>>> ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING, WE
HAVE QUORUM , MAY 21, 2024.
THIS IS THE TRANSPORTATION LEVY
MEETING. WE SHALL COME TO
ORDER. I AM THE CHAIR OF THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, ROB
SAKA. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL?
>> [ COUNCIL IS CALLING THE
ROLL. ]
>> THERE ARE SEVEN MEMBERS
PRESENT.
>> THAT COUNTS THAT MEMBERS DAN
STRAUSS AND TANYA WOO ARE
ABSENT. THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS
THE AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. THE
AGENDA IS HEREBY ADOPTED. WITH
A FEW QUICK REMARKS. THIS MIDI,
AS WE KNOW, IS CHARGED WITH
OVERSEEING THE TRANSFORMATIVE
AND HUGELY IMPACTFUL PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, THE 2024
TRANSPORTATION LEVY RENEWAL
PROPOSAL. WE ARE JUST
COMPLETING THE EIGHTH YEAR MORE
THAN I FEAR THE 2015 MOVE LEVY.
THIS LEVY WAS PASSED BY VOTERS,
OUR VOTERS . THEY ENTRUSTED US
, THE CITY LEADERS AND
DEPARTMENTS TO ENSURE THAT OUR
TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES, AND
THE URGENT NEEDS WERE BEING
MET. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS
, ROUNDING OUT THE BASIS OF
PERFORMANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR
LEVY, IT IS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT
THE LEVY, THE PAST LEVY IS
DELIVERED TO THE VOTERS,
SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF WHAT WE
PROMISE THAT COMMITTED , AND
WHAT WE HAVE RECEIVED , WE ALSO
RECEIVED BRIEFINGS AND REPORTS
FROM THE LEVY OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING A NEW
LEVY. HERE WE ARE. I DO WANT TO
THANK MEMBERS OF THE LEVY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
DILIGENT STEWARDSHIP OVER THE
PAST YEARS. I WANT TO THANK THE
MAYOR AND HIS TEAM FOR THEIR
EFFORTS TO HELP BRING FORTH THE
LEVY RENEWAL PACKAGE IN ALL OF
ITS COMPLEXITIES, AND PRESENT
THIS LEVY PROPOSAL IN A WAY
THAT THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND
, IN TERMS OF THE FRAMING, THE
CATEGORIES PRESENTED, AND MORE.
NOW IT IS OUR TURN. TODAY WE
HAVE A ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME
OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE
DEVELOPING NEEDS OF OUR
FAST-GROWING CITY. AS CHAIR OF
THIS COMMITTEE, IT IS MY
PRIVILEGE TO HELP LEAD THIS
HUGELY IMPORTANT PROCESS,
WORKING CLOSELY ALONGSIDE YOU
ALL AND COLLABORATIVELY WITH
YOU ALL IN DIRECT ENGAGEMENT
FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN
THE COMMUNITY. MY INITIAL
IMPRESSIONS OF THE LEVY , AS I
MENTIONED BEFORE, IT IS A
STRONG, BACK TO BASICS LEVY
PACKAGE. I THINK, OVER THE
COURSE OF THE NEXT COUPLE OF
SESSIONS, WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSELY EXAMINE
THE SPECIFIC INVESTMENT
CATEGORIES AND THE ADEQUACY AND
SUFFICIENCY OF VARIOUS
INVESTMENT CATEGORIES IN
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER
INVESTMENTS AND PRIORITIES,
INCLUDING SIDEWALKS, FREIGHT
MOBILITY, ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING AND THE STUFF THAT
WILL NOT GET ANY HEADLINES
WHATSOEVER, AND IT'S WHAT
VOTERS ELECTED US TO DO , AND
THAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE
PROVISIONS. IT'S THE
UNGLAMOROUS THINGS THAT HELP
DRIVE PERFORMANCE AND DRIVE THE
IMPACT. THOSE TYPES OF THINGS
WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY , AND
MORE TO CLOSELY EXAMINE AND
STRENGTHEN THE PROCESS. BIG
DECISIONS, INCLUDING THE
APPROPRIATE SIZE OF THE LEVY DO
AWAIT US. WE WILL BE DIRECTLY
CONFRONTED WITH THIS NO LATER
THAN THE VERY NEXT MEETING.
AGAIN, WILL HAVE TO WORK
TOGETHER AND WEATHER
PRIORITIES, AND BE MINDFUL THAT
THE NONTRIVIAL, FINANCIAL
IMPACTS THAT THIS LEVY HAS ON
EVERY DAY VOTERS , THE ONES
THAT MANY OF US ARE FRESH OFF
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. WHATEVER
THE SIZE OF THE INVESTMENT ,
THEY WANT US TO SPEND WISELY
AND MAKE SURE WE GET A GOOD
RETURN ON INVESTMENT. THAT IS
MY COMMITMENT, TO MAKE SURE WE
ARE DOING EXACTLY THAT. YOU
KNOW, SIDEWALKS, SAFETY,
EQUITY, ALL THESE THINGS ARE
TOP OF MIND FOR ME PERSONALLY,
AS IS CARGO MOBILITY. I HAVE
HEARD THAT THEME HAMMERED OVER
AND OVER BY MANY OF MY
COLLEAGUES. I DO AGREE , THAT
IS A HUGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DRIVER . IT SUPPORTS THE
BACKBONE OF OUR ECONOMY. ONE OF
OUR PUBLIC COMMENTERS FAMOUSLY
SAID , WHICH I APPRECIATE, I
HAVE NOT HEARD , GETTING THE
WORDS WRONG, I AM PARAPHRASING.
HE SAYS I AM NOT HEARD OF
ANYONE BEING ABLE TO
EFFECTIVELY DELIVER A FRIDGE ON
A BUS AND I TAKE THE BUS. IT'S
TRUE. WE NEED TO SUPPORT ALL
MODES. I THINK WE WILL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DO A ACKLEY
THAT. IN ADDITION TO ELECTRIC
VEHICLE CHARGING TO HELP US
ACHIEVE CLIMATE GOALS, AMONGST
OTHER THINGS. THAT SAID, WE
WILL NOW OPEN THE HYBRID
COMMENT PUBLIC PERIOD. PUBLIC,
SHOULD RELATE TO THE AGENDA,
AND WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS
COMMITTEE. CLERK , AND HOW MANY
SPEAKERS ARE SIGNED UP TODAY?
>> WE HAVE SEVEN IN PERSON
SPEAKERS SIGNED UP. THERE IS ,
THERE ARE TWO REMOTE SPEAKERS
PRESENT.
>> SEVEN IN PERSON? MY GUESS.
>> EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE
APPROXIMATELY TWO MINUTES. WE
START WITH THE IN PERSON
SPEAKERS FIRST. CAN YOU PLEASE
READ THE INSTRUCTIONS? ESTIMATE
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL
BE MODERATED IN THE FOLLOWING
MANNER. IT IS UP TO 20 MINUTES.
SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE
ORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED.
SPEAKERS WILL ALTERNATE BETWEEN
SETS OF IN PERSON AND REMOTE
SPEAKERS INTO THE PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD HAS ENDED.
SPEAKERS WILL HEAR A CHIME IN
10 SECONDS LEFT OF THEIR TIME.
SPEAKERS MICROPHONES WILL BE
MUTED IF THEY DO NOT AND
COMMENTS WITHIN THE ALLOTTED
TIME TO ALLOW US TO CALL ON THE
NEXT WEEK OR. IT IS NOW OPEN.
WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST
SPEAKER ON THE LIST. IN PERSON
OR REMOTE SPEAKERS FIRST?
>> IN PERSON, PLEASE.
>> OKAY, MEGAN CRUZ.
>> GOOD MORNING. CAN YOU HEAR
ME? HOW ABOUT THIS ONE?
>> THE OTHER ONE SEEMED
MARGINALLY BETTER.
>> HELLO? THAT SOUNDS GOOD?
>> YOU WILL WANT TO COME VERY
CLOSE .
>> E THE MICROPHONE, ALL RIGHT.
I AM MEGAN CRUZ, SPEAKING AS A
MATTER FACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY
AND THE FREIGHT BUDGET.
EVERYONE WE KNOW RELIES ON
FREIGHT, AS YOU POINTED OUT TO
GET GOODS AND SERVICES EVERY
DAY. WE KNOW WITH INCREASED
DENSITY COMES INCREASED FREIGHT
DELIVERIES. IN THE LAST LEVY
PERIOD, JUST DURING 5 YEARS OF
IT, WE DOUBLED DOWNTOWN
DELIVERIES 2.5 TIMES. IN THE
NEW LEVY, BY THE WAY, THAT HAD
A HUGE IMPACT ON THE SAFETY AND
FUNCTIONALITY OF ALL THE
STREETS AND OTHER
TRANSPORTATION MODES.
DELIVERIES CONTINUE TO RISE AT
THAT LEVEL TODAY, CITYWIDE. YET
IN THE NEW LEVY, THE FUNDING IS
DEAD LAST FOR FREIGHT. ONLY 2%,
LESS THAN 2% OF THE ENTIRE
LEVY. THAT IS NO INCREASE FROM
THE LAST LEVY PERIOD. THE
SEATTLE FREIGHT ADVISORY BOARD
HAS WRITTEN TO THE MAYOR
RECOMMENDING THAT THIS BE
DOUBLED . TALK ABOUT BACK TO
BASICS, THIS WOULD COVER
ENSURING THE SAFE DESIGN AND
REPAIR OF MAJOR TRUCK ARTERIAL
SO DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH
TRANSIT AND OTHER MODES OF
TRANSPORTATION, AS WELL AS
FIXING SMALLER STREETS THAT GO
INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS FOR
TRUCKS AND VANS. WE NEED THIS.
THERE ARE NO OTHER SOURCES FOR
SOME OF THE SMALLER STREETS.
TODAY, I WOULD LIKE THIS
COMMITTEE TO ASK TWO QUESTIONS.
WHY IS FREIGHT THE LOWEST
PRIORITY ON THIS HUGE BUDGET?
WHAT IS THE CITY'S PLAN TO
MANAGE IT EXPONENTIAL GROWTH.
THANK YOU.
>> BY THE WAY, I HAVE A COPY OF
THIS FREIGHT ADVISORY BOARD
LETTER. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
YOU READ IT AND TALK ABOUT IT.
THEY GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT WHAT
IS MISSING AND WHAT COULD BE
USED. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE REVIEWED IT, THANK
YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. TO MAKE
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CLAUDIA
MASON.
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
CLAUDIA MASON. I WORK AT THE
ELLIOTT BAY BOOK COMPANY. I
HAVE BEEN PART OF THAT BUSINESS
SINCE 1987. MY HUSBAND , ROBERT
MASON, WAS A MEMBER OF OUR
BOOKSTORE FAMILY FOR 20 OF
THOSE YEARS. HE WAS ALWAYS
PROUD TO TELL PEOPLE THAT I
WORKED AT ELLIOTT BAY. THE
REACTIONS WERE ALWAYS POSITIVE
AND THEY WOULD OFTEN TELL HIM
HOW LUCKY I WAS TO WORK THERE.
I DID FEEL VERY LUCKY , UNTIL
JULY 15 OF 2022 , THE DAY THAT
ROB WAS KILLED BY A HIT-AND-RUN
DRIVER WHILE RIDING HIS BICYCLE
HOME FROM WORK AS A MASSAGE
THERAPIST IN WEST SEATTLE. THE
DRIVER WAS TRAVELING AT MORE
THAN TWICE THE POSTED SPEED
LIMIT, AND ROB WAS KILLED
INSTANTLY. FROM ONE MOMENT TO
THE NEXT, I LOST MY HUSBAND, MY
BEST FRIEND, AND THE LOVE OF MY
LIFE. THE COMPANIONSHIP WE
SHARED IS IRREPLACEABLE . NOW I
AM LEFT ALONE, WITH MY MEMORIES
AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIM. ROBS
HORRIBLY VIOLENT DEATH LEFT A
WAKE OF DEVASTATION, NOT JUST
FOR ME, BUT FOR OUR FAMILIES
THAT ARE SCATTERED ACROSS THE
COUNTRY , IN EUROPE, AND SOUTH
AMERICA. FOR OUR FRIENDS, FOR
MY WORKPLACE, FOR HIS
WORKPLACE, FOR HIS CLIENTS, AND
THE CYCLISTS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
EVERY DAY, HUNDREDS OF CYCLISTS
HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO FOLLOW
THE SAME ROUTE HE WAS ON WHEN
HE WAS KILLED. MANY MUST WONDER
IF THEY MIGHT BECOME THE NEXT
VICTIM. RIDING A BICYCLE IS
ONLY AS SAFE AS THE MOST
DANGEROUS ACTION OF THE
JOURNEY. MANY CYCLING ROUTES IN
OUR CITY EXPOSE THE CYCLISTS TO
UNNECESSARY DANGER AT SOME
POINT. WHILE NO AMOUNT OF MONEY
COULD EVER MAKE UP FOR WHAT I
HAVE LOST, I DO BELIEVE THAT
MONEY COULD HELP PREVENT FUTURE
DEATHS AND INJURIES. I URGED
THE COUNCIL TO FULLY FUND
VISION ZERO AND THE PROPOSED
BICYCLE SAFETY PROJECTS SO WE
MAY REDESIGN OUR WAY TO A SAFER
CITY WHERE NO ONE ELSE HAS TO
LIVE LIKE THIS.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ALEX
ZIMMERMAN.
>> [ SPEAKING A GLOBAL
LANGUAGE. ] [ INDISCERNIBLE ]
DRUNK SELLERS THAT'S WHAT I'VE
SEEN FOR THE LAST YEAR. YOU
DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT YOUR
TOKEN. WE WILL GIVE YOU A
COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. MONEY,
MONEY IS IMPORTANT. IS $100
MILLION MOVES OUT FROM THE
PEOPLE TO THE MUSLIM
CORPORATION. THE TICKET IS $47
NOT $135. IT CHANGES. DO
SOMETHING TO STOP THIS IDIOTIC
SITUATION, WHEN YOU SPEND $100
MILLION FOR NOTHING , HUNDRED
$35 YOU CAN PURCHASE 40 GALLONS
OF GAS. THAT IS NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, I TALK ABOUT THIS
MANY TIMES BEFORE. I LIVED IN
MANY BIG CITIES IN EUROPE. WE
HAVE ONLY BIG BUSES THAT ARE
EMPTY ALL DAY. ALL DAY, EMPTY.
I SEE THIS EVERY DAY BECAUSE I
COME HERE. ANALYSIS FOR 4
YEARS. HAVE SMALLER BUSES. HAVE
BUSES FOR 10 OR 20 PEOPLE. THIS
CAN BRING US BACK MILLIONS AND
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. I'VE
TALKED ABOUT THIS MANY TIMES,
WITH NO DECISIONS. STOP ACTING
LIKE IDIOTS, HAVE A BRAIN ,
HAVE A BUSINESS BRAIN, DO YOU
KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS? IT IS FOR
PEOPLE . THIS IS MONEY FROM
PEOPLE. THIS IS MONEY FOR
PEOPLE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT
I'M TALKING ABOUT? YOU ARE
DOING NOTHING FOR 20 YEARS. YOU
ARE IMPOTENT, DO YOU UNDERSTAND
WHAT IT IS I'M TALKING? [
INDISCERNIBLE ] 'S TO MAKE THE
NEXT SPEAKER IS STU HENNESSY.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL
MEMBERS, I AM FROM WEST
SEATTLE. I HAVE A PERSPECTIVE ,
I WAS BORN WHERE THE SPACE
NEEDLE NOW STANDS IN SEATTLE
GENERAL HOSPITAL. I HAVE LIVED
HERE ALL MY LIFE, WATCHING
SEATTLE GROW. I WAS ONE OF THE
SPOKES THAT HELPED IN THE BIG
WHEEL TO CREATE SADDLE INTO THE
MOST LIVABLE CITY INTO THE
UNITED STATES. WE DON'T GET
TALKED ABOUT IN THAT CONTEXT SO
MUCH ANYMORE, DO WE? I HOPE YOU
CAN SEE THAT THIS LEVY IS A
PART OF A 20 YEAR PLAN. IT IS A
STARTING POINT. IN 2045, WILL
WE BE READY? WILL WE MEET OUR
CLIMATE GOALS? CAN WE TAKE ON
ANY OF THE CLIMATE REFUGEES
THAT ARE BOUND TO COME TO
SEATTLE? WILL WE BE ABLE TO CUT
THE COST OF ROAD MAINTENANCE?
THAT IS THE BIGGEST PART OF OUR
BUDGET. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU
TO THINK ABOUT WHERE WE WILL BE
IN 2045. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.
WE CAN DETERMINE THAT WE NEED
TO BE PREPARED. I HOPE YOU WILL
CONSIDER INVESTING MORE INTO
LOW-MAINTENANCE INFRASTRUCTURE
AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS NOT
WIRE THE LION'S SHARE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION BUDGET. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CECELIA
BLACK.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS CECELIA
BLACK. I AM A WHEELCHAIR USER
AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZER WITH
DISPLAY WASHINGTON. I DO WANT
TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR BEING
SO SUPPORTIVE OF SIDEWALKS. I
DON'T THINK WE HAVE EVER HAD
SUCH A VOCAL PUSH TO FINALLY
TACKLING OUR SIDEWALK CRISIS.
UNANIMOUSLY PASSED THE SP
COMMITTING THE CITY TO BUILDING
ALL MISSING SIDEWALKS BY 2044.
THIS WILL TRANSFORM THE CITY.
FOR NOW, WE NEED TO FUND IT.
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL IS THE
FIRST STEP TO ADDRESSING THE
MASSIVE TASK OF BUILDING 11,000
BLOCKS OF SIDEWALKS , BY
SETTING UP A PROCESS FOR FUTURE
FUNDING. THIS WILL ONLY HAVE AN
IMPACT IF THEY COUNSEL FULLY
COMMITS TO ADDRESSING THE SCALE
OF OUR SIDEWALK PROBLEM,
STARTING WITH THIS LEVY. PART
OF THIS IS TO BE IN THE FORM OF
A BIGGER LEVY. NEW POLLING
SHOWS SEATTLE VOTERS NOT ONLY
SUPPORT BUT PREFER TO $1.9
BILLION LEVY . COUNSEL SAYS
THEY WANT A ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME
INVESTMENT SIDEWALKS. THAT WILL
NOT HAPPEN IF WE LEAVE MONEY ON
THE TABLE. WE CANNOT SAY WE ARE
DOING EVERYTHING TO ADDRESS THE
SAFETY, CLIMATE, AND
ACCESSIBILITY
OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IF
WE REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL
AVAILABLE RESOURCES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS THE SON
>> ON THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
SEATTLE NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAYS.
I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH ONE
NUMBER TODAY, WHICH IS 79%. THE
BEGINNING OF MAY, THE CHANGE
RESEARCH CONDUCTED A POLL OF
647 LIKELY VOTERS . IT HAD A
MARGIN OF ERROR OF 4%. THEY
FOUND THAT 79% OF THOSE VOTERS
IN SEATTLE WANT TO SEE A LEVY
THAT IS AT LEAST $1.7 BILLION
IN SIZE TO INVEST MORE IN
SIDEWALKS AND SAFETY, AND
TRANSIT. THAT IS AN EXCITING
OPPORTUNITY. WE KNOW THE
URGENCY AROUND VISION ZERO. WE
KNOW THE URGENCY AROUND
SIDEWALKS. THIS IS OUR
OPPORTUNITY TO INVEST IN A
MAJOR WAY IN THE FUTURE OF
SEATTLE THAT WE ALL BELIEVE IN.
THIS IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL
TOPIC. WE WANT TO SEE
ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
AND ACCESSIBILITY INVESTMENTS.
THE QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH CAN
WE GO INTO THAT INVESTMENT?
WITH THE NEW RESEARCH, 79% OF
VOTERS WOULD LIKE US TO GO
BIGGER. THEY BELIEVE IN A
FUTURE THAT IS MORE ACCESSIBLE
, SAFER, AND MORE EQUITABLE.
PLEASE KEEP THAT IN A 9% FIGURE
IN YOUR MIND:I AM HAPPY TO FIVE
ADDITIONAL DETAILS OFF-LINE AS
WELL. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>>> THE LAST IN PERSON SPEAKER
IS STEVE COSTELLO.
>> THE AURORA PROJECT IS LOW
PRIORITY , AND SHOULD BE. THERE
IS A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT, IF
YOU'VE NOTICED FROM BUILDINGS
AND JOBSITES BEING PREPARED. IT
WOULD LIKELY DEVELOPERS A LOT
OF MONEY , BUT AURORA HAS BEEN
REPAVED RECENTLY , SPENDING A
LOT OF MONEY AND BREAKING IT UP
FOR A PERIOD OF TIME , IS
PROBABLY NOT A GOOD IDEA. THAT
IS ONE THAT I REALLY DISLIKE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE
NUMBER OF LANES, I LIVE ON
FREMONT. WENT AURORA GET
STACKED UP , FREMONT HE COMES A
PARKING LOT. IT HAS HAPPENED
ALL AROUND. I THINK THAT
PROJECT SHOULD BE DROPPED FROM
THE LIST , REGARDLESS OF WHAT
NUMBERS HAVE BEEN SAID AND SEEN
BEFORE , I REALLY THINK THAT IF
I STARTED TALKING IN THE NORTH
END OF CLOGGING UP AURORA , YOU
PROBABLY WOULD FIND A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD NOT
APPRECIATE THAT. THEY USED TO
SAY TWO THIRDS OF THE COMMUTER
TRAFFIC WAS ON THE FREEWAY AND
ONE THIRD COMES IN THE AURORA
CORRIDOR. PLEASE REMEMBER
AURORA NOT BEING TOO BUSY FOR A
GOOD PART OF THE DAY, YOU HAD
YOUR COMMUTE. IT IS GETTING
HARDER AND HARDER TO FIND A
PART OF THE DAY WHERE AURORA IS
NOT BUSY. THE CITY HAS BEEN
RELUCTANT TO REALLY THINK ABOUT
TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPERS
DON'T LIKE TO PUT FREIGHT
LOADING DOCKS ON THEIR
BUILDINGS. WE PUT THE TRUCKS
OUT IN THE STREET AND PEOPLE
HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT. THE CITY
HAS PRETTY MUCH BEEN ON THEIR
SIDE. I CONTINUE TO SAY THAT
THE BUILDINGS NEED TO CARRY
THEIR OWN WEIGHT. THE REST OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD NOT
HAVE TO SUFFER. MOBILITY SHOULD
GO FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS REMOTE.
WE ARE STARTING WITH ELIAN
HORN.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS
, I AM. WE KNOW THAT
WITHOUT INTERVENTION, TRANSIT
EXTENSION, INCLUDING LIGHT RAIL
EXTENSION LEADS TO
GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT
OF COMMUNITIES. THIS IS A STORY
THAT HAS BEEN FAR TOO OFTEN
TRUE IN SEATTLE. WE HAVE WORKED
FOR NEARLY A DECADE WITH NEARLY
A DOZEN ORGANIZATIONS CALLED
THE COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM. THE
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE WORKED
TIRELESSLY TO BUILD A CLEAR
PLAN THAT WILL ENSURE THAT
RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
GET HIS DAY AND BENEFIT FROM
TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS AND THE
NEW LIGHT RAIL STATION . WE
ALSO WORK WITH RESIDENTS ACROSS
THE CID ADVOCATING FOR THE
NORTH [ INDISCERNIBLE ] SO THAT
THE ID IS NOT DISRUPTED . IT
HAS THE ABILITY TO GROW.
ORGANIZATIONS AND RESIDENTS ARE
CONTINUOUSLY PLANNING TO
IMPROVE LIFE AND THE NEW
STATIONS GRANT A ONCE IN A
GENERATION OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
CITY TO LEAD EQUITABLE TRANSIT
VOMIT. FOR THIS REASON, WE ARE
ASKING COUNSEL TO INCLUDE $30
MILLION TO THESE IMMUNITIES TO
CONTINUE THEIR PLANNING EFFORTS
AND ACQUIRING LANDS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS COMMUNITY
MEMBERS DESCRIBE THE RECENT [
INDISCERNIBLE ] OVER 55% OF
POTENTIAL VOTERS INDICATED THAT
THE INCLUSION OF THIS $30
MILLION WOULD MAKE THEM MORE
LIKELY TO APPROVE THE PROPERTY
TAX OVERALL. FUNDUS -- FUNDS
INCREASED LAND VALUES. WE NEED
TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR THE
COMMUNITIES THAT LIVE THERE.
THE ACTION TEAM HAS IDENTIFIED
THAT THEY NEED AT LEAST 10
ACRES OF LAND TO UTILIZE RACIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SUFFICIENT
HOUSING FOR COMMUNITIES. PLEASE
EXTEND THE LEVY UP TO $1.7
BILLION AND CONSIDER THIS
FUNDING.
>>> THE NEXT ROOM OUT TO
SPEAKER IS JAMES.
>> MY NAME IS JAMES, MY WIFE
AND I RECENTLY MOVED TO SEATTLE
BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO SELL MY
CAR. WE KEPT MY WIFE'S CAR TO
USE ON OCCASION. BY SELLING THE
CAR, WE WERE ABLE TO AFFORD THE
COST OF LIVING INCREASE THAT
COMES FROM MOVING TO SEATTLE.
WOULD LIKE TO BIKE OR TAKE
TRANSIT INSTEAD. HOWEVER, WE
ARE STRUGGLING WITH THAT CHOICE
WE MADE. WE TRAVEL ON BIKES AND
OFTEN TIMES THE BIKE LANES WE
ARE ON SUDDENLY'S TOP , LIKE
ON PINE AND HE IS THERE. WE
FIND OURSELVES IN THE MIDDLE OF
THREE OR FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC
WITHOUT BIKE LANES OR ANY KIND
OF DEFENSE. THAT CONCERNS BOTH
OF US . ALSO, WHEN WE TAKE THE
BUS, THEY ARE OFTEN LATE BY 20
MINUTES OR MORE. EVEN IF THE
BUSES RUNNING ON TIME, TAKES
THREE OR FOUR TIMES AS LONG AS
IF WE WOULD TAKE A CAR. IF WE
NEED TO EVENTUALLY PURCHASE A
SECOND CAR, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE
TO STAY IN SEATTLE. I ALSO
DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING
MY WIFE DEAL THE TRAGIC STORY
LIKE WE HEARD EARLIER. THE
BUDGET NEEDS TO BE INCREASED TO
$1.7 -- $1.7 BILLION OR MORE. I
DON'T REQUIRE FANCY PARKING
SPACES, BIKE LANES DON'T
REQUIRE RESURFACING OR PATCHING
THE ROADS NEARLY AS OFTEN. IN
THE STRUCTURE FOR PEDESTRIANS
AND BICYCLES ARE GOOD FOR YOUR
BUDGET AND LINE. I WOULD ASK
YOU TO INVEST IN BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
HEAVILY AND INCREASE THE TOTAL
BUDGET OF THE LEVY.
>>> RIGHT. COOL, THANK YOU .
THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL
REGISTERED SPEAKERS. WE WILL
PROCEED TO OTHER ITEMS OF HIS
NESTS. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE
FIRST ITEM OF IS THIS. WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE READ THE SHORT
TITLE OF ITEM 1 INTO THE
RECORD?
>> ITEM ONE IS COUNSEL BILL
120788 . THIS IS AN ORDINANCE
RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION
LEVY. GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL
MEMBERS. I AM CALVIN WAS
CENTRAL STAFF. TODAY, I WILL DO
A PRESENTATION ON THE ISSUES
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AS YOU
CONSIDER THE LEGISLATION . TWO
WEEKS AGO, HE DID HERE ON
SELECT COMMITTEE THE LEVY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND A SUMMARY
OF THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL PEER
TODAY I WILL DO A SHORT SUMMARY
AGAIN OF WHAT THE LEGISLATION
PROVIDES , AS WELL AS
IDENTIFYING SEVEN SPECIFIC
ISSUES FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ALL THIS INFORMATION IS
EXPLAINED IN MORE DETAIL IN MY
MEMO TO THE COUNCIL ATTACHED TO
THE AGENDA.
>> THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL IS A
$1.45 BILLION, A YEAR PROPERTY
TAX LEVY. IT WOULD RENEW THE
EXISTING SEATTLE LEVY AND FOR
COMPARISON, IF MOVE SEATTLE WAS
PROPOSED TO BE RENEWED AT
INFLATION ONLY NUMBERS, IT
WOULD BE $1.2 MILLION. THE
PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR THE
AVERAGE SEATTLE MEDIAN ASSESSED
VALUE HOME WOULD BE $470 . THIS
IS UP FROM THE CURRENT LEVEL OF
$300. THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL
INCLUDES SPENDING FOR 10
DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AND
PROGRAMS. THESE ARE IDENTIFIED
IN THE ATTACHMENT TO THE
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD GO TO
VOTERS. IT PROVIDES A LITTLE
MORE DETAIL ON THE SPECIFIC
PROGRAMS AND THINGS BEING
DELIVERED AS PART OF THE LEVY.
ON THE SCREEN, I IDENTIFIED THE
FUNDING LEVELS AND THE SHARE OF
EACH CATEGORY COMPARED WITH THE
NEW SEATTLE LEVY IN THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSAL. THERE IS
MORE DETAILS IN ATTACHMENT A.
THE MAIN THINGS OF NOTES THAT
YOU CAN SEE , SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE IN STREET MAINTENANCE
AND MODERNIZATION. AS WELL AS A
NEW PROGRAM FOR PEOPLE,
STREETS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY. THE
LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF COUNSEL
IS COUNSEL BILL 12788. THIS IS
LEGISLATION TO PUT THE MEASURE
ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. AND
ESTABLISHES ALL TERMS AND
CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD BE
AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT PROPERTY
TAX AND USE THOSE TAX PROCEEDS.
ONCE THE VOTERS APPROVED THE
LEVY , WE CANNOT CHANGE IT
WITHOUT GOING BACK TO THE
VOTERS. FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION,
WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THREE
APPROACHES TO HOW YOU THINK
THROUGH ISSUES THAT THE LEVY
RAISES. ANY AMENDMENTS OR
CHANGES TO THE LEGISLATION
WOULD BE BINDING ON US ,
WITHOUT GOING BACK TO VOTERS.
THINK ABOUT THAT AS THE HIGHEST
LEVEL OF CHANGE. WE CAN ALSO
CONSIDER SEPARATE LEGISLATION
TO IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES THAT
RICK WIRE FOLLOW-UP OR COUNSEL
DIRECTION THAT WE DON'T
NECESSARILY WANT TO LOCK IN
STONE WITH THE LEVY. AND ANY
SPENDING WILL HAVE TO COME TO
COUNSEL FOR FUTURE BUDGET
ACTION OVER THE COURSE OF THE 8
YEARS OF THE LEVY. YOU WILL
ALWAYS HAVE THAT TO CONSTRAIN
HOW SPENDING WORKS WITHIN THE
CONSTRAINTS OF WHAT LEVY VOTERS
APPROVE. WITH THAT, I WILL TURN
THROUGH AND TALK THROUGH SEVEN
DIFFERENT ISSUES . COUNCIL
MEMBERS, WITH YOUR PERMISSION,
MIGHT BE EASIER TO TAKE
QUESTIONS AS WE GO FOR EACH ONE
OF THESE ISSUES IF YOU WOULD
LIKE? THE FIRST ISSUE I WANT TO
RAISE IS THE GENERAL TERMS OF
THE LEVY. AS MENTIONED,
LEGISLATION IS $1.45 BILLION
FOR 8 YEARS. IT DOES INCLUDE
THE MINIMUM JARRARD GENERAL
FUND APPROPRIATION FUND
ESTABLISHED WITH MOVE SEATTLE.
THIS IS A COMMITMENT TO VOTERS
THAT WE WOULD NOT SUPPLANT
EXISTING GENERAL PLANT GENERAL
FUND DOLLARS FOR
TRANSPORTATION. THERE IS A
LEVEL ESTABLISHED FOR THE FIRST
YEAR AND AN INFLATION
ADJUSTMENT. IT IS THE SAME LINE
THAT SEATTLE PROMISED. I WANT
TO IDENTIFY THE YOU CAN CHANGE
THE SIZE OF THE LEVY OR THE
TERM, YOU CAN MAKE OTHER
CHANGES TO THE LEVY TERMS.
ESTIMATE GO AHEAD ,
COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J. MORALES
.
>> IF WE ARE GOING ONE BY ONE,
I WILL START. ON THIS SLIDE ,
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT THE
COST ESTIMATES WOULD BE IF WE
DID RAISE THIS? WE HEARD THAT
THERE IS SUPPORT FOR INCREASING
THE LEVY. CAN YOU TALK ABOUT
WHAT THE COST WOULD BE IF WE
RAISED IT TO ONE POINT SEVEN $9
MILLION?
>> ON THE BACK OF THE
CALCULATION, I WILL CONFIRM
WITH STAFF, MOVE SEATTLE TODAY,
THE BILL FOR THE LEVY IN 2024
FOR THEM MEDIAN AV IS ABOUT
$300. THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL
WOULD BE ABOUT $470. THAT IS
1.45 . AT 1.7, IT WOULD BE
ABOUT $550 PER YEAR. AT 1.9, IT
WOULD BE $615 PER YEAR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I WILL MOVE ON TO ISSUE
NUMBER TWO. THE SECOND ISSUE IS
ABOUT THE LEGAL SPENDING
REQUIREMENTS . THE LEGISLATION
CURRENTLY BEFORE YOU DOES
DESCRIBE ALL OF THE ANTICIPATED
SPENDING IN ATTACHMENT A. THESE
ARE NOT REQUIRED OR MANDATED
SPENDING LEVELS THIS PROVIDES A
LITTLE MORE STABILITY THAN
THOSE WITH MOVE SEATTLE. MOVE
SEATTLE PUT PACIFIC AMOUNTS OF
SPENDING FOR THREE CATEGORIES
OF FUNDING AND IDENTIFIED A
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR ONE
SPECIFIC PROJECT . THE BENEFIT
OF NOT INCLUDING IT AT THIS
TIME IS THAT IT GIVES A LITTLE
MORE FLEXIBILITY AS WE GO
THROUGH THE BUDGET TO RAISE ON
TO CHANGES. WITH MOVE SEATTLE
WE HAD TO MAKE ORDINANCE
CHANGES TO ADDRESS COVID-19
IMPACTS ON OUR BUDGET AND LEVY
SPENDING. I DID WANT TO ADD, AS
OPTIONS FOR YOU, YOU COULD
CONSIDER SPENDING LIMITS FOR
THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF
LEVY SPENDING. YOU COULD
SPECIFY SPENDING REQUIREMENTS
FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND
PROGRAMS OF CONCERN TO YOU , WE
CAN MAKE NO CHANGES AND DEFER
TO FUTURE OVERSIGHT AND
REPORTING.
>> CALVIN, CAN YOU CLEAR THAT?
>> GO AHEAD. LEE'S BE
RECOGNIZED. GO AHEAD , MARITZA
RIVERA .
>> THANK YOU. IF WE ALLOCATED
THE SPENDING TO A CERTAIN
CATEGORY, FOR INSTANCE, DURING
THE BUDGET PROCESS, WE COULD DO
UPDATED LEGISLATION TO MOVE IT
FROM ONE CATEGORY TO ANOTHER
WAX IS THAT CORRECT WAX THAT IS
A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. BE MY
GUESS, CURRENTLY, ALL SPENDING
WOULD BE DICTATED BY FUTURE
BUDGET ACTION. YOU HAVE THE
MOST DISCRETION. MOVE SEATTLE
SAID, OVER THE COURSE OF 9
YEARS , THERE WAS $300 MILLION
FOR THIS BROAD CATEGORY OF
PROJECTS. THAT LEGISLATION SAID
THAT COUNSEL CANNOT CHANGE BY
UP TO 10% WITH THE FUTURE
ORDINANCE. ORCA CHANGE WITH THE
THREE FORCED VOTES. IT WAS NOT
AN ABSOLUTE ANYWAY. THERE WAS
FLEXIBILITY TO CHANGE. IT WAS
LARGELY ABOUT MAKING THE
COMMITMENT TO VOTERS THAT THIS
IS WHAT THE SPENDING WAS. THAT
HAS LARGELY BEEN ESTABLISHED BY
ATTACHMENT A. THAT'S WHAT THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HAS
REVIEWED. THAT IS WHAT THE
DASHBOARD AND OTHER REPORTING
IS PREDICATED ON. IN SOME WAYS,
THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE
COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
BY HOW WE HAVE OPERATED FOR 9
YEARS. IT IS A CHOICE FOR YOU.
YOU CAN MAKE THOSE LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS, IF DESIRED.
>> WE COULD ALSO CHANGE IT
LATER ON AS PART OF THE BUDGET
PROCESS? OR DOES IT LOCK IT IN?
>> CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE
MICROPHONE, PLEASE? MIKE DOES
IT LOCK IT IN NOW AND WE CANNOT
MAKE CHANGES LATER VIA
LEGISLATION?
>> I WOULD SUGGEST IF YOU
WANTED TO MAKE A STRONGER
COMMITMENT TO VOTERS THAT WE
WOULD ADD AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE
TO ALLOW COUNSEL TO BACK OUT IF
THERE WAS EXTENUATING
CIRCUMSTANCES. I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT WE HAVE SOME WAY TO DO
THAT. IT DEPENDS ON HOW STRICT
YOU WANT THE PROVISIONS TO BE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND I JUST SAY, THIS IS
ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THRESHOLD
ISSUES ON THE SPECIFICITY AND
DETAIL, AND FORMALIZING
REQUIREMENTS IN THE LEVY
LEGISLATION. THE LEVY OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE SPECIFICALLY
RECOMMENDED THAT WE NOT BE
SUPER PRESCRIPTIVE. WE ARE NOT
BOUND BY THAT RECOMMENDATION,
OBVIOUSLY. THE INDEPENDENT LEVY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE THAT
EVALUATED AND ASSESSED THE
PERFORMANCE OF THE MOVE LEVY
OVER THE COURSE OF 9 YEARS.
THEY RECOMMENDED THAT WE NOT BE
VERY PRESCRIPTIVE. THEY SAID
LEAVE ROOM FOR DOWNSTREAM
DECISION-MAKING BY THE CITY,
NAMELY US, COLLEAGUES. I THINK
THAT IS AN IMPORTANT POLICY
AREA THAT WE WILL BE CONFRONTED
WITH MY OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCE
WOULD BE , AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE,
LIVE UP TO THAT RECOMMENDATION.
ONCE WE LOCK IN ON OURSELVES,
AND COMMIT TO ANY NUMBER OF
OBLIGATIONS OR ADDING MORE
DETAIL, OR BEING VERY
PRESCRIPTIVE , WE ARE LOCKED
IN. WE BOXED OURSELVES IN AND
LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO BE
FLEXIBLE, NIMBLE, AND ADAPT TO
CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES.
PROVISION ARE NOT, IT LOCKS US
IN. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS
WHERE WE NEED TO STRIKE THE
RIGHT AND APPROPRIATE BALANCE
TO MAKE SURE THE VOTERS KNOW
WHAT THEY WILL GET A FRONT IN
EXCHANGE FOR THIS INVESTMENT
THAT WILL MAKE SURE IT IS
INVESTED WISELY. WHEREVER WE
LAND WITH THE CATEGORIES, THEY
NEED TO HAVE THE INITIAL
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY WILL
GET IN EXCHANGE FOR THIS. ALSO,
WE NEED FLEXIBILITY. IT IS AN
IMPORTANT POLICY CONSIDERATION.
I'M GLAD YOU HAVE QUESTIONS
ABOUT IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS ON THIS?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THIS
SLIDE OR THE NEXT ONE, I AM
INTEREST DID IN A LOT OF THE
LANGUAGE AS IT IS DRAFTED NOW,
IT IS FAIRLY SQUISHY IN TERMS
OF HOW MUCH WE SPENT. I WOULD
BE INTERESTED . THERE IS A LOT
OF LANGUAGE SAYING WE CAN SPEND
UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR
SIDEWALKS OR SAFETY. I WOULD BE
INTERESTED IN GETTING A LITTLE
CLEAR ON HOW MUCH WE WILL SPEND
AT LEAST THIS AMOUNT TO PROVIDE
SAFETY FOR OUR NEIGHBORS HERE
IT IS AN ISSUE THAT I THINK
NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
ADDRESS IT. I'M NOT SAYING WE
NEED TO DO A COMPLETE SWITCH OF
LANGUAGE. I'LL BE INTERESTED
TO KNOW HOW WE GET MORE CLARITY
ON THE MINIMUM , INSTEAD OF THE
MAXIMUM.
>> YOU COULD BE MORE SELECTIVE
IN THE PROGRAMS OR PROJECTS
THAT YOU SUBJECT TO THAT
SCRUTINY. IN MOVE SEATTLE, THE
THERE WAS A PROJECT CALLED OUT
, THE LANDRY OUR PAST. NOT LESS
THAN $20 MILLION HAD TO GO TO
THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT. IT WAS
THE ONLY ONE CALLED OUT
INDIVIDUALLY. THAT MIGHT BE A
MODEL TO CONSIDER IF THERE ARE
ITEMS OF SPECIFIC INTEREST TO
YOU.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER CATHY MOORE? A
>> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT
CATEGORIES, WHAT SIDEWALKS
CONSTITUTE A CATEGORY?
>> YES. IN THIS PEDESTRIAN
SAFETY CATEGORY IN ATTACHMENT
A, THERE IS A SPECIFIC LINE
ITEM FOR NEW SIDEWALKS. I
DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT
THE NUMBER IS.
>> I SEE $3 MILLION. IS THE MAC
THANK YOU. IT IS SPECIFIED IN
ATTACHMENT AMB. THAT WOULD BE
THE PROMISE TO VOTERS. IS THE
MECCAS OVER THE FIRST 4 YEARS
ONLY AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED. AND
MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO ADD A
LITTLE MORE SPECIFICITY AROUND
CERTAIN, KEY PRIORITIES. I
DON'T KNOW. IT IS AN IMPORTANT
ISSUE THAT WE WILL BE GRAPPLING
WITH. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS?
>> YES, IF I MAY FINISH. UNDER
CATEGORIES, I DON'T SEE
SIDEWALKS. YOU ARE SAYING UNDER
ONE OF THESE CATEGORIES ,
SIDEWALKS IS INCLUDED?
>> THIS HAS A LINE ITEM UNDER
THIS A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
CATEGORY.
>> WE COULD MAKE SIDEWALKS A
CATEGORY IN THE LEVY ITSELF,
AND SET A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF
MONEY? YOU COULD CALL OUT
SPECIFICALLY IN THE LEVY FOR
NEW SIDEWALKS, NO LESS THAN A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, YES.
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
JUST TO CLARIFY FOR MY
PERSPECTIVE, THAT IS A POLICY
CHOICE WE HAVE. WEEKEND UPPER
LEVEL ANYONE OF THESE
SUBCATEGORIES AND SUBS OF
CATEGORIES AND BRING IT TO A
STANDALONE CATEGORY. THAT WOULD
BE MORE OF A STRUCTURAL CHANGE
. I WOULD ARGUE IT IS SOMEWHAT
LIMITED. THE VALUE PROPOSITION
OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT
WOULD BE TO HIGHLIGHT AND BOOST
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ONE OF OUR
ESTABLISHED AUSSIE PRIORITIES.
WE COULD GO IN TANDEM WITH
THAT, OR WITHOUT DOING THAT, WE
COULD ADD SOME REQUIREMENTS TO
SPEND THAT AMOUNT FOR ANY
PARTICULAR CATEGORY. GREAT
QUESTION.
>> ALL RIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER
MARITZA RIVERA, GO AHEAD. IS
THE MAC THANK YOU, CHAIR.
ATTACHMENT A SAYS IT
ANTICIPATES THE DEPARTMENT
ANTICIPATES FUNDING . IS OF THE
ANNUAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS
WILL BE MADE TO THE CITY BUDGET
. THIS IS THROUGH THE BUDGETING
PROCESS. ATTACHMENT A DOES NOT
DO THE LEGAL SPENDING. YOU SAY
IF WE WANT TO, WE WOULD HAVE TO
ADD THIS . WE WOULD HAVE TO
LOCK THE ZEN, OTHERWISE THIS IS
AN ANTICIPATED PROJECTION OF
WHAT THE DEPARTMENT THINKS IT
WOULD SPIN ON THESE PARTICULAR
CATEGORIES AM I READING THAT
RIGHT?
>> IT IS TRUE THAT ATTACHMENT A
IS NOT CURRENTLY BINDING. IT IS
A STRONGER THAT JUST A VAGUE
PROMISE. THIS IS THAT THE
PROJECT THAT THE PROMISE TO
VOTERS THAT WE WILL HOLD
OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU
AND ALL REPORTING. IF THERE ARE
DEVIANCE IS WORD CHANGES, THE
EXPECTATION IS WE WILL HAVE TO
EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS NECESSARY.
IT IS HIGHER THAN JUST PUTTING
A NUMBER OUT THERE. ALL OF US
WILL HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL
FOR BUDGETING EVERY YEAR. THE
APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT DID NOT
REALLY AFFECT YOUR BUDGETING.
WE ONLY BUDGET YEAR BY YEAR. IT
MOSTLY MATTERED AT THE END OF
THE YEAR. IT DIDHAVE
DRAMATIC IMPACT ON HOW THE
COUNCIL ENGAGED IN THE BUDGET.
ALL THAT TO SAY , I THINK
VIEWING THIS AS THE PROMISE TO
VOTERS IN TRYING TO IDENTIFY
WHAT SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS ARE
OF SUCH COMMITMENTS THAT YOU
WOULD WANT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR THIS WOULD BE AN
APPROPRIATE WAY TO APPROACH IT.
>> THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. THE
THIRD ISSUE ONLY TO HIGHLIGHT
COMES TO THE ALLOCATION FOR THE
DIFFERENT SPENDING ACROSS THE
ATTACHMENTS AND PROGRAMS.
ATTACHMENT A , IN ADDITION TO
BEING THE REPORTING STRUCTURE ,
IT IS WHAT THE VOTERS ARE
ALLOWING US TO SEE AND ON. IF
THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE
THAT IS NOT LISTED , THAT WE
WANT TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE,
UNLESS IT IS LISTED, WE CANNOT
BEND LEVY PROCEEDS. ATTACHMENT
A IDENTIFY SOME SPECIFIC
DELIVERABLES AND LOCATIONS FOR
DEVELOPMENT. THAT MIGHT BE
SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS
WANT TO CONSIDER, ARE THOSE THE
RIGHT ONES TO HIGHLIGHT AND
PROMISE? TWO PROGRAMS THAT I
KNOW WILL BE OF INTEREST TO
YOU, THERE IS A NEW DISTRICT
PROJECT TO FUND PROPOSED. THE
DETAILS OF HOW THAT IS ISSUED
IS TO BE DETERMINED. WE ALSO
HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATED
THE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM . THAT
LARGELY REPLACES THE
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET PROGRAM. IT
LARGELY TRIES TO DO THE SAME
TYPES OF PROJECTS. IT IS
INTENDED TO BE ADMINISTERED IN
A DIFFERENT WAY. THE PROJECT,
THOSE DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN
DETAILED YET.
>> YOU MENTIONED THE NEW, I
FORGET WHAT IT IS CALLED PEER
FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE , THAT
INTENDED , IN MY MIND ,
COMPARING THE QUALITATIVE
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF EACH OF
THE RESPECTIVE PROGRAMS AND HOW
IT SHOWS UP, AND HOW IT HAS
BEEN HISTORICALLY ADMINISTERED
AND SEEMS TO BE THE FORM OVER
SUBSTANCE DISTINCTION. HOW
WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE OR
REBRANDING? HOW WOULD YOU
CHARACTERIZE THAT? AMICABLY THE
MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS
AND THE OLD NEIGHBORHOOD STREET
FUND PROJECTS AND PROCESS IS,
IT IS MEANT TO BE MORE IN
DIALOGUE IN THE COMMUNITIES OUT
WHAT PROJECTS NEED TO BE
DEVELOPED. IT DOES NOT GO
THROUGH THE VOTING PROCESS OR
THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS THAT
WAS SET UP AT THE OLD PROGRAM.
AGAIN, THE DETAILS HAVE YET TO
BE DETERMINED. MY UNDERSTANDING
IS IT IS PROVIDING MORE
OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS EQUITY
CONCERNS AND PROVIDE
OPPORTUNITY TO FOCUS A BIT MORE
ON SAFETY AND SPECIFIC ISSUES.
THE DETAILS ARE STILL TO BE
DETERMINED.
>> THANK YOU.
>> IDENTIFIED THREE OPTIONS FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION. AGAIN, IF
THERE ARE ANY OTHER PROGRAMS
THAT YOU DON'T SEE LISTED
HERE, CONSIDER AMENDING THE
ATTACHMENT TO INCLUDE THEM. YOU
COULD ALSO ADJUST THE SPENDING
LEVELS ACROSS THESE PROPOSALS
IN DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OR
PROGRAMS . YOU COULD MODIFY THE
PROJECT COMMITMENTS .
>> I AM VERY INTRIGUED BY THIS
NEW DISTRICT PROJECT FUND. I
THINK THE IDEA OF HAVING THE
ABILITY TO ALLOCATE RESOURCES
BY DISTRICT IS GREAT AND
IMPORTANT , AND COULD HELP US
MEET THE MANY CHALLENGES THAT
WE HAVE IN THE DIFFERENT PARTS
OF TOWN . COULD YOU TELL ME
WHAT WE CAN DO FOR $250,000 PER
YEAR?
>> ALSO BE SMALLER PROJECTS,
FOR SURE. I AM HITTING A BLANK
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I THINK
OF TRAFFIC CIRCLES AND
CROSSWALKS, AND THOSE TYPES OF
IMPROVEMENTS . YOU MAKE IT TWO
OR THREE OF THEM OUT OF THAT.
IT DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFIC
LOCATIONS. I PROPOSE 14
MILLION, $250,000 PER DISTRICT
PER YEAR.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GREAT QUESTION. COLLEAGUES,
I KNOW, YOU WILL GET YOUR
REQUEST FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS
ABOUT SMALLER SCALE. THAT IS
THE INTENT AND GOAL OF THIS.
MAULER SCALE, NOT LARGE CAPITAL
PERMIT PROJECTS OR EXPENDITURES
, BUT THE SMALL SCALE,
CROSSWALKS . WE NEED A NEW
LIGHTING SIGNAL HERE, OR
SOMETHING . RATHER THAN WAIT TO
WRITE THAT IN DURING THE BUDGET
YEAR OR THE BUDGET PROCESS, THE
IDEA IS WE COULD HAVE SPACE TO
MAKE APPROPRIATIONS ON THE SPOT
FOR CRITICAL NEEDS . I THINK IT
IS A COOL PROGRAM. GO AHEAD,
COUNCILMEMBER CATHY MOORE.
>> I WANT TO COMMEND THE MAYOR
AND HIS TEAM AND EVERYBODY
RELATED TO THIS NEW PROGRAM. I
THINK IT IS A TASK TO. AS YOU
KNOW FROM THE DISTRICT COUNCIL,
YOU HAVE THE PRIORITIES. THAT
ALSO INCLUDES PEOPLE THAT COME
DIRECTLY TO MY OFFICE. IT IS
IMPORTANT TO DO THAT. THOSE IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD KNOW THOSE
LITTLE PIECES. WHETHER IT IS A
FOUR-WAY STOP SIGN, THAT MAKES
A BIG SAFETY DIFFERENCE, THESE
LITTLE THINGS ON BOTH PARTS,
OBVIOUSLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD
PROGRAM , THAT IS MORE. BOTH
WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THIS
PARTICULARLY ON THE SAFETY
FRONT AND THE VARIOUS
NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN THE
DISTRICT. DISTRICT 7 LOOKS
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THESE
ISSUES.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD.
>> THE FOURTH ISSUE I HAVE FOR
YOU IS THE LEVY OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE. AS YOU HEARD , THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE
SEATTLE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE,
THERE WAS A LIST OF
RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH ARE
REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSAL. ONE
THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IS THE
SPECIFIC LEVY FUNDING FOR
OVERSIGHT CAPACITY , AUDITING
OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. THAT
IS NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDED. ALSO
THE PROPOSED LEVY COMPOSITION,
THE OVERSIGHT COMPOSITION HAS
CHANGED. THE PROPOSAL , YOU CAN
SEE YEAR, THE COMPARISON
BETWEEN MOVE SEATTLE AND THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSAL. IT DOES
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COUNSEL
APPOINTED RESIDENTS FROM 5 TO
7. IT HAS ONE FROM EACH COUNCIL
DISTRICT. IT ADDS THEY GET
ENGAGED YOUTH MEMBER. IT DOES
REMOVE THE PREVIOUS REQUIREMENT
FOR ONE APPOINTEE BEING AN
ENGINEER WITH RIDGE AND
STRUCTURAL EXPERIENCE AND IT
REMOVES THE CHAIR OF THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE FROM
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. WITH
THAT, YOU HAVE OPTIONS TO
CONSIDER. YOU COULD CONCLUDE
ADDING BACK COUNCIL MEMBER
REPRESENTATION. YOU COULD
REVISE THE OTHER ROLES AND
REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE ,
OR CONSIDER ALLOCATING LEVY
RESOURCES FOR OVERSIGHT AS
WELL.
>>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A
QUESTION ON THE PROPOSED LEVY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. THIS TIES
BACK INTO THE GOOD GOVERNANCE
OPPORTUNITY THAT WE WILL HAVE ,
AMONGST OTHER AREAS TO CLOSELY
EXAMINE AND FIGURE OUT THE BEST
FIT. OBVIOUSLY , THIS IS THE
LEVY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE THAT
WILL OVERSEE THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THIS LEVY . NO DOUBT, THERE
ARE ANY NUMBER OF LEVEES IN THE
CITY ON ANY NUMBER OF PROGRAMS
AND PRIORITIES . THERE ARE
OTHER LEVEES AS WELL. COULD YOU
COMMENTS AT A HIGH LEVEL ON
YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF THE LEVY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE STRUCTURE
AS PROPOSED, IS GOVERNANCE AND
PROPOSAL, IT'S SCOPE AND
OVERALL APPROACH TO OVERSIGHT
COMPARED TO OTHER OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEES THAT WE HAVE HERE IN
THE CITY, AND TWO TO THE EXTENT
KNOWN , COMPARABLE OVERSIGHT OR
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES THAT
EXIST IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS?
>> 2000 TWO THOUGHTS COME TO
MIND FOR ME . ONE IS A REMINDER
THAT THESE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES
ARE ADVISORY TO THE COUNCIL AND
THE MAYOR. THEY DON'T HAVE
GOVERNANCE RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THEIR OWN. THEY ARE JUST
WATCHDOGS. THAT IS A LOT OF THE
FOCUS TO MAKE SURE THEY
UNDERSTAND THIS BETTING AND THE
DELIVERABLES, AND THEY ARE IN A
POSITION TO OPINE ON HOW WELL
WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT GOAL
WHEN IT COMES TIME TO THINK
ABOUT RENEWING. THE
TRANSPORTATION LEVY IS A BIT
UNIQUE FROM OTHER LEVEES AND
HOW MUCH ATTENTION AND HOW MUCH
THE RESIDENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS
CARE ABOUT TRANSPORTATION , AND
THE DIRECT IMPLEMENTATION . IT
FEELS AS IF THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT GENERATES MORE ATTENTION
THAN LEVY HOUSING , OR OTHER
FOCUS LEVEES THAT HAVE A MORE
SPECIALIZED DELIVERY, IF YOU
WILL. TRANSPORTATION ALWAYS
GETS MORE ENGAGEMENT. IT IS A
LARGE BODY, AS IT IS PROPOSED
THAT 18 MEMBERS, THAT IS QUITE
LARGE. THE NEW SEATTLE LEVY WAS
ALSO A 60 MEMBER OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE. THAT IS REFLECTIVE
OF HOW MANY DIFFERENT
STAKEHOLDERS THERE IS, OF
INTEREST. I THINK A LOT OF US
ARE FOCUSED ON RESIDENTS
BECAUSE IT IS THE PROPERTY
OWNERS THAT ARE PAYING THE
PROPERTY TAX . WE ARE MAKING
SURE THAT IS REFLECTED THERE.
LASTLY, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT
THE COUNCIL, THE DIRECT COUNSEL
REPRESENTATION ON THE LEVY WAS
A COUNSELOR TO A BETTER
POSITION TO FOLLOW ALONG WITH
HOW THE OVERSIGHT IS DOING, AND
SEEING IT MORE IN REAL TIME. WE
HAVE SOME CAMARADERIE AND TRUST
BETWEEN COUNSEL AND THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ITSELF.
>> THANK YOU. GO AHEAD,
COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J. MORALES.
>> I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
>> DID YOU? GO AHEAD .
>> OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION
ABOUT POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST ON THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE . I AM ASKING,
BECAUSE WHEN WE VOTED ON THE
HOUSING LEVY , THERE WAS AN
EDITORIAL THE TIMES A POINTED
OUT THERE HAD BEEN A CHANGE IN
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE . I
DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A CHANGE.
THE CRITICISM WAS THAT MEMBERS
OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ,
INCLUDED ORGANIZATIONS THAT
WOULD DIRECTLY GAIN FROM
DECISIONS OF HOW THE MONEY WAS
SPENT. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE
RESOLUTION THAT ACCOMPANIES THE
LEGISLATION WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE THAT
THERE IS ANY PROVISION TO MAKE
SURE ? THERE ARE PEOPLE ON
FREIGHT, BICYCLE, AND THESE
PEOPLE ARE COMMITTED TO THE
ISSUES THAT BROUGHT THEM INTO
THE SERVICE ON THOSE DIFFERENT
BODIES. WHEN WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT DIRECT ORGANIZATIONS. IS
THERE PROVISION FOR THAT? THERE
IS NO LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY IN
THE LEGISLATION ABOUT IT. WE
WOULD RELY ON THE ETHICS OFFICE
FOR SPECIFIC CANDIDATES IF
THERE WERE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST. THERE IS NO
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE
LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF US
HERE. THERE MAY BE OTHER
LANGUAGE IN CODE OR IN THAT
REGULAR ADMINISTRATIVE ROLES. I
CAN LOOK INTO THAT FOR YOU.
>> APPARENTLY, THERE WAS NOT AN
ETHICS ISSUE WITH THE HOUSING
LEVY COMPOSITION. I THINK THAT
WENT BEYOND THE REGULAR THINGS
THAT THEY WOULD WEIGH IN ON. I
WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS
ANYTHING THAT WOULD PRESCRIBE
THAT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
5 VERSUS SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THERE ARE SEVEN DISTRICTS.
PREVIOUSLY , THE COUNCIL
APPOINTED RESIDENTS INCLUDED A
LICENSED ENGINEER WITH BRIDGE
AND STRUCTURES EXPERIENCE. THAT
IS NO LONGER A REQUIREMENT . I
ALSO NOTICED THAT THE BRIDGE,
SEISMIC RETROFITTING IS NOT
CALLED THAT . DO YOU KNOW WHY
THAT SPECIALTY WAS
DISCONTINUED?
>> I DON'T KNOW IN SPECIFICS,
WHY. I DO KNOW IN SOME CASES IT
CAN BE DIFFICULT TO ATTRACT THE
LEVEL OF ATTENTION . THESE ARE
VOLUNTEER ADVISORY POSITIONS.
THAT CAN PLAY A FACTOR. I
DON'T SPECIFICALLY KNOW WHY
THAT PROVISION WAS DROPPED.
>> I WAS WONDERING IF IT WAS
RELATED TO NOT BEING ABLE TO
FIND THE LINE ITEM IN THE
BRIDGES SECTION WITH THE
SEISMIC UPGRADES OR
IMPROVEMENTS.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS TIED
DIRECTLY TO PROPOSED SPENDING.
I THINK IT WAS MORE ABOUT HOW
THEY VIEWED ADMINISTERING THE
BOARD WANTED TO PROVIDE MORE
FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THEY
SOLICIT. WE DO HAVE STAFF
AVAILABLE IF YOU WANT ME TO
BRING THE EXECUTIVE TO THE
TABLE TO ANSWER. TO MAKE YOUR
INITIAL RESPONSE WAS PROBABLY
RIGHT ON. I DON'T KNOW VERY
MANY BRIDGE AND STRUCTURE
ENGINEERS. I WILL GO WITH THAT
UNLESS SOMEBODY GIVES ME
DIFFERENT INFORMATION.
>> THINK YOU. WE ARE HAVING
SOME DIFFICULTY JUST HEARING
YOU . IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND,
JUST MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK INTO
THE MICROPHONE. I DON'T KNOW
ABOUT PEOPLE WATCHING ON THE
SEATTLE CHANNEL. YES, SPEAK
DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE,
PLEASE.
>> FRIENDLY REMINDER FOR ALL OF
US AS WELL TO DO THE SAME.
SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE
MICROPHONE. ANYBODY ELSE? GO
AHEAD.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL FUNDING FOR THE LEVY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE . AND
READING THE RECOMMENDATION MEMO
THAT THEY SENT , PART OF WHAT
THEY ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT IN
ORDER FOR THEM TO DO THE WORK
OF PROVIDING OVERSIGHT ON THIS
ALIEN DOLLAR PROJECT , IT WOULD
BE HELPFUL IF THEY DID HAVE A
SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY TO SOME
WORDS DATA COLLECTION, AUDIT ,
AND JUST BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE
OVERSIGHT. I DON'T KNOW THAT
SOMETHING WE NEED TO AMEND TO
INCLUDE SOME PORTION OF
IT?:YES, CURRENTLY, THE
EXECUTIVE PROPOSAL IS THINKING
THERE MIGHT BE OTHER DEPARTMENT
RESOURCES AVAILABLE. FOR US TO
TO SPEND LEVY RESOURCES ON
THIS, WE WOULD HAVE TO AMEND
ATTACHMENT A TO MAKE THAT
LEGITIMATE. SOMETHING LIKE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CATEGORY THAT
SAYS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES
, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ANYONE
ELSE? GO AHEAD.
>> THE NEXT ISSUE IS ISSUE
NUMBER FIVE, REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS. THE LEGISLATION
DOES REQUIRE ANNUAL REPORTING.
THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH MOVE
SEATTLE. MOVE SEATTLE WAS MORE
SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THE
REQUIREMENTS SHOULD LOOK LIKE.
I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT
OVER THE 9 YEARS OF MOVE
SEATTLE, WE HAVE GOTTEN INTO
MORE EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT I
SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND HOW TO
MAKE THAT WORK. THERE IS NOW A
DASHBOARD FOR THE LEVY SPENDING
AND THE CAPITAL PROJECT
DELIVERY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF
SUPPLEMENTAL WARTS PROVIDED BY
THE DEPARTMENT TO SUPPORT LEVY
OVERSIGHT. THE EXPECTATION IS
THAT THESE WOULD CONTINUE WITH
PROPOSED ARE NOT TYPICALLY CALL
OUT IN THE LEGISLATION. I WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT THAT FOR YOU. YOU
COULD ADD SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
FOR REPORTING FOR THE DASHBOARD
REPORTING OR OTHER REPORTS. YOU
COULD SPECIFY INFORMATION THEY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN ANY OF
THOSE REPORTS. YOU COULD
IDENTIFY SPECIFIC ISSUES . THIS
COULD GET TO THE ISSUE THAT
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON RAISE
WHERE THE PREVIOUS LEVY
IDENTIFIED AT BRIDGES AS A KEY
FUNCTION FOR ADDITIONAL
REPORTING. WE COULD DO NO
CHANGE AND DEFER TO THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND THE
CONTINUITY OF THE EXISTING
REPORTING.
>> GO AHEAD , COUNCILMEMBER
TAMMY J. MORALES.
>> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A
LITTLE BIT. I DO APPRECIATE
THAT RIGHT NOW , THE REPORTING
IS ON DELIVERABLES AND BLOCKS
OF SIDEWALKS, AND MORE. FOR ME,
WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT , AND
WHAT VOTERS AND CONSTITUENTS
REALLY WANT TO HEAR IS, HOW ARE
WE PERFORMING IN THESE
INVESTMENTS? HOW ARE WE
CHANGING SAFETY? HOW ARE WE
INCREASING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
AND REDUCING FATALITIES ? HOW
ARE WE ENSURING THAT FREIGHT
GETS THROUGH EFFICIENTLY? I
WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HAVING A
BETTER SENSE OF WHAT REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS COULD LOOK LIKE
THAT ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE THAT
WE ARE ACHIEVING BETTER
OUTCOMES FOR OUR NEIGHBORS,
RATHER THAN JUST A REPORTING
THAT LOOKS AT WIDGETS OR
OUTPUTS. THAT IS A BIG
QUESTION, BUT DO YOU HAVE A
SENSE OF HOW WE MIGHT CHANGE
THE REPORTING LANGUAGE SO WE
ARE REALLY UNDERSTANDING HOW
OUR NEIGHBORS ARE BEST SERVED?
>> IT IS ABOUT HIGHLIGHTING THE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WITH THE
SEATTLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
THEY ARE MORE FOCUSED ON THOSE
OUTCOMES AND HOW MUCH WE ARE
MOVING THE NEEDLE. THE
DISTINCTION THAT I WOULD MAKE ,
THE SEATTLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
IS A POLICY LEVEL GOAL. WE WANT
TO KNOW HOW WE ARE DOING ON
THOSE THINGS, BUT IT WAS NOT A
FUNDING PLAN. THIS IS THE
FUNDING PLAN. THE DELIVERY HAS
BEEN TIED TO HOW MUCH MONEY
WILL BE PROPOSED. THERE IS A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WHICH
ATTRACTED WE WILL DO TO MAKE
THAT WORK. MAY BE PART OF THE
WAY TO ANSWER THIS IS TO HOLD
UP SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE
IN THAT SEATTLE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN. THAT IS BAKED IN WITH THE
PLAN ALREADY. COULD BE ABOUT
MAKING SURE THAT INFORMATION IS
PROVIDED AND INCLUDED IN ALL
THOSE REPORTS.
>> THAT IS HELPFUL, THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. NEXT ITEM , ITEM 6 IS
THE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING TASK
FORCE. THIS IS A PROPOSAL THAT
IS NOT INCLUDED DIRECTLY IN THE
LEGISLATION . THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSAL DID CALL FOR
ESTABLISHING A TRANSPORTATION
FUNDING TASK FORCE TO LOOK INTO
HOW WE WOULD FIND SIDEWALKS,
BRIDGES, AND OTHER
TRANSPORTATION ASSETS. THE
LEGISLATION HAS SOME FUNDING TO
SUPPORT THIS WORK. WE WOULD ASK
BACKED SEPARATE LEGISLATION TO
ESTABLISH THE TASK FORCE. THAT
IS NOT CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF
COMMITTEE. THAT TYPE OF
LEGISLATION COULD GO ON A
SEPARATE TIMELINE. IT DOES NOT
NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE DECIDED
RIGHT NOW. THERE COULD BE SOME
SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT YOU WANT
TO MAKE SURE ARE IN THE SCOPE
OF WHAT THE TASK FORCE LOOKS
AT. YOU WILL PROBABLY WANT TO
CARE GREATLY ABOUT WHO IS ASKED
OR INVITED TO BE PART OF THAT
TASK FORCE . IT IS AN OPTION
FOR YOU TO CONSIDER DEVELOPING
LEGISLATION FOR THAT TASK
FORCE. I DO UNDERSTAND THE
EXECUTIVE IS LOOKING TO PRESENT
AT A FUTURE SELECTED MEETING,
THE IDEAS OF HOW THE TASK FORCE
MIGHT WORK. THAT COULD BE PART
OF AN ONGOING CONVERSATION
LEADING TO FUTURE LEGISLATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MARITZA
RIVERA, GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU. PLEASE EXPLAIN,
HAS THIS NOT WORKS ? THIS WOULD
CREATE A WHOLE SEPARATE SET OF
FOLKS?
>> YES. THE MOVE SEATTLE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE DID
IDENTIFY A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
REVENUE OPTIONS THAT THEY
THOUGHT SHOULD BE DELVED INTO
MORE. THE POINT OF THIS TASK
FORCE IS TO FOCUS DOWN ON
ACTUALLY COMING UP WITH A
PROPOSAL . FRANKLY, THE BIGGEST
REVENUE OPTION OUT THERE IS TO
CAN ENTER A LONG-TERM PROPERTY
TAX LEVY TO SUPPORT A BOND
ISSUE. THAT IS HOW YOU WOULD
GENERATE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT
OF MONEY TO REALLY ADDRESS THE
KEY ASSETS. AT THAT IS THE
FOCUS OF A TASK FORCE, IT
REALLY IS ABOUT, CAN YOU COME
UP WITH THAT PROPOSAL WITHIN 2
YEARS TO GO BACK OUT TO VOTERS?
THAT IS PROBABLY MORE WORK THAN
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR
DELIVERING ON THE EXISTING
LEVEES. IT SEEMS TO WARRANT
BEING A SEPARATE BODY. THERE
ARE OTHER REVENUE SOURCES THAT
COULD BE CONSIDERED. MANY OF
THEM DO NOT RAISE THE SAME
LEVEL OF FUNDING. THEY MAY BE
HELPFUL, BUT WILL NOT MOVE THE
NEEDLE AS MUCH AS A BOND WOULD.
THE ONLY ONE I CAN THINK OF IS
IF WE WERE SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERING ABOUT CONGESTION
PRICING. THAT WOULD ALSO BE A
POTENTIAL WAY TO PAY BOND
SERVICE OR DEBT SERVICE ON A
BOND. WITHOUT THAT OPPORTUNITY,
I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WOULD
RAISE ENOUGH MONEY TO REALLY
MOVE THE NEEDLE.
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
THAT IS ONE I HAVE BEEN
GRAPPLING WITH AS WELL. WHERE I
AM TODAY, THESE TWO, SEPARATE,
BUT RELATED BODIES , THE TASK
FORCE AND THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE , THINK BOLT CAN
COEXIST AND ARE COMPLEMENTARY.
THEY FUNDAMENTALLY PERFORM A
DIFFERENT SCOPE WITH DIFFERENT
SETS OF RULES. THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE OVERSEES THE WATCHDOG
OF THE LEVY, MAYBE IT COULD BE
AN ANCILLARY THING . IT WAS
PART OF THE REMAKE. IT WAS FOR
IDENTIFYING FUNDING . WE SAW
THE LIST , AND WE KNEW THERE
WERE NO MAJOR SURPRISES ON THE
LIST. I THINK ON THE TASK
FORCE, THAT'S WHY IT IS GOOD
TO BACK THIS WITH FUNDING , THE
VOLUNTEERS ARE NOT SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THINKING
THROUGH ALL OF THE CONCEIVABLE
ISSUES, INCLUDING OUR ABILITY
TO IMPLEMENT AND OPERATIONALIZE
THESE THINGS. WE CAN DO THEM.
HIM OF THEM WE CANNOT DO. WE'RE
BACK WITH RESOURCES, INCLUDING
CONSULTANTS. YOU'RE LOOKING AT
LEGAL ADVISORS TO HELP VALIDATE
AND LASH OUT THESE GREAT IDEAS.
ANYWAY, IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT,
SEPARATE, RELATED, BUT
FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT.
THAT'S HOW I CURRENTLY SEE IT.
MIB RIGHT FOR CLARIFICATION.
YOU STILL HAVE YOUR HEAD UP ?
OKAY, COUNCILMEMBER CATHY MOORE
?
>>> YOU MENTIONED AN OPTION TO
ESTABLISH A TASK FORCE. THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE,
COULD THAT BE DONE IN
ATTACHMENT A? WOULD THAT BE
SEPARATE LEGISLATION THAT WE
CAN ON AT THE SAME TIME?
>> YOU WILL BE SEPARATE
LEGISLATION. I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT WE COULD DO SOME THINGS TO
ESTABLISH DIRECTION ON THAT.
I'M NOT SURE . IT WOULD TAKE A
LOT TO GET THROUGH THIS
PARTICULAR PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. IT MIGHT BE
SOMETHING THAT TAKES A LITTLE
BIT LONGER TO RESOLVE, PERHAPS
IN SEPTEMBER OR PERHAPS BEFORE
WE GO TO VOTERS TO HAVE THIS
LOCKDOWN. DOES NOT NECESSARILY
HAVE TO GO ALONG. IF YOU COULD
DEVELOP IT FAST ENOUGH, YOU
COULD CONSIDER IN SELECT
COMMITTEE.
>> THANK YOU. ONE THING I AM
THING ABOUT NOW IS THE PROPOSAL
, WE HAVE A COMMITMENT TO BUILD
250 SIDEWALKS AND 4 YEARS AS
OPPOSED TO 8 YEARS WITH AN
ADDITIONAL 30. IN 4 YEARS TIME,
THE TASK FORCE WILL FIGURE OUT
WHAT TO DO NEXT. I GUESS AND
THINKING ABOUT HOW BIG WE GO ON
THE LEVY, THERE IS THE THOUGHTS
ABOUT MAYBE GOING BIGGER ,
BECAUSE WE ARE STILL GOING TO
BE IN THE PROCESS OF FIGURING
OUT HOW TO FUND THE REMAINING,
THE WAY IT IS SET UP NOW. THERE
ARE SO MANY VARIABLES IN
LETTING THIS HAPPEN AND ONLY
MAKING A FOUR YEAR COMMITMENT,
JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND
WHILE THINKING ABOUT THE SIZE
OF THE LEVY AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL
PRESIDENT?
>> PERSONALLY, SPEAKING FOR
MYSELF BEFORE I START THINKING
ABOUT MORE MONEY FOR THE TASK
FORCE AND MORE CONSULTANTS ,
AND ATTORNEYS, AND EVERYTHING
FOR THE TASK FORCE IN ADDITION
TO THAT WHICH THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE MIGHT NEED. I THINK
WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHAT THIS IS ? THIS IS
SOUNDING A BIT LIKE THE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE WORKSHOP,
LOOKING AT DIFFERENT SOURCES OF
MONEY TO CONTINUE TO FUND
TRANSPORTATION IN A DIFFERENT
WAY. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND, HOW
MUCH MORE MONEY DO WE NEED? HOW
WELL IS THE EXISTING LEVY
PERFORMING WHEN IT COMES TO THE
THINGS THAT ARE CONTINUALLY
INCREASING COSTS YEAR AFTER
YEAR, WHICH IS DEFERRED
MAINTENANCE. A STITCH IN TIME
SAVES NINE, THE MORE WE DON'T
KEEP UP WITH THE MAINTENANCE
NEEDS, THE MORE MONEY IT COSTS
TO FIX THE ROADS, AND BRIDGES.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT
PRIVILEGE AND MODE, TALK ABOUT
HOW DO WE KEEP , HOW DO WE DIG
OURSELVES OUT OF THIS HOLE?
THAT'S THE KIND OF ANALYSIS
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEFORE WE
START TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT
STEPS. THIS INFORMATION NEEDS
TO BE SOLVED. I THINK THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HAS LOOKED
AT THIS. I NEED TO DO MY OWN
HOMEWORK BY FINDING OUT WHAT
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. I DO
BELIEVE WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY
TO FUND OUR BRIDGES . I WOULD
LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THIS
INFORMATION . FIRST, I WOULD
LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU MORE
ABOUT WHAT SIDE PIECE OF
LEGISLATION WOULD WE NEED ?
WHEN WOULD BE IMPLEMENT THAT TO
GET AT THESE OTHER FUNDING
NEEDS? I HAVE BEEN CALLING FOR
BRIDGE ATTENTION FOR A LONG
TIME. DOES IS HOW TO BE A
PARALLEL VOTED OUT AT THE SAME
TIME? WHAT DOES HAVE TO GO TO
THE VOTERS? CAN THIS BE
STANDALONE?
>> CURRENTLY, THERE IS A MONEY
THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE IN THE
LEVY TO SUPPORT THESE KINDS OF
THINGS, BUT IT IS NOT REQUIRED.
I THINK YOU WILL WANT SEPARATE
LEGISLATION TO SET UP THE
TRANSPORTATION . THESE ARE ALL
OF THESE ISSUES THEY WOULD WANT
TO CONSIDERATION, WE CAN
ADDRESS THESE ISSUES ABOUT HOW
MUCH THE ASSET MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS, WHAT IT TELLS US
ABOUT THE LEVEL OF FUNDING
NECESSARY . WE DO KNOW THAT WE
ARE NOT ABLE TO HIT ALL
PRIORITIES WITH THIS LEVY. THAT
IS SOMETHING WE ARE SEEING IN
REAL-TIME ABOUT SIDEWALKS,
BRIDGES, AND BIKE LANES , AND
ALL OTHER ASSET CLASSES. THERE
IS INFORMATION OUT THERE THAT
COULD BE PART OF THAT
DISCUSSION. I WOULD SUGGEST
THAT WE TAKE THAT AS PART OF A
SEPARATE DISCUSSION ABOUT
LEGISLATION ON THE TASK FORCE
AND POTENTIALLY HOLD THAT .
I'M NOT SURE THAT WE WILL BE
ABLE TO GET INTO AS MUCH DETAIL
IN SELECT COMMITTEE. WE MAY
WANT TO COME BACK TO THAT AS
SEPARATE LEGISLATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT
ANSWER. I WANT TO PUT IT ON THE
RECORD THAT WE NEED A WAY TO
PAY FOR THE BIG PROJECTS THAT
WE HAVE NOT BEEN , THAT THE
LEVY CANNOT GET TO. I RECKON IS
THAT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
RECOGNIZE THE UNIVERSE OF NEED.
>> SPEAKING TO EXACTLY THAT
POINT, IT IS THINGS LIKE
BRIDGES , THAT ARE HIGH CAPITAL
PROJECTS ALL AT ONCE. WE HAVE A
NUMBER OF THEM THAT ARE COMING
TO THE END OF THEIR USEFUL
LIVES. YOU WANT TO SPREAD THAT
EXPENSE OVER THE NEXT
GENERATION , THE VALUE OF THAT
ASSET. THOSE ARE NOT GOING TO
BE FUNDED BY A SMALL LEVY .
>> THANK YOU.
>> EXCELLENT FEEDBACK. I AM NOT
A STRONG FAN OF ADDITIONAL
OVERHEAD AND ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS EITHER. I WOULD PREFER TO
SPEND AS MITCH DOLLARS ON
ACTUAL DELIVERABLES. TO HAVE
THIS, I AM A STRONG PROPONENT
OF EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE
DELIVERY OF WHATEVER PROGRAMS
WE HAVE COMMITTED TO. TO
SOMETIMES THESE IMPORTANT
OPERATIONAL COSTS, THEY HELP
DRIVE AND ADVANCES. I
PERSONALLY WOULD NOT
CHARACTERIZE THIS AS A
TRANSPORTATION EQUIVALENT OF
THE REVENUE STABILIZATION TASK
FORCE, UNLIKE THAT BODY OF
DEDICATED VOLUNTEERS, THIS HAS
RESOURCES BACK TO IT. THE
LAWYERS , SHOUT OUT TO THE
LAWYERS . THERE ARE LAWYERS
THAT ACTUALLY THINK THROUGH THE
LEGALITY AND TH
HIRE LAWYERS AND CONSULTANTS TO
THINK THROUGH WHETHER WE CAN
IMPLEMENT THOSE. THE TASK
FORCE, THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION TASK FORCE, THERE
WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE
CANNOT ACTUALLY DO BECAUSE WE
DO NOT HAVE SOMEBODY LOOKING
THROUGH THIS. THIS SHOWED UP ON
THE LIST IN THE FINAL WORD ,
BUT NOBODY COULD THINK THROUGH
BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAVE
RESOURCES. CAN WE HAVE A
VACANCY TAX IN SEATTLE? MY
CONCLUSION IS, NO WE CAN'T. IT
IS A RESOURCE BACK APPROACH TO
GOOD GOVERNANCE.
>> I'M WITH YOU.
>> IF I MAY ADD, WITH
LEGISLATION, YOU CAN ESTABLISH
EXACTLY WHAT PARAMETERS YOU
WANT TO BE EVALUATED. IF YOU
WANT TO FOCUS DOWN ON VERY
SPECIFIC ITEMS, YOU CAN DO SO
AND GIVE DIRECTION OF THE TASK
FORCE OF WHAT TYPE OF ADVICE WE
ARE LOOKING FOR. THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE DID A LAUNDRY LIST OF
ALL OPTIONS OUT THERE. SOME
MIGHT REQUIRE FUTURE
AUTHORIZATION. THAT IS MORE
SPECULATIVE. YOU MIGHT WANT TO
FOCUS ON THINGS THAT WE KNOW WE
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO. IT'S
A QUESTION ON WHETHER WE CAN
PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL THAT
WOULD MAKE SENSE.
>> THE IDEA IS , THE WAY I
ENVISION IT , WE GO THROUGH THE
PROCESS TOGETHER. WE HAVE YOUR
WONDERFUL IDEAS AS WELL. THE
IDEA IS THAT IT WOULD BE
FUNDED. SO NOTHING WOULD SHOW
UP IN A FINAL REPORT THAT HAS
NOT BEEN THOUGHT THROUGH. YES,
IF WE GREENLIGHTED WE GIVE IT
THE JULIUS CAESAR THUMBS-UP, WE
CAN DO THIS IF WE WANT. PEOPLE
OF THE PUBLIC PAYING ATTENTION
CAN SAY THIS IS A VALID POLICY
CHOICE THAT WE CAN DO TODAY IF
WE SO CHOOSE. IN ANY EVENT,
DEAD HORSE . DO YOU HAVE
ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU,
COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J. MORALES?
>> IN LINE WITH THE
CONVERSATION HAPPENING WITH THE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, MY
UNDERSTANDING IS , THIS LEVY IS
NOT SUFFICIENT. WE KNOW WE HAVE
$3 BILLION WORTH OF BRIDGE
NEEDS AND SIDEWALK NEEDS, AND
THINGS THAT NEED TO BE REPAIRED
OR REPLACED. THAT IS WHY THIS
TASK FORCE IS BEING CONSIDERED
TO HELP US THINK THROUGH, HOW
WILL WE PAY FOR ALL THE THINGS
THAT NEED TO GET DONE? MY
QUESTION ABOUT THE TASK FORCE
ITSELF , IF THERE'S $5 MILLION
BEING CONTEMPLATED TO HELP
SUPPORT THIS , RIGHT? AS TO
MAKE IT IS LUMPED INTO THAT
LINE ITEM. ALL THE MONEY IS NOT
JUST FOR THE TASK FORCE, IT IS
A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
THERE IS A SMALL LINE ITEM IN
THERE TO SUPPORT THIS WORK.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND, MAYBE THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WILL COME
THROUGH LEGISLATION TO
ESTABLISH THE TASK FORCE,
WHETHER IT IS ALSO THE
EXECUTIVE, OVER WHAT PERIOD OF
TIME ARE WE CONSIDERING THIS
TASK FORCE TO BE WORKING? WE
HAVE ALREADY HAD TWO DIFFERENT
REVENUE PANELS IN THE LAST
SEVERAL YEARS THAT HELPED US
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE
NOT FOR THIS SPECIFICALLY, BUT
WE KNOW WHAT SOME OPTIONS ARE.
GIVEN WHAT COUNCILMEMBER TREVOR
WAS SAYING, THE SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCTION IS FRONTLOADED FOR
4 YEARS. WE ARE NOT SURE WHAT
WILL HAPPEN AFTER THAT. IS THE
IDEA THAT THE TASK FORCE WOULD
BE IN PLACE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF
THE LEVY? OR WILL THEY WORK FOR
A YEAR, FIGURE THINGS OUT, WE
WILL PASS A BOND MEASURE? OR
WHATEVER THE OPTION IS? TO MAKE
AS PROPOSED, THE IDEA WAS THAT
THIS TASK FORCE WOULD CONCLUDE
ITS WORK IN 2026. BY THE WAY,
ALL THAT IS SUBJECT TO OUR
DIRECTION AND OVERSIGHT. WE CAN
EXPAND THE SCOPE OR NARROW IT.
WE WANT TO SET THE TASK FORCE,
AS A POLICY MATTER, IS IT A
GOOD IDEA? WE WANT TO SET THEM
UP FOR SUCCESS AND HAVE A
REASONABLE TIME AND TURNAROUND.
IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE A
FOREVER THING .
>> THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE
CHARGE AND THE LEGISLATION
RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD. ATOMIC
THE LAST ITEM I WANTED TO
IDENTIFY IS THAT THERE MAY BE A
NUMBER OF ISSUES YOU WANT TO
PURSUE OR EXPLORE ABOUT HOW THE
LEVY IMPLEMENTATION GOES THAT
WE WOULD NOT WANT TO PUT IN THE
LEVY LEGISLATION ITSELF. IT
CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT GOING
BACK TO VOTERS. YOU MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER COMPANION LEGISLATION.
WE'VE DONE IS TO IDENTIFY
COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THINGS.
THIS COULD INCLUDE DIRECTIONS
TO COME BACK WITH PROPOSAL FOR
THE TASK FORCE. WANT TO PUT IT
OUT THERE THAT YOU COULD
CONSIDER COMPANION LEGISLATION
WITH THE LEVY LEGISLATION TO
ESTABLISH DIRECTIONS AND
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES THAT YOU
WANT TO SEE MORE OF. THAT IS
ALL IN MY PRESENTATION.
>> THANK YOU . COLLEAGUES, ANY
OTHER DISCUSSIONS? WE HAVE A
GOOD CALLOUT . IT MADE A LOT OF
SENSE FOR THIS SPECIFIC
PRESENTATION TO ASK QUESTIONS
ON ROLLING BASIS. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR
FEEDBACK?
>> I HAVE ONE FINAL THING.
>> ONE THING I APPRECIATE ABOUT
THE MEMO THAT WAS SENT OUT BY
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IS THE
NEED FOR US TO ASSERT BOLD
LEADERSHIP THROUGHOUT THE
PROCESS. I WANT TO READ FROM
THE MEMO ITSELF . VISA CHECK
LESSON PLANS CAN ONLY BE
EFFECTIVE WHEN THEY ARE
ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED. THE
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY PLAN
INDICATES THAT SAFETY-RELATED
PROPOSED CHANGES HAVE
WIDESPREAD SUPPORT. WE NEED THE
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL , AND OTHER
CITY LEADERS TO ENSURE THAT
THESE ACTUALLY GET IMPLEMENTED.
DAPHNE THE BOLD AND UNWAVERING
SUPPORT OF OUR LEADERS WHEN
FACING OPPOSITION TO SAFETY
PROJECTS WHEN THEY ARE BASED ON
BEST PRACTICES, INDUSTRY
STANDARDS , AND SOUND DATA. ALL
THAT TO SAY , AS SOMEONE , THE
COMMENTOR TALKED ABOUT THE LOSS
OF HER HUSBAND BECAUSE OF
UNSAFE ROADS FOR CYCLISTS , WE
HAVE COMMENTERS HERE THAT ARE
WHEELCHAIR-BOUND AND NEED US TO
STEP UP AND MAKE SURE WE ARE
CREATING SAFETY FOR THEM SO
THEY CAN NAVIGATE OUR CITY
SAFELY. I THINK, MY COLLEAGUES
HAVE BEEN ON THIS COUNSEL WITH
ME BEFORE THIS YEAR KNOW THAT
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. I
AM TIRED OF COMING TO A
BRIEFING AND TALKING ABOUT MY
CONSTITUENTS WHO HAVE BEEN
KILLED BECAUSE OUR ROADS ARE
NOT SAFE. SO, I WANT US TO
REMEMBER THAT WE ARE HERE FOR
ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS . WE
ARE REALLY HERE FOR THE FOLKS
THAT ARE NOT TYPICALLY AT THE
TABLE AND NOT ABLE TO ADVOCATE
FOR THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY
HAVE BUSY LIVES TRYING TO DO
OTHER THINGS . I THINK IT WILL
BE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO
STEP INTO OUR LEADERSHIP AND
MAKE SURE WE ARE PROTECTING
EVERYBODY IN THE CITY. THANK
YOU.
>>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
TAMMY J. MORALES. ALL RIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE? MADAM VICE CHAIR?
ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
AND FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER?
>> I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO
SAY, CHAIR ROB SAKA. HE ALWAYS
PUT ME ON THE SPOT. I DON'T. I
DO ECHO COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J.
MORALES'S COMMENTS. THERE ARE
A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE
HERE AT COUNSEL OR ON SOCIAL
MEDIA, OR ON TWITTER, OR THE
DIFFERENT OUTLETS IN WHICH A
LOT OF US ARE ON. A LOT OF US
REACH OUT TO COMMUNITY IN
DIFFERENT WAYS AND ENCOURAGE
OUR COLLEAGUES TO GO BEYOND .
THERE IS A COMMUNITY THAT DOES
NOT HAVE ACCESS TO EMAIL OR
HAVE THE TIME TO DO THAT. THEY
ARE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY. THEY
ARE AT CHURCHES AND COMMUNITY
CENTERS. WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO
MAKE THE CITY SAFE . MY PARENTS
LIVE IN SOUTH SEATTLE. I DO
UNDERSTAND COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY
J. MORALES'S COMMENTS
REGARDING SAFETY AROUND MLK AND
RAINIER. I GO ALONG THAT EVERY
DAY WHEN I GO TO MY PARENTS
HOUSE. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT
PIECE AS WELL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. I PUT
ON THE SPOT, BECAUSE YOU ARE
GOOD AT IT. THANK YOU FOR THOSE
COMMENTS. COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY
J. MORALES FOR YOUR SOBERING
COMMENTS. IT IS A SOBERING
REMINDER FOR ALL OF US WHO THE
HUGE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE
HERE BEFORE US TODAY, AND
THROUGHOUT THIS LEVY RENEWAL
CONSIDERATION PROCESS . LET US
STRIVE TO DO THE WORK , ROLLING
UP OUR SLEEVES TO MEET THE
UNMET AND UNARTICULATED NEEDS
OF THE RESIDENTS OF THIS CITY.
DOESN'T SHOW UP AND ARE ABLE
TO CARVE OUT TIME AND TESTIFY,
I AM GRATEFUL FOR THEM. ALSO,
THOSE THAT DON'T. WHO IS
DIRECTLY HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT OF
THE PROCESS, OR FOR ANY NUMBER
OF REASONS HAVE OTHER THINGS
GOING ON IN YOUR LIVES.
STARTING WITH THE MOST
VULNERABLE PEOPLE,, AS YOU
CALLED OUT, WE HAD SOME HERE
THAT ARE SUFFERING FROM , WHO
HAVE EXPERIENCED AT THE
DEVASTATING IMPACT OF LESS THAN
IDEAL POLICY CHOICES TO INVEST
OR NOT INVEST IN CERTAIN CASES
, AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR
ALL, INCLUDING NEW SIDEWALKS.
IT IS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY IN
FRONT OF US. LET US ALSO NOT
FORGET, STARTING WITH THE MOST
VULNERABLE , WE NEED TO BE
MINDFUL OF THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC
, AND THEIR WISHES . THEY SENT
US HERE TO DO THE RIGHT THING
AND INVEST AND SPEND WISELY ,
AND WHATEVER SAFETY, OR
ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENTS AND
FEATURES, LET US DO THAT AND BE
MINDFUL OF THE IMPACT OF OUR
DECISIONS ON PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY
GIVEN THE REVENUE STREAM. THAT
IS NOT PARTICULARLY
PROGRESSIVE. IN ANY EVENT ,
THANK YOU. UNLESS THERE ARE ANY
FINAL THOUGHTS , GO AHEAD ,
COUNCILMEMBER MARITZA RIVERA.
>> I JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE
CALVIN FOR HIS WORK ON THIS
ISSUE PAPER , AS MOST PEOPLE
KNOW , IT IS REALLY HARD WORK
TO SYNTHESIZE AND READ THE
ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION PLAN,
WHICH HAS AN IMPACT ON WHAT
MOVES FORWARD IN THE LEVY. WE
ARE TRYING TO MEET THE GOAL OF
THE PLAN AND THE LEVY. THAT WAS
A SIZABLE, MATERIAL DOCUMENT.
AND HAVING TO SYNTHESIZE THE
LEVY FOR US . I THOUGHT THE
ISSUES WERE ARTICULATELY PULLED
OUT. I SUPER APPRECIATE
CALVIN'S WORK. WE DON'T ALWAYS
RECOGNIZE THE FOLKS BEHIND THE
SCENES, I WANT TO GIVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AND LET
CALVIN KNOW HOW MUCH I
APPRECIATE THE WORK AND HOW
HELPFUL IT IS TO ME. THANK YOU.
>> IT IS A WONDERFUL REMINDER ,
WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU AS
WELL, AS CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE, I WOULD BE A PLUS
ONE THAT, WE WORK TOGETHER
CLOSELY OUTSIDE OF THESE
COMMITTEES. I DO AGREE , +1 TO
THE SENTIMENT OF ALL THINGS
EXPRESSED THERE. I APPRECIATE
IT. I KNOW THIS IS A LOT OF
TIME. WHAT WE DO IS NOT A
9-TO-5 JOB. FOR US, TEAMMATES,
AND STAFF THAT FOCUS ON
TRANSPORTATION, THIS IS ONE OF
THOSE TIMES WHERE IT IS AN ALL
HANDS ON DECK EFFORT. I DO
APPRECIATE YOUR SAGE AND
INSIGHTFUL DIRECTION. I READ
ALL YOUR MEMOS THAT YOU SEND
ACROSS. EVERY LINK INCLUDED TO
ANOTHER CITED DOCUMENT, I READ
THAT AS WELL. I DO APPRECIATE
YOUR VERY THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS.
WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT WE CAN ALL
RELY ON YOUR EXPERTISE AND
POLICY PLANNING TO HELP GUIDE
OUR REALLY IMPORTANT POLICY
DECISIONS THAT WE WILL BE
MAKING IN THIS BODY. THANK YOU
AGAIN. I EVEN READ YOUR
SPREADSHEETS . I WENT TO LAW
SCHOOL WITH THE EXPRESS PROMISE
THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE
GOOD AT SPECIFIC NUMBERS AND
MATH. I WANT TO BANG MY HEAD. I
AM JUST JOKING. YOU HAVE A VERY
THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS. IS NOT
JUST YOU, THERE ARE OTHER
PEOPLE INVOLVED. YOU ARE THE
PRIMARY FACE OF ALL OF THIS. WE
APPRECIATE THE ENGAGEMENT AND
THE EXPERTS THAT WE HAVE HERE.
I GUESS, ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE
REACHED THE END OF TODAY'S
MEETING AGENDA. FINAL, FINAL,
THERE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS TO
COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE?
HEARING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO
COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, WE
ARE ADJOURNED AT 12:03 .