WE ARE RECORDING.
>>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WELCOME BACK.
THE SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE
MEETING OF THE SEATTLE CITY
COUPE COUNCIL WILL COME INTO
ORDER AFTER A ONE HOUR
RECESSION.
THE DATE IS NOVEMBER 18th 2021.
MADAME CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE.
>> PEDERSEN,
>> HERE.
>> SAWANT.
>> STRAUSS.
>> PREPT.
PRESENT.
>> GONZALES.
>> HERE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> HERE.
>> FLORES.
>> HERE.
LEWIS.
>> PRESENT.
>> MORALES.
>> HERE.
CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> PRESENT.
>> AND COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> PRESENT.
>> NINE PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS, THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR JOINING US, AND THANK
YOU COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT FOR
BEING WITH US.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MEET WITH YOU ALL AGAIN IN OUR
SECOND PART OF DAY ONE OF TWO
OF CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENTS
IN FRONT OF US.
JUST TO CATCH UP THE VIEWING
AUDIENCE, WE ARE ON GROUP B OF
OUR AGENDA.
GROUP B WHICH STARTS WITH ITEMS
160 THROUGH ITEMS 189.
COLLEAGUES, AS A REMINDER,
GROUP B CONSISTS OF AMENDMENTS
THAT ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE
BALANCING PACKAGE.
MOST OF THESE ARE SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT OPTIONS FROM ITEMS
PRESENTED LAST WEEK AS PART OF
THE INITIAL BALANCING PACKAGE.
THESE INCLUDE SOME NEW ITEMS
THAT I BELIEVE WILL GENERALLY
BE SUPPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE.
AND I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR CENTRAL STAFF
TO DESCRIBE EACH OF THE ITEMS
INCLUDED HERE IN GROUP B. SOME
OF THESE ARE ITEMS THAT FOR THE
FIRST TIME FOLKS WILL BE
HEARING A LITTLE BIT MORE
DETAIL ABOUT.
CENTRAL STAFF WILL WALK THROUGH
EACH ITEM.
AND AGAIN COLLEAGUES FOR THOSE
WHO ARE SPONSORS AND WOULD LIKE
TO LIFT UP ELEMENTS OF THEIR
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN
THIS POSSIBLE CONSENT PACKAGE,
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK
TO THOSE ITEMS AS CENTRAL STAFF
WALKS THROUGH EACH OF THE
AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN GROUP B.
AGAIN, THESE ARE ITEMS ON OUR
AGENDA, LISTED ITEMS NUMBER 160
TO NUMBER 189.
THE CONCEPTS WILL BE FAMILIAR
IN LARGE PART BECAUSE THEY
TOUCH ON THINGS THAT WE'VE
TALKED ABOUT OVER THE LAST FEW
WEEKS HERE.
BUT WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE
A CHANCE TO HEAR ABOUT THEM IN
MORE DETAIL.
COLLEAGUES, AFTER WE ARE DONE
WALKING THROUGH ALL OF THE
ITEMS IN GROUP B, AFTER EACH OF
THE COUNCILMEMBERS HAS HAD A
CHANCE TO LIFT UP AND EXPLAIN
SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT THE
CENTRAL STAFF WILL BE
SUMMARIZING FOR US, WE WILL
THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CONSIDER REMOVING ANY ITEM FROM
THIS CONSENT PACKAGE BEFORE YOU
VOTE ON THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
AGAIN, YOU'LL HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE ANY ITEM
IF YOU SO DESIRE TO HAVE A
SINGLE VOTE ON IT.
BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO REMOVE AN
ITEM IN ORDER TO SPEAK TO IT.
SO WITH THAT, ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT GROUP B? OKAY.
WONDERFUL WITH THAT I'M GOING
TO MOVE TO HAVE GROUP B IN
FRONT OF US SO THAT WE CAN
CONSIDER ITEMS AND THEN AGAIN,
WE'RE GOING TO WALK THROUGH
EACH OF THOSE ITEMS.
IF COUNCILMEMBERS DO HAVE
AMENDMENTS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO
OFFER AS AMENDMENTS TO ITEMS IN
GROUP B, WE WILL THEN HAVE YOU
REMOVE THAT ITEM SO THAT YOU
CAN HAVE THAT SPECIFIC
DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT ITEM,
WE'LL CONSIDER AMENDMENTS AT
THE END ALONG WITH ANY
ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT WOULD
LIKE TO BE REMOVED.
IN ORDER THE GET GROUP B IN
FRONT OF US, I MOVE TO APPROVE
GROUP B'S CONSENT PACKAGE, IS
THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
THANK YOU IT'S OPINION MOVED
AND SECONDED.
THE CONSENT PACKAGE CONSISTING
OF ITEMS 160 THROUGH 189.
CENTRAL STAFF IS GOING TO
PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE
ITEMS IN GROUP B. IF CRON
LOGICAL ORDER, WE'LL HAVE THE
PRIME SPONSOR SPEAK TO ANY OF
THESE ITEMS ONCE WE GET DONE
WITH THE SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW
OF THE ITEMS.
THEN COUNCILMEMBERS WILL BE
WELCOME TO ASK TO REMOVE ANY
ITEMS BEFORE WE CONSIDER VOTING
ON IT AS A PACKAGE.
ALLIE, WELCOME BACK.
>> THANK YOU.
CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
WELCOME BACK COUNCILMEMBERS.
AS CHAIR MOSQUEDA SAID, WE HAVE
30 ITEMS IN GROUP B. I'LL HAVE
MY CENTRAL STAFF, COLLEAGUES
BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE ITEM,
STARTING WITH MY COLLEAGUE ANNE
GORMAN ON THE FIRST ITEM.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, THIS ITEM IS
CSCC 2B 1 AND IT'S SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
A PREVIOUS AMENDMENT PROPOSED
FUNDING IN THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT AT THE $3.1 MILLION
LEVEL TO WORK WITH CITY PUBLIC
SAFETY DEPARTMENTS ON A
REQUESTED PROPOSAL, SELECT A
COMMUNITY PROVIDER AND
IMPLEMENT THE PROVISION IN THE
REFERENCED RESPONSE.
THIS APPROACH COMMITS FUNDING
IN THE COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATION CENTER FOR
RESPONSE PLANNING ONLY RATHER
THAN PLANNING AND DEPLOYMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO
THIS SUMMARY?
>> I APPRECIATE ANNE'S SUMMARY.
I WOULD BRIEFLY SAY THAT I
THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A
REALLY IMPORTANT INVESTMENT TO
WORK TOWARDS OUR COMMON GOALS
OF COUNCIL WHICH IS TO RESOURCE
OUR 911 RESPONSE CENTER TO
STAND UP AND DEPLOY ALTERNATIVE
RESPONSES FOR THINGS THAT A LOT
OF US AGREE THAT AN ALTERNATIVE
RESPONSE COULD GO TO TO RESPOND
TO OUR CURRENT PUBLIC SAFETY
CRISIS.
AND I APPRECIATE WORKING WITH
ANNE ON THIS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
TECHNICAL THINGS TO ADD TO IT.
I'LL RESERVE OTHER COMMENTS FOR
THE DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, LET'S MOVE
ON TO NUMBER 161.
>> WELCOME.
>> HELLO, HI.
I'M ON YOUR COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF.
THIS IS A SLIDE FAS 3B 1. THIS
WOULD REQUEST THE FINANCE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DEPARTMENT REPORT ON INCREASED
EFFICIENCIES AND ANIMAL
PATROLLING.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO DOWN
THE LINE INCREASE AND IMPROVE
PATROLLING ON LEASH LAWS, AND
SCOOP LAWS IN THE PARKS, IT'S
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST SUPER BRIEFLY, I HAVE
ANOTHER BUDGET ACTION IN THE
EARLIER ROUND THAT WOULD
PROVISO FUNDS TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH PAST PRACTICES THAT THE
COUNCIL HAS TAKEN IN EFFORTS TO
INCREASE FUNDING FOR THE ANIMAL
CONTROL TO ACTUALLY FOCUS ON
THE WORK ENFORCING THE LEASH
AND SCOOP LAWS IN THE PARKS.
UNFORTUNATELY, DESPITE OUR
EFFORTS OVER TWO BUDGET YEARS,
THOSE DOLLAR -- THOSE FUNDS ARE
STILL BEING USED TO SUPPORT
OTHER ANIMAL CONTROL FUNCTIONS.
TAKING OFFICE, I CONSISTENTLY
HEARD FROM CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT BETTER
ENFORCEMENT OF SCOOP AND LEASH
LAWS IN THE PARKS.
AND IN 2017, THE BUDGET WE
WORKED ON GOT FUNDING FOR AN
ADDITIONAL POSITION AND FUNDING
FOR VEHICLE IN THE 2019 BUDGET
WE ADDED ANOTHER ACL POSITION.
SINCE THE BUDGET ADDS, THERE'S
BEEN NO INCREASE IN THE NUMBER
OF ACOs AT PARKS.
AND THE -- THERE'S JUST ONE
TEAM OF TWO ACOs PATROLLING ALL
OF SEATTLE'S PARKS.
AND JUST HOPING THAT SINCE
THERE WASN'T SUPPORT IN THE
EARLIER ROUND TO PROVISO FUNDS
THAT WE'VE ALL READY ALLOCATED
FOR THIS PURPOSE TO ENSURE THAT
THEY WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE
USED FOR THIS PURPOSE SINCE
THERE WASN'T SUPPORT FOR THAT
IN THE PRIOR BUDGET ROUND, I'M
JUST HOPING THAT A REPORT FROM
THE ANIMAL SHELTER WILL SHINE A
LIGHT ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW
FOR MORE CONVERSATION IN NEXT
YEAR'S BUDGET PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER.
LET'S MOVE ON TO 162.
ITEM 162 IS CBA FAS 5C1.
IT WOULD ADD $110,000 OF
GENERAL FUND TO FAS.
AND $250,000 OF GENERAL FUND.
A GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
SPECIALIST FOR A VICTIM
COMPENSATION FUND AND COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT.
FAS 5C 1 DIFFERS SLIGHTLY FROM
FAS 5 B 1 IN TWO WAYS.
IT ADDS THE SENIORS GRANTS AND
CONTRACTS SPECIALIST.
AND USES SOME OF THE FUNDING
THAT WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
TO SUPPORT THAT POSITION.
IT ALSO INCLUDES A LITTLE BIT
OF ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT
ASKS FOR REPORTING BACK ABOUT
THE NUMBER OF CASES THAT WOULD
HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR VICTIM
-- EXCUSE ME FOR DIVERSION IF
NOT FOR RESTITUTION
REQUIREMENTS.
IT'S SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS AND COSPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBERS HERBOLD,
MORALES, AND STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAME
CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR CUEING THAT UP.
YOU KNOW, VICTIM COMPENSATION
IS A FOUNDATIONAL VALUE OF
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PRACTICES.
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE DOES NOT
ASK FOR ANYBODY TO GO ON
WITHOUT BEING MADE WHOLE AS A
VICTIM OF CRIME.
IT SEEKS FOR HOLISTIC
UNDERSTANDING IN MAKING VICTIMS
HOLE AS A FOUNDATIONAL PART OF
HOW WE'RE ACCOUNTABLE TO EACH
OTHER.
DESPITE THOSE PRINCIPLES BEING
CORE TO RESTORATIVE JUSTICE,
THE CITY OF SEATTLE TO THIS
DATE HAS NOT HAD IN OUR
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM ANY WAY
FOR VICTIMS TO ACCESS SOME KIND
OF SUPPORT OF THIS NATURE.
DESPITE INVESTING VERY HEAVILY
IN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF
DIVERSION PROGRAMS, COMMUNITY
COURT, AND OTHER RESTORATIVE
WAYS TO ADJUDICATE CRIMINAL
LEGAL MATTERS AS ALTERNATIVES
TO THE TRADITIONAL COURTS AND
SURVEILLANCE AND PROBATION.
THIS WILL ALLOW US TO MAKE SURE
THAT THIS CRITICAL COMPONENT OF
VICTIMS WALKING AWAY FEELING
LIKE THEY'VE BEEN HEARD AND
TAT AN INJURY THEY'VE
SUSTAINED HAS BEEN MADE WHOLE
TO THE BEST ABILITY THAT WE CAN
DO PROGRAMMATICALLY FOR
MISDEMEANORS, THIS WILL CLOSE
THAT GAP IN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM.
SO I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO
THIS BEING PART OF THE VARIOUS
TOOLS THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE A
MORE JUST CITY AND I APPRECIATE
THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERRING
IN THIS.
I APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENT WORK
ON THIS AS WELL AS THE
COSPONSOR.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
I KNOW YOU MENTIONED A FEW
NAMES FROM CENTRAL STAFF.
I DO WANT TO NOTE, WE'RE TRYING
TO DO A QUICK OVERVIEW
ORIENTATION, IF THERE'S MORE TO
ADD TO AN ITEM THAT WE'RE
EXCITED ABOUT, I'M GOING TO ASK
FOR THE COMMENTS TO BE HELD
UNTIL WE SUMMARIZE ALL
EXCITEMENT FOR GROUP B IF
THAT'S OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'LL PUT YOU FIRST IN THE CUE.
OKAY.
LET'S GO ON TO NEXT ITEM.
THE NEXT ITEM, THIS IS THE
OMNIBUS AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
RESTORE EXPENDITURES TO THE
AMOUNTS AND PURPOSES PRESCRIBED
IN 126393 AND REALLOCATING ONE
TIME FUNDS AND ACKNOWLEDGING
2021 CARRY TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY
LED INVESTMENTS.
WE SPENT A FAIR AM OF TIME
DISCUSSING THIS AMENDMENT IN
COMMITTEE.
I WON'T GO INTO ALL OF THE
DETAILS FOR ALL THE ITEMS
COVERED IN THIS AMENDMENT.
I'M JUST GOING TO HIGHLIGHT A
FEW THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED
SINCE THE LAST -- SINCE THE
LAST DISCUSSION.
SO CHANGES IN THIS OPTION FOR
THIS AMENDMENT INCLUDE SOME
MODIFICATIONS, THE PREVIOUS
VERSION INCLUDED $4.4 MILLION
OF ONE-TIME FEDERAL DOLLARS,
CORONAVIRUS, LOCAL, FEDERAL
RELIEF FUNDS, TO BE USED FOR
SERVICES PAIRED WITH EMERGENCY
HOUSING VOUCHERS AND CITY
FUNDED OR NONCITY FUNDED
BUILDINGS.
FOR TECHNICAL REASONS AND
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION.
THE CHAIR SUBMITTED AN
AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THAT.
THOSE SERVICES ARE NOW
SUPPORTED BY JUMP START FUNDS
AND WAS INCREASED TO 7.3
MILLION.
AND THAT WAS INCLUDED -- THAT'S
INCLUDED IN AMENDMENT OH 15A1.
SO WITH THAT, THE $4.4 MILLION
OF CLIPPER FUNDS PREVIOUSLY
PROPOSED TO BE USED TO SUPPORT
THOSE SERVICES ARE USED FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
THIS INCLUDES 1 MILLION COLE
DOLLARS TO THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING FOR VERY SERVICES AND
CAPACITY FUNDING FOR NONPROFIT
HOUSING PROVIDERS OPERATING
HOUSING PROJECTS.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD SUBMITTED
AN AMENDMENT TO THAT PIECE
SPONSORED BY BOTH COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AND COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
$308,000 TO THE OFFICE OF
SUSTAINABILITY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT FOR A PILOT
PRESCRIPTION FOOD PROGRAM.
ADMINISTERED BY A COMMUNITY
HEALTH CENTER SPECIALIZING IN
THE CARE OF AMERICAN INDIANS
AND ALASKA NATIVES.
SUCH AS THE SEATTLE INDIAN
HEALTH BOARD.
THAT PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
AND $435 -- EXCUSE ME, $435,000
TO THE SEATTLE PUBLIC
LIBRARIES TO SUPPORT REPAIRS
FROM VANDALISM THAT HAVE
OCCURRED OVER THE LAST COUPLE
YEARS.
THE COMBINATION OF THESE
ACTIONS ALLOWED CHAIR MOSQUEDA
IN HER REVISED BALANCING
PACKAGE TO CHANGE SOME OF THE
RESOURCES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY
SUPPORTING THE PACKAGE THAT
INCLUDES NO LONGER MAKING
REDUCTIONS TO THE SEATTLE IT
DEPARTMENTS AND IN THE NEXT
ITEM, NO LONGER RELYING ON A
REDUCTION TO THE CONTRIBUTION
TO FISCAL RESERVES.
IN ADDITION, IN THE PRIMAL
HOURS OF PUTTING THE REVISED
PACKAGE TOGETHER, CENTRAL STAFF
IMRF
IDENTIFIED AN ERROR THAT
IDENTIFIED JUMP START FUND
DOLLARS THAT HAD NOT BEEN
ALLOCATED SO COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA INCLUDED JUMP START
FUNDING FOR A PROPOSAL
SUBMITTED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES PROVIDING 120,000
COLLARS TO SDOT FOR INVESTMENTS
TO IMPROVE THE COLUMBIA CITY
PATIO.
>> EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I'M THE SPONSOR OF THIS ONE.
I'LL BRIEFLY ADD TO WHAT ALLIE
NOTED.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBERS SUGGESTED THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE INCLUDED VIA
SOME AMENDMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ WAS ASKING
ABOUT THE IMPACT ON LIBRARIES,
WE'RE EXCITED TO GET THE
LANGUAGE INCLUDED.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES NOTING
YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE PATIO
EFFORT THAT YOU HAD ASKED FOR
IN YOUR DISTRICT.
AND ALSO THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO
THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE
BEEN HAVING WITH FOLKS AT THE
REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS
AUTHORITY.
THANKS TO MARK AND THEIR CREW
FOR ALL THE WORK THEY'VE DONE
TO HELP FLAG HOW WE CAN MAKE
SURE THESE DOLLARS ARE
RESONATING WITH WHAT THE
COMMUNITY PARTNERS NEED TO SEE
IN TERMS OF STABILITY.
HAPPY TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK
ON THIS.
AND APPLY THIS MODIFICATION FOR
A SHORT-TERM MODIFICATION SO
THAT WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF
THOSE CONCERNS.
AND WITH THAT, I THINK WE CAN
GO TO NEXT ONE.
>> ITEM 164 IS BUDGET ACTION FG
6B 1-2022 THIS ACTION WOULD ADD
$400,000 GENERAL FUND TO
FINANCE GENERAL FOR THE PURPOSE
OF INCREASING THE TRANSFER TO
THE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND.
THE BUDGET AS PROPOSED INCLUDED
$15 MILLION TO THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUND.
THIS WOULDED ADD $400,000.
BRINGING THE TOTAL TO 15.4
MILLION.
WHICH IS $12.3 MILLION HIGHER
THAN WOULD BE STRICTLY REQUIRED
IN THE RESERVE POLICY.
SO I WOULD JUST NOTE ON A
TECHNICAL BASIS.
THAT THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE
TITLES ARE CORRECT ON THIS.
HOWEVER, THE DESCRIPTION
ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA REFLECTS
TO A PRIOR DELIBERATIVE DRAFT.
AND THAT WILL BE UPDATED
THROUGH A TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENT
ON MONDAY.
WE CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
A LINING INVESTMENTS RIGHT
NOW.
I'M EXCITED WE WERE ABLE TO NOT
ONLY PROTECT THESE RESERVES BUT
BE ABLE TO ADD A SMALL CUSHION
BACK MAKES ME FEEL LIKE WE'RE
HELPING TO PROTECT WORKING
FAMILIES IN THE SITUATION WE
MAY FIND OURSELVES IN IF
THERE'S CONTINUING VARIANTS.
I'M ADDING TO THE EXISTING
RESERVES THERE.
THAT'S SOMETHING I'M EXCITED
ABOUT AND I WANTED TO LIFT UP
FOR ALL OF YOU.
I THINK WE CAN MOVE TO 165.
>> FOR THE RECORD, COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF, ITEM 165 IS A
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT.
NUMBER 10C 1. REQUEST A REPORT
FROM THE KING COUNTY REGIONAL
HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY.
ANALYZING THE THEORY AND
PROCESS TO INTEGRATE HOMELESS
SERVICES AND HOW NAVIGATORS
HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO
HOMELESS OUTREACH.
COMPARED TO PRIOR VERSION, THIS
ADDS AN ASSESSMENT DISCUSSING
THE THEORY AND PROCESS
UNDERLINING THE ARE POSED
SYSTEM AND INTEGRATION THAT THE
AUTHORITY WILL COME UP WITH FOR
ALL HOMELESS SERVICES AS THE
RFP FOR SERVICES IS DEVELOPED
NEXT SPRING AND ISSUED AND
RESPONDED TO BY PROVIDERS.
ALL THE PIECES PREVIOUSLY
DISCUSSED RELATED TO PEER
NAVIGATION AND HOMELESSNESS
SERVICES ARE ALL RETAINED.
IT'S JUST ADDING A MORE
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT THAT
COVERS THE WHOLE GAMET OF
INVESTMENTS.
THIS IS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I SHOULD SAY THANK YOU TO
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS WHO WAS THE
ORIGINAL SPONSOR ALONG WITH
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GONZALES FOR
THE REQUEST THAT CAME FROM THE
REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS
AUTHORITY.
VERY EXCITED TO WORK WITH THEM
ON THE LANGUAGE RELATED TO HOW
WE ASSESS A MORE COHESIVE AND
COORDINATED SYSTEM FOR SERVING
THOSE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS.
I'M EXCITED THIS AMENDMENT
ALLOWS US TO DO TWO IMPORTANT
THINGS.
PROVIDE SYSTEM WIDE NEEDS
ASSESSMENT.
DISCUSSING THE THEORY AND ARE
SYCES FOR UNDERLINING THE
PROPOSED SYSTEM CHANGE
INTEGRATION THAT THEY'VE BEEN
LEANING ON WITH THEIR
COMMITMENT TO RACIAL AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE AND HOW WE ANALYZE THE
SYSTEM TO ADDRESS THOSE
INEQUITIES WE'VE SEEN IN THE
PAST.
THE SECOND IS TO IDENTIFY WAYS
TO INCORPORATE THE PURE
NAVIGATOR MODEL INTO DELIVERY
SYSTEMS WORKING WITH THE LIVED
EXPERIENCE SYSTEMS.
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AND SERVICE PROVIDERS.
ALONG WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION
BOARD AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO
BETTER UNDERSTAND AND
INCORPORATE HOW PEOPLE WITH
LIVED EXPERIENCE WITH
HOMELESSNESS, INCARCERATION,
WORK IN THE SEX INDUSTRY,
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND OTHER
RELATIVE EXPERIENCES CAN REALLY
HELP NAVIGATE AND INFORM OUR
CITIES SYSTEMS AS WE SEEK TO
IMPROVE AN INDIVIDUAL'S JOURNEY
FROM HOMELESSNESS TO HOUSING.
AGAIN I WANT TO THANK FOLKS
OVER AT THE KING COUNTY
REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS
AUTHORITY.
THANKS TO MARK AND THE
LEADERSHIP TEAM THERE FOR
WORKING TO HELP IDENTIFY WAYS
THAT WE ARE PLANNING TO ISSUE A
REDESIGNED RFP FOR ALL
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES FOR
CONTRACTS IN THE SPRING OF 2022
AND CHANGES MADE TOKER
TO SERVICE DELIVERIES.
FOR HOMELESS SERVICES BEGINNING
IN 2023.
A SYSTEM WIDE ASSESSMENT THAT
WILL ENABLE KING COUNTY
REGIONAL HOMELESS AUTHORITY TO
IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE ADDITIONAL
CAPACITY IS NEEDED AND HOW
THEY'LL ADDRESS AN APPROACH
ALLOWING MORE INDIVIDUALS TO
THRIVE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ITEM 166.
REQUEST HSD PROVIDE A QUARTERLY
REPORT ON ACTIVITIES RESPONDING
TO END HOMELESSNESS.
REPORTING RECEIVED BY THE
COUNCIL THIS CALENDAR YEAR ON
THE HOPE TEAM.
IT'S ALL THE DATA PROVIDED IS
SPECIFIC TO NUMBER OF
REFERRALS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
REFERRALS, AND PLACEMENT INTO
SHELTER AND SIMILAR TYPES OF
ACTIVITIES, THIS IS PUT FORWARD
BY COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
ANYTHING TO ADD IN
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING IT IN
THIS CONSENT PACKAGE.
AND THANK YOU JEFF SIMS FOR
SUMMARIZING IT.
IT'S A RENEWAL OF A SLIDE WE
HAD IN PLACE LAST YEAR.
AND IT WILL ENABLE US TO
CONTINUE TO GET THIS
INFORMATION GOING FORWARD.
SO I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
LET'S MOVE TO 167.
>> A JEB DAH ITEM 167 IS HSD 1C
1. THIS ACTION WOULD ADD 5.6
MILLION TO HSD FOR ONE TIME
APPRECIATION PAY AND CAPACITY
BUILDING.
IT'S A REVISED VERSION OF HSD
WHICH IS IN THE BALANCING
PACKAGE.
IT'S BEEN MODIFIED TO INCLUDE A
PROVISO AND TO REVISE THE
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION.
IT'S SPONSORED BY CHAIR
MOSQUEDA AND COSPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBERS HERBOLD, SAWANT,
JUAREZ, STRAUSS, LEWIS, AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GONZALES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AMY,
LEAGUES, I APPRECIATE THE
SUPPORT YOU'VE PROVIDED FOR
MAKING SURE OUR PROVIDERS
RECEIVED A COST OF LIVING
INCREASE A FEW YEARS AGO.
HERE TODAY IN FRONT OF US IN
OUR BALANCING PACKAGE, WE
INCLUDED A ONE TIME INCREASE
NOR FRONT LINE WORKERS, HUMAN
SERVICE PROVIDERS, THIS HELPS
TO MAKE SURE THAT HSD'S
NEGOTIATION WITH RHA AND THE
TRANSFER OF THE COUNCIL'S
INTENT TO USE THIS HUNDRED FOR
HUMAN SERVICE PROVIDERS ALIGNS
WITH THE ONE TIME NATURE IN
WHICH THIS AMENDMENT WAS
INTENDED.
THANKS AGAIN TO THE CEO, MARK
JONES AT THE REGIONAL
HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY.
FOR THEIR HELP IN HELPING TO
FLESH OUT ADDITIONAL DETAILS
THAT NEED TO CORRESPOND WITH
THESE DOLLARS.
SO IT WAS CLEAR HOW WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE PROVIDERS RECEIVE
THIS ONE TIME SUPPORT AND
HAVING THAT FACTOR INTO FUTURE
CONVERSATIONS WE'LL HAVE ABOUT
PROVIDER WAGES.
S THERE A NICE ITEM THAT GOES
HAND IN HAND WITH WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD DESCRIBED
EARLIER.
THE OVER ALL WAGE ASSESSMENT WE
NEED TO DO.
THIS IS A ONE TIME APPRECIATION
NOTE.
THANK YOU.
NUMBER 168.
>>> HSD 5C1.
THIS ACTION WOULD ADD 5.1
MILLION TO HSD TO SUSTAIN 2021
LEVEL OF FOOD AND NUTRITION
LEVEL FUNDING.
THIS ITEM IS IN THE CHAIR'S
BALANCING PACKAGE BUT MODIFIED
TO ADD A TERM LIMITED SENIOR
GRANTS AND CONTRACTS SPECIALIST
AT HSD TO SUPPORT THE NEW
INVESTMENTS IN THE 2022
PROPOSED BUDGET.
AND IT'S SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
THANK YOU, AMY, I APPRECIATE
THE EXPLANATION.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.
>> EXCELLENT, THANK YOU.
169.
>> AGENDA ITEM 169, THIS ACTION
WOULD REDUCE FUNDING FOR A HOT
MEAL PROGRAM SERVING THE
PHINNEY RIDGE AND GREEN WOOD
NEIGHBORHOODS FROM 175,000 TO
$90,000.
AND WOULD ADD THAT $85,000 TO
HSD TO MAINTAIN VEHICLE
RESIDENT OUTREACH AND PARKING
OFFENSE MITIGATION.
THIS $85,000 WOULD BE IN
ADDITION TO $100,000 FOR THIS
PURPOSE, INCLUDED IN THE
CHAIR'S BALANCING PACKAGE IN
HOM 4B 1. IT'S SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> EXCELLENT, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING BOTH
THE VEHICLE OUTREACH TEAM AND
THE HOT MEALS PROGRAM IN YOUR
BASE CHAIR'S PACKAGE.
HAVING CNVERSATION THROUGH THE
CHAIR'S PACKAGE, WE WERE ABLE
TO MAINTAIN FUNDING THROUGH THE
VEHICLE OUTREACH TEAM AND
UNFORTUNATELY, NOT THE
EXPANSION.
WE WERE ABLE TO FUND THE HOT
MEALS PROGRAM OUT OF THE GREEN
WOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
GREEN WOOD SENIOR CENTER
OPERATED BY THE PHINNEY
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.
SPEAKING TO THE PHINNEY
NEIGHBORHOOD SENDER, THEY CAN
MAKE DO WITH THE $80,000.
TO INCREASE THEIR HOT MEAL
PROGRAM TO HAVE A MEANING.
IMPACT.
BECAUSE THE HOT MEALS PROGRAM
IS NOT JUST MEALS, IT'S ALSO A
PLACE WHERE SENIORS ARE ABLE TO
CONNECT WITH OTHER SERVICES
FROM DENTAL TO MENTAL HEALTH TO
EVERYTHING.
SO IN SPEAKING WITH PHINNEY
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER AND THE
VEHICLE OUTREACH TEAM, MAKING
THIS CHANGE WILL NOT HAVE A
DEEP IMPACT ON THE HOT MEALS
PROGRAM AND WILL HAVE AN
INCREDIBLE IMPACT ON THE
VEHICLE OUTREACH TEAM.
THANK YOU CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
COUNCILMEMBERS LET'S CONTINUE.
>> ITEM 170 IS HSD 22 B 1. IT
ADDS $750,000 GENERAL FUND AND
A STRATEGIC ADVISER TWO
POSITION FOR EXPANDED PREFILING
CONTRACTS FOR COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS.
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AND COSPONSORED BY
GONZALES. BERS LEWIS AND
IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE
PREVIOUS VERSION HSD 22A1
BECAUSE IT ADDS IN A STRATEGIC
ADVISER TWO POSITION.
SOME OF THE $750,000 IS
INTENDED TO SUPPORT THIS
POSITION.
AS WELL AS THE POSITION THAT
WAS ADDED IN FAS 5C 1 THAT THAT
CBA ADDED A GRANTS AND
CONTRACTS SPECIALIST.
THEY'LL FUND TWO HSD POSITIONS
INTENDED TO ADDRESS THESE NEW
SCOPES OF WORK FOR HSD.
WONDERFUL, PLEASE GO AHEAD
COUNCILMEMBER.
>> THANK YOU, AGAIN, ASHA DID A
GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING.
I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO ADD.
I APPRECIATE HSD BEING
PROACTIVE AND ALLOWING US TO
ENSURE THEY HAVE ADEQUATE
FUNDING TO SUPPORT OUR SERVICE
EXPANSION IN THIS AREA AND IN
THE PREVIOUS AREA AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
WONDERFUL.
I THINK WE'RE ON 171.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> ITEM 171 IS HSD 25C1.
IT WOULD ADD $50,000 GENERAL
FUND TO HSD TO CONTRACT WITH AN
ORGANIZATION TO SURVEY NATIONAL
BEST PRACTICES ON INTERRUPTING
GUN VIOLENCE.
IT'S SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALES, COSPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBERS HERBOLD,
PEDERSEN, AND LEWIS, IT'S
DIFFERENT FROM HSD 25 B 1 IN
THAT IT ADDS LANGUAGE THAT
WOULD HAVE THE SURVEY ALIGNED
WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME
FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE.
>> EXCELLENT, THANK YOU,
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> NOT MUCH MORE TO ADD THERE.
THANK YOU ASHA FOR THE STRONG
DESCRIPTION THERE.
AND THE BIG DIFFERENCE HERE IS
-- EXCUSE ME?
>> LET'S JUST MAKE SURE THE IT
SYSTEM IS MUTED IF WE CAN MAKE
SURE TO MUTE OUR IT TEAM.
THANK YOU.
OKAY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> THAT'S OKAY.
THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE HERE IS
THAT WE'RE INCLUDING SOME
RESOURCES FOR THE CITY AUDITOR
TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON SOME OF
THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY
HAVE.
BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THERE'S CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN
THAT BODY OF WORK AND THE WORK
THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR THROUGH
THIS CONTRACT.
I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD BRINGING THIS CHANGE
FORWARD.
AND OF COURSE IT WAS AT HER
REQUEST THAT WE ARE MAKING THIS
PARTICULAR CHANGE AND I'M
SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSAL THAT
THE CITY AUDITOR PARTICIPATE IN
DEVELOPMENT OF EVALUATION OF
THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY SAFETY COHORT.
CONNECTING THESE BODIES OF WORK
WILL SERVE TO ENSURE THAT AS
THE CITY CONTINUES THE WORK
FINDING RESPONSES TO COMMUNITY
SAFETY OUTSIDE OF TRADITIONAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT OUR
ENDEAVORS ARE ALL LANDING ON
THE SAME PAGE AND HIGHLY
COORDINATED.
THIS IS REFLECTIVE OF THAT
INTENT.
>> NUMBER 172.
>> ITEM 172, PROCEDURALLY,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, DID YOU
WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS ONE?
>> SURE.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE CORRECT
SCRIPTING IS HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, IF
YOU'RE INTERESTED IN PULLING
THIS ITEM.
WE CAN SKIP IT FOR NOW.
WE'LL NOTE COME BACK TO THIS
ONE.
LET'S GO TO 173.
>> ITEM 173 HSD 30A1.
THIS IS A NEW ITEM BUT IT'S
FAIRLY TECHNICAL IN A NATURE.
IT ADDS $600,000 TO HSD FOR
THEIR FINANCE TEAM.
THE 2022 PROPOSED BUDGET
INCLUDED $600,000 IN FINANCE
GENERAL RESERVES AS THE CITY
BUDGET OFFICE WORKED WITH HSD
TO DETERMINE WHAT ADDITIONAL
STAFFING RESOURCES THEY NEEDED
ON THE FINANCE TEAM TO PLO VIED
SUPPORT TO ENSURE THE
DEPARTMENT IS COMPLYING WITH
GRANT REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS A REFLECTION OF THE
SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN HSD'S
BUDGET OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.
SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT
SPONSORED BY CHAIR MOSQUEDA IN
ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THOSE
POSITIONS ARED ADDED AND
FUNDING FOR THE FIRST PART OF
THE YEAR IS PROVIDED AND WE
EXPECT EITHER UNDER SPEND OR A
SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ACTION IN
2022 TO PROVIDE THE REMAINING
FUNDING.
JUST NOTE THESE POSITIONS HAVE
ALL READY BEEN AUTHORIZED ON AN
EMERGENCY BASIS BY THE CITY
BUDGET DIRECTOR WHO HAS THE
AUTHORITY TO DO THAT UNDER
LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO THIS WOULD MAKE THIS --
MAKE THOSE POCKETS PERMANENT
AND MOVES THE FUNDING OUT OF
RESERVES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALLIE, I WILL ALSO JUST NOTE
THIS IS AN ITEM FLAGGED FOR US
AFTER THE BUDGET WAS
TRANSMITTED FROM THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE.
IT WAS FLAGGED FOR US BY THE
EXECUTIVE AND CBO AS A NEED.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO WORK TO
ACCOMMODATE THAT REQUEST HERE.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE
TO ADD TO WHAT ALLIE JUST
NOTED.
BUT MAKING SURE WE'RE COMPLYING
WITH FEDERAL GRANTS IN ADDITION
TO MAKING SURE THE GRANTS WE'RE
AUTHORIZING IN THE CITY GO TO
THE RIGHT PEOPLE.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
I'M HAPPY TO INCLUDE THIS YEAR
TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ADDITIONAL
CAPACITY.
OKAY.
LET'S DO 174.
>> 174 IS CBA HSD 50C1.
$500,000 IN FUNDING TO HSD TO
EXPAND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SERVICES.
COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS OPTION
OR VERSION, THIS SPECIFIES THAT
THE PROGRAM THAT WOULD RECEIVE
FUNDS IS THE COMMUNITY BASED
PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM.
WHERE AS THE EARLIER VERSION
WHICH WE'RE STILL WORKING AT
THAT POINT TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC
INFORMATION ON CERTAIN
PROGRAMS, MORE IN GENERAL
TALKING ABOUT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
SERVICES PROVIDES THE EXACT
PROGRAM.
THE COUNCILMEMBER HERE IS
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
ANYTHING TO ADD TO THIS?
MAYBE NOT.
NO WORRIES.
>> NOTHING TO ADD.
SORRY.
>> NO PROBLEM.
>> I APPRECIATE JEFF'S WORK ON
THIS TO -- AGAIN, FINE TUNING
FROM THE VERSION THAT WE HEARD
IN ROUND ONE.
>> EXCELLENT.
WONDERFUL.
OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS THE
NEXT ONE.
WE'LL KEEP YOU ON THE SCREEN.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> 175 ADDS $3.9 MILLION TO HSD
TO MAINTAIN A DIVERSION
PROGRAM.
AND THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE
PREVIOUS CBA IN THAT THIS IS
ESSENTIALLY THE ENVISIONS OF
THE LEAD PROGRAM.
THE PRIOR VERSION ONLY ADDED
$3.5 MILLION.
THIS ADDS 400,000 FOR 3
PENNSYLVANIA $9 MILLION.
$3.9MILLION.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> JUST MY PROFOUND THANKS TO
MADAME CHAIR FOR HER WORK ON
TRYING TO ASSIST COUNCIL IN
FULFILLING ITS COMMITMENTS IN
PRIOR RESOLUTIONS TO WORK TO
SCALE UP THE LEAD PROGRAM.
WE HAVE RECEIVED REPORTS ON
WHAT IT WOULD COST.
WE'RE NOT QUITE THERE YET.
BUT WE ARE DEFINITELY MOVING IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
AND THAT IS I THINK DUE IN
GREAT PART TO MADAME CHAIR'S
COMMITMET TO FOCUSING ON THIS
ITEM IN THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S VERY KIND.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP
ON THAT.
LET'S MOVE ON TO 176.
>> 176 IS SLY LAW 3A 1. IT
REQUESTS THAT THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WORK WITH HSD
TO PLAN FOR THE TRANSFER OF
COMMUNITY BASED DIVERSION
CONTRACTS.
IT'S SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
THIS IS A NEW STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT BUT ONE THAT
ASKS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TO WORK WITH THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT ON A PLAN TO
TRANSITION OVER THE EXISTING
CONTRACTS THAT THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS WITH
COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS
DOING THE PREFILING DIVERSION
WORK.
SO RATHER THAN TRANSFERRING
THEM IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID ANY
KIND OF SERVICE DISRUPTION IN
THE CURRENT EXISTING PREFILING
PROGRAM, THE SLY ASKS THAT HSD
AND LAW WORK TOGETHER TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO MOVE THE CONTRACTS
OVER WITHOUT ANY SERVICE
DISRUPTION.
AND DO THAT HOPEFULLY BY THE
MID YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL.
I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD.
ASHA DID A FINE JOB THERE.
LET'S KEEP GOING.
>> YOLANDA, COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF ON TO AGENDA ITEM 177.
THIS IS D 11A1 SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
THIS IS A NEW STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
NOT PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.
THE STATEMENT WOULD REQUEST THE
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF HOUSING AND THE
OFFICE OF PLANNING COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CREATE A PLAN TO
COORDINATE THEIR STRATEGIES FOR
FUNDING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
INTENDED TO PREVENT COMMUNITY
DISPLACEMENT TO ENSURE THE
CITY'S INVESTMENTS ARE
STRATEGICALLY ALIGNED AND
RESPONSIVE TO COMMUNITY NEEDS
WITH A FOCUS ON THE NEW $7.6
MILLION SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERSHIP FUND IN OED.
THIS REPORT WOULD BE DUE TO
COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE OR SUCCESSOR ON JUNE
3rd 2022.
WONDERFUL.
THANK YOU.
PLEASE GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES, THIS
IS REALLY JUST ABOUT TRYING TO
INCREASE THE INTENTIONALITY
WITH OUR DEPARTMENT RESOURCES
AND INITIATIVES.
WE DO HAVE A NEW INITIATIVE
HERE IN THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT.
AND IT'S REALLY CRITICAL THAT
EVERY DEPARTMENT REALLY FOCUS
THEIR WORK ON HOW TO SERVE THE
GOALS OF ANTI DISPLACEMENT.
SO WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR LAND
USE OR HOUSING, I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT OUR DEPARTMENTS ARE
ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR ROLE IN
KEEPING SEATTLE AFFORDABLE FOR
EVERYONE AND WORKING TOGETHER.
THESE DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN
COORDINATING ON AN AD HOC
BASIS.
AND THIS SLIDE IS ASKING THEM
TO REALLY JUST DEVELOP A PLAN
FOR HOW THEY WILL COORDINATE
THEIR APPROACH TO FUNDING
COMMUNITY PROJECTS.
HONESTLY, I FEEL LIKE THEY
COULD BENEFIT FROM A LITTLE
STRUCTURE AND CLARIFYING GOALS
TOGETHER ABOUT HOW THEY WILL DO
GRANT APPLICATIONS AND HOW THEY
WILL RESPOND TO COMMUNITY
REQUESTS FOR FUNDING.
SO THAT IS THE INTENT BEHIND
THIS SLIDE.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER.
LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE NEXT
ONE.
>> COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF,
MOVING TO ITEM 178.
SLY OH 13A001.
THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY HSD 23B
001.
SAME SLY.
THIS WOULD HAVE OH AND THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL COURT WORKING
WITH THE KING COUNTY REGIONAL
HOME HOMELESS AUTHORITY.
TO SUPPORT INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED
IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM.
THE ONLY CHANGE HERE IS
REPLACING OFFICE OF HOUSING
WITH THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT.
OFFICE OF HOUSING SEEMED A MORE
APPROPRIAE AGENCY TO WORK ON
HOUSING VOUCHERS SINCE THEY
HAVE MORE INVOLVEMENT WITH
THOSE THAN HSD DOES.
OTHERWISE THE SLY IS THE SAME.
THIS IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
WITH COSPONSORS COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD AND COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
THANK YOU FOR SCALING THAT UP
THERE, TRACY.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE ALL THAT
MUCH TO ADD.
I MEAN JUST TO UNDER SCORE THAT
THIS REALLY CAME OUT OF WORKING
WITH JUDGE GREGORY AND JUDGE
HADID.
WHO INDICATED A LONG RUNNING
INTEREST TO DIVERT PEOPLE INTO
SOME KIND OF HOUSING PLACEMENT
AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM.
THIS IS CURRENTLY NOT SOMETHING
THEY HAVE RESOURCES FOR OR THE
ABILITY TO DO.
TO THEIR GREAT FRUSTRATION.
AND THEY SEE LOTS OF PEOPLE
CONTINUE TO CYCLE THROUGH THEIR
COURT, WHERE HOUSING AND
STABILITY IS FRANKLY THE REASON
THEY'RE ENGAGED IN SURVIVAL
CRIME AND CONSTANTLY STUCK IN
THAT CYCLE.
SO SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD BE
A GREAT RESOURCE TO ALLOW THOSE
JUDGES TO BRING SOME RESOURCES
TO BEAR TO GET FOLKS OUT OF THE
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM AND OUT
OF THEIR COURT AND ON A PATH TO
STABILITY AND TO BREAK THAT
CYCLE.
I THINK THIS IS A GOOD START TO
LOOK INTO HOW WE CAN BRING THAT
AROUND TO A REALITY.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT.
NUMBER 179.
CBA.
THIS CBA WOULD CUT $6 MILLION
OF JUMP START FUNDS IN HSD FOR
SERVICES PAIRED WITH EMERGENCY
HOUSING VOUCHERS, CUT 1.3
MILLION OF JUMP START FUNDS AND
OH FOR MULTILANDING LENING.
SERVICES PAIRED WITH EMERGENCY
HOUSING VOUCHERS AND R IF
SERVICES AND CITY FUNDED
HOUSING UNITS.
THIS IS -- THIS CONCEPT OR THIS
FUNNING WAS PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED
IN THE JUMP START REDISTRIBUTE
OR REPRIORITIZING OR
REPROGRAMMING CBA.
WE PULLED IT OUT AS ITS OWN
SEPARATE CBA TO BE REALLY CLEAR
ABOUT THAT FUNDING AND WHERE
IT'S GOING.
AND THEN THE AMOUNT WAS
SLIGHTLY INCREASED TO
ACCOMMODATE THOUGHTS FROM THE
COMMUNITY ABOUT THE NEED FOR
SERVICES SPENDING BOTH FOR THE
EMERGENCY HOUSING VOUCHERS BUT
ALSO FOR THE PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND IT'S FOR
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS THAT WILL
COME ONLINE.
THAT NEEDED SERVICE DOLLARS AS
WELL.
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA IS THE
SPONSOR.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON
THIS.
THIS WAS PART OF THE OMNIBUS
AMENDMENT THAT WE HAD
CONSIDERED OVER THE LAST FEW
WEEKS HERE.
WITH FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY AND
THE REGION SNAIL HOMELESSNESS
AUTHORITY.
WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS
OVERLAPPING SERVICE NEEDS
THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET.
AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE ARE
OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE TURNKEY
RAPID ACQUISITION AND PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTS
THAT ARE ONLINE AT THE END OF
THE YEAR AND BEGINNING NEXT
YEAR AND TO SUPPORT THE
EMERGENCY HOUSING VOUCHERS THAT
HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED TO THE
SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY ON A
VERY TIGHT TIMELINE THAT ENDS
IN JULY OF 2022.
USING THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
EXPERTISE AND SERVICE
PROVISIONS FOR CITY FUNDED
BUILDINGS AND THE RELATIONSHIP
WITH STATE AND FUNDING PARTNERS
AND DEEP PARTNERSHIP WITH THE
KING COUNTY REGIONAL
HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY WE'RE
LOOKING FORWARD TO LEVERAGING
THE HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITIES
CONNECTIONS AND FOCUS ON
SMALLER SERVICE PROVIDERS THE
CBA WILL ALLOW US TO MEET THE
SERVICE NEEDS IN THE TIMELINE
IN FRONT OF US AND PROVIDE
FLEXIBILITY TO THE CITY TO WORK
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH AND
CONTRACT WITH THE REGIONAL
HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY ON THE
APPROACH THEY'RE CONTEMPLATING
TO PROVIDE INFORMED AND
CONTINUOUS SERVICES TO THOSE
WHO ARE THE HIGHEST RISK AND
MOST MARGINALIZED POPULATIONS
TO ENSURE INDIVIDUALS HOUSED
WITH VOUCHER HAVES THE SERVICES
THEY NEED.
I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS
WE'VE HAD WITH KING COUNTY
REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY
AND THE ROLE THEY'RE WORKING ON
TO CONTINUE TO CREATE AN
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONSOLIDATED
AND STREAMLINED SYSTEM FOR
CONTRACTING SERVICES WITH THOSE
EXPERIENING HOMELESSNESS AND
LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING SURE WE
CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY ONGOING
REVENUE NEEDS IN THE FUTURE TO
ADDRESS THIS TO PAIR THESE
EMERGENCY HOUSING VOUCHERS WITH
NONCITY FUNDED UNITS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF IS A NEW
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
FROM SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES REQUESTING OPCD REPORT
ON OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TRUSTS.
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT TRUSTS ARE
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
FINANCING TOOLS TO ALLOW
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY TO
MAKE SMALL DOLLAR INVESTMENTS
IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS BUILDING
WEALTH AND SUPPORTING
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
THANK YOU.
THANKS SO MUCH.
YES.
SO THE INTERESTING AND EXCITING
OPPORTUNITY HERE IS THAT THIS
KIND OF INVESTMENT TOOL
PROVIDES BOTH AN ALTERNATIVE
SOURCE OF FINANCING FOR THESE
PROJECTS, BUT ALSO ENSURES THE
PROFITS FROM DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS ARE RETURNED TO
COMMUNITY.
AND SO WE DID HAVE A FEW
PROPOSED PROJECTS FOR BOTH EDI
AND FOR THE STRATEGIC
INVESTMENT FUNDS THAT INDICATED
AN INTEREST IN USING THIS KIND
OF A TOOL.
AND SO THIS SLY REQUESTS THAT
OPCD WORK WITH AT LEAST TWO
COMMUNITY PARTNERS WHO WERE
INTERESTED IN USING THIS AS A
FUNDING MODEL AND REPORT BACK
ON THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT THE
CITY MIGHT HAVE TO CONTINUE TO
SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> LET'S GO ON.
>> NEXT ITEM IS OSC 3B 1
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN A STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT WAS
DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AS OSC 3A
1. THE STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT WOULD REQUEST THE OFFICE
OF SUSTAINABILITY AND
ENVIRONMENT AND THE PARKS AND
RECREATION DEVELOP A PLAN TO
PHASE OUT THE USE OF ALL GAS
POWERED LEAF BLOWERS IN SEATTLE
WITHIN TWO YEARS.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS
VERSION AND THE PREVIOUS
VERSION IS THAT THE DAY IS
CHANGED FROM JUNE 3rd TO
SEPTEMBER 2nd.
AND THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL
LANGUAGE TO CONSIDER IMPACTS OF
THE PLAN FOR LONGER HEALTH AND
SAFETY.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT SUMMARY.
I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR
INCLUDING IT IN THIS CONSENT
PACKAGE.
WE'VE HAD DOZENS OF
CONSTITUENTS SEND EMAILS TO US
IN SUPPORT OF THIS EFFORT TO
PHASE OUT HARMFUL LEAF BLOWERS,
AS WE KNOW, THE TWO STROKE
GASOLINE FUELED ENGINES ARE
TERRIBLE NOISE POLLUTERS AND
PARTICULATE MATTER POLLUTERS
AND WE'VE SEEN AN INCREASING
TREND ACROSS THE NATION TO
RESTRICT THESE MACHINES.
INCLUDING A BRAND NEW LAW
PHASING THEM OUT IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA.
AS YOLANDA MENTIONED, THIS
SLIDE ADDS LANGUAGE REGARDING
HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF QUIETER AND
CLEANER ELECTRIC POWERED LEAF
BLOWERS IMPROVED A LOT SINCE
THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL
CONSIDERED THIS IDEA SEVERAL
YEARS AGO.
I LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING A
SOLID PLAN TO IMPLEMENT A NEW
POLICY THAT IS FRIENDLIER TO
OUR ENVIRONMENT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
THANK YOU FOR BEING AMENABLE TO
ADDING THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE
IMPACT ON HEALTH AND SAFETY FOR
WORKERS.
I THINK IT WILL ALSO BE
INTERESTING TO SEE.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S CONTINUE ON.
>> ITEM 182.
7C 1. THIS ACTION WOULD ADD
$145,000 TO SDCI FOR CONSULTANT
SUPPORT FOR A RENTAL MARKET
STUDY.
THE PREVIOUS OPTION DISCUSSED
BY THIS COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE
ADDED $75,000 FOR A STUDY.
WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE
FUNDING TO PROVIDE POLICY
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT TO THE CODE
COMPLIANCE GROUP.
THIS OPTION FOCUSES THE
INVESTMENT ON THE STUDY ITSELF.
TO PROVIDE A BROADER SCOPE FOR
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF POLICY
OPTIONS IN THE FUTURE.
THIS IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR,S THE MY
AMENDMENT TO FUND AN OUTSIDE
CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT THE CITY
OF SEAL'S RENTAL MARKET TO
REPLACE DATA WE USED TO
RECEIVE.
UNFORTUNATELY, DUPREE AND SCOTT
STOP PRODUCING THE REPORT.
THE BALANCING PACKAGE YOU
CREATED THANK YOU INCLUDED THIS
WORK.
AND IT SPLIT IT BETWEEN A STUDY
AND THE .5 FTE AS HE JUST
MENTIONED AFTER SPEAKING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND OTHER
SPONSORS.
WE DECIDED IT WOULD MAKE MORE
SENSE TO FOCUS THE FUNDING ON
THE STUDY FOR NOW SO WE CAN
ENSURE WE RECEIVE THAT
COMPREHENSIVE DATA SET FOR US
TO TAKE ACTION ON IN THE
FUTURE.
THANK YOU TO ALL THE COLLEAGUES
THAT WORKED ON THIS.
THANK YOU CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S KEEP GOING.
>> COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
ITM 183 IS A NEW STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT S DOT 11A 1
WOULD REQUEST S DOT PROVIDE
REPORTING ON THE WEST SEATTLE
BRIDGE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE
PROGRAM WHICH IS EXPECTED TO
REOPEN TO TRAFFIC IN MID 2022.
THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
ON REPORTING THAT COUNCIL
APPROVED IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET.
IT'S OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SO YES.
THIS IS THE LATEST AND GREATEST
ON THE WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE SLY.
IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO A FEW
REQUESTS WE MADE LAST YEAR.
REQUESTS THAT THE SDOT REPORT
MONTHLY ABOUT THE PROGRESS ON
THE BRIDGE REPAIR.
WHICH THE NOTICE TO PROCEED
SHOULD BE ISSUED ANY DAY NOW.
I THINK THE MAIN DIFFERENCE
FROM THE UPDATES REQUESTED IN
THIS THAT MIRROR THOSE FROM
LAST YEAR IS THAT IT ALSO
INCLUDES AN EXPECTATION.
SDOT WILL ALERT COUNCILMEMBERS
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF THERE
ARE ANY CHANGES TO THE SCHEDULE
FOR THE MID 2022 COMPLETION.
TARGET AND ANY CHANGES TO THE
SCHEDULE FOR OPENING UP THE
BRIDGE TO TRAFFIC.
>> WONDERFUL, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.
>> ITEM 184 IS SFD 4A1 A
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
REQUESTING THAT THE SEATTLE
FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT ON ITS
WORK AND COSTS TO LAUNCH THE
TRIAGE 1 PROGRAM.
THIS IS A NEW AMENDMENT.
IT ESTABLISHES DIMENSIONS AND
DATES FOR SFD TO PROVIDE A
SERIES OF REPORTS ON ITS
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIAGE
ONE PROGRAM INCLUDING ITS
ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER
DEPARTMENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS
AND WITH RELATED FUNDING
COMMITMENTS.
THIS IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SO THIS SLY IS ISSUED BECAUSE
OF SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT
WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT THE STATUS
OF STANDING UP THE TRIAGE ONE
PROGRAM THROUGH THE BUDGET
DISCUSSIONS.
FOLKS MAY RECALL THAT IN THE
MID YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT THAT
WAS MADE IN EARLY AUGUST.
WE HAD ACTUALLY INCLUDED SOME
FUNDING FOR THE TRIAGE ONE
ROGRAM OUT OF THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FUNDING
WOULD HELP THEM IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROGRAM.
AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT
AT THAT POINT THAT LAUNCHING
TRIAGE ONE WOULD LIKELY, BASED
ON THE NUMBER OF WEEKS AND
MONTHS IT WOULD TAKE TO
COMPLETED EACH OF THE STEPS
ASSOCIATED WITH LAUNCHING THIS
PROGRAM THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE
TO LAUNCH THE PROGRAM PROBABLY
LATE SECOND QUARTER 2022 OR
EARLY THIRD QUARTER 2022.
WE'RE NOW LEARNING THAT THAT'S
NOT THE CASE.
DESPITE THE FACT THAT WHEN
THERE WAS THIS LAUNCH EARLIER
THIS WEEK, IN THE SPRING, IT
REALLY SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS --
OR RATHER IN AUGUST, IT SOUNDED
LIKE THE LAUNCH WAS SOMETHING
THAT WAS IMMINENT.
SO WHAT THIS SLY DOES IN
RECOGNIZING THAT THE LAUNCH
ISN'T IMMINENT.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF STEPS
THAT THE EXECUTIVE HASN'T BEEN
ABLE TO START TAKING YET, IT
REQUESTS THAT THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT REPORT BACK TO THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE WITH A
SERIES OF PROGRESS REPORTS ON
THE LAUNCH OF THE PROGRAM THAT
WAS ANNOUNCED IN AUGUST.
REPORTING DATES WERE ESTIMATED
FROM INFORMATION RECEIVED BY
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ON THE
STEPS NEEDED TO STAND UP THE
PROGRAM WITH THE FIRST REPORT
BEING DUE AT THE END OF
JANUARY.
REQUESTS THAT THE CSCC REPORT
BACK TO COUNCIL ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROTOCOL
SYSTEM FUNDED BY THE COUNCIL
IN THE MID YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL.
THE REPORT IS DUE AT THE END OF
JUNE.
AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILL
RECOLLECT THE ACQUISITION,
IMPLEMENTATION IN TRAINING ON
THE PROTOCOL SYSTEM IS A
PREREQUISITE FOR ADDITIONAL
NONPOLICE RESPONSES.
WHO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TRIAGE
ONE OR YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
ANOTHER CRISIS RESPONSE, WHO
ITS A PROGRAM OUTSIDE THE CITY
OR ANOTHER PROGRAM FROM WITHIN
THE CITY.
SO THAT PROTOCOL SYSTEM AND THE
STATUS OF IT, IT'S REALLY,
REALLY IMPORTANT TO OUR ONGOING
WORK HERE, THANK YOU.
>> EXCELLENT, THANK YOU.
LET'S CONTINUE.
>> 185 IS CBA SMC 3A 1.
PROVIDES 88,000 FOR ELECTRONIC
HOME MONITORING AND REQUESTS
REPORTING ON ITS USE.
THIS IS A NEW CBA.
IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, THE
MAYOR ADDED $88,000 TO
SUBSIDIZE ELECTRONIC HOME
MONITORING.
THIS WOULD ALLOW DEFENDANTS
THAT WERE OTHERWISE INDIGENT
AND COULDN'T AFFORD EHM TO BE
ABLE TO USE THAT IN LIEU OF
INCARCERATION, THIS CBA PLACE
AS PROVISO ON THE FUNDING THAT
REQUIRES THE COURT TO SUBMIT
DATA ON THE USE OF EHM IN THE
PAST.
THE DATA SUCH AS DEMOGRAPHICS,
WHICH OFFENSES EHM IS USED ON.
A VARIETY OF OTHER DATA POINTS.
AND ASKS THAT SMC CONTINUE TO
REPORT THAT DATA BACK ON A
QUARTERLY BASIS TO THE PUBLIC
SAFETY AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMITTEE OR ITS SUCCESSOR.
THE SPONSOR IS COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, I DON'T HAVE A
LOT TO ADD EXCEPT TO SAY I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET A
GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IS
úUSING THIS.
YOU KNOW, PART OF THE REASON
FOR FUNDING IN THE FIRST PLACE
IS BECAUSE IF YOU ARE GIVEN THE
OPTION TO USE ELECTRONIC HOME
MONITORING RATHER THAN STAY IN
JAIL, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
AND SO THIS IS ALLOWING FOLKS
WHO WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PAY
FOR IT TO HAVE THAT OPTION SO
THEY DON'T HAVE TO STAY IN
JAIL.
BUT WE REALLY WANT TO GET A
CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IS
USING IT AND USE THAT
INFORMATION DOWN THE ROAD TO
MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER
THIS IS A TOOL THAT WE SHOULD
CONTINUE TO USE OR IF THERE'S
SOME OTHER OPTION FOR KEEPING
FOLKS SUPPORTING THEM AS
THEY'RE MOVING THROUGH THIS
JOURNEY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER.
MOVING ON, 186.
>> GREG DOSS, COUNCIL CENTRAL
STAFF HERE TO TALK ABOUT A
COUPLE NONCONTROVERSIAL SLIDES.
ITEM NUMBER 186 IS A STATEMENT
OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT'S
NEW.
IT'S SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
THE STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT WOULD REQUIRE SPD
PROVIDE QUARTERLY REPORTS TO
THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE ON THE
DEPARTMENT'S EFFORT TO IDENTIFY
A POTENTIAL NONSWARM RESPONSE
FOR 911 CALL TYPES IDENTIFIED
IN THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM OR NICK
JUNIOR REPORT THAT CATEGORIZED
MANY DIFFERENT CALL TYPES AS
POTENTIAL CALL TYPES FOR
APPROPRIATE CIVILIAN RESPONSES.
AND THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED
QUARTERLY ON APRIL 1st, JULY
1st , AND OCTOBER 1st.
>>> PLEASE GO AHEAD,
COUNCILMEMBER
>> NOT TOO MUCH TO ADD.
I APPRECIATE GREG'S
CHARACTERIZATION.
I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE
MISMATCH ON THE EXPECTATIONS
THAT THE COUNCIL HAS BASED ON
STATEMENTS THAT SPD ITSELF HAS
SAID ABOU THE SPEED AT WHICH
WE CAN BEGIN TRANSFERRING SOME
OF THESE CALLS TO NON-SWORN
RESPONSE.
BUT I AGREE WITH GREG.
BUT THE SLY ITSELF IS NOT
CONTROVERSIAL.
THANK YOU.
EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
NONCONTROVERSIAL ITEM.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBERS.
I MEAN IT'S GOOD TO STAFF TWO
THINGS IN THIS SESSION THAT
ARE NOT CONTROVERSIAL.
A STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT BY THE CHAIR,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, AND
IT'S A NEW STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT REQUIRING
SPD TO REPORT ON SPECIFIC
ACTIVITY OF OFFICERS THAT SERVE
ON A NUMBER OF INNER
JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCES,
OFFICERS REGULARLY SERVE ON
INNER JURISDICTIONAL TASK
FORCES WITH VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
AND THIS PARTICULAR SLY WOULD
ASK FOR MORE DETAIL ON WHAT
THEY DO AS PART OF THOSE
INTERJURISDICTIONAL TASK
FORCES.
THE OFFICERS ALSO TYPICALLY
RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR
PARTICIPATION ON THOSE TASK
FORCES.
AND THIS PARTICULAR SLY WOULD
HAVE A STATEMENT OF INTENT THAT
WOULD SAY THAT COUNCIL WOULD
LIKE TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT
THESE TASK FORCES AND WOULD
SEEK COMMUNITY INPUT ON THE
ACTIVITIES OF THESE TASK FORCES
BEFORE DETERMINING WHETHER TO
PROVIDE ONGOING REIMBURSEMENT
FOR THE ACTIVITIES.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> THANK YOU GREG.
FOR AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN ON
COUNCIL, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES TRYING TO
GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF
THE ROLE CITY OFFICIALS HAVE ON
THESE VARIOUS TASK FORCES.
THANK YOU TO COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, COUNCIL PRESIDENT
GONZALES AND OTHERS WHO HAVE
BEEN RAISING QUESTIONS JUST
ABOUT HOW WE ARE -- WHAT
ACTIVITIES SPD IS PERFORMING
UNDER THESE PROGRAMS AND THE
TASK FORCE -- AND THE VARIOUS
TASK FORCES SO THE SLY IS
REALLY INTENDED TO GAIN GREATER
CLARITY BEFORE WE RECEIVE THOSE
REQUESTS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ITEM 188, SPR 10C 1 SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
IT WOULD ADD $1 MILLION TO
SEATTLE PARKS AND RECREATION
FOR PARK REMEDIATION WORK AT
THE 900,000-DOLLAR LEVEL IN
PLANNING FOR A NEW DOG PARK AT
THE 100,000-DOLLAR LEVEL.
THIS REVISED AMENDMENT ADDS A
TOTAL OF $1 MILLION IN REACH TO
SPR.
AS I SAID, A LARGER INCREMENT
WOULD FUND PARK REMEDIATION
WORK AND $100,000 WOULD PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR A NEW DOG PARK IN
BALLARD'S LEERY TRIANGLE AREA.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
LET'S TALK PARKS AND DOGS.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
AND THANK YOU.
I MAY HAVE INADVERTENTLY MADE A
MISTAKE AS WE'VE BEEN MOVING
QUICKLY IN THE BUDGET PROCESS.
WHEN THE DOG PARK AMENDMENT DID
NOT PASS, DID NOT MAKE IT IN
THE BUDGET BALANCING PACKAGE,
AND I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE
THINGS THAT YOU'RE WEIGHING, WE
DID STILL WANT TO MAKE SURE
THERE WAS REMEDIATION AND OR
PLANNING IMPROVEMENT DOLLARS
AVAILABLE FOR THE LEERY
TRIANGLE.
LEERY TRIANGLE IS AN
INTERESTING PIECE OF PARK
PROPERTY OWNED BY SDOT.
IT'S IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY.
HOWEVER IT FUNCTIONS AS A PARK-
LIKE SETTING.
SO MY WORRY HERE IS THAT THE
REMEDIATION DOLLARS WOULD NOT
BE ABLE TO BE BE USED AT THIS
LOCATION.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PARK.
IT'S TECHNICALLY SDOT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE HAD DOLLARS TO BE ABLE
TO SPEND TO CONTINUE MOVING THE
COMMUNITY'S EFFORTS FORWARD.
THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN WORKING
TO MAKE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO
THIS AREA.
INCLUDING CLOSING NINTH AVENUE
NORTHWEST TO MAKE THAT MORE OF
A PUBLIC SPACE.
THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS
FOR SIX YEARS.
DOG PARK SEEMS TO BE THEIR --
WHAT THEY ARE RALLYING AROUND.
I THINK THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS
TO INCLUDE A FOOD TRUCK CORRAL
AND POSSIBLY A SKATE SPOT.
A LOT OF OPTIONS ON THE TABLE.
THIS 100,000-DOLLARS WOULD JUST
KEEP THAT MOVING.
THANK YOU CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS AND THE LAST ITEM IN
THE GROUP B PACKAGE.
>> SPR 12 B 1 SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
THIS WOULD REQUEST THAT SEATTLE
PARKS AND RECREATION REPORT ON
THE POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF THE
SEATTLE CONSERVATION CORE.
A PREVIOUS OPTION OF THE
AMENDMENT PROVIDED A POSITION
AND FUNDING TO HELP GROW THE
SEATTLE CONSERVATION CORE.
THIS ITEM IS A STATEMENT OF
LEGISATIVE INTENT REQUESTING
THAT SPR PROVIDE A REPORT ON
THAT PROGRAM.
IT LISTS SEVERAL SPECIFIC
REPORTING DIMENSIONS.
ASKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE
PROGRAM AND POTENTIAL
OPPORTUNITIES IF ADDITIONAL
FUNDING WERE AVAILABLE.
>> EXCELLENT COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR, THANK YOU
ANNE, VERY WELL SAID, THE
PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THIS
REQUEST WAS TO ADD STAFF AND
REQUEST A REPORT.
THIS ITERATION IS JUST
REQUESTING THE REPORT.
WE KNOW THAT THE SEATTLE
CONSERVATION CORE IS A PROVEN
PROGRAM THAT SEATTLE OPERATES
THAT MEETS PEOPLE LEAVING
HOMELESSNESS OR INCARCERATION,
GIVES THEM THE JOB CASE
MANAGEMENT THEY NEED TO FIND A
PERMANENT JOB AND FIND SUCCESS
IN LIFE.
THIS SEATTLE CONSERVATION CORE
GIVES PEOPLE A PAYCHECK.
GIVES THEM MEANINGFUL WORK AND
THE SUPPORT THEY NEED TO BE
SUCCESSFUL.
SO I DO WANT TO EXPAND IT.
I WANTED TO DOUBLE THE PROGRAM
THIS YEAR.
THEY WEREN'T READY FOR IT.
SO OIM ASKING FOR A REPORT TO
STRUCTURE THE NEXT YEAR'S WORK
TO GET US TO A PLACE OF
EXPANSION, THANK YOU CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MOCH
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
AND COLLEAGUES, I THINK THAT
REACHES THE END OF GROUP B. I
WANT TO THANK CENTRAL STAFF FOR
WORKING THROUGH THAT.
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
WITH THE FIRST COMMENT TO
PROVIDE GENERAL COMMENTS ON OUR
PACKAGE.
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
--
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, I'M
SORRY.
>> YEAH, PLEASE, IN TERMS OF
PROCESS.
I'M GOING TO ASK COLLEAGUES TO
REMOVE ITEMS THEY'D LIKE TO SEE
FROM GROUP B FIRST.
WE'LL PUT THOSE TO THE SIDE.
WE'LL THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION
ABOUT THE ENTIRE PACKAGE AS
AMENDED.
GROUP B AS AMENDED.
WE'LL CONSIDER GROUP B AS
AMENDED AND THEN GO INTO THE
INDIVIDUAL ONES THAT HAVE BEEN
PULLED.
PLEASE GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
I'M NOT SPEAKING ABOUT THE OVER
ALL GROUP B RIGHT NOW.
I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE
QUESTION WHEN WE WERE ON 187.
BUT THIS WAS A NEW ITEM FOR ME.
AND I HADN'T SEEN IT.
HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE
CURRENT -- FOR 2021, FOR THIS
YEAR, THE GRANT AUTHORIZATION
LEGISLATION FOR SPD THAT WOULD
PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT FOR SOME
GRANT ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE ALL
READY OCCURRED?
AND SOME OF THOSE ACTIVITIES I
BELIEVE WE ARE -- WE ACT A A
PASS THROUGH AGENCY SO OTHER
JURISDICTIONS THAT WE'RE IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH MIGHT BE
WAITING ON US FOR FUNDS.
AND I ALSO JUST WANT TO FLAG
THAT THE REPORT DATE IS
FEBRUARY 2021.
SO THAT FURTHER ADDED TO MY
CONFUSION.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
LET ME ASK THE QUESTION
PROCEDURALLY, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE
QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND
ADDRESSED BEFORE COUNCILMEMBER
MAKES A DECISION TO REMOVE THE
ITEM PROCEDURALLY.
I WANT TO CONFIRM WITH THE
CLERK I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE
COUNCILMEMBERS ASK QUESTIONS
AND IF THEY DECIDE THEY WOULD
LIKE TO REMOVE IT, THEN WE CAN
MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, AS PART
OF OUR CONSIDERATION WITH GROUP
B, THAT'S PERMANENT HERE.
>> CORRECT, IT'S AT THE CHAIR'S
DISCRETION.
>> OKAY, LET'S DO THIS.
WE HAVE QUESTION ON THE TABLE
HERE.
I'M HOPING GREG DOSS CAN ANSWER
THE QUESTION.
IF WE NEED TO MAKE A VERBAL
AMENDMENT TO THE DATE, WE MAY
WANT TO PULL THIS ONE OUT ANY
WAYS, COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF, IS
THERE ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK
THAT YOU HAVE ON COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD'S QUESTION ABOUT THE
IMPACT ON GRANT RECIPIENTS WHO
WE SERVE AS A PASS THROUGH FOR.
HAPPY TO PROVIDE CONTEXT THERE.
IT SHOULD BE 2022 STAFF.
I CHECKED THE WRONG BOX IN THE
SYSTEM.
AND I'VE ALL READY CORRECTED
THAT IN THE SYSTEM.
I DON'T KNOW AS TO WHO THAT
NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED
OFFICIALLY WITH A VERBAL
AMENDMENT.
I WOULD ASK ALLIE TO SPEAK TO
THAT WHEN I'M DONE HERE.
BUT AS FAR AS THE YEAR END
SUPPLEMENTAL AND THE ACCEPTANCE
OF GRANTS AND TASK FORCES FOR
SPD, THE YEAR END SUPPLEMENTAL
CONTAINS ABOUT $500,000 WORTH
OF TASK FORCE REIMBURSEMENTS
FOR SPD FOR THE YEAR 2021 FOR
THIS YEAR.
AND WHAT IS HAPPENING THERE IS
SPD HAS PUT IN FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR MONEY THAT IT
HAS ALL READY RECEIVED FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE TASK
FORCE THAT IT HAS WORKED ON.
SO IT IS THE CASE THAT IF THE
COUNCIL DOES NOT PROVIDE THE
APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY FOR THE
ACTIVITIES AND THE WORK THAT S
PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT PD HAS ALL
READY DONE.
THEN SPD IS IN THE HOLE.
SO THIS PARTICULAR SLY IS
DESIGNED TO TELL THE DEPARTMENT
THAT NEXT YEAR, BEFORE THEY
START CHARGING FUNDING -- START
CHARGING MONEY TO THE FEDS AND
JUST ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO GET REIMBURSEMENT FROM
THE COUNCIL, THEY SHOULD COME
TO THE COUNCIL FIRST AND
DESCRIBE WHAT THEY'RE DOING BUT
IN TERMS OF THIS YEAR, ALL THE
REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS ARE
PROVIDED FOR IN THE MID YEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL.
KNOWING IF THEY WEREN'T, IT
WOULD MEAN A 500,000-DOLLAR
HOLE TO SPD'S BUDGET FOR 2021.
IN TERMS OF THE GRANT FUNNING,
ALL THE GRANT FUNDING FOR ALL
THE MAJOR GRANTS, ALL THE
FEDERAL GRANTS, INTERNET CRIMES
AGAINST CHILDREN OR THE
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS.
ALL OF THE GRANTS ARE ACCEPTED
IN THE MID YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL.
THEY'RE ALL APPROPRIATED WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF ONE $3.2
MILLION GRANT.
THAT'S THE GRANT THAT ALLOWS
THE DEPARTMENT TO SPEND FEDERAL
FUNNING ON EQUIPMENT OF ITS
CHOICE.
AND THAT IS THE GRANT THAT LAST
YEAR, THE COUNCIL WANTED TO SEE
THE SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT LIST FOR
THE GRANT AND HOW THE
DEPARTMENT WU GOING TO SPEND
ITS MONEY.
THIS YEAR WORKING THROUGH THE
CHAIR.
AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY CHAIR.
THE OTHER GRANTS, ALL OF THE
OTHER GRANTS ARE INCLUDED IN
THE SUPPLEMENTAL.
EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE $3.2
MILLION GRANT WHICH WILL NOT BE
INCLUDED AND CAN BE HANDLED
SEPARATELY AT THE BEGINNING OF
NEXT YEAR SINCE IT'S A MULTI-
YEAR GRANT, AND WHAT I MEAN BY
MULTI-YEAR IS IT RUNS ON THE
FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR.
FROM OKAY OCTOBER TO OCTOBER.
IT'S MULTI-YEAR FOR US AT THE
CITY, IT CAN BE APPROPRIATED IN
JANUARY.
AND THE DEPARTMENT CAN SPEND
MONEY IN 2022.
AND SO THAT'S THE APPROACH
THAT'S BEING TAKEN WITH THE
GRANTS AND THE TASK FORCES.
>> I JUST WANT TO THANK GREG
FOR THAT.
THAT TRACKS WITH MY
UNDERSTANDING OF PREVIOUS
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD
WITH JUST ONE -- I WANT TO JUST
-- AGAIN, I WANT TO REALLY MAKE
SURE I'M TRACKING THIS.
I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THE
GRANT ACCEPTANCE ORDINANCES HAD
ALL READY MOVED FORWARD WITH
THE MID YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL.
DID YOU MEAN THE THIRD QUARTER
SUPPLEMENTAL IN
>> WE DID.
I DON'T THE WE ACTED ON THE
GRANT ACCEPTANCE ORDINANCE IN
AUGUST.
>> AND HERE'S ALLIE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, THE
YEAR END -- SO WE DON'T DO A
THIRD QUARTER -- YEAH.
THE YEAR END SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT
ACCEPTANCE ORDINANCE AND THE
YEAR END SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
ORDINANCE IS IN GROUP A SO YOU
ALL READY ACTED ON THAT.
>> AHA.
ALL RIGHT.
PERFECT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND THEN I WOULD NOTE TOO IN
TERMS OF THE DUE DATE FOR THE
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT, IF IT'S INCORRECT IN
THE VERSION POSTED ON THE
AGENDA, YOU COULD MAKE A VERBAL
AMENDMENT BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE
STRUCTURE WILL CHANGE IN, YOU
KNOW, FEBRUARY OR MARCH T
COUNCIL WILL ADOPT A RESOLUTION
FOR THE STATEMENTS OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND WE WILL
ADJUST THE COMMITTEE
ASSIGNMENTS, IF THE COMMITTEE
STRUCTURE CHANGES IN 2022 AS
WELL AS ADJUST DUE DATES
AFTERTALK WITH THE EXECUTIVE
ABOUT WHAT'S POSSIBLE.
SO IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY
NECESSARY.
TO MAKE THE CORRECTION.
BUT THAT REALLY IS UP TO THE
SPONSOR AND THE COMMITTEE.
I ALSO APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK
THAT YOU'VE DONE.
NO PROBLEM WITH HOW FAST THINGS
ARE MOVING.
I WOULD JUST WANT TO DOUBLE
CHECK.
ALLIE, IF IN THE TECHNICAL
FIXES YOU ALL ARE DOING, IF
THAT'S AN ITEM THAT COULD BE
FIXED IN THE TECHNICAL FIXES.
>> YES, WE CAN MAKE THAT
CORRECTION, WHAT THAT WILL MEAN
IS ON MONDAY MORNING, WE'LL BE
ASKING THE COMMITTEE TO RESCIND
THIS AMENDMENT AND ADOPT A NEW
VERSION TO CORRECT THE DUE
DATE.
SO YES, WE CAN ADD THAT TO THE
LIST OF TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
>> OKAY, WE'LL CONSIDER THAT
BEFORE WE DECIDE WHO TO REMOVE
VARIOUS ITEMS.
HAPPY TO CONSIDER THAT WITH YOU
ALL.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, AND
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
HANDS.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> I'M SEEING IF THIS IS THE
TIME TO REMOVE AN ITEM I NEED
TO AMEND.
>> THAT WOULD BE WELCOME.
>> OKAY.
I MOVE TO AMEND HSD 28A 001.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES MOVING
28A 001.
THIS DOES NOT NEED A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES
CONFIRMING THIS IS ITEM 172.
IS THAT CORRECT?
172 REMOVED.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT
YOU WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE?
>> NO.
>> OKAY, WONDERFUL, WE'LL COME
BACK TO FOLKS TO TALK MORE
BROADLY ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE
THEY'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT IN
GROUP B IN A MOMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, ANY
QUESTIONS OR ITEMS YOU'D LIKE
TO SEE REMOVED.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, I'M JUST
SPEAKING TO THE ITEM, MAKING
SURE I HAVE THIS, 188 SPR 10C
01.
THE DOG PARK IN WHICH I WAS
JUST SPEAKING ABOUT.
I'M WONDERING DO WE NEED TO
MAKE CHANGES IN THE BUDGET
LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR
REMEDIATION OF THE LEERY
TRIANGLE THAT COULD INCLUDE A
DOG PARK.
BUT NOT LIMITED TO.
>> DIFFER TO CENTRAL STAFF ON
WHO WE NEED TO OFFER A VERBAL
AMENDMENT ON THAT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, CHASE
MOSQUEDA, I WOULD DIFFER TO MY
COLLEAGUE.
AND I'M NOT DEEP IN THE DETAILS
ON WHAT THIS MEANS BUT THAT
SOUNDS LIKE A SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT PROPOSAL THAN WHAT
THIS IS.
AND SO YES, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU
INTEND IS TO JUST HAVE A
MILLION DOLLARS FOR PARK
REMEDIATION WORK THAT COULD
IMPROVE THE LEERY TRIANGLE
THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THIS
ACTION IS.
MAY I JUMP IN.
THE SECOND HALF OF THE
SENTENCE.
PLANNING FOR A NEW DOG PARK.
AFTER AND, IT COULD BE
REMEDIATION.
OR PLANNING FOR A NEW DOG PARK.
I THINK THERE WAS JUST A
TECHNICAL -- DURING THE
úDRAFTING, THERE WAS A TECHNICA
MISTAKE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, I'M
GOING TO SCUGHT THAT WE DO GO
AHEAD AND REMOVE ITEM 188 AND
PERHAPS AS WE CONSIDER THESE
OTHER ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN
REMOVED, IF YOU WANT TO WORK ON
A VERBAL AMENDMENT TO THAT WITH
CENTRAL STAFF, I THINK THAT
WOULD BE THE CLEANEST WAY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION
TO REMOVE ITEM 188.
>> YES, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE
ITEM 188.
OKAY.
ITEM 188.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE OF A
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT OVER THE
WEEKEND.
OR WOULD YOU LIKE US TO REMOVE
THE ITEM 187 FOR A VERBAL
AMENDMENT TO STRIKE 2001 AND
REPLACE IN 2022.
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF GO AHEAD.
>> I HAVE TO ADMIT I MADE THE
SAME MISTAKE WITH YOUR
AMENDMENT, COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
>> TELL ME MORE ABOUT THAT.
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
>> INSTEAD OF CHECKING THE 2022
BOX.
I CHECKED THE 2021 BOX.
>> THAT'S OKAY.
IS THAT ITEM 187.
>> YEAH.
IT'S THE ONE THAT DIRECTLY
FOLLOWS IT.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A VERBAL
AMENDMENT.
YOU'LL NEED TO DO IT ON BOTH OF
THEM.
OR AS ALLIE SAID, LET US
CORRECT IT IN THE RESOLUTION
NEXT JANUARY.
AND I APOLOGIZE.
>> NO PROBLEM.
THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT
MOVING AMENDMENTS.
THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
ALLIE, DO YOU HAVE A
PREFERENCE?
IF WE WANT TO MAKE YOUR LIVES
EASIER, WHAT'S CLEANEST FOR
CENTRAL STAFF?
>> THAT WOULD BE TO MAKE A
VERBAL AMENDMENT OR JUST TO
HOLD IT UNTIL THE RESOLUTION IN
THE SPRING AND NOT HAVE TO
BRING IT BACK ON MONDAY.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE IT TO BE CLEAN
AS VOTING OUT OF THE BUDGET, I
WOULD SUGGEST YOU REMOVE IT AND
I CAN TALK YOU THROUGH A VERBAL
AMENDMENT TO MAKE THAT
CORRECTION.
>> ALL RIGHT COLLEAGUES LET'S
GO AHEAD AND DO A POLL TO MAKE
IT CLEAN, AND JUST CONFIRMING
WE NEED TO DO THAT TO ITEMS
187.
IS THAT TRUE OF ITEM 186?
>> YES, IT'S BOTH THE SPD 1s.
>> COLLEAGUES, I WILL REMOVE
ITEMS, 187 AND 186.
SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A VERBAL
AMENDMENT JUST TO THE DATE
CHANGE.
MY NOTES SAY WE'RE REMOVING
ITEMS, 172, 188, 187, AND 186.
ALL RIGHT.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> CHAIR, MY APOLOGIES.
I THINK IF POSSIBLE, WE'LL
LEAVE 188.
WE'LL KEEP MOVING FORWARD AND
SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
>> OKAY.
I'M GOING TO WING THIS.
HEARING NO OBJECTION.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
MAINTAIN ITEM 188 IN THE
CONSENT PACKAGE IN FRONT OF US.
HEARING NO OBJECTION.
188 IS STILL MAINTAINED.
ITEMS 172, 187, AND 186 HAVE
BEEN REMOVED.
ANY FINAL CHANGES ON THAT ?
OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH COLLEAGUES,
IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
DISCUSSION ON GROUP B BEFORE WE
CONSIDER THOSE INDIVIDUAL
AMENDMENTS ?
>> HEARING NO ADDITIONAL
DISCUSSION, THANK YOU IF YOUR
WORK.
THESE ARE GREAT ADDITIONS TO
INCLUDE IN THE CONSENT PACKAGE
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I THINK THEY'LL HAVE MEANINGFUL
IMPACTS IN THE COMMUNITY FOR
LIVABILITY AND RESILIENCE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON GROUP B.
THE CONSENT PACKAGE AS AMENDED.
WILL YOU CALL THE ROLE ON GROUP
B. CONSENT PACKAGE AS AMENDED.
REMOVING 172, 186, AND 187.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.
>> PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> SAWANT.
>>
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT?
STRAUSS?
>> SORRY, YES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> GONZALES?
>> YES.
>> HERBOLD?
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR.
NINE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU MADAME CLERK.
THE MOTION CARRIES AND GROUP B
CONSENT PACKAGE AS AMENDED IS
APPROVED.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEMS
FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
STARTING WITH AMENDMENT 172.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO INITIATE THIS
PROCESS.
>> YES.
I MOVE TO AMEND COUNCIL BILL
CBA HSD 2801.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, LET'S
MOVE TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL
BILL FIRST AND THEN WE'LL
AMEND.
>> YES.
I MOVE TO APPROVE HSD 28A01.
>> OKAY.
SECOND.
WORNFUL, IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, YOU'RE
RECOGNIZED TO CONSIDER YOUR
AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM.
>> THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, WITH APOLOGIES AND
THANKS TO COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, I REALIZE THAT THE
POSITIONS THAT WE JUST ADDED IN
HER AMENDMENT BEFORE NEED TO --
THE FUNDING FOR THAT NEEDS TO
COME OUT OF THIS PROVISO.
SO THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT WOULD
HAVE PROVISOD ALL $750,000 FOR
CONTRACTS WITH COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS.
AND WHAT WE HAVE REALIZED IS
THAT SOME OF THAT FUNDING DOES
NEED TO GO TO THE STAFFING.
THAT WE JUST ADDED.
SO I'M AMENDING -- I'M MOVING
TO AMEND THE TITLE.
AS FOLLOWS.
PROVISO $585,000 IN GENERAL
FUND IN HSD FOR PREFILING
DIVERSION -- FOR COMMUNITY
BASED ORGANIZATIONS AND AMEND
THE BOLT DESCRIPTION AND
TRANSACTIONS TO REFLECT THE
CHANGED AMOUNT OF FUNDS ON
WHICH THE PROVISO IS IMPOSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT IN
FRONT OF US TO HSD 028A001.
AGENDA ITEM 172.
HEARING NONE.
MADAME CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE?
WHAT WAS THAT?
>> I DON'T THINK WE GOT A
SECOND ON MY MOTION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
SECONDED.
YOU'RE GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR DOUBLE CHECKING.
IT TAKES A TEAM HERE.
COUNCIL -- COLLEAGUES ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT AS
DESCRIBED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
HEARING NONE, MADAME CLERK,
COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE
ON THE ADOPTION OF THE
AMENDMENT AS DESCRIBED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> GONZALES.
>> AYE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
NINE IN FAVOR.
NONE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE MOTION CARRIES AND THE
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ADOPTED.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
CMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON HSD
3028A001 AS AMENDED?
HEARING NONE MADAME CLERK COULD
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE ON THE
ADAPTATION OF HSD 028-8001 AS
AMENDED.
>> PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> GONZALES.
>> AYE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR.
NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAME
CLERK.
COLLEAGUES WE DO HAVE TWO MINOR
AMENDMENTS TO 186 AND 187
SIMPLY TO CHANGE THE DATE FROM
2021 TO 2022.
I WILL TRY MY BEST TO WING IT
HERE.
COLLEAGUES I MOVE APPROVAL OF
HSD -- EXCUSE ME.
I MOVE APPROVAL OF SPD 017A001.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR
THE VERBAL AMENDMENT?
>> LOOK AT YOU PUTTING ME ON
THE SPOT.
I MOVE TO -- LET'S SEE, AMEND
SPD 0180A 00 WITH A NEW DATE.
OF FEBRUARY 2022.
>> THANK YOU.
AND I THINK YOU MEANT SPD 017A
001.
WE'LL DO THE NEXT ONE HERE IN A
SEND.
A SECOND.
OKAY.
SO SPD 0178 HAS BEEN MOVED TO
2021 AND REPLACE IT WITH 2022.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
CENTRAL STAFF, DO YOU HAVE
ANYTHING?
OKAY.
HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR OF
THE VERBAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE
THE DATE TO 2022 MADAME CLERK,
COULD YOU CALL THE ROLE ON
THAT?
>> PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS.
>> YES.
GONZALES
>> AYE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON THE
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED?
HEARING NONE, MADAME CLERK,
COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE
ON THE ADOPTION OF SPD 017A 001
AS AMENDED.
>> PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> GONZALES, AYE.
>> HERBOLD.
YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR.
NONE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH COLLEAGUES
WE WILL NOW TAKE ON NUMBER 187.
THIS IS SPD 018A 001.
I MOVE TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF
CBA SPD 018A 001 IS THERE A
SECOND?
THANK YOU IT'S BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
I WOULD LIKE TO STRIKE, I WOULD
LIKE TO OFFER A VERBAL
AMENDMENT TO STRIKE THE DATE
2021 AND REPLACE IT WITH 2022.
SECOND.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MOVED AND SECONDED.
ARE THERE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS ? HEARING NONE,
LET'S GO AHEAD AND PLEASE CALL
THE ROLE ON THE AMENDMENT TO
SPD 018A 001.
>> PEDERSEN
>> YES.
>> SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> GONZALES.
>> YES.
>> HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
YES.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR.
NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAME
CLERK.
COULD YOU PLEASE -- THE
AMENDMENT CARRIES, MADAME
CLERK, COULD YOU CALL THE ROLE
ON THE ADOPTION OF THE
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED ?
>> PEDERSEN?
>> YES.
>> SAWANT?
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> GONZALES?
>> AYE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR.
NONE OPPOSED.
ALL RIGHT THE MOTION CARRIES.
AND ITEM 187 HAS BEEN AMENDED
AND I BELIEVE THAT GETS US
THROUGH ALL OF OUR AMENDMENTS
IN GROUP B. ARE THEREFULLY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
OKAY, COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU SO
MUCH.
LET'S MOVE ON TO GROUP C.
MADAME CLERK, I DON'T BELIEVE
WE NEED TO READ ANY ITEM INTO
THE RECORD.
SHALL WE JUST TRANSITION?
IS THAT CORRECT?
OKAY.
AGAIN, GROUP C COLLEAGUES
CONSIST OF ITEMS THAT ARE STAND
ALONE PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT
IMPACT ITEMS THAT WE JUST TOOK
A VOTE ON.
WE WILL CONSIDER EACH OF THESE
ITEMS A STAND ALONE VOTE.
WE WILL HAVE THE CHANCE FOR THE
CENTRAL STAFF TO PRESENT THE
ITEM.
FOR US TO BE ABLE TO WALK
THROUGH THE ITEM WITH THE PRIME
SPONSOR SPEAKING TO IT.
AND THEN WE CAN HAVE QUESTIONS,
DISCUSSION, AND DEBATE.
AND THEN WE'LL CONSIDER EACH
ITEM AND VOTE ON IT BEFORE
MOVING TO THE NEXT ONE.
I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK
THAT YOU HAVE DONE, COLLEAGUES,
SO FAR.
TRYING TO STAY TRUE TO MY
INITIAL COMMENT THIS IS MORNING
ABOUT KEEPING SOME OF THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT ITEMS
CONNECTED TOGETHER.
IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH MY EARLIER
COMMENTS THAT WE TRY TO KEEP
RELATED ITEMS TOGETHER SO
THERE'S A COHESIVE POLICY
CONVERSATION, I WOULD LIKE TO
AMEND THE AGENDA IN FRONT OF US
TO MOVE TWO ITEMS FROM GROUP C
TO BE INCLUDED IN GROUP D. THIS
WOULD INCLUDE THE AGENDA ITEM
NUMBER 192.
THAT'S CBA FG 901A 001.
I'M THE PRIME SPONSOR OF THAT.
TO MOVE THAT TO THE TOP OF THE
LIST FOR GROUP D TO BE HEARD
BEFORE ITEM 201.
BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT
POTENTIALLY ON THE OTHER TWO
COMING.
AND THEN I MOVE TO MOVE ITEM
199, THAT'S CBA SPD 012A 001 TO
BE HEARD IN GROUP B AFTER ITEM
203 AS IT IS RELATED POLICY
WISE BUT DOES NOT HAVE AN
IMPACT ON THE SAME REVENUE
STREAM.
HEARING NO OBJECTIONS.
THE AGENDA IS AMENDED.
ALL RIGHT.
COLLEAGUES, WE ARE NOW INTO
GROUP C AS AMENDED HERE.
WHICH MEANS WE'LL BE STARTING
WITH ITEM 191.
MADAME CLERK.
THANK YOU FOR HELPING TO KEEP
US ON TRACK HERE.
DO INTERRUPT ME IF I HAVE ANY
NEED FOR CORRECTIONS ON THE
PROCEDURAL HERE.
AND I WANT TO THANK CENTRAL
STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK YOU'VE
DONE.
WE'LL START WITH ITEM 191.
EXCUSE ME.
190.
>> ITEM 190 IS CBA ARTS 5A 1.
IT WOULD ADD $1,125,000 OF
CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL
RECOVERY FUNDS TO ARTS FOR THE
CULTURAL SPACE AGENCY PUBLIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LAND
ACQUISITION FUND AND CUT THE
SAME AMOUNT OF FUNS FROM THE
SALVATION ARMY ENHANCED SHELTER
PROJECT.
THE NOTE ON THE RIVER FUNDING
BEING CUT, IT WAS PROVIDED IN
THE 2022 PROPOSED BUDGET TO
OPERATE THE SALVATION ARMY'S
ENHANCED SHELTER IN THE SOTO
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED BUDGET PROVIDED $2
MILLION FOR CAPITAL RENOVATION
COSTS.
5MILLION FOR OPERATIONS IN 2022
AND 5 MILLION IN OPERATIONS FOR
2023.
THIS ACTION WOULD REQUIRE THE
SHELTER TO CEASE OPERATIONS IF
AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF FUNDS
FOR THIS PURPOSE IS NOT
IDENTIFIED.
AND THIS IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES I'M GOING
TO TURN TO YOU TO MOVE
CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT
IT. T AND THEN WE'LL SPEAK TO -
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, YOU ARE
ON MUTE.
>> THANK YOU.
I MOVE AMENDMENT ITEM NUMBER
90.
ARTS 5A 1.
>> IS THERE A SECOND?
IS THERE A SECOND?
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
I WILL OFFER YOU A COURTESY
SECOND AS I DID EARLIER TODAY.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION.
IT'S SECONDED.
PLEASE GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
SO COLLEAGUES, I HAVE SPOKEN
ABOUT THE CULTURAL SPACE AGENCY
PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN THE PAST.
AS YOU KNOW, WE CHARTERED THIS
IN 2020 TO DEVELOP AND STEWARD
LONG-TERM AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL
SPACE FOR ARTS AND CULTURE.
THIS WORK CAME OUT OF YEARS OF
DEEP COMMUNITY WORK TO MAINTAIN
THE CITY'S VIBRANT ARTS AND
CULTURE AND ARTS INDUSTRY.
THIS CBA WOULD PROVIDE INITIAL
FUNDING TO THE PDA FOR LAND
ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
LONG-TERM AFFORDABLE CULTURAL
COMMERCIAL SPACE.
TWO PROJECTS HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED FOR THE INITIAL
INVESTMENT.
ONE IS PSYCH DEVELOPMENT TO
CREATE A NEW HOME FOR LEGACY
CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS NORTHWEST
TAP CONNECTION.
AND UNION CULTURAL CENTER IN
IN RANIER BEACH.
THE OTHER IS SEISMIC UPGRADES
AND ACCESSIBILITY WORK FOR THE
COLUMBUS CITY THEATER TO SECURE
AN ARTS ANCHOR AND CREATE A
HOME FOR YOUTH TRAINING IN
CREATIVE INDUSTRIES.
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH RAINIER
AVENUE RADIO.
THIS IS -- WE'VE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT THE NEED FOR ACQUISITION
FUNDS ALL YEAR.
WE HAD A NUMBER OF APPLICANTS
FOR THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT
FUND REQUESTING APPLICATION --
REQUESTING ACQUISITION.
AND THOUGH WE CHARTERED THE
PDA, THERE WAS NO INITIAL
FUNDING PROVIDED TO THE
ORGANIZATION FOR ACQUISITION
FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
AMEND HERE.
AS ASHA MENTIONED, THIS WOULD
USE OUT YEAR FUNDING FOR THE
SALVATION ARMY.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP WITH
THE INTENT OF THE CHAIR TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE SHIFTING OUT
YEAR FUNDING TO THINGS THAT ARE
NEEDED IN 2022.
SO BY RIGHT SIZING THIS
PROPOSAL, WE CAN DEDICATE 1.1
MILLION CLIPPER FUNDS TO THIS
PDA AND CONTINUE TO PROVIDE
RESOURCES FOR THE SHELTER
THROUGH THE BEGINNING OF 2023.
>> THANK YOU, ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THE
EFFORT TO FOCUS FUNDS THAT WE
HAVE NOW THAT COULD BE USED IN
2023 BECAUSE CLIPPER AS A FUND
SOURCE PERMITS IT TO TRY TO
FOCUS THE USE OF THE RESOURCES
ON OUR NEEDS NOW.
BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT GOAL THAT
WE HAVE OF USING FUNDS FOR
NEEDS NOW ARE -- THAT GOAL IS
REALLY RELATED TO, FOR ME AT
LEAST, TO FUNDING NEEDS
ASSOCIATED WITH EITHER COVID OR
WITH LIKE JUST, YOU KNOW, HUMAN
NEEDS.
THAT ARE GOING LACKING RIGHT
NOW.
I'M, YOU KNOW, REALLY EXCITED
ABOUT THE CULTURAL SPACE AGENCY
PDA WORKED ON IT MYSELF WHEN I
WAS COMMITTEE CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE WITH OVER SIGHT OF
ARTS.
I'M JUST REALLY CONCERNED WITH
THIS ITEM AND THE OTHER TWO
ITEMS THAT WOULD CUT THE ENTIRE
5 MILLION FUNDS FOR 2023 SOTO
SHELTER OPERATIONS.
I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR HAS MADE
COMMITMENTS THAT IF THERE ISN'T
ANOTHER SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR
2023 THAT YOU WOULD WORK TO
FIND THOSE FUNDS.
AND WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT ONE, THE
FACT THAT THERE ARE UNLIKELY TO
BE FUTURE FEDERAL FUNDS AND
TWO, THAT WE MAYBE LOOKING AT
SOME TOUGH BUDGET YEARS
STARTING NEXT YEAR.
OR CONTINUING NEXT YEAR.
I JUST WOULDN'T WANT TO TAKE AN
ACTION THAT ASSUMES THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND
ANOTHER $5 MILLION FOR THE
NEEDS OF THE SOTO SALVATION
ARMY SHELTER.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
I WILL ALSO ADD SOME COMMENTS
ALONG A SIMILAR VAIN.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK
YOU'VE DONE IN THIS EFFORT.
YOU AND THE VICE CHAIR JUST
SPOKE VERY MUCH WORKING TO MAKE
SURE THAT THERE WAS INVESTMENTS
IN ARTS AND CULTURE IN OUR ILL
LITERAL ILLITERACY RESCUE PLAN.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT
WORK.
I ALSO WILL HAVE TO
UNFORTUNATELY NOTE THAT AMONG
THE VARIOUS PRIORITIES THAT
WE'RE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW,
MAKING SURE THAT FOLKS HAVE
STABLE SHELTER, EVEN IN 2023
WHEN WE'RE HOPING THAT WE'RE
GOING TO BE IN BETTER YEARS,
IT'S STILL A BIG PRIORITY HERE.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEED A PDA TO
SUPPORT ARTS ASK CULTURE.
AND I LOCK FORWARD TO
ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS FOR
HOW TO SECURE REVENUE TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT.
BUT FOR TODAY, UNFORTUNATELY, I
LOVE THE CONCEPT BUT I THINK
IT'S A MATTER OF TOUGH CHOICES.
COUNCILMEMBERS, ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS BEFORE COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES WRAPS THIS UP.
HEARING NONE, COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES, ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS ? I APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
MADAME CLERK, COULD YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE.
ON CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT
NUMBER 190.
PEDERSEN.
>> NO.
>> SAWANT.
>> NO.
>> STRAUSS.
>> NO.
>> GONZALES.
>> NO.
>> HERBOLD.
>> NO.
>>
>> JUAREZ?
>> NO.
>> LEWIS.
>> NO.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> NO.
>> ONE IN FAVOR, EIGHT OPPOSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 191.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE THE ITEM SO
THAT WE CAN CONSIDER IT AND
THEN CONSIDER ANY ADDITIONAL
WALK ON.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
BUDGET ACTIONS 512-5001 IS
THERE A SECOND?
GOING ONCE?
GOING TWICE?
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
I'LL OFFER YOU A COURTESY
SECOND.
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE
THAT.
I'LL PROBABLY NEED TO COURTESY
SECOND ON THE AMENDMENT TOO.
BEFORE WE CAN GET TO THE
SUBSTANCE.
I MOVE TO AMEND CBA 512-5001 TO
AMEND THE TITLE OF CBO 512A001.
>> SECOND.
>> IT'S OPINION MOVED AND
SECONDED.
DID I HEAR A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, PLEASE
GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR WALK
ON.
I'M GOING TO SPEAK TO THE
AMENDMENT IF WE COULD.
WE CAN VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT
AND THEN DO THE SUBSTANCE, IS
THAT RIGHT?
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD,
YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK TO THE
CONCEPT AS WELL BECAUSE THE
UNDERLINING BILL IS IN FRONT OF
US AND THE AMENDMENT IS ALSO
THERE.
SO WHEREVER YOU'D LIKE TO
START.
>> AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY
TO THE AMENDMENT, THERE'S A
NEED TO CORRECT THE RECITAL.
WHICH REFERS TO A $61.6 MILLION
DECREASE IN REVENUE FOR 2022
THAT SHOULD ACTUALLY READ A
$61.6 MILLION INCREASE IN
GENERAL FUND REVENUE IN 2022.
EXCELLENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT
CORRECTION.
WE WILL CONSIDER THAT TECHNICAL
CORRECTION IN FROPT OF US NOW.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS ON THIS TECHNICAL
CORRECTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD DESCRIBED IN HER WALK
ON AMENDMENT TO THE RECITAL.
HEARING NONE, MADAME CLERK,
WILL YOU CALL THE ROLE ON THE
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT AS
DESCRIBED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
>> PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> GONZALES.
>> AYE.
>> HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> AYE.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES.
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR.
NONE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE
AMENDMENT HAS PASSED.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, THE
AMENDED AMENDMENT IS NOW IN
FRONT OF US.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE
UNDERLINING CON CONCEPT.
>> VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU.
THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT RELATED
TO THE FUNDING PIECE ASSOCIATED
WITH HIRING BONUSES.
IT'S ONLY RELATED TO THE
EMERGENCY ORDER THAT THE MAYOR
ISSUED.
AND WHAT THIS ITEM DOES IS IT
AMENDS THE MAYORS EXECUTIVE
ORDER REGARDING BONUSES FOR
BOTH POLICE OFFICERS AND 911
DISPATCH HIRES.
IT AMENDS THE ORDER ON THESE
HIRING INCENTIVES TO LIMIT THE
DURATION OF THE EMERGENCY ORDER
THROUGH THE END OF 2021.
SO ALLOWING THE EMERGENCY ORDER
TO CONTINUE AS DRAFTED.
AND ISSUED BY THE MAYOR THROUGH
THE END OF 2021.
IT DOES LIMIT EXPENDITURES
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER TO
$500,000.
THIS IS THE AMOUNT THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE ESTIMATES WOULD BE
NEEDED IN 2021.
>> AND SO THE CONCEPT BEING
THAT IN THE CHAIR'S BALANCING
PACKAGE, COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA
HAS SPONSORED A REQUEST FOR A
REPORT FROM THE BUDGET OFFICE
TO THE COUNCIL ON A POTENTIAL
CITY WIDE HIRING INCENTIVE FOR
CITY WORKERS IN RECOGNITION OF
WHAT I THINK YOU'VE HEARD ME
SAY MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES IS
THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF
VACANCIES, AND A LOT OF
DEPARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE
CITY.
AND SOME REAL CHALLENGES IN
SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS IN FILLING
THOSE VACANCIES.
AND SO THIS PROPOSAL ALLOWS FOR
HIRING BONUSES TO CONTINUE
THOUGH THE END OF THE YEAR FOR
BOTH SPD AND 911 DISPATCHERS.
BUT HOLDS THE CONTINUATION OF
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER IN 2022
PENDING THIS REPORT AS
REFERENCED IN THE CHAIR'S
BALANCING PACKAGE ITEM AGENDA
ITEM 8. THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
I WANT TO THANK PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAIR FOR BRINGING THIS
MODIFICATION OF THE MAYOR'S
EMERGENCY ORDER FORWARD.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL
PRESIDENT WHO GOT THE BALL
ROLLING AND CENTRAL STAFF WHO
DID SOME ANALYSIS OF THE
EMERGENCY ORDER I THINK THE
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ARE
REASONABLE AND FISCALLY
PRUDENT.
CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT 300
OFFICERS HAVE LEFT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT ALL READY, I DO
SUPPORT SOME FORM OF HIRING
INCENTIVE, SUCH AS THOSE
ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN THE
MAYOR'S BUDGET OF 2022.
THERE ARE A COUPLE AMENDMENTS
IN OUR BUDGET COMMITTEE AGENDA
THAT COULD REMAIN MORE MODEST
HIRING INCENTIVES.
I WOULD NEED TO SEE WHAT
HAPPENS WITH THOSE BEFORE I ACT
ON THIS.
I'LL BE READY TO VOTE ON THIS
ON MONDAY.
I'M LEANING TOWARD IT FOR SURE,
BUT I'LL BE ABSTAINING IN THIS
VOTE.
BUT KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO THE
OTHER HIRING INCENTIVES.
THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, EXCUSE
ME, DID I HEAR SOMEBODY ELSE?
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, OKAY,
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ,
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ CAN GO
FIRST.
>> THANK YOU, YOU'RE RESPECTING
YOUR ELDERS.
THANK YOU.
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> I AM GOING TO TAKE THE SAME
TACT AS COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT OR HAVE
SOME COMMENTS IN WHAT'S GOING
TO HAPPEN WITH WHEN WE'RE
LOOKING AT NUMBERS 201 AND 202.
FOR THE MODIFICATION FOR THE --
HOW IT AFFECTS ITEM 191 FOR
THE ORDER ISSUES OCTOBER 29th.
WHICH I THINK IT MEANS IT'S
BEEN EFFECT FOR ABOUT 18 DAYS.
AND ALSO I DON'T HAVE ANY
INFORMATION, MAYBE YOU DO IF
YOU HAVE SOME TO SHARE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD OF WHAT
IN FACT -- I DON'T KNOW THE
UPDATE OR STATUS ABOUT HOW
THAT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED AS FAR
AS THE INCENTIVES AND HIRING IN
THE LAST 18 DAYS.
I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION.
>> THAT'S PRECISELY WHY THIS
ACTION ALLOWS IT TO STAY IN
PLACE.
BECAUSE IT'S WORKING.
AND YOU KNOW, AS IT RELATES
SPECIFICALLY, THEY'VE SEEN
THREE TIMES AS MANY APPLICANTS
SINCE IT WAS ANNOUNCED.
SO THIS ACTION LEAVES THE
EMERGENCY ORDER IN PLACE.
THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR.
BUT IT ASSUMES THAT WE MIGHT
WANT TO MAKE CHANGES FOR 2022.
OKAY.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUICK
REPLY.
BUT I'LL STILL ABSTAIN.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU BOTH.
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
I DID HAVE COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, THANK YOU, I'LL COME
TO YOU IN JUST A MOMENT.
PLEASE GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
MY COMMENTS WILL BE SIMILAR.
I'M INTERESTED TO SEE HOW WE
VOTE ON THE REMAINING QUESTIONS
ABOUT HIRING INCENTIVES, I
THINK COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS
DONE SMART WORK HERE TO LEAVE
IT UP TO THE NEXT
ADMINISTRATION TO UNDERSTAND IF
THEY WANT TO PUT FORWARD AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER BECAUSE THEY
WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SO
ON DAY ONE AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
LY BE VOTING NO ON THIS BUDGET
AMENDMENT BUT FIRST I WANT TO
APOLOGIZE TO MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC FOR MISSING THE MORNING
SECTION OF TODAY'S BUDGET
COMMITTEE MEETING.
I'M UNFORTUNATELY ON THE THIRD
DAY OF A THREE-DAY MIGRAINE.
AND I NOW ALSO HAVE THE FLU.
SO I NEEDED TO GO TO URGENT
CARE THIS MORNING AND I ALSO
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SPEAK
EXTENSIVELY TO EXPLAIN MY VOTE
THAN I NORMALLY WOULD UNTIL I
GET MORE HEALTHY.
BUT I WANTED TO LET MEMBER OF
THE PUBLIC KNOW IF THEY WANT
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT MY VOTE,
THEY SHOULD FEEL FREE TO
CONTACT MY STAFF.
LY BE VOTING NO ON THIS ITEM
BECAUSE IT'S A RESOLUTION THAT
APPROVES THE MAYOR'S EMERGENCY
ORDER FROM OCTOBER TO CREATE
HIRING BONUSES FOR POLICE
OFFICERS.
I HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT WILL
DO THE OPPOSITE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
>> GET BETTER COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT.
>> YES, THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT FOR DIALING IN.
I DO HOPE YOU FEEL BETTER AS
WELL.
S COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
YOU HAVE THE LAST WORD.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I APPRECIATE HEARING FROM
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO ARE PLANNING
ON ABSTAINING.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT WHILE
WE DO HAVE SOME PENDING
DISCUSSION AROUND THE FUNDING
FOR AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
THIS IS A STAND ALONE ACTION
SEPARATE FROM THAT
CONVERSATION.
S THE ONLY ABOUT THE EXTENSION
-- THIS IS ONLY ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT OF THE EXISTING
EXECUTIVE EMERGENCY EXECUTIVE
ORDER AND AS WE HEARD FROM
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
SHE HAS ANOTHER VERSION ON
MONDAY THAT WE'LL BE
CONSIDERING.
AND AS SHE CHARACTERIZES IT'S A
COMPETING AMENDMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SETTLE THE
QUESTION FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL
HERE WITHIN THE BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS ON HOW IT IS WE
ARE GOING TO EITHER ACCEPT,
AMEND, OR REJECT THE MAYOR'S
EXECUTIVE ORDER AS IT STANDS
FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> COUNCIL MADAME CHAIR, MAY I
RESPOND.
>> YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
I GUESS MY POINT WAS THIS.
ORIGINALLY I WAS JUST GOING TO
SAY NO.
BECAUSE I FELT THAT THIS WASN'T
MODIFYING THE CIVIL EMERGENCY
ORDER DURING BUDGET FOR ME ANY
WAY, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYONE
ELSE.
IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THE
APPROPRIATE TIME TO GET MORE
INFORMATION AS IT WAS COMING
IN.
I DO KNOW THAT THEY HAD AS YOU
SAY AN INFLUX OF MORE PEOPLE
FOR THE 911 POSITIONS.
BUT I WANTED TO EXPLORE MORE,
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT WE'RE
HEARING FROM THE NEW
ADMINISTRATION, AND ALSO JUST
HOW WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT
THESE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
COMING UP.
SO I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU
PUT IN.
AND I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE
DOING.
SO THAT WAS MY -- THAT WAS MY
ORIGINAL INTENT.
SO THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
WE NEED TO KEEP MOVING ON.
>> I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHY I
BRING IT UP DURING BUDGET IS
BECAUSE IT'S CONNECTED TO
COUNCIL, MADAME CHAIR'S
AMENDMENT ABOUT A POTENTIAL
2022 INCENTIVE PROGRAM THAT
MIGHT CONTINUE TO HELP THE
DEPARTMENTS UNDER THE CURRENT
VERSION OR MIGHT ADD NEW
DEPARTMENTS.
AND SO I HAVE BEEN SAYING, I
THINK PRETTY CONSISTENTLY
THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS AND
THROUGH THE -- WHEN WE RECEIVED
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO WE'RE GOING
TO PROPOSE CHANGES TO THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER.
I'VE BEEN SAYING I BELIEVE
BECAUSE THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
COULD GO INTO 2022, I BELIEVE
VERY FIRMLY THAT THIS IS A
BUDGET ISSUE.
AND THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE FOR 2022,
THAT THIS COUNCIL SHOULD
CONSIDER THROUGH A STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT A -- SORT OF
A WORK PLAN ITEM FOR THE
EXECUTIVE TO LOOK AT OTHER
DEPARTMENTS, AND THE NEEDS OF
OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND THEN TO
BRING BACK TO US A
RECOMMENDATION FOR A CITY WIDE
BONUS PROGRAM TO ASSIST OTHER
DEPARTMENTS IN 2022.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
I THINK THIS IS A TOUGH
CONVERSATION TO HAVE.
ABSENT KNOWING WHERE THE
COUNCILMEMBERS STAND ON THE
EXISTING EXECUTIVE ORDER.
I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT
YOU AND I HAVE DONE TO IDENTIFY
WHAT INFORMATION IS NEEDED.
THERE'S A SLY INCLUDED IN OUR
PROPOSAL HERE THAT REQUESTS THE
CITY BUDGET OFFICER REPORT ON
THE CITY WIDE HIRING INCENTIVE
PROGRAM AND THAT REPORT SHOULD
INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS FOR THE
NEED FOR CITY WIDE HIRING
INCENTIVES.
MAKE SURE WE GET
RECOMMENDATIONS ON STRATEGIES
FOR SUGGESTING DIFFICULTIES IN
HIRING.
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
HIRING BONUSES AND INCLUDE A
RAISE IN THE SOCIAL
JUSTICE IMPACTS.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
SHOULD BE A BLANKET AUTHORITY
FOR NEXT ADMINISTRATION IN 2022
TO SOLELY DECIDE.
AND I THINK IT REQUIRES A
LARGER POLICY CONVERSATION THE
ME TODAY I'M GOING TO HOLD OFF
ON VOTING YES ON THIS BECAUSE I
AM INTERESTED IN GETTING THAT
REPORT BACK.
I ALSO DON'T WANT TO HAVE A
POLICY SIGNAL OF SUPPORT FOR
THE EXISTING PROPOE PROPOSAL
FOR HIRING BONUSES WHEN WE'VE
HEARD FROM FRONT LINE FOLKS.
THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS
INCENTIVE.
FOR ME, I SEE YOUR HAND, I'M
SORRY I DIDN'T SEE YOU BEFORE.
>> I RAISED IT WHEN YOU STARTED
SPEAKING.
NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE.
JUST PROCEDURALLY FOR PEOPLE,
THIS HAS BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE
HERE, I WANT TO MAKE REALLY
CLEAR THAT SHOULD COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD'S PROPOSED BUDGET
ACTION THAT WE'RE DEBATING
RIGHT NOW PASS, THEN ADVANCING
THE RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD OUT OF
COMMITTEE TODAY WOULD
EFFECTIVELY SUPERSEDE THE
RESOLUTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT FLAGGED IN HER COMMENTS
AND THAT WAS INTRODUCED A
COUPLE MONDAYS AGO.
SO JUST WANT TO MAKE REALLY
CLEAR FROM A PROCEDURAL
PERSPECTIVE THAT IF
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD'S
RESOLUTION, YOU KNOW, APPEARS
ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA,
THAT WOULD SUPERSEDE THE
AFOREMENTIONED RESOLUTION THAT
WAS FIRST PUT ON THE TABLE BY
COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
MADAME CLERK, COULD YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE ON THE ADOPTION
OF CVO -- ON CVO 512A 001 AS
AMENDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
PEDERSEN.
>> ABSTAINED.
>> SAWANT.
>> NO.
>> STRAUSS.
>> ABSTAINED.
>> GONZALES.
>> YES.
HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> NO.
I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN SORRY.
>> LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES. YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
>> NO.
>> FOUR IN FAVOR.
THREE ABSTENTIONS.
AND TWO OPPOSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE
VOTING COUNCILMEMBERS THE
AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSES,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
THE AMENDED VERSION OF CBL
512A001 HAS BEEN ADOPTED.
LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 193.
COUNCILMEMBERS, I JUST WANT TO
PAUSE FOR ONE SECOND.
CENTRAL STAFF, ARE YOU ABLE TO
WALK US THROUGH THE OVERVIEW?
THANK YOU SO MUCH JEFF, GOOD TO
SEE YOU.
>> SURE ITEM 193.
ADDS $1 MILLION IN CORONAVIRUS
RECOVERY FUNNING TO HSD.
FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
PROGRAM THAT SPECIALIZES IN
SERVING AMERICAN INDIANS AND
ALASKAN NATIVES.
CUTTING $1 MILLION AND ONE TIME
FUNDING FOR AN EMERGENCY
SHELTER.
THIS DIFFERS FROM THE
PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED VERSION
WHICH WAS NOT IN THE BALANCING
PACKAGE THAT WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED $4.5 MILLION.
NOT ONLY THE 1 MILLION TO
ACQUIRE AND DO WORK ON THE
LAND.
BUT 3 PPT $3 MILLION FOR THE
SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL AS
FUNDING FOR INITIAL OPERATIONS
IN THE FIRST YEAR.
THE 1 MILLION-DOLLAR REDUCTION
IN CLIPPER FUNDING IS RELATED
TO THE SOTO EMERGENCY SHELTER
THAT WAS ACTUALLY PREVIOUSLY
DISCUSSED TWO OR THREE
AMENDMENTS AGO.
I'M SORRY.
WHERE THE SECOND YEAR OF
FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM WOULD
BE REDUCED.
SO THAT THE PROGRAM WOULDN'T BE
ABLE TO OPERATE FOR THE FULL
CALENDAR YEAR OF 2023.
INSTEAD THE FUNDS WILL BE USED
HEREFOR THIS ONE TIME PURPOSE.
>> THE SPONSOR HERE IS
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AS A REMINDER TO THE VIEWING
PUBLIC, F THEY'RE WONDERING
WHY WE'RE ON 193 INSTEAD OF
192.
IT'S BECAUSE 192 IS AT THE TOP
OF GROUP D NOW.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE 193 FOR
CONSIDERATION IN FRONT OF US
TODAY?
>> YES.
I MOVE ITEM 193CBA HOM 14B 1.
THANK YOU IT'S BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES, I'M NOT
GOING TO OFFER ANY MORE
SECONDS.
WE HAVE TO KEEP MOVING HERE.
I'LL ASK ONE MORE TIME.
IS THERE A SECOND?
OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES.
THIS ITEM HAS NOT RECEIVED A
SECOND FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT ITEM.
ITEM NUMBER 195 PLEASE.
>> MADAME CHAIR -- OH YEAH,
OKAY.
I HAD PULLED -- IF I DID IT TOO
LATE.
I APOLOGIZE.
BUT I PULLED ITEM 194 ITEM 194
WITHDRAWN.
IT WAS REQUESTED AFTER THE
AGENDA WAS ALL READY IN
PUBLICATION.
BUT THAT ONE HAS BEEN
WITHDRAWN.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES FOR
HELPING EDUCATE FOLKS ON WHERE
WE ARE.
APOLOGIES FOR SKIPPING OVER
THAT.
WE'RE ON 195 NOW.
THIS WOULD CUT $2 MILLION OF
CORONAVIRUS LOCAL FISCAL
RECOVERY FUNDS IN HSD FOR THE
SALVATION ARMY ENHANCED SHELTER
PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND WOULD
ADD 2 MILLION FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF A CITY RUN SOCIAL HOUSING
ACQUISITION PROGRAM.
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES.
AND WOULD HAVE THE SAME
APPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF THE
OPERATIONS OF THE SOTO ENHANCED
SHELTER AS PREVIOUSLY
DISCUSSED.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE THIS
ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION IN
>> I'M NOT GOING DOWN WITHOUT A
FIGHT.
I MOVE CBA O 616A1.
>> ITEM 195 HAS BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
HEARING NO SECOND, THIS ITEM
WILL NOT ADVANCE ON THE AGENDA
FOR DISCUSSION.
>> A STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT SPONSORED BIPEDDER SEN.
SCL 2A 1 REQUESTING REPORT ON
THE POLE REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
AND THE OTHER REPORT ON THE
PROJECT IN THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL TOWER FROM SEATTLE
LIGHT AT THE SAME TIME AT THE
END OF MARCH OF 2022.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE THIS
ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE THIS SLY WHICH
IS SCL 002A 001.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DESCRIBE THE
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR
ASSISTANCE IN CRAFTING THE
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT.
IT REQUESTS TWO REPORTS FROM
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT TO THE CITY
COUNCIL.
AND IT'S ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT
CAPITAL PROJECTS.
WITH THE RECENT WIND STORMS.
THEY OCCURRED AFTER WE HAD ALL
READY SUBMITTED A BUNCH OF
BUDGET AMENDMENTS.
AND THE WIND STORMS WERE A
REMINDER ABOUT THE NEED TO
FOCUS ON REPLACING UTILITY
POLES THAT ARE AGING BEFORE
THEY FALL DOWN.
AND SO THIS REQUEST, A PROGRESS
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF CITY
LIGHT'S PLANS AND RESULTS TO
REPLACE AND OR UPGRADE THE
SYSTEM OF UTILITY POLES
THROUGHOUT SEATTLE WITH A
SEPARATE ANALYSIS OF THE POLES
ON EAST MARGINAL WAY.
THIS WOULD INCLUDE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPEDITING
THE REPLACEMENT OF THOSE POLES.
THE SECOND REPORT IS ABOUT A
LINE ITEM IN THE CAPITAL BUDGET
TO ADD $8 MILLION FOR OFFICE
SPACE AND SO ON ITS FACE, IT
WOULD SEEM THAT REPLACING
UTILITY POLES WOULD BE MORE
IMPORTANT THAN THAT.
THERE ARE HOWEVER SOME
FINANCIAL SAVINGS IN THE LONG
RUN BY REDUCING LEASING COSTS
TO SEATTLE CITY LIGHT.
SO WE WANT TO GET THESE REPORTS
AT THE SAME TIME SO WE CAN DO A
DEEPER DIVE ON THIS ISSUE AND
LOOK AT WHETHER WE NEED TO
ACCELERATE THE REPLACEMENT OF
THOSE UTILITY POLES.
THANK YOU.
PEDERSEN ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN I'LL
NOTE I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU'VE
DONE TO FOLLOW UP WITH CITY
LIGHT SINCE OCTOBER 2019 AUDIT
THAT WE HAD PUT FORWARD IN THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE BEEN
HAVING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
LIGHT POLES THAT WERE FAILING.
ESPECIALLY ON EAST MARGINAL
WAY.
I APPRECIATE THE CONSULTANTS,
AND RECOMMENDATION ON HOW TO
MITIGATE THE RISK OF LIGHT POLE
FAILURE IN THE FUTURE.
SO I'LL SUPPORT THIS AS A
TIMELY PROGRESS REPORT TOWARDS
THE POLE REPLACEMENT EFFORTS
ACROSS THE CITY.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
MADAME CLERK, WILL YOU CALL THE
ROLE ON THE ADOPTION OF SCL
002A 001.
>> PEDERSEN.
>> YES.
>> SAWANT.
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS.
>> YES.
>> GONZALES.
>> YES.
>> HERBOLD.
>> YES.
>> JUAREZ.
>> HOLD ON.
>> OKAY.
YES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> MORALES?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> AYE.
>> NINE IN FAVOR.
NONE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE MOTION CARRIES.
AND AMENDMENT NUMBER 196
PASSES.
ALL RIGHT.
WE ARE ON TO ITEM 197.
>> ITEM 197 IS
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE THIS ITEM?
>> I DO.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ITEM, IT
IS A SLI.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR
AMENDMENT?
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS A SLI THAT I PUT
FORWARD EARLIER.
IT IS TO DETERMINE ESTIMATED
IMPACTS TO OUR CITY'S
INFRASTRUCTURE FROM OVERWEIGHT
VEHICLES.
THIS IS A NO COST FLY.
AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY IT
WOULD INCLUDE STUDYING DAMAGE
TO SEATTLE STREETS BY
CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND
OTHERS THAT SEEK EXEMPTIONS TO
WEIGHT LIMITS DESIGNED TO
MAINTAIN THE USEFUL LIFE OF OUR
INVESTMENTS.
THIS REQUEST CAME UP DURING
DISCUSSION AS A PLAN BUT IT WAS
DECIDED THIS WOULD BE MORE OF
APPROPRIATE FOR A BUDGET OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
UNDERSTANDING THE DAMAGE BY
OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES AND THE
COST TO REPAIR THE STREETS WILL
HELP TO IMPROVE ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND
BUDGETING AND COULD YIELD
CREATIVE AND COST-EFFECTIVE
SOLUTIONS TO MINIMIZE SUCH
DAMAGE FROM SOME OVERWEIGHT
VEHICLES IN THE FUTURE.
I HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS
SLI.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON ARE
THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, I AM
GOING TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I DO
STILL HAVE CONCERNS ON THIS
ITEM.
WE HAVE HEARD FROM SOME OF OUR
REGIONAL PARTNERS ABOUT WHETHER
THIS COULD BE ADDRESSED OUTSIDE
THE BUDGET.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO GET A REPORT
FROM SDOT TO LOOK AT THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
WITHOUT THIS BEING TIED TO A
BUDGET ACTION.
I UNDERSTAND IT IS JUST A SLI
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THERE
IS SUPPORT, I WILL BE A NO ON
THIS ONE.
PLEASE GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
HER BOLD.
>> I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON BRINGING THIS FORWARD
AS A SLI BECAUSE THERE IS A
PREVIOUS REQUEST THAT IT NOT BE
DEALT WITH WITH IN THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSIONS.
SO, I AM CONCERNED CONTINUING
TO SAY DON'T BRING IT UP THIS
WAY OR THIS WAY, IT WILL JUST
RESULT IN US NOT GETTING THE
INFORMATION AND I HAVE AREAS IN
MY DISTRICT AND I'M SURE OTHERS
DO THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE
HEAVY VEHICLES ARE A REAL
ISSUE.
AND I THINK THAT GETTING THIS
INFORMATION COULD BE HELPFUL IN
A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GETTING
PARTNERSHIP FROM OTHER
JURISDICTIONS TO MAINTAIN OUR
STREETS AS WELL AS LIMITING THE
USE OF OUR STREETS
INAPPROPRIATELY IN AREAS LIKE
SOUTHPARK WHERE WE SEE SO MANY
LARGE FREIGHT VEHICLES GOING
THROUGH RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS.
AND AS COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON
SAYS REALLY MESSING UP THE
STREETS AND ALSO CREATING
SAFETY ISSUES AS WELL FOR THE
COMMUNITY.
>> THANK YOU VICE CHAIR.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
HEARING NONE MADAM CLERK WILL
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER
197.
>> PETERSON?
>> YES.
>> SAWANT?
>> YES.
>> STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> GONZALEZ?
>> YES.
>> HERBOLD?
>> YES.
>> AURAS?
>> YES.
>> LEWIS?
>> YES.
>> MALICE?
>> YES.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA ?
>> NO.
>> EIGHT IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED.
>> CONGRATULATIONS
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON WITH
FLYING COLORS THAT PASSED.
YOU DO HAVE THE ADOPTION OF
197.
LET'S MOVE ON TO 198.
>> 198 IS CUTTING 2.4 MILLION
GENERAL FUND FROM THE CENTER
CITY STREETCAR PROJECT.
IT WOULD DIRECT 400,000 TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF EARLY EDUCATION
LEARNING FOR BUS ROUTING
TECHNOLOGY AND $2 MILLION FOR
CITYWIDE HIRING INCENTIVE
PROGRAM.
IT IS OFFERED BY COUNCIL
MEMBERS HERBOLD AND PETERSON.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE
THE ITEM IN FRONT OF US?
>> I MOVE CBA SDOT DASH 107
DASH A DASH 001.
>> AS WE DISCUSSED TODAY AND IN
PREVIOUS BUDGET MEETINGS I
THINK THERE IS AGREEMENT THAT
HIRING AND RETENTION OF CITY
STAFF ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES.
THERE HAVE BEEN SPECIAL
ATTENTION TO THE QUESTION OF
HIRING AND RETENTION OF SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH THE
MAYORS INITIAL RECOMMENDATION
FOR CITYWIDE HIRING INCENTIVE
PROGRAM AND ADDING THE MAYORS
SECOND PROPOSAL FOR A HIRING
INCENTIVE PROGRAM WITH THE
EMERGENCY ORDER, I HAVE BEEN
ARGUING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO
DO AN ANALYSIS OF ISSUES AMONG
FRONT-LINE WORKERS SPECIFICALLY
FOCUS ON THOSE THAT ARE CAUSING
A SERVICE ISSUE OR INHIBITING A
DEPARTMENT FROM FILLING A
FUNCTION AS WELL AS
RECOMMENDATIONS ON VARIED
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS
DIFFICULTIES IN HIRING
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
HIRING BONUSES.
COUPLED WITH A RACIAL AND
SOCIAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS ON THE
IMPACTS OF THE RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING A CITYWIDE HIRING
INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
SO, THIS ACTION WOULD PUT SOME
FUNDS AND PUT THOSE FUNDS ASIDE
BECAUSE THE CHAIRS BALANCING
PACKAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE
FUNDS FOR A SUBSEQUENT 2022
ACTION TO SUPPORT A POTENTIAL
CITYWIDE HIRING INCENTIVE
PROGRAM.
AGAIN, MY ORIGINAL BUDGET
ACTION PRESERVED $1.09 MILLION,
MOVED IT OUT OF SPD AND MOVED
IT INTO FINANCE GENERAL TO
SUPPORT A 2022 HIRING BONUS
INCENTIVE.
THAT IS NOT IN THE BALANCING
AREA SO AM PROPOSING TO FUND
THIS PROGRAM OTHERWISE.
THIS WOULD PROVIDE $2 MILLION
IN FUNDING FOR CITYWIDE HIRING
BONUS PLAN.
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET DID
NOT INCLUDE SUFFICIENT FUNDING
FOR HIRING BONUSES FOR 911
DISPATCHERS, BECAUSE AFTER THE
BUDGET WAS ALREADY PROPOSED
MADE A NEW PROPOSAL THAT WAS
NOT SUFFICIENTLY FUNDED.
SECOND PART OF THIS PACKAGE
WOULD PROVIDE FUNDING FOR AN
ITEM ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND I
WILL LET HIM SPEAK TO THAT.
I THINK THERE ARE MUCH BETTER
USES OF FUNDING THEN AS OPPOSED
TO THE CENTER CITY STREETCAR.
I NOTED MY POSITION ON THE
CENTER CITY STREETCAR
PREVIOUSLY.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I WILL
NOT REPEAT THAT.
AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO
QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE HEARD
ABOUT THE FUNDING SOURCE, I
JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE FUNDS
HERE ARE A ONE TIME INVESTMENT
ONLY AND WOULD NOT IMPACT THE
REVENUE STREAM BEYOND 2020.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I SEE A FEW HANDS.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA .
I AM IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS
WAS COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD . I
WANT TO SEE THAT $400,000 OF
THESE FUNDS WOULD BE
REALLOCATED.
IF THIS WERE TO PASS IT WOULD
HELP WITH THE EMERGING ISSUE.
A LONG-STANDING ISSUE BUT WE
REALLY HEARD A LOT ABOUT IT
THIS FALL WITH THE SCHOOL BUS
CRISIS WITH SEATTLE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS AND WITH THE SHORTAGE
OF DRIVERS.
BUT IT IS THE TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTION TO HELP.
THE NEW ROUTES ARE PRINTED OUT
ON PAPER.
AS DRIVERS AND AS NEW DRIVERS
COME IN, THIS GPS TECHNOLOGY
WOULD ENABLE SEATTLE PUBLIC
SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS TO IMPLEMENT
A MUCH MORE EFFICIENT SYSTEM.
IT IS A ONE TIME INVESTMENT
THAT WE WOULD BE PROVIDING TO
OUR MUTUAL CONSTITUENTS.
THE PARENTS OF ALL THE CHILDREN
IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS WOULD BENEFIT
FROM THIS AND BE ABLE TO TRACK
THE BUSES AND WHERE THEY ARE AS
WELL.
IT BENEFITS THE SCHOOL BUS
DRIVERS AS WELL AS THE PARENTS
AND SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN
GENERAL.
I WANT TO ECHO WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD SAID
ABOUT THE SOURCE OF FUNDING.
THESE ARE BOTH ONE-TIME
INVESTMENTS AND I THINK IT IS
A GOOD USE OF THESE FUNDS RIGHT
NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS I SEE
YOUR HAND UP.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR AND
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD FOR
BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT
FORWARD.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE
CITYWIDE HIRING INCENTIVE AND I
ALSO WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON'S
REQUEST REGARDING THE $400,000
TO GO TO SCHOOL BUS ROUTING.
I HAVE ISSUE TODAY IS THE
FUNDING SOURCE.
I KNOW WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE.
I KNOW THERE IS STILL A LOT OF
CONVERSATION TO BE HAD ABOUT
THE STREETCAR.
I JUST FIND IT HARD TO KILL THE
PROJECT IN SOME SENSE THROUGH
DOING GOOD ELSEWHERE.
IF THERE WAS ANOTHER FUNDING
SOURCE I WOULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY
VOTE FOR THIS.
I CAN'T SUPPORT IT IN ITS
CURRENT ITERATION.
I DO HAVE A VOICE VOTE FOR THE
VOICE AMENDMENT IF YOU WOULD BE
INTERESTED.
I KNOW THE OTHER REVENUE
SOURCE, THIS IS A POISON FILLED
REVENUE SOURCE FOR ME AND I
KNOW THE REVENUE STABILIZATION
FUND IS A POISON PILL FOR
YOURSELF AND OTHERS ON THE
COUNCIL.
THAT IS THE VOTE I HAVE TODAY.
CHAIR, I WOULD BRING THAT
FORWARD AT YOUR DIRECTION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, I
BELIEVE IT IS YOUR CALL IF YOU
WANT TO MAKE A VOICE, YOU NEED
TO OFFER IT AS A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT.
IF YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT FOR
DISCUSSION WE WOULD WELCOME
THAT AS WELL FROM THE SPONSOR.
I THINK FOLKS KNOW VERY WELL
HOW I FEEL ABOUT THOSE RESERVES
AND I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS
ABOUT THE EXISTING REVENUE
SOURCE IDENTIFIED IN THIS
AMENDMENT AS WELL.
IF YOU WANT TO OFFER AN
AMENDMENT, THAT IS YOUR
PREROGATIVE.
>> YES, I WOULD LOVE TO.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO
SHARE SCREEN FOR THE LANGUAGE
OR IF THE CLERKS CAN.
I HAVE THE SCRIPT BEFORE ME.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND
AGENDA ITEM 198 AS FOLLOWS.
AMEND THE TITLE TO CUT 2.4
MILLION GENERAL FUND
CONTRIBUTION TO THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUND, ADD
$400,000 GENERAL FUND TO DEEL
AND $2 MILLION FOR GENERAL
FINANCE FOR CITYWIDE HIRING
INCENTIVE.
AMEND THE BUDGET DESCRIPTION
AND TRANSACTIONS FOR BUDGET
SOURCE.
BE A REDUCTION TO THE
CONTRIBUTION TO THE RSS RATHER
THAN CUTTING THE 2022 GENERAL
FUND FOR THE CENTER CITY
STREETCAR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS HAS
MOVED THE VOICE AMENDMENT TO
MOVE THE SOURCE OF THE REVENUE
TO COME FROM THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUND AS NOTED IN
THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF US AND
DESCRIBED BY COUNCILMEMBER
STRASS.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS VOICE
AMENDMENT?
IS THERE A SECOND?
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, IS THERE
A SECOND?
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS HEARING
NONE
>> MATTA MOSQUEDA , OKAY.
>> THE VOICE AMENDMENT TO
CONSIDER THE CHANGE AS PROPOSED
IN THE CBA ACTION TITLE IN
FRONT OF US AND NOTED BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS HAS BEEN
SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS I WOULD
ASK THAT WE CONSIDER THIS ITEM
IF IT IS GOING TO RELATE
DIRECTLY TO RESERVES IN GROUP
D. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE COUNCIL
TO CONSIDER HOLDING THIS ITEM
UNTIL GROUP D SO COLLEAGUES,
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO
CONSIDER THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND
CONSIDER INCLUDING CBA SDOT-107-
A-001 AS PART OF OUR
CONVERSATION IN GROUP D. THIS
WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
DISCUSSION AFTER THE NEWLY
ADDED NUMBER 199.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION?
HEARING NO OBJECTION, WE WILL
CONSIDER THIS ITEM IN GROUP D
GIVEN THE SECONDED AMENDMENT
THAT RELATES TO THE REVENUE
SOURCE.
THANK YOU COLLEAGUES.
TO BE CONTINUED.
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA , I THINK
THIS NEXT ITEM 199 WAS MOVED TO
D AFTER ITEM, AFTER THE OTHER
SPD ITEM.
>> SHALL WE CONTINUE?
WITH THE NEXT ITEM?
>> ITEM 200 IS CBA SPR-015-A-
001.
THIS WOULD ADD $199,000 GENERAL
FUND TO THREE POSITIONS TO
SEATTLE PARKS RECREATION TO
RESTORE THE USE OF LAURELHURST
IMMUNITY CENTER AND CUT THE
SAME AMOUNT TO ELIMINATE PAY
INCREASES FOR SOME NON-
REPRESENTED EXECUTIVES,
MANAGERS AND STRATEGIC
ADVISORS.
THE 2022 PROPOSED BUDGET ENDS
THE PUBLIC USE OF THE
REFERENCED FACILITY AND IT
WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE FOR
COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO RENT FOR
DISCRETE EVENTS AND PROGRAMS.
THIS AMENDMENT WHICH IS
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSON WOULD RESTORE ITS
COMMUNITY CENTERED USE.
THE STAFF DEVIOUSLY ASSIGNED
THERE HAVE BEEN REASSIGNED TO
OTHER SPR PROGRAMS, IT WOULD
ADD NEW POSITIONS AND THESE
POSITION COSTS WOULD BE OFFSET
BY CUTTING THE AMOUNT THAT IS
CURRENTLY BUDGETED FOR 2022
ANNUAL WAGE INCREASES FOR A
SUBSET OF SPR STAFF.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
COUNCILMEMBER, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO MOVE THE ITEM?
>> YES, COLLEAGUES I WOULD LIKE
TO MOVE ITEM 200 WHICH IS SPR-
015-A-001 .
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, IT HAS
BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND, I WANT TO LEARN MORE
ABOUT IT.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT IS PROPOSING TO
PERMANENTLY CLOSE THE COMMUNITY
CENTER, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS
PROPOSING TO CLOSE THIS
COMMUNITY CENTER AND THEY DID
IT WITH NO ADVANCED NOTICE TO
THE COMMUNITY OR OUTREACH AND I
REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S
SUPPORT FOR THE ADDITION TO THE
PROGRAM IN MAGNESS PARK AS PART
OF OUR EARLIER APPROVAL OF THE
CONSENT PACKAGE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS ASKING THAT
WE RETAIN FOR THE GENERAL
PUBLIC AN EXISTING COMMUNITY
CENTER SO THAT PROGRAMMING CAN
CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED AT A
TIME WHEN ANOTHER COMMUNITY
CENTER IN THE AREA WILL BE
CLOSED FOR MOST OF 2022.
THE PROPOSED CLOSURE OF
$190,000 CUT TO THIS WAS A
SURPRISE TO ME AND TO THE
COMMUNITY.
I THINK WE SHOULD RESTORE IT.
THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IS FROM THE
HIGHEST-PAID NON-REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES IN THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT.
THERE IS AN AD FOR PAY RAISE
FOR THESE NON-REPRESENTED
EXECUTIVES, MANAGERS AND
STRATEGIC ADVISORS.
IT WOULD BE TAKING A PORTION OF
THAT TO PAY FOR KEEPING THE
LAURELHURST IMMUNITY CENTER
OPEN.
>> THANK YOU MEMBER PEDERSON.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING
THAT I AM HAVING TECHNOLOGICAL
PROBLEMS HERE.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON, THANK
YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP AGAIN.
LET ME EXPLAIN WHY PARKS AND
MYSELF WILL BE VOTING NO ON
THIS.
THE AMENDMENT WOULD RESTORE
THAT LOWELL LAURELHURST
COMMUNITY CENTER THAT WAS
ELIMINATED IN THE MAYOR'S
BUDGET.
SEATTLE PARKS AND REC OPERATES
26 COMMUNITY CENTERS.
LAURELHURST IS ONE OF THE
SMALLEST AND IT IS LOCATED
WITHIN THREE MILES OF THREE
OTHER COMMUNITY CENTERS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE AN ATTACHED
GYM.
THEY HOST SOME LIMITED
RECREATION PROGRAMMING AND
SHORT-TERM FACILITY RENTALS.
IT DOES NOT HOST LICENSED
CHILDCARE EITHER OR SHOWERS.
THE RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT
WITH THE AMENDMENT IS EXTREMELY
LOW COMPARED TO THAT OF THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSAL.
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL ELIMINATES
TWO PART-TIME POSITIONS FROM
LAURELHURST COMMUNITY CENTER
AND USES THE RESOURCES TO
ACTIVATE OVER 6000 PARTICIPANTS
CITYWIDE IN THE STREET PROGRAM
COMPARED TO THE LIMITED
PROGRAMMING OF EVENTS AT THE
COMMUNITY CENTER IN LAURELHURST
WHICH HAS AROUND 200
PARTICIPANTS.
AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER IS
CLOSED AND TRANSITIONED INTO A
FULL-TIME RENTAL FACILITY,
SEATTLE PARKS AND REC WILL
CONTINUE TO OFFER SOME
PROGRAMMING AT THE ADJACENT
LAURELHURST ELEMENTARY GYM
FOLLOWING THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED
CHANGE.
I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT
BECAUSE IT WOULD LIMIT THE
POTENTIAL OF THE BUILDING TO BE
USED AS A RENTAL FACILITY
SIMILAR TO THAT OF GOLDEN
GARDENS BATHHOUSE WHICH IS IN
HIGH DEMAND FOR GROUPS LIKE THE
RACK IN THE STREETS PROGRAM.
IT DELIVERS PROGRAMMING IN
PARTNERSHIP USING NEIGHBORHOOD-
BASED DATA AND EQUITY MAPS.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON SINCE 2016.
SO WHEN VOTING AGAINST THIS
AMENDMENT YOU WOULD BE ALLOWING
SEATTLE PARKS AND REC TO
ELIMINATE TWO PART-TIME
POSITIONS AND USE THOSE
RESOURCES TO CREATE CAPACITY
FOR REC IN THE STREETS.
THERE ARE NO LAYOFFS ASSOCIATED
WITH THESE CHANGES.
THE CHANGE IS A NET ZERO
REALLOCATION OF EXISTING
RESOURCES.
I KNOW WE DO THIS A LOT, SO
FOLLOWING IN YOUR FOOTSTEPS
MADAM CHAIR, I DO WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON AND WE
HAD SOME OFF-LINE DISCUSSIONS
ABOUT THE COMMUNITY CENTER AND
ITS POSITION IN THE LAURELHURST
COMMUNITY AND I DO UNDERSTAND
THE IMPORTANCE AND THE NEED OF
COMMUNITY CENTERS BUT I ALSO
WANT TO ADD THAT WE HAVE
REVAMPED WHAT THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT IS IN THE RACIAL AND
SOCIAL JUSTICE EQUITY ANALYSIS
THAT ACCOMPANIES THAT FOR
COMMUNITY CENTERS THAT THEY ARE
USED CITYWIDE AND THE PROGRAMS
ARE CITYWIDE.
WE HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO
INSTILL THAT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT
PIECE IS EXPLAINED COMPLETELY.
IT ISN'T JUST THAT NEIGHBORHOOD
BUT ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
AGAIN, I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT AND
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON TO
DISCUSS ALTERNATIVES,
OPPORTUNITIES WHAT THE FUTURE
COULD LOOK LIKE FOR THE
LAURELHURST COMMUNITY CENTER.
WE HAVE THE SAME THING HAPPEN
WITH THE LAKE CITY COMMUNITY
CENTER WHERE WE DIDN'T GET
TOTAL FUNDING IN WHICH WE WERE
RENTING OUT SPACE TO SOUND
GENERATIONS, BOYS AND GIRLS
CLUB, PARTICULAR EVENTS, WITH
THAT AND I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSON THAT YOU ARE
CONCERNED THAT YOU WERE NOT
TOLD THAT IT WAS GOING TO SHUT
DOWN, I WASN'T EITHER UNTIL I
SAW IT IN THE BUDGET AND HAD A
CHANCE TO TALK TO THE
SUPERINTENDENT AND A CHANCE TO
TALK TO YOU.
WITH THAT, I WILL BE VOTING NO.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
JUST TO CLARIFY IN THE PROPOSED
BUDGET FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSON IS
ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO
ADD?
>> YES, THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THAT. TO CLARIFY,
THIS CUT CAME FROM THE DURKIN
ADMINISTRATION.
THE LAURELHURST IMMUNITY CENTER
IS CONNECTED TO THE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL NEARBY WHICH 45% OF
THOSE STUDENTS ARE BLACK,
INDIGENOUS OR PEOPLE OF COLOR.
31% OF THE STUDENTS ARE LOW
INCOME.
I SUPPORT THE REC IN THE
STREETS.
I DON'T SUPPORT THE HIGHEST-
PAID EXECUTIVES AND PARKS
DEPARTMENT GIVING THEMSELVES A
RAISE WHILE THEY CLOSE A
COMMUNITY CENTER IN MY
DISTRICT.
I DO APPRECIATE THE DOZENS OF
EMAILS WE RECEIVED FROM FOLKS
IN THE COMMUNITY TRYING TO KEEP
THIS OPEN AND WE WILL LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE
NEXT ADMINISTRATION TO SEE WHAT
WE CAN DO TO EXPAND PROGRAMMING
THERE AND PROVIDE THE BEST
POSSIBLE ACCESS AND EQUITY AT
THAT CENTER.
THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL
FOR THE VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
MADAM CLERK WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF
US?
>> PEDERSON?
>> YES.
>> SAWANT?
YES.
STRAUSS?
NO.
GONZALEZ?
NO.
HERBOLD?
YES.
AURAS?
NO.
LOUIS?
YES.
MORALES IS?
NO.
MOSQUE?
NO.
>> BEFORE IN FAVOR, FIVE
OPPOSED.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSON.
THE MOTION FAILS.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
COUNCIL COLLEAGUES WE ARE AT
THE END OF GROUP C. IF MY NOTES
ARE CORRECT.
MY NOTES ARE CORRECT.
WE ARE AT THE END OF GROUP C
AND IT IS 423.
I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION OF
CONTINUING THIS CONVERSATION SO
WE CAN HAVE A WRAPPED UP
DISCUSSION BY THE END OF THE
DAY THAT ALLOWS FOR OUR CENTRAL
STAFF TO BE ABLE TO GET RIGHT
TO WORK WITH FINALIZING THE
PROPOSED BUDGET SO WE CAN BE
READY TO ACT ON MONDAY.
I AM HOPING THAT WE WILL BE
ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE NEXT
SECTION D WITH SOME ROBUST
DISCUSSION, RESPECTFUL
DIALOGUE.
I KNOW THAT WE ARE INTERESTED
IN THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR
COMMITTEE PUT THOSE RESERVES.
WITH THAT IN MIND LET'S GO
AHEAD AND GO ON INTO ITEMS D ON
OUR GROUP LIST HERE.
ALLIE WOULD YOU ADD ANYTHING
ELSE FOR CONTEXT AS WE CONSIDER
GROUP D IN FRONT OF US?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALLIE AND
PATTY.
I DO SEE YOU HAVE PROVIDED A
REVISED LIST IN FRONT OF US SO
WE HAVE ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT
HAVE BEEN MOVED TO GROUP D IN
FRONT OF US FOR THE PURPOSES OF
FOLLOWING THE CONVERSATION.
BOTH FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND
EMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO WALK US
THROUGH THIS?
>> THANK YOU.
THERE ARE SEVERAL AMENDMENTS IN
THIS GROUP.
THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE
PROPOSING TO USE THE FISCAL
RESERVES.
WE ALREADY DESCRIBE THE FIRST
ITEM.
I WILL BE TRACKING ALONG THE
WAY AS EACH AMENDMENT IS BEFORE
YOU IF THEY PASS AT WHICH POINT
WE REACH HAVING OVERSPENT THE
AMOUNT OF FISCAL RESERVES OR
THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT THE
COUNCIL COULD REDUCE THE
CONTRIBUTION TO FISCAL RESERVES
IN 2022.
I WILL BE TRACKING THAT AS WE
GO.
THE FIRST ITEM IN THIS GROUP IF
YOU WANT ME TO JUST JUMP IN?
>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> IT IS ITEM 192 MOVED FROM
GROUP TFG-901-A-001 SOUNDS OLD
-- SPONSORED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
MOSQUE.
THIS WOULD CUT FUNDS FOR A FEMA
CONTINGENCY AND REALLOCATE FOR
GENERAL FUND TO ADDRESS
ADDITIONAL REVENUE SHORTFALL OF
THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX AS
WELL AS RESTORE THE FUNDING FOR
THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE
COMMUNITY SAFETY OFFICER
PROGRAM.
THIS ACTION COMBINED WITH THE
OMNIBUS AMENDMENT WE DISCUSSED
PREVIOUSLY HAS SUPPORTED
CHANGES IN THE BALANCING PACKAGE
TO CONTINUE THE PROPOSED
EXPANSION OF THE COMMUNITY
SAFETY OFFICER PROGRAM IN 2022
TO ADDRESS THE REVENUE
SHORTFALL IN THE FOOD AND
BEVERAGE TAX AND ALSO SUPPORTED
BY SOME OF THE ACTIONS IN THE
OMNIBUS AMENDMENT.
I BELIEVE THAT THERE.
>> I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND
MOVE THE ITEMS SO IT IS IN
FRONT OF US.
I DO HAVE A VERBAL AMENDMENT
THAT I HAVE SENT AROUND EARLIER
THIS MORNING TO MAKE A SMALL
NOTIFICATION BASED ON SOME
CONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH
COMMUNITY PARTNERS AND THE
REALITY OF WHEN TO STAND UP FOR
THAT PROGRAM.
COLLEAGUES, I MOVE TO CONSIDER
FG-901-A-001 . IS THERE A
SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED?
AS ALLIE DESCRIBED THIS INITIAL
AMENDMENT WAS OFFERING THE
ABILITY TO DO A NUMBER OF
THINGS, ONE OF WHICH IS TO MAKE
SURE AS WE HAVE CONTINUED TO
HEAR FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS THERE
HAS BEEN STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER
PROGRAM.
THERE WAS SUPPORT TWO MONTHS
AGO WITH MAKING SURE THEY HAVE
THE FUNDING NEEDED TO FILL 10
VACANT POSITIONS AND I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE IF IT IS MORE
APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO PAUSE TO
SEE IF SOMEONE SHOULD DESCRIBE
THE WALKOUT AMENDMENT AND THEN
I COULD MOVE IT.
WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE?
>> PATTY, IF YOU COULD PUT THE
VERBAL AMENDMENT FOR THIS ITEM
ON THE SCREEN AND I'M GOING TO
ASK MY COLLEAGUE, GREG DAWSON
TO HELP EXPLAIN THIS ONE.
BUT I CAN PROVIDE THE INITIAL
OVERVIEW.
IN GENERAL, THIS WOULD CHANGE
THE PROPOSED REDUCTION FROM THE
FEMA CONTINGENCY TO 1.6 MILLION
AND IT WOULD ASSUME DELAYED OR
STAGGERED HIRING DATES FOR THE
PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE
COMMUNITY SAFETY OFFICER
PROGRAMS.
IT WOULD PROVIDE ABOUT $900,000
FUNDING IN 2022 FOR THE
COMMUNITY SAFETY OFFICER
PROGRAM WHICH IS ABOUT $400,000
LESS THAN WHAT WAS PROPOSED AND
WOULD RETAIN SOME FUNDING AS A
FEMA CONTINGENCY SHOULD SOME OF
THE EXPENDITURES THAT THE CITY
HAS BEEN UNDERTAKING NOT BE
REIMBURSED.
> WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO ADD TO
THAT IS THAT THE REDUCTION IN
THE COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER
FUNDING, YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR
THAT IT WAS PROPOSED IN THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED 2022 BUDGET,
THE $400,000 REDUCTION WOULD
ASSUME THAT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE SOME WAY
OF GETTING THE FOLKS ON BOARD
THROUGH THE HIRING PROCESS.
THE FOLKS WOULD BE COMING IN
STAGGERED TOWARD THE SECOND
QUARTER.
AND THROUGH THE SUMMER AND THE
$400,000 ADJUSTMENT IS THIS
SALARY ADJUSTMENT UNDER THOSE
ASSUMPTIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT
ADJUSTMENT AND THE SLIGHT
REDUCTION, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MY VERBAL AMENDMENT TO FG-901-A-
001 IS TO INSTEAD OF TWO, WE
WOULD REDUCE THE CLFR FUNDS AND
REALLOCATED FOR GENERAL FUND
AND THE SUITE AND BEVERAGE
REPLACEMENT TAX AND PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR SALARIES AND
VEHICLES FOR THE STAGGERED
EXPANSION STARTING IN QUARTER
TWO OF THE COMMUNITY SAFETY
OFFICER PROGRAM.
úTHAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE
SCALING UP AND EXPANSION OF THE
PROGRAM AS ORIGINALLY
SUGGESTED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COLLEAGUES, APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS VERBAL
AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF YOU.
IT DOES A NUMBER OF THINGS SO I
WANT TO POINT OUT THE
IMPORTANCE OF HAVING BEEN ABLE
TO OFFER STABILITY AND FUNDING
BACK TO THE SUGAR AND BEVERAGE
TAX. IN ORDER FOR US TO RESPOND
TO THE SHARP DECREASE IN
REVENUES THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED
BECAUSE OF COVID AND FEWER
PEOPLE EATING OUT AND ORDERING
SODAS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE RESPONDED
SO THE PROGRAMS THEY ARE
SERVING AND THE ASSISTANCE THEY
ARE OFFERING DOES NOT SEE A
RAPID DECLINE.
WE DID NOT WANT TO REDUCE ANY
FUNDING FOR THE SUGARY SWEET
BEVERAGE TAX.
WE WANTED TO WORK WITH
TEAMSTERS 117 AND IDENTIFY WAYS
TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL SIX FTE'S.
THESE ARE LARGELY BEING FILLED
BY INDIVIDUALS COMING FROM
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR WHO HAVE
MORE TRUST AND MORE
OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE WITH
THE COMMUNITY WITH NOT HAVING A
GUN IN HAND AND THAT ALLOWS FOR
US TO CREATE MORE TRUSTING
ENGAGEMENT AND AS WE SAID
BEFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL COULD
REALLY WORK TO PRIORITIZE
GETTING THE SCL UP IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
OUR VICE CHAIR IS LEADING THAT
EFFORT.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK TO
HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHERE
THE BEST PLACE IS TO HOUSE THE
CSO'S.
I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HAVE
A COMMUNITY ORIENTED HOUSE OR
DEPARTMENT FOR THEM IN THE
FUTURE BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT
THIS CONVERSATION IS ABOUT
TODAY.
IT IS ABOUT MAKING SURE WE ARE
ALLOWING FOR THIS TO BE STOOD
UP AND EXPAND THOSE SERVICES
BEGINNING IN QUARTER TWO AND I
APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU ALL
HAVE DONE IN THE PAST SO WE CAN
BUILD ON THIS.
THANK YOU TWO TEAMSTERS 117 FOR
THEIR CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS
AMENDMENT AND SUPPORT.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, GO
AHEAD.
>> I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE
BASE MOTION BUT FIRST, BECAUSE
WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT BEFORE US
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE
AMENDMENT.
CAN I ASK THAT?
>> PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> AS IT RELATES TO THE
AMENDMENT I AM CURIOUS AS TO
THE AMOUNT BEING $400,000 IN
THIS CASE.
BACK WHEN WE WERE AMENDING THE
MAYOR'S BUDGET AS OPPOSED TO
MAKING CHANGES TO MADAME CHAIRS
BALANCING PACKAGE, I HAD AN
AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED FUNDING FOR
THE CSO EXPANSION ALLOWING THAT
TO MOVE FORWARD BUT PROVIDES A
WING DOLLARS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE GAP IN TIME THAT WAS
ESTIMATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT
BE ABLE TO HIRE FOR IN 2022.
THIS PARTICULAR ACTION CUT
400,000.
I WAS INSTRUCTED IF I WANTED TO
DO THE SAME THING THAT YOU ARE
DOING WITH YOUR REDUCTION, IF I
WANTED TO PROVISO THE FUNDS
THAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AT THE
TIME WAS $200,000.
I AM JUST WONDERING WHY THAT
NUMBER HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST
COUPLE OF WEEKS.
>> THAT IS BECAUSE THE
ASSUMPTIONS ARE DIFFERENT.
THE ASSUMPTIONS WERE THAT IT
WAS GOING TO BE THE END OF THE
FIRST QUARTER THAT YOU WOULD
HAVE ALL OF THE MEMBERS ON
BOARD AND THAT WOULD BE EQUAL
TO 200,000 AND THE ASSUMPTIONS
BEHIND THIS ONE ARE AND OF
SECOND QUARTER WITH 400,000.
>> OKAY.
>> BY ALLOWING FOR THAT
STAGGERING, THEY PROBABLY WON'T
COME ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
SOME COME MIDWAY THROUGH
QUARTER TO AND SOME AT THE END
AND SOME AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE NEXT QUARTER, THEN THE
STAGGERED OPPORTUNITY ALLOWS
FOR THE FUNDING TO BE THERE
WHEN THEY DO COME.
I ALSO WOULD SAY WE ARE NOT
PUTTING ANY PROVISOS ON THE
LANGUAGE AS YOU CURRENTLY SEE
SO THEY WILL BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE TO HIRE.
WE HOPE THEY CAN HIRE AT A
FASTER RATE.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO ADJUST IF
THERE IS ADDITIONAL FUNDING
NEEDED.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT FORWARD
HERE AND JUST EXPRESS MY
GRATITUDE FOR BEING ABLE TO
WORK WITH YOU IN BRINGING THIS
TO BE HERE TODAY.
I HAD PREPARED A SIMILAR BUT
DIFFERENT CBA EFFECTUATING A
SIMILAR RESULT AND WITHDREW IT
IN ANTICIPATION OF SUPPORTING
THIS AMENDMENT TODAY.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
DO SO AND APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS I SHOULD
HAVE NOTED THAT YOU AND
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD , SIMILAR
INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THIS IS
ADDRESSED.
I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS
THERE AND THE WORK ON THE
AMENDMENT THAT YOU HAD
INITIALLY SUBMITTED FOR THE CBA
AND COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD FOR
YOUR INITIAL AMENDMENT FROM
THE GET-GO.
I DO WANT TO NOTE A NOTE OF
APPRECIATION AS WELL THAT WE
RECEIVED FROM TEAMSTERS 117 AND
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE AMENDMENT
AS AMENDED AS WELL.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS ON THE AMENDMENT TO
THE AMENDMENT?
OKAY, HEARING NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS, MADAM CLERK WILL YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE ON THE
VERBAL AMENDMENT MADE TO FG-901-
A-001?
>> PEDERSON?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> SAWANT?
YES.
>> STRAUSS?
YES.
GONZALEZ?
YES.
HERBOLD?
YES.
WHERE IS?
YES.
LEWIS?
YES.
MORALES?
YES.
CHAIR MOSQUE?
YES.
>> EIGHT IN FAVOR, ONE
ABSTENTION, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THE VERBAL AMENDMENT TO FG-
901-A-001 IS ADOPTED.
WE NOW HAVE THE AMENDED
AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> JUST REALLY QUICKLY I WANT
TO RECOGNIZE THAT IN THE
EARLIER ROUNDS OF THE BUDGET
DISCUSSIONS I HAD A DRAFT
AMENDMENT THAT I DIDN'T END UP
BRINGING FORWARD THAT WOULD
HAVE MOVED THE CSO'S INTO THE
NEW COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER.
I HAD MET WITH TEAMSTERS AND
REPRESENTED CSO'S AND LEARNED
FROM THEM THAT THEY WERE READY
TO MAKE THAT MOVE.
I ASSURED THEM THAT I DID NOT
BELIEVE THAT THE FACT THAT THEY
WEREN'T READY TO MAKE THE MOVE
WOULD NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR THEIR
EXPANSION.
SO I AM REALLY APPRECIATIVE OF
MADAME CHAIRS ACTION HERE TODAY
IN JUST ALLOWING MY ANTICIPATED
REACTION FROM MY COLLEAGUES TO
THE EFFECT THAT THEY WEREN'T
READY TO MOVE TO BE THE ACTION
OF RECORD THAT WE END UP TAKING
TODAY.
I WAS FEELING BAD WHEN IT
WASN'T IN THE CHAIRS PACKAGE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE CORRECTING
THAT HERE.
THE CSO'S ARE VERY SUPPORTED IN
THE COMMUNITY.
AND REALLY WANT TO WORK WITH
THEM IN EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO
TO REPRESENT IMMUNITY SAFETY IN
OUR CITY.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
APPRECIATE THAT.
LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
YOU ON THOSE FUTURE
CONVERSATIONS, TOO.
OKAY, IF THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS MADAM
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
AMENDED VERSION OF FG-901-A-001
.
>> PEDERSON?
>> ABSTAIN.
>> SAWANT?
YES.
STRAUSS?
YES.
GONZALEZ?
YES.
HERBOLD?
YES.
WHERE IS?
LEWIS?
YES.
MORALES?
YES.
CHAIR MOSQUE?
YES.
>> EIGHT IN FAVOR, ONE
ABSTENTION,.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES ON THE
AMENDED AMENDMENT THAT IS
ADOPTED.
I BELIEVE THAT PUTS US AT
NUMBER 201 IN VOTING GROUP D.
APOLOGIES.
>> I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE
AN OVERVIEW OF THIS BLOCK OF
SPD AMENDMENTS SO I'M GOING TO
DO A QUICK OVERVIEW HERE.
WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO ABOUT
FOUR AMENDMENTS, ACTUALLY THREE
AMENDMENTS BRIEFLY.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER
WALK ON PROVISO THAT IS A
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON WALK ON
THAT IS TIED TO SOME OF HIS
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE COMING
UP.
WE WILL ONLY REACH THAT ONE IS
SOME OF HIS AMENDMENTS PASSED.
EACH OF THESE AMENDMENTS IS
SEQUENCED AND DESIGNED TO WORK
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT PASSED IN GROUP
A. SO AS THE AMENDMENTS IN
GROUP A PASS PARTICULAR CUTS TO
SPD THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD
RESTORE THOSE CUTS AND ADD THEM
BACK.
THEY WOULD ADD THEM BACK
DEPENDING ON THE PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT.
SOME PARTIALLY OR SOME WHOLE
AND WE WILL BE GOING INTO EACH
ONE TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
AS WE PROGRESS THROUGH THE
LIST, THE EARLIER AMENDMENTS
WILL AFFECT THE LATER
AMENDMENTS.
SO, THAT IS SOMETHING ALLIE
WILL BE KEEPING TRACK OF BOTH
FROM A USE OF FISCAL RESERVES
STANDPOINT AND I WILL BE
KEEPING TRACK OF AS TO THE
RELEVANCE OF WHETHER WE NEED TO
REACH THE LATER AMENDMENTS.
JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT AS
AN OVERVIEW AND THEN GO AHEAD
AND JUMP INTO THE NEXT ITEM
WHICH IS 201.
SO, THIS ITEM IS AN OMNIBUS
AMENDMENT THAT AT A VERY HIGH
LEVEL RESTORES NEARLY ALL OF
THE CUTS MADE TO THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CUTS THAT
ARE MADE TO THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT IN THE SHERIFF'S
BUDGET IS ABOUT $10.8 MILLION.
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WOULD
RESTORE $10 MILLION.
THERE IS IN THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT ABOUT $850,000 OF
SALARY SAVINGS THAT BOTH THE
DEPARTMENT AND THE COUNCIL
ACKNOWLEDGE IS UNPROGRAMMED AT
THIS POINT.
AS PD 006, THE CBA CUTS 850,000
SO THAT IS ACKNOWLEDGED A
SALARY SAVINGS.
THAT PIECE PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE
CAPTURED HERE BUT EVERY OTHER
CBA AND EVERY OTHER CUT TO THE
TUNE OF $10 MILLION WOULD BE
CAPTURED BY THE CBA.
I WILL DO A QUICK RUN THROUGH
OF ALL OF THE COMPONENTS WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT HERE.
THE FIRST ONE WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT IS THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT
THE CHAIRS BUDGET MAKES A ROUND
HIRING.
AS YOU WILL RECALL IT MAKES
SOME DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS
ABOUT HIRING FROM THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BUDGET.
THE PROPOSED BUDGET BELIEVES
THERE ARE ONLY GOING TO BE 94
SEPARATIONS AND THE CHAIRS
BUDGET BELIEVES THERE ARE GOING
TO BE 125 SEPARATIONS.
125 SEPARATIONS CONSIST OF TWO
PARTS.
THE FIRST BEING 12 COVID
RELATED SEPARATIONS THAT WILL
HAPPEN IN JANUARY.
AND THE REST BEING A HIRING
SEPARATION PLAN OR SEPARATION
PLAN THAT WOULD MORE OR LESS
EQUAL 113 SEPARATIONS.
THE SAME THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR
IN THE COUNCIL SEPARATION PLAN.
YOU PUT THOSE TWO THINGS
TOGETHER AND IT WILL ALLOW THE
COUNCIL TO CUT $2.7 MILLION.
THIS PACKAGE WOULD RESTORE THAT
$2.7 MILLION.
THIS PACKAGE WOULD ALSO RESTORE
THE $1.3 MILLION FOR PERSONNEL
COSTS AND VEHICLES FOR CSO'S.
GIVEN YOUR ACTIONS ON THE LAST
AMENDMENT, THIS WOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT IF YOU ARE
CONSIDERING THIS AMENDMENT
EITHER THE SPONSOR OR ANOTHER
COUNCILMEMBER MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER A VERBAL AMENDMENT TO
TAKE THAT PIECE OUT OTHERWISE
YOU WOULD BE DOUBLE FUNDING THE
CSO'S.
THIS PARTICULAR ACTION WOULD
ALSO REVERSE THE OVERTIME CUT.
AS YOU WILL RECALL THERE ARE
$7.8 MILLION OF NEW OVERTIME
FUNDING IN THE BUDGET.
AND CBA 006 CUTS 3.2 MILLION.
THIS PARTICULAR ACTION WOULD
RESTORE THAT ENTIRE 3.2
MILLION.
THERE IS IN THE CHAIRS BUDGET
$475,000 OF ADMINISTRATIVE
CUTS.
THAT BREAKS OUT INTO $300,000
OF DISCRETIONARY PURCHASE CUTS
AND $175,000 TRAVEL AND
TRAINING CUTS RESPECTIVELY.
THOSE AGAIN ARE IN THE BILL AND
WOULD BE RESTORED IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
THERE IS ALSO IN THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BUDGET $5 MILLION FOR
TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS.
THE CHAIRS BUDGET WOULD CUT
1.24 MILLION OF THOSE
TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS AND TWO
PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY THAT WE
HAVE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST.
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WOULD
RESTORE THOSE TWO PROJECTS.
AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ADDED
TOGETHER COME TO $10 MILLION.
AND THEY WOULD BE FUNDED BY THE
REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE
IMPORTANT FOR US TO PUT THE
CHART BACK ON THE SCREEN THAT
YOU WALK-THROUGH ON FRIDAY.
WE DID USE THE WORD CUT AGAIN
AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE
CHANGE OUR LANGUAGE FOR NEXT
YEAR.
THESE ARE REDUCED INCREASES IN
SOME CASES.
A REDUCED INCREASED OVER TIME.
A REDUCED INCREAS TO
TECHNOLOGY.
AND WE HAVE MAINTAINED FUNDING
FOR CERTAIN AREAS LIKE TRAVEL
AND TRAINING.
WE HAVE MAINTAINED THE
INVESTMENT AMOUNTS IN THE
MAYOR'S BUDGET IN A NUMBER OF
PLACES.
I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PULL UP THAT
CHART OR IF WE NEED ANOTHER FEW
MINUTES.
COULD YOU OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION ABOUT THE USE OF
THE TERM CUT AS IT RELATES TO
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED PACKAGE
AND OFFER THAT CLARIFICATION
THAT WE HEARD SO CLEARLY LAST
FRIDAY?
>> HAPPY TO DO SO.
THE BIG PICTURE HERE AGAIN IS
THAT THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED
BUDGET DID TWO THINGS.
IT RESTORED SOME BASELINE CUTS
THAT WERE MADE BY THE COUNCIL
LAST YEAR AND IT ALSO REFUNDED,
OR FUNDED 134 VACANT POLICE
POSITIONS THAT CANNOT BE
FILLED, NOT EVEN UNDER THE
EXECUTIVES PROPOSED HIRING
PLAN.
SO WHAT THAT DID IS IT CREATED
$19 MILLION OF SALARY SAVINGS
IN THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT $19
MILLION OF SALARY SAVINGS IS
REDISTRIBUTED ALONG WITH THE
BASELINE ADS REDISTRIBUTED
TOWARDS A NUMBER OF THESE AREAS
THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT.
SO, IT IS THE CASE THAT THOSE
REDISTRIBUTIONS OF THAT MONEY,
OF THAT SALARY FUNDING, IT IS
THE CASE THAT IT IS A CUT FROM
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET BUT
IT IS IN ACTUALITY REDIRECTED
SALARY FUNDING THAT PROBABLY
SHOULD HAVE IN THE BASELINE
PROCESS GONE BACK INTO THE
GENERAL FUND AND SOME OF THESE
ITEMS LIKE SAY THE TECHNOLOGY
ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPOSED
TO THE COUNCIL AS THEIR OWN
DISTINCT NEW ITEMS.
SO, IT IS NOT SO MUCH MAKING A
CUT AS IT IS CHOOSING TO NOT
MAKE AN AD.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE WILL TAKE QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE OVERVIEW OF THOSE THREE YOU
NOTED.
BECAUSE YOU DID NOTE THE 134
VACANT POSITIONS THAT THE
MAYOR'S BUDGET CONTINUES TO
ASSUME EVEN IF THEY ARE
REDIRECTING THE USE OF THOSE
DOLLARS FOR ONE-TIME PURPOSES
BY HAVING THOSE VACANT
POSITIONS REPEATEDLY THERE, WE
ALLOW FOR NEAR $20 MILLION TO
CARRY OVER YOUR FROM YOUR.
WOULD YOU MIND IN YOUR SUMMARY
HERE VERY BRIEFLY TOUCHING ON
AMENDMENT NUMBER 199 WHICH WILL
TRAIL THOSE THREE THAT YOU
SUMMARIZED?
>> AMENDMENT NUMBER 199.
>> IS THAT THE ABROGATION OF
THE 101 POSITIONS?
>> THAT IS AN AMENDMENT THAT IS
BROUGHT BY COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ AND COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES AS A COSPONSOR AND THAT
IS AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
ABROGATE 101 POSITIONS AND BY
ABROGATING THOSE 101 POSITIONS
IT WOULD IN FUTURE BUDGET YEARS,
IT WOULD MAKE IT TECHNICALLY
NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE EXECUTIVE
TO SEND OVER A BUDGET THAT WAS
FUNDING THE POSITIONS AND THEN
MOVING THAT MONEY ELSEWHERE FOR
OTHER THINGS.
>> THANK YOU.
WE WILL GET MORE DETAILS ON ALL
OF THESE.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, I SEE
YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP.
BEFORE WE CONSIDER ANY
AMENDMENTS, WE ARE STARTING
WITH NUMBER 201.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS FOR GREG ON THIS
MACRO PERSPECTIVE?
GO AHEAD AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
NOTING WHAT GREG SAID, IT
BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT
THE CSO'S ARE PART OF THIS
AMENDMENT AS WELL AS SOME OF
THE OTHER ASPECTS.
THERE IS AN AMENDMENT FROM
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS TO ASSUME
EXECUTIVES STAFFING PLAN
SEPARATIONS AND THEN COUNCIL
MEMBERS HERBOLD CONSIDERING
HIRING INCENTIVES.
MY REQUEST HERE IS IF WE CAN
PUT D1 AND G2 AT THE END OF THE
LIST.
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THESE
OTHER BILLS ON THE TABLE RIGHT
NOW.
AND I THINK THAT THE OUTCOME OF
THOSE BILLS WILL INFLUENCE MY
DECISION ABOUT D1 AND D2.
>> PROCESS WISE THERE HAS BEEN
A REQUEST TO INCLUDE ITEM D1
AND D2 AT THE END.
SO I BELIEVE THAT WOULD MEAN
AFTER NUMBER 198.
HEARING NO OBJECTION TO MOVING
D1, IF YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION
PLEASE SAY OBJECTION BECAUSE
THERE ARE A FEW HANDS UP THAT I
THINK ARE IN THE QUEUE.
>> I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT.
>> I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT AS
WELL.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GOT
THROUGH THE PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
THERE.
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS WE WILL
CONTINUE WITH THE ITEMS AS
LISTED ON THE SHEET.
WE WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GET TO
EVERYONE.
ALL RIGHT, I APPRECIATE THE
OVERVIEW.
WE HAVE THREE HANDS FOR
QUESTIONS AND I WANT TO MAKE
SURE WE GET INTO THE HEART OF
EACH OF THESE ITEMS.
IF YOU HAVE ANY CLARIFYING
QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE
WE CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL
AMENDMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS YOUR HAND
WAS UP FIRST.
>> JUST REALLY QUICKLY, GREG
CAN YOU REMIND EVERYONE WHAT
THE TWO TECHNOLOGY ADDS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA DECLINED
TO INCORPORATE IN THE PACKAGE
AS AN AD WERE?
>> SURE.
THERE WAS ONE CALLED THE ACTIVE
WORKFORCE WELLNESS MANAGEMENT
AND IT WAS FOR ABOUT A HALF
MILLION DOLLARS.
IT WAS ONE THAT WOULD PURCHASE
BIOMEDICAL DEVICES AND SOFTWARE
THAT WOULD MEASURE
PHYSIOLOGICAL INDICATORS,
MEANING HEART RATE,
RESPIRATIONS, SKIN RESPONSES OF
STRESS AND NERVOUS SYSTEM
RESPONSES THAT POLICE OFFICERS
MIGHT GIVE OFF AS THEY WERE
HEADING TO CALLS AND LISTENING
TO LIVE 911 COMING OVER THE
SPEAKERS FROM DISPATCHERS OR
JUST IN GENERAL AS THEY WERE
HEADING TO THE CALLS TO BE ABLE
TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THERE
WOULD BE NEGATIVE REACTIONS
FROM LISTENING TO LIVE 911.
AND THE OTHER ONE WAS CALLED
THE EQUITY ACCOUNTABILITY AND
QUALITY FORUM AND SOFTWARE.
THE IDEA THERE WAS THAT
SOFTWARE WOULD BE PURCHASED
THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THE
BODY WORN CAMERA VIDEO AND
SPECIFICALLY THE AUDIO THAT
THOSE DEVICES ARE CAPTURING AND
TRANSCRIBE IT INTO WRITTEN
DOCUMENTS AND THEN SOFTWARE
WOULD BE ABLE TO ANALYZE THOSE
DOCUMENTS FOR VARIOUS KINDS OF
DISPARITY OR OTHER KINDS OF
DISPROPORTIONALITY IN POLICING
AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING
THAT WOULD BE DONE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE OIG AND
THAT IS A PROJECT THAT WOULD
COST $740,000.
THOSE TWO PARTICULAR PROJECTS
ARE NOT FUNDED IN THE CHAIRS
PACKAGE AND THEY TOGETHER COST
1.2 MILLION.
>> THANK YOU.
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
GO AHEAD.
>> NOT A CLARIFYING QUESTION
BUT MORE A STATEMENT AROUND ALL
OF THE ITEMS.
SO I DON'T NEED TO TALK ON EACH
ONE OF THEM.
JUST AN OVERARCHING POINT ON
ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT RELY ON
THE USE OF PHYSICAL RESERVES.
EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THOSE ARE
ITEMS I HAVE SUPPORTED AND
COSPONSORED IN EARLIER ROUNDS,
BUT I JUST FEEL VERY STRONGLY
THAT I WANT TO SUPPORT THE
DIRECTION FROM THE CHAIR AND
WHAT WE HAVE ALSO HEARD FROM
CENTRAL STAFF AND OUR BUDGET
DIRECTOR, DOCTOR NOBLE.
THE MOST RECENT REVENUE
FORECASTS RAISED A NOTE OF
CAUTION ABOUT 2022 REVENUES
WITH THE CONTINUING IMPACT OF
COVID PANDEMIC REGARDING
PAYROLL TAX REVENUES AND
COMMERCIAL PARKING TAX.
WE ALSO FACE THE RISK OF THE
CHAMBER'S LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
JUMPSTART PAYROLL TAX WHICH IS
ON APPEAL AND COULD BLOW A $200
MILLION HOLE IN THE 2022 BUDGET
AND LEAVE THE 2021.BUDGET OUT
OF BALANCE AS WELL.
CONSEQUENTLY, ALL OF THE ITEMS
IN GROUP D THAT RELY ON THE USE
OF THESE RESERVES, I WILL NOT
BE SUPPORTING.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, I
APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS AND
THANK YOU FOR SUMMARIZING SOSA
STINK LATE THE CONCERNS THAT
THE CITY FACES FROM A
FORECASTING PERSPECTIVE AND
YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE
MAINTENANCE OF THE RESERVES.
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSON .
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR MACRO
COMMENTS?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUEDA AND
I APPRECIATE GREG'S VERY
THOROUGH OVERVIEW OF ALL OF
THESE.
JUST A HEADS UP, IN TERMS OF
THE COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS,
REALLY APPRECIATE THE CHAIR AND
HER WORK FOR RESTORING AND
MAINTAINING THE EXPANSION OF
THAT PROGRAM SO THERE WOULD BE
AN AMENDMENT I WOULD BE MAKING
TO BOTH 201 AND 202 TWO NOT
DOUBLE COUNT COMMUNITY OFFICER
PROGRAMS SO THOSE AMOUNTS WOULD
BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY IN THE
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT AND
THERE WOULD ALSO BE A PROVISO
ON THE OVERTIME FOR BOTH OF
THOSE AMENDMENTS FOR 201 AND
202.
THERE WILL BE A SOMEWHAT
COMPLICATED MOTION THAT I WOULD
BE MAKING AND I WANTED TO GIVE
A HEADS UP SINCE WE WERE
STARTING WITH THE $10 MILLION
ACTION AND 8.7 MILLION BECAUSE
THE 1.3 OF THE COMMUNITY
SERVICE OFFICERS IS ALREADY
ELSEWHERE IN THE BUDGET.
THANK YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES, I'M NOT SEEING
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR
GREG ON THE OVERALL CONCEPTS
AND ISSUES HE HAS RAISED SO
LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET INTO
THIS.
WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US D1
NUMBER 201.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE IT FOR
CONSIDERATION?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR.
I AM GOING TO MOVE IT INCLUDING
THOSE ADJUSTMENTS THAT I JUST
MENTIONED.
AND THE CLERK CAN TELL ME IF I
DID IT CORRECTLY HERE.
SO, I MOVE TO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON,
LET'S MOVE THE BILL AS IT IS
LISTED ON THE AGENDA AND IF
THERE IS A SECOND THEN YOU CAN
WORK TO INCLUDE YOUR VERBAL
AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ITEM SPD-
015-A-001-2022 ON TODAY'S
AGENDA .
>> SECOND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON, YOU
ARE WELCOME TO NOW IF YOU LIKE
MAKE THE MOTION FOR ONE MINUTE.
>> NOW I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO
AMEND SPD-015-A-001-2022 AS
FOLLOWS.
SUBSTITUTING THE COUNCIL BUDGET
ACTION TITLE TO READ AS FOLLOWS
TO ADD 8.7 MILLION GENERAL FUND
TO RESTORE THE CUTS AND RESTORE
HE REDUCTIONS IN THE CH
BALANCING PACKAGE AND TO REDUCE
OR CUT 8.7 MILLION TO THE
GENERAL STABILIZATION FUND AND
PROVISO 3.2 MILLION GENERAL FUND
IN SPD FOR OVERTIME.
THIS IS DOING TWO THINGS.
THIS IS REDUCING THE AMOUNT
BECAUSE COMMUNITY SERVICE
OFFICERS ARE ALREADY COVERED
ELSEWHERE.
THANK YOU CHAIR FOR THAT.
AND IT PROVISOS 3.2 MILLION
PORTION OF THE OVERTIME AS PART
OF THIS AMENDMENT.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
GREG, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING COMMENTS?
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE
PROVISO COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON
IS ACTUALLY A SEPARATE ACTION .
I WILL ASK ALLIE TO CONFIRM
THIS FOR ME, BUT I THINK IN
THIS ACTION YOU ARE JUST
AMENDING THE DOLLARS TO TAKE
OUT THE CSO SO THEY ARE NOT
DOUBLE FUNDED.
AND WHEN YOU REACH YOUR PROVISO
YOU WOULD CHANGE THE DOLLAR
AMOUNT DEPENDING ON WHETHER SPD-
015-A-001-2022 OR SPD-016-A-001-
2022 PASSES.
>> EXCUSE ME, GREG, I THINK THE
MOTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSON JUST MADE ESSENTIALLY
MOVED HIS PROPOSED WALK-ON INTO
THIS VERBAL AMENDMENT.
SO, IF THAT PASSES, IF THESE
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT
PASSES, THE WALK-ON AMENDMENT
AND THE OVERALL ACTION PASSES,
THE WALK-ON AMENDMENT WOULD BE
REMOVED FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
SO THEN THE WALK-ON IS NOW PART
OF THIS AS WELL?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY COLLEAGUES WE HAVE THE
AMENDED VERSION OF SPD-015-A-
001-2022 IN FRONT OF US.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON YOU
OFFERED A SUMMARY WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CONTINUE TO ADD TO YOUR
COMMENTS?
>> YES.
I DIDN'T KNOW, DO I NEED A
SECOND FOR THAT AMENDMENT?
>> I BELIEVE YOU RECEIVED ONE
FROM COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> I SURE DID, THANK YOU.
I WILL TURN IT BACK TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
I KNOW AS WE GET INTO THIS
ISSUE, I JUST WANT TO THANK THE
CHAIR FOR HER INCLUSIVENESS IN
THE BUDGET PROCESS AND THE
COLLABORATION AND TO REMIND THE
VIEWING PUBLIC OF HOW MUCH WE
HAVE AGREED ON TODAY AND THE
UNITY ON SO MANY IMPORTANT
ISSUES.
AND THIS ISSUE IS ALWAYS A
TOUGH ONE FOR THE COUNCIL.
BUT IT IS WORTH THE DISCUSSION
AND THE DEBATE.
SO, I APPRECIATE THE GRACE AND
PUTTING FORWARD THIS AMENDMENT.
I WILL EXPLAIN IT NOW.
SO, WE HAVE VARIOUS OPTIONS
BEFORE US TODAY ON HOW TO
ADDRESS THE MAYOR'S BUDGET
REQUEST FOR SEATTLE'S POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
AND THIS FIRST OPTION WOULD
ESSENTIALLY RESTORE THE MAYOR'S
ORIGINAL REQUEST.
I APPRECIATE CHAIR MOSQUEDA
ELSEWHERE IN THE BUDGET MAKING
SURE WE DO CONTINUE TO EXPAND
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER
PROGRAM HENCE THE CHANGE IN THE
AMOUNT HERE TO BE .7 MILLION
FOR THE RESTORATION.
AGAIN, THIS ESSENTIALLY IS
TRYING TO RESTORE WHAT THE
MAYOR HAD ORIGINALLY REQUESTED
THE POLICE CHIEF DIAZ
REITERATED THERE RATIONALE FOR
EACH OF THE ITEMS REQUESTED IN
THE BUDGET.
AND THE INCOMING MAYOR HAS ALSO
PUBLICLY TALKED ABOUT
PRESERVING THESE RESOURCES FOR
THE DEPARTMENT IN 2022.
THE MAYOR HAS PROPOSED AN
OVERALL BUDGET OF 365 MILLION
WHICH WAS AN INCREASE OF ABOUT
3 MILLION OVER THE 2021 ADOPTED
BUDGET OF 362 MILLION.
THE VARIOUS BUDGET REDUCTIONS
ALREADY IN PLAY WOULD REDUCE
THE MAYOR'S REQUEST BY NINE OR
10 MILLION.
WE COULD CERTAINLY DISSECT EACH
LINE ITEM FURTHER.
BUT THE THEME IS TO HONOR THE
EXECUTIVES TOTAL REQUEST.
THE GOAL IN MY MIND IS TO SEND
A POSITIVE MESSAGE TO THE CITY
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN
UNIFORM, OFFICERS AND
DETECTIVES WHO REMAIN COMMITTED
TO SEATTLE KNOWING THAT WE HAVE
MUCH WORK TO DO ON POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES.
I BELIEVE THAT HONORING THE
ORIGINAL BUDGET REQUEST FROM
THE EXECUTIVE TO HELP RETAIN
OFFICERS AFTER SEATTLE HAS
ALREADY EXPERIENCED A NET LOSS
OF 200 OFFICERS AND 100 HAS
SINCE BEEN HIRED.
I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF
INTEREST POTENTIALLY IN THE
NEXT ITEMS SUCH AS ITEMS 202
AND 203 ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THIS
POINT ON THE PARTICULAR
AMENDMENT.
AGAIN, I BELIEVE THE ISSUE OF
HOW WE ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY IS AN ISSUE OF
TIMING.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE
ALTERNATIVE SCALE AT FIRST AND
I BELIEVE WE NEED TO HAVE A
POLICE CONTRACT REVAMPED.
I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS
PROPOSAL WOULD TAP THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUND, NOT THE
EMERGENCY FUND.
THE AMENDMENT LEAVES INTACT THE
EMERGENCY FUND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT.
ONE SECOND PLEASE.
ALLIE DID YOU HAVE A CLARIFYING
COMMENT YOU WOULD LIKE TO
OFFER?
>> I JUST WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE
TO READ THE PROVISO INTO THE
RECORD SO IT IS CLEAR FOR THE
PUBLIC WHAT THE PROVISO DOES AS
PART OF THE CONVERSATION IF
THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
>> GO AHEAD.
>> SO WHAT IS ON THE SCREEN IN
FRONT OF YOU IS THE WALK-ON
AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSON DISTRIBUTED BEFORE
5:00 YESTERDAY THAT HE JUST
VERBALLY INCLUDED IN THIS
AMENDMENT WITH A SLIGHT
MODIFICATION IN TERMS OF THE
AMOUNT.
WHAT THE PROVISO WOULD DO IS
SAY OF THE APPROPRIATION IN THE
2022 BUDGET FOR THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT SPECIAL
OPERATIONS BUDGET SUMMARY
LEVEL, 3.2 MILLION MAY NOT BE
SPENT UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY A
FUTURE ORDINANCE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
IS CLEAR ON WHAT THE
RESTRICTION WOULD BE, WHAT
RESTRICTION WOULD BE IMPOSED BY
THIS SECTION.
>> THANK YOU FOR WAITING.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I KNOW WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT AND
THE AMENDMENT ITSELF.
I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THE
OVERALL BUDGET AMENDMENT BUT I
BELIEVE WE WILL BE DOING AND
AMENDMENT VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT
TO THE AMENDMENT AND I WILL BE
VOTING YES ON THAT.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY TWO
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT
REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTS OF
THAT VOTE, I WILL BE VOTING NO
ON THE OVERALL AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> BECAUSE OF THE TECHNICAL
NATURE OF THE REDUCTION IN THE
AMOUNT, IS THAT CORRECT IS THAT
WHAT YOU ARE SLAGGING?
>> YES.
>> IT IS A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
>>
>> ALLIE, I SEE YOUR HAND.
YOU HAVE A CLARIFYING COMMENT?
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> FOLLOWING ON COUNCIL MEMBERS
SO ONCE COMMENTS JUST NOW, IS
WHAT IS BEFORE US VOTING TO
REFLECT THE ADDITION BACK OF
THE CSO'S?
SO IF I HAVE COMMENTS ON THE
OVERALL AMENDMENT, SHOULD I
WAIT?
JUST CLARIFYING.
>> IF I CAN ANSWER AND MAYBE
CENTRAL STAFF HAS A COMMENT AS
WELL.
THIS IS JUST THE TECHNICAL
ASPECT OF IT.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO
THE OVERALL BUDGET
IMPLICATIONS, YOU ARE WELCOME
TO MAYBE JUST AS SOON AS WE GET
THROUGH THIS TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT.
>> LET'S JUST DO THIS FIRST AND
THEN I WILL MAKE MORE COMMENTS
LATER.
>> ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS ON THE AMENDMENT TO
SPD-015-A-001-2022?
MADAM CLERK, COULD YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE AMENDMENT TO ITEM 201 IN
FRONT OF US?
>> PEDERSON?
>> YES.
STRAUSS YES.
GONZALEZ YES.
HERBOLD?
YES.
JUAREZ?
YES.
LEWIS?
YES.
MORALES?
YES.
CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
AYE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MADAM
CLERK.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON THE
AMENDMENT CARRIES.
THE AMENDED VERSION OF SPD-015-
A-001-2022 IS NOW IN FRONT OF
US.
NOW IT IS TIME FOR
CONVERSATION.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS I THINK YOU
WERE FIRST UP IN THE QUEUE.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD
AND OFFER YOUR COMMENTS, YOU
ARE WELCOME TO USE YOUR TIME
FOR THAT.
>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
HAPPY TO JUMP IN AND HAVE THIS
DISCUSSION AND APPRECIATE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON BROUGHT
THIS FORWARD SO WE CAN HAVE
THIS CONVERSATION SINCE THERE
HAS BEEN SO MUCH SCRUTINY OF
THIS AREA IN THE NEWS RECENTLY.
I WANT TO START JUST BY DOING A
LITTLE BIT OF TABLE SETTING IN
TALKING ABOUT THIS AND REALLY
HOLD UP THE BALANCING PACKAGE
THAT COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA HAS
PUT FORWARD TO JUST RECOGNIZE
THINGS THAT I DON'T THINK HAVE
BEEN FAIRLY RECOGNIZED IN SOME
OF THE PUBLIC SCRUTINY.
THIS WILL BE DISAPPOINTING TO
SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON
BOTH SIDES WHO HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION.
NO MATTER HOW THESE AMENDMENTS
GO TODAY, THERE IS A FULLY
FUNDED HIRING PLAN FOR SPD.
THAT COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA HAS
FUNDED THAT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN
FAIRLY RECOGNIZED IN THE
DISCOURSE WE HAVE BEEN FACING.
FOR FOLKS WHO ARE ADVOCATE OF
DEFUNDING, NO MATTER WHAT WITH
THESE AMENDMENTS FROM COUNCIL
MEMBER PEDERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ AND MYSELF
THERE WILL BE A FULLY FUNDED
HIRING PACKAGE WHETHER THESE
AMENDMENTS PASSED OR NOT.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THE RESTORATIONS OF OVERTIME
FUNDING RELATIVE TO 2020 AND
OTHER ADDITIONS REQUESTED BY
THE DEPARTMENT AND THE MAYOR
THAT COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA HAS
INCORPORATED INTO HER BASELINE
PACKAGE.
I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY
GRATITUDE AT THE OPENING HERE
AT THE DILIGENCE OF CHAIR
MOSQUEDA AND CENTRAL STAFF IN
INCORPORATING AND TAKING IN A
LOT OF THOSE PRIORITIES FOR THE
BUDGET.
THAT SAID, I DO THINK THERE ARE
THINGS IN THESE AMENDMENTS THAT
I WOULD LIKE TO TWEAK TO BUILD
ON SOME OF THOSE THEMES.
I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS
PARTICULAR AMENDMENT FROM
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON AND I DO
HAVE THREE REASONS AND WANTED
TO GO ON THE RECORD WHY I WILL
NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS
PARTICULAR $8.7 MILLION
AMENDMENT.
THE FIRST ONE WAS ALLUDED TO BY
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WITH HER
REFERENCING A NOVEMBER 18 MEMO
THAT WE RECEIVED FROM BUDGET
DIRECTOR INDICATING THAT THE
YEARS AHEAD POTENTIALLY LAYOUT
SOME CONCERNING SCENARIOS ABOUT
THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE
CITY'S OVERALL BUDGET.
THE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND
IS GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT
COMPONENT OF MAKING SURE THAT
WE CAN BALANCE AND SUSTAIN
CERTAIN PRIORITIES IN WORST-
CASE SCENARIOS.
I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE
REALLY PRIORITIZE LOOKING INTO
WHAT WE ARE DOING AT THIS
MOMENT RIGHT NOW TO MAKE SOME
FINAL ADDITIONS TO THE CHAIRS
BALANCING PACKAGE IN THE
MESSAGE THAT WE ARE SENDING ON
THE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND.
I DO THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE
AND I SPONSORED SEVERAL ADS
THIS AFTERNOON SEEKING TO TAKE
FROM THE FUNDS SO I AM
OBVIOUSLY NOT A STICKLER ABOUT
IT.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN
TRIAGE IN TALKING SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT THIS FUND IN TERMS OF
WHAT WE ARE WILLING TO FUND, I
THINK IT SHOULD BE LIMITED TO
THINGS THAT ARE MOST ESSENTIAL,
THINGS THAT LEAD TO INCREASED
ACCOUNTABILITY IN CITY SERVICE
DELIVERY OR THINGS THAT
LEVERAGE EXTERNAL FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES.
I WILL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THAT
IN SOME OF MY OTHER AMENDMENTS.
I THINK THAT WITH THIS
AMENDMENT AND THE WAY IT IS
DISTINCT FROM COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSON'S NEXT PROPOSAL THAT
I WILL BE VOTING FOR AND I WILL
GO INTO THE DETAILS AND WHY I'M
VOTING FOR THAT NEXT IS THE
MOST IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
IN FRONT OF US THAT COULD HAVE
AN IMPACT IN TERMS OF SERVICE
DELIVERY ON THE STREET FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEMS IS REALLY
THE ITEMS THAT ARE BAKED INTO
THAT SECOND AMENDMENT AND
REALLY THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN THE
PUBLIC DISCOURSE THAT THE
PUBLIC IS CONCERNED ABOUT.
IT IS HIRING INCENTIVES TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO
ATTRACT AND RETAIN GIVEN OUR
HIRING CHALLENGES IN THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
IT IS INCREASED OVER TIME FOR
EVENTS SEEING THE SEATTLE CRACK
AND NOW PLAYING AND A LARGE
RETURN OF COMMUNITY EVENTS AND
SPORTING EVENTS IN 2022
RELATIVE TO 2021.
AND A CHANGE IN THE ATTRITION
ASSUMPTIONS WHICH I BROUGHT A
SEPARATE AMENDMENT TO DISCUSS
EVEN FURTHER IN WHICH I WOULD
LIKE TO PLAN FOR THE
CONTINGENCIES IN REGARDS TO NOW
RATHER THAN WAITING FOR
POTENTIAL SUPPLEMENTAL IF OUR
PREDICTIONS ARE WRONG AND I'M
HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT MORE THAT
IN FUTURE AMENDMENT
DISCUSSIONS.
THOSE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE
INCLUDED IN THIS AMENDMENT.
THEY ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON SECOND
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND THEY ARE
INCLUDED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT
IN AN AMENDMENT THAT I HAVE
BROUGHT.
THAT BRINGS ME TO MY THIRD AND
LAST CONSIDERATION WHICH IS I
FRANKLY DO THINK THERE ARE SOME
THINGS THAT COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA DID NOT ADD THAT WERE
PRUDENT DECISIONS TO NOT ADD AT
ITS CURRENT TIME GIVEN THE
INFORMATION THAT WE KNOW AND I
DID ASK GREG DOSS SOME
QUESTIONS AT THE BEGINNING HERE
JUST TO CLARIFY SPECIFICALLY
THE TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS
WHICH IS A COMPONENT OF THIS
AMENDMENT THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSON HAS BROUGHT FORWARD
TODAY OF TWO TECHNOLOGY
PROJECTS THAT I THINK THIS
COUNSEL LARGELY AGREES AND
CHAIR MOSQUEDA HAS INDICATED
HER THOUGHTS ON THIS MULTIPLE
TIMES THAT THESE ARE GOOD
TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS THAT
WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE I GIVEN
THE VARIETY OF BUDGET
PRESSURES.
THESE ARE THINGS WE SHOULD
CONTINUE TO LOOK AT AND DEFER
TO A FUTURE TIME TO BUDGET
RATHER THAN FUND RIGHT NOW.
I THINK THE THING THAT IS
REALLY GOING TO DELIVER THE
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SAFETY
SERVICES THAT A LOT OF US WERE
TALKING ABOUT IN THE PUBLIC
DISCOURSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE
UPCOMING AMENDMENT FROM
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON THAT I
BELIEVE ONCE AMENDED WILL COME
IN AT 4.02 MILLION.
THAT AMENDMENT I THINK IS A
PRUDENT AND EFFECTIVE RESPONSE
TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY CHALLENGES
WE ARE FACING IN THE CITY RIGHT
NOW.
I THINK IT ALSO BALANCES THE
PRESSURE ON THIS PARTICULAR
FUNDING SOURCE GIVEN THE
CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN
EXPRESSED BY THE CITY BUDGET
OFFICE AND CENTRAL STAFF AND I
WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS
AMENDMENT BUT VOTING YES ON THE
COMING AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
LEWIS.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ON THIS AMENDMENT?
>> OKAY.
HEARING NONE I WOULD ENCOURAGE
A NO VOTE AS WELL.
I WILL NOT UNDERSCORE AGAIN THE
POINTS THAT WERE MADE BY
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS A MOMENT
AGO ABOUT THE USE OF THE
RESERVES, BUT ESPECIALLY TRYING
TO WEIGH THE IMPORTANCE OF
GETTING PREPARED FOR THE
DOWNTURN IN THE ECONOMY COMING
IF THAT MATERIALIZES AND OR AN
UPTICK IN CORONAVIRUS CASES, WE
NEED TO BE PREPARED.
FOR THAT AND OTHER POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS THAT I HAVE
ARTICULATED BEFORE, I WILL BE
VOTING NO.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSON FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND ALLOWING THIS
DISCUSSION.
MADAM CLERK WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE ON THE ADOPTION OF
SPD-015-A-001-2022 AS AMENDED.
>> PEDERSON?
YES.
JUAREZ NO.
STRAUSS?
NO.
GONZALEZ?
NO.
HERBOLD?
NO.
JUAREZ ? YES.
LEWIS?
NO.
MORALES?
NO.
CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
NO.
>> TWO IN FAVOR, SEVEN OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU COURT, THE MOTION
FAILS AND THE AMENDMENT IS NOT
ADOPTED.
LET'S MOVE ON TO 202.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON I
BELIEVE THIS IS YOUR AMENDMENT
AGAIN.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE THE
AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US, SPD-
016-A-001-2022?
>> YES.
THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
SPD-016-A-001-2022 ON TODAY'S
AGENDA.
>> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK TO US OR WE
CAN HAVE CENTRAL STAFF
SUMMARIZE THE AMENDMENT THAT I
THINK YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE THE
ADJUSTMENT AS WELL IF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR.
JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW, THIS IS
TAKING SOME OF THE FEEDBACK
RECEIVED FROM SEVERAL
COLLEAGUES, THIS IS A MORE
SURGICAL OR STRATEGIC VERSION
OF THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT AND
IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR FROM
CENTRAL STAFF TO BREAK THAT
DOWN.
AND THERE WILL BE AN AMENDMENT
BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY SERVICE
OFFICER PROGRAM THAT CHAIR
MOSQUEDA IS MAINTAINING ANY
EXPANSION OF THIS NUMBER WILL
BE REDUCED AND THEN WE WILL PUT
IN THE PROVISO RIGHT HERE FOR
THE OVERTIME PORTION OF THIS.
BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF GREG
DOSS WOULD BE WILLING TO RUN
THROUGH THE LINE ITEM
DIFFERENCES.
>> SURE.
IF THE LAST ONE WAS ADD NEARLY
EVERYTHING BACK, THIS ONE IS ED
HALFBACK IS PROBABLY THE
HEADLINE.
IT IS A RESTORATION OF 5.32
MILLION AND OF COURSE, AS YOU
KNOW COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON
AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO ADJUST
FOR THE CSO'S THAT WILL GO TO
ABOUT $4 MILLION.
AND THEN YOU WILL ALSO I ASSUME
PUT IN YOUR PROVISO AS YOU SAID
THAT WOULD RESTRICT THE
OVERTIME EXPENDITURE.
I WILL GO THROUGH THAT.
THIS ONE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
STARTING WITH THE STAFFING
PLAN, MEMBERS WILL REMEMBER
THAT THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS
TO THE REDUCTIONS THAT WERE
MADE OR THE CHANGES IN
ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE MADE TO
THE STAFFING PLAN.
THE FIRST COMPONENT BEING THAT
THERE WOULD BE 12 COVID
SEPARATIONS IN JANUARY AND THE
REST, THE OTHER COMPONENT BEING
THAT THE SEPARATIONS WOULD LOOK
LIKE THEY DID LAST YEAR.
THE ASSUMPTIONS WOULD BE THE
SAME THAT THERE WOULD BE 113
LEAVING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WOULD
ASSUME THE SAME 12 COVID
SEPARATIONS IN JANUARY BUT IT
REVERTS BACK TO THE 94
SEPARATIONS THAT THE EXECUTIVE
ASSUMES.
SO, BASICALLY IN A NUTSHELL
THIS IS THE SPD HIRING AND
SEPARATIONS PLAN WITH THE
EXCEPTION THAT IT DOES SUBTRACT
FUNDING FOR 12 COVID
SEPARATIONS IN JANUARY.
SO, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IT
IS ADDING BACK $1.43 MILLION
FOR THAT ADJUSTMENT.
SO, JUST TO REPEAT IT, IT
DEFAULTS BACK TO THE EXECUTIVES
STAFFING PLAN FOR 94
SEPARATIONS AND HUNDRED AND 25
HIRES.
BUT IT DOES ASSUME THAT YOU
WOULD HAVE 12 SEPARATIONS IN
JANUARY.
SO I GUESS, IN ESSENCE YOU
WOULD GET EVENTUALLY TO 106
SEPARATIONS.
AND THEN IT ALSO DOES ADD BACK
FOR THE CSO'S AT 1.3 MILLION.
WITH OVER TIME, THE PRIOR
AMENDMENT HAD RESTORED ALL OF
THE COUNCIL CUT TO OVERTIME
WHICH WAS 3.2 MILLION.
THIS AMENDMENT WOULD RESTORE
HALF OF THAT.
IT WOULD RESTORE 1.5 MILLION.
AND THEN IF THE PROVISO IS
PASSED, THE PROVISO HOLDS THAT
1.5 MILLION UNTIL FUTURE
COUNSEL APPROPRIATION AND THE
IDEA BEING THAT THE COUNCIL
WOULD MONITOR THE DEPARTMENTS
OVERTIME USE AND IF SUCH TIME
CAME ALONG THAT THE DEPARTMENT
NEEDED THAT OVER TIME, THEN
THEY COULD PASS A FUTURE
ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE IT.
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT WOULD
ALSO ADD BACK 1.09 MILLION FOR
THE HIRING INCENTIVES.
ALTHOUGH, I WOULD POINT OUT
THAT GIVEN THE ACTION THAT THE
COUNCIL TOOK EARLIER FOR THE
DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE TO USE
THIS MONEY IN 2022, THE
LEGISLATION WOULD NEED TO BE
PASSED FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO
USE IT.
AND THEN FINALLY, IT USES AGAIN
THE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND
TO PAY FOR THESE ITEMS.
ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS ONE
AND THE LAST ONE, THIS ONE DOES
NOT RESTORE THE TECHNOLOGY ADS.
THAT IS A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW.
I ASK IF THERE ARE ANY
QUESTIONS?
>> I WOULD JUST WANT TO OFFER A
PIECE OF CLARIFICATION AT THE
END WE TALKED ABOUT RESTORING
THE OVERTIME.
AS A REMINDER FOLKS, WE HAVE
INCLUDED 4.6 MILLION IN NEW
INVESTMENTS IN OVERTIME IN OUR
UNDERLYING BUDGET IN FRONT OF
US.
SO THIS WOULD BE ADDING ON TOP
OF THAT $3.2 MILLION THAT THE
MAYOR HAD ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR.
THE EXISTING BUDGET WOULD BE
ADD 4.6 MILLION AND IT INCLUDES
26.4 MILLION FOR OVERTIME.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO MOVE YOUR VERBAL
AMENDMENT THAT GREG JUST WALKED
THROUGH, THAT WOULD BE IN FRONT
OF US FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU CHAIR I WILL MAKE
THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE DOLLAR
AMOUNTS AND ADD THE PROVISO.
IT IS A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE
BUT I WILL RUN THROUGH QUICKLY.
I WOULD MOVE TO SUBSTITUTE THE
COUNCIL BUDGET ACTION TITLE TO
READ AS FOLLOWS AS 4.02 MILLION
GENERAL FUND FOR PARTIAL
ASSUMPTION OF THE EXECUTIVES
STAFFING PLAN SEPARATIONS.
HIRING INCENTIVES.
I WOULD NOT HAVE CSO'S IN THEIR
. BUT OVER TIME AND THEN TO CUT
4.02 MILLION GENERAL FUND
CONTRIBUTION TO THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUND AND PROVISO
THE 1.5 MILLION GENERAL FUND IN
SPD FOR OVERTIME.
THAT IS THE BUDGET ACTION AND
AMENDING CB FIVE 12 A001 TO
READ AS FOLLOWS.
>> THERE IS A COPY AND PASTE
HERE.
SORRY.
I WOULD BE AMENDING THE ACTION
TO ADD 4.20 MILLION GENERAL
FUND TO THE CHAIR'S BALANCING
PACKAGE AND CUT 4.02 MILLION
GENERAL FUND CONTRIBUTION TO
THE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND
AND THEN ADDING A PROVISO OF
1.5 MILLION FOR OVERTIME.
>> BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON
THAT AND ASK FOR A SECOND, I DO
WANT TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY
TECHNICAL CHANGES THAT CENTRAL
STAFF WOULD OFFER TO THE
AMENDMENT?
>> I THINK THAT IS ACCURATE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF MOVING
PIECES BUT AMENDING THE TITLE
AS COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON
DESCRIBED AND THEN CENTRAL
STAFF AS PART OF THE VERBAL
AMENDMENT WOULD UPDATE THE
DESCRIPTION AND TRANSACTIONS TO
REFLECT THOSE CHANGES AS
DESCRIBED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSON INCLUDING THE PROVISO
LANGUAGE THAT IS THE SAME
LANGUAGE WE DISCUSSED FOR THE
PREVIOUS AMENDMENT AT THE $1.5
MILLION LEVEL AND APOLOGIES FOR
SOME OF THE COPY AND PASTE
ERRORS.
>> NO PROBLEM.
THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO AMEND ITEM
202 AS DESCRIBED BY THE
SPONSOR.
ISTHERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON DID
YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD
TO YOUR TECHNICAL AMENDMENT
HERE OR ANY CLARIFYING
COMMENTS?
CENTRAL STAFF IS ALSO INVOLVED.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST TO ADD THAT WHAT IS BEING
PROVISO FOR THE OVERTIME IS A
1.5 MILLION AND THAT IS ALL THE
OVERTIME THAT IS BEING RESTORED
HERE.
SO ALL OF THE OVERTIME BEING
RESTORED HERE WOULD BE PROVISO
WOULD.
THE RATIONALE IS THAT I AM
ASSUMING ADDITIONAL SEPARATION
IN AN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN WHAT
THE MAYOR HAD PROPOSED.
SO THE ADDITIONAL OVERTIME
SHOULD BE NEEDED TO HELP OFFSET
THE ADDITIONAL SEPARATIONS SO
THAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR
RESTORING SOME OF THAT
OVERTIME.
AND WE DO WANT TO PROVISO THAT.
I KNOW THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT
REGARDING OVERTIME.
CENTRAL STAFF'S DESCRIPTION WAS
EXCELLENT IN TERMS OF THIS IN
THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT.
>> GREAT, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING
ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD?
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU
COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSON.
IS THIS AMENDMENT INCLUDING AN
ADDITIONAL 400,004 THE
COMMUNITY SAFETY OFFICERS FOR
THE CSO?
IS IT ASSUMING THAT FUNDING IS
NEEDED?
OKAY, IT COMPLETELY DOES NOT
INCLUDE ANY FUNDING FOR CSO'S?
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS, GO
AHEAD.
>> I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR
THAT I DO SUPPORT OUR HIRING
INCENTIVES PROGRAM.
I DO SUPPORT OUR CSO'S AND I DO
THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR
ATTRITION ESTIMATES 294, NOT
114 AND THAT WE DO NEED TO HAVE
OUR OVERTIME PROPERLY
CALIBRATED INTO THE NEXT YEAR.
IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT NO
MATTER HOW THIS BUDGET PENCILS
OUT, SPD WILL HAVE MORE DOLLARS
AND THEY WILL LIKELY BE ABLE TO
SPEND IN A SINGLE YEAR.
THIS WILL IN FACT SET US UP TO
HAVE ANOTHER UNDER SPEND PER
STATION IN THE MIDDLE OF NEXT
YEAR.
AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO USE
THOSE FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOR
OVERTIME AND HIRING INCENTIVES.
THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT HAS MANY
THINGS THAT I DO LIKE AND SOME
THINGS I DON'T LIKE.
I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON
AND I HAD EARLY CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT HOW I WISHED WE COULD
HAVE SPLIT IT OUT BY LINE ITEMS
AND I MADE THOSE COMMENTS
EARLIER JUST IN THIS MEETING
ABOUT HOW WE HAVE A NUMBER OF
AMENDMENTS THAT GET TO THIS
VERY SIMILAR PROPOSAL.
I WANT THE RECORD TO JUST
REFLECT THAT WELL AND NOT GOING
TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT TODAY, THERE ARE MANY
ASPECTS OF THIS AMENDMENT THAT
I DO SUPPORT AND THAT I WOULD
LIKE TO GET US TO A PLACE TO
ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THE
APPROPRIATE DOLLARS FOR SPD TO
BE ABLE TO DO THEIR CORE
FUNCTIONS AND THAT WE ARE ABLE
TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE NOT
ONLY THE OFFICERS THAT THEY
NEED BUT THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO
HIRE THE OFFICERS THEY NEED.
AND AGAIN, NOT MAKING ANY CUTS
TO THE HIRING PLAN AND I WILL
BE VOTING TO RETURN THE
ATTRITION ESTIMATES TO WHAT WAS
SENT DOWN TO US FROM THE MAYOR.
JUST WANTED TO PUT THOSE
THOUGHTS ON THE RECORD.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT, GO
AHEAD.
>> I MAINLY JUST WANTED TO
CLARIFY THAT I DIDN'T MISS
ANYTHING.
WE STILL HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE
MENDMENT.
>> WE WILL VOTE NEXT ON THE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDMENT AND THEN THE
UNDERLYING.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ON THE TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT TO MAKE THE CHANGES
AS NOTED BY THE SPONSOR?
HEARING THEM, LET'S GET THIS
AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US.
MADAME CLERK WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE AMENDMENT TO SPD-016-A-
001-2022?
>> PEDERSON?
YES.
SAWANT?
YES.
STRAUSS?
YES.
GONZALEZ?
YES.
HERBOLD?
YES.
JUAREZ?
YES.
LEWIS?
YES.
MORALES IS?
YES.
CHAIR MOSCA?
YES.
NINE IN FAVOR, NONE POST.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES AND THAT
TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO
INCORPORATE THE VERBAL
AMENDMENTS HAS PASSED.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON YOU ARE
NOW RECOGNIZED IF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE UNDERLYING
AMENDMENT .
>> THANK YOU CHAIR MOSQUE.
I THINK YOU OFFERED SO MUCH
TIME FOR US TO DISCUSS THIS AND
I FEEL LIKE I MADE MY COMMENTS
IN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT AND
CENTRAL STAFF DESCRIBED THIS
VERY WELL.
I THINK IT IS CLEAR WHERE WE
ARE ON THIS AMENDMENT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, YOU ARE A
COSPONSOR.
APOLOGIZE FOR NOT CALLING ON
YOU EARLIER.
>> THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN GOING ON WITH MY
COMPUTER.
I'M ON THE SCREEN AND
EVERYTHING IS OKAY.
FIRST OF ALL, MADAM CHAIR THANK
YOU THAT WE ARE GOING BACK TO
THE LANGUAGE OF IT IS
RESTORATION, NOT A CUT.
WE CLEARED UP ALL THAT
CONFUSION AND THANK YOU, GREG
USING SOME OF YOUR LANGUAGE
THAT THESE ARE NOT CUTS BUT WE
ARE CHOOSING TO ADD BACK IN AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP
MADAM CHAIR FOR THAT CSO'S.
I'M GOING TO BE VOTING YES ON
NUMBER 202 FOR MANY REASONS BUT
I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO ALL OF
THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WE HAVE
BEEN DEALING WITH, BUT I WANT
TO KIND OF GO TO THE
SENSIBILITIES OF WHAT HAS
HAPPENED AND WHAT WE HAVE
LEARNED A LOT OF SINCE THE
SUMMER AND FALL OF 2020 AND A
LOT OF THESE THINGS WE HAVE
ALWAYS KNOWN BUT WE ARE FINALLY
HAVING AN HONEST DISCUSSION
ABOUT POLICE AND STAFFING,
COMMUNITY POLICING AND THE
CONSENT TO RACE.
I WANT TO FOCUS MY COMMENTS ON
MOVING FORWARD AND DELIVERING
CONCRETE PROGRAMS AND CONCRETE
EFFORTS TO ADDRESS WHAT WE HAVE
LEARNED AND WHAT WE NEED TO
INCORPORATE IN THIS BUDGET.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY, WE HAVE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM
VARIOUS COMMITTEES, LIKE
SAFETY, THE CHIEF OF POLICE,
THE COURT MONITOR AND OTHER
FOLKS ABOUT WHAT THIS NEW
REIMAGINED IF YOU WILL POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND COMMUNITY
POLICING MEANS, THE
RELATIONSHIP COMPONENT OF IT.
A BIG THANK YOU TO
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD IN HER
SETTING UP AND WORKING SO HARD
ON THE COMMUNITY SAFETY AND
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER . THANK
YOU COUNCILMEMBER MORALES IS
FOR THE PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING
AND ALSO US WORKING ON THE ECI,
THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE TO THE
TUNE OF 30 MILLION THAT WE HAVE
INVESTED IN UPSTREAM COMMUNITY
BUILDING PROGRAMS AND WE WILL
CONTINUE THIS.
IT IS A WORK STILL IN PROGRESS
WHICH I THINK PEOPLE DON'T
ALWAYS UNDERSTAND.
I KNOW THAT THIS WHOLE COUNSEL
HAS ALWAYS BEEN MINDFUL,
PARTICULARLY COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ WHO LED US THROUGH
THIS OF THE CONSENT DECREE AND
WHAT WE ARE LEGALLY BOUND TO
DO.
WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE
AND WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES
ARE UNDER THE SEATTLE CITY
CHARTER.
WE NOW UNDERSTAND AND CAN SEE
THE IMPACTS OF THE LAST COUPLE
YEARS TO LESS POLICE OFFICERS
AND 911 CALLS, INCREASE IN GUN
VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE, CRIME AND
ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE HEAR
ABOUT FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS
EVERYWHERE ACROSS THIS GREAT
CITY.
AND ALSO, GOING BACK AGAIN AS I
SHARED LAST WEEK TALKING ABOUT
THE LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN TO
ALL OF US.
AGAIN THE SENTENCE THAT STUCK
OUT ME TO THE MOST THAT LETTER
DATED NOVEMBER 10 IS THAT WE
SEND THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO THE
RIGHT CALLS AND THAT IS WHAT
HAS BEEN MISSING IN COMMUNITY
POLICING.
YOU ARE RIGHT MADAM CHAIR THAT
EVERYONE DOESN'T NEED TO BE MET
WITH A GUN AND BADGE AND I
APPRECIATE THAT THOSE TYPE OF
VALUES ARE NOW BEING TRANSLATED
INTO POLICY AND NOW WE ARE
HAVING THE DISCUSSION ON HOW WE
PAY FOR IT.
SO, I AM VERY SUPPORTIVE OF
THIS SECTION OF THIS BECAUSE WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT A RESPONSIBLE
RESTORATION AND WE HAVE TO BE
MINDFUL THAT WE ARE STILL IN
TRANSITION FROM IN THE
BEGINNING, DE-FUND THE POLICE
TO REDIRECT FUNDS FROM SPD TO
COMMUNITY AND THAT WE ARE IN
THE PROCESS OF CREATING AND
FUNDING INSTITUTIONS THAT
PROMOTE OUR GOALS AND OUR
VALUES.
THAT WE DO NO HARM, THAT WE
PROTECT AND SERVE OUR CITY AND
ITS RESIDENTS.
I THINK THAT IS THE POINT WE
ARE AT AND I THINK
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS CAPTURED
THAT QUITE NICELY THAT THIS IS
A DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE TO
HAVE.
THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING A SAFE
SPACE FOR US TO HAVE THESE
DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE
DIFFICULT.
WE ARE AT THE PROCESS AND THE
THRESHOLD TO DIRECT MONEY TO
THE RIGHT PROGRAMS AND AGAIN,
TO DIRECT THE RIGHT PEOPLE
WHETHER SPD, CSO'S, THE WHOLE
TEAM TO THE RIGHT CALLS.
AND THAT TAKES TIME.
SO, I'M GOING TO HARKEN BACK TO
ALSO THE LETTER THAT WE
RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 8. ONE OF
THE SENTIMENTS THAT STOOD OUT
TO ME THE MOST, BUT IN
PARTICULAR TO WHAT I'M SPEAKING
TO NOW IS WHEN HE SAID POLICE
REFORM AND PROGRESS TOWARDS A
MORE DEMOCRATIC AND EQUITABLE
POLICE SERVICE REQUIRES
INVESTMENTS IN THE SYSTEM AND
INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT THAT IDEAL.
SO, THAT IS WHERE I WILL STAND
TODAY IN COMING FORWARD AND
PROMOTING THIS TO VOTE YES.
WE GIVE GRACE AND GIVE TIME FOR
US TO CHANGE AND GROW.
AS PD, COMMUNITY PROGRAMS ALL
NEED TIME TO BECOME A SUCCESS.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
OVERNIGHT.
AND WE ALL NEED TIME TO HEAL.
SO, AGAIN AS I WAS SHARING
INVESTING IN UPSTREAM SOCIAL
PROGRAMS, STANDING UP TO THE
SEC WE NEED THE CORRECT FUNDING
IN THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND THESE PROGRAMS,
THIS CHANGE TAKES TIME TO TAKE
ROOT.
AS WE STREAMLINE THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FUND MUCH-
NEEDED COMMUNITY PROGRAMS THAT
WE NOW VALUE AND NO, WE NEED TO
GIVE THE SAME GRACE TO CHANGE
AND TO GROW AND THAT IS WHY I
AM HOPING THAT THEY WOULD
SETTLE ON THIS COMPROMISE.
WITH THE KNOWING THAT CSO'S ARE
RESTORED, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP AND FOR LISTENING
MADAM CHAIR.
IF YOU LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY
AND CONCERNS PEOPLE HAD ABOUT
THE CSO'S AND AGAIN I WANT TO
SAY I THINK YOU HAVE DONE A
REALLY GOOD JOB OF REFOCUSING
úUS AND LEADING US THROUGH AND
SENDING OUT A FORMAT THAT
ALLOWS US TO HAVE CIVIL
DISCOURSE AND A WAY TO
DISAGREE.
AND THERE IS ANOTHER DAY TO
COME TO GET WHERE WE ARE GOING
BECAUSE I KNOW WE ARE GOING IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
THANK YOU.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
>> SANG NO COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS, I APPRECIATE THE
COMMENTS VERY MUCH.
I DO HAVE TO ENCOURAGE US ALL
TO REMEMBER THAT WE ARE NOT OUT
OF THIS CRISIS AND THE PANDEMIC
HAS ONLY WORSENED.
WE HAVE SEEN GROWING AND THE
CRISIS OF COVID MEANT THAT WE
MUST PRESERVE EVERY DOLLAR
POSSIBLE FOR THE WORSENING
SCENARIO IF WE DON'T SEE
BUSINESSES OPEN AS FAST AS WE
HOPE THEY WILL AND WE SEE A
CONTINUED CHANGE OR APPROACH IN
THE TYPE OF VARIANCE THAT COVID
IS PRESENTING.
WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR THE
WORST CASE SCENARIOS.
AS THE CHART SHOWED AT THE
BEGINNING OF THIS PRESENTATION
WE HAVE NOT NEARLY BEGUN TO
BUILD BACK OUR RESERVES PAST
THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT THAT WE
NEED TO BE AT IN ORDER TO BE IN
A SAFE PLACE FOR FUTURE
DOWNTURN.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO REMAIN
VIGILANT AND NOT TAKE FROM THE
RESERVES.
WE NEED TO HAVE EVERY
INVESTMENT POSSIBLE AT OUR
FINGERTIPS SO THOSE WHO NEED
CARE FOR KIDDOS, ELDERS, FOOD
ASSISTANCE, SHELTER, HOUSING
ASSISTANCE THAT WE HAVE THOUGHT
THROUGH WHAT ARE THE WORST CASE
SCENARIOS.
WE HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB
IN THIS BUDGET OF INVESTING IN
IMMEDIATE NEEDS RIGHT NOW.
I PROPOSE TO YOU THAT HAVING
ADDITIONAL DOLLARS GO TO AREAS
WITHIN THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET DO NOT
COMPARE TO THE TYPE OF NEEDS
THAT WE MAY NEED TO INVEST
THOSE DOLLARS AND IN THE
FUTURE.
WE ARE ALREADY PUTTING $4.6
MILLION TOWARDS OVERTIME BRING
THE TOTAL TO 26.4.
WE ARE ALREADY MAKING SURE THAT
THE TRAVEL AND TRAINING BUDGET
HAS YOUR $1 MILLION IN ITS IN A
TIME OF COVID WHEN THERE IS
LESS TRAVEL HAPPENING.
WE HAVE VIGILANTLY LOOKED AT
THE ACTUAL DATA FROM ATTRITION
IN PAST YEARS TO SEE WHAT IS A
REASONABLE AND FRANKLY
CONSERVATIVE EXPECTATION OF HOW
MANY OFFICERS WILL LEAVE NEXT
YEAR.
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE WANT
OFFICERS TO LEAVE WHEN WE HAVE
INVESTED $750,000 INTO OFFICER
WELLNESS AND SUPERVISION TO
SUPPORT RETENTION THAT IS
INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET.
WE HAVE $218,000 TO ACCELERATE
HIRING TRAINING FROM CIVILIAN
POSITIONS AND TO SUPPORT
RECRUITMENT.
WE CAN DO THESE THINGS AND TRY
TO WORK TOWARDS GREATER
RETENTION BUT WE SHOULD NOT BE
JUST LOOKING AT A PIECE OF
PAPER AND CHANGING THE DOLLAR
AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE A
DRAMATIC AFFECT ON THE RESERVES
IN FRONT OF US A $4 MILLION.
IT IS STILL A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE RETAINED IN OUR
EMERGENCY FUNDS TO MAKE SURE IF
THERE IS A CRISIS WE ARE ABLE
TO TAP INTO THOSE.
YOU HEARD HOW EXCITED I WAS
THAT I WAS ABLE TO ADD ANOTHER
400,000.
I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO
PRESERVE THIS $4 MILLION.
WITH THAT, I AM URGING A NO
VOTE ON THIS ITEM AND LOOK
FORWARD TO FURTHER
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW WE CAN
MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT IN THIS
CYCLE YEAR AFTER YEAR.
MADAM CLERK WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF
US, ITEM NUMBER 202?
>> PEDERSON?
YES.
SAWANT?
NO.
STRAUSS?
NO.
GONZALEZ?
NO.
HERBOLD?
NO.
WHERE IS?
YES.
LEWIS?
YES.
MORALES?
NO.
CHAIR MOSQUE?
NO.
THREE IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER
205.
>> THAT VOTE COUNT WAS
INCORRECT.
>> I'M SORRY.
>> APOLOGIZE.
IT IS ACTUALLY THREE IN FAVOR
AND SIX OPPOSED.
>> THREE IN FAVOR, SIX OPPOSED
IS WHAT MY NOTES SAY AS WELL.
WITH THAT, THE MOTION FAILS AND
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
LET'S GO TO ITEM NUMBER 203.
>> ITEM NUMBER 203 IS AN
AMENDMENT BROUGHT BY
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS AND THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ADD 2.7 MILLION
BACK TO SPD.
THIS REVERSES ALL OF THE
STAFFING CUTS, IT REVERSES THE
SEPARATION ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE
MADE IN COUNCIL'S PLAN.
IT TAKES THE $2.7 MILLION THAT
IS REDUCED FROM THE PROPOSED
BUDGET WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF
THE COVID SEPARATIONS AND THEN
ALSO THE ADDITIONAL SEPARATIONS
TO EQUAL 125 AND RESTORES ALL
OF THAT SO THAT THERE WOULD BE
NO COVID SEPARATIONS AND THERE
WOULD BE ONLY THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSED PLAN OF 94 SEPARATIONS
AND 125 HIRES.
AND WOULD RESTORE THE $2.7
MILLION.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER
LOUIS.
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO MOVE YOUR
AMENDMENT.
>> I WILL BE BRIEF ON THIS ONE
SINCE THIS IS LIKE IN THE
RUSSIAN DOLLS OF THESE
AMENDMENTS, THE SMALLEST
RUSSIAN DOLL THAT IS STILL
THERE.
>> SO SORRY, DO YOU MIND MOVING
THE AMENDMENT FIRST?
>> I'M SO SORRY, IT IS LATE.
I DO SO MOVE THE AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS YOU
ARE UP TO DESCRIBE IT AS YOU
WISH.
>> I STAND BY MY PREVIOUS
ANALOGY AND MOVE ON TO MORE
SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THIS WOULD
LET US DO IS CHANGE THE
ATTRITIONAL ASSUMPTION BACK TO
THE DEPARTMENTS REPRESENTED
ATTRITIONAL ASSUMPTION.
WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THIS OVER
THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.
THE COUNCIL BALANCING BUDGET
ASSUMES 125 SEPARATIONS. THE
DEPARTMENT IS SAYING THERE WILL
BE ABOUT 90.
I THINK ALL OF US ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT BOTH OF THOSE ESTIMATES
ARE FAIR DEPENDING ON A
PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW.
I THINK THERE IS AN ADVANTAGE
TO BUDGETING TO AN ESTIMATE
THAT ASSUMES LESS ATTRITION
JUST SO THAT WE PLAN FOR THAT
CONTINGENCY AND ARE NOT IN A
POSITION WHERE WE NEED TO
REVISIT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE
YEAR TO ADJUST TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE HIRING PLAN DOESN'T
JUST STOP AT A CERTAIN POINT IF
IT DOES COME IN LOWER.
I THINK THAT THERE IS NOTHING
FOR THE COUNCIL TO LOSE IN
ADAPTING THIS GIVEN THAT IF THE
ATTRITION IS WHAT THE COUNCIL
THINKS IT WILL BE IN THE
BALANCING BUDGET, THEN THESE
RESERVES NEVER GET TOUCHED
ANYWAY.
IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY NOT TOUCH
THE RESERVES IN THE CASE WHERE
THE MORE PESSIMISTIC ATTRITION
SCENARIO IS REALIZED.
THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL THINKING
BEHIND THIS.
GENERALLY GOING FORWARD I WOULD
PREFER IF THE COUNCIL NOT BE IN
A POSITION WHERE WE WILL
HABITUALLY PREDICT THAT HIRING
AND SEPARATIONS WOULD BE THE
SAME NUMBER.
AGAIN, THIS WILL BE THE SECOND
CYCLE IN A ROW WHERE WE ARE
DOING THIS.
AGAIN, I THINK IT IS CERTAINLY
A RESPECTABLE CHOICE GIVEN THE
INCONSISTENCY YEAR-TO-YEAR IN
WHAT THE ATTRITION NUMBER IS.
BUT I WOULD PREFER TO ASSUME
THE MORE OPTIMISTIC ATTRITION
NUMBER AND IF THAT IS NOT
REALIZED, THE RESERVES WON'T BE
TOUCHED.
WE WILL BE NO WORSE FOR WEAR.
THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND
THE BUDGET AMENDMENT.
IT SAYS IT CUTS 2.7 MILLION OF
THE RESERVES.
IT DOESN'T SAY WE MIGHT CUT 2.7
MILLION OF THE RESERVES IF THE
SEPARATIONS ARE DIFFERENT.
SO, I DON'T SEE THIS
FUNCTIONING AS MAY BE A PROVISO
MIGHT FUNCTION IF WRITTEN THAT
WAY AS THE SPONSOR DESCRIBED.
MAYBE I AM MISSING SOMETHING
HERE.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU ARE.
IT DOES CUT 2.7 MILLION FROM
THE RESERVES AND MOVES IT TO
THE DEPARTMENT BUDGET.
IT MIGHT BE THAT WHAT THE
COUNCIL MEMBER LOUIS IS
REFERRING TO IS THAT THERE IS A
SALARY SAVINGS PROVISO ON ALL
SALARY STATEMENTS IN SPD AND IF
THE MONEY IS NOT SPENT, THEN IT
IS AVAILABLE TO LAPSE AT THE
END OF THE YEAR.
AND GO BACK TO RESERVES.
BUT I WILL LET HIM SPEAK TO
THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU SUMMARIZE WHAT I WAS
IMPLYING PERFECTLY.
THAT SAID, I DON'T WANT TO TRY
TO AMEND THIS ON-THE-FLY GIVEN
THE HOUR.
BUT THERE WILL BE OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES TO DISCUSS
AMENDMENTS.
IF THERE IS INTEREST IN
STRUCTURING SOMETHING MORE
EXPLICITLY ALONG THE LINES OF A
PROVISO LIKE COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD JUST INDICATED, I'M
HAPPY TO EXPLORE THAT OFF-LINE
AFTER TODAY'S MEETING.
BUT WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD IS THAT
THE 2.7 MILLION WOULD BE
CAPTURED BY THE SAVINGS
PROVISO AND IT COULD BE
REDISTRIBUTED BACK INTO THE
STABILIZATION FUND WHEN WE
REAPPORTION EVERYTHING.
BUT YES, I SEE HOW THAT COULD
HAVE BEEN MISLEADING SO I
APOLOGIZE FOR FREEZING IT THE
WAY I DID.
>> NO APOLOGIES NECESSARY.
I HAVEN'T SET IT FOR ABOUT A
HALF AN HOUR, I AM NOT VOTING
IN FAVOR OF ANYTHING THAT
TOUCHES THE RESERVES SO I JUST
WANTED TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT
I UNDERSTOOD THIS ONE
CORRECTLY.
THANK YOU.
>> I HAD A SIMILAR MESSAGE INTO
MY TEAM AS WELL.
THANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATION.
COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM?
OKAY, I WILL OFFER A FEW
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS, I
APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION OF
THE GOOD WORK THAT CENTRAL
STAFF HAS DONE TO DO WHAT I
BELIEVE ARE ACCURATE AND
CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES OF WHAT
ATTRITION WOULD BE.
I WOULD JUST OFFER UP AGAIN THE
INFORMATION WE RECEIVED FROM
CENTRAL STAFF IN OCTOBER AND
THE NOVEMBER MEMOS WE RECEIVED.
WE KNOW THAT THIS YEAR WE ARE
ON TRACK TO UNFORTUNATELY SEE A
HIGHER LEVEL OF ATTRITION THAN
ANTICIPATED.
LAST YEAR WE ASSUMED 114
OFFICERS WOULD LEAVE THROUGH
ATTRITION AND WE WILL PROBABLY
SEE 150 OFFICERS LEAVE THROUGH
ATTRITION.
THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE NUMBER
WE EXPERIENCED IN 2020.
I WANT TO AGAIN REITERATE THE
WAYS IN WHICH THIS COUNSEL,
EVEN JUST IN THIS MIDYEAR IS
HELPING TO ADDRESS RETENTION
ISSUES AS REQUESTED BY THE
MAYORS ISSUE.
THOSE ITEMS WERE NOT ONLY
FUNDED IN THE MIDYEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL, THEY ARE INCLUDED
IN THE BUDGET.
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN TOUCHED AND
WE WILL CONTINUE TO UPLIFT THE
INFORMATION SO IT IS VERY CLEAR
THAT WE HAVE AS THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NOTED EARLIER THIS
YEAR IN INTEREST IN WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT IS DOING FROM THE
MANAGERIAL SIDE TO ADDRESS
RETENTION.
WE HAVE PUT FORWARD FUNDING TO
ADDRESS THAT.
BUT THE NUMBERS BEAR OUT A MUCH
HIGHER LEVEL OF ATTRITION THAN
WHAT THE MAYOR IS SUGGESTING.
ASSUMING 94 OFFICERS WILL LEAVE
THROUGH ATTRITION ONLY IS A
VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE THAT
QUITE LITERALLY WOULD HAVE LEFT
DOLLARS ON THE TABLE THAT COULD
GO INTO MEDICAL AND MOBILE
CRISIS UNIT LEAD PROGRAMS.
THE COMMUNITY SAFETY INITIATIVE
THAT WE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT
FROM THE FOLKS AND SO MANY
OTHER INVESTMENTS INTO FOOD AND
SAFETY AND HOUSING AND SHELTER.
THOSE ARE THE DECISIONS WE
MADE.
I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE VERY CLEAR THAT 94 OFFICERS
WAS A CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTION
FOR ATTRITION TO BEGIN WITH BUT
WE ALSO HAVE NEAR 80 OFFICERS
WHO HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE
VACCINE WHO IT IS VERY LIKELY
ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN
ACCOMMODATION MADE BECAUSE OF
THE NATURE OF THAT WORK.
I KNOW FOLKS ARE WORKING VERY
HARD TO FIND ACCOMMODATIONS FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT RECEIVING
THE VACCINE BUT IF AN
ACCOMMODATION CANNOT BE
PROVIDED FOR, A DOZEN OUT OF
THE 80 WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
CONTINUE ON AND THAT IS A
CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE.
I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE WORK
THAT YOU HAVE DONE WITH US TO
TRY TO IDENTIFY WAYS TO INVEST
IN SOME OF THE MOST CRITICAL
ISSUES BUT FOR ME I AM PULLING
FROM THE RESERVES EVEN IN THE
MORE NUANCED APPROACH THAT YOU
NOTED DOES NOT SQUARE WITH THE
EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAVE IN
ATTRITION IN THE CITY OF
SEATTLE OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON
RETENTION STRATEGIES WITH THE
CHIEF AND THE MAYOR.
COLLEAGUES, I WOULD ENCOURAGE A
NO VOTE ON THIS ITEM SO THAT WE
CAN CONTINUE TO SEE A HEALTHY
RESERVE AND WILL LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL TO KEEP
OUR EYE ON THOSE ACTUAL
ATTRITION LEVELS WITH SOME OF
THE OTHER PROVISO LANGUAGES
THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
HEARING THEM, MADAME CLERK WILL
YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE
ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT SPD-014-A-
001-2022?
>> PEDERSON?
YES.
SAWANT?
NO.
STRAUSS?
YES.
GONZALEZ?
NO.
HERBOLD?
NO.
SAWANT?
JUAREZ?
YES.
LEWIS?
YES.
MORALES?
YES.
CHAIR MOSQUE?
>> BEFORE YOU CALL THE ROLE, I
DO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
ANYONE WHO HAS MADE A VOTE THAT
THEY DO NOT WANT TO RECONSIDER
THEIR VOTE.
>> OKAY.
MY VOTE IS NO, MADAME CLERK.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR, FOUR OPPOSED.
>> EXCUSE ME.
THE MOTION CARRIES AND SPD-014-
A-001-2022 IS ADOPTED.
WE WILL GO ON TO THE NEXT
AGENDA ITEM.
BEFORE THAT IS READ INTO THE
RECORD, OKAY.
MADAME CLERK, YOU CAN GO AHEAD
AND READ, EXCUSE ME COUNSEL
CENTRAL STAFF, YOU CAN GO
AHEAD.
>> I THINK MADAME SURE YOU HAD
ASKED THAT WE GO AHEAD AND SKIP
TO THE ABROGATION ACTION BY
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ AND
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA , YOU
MEAN MORALES IS?
YES, THAT IS THE NEXT ITEM ON
OUR AGENDA HERE.
199.
>> I APOLOGIZE.
IT IS TOO SMALL TO SEE.
OKAY, THE NEXT ITEM IS
ABROGATING 101 POLICE OFFICER
SPD TO RIGHT SIZE THE SALARY
BUDGET.
WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION
ABOUT HOW THE PROPOSED BUDGET
CAME OVER WITH 134 VACANT
POLICE OFFICER POSITIONS THAT
WERE FUNDED AND THAT THESE
VACANT POLICE OFFICER POSITIONS
THAT WERE FUNDED ARE OVER AND
ABOVE THE HIRING PLAN THAT THE
EXECUTIVES SUBMITTED WITH THE
BUDGET.
AND THAT THESE VACANT AND
FUNDED POSITIONS, THAT THE
SALARY FUNDING FOR THEM WAS
REDIRECTED IN THE AMOUNT OF 19
MILLION REDIRECTED TO OTHER
PLACES IN THE BUDGET, ALL OF
THE MANY INVESTMENTS THAT WE
HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND
WHAT THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT
IS DESIGNED TO DO IS TO CUT THE
VACANT POSITIONS SO THAT IN
FUTURE BUDGETS, THE EXECUTIVE
CAN'T SEND OVER A BUDGET THAT
HAS VACANT POSITIONS THAT ARE
FUNDED WITH SALARY FUNDING AND
THEN TO REDIRECT THAT SALARY
FUNDING TO OTHER PRIORITIES.
AND THIS I THINK ALSO SPEAKS TO
CHAIR, YOUR PRINCIPLES ABOUT
CUTTING VERSUS ADS.
IF IT IS THE CASE THAT THE
VACANT POSITIONS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY RECEIVING SALARY
FUNDING AND THEN THAT SALARY
FUNDING IS REDIRECTED, IF THAT
DOESN'T HAPPEN ANYMORE, THEN IT
WILL BE THE CASE THAT THE SPD
BUDGET WILL COME FORWARD WITH
ADS, THE TECHNOLOGY ADS AND THE
OTHER ADS WILL COME FORWARD AS
DISTINCT ADS.
IT WON'T BE THAT THEY ARE PAID
FOR WITH SALARY FUNDING FROM
VACANT POSITIONS AND THERE
WON'T BE A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
THERE.
THAT IS THE THINKING BEHIND
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT.
IT IS NOT TO IN ANY WAY
ABROGATE FILLED POLICE OFFICER
POSITIONS. ONE LAST PIECE OF
BACKGROUND I WILL PROVIDE IS
THAT IF YOU EXAMINE THE SPD
STAFFING PLAN THROUGH THE
UPCOMING YEAR AND THROUGH 2023,
THE HIGHEST POINT THAT YOU WILL
SEE IN TERMS OF HAVING A NEED
FOR SWORN OFFICERS, THE HIGHEST
POINT IS 1256 OFFICERS AND THAT
IS THE POINT IN THE NUMBER OF
OFFICERS OR FTE THAT ARE LEFT
AFTER 101 ARE ABROGATED.
SO, THIS ACTION CAN HAPPEN AND
NOT AFFECT THE SPD STAFFING
PLANS FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.
THE ONLY QUALIFICATION I WOULD
MAKE IS IF ALL OF A SUDDEN A
POLICE AGENCY SOMEWHERE SHUT
DOWN AND THERE WERE SAY 50
OFFICERS AVAILABLE TO SIGN UP
IN THE MIDDLE OF NEXT YEAR OR
MORE LIKELY IN THE MIDDLE OF
THE SECOND YEAR, THE COUNCIL
MAY HAVE TO TAKE SOME ACTION.
BUT, UNDER THE NORMAL HIRING
PLANS OF 125 NEXT YEAR AND 125
YEAR AFTER, THERE SHOULD NOT BE
A NEED FOR 101 POSITIONS.
SO THAT IS MY SUMMARY.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
AMENDMENT FORWARD.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MOVE ADOPTION
OF THIS AMENDMENT?
>> I WOULD, THANK YOU.
I MOVE FOR ADOPTION OF SDOT-012-
A-001.
>> THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
PLEASE COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MY COMMENTS UNFORTUNATELY ARE A
LITTLE BIT LONGER ON THIS ONE
THAN I HAD ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
SO I APPRECIATE THE GRACE FROM
MY COLLEAGUES TO GIVE SLIGHTLY
LONGER COMMENTS.
I HAVE BEEN PRETTY QUIET THE
ENTIRE BUDGET COMMITTED PROCESS
SO HOPEFULLY THIS IS
ACCEPTABLE.
WHEN I WAS FIRST PREPARING MY
COMMENTS TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE
THIS REASONABLE COUNSEL BUDGET
ACTION, AS I MENTIONED I DID IT
TO MAKE MY COMMENTS PRETTY CUT
AND DRY.
HOWEVER, AT 2:18 PM TODAY THE
INTERIM CHIEF OF POLICE ISSUED
TO THE MEDIA AND THE GENERAL
PUBLIC A STATEMENT THAT GROSSLY
MISCHARACTERIZES THE INTENT AND
EFFECT OF THIS PROPOSED
AMENDMENT.
HE DID SO WITHOUT ANY OUTRAGE
OR COMMUNICATION WITH ME OR MY
OFFICE IN ADVANCE THOUGH HE
DIRECTLY REFERENCES MIGHT
AMENDMENT AND ONLY MY AMENDMENT
IN HIS STATEMENT IN SPITE OF
THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL
OTHER SPD AMENDMENTS IN TODAY'S
VOTES.
I AM DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED IN
THAT TACTIC AND FIND IT
DISRESPECTFUL.
BE THAT AS IT MAY, LET ME PUT
THE FEAR MONGERING ASIDE AND
MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS TO
BED.
INTERIM CHIEF DIAZ IN HIS
STATEMENT WROTE "THAT THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT AMENDMENT
WILL PERMANENTLY ELIMINATE
ANOTHER 101 OFFICERS.
THIS WOULD GREATLY JEOPARDIZE
THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES
AND HAVE LONG-TERM IMPACTS ON
INVESTIGATING VIOLENT CRIMES
AND CARING FOR OUR MOST
VULNERABLE HOST QUOTE.
AGAIN, EITHER THIS IS A GROSS
AND INTENTIONAL
MISREPRESENTATION OR IS A GROSS
MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
SO, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DECONSTRUCT THAT
STATEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF
WHAT IS ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN
THIS PROPOSED COUNSEL BUDGET
ACTION.
FIRST, THERE IS AN INFERENCE IN
THE INTERIM CHIEF'S STATEMENT
THAT THE REVISED AND ACTUALLY
BALANCED BUDGET ELIMINATES
OFFICERS AND THAT MY PROPOSED
AMENDMENT WOULD ELIMINATE EVEN
MORE OFFICERS.
THIS IS INACCURATE.
THIS BUDGET FULLY FUNDS SPD'S
SWORN STAFF HIRING PLAN AND
NOTHING IN THIS BUDGET OR IN MY
AMENDMENT PROPOSES FIRING,
LAYING OFF OR OTHERWISE
ELIMINATING FUNDED AND FILLED
SWORN OFFICER POSITIONS.
THIS IS WHY IT IS
INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO ME AS TO
WHY THE INTERIM CHIEF WOULD
REPRESENT OTHERWISE.
SECOND, THE INTERIM CHIEF
IMPLIES VIA HIS STATEMENT THAT
THIS BUDGET ACTION WOULD RESULT
IN THE FIRING, ILLUMINATION OR
LAYING OFF OF EXACTLY 101
OFFICERS FROM THE CURRENT
POLICE FORCE.
AGAIN, THIS IS JUST NOT TRUE.
THIS BUDGET ACTION WOULD NOT
IMPACT THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT'S 2022 STAFFING PLAN
AS JUST DESCRIBED BY GREG DOSS,
OUR INDEPENDENT COUNSEL CENTRAL
STAFF ANALYST.
BUDGET OR OPERATIONS IN ANY
WAY.
WHY WOULDN'T IT CREATE ANY
IMPACT?
BECAUSE SPD'S BUDGET INCLUDES
FUNDING FOR 134 SWORN OFFICERS
ABOVE AND BEYOND ITS ALREADY
FULLY FUNDED HIRING PLAN.
TO PUT IT SIMPLY, SPD ADMITS
THAT THEY CANNOT AND ARE NOT
PLANNING TO HIRE THESE
ADDITIONAL 134 SWORN OFFICERS
IN 2022.
LET ME REPEAT THAT.
SPD ADMITS THAT THEY CANNOT AND
ARE NOT PLANNING TO HIRE THESE
ADDITIONAL 134 SWORN OFFICERS
AND 2022.
SO, UNLIKE ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT
IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE, SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPECTS THE
COUNCIL TO LOOK AWAY AND ALLOW
THE DEPARTMENT TO PERPETUATE
THE BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS THAT
RESULTS IN EVERY SINGLE YEAR
THE COUNCIL BEING SADDLED WITH
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF UNWINDING
THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS
NONTRANSPARENT BUDGET.
FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS MOST
MEMBERS, NOT ALL, BUT MOST
MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL HAVE
COMMITTED TO THE PRINCIPLE OF
BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THIS
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ALL OTHER
POLICE DEPARTMENTS.
DEPARTMENTS.
I BELIEVE VOTING IN FAVOR OF
THIS BUDGET ACTION IS IN LINE
WITH THOSE BUDGET
ACCOUNTABILITY PRINCIPLES AND
HOPE THE MAJORITY OF YOU WILL
AGREE WITH ME TODAY.
AS I NOTED LAST WEEK, I AM
REASONABLE AND REALISTIC AND
AGREED THAT THE DEPARTMENT DOES
NEED SOME WIGGLE ROOM WHICH IS
WHY MY BUDGET ACTION DOES NOT
ABROGATE ALL 134 POSITIONS.
THE INTERIM CHIEF IS NOT ASKING
THE COUNCIL FOR A REASONABLE
LEVEL OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDING.
HE IS APPARENTLY DEMANDING A
BLANK CHECK AND ZERO FISCAL
ACCOUNTABILITY OR SCRUTINY.
THE COUNCIL SHOULD REJECT HIS
DEMAND.
AT ITS CORE, MY BUDGET
AMENDMENT IS SIMPLY AN EFFORT
TO ALIGN THE DEPARTMENTS BUDGET
WITH THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE
FORCE OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL
YEARS.
THIS REVISED POSITION COUNT
WOULD PROVIDE A BUFFER WELL
ABOVE SPD'S OWN OPTIMISTIC
STAFFING PROJECTIONS WHICH BY
VIRTUE OF THE LAST VOTE HAS
JUST BEEN MADE EVEN MORE
OPTIMISTIC.
WITH THIS COUNSEL BUDGET ACTION
THE SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
CONTINUES TO RETAIN AUTHORITY
TO HIRE THE 1256 EQUIVALENTS
THAT THE CHIEF INDICATED HE
COULD HIRE IN 2022.
AND, THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT HAS INDICATED THAT
THE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT NEED
ADDITIONAL POSITION OF
AUTHORITY ABOVE THE 1256 FULL-
TIME EQUIVALENTS PROPOSED WITH
THIS AMENDMENT UNTIL THE 2024
CALENDAR YEAR AT THE EARLIEST.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS COUNSEL
BUDGET ACTION IS AN IMPORTANT
CLEANUP ACTION, GOOD GOVERNANCE
AND SOUND FISCAL POLICY.
THE PASSAGE OF THIS COUNSEL
BILL WILL ENSURE THAT THE
COUNCIL IS RIGHT SIZING THE
COUNCIL'S BUDGET IN FUTURE
YEARS STARTING WITH THE
PROPOSED BUDGET WHICH SHOULD BE
BUILT BASED ON THE FUNDS NEEDED
TO SUPPORT ITS ACTUAL, NOT
HYPOTHETICAL, BUT ACTUAL
STAFFING NUMBERS AND SHOULDN'T
INCLUDE FUNDING FOR OVER 100
VACANT POSITIONS THAT THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS
UNEQUIVOCABLY STATED IT CANNOT
AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FILL IN
2022.
AND I WANT TO REFLECT ON THE
FACT THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
IS ASKING US TO SHELVE THESE
DOLLARS FOR THESE POSITIONS
THAT ARE NOT AND CANNOT BE
FILLED IN THE CONTEXT OF A
PUBLIC HEALTH EPIDEMIC OF ONE
KIND FOR THIS ENTIRE CENTURY.
IF THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT BELIEVED THAT THEY
COULD INDEED FILL THESE 101
VACANT AND FUNDED POSITIONS BUT
UNFILLED POSITIONS, I TRUST
THAT THEY WOULD HAVE INCLUDED
THE ENTIRE 101 IF NOT 134
POSITIONS IN THEIR STAFFING
HIRING PLAN BUT THEY DID NOT.
SO COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO URGE
YOU TO VOTE YES ON SDOT-012-A-
001 AND I APPRECIATE MADAM
CHAIR YOU GIVING ME AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND A LITTLE
EXTRA TIME THAN I WOULD
ORDINARILY SPEND TO DESCRIBE
AND MAKE MY CASE FOR ADOPTION
OF THE CEMENT.
THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
ALL OF THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE
DONE TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON WHAT
THIS AMENDMENT ACTUALLY IS
RELATED TO 134 VACANT POSITIONS
THAT THE CHIEF, THE MAYOR AND
THE COUNCIL AGREES AND HAS
DISCUSSED WILL NOT AND CANNOT
AND THEY ARE NOT PLANNING TO
FILL.
THESE ARE SEPARATE FROM THE 125
THAT BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET AGREES
WE WILL ATTEMPT TO FILL FULLY
FUNDING THE HIRING PLAN.
I KNOW THIS IS A POINT OF
CONFUSION FOR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMUNITY SO WHAT YOU HAVE
OFFERED TODAY IS TREMENDOUS
CLARITY ALONG WITH CENTRAL
STAFF TO ENSURE THAT FOLKS
TRULY UNDERSTAND THESE ARE NOT
RELATED TO ANY EXISTING
POSITIONS, THESE ARE VACANT AND
WILL PLAN TO BE VACANT.
MONEY IS ROLLING OVER YEAR
AFTER YEAR FOR THE POSITIONS.
I APPRECIATE THE CLARITY YOU
HAVE OFFERED.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, GO
AHEAD.
>> THE COMMENTS THAT I WANT TO
SHARE ARE NOT INTENDED IN ANY
WAY TO CONTINUE TO SPIN AND IN
ACCURATE NARRATIVE.
I RECOGNIZE THE POINTS THAT
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ HAS MADE
ABOUT WHAT IT WOULD MEAN TO
ABROGATE THESE FUNDS, OR THESE
POSITIONS AND WHAT IT WOULDN'T
MEAN.
AGAIN, THESE ARE VACANT
POSITIONS.
COUNSEL HAS REMOVED FUNDING
FROM MANY OF THE VACANT
POSITIONS.
AND I APPRECIATE HER
CLARIFICATION OF BEING IN FAVOR
OF THIS ACTION AND IT HAS NO
IMPACT WHATSOEVER ON THE
DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO HIRE IN
A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH
ITS STAFFING PLAN.
I AM ALSO FRUSTRATED WITH SOME
OF THE RHETORIC COMING OUT OF
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I THINK ANOTHER POINT OF
CONTENTION I HAVE WITH THE
STATEMENT THAT I SEE CHIEF DIAZ
PUT OUT.
HE REFERS TO THE LOSS OF 355
OFFICERS AS A RESULT OF
RETIREMENTS, RESIGNATION AND
CUTS.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
WE HAVE NOT CUT ANY OF THE 325
OFFICERS WHO HAVE LEFT THE
DEPARTMENT.
>> I FEEL I HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO DO EVERYTHING
I CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TRUE
ACTION, THE TRUE IMPACT OF OUR
ACTIONS ARE AND ALSO TO DO
WHATEVER I CAN TO NOT ENCOURAGE
ADDITIONAL CONFUSION TO MISLEAD
THE POSITION OF COUNSEL AS IT
RELATES TO THE DEPARTMENT
BUDGET.
AND I AM NOT SAYING AT ALL THAT
THIS IS THE INTENTION OF THE
SPONSOR BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT
THE BUDGET ACTION, I DON'T
AGREE WITH THE WAY IT HAS BEEN
CHARACTERIZED BY CHIEF DIAZ, I
AM CONCERNED THAT IT DOES SEND
A MESSAGE THAT THE COUNCIL
BELIEVES THAT THE RIGHT NUMBER
OF OFFICERS FOR THE DEPARTMENT
IS 1256 OFFICERS.
FOR THAT REASON, I REALLY AM
VERY CONCERNED THAT AT THIS
TIME IT WOULD SEND THAT MESSAGE
TO THE PUBLIC.
AND WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT I
THINK OUR GOALS FOR STANDING UP
NONPOLICE THIS CRISIS RESPONSE
HAVE NOT BEEN REALIZED THIS
YEAR.
IT IS NOT FOR LACK OF TRYING.
WE HAVE SEEN THE SUCCESSFUL
2021 EXPANSION OF HEALTH ONE.
WE MAY NOT SEE THE SECOND
EXPANSION THIS YEAR.
I'M HOPING WE WILL BUT PART OF
THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE
OF THE LOSS OF POSITIONS IN THE
SEATTLE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT
WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO DO
THE SECOND EXPANSION.
WE HAVE ALSO SUCCESSFULLY
EXPANDED THE MOBILE CRISIS
TEAM'S IN THE CSO EXPANSION.
BUT I THINK THOSE NON-CRISIS
RESPONSE IS THAT WE HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO BRING TO BEAR THIS YEAR
ARE AT A LEVEL THAT IS
COMMENSURATE WITH THE BUDGET
ACTION THAT WE TOOK IN JUNE OR
WHAT WE BEGAN DISCUSSING IN
JUNE 2020 AND FINALIZED IN
AUGUST 2020.
AND THAT WAS AT THAT POINT A
GOAL OF A REDUCTION OF 100
OFFICERS FOR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
AND, AGAIN WITH THE LOSS OF
POLICE OFFICERS VOLUNTARILY
LEAVING THE DEPARTMENT, WE ARE
LOOKING AT THAT REDUCTION OF
100 OFFICERS.
WE ARE NOW AT A REDUCTION OF
OVER 300, WELL, THERE HAVE BEEN
OVER 300 SEPARATIONS, THE SIZE
OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN
REDUCED I BELIEVE BY ABOUT 280.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, I JUST DON'T
WANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE
INADVERTENTLY WITHOUT HAVING
MORE TIME TO REALLY EXPLAIN
WHAT THIS BUDGET ACTION WOULD
DO.
I DON'T WANT TO SEND THE
MESSAGE THAT WE HAVE COME TO
THE CONCLUSION THAT 256 OFFICERS
IS THE RIGHT SIZE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT.
THERE IS A CLEAR OPPORTUNITY I
BELIEVE FOR THE NEW
ADMINISTRATION COMING INTO
OFFICE IN 2022 TO WORK WITH US
HERE ON COUNSEL TO PROVIDE
ACCURATE INFORMATION FOR THE
PUBLIC.
AND I VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO
TURNING THE LEAF TO ENSURE THAT
THAT HAPPENS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
MORALES US, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU.
SO, I THINK COUNCIL PRESIDENT
GONZALEZ DID A GREAT JOB OF
THIS PLANING THE ISSUE THAT WE
HEARD FROM CENTRAL STAFF
EARLIER IN THE WEEK ABOUT THE
134 FUNDED POSITIONS THAT ARE
VACANT IN EXCESS OF THE
PROPOSED FUNDED HIRING PLAN.
WHAT I REALLY WANT TO TALK
ABOUT IS THE MATTER OF THE
OPPORTUNITY COST FOR US AS A
CITY.
THE REASON I AM COSPONSORING
THIS AMENDMENT IS BECAUSE OF
ALL OF THE NEEDS THAT COULD BE
FUNDED INSTEAD OF FUNDING 101
POSITIONS THAT SPD WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO FILL THIS YEAR.
AND REMIND US THAT THE REASON
WE HAD SALARY SAVINGS TO
CAPTURE FOR 2021 BECAUSE THERE
WERE FUNDED POCKETS THAT SAT
VACANT LAST YEAR.
AS THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT SAID,
A GOOD GOVERNANCE ISSUE AND AN
ISSUE OF TRANSPARENCY.
IF WE CHOOSE TO ALLOW THE
PRACTICE OF FUNDING AT AN
EXTRAORDINARY LEVEL FOUR VACANT
POSITIONS THAT CAN'T BE FILLED,
WE ARE EFFECTIVELY ALLOWING
ARTIFICIAL EXPANSION OF THE
DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET AND THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL HAS
BEEN DOING FOR YEARS NOW.
WE DON'T DO THIS WITH OTHER
DEPARTMENTS.
SO, IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHY
WE KEEP DOING IT WITH THIS ONE.
BUT THE NET EFFECT IS THAT WE
HAVE A REDUCED GENERAL FUND FOR
ALL OF OUR OTHER CITY
PRIORITIES AND THAT HAS ALWAYS
BEEN MY POINT OF VIEW ON THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE OF TRYING TO
REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE FORCE IS
THAT WE REALLY NEED TO THINK
ABOUT FINDING THE SCARCE PUBLIC
RESOURCES TO FUND THE REALLY
CRITICAL SERVICES THAT WE HAVE
IN THE CITY.
AND NOW, ESPECIALLY AFTER
COVID, THAT IS EVEN MORE ACUTE
OF AN ISSUE.
THE 134 POSITIONS I THINK
CENTRAL STAFF SAID WOULD BE AN
OUT WOULD BE ABOUT $19 MILLION.
THAT IS STILL LEAVING 33
FUNDED.
WITH THAT $19 MILLION WE COULD
FUND 57 UNITS OF PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
100 HOME ZONES, 190 NEW STREET
OUTREACH WORKERS.
THESE ARE THE ISSUES WE KEEP
HEARING ABOUT AND WE DON'T HAVE
THE RESOURCES TO SCALE UP ALL
OF THAT WORK THAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN.
WE COULD FUND FORGIVENESS FOR
BACK RENT APPROVED DURING THE
PANDEMIC FOR 3400 FAMILIES.
WE COULD FUND NEARLY 5
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING SITES LIKE
THE ONE I PROPOSED FOR THE
CHIEF SEATTLE CLUB THAT DIDN'T
GET FUNDED BECAUSE WE DON'T
HAVE THE MONEY.
WITH $19 MILLION WE COULD HAVE
FULLY FUNDED MY ORIGINAL
AMENDMENTS FOR YOUTH
PREEMPLOYMENT FUNDING,
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING FOR
MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS, COMMUNITY RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE PROGRAMMING,
PROGRAMMING FOR BLACK GIRLS AND
TRANS YOUTH.
A HOUSING ACQUISITION
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND STILL
FUND ANOTHER SIX PUBLIC
TOILETS.
SO THIS IS THE ISSUE FOR ME.
WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT THAT IS
BLOATED AND HAS BEEN FOR A
WHILE.
AND WE HAVE INCREDIBLE NEEDS IN
OUR COMMUNITY.
THIS IS JUST THE LIST FROM MY
DISTRICT.
I'M SURE THAT EACH OF MY
COLLEAGUES COULD QUICKLY WRITE
A LIST OF $19 MILLION WORTH OF
INVESTMENTS THAT THEIR DISTRICT
COULD REALLY BENEFIT FROM.
SO, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO COUCH
IT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COMMUNITY
SAFETY OR PUBLIC SAFETY, WE
HAVE TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE
BALANCE AND HOW WE ALLOCATE OUR
SCARCE PUBLIC DOLLARS TO MEET
THE NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WE MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET AND
STAFFING.
WE FUNDED CSO'S AND WE ARE
DOING OTHER IMPORTANT WORK TO
TRY TO IMPROVE COMMUNITY SAFETY
AND WE COULD CONTINUE TO INVEST
IN UPSTREAM SOLUTIONS.
SO, I KNOW THIS ISN'T GOING TO
BE THE END OF THIS CONVERSATION
AND WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT
THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, MY
GUESSES FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO
COME.
I WANT TO ENCOURAGE MY
COLLEAGUES NOT TO THINK ABOUT
THIS AS SOME HOT POTATO
POLITICAL ISSUE, AND REALLY
THINK ABOUT THE KIND OF
INVESTMENTS IN OUR COMMUNITY
THAT WE COULD BE MAKING BY
SHIFTING FUNDING FROM THE
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM THAT
DOESN'T SERVE OUR BLACK AND
BROWN NEIGHBORS TO MORE
UPSTREAM PREVENTION SERVICES
AND REALY START TO CHANGE THE
MATERIAL CONDITIONS THAT OUR
NEIGHBORS ARE LIVING IN.
SO, I'M PROUD TO BE A COSPONSOR
OF THIS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
VOTING YES.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER.
COUNSEL COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSON , PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR
CENTRAL STAFF.
HOW OFTEN DOES SPD UPDATE THEIR
STAFFING PLAN AND THEIR HIRING
PLAN?
>> THE DEPARTMENT DOES IT
INTERNALLY ABOUT ONCE A MONTH.
THEY SEND IT OVER QUARTERLY
ACCORDING TO THE SLI THAT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS
REQUESTED SPD 001.
SO, THE COUNCIL WILL RECEIVE
QUARTERLY PRESENTATIONS.
THEY SEND IT OVER INFORMALLY
MORE OFTEN.
AND I KEEP TRACK OF IT.
>> THANK YOU.
WE DO HAVE AN INCOMING
ADMINISTRATION SO THERE WILL BE
ADDITIONAL STAFFING PLANS AND
HIRING PLANS THAT WILL BE
PROVIDED.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T REALLY
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE SITUATION
WILL BE SEVERAL MONTHS FROM
NOW.
SO, COLLEAGUES RATHER THAN
CUTTING THE CURRENTLY VACANT
POSITIONS, I WOULD URGE US TO
INSTEAD FOCUS ON EXPANDING
REFORMS BY REVAMPING THE POLICE
UNION CONTRACT.
THE CONTRACT EXPIRED OVER A
YEAR AGO.
AS WE KNOW, THE POLICE UNION
CONTRACT GOVERNS FINANCIAL
ISSUES SUCH AS PREMIUM PAY AND
THE DEFINITION OF OVERTIME.
A BETTER CONTRACT CAN ALSO
SUBSTANTIALLY STRENGTHEN
ACCOUNTABILITY.
SO, I BELIEVE REVAMPING THE
CONTRACT THAT HAS EXPIRED
CONTINUES TO BE THE BEST PATH
FOR US TO WORK TOGETHER WITH
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND OUR
ACCOUNTABILITY PARTNERS TO MAKE
MEANINGFUL AND DURABLE
PROGRESS.
I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS
AMENDMENT TO CUT POSITIONS AND
I STRONGLY URGE MY COLLEAGUES
TO VOTE NO AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
>> I DON'T SEE ANOTHER HAND SO
WILL OFFER SOME COMMENTS AND
THEN ALLOW FOR THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT TO HAVE THE FINAL
CLOSING COMMENTS HERE.
THESE ARE NOT POSITIONS THAT
ARE FUNDED.
THESE ARE NOT CUTS TO SWORN
OFFICERS.
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT
RECOGNIZES THAT THERE ARE 134
VACANT POSITIONS THAT EVERY
YEAR ROLLS BACK INTO THE
MAYOR'S BUDGET.
THAT EVERY YEAR ALLOWS FOR THEM
TO HAVE NEARLY $20 MILLION TO
MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHERE
THOSE DOLLARS SHOULD GO WITH IN
SPD WITHOUT ACCURATELY
RECOGNIZING THAT THOSE DOLLARS
SHOULD GO TO THE GENERAL FUND
FOR AN INFORMED CONVERSATION
ABOUT HOW THEY COULD BE
ALLOCATED IN THE FUTURE.
IF THE MAYOR WANTED TO THIS
YEAR PUT THAT $17.7 MILLION
INTO THE GENERAL FUND AND THEN
HAD SUGGESTED IN HER PROPOSED
BUDGET THE WAYS IN WHICH TO USE
IT TO GO BACK INTO SPD, AT
LEAST IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE
TRANSPARENT.
IT IS NOT TRANSPARENT NOT ONE
EVERY YEAR THESE POSITIONS THAT
ARE VACANT CONTINUE TO ROLL
OVER YEAR-TO-YEAR AND THAT
LEAVES US WITH THE INABILITY TO
HAVE A TRANSPARENT CONVERSATION
WITH THE COMMUNITY ABOUT HOW
MUCH MONEY IS ACTUALLY GOING
INTO SALARIES AND OFFICERS.
IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT
THESE 134 POSITIONS ARE FOR
OFFICERS.
THESE ARE VACANT POSITIONS AS
CENTRAL STAFF, OUR INDEPENDENT
NONPARTISAN CENTRAL STAFF HAS
REITERATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN
THAT BOTH THE MAYOR, THE CHIEF
AND COUNCIL ALL ACKNOWLEDGE ARE
NOT ATTEMPTING TO BE HIRED.
EVERY YEAR THOSE DOLLARS WILL
CONTINUE TO ROLL OVER UNLESS WE
ABROGATE THIS POSITION.
I VERY MUCH SUPPORT THE
POSITION OFFERED.
I SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I THINK IT
IS A GOOD BUDGETING MATTER.
I SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT ALSO
INCLUDES A CUSHION JUST IN CASE
BY SOME STRETCH OF THE
IMAGINATION THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT IS ABLE TO HIT THE
125 HIRING GOAL THAT THEY HAVE,
THEY STILL HAVE OVER 30
POSITIONS THEY WOULD THEN BE
ABLE TO CONTINUE TO HIRE FOR.
IT IS NOT ABROGATING EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF THOSE POSITIONS.
IT IS ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YEAR
AFTER YEAR WE SHOULD NOT BE IN
THIS POSITION
I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE THIS
COUNSEL TIME AND TIME AGAIN
HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO FEAR
MONGERING, AND BROWBEATING WHEN
THE REALITY IS THOSE $17.7
MILLION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ALLOCATED OUT TO THE PROGRAMS
THAT THE MAYOR HAD WANTED TO
WITHOUT A TRANSPARENT NUMBER
STATION FIRST AND HAVE THOSE
DOLLARS REFLECTED IN THE
GENERAL FUND.
REGARDLESS OF YOUR POSITION ON
VARIOUS POLICIES AS IT AFFECTS
POLICING, IT IS GOOD BUDGETING
PRACTICE TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERY DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE
AN INFLATED DOLLAR AMOUNT TIED
TO POSITIONS YEAR AFTER YEAR
WHEN WE KNOW THOSE POSITIONS
ARE NOT GOING TO BE FUNDED.
WE NOTE THOSE POSITIONS ARE NOT
GOING TO BE FILLED IS WHAT I
MEANT TO SAY AND YET THEY ARE
FUNDED.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
WHY WOULD WE ALLOW FOR THESE
POSITIONS TO STAY ON THE BOOKS
TO RECEIVE FUNDING WHEN WE KNOW
THEY WON'T BE FILLED.
WHEN THEY HAVE ASKED FOR THE
HIRING PLAN THAT THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT HAS ASKED FOR,
>>> IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO
ALLOW THESE ARTIFICIALLY
INFLATED SALARIES.
I APPRECIATE THAT IF WE CAN
SUPPORT RETENTION, MENTAL
HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, AND SHOW
THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO REMOVE
OFFICERS WHO ARE RESPONDING TO
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS AND MENTAL
HEALTH CRISIS, AND FOLKS WHO
NEED ACCESS TO SHELTER AND
SERVICES.
THOSE ARE POLICY DECISIONS THAT
WILL CONTINUE AND SHOULD
CONTINUE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS RELATED TO
INFLATED BUDGET TACTICS THAT
KEEP THE COUNSEL IN A DEFENSIVE
POSITION EVERY YEAR, AND IT
STATES WHAT SHOULD BE CLEAR,
PLUS I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT
THIS REGARDLESS OF YOUR
POSITION ON POLICY DEFENSES
THAT WE MAY HAVE HAD IN THE
PAST.
THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR
TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE
BUDGETING MATTERS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE BETTER CLARITY, THIS WILL
ABSOLUTELY HELP THAT, SO WE ARE
NOT SUBJECT TO FEAR MONGERING
AND MISINFORMATION.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I WANTED TO RAISE A POINT HERE,
I WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO LEAVE
AFTER THIS, SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, FOR
AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE BRIEF
CLOSING REMARKS IN RESPONSE TO
SOME OF THE DEBATE HERE.
YOU KNOW, I WANT TO MAKE IT
REALLY CLEAR THIS PROPOSED
BUDGET ACTION IS NOT ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT WE AS A COUNSEL
BELIEVE THIS IS THE RIGHT
NUMBER OF OFFICERS AND THE
RIGHT SIZE FOR THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS REALLY A QUESTION ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR A DEPARTMENT,
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR ANY
OTHER DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY TO
BUILD THE BASE BUDGET ON AN
ASSUMPTION THAT IS SIMPLY NOT
TRUE. AND IT IS TOTALLY
INFLATED.
THAT IS THE CASE FOR THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
EVERY YEAR, WE GET A BUDGET
THAT BUILDS THE FINANCIAL
PICTURE AROUND AN UNREALISTIC,
UNREASONABLE NUMBER OF FUNDED,
BUT VACANT POSITIONS.
I THINK THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE,
WE SHOULD CORRECT FOR THAT.
THAT DOES NOT PREVENT GROWTH
FROM OCCURRING AT THE SEATTLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THERE IS IN FACT NOTHING IN THIS
BUDGET OR MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT
THAT PREVENTS UNEXPECTED GROWTH
AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
INDEED IS PART OF THE REASON WHY
I ONLY CHOSE TO PUT FORWARD AN
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD AGGREGATE
FUNDED AND VACANT POSITIONS,
SO, LET'S DO THE MATH REALLY
QUICKLY, ALLOWING FOR
REASONABLE GROWTH, 125
POSITIONS, PLUS THE 33 THAT
CONTINUE TO REMAIN, FOR A TOTAL
OF 158 POTENTIAL POSITIONS TO
BE HIRED, NEXT YEAR, IN 2022.
THE ALTERNATIVE, IF WE REJECT
THIS PROPOSAL, WE WILL HAVE A
BUDGET THAT INDICATES THAT THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN HIRE 125
POLICE OFFICERS, WHICH WE HAVE
ALREADY FUNDED, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 134 POSITIONS, FOR A
TOTAL OF 259.
EVEN IN THE MOST OPTIMISTIC
SCENARIOS, THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT NEVER IN ITS HISTORY
OF EXISTENCE HAS HIRED 259
OFFICERS IN A SINGLE YEAR, OR
IN A COMBINATION, FOR TWO OR
THREE YEARS.
AGAIN I APPRECIATE THAT THE
NEXT COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ONGOING
GROWTH, ABOUT AN ACCURATE
NUMBER OF HIRES VERSUS
ATTRITION, AND, THAT IS AN
IMPORTANT POLICY CONVERSATION
FOR THE COUNCIL TO HAVE. I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CENTER THE
CONVERSATION NOT ON POLICY
QUESTIONS, NOT BEING DECIDED
THROUGH BUDGET ACTION, BUT ON
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR ANY
ADMINISTRATION, CURRENT OR
PAST, OR FUTURE, TO SEND THE
CITY COUNCIL A BUDGET, DOES
BUILDS A BUDGET FOR A
DEPARTMENT AROUND NUMBERS THAT
THEY KNOW ARE NOT TRUE,
UNREALISTIC, AND UNACHIEVABLE.
I HOPE YOU WOULD ALL AGREE THAT
SHOULD NOT BE THE PRACTICE IN
TERMS OF HOW TO DEAL WITH
BUDGET, AND YOU ALSO SEE THAT I
UNDERSTAND THERE IS A NEED TO
HAVE POLICY CONVERSATION AROUND
THE FUTURE GROWTH, AND THAT
NOTHING IN THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT
TIES THE HANDS OF THIS COUNSEL
TO HAVE THE IMPORTANT POLICY
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FORMULA
TO IDENTIFY THE NUMBER OF
POLICE OFFICERS THAT WILL BE
NECESSARY TO CONTINUE TO DELIVER
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES. I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ENGAGE IN RESPECTFUL DEBATE AND
DIALOGUE.
I ENCOURAGE ONCE AGAIN FOR MY
COLLEAGUES TO VOTE YES ON THIS
PARTICULAR ITEM.
>> I'M NOT SEEING ADDITIONAL
HANDS.
CALL THE ROLL, IF YOU CAN,
PLEASE, AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM 199.
>>> CEMENTED - - OF THE MEMBER
STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT?
>> YES.
>>>'S MEMBER OR BOLD?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WHEREAS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> NO.
>> MIRELES?
>> YES.
>> WE HAVE FOUR IN FAVOR, FIVE
OPPOSED.
>> THE MOTION CARRIES, EXCUSE
ME.
THE MOTION FAILS AND THE
AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
'S MEMBER MIRELES?
>> THANK YOU, I WANT TO
APOLOGIZE, I HAVE SOME PESKY
KIDS AROUND HERE, I NEED TO
MOVE TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE.
>> MOVED, SECONDED.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS?
>> I NEED CLARIFICATION.
WHAT ARE WE DOING?
SORRY.
>> I'M ASSUMING WE ARE VOTING
ON THE PREVAILING SIDE.
>> WE WILL MOVE WE WILL VOTE ON
THE ITEM IN FRONT OF US AGAIN.
THE MOTION CARRIES, CLERK EMMA
PLEASE CALL ROLL.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
RECONSIDERATION. OKAY, EXCUSE
ME.
IF THERE ARE PROCEDURAL
QUESTIONS, LET ME HANDLE THOSE
FIRST.
THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR
RECONSIDERATION, ALLOWING
ACCOUNTS MEMBER TO RECONSIDER
HIS, HER, OR THEIR VOTE.
WE ARE ASKING FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE VOTE.
IF SUCCESSFUL, WE WILL
RECONSIDER THE VOTE ON THE
INITIAL CONVERSATION THAT WE
JUST HAD ON THE AMENDMENT, 203.
ACCOUNTS MEMBER PETERSON?
>> I THINK YOU ANSWERED IT,
CHAIR, A YES VOTE IS ALLOWING
THE RECONSIDERATION.
OKAY.
SO THAT IS CORRECT, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
ESSENTIAL STAFF IS KNOTTING.
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE AT
6:30, WE GOT THIS.
A VOTE YES IS TO AFFIRM THAT
YOU WILL ALLOW FOR THE
COUNCILMEMBER TO HAVE HER
MOTION CARRY FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE VOTE.
THEN WE WILL ALL VOTE AGAIN.
OKAY.
I'M SEEING NO ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON
RECONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION
FOR SPD.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> SUSTAINED.
>> KSHAMA SAWANT?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER WHEREAS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES?
>> YES.
>> AND CHAIR?
>> YES.
>> WE HAVE SEVEN OPPOSED, ONE
ABSTENTION, ONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU, THE VOTE AND
RECONSIDERATION CARRIES, THE
MOTION IS NOW IN FRONT OF US FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THE VOTE ON
SPD 014 A, AND 001, THIS PUTS
THE BILL IN FRONT OF US FOR A
VOTE AGAINST DAY, AND ALL OF
THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS THAT WE
HAD DISCUSSED.
ALL OF THOSE THAT WERE
DELIBERATIONS STILL APPLY.
I WOULD ASK IF ANYBODY HAS
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON
QUESTIONS BEFORE WE CONSIDER
THE MOTION.
PLEASE GO AHEAD, COUNCIL MEMBER
PETERSON.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, AT THIS
POINT, THE YES VOTE IS VOTING
IN FAVOR OF THE COUNCILMEMBER,
COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS, WITH THE
AMENDMENT.
>> A YES VOTE IS AFFIRMING THAT
YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SPD 014-
8001 INCLUDED AS A PAST
AMENDMENT, A NO VOTE MEANS YOU
DO NOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
YES SUPPORTS THE UNDERLYING
AMENDMENT, 203, AND NO MEANS
YOU DO NOT LIKE THE AMENDMENT.
OKAY, GREAT.
IN THE ADDITIONAL GRAPHITE
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS?
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL ROLL,
ON THE APPROVAL OF THE
AMENDMENT, 001Ã2222.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
>> YES.
>> KSHAMA SAWANT?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I VOTE NO.
COUNCIL MEMBER WHEREAS?
>> YES.
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR?
>> I VOTE NO.
>> WE HAVE FOUR PEOPLE IN FAVOR.
WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.
THE MOTION FAILS, AND THE
AMENDMENT, ITEM 203 ON THE
AGENDA DOES NOT PASS.
OKAY. COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU FOR
THAT PROCEDURAL.
THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE,
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES.
I BELIEVE WE ARE NOW ON NUMBER
190.
COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE THREE MORE.
IT IS 6:30.
I APOLOGIZE FOR GOING SO LATE
INTO THE EVENING, TONIGHT.
THREE MORE AMENDMENTS.
I THINK WE CAN DO THIS.'S
MEMBERS, IN FRONT OF US IS S
START 010.
EXCUSE ME, ASKED OUT 107A, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, ITEM NUMBER
198 ON THE AGENDA.
IT WAS DISCUSSED, BUT NOT ACTED
UPON, EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON.
$2.4 MILLION FOR THE STREETCAR,
THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF AN
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE
THIS FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE
ITEMS THAT WOULD BE FUNDED BY
THIS PROPOSAL.
THAT WAS NOT ACTED ON AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU.
IT WAS MOVED, AND SECONDED, THE
AMENDED VERSION IS IN FRONT OF
US.
WE CAN POTENTIALLY ACT ON THAT
AMENDED VERSION, IF I'M
CORRECT.
>> CHAIR, I BELIEVE THE MOTION
TO AMEND WAS MOVED AND
SECONDED, BUT THE VOTE ON THE
MOTION WAS NOT MOVED.
YOU SAW THE VOTE ON THAT MOTION,
AND THEN YOU DECIDE WHICH ONE,
BASED ON THAT, AND THE FUNDING
BEFORE YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCIL
MEMBERS, I BELIEVE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, YOU WERE
THE UNDERLYING SPONSOR HERE.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION THAT HAS
BEEN SECONDED, TO AMEND THAT,
AND TO ORIENT US, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, AND YOU LIKE TO SPEAK
TO THE UNDERLYING BILL BEFORE WE
TALK MORE ABOUT THE AMENDMENT
THAT RECEIVED SECONDING?
>> THAT IS AN INTERESTING
QUESTION.
>> THIS IS WHY I AM PAUSING,
OBVIOUSLY I SUPPORT THE
UNDERLYING AMENDMENT, THROUGH
THE AMENDMENT, AND SO, I'M
HAPPY TO DESCRIBE IT.
BUT AGAIN, AS IT RELATES TO THE
FUNDING SOURCE, I DO NOT
SUPPORT THIS, TO SPEAK STRONGLY
TO THE USE OF FUNDINGS, I DO
NOT SUPPORT THE SOURCE, ON THE
MATTER THAT IS BEFORE US, TO
VOTE ON, WHICH IS THE AMENDMENT
TO THE AMENDMENT.
AND JUST TO RESTATE WHAT I HAVE
SAID BEFORE, I STRONGLY SUPPORT
A BONUS PROGRAM, IN THE
BALANCING PACKAGE, AND I
REQUESTED A REPORT ANALYZING
THE ISSUES, ACROSS ALL
DEPARTMENTS, FOCUSING ON FRONT-
LINE WORKERS, FOCUSING ON
VACANCIES THAT RESULTED IN A
SERVICE ISSUE, WITH THE PUBLIC,
OR VACANCIES THAT INHIBIT A
DEPARTMENT FROM FULFILLING A
CORE FUNCTION, AND LOOKING FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE
STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THESE
DIFFICULTIES IN HIRING,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
HIRING NOTICES, AND YOU KNOW,
IT HAS BEEN REALLY IMPORTANT TO
ME, IN HAVING A CONVERSATION
ABOUT THE BONUS PROGRAM, THAT
WE DO NOT ELEVATE THE
IMPORTANCE OF SOME CITY WORKERS
OVER OTHERS, AND OTHER
DEPARTMENTS.
EVERY TIME I TALK TO A
DEPARTMENT HEAD, I HEAR ABOUT
THE ISSUES THAT THEY ARE
EXPERIENCING, AND I HAVE IN AN
ONGOING BASIS JOKED ON WHETHER
OR NOT WE NEED A PROGRAM TO
ADDRESS THOSE, AND IT GOES FROM
THE INVESTIGATORS, THAT ARE
WORKING IN THE OFFICE, TO THE
FOLKS WHO ARE WORKING IN
POSITIONS THAT WE ARE ADDING TO
DEAL WITH SOME OF THE FINANCIAL
ISSUES OF HUMAN SERVICES,
EVERYBODY IS JOKING, DO YOU
KNOW ANYONE WHO WOULD FILL
THESE POSITIONS?
EACH VACANCY COMES WITH PROBLEMS
THAT ARE CROSSING ALL
DEPARTMENTS, AND I'VE TALKED
BEFORE ABOUT VACANCY ISSUES IN
THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT THE
STRUGGLES THAT THEY ARE HAVING
AS WELL, AND AGAIN, I THINK
WITH A MORE COMPREHENSIVE
ANALYSIS OF THESE VACANCY
ISSUES, WE COULD HAVE AN
EQUITABLE PROGRAM TO INCENTIVIZE
PUBLIC SERVANTS TO COME WORK
FOR THE CITY.
BUT WE NEED MORE THAN JUST
ANALYSIS, WE ALSO NEED THE
FUNDING.
WE NEED THAT IN 2022, WHICH IS
NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.
THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
COUNCIL MEMBER, THE MEMBER
STRAUSS HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS,
DON'T MEMBER STRAUSS RECEIVED
THE AMENDMENT.
>> THIS IS A GREAT AMENDMENT.
IT PROVIDES HIRING INCENTIVES
TO GET THE COMMUNITY CENTERS
OPEN, AND TO GET PEOPLE HIRED,
FROM COMMUNITY CENTERS TO COPS,
THIS COVERS EVERY CITY
DEPARTMENT THAT WE HAVE, AND IF
YOU ARE WONDERING WHY WE DIDN'T
HAVE THE POOLS OPEN THIS LAST
SUMMER, OR OVER THE WINTER,
IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT UNABLE
TO HIRE LIFEGUARDS, SOME
BEACHES HAVE NOT BEEN CLOSED,
BECAUSE WE CANNOT HIRE ENOUGH
PEOPLE, WE SEE THIS AS A
PROBLEM ACROSS THE BOARD.
ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT THE
COUNCIL MEMBER SAID, I ALSO SEE
THAT THE FUNDING SOURCE IS AN
ISSUE, SO, I THINK THERE IS
UNIVERSAL SUPPORT FOR THE
FUNDING OUTCOME OF THIS, THE
QUESTION THAT WE ARE HAVING IS
HOW IT IS GOING TO BE FUNDED,
SO, CHAIR, I WOULD HOPE THAT IF
BOTH MY AMENDMENT AND THE
AMENDMENT FROM COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD FAILS TODAY, WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THIS UP
BEFORE MONDAY, FOR THE MORE
APPROPRIATE FUNDING SOURCES.
THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT
AMENDMENT.
STREETCAR FUNDING, TO
ESSENTIALLY KILL THE PROGRAM,
IT ISN'T THE BEST WAY TO DO
THIS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT
THE REVENUE STABILIZATION
FUNDING IS THE BEST PLACE TO DO
THIS EITHER.
BUT THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE, AT
THIS TIME, SO THAT IS WHY I
BRING THIS FORWARD.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, OR
QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT IN
FRONT OF US?
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS, THIS
DOES DIP INTO THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION CUT, $2.4 MILLION
CUT FROM THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION COUNT.
THE REVENUE IS ACCURATE, HERE.
>> IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE
MOTION TO A MAKE THE
AMENDMENTS, THAT WOULD CHANGE
WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU, AND
DIP INTO THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION ACCOUNT.
>> FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE
AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US, IT
HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED, I
DON'T SEE ANY ADDITIONAL HANDS,
I WILL VOTE AGAINSTTHIS
AMENDMENT.
I AM CONTINUING TO RAISE
CONCERNS.
AND I WILL DO SO THROUGHOUT THE
END OF THE YEAR FOR THE USE OF
EMERGENCY FUNDING THAT WE NEED,
AS FAR AS REVENUE STABILIZATION
AND REVENUE FUNDING, WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL
DOLLARS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE
RAINY DAYS THAT MAY COME.
I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT I HAVE
SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE USE OF
THE ORIGINAL POST FUNDING FOR
THE AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF US.
MADAME CLERK I WILL ASK IF YOU
CAN CALL THE ROLL ON AMENDMENTS,
AS PERMITTED AS PRESENTED ON
THE SCREEN.
COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON?
KSHAMA SAWANT?
THANK YOU.
DON'T MEMBER STRAUSS?
>> YES.
DON'T MEMBER GONZALES?
>> NO.
COUNCIL MEMBER HER BOLD?
>> NO.
COUNCIL MEMBER WAR IS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LOUIS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES.
>> NO.
>> CHAIR?
>> NO.
>> THREE IN FAVOR.
FIVE ARE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CLERK, THE
MOTION FAILS, THE AMENDMENT IS
NOT ADOPTED.
THAT BRINGS US TO THE
UNDERLYING AMENDMENT THAT WAS
ORIGINALLY INCLUDED, ITEM
NUMBER 198, COUNCILMEMBER HER
BOLD, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD
ANYTHING ELSE?
NO COMMENTS THERE, ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
NO?
OKAY, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK
YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD. I WILL
SAY SOME THINGS THAT ARE
PROBABLY NOT A SURPRISE, GIVEN
MY INTEREST IN PROTECTING THIS
FUNDING SOURCE AS WELL.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT
REDIRECTING THE USE OF PNC
TAXES FOR THIS PURCHASE PURPOSE.
I AM A HUGE SUPPORTER OF THE
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL DECISION AS
WELL.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN
CONTINUE TO KEEP OUR
COMMITMENTS TO THE SPENDING PLAN
FOR THE TSC TAX THAT WAS
INTENDED TO BE USED FOR WORKER
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTERS,
ADMINISTERING TAXES,
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING,
TRANSPORT ORIENTED DEVELOPING,
MOBILITY DESIGN, AND HELPING
AWAY FROM RELIANCE ON SUPPORT
TRANSIT, AND I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE OUR
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CITY
STREETCAR PROJECT, I THINK IT
IS AN IMPORTANT PROJECT THAT
UNFORTUNATELY HAS HAD SOME
LOOPHOLES, WE NEED TO CONTINUE
TO CREATE MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ACROSS
THE CITY, AND REALLY IMPORTANT,
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
MAINTAINING COMMITMENTS TO
THOSE WORKERS, AND MODIFY THOSE
FUNDING SOURCES.
WE HAVE SEEN CONSUMMATE SOME
CONCERNS, FOR COMMUNITY
PARTNERS, AND I WILL BE A NO ON
THIS AMENDMENT TODAY.
COUNCILMEMBER, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T GET A
CHANCE TO SPEAK.
I FEEL VERY STRONGLY.
I NEED TO MAKE EQUIVOCATION.
THIS DOES NOT TOUCH ANY OF THE
FUNDING OTHER THAN THE FUNDING
THAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR THE
STREETCAR, THE CENTER CITY
STREETCAR CONNECTOR STUDY, 420
22.
IT DOES NOT TOUCH ANY OF THE
OTHER FUNDING CONTEMPLATED TO
BE USED AS PART OF THE TMC REST
REVENUE.
SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT,
COUNCIL MEMBER HER BOLD, THANK
YOU FOR CORRECTING THE RECORD.
IN A WEEK AND A HALF FULL OF
MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND
MISINFORMATION, I APPRECIATE
BEING CORRECTED, I DON'T WANT
THAT TO LINGER OUT THERE, THANK
YOU FOR THE CORRECTION, WE WILL
PASS ON ANY CONCERNS, AS WELL.
COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND JUST
AS TO WHAT THE COUNCILMEMBER
SAID, THE $400,000 INVESTMENT
WOULD BE TRANSPORTATION RELATED
TO HELP KIDS GET TO SCHOOL.
AND AGAIN, BOTH OF THESE ARE
THE ONE-TIME INVESTMENTS.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE SETI
THE CENTER CITY CONNECTOR WOULD
NEED TO REVISIT IN A FUTURE
DATE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
I AM NOT SEEING ANY.
MADAM CLERK?
COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE
ON THE ADOPTION OF THIS?
PETERSON?
STRAUSS?
CONSUMMATE STRAUSS?
>> NO.
APOLOGIES.
GOVERNOR GONZALES?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HER BOLD?
>> NO.
>> COMES MEMBER WHEREAS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LOUIS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR?
>> NO.
>> WE HAVE TWO IN FAVOR.
WE HAVE SIX OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.
THE MOTION FAILS, THE HUMAN IS
NOT ADOPTED, WE HAVE TWO MORE.
CENTRAL STAFF, GO TO ITEM
NUMBER 204.
>> ITEM 204.
$500,000 IN THE GENERAL FUND
FOR A WATERFRONT SHUTTLE
TRANSIT SEARCH SERVICE, CUTTING
GENERAL FUNDING CONTRIBUTION
FOR THE STABILIZATION FUND BY
COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS.
>> COMES MEMBER LOUIS, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
>> THIS IS A LATE RAKING ITEM
IN THE BUDGET CYCLE, IT CAME IN
LATER, ON THEIR SIDE, PUTTING
ASIDE HALF $1 MILLION TO
OPERATE THIS WATERFRONT SHUTTLE.
I BROUGHT THIS TOGETHER TO
EFFECTUATE THE SERVICE, AS A
VERY BRIEF REMINDER.
THIS PROVIDED RIDES FOR HALF 1
MILLION. I'M SERVING BOTH
VISITORS AND SEATTLE RESIDENTS
ALIKE AS A FREE WATERFRONT
SHUTTLE SERVICE.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ASSET FOR
2022, WE CONTINUE TO SEE AN
INCREASE IN VISITORS TO THE
REGION FROM LEISURE TRAVEL WHILE
BUSINESS TRAVEL CONTINUES TO
LAG DUE TO THE DELAY IN
REOPENING.
LEISURE TRAVEL CONTINUES TO
RECOVER, AND THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT ASSET FOR THAT,
GENERALLY, FOR DOWNTOWN AND
CENTER CITY RECOVERY, GIVEN
THAT IT DOES PROVIDE AN ABILITY
TO GET AROUND FOR LOCALS, AND
IN THE CITY CORE, AS WELL.
HALF MILLION DOLLARS FROM KING
COUNTY IS ON THE TABLE, TO
REALIZE THIS.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT IS PROPOSING TO
DIP INTO THE STABILIZATION
ACCOUNT, DUE TO ME NOT WANTING
TO STEP ON THE TOES OF SOMEONE
ELSE'S AD, NECESSARILY.
PUTTING IT IN TO MAKE SURE WE
COULD EFFECTUATE RESTORING THIS
SERVICE WITH THE COUNTY.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY ADDITIONAL ALMONDS OR
QUESTIONS?
OKAY.
AGAIN, COMES MEMBER LOUIS, I
APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, REALLY
THIS IS LESS ABOUT POLICY
CONCERNS HERE, AND MORE ABOUT
CONTINUING USE OF REVENUE
STABILIZATION ACCOUNTS.
FOR ME, THAT WILL BE A NO, I'M
SURE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE WITH
THAT STABILIZATION ACCOUNT AT
THIS POINT.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE FOLLOW UP ON
S.021800.
>> PEARSON?
>> STRAUSS?
>> NO.
>> YES.
>>> MEMBER GONZALES?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER WHEREAS?
>> NO.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER LOUIS?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES?
>> NO.
>> CHAIR?
>> NO.
>> TWO IN FAVOR.
SIX OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUC, THE
MOTION FAILS, THE AMENDMENT IS
NOT ADOPTED.
WE ARE AT THE LAST ONE, OKAY.
WE CAN DO THIS.
LET'S DO IT.
COUNCIL MEMBERS?
COMES MEMBER LOUIS, LET'S GO
BACK TO YOU, LEAD US OUT OF
THIS MEETING.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
THIS IS BRINGING THINGS BACK IN
A SLIGHTLY SCALED-DOWN FORM.
I STRONGLY FEEL THAT THIS WOULD
BE AN APPROPRIATE ITEM TO DIP
INTO THE RESERVES FOR, IT'S A
RELATIVELY MODEST AMOUNT OF THE
ADDITIONS RELATIVE TO THE OTHER
THINGS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED,
THIS EVENING, AND SECOND, THERE
IS A STRONG CASE TO BE MADE
THAT THIS PAYS FOR ITSELF, THE
AUDITORS OFFICE RECOUPS VALUE,
AND GETS REALIZED IN BUDGET
CIRCLES, THROUGH THE WORK THAT
THEY DO, SCRUTINIZING PRACTICES
AND SPENDING PRACTICES.
THERE IS AN EXAMPLE THAT SEEMS
TO HAVE BEEN DONE, SOMETHING A
PERFORMANCE AUDIT COULD
POTENTIALLY DETECT.
AND I THINK THIS WOULD BE
WARRANTED AS SOMETHING THAT
COMES OUT OF STABILIZATION
FUNDING, TO DO THIS AD AND TO
SEE ONGOING FUNDING IN 2022, TO
CONTINUE THE PROCESS OF
STRENGTHENING THIS REALLY
CRITICAL OVERSIGHT ASSET THAT
WE HAVE IN THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, IF THERE IS ANY
ITEM I COULD BRING, AND ATTEMPT
AT DISCIPLINE OVER NOT DIPPING
INTO THE RESERVES, THIS WOULD
BE THE ONE, THE ONE THAT I
WOULD MAKE AN EXCEPTION ON.
I WORKED WITH MEMBER LOUIS AND
AN EARLIER STAGE OF BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS TO HIGHLIGHT A
PROJECT OF THE CITY OF THE
AUDITORS OFFICE, A PRIORITY FOR
ME, THE AUDIT ITSELF, AND THE
SORT OF FACILITATION OF A SELF-
ASSESSMENT OF THE CITY POLICE
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENCIES, AND
WORKING TO IDENTIFY A GROUP OF
FOLKS WITH LIVED EXPERIENCES,
TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT SELF-
ASSESSMENT.
IN HOPES THAT WOULD LAY THE
GROUNDWORK FOR THE CITY AUDITOR,
CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE
ENTITY, TO DO A MORE COMPLETE
ASSESSMENT.
THAT SAID, I AM GOING TO STICK
TO MY GUNS HERE.
I JUST KNOW THAT ONE EXCEPTION
IS NAMED AND ANOTHER EXCEPTION
CAN BE MADE.
WE ARE ALMOST AT THE END OF THE
LIST.
THERE IS ALWAYS A FULL COUNCIL
VOTES.
I JUST DON'T WANT TO DO
ANYTHING THAT MIGHT ENCOURAGE
MY COLLEAGUES TO TAKE ANOTHER
BITE AT THE REVENUE.
I DO WANT TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER
LOUIS SAID ABOUT PERFORMANCE
AUDITS, FOR THE RECORD, I DON'T
BELIEVE THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT
WOULD IN ANY WAY HAVE REVEALED
THE FRAUDULENT AUTOMATIC PAYMENT
PRACTICES THAT RESULTED IN THE
LACK OF CITY FUNDING, GOING TO
MARY'S PLACE.
THAT WAS A RESULT OF A REQUEST
FOR AUTOMATIC PAYMENTS, AND
THAT WAS A FRAUDULENT REQUEST.
THERE ARE IMPROVED FINANCIAL
PRACTICES, SOME OF THEM ARE
SUPPORTED BY THIS BUDGET THAT
WE ARE FUNDING HSD FROM, THAT
ARE GOING TO ENSURE THAT NEVER
HAPPENS AGAIN, BUT I DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT WOULD BE
ABLE TO FLAG IN ADVANCE.
I DO BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT THE CITY TIGHTEN UP
PROCEDURES FOR HOW IT AUTHORIZES
AUTOMATIC PAYMENTS AS REQUESTED
BY A CONTRACTOR.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD, TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T
CONFUSION, I THE VIEWING PUBLIC
, OR BY THE PRESS, ON WHAT A NO
VOTE MEANS, ON THIS, IT DOES
NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE SUPPORTING
CONTINUED PRACTICES THAT CAN
EXPOSE THE CITY TO FRAUD LIKE
WE SAW. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
COMES MEMBER PETERSON, PLEASE
GO AHEAD.
TO THANK YOU, CHAIR, I
APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER LOUIS
BRINGING THIS FORWARD.
I THINK IT IS IN OUR BEST
INTEREST TO TALK WITH THE CITY
AUDITOR'S OFFICE, AND OBVIOUSLY
WITHIN THE LEGISLATORS
APARTMENT, AND EXPAND THE
BANDWIDTH TO PERFORM OVERSIGHT
AND TO DO DEEP DIVES ON THINGS,
THE THINGS THAT POINT OUT
ISSUES THAT CAN SAVE MONEY.
I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS, IF
FOR SOME REASON IT DOES NOT
PASS, I HOPE THAT WE DO KEEP
THE CITY AUDITOR TOP OF MIND,
WITH MIDYEAR SUPPLEMENTAL
THINGS.
THANK YOU.
>> GREAT POINT, THANK YOU,
COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON.
I FEEL TORN, FOR THIS VERY
REASON, COUNCIL MEMBER HER BOLD
IS VOTING NO ON THIS, I WILL BE
AS WELL, BUT I VITIATE THE CALL
FOR ACTION, ESPECIALLY IF THERE
ARE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO
WORK WITH THE AUDITOR.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THEIR WORK.
AND THEY ARE CLOSELY REGARDED,
SOUTH ATLANTIC AND OTHER AREAS,
WE WILL THANK THEM FOR THEIR
WORK AND CONTINUE THIS IN 2022.
COLLEAGUES, LET'S GO AHEAD.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL ROLE
ON THE ADOPTION OF 001D.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON?
COMES MEMBER STRAUSS?
COMES MEMBER GONZALES?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> NO.
COMES MEMBER WHEREAS?
>> NO.
COMES MEMBER LOUIS?
>> NO.
COUNCILMEMBER MIRELES?
>> NO.
CHAIR?
>> NO.
>> THREE IN FAVOR.
FIVE ARE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE MOTION FAILS.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED.
COMES MEMBER PETERSON, I'M
SEEING YOU NOD, COLLEAGUES,
THAT DOES REACH THE END OF THE
AGENDA HERE.
IT HAS BEEN A LONG DAY.
BUT I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE EXTRA
HOURS GIVE YOU THE FULL DAY
TOMORROW TO ENJOY HAVING
ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH
US AND CENTRAL STAFF AS WE
FINALIZE QUESTIONS.
I'M JUST KIDDING.
TAKE THE DAY, GET SOME REST,
AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
ENJOY TIME THAT IS OUTSIDE OF
THE BUDGET, OUR SINCERE HOPE IS
THAT THESE ARE THE FINAL
MINUTES FOR THE DAY, AND WE
WILL BE MAKING ONLY THE FINAL
VOTES ON MONDAY, WE LOOK
FORWARD TO WRAPPING UP THIS
CONVERSATION WITH YOU ALL, AND
REALLY HIGHLIGHTING AS
COUNSELORS THROUGHOUT THE DAY,
COMMON GROUND, AND THE AREAS
THAT WE HAVE ENJOYED
INVESTMENTS, THE WAYS THAT WE
ARE EXCITED AND PREPARED FOR
2022 TWO FEEL A LITTLE MORE
EQUITABLE, SAFE, AND HEALTHY,
FOR SEATTLE.
WE DO NOT HAVE MORE ITEMS ON
TODAY'S AGENDA.
TOMORROW'S MEETING WILL BE
CANCELED, COLLEAGUES, THERE
WILL BE NO SELECT BUDGET
COMMITTEE MEETING TOMORROW,
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, FOR
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW THAT
WE HAVE EXTENDED THE COMMITTEE
MEETING TO GET YOU THROUGH
THIS, CENTRAL STAFF CAN LOOK AT
WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IN TOTAL.
SEEING THAT, IS THERE ANYTHING
ELSE THAT YOU WOULD ADD FOR THE
ORDER IN THIS PROCESS?
SHE SAYS NO.
IT'S 7:00 P.M.
COLLEAGUES, THANK YOU FOR
EVERYTHING, AND THANK YOU FOR
ALL OF YOUR AMENDMENTS, WITH
THAT, THERE ARE NO FURTHER
AMENDMENTS.
TODAY'S AGENDA IS ADJOURNED,
THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
[ MU