe and flexible
and recognize the dollars when
we can and cannot do anything
that puts those dollars and
danger or potentially getting
reimbursed.
It has flexibility built for
that in the future.
I want to be clear that this
bill is an anti-austerity bill.
This is an anti-austerity
measure to help prevent folks
from getting laid off, to help
prevent furloughs and to help
prevent services for getting
clothes.
When we allocate $26 million, as
been requested, it will help
prevent people from getting
laid off and allow for
government services to continue
in 2020.
Much of this was anticipated
for 2021 given the nature of
this recession in front of us,
we are pulling forward those
dollars to invest in poor
government services and city
employees to truly prevent
those layouts and austerity
measures.
I will be the first to admit,
we will have to continue to
look at every strategy in front
of us, a strategy that includes
the fall budget.
We will have to enter our
commitments around austerity
are there.
This is truly a commitment for
us to make sure that the
government services, city
employees are able to maintain
their jobs and that we are
adding those poor government
services exactly when our
vulnerable communities needed.
That the combination of the 26
million we have been talking
about and up to 57 million
going into community strategies
like housing, food, small
business, and childcare.
2011, looking forward to voting
on this.
>> Thank you so much Councilman
Mosqueda for those remarks.
We will take two votes.
We will vote on the adoption of
substitute and we will
immediately call the roll on
the bill as amended.
I will ask the clerk please
call we will on the adoption of
the substitute.
>> Councilman Pedersen?
>> Aye.
>> Councilman Sawant?
>> No.
>> Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Herbold?
>> Aye.
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Mireles?
>> Aye.
>> Councilman Mosqueda?
>> Aye.
>> Councilman Gonzàlez?
>> Aye.
Not in favor when it goes.
>> Thank you so much, the
motion carries and this is
adopted.
We have had quite a debate on
the bill.
I will go ahead and take that
as the, that's needed on the
bill is amended.
I will ask the clerk call the
roll on passage of a bill as
amended.
>> Councilman Pedersen?
>> Aye .
>> Councilman Gonzàlez, I
wanted to speak quickly.
>> Councilman Sawant, we had be
based on the entirety of the
bill .
>> I have saved some points
because I thought you were
going to let councilmembers
speak to the bill after the
substitution adoption.
I would like to speak now.
>> Madam clerk, point of order,
may I do that since we have
started doing roll call?
Is that out of order?
>> Because the fax was not
provided the opportunity, I
recommend the councilmember be
allowed to speak at this moment
.
>> Thank you so much.
Wanted to make sure I would not
run a follow of rules.
Councilman Sawant, please .
>> Thank you I wanted to clarify
something related to the bill
coming up next and also wanted
to speak in reference to
comments that were just made.
First, I support funding for
the regulations to develop
alternatives to depress
policing and on the next agenda
item, which actually funds
those programs, I will be
voting yes.
I would prefer that the
programs be funded by defunding
the police as the justice for
George Floyd movement has
demanded.
However, I wholeheartedly
support the community
organizations and I will be
voting for that bill regardless
of the source of funds when we
take that in the next agenda
item.
The current agenda item
contains the $26 million that
was just discussed in the
amendment and I'm voting, I
voted against substitution and
I against hostility, I will
vote against this bill.
I hope members of the public
listening will make note of the
fact that no other councilmember
has acknowledged the point that
this is austerity and austerity
can be prevented by increasing
the Amazon tax and other was by
increasing taxes on the very
wealthiest of corporations who
have been taxed now because of
these that, victories but in
general had, have a tax haven
in our city and has done so for
many years.
Councilmembers are ignoring
those prints because they don't
want the public to a knowledge
they are making a challenge to
the austerity other than text
business.
I am quite shocked to hear
councilmembers say that a bill
that cuts the budget by 26
million is an anti-austerity
member.
I want to clarify to the public
that this is austerity and that
is why we will vote against it.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilman
Sawant.
My apologies, I did not intend
to cut you off previously.
I apologize.
Are there any other, since we
have opened up for debate, are
there any other councilmembers
who have any comments to make?
Councilman Mosqueda .
>> I appreciate we will all
continue to work on anti-
austerity proposals going
forward. Just for
clarification, this is not
cutting the budget by 26
million, this is allowing for
26 million to be used for the
City Hall that have been
identified.
I just want to be clear about
where my support is coming from
because it's not a reduction in
the thing we just pass, it's
allowing for budgets to be used.
I think the crisis that has
presented itself has put us in
the position to say where
should those dollars be used?
I am, trying to emphasize that
we should not be putting city
core government services and
city employees that are
preventing critical service to
our most vulnerable against the
dollars we are trying to get
out of the door and wanted to
clarify this is not taking from
the current budget freeing up
dollars to be used for plugging
the city budget.
I appreciate the comments I
made about fighting against
anti-austerity and we will do
that with all of our colleagues
.
>> Thank you, Councilman
Mosqueda.
Any other comments on the bill
as amended?
Hearing and seeing none.
I asked of the clerk call the
roll and passage of the bill as
amended.
>> Councilman Pedersen?
>> Aye.
>> Councilman Sawant?
>> No.
>> Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Herbold?
>> Aye.
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Morales?
>> Aye .
>> Councilman Mosqueda?
>> Aye.
>> Councilman Gonzàlez?
>> Aye.
>> Seven in favor one opposed .
>> Thank you so much, the bill
passes as amended and that you
will sign it.
I asked the clerk fix my
signature on my behalf.
I can three, will be clerk read
identity.
>> 1019862, ordinance 126000
adopted in 2020 budget and
appropriation to the department
appropriately funds from the
civilization fund and ratifying
to make sure--the city Council.
>> Thank you so much, I moved
to pass Council bill 119862.
Is there a second?
>> Second.
It has been seconded to pass
the bill.
Councilman Mosqueda, you are
recognized in order to address
this .
>> Thank you, Madam President.
I will be brief as any other
councilmembers especially
Councilman Morales has been
doing work on this.
I'm excited about this critical
piece of work to continue our
conversation with making sure
there is a diverse voices
especially from communities of
color represented at the table
as we talked about future
budget actions. With that, I
will be brief and turn it back
over.
>> Thank you so much,
Councilman Mosqueda.
Any questions or comments on
the bill?
Okay, hearing none.
I just want to thank you Matt
for bringing this forward.
I think we have a robust
opportunity to talk about this
during the committee.
I appreciate to finalize this
please.
Clerk, please call the will on
the passage of the bill.
>> Councilman Pedersen?
>> Aye.
>> Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Herbold ?
>> Yes.
>> Lewis?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Morales?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Mosqueda?
>> Yes .
>> Councilman Gonzàlez?
>> Yes.
>> Eight in favor not opposed.
>> Thank you, the bill passes
and the clerk will sign it.
I four, will be clerk read
again the item 4 into the
record?
>> Agenda item 4, Council bill
119861, Monday 26 000 which is
the 2020 budget creating the
salary level. Seattle two
Police Department, and on [
Inaudible ].
>> Is there a second?
It has been seconded to pass
the bill.
Councilman Mosqueda, this list
you as the person that will
speak about this but I do think
Councilman Herbold was the
sponsor, would you like me to
hand it to you or go to you
first?
>> You can't absolutely hand it
to Councilman Herbold.
>> Councilman Herbold, would
you like to speak to Council
bill 119861?
>> Fantastic, thank you so
much.
This reestablishes spending
levels for each of the five
police precinct.
Essential staff has noted into
last year's budget cycle, the
Council adopted budget that
included budget control levels
for each of the five precincts.
With the 2020 budget, the five
presents were combined into a
single budget level.
That was called natural
operations and plant the money
for the patrol operations
across the precincts into a
single BCL, budget control
level, at $140 million.
With this amendment, the
Council will be able to approve
appropriation levels in each of
Seattle's police precinct.
The purpose of each precinct
BSL says the purpose of the
West, North, South, East and
Southwest precinct budget
portal level or budget summary
level, is to provide the full
order maintenance services to
residents to of and refers to
each of the precincts to
promote safety in their homes,
schools, businesses and the
community at large.
Central staff indicated a new
counsel this council Bill is
necessary for this action and
we are looking forward to
finalizing and voting on this
episode council meeting on
August 12.
The origin of the amendment
itself was the possibility of
closing the Southwest precinct.
If we were to reduce funding
for patrol staffing, I believe
returning to the line turning
standing of BCL levels for all
five precincts makes a lot of
sense.
Again, we have a church
obligation to ensure adequate
policing and each of the city
council districts.
Lastly, I think it's important
to recognize that our precincts
are designed to serve
geographic areas of the city and
by enacting this legislation.
It puts us in a position where
we can ensure again that our
church obligations are filled
to do so.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilman
Herbold.
Any other comments on the bill?
Great.
I want to thank you Matt,
Councilman Herbold for
bringing this forward.
It does make a lot of sense.
I do recall a couple of summers
ago, I think we were together
at a very large public safety
town hall in Southpark and one
of the things that continued to
come up from district one
constituents was the concern
about the equity around how
enforcement services are
allocated and appropriated to
each of the precincts to meet
specific neighborhood needs
within each of the different
precincts.
I think this is a good way to
respond to the ongoing concerns
I think we continue to hear
about how those resource
allocation decisions are made
when there is a single line, it
does not contribute enough to
transparency in terms of
knowing how those dollars are
allocated to each district
within the city.
Thank you for bringing us
forward, appreciate it.
Any other comments?
Hearing none, I would ask the
clerk please call the roll on
the passage of the bill, [
roll call ] 18 favor, not
opposed.
>> Thank you, Madam clerk.
The bill passes and the clerk
will sign it.
I asked the clerk to fix my
signature on the behalf.
>> [ Inaudible ] to the general
fund.
>> Thank you Madam clerk, I
moved to pass 119863, is there
a second?
>> Second.
Thank you so much, it has been
moved to pass the bill.
Councilman Morales, I
understand, you are going to
speak on this bill.
I will recognize you in order
to announce the item will.
>> Thank you very much.
My apologies, colleagues.
I had intended to say a few
words about the stabilization
bill but clearly that was not
necessary because it passed
unanimously.
Thank you this legislation
authorizes the general funds to
borrow $13.1 million from the
construction and inspection
fund.
The proceeds of this loan are
in Council bill 119825 which we
passed and we paid for all of
the $4 million investment in
the investment such as the
community safety initiative.
It would also pay for 9.1
million of that total $10
million investment in community
later organizations. That was
an amendment 34 we passed last
week.
As we mentioned last week.
I have said before the SBC eye
ending cash balance, as of June
30th is approximately $118
million based on the data.
The executive plan plans to use
50 million in concert with
another 20 million in refunds
for West Seattle Bridge and
based on information we have,
there is sufficient funding left
are sufficient funds available
to cover the West Seattle
Bridge and a loan of $14
million for this purpose.
As we discussed last week,
excuse me, this would be 13.1,
the 3 million we did discuss
and an additional 886,000 in
SPD and the amendments we did
last week, total 17 million
which is what we are planning
to invest in community for
different participatory budget
process for community
investments like the community
safety initiative.
The funding for this loan would
be repaid in 2021. The intent
is to repay that with SPD?
Or with jumpstart revenue if
that is necessary.
We are hoping it is not but
that's the plan and so that is
the proposal and I recommend
passage.
>> Thank you, Councilman
Morales.
Any other comments on the bill?
Okay, hearing none.
We will close that the bait and
I would ask the clerk please
call the will on the passage of
the bill.
>> Councilman Pedersen?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Sawant?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Strauss?
>> Yes.
>> Counclman Herbold.
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Morales?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Mosqueda?
>> Yes.
>> Councilman Gonzàlez?
>> Yes.
>> 18 favor, and if I was.
>>Thank you, Madam clerk.
The bill passes and the clerk
will sign it.
I ask the clerk to fix my
signature on the behalf.
Okay folks, that concludes the
items of business on today's
agenda.
Our next regular city Council
meeting is on Monday, August
17th, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
. I hope that you all have a
wonderful afternoon.
Thank you so much for your hard
work.
We are adjourned.
[ Event Concluded ]