>>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE,
THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK TO
THE MEETING OF THE SEATTLE CITY
COUNCIL, OCTOBER 12th, 2023.
MADAME CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER ANDREW LEWIS
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> CHAIR MOSQUEDA?
>> PRESENT.
>> GRADE, THAT GIVES US
QUORUM, DAY TWO OF THE
INFORMATION SESSION. IN THE
MEETING WE WILL CONTINUE OUR
DISCUSSION THAT WE STARTED
YESTERDAY BY LOOKING INTO
SPECIFIC DEPARTMENTS TO SEE WHA
THE CHANGES ARE IN THE PROPOSED
BUDGET THAT WE RECEIVED IN LAT
SEPTEMBER. WE WILL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DIVE RIGHT INTO
THE PROPOSED CHANGING
PERSPECTIVES, WITH TRACI
RATZLIF AND ALY PENNUCCI , OUR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL
STAFF. AND WE WILL HAVE MAIKO
WINKLER-CHIN AND REBECCA GUERR
, FROM OFFICE OF HOUSING. WE
WILL ALSO HAVE JULIE DINGLEY O
FOR QUESTIONS. THE HUMAN
SERVICES PRESENTERS INCLUDE
JEN LABRECQUE , FROM CENTRAL
STAFF. AND WE WILL HAVE
DIRECTOR TANYA KIM , DEE
DHLAMINI , FROM HSD , AND
JULIE DINGLEY, AS WELL. WE WILL
AIM TO ADJOURN AT LEAST BY
1:00 P.M. , FOR LUNCH. WE WILL
START WITH ARTS AND CULTURE AT
2:00 P.M. AND IN THAT
PRESENTATION WE WILL HAVE
JASMINE MARWAHA FROM CENTRAL
STAFF , AS WELL AS ALY PENNUCCI
AND ALSO GULGUN KAYIM, WHO IS
OUR NEW DIRECTOR, THE FIRST TIM
FOR ME TO MEET THEM. AND ALSO
ALEXANDRA McGEHEE ALONG WITH
JULIE DINGLEY, AS WELL , AND TH
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
WILL ROUND THINGS OUT, THAT
INCLUDES PRESENTERS JASMINE
MARWAHA , AND DIRECTOR MARKHAM
McINTYRE, ALONG WITH JOE REGIS
WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND
ALSO FROM THE CITY BUDGET
OFFICE, THE DIRECTOR AS WELL. I
THERE IS NO OBJECTION, TODAY'S
AGENDA IS ADOPTED. HEARING NO
OBJECTIONS, THE HEARING IS
ADOPTED. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE
INTO AN ITEM ON OUR AGENDA , IF
THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FOR OUR
TEAM FROM THE PROPOSED AGENDA.
WE HAVE TAKEN PUBLIC COMMENT
FROM FOLKS YESTERDAY. WE DO NO
HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA FOR TODAY OR, FOR
FRIDAY. BUT AT OUR
COUNCILMEMBERS ' REQUEST, WE
HAVE ADDED IT BACK IN FOR
MONDAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
SUGGESTION . I LOOK FORWARD TO
HEARING MORE FROM YOU ALL ABOUT
THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE
ABOUT ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS I
FRONT OF US, STARTING WITH THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING, MADAME CLERK
PLEASE READ ITEM NUMBER ONE IN
ORDER.
>> WHAT ABOUT COUNCILMEMBER
SAWANT?
>> OH, COUNCIL NEVER SAWANT IS
PRESENT , THAT BRINGS US TO
NINE.
>> I WAS MENTIONING THIS ON TH
AIR, MY NIGHTMARE LAST NIGHT WA
THAT YOU AND I WERE WAITING FOR
THE SEA LIONS AND WE COULD NOT
MAKE IT. YOU ARE 20 MINUTES LAT
FOR THIS COMMITTEE MEETING. SO,
I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT COULD
EVER BE PUT OUT, BUT WE WERE
TRYING TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT
WE WERE ON THE LINE AND THEY
WERE GOING TO BE JOINING US.
WELCOME TO THE BUDGET BRIEFING,
TRACI RATZLIF.
>> I WILL TRY TO NOT GET TO
EXCITED THAT
>> I HATE NIGHTMARES ABOUT
BUDGET AND NOT MAKING IT ON
TIME.
>> EXACTLY. GOOD MORNING,
COUNCILMEMBERS, TRACI RATZLIF,
JUMPING RIGHT INTO THE PROPOSED
OH BUDGET. AS YOU HEARD ,
SPRINKLED THROUGHOUT THE
PRESENTATION YESTERDAY, AS YOU
CAN SEE IN THE FIRST SLIDE, IF
WE CAN MOVE FORWARD, YOU WILL
SEE THAT OH , THEY HAVE
INCREASED COMPARED TO THE 202
BUDGET, THIS IS ENTIRELY DRIVEN
BY THE 2023 HOUSING LEVY
APPROPRIATIONS, IN ANTICIPATION
THAT THE LEVY WILL PASS WHEN I
GOES BEFORE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER.
ALSO NOTING, THERE IS A LITTL
BIT OF A BUDGET THAT IS A
REDUCTION IN FUNDING, COMPARED
TO THE ENDORSED BUDGET, THAT
CONSIST OF $4.8 MILLION, AND
THEN $2.3 MILLION IN
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING FROM THE
GENERAL FUND, THAT IS REVENUE
SUPPORTED. THE TOTAL REDUCTION,
IT IS $7 MILLION. ARE THERE
ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
SUMMARY INFORMATION? AND IF
NOT, WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT
SLIDE , THE 2024 PROPOSED BUDGE
INCLUDES A TRANSFER OF $916,000
OF JUMPSTART FUNDING TO THE
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO
SUPPORT THE CAUSE FOR RELOCATIN
ROSIE'S TINY HOME VILLAGE, TO
TRACT WHERE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WILL BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTUR
TO ANOTHER LOCATION. THIS
PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WIT
EXISTING JUMPSTART FUNDING
POLICIES, WHICH DICTATES THAT
FUNDING IS TO BE USED FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OR ACQUISITION OF
HOUSING SERVING PEOPLE UNDER 30
OF AMI. AS IT RELATES TO THE
PROPOSED EXPENDITURE, THE OPTIO
IS $916,000 FROM INDUSTRY TO
O.H.. FROM JUMPSTART TO GENERA
FUND, TO ALLOW THE JUMPSTART
FUNDED PROGRAMS, THAT WOULD
REQUIRE ANOTHER CUT TO SUPPORT
THIS PROPOSED EXPENDITURE. AND
THE FINAL OPTION HAS NO
CHANGES. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
THIS ISSUE OR OPTION?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN, I WILL
GET TO YOU IN JUST ONE SECOND.
WANTED TO JUST ECHO MY
APPRECIATION AND THE NEED TO
SUPPORT THE RELOCATION OF
ROSIE'S VILLAGE, TO MAKE WAY
FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN THE
COMING YEARS. MY TEAM HAS BEEN
IN TOUCH WITH THE FOLKS FROM
SOUND TRANSIT ABOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF EXTENDING THE
TIMELINE ASSUMED IN THE BUDGET
IF ACTION IS NOT NEEDED TO MOV
THE TINY HOUSE VILLAGE. AND WE
HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME TO KEEP TH
TINY HOUSE VILLAGE THERE IN
ANTICIPATION OF THE FUNDING
COMING. IT SEEMS LIKE A WIN-WIN
NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE
RIGHT NOW TO MOVE THOSE FOLKS.
THEY WILL STAY THERE, INTO THE
PROJECT IS ABOUT TO BE COMPLETE
AND WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION ABOUT POSSIBLY
EXTENDING THE TIMELINE FOR THE
TINY HOUSE VILLAGE , TO RELOCAT
IT, PENDING ANY ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION WE CAN GET PRIOR TO
THE CONCLUSION BECAUSE WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY PROJECT
AWARDED AND ANY WORK THAT IS
NEEDED FOR THE SITE CAN CONTINU
BUT WE WILL TRY TO KEEP THAT
VILLAGE AS LONG AS WE CAN, AND
THAT WILL ALSO DELAY THE NEED
FOR RELOCATION AS LONG AS WE CA
GET ASSURANCES THAT THE
TIMELINE WORKS OUT FOR FUTURE
CONSTRUCTION. I WANTED TO FLAG
OUR SUPPORT , OBVIOUSLY, OF
CREATING NEW PERMANENT HOUSING
THAT WILL GO ON-SITE. BUT THE
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WE ARE
HAVING WITH SOUND TRANSIT ABOUT
EXPANDING THE TIMELINE, SO THAT
WE DO NOT NEED TO MOVE FOLKS
NECESSARILY AS FAST, AND THAT
WILL BE FANTASTIC.
>> IF I CAN ADD ON, SOUND
TRANSIT INDICATED THAT THEY
WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY WILLING TO
HAVE ONGOING CONVERSATIONS ABOU
THAT BUT NOT ABLE TO MAKE A
DECISION UNTIL THEY SELECTED TH
ACTUAL DEVELOPER. AND THAT
ACTUALLY WILL NOT HAPPEN UNTIL
JANUARY. THEY HAVE ISSUED THE
ARP, THEY DID THAT ON THE 29th
OF SEPTEMBER, BUT THEY ARE NOT
SELECTING AND DEVELOPING HER
UNTIL THE FIRST OF JANUARY. THE
WOULD BE HESITANT TO MAKE ANY
DECISIONS ABOUT EXTENDING THE
TINY HOME VILLAGE, UNTIL THEY
HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE
TIMELINE, FOR CLEANING UP , AS
YOU SAID, THAT CITED
>> THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT
INFORMATION BUT I THINK THE
POINT THAT YOU RAISED ABOUT
IDENTIFICATION IS STILL VALID.
THIS IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE USE
FOR JUMPSTART AFFORDABLE HOUSIN
DOLLARS. AND, WE WANT TO, OF
COURSE, SUPPORT THE EFFORTS
NECESSARY TO MOVE, IF THE
TIMELINE CANNOT BE ALIGNED
BEFORE THE BUDGET CONCLUDES.
BUT THANK YOU FOR FLAGGING THAT
THIS IS NOT A CODIFIED USE.
COUNCILMEMBER ALEX PEDERSEN?
>> THANK YOU. JUST TO REMIND TH
COUNCIL , ALL THE GOOD WORK THA
THEY DID ON THIS PROJECT. IN
2020, DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE
PANDEMIC, MY OFFICE IDENTIFIED
THE SITE AND LED EFFORTS TO
SECURE THE CAPITAL FUNDING FOR
THIS NEW TINY HOME VILLAGE. YOU
KNOW? MY NUMBER ONE GOAL , AS
A DISTRICT COUNCILMEMBER, IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE AT THE
TINY HOME VILLAGE, IN THE HEART
OF THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT IS
TAKEN CARE OF. BUT, IT IS A
COMPLICATED ISSUE WITH MULTIPLE
AGENCIES. IN 2021, THERE WAS A
LEGAL LOGJAM WITH A LEASE. WE
HAD TO BREAK THAT. THERE WERE
SEVERAL AGENCIES, O.H., SOUND
TRANSIT, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. WE WERE ABLE TO
CELEBRATE THE OPENING OF THE
TINY HOME VILLAGE IN 2021. I
WANT TO THANK OUR COUNCIL
PRESIDENT FOR HER LONG-STANDING
SERVICE ON THE BOARD OF TRANSIT
AND ALSO THE WORK TO MAKE
THIS POSSIBLE, AND THE VILLAGE
AS BEEN HOME TO MORE THAN 35
PEOPLE. ON SEPTEMBER 9th, THE
COUNCIL RECONFIGURED THE
ALLEYWAY TO PAVE THE WAY FOR
LARGER HOUSING PROJECTS AT THE
SITE, CENTRALLY LOCATED. IT WIL
BECOME A PERMANENT HOME FOR AT
LEAST FIVE TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AS AR
ON THE SITE RIGHT NOW. AS WAS
SAID TO STAFF, AN UPDATED MEMO
SEPTEMBER 29th, THE CITY OFFICE
OF HOUSING ISSUED A REQUEST FO
NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS FOR THIS
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. M
NUMBER ONE GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT EVERYONE IS TAKEN CARE OF.
THE BUDGET ACCOMPLISHES THIS
GOAL, DUE TO THE COMPLEX
INTERPLAY BETWEEN THOSE
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT
AND ALL THEIR ATTORNEYS, THE
MONTHS THAT IT TOOK TOGETHER ,
TO PUT TOGETHER THAT LEASE.
WHAT IS PROPOSED IS MOST LIKELY
THE PRUDENT COURSE. THEY HAVE
GENEROUSLY TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE WELL COORDINATED AND
ULTIMATELY SUCCESSFUL TRANSITIO
TO PEOPLE LIVING THERE. I AM A
LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT
SECOND-GUESSING, TINKERING, WIT
THE PROPOSAL, QUIBBLING WITH TH
MONEY COULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIV
, I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYBODY
WANTS TO DO THAT. I WANT TO
ENCOURAGE CAUTION ON THIS.
MAYBE THIS IS A SUPPLEMENTAL
SITUATION FOR NEXT YEAR, WHEN
THERE WAS MORE INFORMATION
AVAILABLE FROM ALL PARTIES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU , COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, I NOTED
THAT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS
IDENTIFIED BOTH IN THE O.H.
PRESENTATION , AND I WOULD JUST
LIKE TO HAVE, I WOULD LIKE TO
NOTE THAT OPTION A IS THE SAME
IN BOTH. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO
UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT A LITTLE
BIT MORE. AND ALSO, IN THE HST,
THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION PROPOSE
, THAT IS A SLOT ENCOURAGING
SOME NEGOTIATION BETWEEN SOUND
TRANSIT ON THE , ON THE
DISCUSSIONS. AROUND , WHEN THEY
WILL NEED THE, THE PROPERTY.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU HAVE
ALREADY BEGUN THOSE DISCUSSIONS
MADAM CHAIR. WE WOULD LIKE TO
EXTEND THOSE LITTLE BIT MORE.
>> THESE ARE BUDGET ISSUES THAT
CUT ACROSS DIFFERENT
DEPARTMENTS. AS YOU KNOW,
COUNCILMEMBER , FRANKLY , THE
JUMPSTART OVERVIEW PAPER THAT
ALY PENNUCCI PRESENTED
YESTERDAY. WE HAVE TRIED TO KEE
THESE ISSUES SPECIFIC TO THE
DEPARTMENT AND FOCUSED ON WHAT
THOSE OPTIONS WERE. WHAT YOU
SEE REALLY RELATES TO THE
$916,000 AND THE APPROPRIATE OR
INAPPROPRIATE USAGE OF THE
JUMPSTART FUNDING FOR THAT
EXPENDITURE AND LOOKING AT THE
OPTION THAT BASICALLY EXTENDS
THAT. WE WILL MORE
FUNDAMENTALLY DEAL WITH THE
TIMING AND ANY QUESTIONS THAT G
ALONG WITH THE ISSUE OF TIMING.
THAT IS HOW WE APPROACH EAST.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON?
>> I WAS READING THE MEMO AND
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE
JUMPSTART POLICY FOR HOUSING.
THEY REQUIRE FUNDING TO BE USED
FOR, AND THAT IT TALKS ABOUT TH
HOUSING SERVICES. AND THEN IT
SAYS, OR THOSE UNDER 30% OF
AMI, WOULD THAT NOT QUALIFY?
>> NO, BECAUSE THE INTENT . IT
MAY NOT BE EXPLICIT, THOSE
HOUSING SERVICES ARE FOR
PERMANENT HOUSING, NOT FOR A
TINY HOME VILLAGE.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE
CLARIFICATION. WE OFTEN TALK
ABOUT THE SERVICES WITHIN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BEING THE
PERMIT-SUPPORTED HOUSING OR
REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES. SO,
AGAIN, I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE
ONCE AGAIN THAT THERE IS VERY
MUCH INTEREST IN MAKING SURE W
DO NOT DO ANYTHING THAT
COMPROMISES THE VILLAGE. THOUG
THE TIMELINE THAT HAS BEEN
EXPRESSED BY SOUND TRANSIT , I
DOES NOT ALIGN EXACTLY WITH TH
EXISTING PROPOSED BUDGET. BU
I THINK IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR US TO CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSION BECAUSE THE
CONVERSATIONS WE HAD , THEY ARE
CLEAR THAT SOUND TRANSIT HAS
EXPRESSED AN OPENNESS. THAT IS
GOOD NEWS. MORE CONVERSATIONS T
COME. IF THAT TIMELINE CAN BE
EXPEDITED, OF COURSE, THAT WOUL
BE GREAT. IF THERE IS ANY WIGGL
ROOM, I THINK THERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE THE
OVERALL COST NEEDS FOR 2024 AS
WE LOOK AT EVERY DOLLAR NEEDED
IN ORDER TO PUT FUNDING DIRECTL
INTO THE COMMUNITY IN 2024.
DIRECTOR, DID YOU HAVE A
CLARIFICATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO
OFFER?
>> GOOD MORNING ,
COUNCILMEMBERS. DIRECTOR OF TH
CITY BUDGET OFFICE, JULIE
DINGLEY. I WANTED TO JUMP IN AN
CLARIFY, THAT THE EXECUTIVE'S
PERSPECTIVE ON THIS IS QUITE
CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH WHAT I HEA
BEING ARTICULATED HERE, IN THAT
WE HAVE THE SHARED INTEREST OF
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE CARING
FOR THOSE CURRENTLY ON THE SITE
IN ORDER TO GET THE SITE READY
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE HAVE
TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NOT
CURRENTLY A TINY HOME VILLAGE
THERE. THERE ARE THREE
DIMENSIONAL ITEMS. I AM NOT TH
EXPERT ON WHAT IT TAKES TO GET
THE SITE READY. BUT THAT WAS TH
SPIRIT WE WERE APPROACHING IT,
UNDERSTAND, WE ARE NOT IN
ALIGNMENT. WITH THAT
DEFINITION. BUT FOR THE RECORD,
I WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE
EXECUTIVE'S PERSPECTIVE ON THAT
I DO NOT KNOW IF THE DIRECTOR
WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING.
MAYBE I HAVE BEEN SPOKEN,
DIRECTOR. BUT THAT WAS A LITTLE
BIT OF POWER PERSPECTIVE.
>> HELLO, DIRECTOR JULIE
DINGLEY. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE
CASE, WE CANNOT BUILD ON THE
SITE , UNTIL WE SCOPE THE SITE
PERSPECTIVE . WE HAVE TO HAVE A
DEVELOPER AT THE SITE . THAT
WOULD MAKE SENSE FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE.
>> AGAIN, I DO NOT WANT TO
DEBATE THIS ANY FURTHER. BUT A
WE GOT THE BREAKDOWN OF WHAT TH
FUNDING WOULD BE USED FOR, THIS
IS PREDOMINANTLY ABOUT SETTING
NEW SITE UP FOR TRANSITIONAL
OPERATIONAL FUNDING, I THINK
$80,000 WAS ABOUT A DEMO FOR
WHAT IS ON THE SITE. I QUARREL
WITH THE IDEA THAT THIS IS WHA
THE EXECUTIVES HAVE BEEN GIVEN,
AS FAR AS THE SPECIFIC USES FOR
THOSE FUNDS. SO, I WILL SAY NO
MORE ABOUT THAT.
>> YOU ARE WELCOME TO SAY THAT.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
CENTRAL STAFF TO WEIGH IN. I
DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT A
DISCUSSION ALL DAY LONG THAT
TRIES TO REDEFINE, OVER AND
OVER, WHAT QUALIFIES WITHIN
CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF FUNDING
SOURCES. AND I THINK THAT THE
JOINT INTERESTS ARE THERE ,
ENVIRONMENTAL WORK NEEDED ON TH
SITE. THAT IS NOT IN QUESTION.
PREDEVELOPMENT WORK , WHAT IT
IS, AND WHAT THE TIMELINE WOULD
BE TO ENSURE THAT IT WOULD BE
READY FOR THE TIMELINE LATER.
THAT IS NOT TRADITIONALLY
CLASSIFIED AS PREDEVELOPMENT
WORK AS DEFINED IN THE STATUTE
. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, DO YO
HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION ?
>> YES, MAYBE IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO KNOW WHAT THE
$916,000 WOULD EVEN BE USED FOR
WE ARE THROWING A WORD AROUND
LIKE PREDEVELOPMENT. OFF-LINE ,
HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT
NUMBER, AND WHAT DOES IT PAY
FOR? THAT MIGHT HELP CLARIFY
THAT DIRECTION.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.
>> IF THERE ARE NO MORE
QUESTIONS, WE CAN MOVE TO THE
NEXT SLIDE.
>> SORRY, I HAVE A QUICK
QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR. MAYBE IT
IS DISCUSSED AT SOME POINT ,
YOU KNOW, THE INTENT OF
JUMPSTART I FEEL IT WILL BE A
PERENNIAL ISSUE. WE ARE GOING T
KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS. THE
INTENT OF JUMPSTART,
PREDEVELOPMENT, I MEAN -- I
KNOW THAT WE CANNOT ABSOLUTELY
ANSWER IT TODAY. BUT I HAVE A
FEELING THAT THIS IS GOING TO
KEEP COMING BACK, UNLESS WE ARE
VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THAT
MEANS. I KNOW YOUR POSITION,
COUNCILMEMBER MOSQUEDA, I GET
ALL OF THAT. BUT NOW WE ARE
HAVING THIS, WE WERE NOT
PREPARED FOR SOME OF THESE
DISCUSSIONS. AS YOU KNOW, AND I
AGREED, WE NOW HAVE THE SAME
SYSTEM . ONE THAT WE WERE NOT
ANTICIPATING. SO I AM HOPING
THAT SOME OF THESE, WE CAN HAVE
SOME CONSENSUS ON SOME OF THAT
BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOING TO GO
AWAY. JUST GOING THROUGH EACH
ISSUE THAT WE KEEP GOING BACK
TO, IT IS GOING TO BE
SUBJECTIVE, ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY
IS JUMPSTART SUPPOSED TO BE
PAYING FOR BESIDES THE ISSUES W
HAVE OUTLINED AND THEN SOME OF
THE ADJACENT ISSUES. I THINK
THAT IS IMPORTANT, SO THAT WE D
NOT GET BOGGED DOWN. I DO NOT
WANT TO BE NEGATIVE OR POINT
ANGERS I AM KIND OF JUST
SUPPORTING THE OBVIOUS.
>> THANK YOU, I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION. I
IS NOT UP TO MY SUBJECTIVE
ANALYSIS. IT IS CODIFIED IN
VARIOUS PLACES. AND I SEE,
TRACI RATZLIFF HAS WORKED ON TH
ISSUE OF PREDEVELOPMENT FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS, MAYBE YOU CAN
TALK ABOUT THIS.
>> THE JUMPSTART PLANNING
POLICIES DO SAY THAT THE
POLICIES OVERALL, THAT RESIDE I
THE FUNDING POLICIES MAY END
UP DRAWING THE OVERALL USAGE OF
FUNDS. BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE
AND OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE
ARISEN, I HAVE HAD CONVERSATION
WITH THE OFFICE OF HOUSING. THE
ARE TRYING TO BETTER DEFINE IN
THE POLICIES, AND I DO THINK
THAT THEY WILL SUGGEST ANOTHER
ROUTE, SPECIFIC TO THE JUMPSTAR
POLICIES. AND I WOULD LET HIM
SPEAK TO THAT. BUT I WANT TO LE
YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE HAD
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE NEED FO
A BETTER DEFINITION OF
PREDEVELOPMENT, EXPLICITLY, IN
OUR POLICY.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD,
BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A BREAKDOWN
OF SPECIFIC SPENDING, THAT YOU
SHARE ADDITIONAL DETAIL, YOU
COULD HIGHLIGHT WHICH OF THOSE
COSTS HAVE BEEN
PREDEVELOPMENT, AND WHICH ONES
ARE THE ACTUAL TINY HOME
VILLAGE , SO THEY UNDERSTAND
WHY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS
PROPOSAL, THAT MOST OF IT IS
NOT MEETING, AS WE UNDERSTAND,
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PREDEVELOPMENT PROCESS,
HISTORICALLY. SO THAT WE
UNDERSTAND THAT. WE WILL PROVID
THAT ADDITIONAL DETAIL.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> OF COURSE.
>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER
QUESTIONS, WE CAN MOVE ON TO TH
BUDGET ISSUE, THERE IS A VERY
ONE THAT I STARTED THE
PRESENTATION ABOUT, WHICH IS T
NOTE THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
REDUCTIONS OF $3.7 MILLION OF
JUMPSTART, AND $2.3 MILLION
SUPPORTED , THESE ARE IN
ADDITION AGAIN, TO THE $916,000
THAT WOULD BE TRANSFERRED. THIS
PROPOSAL RESULT IN THE
MULTI-FOUNDING , A PROGRAM THAT
FUNDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF
LOW-INCOME HOUSING. AND ALLIE
DISCUSSED WITH YOU YESTERDAY, S
OFTEN AS IT RESULTS TO THIS,
AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE
SEEN A REDUCTION. I CAN ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE
ABOUT THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I MENTIONED YESTERDAY, I
WOULD HOLD SOME OF MY COMMENTS
AS WE WENT THROUGH SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED. I WILL ADD A LITTLE
ADDITIONAL CONTEXT FOR THE
QUESTION THAT I HAVE. I GUESS,
THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I HAVE,
DOES THE COMBINATION OF
REDUCING OFFICE OF HOUSING AND
JUMPSTART FUNDING, AND REDUCIN
JUMPSTART-FUNDED ADMINISTRATIV
DOLLARS EQUAL $6 MILLION IN
REDUCTIONS , GOING INTO THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING?
>> YES, ABOUT THAT APPROXIMAT
$7 MILLION REDUCTION OVERALL,
YEAH.
>> WITH THE REDUCTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DOLLARS, HOW WIL
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING FUND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ?
>> THE OFFICE OF HOUSING HAS
DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB, WITH
THE LEVY BEING IN FRONT OF US,
AS WELL AS THE ONGOING FUNDING,
WITH THE DIFFERENT FUNDING
SOURCES, WHAT PERCENTAGE THEY
WILL CONTRIBUTE, IN TERMS OF
CAPITAL, AND EACH FUNDING
SOURCE NEEDS TO SHIFT TO GIVE
THE PROPORTIONATE COST. THE
LEVY NEEDS TO BE, I COULD BE
CORRECTED ON THIS, BUT ANYWAY.
NOW, WHAT THEY ARE SAYING,
BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUPPORT FROM
2020 , THEY ARE SAYING , O.H.,
YOU NEED TO USE THE EXISTING
PROGRAM TO COVER THOSE
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS . WHAT THA
HAS MEANT FOR THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING, THEY HAVE HAD A TAKE
SOME EXISTING FUNDING FROM THE
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM.
THEY APPLY IT TO THE JUMPS ARE
PROGRAM, SO IT HAS RESULTED IN
A NET REDUCTION OF THE CAPITAL
AVAILABLE .
>> WE LOST YOU AT THE END , BUT
IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS WILL HAVE A
IMPACT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
NOW, THAT I SEE YOUR HAND GO
UP?
>> THANK YOU , TRACI RATZLIFF
DID A GREAT JOB OF EXPLAINING
THE CAPITAL SIDE OF THIS. BUT I
WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, THI
PROPOSAL IS NOT CUTTING
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING TO DO
THESE PROGRAMS , THE WAY THAT
WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE, TREATIN
THEM LIKE ALL OF THE OTHER
PROGRAMS IN JUMPSTART , THAT
SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS FROM THE
JUMP AND ARE NOW NECESSARY.
THIS IS A CONNECTION THAT WE AR
CROSSING THE APPROPRIATE AREA,
BUT THE ACTUAL DOLLARS ARE NOT
BEING REDUCED. I WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT THAT PEACE WAS CLEAR.
>> I AM NOT SURE WHAT TO DO
HERE. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THAT ,
IT SOUNDS LIKE. AGAIN, THIS IS
NOT A DEBATE THAT WE ARE TRYIN
TO HAVE BETWEEN THESE BRANCHES
WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPAC
TO THE PROGRAM. TRACY, CAN YOU
OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION?
>> I KNOW THERE IS A BIGGER
CONVERSATION ABOUT THE
ALLOCATION OF JUMPSTART. I WILL
DEFER TO ALY TO TALK ABOUT
THAT. I CAN TELL YOU, THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2024
ENDORSED AND ADOPTED, O.H. IS
GETTING $2.3 MILLION LESS IN
JUMPSTART FUNDING THAT HAD BEEN
PROVIDED TO THEM IN 2022 FOR
ADMIN. THAT IS THE CASE. THEY
ARE HAVING TO COVER THE COST OF
THAT ADMIN WITH THE JUMPSTART
FUNDING MONEY. JULIE, YOU CAN
ARGUE WITH ME ALL DAY LONG, BUT
THAT IS THE NET RESULT.
>> WHAT I AM TRYING TO CORRECT
ON, THE TOTAL FOR ADMIN IS THE
SAME. FOR THE PROGRAM. FOR THE
PROGRAM, THE ADMIN BUCKET HAS
NOT CHANGED . WHAT I AM TRYING
TO ARTICULATE IS, WE HAD
PREVIOUSLY TRANSFERRED THAT TO
THE GENERAL FUND FOR
ADMINISTRATION, IT IS NO LONGER
COMING OUT OF THE ADMIN BUCKET.
THAT AMOUNT IS COMING OUT OF TH
O.H. BUDGET. SO THAT IS WHAT
WAS TRYING TO CORRECT.
>> I THINK WE MAY BE SAYING THE
SAME THING NOW.
>> IF I CAN CLARIFY, I THINK
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORIGINAL
SPENDING PLAN, THAT WAS
SUPPOSED TO COME OUT OF THE
ALLOCATION FOR JUMPSTART. AND
IT MIGHT'VE BEEN 2021 OR 2022
BUT THERE WAS A SPECIFIC
ORDINANCE ABOUT THE O.H. COST
APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL THAT
CAME OUT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
BUDGET, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
ENDORSED, 2024, IT WAS ASSUMED
THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
WERE COVERED FROM THE
ADMINISTRATIVE BUCKET. THE SHIF
IS REDUCING, OVERALL, THE MONEY
AVAILABLE TO GO OUT, TO GO TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING . INSTEAD, I
IS BEING USED FOR ADMIN. IT IS
OVERALL, A REDUCTION IN MONEY
AVAILABLE , TO BUILD AND
PROVIDE SERVICES FOR AFFORDABL
HOUSING.
>> YES. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT.
>> THANK YOU, ALY.
>> IS YOUR HAND UP?
>> I AM GOING TO CONTINUE WITH
MY LINE OF QUESTIONING FOR
CENTRAL STAFF. IT IS MY
UNDERSTANDING, 5%
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WERE
ALLOCATED TO ALL OF THE BUCKETS
COMING IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS O
JUMPSTART, THERE WAS GOOD OR
GREAT NEWS THAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS WERE
COMING IN MUCH LOWER, COMING IN
AROUND 2.5%, WE WERE ABLE TO
FREE UP THE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS
AND PUT IT IN TO BUILDING
ADDITIONAL HOUSING AND THE OTHE
ONES THAT WERE CLASSIFIED IN
THE ADMIN CATEGORY. THAT IS
CLEARLY NOT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF
US HERE TODAY. IS THERE A WAY
FOR US TO ARTICULATE, ONE MORE
TIME FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC, HO
THE CONFIGURATION HERE IS
RESULTING IN A REDUCTION OF
FUNDS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT
FUNDING, WITH THE TOTAL AMOUNT
THAT IS REFLECTED HERE?
>> THE TOTAL AMOUNT, INCLUDING
THE TRANSFER OF THE $916,000,
THE $3.7 MILLION IN THE
JUMPSTART REDUCTION, AND THE
$2.3 MILLION REDUCTION IN
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING, THE
TOTAL IS $7 MILLION IN
REDUCTION OF FUNDING TO O.H.,
COMPARED TO THE ENDORSED 2024
BUDGET. THAT $7 MILLION IS AL
GOING TO BE COMING OUT OF THE
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM,
THAT IS WHERE THE REDUCTION IS
TAKEN FROM HOUSING.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON,
QUESTION, PLEASE?
>> A QUESTION IN THE AMENDMENT
TO THE HOUSING LEVY. THAT WAS
ABOUT $15 MILLION IN
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS , THEY
DECIDED TO MOVE THAT OVER TO
SUPPORT PROJECTS THAT ARE
FACILITATED BY THE MONEY OF
JUMPSTART, FOR THE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE NOT IN
POSITION TO COMPETE FOR LARGER
GRANTS . SO, ISN'T THAT GOIN
TO BE PROVIDING A LOT OF OTHER
FUNDING?
>> I AM LOOKING PUZZLED. I
KNOW THAT IT HAPPENED JUST IN
APRIL.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKIN
ABOUT?
>> HONESTLY, NO.
>> OKAY, TO BE CONTINUED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, WE
WILL CIRCLE BACK AFTER THE
MEETING AND FIGURE OUT WHAT YO
ARE EVEN REFERRING TO.
>> WE WOULD LOVE THAT
CLARIFICATION, TOO. THERE IS
ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE HOUSING
LEVY. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS
DURING THE PASSAGE OF THE
HOUSING LEVY. THE WAY THE
JUMPSTART FUNDS WERE BEING
PARALLEL , THAT IS NOT THE BEST
WORD. THE WAY THEY WERE BEING
COMBINED, OR PUT TOGETHER. YOU
KNOW, COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
AND WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO MOR
CREATION OF UNITS, ESPECIALLY
THREE AND FOUR BEDROOMS , AND
THE WORKERS INSIDE, TO PROVIDE
SERVICES, AND IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL TO ANTICIPATE HAVING
THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW. I
WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING
MORE ABOUT ANY IMPACT ON THE
ASSUMED PRODUCTION AND THE
ASSUMED WORK HOURS THAT WE WERE
PLANNING FOR, WITH THE PLURAL
INVESTMENTS. IS THERE AN OVERAL
IMPACT ON THE HOUSING LEVY?
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION
FOR YOU NOW. THERE IS NOT. ETA
FIVE HAD DONE A CALCULATION
WHERE THEY EXPECTED THAT THE
JUMPSTART REVENUE WOULD BE LOWE
THAN WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY
GETTING IN THIS 2024 ENDORSED
BUDGET. BECAUSE THEY DID NOT
HAVE THAT HISTORY WITH THE
FUND, THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE
OVERLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT IT. SO,
THEY ARRIVED AT A CALCULATION
THAT WORKED ON THE OTHER
BUDGET.
>> GREAT. I DO NOT SEE ANY
ADDITIONAL HANDS. YESTERDAY, WE
TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO SHOW
HOW PUBLIC DOLLARS ARE BEING
USED AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT
MAINTAINING TRUST AND
ENGAGEMENT FROM THE COMMUNITY,
ESPECIALLY AS PEOPLE ARE BEING
ASKED TO SUPPORT THE LEVY. I
WANTED TO OFFER SOME EXAMPLES
OF PRODUCTION THAT WE HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO SEE WITH THE INVESTMENT
IN JUMPSTART, EVEN WHEN WE ARE
USING HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED
REVENUE. LAST YEAR, WE AUTHORIZ
THE NUMBER OF NEW POSITIONS AT
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND WE
APPRECIATE THE ENTIRE TEAM,
DIRECTOR MAIKO WINKLER-CHIN, T
GET THE ENTIRE FUNDING OUT THE
DOOR, WITH EFFORTS SUPPORTED
WITH ADMINISTRATIVE DOLLARS,
AND SUPPORTING THE TEAM MEMBER
AND THE TEAM , WE WERE ABLE T
DIRECTLY FUND MORE PROJECTS ,
FOR BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
WE WERE ABLE TO DIRECTLY
SUPPORT ACQUISITION
OPPORTUNITIES ON THE TABLE TO
SEE WHAT THEY COULD TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF. AND MY CONCERN,
OBVIOUSLY, IS THAT TAKING MONEY
OUT OF THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
WILL HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON OU
ABILITY TO DO THIS, GOING
FORWARD. WE NEED TO MAKE AS MAN
INVESTMENTS IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, ESPECIALLY MULTI
HOUSING CONSTRUCTION. MANY OF
THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BUDGET ANNOUNCEMENT,
THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE PRESS
RELEASE, AND IN THE SPEECH, ARE
REALLY EXCITING AND I AM GLAD
THEY GOT SOME AIR TIME. AND THA
WAS INCLUDING LARGE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INVESTMENTS, INVESTMEN
IN ELECTRIFICATION, AND
WORKFORCE STABILIZATION EFFORTS
THAT IS ALL SUPPORTIVE OF OUR
OVERALL VISIONS AND GOALS. I A
EXCITED THAT WE HAVE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO HIGHLIGHT THE
INVESTMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN
PAST BUDGETS AND THE INVESTMENT
TO MAKE IN THIS BUDGET. THE
CONCERN THAT I HAVE AROUND
REDUCING THE MULTIFAMILY
INVESTMENTS, TO THE TUNE OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND SO I
TERMS OF THE IMPACT, PROOF OF
THE PUDDING , I DON'T KNOW
REALLY WHAT THE SAYING IS, THE
PROOF OF HOW THESE DOLLARS ARE
MAKING AN IMPACT IN THE
COMMUNITY, 2022-2023, THERE WER
OVER 20 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROJECTS THAT HAD BEEN FUNDED
WITH JUMPSTART. AND THAT IS
BEFORE MORE AWARDS WERE MADE.
THANK YOU TO THE DIRECTOR,
JULIE DINGLEY, AND THE RELEASE
OF THE ON HOLD FOR
JUMPSTART, THEY WERE ABLE TO AD
$9 MILLION BACK IN . AND FUND
THE FULL AMOUNT THAT WE HAD ALL
HOPED FOR. THAT IS GREAT NEWS.
THE AMAZING COMMUNITY,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS,
LIKE EL CENTRO, THE COLUMBIA
CITY PROJECT, YOU CAN SEE THESE
UNDERDEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW.
STEAMERS , BEACON HILL HOUSING
THESE ARE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
AND SERVICES LIKE CHILDCARE .
AND SMALL BUSINESS
OPPORTUNITIES, SENIOR SERVICES,
THERE ARE MORE FUNDING FOR
INITIATIVE DOLLARS. THIS CAN B
THE SOMALI HEALTH BOARD , THE
LIBRARY, AND ROCKSTAR FARMERS
AND SO MANY MORE. I AM EXCITED
THAT THESE ARE MOVING FORWARD
AND THEY ARE CREATING GREATER
COMMUNITY COHESION AND THEY LIF
UP COMMUNITY ENTREPRENEURIAL
OPPORTUNITIES BY SUPPORTING
BUSINESS SPACE AND
COMMUNITY-DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT.
ALL OF THIS, HOUSING
DISPLACEMENT AND ECONOMIC
DISPLACEMENT, THIS HELPS US
CREATE GREATER PRIDE AND
EQUITABLE RECOVERY IN OUR
COMMUNITY IN THE WAKE OF
COVID-19. THIS IS PART OF HOW W
DO THAT. THANK YOU FOR HELPING
US UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT HERE.
AM VERY EXCITED THAT WE HAVE
TANGIBLE WAYS TO SHOW THE
TANGIBLE DOLLARS BEING PUT TO
USE. I SEE COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN'S HAND RAISED. WE NEE
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN MEASUR
THE IMPACT, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDERSEN, YOUR HAND RAISED ,
JUST AT THE POINT WHERE I WAS
SAYING THAT WE COULD SEE THOSE
DOLLARS GOING PLACES IN THE
COMMUNITY. WE ARE HEARING A
QUESTION , WE WERE GETTING ONE
EARLIER. THE RESIDENTIAL
SERVICES, THE PERMANENT
SUPPORT, SERVICE DOLLARS FOR
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THESE
BUILDINGS, RIGHT ? IT IS NOT
JUST ABOUT BUILDING THE UNITS,
IT IS ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT TH
WORKERS INSIDE THESE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS HAVE A
STAFF, SO THAT THEY CAN SERVE
THE NEIGHBORS. AND THEY HAVE
REPORTED HOW THE PERMANENT
DOLLARS HAVE CREATED MORE
STABILITY. WE WILL TALK MORE
ABOUT THAT ON MONDAY. I SEE TWO
HANDS, LET ME CALL ON CENTRAL
STAFF, TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY
VERIFICATION. AND THEN I WILL
CALL ON COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN
>> GOING BACK TO COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON'S QUESTION, MY CO-TEA
MEMBER ON THE LEVY, THERE WAS
IN FACT A PROVISION IN THE
HOUSING LEVY THAT SAID THAT ANY
INVESTMENT EARNINGS THAT ARE
GENERATED FROM THE VARIOUS
PROGRAMS, ACTUALLY, THE RENTAL
PROTECTION PROGRAM, WOULD
ACTUALLY BE A ALLOCATED FOR
DEVELOPMENT IN COMMUNITIES,
WHERE THERE ARE BARRIERS TO
ACCESSING THAT. WE DO NOT KNOW
HOW MUCH THAT WILL BE, IT COULD
BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
ESPECIALLY AS CAPITAL MONIES AR
ALLOCATED AND COMMITTED AND MAK
THEIR WAY OUT THE DOOR. BUT YOU
ARE CORRECT, COUNCILMEMBER
NELSON. I AM SORRY THAT I COULD
NOT REMEMBER THAT. THANK YOU
AGAIN FOR HELPING TO
>> AND THANK YOU, JENNIFER,
JEN LABRECQUE, AND NOW, OKAY,
COUNCILMEMBER PEDERSEN.
>> MY APOLOGIES, I DID NOT KNOW
THAT THIS WAS THE LAST SLIDE.
THOSE ARE ELOQUENT AND
COHERENT.
>> WE ARE MOVING TODAY!
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. I CONCUR
WITH A LOT OF WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING ABOUT THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING. THEY CREATE TANGIBLE
INVESTMENTS THAT WE CAN SEE IN
OUR COMMUNITIES , THAT ARE
HOUSING PEOPLE, WHICH IS ONE OF
THE MAJOR PRIORITIES . AND SO,
AN ISSUE THAT WAS NOT
IDENTIFIED, BECAUSE IT IS JUST,
YOU KNOW, THE UPDATE TO THE
ENDORSED BUDGET, I WANTED TO
FOLLOW UP ON QUESTIONS FROM
LAST YEAR, REGARDING ASSET
MANAGEMENT AT THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING. WE KNOW YOU HAVE A
PORTFOLIO, APPROXIMATELY
114,000 UNITS ACROSS THE CITY.
WE TALK ABOUT ANYTHING WE CAN D
AS A COUNCIL, TO HELP REDUCE
THE VACANCY RATE IN THOSE UNITS
, DO YOU NEED ADDITIONAL ASSETS
MANAGERS TO DO THAT? I JUST
WANTED TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, HOW
CAN WE HELP YOU GET THAT LOWER
>> I KNOW THAT OFFICE OF
HOUSING HAS DONE THE HARD WORK
ON THOSE QUESTIONS, FROM LAST
YEAR, I THINK , AS WELL. AND O
COURSE DIRECTOR MAIKO
WINKLER-CHIN, I KNOW YOU HAVE
DONE SOME ANALYSIS WITH YOUR
TEAM, IT IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATE
TO THE BUDGET, BUT YOU KNOW,
WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE
VACANCY RATE IS, AND IF I CAN
READ YOUR MIND A LITTLE BIT, YO
KNOW, YOU NEED ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES TO HELP FILL THOSE,
THAT IS A BIG OPPORTUNITY.
>> SHOULD I GO? I WILL GO. SO
COUNCILMEMBER , THANK YOU FOR
THAT QUESTION. IN THE BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS LAST YEAR, YOU
ADDED SOME STAFF TO THE
MANAGEMENT SIDE. AS WE ARE
GETTING READY TO HIRE FOR SOME
DATA ANALYTICS STAFF, WE HIRED
ONE. WE WILL BE HIRING ANOTHER.
WE WILL LOOK AT THAT, AS WELL A
LESSONS ABOUT THE OPERATIONS O
HOUSING, WHICH ARE VERY
IMPORTANT TO US. RIGHT NOW , WE
ARE GOING THROUGH A SERIES OF
CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR
INVESTEE'S , THE DATA THAT WE
NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE OUR
DECISIONS. AND I AM TRYING TO
PLAN FOR JUST THE INCREASE IN
INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT W
HAVE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS
VERY HISTORIC BUDGET PLANNING.
COMING UP TO THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU, I WILL FOLLOW UP
WITH STAFF, WITH SOME OTHER
RELATED QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, I
APPRECIATE IT.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING
ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
OKAY, SHORT BUT INTENSE . THANK
YOU SO MUCH, ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING BUDGET?
>> THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I AM
GOING TO WRITE IT DOWN.
>> IT IS LIKE A BEE IN THE
BONNET, MAYBE IT IS A CULTURAL
THING. BUT I AM LEARNING.
>> I AM GOING TO USE STICKY
NOTES AND PUT THEM ON MY
COMPUTER, SO I DO NOT FORGET
THAT. WITH THAT, WITH THAT, I
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU, I KNOW
THAT THE DIRECTOR JULIE DINGLEY
WILL BE WITH US ALL DAY. AND
THANK YOU, OFFICE OF HOUSING, I
WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE
APPRECIATION FOR THE WORK WE AR
DOING. OBVIOUSLY, MUCH MORE TO
COME, IN TERMS OF HOW WE CAN
SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS TO GET THE
FUNDING DIRECTLY OUT THE DOOR.
ONE THING THAT WE KNOW, THAT IS
MOST IMPORTANT , IN THE
COMMUNITY AND THE CREATION OF
THE JUMPSTART FUNDING AND THE
OFFICE OF HOUSING ADMINISTRATIO
AND FINANCE PLAN CHANGES OVER
THE YEARS, AND NOW, WITH THE
HOUSING LEVY, IT WILL BE IN
FRONT OF VOTERS IN NOVEMBER.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS MOST
EXCITING TO OUR COMMUNITY
MEMBERS IS TO HAVE THAT
SELF-DETERMINATION ENTITY ABLE
TO SEE HOUSING, THROUGH THE
VISION OF THE COMMUNITY THAT I
MOST OFTEN AT RISK OF
DISPLACEMENT AND TO BE ABLE TO
GIVE THEM THE GREEN LIGHT. THE
TEND TO NOT HAVE THE CITY BE TH
LENDER OF LAST RESORT, BUT OFTE
DO LENDER OF FIRST RESORT. AND
PROOF OF CONTACT, AS THEY GO TO
OTHER LENDERS, TO SHOW HOW
IMPORTANT IT IS. YOUR TEAM HAS
BEEN WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK,
LITERALLY, AROUND THE CLOCK
THROUGHOUT THE CALENDAR YEAR,
AND DEVELOPING THESE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING LEVEES , AND WE ARE
VERY HAPPY . THANK YOU, VERY
MUCH, DIRECTOR. ALL RIGHT. I
THINK WE ARE READY TO GO ON TO
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. MADAM
CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE READ
AGENDA ITEM 2 INTO THE RECORD?
>> ITEM NUMBER TWO, HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT , FOR
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JEN
LABRECQUE, WE WERE SINGING YOUR
PRAISES, ANN GORMAN, THEY ARE
HERE WITH US TO WALK US THROUGH
THE PRESENTATION. AS YOU SAW ,
WE HAVE THE DIRECTOR OF THE
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT AND
THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, IF NEEDED.
WELCOME TO THE DAIS. I WILL
TURN IT OVER TO CENTRAL STAFF
FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> GREAT. GOOD MORNING. I WILL
BE DOING THE FIRST SECTION OF
THE PRESENTATION AND THEN
HANDING IT OVER .
>> I'M SORRY, JENNIFER, I AM A
LITTLE RUSTY. OFFICE OF HOUSING
IS WITHIN MY COMMITTEE. I DID
NOT MAKE OPENING COMMENTS.
TRADITIONALLY, I OFFERED THE
CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, WITHIN
THEIR PURVIEW, A CHANCE TO MAKE
SOME COMMENTS, THINGS THEY ARE
LOOKING AT, THINGS THEY HAVE
SEEN, ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE
TO TALK ABOUT. AS COLLEAGUES, A
WE START TO OVERHEAR THE VIEW.
WILL TURN IT OVER TO VICE CHAIR
WHO HAS THEM WITHIN THE
PURVIEW. TO SEE IF THEY WOULD
LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, THAT OF,
DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN
PARTICULAR, OTHER THAN, EXCUSE
ME. THANKING THE EXECUTIVE AND
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR
THE EFFORT, AND ADDRESSING
THOSE ISSUES RAISED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL AND THE PASSAGE OF A
RECENT COUNCIL RESOLUTION,
UPLIFTING THE FINDINGS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL-FUNDED STUDY, TO
ADDRESS EQUITY ISSUES , IN THE
COUNCIL RESOLUTION. WE , WE AR
NOT MAKING A COMMITMENT TO ANY
PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF FUNDS ,
TO ADDRESS THE WAY EQUITY GAP.
BUT WE DID RECOGNIZE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY
THAT THE COUNCIL FUNDED , TO
WORK TO CLOSE WHAT IS CALLED TH
PAY PENALTY, SORT OF THE
INCREASE IN WAGES THAT THE
AVERAGE PERSON EXPERIENCES WHE
THEY LEAVE THE CARE FIELD , FO
ANOTHER, ANOTHER OCCUPATION.
AND THAT IS ABOUT 7% , THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY
WERE TO WORK TO CLOSE THAT PAY
PENALTY GAP. OVER TWO YEARS,
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN 3.5%
INCREASE , OVER -- IN 2024,
AND, AGAIN, IN 2025. REALLY
APPRECIATE THE EXECUTIVE IN TH
MAYOR'S OFFICE, AND HSD,
WORKING WITH US. SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE THAT TH
COUNCIL HAS RAISED. AND
PROVIDER PARTNERS HAVE RAISED ,
IN PROPOSING A 2% INCREASE.
THAT IS REALLY MY PRIMARY
PRIORITY THIS BUDGET CYCLE. AN
IT IS JUST REALLY GOOD TO SEE
IT. IT IS A GOOD STEP FORWARD
ADDRESSING IT IN THE PROPOSED
BUDGET. THANK YOU.
>> INC. YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.
AND COLLEAGUES, PLEASE CONSIDE
COMING IF YOU HAVE THE
DEPARTMENTS WITHIN YOUR
COMMITTEE, WE WOULD LIKE TO
HEAR FROM YOU BEFORE WE TURN IT
OVER TO THE DEPARTMENT AS WE GO
FORWARD TO THE NEXT DAY AND A
HALF. ALL RIGHT , JENNIFER,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> NO WORRIES. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE? ALL RIGHT . SO, THE
2024 PROPOSED BUDGET ADJUSTMEN
FOR THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, WHICH I WILL REFER
TO HSD FROM HERE ON IN, IS
HIGHER THAN THE 2024 POST BUDGE
BY ABOUT 4.7%, AND THAT
INCREASE IS LARGELY DUE TO THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS, $2.6 MILLION
FOR CONTRACT INFLATION, BECAUSE
ACTUAL INFLATION WAS HIGHER
THAN PROJECTED INFLATION IN TH
PROPOSED BUDGET. AS WELL AS
INFLATION FOR CONTRACTS THAT
WERE ADDED IN 2023. JUST AS
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD
MENTIONED, THE INCREASE FOR THE
CONTRACTS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCREASING HUMAN RESOURCES
PROVIDER PAY, $1.9 MILLION, FO
THE CONTINUATION OF THE 3rd
AVENUE PROJECT AT ITS CURRENT
SERVICE LEVEL. 2 POINT MILLION
DOLLARS IN OPIOID SETTLEMENT
DOLLARS, $960 MILLION FOR THE
RELOCATION OF ROSIE'S VILLAGE,
WHICH WE ALREADY DISCUSSED. AND
$123,000 IN FUNDING FOR THE
PREVIOUS GRANT APPLICANT THAT
WAS PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED. ANY
QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION AND.
>> YES, VICE PRESIDENT.
>> IT MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE O
MY SIDE. IT IS NOT $1.9 MILLIO
IN THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT, IT IS
$2.2 MILLION? IS THAT WHAT YOU
SAID? $2.2 MILLION?
>> I DID SAY $2.2 MILLION. DO
YOU HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF
YOUR HEAD? WOULD YOU LIKE TO
BURN?
>> I HAVE $1.9 MILLION.
>> GOOD MORNING, THERE IS A
TOTAL OF $2.2 MILLION PROGRAM
IN THE 2024 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS.
THAT INCLUDES SOME REVENUE THAT
WAS RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY AND WAS
NOT SPENT.
>> OKAY, SO IT IS $2.2 MILLION,
NOT $1.9 MILLION ?
>> YES.
>> WHAT WAS THE NUMBER YOU SAID
BEFORE 2.2?
>> THERE IS $1.9 MILLION FOR
THE 3rd AVENUE PROJECT.
>> THAT IS WHEN I GOT IT MIXED
UP WITH. I APOLOGIZE BUT THAT I
ON MY PART. I'M SORRY, THAT WAS
THE $1.9 MILLION FOR 3rd AVENUE
>> THAT IS RIGHT.
>> I HAD MY NUMBER SLIPPED,
SORRY, THANK YOU.
>> NO PROBLEM.
>> I THINK I AM SAYING NODDING
FROM THE MEMBERS, WE ARE ALL
CLEAR ON THE NUMBERS NOW. ALL
RIGHT
>> NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO,
BEFORE I START TALKING ABOUT
ISSUES AND OPTIONS, I DID JUST
WANT TO PROVIDE A COUPLE OF
MINUTES OF BACKGROUND ABOUT
HUMAN SERVICES CONTRACTS,
INCLUDING THOSE INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENTS AND SOME BACKGROUND
ON WEIGHT EQUITY. I THINK THAT
WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR INFORMING
THE CONVERSATION, FOR THE NEXT
COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT WE TALK
ABOUT, AS A REMINDER. THE CITY
IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS TO
HUMAN SERVICES CONTRACTS
ADMINISTERED BY THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT. AND THAT
ADJUSTMENT MUST BE EQUAL TO THE
GROWTH IN THE CONSUMER PRICE
INDEX URBAN EARNERS AND
CLERICAL WORKERS INDEX, CPI W
FOR SURE, THE INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT PROVIDED IN THE 2023
BUDGET WAS 6%, 7.6%, AS A
REMINDER . THE INITIAL BUDGET I
2023, THE PROPOSED BUDGET IN
2023, HAD A PROPOSED 4%, BUT
COUNCIL HAD REJECTED THAT
PROPOSAL AND PROVIDED THE FULL
AMOUNT FOR THE INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT. THAT HISTORY WILL B
IMPORTANT AS WE TALK ABOUT THE
COMPLEXITY OF THE CONTINUUM OF
CARE, INFLATIONARY INCREASES, I
A COUPLE OF SLIDES. THE 2024
ENDORSED BUDGET, UTILIZED A
PROJECT IN VERY INFLATIONARY
RATE OF 6.7%, HOWEVER, ACTUAL
INFLATION WAS HIGHER AT 7.5%.
THAT IS PART OF WHY THE PROPOSE
BUDGET HAS AN INCREASE, TO
COVER THAT DISTANCE BETWEEN WHA
WAS PROJECTED AND WHAT THE
ACTUAL INFLATION WAS. AS NOTED
IN THE PRIOR SLIDE, SORRY ABOUT
THAT. SO NOW, I JUST WANT TO
PROVIDE THAT BACKGROUND ON THE
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT AND
THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO THE
SLIDE, AS WE TALK ABOUT A COUPL
OF ISSUES. I THINK THE CONTRACT
IS HELPFUL. I WANTED TO TOUCH
BRIEFLY ON SOME BACKGROUND AS
WELL , RELATED TO WEIGHT EQUITY
IN JUNE, 2023, WHICH CEDED,
7% INCREASE, BY THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT BY 2025.
THAT IS MEASURABLE SUCCESS , AN
THAT IS IN THE FEBRUARY, 2023
STUDY PUBLISHED BY THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL
OF SOCIAL WORK, WHICH FOUND A
37% WAGE GAP BETWEEN NONPROFIT
AND HUMAN SERVICES WORKERS AND
WORKERS IN OTHER INDUSTRIES,
DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT HUMAN
RESOURCES WORK IS NOT EASIER,
LESS SKILLED, OR LESS DEMANDING
THAN OTHER JOBS. ANY QUESTIONS?
SEEING NO, I WILL MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THE FIRST
PROPOSAL IS FOR WEIGHT EQUITY,
AND IT INCLUDES $4.6 MILLION O
JUMPSTART PAYROLL TAX REVENUE
TO PROVIDE A 2% INCREASE TO
CONTRACTS ADMINISTERED BY THRE
DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, THE HUMA
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, THE
DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIOR, AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF EARLY LEARNING.
THE BULK OF THAT AMOUNT IS FOR
THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
4.2 MILLION OUT OF THE $4.6
MILLION, SO, IN TERMS OF WHO IS
COVERED BY THIS PAY, ANY
ADMINISTERED CONTRACT RECEIVING
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS UNDER
SECTION 3.60 OF THE SEATTLE
MUNICIPAL CODE IS ALSO RECEIVIN
THE PROVIDER PAY INCREASE OF
2%. THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE FUNDIN
PROVIDED BY THE KING COUNTY
REGIONAL HOMELESS AUTHORITY,
THROUGH HSD, IT DOES NOT
INCLUDE CONTINUOUS CARE
CONTRACTS, NO LONGER
ADMINISTERED BY THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT, WHICH WE
WILL TALK ABOUT IN THE NEXT
SLIDE. I WANT TO NOTE THAT A
PROVIDER PAY INCREASE INCLUDES
AN ONGOING OBLIGATION FOR THE
CITY. PROVIDERS WILL RELY ON
CONTINUING ANNUAL FUNDING TO BE
ABLE TO MAINTAIN PAY INCREASES
THEY HAVE GIVEN STAFF. IF A
PROVIDER INCREASES PAY 2% IN
2024, THEY WILL WANT TO BE ABLE
TO MAINTAIN THAT INCREASE IN
ONGOING YEARS AND NOT HAVE TO
INCREASE THAT PERSON'S SALARY.
CURRENTLY, THE 2% PROVIDER PAY
INCREASE IN ALL THREE APARTMENT
IS FUNDED WITH A ONE-TIME
RESOURCE, CREATING A MISMATCH
BETWEEN AN ONGOING OBLIGATION
AND A ONE-TIME SOURCE OF FUNDS.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, DO YOU
WANT ME TO PAUSE ? OKAY. SO,
THERE ARE CURRENTLY SEVERAL
OPTIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR
ISSUE. MY APOLOGIES, OPTION A I
AN ERROR. OPTION A SHOULD BE,
CONFIRM THE COUNCIL INTENT, IT
SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED FROM THE
JUMPSTART FUND IN FUTURE YEARS.
AGAIN, THAT SHOULD READ CONFIRM
COUNCIL'S INTENT THAT THIS
SPENDING SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED
FROM THE JUMPSTART FUND IN
FUTURE YEARS. THE OTHER OPTIONS
ARE CORRECT , AS WE SEE HERE. W
CAN REDUCE FUNDING FOR PROVIDER
PAY , INCREASE FUNDING FOR
PROVIDER PAY, AND
>> THAT IS OKAY, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT. I WILL CALL ON YOU
NEXT.
>> I REALIZE I WAS MUTE. I
APOLOGIZE.
>> OKAY.
>> JUST SHOWS WE ARE ALL PAYING
ATTENTION. COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, YOU FIRST.
>> THANK YOU. A COUPLE THINGS.
ARE YOU HIGHLIGHTING THE 4.2
MILLION INSTEAD OF 4.6?
BECAUSE WE ARE ONLY TALKING
ABOUT A TESTY IN THIS
PARTICULAR DISCUSSION.
>> THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT
IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT
THAT WE SHOULD READ 4.6.
WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE AN
ADDITIONAL OPTION, HERE, FIRST
OF ALL, BEFORE I SUGGEST
ANOTHER OPTION, MADAM CHAIR
HAS IDENTIFIED AN INTEREST AND
A NEED, AS YOU HAVE, TO ENSURE
THAT THE FUND SOURCE IS
SUSTAINABLE AND ONGOING , SINCE
THIS IS AN ONGOING COMMITMENT.
SO, I AM REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF
WORKING WITH THE CHAIR TO
IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE
FUNDING SOURCE FOR THIS
INVESTMENT. I DID WANT TO ASK
JEN, IS MY RECOLLECTION
CORRECT, THAT THEY ARE
CALCULATING THE WAGE EQUITY
INCREASE DIFFERENTLY THAN WAS
RECOMMENDED BY THE STUDY? MY
RECOLLECTION WAS THAT THE
STUDY RECOMMENDED THAT WE DO
THE CPI ADJUSTMENT FIRST, AND
THEN LAYER THE 2% ON TOP OF
THAT. AND IF THAT IS CORRECT,
I WOULD LOVE TO UNDERSTAND WHY
THE EXECUTIVE DID IT
DIFFERENTLY AS QUESTION ONE.
AND SECONDLY, WHAT THE
ADDITIONAL COST WOULD BE TO DO
IT THE WAY THAT I RECALL THE
STUDY RECOMMENDED.
>> THANK YOU FOR THOSE
QUESTIONS. I WOULD SAY THAT THE
STUDY, ITSELF, WAS FINALIZED
ON THE EXACT METHODOLOGY FOR
CALCULATING WAGE EQUITY
INCREASES. IT DID STAY AN
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION THAT ANY
WAGE EQUITY INCREASE SHOULD BE
ON TOP OF AN INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT. SO THERE WAS AN
INTENT, AN OVERARCHING GOAL
WAS STATED. CENTRAL STAFF DID
OUR ANALYSIS FOR THE
RESOLUTION. WE HAD STATED THAT
THE APPROACH THAT SEEMED MOST
CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF
THE STUDY WAS TO TAKE THE BASE
AND CONTRACT THEM OUT,
MULTIPLIED BY THE INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT, SO YOU HAVE A
HIGHER BASE CONTRACT AMOUNT,
THEN MULTIPLY THAT HIGHER BASE
CONTRACT AND NOT BY THE WAGE
EQUITY PIECE. THAT IS NOT THE
APPROACH THAT THE EXECUTIVES
TOOK. THE EXECUTIVE APPROACH
WAS TO TAKE THE BASE CONTRACT
AMOUNT, MULTIPLY IT BY THE
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT, TAKE
THE SAME BASE CONTRACT AMOUNT,
MULTIPLY IT BY THE 2% INCREASE
FOR PROVIDER PAY, AND THEN ADD
THOSE THINGS TOGETHER. I WOULD
HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU TO TELL
YOU WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS
BETWEEN THOSE TWO. I WILL SAY,
AFTER MORE REFLECTION ABOUT
IT, ULTIMATELY THAT 2%
INCREASE WILL BE ADDED TO THE
BASE CONTRACT AMOUNT. SO IT
WILL NOT INCREASE -- THE WAY
THE EXECUTIVE DID IT, IT DOES
NOT INCREASE THE BASE CONTRACT
AMOUNT FOR 2024, BUT IT WILL BE
ADDED IN 2025, WHEN WE GO TO
CALCULATE BOTH THE INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT OR POTENTIALLY ANY
FUTURE WAGE EQUITY AMOUNT. SO
IT WILL BE INCLUDED, JUST ONE
YEAR LATER. THERE IS SOME
LEGITIMACY TO THAT APPROACH AS
WELL, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
TALK ABOUT IT MORE.
>> THANK YOU. I WOULD LOVE TO
KNOW MORE ABOUT THE ACTUAL
IMPACTS OF THE DIFFERENT
APPROACHES , ON THE GOAL OF
GETTING SOME WAGE EQUITY
INCREASES INTO THE HANDS OF
WORKERS THIS YEAR.
>> I AGREE. THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD. COUNCIL
MEMBER NELSON?
>> I PROBABLY SHOULD NOT REMIND
PEOPLE OF THIS, BUT I WAS THE
LONE VOTE AGAINST THIS
RESOLUTION, BECAUSE I JUST DID
NOT SEE WHERE THAT MONEY WOULD
COME FROM . TO GET TO 37%
EVENTUALLY, THAT GOAL, OR IN
THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS. I WANT
TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT, DURING
THAT DISCUSSION, THERE WAS TALK
ABOUT THE FACT THAT THESE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT WILL BE
GETTING THE INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT AND ALSO THE 2% ,
ALSO GET FUNDING FROM OTHER
ENTITIES, LIKE THE COUNTY ,
STATE, AND PRIVATE
PHILANTHROPY. SO THE
IMPLICATION BEING IT IS NOT
GOING TO ALL BE ON US, THERE IS
A DISCUSSION ONGOING. IN
ATTACHMENT A OF THE RESOLUTION,
IT SAYS THAT SINCE SEATTLE'S
HUMAN SERVICES COALITION HAS
CONVENED A FUNDING ROUNDTABLE,
WITH THE GOAL OF BUILDING
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDRAISERS
TOGETHER, COLLABORATIVELY TO
CHART A PATH TOWARD WAGE
EQUITY THAT INCLUDES
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ET CETERA.
SO, HAS THERE BEEN ANY
PROGRESS IN THAT DISCUSSION?
BECAUSE THAT WAS MENTIONED AS A
PROJECT THAT WOULD FIGURE OUT
WHETHER OR NOT GETTING TO 30%
-- 37% AND THE INCREMENTS
GETTING THERE IS ONLY ON THE
CITY , IS ONLY THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY. I
AM ASKING RIGHT NOW FOR AN
UPDATE ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
>> MAY I?
>> YEAH, PLEASE. I KNOW JEN
PROBABLY HAS MORE TO ADD. I DID
WANT -- THIS IS JEN'S WORK I
AM SPEAKING TO, ACTUALLY. SHE
PULLED TOGETHER A LOT OF THE
DIFFERENT COMMITMENTS THAT
OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE MADE
, OTHER DISTRICTS, OTHER
PROGRAMS HAVE MADE. THERE IS
ALSO, AS YOU MENTIONED,
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, THERE IS
A FUNDER'S ROUNDTABLE WHERE
THEY ARE WORKING TO IDENTIFY
ADDITIONAL PLEDGES TOWARD THIS
GOAL . BEFORE I GO THROUGH THIS
LIST THAT JEN HELPFULLY PULLED
TOGETHER FOR ME WHEN DIRECTOR
TINGLEY WAS PRESENTING THE
BUDGET, I DID WANT TO FIRST
SAY THAT, ALTHOUGH UNIVERSITY
OF WASHINGTON STUDY IDENTIFIED,
I THINK, A 37% WAGE GAP, WE
ARE FOCUSED, RIGHT NOW, THIS
YEAR, AND NEXT YEAR, ON A 7%
PAY PENALTY. SO JUST PUT
ASIDE THAT 37% NUMBER. WHAT
WE ARE FOCUSED ON RIGHT NOW IS
ADDRESSING THE 7% PAY PENALTY.
I DO NOT WANT TO CONFLATE
GOALS, THAT IS NOT THE GOAL WE
ARE FOCUSED ON AT THIS STAGE ,
AND THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION,
REALLY, I THINK , NARROWED ON
THE NEAR-TERM GOAL TO ADDRESS
THE 7% PAY PENALTY. THAT
RELATES TO OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
WE KNOW THAT KING COUNTY'S
BEST START FOR KIDS LEVY IS
PROVIDING $5 MILLION THROUGH
YEAR 27 TO FUND A CHILD CARE
WORKFORCE , DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS TO INCREASE WAGES FOR
1400 LOW-WAGE WORKERS. KING
COUNTY -- REQUIRES THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IDENTIFY
AND DESCRIBE LEVY STRATEGIES
TO STABILIZE THE NONPROFIT
REGIONAL HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES WORKFORCE. -- ASSUMED
OPERATING STAFF WAGES WOULD BE
FUNDED AT 20% ABOVE THE
CURRENT AVERAGE STAFF WAGE AT
KING COUNTY 'S ONLY COMPARABLE
CRISIS FACILITY. IT ALSO
ASSUMES AN ADDITIONAL 20
MILLION TO INVEST IN STRATEGIES
SUCH AS SUBSIDIZING STAFF
INSURANCE COSTS , FUNDING THEIR
CERTIFICATIONS , AND
SUBSIDIZING CAREGIVER COSTS
LIKE CHILDCARE OR ELDERCARE FOR
STAFF. THE OFFICE OF HOUSING
INVESTMENT INCLUDES A $25
MILLION REQUEST FOR INTEREST
FOR 2023 TO PAY FOR WORKFORCE
STABILIZATION. THAT PROPOSED
HOUSING LEVY INCLUDES 122
MILLION TO PAY FOR OPERATING
SERVICES EXPENSES, INCLUDING
WORKFORCE STABILIZATION. THE
EXECUTIVE HAS PROPOSED ANOTHER
282 MILLION IN JUMPSTART
FUNDING FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
THE STATE OPERATING BUDGET
INCREASE HOMELESS SERVICE
PROVIDER CONTRACTS BY 45
MILLION, A 6.5% INCREASE , AND
PRIORITIZE THE FUNDS FOR
STABILIZATION OF THE HOMELESS
SERVICE PROVIDER WORKFORCE AND
ALSO PROVIDED A 15% MEDICAID
RATE INCREASE FOR BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH PROVIDERS TO HELP
ADDRESS MANY OF THE STATE 'S
CURRENT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
WORKFORCE ISSUES. THEN, AS
MENTIONED, SINCE 2022 --
SORRY, SINCE 2002, --
COALITION HAS CONVENED A
FUNDING ROUNDTABLE , BRINGING
NOT JUST THE INSTITUTIONAL
AND GOVERNMENTAL FUNDERS THAT
I HAVE REFERENCED, BUT ALSO
PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC GIVING
COMMUNITY AS WELL, TO
COLLABORATIVELY CHART THIS PATH
FORWARD TOWARD WAGE EQUITY. WE
DO HAVE PARTICIPATION IN THIS
ROUNDTABLE BY HSD DIRECTOR
KIM, AS WELL AS
REPRESENTATIVES FROM KING
COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND LARGE
PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATIONS,
SUCH AS THE PALMER GROUP, THE
GATES FOUNDATION, SEATTLE
FOUNDATION, UNITED WAY, AND A
BUNCH OF SMALLER AND MIDSIZED
FOUNDATIONS. THE HUMAN SERVICES
COALITION HAS A PLEDGE THAT
THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON .
SINCE CHRISTINA IN MY OFFICE
HAS MOVED ON, I HAVE LOST TRACK
ALREADY IN JUST A COUPLE SHORT
DAYS OF WHERE THAT IS. BUT I
KNOW THEY ARE WORKING REALLY
HARD TO GET IT TO US. I THINK
MAYBE JEN MIGHT HAVE AN UPDATE.
>> I DO HAVE AN UPDATE.
>> OKAY, GO AHEAD.
>> I WILL PROVIDE A BRIEF
UPDATE, BECAUSE I THINK IT
MIGHT HELP ADDRESS PART OF YOUR
QUESTIONS , COUNCIL MEMBER
NELSON. THE SEATTLE HUMAN
SERVICES COALITION HAS BEEN
WORKING WITH STATEWIDE CAPACITY
COLLABORATIVE, AND THEY DID
ISSUE WHAT THEY CALLED A WAGE
EQUITY CALL TO ACTION. I WOULD
BE HAPPY TO SEND A COPY OF THAT
TO THIS MEETING. REALLY, IT IS
SEEKING FUNDERS WHO UNDERSTAND
THE IMPORTANCE OF WAGE EQUITY.
THAT CALL TO ACTION IS SIGNED
BY SEVERAL FOUNDATIONS. I WILL
READ THROUGH THEM HERE, THE
BERNIE MACAW FOUNDATION, THE
CEDAR MAYOR FOUNDATION,
ZETTERBERG FOUNDATION, SHERWOOD
TRUST AND SOCIAL VENTURE
PARTNERS, THEN I KNOW THAT THE
SEATTLE HUMAN SERVICES
COALITION IS ALSO STILL
WORKING ON GETTING ADDITIONAL
SIGNATURES AS WELL. SO, THAT
HAS BEEN THE WORK THEY HAVE
DONE TO TRY TO BE RESPONSIVE
TO THAT COMPONENT OF THE
RESOLUTION.
>> THANKS. THAT IS A GREAT
UPDATE. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW
HOW THAT CALL TO ACTION IS
GOING, AND WHAT KIND OF PLEDGES
THEY HAVE GOT SO FAR. BECAUSE
THE ITEMS YOU LISTED,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD, THE
TAXPAYERS PAY FOR A LOT OF
THEM, BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT VETERANS LIVING, THE
CRISIS CARE LEVY, THE HOUSING
LEVY, ET CETERA. THE 282
MILLION IN JUMPSTART FUNDING
LOOKS LIKE IT IS CONSISTENT
WITH WHAT THIS BUDGET ITEM IS
TRYING TO DO, IN ADDITION TO
THE CALL TO ACTION AS WELL,
BECAUSE WE SHOULD ALL BE
CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING SURE
PEOPLE ARE PAID ENOUGH. I WANT
TO MAKE SURE OUR PARTNER
JURISDICTIONS ARE ALSO HELPING
IN THIS EFFORT.
>> GOVERNMENT FUNDING,
REGARDLESS OF WHICH
JURISDICTION IT IS , CITY,
COUNTY, STATE , OR FEDERAL, IS
TAXPAYER MONEY. AND I
UNDERSTOOD THE REQUEST IS TO
ENSURE THAT OUR OTHER
GOVERNMENT FUNDERS , ALSO
TAXPAYER DOLLARS, THAT OUR
OTHER GOVERNMENT FUNDERS ARE
ALSO ENGAGED IN THE GOAL OF
WAGE EQUITY. AGAIN, SO THAT IT
IS NOT JUST SEATTLE GOING IT
ALONE. I AM PRETTY HAPPY WITH
THE PROGRESS WE ARE MAKING ,
GROWING ALL TOGETHER IN THE
SAME DIRECTION. WE HAVE ALREADY
HEARD SOME INCREDIBLE RESULTS
COMING OUT OF COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA'S OBJECTIVE OF
FOCUSING ON THE INFLATIONARY
INCREASES. INCREDIBLE RESULTS
ON CLOSING VACANCIES AT SCORES
OF HUMAN SERVICES AGENCIES, AS
WELL AS REDUCING TURNOVER. SO
I THINK WE ALL WANT TO CONTINUE
IN THAT DIRECTION. AND THEN,
DIRECTOR DINGLEY, I AM LOOKING
FORWARD TO THE STUDY THAT I
THINK YOU SAID WAS IN PROGRESS
ON THE FIRST DAY OF OUR BUDGET
DISCUSSIONS, FOR HOW THE 2019
LAW THAT IS PEGGING
ADJUSTMENTS TO INFLATION IS
RESULTING IN BETTER RETENTION.
BECAUSE THAT WAS THE GOAL OF
INCREASING PROVIDER PAY.
>> GREAT. WELL, I WILL T THIS
UP AS A PREVIEW. CHARTS AND
GRAPHS. MORE TO COME, THIS IS
JUST A PREVIEW OF WHAT WE WILL
SEE MONDAY, REGARDING THAT
SPECIFIC TOPIC OF PROVIDER
STABILITY AND RETENTION
IMPROVEMENT , AND TURNOVER
REDUCTION. PLENTY OF GRAPHS
FOR US TO LOOK AT MONDAY FOR
EXAMPLE ORGANIZATIONS DEALING
WITH THIS EXACT ISSUE, HOW TO
CREATE BETTER STABILITY AND
WAGE EQUITY. MORE TO COME ON
MONDAY TO SHOW THE GENERAL
PUBLIC. I WANT TO KEEP US
MOVING, BUT COUNCILMEMBER, YOU
HAVE ONE MORE THING?
>> YES, EXCUSE ME. MY OFFICE,
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF AND
PAYMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND
HSD HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE
SURVEY THAT YOU REFERRED TO,
COUNCIL MEMBER NELSON. THIS IS
A WORK PRODUCT THAT WE ARE ALL
ENGAGED IN AND EAGER TO
RECEIVE THE RESULTS FROM . THE
SURVEY HAS GONE OUT TO THE
PROVIDERS, AND WE HOPE TO HAVE
MORE INFORMATION SOON. THANK
YOU.
>> EXCELLENT. SO WE WILL
ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO CONTINUE
THIS DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT
SLIDE. BECAUSE WE WANT TO TALK
ABOUT OTHER ENTITIES HELPING US
CREATE STABILITY ACROSS
CONTRACTS. SO LET'S GO TO YOUR
NEXT ISSUE, AS WE TALK ABOUT
CONTINUING CARE CONTRACTS.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS GOING TO
GET US RIGHT INTO THE WEEDS, IT
IS PRETTY DETAILED. THIS ISSUE
IS AROUND THE CONTINUUM OF
CARE , OR THE INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT. UP UNTIL 2021, HSD
RECEIVED AND ADMINISTERED
CONTINUUM OF CARE FUNDING
DIRECTLY FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ,
HUD. THAT WAS FOR SERVICES IN
SEATTLE. STARTING IN 2022, THE
KING COUNTY REGIONAL
HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY BEGAN
RECEIVING AND ADMINISTERING
THE FUNDING DIRECTLY. SO IT NO
LONGER FLOWED FROM HUD TO HSD ,
IT WENT DIRECTLY FROM HUD TO
-- THE EXECUTIVE IN 2023
PROPOSED BUDGET CONTAINED A
ONE-TIME INFLATIONARY INCREASE
EQUAL TO 4% OF THE COC
CONTRACTS. THE INCREASE WAS
ONE TIME TO PROVIDE A
TRANSITION YEAR FOR SERVICE
PROVIDERS WITHOUT CREATING AN
ONGOING OBLIGATION BY THE CITY
FOR FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT THE
CITY WILL WONDER HOW TO ROLL
AND ADMINISTER. AS YOU MAY
REMEMBER FROM THE CONTACT
SLIDE, IN 2023, COUNCIL ALSO
ADOPTED -- TO PROVIDE AN
ADDITIONAL 3.6 INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT FOR ALL
HSD-ADMINISTERED CONTRACTS
COVERED UNDER --, WHICH
REQUIRES THAT INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT. THAT 3.6% INCREASE
ALSO COVERED THE COC
CONTRACTS. SO THIS CREATED AN
INCONSISTENCY, WHERE 3.6 OF
THE INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT
PROVIDED TO COC CONTRACTS IN
2023 IS ONGOING, WHILE 4% OF
THAT INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT
IS ONE TIME. AND THOSE
INCONSISTENCIES MEAN THAT
COUNCIL 'S INTENT IS UNCLEAR.
SO THIS ISSUE IS REALLY ABOUT
OPTIONS TO HELP CLARIFY WHAT
THE COUNCIL 'S INTENT IS, BOTH
FOR THE 2023 INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT AND THE 2024
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT. KEY
SERIES CURRENTLY OF MINISTERS
$7 MILLION IN COC CONTRACTS. OF
THAT, ONE POINT 2 MILLION IS
FOR THE 2023 INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT. BECAUSE OF THE
INCONSISTENCY WE JUST
DISCUSSED, THE 2024 ENDORSED
BUDGET SUSTAINS $623,000 FOR
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR
COC CONTRACTS, WHILE ALSO AT
THE SAME TIME REDUCING FUNDING
FOR COC CONTRACTS BY $600,000.
THE OPTIONS HERE ARE AROUND
CLARIFYING COUNCIL'S INTENT
FOR THE 2023 INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT, AND ALSO WHETHER
OR NOT TO PROVIDE ANOTHER 2024
ONGOING INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT. READING THROUGH THE
OPTIONS , A, IF COUNCIL WANTS
TO MAKE ALL THE 2023
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS ONE
TIME, IT COULD REDUCE HSE'S
ANNUAL APPRECIATION BY
$623,000. IF IT WANTS TO MAKE
ALL OF THE 2023 INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT ONGOING, IT COULD
ADD $600,000 OF ONGOING FUNDING
. AND IF COUNCIL WANTS TO
BOTH SUSTAIN THE 2023 INCREASE
AND PROVIDE AN INFLATIONARY
INCREASE FOR 2024 OF 7.5%,
THE SAME THING THESE
ADMINISTERED CONTRACTS ARE
GETTING, IT COULD ADD ANOTHER
$1.9 MILLION OF ONGOING FUNDING
IN 2024. THEN, OF COURSE, THE
FOURTH OPTION IS NO CHANGE. I
WILL STOP THERE FOR QUESTIONS.
>> THANKS. I LOOK FORWARD TO
HEARING WHAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD HAS TO SAY ON THIS. BUT
JUST TO CLARIFY, OPTION C, DOES
THAT BASICALLY INCLUDE A AND B
IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT? SORRY, NOT
A. IS OPTION C INCLUDING B IN
THE TOTAL AMOUNT?
>> CORRECT. IT WOULD BE B PLUS
THE FUNDS WE TAKE TO PROVIDE
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENT IN
2023. CORRECT.
>> AND THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT,
THEN, WOULD BE 1.9?
>> YUP.
>> AND THAT ADDRESSES THE
GAP, THE 600+ GAP IN HSE
CURRENTLY THAT ADDRESSES THE
COC HAD FUNDING CONTRACTS
ACROSS ALL COC?
>> YES.
>> I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE
SLIGHTLY MORE. 1.9 IS THE
TOTAL TO MAKE THE ADJUSTMENT
AND TO INCLUDE THAT IN 2024 ,
THE FULL CONTRACT LIST?
>> SIMILAR TO WAGE EQUITY, I
WANT TO NOTE, THIS CREATES AN
ONGOING OBLIGATION FOR THE
CITY, RIGHT. PROVIDERS, WHEN
THEY GET AN INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT ADDED TO THEIR
CONTRACT, AND THAT INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT ENDS THE FOLLOWING
YEAR, THEN THEIR CONTRACT WILL
BE REDUCED. SO OPTION C IS
INCLUDED. BOTH OPTION B AND
OPTION C ARE INTENDED TO BE
ONGOING FUNDS.
>> OKAY. BUT JUST AGAIN, THE
1.9 INCLUDES THE 600 K?
>> YES, IT DOES.
>> THANK YOU. SORRY FOR MY
CONFUSION. THE NUMBER HERBOLD?
>> THANK YOU. A QUESTION. MEMO
SAYS THAT THE EXECUTIVE 'S 2023
PROPOSED BUDGET CONTAINED A
ONE-TIME INCREASE EQUAL TO 4%
OF THE CONTRACTS , AND IT GOES
ON TO SAY THAT THE INCREASE
WAS ONE TIME, TO PROVIDE A
TRANSITION YEAR FOR KING
COUNTY RHA AND SERVICE
PROVIDERS WITHOUT MAKING AN
ONGOING OBLIGATION FOR FEDERAL
DOLLARS THAT THE CITY NO
LONGER HAS A ROLL IN
ADMINISTERING. SO THAT IS A
DESCRIPTION OF THE EXECUTIVE
INTENT. THE EXECUTIVE INTENT
WAS THAT THIS BE A ONE-TIME
TRANSITION YEAR. WHAT YOU ARE
IDENTIFYING AS BEING UNCLEAR IS
WHAT THE COUNCIL'S INTENT WAS
IN PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL
3.6% ADJUSTMENT ABOVE THE
2023 TRANSITION YEAR IN THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET. IS
THAT MORE OR LESS RIGHT?
>> THAT IS GENERALLY RIGHT. I
WILL BE HONEST THAT I THINK
THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A PLACE
WHERE EVERYONE GOT A LITTLE
TRIPPED UP ON SEMANTICS, SO I
AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE. WHEN WE
SAY ONE TIME, THAT COULD HAVE
MEANT TWO THINGS. IT COULD HAVE
MEANT WE WILL DO THIS FOR 2023
AND SUSTAIN THAT BUT WE DON'T
WANT TO DO IT FOR ANY FUTURE
YEARS, OR IT COULD MEAN WE WILL
DO IT FOR 2023 BUT JUST ONE
TIME, BECAUSE THE EXPECTATION
IS THAT HUD WILL STEP IN IN THE
FUTURE TO COVER THAT
INFLATIONARY GAP. I AM NOT
SURE WE ULTIMATELY KNOW WHAT
THE INTENT WAS, BECAUSE I THINK
THAT WORD "ONE-TIME" MIGHT
HAVE MEANT DIFFERENT THINGS TO
DIFFERENT PEOPLE. I SEE YOU
HAVE YOUR HAND RAISED, IF YOU
WANT TO ADD SOMETHING.
>> I WAS GOING TO NOTE THAT
LAST YEAR, THE COUNCIL WAS
GRAPPLING WITH HAVING TO FIND
THE FUNDS FOR THE 3.6% FOR THE
ENTIRE RACE OF HSD CONTRACTS.
FRANKLY, I THINK THIS DETAIL
-- I RECALL ANY KORAN AND I
TALKING ABOUT THIS AS BEING
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE MAYOR
DID, BUT IT IS ALL IN ONE CBA,
IT WAS ALL ONE LUMP SUM TO
INCREASE THE INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENTS . SO I DON'T KNOW,
AS JEN SAID, THAT THERE WAS
HONESTLY A CLEAR DECISION BY
THE COUNCIL ABOUT WHETHER THIS
WOULD BE ONE-TIME OR ONGOING.
I CAN SAY THAT WE CONCLUDED THE
COUNCIL'S PORTION AS AN
ONGOING EXPENDITURE , AND THE
CBA IS SILENT WHAT WHETHER
THAT WAS A COUNCIL BUDGET
ACTION.
>> AGAIN, TO MAINTAIN THE
COUNCIL 'S PORTION AS ONGOING,
THAT WOULD BE OPTION B, RIGHT?
>> ACTUALLY, THE COUNCIL'S
PORTION IS ALREADY ONGOING, THE
3.6%. BUT THE EXECUTIVE
PORTION, THE 4% IS NOT ONGOING.
SO THE 600,000 IS ESSENTIALLY
WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO SUSTAIN
THE 4% IN FUTURE YEARS.
>> OKAY.
>> I WILL JUST ADD, AGAIN, MY
RECOLLECTION IS ALONG THE
LATTER OPTION THAT JEN
OUTLINED, THAT WE ALL WERE
HOPEFUL THAT THERE WOULD BE
SUSTAINED FUNDING FROM OUR
FEDERAL PARTNERS. SO I DON'T
THINK THERE WAS ANY INTENT TO
NOT INCLUDED AS ONGOING, WE
REALLY THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE
ADDITIONAL ENTITIES STEPPING IN
OR SUPPORT FREED UP FROM RHA.
SO I APPRECIATE THAT THIS
LEVEL OF DETAIL HAS BEEN
UNEARTHED. I THINK WE ALL WERE
OPTIMISTIC LAST YEAR, INCLUDING
DIRECTOR DINGLEY. WE ALL
THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT COMING FOR
THAT. DIRECTOR DINGLEY, DID
YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO
ADD ? SO, THANK YOU FOR
OUTLINING THE OPTIONS, HERE. I
THINK WE ALL HAVE THE SHARED
GOALS. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT
THE COC CONTRACTS FUNDED BY HUD
DO NOT INCLUDE THIS. THE CITY
IS LOOKING TO STEP IN, MAKE
WORKERS WHOLE, AND CREATE
HARMONY, I THINK REMAINS THE
GOAL. COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> SO, IF WE HAD THAT
EXPECTATION, THAT HUD WOULD
PROVIDE INCREASED FUNDING FOR
2024 , WHAT WERE THE STEPS
THAT WE TOOK TO MAKE THAT
REQUEST? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL
TO UNDERSTAND BOTH FOR
PURPOSES OF WHAT WE DO TO TRY
TO CONFIRM THAT OUR
ASSUMPTIONS AND HOPES WOULD BE
REALIZED FOR THIS YEAR , FOR
2024? AND IF WE WERE TO
PROVIDE THE FULL AMOUNT, THE
FULL 7.5%, WHAT COULD WE DO IN
FUTURE YEARS TO MAKE IT MORE
LIKELY THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE
TO BE AN ONGOING INVESTMENT
FROM THE CITY OF SEATTLE TO
MAKE UP FOR WHAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE PAYING?
PUT IT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE
EARLIER CONVERSATION, ABOUT
WAGE EQUITY. EVEN MORE SO WITH
INFLATIONARY ADJUSTMENTS , THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE WORKFORCE IS
NOT FALLING BEHIND AS
INFLATION GROWS AT A HIGHER
RATE THAN OUR CONTRACT WITH
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . THAT
IS COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE.
>> THANK YOU FOR ILLUSTRATING
THAT POINT SO POINTEDLY.
DIRECTOR KIM, WELCOME, THANKS
FOR BEING WITH US. I SEE YOU
HAVE A HAND UP.
>> IF I MAY, I AM HAPPY TO
TAKE THAT QUESTION BACK TO RHA.
I THINK WHEN WE COLLECTIVELY
STOOD UP RHA AND THEY WERE
RECEIVING THIS RESPONSIBILITY,
WE DID MAKE IT CLEAR TO THEM
ABOUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IN
THE SPACE, NOW. SO WE CAN ASK
THEM AGAIN, HOW ARE THEY
COMMUNICATING? AND WHAT ARE
THEIR EXPECTATIONS , WHAT
PROGRESS HAS THERE BEEN IN
THEIR COMMUNICATIONS WITH HUD?
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE IT BACK TO
KC OR RHA.
>> COUNCIL NUMBER HERBOLD,
ANYTHING ELSE?
>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE
THAT. NOT JUST THE QUESTION
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST
YEAR, BUT, GIVEN WHATEVER WAS
ATTEMPTED IN THE LAST YEAR WAS
NOT EFFECTIVE IN THE GOAL,
WHAT CAN WE DO DIFFERENTLY IN
THE UPCOMING YEAR?
>> OKAY, GREAT. LET'S CONTINUE.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
>> THE NEXT ISSUE IS AROUND
POTENTIAL ONE-TIME SALARY
SAVINGS FROM HSA
CONSERVANCY'S. AS OF EARLY
SEPTEMBER, HSD HAD 50 VACANT
POSITIONS, AND ABOUT 60% OF
THOSE WERE NOT YET IN THE
INTERVIEW PROCESS. IN FACT, A
PORTION OF THEM, IF I REMEMBER
CORRECTLY, ABOUT 30% , WERE
STILL IN THE PROCESS OF BEING
RECLASSIFIED , SO GOING TO THE
PROCESS OF RECLASSIFICATION.
HSD SAID THEY INTEND TO FILL
ALL POSITIONS IN 2024, HOWEVER
THAT EXPECTATION DOES NOT SEEM
ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH THE
CITY TIMELINE FOR
RECLASSIFICATION OF HIRING.
ADDITIONALLY, EVEN IF ALL
POSITIONS WERE TO BE HIRED IN
2024 , CONCEIVABLY SOME WOULD
BE FILLED LATER IN THE YEAR
PRODUCING SOME SALARY SAVINGS.
DID YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT HSD
RECEIVES A LARGE AMOUNT OF
RESTRICTED GRANTS , SO THAT IS
FEDERAL OR STATE GRANTING, SO
THAT FUNDING IS NOT AVAILABLE
FOR OTHER USES. IT CANNOT BE
REPURPOSED IN THE SAME WAY
THAT GENERAL FUNDS CAN. I'M
SORRY, I HAVE SOME OUTDATED
INFORMATION, HERE, BUT AT
LEAST 19 OUT OF 50 POSITIONS
ARE GRANT FUNDED, MAY ACTUALLY
BE AS HIGH AS 27 POSITIONS,
THEN ANOTHER 10 OR A
COMBINATION OF BOTH GRANT
FUNDED AND THE GENERAL FUND.
SO WHILE THERE MIGHT BE A
SPRINKLE OF SALARY SAVINGS, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR AND SET
REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS THAT
ONLY A PORTION OF THE SALARY
SAVINGS WOULD BE GENERAL FUNDS
AVAILABLE FOR OTHER USES. IF
YOU ARE INTERESTED, WE CAN DO
FURTHER ANALYSIS ON THAT. LET
ME JUST GO FOR THE OPTIONS VERY
QUICKLY, REDUCE THE HST BUDGET
AND USE ONE-TIME SALARY SAVINGS
FOR COUNCIL PRIORITIES, OR NO
CHANGES. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH . A
SPRINKLE OF SALARY SAVINGS HERE
AND THERE , BUT NO GUARANTEES?
I WILL REMEMBER THAT TERM.
COUNCILMEMBER MORALES IS,
PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, JENNIFER, FOR
THE POSITIONS THAT ARE GRANT
FUNDED, IF WE DON'T HIRE, DOES
THAT MEAN WE HAVE TO RETURN THE
GRANT FUNDING, OR CAN WE KEEP
IT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE
ABLE TO HIRE THOSE POSITIONS?
>> GREAT QUESTION. I WOULD TURN
IT OVER TO DIRECTOR -- IF YOU
KNOW THE ANSWER? GO AHEAD.
>> SOME OF THE GRANTS WE
RECEIVED, PARTICULARLY FOR CASE
MANAGEMENT, IS REIMBURSABLE.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT ANY
DEPARTMENT OR ORGANIZATION AT
THAT 100% CAPACITY, AND WE ARE
AS HUMAN SERVICES, I WILL TAKE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THAT
THIS IS THE POINT IN TIME AS OF
POSTINGS, SOME ADVERTISING TO
SAY THAT HSD IS HIRING. BUT I
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT A LOT OF
CASE MANAGERS AND OTHER
OPPORTUNITIES TO SERVE OUR
WHOLE POPULATIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, MAYBE
YOU CAN JUMP IN, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD. WHAT IS THE VACANCY
RATE AT HSD CURRENTLY? EACH
DEPARTMENT HAS A PERCENTAGE
WHERE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE
A VACANCY RATE, RIGHT? WHAT IS
THAT RATE, CURRENTLY, DO YOU
KNOW?
>> I HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU
ON THAT, I DO NOT KNOW OFF THE
TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> IF CPL OR THE DEPARTMENT
HAVE THAT, THAT IS WHAT WE WILL
DO. COUNCIL NUMBER HERBOLD,
PLEASE JOIN IN.
>> THANK YOU. MY UNDERSTANDING
OF THIS PRESENTATION AND YOUR
SUPPORTING MEMO, 50 POSITIONS
HAVE VACANCIES, AND 40% OF
THEM ARE DOING INTERVIEWS. SO
THAT ONLY LEAVES 60% THAT WE
ARE NOT REALLY AT A STAGE OF
OFFERING A JOB TO SOMEBODY. AND
SO, OF THAT 60%, THAT IS
PROBABLY ABOUT 30 POSITIONS ,
AND ONLY 10 OF THEM , 10 OF THE
50 OUR GENERAL FUND. SO AS I
UNDERSTAND IT, THE ONLY SORT
OF SLOWDOWN OF POSITIONS WOULD
BE THOSE POSITIONS THAT ARE
SUPPORTED BY THE GENERAL FUND.
ANY OTHERS WOULD NOT RESULT IN
ACTUAL SAVINGS TO THE CITY.
FOR RESOURCES TO BE USABLE
ELSEWHERE. SO IT JUST DOES NOT
SEEM LIKE -- MANAGER, YOU
REFERRED TO A SPRINKLE OF
SALARY SAVINGS, THAT MIGHT BE
WHERE WE END UP. I WANT TO
CAUTION, THOUGH, IT MAY BE HSD
HAS FULLY HIRED, BUT THERE ARE
A NUMBER OF POSITIONS RELATED
TO THE FINANCIAL STABILITY
RECOMMENDATIONS COMING OUT OF
A COUPLE YEARS OF WORK BY THE
DEPARTMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY
OF THOSE ARE THE 10 POSITIONS.
JEN, YOU ARE SHAKING YOUR HEAD
NO, SO I HOPE THAT IS GOOD
NEWS. BUT I WOULD NOT WANT TO
TOUCH THOSE, UNLESS WE HAD
SOME PRETTY SOLID INTELLIGENCE
THAT IT WAS MORE ABOUT THE
TIMING OF THOSE POSITIONS, AS
OPPOSED TO REDUCING THE
DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO HIRE
FOR THEM ENTIRELY NEXT YEAR.
>> I WILL LET ALLIE SPEAK TO
THIS, BUT DEFINITELY THE
ASSUMPTION AROUND THE SALARY
SAVINGS IS VERY MODEST. WITH
ALL THE POINTS YOU MADE, THERE
MAY BE SOMETHING THERE, BUT IT
WOULD BE MODEST. I WILL LET
ALY SPEAK TO THAT MORE.
>> X, JEN. I WAS GOING TO
REITERATE THAT THERE IS A
REASON WHY THERE IS NO NUMBER
FOR A REDUCTION IN THE CENTRAL
STAFF ANALYSIS. WE JUST
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE GET THE
BUDGET, WE GET A LOT OF
INFORMATION, WE START SEEING
WHAT LOOKS LIKE A BIG
VACANCIES, AND CURRENTLY, THE
ANALYSIS HAS NARROWED, AS JEN
HAS MOVED ON, BUT IT STILL
SEEMED WORTH FLAGGING, BECAUSE
THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT VACANCY
RATE. BUT ULTIMATELY, WE MIGHT
SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO THERE,
THERE IN THE END, BUT I WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD, YOU AND I HAVE BEEN IN
THIS CONVERSATION MANY YEARS.
IT IS ONE OF THE FRUSTRATING
THINGS ABOUT THE LACK OF
PRECISION ABOUT HOW POSITIONS
ARE FUNDED. ARE THEY VACANT?
ARE THEY FULLY FUNDED? HOW
DEPARTMENTS ARE USING THEIR
VACANCY SAVINGS. IT IS
SOMETHING DIRECTOR DINGLEY AND
I HAVE BEEN IN CONVERSATION
ABOUT FOR OVER A YEAR, ABOUT
GETTING BETTER -- BETTER
MONITORING ON THAT. THIS IS AN
AREA WHERE THE CITY NEEDS
BETTER AND MORE SPECIFIC
INFORMATION ON HOW POSITIONS
ARE FUNDED, VACANT, AND ALL
THAT.
>> BASED ON PRIOR
CONVERSATIONS, I WAS AMAZED WE
EVEN HAD THAT INFORMATION FROM
ONE DEPARTMENT , THAT THERE ARE
50 TAKEN POSITIONS. THAT IS
PROGRESS, RIGHT THERE.
>> DIRECTOR DINGLEY, DID YOU
HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD?
>> I DID. THANKS, BUDGET CHAIR.
YOU ASKED A QUESTION A FEW
MOMENTS AGO ABOUT WHETHER WE
HAD VACANCY ASSUMPTION IN THE
BUDGET. I HAVE THAT DETAIL
NOW. WE DO HAVE A VACANCY
ASSUMPTION FOR HSD IN 2024.
THAT AMOUNT IS ABOUT 1.2
MILLION THAT WE ASSUME WILL
REMAIN VACANT. THAT IS
EQUIVALENT TO ABOUT 2.2% OR
NINE FTE EQUIVALENT , BUT THAT
IS ALSO ACROSS THE ENTIRE
DEPARTMENT, ACROSS ALL FUNDING
TYPES. I JUST WANTED TO
PROVIDE THAT ANSWER FOR YOU.
>> THANK YOU. AND IF I MIGHT, I
KNOW I AM NOT USING THE
APPROPRIATE PORTAL TO MAKE THE
REQUEST, BUT IT WOULD BE
HELPFUL -- WE CAN PUT THIS IN
THE PORTAL FOR STAFF ANALYSIS
-- I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE
VACANCY PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS
ACROSS DEPARTMENTS. THANK YOU.
>> GREAT, I WILL MOVE US ALONG
AND RECOGNIZE THE LIMITATIONS
THAT OPTION A OFFERS, HERE ,
THANKS TO CENTRAL STAFF AND THE
CHAIR OF HUMAN SERVICES FOR
REALLY MAKING SURE THAT WAS
EXPLICIT. I APPRECIATE THAT IT
WAS FLAGGED HERE, UNEARTHING
ALL OPTIONS. NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE.
>> THIS ISSUE IS AROUND ROSIE
VILLAGE, WHICH I KNOW WE
ALREADY HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT
EARLIER THIS MORNING. THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE IS FACING
NOTICE. TRACI FOCUSED ON THE
FUN FOR US, THE USE OF
JUMPSTART FUNDING TO PAY FOR
ROSIE VILLAGE AND WHETHER THAT
COULD BE CONSIDERED
PREDEVELOPMENT COSTS. THE
ISSUE HERE IS FOCUSED ON
TIMING , AND WHAT OPTIONS
SURROUND WHETHER OR NOT THIS
IS AN EXPENSE THAT COULD BE
DELAYED UNTIL 2025. I DON'T
THINK I NEED TO PROVIDE MUCH
BACKGROUND ON THIS, GIVEN WE
HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT. I
WILL JUST GO THROUGH THE
OPTIONS. IT COULD BE TO REDUCE
THE PROPOSED TRANSFER OF
916,000 TWO HFC, KIND OF THE
SAME ONE TRACI HAD IN HER
PRESENTATION . OPTION B WOULD
BE TO ADOPT THE SLIDE TO HAVE
THE EXECUTIVE -- DELAY
MOVEMENT OF ROSIE VILLAGE UNTIL
2025, AND THE THIRD WOULD BE NO
CHANGE.
>> I AM NOT SEEING ANY COMMENTS
ON HERE. -- PREVIOUS
PRESENTATION. I AM NOT SEEING
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
>> NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. RIGHT.
THIS ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH A CPA
THAT WAS PART OF THE 2023
ADOPTED BUDGET, WHICH PROVIDED
$2 MILLION OF FUNDING, 1
MILLION IN 2023 AND ANOTHER IN
2024 FOR RV STORAGE PROGRAM. I
SHOULD MENTION, THIS WAS ONE
TIME FUNDING. THE INTENT HERE
WAS TO TRY A NEW APPROACH TO
HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN
RVs . IT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED AS
A BARRIER THAT SOME RV
RESIDENTS WERE RELUCTANT TO
MOVE INTO SHELTER OR HOUSING
BECAUSE IT MEANT THEY WOULD
HAVE TO GIVE UP THEIR RV. AND
IF THE SHELTER OR HOUSING DID
NOT WORK OUT, THEY WOULD NO
LONGER HAVE THAT OPTION
AVAILABLE TO THEM. SO THE
CONCEPT HERE WAS THAT RVs COULD
BE PLACED INTO STORAGE FOR UP
TO A YEAR WHILE THE FORMER RV
RESIDENT WENT INTO SHELTER OR
HOUSING AS A WAY TO TRY TO
MITIGATE THAT PARTICULAR
BARRIER. HSD CONTRACTED WITH
RHA TO ADMINISTER THIS
FUNDING, WHO HAD INTENDED TO
ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR ALL $2 MILLION IN 2023 .
THAT FUNDING WOULD BE USED IN
PART TO LEASE ONE OR MORE
SITES FOR RV STORAGE, AND THE
REMAINING PORTION WOULD BE USED
FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ASSISTANCE FOR THE FORMER RV
RESIDENTS. IN MID-2023, THE
EXECUTIVE NOTIFIED CASEY RHA
THAT RV STORAGE IS ONLY
ALLOWABLE UNDER THE AUNT LAND
USE CODE IF THE STORAGE PLACE
IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE
SITE WITH -- HOUSING. THAT
MADE IT MORE COMPLICATED TO BE
ABLE TO FIND A SITE FOR THIS
PARTICULAR PROGRAM . AT THIS
CURRENT POINT IN TIME, KCRHA
HAS ISSUED -- THEY ISSUED IT
TODAY -- A LETTER OF INTEREST
TO ALL NON-CONGREGANT SHELTER
PROVIDERS TO DETERMINE IF ANY
OF THE PROVIDERS HAVE INTEREST
AND AVAILABLE LOTS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF RV STORAGE. GIVEN
THAT THE LOT MUST BE DIRECTLY
ADJACENT TO THE NON-CONGREGANT
SHELTER, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT A
SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SITES
WILL BE IDENTIFIED.
ADDITIONALLY, THE COST TO
LEASE SUCH A SITE FOR THE REST
OF THE YEAR WOULD BE
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN $1
MILLION. THEREFORE, IT IS
LIKELY THAT SOME OR MOST OR
EVEN ALL OF THE 1 MILLION IN
2023 FUNDS WILL NOT BE
UTILIZED, AND IF THERE ARE NO
SITES IDENTIFIED, THEN THE $1
MILLION OF ONE-TIME 2020 FOR
FUNDS WOULD I -- ALSO LIKELY
NOT BE UTILIZED. LET ME STOP
THERE, TO GO THROUGH OPTIONS.
THE OPTIONS HERE ARE A,
MAINTAIN $1 MILLION IN GENERAL
FUND IN 2023, BUT IMPOSE A WAY
TO DIRECT MONEY FOR ANOTHER
PURPOSE THAT SUPPORT PEOPLE'S
SPIRITS OF HOMELESSNESS. THE
SECOND OPTION IS TO MAINTAIN $1
MILLION IN GENERAL FUND 2023,
REDUCE THE MILLION DOLLARS IN
2024, AND USE THE ONE TIME
SAVINGS FOR COUNCIL PRIORITIES,
OR NO CHANGE. I WILL STOP
THERE FOR QUESTIONS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD?
>> BASED ON THE DESCRIPTION OF
THE LAND USE CODE, I THINK
THERE IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT
MISUNDERSTANDING. I MEAN, I
DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A SORT
OF PRESUMPTION THAT THIS IS
LIKE, AN ACCESSORY USE THE
HOUSING FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE ,
BUT LIKE, LET'S PRETEND FOR A
SECOND THAT THESE RVs WERE NOT
OCCUPIED BY HOMELESS PEOPLE.
IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT, IN
ORDER TO STORE RVs, IT HAS TO
BE NEXT TO A NONCOVERED
HOUSING FACILITY. LIKE -- IF
THERE IS A BELIEF THAT WE ARE
EXPECTING PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO
GO TO AND FROM THEIR HOUSING TO
THE RV, THEN THAT MIGHT BE A
MISUNDERSTANDING. THE IDEA IS
THAT THIS IS A LOT, MUCH LIKE
A TOTAL LOT, WHERE PEOPLE
VOLUNTARILY ALLOW THEIR
VEHICLES TO BE TOWED INTO A
FENCED IN AREA . I REALLY NEED
TO SEE , BECAUSE THERE ARE
TOTAL LOTS ALL OVER THE CITY,
AND THEY DO NOT ALL HAVE TO BE
NEXT TO HOUSING FOR FORMERLY
HOMELESS PEOPLE. SO I THINK
THERE MIGHT BE A
MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT
THE PURPOSE OF THIS FUNDING IS.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THE
LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION WE
ARE REFERRING TO, HERE.
>> I CAN TELL YOU THERE WAS
EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION WITH
LAW, WHICH I DON'T WANT TO GO
INTO IN THIS SETTING, BUT
THERE WAS EXTENSIVE
CONVERSATION, THERE IS NOT A
MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE
INTENT OF THE PROGRAM, EVEN
WITH THE FULL UNDERSTANDING ,
THIS IS THE GUIDANCE THAT WAS
RECEIVED. BUT I AM HAPPY TO
FOLLOW UP WITH YOU OFF-LINE TO
PROVIDE MORE CONTEXT.
>> SURE. I WOULD LOVE TO GET
THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. IT
JUST DOES NOT SEEM LOGICAL,
RIGHT? WHERE CAN RVs THAT DO
NOT BELONG TO HOMELESS PEOPLE
BE STORED? IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS
A SPECIAL CODE.
>> IT IS REALLY --
>> BASED ON WHO IS THE FORMER
OCCUPANTS OF THE VEHICLE. AND I
CANNOT IMAGINE A DISCRETIONARY
LAND-USE DECISION BASED ON WHO
FORMERLY OCCUPIED THE VEHICLE,
A HOMELESS PERSON OR A PERSON
LIVING HOUSE.
>> I SEE A FEW HANDS, PROBABLY
FOR CLARIFICATION. LET'S START
WITH CENTRAL STAFF, AND THEN
CHRIS. GO AHEAD, ALY.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
LIKELY MORE ON THIS
INTERPRETATION, THE CHALLENGES.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT A SORT
OF POLICY DISCUSSION WE SHOULD
HAVE AND UNDERSTAND, INFORM
WHATEVER FUNDING REMAINS IN THE
BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR MIGHT BE
SUBJECT TO A PROVISO TO GET
CERTAINTY, BUT FROM A BUDGETING
PERSPECTIVE, REGARDLESS, IT CH
YOU HAVE MORE TO OFFER ON
INTERPRETATION, THAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL.
>> YEAH, I JUST WANT TO ECHO
WHAT ALY AND JEN HAVE SAID. WE
HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF
CONVERSATIONS REGARDING THE
LAND USE CODE, AND
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT HAS BEEN
FAIRLY DEFINITIVE ABOUT THIS
USE. I WILL SAY WE ARE HAPPY
TO SEE THAT KCRHA DID RELEASE
THE LOI THIS WEEK, AT LEAST
FOR AN IMMEDIATE POTENTIAL
SOLUTION, HERE, EVEN THE
CRITICAL NEED FOR RV STORAGE
FOR UNSHELTERED INDIVIDUALS. I
REALLY WANT TO ECHO WHAT HAS
BEEN SAID ABOUT THE LAND USE
CODE.
>> YEAH, I AGREE WITH THE VICE
CHAIR , THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY
STRANGE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT
THE LAND USE CODE OUGHT TO SAY.
I APPRECIATE HAVING BEEN ABLE
TO WORK WITH COUNCIL MEMBER
HERBOLD ON THIS, THE INTENT
HERE WAS TO BE ABLE TO OFFER
SOMEPLACE FOR THE NEAR 50% OF
THE HOMELESS POPULATION WHO ARE
LIVING IN VEHICLES TO HAVE SOME
PLACE TO STORE THEIR VEHICLES
WHEN THEY GO INSIDE IN A WAY
THAT DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO
KEEP THEIR VEHICLE, FOR
EXAMPLE, SPECIFICALLY RVs, IF
THEY ARE GOING INTO SOME FORM
OF HOUSING. SO THIS JUST SEEMS
LIKE A BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE
THAT WE CANNOT FIND A SOLUTION
, WHEN WE KNOW THIS IS JUST
ABOUT STORING A VEHICLE, NOT
ABOUT THE PROXIMITY OF THAT
VEHICLE TO HOUSING.
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD HAS
MORE, AND I SEE COUNCIL MEMBER
STRAUSS AS WELL.
>> I PUT MY HANDS DOWN. BUT
THANK YOU. THIS IS FUNDING
THAT WE PROVIDED A WHILE AGO.
I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE
PREFERRED TO LEARN ABOUT THIS
COMPLEXITY EARLIER THIS YEAR.
THANK YOU.
>> IF I RECALL, IT WAS 30 YEARS
AGO, I THINK, THAT WE PUT THIS
MONEY IN.
>> FRUSTRATING. LET'S FIND A
SOLUTION. COUNCIL NUMBER
STRAUSS, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR MOSQUEDA.
MY APOLOGIES IF I AM JUMPING
IN AFTER A LOT OF THIS HAS
ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. I CAN
TELL YOU THERE ARE A FAIR
AMOUNT OF COMPLEXITIES WITH
FINDING AN ADJACENT PARKING
LOT WITH NONCONFIDENCE SHELTER.
WHILE NO RV STORAGE SITES HAVE
YET BEEN OFFICIALLY IDENTIFIED,
I CAN TELL YOU WE ARE WORKING
THROUGH A LIST RIGHT NOW, AND
WE ARE GETTING CLOSER EVERY
DAY. SO, MUCH LIKE WITH THE RV
SAFE LOT THAT WAS LOCATED IN
THE INNER BAY, IT TOOK A NUMBER
OF YEARS TO FIGURE OUT WHERE
THAT WAS AND SET IT UP. I CAN
TELL YOU THAT THIS IS STILL AN
IMPORTANT LINE ITEM TO KEEP
WITHIN THE BUDGET.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU. LET'S
MOVE ON.
>> ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO
HAND OVER THE NEXT COUPLE
ISSUES TO MY COLLEAGUE .
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JEN.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THE NEXT
ISSUE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
IS GOING TO BE HSD'S PROPOSAL
FOR THE USE OF REVENUES IN
2024 THAT THE CITY IS
PROJECTED TO RECEIVE FROM THE
STATE LEVEL OPIOID SETTLEMENTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO TEE UP THAT
CONVERSATION BY PROVIDING SOME
BACKGROUND ON BOTH THE
SETTLEMENTS AND THE ANTICIPATED
REVENUES FROM THEM. THIS
INFORMATION IS ALSO INCLUDED
IN THE HST OVERVIEW MEMO. THIS
CHART SHOWS HSD 'S PROJECTED
SPENDING PLAN FROM THESE
REVENUES. THE ORANGE LINE IS
PROJECTED SPENDING ON PROGRAMS
AND THE BLUE LINE IS PROJECTED
ADMINISTRATIVE COST. WHERE DO
THESE REVENUES COME FROM? THE
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS SO
FAR FINALIZED TWO LARGE
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE
COMPANIES WHO WERE FOUND
CULPABLE IN SOME WAY FOR
WASHINGTON'S OPIOID PUBLIC
HEALTH CRISIS , FOR A TOTAL OF
ALMOST $900 MILLION ACROSS
THOSE TWO SETTLEMENTS. THIS
AMOUNT WILL BE PAID OUT OVER A
TOTAL OF 17 YEARS , WITH THE
LAST ANTICIPATED PAYMENT IN
2039, AS YOU SEE HERE.
DIFFERENT COMPANIES THAT WILL
BE PAYING SETTLEMENTS AGREED
TO DIFFERENT PAYOUT PERIODS,
WHICH IS WHY THESE LINES GO UP
AND DOWN. OF THE SETTLEMENT
AMOUNT , THE STATE WILL KEEP A
LITTLE MORE THAN HALF OF IT TO
FUND VARIOUS OPIOID REMEDIATION
PROGRAMS, INCLUDING TREATMENT
AND RECOVERY. THE OTHER ALMOST
HALF WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO
COUNTIES , EACH OF WHICH WILL
ALSO KEEP A LITTLE MORE THAN
HALF TO FUND THEIR OWN PROGRAMS
AND DISTRIBUTE THE OTHER
PORTION TO CITIES WITHIN THOSE
COUNTIES ON THE BASIS OF
POPULATION. FOR THE FIRST
SEVEN YEARS THAT CITIES ARE
RECEIVING SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS,
THEY WILL ALSO BE MAKING
PAYMENTS TO THE STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE TO COVER THAT
BODY'S COST TO LITIGATE THE
SETTLEMENTS. SO, $900 MILLION
IS A LOT OF MONEY. BUT WHEN
YOU TAKE LESS THAN HALF OF IT,
THEN LESS THAN HALF OF THAT,
AND PARCELED OUT OVER 17 YEARS
ACROSS A GROUP OF CITIES, IT
IS NOT A SPECTACULAR AMOUNT OF
MONEY. THE TOTAL AT SEATTLE
EXPECTS TO RECEIVE AT THIS
POINT IS $25.7 MILLION ,
SPRINKLED, IF YOU WILL, ACROSS
A 17 YEAR PAYOUT PERIOD. YOU
CAN SEE ON THIS CHART THE MOST
WE EXPECT TO RECEIVE IN ANY
SINGLE YEAR IS A LITTLE OVER $2
MILLION. THAT WILL COME IN 2029
AND 2030. OUT OF THAT AMOUNT,
10% IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE
TO SUPPORT THE KING COUNTY
OPIOID ABATEMENT COUNCIL,
WHICH IS A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE
BODY THAT WILL TRACK AND REPORT
ON THESE REVENUES AND EVALUATE
THE EFFICACY OF THEIR USE
ACROSS THE COUNTY.
ADDITIONALLY, HSD ANTICIPATES
HAVING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF
ITS OWN, AND THOSE TWO AMOUNTS
TOGETHER ARE THE BLUE LINE ON
THE CHART. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
THIS? NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
>> I GUESS I JUST -- I WANT TO
NOTE THE IMPORTANCE , LIKE THE
HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE, OF THIS
INVESTMENT BEFORE WE START
TALKING ABOUT POLICY. I SPENT
THE WEEKEND WATCHING SOME
DOCUMENTARIES ABOUT THE OPIOID
CRISIS , THE BEGINNINGS OF THE
FENTANYL CRISIS, AND I KNOW
FOLKS HAVE NOT SEEN SOME OF THE
DOCUMENTARIES AVAILABLE ,
CORPORATE, MALICIOUS INTENT TO
HOOK COMMUNITIES , FAMILY
MEMBERS, WORKERS ON OPIOIDS
AND THEN ON FENTANYL. IT WAS A
VERY ABOVEBOARD, LEGAL
CORPORATE STRATEGY TO MAKE
MONEY. IT WOULD BE WORTH
WATCHING THAT AGAIN, TO PUT
THAT IN CONTEXT OF IS NOW
RECEIVING THESE DOLLARS . THIS
IS A REALLY HISTORIC MOMENT WE
HAVE TO TRY TO WRITE SOME OF
THOSE WRONGS. THIS IS IN NO WAY
SUFFICIENT FUNDING AND IN NO
WAY ABLE TO COMPENSATE FAMILIES
FOR THE LOSS OF THEIR CHILDREN
AND LOVED ONES AND THE LOST
TIME THEY HAD WITH PEOPLE WHO
MIGHT STILL BE RECOVERING FROM
THAT LEVEL OF ADDICTION. THE
DOCUMENTARIES ARE EXTREMELY
GUT WRENCHING. I WOULD SAY
THEY ARE IMPORTANT FOR US TO
PUT INTO CONTEXT HOW WE USE
THESE DOLLARS. IF WE ARE NOT
USING THESE DOLLARS, EVERY
SINGLE PENNY, TO HELP GET
PEOPLE INTO TREATMENT AND CARE
AND INSTEAD ARE RE-TRAUMATIZING
PEOPLE BY CRIMINALIZING AND
PROSECUTING THE ADDICTION THAT
HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON OUR
COUNTRY AND THE GLOBE BY THESE
CORPORATIONS, THEN WE ARE
MISSING A HUGE OPPORTUNITY TO
USE THIS WINDFALL OF FUNDING TO
WRITE THOSE HISTORIC WRONGS. IT
IS AN IMPORTANT MOMENT FOR US
TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT
JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLUG A
BUDGET HOLE, BUT THE DECADES
THAT HAVE GONE INTO TRYING TO
GET SOME SORT OF REPARATION TO
REPAIR THE HARM THAT HAS BEEN
IMPOSED UPON FAMILIES THAT HAVE
HAD INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN
TARGETED BY BIG PHARMACEUTICAL
COMPANIES THAT CONTINUE TO
GET A PASS , IN THE PROSECUTION
OF BOTH THE CORPORATIONS AND
THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THAT TYPE OF MARKETING. SO I
AM GRATEFUL TO OUR ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR BEING PART OF THIS
SETTLEMENT, AND GRATEFUL THAT
WE HAVE THESE DOLLARS COMING
IN. I WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS, USING THESE
TO DIRECTLY HELP PREVENT THE
TYPE OF HARM THAT HAS BEEN DONE
IN THE PAST, AND TO CONTINUE TO
HELP THE FAMILIES THAT ARE
SUFFERING FROM BEING ON THE
RECEIVING END OF THE TARGETED
ADDICTION THE CORPORATIONS
IMPOSED UPON OUR COUNTRY. OKAY,
YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
>> NEXT SLIDE. I WOULD JUST
LIKE TO ECHO WHAT THE CHAIR
JUST SAID. THE 2024 PROPOSED
BUDGET IS THE FIRST ONE THAT
SETS OUT A PLAN FOR THE USE OF
THESE REVENUES. ONE OF THE
PROPOSED USES ARE ONGOING, SO
THIS REALLY IS THE TIME TO
HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT
PRIORITIES AND WHAT POLICIES
ARE BEHIND THE SPENDING
PROPOSAL, AND TO ENSURE THAT
THE COUNCIL SUPPORTS WHAT HSE
HAS PROPOSED, HERE, OR WOULD
LIKE TO GO IN A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION. AS WE MENTIONED
EARLIER, THERE IS A TOTAL OF
$2.2 MILLION IN SETTLEMENT
REVENUES PROGRAMS IN 2024,
INCLUDING SOME THAT WERE
RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY AND NOT
YET SPENT. HSD HAS PROPOSED
SPREADING OUT THESE REVENUES
OVER A COUPLE DIFFERENT
INVESTMENTS, AS SHOWN HERE.
FIRST, THERE IS A $470,000
ONGOING INVESTMENT IN EXISTING
DRUG USER HELP AND HARM
REDUCTION PROGRAMS. AS AN
EXAMPLE, THIS FUNDING COULD
SUPPORT ONGOING WORK OF THREE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT MADE A
PRESENTATION IN MAY TO THE
PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE . THESE ARE
THE HEPATITIS EDUCATION
PROJECT, THE PEOPLE 'S HARM
REDUCTION ALLIANCE, AND
TREATMENT SERVICES OUTREACH
PROGRAM. THERE IS ALSO AN
ONGOING INVESTMENT OF $325,000
THAT WOULD ADD TO FP SOCIAL
SERVICE AIDS TO SUPPORT THE
WORK OF THE SEATTLE FIRE
DEPARTMENT OVERDOSE RESPONSE
TEAM. THESE STAFF ADS WOULD
ESSENTIALLY SERVE AS PEER
NAVIGATORS WHO CAN MAINTAIN
CONTACT WITH PEOPLE AFTER THE
IMMEDIATE SFD RESPONSE AND
CONNECT THEM TO POST OVERDOSE
RESOURCES AND TREATMENT
OPTIONS. THERE IS ALSO BOTH A
ONE-TIME AND ONGOING FUNDING
INCREMENTS TOTALING $1.1
MILLION TO SUPPORT THE STARTUP
AND ONGOING COSTS OF A POST
OVERDOSE STABILIZATION FACILITY
THAT IS EXPECTED TO OPEN IN
2024. AS I MENTIONED, FUNDING
IS ALSO ALLOCATED FOR THE
REQUIRED COSTS OF THE OPIOID
ABATEMENT COUNCIL , AND FOR HSD
'S OWN ANTICIPATED
ADMINISTERING OF COSTS. HSD
WOULD ADD TWO NEW POSITIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BODY OF
WORK. AND THE TOTAL FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS THAT IS IN
THE BUDGET IS $328,000.
QUESTIONS?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER HERBOLD?
>> I WANT TO LIFT UP THAT
FIRST BULLET POINT, THERE, AND
THE THREE PROGRAMS THAT ANN
HAD MENTIONED, ONE, THE
PEOPLE'S HARM REDUCTION
ALLIANCE, THE OTHER , THE
EVERGREEN TREATMENT SERVICES,
AND THE LAST, AT THE HEPATITIS
PROGRAM. THESE PROGRAMS WERE
FUNDED , AS ANN MENTIONED,
THERE WAS A PANEL PRESENTATION
AT MY COMMITTEE IN MAY. OFTEN,
WHEN PEOPLE ASK "WHAT
HAPPENED TO THE $1.5 MILLION
THE COUNCIL PROVIDED FOR A
CONSUMPTION SITE?" I POINT TO
THE FUNDING OF THESE THREE
PROGRAMS AS THE DECISION THAT
THE CITY OF SEATTLE , IN
COLLABORATION WITH KING COUNTY
PUBLIC HEALTH, AND SPECIFIC
EMBASSY -- ADVOCACY GROUPS,
SAID YES TO SAFE CONSUMPTION
SITES, MADE TOGETHER WHEN THE
COLLECTIVE DECISION WAS MADE
TO NOT PURSUE A BRICK-AND-MORTA
R SAFE CONSUMPTION SITE, AND
INSTEAD WE USED THOSE
RESOURCES TO SHOW OUR
COMMITMENT , QUOTING FROM THE
FCS LETTER, RESPONDED TO DRUG
USER HEALTH AND ENGAGEMENT,
REGULATE SUPPLIES OF DRUG
ALTERNATIVES, AND END THE
STIGMATIZATION, ACCESSIBLE
HEALTH CARE, AND OUTREACH
SERVICES. SO, THESE FUNDS ARE
BEING USED IN A WAY THAT MEETS
MANY OF THE GOALS OF THAT SAFE
CONSUMPTION SITE, ADDRESSING
SPECIFICALLY THE HEALTHCARE
NEEDS OF USERS AT LOCATIONS
WHERE THEY GO FOR HELP. SO,
JUST WANT TO LIFT UP THAT I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE
EXECUTIVE CONTINUING TO FUND
THESE SERVICES, THE FUNDING
THAT THE COUNCIL PROVIDED WAS
ONE TIME FUNDING. AND SO, THEY
ARE USING THIS ONGOING FUNDING
AS A WAY TO MAINTAIN THE
COMMITMENT TO THESE SERVICES.
IT IS INCREDIBLY HELPFUL , AND
APPRECIATED BY THE RECIPIENTS
OF THE FUNDING. I WOULD JUST
LIKE TO RECALL THAT, AFTER SOME
FUNDING DECISIONS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE 1.5, IT WAS LOOKING
MORE LIKE ABOUT 1.1. I THINK
THERE WAS MULTI-YOUR FUNDING, I
JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE
FUNDING, THIS $470,000, IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE ANNUALIZED
FUNDING THAT THESE AGENCIES
HAVE BEEN RECEIVING. [
CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ] ON T
BECAUSE OUR INTENTION WAS TO
MAKE IT ANNUALIZED. AND JUST A
QUICK CLARIFICATION, ABOUT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, AS IT
STATED ON THE SLIDE, JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC
UNDERSTANDS , AGAIN THAT IS
COUPLED WITH THE PORTION FOR
THE COUNTY AND A PORTION FOR
HST. THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS ARE A REQUIREMENT, SO
JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT AND
MAKE SURE FOLKS DO THAT, WE ARE
TRYING TO BE LENIENT AS WELL.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON?
>> SO, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE I DO
HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
BUDGET ITEM BECAUSE THERE
WASN'T MUCH INFORMATION IN CR
126 ABOUT THESE EXPENSES. SO
FIRST OF ALL, THE FOOTNOTE ON
PAGE, LET'S SEE, THE MEMO IS I
BELIEVE 8 OR SO, I CAN GET
THAT TO YOU IN A SECOND, YEAH,
IT IS PAGE 6 IN THE MEMO,
$470,000, THE FOOTNOTES SAYS
THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, HEALTH
AND OVERDOSE PREVENTION
PROGRAMS RECEIVED 2022 PUBLIC
FUNDING THROUGH THE COUNTY
COMMUNITY-BASED OVERDOSE
PREVENTION PROGRAM AND
BEGINNING IN 2024, HSD TENDS TO
FUND THESE PROGRAMS WITH AN
ONGOING BASIS, SO WHY DID HSD
DECIDE TO TAKE OVER FUNDING
FROM PUBLIC HEALTH, GIVEN THAT
DRUG USER HEALTH AND HARM
REDUCTION AS A BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE IS
NOT THE PURVIEW OF HSD . WHAT
WAS THE THINKING BEHIND
ASSUMING THIS EXPENSE THAT WAS
PAID FOR BY PUBLIC HEALTH ON
THAT ITEM AND ALSO ONGOING?
>> AS A COUNCILMEMBER WHO WAS
THERE AT THE TIME, IT WAS MONEY
THAT THE COUNCIL CHAMPIONED ,
AND PASSED IT THROUGH TO THE
COUNTY AND ALLOWED THEM TO
MINISTER. THE SAFE SEATTLE
ENHANCED PUBLIC SERVICES
THROUGH IN THE LOCAL AGREEMENT,
AND THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE WHERE
THE COUNCIL COUNT -- FUNDED
THIS AT THE TIME. WE DID NOT
ADMINISTER THE FUNDING, THE
FUNDING WENT FROM HST TO PUBLIC
HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR THEM TO
ADMINISTER ALONG WITH KING
COUNTY FUNDS.
>> WE WOULD PASS THAT THROUGH
TO PUBLIC HEALTH, BECAUSE THAT
IS THEIR ROLE IN THIS CASE.
>> I'M JUST CONFUSED BECAUSE
YOU MENTIONED ONE SOURCE OF
FUNDING WHICH IS WHAT YOU
TALKED ABOUT, COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD BUT NOW WE ARE USING
OPIOID SETTLEMENT, AND BASED ON
WHAT WAS JUST SAID, IF WE GET
ABOUT $2 MILLION PER YEAR, THIS
IS 25% OF EVERY YEAR OF OUR
DISBURSEMENTS. SO, WHAT IS THE
THEORY OF CHANGE THAT WE ARE
GETTING AT HERE AND, DO YOU
UNDERSTAND MY CONFUSION , WE
ARE BASICALLY SWITCHING THE
FUNDING SOURCE. SO WHAT IS
HAPPENING TO THE OTHER FUNDING
SOURCE?
>> IT WAS ONE TIME MONEY. THAT
THE COUNCIL IDENTIFIED
ORIGINALLY FOR A SAFE
CONSUMPTION SITE, IT WENT
UNSPENT FOR A COUPLE YEARS. AND
THE COUNCIL AND PUBLIC HEALTH
AND HSD WORKED WITH THE
ADVOCATES TO GET THEIR
AGREEMENT TO USE IT ON SAFE
CONSUMPTION SERVICES RATHER
THAN SAFE CONSUMPTION SITES. SO
THIS IS ONE TIME MONEY, IT
WOULD GO AWAY IF WE DID NOT
IDENTIFY ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE
AND THE EXECUTIVE HAS
IDENTIFIED THE OPIOID
SETTLEMENT FUNDS AS A FUNDING
SOURCE TO KEEP THESE
LIFE-SAVING SERVICES
MAINTAINED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, WE
WORKED EARLIER THIS YEAR ON
SOME NARRATIVE AROUND THE
ORIGINAL $1.5 MILLION FUNDING
INCREMENT, AND HOW IT IS
CHANGING OVER A PERIOD OF A
COUPLE OF YEARS, I WILL
FOLLOW-UP WITH YOU AND PROVIDE
THAT INFORMATION.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY.
>> YES, I'M STILL INTERESTED IN
HEARING FROM THE EXECUTIVE
BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT
25% OF THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT
FUNDING THAT WE ARE COMMITTING
ON AN ONGOING BASIS UNTIL THAT
RUNS OUT, FOR THESE
ORGANIZATIONS. THAT WE ARE NOT
CHOSEN BY RFP AS KING COUNTY ON
PAGE 7 OF THE MEMO SAYS KING
COUNTY INTENDS TO AWARD
SETTLEMENT MONDAY -- MONEY FOR
COMMUNITY-BASED OVERDOSE
PREVENTION SERVICES. SO, MY
THINKING IS WHY AREN'T WE DOING
THE SAME, AND IN 2022, THOSE
ORGANIZATIONS WERE PAID FROM
THE COMMUNITY-BASED OVERDOSE
PREVENTION SERVICES PROGRAM AT
PUBLIC HEALTH. BUT AGAIN, I
WILL ASK THE SAME QUESTION THAT
I ASKED IN THE COMMITTEE
MEETING, WHAT IS THE HARM THAT
IS BEING REDUCED BY THE USE OF
THIS MONEY AND WHAT IS -- HOW
DO WE MEASURE THE PERFORMANCE
OF THAT INVESTMENT? SO, PEOPLE
KNOW THAT I PREFER THAT ARE
SCARCE DOLLARS SHOULD BE USED
FOR TREATMENT, SO I JUST NEED
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
THINKING OF ALLOCATING THIS ON
AN ONGOING BASIS FOR THAT.
>> DIRECTOR KIM, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO ADD ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION
OR ANY ANSWERS THAT YOU HAVE?
>> THE ONLY CLARIFICATION I
WANTED TO ADD IS THE ORIGIN OF
THOSE PROVIDERS, THEY WERE
IDENTIFIED THROUGH AN ART FEE,
SO WE PASSED IT TO PUBLIC
HEALTH, AND PUBLIC HEALTH DID
ISSUE THE PROGRAMS IN EFFECT,
SO JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT.
>> OKAY, THIS IS A DIFFERENT
FUNDING SOURCE. THE SETTLEMENT
MONEY. AND IT'S ALSO NOT ONE
TIME, BUT ONGOING. SO I THINK
THAT DOES BEAR SOME
INTERROGATION. AND WHO HOLDS
-- I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OFF-LINE
OR WHATEVER, THE CONTRACTS TO
KNOW WHAT THE PERFORMANCE
MEASURES ARE AND THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
>> WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION
FOR YOU COUNCILMEMBER NELSON
WITH RESPECT TO THE FUNDING
THAT WAS ALREADY AWARDED
THROUGH PUBLIC HEALTH. BUT I
THINK THAT EIGHT -- IF HSD
ESTABLISHES AN ONGOING
CONTRACT WITH THESE
ORGANIZATIONS, THERE MIGHT BE
NEW PERFORMANCE METRICS, NEW
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AND
THAT IS A CONVERSATION WE ARE
HAPPY TO KEEP ENGAGING IN WITH
HSD.
>> BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE A
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ITEM. IT
WAS FOR SAFE CONSUMPTION
SITES, SO IT WAS ON A ONE-TIME
BASIS FOR THESE ORGANIZATIONS
THROUGH A CONTRACT, AND THIS IS
NOT SAFE CONSUMPTION, IT IS FOR
ONGOING, AND FURTHER
SETTLEMENT. SO IT DOESN'T SEEM
TO MERIT ANOTHER RFP PROCESS IF
WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
HAVE THIS AS A LINE ITEM
MOVING FORWARD.
>> I THINK THE INTENT IS TO
CONTINUE TO PURCHASE THE SAFE
CONSUMPTION SERVICES AT THE
ORGANIZATIONS. I AGREE WITH
CENTRAL STAFF THAT ADJUSTMENTS
TO THE CONTRACT CAN BE MADE TO
THE OUTCOMES, BUT I THINK THE
INTENT AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS TO
CONTINUE BUYING THE SAFE
CONSUMPTION SERVICES THAT WE
ALL AGREED THAT THE FUNDS THAT
WERE ORIGINALLY FOR SAFE
CONSUMPTION SITE WOULD INSTEAD
BE USED FOR.
>> WE DIDN'T ALL AGREE, BECAUSE
I WAS NOT THERE.
>> THE COUNCIL AGREED TO
SPEND, TOGETHER WITH THE
EXECUTIVE, KING COUNTY PUBLIC
HEALTH AND THE ADVOCATES TO
SPEND THE 1.5 THAT THE COUNCIL
AT THE TIME AGREED TO ALLOCATE
FOR SAFE CONSUMPTION SERVICES.
>> DID YOU WANT TO SAY
ANYTHING BECAUSE I HAVE A
QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR KIM?
>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY
THAT WE ARE HAVING A
CONVERSATION ABOUT POLICY
DIFFERENCES REGARDING THE
OPTIMAL USE OF THESE FUNDS, BUT
THERE ARE A COUPLE DIFFERENT
PLACES WHERE LEGAL RESTRICTIONS
ARE PLACED ON THE USE OF THESE
FUNDS AND EVERYTHING IN HSD'S
PROPOSAL WITH RESPECT TO
PROGRAMMING IS CONSISTENT WITH
REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED, AND THE THINGS
THAT I SEE HERE, THEY ARE ALSO
CONSISTENT WITH A COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THAT PUBLIC
HEALTH ENGAGED IN THIS SUMMER.
AND THERE IS A REPORT THAT CAME
OUT OF THAT PROCESS THAT I
WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE WITH
YOUR OFFICE, JUST WANT
EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS PROPOSAL IS COLORING
WITHIN THE LINES.
>> AND THE KING COUNTY BOARD OF
HEALTH ALSO, A COUPLE WEEKS
AGO, PASSED A RESOLUTION, AND
MYSELF AND COUNCILMEMBER
MOSQUEDA REPRESENTING THE
CITY, THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY BY THE BOARD OF
HEALTH, ENDORSING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF WHAT IS
REFERRED TO AS THE READY REPORT
WHICH IDENTIFIES THE OUTCOMES
OF THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
PROCESS THAT IS LEGALLY
REQUIRED , AS A REQUIREMENT BY
THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
THAT IDENTIFIES THE PRIORITIES
FOR THESE FUNDS. SO, THE
JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE
REPRESENTED ON KING COUNTY
BOARD OF HEALTH ENDORSED THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND SAID THEY
WOULD CONSIDER THEM THAT WE
WOULD COLLECTIVELY, EACH OF OUR
JURISDICTIONS AND KING COUNTY
BOARD OF HEALTH WOULD CONSIDER
THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
PRIORITIZING THOSE FUNDS AS A
PART OF OUR OWN FUNDING
DECISIONS.
>> AND I DID READ THAT REPORT
AND THERE WERE SEVERAL ITEMS
AND ONE OF THEM WAS SUBSTANCE
USE DISORDER TREATMENT. SO,
ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION WAS
CRIMINALIZED DRUG USE. BUT
ANYWAY, I DO FEEL THAT IT IS
NECESSARY THAT TREATMENT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS ALSO LACKING
AND THIS DOES NOT FALL INTO A
TREATMENT BUCKET.
>> AND MADAM CHAIR MAY I JUST
REMIND US ALL THAT WE DID IN
THE SUPPLEMENTAL MIDYEAR
BUDGET, WE APPROVED $1 MILLION
FOR THE TREATMENT PROGRAM RUN
BY EVERGREEN TREATMENT SERVICES
AND WE ALSO JUST THIS WEEK, AT
FULL COUNSEL APPROVED A PORTION
OF $7 MILLION FOR A LOW BARRIER
TREATMENT PROGRAM THAT WILL BE
RUN OUT OF A FACILITY AND I
BELIEVE GEORGETOWN.
>> I UNDERSTAND, WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND A
VERY SMALL AMOUNT WE ARE
GETTING EVERY YEAR, THAT WAS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT
FUNDS. MUCH LARGER SUMS OF
DOLLARS.
>> JUST TRYING TO REASSURE YOU.
>> YOU KNOW, I WANT US TO GET
THROUGH THE REST OF THIS SLIDE,
I FEEL LIKE WE ARE ALL VERY
INTERESTED IN ALL OF THESE
TOPICS. IT DOES FEEL LIKE
THERE'S BIGGER CONVERSATIONS WE
ARE HAVING AND MAYBE WE WOULD
BENEFIT FROM A LITTLE LUNCH, SO
WE CAN HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION
ON THE REST OF THIS
PRESENTATION AFTER THE BREAK.
I'M GETTING THE SENSE THAT IT
WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO DO
THAT, SO I'M GOING TO ASK FOR
FINAL COMMENTS ON ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 6 AND I
WANT TO FLAG FOR FOLKS THAT I
WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL US INTO
RECESS EARLY SO WE CAN COME
BACK AT 2:00 PM, THE
PRESENTATIONS THIS AFTERNOON
ARE SHORTER. THE DISCUSSION
ABOUT LEAD WILL PROBABLY BE
LONG, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE GET OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
IS THERE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT HE
WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THIS
SLIDE? THEN I WOULD HAVE SOME
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AS WELL.
>> JUST ONE MORE POTENTIAL
OPPORTUNITY FOR CENTRAL STAFF
TO FOLLOW UP REGARDING FUNDING
FOR TREATMENT. IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT FUNDING FOR
TREATMENT AND RECOVERY SERVICES
IS A PRIORITY FOR THE STATE.
WITH ITS MUCH LONGER INCREMENT
OF FUNDING, THAT IT WILL
RECEIVE FROM THESE REVENUES. I
DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC
INFORMATION RIGHT NOW ABOUT
WHAT PROGRAMS WILL BE FUNDED
AND IN WHICH CITY AND COUNTY'S
THEY WILL BE FUNDED BUT
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON I WOULD BE
HAPPY TO LOOK FOR THAT
INFORMATION FOR YOU SO THAT WE
CAN UNDERSTAND TO WHAT EXTENT
TREATMENT AND RECOVERY IS BEING
FUNDED WITH A DIFFERENT
ALLOCATION OF REVENUE. I CAN
LOOK INTO THAT. THAT'S THE LAST
COMMENT I HAVE OF REGARDING
THE DISCUSSION WE'VE BEEN
HAVING. I WILL JUST ROLL INTO
OPTIONS FOR COUNCILMEMBER TO
CONSIDER.
>> CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING
REALLY QUICK BEFORE WE ROLL
INTO OPTIONS, JUST BECAUSE TO
FOLLOW UP WITH COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD'S HISTORY HERE, AND
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON TO BRING
YOU MORE INTO FOCUS. I WAS ON
THE KING COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT SAFE
CONSUMPTION SITES, LONG STORY,
BUT OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
IT HAS BEEN THE STATE TO THE
COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH ON THE
FOCUS ON TREATMENT MONEY. SO,
THAT'S HOW THE HISTORICAL LINE
WORKS. AND YOU CAN HAVE BOTH
COME YOU CAN HAVE TREATMENT AND
SERVICES. SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR
QUESTION ABOUT PUTTING ON RFP,
BUT ALL CAN BE TRUE. BUT I
THINK WHAT COUNCILMEMBER
HERBOLD WAS TRYING TO SAY,
WHEN WE WERE EXPLORING SAFE
CONSUMPTION SITES, BASED ON THE
MODEL IN VANCOUVER AND SOME OF
THE COUNCILMEMBERS VISITING
THOSE SITES, IT CAME DOWN TO A
POLICY ISSUE AND IN A WELCOMING
NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH DID NOT
HAPPEN, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER
STORY. BUT THE POINT IS,
EVERGREEN AND OTHER FOLKS
STEPPED UP, TO SAY WE CAN DO
BOTH, TREATMENT AND SERVICES
VIA THE CITY AND WE CAN DO
SERVICES ALSO THROUGH OUR CITY
BUDGET. SO, I HOPE THAT PROVIDE
SOME CONTEXT OF THAT
CONVERSATION AND WHAT THE PRIOR
COUNCILS HAVE DONE. I THINK
WHAT COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD WAS
SAYING, SHE MEANT THE COUNCIL
BODY ELECT IN THE YEARS THAT
HAVE GONE BY, NOT THE SPECIFIC
COUNCIL. I UNDERSTAND YOUR
CONCERN IS 2.2 MILLION,
OBVIOUSLY THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO
ADDRESS WHAT WE ARE DEALING
WITH , WITH THE OPIOID, AND WE
CERTAINLY TAKE THE COMMENTS AND
LOOKING AND KNOWING WHAT OPIOID
AND BIG PHARMA HAS DONE TO THIS
COUNTRY. THAT IS NOT GOING
UNNOTICED. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
MENTIONING THIS, NONE OF THIS
BACKGROUND WAS INCLUDED IN THE
CR OR THE CENTRAL STAFF MEMO,
AND I HAVE ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS FUNDING SOURCE AND
WHAT IS BEHIND IT. SO, THIS IS
HELPFUL INFORMATION AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO LEARNING MORE ABOUT
THAT HISTORY GOING FORWARD.
>> ONE QUICK NOTE, THIS
LITIGATION ON THE OPIOID WASN'T
JUST MR. FERGUSON, IT WAS LIKE
THE CIGARETTE LITIGATION, EVERY
STATE JUMPED IN. THERE WAS A
TON OF MONEY THERE, IT WASN'T
LIKE SOMEBODY THOUGHT OF IT,
EVERY STATE AG WAS IN ON THAT,
AND THEN SOME. SO IT WAS
NATIONAL, OBVIOUSLY, BUT THAT
DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE AG
LEADERSHIP. AND ALSO OUR CITY
ATTORNEY'S LEADERSHIP AND
MAKING SURE THOSE ARE SECURED
SERVICES. AND TREATMENT. SO,
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S GO THROUGH
THE OPTIONS HERE.
>> NOTHING TO ADD, I WILL
CONTINUE WITH THE OPTIONS,
OPTION A WOULD BE TO REPROGRAM
SOME OR ALL SETTLEMENT REVENUES
NOT RESERVED FOR COUNTY LEVEL
ADMINISTRATION. GOING WITH WHAT
DIRECTOR KIM SAID, WE ARE
REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE FUNDING
FOR THE OPIOID ABATEMENT
COUNSEL AND THE MEMO THAT
COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE AS LITTLE
MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE
SETTLEMENT REVENUES THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY REPROGRAM THE STAFF
COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE
ADDITION TO THE HEALTH 99
OVERDOSE RESPONSE PROGRAM. ONLY
ABOUT $185,000. THERE IS A LOT
OF FUNDING IN THAT ALLOCATION
THAT WOULD WOULD BE INTERESTED
TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION FROM
HSD ABOUT. ALSO, $17,000 WAS
MISTAKINGLY ALLOCATED BY HSD
TO ONGOING ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS, THIS IS AN
UN-INTERESTING TECHNICAL ERROR
BUT IT IS $17,000 PER YEAR.
COUNCIL, COULD YOU PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR THE POST OVERDOSE
STABILIZATION FACILITY
REQUIRING COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
ITS OPERATING AND FUNDING
PLANS, JUST TO SUMMARIZE
BRIEFLY, THIS FACILITY IS NOT
IN OPERATION. WE DON'T KNOW
WHERE IT IS GOING TO BE. WE
DON'T KNOW WHO IS GOING TO RUN
IT, WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT IS
GOING TO OPEN AND WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE OPERATING COSTS ARE
GOING TO BE OR WHO IS GOING TO
FUND THEM. OPTION C, REDUCE
SOME POSITION OF AUTHORITY AND
FUNDING FOR HST
ADMINISTRATION, OPTION E, NO
CHANGE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE SUMMARY
HERE, YOU JUST SPOKE TO THE
QUESTIONS WE WERE RAISING AND
THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE I WANT TO
ENSURE IS THAT WE HAVE STAFF
READY TO PROVIDE SERVICES IN
THE TWO FACILITIES THAT
RECEIVED THE 7 MILLION SUNS --
FUNDS, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY
INDICATION ON WHERE THEY WILL
BE HOUSED, BUT THE OPERATION
COST WILL BE, WHETHER THERE IS
A TOTAL KNOWN DOLLAR FOR
TREATMENT SERVICES BECAUSE WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OPENING
DATE WILL BE FOR THOSE. IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT FACILITY
OR FACILITIES RECEIVE THE
FUNDING WILL BE AVAILABLE, IT'S
MY UNDERSTANDING IN EARLY 2024,
SO ANY PLANNING FOR THE USE OF
THOSE FUNDS TO ESTABLISH
FACILITIES WOULD TAKE PLACE
AFTER THAT POINT.
>> SO THEN HOW DO WE HAVE SUCH
SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNTS
INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET,
$581,000, FOR ONE TIME FUNDING
FOR THE OVERDOSE FACILITIES --
>> THE CENTRAL STAFF DOES NOT
HAVE THAT INFORMATION. WE DON'T
HAVE THE BASIS FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THESE
PLACEHOLDER COSTS. SO, I WOULD
ASK FOR HSD TO ANSWER THAT
QUESTION.
>> OKAY, AND I KNOW YOU HAVE
RECEIVED THIS QUESTION, BUT WE
ARE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE THE
ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND SUCH
SPECIFIC NUMBERS, $1,636,045
FOR ONGOING COSTS AND $163,807
FOR OPIOID ABATEMENT, SOME OF
THESE THINGS ARE VERY SPECIFIC
DOLLARS, SO I APPRECIATE THAT
MAYBE THERE IS AN EARMARK BUT I
THINK THE BIGGEST QUESTION THAT
WE ARE GETTING FROM
ORGANIZATIONS WHO LIKELY WILL
BE PROVIDING THE SIMILAR
SERVICES AND HOPEFULLY WILL BE
WITHIN THESE FACILITIES, THEY
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS
PERSONNEL INSIDE THE BUILDING.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THAT
RIGHT NOW, JUST A FOLLOW-UP TO
SAY WE DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE TO
HAVE ASSUMPTIONS ON WHEN THE
FACILITY OR FACILITIES WILL
OPEN AND WHAT THE PROJECTED
COST WOULD BE, AND MY INTEREST
WOULD BE TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE
PROPORTIONING AT TO THE OPEN
DATE SO THERE'S NOT MONEY
SITTING ON A SHELF IF WE ARE
REALLY NOT GOING TO OPEN UNTIL
SEPTEMBER OR JUNE OF NEXT YEAR.
OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, I'M
GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU
BUT I'M ALSO GOING TO FLAG FOR
THE VICE CHAIR , I WOULD LIKE
TO RECESS AFTER THIS SERIES OF
QUESTIONS AND I DO HAVE AN
APPOINTMENT I HAVE TO GO TO
RELATIVELY SOON, SO IF YOU
DON'T MIND TAKING THE REINS IF
WE DON'T CONCLUDE IN THE NEXT
SIX MINUTES, I MIGHT ASK YOU TO
DO THAT AND AGAIN, WE WILL
RECONVENE AT 2:00 PM. PLEASE GO
AHEAD.
>> GIVEN OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT
STAFFING AND DIFFICULTY FILLING
VACANCIES, IS IT LIKELY THAT
THESE FTES CAN BE HIRED IN
2024, AND IS THIS CONSIDERED
MORE BECAUSE THIS IS FUNDING
SOURCE THAT IS OUTSIDE THE
CITY, NOT GENERAL FUNDS, OPIOID
SETTLEMENT DOLLARS, WOULD THAT
BE CONSIDER MORE GRANT FUNDING,
WOULD THAT FALL INTO THE
BUCKET, ADD TO THE 40 OR SO
PEOPLE THAT ARE IN POSITIONS
THAT ARE GRANT FUNDED THAT HAVE
NOT BEEN HIRED YET? AND I CAN
GET THOSE ANSWERS LATER, I
SUPPOSE. THANKS.
>> THE QUICK ANSWER, CORRECT
ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT MOST
OF THE PEOPLE WORKING THE
FACILITIES WOULD BE OUTSOURCED
THROUGH COMMUNITY PARTNERS, IS
THAT CORRECT?
>> GO AHEAD, DIRECTOR KIM.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. AND WE
WILL FOLLOW UP WITH MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT,
COUNCILMEMBER HERBOLD?
>> WE HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THE
OPERATING COSTS FOR THE POST
OVERDOSE STABILIZATION
FACILITY, AGAIN AS I MENTIONED
EARLIER IN RESPONSE TO
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, THERE'S
ALSO THE CBG FUNDED CAPITAL
FACILITIES, APPROXIMATELY $5
MILLION FOR THE LOW BARRIER
TREATMENT, $5 MILLION FOR THE
PHYSICALLY -- FACILITY, THAT
WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED, WHETHER
THERE ARE OPERATING COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, I DID
HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE YESTERDAY ABOUT
THAT. HE SAID HE BELIEVES THAT
THE OPERATING COSTS CAN BE
ABSORBED BY THE LIKELY
RECIPIENT OF FUNDS FOR THAT LOW
BARRIER TREATMENT FACILITY. BUT
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CONFIRM
THAT, AND KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT
IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD
BE TENDING TO IN THIS BUDGET,
FUNDING FOR OPERATING COSTS WAS
ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BUILDING
AS WELL. THANK YOU.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON
THAT? OKAY. COLLEAGUES, I THINK
WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND
TAKE A RECESS, WE WILL COME
BACK AT 2:00 PM AND CONTINUE
THE DISCUSSION ON HSD'S
PRESENTATION. THANK YOU
EVERYONE, HAVE A GOOD BREAK. IF
THERE IS NO RECESS --
OBJECTION, WE WILL BE IN RECESS
UNTIL ABOUT 2:00 PM. WE WILL
SEE