>> GOOD MORNING EVERYONE AND
HAPPY HALLOWEEN.
IT IS OCTOBER 31, 2019.
TODAY IS OUR SECOND DAY AS
WE'RE GOING THROUGH WHAT IS
AFFECTIONATELY KNOWN AS FORM
B'S.
I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES
FOR PARTICIPATING AND BEING SO
INVOLVED.
WE ARE GOING TO DIVE IN AGAIN
TODAY.
TODAY WE ARE STARTING OFF I
BELIEVE WITH THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT
THESE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT
WE HAVE MADE TO MODIFY OR ADD
TO.
THERE ARE NO CUTS OBVIOUSLY TO
THE MAYOR'S BUDGET.
TODAY, AGAIN WE ARE GOING TO
ADD STAFF COUNSEL AND CENTRAL
STAFF FRAME THE ISSUE. THEY
HAVE COMMITTED TO FRAME THE
ISSUE WITHIN ONE MINUTE.
I WOULD LIKE OUR COLLEAGUES
AGAIN, I KNOW THIS IS NOT
EXACTLY WHAT WE DID YESTERDAY
BUT TO TRY TO STAY WITHIN -- OF
COURSE, MS. JUAREZ WAS ALSO
WITHIN HER 30 SECONDS BUT TO
HAVE THE TIME THAT WE ARE
SPEAKING TO SOMETHING ABOUT
WHICH WHAT WE HAVE SPOKEN TO A
SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME.
WE'VE GOT 60 ISSUES TO GET
THROUGH.
WE WILL DO THE SAME AS
YESTERDAY.
CHECK IN AROUND NOON TO SEE IF
WE WANT TO KEEP GOING OR STOP
FOR A TWO HOUR LUNCH AND COME
BACK AT 2:00.
ANY COMMENTS FROM COLLEAGUES?
ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DIVE IN?
CENTRAL STAFF, THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE.
TOM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START
WITH INTRODUCTIONS?
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK.
I KNOW THAT NOTHING IS EASY
ABOUT TRYING TO TAKE THE
INFORMATION WE ARE THROWING AT
YOU AND GETTING IT DIGESTED AND
INTO THIS FORM WE HAVE IN FRONT
OF US TODAY.
AND HE THINKS.
TOM, ARE YOU KICKING THINGS OFF
THIS MORNING?
>> THAT IS GOING TO BE ME.
HAPPY HALLOWEEN TO YOU.
WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH
THESE PRETTY QUICKLY.
HOPEFULLY WITH NOT MANY TRICKS
AND A FEW TREATS FOR YOU AS WE
GO THROUGH THESE CBAS THIS
MORNING STARTING WITH CBA 0H1
81.
IT WOULD ADD $100,000 OF
GENERAL FUNDS ONE-TIME TO THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING TO SUPPORT
IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY
PREFERENCE AND AFFIRMATIVE
MARKETING PLANS FOR HOUSING LEVY
FUNDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS IN NEIGHBORHOODS AT
HIGH RISK OF DISPLACEMENT.
>> VERY GOOD.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ WOULD YOU
LIKE TO HIT THIS ONE?
WHO IS SPEAKING TO THIS ONE?
>> I APOLOGIZE.
YOUR 30 SECONDS ARE TAKING
BACK.
>> LET ME READ MY NOTES.
THIS, AS HE SAID $100,000 ONE-
TIME TO THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
FOR AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING AND --
BASICALLY WE SUPPORT THIS.
I DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE THAN
THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS DOING
THAT.
>> WHAT I WILL BE ASKING FOR IS
TO SEE YOU WANT TO ADD YOUR
NAME TO BE A SPONSOR TO THIS.
ALL THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME TO THIS PLEASE RAISE YOUR
HAND.
>> FOR COMMUNITY PREFERENCE AND
AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING?
>> NUMBER 1. YES.
YOU HAVE THE COUNT?
NEXT ONE, NUMBER 2 0H 18281.
>> IT IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL AND IT
WOULD ADD ONE TIME TO THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING TO FIND
PREDEVELOPMENT CAUSE FOR
PROPOSED HOUSING PROJECT IN
LITTLE SAIGON THAT WOULD ASSIST
AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA
NATIVE INDIVIDUALS AND
FAMILIES.
>> THIS IS THE INDIAN SERVICES
COMMISSION PRO-WAR AND
BUILDING.
I THINK YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH A
LONG HISTORY OF THE BUILDING.
WE ARE IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO
INVEST $220,000 WITH THE
COMMISSION AND REDEVELOP AND DO
SOME CAPACITY WITH THE BUILDING.
THE LONG-TERM VISION THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN WORKING EXTREMELY
HARD ON IS REVITALIZING WHAT
THEY'RE CALLING A NATIVE
VILLAGE IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE
THAT WOULD INCLUDE UP TO 160
UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
CHILDCARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION AND OUTDOOR PLAY
GROUND, COMMUNITY GARDEN,
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY,
DEVELOPMENT TRAINING FOR ADULTS
AND OFFICE SPACE.
ALL OF IT CENTERED AROUND WHAT
THEY CALL A HOLE OF ANCESTORS
AND A WELCOME POLE AND TOLD HIM
PARK.
IT IS AN INCREDIBLE VISION.
SO NOW THE SEATTLE INDIAN
SERVICES COMMISSION WITH NEW
ENERGY AND LEADERSHIP ARE IN
THE POSITION TO DO INCREDIBLE
THINGS. THIS IS CAPACITY
BUILDING, PREDEVELOPMENT COST
FOR THE PROJECT IN LITTLE
SAIGON.
THE COMMUNITY AS EXCITED AS
WELL AND I THINK IT WOULD BE AN
EXCELLENT INVESTMENT FOR
$220,000.
MANY OF YOU MET WITH MEMBERS OF
THE COMMISSION AND THEY HAVE
SHARED THEIR VISION WITH YOU.
SO THIS IS GOING TO GO A LONG
WAY AS A LEGACY PRODUCT PROJECT
FOR THE NATIVE AMERICAN
COMMUNITY.
>> THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME AS A SPONSOR, RAISE YOUR
HAND.
THANK YOU, ITEM NUMBER 3.
COUNSEL BILL 3A 1 SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL.
WOULD ADD $150,000 ONE-TIME TO
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING TO FIND
PREDEVELOPMENT CAUSE FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT FOR
LOW INCOME SENIORS AGE 55 AND
OLDER IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT.
>> THIS IS WHAT IS REFERRED TO
AS THE MOUNT ZION PROJECT.
AND TRACY, CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG.
I HAD DISCUSSIONS PRE-BUDGET
WITH THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND IT
WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT
WASN'T NECESSARILY AN AD.
IT WAS AN IDENTIFICATION OF
FUNDS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE
BUDGET AND WE ARE IDENTIFYING
THE FUNDS.
AND IT IS AND AN AD BUT THIS
GREEN SHEET -- WHERE WE CALLING
THESE?
THE FORM B SUGGESTS THAT IT IS
AN AD.
BUT WHETHER IT IS IN ADD OR
EXISTING MONEY, IT IS FOR
PREDEVELOPMENT CAUSE FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT.
THEY DEAL WITH THE SAME ISSUES
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR
YEARS WHICH IS DISPLACEMENT.
PARTICULARLY IN
UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS.
IN THIS CASE LARGELY THE
AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY.
HERE WE HAVE A PROJECT, WE HAVE
LAND AND WE ARE READY TO DO
PREDEVELOPMENT WORK.
AND IT IS A MODEST INVESTMENT
THAT WILL GO A LONG WAY TOWARD
A HUGE INCREDIBLE HOUSING
AFFORDABLE EFFORT.
>> CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION?
OF COURSE I SUPPORT THIS.
IS THE SITE AT MOUNT ZION
CHURCH?
>> VERY CLOSE TO IT.
>> IS A TRANSFER OF FUNDS?
>> THEIR FUNDS IN THE RESERVE
LINE THEY HAVE TO BE
APPROPRIATED.
WHAT THIS BUDGET EXIT DOES IS
APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS THAT ARE
IN A RESERVE LINE IN THE
BUDGET.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
IS CLASSIFIED AS AN ADD BUT WE
ARE TRYING TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS
THAT ARE THERE.
WE HAVE TO DESCRIBE IT AS AN
ADD.
>> IT IS AN APPROPRIATION.
YOU CAN CALL IT APPROPRIATION
AUTHORITY.
>> APPROPRIATION AUTHORITY.
AND THE EXECUTIVE, ACCORDING TO
THE CBO IS ON BOARD WITH THIS
APPROPRIATION.
>> THANK YOU.
THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME AS A SPONSOR, RAISE YOUR
HAND.
THANK YOU.
ITEM NUMBER 4. LIVING ON, A 1
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA.
IT WOULD ADD $15 MILLION TO
2019 NOVA BY CUTTING $7 MILLION
FROM THE PROPOSED AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP ACQUISITION AND
80 YOU LOAN PILOT PROGRAMS IN
OH AND CUTTING $8 MILLION FROM
THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT FUND
AND FINANCE GENERAL.
THE COUNCIL IN 10 TO
APPROPRIATE $7 MILLION IN
ADDITIONAL FROM THE 2021
THROUGH 2026 PERIOD.
THIS ADDITIONAL $7 MILLION
WOULD BE USED TO MAKE FINANCING
COMMITMENTS FOR THE HOUSING
PROJECT SINKING FUNDING IN THE
OH 2019 NOVA.
THERE IS A TABLE HANDED OUT TO
YOU THAT SHOWS WHAT IS
HAPPENING IN TERMS OF THE
SPECIFIC REDUCTIONS.
THE BULK OF THE REDUCTIONS ARE
COMING FROM THE FUNDS, THE
MERCER MEGA BLACK PROCEEDS THAT
WERE ALLOCATED BY THE MAYOR TO
SOME SPECIFIC INITIATIVES.
THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT FUND,
$41 MILLION FUND THAT IS
SITTING IN FINANCE GENERAL.
THERE'S $15 MILLION THAT WAS
ALLOCATED IN OH FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP FOR AFFORDABLE
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM.
THERE WAS $6 MILLION IN OH
MONEY FOR THE LOAN PILOT AS
WELL.
THE REDUCTION IS IN THOSE
PROPOSALS BY THE MAYOR.
AND PROPOSES TO USE AS
REDUCTIONS TO FUND ADDITIONAL
PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING
THROUGH THE 2019 NOVA.
>> CAN I CONFIRM TWO THINGS.
THE NOVA FUNDING,IDENTIFIED
FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY
SHOVEL READY.
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA ,
HER GOAL IS TO GET MORE MONIES.
THE $23 MILLION INTO THE FUND
SO THAT THAT CAN BE LEVERAGED
FOR MORE HOUSING TO BE BUILT AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>> CORRECT.
>> THAN THE REDUCTION ON THE 80
YOU LOW LOAN PROBLEM, IT
DOESN'T ELIMINATE IT BUT IT
REDUCES IT.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENT
FUND, WHAT WOULD IT MILLION
DOLLARS CUT?
>> AT THIS POINT THERE ARE NO
PROJECTS THAT ARE SLATED TO BE
FUNDING WITH THAT.
THERE IS A PROCESS THE
EXECUTIVE HAS LAID OUT THAT
INVOLVED CITY DEPARTMENTS AS
WELL AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
THAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT LATER.
IT ESTABLISHES CRITERIA FOR
SELECTION OF PROPERTIES AND
WEIGH IN WHAT PROPERTIES ARE IN
THE POTENTIAL MIXER BEING
FUNDED AND GET FUNDED.
>> WHERE THOSE PUBLIC
PROPERTIES TRACY?
THE ONES WE'RE TRYING TO
IDENTIFY?
>> IT'S A MIX.
AND THIS IS JUST THE INITIAL
SCREENS OF PROPERTIES.
IT IS LIKELY A MIX OF PUBLIC
PROPERTIES AS WELL AS PRIVATELY
OWNED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, DO
YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT?
>> I'M GOING TO TRY.
I HAD DENTAL WORK THIS MORNING
AND I'M A LITTLE OFF.
IF I BITE MY CHEEK I PROBABLY
WON'T SCREAM AS I WON'T NOTICE
BUT LATER I WILL FEEL IT.
>> MUSSOLINI.
>> I APPRECIATE THE WORK AND I
SUPPORT THIS.
I WANT TO SHARE WHEN I'M TRYING
TO BALANCE AS I'M ANALYZING THE
MONEY WE HAVE FROM THE MERCER
MEGA BLOCK.
IT IS BALANCING A VARIETY OF
THINGS THAT ARE ALL GOOD THINGS.
SETTING ASIDE A CHUNK OF MONEY
TO HELP US DO STRATEGIC
ACQUISITION THAT WILL PRESERVE
OUR ABILITY TO MAKE INVESTMENTS
IN ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING GOING FORWARD.
INCLUDING SOME OF THE PROGRAMS
LIKE THE ADU LOAN PROGRAM AND
HOMEOWNERSHIP PROGRAM.
THERE'S A BALANCE THAT GIVES
PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY READY
TO GO, THEY ARE IN THE
PIPELINE.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT
TRACY, HELP ME ON THE
TERMINOLOGY.
THE INTENT TO APPLY FOR THE
NOVA OR SOME VERSION OF THAT,
THE SCHEDULE IS ABOUT $90
MILLION.
THERE TWICE THAT MANY NUMBER OF
PROJECTS THAT HAVE SAID THEY
ARE THINKING OF APPLYING.
SO WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECTS TODAY THAT ARE
ALREADY TOO.
THIS WOULD SHIFT ABOUT $15
MILLION OF A VARIETY OF
PROGRAMS THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN
THE FUTURE TO HELP FUND HOUSING
PROJECTS THAT ARE READY TO GO
TODAY.
THAT STILL MEET THE DEMAND OF
ALL THE PROJECTS GOING ON TODAY
BUT IT GETS US CLOSER.
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S A
PERFECT ANALYSIS HERE.
BUT THE MATH TO ME FEELS ABOUT
RIGHT.
GETTING A GOOD CHUNK OF GOOD
PROJECTS.
AND IF WE HAVE OVER $100
MILLION THAT WHAT I BELIEVE BE
A HIGH WATERMARK OVER WORDING
FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN
ONE YEAR.
WHICH I THINK IS NECESSARY.
AND IT STILL PRESERVES.
TO YOUR QUESTION, OVER $30
MILLION IN STRATEGIC INVESTMENT
FUND WHICH IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY
MOVING FORWARD FOR A VARIETY OF
PROJECTS.
AND THERE ARE SOME INTERESTING
OPPORTUNITIES.
WE DON'T KNOW A TON ABOUT THEM
BUT SOME OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE
KNOW MORE ABOUT IN THE SEATTLE
AREA THAT ARE LOOKING FOR
FUNDING THAT WE ARE EXCITED TO
FUND.
>> GREAT.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> WHEN WE HEARD FROM THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING EARLIER THIS
YEAR THAT THEY WERE
ANTICIPATING A $55 MILLION
NOVA, WE HAD ALSO HEARD THE
PREVIOUS YEAR FROM THE McKENZIE
REPORT THAT OUR REGION NEEDED
TO DOUBLE OUR INVESTMENTS IN
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AS
WELL AS HOMELESSNESS FUNDING.
I MADE IT A COMMITMENT THAT I
WANTED TO WORK TOWARD DOUBLING
OUR INVESTMENTS IN PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
GOING FROM 50 MILES MILLION
DOLLARS NOVA FOR 2019 TO $113 --
113 MILLION DOLLAR NOVA IS
REALLY IMPORTANT.
BUT WE ALSO NEED TO REMEMBER
THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS EVERY
YEAR.
AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PAY OFF
THIS BOND.
THIS LARGER BOND TO ENHANCE THE
SIZE OF THE NOVA FROM OUR LEVY.
AND THE MH A FUND AVAILABLE.
SO LET'S DO THIS THIS YEAR.
BUT LET'S FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO
IT EVERY YEAR FOR THE REST OF
THE HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I THINK YOU PUT A GOOD FINGER
ON THE ISSUE.
WHICH IS THAT WE NEED TO BE
LOOKING AT A REGIONAL STRATEGY
FOR THIS, IT CAN JUST BE ON THE
BACKS OF WHAT THE MONIES WE
HAVE NOW FOR THE LEVY AND IN
ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THAT IT
REALLY IS GOING TO NEED A CORD
NEEDED RESPONSE FROM ALL THE
FOLKS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THIS
WEATHER IT IS THE PROVIDERS,
THE DEVELOPERS, BUSINESS
LEADERS, LABOR LEADERS, THE
NEIGHBORHOODS TO SAY WE NEED A
MUCH BIGGER, ROBUST ABILITY TO
RESPOND TO THE NEEDS.
THE NEEDS ARE NOT THINGS WE ARE
MAKING UP.
AND SOMETIMES I GET A LITTLE
BIT TORQUED BY THE THINGS THAT
I READ ABOUT -- CITY COUNCIL
CAN'T GET ITS ACT TOGETHER OR
CITY COUNCIL CAN'T DO THINGS.
WE ARE TRYING SO HARD TO GET A
STRATEGY THAT IS A COORDINATED
STRATEGY TO ADDRESS THE
PROBLEMS.
I THINK THIS IS A WONDERFUL
STEP TO INDICATE THAT THESE ARE
TOP PRIORITIES TO GET MORE
HOUSING BUILT.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA'S
OFFICE.
YOU HAVE BEEN ON THIS AND I
APPRECIATE THAT SO MUCH.
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS.
AS I SEE NO MORE COMMENTS DAY
SHE WOULD ADD THEIR NAME TO
THIS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ HAS A
QUESTION.
>> I HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR
THE RIGHTSIZING AND PRODUCTION
OF THE ADU PROGRAMS TO THE TUNE
OF $5.5 MILLION.
CAN COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF
WALKED ME THROUGH HOW THIS
PARTICULAR PROPOSAL A LINES ARE
DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT I'M
PROPOSING IN TERMS OF
UTILIZATION OF THE $3.5 MILLION
REDUCTION?
IS IT IN CONFLICT ARE
COMPLEMENTARY?
>> COUNCILMEMBER I WOULD BE
HAPPY TO.
I'M GOING TO SORT OF SPEAK IN
PART TO ITEM NUMBER 7 ON THE
AGENDA WHICH IS YOUR PROPOSAL
FOR THE ADU LOAN PROGRAM
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
IT IS PERFECTLY ALIGNED UNLESS
WE MISCHARACTERIZED YOUR
PROPOSAL.
BUT WHAT WE RECEIVED IN THE
FORM B WAS TO TAKE THE PROPOSED
$6 MILLION TO THE ADU LOAN
PROGRAM AND REDUCED TO $2.5
MILLION PROVIDING $2 MILLION TO
CREATE A LOAN FUND WITH A
NONPROFIT LETTER TO LEVERAGE IT
TO AN $8 MILLION FUND AND
$500,000 FOR OTHER PROGRAMMATIC
NEEDS LIKE TENANT SCREENINGS
AND LANDLORD TRAINING AND THAT
SORT OF THING.
AND IT REDIRECTS THE REMAINING
$3.5 MILLION TO THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING FOR THE NOVA SO THEY ARE
IN PERFECT ALIGNMENT.
IT IS TAKEN THE $3.5 MILLION
AND REDIRECTING IT TO THE NOVA
AND LEAVING $2.5 MILLION FOR
THE ADU LOAN PROGRAM.
>> OKAY THEN THERE IS ALSO THE
PROPOSAL LATER ON FOR THE $41.7
MILLION STRATEGIC FUND AND
GENERAL.
HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THIS
PARTICULAR FORM B?
>> IT RELATES ONLY IN TERMS OF
IT PUTTING WHATEVER MONEY THAT
YOU ALL DECIDE SHOULD BE IN THE
STRATEGIC INVESTMENT FUND.
AND IT DOESN'T ALLOW IT TO BE
SPENT UNTIL THE EXECUTIVE COMES
BACK WITH A SPENDING PLAN.
>> I WOULD SAY THERE IS A
SERIES OF COUNCIL BUDGET
ACTIONS THAT TOGETHER PROVIDE
MORE DIRECTION ON THE USE OF
THE MERCER FUNDS.
IN THIS AREA TO MEET COUNSEL
PRIORITIES.
THAT INCLUDES ENSURING THAT THE
80 YOU PROMOTE LOAN PROGRAM IS
RIGHTSIZING FOCUSING ON WASHING
-- LOW INCOME HOUSINGS.
IT PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON THE
RELEASE OF THE STRATEGIC
INVESTMENT FUND UNTIL COUNSEL
HAS SEEN THE CRITERIA AND
UNDERSTANDS HOW THE MONEY WILL
BE PROGRAMMED.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF ACTIONS
THAT ARE RELATED THAT ARE
TRYING TO PROVIDE CLEAR
DIRECTION TO THE EXECUTIVE ON
HOW COUNSEL EXPECTS TO EXPEND
THE FUNDS.
>> I JUST WANT A FLAG FOR THE
CHAIR.
ONE OF MY TOP PRIORITIES IN
THIS BUDGET AS IT RELATES TO
HOUSING STABILITY IS AROUND THE
HOME FOR GOOD PROGRAM WHICH WE
HAVE PENCILED OUT TO BE SHY OF
$1 MILLION.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD AND I ARE
WORKING ON THAT TOGETHER.
THAT IS THE SHALLOW SUBSIDY
PROGRAM.
I JUST WANT TO FLAG THAT TO THE
EXTENT THESE TWO THINGS WILL
COMPETE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S
FUNDED, I WANT TO WORK WITH THE
CHAIR AND COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA'S OFFICE ON FIGURING
OUT HOW TO MOVE SOME OF THE
LEVERS IN THIS PARTICULAR
PROPOSAL.
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE $3.5
MILLION I HAVE IDENTIFIED FROM
THE GET-GO IS STILL AVAILABLE
TO ME TO BE ABLE TO FUND OTHER
PRIORITIES THAT I HAVE
IDENTIFIED.
THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
THAT IS THE ONE FLAG THAT I
WANT TO PUT OUT.
THAT I DON'T WANT TO BE IN A
SITUATION WHERE WE END UP NOT
BEING ABLE TO FIND AN
APPROPRIATE REVENUE SOURCE FOR
THE HOME FOR GOOD SUBSIDY
PROGRAM.
BECAUSE THE ENTIRE $3.5 MILLION
IS SWALLOWED UP IN THIS
PROPOSAL.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING
THAT WE WILL BE GETTING A LOT
DEEPER IN ALL OF THAT TOMORROW.
>> A LOT OF CONNECTING PIECES.
I APOLOGIZE FOR KIND OF GOING
ALL OVER THE PLACE.
>> IT IS ACTUALLY VERY HELPFUL
TO HAVE IT.
WE ARE GOING THROUGH TODAY AND
WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE WHERE
THE PRIORITIES ARE.
THAT WILL HELP ME A LOT IN
WORKING WITH CENTRAL STAFF THIS
WEEKEND.
SO I THINK WE WILL BE SEEING --
WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT
THIS AFTERNOON AS WELL SO THANK
YOU FOR THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYONE
WOULD LIKE TO ADD ABOUT THIS
ITEM NUMBER FORMAT?
SEEING NO HANDS GO UP, WHO
WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR NAME AS
A SPONSOR TO ITEM NUMBER 4 AND
THIS IS COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA 'S THE
MILLION DOLLAR NOVA.
CAN I SEE YOUR HANDS?
THANK YOU.
ITEM 5.
>> ITEM 5 IS BUDGET ACTION OH
681 WHICH ADDS $5 MILLION TO
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSES WITH INCOMES
LESS THAN 80% OF AREA MEDIAN
INCOME.
THIS WOULD BE FUNDED BY ISSUING
$500 MILLION OF LIMITED TAX
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN
2020.
ACTION INCLUDES DEBT SERVICE
ASSUMPTIONS WHICH PROVIDES FOR
THE DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS.
>> TOM, IF YOU HAVE YOUR
FINGERS ON THIS PULSE, HOW DO
WE PAY $500 MILLION THAT?
WHAT IS THE REVENUE SOURCE?
>> SO IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET,
2020 IT WOULD BE A HALF YEARS
THAT SERVICE COST WHICH IS
$22.5 MILLION WHICH WOULD BE
FUNDED THROUGH -- PIGGYBACKING
ON THE DISCUSSION OF THE MERCER
MICAH BLACK PROCEEDS.
IT WOULD BE A PORTION OF THE
AMOUNT IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET
FOR THE TWO INVESTMENT RESERVE
AND FINANCE GENERAL.
AND THAT WOULD PAY THE FIRST
YEAR'S DEBT SERVICE COST.
AND IN THE OUT YEARS, SINCE WE
ARE NOT PREPARING A BUDGET
THERE'S NO PROVISION FOR THAT
HOWEVER THE AMOUNT WOULD BE
$44.5 MILLION OR $45 MILLION.
>> ANNUALLY?
>> ANNUALLY FOR THE REMAINDER
OF THE TERM.
>> WHICH WOULD REQUIRE PROPERTY
TAX INCREASE?
OR JUST CUT -- I'M SORRY.
>> THIS IS MY ADAM.
>> I'M APPROACHING THE COUNCIL
STAFF.
I WILL TURN TO YOU IN A MOMENT.
>> IT WOULD HAVE A FUTURE
DECISION ON WHERE TO PROVIDE
FOR THAT.
>> 10 NINE.
>> SO YOU ALL EXPRESSED A LOT
OF NICE WORDS ABOUT HOW WE NEED
ANNUAL SOURCE OF FUNDS WHICH I
COULD NOT AGREE WITH MOORE.
BUT WE NEED PROGRESSIVE REVENUES
. AND WE DON'T HAVE PROGRESSIVE
REVENUES.
THE CITY HAS THE NATION'S MOST
REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM.
SO WE NEED -- IF WE NEED AN
ANNUAL SOURCE OF SERVICES, FOR
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
SOCIAL SERVICES AND SO ON, THEN
THIS WILL NEED TO BE FUNDED.
THE DEBT SERVICE WILL NEED TO
BE FUNDED THROUGH AGGRESSIVE
REVENUE SOURCE.
AND THERE ARE NOT VERY MANY
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE SOURCES AT
OUR DISPOSAL.
THE AMAZON TAX IS ONE OF THE
AVENUES.
UNFORTUNATELY, MOST OF THE
COUNCIL REPEALED THIS LAST YEAR
AND THERE WERE STATEMENTS,
PROMISES MADE THAT WE WOULD
LOOK INTO OTHER SOURCES OR
SOMETHING TO DO SOMETHING IN
ORDER TO DO AND MAKE UP FOR
THAT.
BUT IT HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR.
OF COURSE WE COULD TAKE FUNDS
FROM HERE AND THERE.
BUT AS YOU KNOW MY PREFERENCE
IS TO NOT TO USE A FOR PETER TO
PAY PAUL STRATEGY.
MOST OF THE FUNDING -- NEEDS TO
BE FUNDED UNDER THE SWEEP OF
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS.
THAT IS WHY OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU
ALL SUPPORT THE $500 MILLION
BOND ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING THEN
IT CAN BE PAID FOR BY
REESTABLISHING THE AMAZON TAX.
OR WE CAN LOOK FOR ANOTHER
SOURCE OF REVENUES.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE A MORAL AND
POLITICAL OBLIGATION TO DO
THAT.
>> OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS?
MY ONLY CONCERN FRANKLY IS THAT
UNTIL WE'VE GOT THAT STRATEGY,
I WOULD FEEL IT IS
IRRESPONSIBLE AS BUDGET CHAIR
TO PUT A $500 MILLION ASK ON
SOMETHING THAT WE CANNOT PAY
BACK.
ALTHOUGH CONCEPTUALLY I THINK
YOU ARE RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT WE
NEED.
SO WHO AT THIS POINT WOULD LIKE
TO ADD YOUR NAME IS SPONSOR?
YOU'VE GOT THE COUNT?
OKAY.
ITEM 6.
>> MOVING ON TO 7 A 1 SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
IT AT $67,000IN ONE GENERAL
FUND TO THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
FOR HOMEBUYER COUNSELING FOR
FIRST-TIME LOW INCOME
HOMEBUYERS THAT WILL BE FUTURE
OWNERS AT THE CO-OP PROJECT.
THIS FUNDING IN ADDITION TO THE
$150,000 THAT WAS INCLUDED IN
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED 2020
BUDGET WOULD BRING THE TOTAL
FUNDING FOR THIS ACTIVITY TO
$217,000.
>> THIS IS COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA'S.
IS SOMEONE SPEAKING TO THIS?
>> HOW IS YOUR MOUTH?
>> MY MOUTH IS OKAY.
I HAVE SOME NOTES ON THIS BUT I
CAN'T SEEM TO FIND THEM AT THE
MOMENT.
I HAVE TONY STARING AT ME AND I
CAN'T FIND THE NOTES HE SENT
ME.
HANG ON ONE SECOND.
WOULD YOU MIND IF WE CAME BACK
SO I DON'T HOLD IT UP?
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE
ANYTHING TO ADD?
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF?
ANY MORE DETAILS ON THIS?
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ , ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
>> I DON'T ON THIS ONE.
>> OKAY.
>> I WILL TAKE THEM UP IF YOU
GIVE ME A SECOND.
CAN WE COME BACK TO IT?
>> CAN WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE
NEXT ONE?
>> CERTAINLY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER
7 AND WE WILL COME BACK TO ITEM
NUMBER 6. THIS IS IMPOSING $2.5
MILLION TO THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING FOR AN ACCESSORY TO
DWELLING UNIT LOAN PROGRAM.
THIS IS COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ'S, YOU SPOKE TO THIS
EARLIER.
>> I BRIEFLY DESCRIBED THIS
COUNSEL BUDGET ACTION SPONSORED
BY COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ.
IF YOU WOULD INDULGE ME I
THOUGHT I WOULD, GIVEN THE
BROADER QUESTION POSED I WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW ON THE HANDOUT
PROVIDED, IT SHOWS THE WAYS THE
MAYOR HAS PROPOSED SPENDING IS
76 MILLION DOLLAR -- OVER $76
MILLION RESOURCE FROM THE SALE
OF THE MERCER PROCEEDS.
AND I WANT TO KNOW, AND
THINKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
YOUR PROPOSAL IS COMPETING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA'S
PROPOSAL, THE MAYOR PROPOSE TO
SPEND 76+ MILLION DOLLARS IN
FOUR SLICES OF PIE THAT THIS
COUNSEL COULD DECIDE TO SLICE
INTO FIVE SLICES OR 7 SIZES.
IT'S NOT JUST THE $3.5 MILLION
THAT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO REPRIORITIZE.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT YOU
CAN LOOK AT ALL OF THAT.
AND ALL OF THE ADS ARE FRANKLY
THE REPROGRAMMING OF HOW THE
MAYOR PROPOSE TO SPEND IT.
SO THERE ARE OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOU TO FIND
RESOURCES HERE.
SO WILL GET BACK TO THE ITEM AT
HAND.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE THE 2020
PROPOSED BUDGET ADDED $6
MILLION FOR THE ADU LOAN
PROGRAM.
AND WORKING WITH COUNCILMEMBER
GONZALEZ'S OFFICE, THERE'S AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THAT AND
PROVIDE A PROGRAM THAT SERVICES
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
THIS ACTION WOULD REQUIRE
COMPLETION OF A RACIAL EQUITY
TOOLKIT AND PLACES PROVISO OF
RELEASING THE $2.5 MILLION
UNTIL THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
COMES BACK WITH PROPOSE CHANGES
TO THE HOUSING POLICIES.
IT WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL ACTION
ON LEGISLATION AND THAT'S THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE THE
PROGRAM DESIGN IS MEETING THE
COUNCIL'S INTEND TO FOCUS ON
THE HOUSEHOLD NEEDS AND
INCREASED IN OPPORTUNITIES FOR
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING IN
AFFORDABLE AREAS.
>> NOTHING MORE TO ADD.
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
I THINK IT IS THE THIRD TIME
WE'VE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT
THIS PROPOSAL.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US
TO FUND AND SUPPORT.
AND IT IS RIGHTSIZING THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSAL TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE GET THE OUTCOMES AS
DESCRIBED JUST RIGHT.
IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
I LOOK FORWARD TO HOUSING
SUPPORT ON THIS?
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR NAME
IS SPONSOR TO ITEM NUMBER 7? IT
LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT UNANIMITY.
COMING BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 6.
>> HELLICKSON CHAIR, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR FLEXIBILITY.
I FOUND THE NOTES.
THIS ONE IS A LITTLE
COMPLICATED.
THE CITY HAS CONTINUOUSLY
FUNDED THE HOMEBUYER COUNSELING
PROGRAM LOCATED TO HELP
POTENTIAL BUYERS BE READY TO
PURCHASE A HOME THROUGH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON
FOR ABOUT A DECADE.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $216,000
ANNUALLY.
WHAT RECENTLY HAPPENED IS THAT
HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT, THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHANGE THE
CATEGORY DESIGNATION FOR
HOMEBUYER EDUCATION WHICH MY
UNDERSTANDING IS ALLOWED FOR
FLEXIBILITY IN THOSE FUNDS.
SO THOSE FUNDS IN THIS YEAR'S
BUDGET GOT REDIRECTED TO OTHER
HOMELESS SERVICES.
AND INSTEAD THE MAYOR PUT A ONE-
TIME FUNDING OF $150,000 IN
THIS YEAR'S BUDGET WHICH IS A
67,000 OR $66,000 CUT OVER WHAT
HAD BEEN CONTINUOUSLY FUNDED
FOR 10 YEARS.
WITH THIS ACTION, THE REALITY
THAT THIS ORGANIZATION IS
FACING, THEY ARE SITTING IN THE
AUDIENCE.
A FEW MONTHS NOTICE, A PROGRAM
THAT WAS CONTINUOUSLY FUNDED
FOR 10 YEARS IS PROPOSE TO HAVE
A 25% CUT WHICH WOULD RESULT IN
IMMEDIATE LAYOFFS.
A PROGRAM THAT HAS SERVED WELL.
I DON'T HAVE TO GO INTO TOO
MANY DETAILS ABOUT THE POWER OF
HOMEOWNERSHIP. BUT IT IS
SOMETHING WE HAVE SUPPORTED
CONTINUOUSLY AND I THINK IT IS
A GOOD THING TO SUPPORT.
WHAT FOLKS ARE ASKING FOR AND
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA IS
PROPOSING AND I ALSO SUPPORT IS
KEEPING THIS PROGRAM HOME FOR
2020 AND ALLOWING SOME TIME TO
HAVE SOME LONGER-TERM STRATEGIC
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT IS THE
APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF FUNDING
AND IS GOING TO FIND IT AND
WHERE IT'S GOING TO COME FROM.
>> WHICH ORGANIZATION HAS IT
NOW?
>> IT'S HOMESITE.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS?
THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME IS SPONSOR, RAISE YOUR
HAND.
OKAY, VERY GOOD.
>> THIS NEXT ONE, AS COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF -- I BELIEVE IT
IS YOURS COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
MY QUERY WILL BE HELD AS THIS
INTERFACE WITHIN THE THINGS WE
SPOKEN ABOUT.
IN ITEMS 5 AND 6.
>> JUST TO REMIND FOLKS, THIS
IS THE PROVISO I SPOKE ABOUT A
FEW MINUTES AGO.
IT WOULD IMPOSE PROVISO ON THE
$41.7 MILLION IN THE STRATEGIC
INVESTMENT FUND.
UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY FUTURE
COUNCIL ORDINANCE.
THE IDEA IS THAT THE EXECUTIVE
WILL BE GOING THROUGH THIS
COMMUNITY PROCESS ABOUT WHAT TO
FUND AND PRESENTING A SPENDING
PLAN TO THE COUNCIL WITHIN THE
1st OR 2nd QUARTER OF 2020.
AT THAT POINT THE COUNCIL WOULD
THEN DECIDE WHETHER THEY ARE
OKAY WITH THE PROPOSED SPENDING
PLAN OR TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS
AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AT THAT
TIME.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> NOT A LOT TO ADD.
I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR WITH
THE PUBLIC AND OTHERS.
THAT THE MAYOR IS PROPOSING
THIS MONEY GO INTO FINANCE
GENERAL.
WHICH MEANS THAT IT WOULD
REQUIRE COUNCIL ACTION TO MOVE
IT OUT.
SO IT'S NOT THAT THIS WAS
PROPOSED TO BE FLEXIBLE FUNDS
THAT THEY WOULD SPEND.
THE IDEA BEHIND THE PROVISO,
JUST A LITTLE BELT AND
SUSPENDER BUT TO REEMPHASIZES
AN EXPECTATION OF COUNCIL.
MY ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO ENSURE
THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE
COUNCIL HAS CRITERIA, THEY WANT
TO BE CONSIDERING AND SOME OF
THAT IS EMBEDDED IN THE
PROVISO.
WE ARE GETTING THAT OUT IN
FRONT OF THE PROCESS.
I THINK WE SET OURSELVES UP FOR
HARDER TIMES DOWN THE ROAD IF
THE EXECUTIVE IS PLANNING TO DO
SOMETHING WITH IT THAT WE ARE
NOT AWARE OF AND WE HAVE A
DIFFERENT INTENT ON IT AND END
UP FURTHER DOWN THE PATH
ARGUING OVER IF IT IS
APPROPRIATE.
SO TRYING TO SEND A CLEAR
CENTRAL SIGNAL EARLY BEFORE
NEGOTIATIONS OR PROPOSALS ARE
COMING FORWARD.
THAT IS MY GOAL HERE.
WITH THIS PROVISO TO GET
INTEND.
AND I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH
OTHERS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE CONSENSUS AROUND WHAT THE
INTENT IS OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR
SO.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?
THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME IS SPONSOR, REACH HER HAND.
>> MOVING ON TO SEATTLE PARKS
--
>> THERE'S ANOTHER ONE RELATED.
>> 2 A 1 WHICH IS STRATEGIC
INVESTMENT FUND.
THIS IS THE SLIDE THAT WOULD
REQUEST THE EXECUTIVE TO COME
BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH
PROPOSE CRITERIA FOR THE
SELECTION PROJECTS FOR THE
STRATEGIC INVESTMENT FUND.
THAT ARE SIMILAR TO CRITERIA
THAT ARE UTILIZED BY THE
EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE.
THERE REQUESTED TO BE LOOKED AT
WERE INCLUDED IN THE SLIDE.
IT IS REQUESTED TO INCLUDE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT WOULD
MAKE THE SELECTIONS OF THOSE
PROPERTIES AND PROVIDE A REPORT
TO THE COUNCIL BY JANUARY 31 OF
2020.
>> THIS IS CLOSELY PAIRED WITH
WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
THE TALKING POINTS I MADE A
MOMENT AGO APPLY HERE TOO.
THE THING -- A COUPLE OF THINGS
I WANT TO ADD.
BOTH OF THESE ITEMS REFER TO
THE $41.7 MILLION FUND.
WHICH IN THE PREVIOUS ITEMS,
THAT NUMBER MIGHT CHANGE
DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS
ELSEWHERE.
AND I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THAT THE WORK THAT THE EQUITY
OF DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HAS
BEEN DOING AND REALLY WANT TO
TRY TO BRING AS MANY OF THOSE
PRINCIPLES AND MAYBE SOME OF
THE PEOPLE OVER TO HAVE THEIR
EYES ON THE PROCESS TOO.
WE'VE HEARD FROM COMMUNITY
MEMBERS THAT THERE IS A STRONG
DESIRE TO HAVE COMMUNITY DRIVEN
PROJECTS BE PRIORITIZED IN SOME
WAY WHEN WE LOOK AT THE
FUNDING.
AND I THINK THAT EDI HAS BEEN
AMAZING FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS.
MORE AND MORE COMMUNITY GROUPS
ARE COMING UP WITH IDEAS AND
ARE CONTINUALLY BUILDING
CAPACITY TO HANDLE BIGGER
PROJECTS AS THEY RECOGNIZE THAT
THERE ARE RESOURCES AND THEY
HAVE CITY SUPPORT.
I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO EXPAND ON THAT WORK AND THE
LANGUAGES INTENDED AND DRIVEN
BY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT
HAVE BEEN PART OF THAT WORK AND
HAVE ASKED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE PROCESS OR PARTS OF THE
PROCESS ARE INCLUDED AS WE LOOK
AT THIS PRETTY LARGE CHUNK OF
MONEY FOR INVESTMENTS GOING
FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS?
THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME AS SPONSOR, RAISE YOUR
HANDS.
THANK YOU.
NOW WE MOVE ON TO PARKS.
>> MOVING TO COUNSEL BILL ACTION
1 A 1. THIS WITHOUT $244,000 IN
ONGOING GENERAL FUND FOR
EXPANSION OF SHOWER SERVICES
FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS AT
SEVERAL COMMUNITY CENTERS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WOULD
YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS?
BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CREATING GREATER ACCESS TO
RESTROOMS IS A TOP
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
NAVIGATION TEAM AUDIT REPORT.
AS PART OF WHAT IS NECESSARY TO
BETTER MANAGE THE PUBLIC HEALTH
IMPACT OF PEOPLE LIVING IN
SHELTERED.
AND IT TIES INTO THE WORK OF
NAVIGATION BECAUSE OF THE
NAVIGATION TEAM IS OUT THERE
ASSESSING THE SITES WHERE
PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN SHELTERED,
AND ASSESSING THEM FOR THEIR
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS, IT IS
INCUMBENT ON US AS A CITY TO
TRY TO MITIGATE THOSE PUBLIC
HEALTH IMPACTS.
PRIOR TO THE NEED OF THE
NAVIGATION TEAM TO ASSESS THOSE
SITES.
SO THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET ACTION
BUILT OFF OF WORK THAT THE
PARKS DEPARTMENT IS ALREADY
DOING.
WITH ALLOWANCE OF SHOWERS AT
DODDRIDGE, GREEN LAKE, MILLER
AND RAINIER.
AND THOSE ARE FACILITIES THAT
ARE OPEN TO ALL FOR SHOWER USE.
AND I THINK THE FARK PARKS
DEPARTMENT FOR TAKING THE
INITIATIVE IN WORKING WITH THE
COUNCIL AS WELL AS WITH THE
AUDITOR ON THIS.
ON THIS ITEM THAT WILL FOLLOW
AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR
INITIATIVE ON THIS.
THANKS FOR PARKS DEPARTMENT AND
TRACY, THANKS YOU FOR HELPING
US IDENTIFY WHAT SPACES MIGHT
BE AVAILABLE.
I KNOW THE PARKS DEPARTMENT
ASKED ABOUT WANTING TO PROVIDE
LAUNDRY SERVICE FOR TOWELS.
AND I'M SUGGESTING, RATHER THAN
INVEST IN THAT THAT WE INVEST
IN SOME COMPOSTABLE TOWELS.
I KNOW THEY ARE AVAILABLE.
THEY ARE NOT THAT EXPENSIVE FOR
PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP AND DON'T
HAVE THEIR OWN TOWEL.
I THINK WE CAN KEEP COSTS
LOWER.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN BE
USED AND TAKEN HOME AND USED
AGAIN.
OR IN A BACKPACK, WHATEVER.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE
COULD MAKE THE FACILITY
AVAILABLE AND HELP PARKS WITH
WHAT THEY NEED IN TERMS OF
ADDITIONAL PERSON POWER.
FOR OPENING THEM UP EARLY.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD
FROM MANY PEOPLE IS THAT FOR
THOSE WHO WANT TO ACTUALLY GO
TO WORK OR NEED TO START THE
DAY CLEAN, THAT THEY NEED
EARLIER HOURS THAN 9 AM FOR THE
SHOWERS.
WHY WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF WE
COULD MAKE SOME OF IT
AVAILABLE.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, THANK
YOU.
>> AS YOU KNOW THIS IS BEEN A
CONTINUING DISCUSSION OF MINE
SINCE WE STARTED CHEERING
PARKS.
COMMUNITY CENTERS LIKE
LIBRARIES ARE CONSTANTLY
EVOLVING AND WE HAVE GONE
BEYOND JUST SPECIFIC NEEDS OF
WHAT WE'VE CREATED A PUBLIC
ASSETS AND INSTITUTIONS
DECADES, HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO.
THE PROVIDE, AS WE ARE SAYING,
NOT JUST -- I'M GLAD THAT IT
WAS ADDRESSED, ASSISTING WITH
THE NAVIGATION TEAM AND
ASSESSING AREAS AND PROVIDING
SERVICES.
THE OTHER ISSUE THAT YOU WILL
HEAR IN THE NEXT ONE COMING UP,
IT IS BEEN A CONSTANT REFRAIN
OF MINE AND -- 10 YEARS AGO
PEOPLE DIDN'T THINK LIBRARIES
WOULD HAVE WORKERS AND
COMMUNITY CENTERS WOULD BE OPEN
TO HAVE MENSTRUL PRODUCTS,
DIAPERS, SHOWERS, THESE ARE
PUBLIC ASSETS.
ALL THINGS THAT TAXPAYERS HAVE.
IT IS A PUBLIC SPACE FOR PUBLIC
NEEDS AND IT MAY SHIFT AND
CHANGE OVER TIME BUT NOT EVERY
COMMUNITY JUST OWNS THE
COMMUNITY CENTER ONLY FOR THEIR
USE.
AT THE GUNS WITH ALL OF THE
CITIZENS OF SEATTLE SO WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR THAT VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD THEIR
NAME TO ITEM NUMBER 10, RAISE
YOUR HAND.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
MOVING ON TO 11.
AND I BELIEVE TRACY, IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO FRAME IT.
>> SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ ADDS $150,000 IN A ONE-
TIME GENERAL FUND FOR THE
FEASIBILITY FUND FOR A
COMMUNITY CENTER.
>> I'VE HANDED OUT THIS -- I
UNDERSTAND -- I DID IT SO YOU
COULD READ IT.
BUT IT TALKS ABOUT THE $150,000
THAT THE CITY OF SEATTLE
COMMUNITY CENTER MAP.
I WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS IN
DISTRICT 5 ON THE NORTH AND.
AND THE FACT SHEET THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS PUT
TOGETHER FOR US WHEN WE WERE
PLACING THE MORATORIUM ON
STORAGE SHEDS ON THE ROAD.
BUT LET ME SAY THIS BECAUSE
EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN THE
PACKET.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE FIFTH
FEASIBILITY STUDY OUT OF THE
NORTH END IN PARTICULAR
DISTRICT 5. AND I WANTED SURE
EVERYBODY THE STUDIES AND
FEASIBILITY STUDIES THAT I
COLLEAGUES HAVE GRACIOUSLY
GRANTED US ANYWHERE BETWEEN
50,000 AND $150,000 HAVE COME
TO FRUITION.
WITH PROGRAMS, BRICK AND
MORTAR.
PROJECTS THAT ARE IN DESIGN
PHASE LIKE THE COMMUNITY
CENTER.
THESE CONVERSATIONS STARTED 2
OR 3 YEARS AGO WHEN WE CAME
FORWARD AND SAID, CAN WE HAVE A
STUDY TO DO THIS.
FROM THE DATA WE ACTUALLY HAD
THESE PROJECTS AND COMMUNITY
COME TOGETHER TO ENVISION A NEW
LAKE CITY COMMUNITY CENTER AND
HAVE AN APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM.
TO REVISIT HOW WE USE THE PARK
AND REVISIT HOW WE USE POOLS
AND COMMUNITY CENTERS.
SO THAT IS WHAT I'M HOPING MY
COLLEAGUES WILL SUPPORT ME ON
THIS.
THANK YOU.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?
THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME TO ITEM NUMBER 11, RAISE
YOUR HAND.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
NUMBER 12.
>> MOVING TO ACTION FOR A 1
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD.
IT ADDS $818,000 IN ONGOING
GENERAL FUND FOR THE FTE TO
OPEN RESTROOMS DURING THE FALL
AND WINTER AND INCREASE
CLEANING OF THE SOUND
RESTAURANT AND OTHER RESTROOMS
YEAR ROUND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
OBJECTIVES OF THE PREVIOUS
ITEM RELATED TO SHOWERS AND
COMMUNITY CENTERS.
ALSO ALIGNED WITH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY
AUDITOR.
AND HOW WE CAN DO THINGS IN OUR
CITY FACILITIES THAT WILL
LESSEN THE IMPACT OF PEOPLE
LIVING IN SHELTERED.
IMPACTS TO THEIR LIVES LIVING
OUTSIDE AS WELL AS THE IMPACTS
TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
AND AGAIN, THE FACT THAT WE
HAVE GOTTEN THIS FAR WITH
DEVELOPING A PARTICULAR BUDGET
ACTION, A HAT TIP TO THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
PARTNERSHIP. AND WILLINGNESS TO
HELP US ADDRESS THESE NEEDS.
>> CANNOT ASK CENTRAL STAFF A
QUESTION.
WITH THIS MONEY BECOMING OUT OF
THE METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT
BECAUSE IT IS ONGOING?
HOW ARE WE PLANNING TO FUND
THIS?
>> THIS IS A DECISION YOU WILL
MAKE AS PART OF THE BALANCING
PACKAGE.
YOU WILL NEED TO FIND AN
ONGOING FUNDING SOURCE.
>> THE ESTIMATE OF THE COST IS
REALLY DEPENDENT ON HOW MANY
STATIONS WE ARE SEEKING TO
OPEN.
>> GREAT.
WE KNOW THIS IS ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT I HEAR FROM THE
PUBLIC.
SO OFTEN, THEY WANT THE
RESTROOMS AND PARKS OPEN.
AND HAVING THAT, MAKING SURE WE
GOT THEM CLEANED, MAINTAINED
AND AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE AS
IMPORTANT.
THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD
THEIR NAME AS A SPONSOR TO
THIS, RAISE YOUR HAND.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT
FORWARD.
NUMBER 13.
>> MOVING TO 5 A 1. SPONSORED BY
--.
IT WITHOUT A ONE MILLION-DOLLAR
ONE-TIME GENERAL FUND TO
SUPPORT RENOVATION OF ELI'S
PART.
ALSO KNOWN AS THE BURKE GILMAN
PLAY GROUND PARK.
>> THIS BUDGET WOULD BENEFIT A
COMMUNITY LED PROJECT IN
DISTRICT FOR SPEARHEADED BY A
GROUP CALLED THE MYERS PARK.
IT WAS FUNDED BY AFTER HER SON
PEEL ELI PASSED AWAY AT AGE 3.
THE GROUP IS SEEKING TO
RENOVATE THE PLAYGROUND PARK TO
CREATE A BEAUTIFUL NATURE BASE
PARK THAT IS A MODEL FOR
ACCESSIBLE AND INCLUSIVE OF ALL
BACKGROUNDS, AGES AND
ABILITIES.
THE PARK IS SURROUNDED BY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT BY
CAPITAL HOUSING.
THE RONALD McDONALD HOUSE, THE
BURKE GILMAN TRAIL AND SEATTLE
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL.
THE GROUP HAS ENGAGED MORE THAN
800 COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO SHAPE
THE INCLUSION SPACE.
THEY ARE PART OF A NUMEROUS
GROUP OF ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING
SEATTLE CHILDREN'S AND EXPECT
TO RAISE $2 MILLION FROM
PRIVATE SOURCES.
PARKS AND RECREATION HAS PUT $1
MILLION TOWARD RENOVATION WITH
-- SEEKING $1 MILLION IN THE
CITY TO FULLY FUND THE PROJECT.
THIS AMOUNT WOULD BRING THE
TOTAL CITY CONTRIBUTION TO 50%
OF THE TOTAL COST TO THE CITY
OF PUBLIC ASSETS AND I'M
HOPEFUL WE CAN SECURE THE
DOLLARS TO PROVIDE SOME OF THE
FUNDING TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS OR ADDITIONS?
>> AS A LANDMARK IT IS RIGHT
NEXT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
GREENWAY, GOING WHITE.
WE HAVE GILMAN AND ALSO THE
CONNECTION WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD
YOUR NAME TO SPONSOR, RAISE
YOUR HAND.
GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
WORD.
I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN A GREAT
ADVOCATE FOR IT.
ITEM 14.
>> YES, MOVING TO 6 A 1. THIS
IS A COUNCILMEMBER HARRELL TEEN
THAT WOULD REQUEST REPORT FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND REC
ON THE STATUS OF THE GREEN
SEATTLE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND FOR TARA
TO RESTORE 2500 ACRES OF
PARKLAND IN SEATTLE BY 2025.
IT WOULD BE DUE TO THE COUNCIL
BY JUNE 2020.
>> THE GREEN SEATTLE
PARTNERSHIP IS A PROGRAM THAT
HAS BEEN A COLLABORATION
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEATTLE,
FORTERA AND A NUMBER OF
ORGANIZATIONS.
THE ORIGINAL GOAL WAS 2500
ACRES OF FOREST AND PARKLANDS
IN SEATTLE BY THE YEAR 2025.
THEY HAVE DONE AN AMAZING
AMOUNT OF WORK.
HAD A GREAT COUNSEL BRIEFING A
FEW WEEKS AGO.
THE GOAL HERE IS -- WHAT WILL
BE THE LAST 5 YEARS OF THIS
PROGRAM TO FULLY UNDERSTAND
WHAT IT IS GOING TO TAKE TO GET
THAT OUT.
AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, SOME OF THE
HARDER PLACES TO RESTORE HAVE
BEEN LEFT WITH THE END.
SOME OF THE WORK WILL BE ABLE
TO BE DONE BY VOLUNTEERS.
OTHERS WILL REQUIRE TECHNICAL
CREWS WITH EXPERTISE.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING
ABOUT THE SUPPORT WHEN IT COMES
BACK.
BECAUSE I THINK THIS PROGRAM IS
AN AMAZING PROGRAM.
AND I THINK IT IS ONE OF THE
BEST WAYS TO CREATE MORE OPEN
GREASE SPACE AT ASSESSABLE TO
PEOPLE IN SEATTLE.
USING OUR EXISTING PROPERTY
THAT WE ARE THE OWN.
AND MAKING THE MUCH MORE MODEST
INVESTMENT COMPARED TO NEW
ACQUISITION TO RESTORE THAT
PROPERTY TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE.
>> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD, COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN.
I SUPPORT THIS.
AND I ALSO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS WITH OUR
CANOPY EFFORT.
AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE
PARKS ARE HEALTHY.
AND AS HE BROUGHT UP MANY
TIMES, WHEN WE IDENTIFY THIS 28
YEARS AGO AS A GOOD WAY FOR US
TO RETAIN AND PROTECT THE PARKS
. PARTICULARLY THE GREENWAYS.
THAT WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT
VOLUNTEERS.
WE REALLY NEED GREEN SEATTLE
PARTNERSHIPS.
>> ONE THING AT THE BRIEFING
THAT THEY REMINDED ME OF,
SPECIFICALLY AROUND THE CANOPY,
ALIVE ARE DECIDUOUS TREES, WITH
THE GREAT LEAVES THAT TURN
COLOR AT THIS TIME OF YEAR,
THOSE TREES TYPICALLY LIVE 50
TO 70 YEARS.
SO A LOT OF THEM ARE AT THE END
OF THEIR LIFE.
AND BEING ABLE TO GO INTO THESE
AREAS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
PLANTING THE NEXT GENERATION OF
DECIDUOUS TREES TO TAKE OVER AS
THOSE START TO FAIL IS GOING TO
BE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, DO YOU
HAVE A NAP?
>> QUICKLY I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
I KNOW THIS PROGRAM STARTED
DEVELOPING BACK IN THE '90S.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD.
I WOULD'VE SUPPORTED YOU AND I
DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE GOING
ANYWHERE.
SO HOPEFULLY YOU WILL BE BACK
IN THE COMMITTEE WHEN WE COME
BACK WITH THIS REPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I'M SURE YOU WILL BE WORKING
TOWARD SOLUTIONS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN IS
TEACHING ME TO RIDE A BIKE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THOSE WHO WANT HAD TO ADD YOUR
NAME TO THE SLIDE, WHICH HER
HAND.
EXCELLENT, THANK YOU.
NEXT IS THE COUNCIL BILL OF
WHICH WE WON'T BE VOTING.
>> THIS IS COUNCIL BUDGET
ACTION THAT WOULD APPROVE THE
PROPOSED PARKS ORDINANCE MAKE
CHANGES TO THE 2020 PARK FEE
SCHEDULE.
BUT GOOD.
QUESTIONS?
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.
START WITH ITEM NUMBER 16.
WITH THAT THANK YOU?
>> NUMBER 16 IS RELATED TO FIRE
STATION 31.
THIS IS THE FIRE STATION THAT
JUST UNDER TWO WEEKS AGO, THE
EXECUTIVE ANNOUNCED THAT THEY
HAD A PLAN TO MOVE THE
FIREFIGHTERS TO AN INTERIM
FACILITY AND BUILD A NEW FIRE
STATION.
THE PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU IS
GOING TO FULLY FUND THE FIRE
STATION AT $43 MILLION.
AND ADD FUNDING FOR AN INTERIM
STATION WHILE THE FIRE STATION
IS BEING REBUILT.
I'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH
CPR REGARDING THE PROPOSAL.
AND I THINK THAT WE ARE IN A
PLACE WHERE I WOULD NOT
RECOMMEND THE PROPOSAL IN FAS
ONE A1. BUT ONLY FIND $2
MILLION IN 2020 FOR THE INTERIM
FACILITY AND HAVING THE THE
EXECUTIVE COME BACK WITH A
FULLY FORMED PROPOSAL FOR A
PERMANENT FIRE STATION NEXT
YEAR.
>> OKAY COUNCIL.
>> 1st OF ALL THANK YOU FOR THE
WORK YOU'VE DONE ON THIS.
WE HAVE MET WITH THE CHIEF AND
CAPTAIN AT STATION 31.
I HAVE BRIEF NOTES.
RUNNING THE STATION IS CRUCIAL
FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF
THE FIREFIGHTERS WHO WORK IN
DISTRICTS FIVE AND NORTH AND
THE PEOPLE WHO NEED EMERGENCY
SERVICES IN THE NORTH AND THE
FIRE STATION IS LOCATED AT 1319
NORTH GATEWAY BETWEEN NORTHGATE
MALL ANDOVER AVENUE NORTH IN
THE HEART OF DISTRICT 5. IT IS
ONE OF SEATTLE'S BUSIEST
STATIONS AND HAS THE MOST
APPARATUSES IN ALL OF D 5.
BEING HOME OF LETTER COMPANIES
AND A MEDIC AND 80 UNIT.
FIRE STATION 31 WAS BUILT IN
1973 AND WAS RENOVATED IN 2008.
STARTING IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR,
2019, FIREFIGHTERS AND
APPARATUSES HAVE BEEN RELOCATED
TO OTHER NORTH SADDLE STATIONS
DUE TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CONCERNS POSTED AT THE STATION
31 BUILDING.
SO WE WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF
THIS, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME AND SPONSOR RAISE YOUR
HAND.
MOVING ON TO ITEM 17.
>> ITEM 17 AT $537,000 AND THREE
FTE TO ALLOW THEM TO LOWER THE
THRESHOLD FOR THE PROGRAM FROM
$5 MILLION TO $2.5 MILLION.
IT WOULD PLACE A PER VISIO ON
THE FUNDS AND POSITIONS TO ALLOW
THE PRIORITY HIGHER ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION ON WHETHER OR
NOT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO LOWER
THE THRESHOLD PRIOR TO SPENDING
THE MONEY.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> USING CITY FUNDED AND
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS THE
PRIORITY HIGHER PROGRAM
REQUIRES CONTRACTORS TO
PRIORITIZE THE HIRING OF
RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN
ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS
FOR PROJECTS OVER $5 MILLION
CURRENTLY.
FAS ESTIMATES THAT BETWEEN SIX
AND 12 PROJECTS EVERY YEAR
WOULD BE ADDED IF THE THRESHOLD
IS REDUCED TO $2.5 MILLION.
THERE CURRENTLY ABOUT 10
PROJECTS PER YEAR.
WE HAD AN EARLIER PROPOSAL THAT
DID NOT PROVISO THE PUNS
WRECKING RECOMMENDATION FROM
THE HIRING COMMITTEE.
WE DECIDED IT WOULD BE WISE TO
DO SO. SO THIS REDUCES THE COST
FROM THE EARLIER PROPOSAL BY
ASSUMING POSITIONS WITH START
IN APRIL 2020 AND SET OF
JANUARY.
SOME HIGH POINTS FROM THE 2018
PRIORITY HIGHER REPORTS,
WORKERS IN ECONOMICALLY
DISTRESSED ZIP CODES EARN AN
ADDITIONAL $10 MILLION MORE IN
WAGES THAN BEFORE PRIORITY
HIGHER.
APPRENTICESHIP OF COLOR, NEARLY
DOUBLED THEIR SHARE OF
APPRENTICE HOURS ON CWA
PROJECTS COMPARED TO NON-CWA
PROJECTS.
AND 416 PRE-APPRENTICESHIP
GRADUATES AND INDIVIDUALS
RECEIVING CLEAR NAVIGATION
SERVICES WERE PLACED INTO THE
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY THROUGH
CITY INVESTMENTS.
I'M REALLY EXCITED TO MOVE THIS
FORWARD.
THOSE HIGHLIGHTS I JUST
MENTIONED FROM THE 2018
PRIORITY HIGHER, REPORT, IF IT
MOVES FORWARD WE CAN LOOK AT
DOUBLING THOSE OUTCOMES.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ANY FURTHER ADDITIONS?
>> JUST REAL QUICK.
THE PROGRAM IS APPROVED TO BE
EXCEEDED ALL OF MY EXPECTATIONS
AS A COMMUNITY LED PROGRAM TO
REALLY CHANGE HOW WE
CONTRACTING.
AND SOME AMAZING FOLKS AT FAS
HAVE PARTNERED WITH COMMUNITY
ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
ATTENTION TO THIS AND I FULLY
SUPPORT THE IDEA OF EXPANDING
IT.
I THINK IT IS A MODEL ON HOW WE
SHOULD DO AS MUCH WORK AS
POSSIBLE.
>> MY HAT OFF TO YOU FOR
GETTING IT STARTED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> I WANT TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD AGAIN.
AS WE DID A STUDY, THE PRIORITY
HIGHER PROGRAM, THE STUDY WE
DID IN 2013 WHICH RESULTED IN
A BUILDING OF AN ACTUAL
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM HAD ITS
FIRST COHORT AND IS COMPLETELY
FILLED FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND
THEY ARE FOCUSING ON WOMEN,
LOWERING,, PROMISE PROGRAM,
PEOPLE OF COLOR.
SO TO ACTUALLY SEE THIS HAPPEN
ON THE GROUND, WE GOT OUR CREW
HIRED. THE BUILDING AT LIGHT
RAIL AND NORTHGATE HAS BEEN
SUCCESSFUL.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORK, COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD
YOUR NAME AS A SPONSOR TO ITEM
NUMBER 17, RAISE YOUR HAND.
THANK YOU.
>> NUMBER 18 IS FAS 3 1. IT HAS
$2.15 MILLION OF SUB FUND
UNRESTRICTED FUNDING FROM THE
WASHINGTON STATE CONVENTION
CENTER VACATION PROCEEDS.
AND $2.45 MILLION FROM THE
STRATEGIC INVESTMENT FUND
RESULTING FROM THE SALE OF THE
MERCER MEGA BLOCK TO FAS TO
BUILD A FOUR ROOM CHILDCARE
CENTER ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF
CITY HALL.
>> GREAT.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS IS COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA'S?
DOES ANYBODY --
>> I HAVE TALKING POINTS FOR
THIS.
WE ARE REALLY EXCITED TO
CONTINUE THE DIALOGUE AROUND
MEETING THE CHILDCARE SHORTAGES
IN OUR CITY AND ACROSS THE
REGION.
BY ADVANCING THIS PARTICULAR
BUDGET REQUEST ON COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA'S BEHALF.
JUST YESTERDAY SEATTLE WEEKLY
RAN AN ARTICLE TITLED KING
COUNTY PARENTS ARE STRUGGLING
WITH CHILDCARE.
THE ARTICLE AFFIRMED FOR US
WHAT MOST OF US ALREADY KNOW.
WHICH IS WASHINGTON STATE IS
ONE OF THE WORST PLACES TO FIND
CHILDCARE WITH ONLY FIVE STATES
IN WORSE SHAPE THAN US.
HERE'S YOU CAN'T FIND CARE FOR
THEIR CHILDREN OFTEN END UP
LEAVING THE WORKFORCE WHICH
REMOVES INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE
AND SKILLS IN A TIGHT LABOR
MARKET AND PERPETUATE THE
INEQUITIES OF GENDER
DISPARITIES IN THE WORKPLACE.
THE ARTICLE REPRESENTS THE
CHAMBER STUDY THAT FOUND HALF
OF WASHINGTON PARENTS FIND IT
DIFFICULT TO AFFORD CHILDCARE
AND MORE THAN A QUARTER QUIT OR
LESS SCHOOL OR TRAINING BECAUSE
OF CHILDCARE ISSUES.
ABOUT 10% WERE FIRED OR LET GO.
IN TOTAL THE REPORT ESTIMATED
THAT $6.5 MILLION IS LOST
ANNUALLY IN DIRECT OPPORTUNITY
COST DUE TO EMPLOYEE CHILDCARE
ISSUES.
HERE IN KING COUNTY, OF THE
127,500 CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE
OF 5, CHILDCARE PROVIDERS HAVE
SPACE FOR HALF THAT NUMBER.
THE NUMBER OF CHILDCARE SLOTS
IN THE COUNTY HAS INCREASED WITH
2300 NEW SLOTS IN THE PAST 5
YEARS BUT THE NUMBER OF
CHILDREN UNDER FOUR WHO MAY
NEED CHILDCARE GREW FASTER.
WE KNOW THE MEDIUM OF THE COST
OF FULL-TIME INFANT CARE IN
KING COUNTY IS MORE THAN $1500
A MONTH AND FAMILIES AVERAGE
ABOUT $24,000 IN COST A YEAR TO
PAY FOR CHILD CARE.
THIS CONTINUES TO GROW AND IS
WORSE IN MANY INSTANCES IN THE
CITY OF SEATTLE.
SO WE HAVE HEARD MANY STORIES.
AND I CAN ALSO AND THAT TOTALLY
CONFIRMED THAT THE WAIT LIST
FOR INFANT CARE, CHILDCARE IN
THE CITY IS EXORBITANT. MANY
PEOPLE HAVE TO WAIT UP TO 2
YEARS FOR CHILDCARE.
THAT IS WORSE IF YOU ARE
LOOKING FOR BILINGUAL OR
CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE
CHILDCARE IN THE CITY.
I THINK WE REALLY HAVE A UNIQUE
OPPORTUNITY HERE AT THE CITY
LEVEL TO WORK ON A PIECE OF THE
SOLUTION.
WHICH IS TO UTILIZE EXISTING
CITY RESOURCES BY VIRTUE OF
UTILIZING SPACE HERE IN CITY
HALL TO ADVANCE THIS PROPOSAL
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
PRIORITIZING THE NEEDS OF
CHILDCARE IN OUR BUSIEST AREA
OF THE CITY.
WHICH IS DOWNTOWN AND CONTINUES
TO BE A PRIMARY EMPLOYER HUB
HERE. AND I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR US TO REALLY
ADVANCE THIS AND TAKE IT
SERIOUSLY.
AND TO ACTUALLY BEGIN THE
PROCESS OF TAKING ACTIONABLE
STEPS TO REALLY SET UP THIS
CHILDCARE CENTER HERE AT CITY
HALL.
AND WE SHOULD I THINK STOP
SETTING THE ISSUE.
WE KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
AND START PUTTING OUR MONEY TO
WORK.
AND ADDRESS WHAT WE KNOW WITH
WHAT A CLEAR SOLUTION AS TO THE
ISSUES.
I'M EXCITED TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA AND
COUNCILMEMBER BAGSHAW ON
ADDRESSING THE NEEDS.
I THINK IT IS A REALLY
IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING TO
THAT.
AND I HAVE SPENT NO SMALL
AMOUNT OF TIME WITH OUR MAYOR'S
OFFICE.
AND WITH FAS ABOUT THIS.
AND I KNOW THAT THE MAYOR WAS
ASKING US WAS TO PUT MORE MONEY
INTO OTHER ALREADY EXISTING
FACILITIES, NOT NECESSARILY
THIS BUILDING.
BUT TO INCREASE CHILDCARE
AVAILABILITY ACROSS THE CITY.
FRANKLY WE NEED BOTH.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT
WHAT THE EXECUTIVE IS TRYING TO
DO TO ADD MORE CHILDCARE
FACILITIES ELSEWHERE IN THE
PRIVATE MARKET.
BUT I DO THINK THAT KING COUNTY
CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM RIGHT
NEXT DOOR IN THE BUILDING RIGHT
NEXT DOOR TO US.
THEY GOT A BEAUTIFUL CHILDCARE
CENTER.
AND I'VE TALKED WITH NORTHWEST
CENTER, THE OPERATOR THERE.
THEY'RE WILLING TO TALK WITH US
ABOUT EXPANDING THE OPERATIONS
OVER HERE AS WELL.
I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT
THIS TAKES A LONG TIME TO
RETROFIT THE BUILDING.
NONETHELESS, I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR US TO CONTINUE TO
BE OUT THERE LOOKING AT WHAT
THE POSSIBILITIES ARE.
AND WE HEARD FROM YOUR FORMER
STAFFER, JOSH YESTERDAY THAT IT
IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR PARENTS
TO HAVE PLACES WHERE THEY GO TO
WORK AND BRING THEIR CHILDREN
THAT SAVES TIME AND PROVIDES
THAT SPACE FOR PARENTS TO
CONTINUE TO CONNECT WITH THEIR
KIDS.
SO LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH
THIS.
IF THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON
IT, THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO
ADD THEIR NAME AND SPONSOR TO
THIS ONE, THIS IS THE CHILDCARE
CENTER ON SITE.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, THANK
YOU.
I KNEW YOU WANTED TO.
>> NUMBER 19 IS FAS 5 A 1. IT
IS A STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT THAT WOULD REQUEST FAS
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE OFFICE
OF LABOR STANDARDS TO REPORT ON
A PLAN FOR AN INVOLUNTARY
QUESTIONS ABOUT BUSINESS
CHARACTERISTICS TO TITLE VI
BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS.
THE REPORT WOULD BE DUE JUNE 30
OF 2020 AND IT IS SPONSORED BY
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES, THIS IS AN
ATTEMPT TO TRY TO COLLECT A
LITTLE MORE INFORMATION.
TO BETTER UNDERSTAND SOME OF
THE BUSINESS DYNAMICS HAPPENING
IN SEATTLE.
AND ASKING FOLKS TO FILL OUT
THE BUSINESS RETURN FOR THINGS
LIKE HOW MANY EMPLOYEES YOU
HAVE IN SEATTLE COMPARED TO
WORLDWIDE.
IF YOU ARE A FRANCHISE AND
ASSESSING INFORMATION THAT
WOULD BE USEFUL FOR POLICY
REASONS GOING FORWARD.
IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE EFFORT.
AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET
ALL THE INFORMATION WE WANT BUT
IT IS A START TO GATHER MORE
INFORMATION.
>> IS THERE A WAY THAT OUR
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
CAN PARTICIPATE IN THIS?
I KNOW THEY'RE LOOKING FOR WAYS
TO STREAMLINE BUT ALSO WAYS TO
CONNECT WITH BUSINESSES AND
HELP WITH WHATEVER THE ISSUES
MAY BE.
>> ABSOLUTELY I'M OPEN TO THE
CONVERSATION IN THE DATA CAN BE
AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS.
>> ANY OTHER ADDITIONS OR
COMMENTS?
THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADD
YOUR NAME AND SPONSOR RATIO
HAND.
RAISE YOUR HAND.
MOVING ON TO TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK COMPANIES.
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN --
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS AMY GORE FROM
COUNSEL CENTRAL STAFF AND WE
WILL TALK ABOUT TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK COMPANIES.
AS YOU RECALL FROM OUR LAST
DISCUSSION, THERE ARE FIVE
PIECES OF LEGISLATIONRELATED
TO TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
COMPANIES.
FIRST I WILL GO THROUGH COUNSEL
BUDGET ACTIONS WITH YOU RELATED
TO 3 OF THOSE PIECES OF
LEGISLATION.
THE FIRST IS A FEE REDUCTION
FOR THE FAS REGULATORY FEE.
THE SECOND IS A RESOLUTION
RELATED TO SPENDING
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY
TAX REVENUES.
AND THE THIRD PIECE IS THE
ACTUAL TAX ON DNC RIDES.
WE HAVE THREE PROPOSALS FOR
CHANGES FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS.
BECAUSE SOME OF THEM REQUIRE
MULTIPLE COUNSEL BUDGET ACTIONS
ON DIFFERENT PIECES OF
LEGISLATION.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER IF
WE FIRST GO THROUGH AN OVERVIEW
OF ALL THREE PROPOSALS AND GIVE
COUNCIL MEMBERS AN OPPORTUNITY
TO DISCUSS THEIR AMENDMENTS.
THEN WE WILL GO THROUGH THE
LEGISLATION AND THE COUNSEL
BUDGET ACTIONS IN ORDER OF THE
AGENDA.
>> VERY GOOD.
>> THE FIRST THREE WE WILL NOT
BE VOTING ON.
WE CAN COMMENT ON THEM.
>> I WANT TO GIVE COUNCIL
MEMBERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE
AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE
PROPOSALS INTENT IS.
AND WE WILL DISCUSS THE PACIFIC
SPECIFIC ACTIONS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN ARE
YOU TAKING LEAD ON THIS?
>> WHAT TAB ARE YOU ON?
I DON'T THINK IT IS 20.
>> I WAS GOING TO GIVE
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS HER
PROPOSAL AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD HAS SEVERAL ACTIONS.
>> 20 IS JUST A SUBSTITUTE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, DO
YOU WANT TO START?
>> WE ARE DOING 21.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS A
PROPOSAL TO REMOVE THE CITY
CENTER STREETCAR CONNECTOR AS A
SPECIFIED TRANSIT PROJECT THAT
WOULD BE FUNDED BY THE TMC TAX
REVENUES.
IT AS THE PURCHASE OF FUNDING
AS SPECIFIED USES, POTENTIAL
USES FOR THE FUNDS.
THIS WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT
TO BOTH THE TAX ORDINATE AND
THE SPENDING RESOLUTION.
YOU WANT TO ADD THE THIRD ONE
AS WELL?
>> I WILL GO THROUGH ALL THREE
BIG PICTURE PROPOSALS FIRST.
THE SECOND IS FROM COUNSEL
PRESIDENT HAROLD.
IT IS FOR ACTIONS TO MAKE
AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW $1 MILLION
PER YEAR OF TNC TAX REVENUES
TO BE USED FOR TRANSPORTATION
ASSISTANCE VOUCHER PROGRAM.
THE PROGRAM WOULD PROVIDE
VOUCHERS FOR LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS, SENIORS AND PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES TO TAKE TRIPS
FROM FOR HIGHER LICENSE
OPERATORS IN SEATTLE.
THIS WOULD ALLOW FOUR ACTIONS,
AMENDMENTS TO THE TAX ORDINATE
AND SPENDING RESOLUTION AS WELL
AS A PROVISO AND FLY.
SLI . THE THIRD PROPOSAL WOULD
AMEND THE SPENDING RESOLUTION
TO CHANGE THE TARGET FOR THE
NEEDY AND INCOME OF THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDED WITH
TAX REVENUES.
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL ALLOWS FOR
ALL HOUSING FUNDED WITH THE TAX
REVENUES TO BE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING
80% OF MEDIAN INCOME.
HER PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE IT TO
60% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME FOR
RENTAL HOUSING AND KEEP IT AT
80% FOR AFFORDABLE OWNERSHIP
HOUSING.
SO NOW WE CAN WALK THROUGH THE
ACTUAL PIECES OF LEGISLATION AND
THE COUNSEL BUDGET ACTIONS THAT
WOULD EFFECTUATE CHANGES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD.
>> THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION OF
THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
RESOLUTION.
I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT
THERE WILL BE DISCUSSION LATER
ON A OF A SEPARATE PROVISO
PROPOSAL THAT ACTUALLY WE WILL
HEAR TOMORROW.
THAT WILL REQUIRE AN OPERATION
SPENDING PLAN AND BACKUP
CONSTRUCTION PLAN IN THE EVENT
THAT FEDERAL FUNDING IS NOT
AVAILABLE AS IS AND TEST PITTED
FROM SDOT.
IN SHORT, THIS CHANGE TO THE
RESOLUTION REMOVES THE
CENTRICITY CONNECTOR STREETCAR
FROM THE RECITALS AND SPECIFIED
ELIGIBLE USE FOR TNC TAX
REVENUES AND AS TO THE
PURCHASE OF TRANSIT SERVICE AND
SOUND TRANSIT REST SEATTLE AND
BALLARD LINK EXTENSIONS AS
ELIGIBLE SPECIFIC USES.
IN ADDITION, AN IMPORTANT POINT
TO MAKE IS THAT WITH ALLOWING
THESE REVENUES TO BE USED FOR
THE PURCHASE OF TRANSIT
SERVICES, IT COULD HELP REDUCE
THE SIZE OF OUR SALES TAX FOR
BUS SERVICE THROUGH THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
IN THE FUTURE.
ULTIMATELY, DEPENDING ON WHAT
HAPPENS TUESDAY, WITH I976 IT
COULD BE AN IMPORTANT STOPGAP
ON THE IMPACTS OF THAT MEASURE
AND IMPACT SPECIFICALLY ON OUR
ABILITY TO CONTINUE BUYING
ADDITIONAL BUS SERVICE FROM
METRO.
>> THANK YOU.
AS ONE RECOMMENDATION, I HEARD
IT IS TO REDUCE THE SALES TAX.
>> BY ALLOWING THE TNC TAX TO
BE USED TO PURCHASE METRO BUS
SERVICE, IT WOULD ALLOW US IN
THE FUTURE, WHEN WE ENACT A NEW
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
TO DIAL DOWN THE SALES TAX
PORTION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> I APPRECIATE THE DESIRE TO
MOVE MORE FUNDING FOR TRANSIT
PROJECTS ACROSS THE CITY.
ESPECIALLY IF IT PASSES NEXT
WEEK.
HOWEVER I DO BELIEVE THAT IT IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP
THE COMMITMENT TO THE THREE-
CAR.
THE CENTER CITY CONNECTORS IS A
CRUCIAL LINK MAKING EACH LINE
PART OF A MORE COMPREHENSIVE
NETWORK.
CONNECTING THE LINES IS
IMPORTANT TO FULFILL THE
COMMITMENTS WE HAVE MADE TO
SMALL BUSINESSES FOR YEARS OF
CONSTRUCTION. THE CONNECTORS
EXPECTED TO CARRY 20,000
PASSENGERS PER DAY ONCE
COMPLETED WITH 40,000 MORE
HOUSEHOLDS AND 60,000 MORE JOBS
EXPECTED TO MOVE TO THE
STREETCAR AREA.
WITH LIGHT RAIL, IT WILL HELP
THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM KEEP
PACE WITH CHANGING AND GROWTH
DOWNTOWN.
CONDITIONALLY APPROXIMATELY 2/3
OF VOTERS ALSO SUPPORT THE
STREETCAR AS WE HAVE SEEN IN
RECENT POLLING.
FINALLY IN REGARDS TO THE WEST
SEATTLE LINK EXTENSION, I WOULD
HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE MONEY
ULTIMATELY GOES FOR LIGHT RAIL
AND WOULD DIRECT MORE MONEY
TOWARD A LIGHT RAIL ISSUE FOR
FURTHER AND FASTER EXPANSION
RATHER THAN EXPENSIVE TUNNELS
THAT MAY NOT IMPROVE SERVICE
TIMES.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO.
BEFORE WE VOTE ON ANYTHING , I
WOULD LOVE TO HAVE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HARRELL TALK ABOUT
HIS ITEM.
>> AND WE CAN GO THROUGH EACH
AGENDA ITEM AND TALK ABOUT IN
CONCEPTS OF THE PROPOSAL
OVERVIEW AND DO THE VOTE THEN.
>> THANK YOU A ME.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD RAISES
SOME IMPORTANT NOTES IN LIGHT
OF WHAT WE HAVE FOUND OUT ABOUT
THE STREETCAR.
WE ARE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT A
VERY -- A SCHEME OF TNC
LEGISLATION DURING BUDGET.
THIS ONCE MORE DISCUSSION.
ALL PART OF A LARGER PACKAGE.
MAYBE WE COULD LOOK AT SOME
IDEAS THAT I HAVE AND OTHERS
HAVE HAD AT THE END AND EXPRESS
WHERE WE ARE.
SHOULD I DIVE INTO THE VOUCHER
PROGRAM?
THE CONCEPT IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
BUT LET ME EXPLAIN, IT IS
BASICALLY A PROVISO OF FOR 1
MILLION OF REVENUE TO CREATE A
TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM.
AND LET ME GIVE YOU MORE
CONTEXT.
KING COUNTY HAS A PROGRAM CALLED
TAX SCRIPT THAT SERVES LOW
INCOME RESIDENTS FROM 18 TO 64
WITH DISABILITY.
OR 65 AND OVER.
IF YOU GET REGISTERED YOU GET
EIGHT BOOKS OF TAXI SCRIPT.
IT IS VERY SUCCESSFUL.
RIGHT NOW, THE KING COUNTY
EARMARK IS AROUND $400,000 FOR
REIMBURSEMENTS.
THAT IS HOW IT WORKS, IT IS A
REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM.
AS YOU KNOW KING COUNTY
PROVIDES ORCA LEFT FOR TRANSIT
FARES TO WRITERS WITH LOW
INCOME.
RIDERS WITH LOW INCOME.
WHERE ARE YOU GOING?
>> I'M STAGING A WALKOUT.
>> YOU ALSO KNOW TRANSPORTATION
UNDER COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN'S
LEADERSHIP, THE EQUITY PROGRAM
WITH SEVERAL COMPONENTS OF
THAT.
THE CITY OF SEATTLE YOUTH
PROGRAM, THE CITY OF SEATTLE
VEHICLE LICENSE REBATE PROGRAM.
THIS VOUCHER PROGRAM IS 100%
CONSISTENT WITH THE EQUITY
PROGRAM.
WHAT WE THINK IS THAT IT SERVES
TWO PURPOSES.
NUMBER 1 WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE
THAT THE LEGACY TAX OF 4 HIRES
AND THOSE LICENSE VEHICLES ARE
STILL AROUND AND WILL BE
AROUND.
MANY PEOPLE STILL CONTINUE TO
USE THEM AS WE ENTER INTO THE
TNC MARKET.
SO IT ALLOWS A GRADUATION,
GRADUAL TRANSITION IF YOU WILL.
AND IT ALLOWS PEOPLE WHO NEED
ACCESS TO IT AND DON'T HAVE
COMPUTERS OR SMART PHONES THAT
ARE DIFFERENTLY ABLE, TO HAVE
ACCESS TO THESE MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION.
IS A ONE MILLION-DOLLAR
PROVISO.
THE ONE QUESTION THAT I'M
WORKING ON WITH FAS IS SHOW THE
PROVISO BE ON SDOT AS OPPOSED
TO FAS.
FAS IS BY AND LARGE A
REGULATORY BODY.
ONE CONSIDERATION I DO HAVE IS
WHETHER THE SLI BE IMPOSED OR
-- THE SLI BE IMPOSED ON SDOT
AS OPPOSED TO FAS.
WE ARE ASKING FOR THE WORK TO
BE DONE TO SEE HOW THE VOUCHER
PROGRAM CAN LOOK.
WHO WILL BE AS ELIGIBLE.
WE WANT TO FIT INTO THE EQUITY
PROGRAM AND HAVE $1 MILLION
READY FOR IT, ASSUMING THAT IT
IS FEASIBLE.
AND WE WOULD HAVE THE
DEPARTMENT COME BACK IN MARCH
2020 WITH THE REPORT INDICATING
THE FEASIBILITY.
I THINK IT WILL BE FEASIBLE AND
A GREAT OPPORTUNITY GIVEN THE
TNC FEE.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
DO YOU KNOW ON THE TAXI SCRIPT
IN KING COUNTY, HAVE THEY
EXTENDED IT TO UBER AND LYFT ?
>> I'M GOING TO SAY NO.
THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
THEY DO NOT.
IT IS FOR TAXES.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> QUICK COMMENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN HAS A
QUICK COMMENT.
>> THE CREATIVE IDEA IS
SOMETHING I'M REALLY INTRIGUED
WITH.
I WANT TO DOUBLE BACK WITH SOME
OF THE FOLKS THAT WORKED ON THE
ARRANGEMENT INCLUDING SOME
DRIVER REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE
SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND HOW IT
FITS INTO IT.
SOME GOING TO TENTATIVELY BE
INTRIGUED BY IT.
I THINK THE INTENT IS RIGHT ON
AND FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE IT
-- I WANT TO WORK WITH YOU.
>> FULL TRANSPARENCY, I HAVE
MET WITH TEAMSTERS.
I HAVE MET WITH THE DRIVER
ORGANIZATIONS.
I MET WITH THE LEGACY TAXIES.
WE TALKED WITH THE IDEAS
GENERATED FROM DISABILITY
COMMUNITIES ON WHAT THEY ARE
EXPERIENCING AND WHAT THEIR
NEEDS ARE.
I HAVEN'T GOTTEN STRONG
OPPOSITION FROM ANYONE.
IN FACT THERE IS LANGUAGE THAT
I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT,
THE LANGUAGE IN THE DRIVER
RESOLUTION CENTER AS WELL.
BUT I PUT IT ALL TOGETHER IN A
PACKAGE THAT I'M WORKING ON.
AND I THINK IT IS BEING VERY
WELL-RECEIVED QUITE FRANKLY.
WHICH IS TOUGH TO DO.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE GIVEN ALL OF
THE DOCUMENTS TO ALL OF THE
CONSTITUENTS.
THERE IS NOT A SHORTAGE OF
CONSTITUENTS IN THIS WORLD AS
WE KNOW.
SHOULD I JUST GO INTO THE
RESOLUTION CENTER WHILE I HAVE
THE MIGHT?
>> IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO START
GOING THROUGH THE AGENDA.
AND GO ITEM BY ITEM AT THIS
POINT NOW THAT WE'VE TALKED
BROADLY ABOUT THOSE ISSUES.
AND WE CAN TURN IT OVER TO
KARINA AND HAVE A BROADER
DISCUSSION.
>> +. NOW WE WILL MOVE TO THE
AGENDA ITEM. THE FIRST ONE IS
AGENDA ITEM 20.
WHICH IS COUNSEL BUDGET ACTION
CALLED TNC FEE 101-8-1. IT
SUBSTITUTES COUNSEL THE 119685.
IT SUBSTITUTES VERSION D 2 FOR
VERSION D 1 A AND PASS 119685.
THIS IS THE FEE REDUCTION.
IT WILL CHANGE THE LICENSING
FEE OF WHAT IS NOW $.14 TO
EIGHT CENTS PER TNC RIDE .
>> WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON
THIS.
>> CORRECT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A
COMMENT ON THE AMOUNT.
TO SAY THE AMOUNT WAS FULLY
NEGOTIATED, I WANT TO DESCRIBE
HOW THE CITY ARRIVED AT THE
AMOUNT.
THERE WERE LITERALLY MONTHS AND
MONTHS OF NEGOTIATIONS, IF YOU
WILL.
IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS HARD TO FIND
A PERFECT NUMBER THAT EVERYONE
IS HAPPY WITH.
I HAVE SORT OF BEEN ASKED BY
MANY CONSTITUENTS AND YOU HAVE
HER TESTIMONY TO LOWER THE
AMOUNT OR MAKE SURE IT GOES TO
THE DRIVER'S.
I CONTINUE TO TELL DRIVERS THAT
CONSUMERS ARE PAYING IT.
THIS IS MUCH LIKE A FEE OR TAX
THAT WE TAKE AND WE ARE
REQUIRED TO USE THIS FOR THE
GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY.
FOR TWO RICOCHET BACK TO THE
DRIVER'S POCKET IS NOT THE
PURPOSE OF HOW WE ADMINISTER
FEES AND TAXES.
BUT I HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL
NOT TO COMPLETELY REWRITE WHAT
WAS IN FACT -- ALMOST SURELY A
YEAR OF NEGOTIATIONS AND
DISCUSSIONS.
>> I THINK THAT IS HELPFUL.
I WILL MENTION THIS PARTICULAR
BILL, THE TNC FEE BILL, THAT
NUMBER IS SET BY FAS TO COVER
THE COST OF REGULATING THE
INDUSTRY.
THE TAXES ARE NEGOTIATED AS YOU
DISCUSSED AND HAS BEEN IN
DISCUSSION FOR A LONG TIME,
THIS PARTICULAR FEE IS
SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO COST
OUR RECOVERY OF SPECIFIC
ACTIVITIES OF THE CITY.
>> I FORGOT TO MAKE THAT OPEN
POINT.
FOR ALL OF THE LEGISLATION,
THAT IS WHERE THE DRIVERS HAVE
AMOUNT.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON
THAT.
ITE NUMBER 21, 101-A 1. THE
NEXT SIX WE WILL BE DISCUSSING
OUR AMENDMENTS TO THE SPENDING
RESOLUTION.
WHICH IS RESOLUTION 31914.
THE FIRST ONE, 101 8-1 IS TO
AMEND RESOLUTION TO CHANGE THE
SPECIFIED TRANSPORTATION AND
TRANSIT SERVICES IDENTIFIED AS
ELIGIBLE USES OF DNC TAX
REVENUES.
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP,
ONE OF 2 TO ENACT COUNCILMEMBER
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD'S CHANGE
TO REMOVE STREETCAR FUNDING AS
A SPECIFIED ELIGIBLE USE AND TO
ADD PURCHASING TRANSIT OR THIRD-
PARTY SOUND TRANSIT OF WEST
SEATTLE VALID EXTENSION FUNDING
TO THE RESOLUTION.
THANK YOU.
>> YOU WANT TO SPEAK MORE TO
THAT?
>> I WANT TO SAY AGAIN AND THAT
WE HAVE BEEN TOLD FOR YEARS
THAT WE HAD $75 MILLIONIN
FEDERAL FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR
THIS PROJECT.
THAT FUNDING IS NOW SERIOUSLY
IN QUESTION.
AND SDOT THEMSELVES HAVE TOLD
US THAT THEY DON'T THINK WE
WILL BE ABLE TO GET IT WITHOUT
ANOTHER BRAND-NEW APPROPRIATION.
THIS PROJECT IS OVER BUDGET
100%.
IT HAS INCREASED IN COST 100%
BEFORE WE HAVE EVEN BROKEN
GROUND.
IT IS SERVING AN AREA THAT IS
VERY WELL SERVED BY TRANSIT
ALREADY.
IT IS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT.
IT IS NOT A TRANSIT PROJECT.
AND I THINK THESE FUNDS SHOULD
BE USED TO ENHANCE TRANSIT.
TO COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO'S
POINT, THE IDEA OF THIRD-PARTY
FUNDING IS FOR THE SYSTEM
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE NEEDS
ARE.
IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY
FRATERNAL.
IT IS A THIRD-PARTY NEED
ASSOCIATED WITH THE ENTIRE
SOUND TRANSIT THREE ROUTE.
IT IS AN OPTION, NOT THE ONLY
OPTION.
THE OTHER OPTION, AS I
MENTIONED BEFORE IS BUS
SERVICE.
THE IDEA IS TO REORIENT THESE
FUNDS TO TRUE HIGH-PRIORITY
TRANSIT NEEDS.
I'M SORRY TO USE SUCH STRONG
WORDS.
BUT I THINK IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE
FOR US TO EARMARK WHAT IS A $56
MILLION -- I BELIEVE FOR A
PROJECT WHERE FEDERAL FUNDS
THAT WE THOUGHT WE HAD COMMITTED
NO LONGER COMMITTED.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT
SPENDING OUR CITY DOLLARS UNTIL
WE HAVE ASSURANCES THAT WE HAVE
OTHER PARTNERS IN THIS PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS.
TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
SPOKE TO ON THE PREVIOUS
ITERATION ABOUT FLEXIBILITY FOR
TRANSIT WITH THE POTENTIAL OF
976 PASSING NEXT WEEK, I AGREE
IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, THERE
IS A LOT OF THINGS IN THE
TRANSPORTATION BUDGET THAT I'M
GOING TO WANT TO RECONSIDER.
BUT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF
TIME AFTER THE ELECTION BEFORE
THE FINALIZED BUDGET.
NOT A LOT BUT A LITTLE WINDOW.
I'M GOING TO HOLD ON THAT FOR
MORE CLARITY ON WHAT THE
OUTCOME IS.
ON THE ISSUE OF FUNDING THE
STREETCARS, SPECIFICALLY, THE
MOMENT THAT I REMAIN COMMITTED
TO KEEPING THE MONEY THERE.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS
NOT GIVING THE MAYOR AUTHORITY
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FUNDING
THE STREETCAR.
IT SAYS THE MONIES ALLOCATED IN
A POOL TO SIT THERE.
NOT TERRIBLY DIFFERENT THAN
SAYING IT'S IN A POOL FOR WEST
SEATTLE BALLARD LINK LIGHT RAIL
EXTENSIONS.
BECAUSE WE HAVE A WAYS TO GO
BEFORE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE
PROJECT LOOK LIKE AND HOW MUCH
THEY COST.
SO FUTURE COUNCILS WILL
CONTINUE TO HAVE A LOT OF
FLEXIBILITY. WE COMMITTED $9
MILLION EARLIER THIS YEAR TO DO
ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING AND
DESIGN WORK ON THE STREETCAR.
WE SHOULD BE GETTING MORE
INFORMATION. THE COUNCIL SHOULD
BE GETTING MORE INFORMATION.
SOMETIME LATER NEXT YEAR.
AND HAVE MADE SURE, AS CHAIR OF
THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
THAT IT IS FAIRLY CLEAR THAT
THE COUNCIL CONTINUE TO HAVE
AUTHORITY OVER WHETHER WE MOVE
FORWARD WITH THIS STREETCAR OR
NOT.
BUT WHAT I'VE HEARD TO DATE,
THERE IS A DESIRE TO KEEP THE
PROJECT MOVING FORWARD SO WE
GET MORE INFORMATION AND ONE OF
THE CRITICAL PIECES TO THAT IS
INDICATING THAT WE HAVE A POOL
OF MONEY TO BE USED TO SPEND ON
THIS SO THAT THERE IS THE
POTENTIAL THAT THE FEDERAL
FUNDING WILL HAVE MORE SUCCESS,
KNOWING WE HAVE PUT SOME OF OUR
MONEY INTO IT.
BUT IT DOESN'T COMMIT THAT WE
HAVE TO SPEND IT ON IT.THE
FEDERAL FUNDING DOES NOT COME
THROUGH IT, THAT COMPLETELY
CHANGES THINGS.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS, THE
COUNCIL WILL HAVE FLEXIBILITY
IN FUTURE DAYS TO REPROGRAM THE
FUNDING.
>> WHAT IS THE TIMELINE ON THAT
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL NEW FEDERAL
FUNDING?
I CAN'T IMAGINE, IN THIS
PARTICULAR ADMINISTRATION THAT
WE ARE GOING TO SEE THAT.
ARE WE TALKING 2022?
2023?
>> A EURO OR 2. IT IS A WAYS
AWAY.
THEY'RE NOT GOING BACK TO THE
BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS BUT I
THINK THE PROCESS IS STARTING
OVER AS THEY FINISH THE DESIGN
WORK AND SHOW THE FUNDING
AVAILABLE.
AT THAT POINT, THEY WILL
ADVANCE FURTHER INTO THE
FEDERAL FUNDING REALM.
I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT IS SMALL
STARTS OR WHICH GRANT POOL IS
COMING OUT OF.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
BOTH OF YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.
WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THIS
ONE.
SO WE WILL MOVE FORWARD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, THIS IS
SOMETHING YOU WILL BE LOOKING
FOR COSPONSORS FOR.
ITEM 21.
>> ALL RIGHT, MY UNDERSTANDING
-- WE WILL DO THAT IF YOU THINK
IT IS APPROPRIATE.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM YESTERDAY
WAS THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO.
LET'S DO IT AND YOU WILL HAVE
IT ON RECORD.
SO WE ARE NOW ON ITEM 21.
RESOLUTION 31914.
AND THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD
YOUR NAME, TO SPONSORSHIP ON
THIS, RAISE YOUR HAND.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE BY
YOURSELF.
GREAT, THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA
IS ITEM 22 WHICH IS ANOTHER
AMENDMENT RESOLUTION 31914.
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST ACTION
THAT WOULD IMPLEMENT THE
TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
VOUCHER PROGRAM THAT COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HARRELL HAS SPOKEN
TO.
THIS ACTION WHAT IS MEANT
31914 TO ADD TRANSPORTATION
ASSISTANCE VOUCHER PROGRAM WITH
THAT TO $1 MILLION IN FUNDING
AS AN ELIGIBLE USE OF TENANCY
TAX REVENUES.
>> OKAY, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?
>> I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT
THAT MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS
SIMPLY TO DO SOMEWHAT WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD DID , TO
EARMARK THE FUNDS AND HAVE A
REVENUE STREAM GO TOWARD THIS.
HAVING MET WITH LABOR AND OTHER
CONSTITUENTS, I THOUGHT PERHAPS
A PRUDENT COURSE WOULD BE TO
PROVIDE SO THE MONEY TO HAVE A
STEADY STUDY FOR THE DISABILITY.
WHAT THEY ARE DOING AT THE
COUNTY, IT MAKES ALL THE SENSE
IN THE WORLD.
BUT THIS WAS A GO SLOW APPROACH
TO MAKE SURE THAT FUTURE
COUNCILS AND MAYORS AND
CONSTITUENTS ARE ON BOARD WITH
THE REPORT COMING BACK IN
MARCH.
THAT WAS A MORE CONSERVATIVE
APPROACH THAT WE TOOK.
BUT A MORE THOUGHTFUL APPROACH
AS WELL.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I SEE
ITEM 22, ITEM 23, ITEM 24.
AND ITEM -- YOU JUST DESCRIBED.
WHAT AM I VOTING YES NON-?
>> SO YOU COULD DESCRIBE IT.
BUT I HAD TO READ THEM AS A, B,
C AND D.
>> WE'RE LOOKING FOR COSPONSORS
ON RIGHT NOW ITEM 22 WHICH IS
THE RESOLUTION AMENDMENT.
IN ADDITION, IN ORDER TO
FULFILL THIS VISION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
VOUCHER PROGRAM, THERE ARE
THREE MORE THINGS THAT NEED TO
HAPPEN.
ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 23, WHICH IS
A SLI REQUESTING FAS REPORT ON
THE FEASIBILITY PROGRAM AND HOW
IT CAN OPERATE.
THE THIRD ITEM THAT WOULD NEED
TO BE -- YOU WOULD NEED
COSPONSORSHIP ON IS ITEM NUMBER
24 WHICH IS A PROVISO ON THE
FINANCE GENERAL RESERVES
RELATED TO THIS MONEY REMAINING
IN FINANCE GENERAL UNTIL IT IS
SPENT ON THIS PROGRAM.
THAN THE FOURTH THING THAT WE
NEED TO HAPPEN IS, ITEM NUMBER
27 ON YOUR AGENDA.
WHICH IS THE TENANCY TAX CBA 101
-A -1.
IT WOULD AMEND THAT TAX BILL TO
CHANGE IT SO THAT -- I'M SORRY
-- THE FOURTH ONE IS ITEM
NUMBER 28.
IT WOULD BE TENANCY TAX 102-A-1
THAT WOULD AMEND 119684 TO ADD
THIS PROGRAM AS ONE OF THE
INTENDED USES OF THE TENANCY
TAX REVENUES.
>> DO WE HAVE AN AMENDED
VERSION THAT WE COULD FOLLOW?
>> ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS ARE
PROVIDED AS ATTACHMENTS.
>> IF I COULD, AMY -- IF WE TRY
TO FIGURE OUT A VERY SIMPLE WAY
TO EFFECTUATE THESE CHANGES BUT
BECAUSE THERE ARE FIVE PIECES
OF LEGISLATION, IT BECAME
NECESSARY TO DO FOUR PIECES TO
EFFECTUATE WHERE WE ARE TRYING
O MAKE IT.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR AND
KEEP ME HONEST ON THIS POINT
THAT THE WAY THE PROVISO WORKS,
IS WE ARE ASKING FOR THE REPORT
TO COME BACK BY MARCH.
AND I SAID EARLIER, RIGHT NOW
AS WE SPEAK WE ARE HAVING FAS
TO THE WORK.
WE CANNOT HAVE TREND TO DO THE
WORK THAT IT MAKES SENSE
BECAUSE IT IS FAS -RELATED.
IT DOES READ FAS.
BUT LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, THE
WORST-CASE SCENARIO, THE REPORT
IS DONE AND THE SUPPLY IS
COMPLIED WITH.
AND IT'S A GREAT IDEA BUT IT
ISN'T FEASIBLE.
WE CANNOT MIRROR WHAT THE
COUNTY IS DOING.
THE $1 MILLION CAN BE RELEASED
BUT USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
IT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE.
AT THE PROVISO, COUNSEL WILL
HAVE TO LIFT THE PROVISO AND
SAY NOT FEASIBLE.
OR, IF THIS WORKS, THIS IS A
GREAT IDEA. THIS IS HOW IT WILL
BE IMPLEMENTED.
THE MONEY SHOULD BE LIFTED AND
GO TOWARD THAT END.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE SLI AND
PROVISO.
DID I MISSTATE ANY INTENTIONS
THAT THE LANGUAGE --
>> CURRENTLY THE PROVISO STATES
THAT OF THE TENANCY TAX
REVENUES, $1 MILLION IS
APPROPRIATED SOLELY FOR
TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE SUCH
A PROGRAM AND MAY BE USED FOR
NO OTHER PURPOSE.
HOWEVER -- IT WOULD TAKE
FURTHER COUNSEL ACTION TO
RELEASE THESE FUNDS FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
THAT WAS GOING TO HAVE TO
HAPPEN ANYWAY.
BECAUSE ALL OF THE FUNDS ARE
GOING INTO FINANCE GENERAL TO
BE APPROPRIATED NEXT YEAR.
SO IT WILL TAKE COUNSEL ACTION
TO APPROPRIATES THESE FUNDS
WHETHER IT IS FOR THE
STREETCAR, WHETHER IT IS FOR
THIS VOUCHER PROGRAM.
THAT CAN BE DONE AFTER THE SLI
IS RECEIVED BY COUNCIL.
>> TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, A NEW
COUNSEL, THE COUNCIL CAN SAY,
LIFT THE PROVISO, DO THE
TRANSPORTATION VOUCHER PROGRAM.
OR LET THE PROVISO, DON'T DO IT.
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
>> CAN I?
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ THEN
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN.
>> QUICKLY TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTOOD WHAT PRESIDENT
HARRELL WAS SAYING.
ON NUMBER 28, IF WE WERE TO
VOTE ON THAT, THAT IS TO AMEND
NUMBER 24.
TO ADD THE PROGRAM TO NUMBER 24.
THE 28 AND 24 ARE CONNECTED.
IF WE DO 24th AND WE'VE GOT TO
DO 28.
>> YES, ALL FOUR WOULD WORK
TOGETHER.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE
THE NUMBERS CORRECT.
IT WOULD BE 22, 23, 24 AND 28.
THOSE OF THE FOUR ACTIONS
RELATED TO THE TRANSPORTATION
ASSISTANCE VOUCHER PROGRAM.
>> COUNSEL, AT THE RISK OF
TELLING YOU WHAT YOU KNOW, YOU
ARE NOT VOTING TODAY, YOU ARE
INDICATING COSPONSORSHIP.
>> CAN I SUGGEST OR ASK THAT WE
INDICATE COSPONSORSHIP AS A
BUNDLE OF -- THEY CAN GO
TOGETHER AND WE CAN CHECK THEM
OFF IT WANTS.
>> THAT IS A FRIENDLY
SUGGESTION.
>> I AM OPEN TO THAT AS LONG AS
WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET OUR
HANDS SLAPPED IN THE FUTURE FOR
NOT HAVING INDIVIDUALLY VOTED
ON IT.
>> WE ARE NOT VOTING.
>> I WOULD ASK THE CLERK, IF
YOU SEE ANY LOGISTICAL ISSUES
WITH THAT.
>> I THINK WE ARE COMPLYING
WITH THE OPM A AND INDICATING
SUPPORT.
WE ARE HAVING A PUBLIC
DISCUSSION BUT WE ARE NOT
VOTING, WE ARE JUST TALKING.
>> THIS IS ALL DONE ON DIETS
AND ON TV.
>> IF YOU INDICATE
COSPONSORSHIP ONCE, WE CAN
IMPLY THAT TO THE OTHER THREE
PIECES AS LONG AS IT IS OKAY
WITH EVERYONE WHEN THEY
INDICATE COSPONSORSHIP THE
FIRST TIME.
>> 22, 23, 24 AND 28.
>> YES.
>> AS CHAIR YOU CAN ASK IF
THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO MAKING
THAT ASSUMPTION.
>> THANK YOU.
WOULD ANYONE OBJECT?
SEEING NO OBJECTION, AND
HEARING NO CONCERNS, I WOULD
LIKE US TO DO THAT AS A BUNDLE.
TO ADD, RAISE YOUR HAND IF
YOU'D LIKE TO ADD YOUR NAME FOR
A COSPONSOR ON 22, 23, 24 AND
28.
>> WELL-DONE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
>> NOW WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM
NUMBER 25.
MAYBE I SHOULD JUST GO THROUGH
WHAT WE HAVE JUST INDICATED.
TO BE VERY CLEAR.
SO ITEM NUMBER 23 IS A SLI
THAT REQUESTS THAT FAS REPORT
ON THE FEASIBILITY OF
TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
VOUCHER PROGRAM.
ITEM NUMBER 24 IS A PROVISO
WHICH IS IMPOSED ON THE FINANCE
GENERAL RESERVES RELATED TO A
TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
VOUCHER PROGRAM.
THAT PROVISO IS FOR $1 MILLION.
BUT AGAIN, THERE WILL BE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEXT YEAR'S
COUNSEL TO APPROPRIATE THAT
MONEY AS THEY SEE FIT BASED ON
THE SLI.
NOW WE ARE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 25
WHICH IS TS ESPN-105-A-1. THE
COUNCIL BUNCH AND ACTION WILL
AMEND 31914 TO LOWER HOUSEHOLD
INCOME MAXIMUMS FOR RENTAL FOR
TENANCY TAX REVENUES.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE SPEAKING
POINTS FOR THIS?
>> IT IS PRETTY SELF-
EXPLANATORY.
>> I WILL SAY A FEW WORDS.
IT IS AN OPEN POLICY QUESTION
FOR ALL OF US.
WHERE DO WE WANT TO PRIOR TOYS
THE LEVELS AND THE INTENT WOULD
BE TO FOCUS THE INVESTMENTS TO
A LOWER INCOME THRESHOLD AND I
WOULD ALSO SUPPORT THAT.
>> ANY FURTHER COMMENT?
THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME AS COSPONSOR TO ITEM 25,
RAISE YOUR HAND.
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU.
>> OUR NEXT COUNCIL BUDGET
ACTION IS 26 ON THE AGENDA.
AND IT IS COUNCIL BUDGET ACTION
TNC SPN-106-A -1.
IT IS A SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION
AND IT WOULD ADOPT THE
SUBSTITUTE AS WELL AS ANY
CHANGES THAT WILL BE MADE BY
THE COUNCIL AND ADOPT THE
RESOLUTION AS AMENDED.
>> ANY CLARIFICATIONS?
>> WE DON'T NEED COSPONSORSHIP
ON THAT ONE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
NO VOTE SO WE WILL MOVE TO 27.
>> ITEM 27 ON THE AGENDA IS
COUNCIL BUDGET ACTION TNC TAX
-101-A -1.
IT AMENDS 119684 WHICH IS THE
COUNCIL BILL THAT CREATES THE
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY
TAX. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD
CHANGE THE SPECIFIED
TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT
PURPOSES IDENTIFIED AS INTENDED
USES OF TNC TAX REVENUES TO
REMOVE THE STREETCAR AND TO
ADD IN TRANSIT PURCHASE AND
POTENTIALLY THIRD-PARTY
REVENUES FOR SOUND TRANSIT.
NOTHING MORE TO ADD.
>> ANYTHING ELSE?
>> ITEM 28 WE HAVE ALREADY
DISCUSSED AND PROVIDED AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR SPONSORSHIP.
THIS IS AGAIN AMENDING THE
COUNCIL BILL 119684 WHICH
ESTABLISHES THE TAX TO ADD A
TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE
VOUCHER PROGRAM AS AN INTENDED
USE OF TAX REVENUES.
>> WE ARE GOOD ON THAT.
>> THE FINAL ONE RELATED TO THE
TAX BILL IS CBA TNC TAX 103 -
A -1. IT WOULD SUBSTITUTE
VERSION D 3 FOR D 2 E. AS
AMENDED.
I WANT TO POINT OUT A CHANGE
THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE
SUBSTITUTE.
IF YOU RECALL FROM THE ORIGINAL
DISCUSSION, THE TAX ORDINANCE
CREATES A BASE TEXT OF $.51 AND
A SUPPLEMENTAL TAX THAT WOULD
BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR
OF A SUPPLEMENTAL TAX.
AND ESTABLISH IT AT $0.06 FOR
TOWABLE OF $.57.
ONE OF THE CHANGES MADE IN THE
SUBSTITUTE BILL IS TO REMOVE
THE SUPPLEMENTAL TAX. AND
INSTEAD PUT ALL OF IT IN THE
BASE TAX SO THAT THE TAX REMAINS
$0.57. BUT IT IS ONE TAX RATHER
THAN A TAX ON A SUPPLEMENTAL
TAX.
>> DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK TO
THIS?
BRIAN, I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN
INVOLVED.
>> THAT DOES NOT NEED
COSPONSORSHIP.
>> THANK YOU.
LET'S KEEP MOVING.
>> NUMBER 30 IS A COUNCIL
BUDGET ACTION THAT PROPOSES TO
AMEND COUNCIL BILL 119687. THIS
IS PROPOSE LEGISLATION CALLED
THE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
COMPANY DRIVER MINIMUM
COMPENSATION STANDARD.
AS A QUICK REFRESHER THIS
PROPOSED LEGISLATION WOULD
REQUIRE FINANCE AT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO
CONDUCT A STUDY.
AND RECOMMEND A MINIMUM
COMPENSATION STANDARD FOR TNC
DRIVERS THAT WOULD BE COMPRISED
OF AT MINIMUM, THE SUBMITTAL
SEATTLE MINIMUM WAGE STANDARD
FOR LARGE EMPLOYERS ALONG WITH
COMPENSATION FOR REASONABLE
EXPENSES.
AS PART OF THE STUDY THE
LEGISLATION SETS FORTH 12 AREAS
OF POSSIBLE VALUATION.
AND THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT
WOULD STRIKE ONE OF THE AREAS
AND ADD TWO AREAS.
AND IT IS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE SPEAKING
POINTS?
>> I DO BUT I THINK THAT KARINA
JUST HIT ALL OF THE THINGS I
WAS GOING TO SAY.
I DON'T WANT TO BE REPETITIVE.
>> THANK YOU.
YOU GET A A FOR THAT.
COSPONSORSHIP NEEDED OR NOT?
>> THAT IS A PROCESS QUESTION.
>> HAVE COSPONSORS INDICATED.
>> THOSE INTERESTED IN ADDING
THE NAME AS COSPONSOR, RAISE
YOUR HAND.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT COUNCIL BUDGET
ACTION ALSO IS PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA TO THE MINIMUM
COMPENSATION ORDINANCE.
AND THIS WOULD EXPRESS AN
INTENT FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER
FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE
MINIMUM CONDENSATION STANDARD
IF ELEMENTS OF THE STANDARD ARE
MANDATED BY STATE OR FEDERAL
LAW.
>> I WAS SUPPOSED TO TALK TO
THIS AS WELL AND KARINA READ MY
TALKING POINTS.
I HAVE NOTHING TO RED.
>> THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME AS COSPONSOR, RAISE YOUR
HAND.
VERY GOOD, LET'S MOVE TO THE
NEXT ITEM.
>> COUNCIL BUDGET ACTION THAT
WOULD AMEND THE COUNCIL BILL
119686.
THIS IS THE TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK COMPANY DRIVER
DEACTIVATION RIGHT ORDINANCE
THAT WOULD DO A NUMBER OF
THINGS INCLUDING PROTECTION FROM
UNWARRANTED THE ACTIVATIONS.
THERE WOULD BE A PROCESS SET UP
FOR CHALLENGING DEACTIVATION
AND ESTABLISHMENT OF DRIVER
RESOLUTION CENTER.
SO THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT
WOULD CLARIFY WHEN THE PANEL
ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
VOLUNTARY.
THANK YOU.
>> ANY ADDITION?
>> NOTHING MORE TO ADD ON THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MAYBE I'M NOT FOLLOWING WHAT
THIS DOES.
WHAT DOES IT DO AGAIN?
>> THIS WOULD CLARIFY THAT THE
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANY
AND PARTICIPATION WITH THE
PANEL PROCESS IS VOLUNTARY.
IF THERE IS A PRIVATE
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT THAT THE
DRIVER AGREES TO WHEN THEY SIGN
UP TO WORK FOR THE DNC THAT
REQUIRES PRIVATE ARBITRATION
RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH THIS
PROCESS.
>> WHY IS IT NEEDED?
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO DO ANYTHING.
>> IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING
IN THE LAW.
úTHIS IS TRUE.
THERE IS A SECTION OF THE LAW
THAT SAYS IT REMINDS THE READER
THAT PARTICIPATION IN THE PANEL
PROCEEDING IS VOLUNTARY.
AND THESE ARE WORDS THAT SAY,
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THE OTHER
PLACE IN LEGISLATION WHERE SETS
FORTH THE PROCESS ACTUALLY IS
NOT VOLUNTARY IF THERE IS NO
PRIVATE ARBITRATION
REQUIREMENT.
>> LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.
I THINK I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID,
IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING
SUBSTANTIVELY.
MAYBE CLARIFY SOMETHING.
OUT OF MY CHALLENGE IN THIS WAS
THE QUESTION I ASKED DURING
EARLIER DISCUSSIONS OF WHETHER
WE CAN MANDATE TO THE DRIVER
RESOLUTION CENTER.
I UNDERSTAND THERE IS CONTRAST
BETWEEN DRIVER AND TNC.
BUT I WAS WONDERING, COULD THE
FUTURE COUNCIL REQUIRE THAT THE
DRC BE USED.
AND THERE WERE LEGAL ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND THEY
HAVE FIVE THE CONTRACT BUT I
DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER MY WORK
COULD BE DONE IN THAT AREA.
IN YEARS TO COME TO USE AS A
RESOURCE CENTER.
AND WHETHER WE WERE DOUBLING
DOWN ON THE FACT THAT THIS WAS
VOLUNTARY.
I DON'T LIKE THE FACT IT IS
VOLUNTARY QUITE FRANKLY.
AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHY TNC
HAS THE LEVERAGE AND RESOURCES
AND THE DRIVER DOESN'T AND
CAN'T AFFORD AN ATTORNEY.
IT SEEMS TO ME THIS PLAYS INTO
THE DETRIMENT OF THE DRIVER.
AND IT IS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY
SO I'M NOT SURE WHY WE
REITERATE THE FACT THAT IT IS
VOLUNTARY.
I WOULD RATHER IT NOT BE
VOLUNTARY.
>> IF I CAN HAVE THE LANGUAGE
IN FRONT OF ME OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS, I DON'T THINK IT IS
DOUBLING DOWN ON SAYING THAT
THE PROCESS IS VOLUNTARY.
I THINK IT IS CLARIFYING THAT
IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ISN'T
-- A BINDING ARBITRATION
CONTRACT BETWEEN DRIVER AND TNC
COMPANY IN THE ABSENCE OF
BINDING CONTRACT EXISTING, THEN
AND ONLY THEN WOULD THE DISPUTE
RESOLUTION -- THE DRIVER
RESOLUTION CENTER WOULD BE
MANDATORY.
WHERE WE RUN INTO LEGAL ISSUES,
REALLY INTO PREEMPTION IS WHEN
A CONTRACT, A BINDING CONTRACT
EXISTS BETWEEN THE DRIVER AND
TNC COMPANY THAT SETS UP
ARBITRATION PROCESS.
UNDER FEDERAL LAW WE CAN DO
STICKY IN CONTEXT.BUT IF THERE
IS NO CONTRACT SIGNED BETWEEN
THE DRIVER AND THE COMPANY,
THEN THIS CLARIFIES THAT IT
WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE THE
PANEL ARBITRATION PROCESS SHALL
BE USED.
>> RIGHT.
IT IS CLARIFYING, TO YOUR POINT
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALEZ WHEN IT
IS MANDATORY.
IT IS MANDATORY IN THE ABSENCE
OF PRIVATE ARBITRATION
AGREEMENT.
>> WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT --
>> .001.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW --
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE
DRIVER TO SIGN WITHOUT PUTTING
MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN
IT I THINK.
BUT MAYBE IN THE FUTURE.
>> IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE BIG
PLAYERS IN THIS SPACE AND
EMERGING PLAYERS IN THIS CASE
AND IT COULD POTENTIALLY COVER
SOME OF THE EMERGING PLAYERS
THAT PERHAPS DON'T HAVE THESE
CONTRACTS IN PLACE.
MAYBE THEY ALL DO.
I THINK THE SPIRIT WITH WHICH
IT IS BEING OFFERED AS WELL-
INTENTIONED.
TO ALLOW THE CLOSING OF A
POTENTIAL GAP IF ONE SHOULD
ARISE OF A SITUATION IN WHICH
THERE IS NO EXISTING PRIVATE
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.
WHAT HAPPENS?
AND THAT IS A POLICY QUESTION.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS THAT
ONE IN 1 MILLION CHANCE AS YOU
DESCRIBED IT OF BEING NO PRIVATE
ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.
WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR
IN THIS ORDINANCE, I WOULD
THINK IN THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT
THAT THE PANEL ARBITRATION AS
ENVISIONED THROUGH THE
ORDINANCE WOULD BE THE FALLBACK.
I DON'T THINK THERE IS HARM IN
ADVANCING THAT CLARIFYING
LANGUAGE TO ALLOW FOR THAT TO
BE THE OUTCOME.
>> SOUNDS GOOD.
>> THOSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD YOUR
NAME AS SPONSOR, RAISE YOUR
HAND.
>> I WILL GO.
>> I PERSUADED HIM.
>> YOU ARE SO PERSUASIVE.
>> VERY GOOD.
>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON, CAN I DO
A CHECK ON SOMETHING?
IT IS 11:22.
THE NEXT SESSION IS CRIMINAL
JUSTICE AND I DON'T KNOW IF
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF WOULD BE
READY TO PROCEED.
BUT LET ME CHECK WITH MY
COLLEAGUES.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO?
YOU WANT TO MOVE ON WITH
CRIMINAL JUSTICE?
>> WE HAVE SOME MORE TNC STAFF.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE
PEOPLE TIME IF WE WANT TO
PROCEED.
OR IF YOU WANT TO CLOSE IT UP
AND START BACK AT 2:00.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE
COULD END THE MORNING SESSION.
THAT IS PROBABLY A
CONTROVERSIAL THING TO SAY.
IF WE COULD JUST GET THROUGH
TNC AND TAKE A BREAK TO SORT
OF --
>> GET ORGANIZED?
>> AND GATHER OURSELVES BEFORE
WE HEAD INTO CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
>> WE HAVE TWO MORE ITEMS.
>> I BELIEVE WE JUST HAVE ONE.
NUMBER 33 AND IT IS A TREAT TO
HAVE THE LAST NUMBER FOR THIS
MORNING.
THIS WOULD AMEND COUNCIL BILL
119686.
AGAIN, IT IS THE DRIVER
DEACTIVATION RIGHTS ORDINANCE.
THIS IS SPONSORED BY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT HARRELL.
AND THIS CHANGE WOULD CLARIFY
THE DEFINITION OF THE DRIVER
RESOLUTION CENTER.
>> I WANT TO THANK OTHERS THAT
WORKED ON ME WITH THIS
LANGUAGE.
WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT
COMPLETELY.
BUT HERE IS THE THOUGHT THAT
THIS LANGUAGE REFLECTS.
VERY SIMPLE.
NUMBER 1 IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS I
WOULDN'T CALL IT THE DRIVER
RESOLUTION CENTER.
I WOULD CALL IT A DRIVER
RESOURCE CENTER.
OR A DRIVER EMPOWERMENT CENTER.
BECAUSE IN MY MIND, THE CENTER,
PARTICULARLY THE AMOUNT OF
INVESTMENT WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT
IN IT IS MORE THAN JUST
HANDLING DISPUTES.
SO THE LANGUAGE TALKS ABOUT
THIS ORGANIZATION THAT RUNS THE
DRIVER RESOURCE CENTER.
SHALL HAVE EXPERIENCE IN
WORKERS RIGHTS AND EXPERIENCE IN
RETOOLING DRIVERS, CONTRACTORS
AND WORKERS TO ALLOW THEM TO
COMPETE IN THE CURRENT BUSINESS
ENVIRONMENT.
I'M SEEING THIS AS AN
EMPOWERMENT CENTER AS YOU WILL
WORKING WITH LABOR AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS, PARTICULARLY
THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE
CULTURALLY COMPETENT TO BE AT A
CENTER WHERE MANY THINGS CAN
OCCUR FOR THESE DRIVERS.
NOT JUST HANDLING A DISPUTE ON
DEACTIVATION.
PARTICULARLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND HAVING
ADVOCATES FOR THE DRIVERS.
IT MAY NOT BE THE LAST DRIVERS
JOBS THAT THEY HAVE WHEN YOU
THINK ABOUT -- THE LANGUAGE
REFLECTS THAT AND ALSO SUGGESTS
THAT THE ORGANIZATION, THAT
SHOULD HAVE EXPERIENCE IN
GRIEVANCE PROCESSES AND THE
WHOLE BIT.
COULD IDEALLY PARTNER WITH
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE
FOCUSED ON DIVERSITY AND THESE
KINDS OF ISSUES THAT ARE
CULTURALLY COMPETENT.
SO THIS COULD BE IN URBAN LEAGUE
OR THE EAST AFRICAN
ORGANIZATIONS.
THIS COULD BE TABLE 100.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LABOR
AND CULTURALLY COMPETENT
ORGANIZATIONS COMING FROM THESE
COMMON COMMUNITIES AND
PARTNERING TOGETHER.
I DIDN'T CHANGE THE NAME
BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE FIVE
OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE TO DO
THAT.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING TO CHANGE
THE NAME TO THE DRIVER RESOURCE
CENTER.
PLUS I THOUGHT OF IT THIS
MORNING.
THE OTHER LANGUAGE IS THE
SIMPLE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT
CREATES MORE OF A ROBUST
CENTER.
>> I'M NOT PROPOSING WE CHANGE
THE TITLE BUT YOU WANT TO HELP
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND?
>> THE DRIVER RESOLUTION CENTER
IS EMBEDDED.
FUTURE COUNCIL COULD DO THAT
BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR --
AMENDMENT, IT ADDS LANGUAGE TO
TALK ABOUT PARTNERING WITH
ORGANIZATIONS AND RETOOLING
DRIVERS.
>> I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE
WHAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING.
I HAVE RIDDEN WITH UBER AND
LYFT DRIVERS.
AND A BIG CONCERN I HAVE IS
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ADVOCACY.
OR PLACE TO GO IF THEY GET
THEMSELVES TAKEN OFF THE
PLATFORM.
SOMETIMES IT TAKES WEEKS FOR
THEM TO BE ABLE TO BE RESTORED.
SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE
DOING WITH THE PARTNERSHIP.
ANY OTHER CART -- COMMENTS?
>> I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE NOT
PROPOSING TO CHANGE IT TO
RESOURCE CENTER.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE
APPROPRIATING WHAT HUNDREDS OF
DRIVERS ARE ADVOCATING FOR
WHICH IS DRIVER RESOURCE AND
SOLIDARITY CENTER.
WHICH IS FAR BIGGER THAN WHAT
IS BEING PROPOSED.
AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR
THEM BECAUSE THEY WILL BE
COMING TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND
SPEAKING.
I'M HOLDING OFF MY COMMENTS.
UNTIL THEY ARE ABLE TO GET
ORGANIZED ON THIS.
BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT
CLEAR THAT WHEN HUNDREDS OF
DRIVERS WERE ADVOCATING FOR
DRIVER RESOURCE CENTER, THEY
ARE TALKING ABOUT A WHOLE
SPECTRUM OF NEEDS THAT THEY
HAVE INCLUDING -- NOT ONLY
DIRECTLY RELATED TO ADVOCACY
AND TRAINING BUT THEY ARE ALSO
LOOKING FOR OTHER SERVICES,
INCLUDING COUNSELING AND MENTAL
HEALTHCARE.
LEGAL REFERRALS, EMERGENCY
DRIVER AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE.
THIS IS JUST A SET OF LARGE
NEEDS THAT THEY HAVE BECAUSE
THEY ARE STRUGGLING SO
DRAMATICALLY.
MANY OF THEM ARE IN NEED OF
SUICIDE PREVENTION COUNSELING.
BECAUSE FORMER TAXICAB DRIVERS
AND TAXI MEDALLIONS.
THEY TOOK ON A LOT OF DEBT.
AT ONE POINT THE MEDALLIONS
WERE $300,000 AND THEY
PURCHASED THESE MEDALLIONS WITH
LARGE SUMS OF MONEY.
AND WERE LEFT -- THE MEDALLIONS
LOST NEARLY ALL OF THEIR VALUE,
DESTROYING THE HARD-EARNED
ASSETS OF THE DRIVERS.
MANY OF THE UBER DRIVER'S ARE
FORMER TAXI DRIVERS.
THEY WERE DRIVEN INTO DEEP
DEBT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
DON'T ACCIDENTALLY OR
INTENTIONALLY APPROPRIATE WHAT
THEY ARE ADVOCATING FOR WHICH
IS FAR BIGGER THAN ANYTHING
THAT HAS COME UP HERE.
>> I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU SAID.
IS WHAT YOU SAID IN ALIGNMENT
WITH WHAT COUNCIL PRESIDENT
HARRELL WAS SAYING?
>> YES AND NO.
IN A SENSE THAT OF COURSE THE
DRIVERS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT
WILL AGREE WITH WHAT PRESIDENT
HARRELL SAID.
BUT WHAT THEY ARE ADVOCATING
FOR IS FAR MORE THAN THAT.
AND I DON'T WANT US TO CALL
THIS THE RESOURCE CENTER
BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY
MEAN.
>> YOU DON'T WANT TO RECALL IT
A RESOURCE CENTER?
OR REESE --
>> WHAT THEY ARE ADVOCATING FOR
IS A RESOURCE AND SOLIDARITY
CENTER.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD STACK
STEAK TO RESOLUTION CENTER.
>> IT IS CALLED NOW A
RESOLUTION CENTER.
>> THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING WE
SHOULD LEAVE IT OUT.
>> I'M NOT PROPOSING WE CHANGE
IT.
BUT I THINK I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
JUST BECAUSE I THOUGHT -- MY
MIND IS THAT I DON'T WANT TO BE
A PLACE WHERE PROBLEMS ARE
RESOLVED.
DEACTIVATION'S ARE RESOLVED I
SHOULD SAY.
IN MY MIND, THE WAY TO DESCRIBE
THE RESOLUTION IS A PLACE WHERE
DEACTIVATION'S WERE RESOLVED IN
ARBITRATIONS.
IN MY MIND IT WAS WHAT YOU
DESCRIBED, A PLACE WHERE DRIVERS
CAN ORGANIZE.
AND GET RETOLD AND THERE COULD
BE RESOURCES BROUGHT IN FOR THEM
. IN MY MIND THAT IS A RESOURCE
CENTER.
BUT I'M NOT PROPOSING A NAME
CHANGE.
>>
>> I'M NOT DISAGREEING.
IF YOU ARE AGREEING WITH WHAT
I'M SAYING.
WHAT IF YOU ARE, I THINK IT
WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIFIC
AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION AND
ORDINANCE WHICH I'M WORKING ON
WITH THE DRIVERS.
BUT I WANT THEM TO HAVE TO
ADVOCATE FOR THAT FIRST.
HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE THERE.
>> VERY GOOD.
AT THIS POINT, WE ARE GOING TO
AT OUR NAMES AS COSPONSORS TO
AMEND COUNCIL 119686 TO CLARIFY
THE DEFINITION OF DRIVER
RESOLUTION CENTER.
>> CORRECT.
>> WE ARE NOT CHANGING THAT.
THOSE THAT WANT TO ADD YOUR
NAME AS COSPONSOR, RAISE YOUR
HAND.
WAS THAT NO?
>> IT IS NOT SURE.
IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED.
>> YOU CAN PUT THE ELBOW UP AND
WE WILL CALL IT NOT SURE.
THIS CONCLUDES OUR SESSION
NUMBER 1 FOR TODAY.
WE WILL BE A RESOURCE RECESS
AND TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE
END OF THE DAY.
WE WILL COME BACK TOGETHER AT
2:00 AND I APPRECIATE
EVERYBODY'S -- ALL OF YOUR
ACTIONS AND THOUGHTFULNESS.
AMY, THANK YOU FOR HELPING US
BUNDLE ALL OF THOSE AND LISA
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE
GOOD WORK.
WE WILL SEE YOU AT 2:00.