>>> THE OCTOBER 17th SELECT
BUDGET COMMITTEE WILL COME BACK
TO ORDER. IT'S 1:30 P.M. AND
I'M DAN STRAUSS CHAIR OF THE
COMMITTEE. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE
CALL THE ROLE? NELSON AND JUAREZ
ARE EXCUSED. [ ROLL CALL ]
>> FIVE PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE RIGHT
INTO OUR FOURTH AGENDA ITEM.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ THE
SHORT TITLE INTO THE RECORD?
>> 4, HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FOR BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION.
>> WONDERFUL. WE ARE JOINED
ALWAYS BY DIRECTOR BEN NOBLE AND
WE HAVE JENNIFER AND JASMINE AND
TRACY RATSLIFF ALL SOME OF THE
ENTIRE SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL
CENTRAL STAFF ARE PART OF A TEAM
THAT REPRESENT THE BEST AND
SMARTEST ANALYSTS IN OUR STATE.
SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT
AGAIN. SO HERE WE ARE AS WE ARE
GETTING READY TO PRESENT THE
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT. WE
ALSO HAVE TAMASOSON. AT YOUR
CONVENIENCE, I'LL TURN IT OVER
TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER. FOR
THE RECORD TRACY RATSLIFF JOINED
BY MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES.
>> JENNIFER LEBRECK, STAFF.
>> TAMASO JOHNSON. CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> HSD IS BIG ENOUGH AND IT
REQUIRES A TEAM.
>> SO WE'RE PLEASED TO BE HERE
THIS AFTERNOON TO PROVIDE A
REVIEW OF BUDGET AND
CONSIDERATIONS PROVIDED BY THIS
POINT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS. OUR
REVIEW AND ROLLSY CONSIDERATIONS
MEMO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
DETAIL AND IS ATTACHED TO THE
AGENDA FOR YOUR REFERENCE.
HOPING IT MIGHT PUT A LITTLE
KIBOSH ON THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU
MIGHT ASK OF US THROUGH OUR
PRESENTATION BUT WE'LL SEE HOW
THAT GOES. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM
THE VERY FIRST TABLE, THE 2026
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT WOULD
INCREASE BY 11.6% OR $45 MILLION
RELATIVE TO THE 2026 ENDORSED
BUDGET. AS YOU HEARD FROM THE
DEPARTMENT DURING THE
PRESENTATION A FEW WEEKS AGO,
THIS IS A RESULT OF ADDITIONAL
FUNDS BEING ADDED TO ADDRESSING
HOMELESSNESS AND ADVANCING
COMMUNITY SAFETY, FOOD AND
NUTRITION, PUBLIC HEALTH, AS
WELL AS INCREASES TO HUMAN
SERVICES PROVIDER WAGES AND
CONTRACTS. MOVING TO THE NEXT
SLIDE. IN TERMS OF FTE CHANGES,
NINE OF THE 11 NEW FULL-TIME
POSITIONS WERE ACTUALLY -- THAT
ARE IN THE 2026 PROPOSED BUDGET
WERE ACTUALLY ADDED IN THE MID
YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL ORDINANCE. THE
NINE POSITIONS ARE SUPPORT THE
EXPANSION OF THE STATE
WASHINGTON CARES A LONG-TERM
CARE PROGRAM, THESE POSITIONS
PROVIDE OUTREACH, PROVIDER
NETWORK DEVELOPMENT AND
BENEFICIARY SERVICES AND THESE
POSITIONS ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY
STATE GRANT FUNDING. IN
ADDITION, THERE ARE TWO NEW CASE
MANAGER POSITIONS THAT ARE ADDED
TO HSD'S POST OVERDOSE TEAM
THAT IS PART OF THE HEALTH 99
PROGRAM. THAT'S OPERATED BY THE
SEATTLE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THESE
POSITIONS WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY
THE NEW PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY
SALES TAX REVENUE. AS IT RELATES
TO CHANGES TO THE KEY REVENUE
SOURCES, THOSE ARE AS FOLLOWS. A
NET INCREASE OF OVER $27 MILLION
IN THE GENERAL FUND AND THIS
INCLUDES SPECIFICALLY $17
MILLION IN THE SEATTLE SHIELD
BNO TAX SALES TAX. AND OVER $11
MILLION IN THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY
SALES TAX. THERE'S A NET
INCREASE OF $200,000 IN
JUMP-START FUNDING. AND THEN
FINALLY THERE'S AN INCREASE OF
$18.2 MILLION IN OTHER SOURCES
OF FUNDING WHICH INCLUDES NOT
ONLY FEDERAL AND STATE GRANTS,
BUT IT ALSO INCLUDES FAMILIES,
EDUCATION, PRESCHOOL AND PROMISE
LEVY AND A SWEET AND BEVERAGE
TAX FOR WHICH THOSE WERE USED TO
DO SOME SWAPS TO RELIEVE GENERAL
FUND AND PET OF FUNDING
OBLIGATIONS. DO YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS
INFORMATION, COUNCILMEMBERS?
>> I'M NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS
AT THIS TIME.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
>> ALL RIGHT, WEEK BE MOVING
INTO THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
POLICY. AND I WILL DO THE FIRST
THREE AND THEN HAND IT OVER TO
MY COLLEAGUE JASMINE. SO THE
2026 PROPOSED BUDGET PROVIDES
ONGOING FUNDING FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 2% HUMAN SERVICE
PROVIDER WAGE EQUITY INCREASE OF
$5.1 MILLION. AND I DO WANT TO
NOTE THAT THAT'S ABOVE AND
BEYOND THE 2.6% INFLATIONARY
ADJUSTMENT THAT WAS ALSO
PROVIDED AS REQUIRED UNDER THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
DESCRIBED BY BEN AND TOM EARLIER
THIS WEEK, THE CITY IS FACING
$140 MILLION GENERAL FUND
DEFICIT IN 2027. SO COUNCIL WILL
NEED TO MAKE A DIFFICULT
DECISION IN 2027 IF IT WANTS TO
SUSTAIN THIS WAGE EQUITY
INCREASE. I THINK THIS IS
PROBABLY KNOWN BUT FAILURE TO
STAY IN THESE NEW INVESTMENTS
WOULD MEAN THAT WAGES WOULD
DECREASE FOR HUMAN SERVICES
WORKERS. AND THERE ARE NO
OPTIONS HERE. JUST FLAGGING I
THINK A DECISION PENDING BEFORE
COUNCIL IN FUTURE YEARS.
>> THANK YOU, JENNIFER. BEFORE
YOU MOVE ON RAISING MY HAND TO
BE PART OF THE PROCESS HERE,
JUST TO SAY THIS WAGE EQUITY --
AND STABILIZATION AS I'LL CALL
IT AND PARITY IN OTHER WAYS HAS
BEEN AN ONGOING POLICY PROPOSAL
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND MAYBE
HELP ME CORRECT THE RECORD HERE
TO SAY THIS ISSUE WAS IDENTIFIED
I BELIEVE IN 2018/2019. THERE IS
A FIRST ROUND OF CHANGES MADE IN
2020/2021 THAT DIDN'T GET QUITE
TO PARITY. BUT STARTED TAKING
THAT NEXT STEP IN THAT
DIRECTION. AND THIS BUDGET
BEFORE US AS PROPOSED TOOK THE
NEXT STEP FROM THERE AND WE ARE
NOT QUITE AT PARITY. ALL OF THAT
SAID, WE ALSO DON'T HAVE A --
AS YOU SAID, IN 2027, THIS ISSUE
MIGHT BE RIGHT BACK IN FRONT OF
US. IS THAT -- AN ACCURATE
ASSESSMENT?
>> I THINK IT IS -- THAT IS
CORRECT. THAT -- AND JUST A
LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, IN 2022,
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
PUBLISHED A WAGE EQUITY REPORT
THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONED FOR
HUMAN SERVICES WORKERS. AND IT
FOUND THAT THERE WAS A
SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCY BETWEEN
PAY FOR HUMAN SERVICES WORKERS
VERSUS WORKERS IN SIMILAR
FIELDS. THAT REPORT RECOMMENDED
THAT THE CITY INCREASE HUMAN
SERVICES CONTRACTS BY 7% OVER A
PERIOD OF SEVERAL YEARS. AND IN
2024, COUNCIL DID PROVIDE A 2%
WAGE EQUITY INCREASE. SO THEY
DID ESSENTIALLY THE 2% OF THAT
7% RECOMMENDATION. AND THIS
WOULD PROVIDE A FURTHER 2%.
>> THANK YOU. WHICH DOESN'T
BRING US UP TO THE FINAL GOAL.
BUT DOES TAKE ANOTHER MEANINGFUL
STEP IN THAT RIGHT DIRECTION.
AND I'LL ALSO JUST SAY THAT A
LOT OF THE WORK THAT THESE
CONTRACT WORKERS ARE DOING ARE
-- IS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND
TO FURTHER THE GOALS THAT OUR
CITY HAS. IF THEY WERE CITY
EMPLOYEES. THEY WOULD BE ALREADY
SUBJECT TO OUR ANNUAL WAGE
INCREASES ADDS PART OF THE
CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR
LABOR EMPLOYEES SO THIS IS
IMPORTANT AND I DON'T HAVE
ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD. I
JUST WANTED TO FLAG THE HISTORY
OF HOW WE GOT HERE TODAY. PLEASE
FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ANY OF THAT
ALSO.
>> THAT'S JUST CORRECT AND I
THINK THE MAIN POINT HERE IS OF
COURSE ONCE YOU PROVIDE A PAY
INCREASE TO SOMEONE, IT'S VERY
HARD TO TAKE IT BACK. SO THIS IS
TRULY, TRULY AN ONGOING COST IN
TERMS OF SOMETHING THAT THE CITY
WOULD NEED TO SUSTAIN.
>> YEP. THANK YOU. I SEE
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANK
YOU, JAN AND TRACY FOR BEING
HERE. JUST TO CLARIFY THOUGH,
WHEN THIS SAYS FAILURE TO
SUSTAIN WITH -- THE WAGES WOULD
DECREASE, I'M JUST CLARIFYING,
WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY -- YOU ARE
JUST SAYING THEY WOULD STAY
STATIC BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T DO
THE YEARLY INCREASE OR HOWEVER
OFTEN IT IS. YOU ARE NOT SAYING
THAT WE WOULD BE TAKING MONEY
AWAY -- LIKE IT'S AN ACTUAL
DECREASE. LIKE THEY'RE NOT --
OR IS THE DEPARTMENT GOING TO BE
PROPOSING EVEN LESS FUNDING? I
GUESS IS WHAT I'M -- JUST
TRYING TO CLARIFY.
>> LET ME CLARIFY THAT. IT'S A
GOOD QUESTION. I THINK MY POINT
IS SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, IMAGINE
COUNCIL ADOPTS A BUDGET WITH
THIS 2% INCREASE. WHICH IS $5
MILLION. THE PROVIDERS -- THE
PROVIDERS WILL THEN BE PASSING
THAT ON OR SHOULD BE PASSING
THAT ON TO THEIR EMPLOYEES IN
THE FORM OF A WAGE INCREASE
RIGHT? EMPLOYEES SHOULD SEE AN
INCREASE IN THEIR WAY. THAT
MONEY WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE TO
BE PART OF THE BASELINE BUDGET
IN FUTURE YEARS IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN THAT PAY INCREASE FOR
HUMAN SERVICES WORKERS. IF WE
GOT TO A PLACE NEXT YEAR AND IT
WAS LIKE OH WE'RE NOT, YOU
KNOW, THIS WOULD BE A PRIORITY
TO CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY FUNDING
FOR TO CONTINUE.
>> OH, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.
BECAUSE THAT'S IMPORTANT. IT'S
NOT THAT WE'RE -- IT'S JUST
THE INCREASE WOULDN'T --
COULDN'T HAPPEN. NOT THAT WE'RE
DECREASING THE BASELINE OR
WHATEVER IT WAS FROM THIS YEAR.
>> WELL, THE EMPLOYEES WOULD
HAVE RECEIVED A PAY INCREASE AND
SO FAILURE TO SUSTAIN THAT
INCREASE WOULD MEAN THE EMPLOYEE
WOULD EXPERIENCE IT AS A
DECREASE IN THEIR PAY.
>> THEY'RE NOT GETTING LIKE
THAT C. O. L. A -- I MEAN, TRUE
FOR OUR EMPLOYEE ON A YEAR WE'RE
NOT ABLE TO DO THAT BUT I GUESS
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE
CONTRACTS AREN'T GETTING LESS
MONEY. LIKE --
>> THE CONTRACTS -- IF --
>> I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY
QUESTION, JEN. I JUST I'M
TRYING TO LIKE -- THEY'RE NOT
GETTING LESS CONTRACTS. YOU JUST
SAYING THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET
A WAGE INCREASE. CORRECT? SORRY.
>> IF I MIGHT.
>> PLEASE.
>> JUST ADD ON. ADOPTING THIS
WAGE INCREASE IN THE BUDGET YEAR
WE'RE CONSIDERING NOW 2026,
WOULD CREATE SORT OF ONGOING
EXPECTATION. NOT AN OBLIGATION
IN THE LEGAL SENSE. BUT IF WE
APPROVE THIS IN '26, THEN IN
FUTURE YEARS, TO FAIL TO DO SO
WOULD -- THE EMPLOYEES AT THE
SERVICE PROVIDERS WOULD
EXPERIENCE THAT AS A DECREASE IN
THE FUTURE YEARS.
>> HAVE WE -- I MEAN, IS THIS
THE SECOND TIME WE'RE DOING
THIS?
>> YES. 2% WAGE EQUITY INCREASE
WAS PROVIDED IN 2024.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY.
THANK YOU, GUYS FOR CLARIFYING.
THANK YOU.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME?
SEEING NONE, JENNIFER, IF YOU'D
LIKE TO KEEP TICKING THROUGH
YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO THE SECOND
ISSUE IS AROUND SUSTAINABILITY
FOR THE NEW SHELTER BEDS THAT
ARE PART OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET.
THE MAYOR HAS PROPOSED A
MULTIYEAR EXPANSION OF SHELTER
BEDS WITH THE GOAL OF 305 NEW
UNITS BY THE END OF 2027. THE
AMOUNT OF FUNDING IN THE 2026
PROPOSED BUDGET IS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN A FULL
YEAR OF OPERATING SUPPORT FOR
THOSE 150 BEDS SLATED TO OPEN IN
2026. ESSENTIALLY THE -- THE
2026 BUDGET HAS ABOUT $7 MILLION
IN IT WHICH WOULD PAY FOR
START-UP COSTS FOR THOSE 150
UNITS. PLUS THREE MONTHS OF
OPERATING SUPPORT WITH THE
ASSUMPTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY
WOULD START UP -- OR BE
OPERATING LATE IN THE YEAR. BUT
IT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE $10
MILLION A YEAR TO SUSTAIN -- TO
OPERATE FULLY -- OPERATE 150
BEDS FOR A FULL YEAR. SO AT
LEAST $3 MILLION MORE WOULD BE
NEEDED JUST TO SUSTAIN THE 150
BEDS AND THEN OF COURSE THERE
WOULD BE ADDITIONAL COSTS TO ADD
ANOTHER 150 BEDS. SO IF YOU LOOK
AT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BEDS,
305, THE ANNUAL COST TO FULLY
OPERATE 305 BEDS FOR AN ENTIRE
YEAR WOULD BE $26 MILLION. THE
2026 PROPOSED BUDGET HAS $7
MILLION. SO THOSE ADDITIONAL
FUNDS WOULD NEED TO BE
IDENTIFIED BY THE END OF 2027
I'M SORRY, IN THE 2028 BUDGET
TO FULLY SUSTAIN OPERATING COSTS
FOR 300 BEDS FOR A FULL YEAR.
>> I THINK THAT'S VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT, MY THIRD ISSUE IS
AROUND WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE
-- OR WHAT'S CALLED THE
COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS INNOVATION
PILOT. AGAIN, THE 2026 PROPOSED
BUDGET CONTAINS $4 MILLION AND
ONE-TIME GF FOR A NEW PILOT TO
REDUCE UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS
IN DOWNTOWN. THE PROGRAM WHICH
IS STILL BEING DESIGNED WILL
LIKELY INCLUDE SHELTER,
SERVICES, OUTREACH, AND
SHORT-TERM RENTAL SUBSIDIES. HSL
WILL ADMINISTER THE FUNDING, NOT
THE KING COUNTY REGIONAL
HOMELESSNESS AUTHORITY WHICH
MANAGES FOR ALL CITY FUNDED
SHELTERS. THE DOWNTOWN SEATTLE
ASSOCIATION WILL BE THE LEAD
ENTITY AND WILL MANAGE A
SUBCONTRACT WITH PURPOSE DIGNITY
ACTION THE PDA TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROGRAM. THE FUNDING FOR THE
PAYMENT IS ONE-TIME. AND THAT
DOES APPEAR TO BE A POOR FIT FOR
THE NATURE OF THE PROGRAM
THAT'S DESIGNED HERE. COUNCIL
SHOULD ANTICIPATE IT WILL BE
ASKED FOR FUND TO CONTINUE PILOT
IN 20207 IN ORDER TO AVOID
RETURNING PEOPLE TO UNSHELTERED
HOMELESSNESS. AGAIN, JUST IN THE
FACE OF THE $140 MILLION GENERAL
FUND DEFICIT. COUNCIL SHOULD
THINK MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS
IF IT WANTS TO CONTINUE THE
FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM ON AN
ONGOING BASIS. THERE ARE A FEW
OPTIONS HERE. ONE IS PROVISO $4
MILLION CONTINGENT ON RECEIVING
MORE DETAILS FROM HSD ON THE
PILOT INCLUDING PROGRAM DESIGN
AND GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS AREA AND
THE PLAN TO ENSURE NO DISRUPTION
OF SERVICES WHEN ONE-TIME
FUNDING ENDS. AND OPTION B. IS
TO PROVISO FUNDS CONTINGENT ON
THEM BEING ADMINISTERED BY KCRJ
WHO MANAGES ALL OTHER SHELTER
CONTRACTS. OPTION C. REALLOCATE
THE OTHER FUNDS AND D. NO
CHANGE.
>> JUST AS A TECHNICAL POINT
HERE, BECAUSE THIS IS LABELED AS
A PILOT, IN THE FUNDING IS
LABELED AS ONE-TIME, THIS $4
MILLION IS NOT PART OF THE
PROJECTED DEFICIT FOR 2027? IF
IN FACT THIS PROGRAM WERE TO BE
CONTINUED THAT WOULD IMPLY AN
EVEN LARGER DEFICIT.
>> THANK YOU, I'M NOT SEEING
QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> ALL RIGHTY. OKAY. MOVING ON
TO ISSUE FOUR. THE SWEET AND
BEVERAGE TAX FUND SWAP. THE 2026
PROPOSED BUDGET --
>> ACTUALLY BEFORE YOU CONTINUE,
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA HAS
HER HAND UP AND I'M ASSUMING
IT'S ON THE LAST SUBJECT RATHER
THAN FORWARD LOOKING ONE.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR. I WAS HAVING
TROUBLE WITH UNMUTING MYSELF. I
MEAN, WITH MY HAND. THE
COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS INITIATIVE
PILOT, THERE'S SO -- AM I -- SO
THE DSA WOULD BE MANAGING THE
CONTRACT WITH THE LEAD FOLKS? IS
THAT HOW IT RUNS AND THE REASON
I ASK IS BECAUSE NOW THERE'S
ADMIN COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONTRACTS AND SUFFERER WE'RE
HAVING A CONTRACT WITH ONE
ENTITY, THERE'S AD COSTS THERE
AND IF THEY'RE SUBCONTRACTING
WITH A DIFFERENT ENTITY,
THERE'S SET OF AD TAX. I JUST
WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT
WOULD WORK.
>> THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY
PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET BOOK, YOU
KNOW, IN TALKING WITH HSD
THEY'VE BEEN CLEAR THIS THEY'RE
STILL WORKING THROUGH THE
PROGRAM DESIGN SO THINGS ARE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE. AND I DON'T
HAVE A BUDGET AT THIS POINT FOR
THE PILOT SO I'M NOT SURE HOW
MUCH WOULD GO TO ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS. THANK YOU, JEN. LOVE MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
>> JUST BECAUSE THE AD COSTS,
YOU KNOW, IT ADDS UP AND THEN
IT'SLESS FOR THE ACTUAL
SERVICE. I DON'T KNOW,
SOMETIMES -- IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS
TO GO THROUGH A CONTRACTOR AND
THEN A SUBCONTRACTOR. BUT IT
COSTS US MORE. AND SOMETIMES
IT'S BETTER DIRECT BUT EITHER
WAY JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
WHAT THE MORE INFORMATION WE'RE
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T
HAVE NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT THIS IS IS GOING TO LOOK
LIKE. JUST TRYING TO IF YOU CAN
ASK THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT.
>> I WILL SAY I CAN CERTAINLY
ASK AGAIN AND I DID ASK FOR
EXAMPLE FOR A PROGRAM BUDGET AND
WAS TOLD THAT THEY ARE JUST SO
EARLY STAGE THAT THEY DON'T
HAVE IT AVAILABLE. SO I AM NOT
-- I'M NOT SURE THE TIME FRAME
IN WHICH WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET
THAT INFORMATION.
>> OKAY. WHICH IS WHY ONE OF
THESE OPTIONS IS A PROVISO THING
OR OPTION?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
CHAIR FOR CONFIRMING.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. COUNCILMEMBER RING?
>> I IMAGINE I MIGHT GET A
SIMILAR ANSWER BUT I WANT TO ASK
THE QUESTION FOR THE RECORD.
JEN, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS
NEW AND THERE'S LIMITED
INFORMATION ON THE APPROACH OR
THE PROGRAM OF THIS PILOT, WHAT
ARE WE UNDERSTANDING AT THIS
POINT ABOUT ANY SIMILARITIES IN
THE APPROACH OF WHAT IS
SUGGESTED HERE AND WHAT WAS
TRIED UNDER PARTNERSHIP FOR
ZERO?
>> I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF
SIMILARITIES TO PARTNERSHIP FOR
ZERO IN TERMS OF A FOCUS ON
DOWNTOWN. AND THEN PLACING THE
EFFORT TO PLACE PEOPLE INTO
PERMANENT -- NOT PERMANENT
HOUSING BUT TO PLACE PEOPLE INTO
HOUSING THROUGH A SHORT-TERM
RENTAL SUBSIDY THAT'S VERY
SIMILAR TO PARTNERSHIP FOR ZERO.
I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT ONE
DIFFERENCE IN THE PROGRAM DESIGN
IS THAT THEY'RE ALSO OFFERING
SHELTER SO THE IDEA WOBURN, YOU
PLACE PEOPLE INTO SHELTER. AND
THEN INTO EVENTUALLY INTO
HOUSING WITH SHORT-TERM RENTAL
ASSISTANCE AND MAYBE THAT
SHELTER STAFF OFFERS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL
SERVICES. BUT I THINK WE COULD
THINK OF THIS AS A FAIRLY
SIMILAR TYPE OF APPROACH.
>> DO WE KNOW IF THEY'RE
INTENDING TO USE A BY NAME LIST
AND CLOSING BY THE LIST TYPE OF
APPROACH THERE EITHER?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I CAN FIND
THAT OUT FOR YOU.
>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. FANTASTIC, I THINK
WE'RE GOING MOVE ON JASMINE, I
BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE NEXT POLICY
CONSIDERATION.
>> YES. YEAH. SO THE 2026
PROPOSED BUDGET CONTAINS AN
ADDITIONAL $7.2 MILLION ONGOING
SWEET AND BEVERAGE TAX TO
SUPPLANT GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOOD
PROGRAMS. AND AS YOU MAY
REMEMBER FROM YESTERDAY, THIS
SBT FUNDING IS AVAILABLE DUE TO
THE FUND SWAP WITH THE LEVY. AND
ALL CURRENT SBT FUNDED PROGRAMS
IN DEAL ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE
FUNDED BY THE BEV LEVY IF THE
BALLOT MEASURE PASSES EXCEPT FOR
THE PRENATAL TO 3 GRANT PROGRAM
WHICH THAT PROGRAM IS PROPOSED
TO BE ELIMINATED. AND JUST AS A
-- INDICATION OF WHAT THE --
THAT PROGRAM FUNDS, THE CURRENT
FOCUS AREAS IN THE 2024 AND 2026
GRANT CYCLE OF THE PROGRAM ARE
HEALTHY AND EQUITABLE BIRTHS,
PARENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL
WELL-BEING AND NURTURING AND
RESPONSIVE CARE GIVING. THE CODE
ALSO CURRENTLY PROHIBITS THE USE
OF SBT REVENUES TO SUPPLANT
REVENUES FROM OTHER SOURCES AND
THE EXECUTIVE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION TO REMOVE THAT
PROHIBITION ON SUPPLANTATION.
OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE
SBT COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD WAS
NOT CONSULTED ON THE PROPOSED
USE OF SBT FUNDING IN HSD. OR ON
THE ELIMINATION OF THE PRENATAL
TO 3 GRANT PROGRAM. AND THAT
THEY OPPOSE THESE MEASURES. THE
2026 PROPOSED BUDGET POTENTIALLY
CALLS INTO QUESTION THE ROLE OF
THE C. A. B. GOING FORBOARD AS
THEY WERE ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING NEW
OR EXPANDED FOOD PROGRAMS AND
EARLY CHILDHOOD INVESTMENTS WITH
REVENUES AND FINALLY THE FUND IS
PROJECTED TO BE OUT OF BALANCE
AFTER 2028 MAKING THE ONGOING
FUNDING OF THESE FOOD PROGRAMS
UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE LONG-TERM.
SO AMONG YOUR OPTIONS ARE TO
REALLOCATE FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE
PRENATAL TO 3 GRANT PROGRAM AND
SUSTAIN THE FOOD PROGRAMS IN HSD
USING ANOTHER COMBINATION OF
FUND. YOU CAN ALSO ADOPT A
STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT
IF THE PROPOSED BUDGET MOVES
FORWARD. TO WORK WITH THE C. A.
B. AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO
REIMAGINE THE ROLE OF THE C. A.
B.. POTENTIALLY TO FOCUS ON FOOD
PROGRAMS SINCE THE SBT WOULD NO
LONGER BE FUNDING EARLY
CHILDHOOD INVESTMENTS. OR NO
CHANGE.
>> THANK YOU, JASMINE. ALWAYS
OPTION C.. NO CHANGE. AND SO
I'LL START OFF WITH A QUESTION
HERE. SIMILAR TO A QUESTION I
HAD YESTERDAY ABOUT COLOR OF
MONEY COMPARED TO LEVEL OF
FUNDING SO CAN YOU HELP ME
UNDERSTAND -- I SEE THE SLIDE
STATING THE SUPPLEMENTATION
ASSUMES THE ELIMINATION OF THE
PRENATAL TO 3 GRANT PROGRAM. IS
THIS AND/OR OTHER PROGRAMS BEING
ELIMINATED OR REDUCED IN
FUNDING? OR -- IS THE ISSUE THAT
YOU ARE HIGHLIGHTING HERE THE
TYPE OF MONEY BEING USED TO FUND
THOSE PROGRAMS?
>> I BELIEVE -- THE PROPOSAL
WOULD -- ALL THE CURRENT
PROPOSED USES OF SBT WOULD BE --
ARE EXPANDING INVESTMENTS SBT
CURRENTLY ALREADY PROVIDES. SO
THE FOOD BANKS AND THE MEAL
PROGRAMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY
SUPPORTED BY SBT WILL JUST --
WOULD EXPAND AND SUPPLANT THE
GENERAL FUND PORTIONS OF THOSE
PROGRAMS. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU
ARE ASKING. SO THE COLOR OF
MONEY ALL STILL KIND OF MAKES
SENSE. IT WOULD JUST BE THAT
SUPPLANTATION PIECE THAT'S
CURRENTLY PROHIBITED. DOES THAT
ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> I THINK IT MIGHT FOLLOW UP
WITH YOU OFFLINE JUST TO SAVE
OUR COMMUNAL TIME WITH ALL OF
THE COLLEAGUES ON THE DAIS. JUST
HIGHLIGHTING MY INTEREST TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO
FUND THE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE
RECEIVED FUNDING IN THE PAST.
>> I SEE. SO THE PRENATAL TO 3
PROGRAM WILL NOT -- NO LONGER BE
FUNDED.
>> OKAY.
>> AT ALL.
>> THE PAUSE IN CONSIDERATION IS
TO NOTE THERE'S ONE SUCH
PROGRAM THAT WOULD NOT CONTINUE,
SORRY. JUST TO CLARIFY. SO IT'S
-- RAISE THE TWO ISSUES AND ONE
IS THERE IT'S A FUNDING SWAP TO
SUSTAIN MOST OF THEM LARGELY TO
THE LEVY. NOT EXCLUSIVELY. AND
THEN BUT THIS ONE IS -- WOULD
NOT BE -- THE OTHER ISSUE JUST
TO HIGHLIGHT IT, BECAUSE I KNOW
I HAVE TALKED TO SEVERAL OF YOU
ABOUT DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCES.
WE HAD THE BOARD THAT WAS
ADVISING ON IT BUT THIS PROPOSED
BUDGET WOULD STRUCTURE IT IN A
WAY WHERE THAT NO LONGER MAKES
MUCH SENSE BECAUSE THE FUNDS ARE
BEING DIRECTED INTERNALLY TO HSD
BUT THEY HAVE POTENTIAL TO BE
ADVISING IN A BROADER SENSE
ABOUT THE USE OF THOSE MONIES,
USE OF MONIES IN THE CITY
GENERALLY, ABOUT SOME AREAS OF
INTEREST. POTENTIALLY FOOD, BUT
OTHERS AS WELL DEPENDING ON YOUR
INTERESTS.
>> THANK YOU. AND DIRECTOR
NOBLE, JUST SINCE YOU HAVE
JUMPED IN. CAN YOU REMIND ME
FROM OUR REVENUE FORECASTS OVER
THE LAST NUMBER OF CYCLES, SWEET
AND BEVERAGE TAX HAS BEEN
VOLATILE AND DROPPING
CONSISTENTLY. IS THAT MY
RECOLLECTION? N I GUESS I'LL
FIND OUT ON MONDAY.
>> THERE WAS A DROP ASSOCIATED
WITH THE PANDEMIC BECAUSE IT
INCLUDES RESTAURANT SALES AND
THE LIKE. IF I RECALL IT HAS
SINCE STABILIZED TO A DEGREE,
BUT THERE IS ALSO AS I RECALL, A
SORT OF MARKET SHIFT AWAY FROM
SODA AND TOWARDS SPARKLING WATER
AND STUFF. I THINK THAT IS --
AND SOME OF THIS IS THE GOAL OF
THE TAX ITSELF, SO WHAT I RECALL
IS THAT IT STABILIZED BUT NOT
GROWING AND THE COST OF THE
PROGRAMS THAT IT IS DIRECT TODAY
OF COURSE DO GROW. AGAIN -- A
CHALLENGE ABOUT A DEDICATED
REVENUE SOURCE PARTICULARLY ONE
THAT HAS A POLICY PURPOSES AND
DESIGNED FOR IT TO DECLINE.
>> THAT'S HELPFUL. I'LL JUST
-- MAKE MY STATEMENT AND THEN
I'LL PASS IT OFF TO MY
COLLEAGUES BEFORE I MAKE MORE
WHICH IS JUST TO SAY THE
PROGRAMS THAT THE SWEET AND
BEVERAGE TAX FUND ARE INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT AND THE TAX IS NOT
LARGE ENOUGH TO MEET THE NEEDS
OF THOSE FUNDING BUCKETS. SAID
IN OTHER WAYS, IT'S IMPORTANT
TO FUND FOOD BANKS AND MEAL
PROVIDERS AND THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THAT THE SWEET AND
BEVERAGE TAX PROVIDES US IS NOT
ENOUGH TO FUND THEM AT THE
LEVELS THAT I BELIEVE WE SHOULD
BE FUNDING THEM. THERE'S NO
QUESTION THERE. SO I WILL TURN
TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR NEXT
QUESTIONS AND STATEMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA? AND THEN
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON AND I'LL
HOLD THE REMAINDER OF MY
COMMENTS UNTIL THE END.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANK
YOU FOR ARTICULATING THAT
BECAUSE THAT JUST SEEMS TO BE
THE PREVAILING ACROSS THE BOARD.
THERE ARE JUST SO MANY NEEDS AND
OUR BUDGET CAN'T SUSTAIN ALL
THE NEEDS AND WE TRY TO DO THE
BEST WE CAN. I DO HAVE A
QUESTION, JASMINE, ABOUT THE
PRENATAL TO 3 PROGRAM BECAUSE I
SEE YOU HAVE OPTION A.. COULD --
BUT I THINK THE OTHER OPTION IS
TO -- SO I KNOW WE FUND -- WE
GIVE FUNDING TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
SO COULD WE TRANSFER THE
PRENATAL TO 3 GRANT PROGRAM TO
THE PUBLIC HEALTH BUCKET?
BECAUSE TO ME, HEALTHY BIRTHS IS
A PUBLIC HEALTH IN MY MIND. YOU
KNOW, I THINK. SO -- COULD THAT
ALSO HAPPEN?
>> I BELIEVE YES, YOU CAN
APPROPRIATE MONEY IN THAT
BUCKET. I DON'T KNOW IF
THERE'S CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
FUNDS WITHIN THE PUBLIC HEALTH.
AS I'M NOT THE STAFFER FOR
THAT. BUT YES, IT DOESN'T HAVE
TO BE DEAL THAT ADMINISTERS THE
PRENATAL TO 3 GRANT PROGRAM OR
HSD OR YEAH, COULD DEFINITELY --
YOU HAVE OPTIONS. UH-HUH.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. YES.
ESPECIALLY SINCE DEAL -- THAT'S
NOT THEIR LINE OF WORK. BUT
PUBLIC HEALTH SEEMS LIKE ANOTHER
LIKELY IF WE'RE ABLE TO,
ACCOMMODATE THAT. AND WHAT IS
THAT FUNDING?
>> $1.5 MILLION.
>> 1.5. THANKS FOR THE REMINDER,
THANK. THANK YOU CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON.
>> YES, ACTUALLY MY QUESTION WAS
ACTUALLY TO THE FUNDING, HOW
MUCH MONEY DOES THE SWEET AND
BEVERAGE TAX PROVIDE FOR US?
WHAT'S THE LATEST CALCULATION
AS TO HOW MUCH WE'RE TAKING IN
ON THAT?
>> SO I HAVE THEIR FINANCIAL
PLAN IN FRONT OF ME HERE. AND IT
LOOKS LIKE IN 2026, THEY'RE
EXPECTED TO GENERATE $22.2
MILLION IN REVENUE. ABOUT $2.8
MILLION GOES TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF NEIGHBORHOODS FOR THEIR FOOD
PROGRAM. THERE'S PROPOSED $12.6
MILLION GOING TO HSD.
$6.4MILLION GOES TO OSE FOR
FRESH BUCKS. AND THERE'S
$356,000 THAT GOES TO PARKS FOR
I BELIEVE THEIR SUMMER AND
AFTER-SCHOOL MEAL PROGRAM.
>> OKAY. AND FROM WHAT I'M
UNDERSTANDING THAT AMOUNT HAS
BEEN GOING DOWN? BECAUSE WE'RE
SEEING PEOPLE MOVE AWAY FROM
BUYING SWEETENED BEVERAGES IN
SEATTLE AND GOING TO MORE
SELF-SERVES AND THOSE KIND OF
THINGS?
>> IT LOOKS LIKE BEN WANTS TO
TAKE ON THAT QUESTION. BUT I CAN
RESPOND.
>> I HAVE AN UPDATE FROM '24 AND
'25 AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
HAVE DATA GOING FURTHER BACK.
>> YEAH.
>> GO AHEAD THEN. I WANTED TO
MAKE SURE. I WAS NOT ABOUT TO
STEAL THE THUNDER.
>> AS YOU SAID BEFORE, BEN, I
MEAN GENERALLY THE -- THERE WAS
-- THE REVENUES HAVE PLATEAUED.
SO THEY WENT DOWN. I THINK MORE
SIGNIFICANTLY POST PANDEMIC. AND
THEY HAVE PLATEAUED I THINK NEXT
YEAR, THEY'RE ANTICIPATED TO
GENERATE $21.7 MILLION AND
SLIGHTLY DOWN AND THEN $21.2
MILLION BUT I THINK MORE OF THE
ISSUE IS THAT AS WE USE ONGOING
-- AS WE HAVE ONGOING
EXPENDITURES THAT ARE EXPECTED
TO RISE WITH INFLATION KIND OF
STARTS TO PUT THINGS OUT OF
BALANCE.
>> OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU.
NOTHING FURTHER.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON. COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?
>> THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS AND
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR COMING
AND I MADE MENTION EARLIER ABOUT
THE DREAM TEAM. ACTUALLY --
WELL, CHAIR STRAUSS MADE SOME
REFERENCES TO THE DREAM TEAM.
AND SORRY MR. JOHNSON, BUT WHAT
WE HAVE HERE IS THE REDEEM TEAM.
STANDING IN FOR LeBRON JAMES AND
KOBE BRYANT AND DWYANE WADE. SO
TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE COVERED ON
THE HUMAN SERVICES SIDE. AS I
HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, SIDE,
PUBLIC SAFETY. AND HUMAN
SERVICES MEANING THAT, YOU KNOW,
DIRECTOR NOBLE. IS THAT SEAM
HOLDING EVERYTHING TOGETHER. SO
THANK YOU, DIRECTOR NOBLE FOR
THAT AND TO HAVE THE REDEEM TEAM
JOIN THE DREAM TEAM FROM
EARLIER. I APPRECIATE THE
BRIEFING BECAUSE IT DOES
HIGHLIGHT DIFFERENT PIECES THAT
NEED TO BE RAISED AND, YOU KNOW,
ONE OF WHOM IS THE CHALLENGE OF
ONE-TIME BUDGET ACTIONS AND WHAT
COULD BE DESCRIBED AS AN ONGOING
NEED. THAT WILL BE A CHALLENGE
THAT WILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED
AT SOME POINT. MAYBE SOONER OR
LATER. BUT IT'S -- IT WILL BE
ADDRESSED. AND THAT'S GOING TO
BE A CHALLENGE. AND I NOTED THE
-- YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION ABOUT
THE SHELTER BEDS. YOU KNOW, THIS
IS LIKE A -- PIECE AND I HAVE
BEEN ENGAGING WITH KCHA QUITE A
BIT FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
AREAS TO INCLUDE LAST YEAR'S TWO
SHELTERS AND IT'S BEEN PART OF
ANY EDUCATION OVER THE LAST YEAR
IS I JUMPED INTO HOUSING AND
HUMAN SERVICES. AND, YOU KNOW,
PART OF THIS TOO COULD BE
RELATED TO FEDERAL RESPONSE. AND
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE
PLAYING INTO THIS AND I'M
TALKING ABOUT LIKE FROM A BUDGET
PERSPECTIVE. IS THAT SOMETHING
THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, HELPFUL
IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING, YOU
KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE SQUARING
THE BUDGET CIRCLES THAT ARE OUT
THERE? KIND OF GOING BACK TO THE
FIRST POINT I MADE? IS THAT
SOMETHING THAT COULD BE, YOU
KNOW, PART OF THAT DISCUSSION?
>> I WILL RESPOND TO WHAT I
THINK IS YOUR QUESTION AND LET
ME KNOW IF I DON'T WANT GET IT
-- I DON'T GET IT. THE PROPOSED
BUDGET DOES HAVE A $9 MILLION
RESERVE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE
SOURCE OF WHICH IS THE
ADDITIONAL BNO TAX THAT VOTERS
APPROVED THE INITIATIVE LATER ON
THIS FALL. AND THAT IS TO
PROVIDE SORT OF CONTINGENCY
MONEY IN CASE THINGS CHANGE AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL FOR HOUSING
AND SHELTER. I THINK THE PRIMARY
CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS AROUND THE
CONTINUE UP OF -- CONTINUUM OF
CARE FUNDING. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE
ABOUT $24 MILLION OF CONTINUUM
OF CARE FUNDING THAT'S
SUPPORTING MOSTLY PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN THE CITY
OF SEATTLE. SO A CHANGE, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN ELIGIBILITY RULES
THAT MEANS COC -- NO LONGER
QUALIFY FOR CONTINUUM OF CARE
HOUSING COULD BE REALLY
PROBLEMATIC. I'LL SAY THAT FROM
-- THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT BOTH
CREATING NEW SHELTER UNITS, GIVE
THAN WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A
SUFFICIENT NUMBER TO SERVE THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING
UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS AND
THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT JUST
MAINTAINING AND SUPPORTING WHAT
WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE FACE OF
FEDERAL FUNDING CHANGES THAT
COULD REALLY IMPACT THE ABILITY
OF OUR CURRENT SYSTEM JUST TO
SUSTAIN. SO I DON'T -- THAT'S
GENERAL CONTEXT AND I DON'T
KNOW IF THAT'S ANSWERING YOUR
SPECIFIC QUESTION.
>> KIND OF GOES TO IT. IT'S
GOOD TO -- IT'S GOOD TO RAISE
THE POINT AND PUT IT ON THE
TABLE LIKE WHAT WE WERE JUST
TALKING ABOUT REGARDING FEDERAL
RESPONSE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE
WORLD OF HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT. PARTICULARLY IF
THERE'S ANY REQUIREMENTS BEING
LAID DOWN BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. AND THOSE IMPACTS.
BECAUSE THAT COULD BE MAJOR AND
CONTINUUM OF CARE BEING ONE. AND
JUST TALKING THROUGH THAT IS
IMPORTANT AND I ALSO LIKE YOUR
POINT ABOUT ADDING NEW VERSUS
MAINTAINING THE OLD WHICH KIND
OF GOES TO THE SEATTLE HOUSING
INVESTMENT PLAN RESPONSE AND
DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD WITH
O. H. AND IT'S LIKE THIS IS
HSD'S VERSION OF THAT AND I
THINK THOSE -- THE STRATEGY
BEHIND IT AND IT'S KIND OF
GOING TO THE QUESTION IS LIKE
THE STRATEGY IN TERMS OF THE
FLEXIBILITY AND THE NIMBLENESS
TO WORK THESE PIECES BECAUSE
THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS TOO.
AND THAT'S KIND OF THE GENESIS
OF THE QUESTION. SO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR RESPONSE BECAUSE IT
KIND OF -- SPEAKS TO IT AND I
THINK IT'S HARD TO HAVE A
COMPLETE ANSWER BECAUSE THERE'S
SO MANY UNKNOWNS AND THERE'S SO
MANY FACTORS TO THIS. SO I
APPRECIATE THAT. I RECOGNIZE THE
POINTS ON THE COMMUNITY
SOLUTIONS INITIATIVE PILOT. I
THINK -- I THINK THIS IS
DIFFERENT AND I'D LIKE TO SAY
FIRST IN REGARD TO THE KRRA I DO
SUPPORT THE REGIONAL APPROACH
AND I DO SUPPORT THE REFORMS WE
PUT IN BASICALLY AT THIS TIME
LAST YEAR AND MOVING FORWARD IN
THE REGIONAL APPROACH. THIS IS A
REGIONAL ISSUE AND HAS COME UP
AND I MADE MENTION THE OTHER DAY
REGARDING A PODCAST. THERE WAS A
SECOND PODCAST BLUE CITY BLUES
PODCAST, THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT
LITTLE SAIGON AND THAT AREA. AND
THE ISSUES OF, YOU KNOW, FOLKS
-- WE'RE A MOBILE SOCIETY AND
MOBILE COUNTRY AND, YOU KNOW,
THAT PODCAST WAS TALKING ABOUT
TWO INDIVIDUALS, ONE WAS FROM
GIG HARBOR AND ONE WAS FROM PORT
TOWNSEND. WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS
REGIONAL APPROACH AND ONE COULD
ARGUE WE NEED TO BE BROADER THAN
KING COUNTY. I SUPPORT THAT. BUT
I LOOK AT THIS PILOT AS TRYING
TO TEST CASE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE
COMBINATION EFFORT. YOU KNOW?
WITH THE --, YOU KNOW, W THE
CARE PIECE YOU KNOW, THE --
SUPPORT PIECE LOCATED. I KNOW
THERE'S MANY THAT TALK ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, HOUSING FIRST. AND
I'M -- FROM MY POSITION IS
SURE, AS LONG AS THE PHOTO
FINISH WITH C. A. R. E.
WRAPAROUND SERVICES TO GO WITH
THAT. BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU
KNOW, THAT CREATES ITS OWN
ISSUES. I THINK THIS PILOT IS
TRYING TO HAVE THAT COMBINATION
BUT I CORECOGNIZE THE POINTS
THAT YOU ARE MAKING AND BUT THE
-- AS A TEST CASE, IT COULD BE
VALUABLE TO SHOW, YOU KNOW, THIS
COMBINATION AND HOW EFFECTIVE IT
CAN BE. AND SO THAT'S THE WAY I
LOOK AT THAT AND I KIND OF VIEW
IT AS SEPARATE FROM KCRA BUT IT
COULD BE INFORMING FOR THEM IN
TERMS OF THE WORK THEY DO. AND
LAST BIT TOO IS I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION THAT
YOU ARE HAVING AND ALSO WITH THE
CHAIR REGARDING THE SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX. THERE'S A LITTLE
BIT OF A THEME AND THIS YEAR
DEFINITELY WITH THE BNO AND THE
0.1% PUBLIC SAFETY TAX AND LAST
YEAR'S CHANGES WITH P. E. T..
THERE'S SOME FLUIDITY, THERE'S
SOME ADJUSTMENTS, THERE'S
CHANGES AND I THINK IT'S GOOD
TO RECOGNIZE THOSE. AND THEN BE
SMART ABOUT THE CHANGES. SO
TALKING THROUGH THE SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX IMPACTS AND THAT,
WE DO NEED TO BE CAREFUL AND
SMART ABOUT THAT. IN TERMS OF,
YOU KNOW, LOCKING IN SOMETHING
THAT MAY BACKFIRE DOWN THE ROAD.
SO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE
-- THAT WAS THE BEST I CAN COME
UP WITH BY THE WAY. REDEEM TEAM.
SO -- TO MATCH THIS MORNING'S
DREAM TEAM. SO CHAIR, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I THINK
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE. YOU ARE
TOUCHING ON THE FACT OF THE
AMOUNT OF RESPECT THAT THE
COUNCILMEMBERS AND MYSELF
INCLUDED HAVE FOR CENTRAL STAFF
ANALYSTS AND ARE JUST DESIRE TO
ALWAYS UPLIFT YOU. NOT INTENDING
TO CALL OUT ONE GROUP OR THE
OTHER FOR BEING BETTER. BEST
ANALYSTS IN WASHINGTON STATE.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, I SEE YOU
HAVE A NEW HAND.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. ALL RIGHT.
MY QUESTION IS BACK TO SLIDE
FOUR. ON THE SHELTER BEDS. SO
CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT? SO
-- I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
THE MATH ON THIS. SO ALMOST $8
MILLION OF ONGOING FUNDING TO
COVER THE START-UP COSTS AND
THEN THREE MONTHS OF OPERATING
THE ACTUAL 155 BEDS. I IMAGINE
THAT INCLUDES FINDING A PLACE TO
PUT THE BEDS. AND THEN IT SAYS
IN '27 AT LEAST, ALMOST $3
MILLION IN ADDITIONAL ONGOING
JUST TO SUSTAIN THOSE BEDS. BUT
THEN IT SAYS $10 MILLION WOULD
BE NEEDED FOR START-UP AND
PARTIAL OPERATING COSTS FOR THE
ADDITIONAL 150 NEW UNITS. SO CAN
YOU JUST LIKE -- AND THEN IN
'28, A COST TO OPERATE ALL 200
BEDS WOULD GO UP TO $26 MILLION.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND HOW THIS MATH IS
WORKING HERE. BECAUSE START-UP
COSTS ARE USUALLY ONE-TIME
COSTS. BUT I MEAN, IT SEEMS A
LIKE A BIG CHUNK FOR ONGOING.
AND THEN THERE'S ADDITIONAL
START-UPS SO SORRY TO MAKE YOU
REHASH THIS.
>> NO. THOSE --
>> SLIDE.
>> IT'S A LOT OF NUMBERS. AND
-- LET ME FIRST SAY A COUPLE OF
THINGS AND ONE IT'S A PHASED
DELIVERY. RIGHT? SO WE ARE --
THERE'S UNITS BEING PHASED IN
OVER TIME. I THINK ANOTHER
IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE, THE
$7.8 MILLION FOR EXAMPLE THAT'S
ADDED IN THE 2026 BUDGET IT'S
SERVING TWO PURPOSES. IN 2026 A
GOOD CHUNK OF THAT IS JUST FOR
START-UP COSTS. RIGHT? ONE-TIME
START-UP COSTS. BUT IN 2027,
WHEN THESE UNITS ARE
OPERATIONAL. THAT MONEY IS GOING
TO SORT OF ROLL OVER AND BECOME
OPERATING SUPPORT. SO IT'S
ENTERED INTO THIS SYSTEM AS
ONGOING. SO THERE'S $7.8 MILLION
THAT WILL -- AT THIS POINT
ENTERED AS ONGOING INTO THE
SYSTEM. IN 2027, IT'S GOING TO
ACTUALLY COST CLOSER TO $10
MILLION OR -- DID I DO THAT?
ACTUALLY QUITE PROBABLY WITH
$7.8 MILLION PLUS $2.9 MILLION,
CLOSER TO $11 MILLION JUST TO
KEEP THOSE 155 NEW UNITS OPEN
FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.
>> SO JEN, BECAUSE IT SAYS
START-UP AND OPERATING COSTS. SO
HOW MUCH OF THE PRESUMABLY IF
PART OF THE I'M CALLING IT
ALMOST $8 MILLION FOR STARTUP
AND OPERATING, HOW MUCH OF IS
THAT IS START-UP BECAUSE
START-UP WE DON'T HAVE TO DO
AGAIN. THEN WE'RE JUST DOING
ONGOING. SEE WHAT I MEAN? THIS
IS DOCTOR I'M NOT CLEAR, WHY
WOULD THAT THEN BE -- WHY WOULD
WE DO THEN CONTINUE TO DO
START-UP? THAT'S I GUESS MY
QUESTION.
>> I THINK A DIFFERENT WAY TO
THINK OF IT IS THAT IN 2027, YOU
WON'T HAVE START-UP COSTS. BUT
YOU WILL HAVE NEWSPAPER MORE
MONTHS OF OPERATING COSTS. AND
SO THAT $7.8 MILLION IS BEING
ROLLING OVER TO 2027 AND THEN
2027 ITS JOB IS NO LONGER
START-UP. ITS JOB WILL BE TO PAY
FOR THE ONGOING OPERATING COSTS
OF THE 155 UNITS.
>> THIS IS MY CONFUSION BECAUSE
WE ALREADY HAVE THE 155. WE'RE
GOING TO USE THE 7.8 TO BOTH
START IT UP AND DO THEM. SO IS
IT MORE BECAUSE IT'S THREE
MONTHS' WORTH AND THEN IN '27,
THAT AMOUNT WILL GO FOR 12
MONTHS? IS THAT --
>> YEP.
>> I JUST WANT TO -- OKAY. BUT
THEN IN '28, WE HAVE THE
START-UP AGAIN BEING MENTIONED.
SO SOME OF THE $10.7 MILLION
WILL BE START-UP AGAIN? OR IT
JUST STRICTLY THEN FOR THE 300,
THE OPERATING COSTS WILL BE
$10.7 MILLION WITH NO START-UP
IN IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW.
MAINTAINING OR YOU ARE SAYING
THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL
START-UP BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING
THEN THE OTHER HALF?
>> EXACTLY. SO IN 2027 THERE'S
TWO THINGS HAPPENING. THERE'S
LIKE ABOUT $11 MILLION THAT'S
NEEDED JUST TO MAINTAIN THE --
THE LIKE LET'S CALL IT PHASE
ONE. 155 UNITS THAT ARE PART OF
PHASE TWO. THEN THERE'S
START-UP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
PHASE TWO. WHICH IS THE
REMAINING 150 UNITS PLUS THREE
MONTHS OF OPERATING SUPPORT FOR
THOSE PHASE TWO UNITS. AND THEN
YOU ROLL INTO 2028 AND THEN YOU
ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT ALL ON --
YOU KNOW, OPERATING COSTS FOR
ALL THE UNITS ALL YEAR.
>> AND IS THIS BEING IMPLEMENTED
BY WHOM?
>> THE VISION HERE IS THAT THIS
MONEY WOULD GO TO KCHRA AND THEY
WOULD RUN FOR EXAMPLE THE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS.
>> THEY DO THE SHELTER BEDS FOR
US NOW. CORRECT? SORRY.
>> SORRY, YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
>> OKAY. JUST CONFIRMATION.
THANK YOU JEN AND DO YOU KNOW
HOW MUCH OF START-UP COSTS LIKE
HOW MUCH A START-UP -- HOW MUCH
ARE THE START-UP COSTS? VERSUS
THE OPERATING.
>> I'LL GET BACK TO YOU. I KNOW
THAT WITH WHAT THEY'RE
ENVISIONING IS THAT SOME OF THE
UNITS WILL BE TINY HOUSE
VILLAGES WHERE THE START-UP
COSTS ARE RELATIVELY LOW BUT
ALSO ENVISIONING AT LEAST HALF
THE UNITS ALREADY HAD BEEN OF
DESC STAR CENTER MODEL WHICH IS
YOU KNOW, IN A BUILDING WHERE
YOU KNOW, YOU ARE OFFERING MUCH
MORE INTENSIVE SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES. THE START-UP COSTS
LIKE ARE HIGHER THAN YOU MIGHT
THINK BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO
BE TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND
THINGS THAT ARE JUST MORE
EXPENSIVE THAN SETTING UP A TIE
ANY HOUSE VILLAGE.
>> THIS IS NOT JUST A SHELTER
BED. IT'S -- IT'S SOME
SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH GIVING
THAT PERSON A SHELTER BED.
>> YEAH. ALL THE UNITS WILL HAVE
SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
BUT SOME OF THE UNITS WILL HAVE
MORE INTENSIVE SERVICES FOR
PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIGNIFICANT
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OR SUBSTANCE
-- OR NEED ASSISTANCE WITH
SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER. SO
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PER UNIT
COST, IT'S HIGHER THAN WHAT YOU
MIGHT SEE FOR EXAMPLE WITH A
TINY HOUSE VILLAGE BECAUSE
THERE'S MORE INTENSIVE SUPPORTS
PROVIDED.
>> GREAT AND THAT'S GREAT
BECAUSE I ALWAYS SAID WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE SERVICES
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO
ULTIMATELY HELP THEM IN ADDITION
TO HAVING SHELTER. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, JEN AND THANK YOU
CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, OTHER
QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AND I'M NOT
SURE THAT WE FORMALLY MOVED TO
THE FINAL SLIDE WHICH IS
QUESTIONS. BUT I THINK ALL OF
THE COUNCILMEMBER UP HERE
REVIEWED THE PRESENTATION WELL
ENOUGH THAT THEY KNEW THAT WAS
THE NEXT STEP. I SEE
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK WITH HER
HAND BUT WE ARE -- AT THE POINT
IN THE CONVERSATION WHERE
TYPICALLY I WOULD HAVE THE CHAIR
OF THE COMMITTEE OVERSEEING THE
DEPARTMENT MAKE SOME STATEMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ IS SICK
EXCUSED SICK TODAY. SO -- I HAVE
MADE SOME COMMENTS EARLIER AND
WE'LL LET THOSE PINCH HIT FOR
HER AND COUNCILMEMBER RINCK. WAS
THAT OLD HAND, NEW HAND?
>> NEW HAND.
>> OVER TO YOU.
>> CHAIR, JUST CIRCLE BACK ON
THE COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS
INITIATIVE PILOT. AND I KNOW
THAT COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS IS
USUALLY THE HISTORIAN OF THIS
BODY. I WANTED TO OFFER SOME OF
MY OWN HISTORIAN AND CONTEXT
WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PARTICULAR
INVESTMENT. FOR THOSE WHO
AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE
PARTNERSHIP FOR ZERO PILOT WAS,
IT WAS A PUBLIC-PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP ON FOCUSING ON
RESOURCES ON DOWNTOWN TO ADDRESS
UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS. THAT
PROGRAM DID -- THAT PILOT
PROGRAM DID WIND DOWN INFAMOUSLY
ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO READ ABOUT
NOT JUST THE PROGRAM. BUT ALSO
SOME OF THE REASONS WHY IT WOUND
DOWN. THE THING I WANT TO DRAW
ATTENTION TO HERE IS THE -- JUST
THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF
INFORMATION WE HAVE ABOUT WHAT
IS BEING PROPOSED HERE IN TERMS
OF PROGRAM DESIGN AND I
UNDERSTAND FOR PARTNERSHIP FOR
ZERO, DSA WAS A PARTNER. PART OF
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT. AND
SO ID JUST HAVE SOME VERY REAL
QUESTIONS AROUND WHAT KIND OF
ATTENTION TO OVERVIEWING WHAT
ELEMENTS OF PARTNERSHIP FOR ZERO
UNDERSTANDING THEN IT WAS A
MIXED BAG AND I MEAN OVER 230
FOLKS WARE HOUSED THROUGH THAT
PROGRAM. WHAT ARE THE LESSONS
THAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM
PARTNERSHIP THROUGH ZERO AND HOW
ARE THEY GOING TO BE APPLIED
HERE AND I THINK THAT'S
WORTHWHILE TO ASK SOME OF OUR
PARTNERS FOR MORE OF THAT
INFORMATION. PARTICULARLY HERE,
SINCE THERE ARE FOLKS WHO ARE
PART OF THAT PREVIOUS EFFORT AND
I THINK THAT'S CRITICAL
INFORMATION THAT WE SHOULD
CONSIDER BEFORE MOVING FORWARD
SON SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I KNOW
I CERTAINLY HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS
AND I WANTED TO OFFER THAT FOR
THE RECORD TODAY AND I'LL
CERTAINLY BE WANTING MORE
INFORMATION FROM OUR PARTNERS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE,
COLLEAGUES? I'M SEEING NONE. I
WILL ALSO TOUCH BASE ON SLIDE
NUMBER FOUR ABOUT THE
SUSTAINABILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL
SHELTER BEDS ALL TO SAY THAT WE
NEED MORE SHELTER IN OUR CITY
RIGHT NOW. WE ALSO NEED TO BE
INFORMATIONING IN THE PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE INTO.
THIS SLIDE HELPS US SEE VERY
PLAINLY THAT EVERY TIME WE OPEN
A NEW SHELTER BED, IT COSTS MORE
MONEY. NOT JUST THIS YEAR, BUT
IN THE LONG RUN. AND THE BEST
PRACTICE IN MY OPINION IS TO
HAVE A BETTER UTILIZATION OF OUR
CURRENT SHELTER BEDS SO THAT WE
CAN SERVE MORE PEOPLE WITH THE
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE
HAVE. AND WHAT THAT REQUIRES IS
THAT MORE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING AND MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS BUILT SO THAT PEOPLE
CAN QUICKLY TRANSITION OUT OF
THAT SHELTER. AGAIN, IF WE BEGIN
USING HOUSING MONEY TO FUND
SHELTER, WE ARE STUBBING OUR TOE
BECAUSE WE NEED THAT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING TO BE PERMANENT AND IF
WE'RE SPENDING ALL OF THAT
MONEY ON SHELTER, WE'RE
UNDERCUTTING OUR OWN GOALS HERE.
SO -- I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS
BECAUSE IT PUTS IT IN PLAIN VIEW
AS TO WHAT WE'RE SETTING
OURSELVES UP FOR. AND WE'RE AT
A POINT IN OUR CITY RIGHT NOW
WITH WE NEED BOTH. WE NEED MORE
AFFORDABLE AND WE NEED MORE
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND
WE NEED MORE SHELTER THAT IS
NON-CONGREGATE THAT HAS FOUR
WALLS AND A DOOR THAT THAT
PERSON WHO'S LIVING IN THERE
CAN LOCK FOR THEMSELVES. WITH
THAT, I HAVE GOT NOTHING MORE.
AND I SEE COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE
YOU HAVE GOT YOUR HAND.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS. I
JUST WANTED TO -- I APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMENT AND IT REALLY
HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED TO HAVE, YOU
KNOW, A GREAT RUNDOWN THAT SHOWS
THE STRATEGY AND THIS KIND OF
GOES TO THE SEATTLE HOUSING
INVESTMENT PLAN. YOU KNOW, THE
MEMO THAT WE GOT FROM O. H. AND
HAVING A VERSION OF THAT FROM
HSD POTENTIALLY IN TERMS OF
SHOWING THE TRADE-OFF AND
SHOWING THE STRATEGY BECAUSE I
THINK -- I THINK THE SEATTLE
HOUSING INVESTMENT PLAN THAT WE
GOT FROM O. H. WAS VERY HELPFUL
FOR THE REASONS THAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT. AND I'D LIKE TO
EXPAND IT SO DON'T BE SURPRISED
IF THERE'S A, YOU KNOW,
SOMETHING OUT THERE ON THAT. BUT
TO CAPTURE ON ONE END THE
PREMISE OF SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
AND NOW SOCIAL HOUSING ON THE
OTHER AND SEEING AND
UNDERSTANDING THE TRADE-OFFS AND
I CAN SEE THERE'S SOME
POTENTIAL EQUIVALENTS ON THE
HUMAN SERVICES SIDE THAT PLAY
INTO THIS. AND THAT'S AN AREA
OF INTEREST FOR ME. AND I WOULD
LOVE TO -- IF YOU KNOW, IF THE
REDEEM TEAM HAD ANY THOUGHTS ON
THAT KIND OF SUBJECT. I AM ALL
EARS. AND BECAUSE I APPRECIATE
THE EFFORT THAT WENT INTO LIKE
LAST YEAR'S AND THEN THE WORK
THAT RELATES TO WHAT O. H. HAS
BEEN DOING. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, ANY
FINAL COMMENTS NOW? ANYTHING
FROM THIS FANTASTIC TEAM OF
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF ANALYSTS
ON THIS PRESENTATION? WELL,
NOTHING ELSE, THEN I WILL MOVE
INTO GOOD OF THE ORDER.
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, YOU HAVE
SOMETHING? FOR GOOD OF THE
ORDER, GREAT. WE'RE GOING TO
MAKE A COUPLE OF ANNOUNCEMENTS.
AND I KNOW DIRECTOR NOBLE HAS
SOME THINGS TO SHARE. I WILL
SHARE ABOUT PROCESS OVER THE
NEXT 48 BUSINESS HOURS. NOT 48
HOURS. AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE
KEEPING THEIR COMMENTS FOCUSED
SO THAT WE CAN BE READY TO WATCH
THIS NEXT MOMENT TO SEIZE THE
MOMENT. OVER TO, DIRECT -- TO
YOU DIRECTOR NOBLE.
>> FROM THE FAR END OF THE TABLE
HERE, JUST GOING TO REMIND YOU
WHEN WE STARTED THIS TWO FULL
DAYS AGO, OR -- I MENTIONED THAT
THERE ARE POLICY CONSIDERATION
PAPERS FOR ALL THE DEPARTMENTS,
NOT JUST THOSE THAT ARE
PRESENTED. A LITTLE VISUAL. I
HAVE NOTEBOOK OF THEM. THERE ARE
32 ADDITIONAL I COUNTED ALMOST
100 PAGES OF MATERIAL. THERE ARE
THREE DEPARTMENTS WITH -- YOU
CAN READ THROUGH THESE. THERE
ARE THEE THAT HAVE SPECIFIC
POLICY CONSIDERATION ISSUES THAT
I WANTED TODAY HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU
AND YOU CAN CHOOSE TO READ IN
GREATER DEPTH. AND I'M JUST
GOING TO HIGHLIGHT THEM HERE
REAL QUICK. ONE IS SEATTLE
CENTER. THERE ISN'T A PRESSING
POLICY CONSIDERATION ISSUE
THERE. BUT THE BUDGET DOCUMENT
THEMSELVES NOTE THAT THERE'S A
GOOD DEAL OF ONE-TIME FUNDING
BEING REDIRECTED WITHIN SEATTLE
CENTER'S RESOURCES TO SUSTAIN
THEIR OPERATIONS FOR 2026. SO
THEY -- WITHIN SEATTLE CENTER
ITSELF WHICH IS NOT GENERALLY A
GENERAL FUND SUPPORTED
DEPARTMENT THAT GETS SOME
GENERAL FUND BUT ARE LARGELY
FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT, THEY
HAVE THEIR OWN SUSTAINABILITY
ISSUE. AND AS PART OF THAT, THEY
ARE AT A POLICY LEVEL
CONSIDERING POTENTIAL OPTIONS
FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE. AND
THOSE ARE SOME THINGS THAT MAY
COME FORWARD TO YOU NEXT YEAR.
SO JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT ONE.
WITH REGARD TO OFFICE OF NICK
DEVELOPMENT, THERE ARE A NUMBER
OF PROPOSALS THERE THAT YOU
MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER AND TAKE
A LOOK AT. SOME OF THEM ONE-TIME
USES BUT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT
INVESTMENT OF RESOURCES THERE
THAT SOME OF THEM BETTER DEFINED
THAN OTHERS BUT AGAIN AN AREA
THAT YOU MAY WANT TO TAKE SOME
TIME TO PERUSE. AND THEN LASTLY
EXCUSE ME THE OFFICE OF
IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE AFFAIRS AS
PART OF THE FEDERAL BACK FILL
ALLOTMENT. THERE'S $4 MILLION
BEING DIRECTED THERE. AND IF YOU
READ THE POLICY PAPER, THERE'S
A DESCRIPTION OF WHERE THAT
MONEY GOES AND THE CONSIDERATION
RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
THOSE ALLOCATIONS ARE DIRECTED
ESSENTIALLY SPECIFICALLY ENOUGH
TOWARDS THE EMERGENT NEEDS THAT
WE'RE SEEING LITERALLY IN THE
STREET. AND THAT'S A POLICY
JUDGMENT OF YOURS JUST WANTED TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT YOU MAY WANT TO
SPEND SOME TIME LOOKING AT THAT
ONE AS WELL. THEY WOULD BE
PLACES TO START AND THERE'S
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
THROUGHOUT.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU DIRECTOR
NOBLE AND AS I WAS PERUSING
THROUGH THE REPORTS MYSELF, I
NOTICED ONE AREA OF FEDERAL ROLL
BACK ON FUNDING THAT WE HAVE NOT
DISCUSSED AND MAYBE WE DID BUT
IT WAS DISCUSSED AMONGST MANY
OTHER REDUCTIONS OF REVENUE.
WHICH IS THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
-- OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HAS
TWO POSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN
FUNDED BY FEDERAL GRANTS. THAT
ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO US.
THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT THING TO
SEE HIGHLIGHTED AND I TOOK NOTE
OF IT AS WELL. SO COUNCILMEMBER
KETTLE JUST SAYING THAT SO YOU
HEAR IT AS WELL. COLLEAGUES,
MOVING INTO THE NEXT 48 HOUR
BUSINESS HOURS OF THE BUDGET
PROCESS, WE HAVE ON MONDAY THE
MORNING -- THIS MORNING, JOINT
FORECAST COUNCIL WHICH IS MADE
UP OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT NELSON AND MYSELF AND
WE WILL BE MEETING HERE IN
CHAMBERS EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A
COUNCIL MEETING SO WE'RE ABLE
TO UTILIZE THE TECHNOLOGY THAT
IS BUILT INTO THIS ROOM. WE WILL
THEN HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT
AFTERNOON FROM DIRECTOR YONDURAS
ABOUT THE REVENUE FORECAST SO
YOU ARE ABLE TO ENGAGE WITH HIM.
WE CHANGED THE FORECAST A LITTLE
BIT BECAUSE I THINK WE HAD SIX
OR SEVEN ANALYSTS UP HERE AND
REALLY WE JUST NEED TO TALK TO
THE DIRECTOR. SO WE'RE CHANGING
THAT UP TO MAKE IT WORK A LITTLE
BIT MORE SMOOTHLY. FOLLOWING
THAT ON TUESDAY, AT NOON, THE
WEB FORM FOR AMENDMENTS WILL
CLOSE. REMEMBER -- REMINDERS
HERE, CHECK IN WITH YOUR
COLLEAGUES ABOUT COSPONSORSHIPS.
IF SOMEBODY DROPS OFF, WE HAVE
UNTIL ABOUT THURSDAY TO FIX
THAT. BUT ONCE WE GET PAST
THURSDAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO
HAVE MUCH MORE TIME SO THAT JUST
TO ENABLE OUR CENTRAL STAFF
ANALYSIS TO DO THEIR WORK. SO
WE'RE HERE TO WORK WITH YOU.
WE'RE JUST HERE TO KEEP THE --
WORK MOVING FORWARD. SO THAT'S
THE NEXT 48 BUSINESS HOURS AT
THE -- SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE.
WE'VE GOT THE REVENUE FORECAST
ON MONDAY FOLLOWED BY AMENDMENT
DEADLINE THE FOLLOWING WEEK WILL
BE -- THE COUNCILMEMBER BUDGET
PROPOSALS. AS PRESENTED BY
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF WHICH IS
WHY WE NEED TO HAVE THAT
DEADLINE ON TUESDAY SO THAT THEY
CAN CREATE THOSE AMENDMENTS AND
THOSE PRESENTATIONS FOR THE
FOLLOWING WEEK. WITH THAT, IS
THERE ANY OTHER GOOD OF THE
ORDER COLLEAGUES? COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA?
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND I
JUST WANT TO THANK CENTRAL STAFF
IN ADVANCE. WELL, FOR ALL THE
HARD WORK SO FAR AND ALL THE
HARD WORK THAT LIES AHEAD WITH
ALL OF OUR VARIOUS AMENDMENTS. I
KNOW IT'S A HEAVY LIFT. AND
THIS TIME OF YEAR IN PARTICULAR
IS -- IS A STRETCH EFFORT BY ALL
ON THE FLOOR. SO BUT WANT TO
THANK CENTRAL STAFF. AND THEN
JUST FOR A POINT OF PERSONAL
PRIVILEGE, MR. CLAIRE, JUST WANT
TO SAY GO MARINERS. I'M NOT
DEFEATED OR DEJECTED AND I'M
INSPIRED AND HOPEFUL. AND, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO PERFORM
WELL TONIGHT. I FEEL IT. AND I
ALSO PERSONALLY FIGURED OUT THE
REASON FOR OUR LACK OF SUCCESS
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.
IT'S BECAUSE THE FIRST TWO
GAMES OF THE SERIES, WE WORE THE
MARINERS WORE THE NINTENDO
SWITCH 2 PATCH AND DURING GAMES
STRANGELY FOR SOME REASON, GAMES
THREE AND FOUR, THEY SWITCHED TO
THIS THE CLASSIC NINTENDO LOGO.
IT'S THE PATCH, FOLKS. BASEBALL
IS LITERALLY THE MOST
SUPERSTITIOUS GAME OF ALL
SPORTS. BOGGLES THE MIND WHY,
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE LIKE THAT
DECISION WAS MADE. SWITCH IT
BACK. SWITCH 2. THANK YOU. GO
MARINERS.
>> LET'S GO MARINERS. REFUSE TO
LOSE. BELIEVE AND SEIZE THE
MOMENT. COLLEAGUES, IF THERE'S
NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, THIS DOES
CONCLUDE THE FRIDAY, OCTOBER
17th SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE,
WE WILL COME BACK TO ORDER ON
OCTOBER 20th , MONDAY, OCTOBER
20th AT 2:00 P.M. ONLY WRITTEN
PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE ACCEPTED
ON MONDAY'S MEETING AND THE
NEXT TIME FOR VERBAL PUBLIC
COMMENT IS ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER
28th. THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES AND
I HOPE YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL