>> GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME
BACK TO SELECT BUDGET
COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE
SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL. TODAY IS
OCTOBER 11th, 2023. THE TIME IS
2:00 P.M. I AM TERESA
MOSQUEDA, CHAIR OF THE SELECT
BUDGET COMMITTEE. THE SELECT
BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL RESUME
FROM RECESS . IF THE CLERK
COULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL,
THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD .
COUNCIL MEMBER JUAREZ. COUNCIL
MEMBER LEWIS. COUNCILMAN THE
PEDERSEN. COUNCILMEMBER SAWANT
? COUNCIL MEMBER STRAUSS? AND
CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> PRESENT. THANK YOU, MADAM
CLERK. COLLEAGUES, JOINING US
FOR THE SECOND PART OF THIS DAY
ONE --
>> I'M HERE, MADAM CHAIR. THIS
IS COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ .
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COUNCIL PRESIDENT. COUNCIL
MEMBER JUAREZ IS NOTED AS
PRESENT. HANK YOU ALL FOR
JOINING US AGAIN FOR THE SECOND
PART OF OUR FIRST DAY IN THE
OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED 2024
MADE BIANNUAL ADJUSTMENT
DISCUSSION. WE WILL CONTINUE
WITH CENTRAL STAFF
PRESENTATIONS . THIS AFTERNOON
WE WILL HAVE ITEM NUMBER THREE,
WHICH IS THE GENERAL FUND
BALANCING ANALYSIS OF FIRST .
FROM DEPUTY DIRECTOR ALY
PENNUCCI AND TOM MIKESELL OF
CENTRAL STAFF. WE WILL
CONCLUDE THIS AFTERNOON WITH
THE JUMPSTART FUND BALANCING
ANALYSIS FROM CENTRAL STAFF, AS
WELL. COULD YOU PLEASE READ
ITEM NUMBER THREE IN THE
RECORD.
>> ITEM NUMBER THREE, GENERAL
FUND BALANCING ANALYSIS FOR
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION.
>> WONDERFUL, THANK YOU SO
MUCH. I SHOULD PAUSE TO MAKE
SURE WE HAVE OUR FRIENDS FROM
CENTRAL STAFF ON THE LINE HERE.
HI, TOM . GOOD TO SEE YOU. AND
HELLO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
WELCOME BACK, AND THANK YOU.
YOUR PRAISES WERE BEING SUNG
EARLIER THIS MORNING. NEXT, AS
ALWAYS, FOR DIVING INTO THE
PROPOSED BUDGET AND HELPING US
DECONSTRUCT THE PROPOSAL THAT
WE HAVE RECEIVED GOING OVER THE
GENERAL FUND BALANCING
COMPONENTS IN THIS PORTION. I
WILL TURN IT OVER TO CENTRAL
STAFF FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO
TOM, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD AFTERNOON,
MEMBERS OF THE BUDGET
COMMITTEE. THIS IS THE FIRST
DAY OF OUR BUDGET PRESENTATION
WITH A DIVE INTO THE GENERAL
FUND BALANCING ANALYSIS. THIS
PRESENTATION SHOULD BE FAIRLY
FAMILIAR AT THIS POINT TO YOU.
I THINK THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR
THAT WE HAVE HAD RUN THROUGH .
IT SHOWS AT A HIGH LEVEL HOW
THE DECISIONS IN THE PROPOSED
BUDGET HANG TOGETHER WITH THE
FUND BALANCING. IF WE GO TO
THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO, THE
AGENDA FROM THIS PRESENTATION,
WHICH I WOULD NOTE IS BACKED
UP WITH A DETAILED STAFF MEMO
THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE
AGENDA WHICH WILL BASICALLY
FOLLOW THE SAME CONTOUR OF THE
PRESENTATION. THE AGENDA
HOLLOWS. FIRST I WILL START
WITH A BRIEF TOUCH ON WHERE THE
BUDGET ENDED LAST FALL WITH
THE ORIGINAL 23 ADOPTED 24
ENDORSED BUDGET WAS DECIDED .
AND WHAT THAT FINANCIAL PLAN
LOOKS LIKE. THEN I WILL RUN
THROUGH SOME OF THE DECISIONS
THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SO FAR THIS
YEAR WITH REGARDS TO THE
GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND
EXPENDITURE RELATED. WE WILL
TURN THEN TO THE PROPOSALS THAT
ARE INCLUDED AS BUDGET
LEGISLATION WITH THE MAYOR'S
2024 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO
THE BUDGET. THEN CONCLUDE WITH
A LOOK AT 23 WITH A JUMP INTO
24 ADJUSTMENTS INCLUDING
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES. THEN
WE WILL WRAP WITH TOUCHING
BACK ONTO A LONGER-TERM LOOK OF
HOW THOSE PROPOSALS IMPACT THE
GENERAL FUNDING CAPABILITY.
AND ALSO, DUE TO THE PHYSICAL
RESERVE IN THE COVID PANDEMIC I
WILL CONCLUDE WITH A LOOK AT
THE RESERVE FUND. SO, IF WE
COULD TURN TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
THE SHOULD LOOK FAMILIAR. AND
AGAIN, THESE PRESENTATIONS
GENERALLY ARE PRETTY DETAILED.
I WILL TRY TO PROVIDE THE
HIGH-LEVEL POINTS THAT YOU
SHOULD LOOK AT. I DO TEND TO
FOLLOW A THEORY OF TRANSPARENCY
IN SHOWING MY WORK AND SHOWING
HOW THINGS HANG TOGETHER. IF
THERE ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE
WAY, PLEASE DO STOP ME AND ASK
. I APPRECIATE THAT, ACTUALLY.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU COME AWAY
FROM THIS PRESENTATION WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE GENERAL
FUND IS BALANCED. SO THIS
TABLE WOULD BE THE 23 TO 24
ADOPTED ENDORSED BUDGET. IT
STARTS FROM EIGHT 2022 INNING
FUND BALANCE OF THAT COLUMN ON
THE LEFT OF $155 MILLION, WHICH
IS WHAT WAS PROJECTED TO BE THE
RESOURCES AT THE END OF THE 22
BUDGET. DOES CARRY THROUGH TWO
YEARS TO ARRIVE AT THE BUDGET.
ONE THING I WOULD NOTE FOR THE
NEXT SLIDE, THERE IS A PLANNING
RESERVE. ONE OF THE KEY FACTORS
IS I AM NOT CREATING ANYTHING
NEW WITH THIS. I AM TAKING WORK
THAT IS DONE BY THE EXECUTIVE
AND I REFRAME IT TO ALLOW FOR
VISUALIZATION. THIS SHOWS THE
BUDGET AS TRANSMITTED BY THE
CITY BUDGET OFFICE, SO IT
EQUIPS SOME AMOUNT OF RESOURCES
IN A NONAPPROPRIATED LINE,
LARGELY THINGS LIKE LABOR AND
OTHER COSTS THAT ARE DETERMINED
TO BE NECESSARY FOR EXPENDITURE
BUT ARE NOT YET MAKING IT TO
APPROPRIATION. THEN FINALLY,
THE BOTTOM ROW, I AM NOTING
THAT IN THE 23 AND 24 BUDGET
THERE WAS AN ASSUMPTION OF $20
MILLION . THAT ASSUMPTION IS
UNCHANGED AS WE MOVED TO 24.
LET'S LOOK AT THE NEXT SLIDE
OF.
>> CAN I JUST ASK, 20 MILLION
AND UNDERSTAND, HOW DOES THAT
RELATE TO WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN
UNDER SPEND IN PREVIOUS YEARS ?
>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION,
MADAM CHAIR. THAT UNDER SPEND
IS ACTUALLY LOWER. I BELIEVE A
YEAR AGO WE DID AN ANALYSIS OF
UNDER SPEND LOOKING TO BE ON
THE ORDER OF $15 MILLION PER
YEAR. THAT IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR
TO THE RESULT IN THE MAY
PRESENTATION FOR HOUSING
COMMITTEE WHERE EVEN AFTER
APPLYING THE UNDER SPEND FOR
LAST YEAR WITH 2022, WHICH WAS
$10 MILLION, THERE WAS STILL
ACCESSORY LEFT OVER AT THE END.
SO THE HISTORY OF UNDER SPEND
IN PAST YEARS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I BRING
THAT UP AS A GOOD ILLUSTRATION
OF THE WORK WE HAVE BEEN TRYING
TO DO OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS
OF HAVING LESS UNDER SPEND YEAR
OVER YEAR SO IT IS MORE
ACCURATE BUDGETING, AT LEAST
THAT WE TRY TO ADJUST FOR
MIDYEAR WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL
OR IN THE END OF YEAR BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS. THAT IS GOOD TO
KNOW THAT THE TREND IS
IMPROVING, AND YET, STILL WORK
TO BE DONE TO THE TENS OF
MILLION DOLLARS TUNE. THAT IS A
NOTABLE IMPROVEMENT OVER
PREVIOUS YEARS. CENTRAL STAFF
LED BY YOU, AND THE WORK YOU
HAVE DONE TO COMPARE WITH THE
CITY OF SEATTLE DOES TO OTHER
JURISDICTIONS. AND THANKS TO
THE PARTNERSHIP FROM CBO FOR
THEIR ONGOING WORK WITH US AND
CENTRAL STAFF ON HOW TO MAKE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT SYSTEM. A
NOTABLE IMPROVEMENT. AND STILL
WORK TO BE DONE TO REDUCE HIGH
LEVELS OF UNDER SPEND YEAR OVER
YEAR.
>> WE CAN LOOK AT THE NEXT
CHART. TO TAKE THE PRIOR SLIDE
AND ADD A COUPLE OF YEARS. THE
NUMBERS ARE THE SAME FOR 22
THROUGH 24 , THEN WE ADDED 25
AND 26 TO SHOW THE MULTIYEAR
FINANCIAL PLAN. ONE THING I
WOULD POINT OUT BEFORE I GET
TO THAT KEY TAKE AWAY FOR THIS
SLIDE, THAT THE PLANNING
RESERVE LINE IN THIS FORMAT IS
A SMALLER DOLLAR AMOUNT. THAT
IS BECAUSE WHAT I AM DOING IS
INCLUDING ANYTHING ABOVE THE
2022 LEVEL , WHICH IS $38
MILLION IN THE SECOND ROW FROM
THE BOTTOM. I AM SHOWING THAT
AS AN EXPENDITURE. IT IS MONEY
THAT WILL BE SPENT BUT HAS NOT
MADE IT TO THE APPROPRIATED
BUDGET YET DEPENDING ON WHEN
CONTRACTING FELL AND THINGS
LIKE THAT. I JUST WANT TO POINT
THAT OUT. THAT IS A DIFFERENCE
IN DISPLAY. THE UNDERLINED
ASSUMPTION OF THE SAME. WITH
THAT, I WILL TURN YOUR
ATTENTION TO THE GREEN
HIGHLIGHTED CELLS ON THE TABLE.
THESE WILL ALSO BE FAMILIAR.
THESE REPRESENT THE INDICATION
OF THE PROJECTED OPERATING GAP
IN 25 AND 26. THE ON AVERAGE
$212 MILLION. IF WE LOOK AT
THE NEXT SLIDE , YOU CAN SEE IT
VISUALLY. THIS IS KIND OF THE
BENEFIT OF SHOWING PLANNING
ASSUMPTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.
YOU GET TO VISUALIZE WHAT THE
GAP LOOKS LIKE. I WOULD JUST
SAY, BESIDES THE OBVIOUS , THAT
THERE IS A DEFICIT. WHICH THE
COMMITTEE IS AWARE OF . AT THE
END OF LAST YEAR'S BUDGET
ADOPTION, BECAUSE OF THE USE
OF FUND BALANCE FROM THE END
OF 22. 23 AND 24 WERE ALSO
BEING BALANCE. IT REALLY IS THE
EXPIRATION OF THE ONE-TIME
SUPPORT FROM THE JUMPSTART
PAYROLL EXPENSE FUND EXPIRING
IN 2025 WITH THE GAP BEING
LARGER. THAT IS KIND OF THE
RECAP OF WHERE WE WERE. THINGS
HAVE OCCURRED AND THINGS HAVE
BEEN PROPOSED. WE CAN GO THEN
TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND START TO
REVIEW SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
HAVE OCCURRED SO FAR IN 23.
THE FIRST KIND OF CHANGE THAT
OCCURRED , AND THERE WILL BE A
SLIDE IN A BIT FURTHER INTO
THE PRESENTATION THAT PULLS ALL
OF THESE NUMBERS TOGETHER TO
KIND OF SHOW THE HIGH LEVELS OF
HOW THE CHANGE OCCURS. I AM
JUST GOING TO POINT THAT OUT.
AND IT IS INCLUDED . I HAD
PROMISED MYSELF THAT I WOULD BE
KEEPING YOU AWARE OF WHERE IN
THE MEMO I AM REFERRING TO.
THIS PULLS FROM PAGES SIX
THROUGH SEVEN OF THE STAFF MEMO
, WHICH HAS ADDITIONAL DETAIL.
FOR THE FIRST NOTABLE CHANGE
FOR 2023, THAT 2022 END. THIS
PIGGYBACKS ON THE CHAIRS POINT
ABOUT UNDER SPEND AND HOW THE
CITY OUTPERFORMED IN UNDER
SPENDING EVEN MORE THAN WHAT
WAS PROJECTED. AND THE 23
STARTING BALANCE IS $167
MILLION HIGHER THAN WHAT WE
WERE PROJECTING. THAT IS
BECAUSE OF , ESSENTIALLY,
REPEATED REVENUES AND LOWERING
BUDGET EXPENDITURES THAT CAN
CAUSE THAT BALANCE TO BE
LARGER. BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL
2023 BUDGET RELIED ON A
STARTING BALANCE THAT WAS $193
MILLION , WE CAN NOW COUNT ON
THAT ADDITIONAL MONEY TO BE
AVAILABLE IN 2024 . AND
INDEED, A LARGE PORTION OF THAT
RESOURCE HAS BEEN SPENT SO FAR
IN 2023 , BY WAY OF 12 SEPARATE
PIECES OF LEGISLATION THAT HAVE
BEEN APPROVED TO DATE THAT
HAVE SPENT A TOTAL OF $1.3
MILLION. AND THE DETAILS FOR
WHAT THOSE INDIVIDUAL BILLS
ARE. THE LARGEST WILL BE THE
CARRY GOLD BILL. KIND OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PIECES OF
LEGISLATION. BUT THERE ARE
OTHER, SMALLER BILLS THAT HAVE
SPENT THE GRANT RESOURCES FOR
OTHER THINGS, AS WELL. THAT IS
BASICALLY IN TOTAL HOW MUCH
WAS SPENT. ALSO DECREASED
REVENUE BY $24.8 BILLION. WHY
DID THEY DECREASE REVENUE? THE
ANSWER IS THAT A LARGE PORTION
OF THAT WAS REVENUE IMPACT DUE
TO THE REDUCTION TO THE
JUMPSTART FUND TRANSFERRED TO
THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH WAS
MADE POSSIBLE BY THE
BETTER-THAN-EXPECTED 2022
RESULT . BETTER-THAN-EXPECTED
GENERAL FUND REVENUES IN THE
FORECAST, AND THAT DOWNGRADED
THE JUMPSTART PLAN FOR 2023 .
THAT WAS THE PRINCIPAL REASON
WHY REVENUES WERE INCREASED
DUE TO LEGISLATION DURING THE
YEAR. ALSO, WHAT HAS OCCURRED
IS THERE WAS A REVENUE
FORECAST BY THE JOINT EFFORTS
OF THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
REVENUE FORECAST, THE CITY
BUDGET OFFICE, WHICH IMPACT
INCREASE THE PROJECTED
REVENUES FOR 2023 BY $106
MILLION. SO IT IS KIND OF A
MIXTURE OF BETTER-THAN-EXPECTE
D FUND BALANCE, EXPENDITURES
AND CARRYFORWARDS , A BIT OF A
SHIFT IN REVENUE DUE TO
BETTER-THAN-EXPECTED 22
RESULTS ALLOWING TO RELIEVE
THE PRESSURE ON THE JUMPSTART,
SUPPORTING THE GENERAL FUND IN
23. THEN FINALLY, SOME
REVENUE FORECAST. AND I WILL
TALK ABOUT THAT REVENUE
FORECAST A FEW TIMES, BECAUSE
IT IMPACTS NOT JUST THIS YEAR,
BUT NEXT YEAR, AS WELL. AND
NOTE THAT WINDOWS JOINT
FORECAST OFFICES DO THEIR
FORECAST, THEY RELY ON THE 2%
PROBABILITY BASELINE . AT
THAT TIME 25% LIKELY IT WOULD
BE WORSE, 25% LIKELY IT WOULD
BE BETTER. THEY CHOSE THE
MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD , AND THAT
WAS ENDORSED BY THE FORECAST.
IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE WE
CAN TALK NOW ABOUT SOME OF THE
PROPOSALS. THERE ARE TWO KEY
BILLS IN TERMS OF BUDGET
LEGISLATION THAT WERE
SUBMITTED WITH THE 2024
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT . THAT
INCLUDES YEAR IN SUPPLEMENTAL,
WHICH WOULD INCREASE REVENUES
TO THE GENERAL FUND $5 MILLION
AND INCREASE EXPENDITURES BY
15.9 MILLION , THE COMBINED
IMPACT OF $11.9 MILLION. THEY
WOULD DRAW THAT RESOURCE BY
$1.9 MILLION. THE WAY OF THE
REVENUE CHANGE, NOTEWORTHY
ONES ARE A $4.7 MILLION
DECREASE, AN ADDITIONAL
DECREASE IN THE TRANSFER FROM
JUMPSTART ON TO THE GENERAL
FUND WHICH WHEN COMBINED WITH
THE $34 MILLION REDUCTION TO
THE TRANSFER OF PROVEN THE NEW
YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL, IT REDUCES
THE TOTAL TRANSFER FROM THE
JUMPSTART FUND TO THE GENERAL
FUND TO $71 MILLION. GOING IN
THE OTHER DIRECTION IS A $3.6
MILLION GENERAL FUND INCREASE
FROM THE CORONAVIRUS PHYSICAL
RECOVERY FUND TO SUPPORT A
VARIETY OF FIREFIGHTER AND
EMERGENCY MEDICAL LABOR COSTS.
THOSE ARE LARGER REVENUE
CHANGES. THEY ARE KIND OF
STANDALONE . THERE WERE SOME
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FINANCE
GENERAL RESERVES , THAT IS KIND
OF THE NON-DEPARTMENTAL ACCOUNT
THAT TRACKS RESERVES AND
TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDS. ONE
WITH A $2.5 MILLION DRAW
WHICH WERE NOT NEEDED. ALSO,
JUST SHY OF A MILLION-DOLLAR
REDUCTION TO REFLECT A FULL
PAYMENT OF INTERFUND LOANS , A
VARIETY OF FUNDS TO THE GENERAL
FUND THAT CAN AFFECT REVENUES
TO BE COLLECTED. THAT WON'T
EXPIRE UNTIL THE END OF 22.
THERE IS A $336,000 INCREASE IN
DEBT SERVICE BUDGET . THEN
FINALLY, A $320,000 INCREASE
WHICH WILL ELIMINATE THE
REMAINING BALANCE ALTERED FOR
911 RESPONSE RESERVE, BECAUSE
ALL THOSE FUNDS , WE LOOK AT 24
IN THE COMMUNITY SAFETY . A FEW
MORE FINANCE GENERAL
ADJUSTMENTS. I WILL LARGELY
FOCUS ON FINANCE GENERAL,
BECAUSE OTHER DEPARTMENTS WILL
BE COVERED IN LATER
PRESENTATIONS . ONE
NOTEWORTHY ADJUSTMENT IS AN
$8.5 MILLION INCREASE IN THE
TRANSFER TO THE EMERGENCY FUND.
SO THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT
DRAWN AMOUNT FROM THE
EMERGENCY FUND DURING THE
COVERED PANDEMIC. AND AT THE
TIME THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE
RESERVE EMERGENCY FUND POLICY
TO ALLOW FOR A FIVE-YEAR
REPAYMENT SCHEME ON THOSE
FUNDS. I BELIEVE IN 23 THOSE
AMOUNTS WHERE 3.5 AND $8.5
MILLION IN FUTURE YEARS. SO
THIS IS BASICALLY THE ONE-TIME
RESOURCES TO INCREASE THOSE
TRANSFERS AND PAVING THE
EMERGENCY FUND QUICKER THAN
PLANNED LAST YEAR. THEN
FINALLY, THERE IS A $1.5
MILLION TRANSFERRED TO THE
SCHOOL SAFETY TRAFFIC AND
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
WHICH ESSENTIALLY CORRECTED AN
ERROR . THOSE FUNDS SHOULD HAVE
BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THAT FUND
IN THE LAST TWO YEARS , GIVEN A
LAPSE IN TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
TO DIVERT THOSE FUNDS FROM THE
GENERAL FUND . THEY CAUGHT THAT
ERROR AND IS NOW REIMBURSING
THE FUND TO WHAT IT'S BALANCE
SHOULD BE.
>> AND I WANT TO NOTE FOR
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC , PRESS,
OR OUR COLLEAGUES WHO ARE
FOLLOWING ALONG, ALL OF THESE
DETAILS THAT WERE JUST
SUMMARIZED BY TOM ARE ON PAGE
EIGHT OF HIS ANALYSIS, MIDDLE
OF THE PAGE. IN CASE YOU ARE
LOOKING FOR THE SMALLER DOLLAR
NUMBERS THAT HELP TOTAL UP THE
5.7 MILLION IN NET COSTS
INCREASE TO FINANCE GENERAL.
LET'S PAUSE ON EACH BULLET, IF
EACH ONE IS GOING TO HAVE THAT
MUCH DETAIL INCLUDED IN EACH
BULLET. LET'S JUST POSIT THE
END OF THIS ONE. ANY QUESTIONS
ON WHAT TOM SUMMARIZED ?
INFORMATION, PAGE EIGHT OF HIS
MEMO , MIDDLE OF THE PAGE NOTED
UNDER NOTABLE GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURE CHANGES.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON ?
>> COULD YOU PLEASE TALK A
LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE $2.3
MILLION REDUCED SPENDING ? I
THINK YOU SAID IT WAS FOR PAID
FAMILY LEAVE. I AM READING THE
MEMO HERE AND IT IS A WHOLE
BUNCH OF RINGS. SO CAN YOU
JUST GIVE SOME MORE
INFORMATION? IT LOOKS LIKE IT
IS OVERTIME FOR DETECTIVES, AND
THE INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN TASK FORCE
INVESTIGATION. YOU HAVE ANY
INFORMATION ABOUT WHY?
>> EXCELLENT QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON . THE ITEM
THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS
ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, $2.2
MILLION WHICH IS FOR A GRANT
FOR THE INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN. THERE IS ALSO A $2.5
MILLION INCREASE IN FINANCE
GENERAL RESERVE. THE FINANCE
GENERAL RESERVE IS THE AMOUNT
SET ASIDE TO PAY FAMILY LEAVE
COSTS THAT ARE INCURRED. THEY
MAKE AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT THEY
THINK THOSE COSTS ARE GOING TO
BE WHEN THEY BUILD BUDGET.
WHEN THE COSTS COME IN LOWER .
THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS.
THE REDUCTION IN THE RESERVE,
THEN INCREASE TO THE GENERAL
FUND BUDGET .
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> GOOD QUESTION. I THINK THAT
QUESTION AND THE ANSWER HELPS
ILLUSTRATE THE PROJECTED COST
THAT THE DEPARTMENT TRIES TO
HOLD ONTO FOR PAID FAMILY
LEAVE, THEN WHAT THE ACTUAL
COSTS ARE. SO I DEFINITELY
THINK IT IS A GOOD QUESTION. WE
DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO TAKE AWAY
THAT THIS IS REDUCED FUNDING
FOR FAMILY LEAVE OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT.
>> I WAS WONDERING IF IT WAS
SOMETHING LIKE BECAUSE THOSE
EMPLOYEES WERE NO LONGER THERE.
>> GOOD QUESTION.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON, I
WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO THE
ESTABLISHMENTS FOR THE REASONS
WHY THEY DID NOT MEET THAT. ALL
I KNOW IS THAT THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT AND THAT FULL AMOUNT WAS
NOT NECESSARY. BUT I AM HAPPY
TO FOLLOW-UP.
>> I WILL ADD, COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, LIKE TOM SAID, IT IS
AN ESTIMATE AND WE WILL LOOK
INTO IT MORE. BUT IF THROUGHOUT
THE YEAR THERE WERE OTHER
SAVINGS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT
BUDGET, THEY MIGHT USE THOSE
FUNDS FIRST PRIOR TO NEEDING TO
REQUEST AN INCREASED
APPROPRIATION FROM THE RESERVE.
THIS IS CBO RIGHTSIZING IT BUT
TRYING TO BE EFFICIENT IN
USING ONE TIME SAVINGS WITHIN A
DEPARTMENT FOR THESE TYPES OF
EXPENDITURES THAT COME UP AS
PEOPLE TAKE PAID LEAVE DURING
THE YEAR.
>> OKAY, LET'S CONTINUE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE
DETAIL OF THE FINANCE GENERAL
RESERVES, $5.7 MILLION. THERE
IS A $750,000 REDUCTION THAT
IS REPRESENTING THAT SERVICE
COST FROM GENERAL FUNDS TO THE
TRANSPORTATION FUND WHERE
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAXES.
THERE IS A FIVE POINT
MILLION-DOLLAR INCREASE TO THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT. THERE IS
ADDITIONAL DETAIL , BUT IN
GENERAL IT IS REPORTING A
VARIETY OF NEW COSTS IN 23 FOR
FIRE SERVICES. AND THE A $.5
MILLION TRANSFER WHICH I DID
COVER ALREADY. AND THEN ,
THERE IS $5.8 MILLION OF ITS
MINIATURES BACKED BY INTERNAL
REVENUE. SO A PORTION OF THIS
IS THE $2.2 MILLION FOR
INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN, THE DETAIL MENTION.
A FEW OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT
ARE ALSO LISTED ARE $1.8
MILLION TO THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT FOR STAFFING THE
MAJOR-LEAGUE ALL-STAR GAME, AND
$159,000 TO INCREASE REVENUES
TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR
OVERTIME COSTS .
>> TOM, I WOULD MAYBE ASK FOR
YOU TO SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT.
IT IS A LITTLE HARD TO HEAR ON
MY END. BUT I WANT TO ASK
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD IF YOU
HAD ANYTHING TO ADD TO THIS. I
THINK THE COMMENTS FROM EARLIER
RELATED TO DIFFERENT PARTS OF
THE AGENDA REGARDING THE
SEATTLE FIRE DEPARTMENT. I
JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT
CONNECTION HEAR FROM OUR
EARLIER DISCUSSION.
>> I'M CURIOUS, AND YOU MAY
HAVE ADDRESSED THIS ALREADY.
BUT HOW IS IT THAT THE
CORONAVIRUS LOCAL PHYSICAL
RECOVERY FUNDS ARE ABLE TO BE
USED IN THE WAY THAT THE
PROPOSED BUDGET USES THEM? IS
THERE FLEXIBILITY TO USE THOSE
FUNDS FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
COSTS?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO DIG FURTHER
INTO THE RATIONALE WITH THOSE
FUNDS. I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE
USED FOR SPECIFIC RESPONSE
PURPOSES IF ALLOWED, BUT I
WOULD HAVE TO DO MORE . I AM
ASSUMING THAT'S VALID, SO I
WILL FOLLOW UP.
>> I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT
QUESTION. IN THE FIRST YEAR
WHERE YOU ARE GETTING THE FIRST
ALLOCATIONS OF CLIPPER FUNDS,
THEN IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS A
PORTION OF THAT WAS REVENUE
REPLACEMENT. IT WAS TO HELP
ADDRESS. SO I BELIEVE THAT THIS
IS A CONTINUED USE OF REVENUE
REPLACEMENT. AND IT IS
SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY USES . SO THIS IS
DEFINITELY AN AUTHORIZED USE OF
THOSE FUNDS .
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> JUST TO CLOSE ON THE SLIDE,
WITH REGARDS TO THESE ITEMS,
ONE THING WE DID NOTE AND
REVIEW IS THAT THERE ARE SOME
ITEMS LIKE THESE INTERNET
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN THAT
DON'T HAVE AN ACCEPTANCE
ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. SO AS THE
COMMITTEE WILL RECALL, EXTERNAL
FUNDS HAVE A TWO STEP PROCESS
WHERE THEY ARE REVIEWED BY THE
COMMITTEE , SO THERE IS AN
ACCEPTANCE FIRST AND THEN THE
EXPENDITURE. IN PAST YEARS THE
MONEY HAS BEEN PART OF THE
ACCEPTANCE, BUT WE DID NOT SEE
IT IN THE ROUNDS. WE ARE DOING
THE FOLLOW-UP REVIEW OF THE
MATERIALS TO ENSURE THAT
EVERYTHING REQUIRED IS IN PLAY.
NOW WE CAN LOOK AT THE NEXT
SLIDE. THIS IS SLIDE SEVEN,
WHICH REFERS TO PAGE NINE OF
THE MEMO. AND SO, THE PRIOR
COMMENTS IN THE PRIOR SIDE
WERE REGARDING THE YEAR IN
SUPPLEMENTAL. THERE IS ALSO A
YEAR-END GRANT ACCEPTANCE
EXPENDITURE BILL. SO THAT BILL
ESSENTIALLY WOULD ACCEPT $42
MILLION IN TOTAL , OF WHICH
$8.8 MILLION WOULD GO TO THE
GENERAL FUND . AND THAT A $.8
MILLION IS SUPPORTED FULLY BY
THE EXTERNAL REVENUE SOURCE.
THEN ATTACHMENT A INCLUDED
WITH THE STAFF MEMO LISTS ALL
THE ACCEPTANCES THAT ARE
INCLUDED IN THAT. IN TOTAL,
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION
DECREASED RESOURCES BY $11.9
MILLION. THIS NEXT ITEM ,
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS OVERLAPS .
THIS IS A TECHNICAL ITEM . IN
REVIEWING THE BUDGET
ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED, IT
APPEARED THAT THERE WERE SOME
OVERLAPS BETWEEN THINGS THAT
WERE INCLUDED IN THE AUDIT
FORECAST AND THINGS THAT WERE
ACCOUNTED FOR AT LEGISLATION.
INCLUDING BOTH WOULD'VE
ACTUALLY RESULTED IN A DOUBLE
COUNT. SO GIVEN THAT THAT
OCCURRED , IT IS NECESSARY TO
HAVE A $14.5 MILLION LINE OF
ADJUSTMENT TO ACCOUNT FOR
THINGS SHOWING UP IN BOTH
PLACES. AND THAT LARGELY IT WAS
IN REGARDS TO ITEMS THAT ARE
GRANTED ACCEPTANCES THAT ARE
ACCEPTED LEGISLATIONS. THEN
FINALLY, THERE IS THE CHANCE
OF $5 MILLION REDUCTION THAT
FREES UP RESOURCES IN 2023.
AND I BELIEVE THE NEXT SLIDE
PULLED ALTOGETHER. REFERRING
TO PAGE 10 OF THE MEMO, THIS
IS ALL THE STEPS THAT WE WORK
THROUGH WHERE THE 23 ADOPTED
BUDGET HAD A RESERVE BALANCE
OF 175 MILLION DOLLARS .
ADDED $157.5 MILLION. APPROVE
LEGISLATION DURING THE YEAR.
SPENT $215 MILLION. THE
REVENUE FORECAST IN AUGUST
ADDED 106.3 MILLION. PROPOSED
BUDGET LEGISLATION HAD THAT
IMPACT OF $11.9 MILLION
REDUCTION. THE ADJUSTMENTS FOR
THE OVERLAP THAT I JUST
MENTIONED REMOVES 14.5, SO
THAT WE DON'T DOUBLE COUNT
THINGS IN PLACEMENT. AND THEN
THE CHANGE TO THE PLANNING
RESERVES , THAT IS ACTUALLY A
POSITIVE NUMBER. THAT BRINGS
THE 2023 RESERVE BALANCE TO
144 POINT ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL
RESOURCE AFTER ALL OF THE
PROPOSED ACTIVITY IN 2023.
THAT IS DEPLOYED IN THE MAYOR'S
POST ADJUSTMENT. SINCE THERE
IS A LOT OF DETAIL HERE, I WILL
PAUSE FOR A MOMENT TO SEE IF
THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, TOM. ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE
FIRST EIGHT SLIDES HERE? OKAY.
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> ALL RIGHT, SO DOES THE $407
MILLION WORTH OF CHANGE THAT
WAS NOTED EARLIER THIS MORNING
INCLUDE EXPENSES THAT USE THE
$144 MILLION?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION ,
I BELIEVE THAT THE PRESENTATION
THIS MORNING WAS FOCUSED
SQUARELY ON THE 2024 PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENT. THE 23
UNRESERVED FUNDING BALANCE
WOULD NOW BE THE NEW STARTING
BALANCE FOR 2024. SO SOME
PORTION OF THAT ORIGINALLY WAS
USING $107.5 MILLION OF
STARTING BALANCE FOR SPENDING.
NOW THE GENERAL FUND PROPOSED
BUDGET IS GOING TO USE $144.1
MILLION TO SUPPORT SPENDING.
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL $36.5
MILLION THAT WAS SPENT IN 2024.
A PORTION OF WHICH IS GOING
TOWARD SOME OF THOSE ITEMS
THAT WERE IN THE PRESENTATION
THIS MORNING.
>> SO BASICALLY THE $407
MILLION WORTH OF CHANGES IN
THE MAYOR'S BUDGET COULD BE
ASSUMED TO BE USING THE
UNRESERVED ENDING FUND BALANCE
OF 2023 ? SO THAT MONEY IS
AVAILABLE FOR THOSE CHANGES. IT
IS NOT -- IS THAT WHERE THAT
MONEY CAME FROM? TO ALLOW FOR
THOSE CHANGES? THAT'S WHAT I'M
TRYING TO GET AT.
>> IT IS PART OF THAT. PART OF
THAT IS FROM GENERAL FUND
SPENDING. AND PART OF THE
GENERAL FUND SPENDING IS THIS
$36.1 MILLION THAT WE MADE ALL
THE PROJECTIONS FOR , THAT WE
ARE ROLLING INTO 2024. AND YOU
WILL SEE LATER ON IN THE
PRESENTATION THAT THERE IS
ACTUALLY REVENUE COMING IN FROM
THAT AUDIT FORECAST THAT ALSO
ADDS TO THAT PICTURE, AS WELL.
THIS IS A PIECE OF THAT LARGER
PUZZLE, ABSOLUTELY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. DEPUTY
DIRECTOR PENNUCCI, DID YOU
HAVE SOMETHING ELSE?
>> NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO
REITERATE THE POINT. BUT TOM
AND DEBBIE DIRECTOR NELSON GOT
THERE TOGETHER. THANK YOU.
>> LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE
AND BEGIN THE DISCUSSION OF THE
24 PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT. IT
WILL BE SOMEWHAT MORE LINEAR
STRUCTURE. FIRST I WILL LOOK
AT THE REVENUES , THEN I WILL
TURN TO THE EXPENDITURES , THEN
BRING IT BACK TO THE ENTIRE
BUDGET PICTURE AND WE CAN LOOK
AT THE FINANCIAL PLAN. THE
FIRST ADJUSTMENT IS THE
REVENUE FORECAST. I MENTIONED
THAT THE REVENUE FORECAST
IMPROVES 2023 REVENUES BY A BIT
OVER $100 MILLION. AND THEY
ALSO OF THE EXPECTATION FOR
NEXT YEAR BY $47 MILLION. BUT
I WANT TO POINT OUT, AND THIS
IS HIGHLIGHTED ON PAGE 11 OF
THE MEMO, THAT IF YOU LOOK INTO
FUTURE YEARS , THE 2025 UPGRADE
WAS ONLY $18 MILLION. THEN 26,
IT ACTUALLY WAS REDUCTION.
WHAT APPEARS TO BE HAPPENING
IN THE ECONOMIC NEWS AND
REVENUE COLLECTION AS WE SEE
THEM IS WE ARE OUTPERFORMING
IN THE NEAR TERM, MEANING THERE
IS MORE MONEY THAN WE INSPECTED
COMING IN. BUT THE FORECASTERS
ARE KIND OF CAGEY ABOUT THE
FUTURE . A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY
ON THE HORIZON. AND IN FACT,
AT ONE POINT THERE WAS AN
EXPECTATION OF REDUCTION , THAT
DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE FORECAST. THAT IS A
LONG WAY OF SAYING THAT THOUGH
THE AUGUST REVENUE FORECAST
IMPROVED REVENUES FOR NEXT YEAR
BY $47 MILLION , THE BEST WAY
TO THINK OF THAT MONEY IS
ONE-TIME IN NATURE. IT IS NOT
LIKE WE IMPROVED EVERY SINGLE
YEAR OF THE FINANCIAL PLAN BY
$47 MILLION. IT WAS A LARGER
IMPACT IN 23, SMALLER IMPACT IN
24, THEN A NEAR NEGATIVE
IMPACT BY 2026. THAT IS THE
LARGEST NUMBER ON THE TABLE.
THEN IT ADDS TO MONEY THAT CAN
BE SPENT IN 2024, BUT IT IS
ONE-TIME MONEY. AND THEN , THE
STABLE KIND OF SUMMARIZES SOME
OF THE DETAILS THAT I WILL
COVER IN SUBSEQUENT SLIDES . IT
GROUPS IT, SO ALL OF THE
PROPOSED FORECAST CHANGES THAT
ARE INCLUDED WITH THE BUDGET .
THERE IS A SERIES OF TECHNICAL
CHANGES. THERE ARE NEW REVENUES
SUPPORTING THE SPENDING. THERE
ARE CHANGES TO THE JUMPSTART
TRANSFERS. AND SIMILAR TO THE
2023 ANALYSIS, THERE WERE SOME
ITEMS THAT SHOWED UP IN BOTH
THE FORECAST AND PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS . SO I HAVE TO
ADJUST FOR THOSE DOUBLE
COUNTING. IN TOTAL, IT IS A
SMALL ADJUSTMENT . BUT THERE IS
A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE
DETAILS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE
NEXT SLIDE , IT KIND OF COVERS
DETAIL WITH THE MEMO . WE ARE
GOING TO DIVE INTO SOME OF THE
DETAILS. THE LARGEST CHANGE,
ONE OF THE LARGER CHANGES IS A
$4.6 MILLION REDUCTION. SO
THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE MINISTRY OF SERVICES ,
THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT
COLLECT VEHICLE IMPOUND FEES .
AND THIS SHOULD BE A REVENUE
NEUTRAL CHANGE. BUT THE ISSUE
IS THAT THE $4.6 MILLION
INCREASE TO THE BUDGET WAS
INCLUDED IN THE FORECAST. THIS
SHOWS THE $4.6 MILLION
REDUCTION BECAUSE OF THAT
TECHNICALITY. IT NEEDS TO BE
HIGHLIGHTED . REVENUE SUPPORTED
EXPENDITURES, A $12 MILLION
INCREASE , $4 MILLION OF IT IS
ONGOING. THIS INVOLVES THE
EXTENDED BUDGET. WHEN WE LOOK
AT SUBSEQUENT SLIDES TALKING
ABOUT GENERAL SPENDING
PROPOSALS, THESE DOLLARS ARE
FOR SOME OF THOSE PROPOSALS. A
$6.5 MILLION ONE TIME
DECREASED TO THE JUMPSTART
FUND, OF WHICH $5.5 MILLION
IS ONGOING. THERE IS A MEMO IN
THE PRESENTATION THAT DEPUTY
DIRECTOR PENNUCCI WILL COVER
WITH THE JUMPSTART FUND. AND
FINALLY, THERE IS A TECHNICAL
CORRECTION FOR OVERLAPS OF
$419,000. IF WE CAN LOOK AT
THE NEXT SLIDE, WE CAN DO THE
SAME KIND OF QUICK RUN THROUGH.
I WILL REITERATE, THIS IS VERY
HIGH-LEVEL, MORE DETAIL WILL
BE INCLUDED IN SUBSEQUENT
PRESENTATIONS. THIS DETAIL
COVERED IN PAGE 12 OF THE MEMO,
AND THERE IS ACTUALLY AN
ATTACHMENT TO THE MEMO THAT
INCLUDES DETAIL ON ALL OF IT
LINE BY LINE . WHICH CAN BE
HELPFUL TO TRACK AT THE
DEPARTMENT LEVEL. IN TOTAL ,
THE BUDGET ADDS $51 MILLION
OF NEW PROPOSED SPENDING AND
APPROPRIATIONS . OF THAT AMOUNT
, NEARLY $28 MILLION IS
ONGOING. IT CONTINUES IN THE
FUTURE YEARS. AND 23.3 OR SO IS
ONE-TIME . AGAIN, I GROUPED
INTO CATEGORIES. AND I WILL
JUST SAY, I BELIEVE IT IS
COVERED IN THE MEMO. THESE ARE
MY OWN INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT
IS POLICY AND WHAT IS
TECHNICAL. TECHNICAL ITEMS ARE
THINGS WHERE YOU HAVE UPDATED A
FORMULA AND YOU GET A RESULT
AND THAT IS THE NUMBER YOU USE
, OR INFLATION HAS CHANGED,
SOMETHING ON THAT ORDER. AND
POLICY IS WHEN THERE IS A
LITTLE BIT MORE DISCRETION
BEING MADE. REALLY, THEY ARE
ALL POLICY DECISIONS, AND A
SENSE. I'M JUST POINTING THAT
OUT, BECAUSE I'M GRIPPING THESE
IN A WAY SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT
CHOOSE TO GROUP DIFFERENTLY. IT
JUST HELPS TO PUT THINGS INTO
THESE LITTLE BUCKETS FOR NOW.
NOW I WILL GO THROUGH SOME OF
THESE INCLUDE , IF WE LOOK AT
THE NEXT SLIDE. FIRST, THE
TECHNICAL CHANGES. THESE ARE
SIMILAR TO THE TECHNICAL
STANDARD ITEMS THAT WERE
COVERED IN THE PRESENTATION
THIS MORNING. THERE IS A $12.4
MILLION INCREASE. AND THERE IS
ONE ITEM THAT I HAVE
HIGHLIGHTED HERE , BECAUSE THIS
IS, AGAIN, IN THAT AREA WHERE
IT IS A TECHNICAL CHANGE BUT
THERE IS AN EMBEDDED POLICY
DECISION THAT IS PART OF THAT
TECHNICAL CHANGE. AND I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT FOR YOU. THIS
IS WITH REGARDS TO THE
EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION RATE
FOR THE CITY RETIREMENT. THE
CITY OPERATES ITS OWN
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, WHICH HAD, I
BELIEVE, AROUND 9000 ACTIVE
EMPLOYEE MEMBERS AND ALSO
RETIRED AND TERMINATED MEMBERS,
AS WELL , WHO ARE BENEFICIARIES
TO THIS DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
TO DEFINED BENEFIT RETIREMENT
FUND. AS PART OF THAT FUND,
THERE IS AN ACTUARIAL STUDY
THAT WAS DONE THE DETERMINED
HOW CLOSE TO BEING FULLY FUNDED
THIS IS ? I BELIEVE THAT LAST
LOOK IT WAS 77% FUNDED,
MEANING THAT ASPECTS WERE ABLE
TO MEET 77% OF THE LIABILITIES.
THEY DO THIS PROJECTION ON A
CLOSED LOOP, SO THE ACTUARY
ANALYZES THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT
ARE BEING MADE FROM NOW
THROUGH 2042. SO THE GOAL IS TO
HAVE 100% FUNDING STATUS BY
YEAR 2042. AS PART OF THE
PROCESS FOR DETERMINING HOW
MUCH THE CITY SHOULD CONTRIBUTE
TO MEMBERS REQUIREMENT FOR
CONTRIBUTIONS, THE CONTRACT OF
THE ACTUARY WHO STUDIES THE
EARNING RATES OF EMPLOYEES ,
THE ADDITIONS OF NEW EMPLOYEES
. A WHOLE MYRIAD OF FACTORS
THAT THEY DETERMINE WILL BE
CONTRIBUTING TO YOUR RETIREMENT
SYSTEM. ON JUNE 8th OF THIS
YEAR THE BOARD HEARD FROM THE
ACTUARY, AND THE ACTUARY SAID
THAT THE RATE THAT EMPLOYERS
SHOULD BE CONTRIBUTED TO THE
SYSTEM IS 15.17% OF PAYROLL.
THAT IS THE THIRD LOOK DOWN THE
ACTUARY WAY . THE ACTUAL
PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES A RATE
OF 15.2%. THAT IS, IN ESSENCE,
PUTTING MORE TOWARDS THE
EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO
RETIREMENT, AND IT IS
ACTUARIALLY NECESSARY FOR THE
STATUS PLAN. I SEE A QUESTION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD .
>> THE RECOMMENDED RATE OF
15.17 FOR THE CITY EMPLOYER
CONTRIBUTION , WHERE DOES THAT
GET US AS IT RELATES , DOES IT
GET US TO 100% FOR FULLY
FUNDED? OR DOES IT GET US
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN WHERE WE ARE,
I THINK HE SAID 77% AND 100%?
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
THAT IS A USEFUL QUESTION,
BECAUSE THE TABLE BELOW SHOWS
WHEN THE ACTUARY , THE
ECONOMIST ACCOUNT SPECIALIST
DOES HIS WORK . WHEN THEY LOOK
AT ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS, AND
SAY THESE ARE THE RATES YOU
NEED TO CHARGE TO MEET YOUR
100% GOAL. THEY SAID IN JUNE
THAT THE CITY CONTRIBUTED 15.1
PERCENT IN 24, 15.28% IN 25
. AND THAT WE WOULD NOT
ACTUALLY NEED TO CONTRIBUTE
16.22 UNTIL 2027. SO THE 16.22
IS HIGHER THAN WHAT IS
ACTUARIALLY NECESSARY.
>> SO WHAT IS THE POLICY
OBJECTIVE THAT IS BEING
ADVANCED BY A LARGER CITY
CONTRIBUTION THAN WHAT THE
ACTUARIAL CONSULTANT
RECOMMENDS?
>> CONTRIBUTING MORE, IS THE
SAME THING PER INDIVIDUAL. IF
YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING MORE,
YOU'RE PUTTING MORE ON THE
MARKET AND HELPING APPLY A
LONGER TIME PERIOD. WE HAVE
MORE MONEY THAT IS COMPOUNDING
FOR A LONGER TIME PERIOD.
HOWEVER, IN THIS INSTANCE, WE
WOULD BE CONTRIBUTING MORE
THAN WE WOULD NEED TO, WHICH IS
NOT A BAD THING. BUT IT IS AN
ISSUE THAT I HIGHLIGHT IN THIS
CONTEXT OF OTHER CHALLENGES ON
OTHER CITY FUNDS , LEAST OF
WHICH THE GENERAL FUND. IT IS
NOT NECESSARY. IN FACT, THE
ACTUARIAL SERVICE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION WHO REVIEWS THE
ACTUARY'S WORK , AND THEY
ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED A RATE OF
15.82%. THAT IS THE MIDDLE
NUMBER AT PLAY HERE. AGAIN,
YOU COULD CONTRIBUTE MORE
TOWARDS YOUR RETIREMENT . OF
COURSE, WHAT THAT WILL
ULTIMATELY DO , PERHAPS NEEDING
LESS EARNINGS ON THEIR
INVESTMENT FOLIO OR REQUIRE
LOWER RATES IN THE FUTURE. BUT
AGAIN, NEXT YEAR THEY WILL LOOK
AT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUND
AND DETERMINE THE RATE NEEDED
THEN . AND WHAT THE ACTUARIAL
RATES ARE. THAT WILL BE
RECOMMENDED. IN THE PAST, THE
BOARD HAS MADE THE DECISION TO
RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL A
SLIGHTLY HIGHER RATE. THEY
WILL JUST SAY LET'S USE LAST
YEAR'S RATE TO KEEP IT
CONSISTENT. THAT IS A CHOICE.
AND REALLY, THE ONLY
REQUIREMENT IS THE ACTUARIAL
RATE .
>> JUST ONE MORE. I SEE THAT
ONLY A PORTION OF THE
DIFFERENCE HERE IS GENERAL FUND
DOLLARS. WHAT IS THE OTHER ?
>> THAT WOULD BE ALL THE OTHER
CITY FUNDS WITH THAT EMPLOYER
NUMBERS . PRE-MUCH EVERY CITY
FUND. THE ONLY CITY EMPLOYEES
THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE
EXPERIENCE ARE GOING TO BE FIRE
PERSONNEL.
>> SO THE PORTION OF IT IS
GENERAL FUND, THE REST COMES
FROM ALL THE FUNDS THAT GO TO
SUPPORT CITY EMPLOYEES?
>> EXACTLY. YES.
>> GOT IT, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN ?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MOSQUEDA .
I WANT TO THANK CENTRAL STAFF
FOR REALLY DELVING INTO THE
PENSION COSTS . I DON'T THINK
THE PUBLIC IS AWARE THAT
SEATTLE TAXPAYERS , WHEN WE SAY
THE CITY CONTRIBUTION, IT IS
REALLY SEATTLE TAXPAYERS
CONTRIBUTING A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF MONEY EACH YEAR . AND
IT IS NOT SHOWN HERE OR IN THE
BUDGET DOCUMENT, BUT IT IS
APPROXIMATELY $150 MILLION A
YEAR THAT TAXPAYERS CONTRIBUTE
TOWARDS THE EXPENSIVE PENSION
SYSTEM FOR CITY GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES. THESE FUTURE
EXPENSES , WHEN WE TRY TO LOOK
AT THESE RATES, IT IS DIFFICULT
TO ESTIMATE. THAT IS WHY WE
HAVE THE ACTUARY DO THAT FOR
US. BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO
PREDICT NEARLY 20 YEARS IN THE
FUTURE. AND I REALIZE WE ARE
TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE
BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY OF THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR CITY
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN THE
FUTURE, AND THEN GRAPPLING WITH
THESE PRIORITIES TODAY. THE
DECLARED EMERGENCY ON
HOMELESSNESS, FOR EXAMPLE. I
REALLY APPRECIATE CENTRAL STAFF
RAISING THIS ISSUE, PROVIDING
OPTIONS. I KNOW IN THE CENTRAL
STAFF MEMO THAT IS ATTACHED TO
THE AGENDA, THERE IS A MEMO AT
THE END, AND ATTACHMENT
DEDICATED TO THE SUBJECT. SO
WE APPRECIATE THE RANGE OF
OPTIONS, AND EXPLAINING THOSE
OPTIONS. I THINK YOU'RE GOING
TO GET THIS IN THE NEXT SLIDE,
BUT THEN OPTION B IS VERY
ATTRACTIVE, BECAUSE YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT MEETING THE 100%
FUNDING GOAL THE ACTUARY SAYS
WE CAN DO WITH YOUR OPTION B.
BUT TODAY WE CAN SAVE $10.6
MILLION, 3.4 MILLION OF WHICH
IS FROM THE FLEXIBLE GENERAL
FUND , SO WE COULD ADDRESS
IMMEDIATE PRIORITIES SUCH AS
HOMELESSNESS, PUBLIC SAFETY,
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND OTHER NEEDS
THAT WE HAVE. I AM VERY
INTERESTED IN PURSUING THAT
SAVINGS AND STILL MEETING THE
SUSTAINABILITY OF THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM. I JUST WANT
TO SIGNAL THAT THAT IS A
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF FUNDING.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I DON'T
WANT TO GET AHEAD BEFORE WE ASK
FOR THOSE OPTIONS OF CENTRAL
STAFF, BUT THANK YOU FOR
FLAGGING YOUR INTEREST. AND I
WOULD ALSO, IF I AM RECALLING
CORRECTLY, TOM , I WOULD WANT
TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT ARE
RETIREES WHO ARE REPRESENTED BY
RC HAVE NOTED THAT THEY HAVE
A MUCH LOWER COST OF LIVING
ADJUSTMENT FOR THE RETIREE
PENSIONS AT THE CITY COMPARED
TO THE COUNTY , AND I BELIEVE
COMPARED TO THE STATE, AS WELL.
WITH THE 1% COST-OF-LIVING
ADJUSTMENT BEING LOWER THAN OUR
COUNTY COLLEAGUES. MAYBE
SOMETHING FOR US TO ALSO
CONSIDER AS WE THINK ABOUT THE
SUSTAINABILITY OF OUR CITY .
WE WANT TO BE A PLACE THAT IS
ATTRACTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK,
AND HAVING SUSTAINABLE AND
RELIABLE RETIREMENT, THAT ALSO
MEETS COST-OF-LIVING NEEDS,
THAT IS IMPORTANT. THERE IS
SOME COMMUNICATION THAT WE
RECEIVED FROM RC ON THAT ISSUE
EARLIER THIS YEAR. I AM NOT
TAKING THAT UP FOR A BUDGET ADD
THIS YEAR, I JUST WANTED TO
FLAG IT BECAUSE I THINK IT
WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL ACTION. I
BELIEVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE CITY UNION AND LABOR
RELATIONS, IF I AM NOT WRONG. I
DID JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE
RECORD OUT THERE THE CONCERN
THAT THEY RAISED ABOUT HAVING
THE COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT
THAT IS ONLY ABOUT 1% AND
CLEARLY NOT MEETING
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS IN OUR
REGION RIGHT NOW. AND NOT ON
PAR WITH WHAT COLLEAGUES AT THE
COUNTY RECEIVE. JUST
ADDITIONAL FOOD FOR THOUGHT AS
WE CONSIDER THE HEALTH AND
SUSTAINABILITY OF THE RETIREE
POPULATION, BUT ALSO BEING AN
ATTRACTIVE PLACE FOR FUTURE
EMPLOYEES TO WANT TO COME SO
THAT THEY CAN SEE THE
POSSIBILITY OF RETIREMENT IF
THEY CHOOSE TO WORK IN THE CITY
OF SEATTLE. OKAY, LET'S KEEP
GOING.
>> YES, WE CAN LOOK AT THE NEXT
SLIDE. THIS NEXT SLIDE, IT
ESSENTIALLY PUTS FORWARD THE
ALTERNATIVE. AND AGAIN, THESE
ARE JUST THE TWO CLEAREST
ALTERNATIVES. ONE IS , THE
ISSUE IS THE 2024 PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS RELY ON A
CONTRIBUTION RIGHT OF 15.2%
ACTIVE MEMBER SALARIES, WHICH
IS HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL
ACTUARIAL RATE AND HIGHER THAN
THE ASSERTED BOARD RECOMMENDED
RATE. THE RECOMMENDED OPTION
WOULD BE TO USE THE RATE OF
15.2%, OR USE THE FIRST
ACTUARIAL RATE OF 15.17%. ON
THAT THIRD OPTION . BUT ABOUT
15.7% FOR AN ALTERNATIVE
OPTION THAT COULD BE CHOSEN, AS
WELL.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU AGAIN,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, FOR
FLAGGING YOUR INTEREST IN
OPTION BE HERE. WE APPRECIATE
THAT. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
OKAY, LET'S KEEP GOING.
>> OKAY, LET'S LOOK AT THE NEXT
SLIDE. ROUNDING OUT THE
TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS IS THAT
$2.7 MILLION ONGOING INCREASE,
WHICH BUILDS INTO THE 2024
BUDGET FOR THE DECISIONS THAT
WERE MADE DURING 2023. THESE
ARE STAND-ALONE AND CONFERENCE
OF LEGISLATION THAT APPROVED
SPENDING IN 2023 AND HAVE AN
ONGOING BUDGET BUILT IN. THEN
FINALLY, THERE IS A TECHNICAL
ADJUSTMENT TO RESERVE
TRANSFERS AND DEBT SERVICE BY
$7.9 MILLION. 1.2 MILLION OF
WHICH IS ONGOING. THEN A LARGE
SHARE OF THAT IS $4.7 MILLION
GOING TO THE DEFENSE FUND.
NOW, IF WE COULD LOOK AT THE
NEXT SLIDE, THERE IS A NEUTRAL
ITEM WHICH IS $2.7 MILLION
ONE-TIME INCREASE IN THE BUDGET
TO AN ONGOING DEPARTMENT.
THEY ARE REVENUE SUPPORTED
CHANGES, SO THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE ONGOING REVENUE THAT IS
BEING ACCEPTED IN THE BUDGET.
ACTUALLY $1.3 MILLION WITH A
TOTAL OF $11 MILLION INCREASE.
THERE ARE JUMPSTART ADJACENT
CHANGES, WHICH INCLUDE A $4.5
MILLION ONGOING INCREASE TO
FUND HUMAN SERVICE PROVIDER
CONTRACT COSTS . AND FOR 2024,
THAT IS SUPPORTED BY A
ONE-TIME TRANSFER FROM THE
JUMPSTART FUND THAT WAS
DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY. AND THERE
IS A $1 MILLION INCREASE IN THE
GENERAL FUND TO THE CITY BUDGET
OFFICE TO EVALUATE HIM START
FUNDS . AND FINALLY, THE $2.3
MILLION ONGOING REDUCTION TO
THE HOUSING BUDGET THAT
REFLECTS A SHIFT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE COST FROM THE
GENERAL POINT FUND. SIMILAR TO
THE REVENUE SIDE, EASILY
COVERED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE
JUMPSTART FUND BALANCING COSTS.
OTHER PROPOSALS , THAT'S KIND
OF A CATCHALL FOR POLICY
PROPOSALS. THE $13.5 MILLION
INCREASE OF WHICH $.7 MILLION
IS ONGOING . THE LARGEST PIECE
OF THIS IS AN $8.5 MILLION
INCREASE IN THE FINANCE GENERAL
TRANSFER TO THE EMERGENCY FUND.
THIS WILL SOUND FAMILIAR
BECAUSE WE HAVE PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS THERE SIMILAR
INCREASES IN 2023. THESE ARE
ONE-TIME CHANGES THAT ACTUALLY
HAVE SOME MEASURE OF
SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT , BECAUSE
THEY MOVE TRANSFERS THAT WERE
ORIGINALLY PLANNED LAST YEAR TO
BE MADE IN 25 TO 26, MOVING
FORWARD TO 22 AND 24. SO THERE
ONE-TIME MONEY IS SUPPORTING
THESE CHANGES ON A ONE-TIME
BASIS, BUT AT LEAST WE DON'T
HAVE TO MAKE THOSE PAYMENTS
BACK TO THE EMERGENCY FUND IN
25 AND 26. WHICH SLIGHTLY
DECREASES THE ONGOING
SHORTFALL IDENTIFIED IN THE
FIRST TWO SLIDES. THEN
FINALLY, THIS IS KIND OF THE
NON-APPROPRIATE CATEGORIES . IT
IS THAT PLANNING RESERVE
ELEMENT, WHERE THERE WERE LABOR
AGREEMENTS THAT ARE KIND OF
BUDGETED, PLANNED BUT DID NOT
MAKE IT INTO THE BUDGET. AND
THERE IS A $32.8 MILLION
DEGREES THERE, 20 MILLION OF
THAT IS ONGOING. THOSE ITEMS
WERE COVERED ON PAGES 14 AND
15.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND I
APPRECIATED THAT COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN WAS HELPING TO
IDENTIFY REVENUE SOURCES JUST A
MINUTE AGO. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE
ALL GOING TO BE ASKED TO SHARE
SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT, IF YOU
HAVE THEM. I WOULD NOTE ON THE
MIDDLE BULLET HERE UNDER
JUMPSTART, 1 MILLION FOR
ONGOING INCREASED COSTS TO
EVALUATE JUMPSTART SPENDING .
WE HAVE BUILT IN FUNDING FOR
THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMIN
COSTS, BUT FOR THE $1 MILLION
HERE WE FLAG THAT FOR CENTRAL
STAFF NOTING THAT THE
JUMPSTART OVERSIGHT BOARD HAS
YET TO BE CONVENED . AS A BODY
WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD VIA
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONJUNCTION
WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE FOR THE
OVERSIGHT BODY. BUT IT SEEMS TO
ME THAT A $1 MILLION INCREASE
AMOUNT FOR OVERSIGHT MIGHT BE
AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE SOME
ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT WE
COULD FREE UP, AS WELL. JUST IN
THE SPIRIT OF THE EARLIER
COMMENT, I THOUGHT I WOULD
OFFER THAT AND FLAG FOR FOLK SO
THERE IS ALSO GOING TO BE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH OVERSIGHT OR MEMBERS BOTH
OF THE EXECUTIVE AND COUNCIL
ABLE TO PUT FORWARD FOR FUTURE
WORK IN 2024 AND BEYOND. STILL
LOOKING INTO THAT TOTAL AMOUNT
THAT IS LISTED THERE.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, LET'S
SEE IF DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PENNUCCI HAD SOMETHING TO ADD.
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE
THING ON THE SLIDE. THE BULLET
UNDER JUMPSTART, NOT TO ADD TO
CONFUSION WHEN I PRESENT LATER,
OR WHEN OUR COLLEAGUE IS
PRESENTING ON THE HUMAN
SERVICES BUDGET TOMORROW. THE
$4.5 MILLION IN JUMP START
FUNDS USED FOR HUMAN SERVICE
PROVIDER PAYS A ONE-TIME
TRANSFER TO SUPPORT AN ONGOING
EXPENDITURE. THERE WAS AN ERROR
IN THE BUDGET INFORMATION THAT
WAS SENT TO US. IT WAS CODED AS
AN ONGOING TRANSFER, AND THAT
IS DESCRIBED IN TOM'S MEMO .
BUT I JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT
IT IS A ONE-TIME TRANSFER,
ONE-TIME RELIANCE ON THE
JUMPSTART FUND, BUT AN ONGOING
SPENDING OBLIGATION.
>> RIGHT, AND THAT MIGHT BE
ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WAS GOING
TO SPEAK TO , TOO. PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, USED ALL MY
THUNDER. I WAS GOING TO LIFT
THAT FACT OUT, AND ALSO EXPRESS
MY APPRECIATION FOR THE BUDGET
CHAIR FOR IDENTIFYING THE FACT
THAT USING JUMPSTART FOR AN
ONGOING COST ASSOCIATED WITH
HUMAN SERVICE PROVIDER WAGES
MAY NOT BE THE MOST SUSTAINABLE
APPROACH AND WE APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET INTO
THAT MORE LATER. THANKS SO
MUCH.
>> EXCELLENT, THANK YOU. WE
WILL SEE MORE OF THAT IN THE
UPCOMING PRESENTATION, ADDING
TO WHAT THE VICE CHAIR SAID
AND WHAT THE CHAIR OF HUMAN
SERVICES THAT, CLEARLY THERE IS
SUPPORT FOR HUMAN SERVICE
PROVIDER CONTRACTS. SUPPORT FOR
CHILD CARE APPRECIATION
ALLOTMENTS, BOTH OF WHICH COULD
CONTINUE TO BE FUNDED IF THE
TRANSFER FROM JUMPSTART DOLLARS
THAT WAS IN GENERAL FUND IS NOT
MOVED BACK TO IN THE
JUMPSTART. MORE TO COME ON
THAT, BUT CLEARLY , AS YOU JUST
HEARD FROM THE VICE CHAIR,
THERE IS ONGOING SUPPORT FOR
THE ITEMS JUST A CHANGE IN THE
POTENTIAL FUND SOURCE AND FINAL
BUDGET TO SUSTAIN THOSE.
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU. GOING BACK TO THE
$1 MILLION ITEM THAT I THINK IS
BEING SUGGESTED AS WE DON'T
REALLY HAVE TO DO THAT. THE
MEMO NOTES, IT IS WORTH NOTING
THAT THIS IS INCLUDED IN THE
MAYOR'S 2024 PROPOSED BUDGET
PROPOSAL AND ULTIMATELY WAS NOT
INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. THE
COUNCIL ENDORSED FOR 2024. I
THINK I REMEMBER THE COUNCIL
BUDGET ACTION THAT HAD
SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE BOARD
HAS NOT BEEN IN PANEL, SO THIS
MONEY WOULD NOT BE NEEDED , BUT
WE WILL PUT IT OFF UNTIL THE
FUTURE . CAN YOU PLEASE REMIND
ME? I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION
BEING SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T
USE THIS MONEY YET BECAUSE
CERTAIN CONDITIONS WERE NOT IN
PLACE. AND I MADE THE POINT
THAT ISN'T IT REQUIRED THAT WE
DO IN PANEL THIS OVERSIGHT
BOARD AND MONITOR ONGOING? WE
, CAN YOU PLEASE REMIND ME WHAT
THE STATUS OF THAT IS RIGHT
NOW?
>> I MIGHT ASK THAT WE WAIT
FOR THE NEXT PRESENTATION. THAT
IS ISSUE NUMBER FOUR THAT I
WILL BE PRESENTING IN THE JUMP
START PAPER RELATING TO THAT.
THE CONDITIONS HAVE ONLY CHANGE
SLIGHTLY, WE ARE CLOSER TO
SAYING APPOINTMENT COME THROUGH
FOR THE BOARD. BUT IT IS STILL
NOT YET ESTABLISHED. AND I WILL
SAY MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET
TO THAT ITEM IN THE NEXT
PRESENTATION, IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> OKAY, WELL, YOU CAUGHT ME
NOT HAVING READ THAT YET.
SORRY, THANK YOU.
>> WE DO GIVE YOU A LOT OF
PAGES.
>> AND I JUMPED IN ON THAT ONE,
TOO. WE WILL TRY TO HOLD OFF ON
THAT. BUT JUST A PREVIEW,
THERE IS ACTION THAT IS BEING
SUGGESTED FOR BOTH THE
EXECUTIVE AND THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH TO BE ABLE TO IMPANEL
THAT BODY HERE SOON. WE WILL
FOLLOW DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PENNUCCI'S LEAD TO HOLD OFF ON
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THAT,
BUT MORE INFORMATION COMING
FROM BOTH THE EXECUTIVE AND OUR
OFFICE ABOUT GETTING THAT BODY
STOOD UP HERE RELATIVELY SOON.
>> THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, TOM.
>> SO, IF WE COULD LOOK AT THE
NEXT SLIDE , WHICH REFERENCES
BACK TO PAGE 15 OF THE MEMO.
THIS PULLS IN THE DIFFERENT
DATA POINTS THAT WE HAVE
COVERED THUS FAR TO SHOW THE
IMPACT , REALLY SHOW IS TWO KEY
TAKEAWAYS. SHOWING THE
SUSTAINABILITY, THE ONE-TIME
IMPACT, AND THE TOTAL VALUE
IMPACT OF THESE CHANGES. IN
FAMILIAR NUMBERS, THE
ADJUSTING STARTING BALANCE,
$36.59 MILLION CARRYING INTO A
FORECAST OF DATE OF $47.1
MILLION. BETTER IN AUGUST, AND
THAT IS REALLY ONE-TIME MONEY.
THERE WERE SOME PROPOSED
REVENUE CHANGES IN THE 24
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT THAT IN
TOTAL AT ONLY A HALF-MILLION
DOLLARS. THERE IS KIND OF A
SHIFT BETWEEN THE ONGOING
ONE-TIME NUMBERS. IF YOU LOOK
AT THE MIDDLE ROW, THERE IS
$83.6 MILLION OF ONE-TIME
RESOURCES AND NOT VERY MUCH
RESOURCE TO BE ALLOCATED IN THE
BUDGET. THE PROPOSED
EXPENDITURE CHANGES ARE $51
MILLION, $27.8 MILLION OF WHICH
ARE RECURRING, ONGOING
SPENDING , AND 23.3 IS JUST ONE
TIME. THAT $32.8 MILLION,
WHICH INCLUDES A $24 MILLION
INCREASE IN 24, TO BE ADJUSTED
IN 2023 . AND A LARGE MEASURE
OF THAT , YOU CAN KIND OF SEE
ON THE BOTTOM ROW THAT THERE IS
A NET $48.4 MILLION, A
ONE-TIME RESOURCE THAT IS BEING
USED FOR $48 MILLION OF
ONGOING SPENDING WITH AN
ACTIVE NET BUDGET JUST I HAVE A
HALF-MILLION DOLLARS. IF WE
LOOK AT THE NEXT TABLE, WE CAN
SEE THAT NOW WE HAVE KIND OF
RE-EXPANDED BACK TO THE
LONGER-TERM VIEW OF WHAT THE
IMPACT IS , AND IF WE RECALL AT
THE START OF ANALYSIS, THERE
WAS THE $212 MILLION GAP IN
REVENUES WHERE $212 MILLION
SHY OF THE REVENUES THAT WERE
INTENDED TO SUPPORT. AND NOW,
BASED ON THESE 2024 PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS, IT IS NOW
BASICALLY A $247 MILLION GAP
IN THE FIVE AND 26. NOT BY
ORDER OF THE SAME MAGNITUDE. IF
WE LOOK AT THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU
CAN SEE THAT VISUAL DEPICTION
OF THIS . AND REALLY, IF WE
LOOK AT THE NEXT SLIDE, IT
COVERS THE MAIN HIGH POINTS IN
FINANCES AND HOW THE AUGUST
COMMITTEE STAFF PROVIDED A
GENERAL FUND DEFICIT ANALYSIS
TO KIND OF TRACK THE HISTORY OF
WHERE WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE.
SOME OF THE SIMILAR THEMES THAT
WERE COVERED IN THAT SLIDE ,
USE OF ONE-TIME REVENUE AND
ONE-TIME SPENDING REDUCTIONS
FOR REPORTING ON INCREASES.
THEN STANDARD MINE PROJECTIONS
THAT BASE REVENUES HAVE NOT
RECOVERED TO THE PRE-PANDEMIC
LEVELS. AND INDICATED UPCOMING
REVENUE FORECAST NEXT WEEK, SO
PERHAPS THOSE PROJECTIONS
WILL IMPROVE . BUT WE CAN GO
TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THE
FORECAST THEY WILL BE TALKING
ABOUT NEXT WEEK IS BASED ON
THE SEPTEMBER UNDERLINED
NATIONAL FORECAST, WHICH MAY OR
MAY NOT INCLUDE SOME OF THESE
THINGS. ONE THING, IT IS
DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT THE NEWS
THESE DAYS WITH THE ONGOING AND
INCREASING NATIONAL CONFLICT,
POLITICAL UNCERTAINTY WITH THE
RECENT VOTE TO REMOVE THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS
THE FIRST IN OUR HISTORY OF
THAT HAPPENING. THE EXPIRATION
OF CONSUMER LEVEL POLICIES
LIKE THE PAUSE ON STUDENT LOAN
DEBT REPAYMENT , CONSUMER
MORTGAGE RATES THAT ARE
APPROACHING 8% . THEN IT IS
UNCLEAR IF THE INDICATIONS OF
REMOTE WORK WILL BE WORKING
THEIR WAY THROUGH COMMERCIAL
REAL ESTATE MARKET. WE LIVE IN
INTERESTING TIMES, AND WE ARE
LOOKING AT A BUDGET
SUSTAINABILITY ISSUE OF
APPROXIMATELY $247 MILLION NEXT
YEAR. SO I BELIEVE IN THAT
MEMO THERE IS A POINT MADE, AND
I BELIEVE IT WAS MADE EARLIER
TODAY, THAT THERE ARE CLEARLY
DECISIONS TO BE MADE WHEN NEXT
YEAR'S BUDGET COMES AROUND .
AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT
THE ITEMS THAT ARE ADDED IN
THIS BUDGET ARE THE ITEMS THAT
ULTIMATELY ARE APPLIED TO SOLVE
THAT PROBLEM. JUST TO PUT A
NOTE ON THAT. AND THIS JUST
LEADS TO KIND OF A HIGH-LEVEL
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION . AND I
BELIEVE IT IS SIMILAR TO AN
ISSUE I.D. ON THE NEXT SLIDE
THAT INCLUDED LAST YEAR IN
LIGHT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY
CHALLENGE . YES, THANK YOU.
SO WE WILL GO TO ONE-TIME
REVENUES AND REDUCTIONS BEING
USED FOR ONGOING BUDGET
INCREASES TO GENERAL DECREASES
IN 25 AND 26. THE OPTIONS WE
CAN IDENTIFY ARE NONE OF THESE
ARE EASY. IT IS VERY CLEAR. BUT
THESE ARE KIND OF THE MEASURES
THAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE
APPLIED. REJECT ONE OR MORE
ONGOING EXPENDITURE INCREASES
IN 2024 AS IDENTIFIED IN
ATTACHMENT TO THE MEMO. OR
IDENTIFY OTHER ONGOING SPENDING
REDUCTIONS IN 2024. MAKING THE
JUMPSTART FUND TRANSFER
PERMANENT AND TIED TO INFLATION
BEYOND 24 IS AN OPTION. RIGHT
NOW THE TRANSFER EXPIRES AT THE
END OF NEXT YEAR. IDENTIFY ONE
OR MORE REVENUE REPORTS .
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT OR
RESOLUTION MAKING LONGER-TERM
BUDGET DECISIONS TO ADDRESS THE
DEFICIT. STARTING IN 25. SOME
COMBINATION OF ALL OF THE
ABOVE. BECAUSE THE BUDGET IS
IN FACT BALANCED , IN THE
FOLLOWING YEAR WITH THE
SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGE. THAT
CONCLUDES THE GENERAL FUND
LOOK. WE WILL PAUSE IF THERE
ARE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE GOING
TO THE NEXT PIECE.
>> TOM , I'M GOING TO ASK IF
YOU COULD SHOW US SLIDE 10 ONE
MORE TIME. THANK YOU, PATTY.
I WANT TO ASK YOU, COLLEAGUES
AND CENTRAL STAFF , JUST TO
LOOK ONE MORE TIME AT THE
SLIDE. AND WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO
DO IS ACTUALLY DO A COMPARISON
BETWEEN SLIDE FOUR AND A SLIDE
THAT YOU WENT BY RELATIVELY
FAST ON, BUT YOUR MEMO CLEARLY
ASCRIBES SLIDE 18. IF WE LOOK
AT THIS, YOU SEE IN THE SECOND
BULLET THERE THAT THERE IS 12
MILLION IN INCREASED NEW
REVENUE. AND I THINK ANOTHER
SLIDE OF YOURS SHOWED THAT LINE
REALLY CLEARLY, AS WELL. THAT
THERE IS 12 MILLION IN NEW
PROPOSALS, NEW EXPENDITURES .
HALF OF THAT , YOU SEE HALF OF
THAT AMOUNT LOOKS LIKE IT IS
COMING FROM TRANSFERS OF
JUMPSTART AND TRANSFERS OF
OTHER ONE-TIME FUNDING FOR THE
REMAINING HALF. BUT 12 MILLION
IN NEW REVENUE IS SOMETHING
THAT I WANT MY COLLEAGUES TO
THINK ABOUT AS WE THINK ABOUT
THE ONGOING NEED FOR EXISTING
PROGRAMS AND EXISTING SERVICES.
THE SECOND THING THAT I WOULD
LIKE FOLKS TO CONTEMPLATE AS
YOU EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL IN
HERE DEPARTMENT BY DEPARTMENT
ANALYSIS OVER THE NEXT 2 TO 3
DAYS , IS SUSTAINABILITY. AND
HERE YOU WILL SEE , IF YOU LOOK
AT SLIDE FOUR COMPARED TO SLIDE
18 , PATTY, IF YOU DON'T MIND
TOGGLING AS I CHAT. THE ONGOING
CONCERN THAT WE WOULD HAVE
ABOUT OUT YEAR SUSTAINABILITY
ABSENT ADDITIONAL NEW REVENUE
SOURCES. THIS IS WHAT THE
COUNCIL ADOPTED AND ENDORSED
FOR OUR BIANNUAL PROCESS IN THE
OUT YEARS OF ABOUT $212 MILLION
IN FUTURE YEARS ANNUAL
AVERAGE FOR A GAP BETWEEN
REVENUE AND PROJECTED NEED.
THEN IF YOU GO TO SLIDE 18 ,
YOU SEE THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED
BUDGET THAT CAME IN HAVING ,
ONE MORE SLIDE, PLEASE , HAVING
A PROPOSED GAP BETWEEN REVENUE
AND EXPENDITURES NOW UPWARDS OF
$247 MILLION OF ANNUAL
PROJECTED GAP BETWEEN REVENUE
AND EXPENDITURES. ON ONE OF
THE THREE PILLARS THAT I
MENTIONED THIS MORNING, BEING
SUSTAINABILITY, I WANT TO
CONTINUE TO CENTER THE WHY WE
WOULD COME BACK TO
SUSTAINABILITY AND HOW REVENUE
CONVERSATIONS WILL LEAD TO TIE
IN TO THIS DISCUSSION LATER IN
THE BUDGET PROCESS. BECAUSE
EVEN IF THIS COUNCIL , ANGELA
-- AS A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSED
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AGREED
WITH EVERY CHANGE THE MAYOR'S
OFFICE HAS SUGGESTED IN HIS
PROPOSED BUDGET. EVEN IF WE
AGREE WITH ALL OF THE PROPOSED
INVESTMENTS, THERE WOULD STILL
BE A GAP IN EXPENDITURES VERSUS
REVENUES TO THE TUNE OF $50
MILLION EACH YEAR FOR THE NEXT
SIX YEARS. AND IF WE CAN
CENTER OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT
WHAT EXPENDITURES WE ARE
PUTTING FORWARD IN THIS 2024
BUDGET WITH THE THOUGHT OF HOW
THIS IMPACTS FUTURE
SUSTAINABILITY FOR THE CITY,
THAT WOULD BE VERY APPRECIATED.
I THINK IT WOULD ALL HELP US BE
ON THE SAME PAGE FOR HOW WE
ENSURE SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENTS
YEAR-OVER-YEAR. AGAIN, I AM NOT
IMPUGNING ANY DECISION THAT
WAS MADE IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH IS TEAM OR THE CITY
BUDGET OFFICE, HOW THEY CHOSE
TO MAKE INVESTMENTS. AS I
MENTIONED BEFORE, A 21%
INCREASE IN OUR POPULATION
MAKES US ONE OF THE LARGEST
CITIES IN THE NATION AS OF LAST
YEAR. THERE IS INCREASED NEED.
BY RACIST OR REALLY ELEVATE THE
IMPORTANCE OF US HAVING A
CONVERSATION, BOTH ABOUT THE
NEXT 12 MONTHS, AND ABOUT THE
SUSTAINABILITY FOR AT LEAST THE
NEXT SIX YEARS AS WE DELIBERATE
OVER THE NEXT SIX WEEKS.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM MY
COLLEAGUES, OR ANY QUESTIONS
THE FOLKS HAVE? CENTRAL STAFF,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR PENNUCCI?
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT, BECAUSE YOU MAY NOT
OF GOTTEN TO IT YET IN THE 50
PAGE PACKET FOR THIS MEMO.
THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS IN
THE APPENDICES , AND IN
PARTICULAR, ATTACHMENT D TO
THE MEMO DETAILS ALL OF THE NEW
SPENDING AND HOW TOM
CATEGORIZED THEM , SO YOU CAN
REVIEW THAT AS YOU ARE THINKING
ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
AND PRIORITIES, THAT PROVIDES
MUCH OF THE DETAIL BEHIND THE
NEW SPENDING AND REVENUE
CHANGES.
>> THANK YOU, AND THANKS FOR
THAT DETAILED WORK , CENTRAL
STAFF. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS
ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY AND
LOOKING SIX YEARS DOWN THE
ROAD, AND I MADE THE POINT WHEN
WE HAD OUR BUDGET OVERVIEW WITH
THE CBO THAT NOT A LOT OF
PEOPLE WILL BE HERE NEXT YEAR ,
AND WHO KNOWS, IN SIX YEARS. MY
POINT IS THAT THIS IS A MID
ADJUSTMENT YEAR. IT WASN'T
NORMAL, OR WHETHER ANTICIPATED
THAT WE WILL BE CONTEMPLATING?
IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS WHERE
THE DISCUSSION IS GOING. POLICY
CHANGES OR NEW INITIATIVES
THAT WILL SOLVE FOR WHAT COULD
BE PERCEIVED AS A LACK OF
SUSTAINABILITY ?
>> I THINK THAT IS A QUESTION
FOR ME, OR CENTRAL STAFF ,
OKAY. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT
IT IS ALWAYS A CHALLENGE TO
HAVE A CONVERSATION JUST SOLELY
ABOUT THE BUDGET. BUT EVERY
YEAR ONLY TAKE OF THE BUDGET
THERE IS ALWAYS CORRESPONDING
BUDGET RELATED LEGISLATION. AS
WE GET TOWARDS THE END OF THIS
MONTH, I BELIEVE OCTOBER 27th,
OR IT MIGHT BE THE 29th , WE
WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO FLAG
OTHER LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES
THAT WE NEED TO ACCOMPANY THE
PROPOSED BUDGET. ANY
LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES THAT
WOULD BE DESIRED FROM
COUNCILMEMBERS TO SEE AS PART
OF OUR BUDGET DELIBERATIONS DO
NEED TO BE WORKED ON BY CENTRAL
STAFF SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE IT
ON THE INTRODUCTION AND
REFERRAL CALENDAR PRIOR TO OUR
NOVEMBER 13th MEETING. TIED
INTO THE DISCUSSION LATER IN
THE PROCESS WILL BE A
DISCUSSION ABOUT BUDGET
RELATED LEGISLATION, SOME OF
WHICH ARE COLLEAGUES HAVE
ALREADY QUEUED UP. IF YOU
DON'T MIND, I WILL TEE UP TWO
REVIEWERS . ONE IS RELATED TO
THE WATER TASK LEGISLATION
THAT WILL BE CORRESPONDING AS
YOU PROPOSED IT, BUT SEPARATE
WOULD BE CAPITAL GAINS.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS, IN
HER COMMITTEE, TEED UP A
DISCUSSION AROUND FEE
LEGISLATION FOR DEACTIVATION
SERVICES THAT ARE TIED TO
LEGISLATION THAT WE PASSED
EARLIER THIS YEAR AND ARE ALSO
PART OF OUR DELIBERATIONS FOR
ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND
EDUCATION WITH OFFICE OF LABOR
STANDARDS. THERE IS SOME
LEGISLATION THE COLLEAGUES HAVE
ALREADY TEED UP THAT WE
ANTICIPATE TO BE IN THE HOPPER
FOR LATER THIS YEAR AS WE
FINALIZE OUR BUDGET PROCESS.
AND AS I NOTED, IN OUR BUDGET
COMMITTEE EARLIER THIS YEAR,
THANKS TO THE WORK OF THE
REVENUE STABILIZATION WORKGROUP
I HAVE ASKED CENTRAL STAFF TO
DO SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS ON
THOSE REVENUE STREAMS WHERE WE
HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO
MOVE FORWARD ON POSSIBLE
REVENUE STREAMS BUT HAVE NOT
OPINED OR WAITED ON IF OR WHEN
THE COUNCIL WOULD TAKE UP
ACTION. I HAVE ASKED CENTRAL
STAFF TO LOOK INTO THIS
POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS,
WHICH WOULD THEN BE FOR FINAL
DISCUSSION OR DELIBERATION ON
PART OF THE PROCESS LATER THIS
YEAR. MUCH MORE, I'M SURE, TO
COME ON THAT. BUT I JUST WANTED
TO DO AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
OF THE SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
AND TO FLAG THAT FOR OUR
CONSIDERATION AS WE THINK ABOUT
WHERE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN
CHANGED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET
RELATIVE TO LAST YEAR, AND HOW
THAT IS IMPACTING THE
SUSTAINABILITY IN THE OUT
YEARS. BEFORE I GO TO
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR PENNUCCI, ANYTHING TO
ADD?
>> YES, THANK YOU. I JUST
WANTED TO TURN YOUR ATTENTION
TO PAGE 17 OF THE MEMO, AND IT
IS NOTED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY. I THINK IT IS UP FOR
YOU ALL TO DECIDE IF YOU WILL
TAKE ACTIONS THIS YEAR THAT
HAVE LONG-LASTING , OR MAKE
PROGRESS ON ADDRESSING THE
LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY
ISSUES, OR IF YOU SORT OF DEAL
WITH 2024 AND LOOK TO NEXT
YEAR TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THE
LONGER-TERM SOLUTIONS. BUT I
THINK ONE OPTION AVAILABLE TO
THIS COUNCIL IS TO TAKE SOME
ACTION DURING THIS PROCESS THAT
WOULD HELP ESTABLISH WHAT THAT
PROCESS IS. HOW THE COUNCIL AND
THE MAYOR WILL WORK
COLLABORATIVELY, AND WHAT DOES
DECISION POINTS ARE. THERE IS A
PARAGRAPH ON THAT AT THE
BOTTOM OF PAGE 17 , FOR YOUR
REFERENCE.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MOSQUEDA .
IF WE GO BACK TO THE
PRESENTATION ON FLIGHT 18. JUST
FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC AND THE
MEDIA THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING
THIS, I JUST WANTED TO PUT A
FINER POINT ON IT, THAT THIS IS
JUST ONE FUND OF THE BUDGET.
IT IS THE MOST FLEXIBLE FUND,
IS THE FUND WE TALK ABOUT A
LOT, THE GENERAL FUND
ABBREVIATED HERE AS GF . IN THE
GENERAL FUND SUSTAINABILITY
DOES NOT INCLUDE THE REST OF
THE $7.8 BILLION BUDGET. A LOT
OF WHICH IS SEATTLE UTILITIES,
SEATTLE CITY LIGHT AND CAPITAL
PROJECTS. THERE ARE OTHER
FUNDS, THERE ARE OTHER REVENUE
SOURCES, OTHER POLICY CHOICES
WE ARE MAKING. OBVIOUSLY WE
HAVE RECEIVED A BALANCED
BUDGET, AND OUR JOB IS TO PASS
A BALANCED BUDGET. THERE ARE
DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING THAT. I
KNOW THAT CAN GET
CONTROVERSIAL, BECAUSE THERE
ARE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO
SPEND THE MONEY ON. THERE WAS
THE JUMPSTART SPEND PLAN THAT
MANY OTHERS HAD APPROVED,
INCLUDING MYSELF. FOR THE PLAN
BACK IN 2020. BUT I JUST WANT
TO NOTE HERE, THIS IS THE
GENERAL FUND PORTIONS, AND
THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO
MOVE MONEY AROUND AND MAKE
THOSE CHOICES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY,
TOM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU
WOULD LIKE TO ADD?
>> YES, MADAM CHAIR , THERE IS
ACTUALLY A BIT ABOUT THE FISCAL
RESERVE THAT IS MORE POSITIVE,
I SUPPOSE , TO END THE
PRESENTATION. IF WE COULD GO
TO THE SECOND TO LAST LINE OF
THE PACKET. YES, THANK YOU.
THIS IS AN EFFECT OF WHERE WE
STAND IN REGARDS TO OUR FISCAL
RESERVE EMERGENCY FUND FOR
PLANT EMERGENCIES THAT HAPPEN.
THEN A REVENUE STABILIZATION
FUND DOWNTURN. WE HAVE BOTH
THINGS HAPPEN DURING THE
COVENANT PANDEMIC AND USED
PORTIONS THAT WE ARE PAYING
BACK. IT JUST SHOWS THE
TRANSFER PLAN IN 23 AND 24,
AND WHERE WE STAND . THE ACTUAL
REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND
BASED ON COUNCIL'S DEPOSIT IN
THE PAST TWO YEARS HAS BEEN
100% FULLY FUNDED MAINTENANCE
MODE IN REGARDS TO THAT
RESERVE. THEN THE EMERGENCY
FUND, WHICH WAS DRAWN DOWN AT
A MUCH LOWER LEVEL HAD THE
FIVE YEAR REPAYMENT PLAN. YOU
CAN SEE HERE THAT THE 23 AND 24
TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL
FUND TO THE EMERGENCY FUND ADD
$15 MILLION EACH YEAR AS A
RESULT OF THE ADDITIONAL $8.5
MILLION THAT ARE INCLUDED EVERY
THREE YEARS FOR THE PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENT. THEN THAT WILL
BRING, BY THE END OF 2024, THE
EMERGENCY FUND UP TO 89% POLICY
LEVEL. THAT IS GOOD NEWS. IN
TERMS OF THE RISK THAT WE TAKE.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN?
>> OKAY, THANK YOU .
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, PLEASE
GO AHEAD .
>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP
THE FISCAL RESERVES. I HAD
THOUGHT, AND MAYBE THIS IS, I
CAN INFER THIS FROM THE
FOOTNOTE THERE, BUT THERE IS A
FIVE-YEAR PERIOD TO REPAY THE
EMERGENCY FUND. BUT I WHAT I
READ IN THE BUDGET THAT WE
RECEIVED FROM THE HARRELL
ADMINISTRATION THAT THEY WERE
PAYING IT DOWN QUICKER THAN
THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD. ARE WE
MEETING THE POLICY AT 100% IF
WE, BECAUSE WE ARE ALREADY
PAYING IT, ARE WE REINVESTING
IN A HIGHER RATE?
>> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION,
COUNSELOR PEDERSEN . THE
BUDGET ADOPTED LAST FALL PAID
BACK THE EMERGENCY FUND WITHIN
THE FIVE-YEAR TIME PERIOD, AS
WELL. IT JUST PAID IT BACK
SLOWER. THERE WERE MORE
TRANSFERS , HIGHER TRANSFERS
BUDGETED IN 25 AND 26, AND
LOWER TRANSFERS IN 22 AND 24.
SO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS IS A $.5
MILLION MORE IS BEING APPLIED
FOR THE EMERGENCY FUND TO
ACCELERATE THE REPAYMENT . BUT
THERE IS NO STIPULATION IN
RESOLUTION THREE 204 OF HOW THE
CADENCE OF PAYMENT GOES. THEY
COULD ALL BE IN YOUR FIVE , YOU
KNOW, THE EXECUTIVE MAY
DISAGREE WITH THAT APPROACH.
BUT THE RESOLUTION IS JUST TO
GET TO PAY. SHOWS WE WOULD BE
AT 100% POLICY AFTER FIVE
YEARS WITH THE BUDGET THAT WE
ADOPTED LAST FALL, AS WELL . WE
ARE JUST TAKING THE SLOWER
ROUTE.
>> FOLLOW-UP QUESTION,
COUNCILMEMBER? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, I WAS TRYING TO
FIND THE BUDGET WHERE THEY
EXECUTIVES SAID THEY WERE
PAYING IT DOWN FASTER. BUT I
GUESS THAT IS IF YOU JUST
DIVIDE THE NUMBER BY FIVE
YEARS ? THEY ARE JUST
ASSUMING A CONSISTENT REPAYMENT
, BUT THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THEY ARE
PUTTING MORE TOWARDS THAT
TRANSFER THAN WAS ADOPTED LAST
FALL, SO THERE WAS MORE MONEY
GOING INTO THE FUND AND WAS
ORIGINALLY APPROPRIATED LAST
YEAR. BUT IT ULTIMATELY WILL BE
AT 100% EITHER WAY. IT IS JUST
A MATTER OF HOW QUICKLY THE
MONEY IS GOING INTO THE
EMERGENCY FUND.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD FLAG. ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? TOM,
THANK YOU, AS ALWAYS, FOR YOUR
DETAILED ANALYSIS. AND I DO
APPRECIATE THE CENTRAL STAFF
MEMO THAT WENT ALONG WITH THIS.
COLLEAGUES, CONTINUE TO READ
THROUGH THAT AS DEPUTY
DIRECTOR PENNUCCI NOTED, 50
PAGES. 50 PAGES IS THE
ATTACHMENTS THAT GO ALONG WITH
A 19 PAGE MEMO. THERE IS A VERY
SMALL FONT TABLE THAT
CORRESPONDS WITH THE MEMO THAT
WE HAVE RECEIVED, AND IF YOU
ARE LIKE ME, AND I JUST GOT
GLASSES TWO WEEKS AGO FOR
READING THAT SMALL FONT, PUT
THEM TO USE. AND WE CAN
CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF
CENTRAL STAFF, BUT ALSO, IT'S
PROBABLY GOING TO BE RELEVANT
FOR SOME OF THE SHIFTS IN
POLICY CHOICES AND FUNDS
SOURCES THAT WE WILL DISCUSS
OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS, AS
WELL. THERE IS STILL TIME TO
READ ALL 50 PAGES. WE HAVEN'T
GOTTEN THE ATTACHMENTS. TOM,
THANKS SO MUCH FOR URINALYSIS,
AND SPEAKING OF BUDGET RELATED
LEGISLATION, THANKS FOR THE
WORK YOU HAVE ALSO DONE WITH
CITY BUDGET OFFICE AND OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE CENTRAL STAFF
TEAM, SPECIFICALLY ALY PENNUCCI
, ON THE BUDGET TRANSPARENCY
LEGISLATION. WE TALKED ABOUT IT
IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE , OR
THE FINANCE AND HOUSING
COMMITTEE EARLY THIS YEAR,
ABOUT TRYING TO CODIFY SOME OF
THE REGULATIONS THAT CBO AND
CENTRAL STAFF CAME UP WITH AS
PART OF THE WORKGROUP TO ENSURE
GREATER SUSTAINABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BUDGET IN
FUTURE YEARS. SOME OF THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE PART OF
OUR BUDGET LEGISLATION
DELIBERATIONS LATER THIS FALL.
SO THANKS FOR THAT WORK THAT
YOU HAVE DONE ON BUDGET RELATED
ITEMS YEAR-ROUND. HAPPY TO HAVE
YOUR GOOD WORK HIGHLIGHTED
EVERY FALL HERE. LET'S MOVE ON
TO THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
MADAM CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE
READ ITEM NUMBER FOUR IN THE
RECORD?
>> ITEM NUMBER FOUR, JUMPSTART
FUND BALANCING ANALYSIS FOR
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION.
>> EXCELLENT, AND WELCOME
AGAIN , DEPUTY DIRECTOR
PENNUCCI. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
MEMO ON THIS, AND THE
PRESENTATION WE HAVE IN FRONT
OF US. I KNOW THERE IS BEEN A
LOT OF TEEING UP OF THIS
DISCUSSION THROUGHOUT THIS
MORNING, AND MANY OF THE
DISCUSSIONS THAT WE WILL HAVE
TOMORROW, FRIDAY, AND MONDAY
RELATE TO THE USE OF JUMPSTART,
AS WELL, AS A FUND SOURCE FOR
SOME OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET.
THANKS FOR SPENDING TIME
PROVIDING A DEEP DIVE INTO
ANALYSIS HERE ON HOW THE USE OF
JUMPSTART HAS BEEN WOVEN IN TO
THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT WE
HAVE RECEIVED . I WILL TURN IT
OVER TO YOU TO WALK US THROUGH
THAT.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU, CHAIR
MOSQUEDA. THIS ANALYSIS FOCUSES
ON THE USE OF REVENUES AND
EXTEND VENTURES ON THE
JUMPSTART PAYROLL EXPENSE TAX
FUND THAT I WILL REFER TO AS
THE JUMPSTART FUND MOVING
FORWARD, IF WE COULD MOVE TO
THE NEXT SLIDE. TODAY I WILL
PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND . I
WILL WALKED OR HOW THE FUND IS
BALANCED IN THE PROPOSED , I
WILL DESCRIBE SOME PROPOSED
CHANGES TO THE POLICIES RELATED
TO FLEXIBLE USE OF THE FUNDS,
CHANGES TO EXPENDITURES, AND A
PROPOSAL TO EXTEND A DEDUCTION
THAT EXISTS IN THE FUND
POLICIES TODAY , OR THE TAX
POLICY, EXCUSE ME. ON
BACKGROUND, THIS REVENUE SOURCE
WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COUNCIL
IN 2020, AND AT THE SAME TIME,
COUNCIL ADOPTED A SPENDING PLAN
FOR USE OF THESE REVENUES .
THAT PLAN FOCUSED THE
INVESTMENTS ON FOUR KEY AREAS.
HOUSING, ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION, EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE, AND
THE GREEN NEW DEAL. EACH YEAR
SINCE THE FUND WAS ESTABLISHED,
THE EXECUTIVE HAS PROPOSED
MODIFICATION TO THOSE POLICIES
THAT WOULD CHANGE THE INTENDED
PURPOSE OF THE FUND, AND THE
COUNCIL HAS COUNTERED WITH THE
LESS FLEXIBLE BUT STILL
MODIFIED VERSION OF THE
SPENDING PLAN. THIS YEAR THE
EXECUTIVE'S PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS ARE MORE RESTRAINED
THAN PREVIOUS YEARS, BUT NOT
INSIGNIFICANT. THIS CONTINUES
TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THERE IS A
MISMATCH BETWEEN THE COUNCIL
PRIORITIES AND THE MAYOR'S
PRIORITIES WHEN IT COMES TO HOW
JUMPSTART FUNDS SHOULD BE
ALLOCATED. WE CAN MOVE TO THE
NEXT SLIDE. THE PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS, THERE ARE MANY
ENDS AND OUTS. BUT AT A HIGH
LEVEL, THE PROPOSAL WOULD
REDUCE EXPENDITURES FROM THE
JUMPSTART FUND CATEGORIES BY
8.2 MILLION FOR A TOTAL
REDUCTION OF SPENDING OF 8.2
MILLION COMPARED TO THE
ENDORSED . IT REDUCES THE
TRANSFER FROM THE JUMPSTART
FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND BY
$10 MILLION COMPARED TO THE
ENDORSED. AND IT MODIFIES
EXPENDITURES APPROVED AND THAT
ENDORSED BUDGET, PRIORITIZING
THE USE OF HIGHER THAN
ANTICIPATED GENERAL FUND TO
REPLENISH EMERGENCY RESERVES
AND OTHER NEW EXPENDITURES
AHEAD OF FUNDING THE
EXPENDITURES FROM THE JUMPSTART
FUND CATEGORIES THAT WERE
APPROVED IN THE ENDORSED
BUDGET. THIS INCLUDES A
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE POLICIES,
BUT WE WILL TALK ABOUT IN MORE
DETAIL THROUGHOUT THE
PRESENTATION. WE CAN MOVE TO
THE NEXT SLIDE. SO, AS A
STARTING POINT, 2024 REVENUES
FROM THIS REVENUE SOURCE ARE
PROJECTED TO BE $21.6 MILLION
IN 2024 BELOW WHAT WAS ASSUMED
LAST YEAR WHEN YOU ARE
ENDORSING A BUDGET. THE
REDUCTION AND PROJECTED
REVENUES REQUIRE ADJUSTING
EXPENDITURES, SO THIS INCLUDED
REDUCING THE JUMPSTART FUND
RESERVE BY $10.5 MILLION,
REDUCING EXPENDITURES BY A
TOTAL OF 8.2 MILLION, AND
ASSUMING A $3 MILLION UNDER
SPEND. AT A HIGH LEVEL, THAT IS
HOW THE FUND ADDRESSES THE
REVENUE DECREASE IN THE
PROJECTIONS FROM LAST NOVEMBER
TO TODAY.
>> I JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING?
YOU STATED THIS CLEARLY, BUT
JUST SO THAT WE ARE ALL CLEAR .
THERE IS STILL MORE FUNDING
COMING IN FOR JUMPSTART ABOVE
THE AMOUNTS THAT WE ANTICIPATED
WHEN WE PASSED THE SPEND PLAN
IN 2020. IN THE ENDORSED
BUDGET FOR 2024 AND THE
CODIFIED BUDGET FOR 2023,
JUMPSTART REVENUES WERE STILL
SURPASSING THE EXPENDITURE
SPECIFIC FOR JUMPSTART
CATEGORIES, EVEN THOUGH JUMP
START REVENUE WAS SLIGHTLY DOWN
IN THE REVENUE FORECAST
EARLIER THIS YEAR. I JUST
WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, AS
WELL.
>> THAT IS CORRECT, CHAIR
MOSQUEDA. BASED ON THE 2020
ESTIMATES, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT
IN 2024 JUMPSTART REVENUES
WOULD BE ABOUT $225 MILLION. I
DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS
RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. SO YOU
CAN SEE HERE, IT EVEN WITH THE
REDUCTION OF $21 MILLION, THAT
IS 289 COMPARED TO 225. STILL
COMING IN FAIRLY SIGNIFICANTLY
ABOVE WHAT WAS ASSUMED WHEN YOU
ADOPTED THIS.
>> GREAT, I JUST WANTED TO
OFFER THAT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
REVENUES BEING SLIGHTLY LOWER
FOR JUMPSTART, IN MY MIND, AND
I THINK I SAID THIS BEFORE A
NUMBER OF TIMES, THAT DOES NOT
NECESSITATE A 2024 BUDGET
REDUCING EXPENDITURE IN THAT
CATEGORY , WHEN THAT SPECIFIC
FUND SOURCE IS STILL COMING IN
HIGHER THAN THE EXPENDITURES
FOR JUMPSTART. ALL RIGHT,
THANK YOU SO MUCH. JUST WANTED
TO DRAW THAT OUT.
>> YEAH, THANK YOU. MSR OTHER
QUESTIONS, I WILL MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT SLIDE. SO, JUMPSTART
FUND , PARTNER OF THE JUMPSTART
FUND IS USED TO HELP OFFSET ,
OR HELP PAY FOR EXPENDITURES IN
THE GENERAL FUND. 2024 , EXCUSE
ME, THE POLICIES FOR THE
JUMPSTART FUND THAT WERE
AMENDED LAST YEAR BY THE
COUNCIL SAY THAT UP TO $84
MILLION OF PROJECTED 2024
REVENUE MAY BE TRANSFERRED INTO
THE GENERAL FUND IF NECESSARY
TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES FUNDED BY THE GENERAL
FUND IN THE 23 ADOPTED AND 24
ENDORSED BUDGETS. THAT ARE IN
EXCESS OF AVAILABLE GENERAL
FUND REVENUES. THIS TABLE
ILLUSTRATES HOW LAST YEAR THE
84 MILLION NUMBER WAS
CALCULATED , WHAT THE TRANSFER
WOULD BE IF THE SAME APPROACH
WAS APPLIED TO THE UPDATED
REVENUE PROJECTIONS, AND HOW WE
CAN BEST UNDERSTAND THE
EXECUTIVE PROPOSALS TO REDUCE
THE TRANSFER BY $10 MILLION. IN
THE 2024 ENDORSED COLUMN, YOU
CAN SEE THAT WHAT WE WERE
LOOKING AT WAS COMPARING THE
ANTICIPATED GENERAL FUND
RESOURCES TO THE PROPOSED , OR
TO THE ENDORSED EXPENDITURES .
AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS THAT
FOR ALL THE EXPENDITURES THAT
THE COUNCIL INCLUDED IN THE
ENDORSED BUDGET LAST YEAR,
WITHOUT AN $84 MILLION
TRANSFERRED TO , FROM THE
JUMPSTART FUND TO THE GENERAL
FUND, YOU CANNOT HAVE INCLUDED
ALL OF THAT SPENDING. WE APPLY
THAT SAME LOGIC TO THIS YEAR'S
PROPOSAL . WE DON'T LOOK AT A
STARTING POINT AS THE NEW
EXPENDITURES PROPOSED, WE LOOK
AT THE EXPENDITURES THAT WERE
INCLUDED IN THE ENDORSED
BUDGET, THAT WERE IMPROVED IN
THE ENDORSED BUDGET, AND IT IS
NOT EXPLICIT IN THE CODE. BUT
IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ADJUST
THOSE FOR INFLATIONARY AND
BASELINE COSTS. SO WE DID THAT
HERE. AND TO SHOW THE INCREASE
IN THE 2024 RESERVES . IF YOU
APPLY THE SAME LOGIC THAT WAS
USED IN DEVELOPING THAT
MODIFICATION LAST YEAR, IT
WOULD RESULT IN A TRANSFER OF
$56.6 MILLION, ABOUT $27
MILLION BELOW WHAT WAS IN THE
ENDORSED . HOWEVER, I CAN SEE
HOW ONE-WAY THE EXECUTIVE MAY
HAVE CONSIDERED IT IF YOU USE
THE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. AND
THAT RESULTS IN ABOUT A $10
MILLION REDUCTION IN THE
TRANSFER. I SEE WE HAVE A
QUESTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON.
>> I RECALL , A FINANCE
MEETING, I BELIEVE IT WAS
EARLIER THIS YEAR. THERE WAS A
DISCUSSION OF UNDER SPEND, I
THINK IT WAS 31 MILLION UNDER
SPEND FROM THE JUMPSTART FUND
IN 2022. COULD YOU KIND OF NOD
IF I AM RECALLING CORRECTLY?
WHERE DOES THIS, DOES THE 2024
ENDORSED ACCOUNT FOR THE
POTENTIAL FOR UNDER SPEND
THAT HAS MAYBE BEEN , THE
HISTORIC TRENDS IN UNDER SPENDS
IN JUMPSTART?
>> IT IS A FAIRLY NEW FUND, SO
I WOULD SAY IT IS HARDER TO
POINT TO HISTORIC TRENDS. I
THINK WHAT YOU'RE RECALLING IS
A CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED
BETWEEN THE APRIL FORECAST AND
THE AUGUST FORECAST. THE APRIL
FORECAST PROJECTED AND EVEN
LOWER NUMBER FOR THE 2024,
THE 24 JUMP START REVENUES. AT
THAT TIME THE APPROACH BY THE
EXECUTIVE WAS TO UNDER SPEND IN
THE JUMPSTART FUND TO HELP
BALANCE BOTH 23 AND 24. THE
AUGUST REVENUE FORECAST , YOU
KNOW, INCREASED THE ASSUMED
REVENUES FOR THE JUMPSTART FUND
IN BOTH 23 AND 24, AND INCLUDED
AN INCREASE IN GENERAL FUND
REVENUES . RATHER THAN NEEDING
TO UNDER SPEND, ASSUME A BIG
UNDER SPEND IN THE FUND, THEY
WERE ABLE TO RELEASE THE HOLD
ON SPENDING AND REDUCE THE
TRANSFER IN 23 FROM THE
JUMPSTART ONTO THE GENERAL FUND
TO KEEP THE FUND IN BALANCE.
THE 2024 PROPOSED BUDGET ONLY
ASSUMES A $3 MILLION UNDER
SPEND. BECAUSE THIS FUND IS
ALLOCATED TO SPECIFIC PROGRAMS
AND SERVICES, I WOULD SAY IT
IS A LITTLE PREMATURE TO KNOW
WHAT THE HISTORIC , WHAT THE
RIGHT UNDER SPEND ASSUMPTION
IS. MANY OF THEM ARE GOING OUT
TO CAPITAL PROGRAMS FOR
INVESTMENTS IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, AND THAT SORT OF
THING. I THINK FIVE YEARS FROM
NOW WE WILL HAVE A BETTER SENSE
OF WHAT IS A REASONABLE
EXPECTATION, BUT RIGHT NOW IN
ORDER TO BALANCE WITH THE
PROPOSED THEY HAD TO ASSUME AND
UNDER SPEND ACROSS THE BIENNIUM
. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE
COULD ADVISE A HIGH UNDER
SPEND.
>> BUT THE ACTUAL WAS IN FACT
31 MILLION?
>> IN 2022 , I'M SORRY, I
MISSED YOUR QUESTION ENTIRELY
THERE. I WILL NEED TO GET BACK
TO YOU ON THAT. IF THERE WAS A
22 MILLION-DOLLAR UNDER SPEND
THAT WAS NOT REALLOCATED , THAT
IS ALL ASSUMED IN THE STARTING
BALANCE . IT WOULD ROLL INTO
23, THEN WILL ROLL IN A 24. SO
IT WOULD BE CAPTURED IN THE
JUMPSTART FUND THAT I DON'T
HAVE RIGHT FOR ME.
>> THANK YOU. AND JUST BECAUSE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR PENNUCCI'S
COMMENT REFERENCE TO THE
MIDYEAR DISCUSSIONS THAT WE
WERE HAVING WITH CBO, WHEN
THERE WAS THE POTENTIAL CONCERN
FOR JUMPSTART REVENUES COMING
IN EVEN LOWER, WE DO APPRECIATE
THAT THE CITY BUDGETS OFFICE
AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE RELEASED
THE 14 MILLION THAT WAS ON HOLD
FOR JUMPSTART EARLIER THIS YEAR
AND WERE ABLE TO ADD ABOUT 9
MILLION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND THE REMAINING GREEN NEW
DEAL EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT AND
ECONOMIC RESILIENCE. THAT IS
GOOD NEWS TO SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES COMMENTS FROM
EARLIER TODAY. IT ALIGNS WITH
THE GOALS THAT I ALSO HAVE
ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE
DOLLARS THAT ARE IN HAND ARE
GETTING DIRECTLY OUT OF THE
COMMUNITY AND NEED WHEN THERE
ARE SUCH PRESSING NEEDS OUT
THERE. VERY APPRECIATIVE THAT
WE FOUND RESOLUTION ON THAT
COMPONENT FROM EARLIER THIS
YEAR, AND THAT IS SPECIFIC TO
23 INVESTMENTS FOR JUMPSTART.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANKS. I THINK WE MIGHT BE
USING THE CONCEPT, THE WORD
UNDER SPEND TO DESCRIBE TWO
DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. I THINK
SOMETIMES UNDER SPEND IS A
STRATEGY TO REDUCE SPENDING IN
AREAS WE HAD PLANNED SPENDING ,
BECAUSE OF REVENUE THAT IS
LOWER THAN ANTICIPATED. SO
EVEN THOUGH THE COUNCIL HAS
ALLOCATED FUNDS, THE BUDGET
OFFICE , TOGETHER WITH THE
DEPARTMENTS, AND HOPEFULLY IN
COLLABORATION WITH THE COUNCIL
WORKS TO IDENTIFY A TARGET
UNDER SPEND. WE ARE NOT GOING
TO RELEASE X NUMBER OF DOLLARS
TO ADJUST FOR THIS NEW
SITUATION. I THINK THAT IS THE
UNDER SPEND , COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, THAT YOU ARE REFERRING
TO. THERE IS ANOTHER KIND OF
UNDER SPEND, WHICH I THINK
DEPUTY DIRECTOR PENNUCCI WAS
ALSO TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT IS
THE HISTORICAL UNDER SPEND.
THAT IS SORT OF NATURALLY
DOLLARS JUST DON'T GET OUT THE
DOOR AS QUICKLY AS WE THINK
THEY WILL. SO I THINK WE MIGHT
BE CONFLATING THOSE TWO
CONCEPTS, WHICH I MYSELF CAN
FIND USEFUL, BUT CONFUSING.
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE
THAT. THAT WAS ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I WAS KEENLY
TRACKING OR CONCERNED ABOUT
WHEN WE INCREASED THE DISTRICT
SPENDING PLAN, HOW ARE WE GOING
TO SPEND ALL THIS? WHAT ARE WE
GOING TO DO? WE ARE RELYING ON
PROPERTY TAX . AND ARE WE USING
IT WHEN THE PEOPLE ON FIXED
INCOMES COULD BE USING IT
THEMSELVES? ANYWAY, I WILL
HAVE TO GO BACK IN MY MATERIALS
AND TRY TO FIND THE DISCUSSION
IN THE COMMITTEE. BECAUSE THEY
DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS A
PLANNED UNDER SPEND. TO BE
CONTINUED.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATION, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD . I THINK IT MIGHT BE
HELPFUL TO USE THE LAPSED
BALANCE AT THE END OF THE YEAR,
LIKE WHEN WE CLOSE THE BOOKS ON
2022 AND ACCOUNT FOR ALL
OUTSTANDING INVOICES AND ALL OF
THAT, WHAT IS LEFT IN BALANCE
IN THE FUND, THAT IS THE
HISTORIC UNDER SPEND OR
NATURAL. AND THEN THERE IS THE
DIRECTED UNDER SPENDS TO
ADDRESS SHIFTS IN REVENUE AND
ADJUSTMENT OF SPENDING. I MIGHT
USE LAPSED BALANCE MOVING
FORWARD AND APPRECIATE THAT
CLARITY. AND COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, I BELIEVE WHAT YOU
MIGHT BE LOOKING FOR IS TOM'S
MEMO PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE
HOUSING COMMITTEE IN MAY THAT
PROVIDED AN ANALYSIS OF THE
APRIL FORECAST. WE WILL FOLLOW
UP WITH YOU AFTER, BUT I THINK
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING
FOR. OKAY. SHOULD WE MOVE
AGAIN, BECAUSE THE GENERAL FUND
FORECAST HAS INCREASED COMPARED
TO THE ENDORSED , AND THE
JUMPSTART FORECAST HAS
DECREASED COMPARED TO THE
ENDORSED , YOU CAN THINK ABOUT
THAT THERE COULD HAVE JUST
BEEN A SHIFTING OF THOSE
RESOURCES TO BALANCE BOTH
FUNDS. OVERALL, CENTRAL STAFF
ANALYSIS, AS I SAID BEFORE,
WOULD BE BASED ON THE
LEGISLATIVE INTENT LAST YEAR .
IT WOULD'VE BOTH AVOIDED
CUTTING, SPENDING IN THE
JUMPSTART CATEGORIES BY A .2
MILLION, AND I CAN HAVE
INCREASED SPENDING AND SOME OF
THE CATEGORIES. THE PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS REDUCES THAT BY $10
MILLION. IF WE CAN MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT SLIDE , THE SORT OF
SUMS IT UP . THE A .2
MILLION-DOLLAR REDUCTION IN
SPENDING WAS NOT NECESSARY. I
WILL JUST FLAG THAT WITHOUT
SOME OF THESE CHANGES, WITHOUT
THE REDUCTIONS IN THE OTHER
ADJUSTMENTS, THE NEW
EXPENDITURES FROM THE JUMPSTART
FUND THAT I WILL GET TO ON THE
NEXT SLIDE , AND OTHER NEW
EXPENDITURES FUNDED FROM THE
GENERAL FUND AND THE PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
POSSIBLE. THAT INCLUDES PAYING
BACK THE EMERGENCY FUND PASTOR,
THAT INCLUDES THE INVESTMENTS
IN HUMAN SERVICE WAGES, SO A
THEME WE THINK COMING BACK TO,
THERE ARE TRADE-OFFS WITH EVERY
BALANCING STRATEGY. THIS IS ONE
OF THEM. THE COUNCIL COULD
CHOOSE TO FURTHER REDUCE THE
AMOUNT OF JUMPSTART FUNDS
TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND
IN 2024, BUT THAT WOULD
REQUIRE REDUCING GENERAL FUND
SPENDING OR OTHER SPENDING FROM
THE JUMPSTART FIND IN THE FLEX
ABILITY CATEGORY BY THE SAME
AMOUNT. OKAY, TO THE NEXT
SLIDE. SO, THE 2024 PROPOSED
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS ASSUMES
PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION THAT
WOULD AMEND THE JUMPSTART FUND
POLICIES. THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE
PROPOSED CHANGES IS TO EXPAND
THE TEMPORARY FLEX ABILITY FOR
SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES UP
AUTHORIZED DURING THE 2024 .
LAST YEAR THE COUNCIL PASSED
AWAY ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE
FUND FLEXIBILITY ORDINANCE, TO
ALLOW FOR THE FLEXIBLE USE OF
JUMPSTART FUNDS. IN 23 AND 24
ONLY, FOR FOUR SPECIFIC
EXPENDITURES. THOSE OF THE
ITEMS LISTED IN THE ENDORSED
COLUMN THAT HAVE A DOLLAR
AMOUNT IN THAT COLUMN. THE
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS WOULD ADD
FOUR NEW AREAS OF SPENDING THAT
APART FROM THE FLEX ABILITY
APPROVED LAST YEAR. AND THEY
ARE SO FUNDED WITH JUMPSTART
FUNDS. THAT INCLUDES ADDING A
COMPLIANCE ANALYST, AND THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS
PROVIDING THE REQUIRED STARTUP
COSTS FOR THE SOCIAL HOUSING
PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
INVESTMENTS IN CHILDCARE
WORKERS, AND HUMAN SERVICES
PROVIDER PAY. WE CAN MOVE TO
THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A BIT
OF A WONKY CENTRAL STAFF SLIDE,
BUT THIS SLIDE HIGHLIGHTS THE
RELEVANT PIECES OF THE
FLEXIBILITY PROVISIONS ADDED
NEXT YEAR THAT WILL FRAME THE
UPCOMING DISCUSSIONS. THAT
ORDINANCE READS THAT AFTER
SUBTRACTING OUT THE AMOUNT OF
JUMPSTART FUNDS TRANSFERRED TO
THE GENERAL FUND FOR REVENUE
BACK BILL, THEN SUBTRACTING OUT
ANY JUMPSTART FUNDS SPENT UNDER
THE SPECIFIC FLEXIBILITY
ALLOWED LAST YEAR , YOU THEN
ALLOCATE THE REMAINDER TO EACH
OF THE CATEGORIES. HOWEVER,
WHEN THE COUNCIL ADOPTED THE
BUDGET LAST YEAR AND ENDORSED
ONE FOR 24, THE FLEXIBLE USES
OF JUMPSTART FUNDS WERE
INTENDED TO BE CAPPED AT THE
LEVEL OF FUNDS THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE ALLOCATED TO THE
UP TO 5% OF JUMPSTART FUNDS
FOR ADMINISTRATION AND
EVALUATION. THAT WAS CLEARLY
EXPRESSED IN THE ATTACHMENT
THAT ACTUALLY LISTED THE
SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES .
FRANKLY, IN THE PACE OF
BUDGET, THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS
WAS NOT CAPTURED ACCURATELY IN
THE FUND FLEXIBILITY ORDINANCE.
WITH THAT IN MIND, IF WE CAN
MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE WE CAN
LOOK AT -- GO AHEAD .
>> MASTER QUESTION?
>> ALWAYS, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> SO I AM LOOKING AT SLIDE
EIGHT , AND THE JUMPSTART FLEX
ABILITY. I GET IT. I KNOW THAT
SOUNDS KIND OF NERDY, BUT ON
THE FORMER PRESENTATION, ON
PAGE 15 , THE NEW TERM, WHICH I
LIKE. JUMPSTART ADJACENT. TELL
ME WHAT THAT MEANS. IS THAT THE
SAME THING , LIKE BASICALLY
JUMPSTART ADJACENT IS REALLY
JUMPSTART FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE
WE HAVE ALLOWED, WITHIN THE
ORDINANCE , TO BE FLEXIBLE
ABOUT ADDITIONAL ISSUES WE
WERE GOING TO USE THE JUMPSTART
FOR? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE
THERE?
>> YOU ARE MOSTLY RIGHT, BUT
IF YOU COULD REFER TO THE
PREVIOUS SLIDE ON SLIDE SEVEN,
WHAT IS CHALLENGING TO TRACE IN
WHAT IS GOING ON IS THAT SOME
OF THESE EXPENDITURES THAT ARE
FLEXIBLE USES IN THE PROPOSED
BUDGET , DEPARTMENTS ARE
SPENDING DIRECTLY OUT OF THE
JUMPSTART FUND TO PAY FOR THEM
. AND SOME OF THEM ARE FIRST
TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND
AND THEN SPENT OUT OF THE
GENERAL FUND . SO TOM'S GENERAL
FUND ADJACENT IS CAPTURING THE
PORTION OF THESE EXPENDITURES
AND SOME OTHER TRANSFERS TO THE
GENERAL FUND RELATED TO ADMIN
COSTS THAT ARE GENERAL FUND
ADJACENT. BASICALLY DOES
EXPENDITURES FROM THE GENERAL
FUND ARE MADE POSSIBLE BY
TRANSFERRING SOME OF THIS MONEY
TO THE JUMPSTART FUND . I WILL
TRY TO STAY THAT ANOTHER WAY,
BECAUSE IT TOOK ME SOME TIME TO
UNDERSTAND THIS. BUT
ESSENTIALLY, THE MAYOR REDUCED
THE TRANSFER FROM THE
JUMPSTART FUND TO THE GENERAL
FUND FOR GENERAL BALANCING
PURPOSES IN THE GENERAL FUND.
SO THEY MOVED 10 MILLION FROM
GENERAL FUND BACK TO JUMPSTART.
THEN THEY TOOK 4.6 MILLION OF
THAT AND MOVED IT BACK TO THE
GENERAL FUND FOR THE HUMAN
SERVICE PROVIDER PAY . IT IS A
LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE EXACTLY
HOW THOSE EXPENDITURES ARE
SUPPORTED, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THEY DID THAT WITH AN
INTENT TO INDICATE THAT THEY
ARE NOT ASSUMING THAT THE HUMAN
SERVICES PROVIDER PAY WILL BE
AN ONGOING LIABILITY FROM THE
JUMPSTART FUND. SO IT IS
SOMEWHAT OF A VERY, VERY IN THE
WEEDS BUDGET TRANSACTION.
>> OKAY, LET ME ASK A
FOLLOW-UP. ON PAGE SEVEN, AS
YOU SHARED WITH US, THE
FLEXIBLE USE OF THE FUNDS , THE
FIRST FOUR WERE ONE TIME. I
REMEMBER WHEN WE DID THIS FOR
THE OUTREACH FOR THE SUITE AND
BEVERAGE TAX. ONE TIME. THE
OTHER FOUR ARE COMING IN NOW.
THE CO-COMPLIANCE, THE STARTUP
COSTS FOR THE HOUSING PDA AND
THE OTHER FOUR. WHAT DO YOU
CATEGORIZE ? YOU'RE
CATEGORIZING THOSE AS FLEXIBLE,
AND NOT ADJACENT OR --
>> YEAH, UNDER THE JUMPSTART
FUND DIVISIONS THEY ARE
IDENTIFIED . THERE IS THE
ATTACHMENT TO THE FUND
FLEXIBILITY ORDINANCE THAT YOU
APPROVED LAST YEAR THAT LISTED
THOSE FOUR ITEMS AND SAID ONLY
AND 23 AND 24 CAN YOU SPEND ON
THOSE THINGS. THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSAL LAMENTS THAT
ATTACHMENT AND ADDS THESE FOUR
AND SAYS ONLY AND 24 CAN YOU
FIND THESE FROM THE JUMPSTART
FUND. BUT SOME OF THEM ARE
ONGOING , SO THEY ARE HAVING AN
IMPACT ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF
THE GENERAL FUND. THE
CO-COMPLIANCE ANALYST, THAT IS
AN ONGOING POSITION. THE HUMAN
SERVICES PROVIDER PAY IS AN
ONGOING POSITION. BECAUSE SOME
OF THAT MONEY IS GETTING
TRANSFERRED BACK INTO THE
GENERAL FUND BEFORE IT IS
GETTING SPENT, THAT IS SORT OF
THE GENERAL FUND ADJACENT,
USING TOM'S DESCRIPTION IN HIS
MEMO. BUT WE ARE COMING AT IT
FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES.
>> OKAY, SO THE LAST FOUR THAT
ARE NOT IN THE 2024 ENDORSED,
IN THE 2024 PROPOSAL, THOSE ARE
NOT ONE TIME. THOSE ARE , LIKE
YOU SAID, ONGOING.
>> SOME OF THAT, THE
CO-COMPLIANCE IN THE HUMAN
SERVICES PROVIDER PAY OUR
ONGOING EXPENDITURES , BUT THE
BUDGET DOES NOT ASSUME THAT
THEY ARE PAID FOR IN AN ONGOING
WAY FROM THE JUMPSTART FUND.
>> OKAY.
>> IT ASSUMES IN THE FUTURE
THAT WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO
ADDRESS THE $250 MILLION
DEFICIT IN THE GENERAL FUND, SO
ALL THE OTHER THINGS CAN
CONTINUE ONGOING.
>> OKAY, MASK AT MAY I ASK A
QUESTION THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE
OUT OF BOUNDS, A LITTLE BIT
AHEAD?
>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD, GO AHEAD.
I WANT TO BUILD ON SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, AS WELL.
>> SO WE ARE PUTTING TOGETHER
WHICH NAMES , ON THE
OVERSIGHT BOARD WITH SOME
MEMBERS. WILL THE NEW COUNCIL
NEXT YEAR, WILL THE OVERSIGHT
BOARD COMMISSIONED, WHATEVER ,
WILL THEY BE THE PEOPLE TO
BREAK THIS DOWN EASIER SO THAT
WE UNDERSTAND OR THEY
UNDERSTAND? BECAUSE YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT NOT JUST THIS
YEAR, BUT TALKING ABOUT, AS THE
CHAIR WAS SAYING,
SUSTAINABILITY LOOKING FORWARD,
WELL BEYOND SOME OF THIS NOT
BEING HERE. IS THAT A ROLE THAT
YOU SEE FOR THE OVERSIGHT
BOARD? OR MAYBE THAT GOES TO
THE CHAIR?
>> GO AHEAD.
>> I DO THINK THAT IS A ROLE
FOR THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. I
THINK THAT , SIMILAR TO THE
GREEN NEW DEAL BOARD, OR THE
SUITE AND BEVERAGE TAX BOARD,
THEY REGULARLY ADVISE ON THE
PROPOSED BUDGET. I BELIEVE THE
CITY BUDGET OFFICE OFTEN
CONSULTS WITH THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS. THEY OFTEN
PROVIDE LETTERS TO ALL OF YOU
WITH THEIR TAKE AND WHERE THEY
THINK IT ALIGNS OR DOES NOT
ALIGN WITH THEIR PRIORITIES.
AND SO, IF I HAVE INFLUENCE AS
A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE, I
WOULD ABSOLUTELY WANT TO TALK
THAT THROUGH. I THINK IT WOULD
BE HELPFUL FOR THE FUTURE
COUNCIL TO GET THE INPUT FROM
THAT BOARD ON HERE IS WHAT WE
THINK ABOUT HOW THE PROPOSED
BUDGET ALIGNS AND DESCRIBED
THOSE INS AND OUTS.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU.
>> AND THANK YOU, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, FOR THE WORK THAT
YOU HAVE DONE THROUGH YOUR
OFFICE IN SUPPORTING THE EFFORT
TO TRY TO GET THE OVERSIGHT
BOARD MEMBERS ADVANCED . WE
LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THAT
CONVERSATION AT FULL COUNCIL
LATER THIS MONTH. AND THANKS TO
THE EXECUTIVE FOR IDENTIFYING
FOLKS , AS WELL. THE EXECUTIVE
ALSO IDENTIFIED FIVE PEOPLE,
VERY INTERESTED IN STANDING
THAT BODY UP TO PROVIDE THAT
FEEDBACK TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EXECUTIVE IN FUTURE YEARS. THAT
IS A GOOD WORK ON THE HORIZON
TO COME, AND I APPRECIATE THE
QUESTION THERE. I THINK THE
QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK,
FOR CENTRAL STAFF, AS WELL,
WHEN WE LOOK AT THE
INVESTMENTS HERE. AND I WANT
TO, AGAIN, UNDERSCORE MY
PERSONAL SUPPORT, MY INTEREST
IN SEEING THESE ITEMS THAT ARE
LISTED IN THE LAST FOUR AREAS
RECEIVE FUNDING. THE QUESTION
THAT I AM RAISING IS NOT ABOUT
WHETHER THEY SHOULD HAVE
FUNDING. BUT THE MECHANISM TO
ALLOW FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO
RECEIVE FUNDING THROUGH GENERAL
FUND VERSUS HAVING THEM
SWAPPED INTO JUMPSTART.
COULDN'T WE HAVE ACCOMPLISH
THAT SAME OUTCOME OF HAVING THE
FUNDING BE PROVIDED BY WAY OF
MAINTAINING THE 10 MILLION FROM
JUMPSTART THAT WAS GOING INTO
THE GENERAL FUND? AND LEAVING
THAT 10 MILLION IN THE GENERAL
FUND , AND ALLOWING THOSE
INVESTMENTS TO BE PART OF WHAT
THE GENERAL FUND THEN FULFILLS
IN 2024 , INSTEAD OF SWABBING
IT BACK INTO JUMPSTART.
>> AND ASK A FOLLOW-UP
QUESTION?
>> YEAH, LET ME SEE IF SHE CAN
ANSWER THAT REAL QUICK.
>> YOU'RE STILL ASKING HER
QUESTION, I APOLOGIZE.
>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. IF
THE PROPOSED BUDGET HAD NOT
REDUCE THE TRANSFER BY $10
MILLION , THESE FOUR NEW LINE
ITEMS COULD HAVE BEEN FUNDED
DIRECTLY OUT OF THE JUMPSTART
FUND AND I WOULD NOT BE HERE
TRYING TO EXPLAIN MOVING IT
OUT AND THEN MOVING IT BACK IN
AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
>> AND CAN I ASK FOR
CLARIFICATION, YOU SAID IT
WOULD'VE BEEN FUNDED FROM THE
JUMPSTART FUND. DID YOU MEAN
THE GENERAL FUND?
>> YES, THE GENERAL.
>> LET'S DO THE FULL ANSWER
AGAIN, JUST FOR THE RECORD.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. HAD THE
TRANSFER NOT BEEN REDUCED BY
$10 MILLION , HAD WE LEFT THAT
MONEY OR AT LEAST MOST OF THAT
MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND,
THESE EXPENDITURES , WE WOULD
NOT BE TALKING ABOUT THESE. ARE
THEY, OR ARE THEY NOT ELIGIBLE
FOR JUMPSTART, AND IS THERE AN
ONGOING LIABILITY? THEY
COULD'VE BEEN FACILITATED. THE
PREVIOUS ISSUE I DISCUSSED
STILL WOULD'VE PERSISTED, WHERE
OUR ANALYSIS IS THAT THE
TRANSFER AMOUNT SHOULD'VE BEEN
REDUCED, BUT IT MAY HAVE BEEN A
SIMPLER DECISION FOR THE
COUNCIL FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.
>> GREAT, YEAH. I KNOW MANY OF
US, EVERYONE HAS HAD THIS
CONVERSATION YEAR AFTER YEAR.
WE ARE TIRED OF HAVING THIS
DISCUSSION. THE QUESTION THEN
GETS COMPLICATED. IT'S NOT A
QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THESE ARE IMPORTANT PROGRAMS TO
INVEST IN. HAD THE MONEY FROM
JUMPSTART REMAINED IN THE
GENERAL FUND AND THESE ITEMS
BEEN INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED
BUDGET TO COME FROM GENERAL
FUND, WE REALLY WOULD BE NOT
EVEN TALKING ABOUT FUND SOURCE
AT THIS POINT. I AM JUST
TEEING UP FOR YOU THAT THERE IS
AN OPTION HERE, AND I KNOW WE
WILL TALK ABOUT IT LATER,
KEEPING THESE ITEMS FUNDED AT
THE AMOUNT THAT THE MAYOR
PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES, AND
HAVING THAT AMOUNT CONTINUE TO
BE TAKEN FROM GENERAL FUND AND
KEEPING THE 10 MILLION IN
GENERAL FUND INSTEAD OF
TRANSFERRING IT BACK TO
JUMPSTART. COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I
INTERRUPTED YOU EARLIER , BUT
WANTED TO FLAG FOR FOLKS. I
KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS
DISCUSSION , BUDGET OVERBUDGET,
AND EVERYONE IS GETTING TIRED
OF HAVING THAT DEFINITION
DISCUSSION . I DON'T WANT TO
HAVE TO COMPOUND THAT AGAIN
THIS YEAR. SO I THINK THERE IS
A SIMPLE SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS
FOR THESE ITEMS TO BE FUNDED
AND FOR US TO NOT CONTINUE TO
GO BACK TO THAT SAME
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TAD?
>> I'M TRYING TO DISTINGUISH,
THESE ARE INTERGOVERNMENTAL,
INTERDEPARTMENTAL. THEY ARE
JUST TRANSFERS AND WE DID THAT
WITH THE SUGAR TAX AND WE'VE
DONE THAT WITH PARK REVENUE
MONEY, WHERE WE WERE NOT
LOANING AND ADDING AN
INTEREST, WE SAID HEY 10
MILLION, IF
THERE IS A STANDARD WAY WHERE A
CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, OR DID WE ,
WOULD GO TO THE GENERAL FUND
BEYOND THE PURPOSE OF THE
ORDINANCE WAS SET UP FOR THE
PAYROLL TAX? RIGHT?
>> GO AHEAD.
>> SO, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN
AGREED-UPON PERCENTAGE . THE
SPENDING PLAN , THE ORIGINAL
SPENDING PLAN ALLOWED IN THE
FIRST YEAR, REMEMBER THOSE
CHALLENGES OF BUDGETING ? IT
SAID FOR THE FIRST YEAR, 2021,
THE REVENUE CAN BE USED TO TO
PROVIDE, TO BACKFILL FOR
GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND
PROVIDE ONGOING COVID RELIEF
FUNDING FOR MANY OF THE EFFORTS
YOU ALL WERE IMPLEMENTING AT
THAT TIME AND THEN MOVING
FORWARD, THIS WAS ALLOCATED
TO THE SPENDING CATEGORIES.
THERE WAS A CALCULATION, A
FORMULA PUT INTO THE, TO THE
GENERAL FUND. IF THEY WERE
BELOW A STATIC, I THINK FROM
2020 , THAT IS IN THE POLICY
THAT YOU CAN TRANSFER AT THAT
POINT. WE ARE WELL BEYOND THAT
POINT. THERE IS NO ONGOING
ALLOWANCE , AND I WILL HAVE
THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT
PERMANENT CHANGE , FOR THE
COMMUNITY'S CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS SIMPLY TO JUST NOT
REDUCE THE $10 MILLION TRANSFER
AND JUST PAY FOR THESE THINGS ,
FOR ANY DISCUSSION , ABOUT
LONGER-TERM DECISIONS.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU.
YOU'VE GIVEN A NAME , THAT IS
NOT AN ONGOING ALLOWANCE, GOING
BACK AND FORTH AND YOU ARE
RIGHT. I THINK THAT IS RIGHT
FOR DISCUSSION. I AM DONE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
>> ABSOLUTELY. COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT THE
ALLOWANCE THAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT IS BASED ON THE JUMPSTART
LAW, OR SMC 538 55 , WHICH
ALLOWS FOR . FOR A GIVEN YEAR,
PROTECTED IF THE GENERAL FUND
REVENUES FROM 2020 , THAT
AMOUNT IS , 1,510,000 ,
1,510,000,000 , IN 29,000,
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THERE IS
A VERY SPECIFIC AMOUNT BUT THAT
AMOUNT IS NOT INDEXED TO
INFLATION. SO ONE OF THE
POLICY CHANGES THAT WERE
SUGGESTED LAST YEAR WAS TO
INDEX THAT TO INFLATION SO THAT
THERE WOULD BE A DIFFERENT
TRIGGER FOR , FOR THE JUMPSTART
TRANSFER. SO, BUT, NOTE THAT
THIS IS NOT INDEXED TO
INFLATION, BUT THE HUMAN
SERVICES PROVIDER PAY IS WHICH
IS PART OF WHAT IS INCREASING
THIS GAP AND LAST YEAR ALSO THE
MAYOR PROPOSED TO NOT TIE THE
HUMAN SERVICES PAY ADJUSTMENT
TO INFLATION BUT RATHER TO 4%
AND THAT DID NOT GO DOWN. IN
BOTH OF THOSE, BECAUSE BOTH OF
THOSE PIECES OF LEGISLATION DID
NOT GO THROUGH, THAT IS WHY WE,
IN PART, HAVE THIS GAP THAT
WAS SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUS
PRESENTATION BETWEEN REVENUE
AND EXPENDITURES AND NOTES
THAT THOSE LINES DO NOT ACCOUNT
FOR COUNCIL MEMBER PEDERSEN'S
COMMENT . THE OTHER REVENUE
THAT WE DO TAKE IN THAT IS NOT
ON , NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE
GENERAL FUND. I GUESS I AM
MAKING MY POINT THAT WHEN WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT NOT SPENDING
THAT $10 MILLION, THIS YEAR,
THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO DO --
SPENT IT NEXT YEAR. WE ARE
MAKING DECISIONS NOT TO CLOSE
THE GAP AND WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DECREASE IT A
LITTLE BIT AND I AM HEARING
THAT THERE MAY BE SOME DESIRE
NOT TO DO THAT. IF WE ARE
GOING TO TALK ABOUT LONG-TERM
SUSTAINABILITY, THERE ARE
POLICY CHOICES WE'VE MADE AND
THAT WE COULD MAKE TO DECREASE
THE NEED FOR LOOKING AT ALL OF
THESE OTHER REVENUE SOURCES. I
JUST WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE
TABLE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
JUMPSTART BECAUSE WE LIMITED
THE AMOUNT THAT WE CAN TRANSFER
BASED ON THE FLOOR THAT IS NOT
TIED TO INFLATION. THAT IS
ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> OKAY. SHALL I PROCEED?
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT YOU CAN
PROCEED. I DO THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE
INCREASE GAP IN EXPENSES AND
REVENUE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
THE COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL
HAS OPINED ON AT THIS POINT.
IT IS AN INCREASE IN
EXPENDITURES VERSUS REVENUE
THAT IS IN THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL
. OUR BUDGET THAT WAS CODIFIED
BY THE MAYOR STILL HAD A
PROJECTED GAP IN EXPENSES AND
REVENUE OF $212 MILLION PER
YEAR, EACH YEAR, OVER THE NEXT
SIX YEARS. THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BUDGET AS RECEIVED IS
A $248 MILLION GAP EACH YEAR.
YEAR OVER YEAR FOR THE NEXT
SIX YEARS. THAT'S NOT
SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL IS
CONSIDERING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
RIGHT NOW . WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT THAT PROPOSED BUDGET AND
THE QUESTION IS STILL A
QUESTION OF ONGOING NEED IF WE
TALK ABOUT INCREASING
INDIVIDUAL SALARY, THAT IS AN
ONGOING EXPENSE AND SO, I LOOK
FORWARD TO DIVING INTO THIS
DEEPER WITH MY COLLEAGUES , BUT
I WANTED TO FLAG FOR
CLARIFICATION THAT THERE IS NOT
A PROPOSAL OR A DISCUSSION
ABOUT WIDENING THE GAP THAT THE
COUNCIL HAS AT THIS POINT. , I
WILL KEEP GOING. WE WILL HAVE
A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
WE WILL HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS
TO COME, WHETHER OR NOT WE
ACCEPT, REJECT, OR MODIFY THE
PROPOSALS THAT HAVE COME TO
WIDEN THAT GAP WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL REVENUE AT THIS
POINT. LET'S CONTINUE.
>> GREAT. YES, THANK YOU.
GOING BACK TO MAYBE 20 MINUTES
AGO, THROUGH LITERAL READING
OF THE CODE , THIS ILLUSTRATES
HOW THE JUMPSTART FUNDS, IF
THE SAME LOGIC THAT THE COUNCIL
USE LAST YEAR, TO THE PROPOSED
BUDGET, AND WHAT THIS SHOWS IS
THE INTENT BASED ON PAST
LEGISLATION WAS THAT THE
FLEXIBLE USES WERE ONLY COMING
OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND
EVALUATION CATEGORY , IF YOU
APPLY THE SAME LOGIC OR THAT
INTENT , YOU CAN SEE THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE , ADMINISTRATION
AND EVALUATION CATEGORY WOULD
BE OVERFUNDED COMPARED TO THE
SPENDING PLAN AND THE ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AND THE HOUSING
CATEGORIES WOULD BE BELOW THE
LEVELS INCLUDED IN THE
SPENDING PLAN. THIS, IF WE
COULD MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE,
THIS TABLE SHOULD BE TIED,
IT'S TABLE 3 IN THE MEMO BUT I
HAVE A TYPO, THIS IS TABLE 1.
THIS ILLUSTRATES HOW JUMPSTART
FUNDS WOULD BE ALLOCATED,
PROVIDING THAT LITERAL READING
AND HOW WE UNDERSTAND
EXECUTIVE POLICIES AND USING
THIS FRAMING DOES REQUIRE
AMENDING THE POLICIES TO ADD
SPECIFIC USES TO THE FLEXIBLE
USES. SO IF WE CAN MOVE TO THE
NEXT SLIDE, WHAT DOES THIS
MEAN? IT'S HARD CHOICES FOR THE
COUNCIL, AND IT DID NOT LIMIT
THE AMOUNT. TOO ESSENTIALLY,
UNDERSTANDING THE
ADMINISTRATION CATEGORY, WHICH
WOULD INDICATE A CHANGE IN
COUNCIL . AS I NOTED IN MY
INTRODUCTION THERE HAVE BEEN
CHANGES TO THE POLICIES THAT
PROVIDE ONE-TIME FLEXIBILITY
FOR USE OF THESE FUNDS IN ORDER
TO BALANCE AND AT THAT TIME
THAT THE PLAN WAS CREATED, WE
DID NOT ASSUME THAT THE COVID
EMERGENCY WOULD PERSIST FOR SO
LONG ALONGSIDE THE ASSOCIATED
IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY. AS WE
LOOK AHEAD, WE WOULD CONTINUE
TO BE CHALLENGED TO PRESERVE
THAT FUNDING FOR THE
CATEGORIES APPROVED IN 2020
WITH ABSENT REVENUE SOURCES.
IS IT TIME TO CONSIDER
EXPANDING AREAS OF SPENDING ,
WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR THOSE
DECISIONS . THIS IS WHAT
CHAIR MOSQUEDA SAID, TO REDUCE
OR FIND ALTERNATIVE SOURCES TO
FUND THOSE EXPENDITURES ADDED
IT TO THE FLEXIBILITY
PROVISIONS FOR THIS IS MORE
WHAT WAS DESCRIBED, DO NOT
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF JUMPSTART
FUNDS TRANSFERRED BY $10
MILLION AND FUND THOSE NEW
AREAS OF FLEXIBLE SEND --
SPENDING PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR.
THIS COULD TAKE A VARIETY OF
FORMS, INCLUDING CHANGING THE
PERCENTAGES, FOR HOUSING AND
SERVICES AND ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION BID IS AS PART
OF ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION?
UNTIL THERE IS PERMANENT
HOUSING AVAILABLE, IT HAS BEEN
CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT THE
INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL SPENDING
PLAN BUT THOSE ARE OPTIONS ON
THE TABLE. WE ALSO DESCRIBE IN
THAT MEMO , GIVEN THAT THESE
SPENDING CATEGORIES WERE
DESIGNED TO FOCUS ON
INTENTIONAL SPENDING
CATEGORIES, IF THERE ARE , IF
THERE IS INTEREST IN
CONSIDERING EXPANDING OR
BROADENING THE USES , THE
COUNCIL COULD REQUEST THAT
BEFORE MAKING ANY PERMANENT
CHANGES , THE RACIAL EQUITY
TOOLKIT IS APPLIED AND THERE IS
WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO
UNDERSTAND THOSE IMPACTS AND
WHAT COMMUNITY INPUT IS ABOUT
CHANGING THOSE POLICIES.
>> KEEP GOING.
>> THIS RELATES TO THE
REDUCTION REVITALIZATION
CATEGORY, COMPARED TO HOW MUCH
WAS FUNDED AND HOW MUCH THOSE
CATEGORIES WERE FUNDED. THIS
IS PART OF THE TOTAL REDUCED TO
SPENDING , THERE'S A $2.1
MILLION REDUCTION , COMPARED
TO THE INDOORS AND IN THE
ENDORSED BUDGET ROUTINE $.1
MILLION WAS HELD IN A RESERVE
AND FINANCE GENERAL TO
IMPLEMENT THE STRATEGIC
FRAMEWORK AND THE STRATEGIC
PLAN. THAT WAS REDUCED BY $2.1
MILLION IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET
AND THE REMAINDER IS
PROGRAMMED PRIMARILY IN THE
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND YOU
WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT IN
PRESENTATIONS TOMORROW. THIS
DOES NOT REDUCE FUNDING FOR ANY
SPECIFIC PROGRAMS THAT WERE
FUNDED OR SERVICES THAT WERE
INCLUDED , BUT IT DOES REDUCE
OVERALL, THE RESOURCES
AVAILABLE FOR THIS CATEGORY.
IN HOUSING AND SERVICES, THERE
IS A REDUCTION OF $3.6
MILLION, WHICH IS REDUCING
RESOURCES IN A MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING PROGRAM . IN ADDITION
TO THAT $2.6 MILLION REDUCTION,
THE PROPOSED , ELIMINATES $2.2
MILLION OF FUNDING IN THE
BUDGET THAT WAS FUNDED FROM
THE ADMINISTRATION CATEGORY AND
INSTEAD, THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS WILL BE PAID FOR IN '24
WITH FUNDING ALLOCATED FROM THE
HOUSING AND SERVICE CATEGORY.
THAT FURTHER REDUCES THE
AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
ASSOCIATED SERVICES. THIS WILL
BE INCLUDED IN THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING'S PRESENTATION SCHEDULE
FOR TOMORROW, AS WELL AS A
DISCUSSION OF A TRANSFER FROM
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING FOR
RELOCATION . IN THE SECOND YEAR
BIENNIUM, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS ,
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
ENDORSED EXPENDITURES WOULD BE
MAINTAINED TO THE GREATEST
EXTENT POSSIBLE BEFORE NEW
SPENDING WAS PROPOSED. BECAUSE
THESE WERE USED TO BALANCE NEW
EXPENDITURES IN THE JUMPSTART
FUND AND GENERAL FUND, STORING
FUNDING TO THOSE LEVELS WILL
REQUIRE REDUCING SPENDING
ELSEWHERE. THE OPTIONS ARE
SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN
ON PREVIOUS LIVES, BUT THEY
ARE HERE AGAIN FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION.
>> KEEP GOING.
>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES
TO A PROPOSAL FOR $1 MILLION
FOR ADMINISTRATION AND
EVALUATION AND COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON, THIS GETS BACK TO YOUR
QUESTION . THE PROPOSED
ADJUSTMENTS INCLUDE A PROPOSAL
REJECTED BY THE COUNCIL LAST
YEAR TO ADD $1 MILLION UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATION AND
EVALUATION CATEGORY TO THE
CITY BUDGET OFFICE INNOVATION
AND PERFORMANCE TEAM. THIS
WOULD SUPPORT TWO EVALUATION
ADVISERS AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING
THAT THEY WOULD USE TO CONDUCT
EVALUATION AND RECORDING BY THE
JUMPSTART FUND BID AT THE TIME
THE TAX WAS ADOPTED, THE
COUNCIL ESTABLISHED THIS. THE
IMPACTS ON JOBS AND BUSINESSES
IN THE CITY. THERE'S OTHER DATA
THAT RELATES TO THE IMPACT OF
THE TAX ON THE CITY'S ECONOMY.
IT ALSO ASSUMED THAT EXISTING
STAFF WOULD PROVIDE TECHNICAL
SUPPORT TO THAT COMMITTEE AND
IN FACT, TO STAFF MEMBERS , TWO
STAFF POSITIONS, FROM
EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE, AND
AS THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NOTED, I HAD THE HONOR OF BEING
NOMINATED BY CHAIR MOSQUEDA
AND THAT WILL BE BEFORE YOU,
COMING SOON. THIS IS , THE
QUESTION IS REALLY, IS IT
TIMELY TO DECIDE WHERE TO PUT
THESE POSITIONS OR ADDITIONAL
POSITIONS BEFORE THAT BOARD IS
FORMED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVIDE INPUT ON WHAT TYPE
OF EVALUATION AND INNOVATION
WORK WILL BE DONE AND WHETHER
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS
NECESSARY IN ADDITION TO WHAT
HAS BEEN ADDED? IF THE TEAM
IS THE APPROPRIATE HOME FOR
THOSE POSITIONS. THE
CONDITIONS THAT LED TO THE
COUNCIL NOT INCLUDING THIS IN
THE ENDORSED BUDGET LAST YEAR
HAVE NOT BEEN SIGNIFICANT
CHANGE THIS YEAR. THE OPTIONS
ARE TO PROJECT THAT SPENDING
AND THAT CAN BE USED TO RESTORE
FUNDING AND SOME OF THE OTHER
CATEGORIES OR BE USED FOR OTHER
BASES.
>> HYBRID TO THAT IS TO
REDUCE, IF WE THINK THAT THE
BODY WILL BE SET UP AT SOME
POINT NEXT YEAR, VERY THANKFUL
THAT THE EXECUTIVE AND THE
MAYOR, AND THEIR TEAM , IS
INTERESTED IN HELPING TO STEM
THIS UP. I THINK THAT WILL BE
EXCELLENT AND IT'S BEEN CALLED
FOR AND I AM HAPPY TO SEE OUR
COLLECTIVE EFFORTS MOVING
FORWARD ON THAT. THEY ALLOW
FOR THE BODY TO BE STOOD UP
NEXT YEAR, SO THE QUESTION IS,
SHOULD THERE BE OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTMENT ? THERE OBVIOUSLY
SHOULD BE, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS
INCLUDED IN THE BASE
LEGISLATION BID WE WANT THERE
TO BE AN OVERSIGHT BOARD AND
ONGOING EVALUATION. THE
QUESTION I WAS RAISING AT THE
OPTION RAISED,, IS A FULL $1
MILLION NECESSARY WHEN THE
BODY IS YET TO BE STOOD UP NEXT
YEAR? IS THAT THE APPROPRIATE
AMOUNT , OR IS THERE A REDUCED
AMOUNT THAT CAN GET THE BODY
STOOD UP AND HELP PROVIDE
OVERSIGHT AND ENSURE GREATER
TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMATION
FLOW BETWEEN CBO AND CENTRAL
STAFF AS WE LOOK TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION IN THE FUTURE.
EXCITED ABOUT THE OVERSIGHT
BOARD COMING TOGETHER BUT
OBVIOUSLY, VERY SUPPORTIVE OF
OVERSIGHT EFFORTS WHICH WAS
INCLUDED IN THE BASE
LEGISLATION AND THE TOTAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT NEEDED FOR 2024.
, GO AHEAD.
>> THE ARGUMENT THAT I MADE
LAST YEAR, THE MONEY TO
SUPPORT THE OVERSIGHT BOARD
WAS THAT THAT WAS STAFF FOR
THE OVERSIGHT BOARD PAID EVERY
OTHER OVERSIGHT BOARD AND
COMMISSION AN ADVISORY BODY
DOES HAVE STAFF ALLOCATED TO
IT. I DO NOT KNOW IF $1 MILLION
IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT, BUT THE
CONDITION THAT HAS NOT CHANGED
IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO
SUPPORT TO IMPANEL THE
OVERSIGHT BOARD. I DO THINK
THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
EXPENDITURE AND IT COULD BE
TWEAKED LOWER, I DON'T KNOW.
IN YOUR WISDOM, YOU ESTABLISHED
AN OVERSIGHT BOARD IN THE
ORIGINAL LEGISLATION AND I
THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO STAND IT
UP. CLEARLY, THERE ARE A LOT OF
QUESTIONS ABOUT , WE NEED AN
OVERSIGHT BOARD BECAUSE THE
TAX BASE FROM WHICH WE ARE
DRAWING THE REVENUE IS REALLY
CHANGING, THAT IS WHY
JUMPSTART REVENUES ARE COMING
IN LESS THAN WHAT WAS
ANTICIPATED IN A CERTAIN
FORECAST IN THE PAST YEAR, BUT
REMEMBER THAT OVERALL REVENUE
IS COMING IN STILL AT LEAST 50
MILLION MORE BECAUSE THERE WAS
A SPENDING PLAN FOR 219
MILLION , AND THEN PROJECTED
REVENUES WERE EXPECTED TO BE
222 AND WE FAR SURPASSED THAT
AND CLEARLY WE NEED TO HAVE
THIS , WE NEED TO SPEND SOME
MONEY TO GET OVERSIGHT OFF THE
GROUND AND ITS STAGNANT
BECAUSE WE DID NOT DO THAT LAST
YEAR.
>> THANK YOU. IT THANK YOU
FOR NOTING THE WISDOM OF THE
AUTHORS OF JUMPSTART,
APPRECIATE THAT, BUT WE DO HAVE
FUNDING FOR HELPING TO IMPANEL
THE OVERSIGHT BOARD, THANKS TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS
, HELPING TO ESTABLISH THAT
BOARD. CREATING THE PACKET FOR
THE EXECUTIVE AND THE COUNCIL,
AND IDENTIFYING WHAT IS NEEDED
, SO THERE IS STAFF CAPACITY,
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE GOING
TO COMMENT ON THAT. I WOULD
APPRECIATE ANY ADDITIONAL
CLARIFICATION THAT YOU HAVE ON
THAT.
>> I WANTED TO CLARIFY, THE 22
ADOPTED BUDGET AT A DEPOSITION
IN ONGOING FUNDING FROM THE
JUMPSTART FUND TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS TO
STAFF THIS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
AND THEY ARE NOW WORKING TO
GET THAT STOOD UP. IT'S NOT
ACCURATE TO SAY THERE'S NO
STAFF TO SUPPORT THAT
COMMITTEE. WHAT WE ARE REALLY
HONING IN ON IS GOING BACK TO
THAT PRESENTATION EARLIER, ALL
POSITIONS SHOULD BE LOOKED AT
WITH SCRUTINY AND WHETHER OR
NOT THEY ARE CRITICAL. IS THIS
A CRITICAL NEED THIS YEAR,
BEFORE LONGER-TERM DECISIONS
ARE MADE TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S
BUDGET OVERALL? COULD EXISTING
STAFF BE REALLOCATED OR
RE-PRIORITIZED TO PROVIDE
TECHNICAL SUPPORT IF NEEDED
ONCE THE BOARD IS STOOD UP? WE
DO NOT YET KNOW WHAT THE BOARD
IS GOING TO NEED , OR THE
COMMITTEE, TO DO THEIR WORK. WE
OFFER IN THAT SPIRIT BUT AGREE
THAT THIS WORK IS IMPORTANT AND
RIGHT NOW, I STILL SEE THIS AS
POTENTIALLY PREMATURE, BUT ,
YOU KNOW, THAT IS FOR YOU TO
DECIDE.
>> WELL, WHAT WAS IT
ANTICIPATED TO BE USED FOR?
WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL
LEGISLATION , JUST A PANEL, OR
WAS IT PERHAPS FOR EXTERNAL
CONSULTANTS TO HELP WITH AN
ONGOING BASIS ?
>> I'M NOT SURE . THE ORIGINAL
ORDINANCE ASSUMED THAT THERE
WOULD BE TECHNICAL SUPPORT
PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
NEIGHBORHOODS DIRECTOR OR OTHER
STAFF . THERE WAS NOT A
SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF FUNDING
SPECIFIED TO SUPPORT THE
ADMINISTRATION AND EVALUATION
OF THE BOARD , SO IN 2022,
AGAIN, THERE WAS A POSITION
ADDED TO STAFF THIS COMMITTEE,
BUT IT HAS NOT YET BEEN
ESTABLISHED .
>> OKAY. I THINK YOU HAVE ONE
MORE SLIDE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> OKAY. IN ADDITION TO THE
CHANGES TO THE SPENDING
POLICIES DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY,
THE BUDGET LEGISLATION WOULD
AMEND THE TAX POLICIES AND
WOULD INCLUDE A PROPOSAL TO
EXTEND FOR THREE YEARS IN
EXISTING DEDUCTION TO NONPROFIT
HEALTHCARE AND THIS IS BEEN IN
PLACE SINCE THE TAX WAS ENACTED
AND THEY DO INCLUDE
EXEMPTIONS FROM OTHER TAXES .
THE CHAIR HAD PREVIOUSLY ASKED
CENTRAL STAFF TO PREPARE
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HAVE
ONLY INCLUDED THIS CHANGE TO
THE TAX POLICIES. IF THIS DID
EXPIRE AT THE END OF THIS
YEAR, THE PROPOSAL TO EXTEND
WAS NOT APPROVED, THE COUNCIL
COULD ASSUME ABOUT $5 MILLION
OF JUMPSTART REVENUE IN THE
ADOPTED BUDGET AND USE THAT TO
INCREASE FUNDING IN THE
SPENDING CATEGORIES.
>> IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS,
THAT IS MY FINAL SLIDE.
>> DAY ONE. IT'S 4:30, ALMOST.
AS I NOTED, WE HAD DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE
ENDORSED PROCESS WITH CENTRAL
STAFF THIS MORNING , THE
PROPOSED CHANGES, OVER THE
NEXT FEW DAYS. TOMORROW, ALL
DAY, FRIDAY, ALL DAY, AND
MONDAY. OF COURSE, THAT IS A
QUESTION FOR YOU, OR AN ISSUE
THAT YOU MAY WANT TO CIRCLE
BACK TO, STAFF WILL BE WITH US
THROUGHOUT THE NEXT FEW DAYS
AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
I KNOW THAT IS NO EASY
ANSWER, HERE, JUST LIKE WE'VE
NEVER HAD EASY ANSWERS , LAST
YEAR, AND WE DID NOT HAVE ANY
EASY ANSWERS IN THE FIRST TWO
YEARS OF THE PANDEMIC EVEN
THOUGH WE HAD SUBSTANTIAL NEW
REVENUE FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. WE WILL CONTINUE
TO HAVE THOUGHTFUL AND HARD
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW TO
INVEST OUR EXISTING REVENUE
STREAMS INTO THE COMMUNITY
PRIORITIES AND THIS HELPS ALL
OF US. THANK YOU FOR
CONTINUING TO ASK YOUR
QUESTIONS. I WILL SAVE SOME OF
MY COMMENTS ABOUT JUMPSTART
AS WE GET INTO THOSE ISSUES AND
SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW
THOSE CHANGES IMPACT THE
INTENDED OUTCOME , I WOULD DO
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
PUTTING THIS UP , AND YOU SAW
THE CORE COMPONENTS OF OUR
FISCAL ANALYST TEAM TODAY, THE
DIRECTOR , TOM, WHO HAVE ALL
BEEN DIVING INTO THE PROPOSED
AREAS THEY WENT TO AND THE
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ISSUE
DELIBERATIONS WILL OCCUR OVER
THE NEXT FEW DAYS. IF YOU HAVE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, THAT IS
AVAILABLE AND WE ARE READY TO
ANSWER THAT AS WE GET INTO
CERTAIN POLICIES OVER THE NEXT
FEW DAYS. I DO NOT SEE ANY
HANDS, SO I WILL TAKE THAT AS
AN INDICATION THAT FOLKS ARE
TIRED AND FULL OF INFORMATION,
TODAY. WE WILL HAVE THAT
OPPORTUNITY TO JUMP RIGHT INTO
THE DISCUSSION STARTING WITH
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND HUMAN
SERVICES IN THE MORNING AND/OR
AFTERNOON CONSISTS OF ARTS AND
CULTURE AND THE OFFICE OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THESE
ARE ALL IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT
IN SOME WAYS HAVE BEEN TEED UP
AS WE TALK ABOUT REVENUE
STREAMS AND POTENTIAL CHANGES
IN THE BUDGET. WE WILL NEED
TOMORROW AT 10:00. PUBLIC
COMMENT WAS SUBSUMED IN TODAY'S
DISCUSSION , GIVEN THAT WE
SPENT OVER AN HOUR ON PUBLIC
COMMENT THAT THIS IS THE FIRST
OF A THREE-PART DISCUSSION. IF
THERE IS NO OTHER BUSINESS TO
COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL, I SEE
ARE GOOD COUNCIL PRESIDENT OFF
OF MUTE AND READY TO GO.
>> TRYING TO SAY GOODBYE, BUT
I WANTED TO THANK EVERYONE.
>> DID YOU SEE -- I'M SORRY,
DID YOU SAY THAT THERE WAS NOT
GOING TO BE PUBLIC COMMENT ON
FRIDAY?
>> THERE IS NOT. WE GOT
CLARIFICATION FROM OUR CLERKS
AND CENTRAL STAFF AND I SAID
THAT EVERY MEETING WE TEND TO
HAVE AT LEAST 30 MINUTES OF
PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEY
REMINDED ME THAT TODAY,
TOMORROW, AND FRIDAY AND MONDAY
ARE ALSO PART OF THE SAME
REPORT OUT PROCESS. I AM HAPPY
TO AMEND THE AGENDA IF THERE
ARE BURNING ISSUES FOLKS WANT
TO BRING UP AND WE CAN INCLUDE
PUBLIC COMMENT MONDAY. THIS IS
ARTIE BEEN ACCEPTED AND I
WOULD GO AHEAD AND AMEND THE
AGENDA TO INCLUDE PUBLIC
COMMENT FOR MONDAY. OKAY. WE
WILL TAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY
ADJOURNMENT AND INCLUDE A
PORTION OF PUBLIC COMMENT OVER
THE NEXT FEW DAYS. ANYTHING
THEY'VE HEARD TODAY TO BRING
UP, OF COURSE YOU CAN, AND AS A
REMINDER, ON WEDNESDAY IS
DEDICATED TO PUBLIC COMMENT AS
WELL. THAT IS TO PROVIDE
PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION.
HEARING NO ADDITIONAL ITEMS,
THANK YOU, THE TIME IS 4:30.
ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR DAY AND
I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW AT
10:00. GOODBYE.