17, 2025, SELECT
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING WILL
COME TO
ORDER. I'M DAN STRAUSS, CHAIR
OF
THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE IS
EXCUSED.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON.
>> HERE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> HERE.
SEVEN PRESENT.
>> AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON IS ALSO NOW PRESENT,
EIGHT PRESENT WITH ONE EXCUSED.
>> PRESENT.
>> WE ARE ALL HERE AND READY TO
GO.
WITH THAT, COLLEAGUES, THERE ARE
A TOTAL OF 32 PIECES OF
BUDGET LEGISLATION THAT MUST BE
PASSED TO AFFECTUATE THE
BUDGET. ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14,
WE AMENDED THE BUDGET
ORDINANCE WITH OUR AMENDMENTS
AND WE
WILL CONSIDER THAT AGAIN THIS
COMING
THURSDAY.
TODAY WE'RE SCHEDULED TO PASS
30 PIECES OF LEGISLATION
THAT IS NOT THE BUDGET BILL THAT
WE
WORKED ON LAST WEEK, RIGHT?
SO THE LEGISLATION
WAS TRANSMITTED WITH THE
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BUDGET IN SEPTEMBER
AND HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN CENTRAL
STAFF PRESENTATIONS AND MEMOS.
THE BUDGET COMMITTEE HAS
GENERATED BUDGET LEGISLATION AS
WELL TO REFLECT CERTAIN
BUDGET ACTIONS TAKEN TODAY, AND
SO
I'M GOING TO PASS IT OVER TO
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
WE ARE GOING TO WALK THROUGH
A PRESENTATION OF ALL OF THESE
PIECES OF LEGISLATION.
THAT WILL BE US READING IT
INTO THE RECORD SO WE'RE NOT
ASKING THE CLERK TO READ 30
ITEMS
INTO THE RECORD AS WELL.
SO ON TODAY'S AGENDA THERE IS
A CONSENT CALENDAR OF THESE
30 PIECES OF LEGISLATION, LIKE
WITH
ALL CONSENT CALENDARS, YOU
DON'T HAVE TO PULL AN ITEM OUT
TO SPEAK TO IT, AND IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO VOTE NO OR
ABSTAIN, YOU
CAN PULL IT OUT AFTER THE
PRESENTATION. SO JUST ON
TODAY'S AGENDA, THE
CONSENT CALENDAR INCLUDES TWO
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS ACCEPTING
THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET,
THREE BILLS ADJUSTING THE FEES
FOR CITY SERVICES, TWO CHANGING
ANNUAL RETIREMENT
ADJUSTMENTS, SEVEN ADJUSTING
FEES AND TAX
POLICIES AND REGULATIONS, TWO
REORGANIZING AND MAKING
INTERDEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS, TWO
CREATING OR CLOSING FUNDS,
SIX AUTHORIZING DEBT REFUNDING,
TWO
REGARDING THE LEVY 2026
PROPERTY TAXES, AND THERE'S
ONLY TEN DAYS
UNTIL THANKSGIVING.
WITH THAT, IF THERE'S NO
OBJECTION, THE AGENDA WILL BE
ADOPTED.
>> ACTUALLY, CHAIR, I HAVE A
QUESTION.
>> I'VE GOT A POINT OF
ORDER FROM COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, WHAT'S YOUR
POINT?
>> I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THIS
IMPACTS THE AGENDA, BUT IF WE
WANT TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL
BILLS, WHEN WOULD WE PULL THEM?
WHILE THEY'RE GIVING THEIR
PRESENTATION?
>> WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT AFTER
THEIR PRESENTATION.
I'M JUST READING IN THE
AGENDA RIGHT
NOW.
>> AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF
MY QUESTION -- IF THE ANSWER TO
MY QUESTION WOULD IMPACT THE
AGENDA.
>> OKAY.
LET ME TAKE A STEP BACK
AND WE'LL ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS BEFORE WE ADOPT THE
AGENDA.
ADOPTING THE AGENDA IS
JUST GETTING IT BEFORE US
FROM COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
WE'LL WALK THROUGH
A PRESENTATION OF ALL OF THE
BILLS, EACH AND INDIVIDUALLY.
AT THE END OF THAT
PRESENTATION, I'LL ASK IF
ANYONE WANTS TO
REMOVE ANY BILLS FROM
THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
AT THAT TIME WE'LL REMOVE THEM.
WE'RE THEN GOING TO VOTE ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR.
AT THAT TIME YOU CAN SPEAK
TO ANY BILL THAT'S IN THAT
CONSENT
CALENDAR. IT'S JUST REDUCING
THE
NUMBER OF TIMES THAT WE ALL HAVE
TO SAY,
YES, OR AYE.
I THINK YOU AND I REMEMBER
A TIME IN BUDGET WHEN WE
WOULD HAVE TO VOTE AYE ON ALL
30 PIECES OF LEGISLATION AND
IT TOOK SOME TIME.
>> I FRANKLY DON'T REMEMBER
THERE BEING SO MANY PIECES OF
LEGISLATION. THAT'S WHY I'M
TRYING TO
BRING MYSELF UP TO SPEED, BUT
I UNDERSTAND WE'LL HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PULL THEM
AND THEN TAKE THEM OUT, DISCUSS
THEM
AND VOTE ON THEM INDIVIDUALLY.
>> MM- HMM, EXACTLY.
JUST LIKE LAST WEEK.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, ANY
QUESTIONS?
>> I HAD THE SAME QUESTION,
CHAIR.
I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHY
WE'RE TAKING THE 30 UP ALL
TOGETHER,
BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY THE FIRST
TIME THAT WE'RE BEING BRIEFED
ON THESE OFFICIALLY.
AND I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT
WE WOULD HAVE TAKEN VOTES
SEPARATELY, BUT
I UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. BUT
AS LONG AS WE HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO PULL SOME OUT
AND BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THEM
INDIVIDUALLY, THEN THAT'S, I
MEAN, I GUESS WHAT WE'RE DOING
TODAY.
>> YEAH, NOT A PROBLEM.
AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT
ANY OF THESE ITEMS, YOU CAN
ASK CENTRAL STAFF WHILE WE'RE
GOING
THROUGH THEM LINE BY LINE.
WE HAVE ALL DAY TODAY, SO WE CAN
BE -- WE'RE IN CONTROL OF OUR
OWN DESTINY.
WE CAN BE HERE UNTIL 2:00.
WE CAN BE HERE UNTIL 6:00.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AS MUCH
TIME AS IT TAKES TO HAVE ALL OF
YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED, SO
THAT YOU'RE FEELING
COMFORTABLE TAKING THE VOTE.
THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
THE CONSENT PACKAGE IS SIMPLY
INTENDED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF TIMES WE SAY YES OR AYE, SO,
COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, IS THAT A
NEW HAND?
>> NOPE.
>> OKAY.
OTHER COLLEAGUES?
CHECKING ONLINE.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PIECE LS
OF LEGISLATION ADJUSTING FEES
AND
SERVICES, ANNUAL RETIREMENT
ADJUSTMENTS, FEE AND TAX
POLICIES, REORGANIZING AND
CREATING OR CLOSING
FUNDS, AUTHORIZING DEBT OR
REFUNDING AND TWO REGARDING THE
LEVY
2026 PROPERTY TAXES.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION,
THE AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
RATHER THAN HAVING THE
CLERKS READ EACH OF THESE ITEMS
INTO THE RECORD, AS STAFF
PROCEEDS THROUGH THEIR
PRESENTATION IT WILL BE
CONSIDERED THEM
READING THAT ITEM INTO THE
RECORD.
SO, WITH THAT, NO FURTHER ADO,
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER
TO DIRECTOR NOBLE AND CALVIN
CHOW.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR STRAUSS,
AND WE'RE GOING TO DIVE RIGHT
IN.
I BELIEVE WE WILL BE ABLE
TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS IF NOT
ALL
OF THEM.
WE HAVE STAFF LISTENING, AND
WE CAN BRING ON FOLKS AS WELL.
THESE ARE GENERALLY ORGANIZED
BY THEMES AND DEPARTMENTS SO
I'LL
TAKE THEM IN THE ORDER YOU SEE
THEM.
121099, SO THIS IS A YEAR-END --
A 2025 BILL ACCEPTING GRANTS.
SO WE HAVE BOTH THE YEAR
END GRANT ACCEPTANCE AND A YEAR
END
SUPPLEMENTAL, WE DO ONE IN
THE MIDYEAR AND ONE AT YEAR END,
SO THIS IS MAKING LAST
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 2025 BUDGET,
1212 099
ACCEPTING GRANTS AND POTENTIALLY
APPROPRIATING GRANTS AS WELL AS
MAKING ADJUSTMENTS IN THE
CIP AND OTHER POSITION OF
AUTHORITY.
THESE HAVE BEEN REVIEWED
BY CENTRAL STAFF THAT COVER
ISSUES.
>> DIRECTOR NOBLE, I'M GOING
TO PAUSE REAL QUICK.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA HAS A
QUESTION.
>> I DO, ABOUT CB 121113
WHEN BEN IS DONE BRIEFING IT.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
>> OKAY.
SO VERY GOOD.
WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH
EACH OF THE BILLS ONE BY ONE.
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF WILL
BRIEF THEM AND THEN I'LL
TAKE QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES.
WE'LL COMPLETE THAT DISCUSSION
AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT ONE.
BEN, FEEL
FREE TO TAKE IT AS SLOW AS YOU
NEED TO TO MAKE
SURE WE HAVE INFORMATION WE
NEED.
>> SOUND GOOD.
WE'LL DO THE QUESTIONS AT THE
END, JUST TO CONFIRM?
>> YOU WANT US TO WAIT AND
NOT ADDRESS THEM AS WE GO?
>> WE'LL DO EACH BILL
INDIVIDUALLY.
I'LL HAVE THE ENTIRE BILL
BRIEFED AND THEN I'LL TURN
IT OVER TO YOU FOR QUESTIONS
BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
BILL.
>> OKAY.
>> FANTASTIC.
>> LET ME WRAP UP 121099
YEAR- END GRANTS, ACCEPTING
GRANTS FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES
AND THEN AUTHORIZING THEIR
EXPENDITURE. ANY QUESTIONS?
NEXT BILL, COUNCIL BILL 121113.
AGAIN, THE YEAR- END
SUPPLEMENTAL, ADJUSTING
APPROPRIATIONS.
APPROPRIATING SOME NEW REVENUE
SOURCES, ADJUSTING IN CIP
AND THEN ALSO SOME POSITION
OF AUTHORITY CHANGES AND HAPPY
TO
TAKE QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE AS
WELL.
>> CILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND
BRIEFING US ON THESE 30 PIECES
OF LEGISLATION.
ON THIS COUNCIL BILL 121113,
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT
POSITION AUTHORITY CHANGES ARE?
IT'S NOT IN THE SUMMARY AND
FISCAL NOTE, AND I JUST WANT TO
BE CLEAR ON WHICH
DEPARTMENTS ARE GETTING THE
POSITION AUTHORITY.
I DON'T WANT TO GUESS.
I
CAN GUESS SOME, BUT I DON'T
KNOW ALL.
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT
INFORMATION
PRECISELY IN FRONT OF ME, BUT
IN THE NEXT FEW MINUTES --
WE'LL GET THAT TO YOU IN THE
NEXT
FEW MINUTES HERE.
>> THANK YOU, BEN.
I IMAGINE, FOR INSTANCE,
THE C.A.R.E. EXPANSION WOULD BE
IN
THERE, BUT -- AND MAYBE I'M
WRONG, BUT I JUST WANT TO
BE CLEAR ON WHAT THESE -- WHAT
WE WOULD BE GRANTING TAKING THIS
VOTE ARE.
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS PROVIDED
IN A MID- YEAR BILL PREVIOUSLY
AND IN THE 2026 BUDGET.
>> SO THIS IS
NOT THAT?
>> WE WILL CONFIRM.
>> THANK YOU, BEN.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE,
COLLEAGUES, THAT I KNOW WHAT
I'M DOING
BEFORE I ACTUALLY VOTE
YES OR NO
ON SOMETHING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON 121113?
LOOKS LIKE NONE.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS ON 1113.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO 314544.
>> THE NEXT ITEM CLERK FILE
314544.
THIS WILL BE -- THIS IS A
CLERK FILE THAT CONTAINS THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET, THE
WAY ADOPTION WORKS YOU WILL FIND
A CLERK FILE, A PROPOSED
BUDGET AND A CLERK FILE WITH
YOURYOUR
CHANGES. SO THIS IS, AGAIN, JUST
THE
BUDGET AS IT WAS TRANSMITTED.
I THINK WE ANSWERED ALL
THE POSSIBLE QUESTIONS WE COULD
HAVE.
THE NEXT IS CLERK FILE 31545
AND THAT IS THE PROPOSED CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND,
AGAIN, THAT IS -- THE WAY THIS
WORKS, IF THERE ARE CHANGES,
WE'LL
HAVE A SEPARATE CLERK FILE THAT
SHOWS YOUR ADOPTED CHANGES TO
THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
RETURNING TO
ANSWER COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA'S
QUESTION, THERE IS ONE POSITION
AUTHORIZED
IN THE YEAR- END SUPPLEMENTAL
HSD, A SENIOR COUNCIL POSITION.
>> THANK YOU, BEN.
THAT'S THE ONLY ONE?
>> THAT'S THE ONLY ONE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> OKAY.
AND, COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> DOES THE -- IS THERE
A DIFFERENCE IN THE COST
OR SPENDING WITH THAT CHANGE?
>> BEN?
>> WITH THE POSITION?
>> YES.
>> I'M SURE THERE'S -- I
DON'T KNOW IF THE BUDGET
SPECIFICALLY
INCREASED OR NOT.
ONE MOMENT.
IT'S A GRANT- FUNDED POSITION
TO
SUPPORT YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
PROGRAMPROGRAM IN THE SYU
PROGRAM SO
I BELIEVE GRANT FUNDED, I WOULD
EXPECT THERE IS THAT ADDITIONAL
COST, BUT IT IS COVERED BY THE
GRANT.
>> IS THAT GRANT A ONE-YEAR
GRANT OR MULTI, ONGOING?
IS THERE A
BUDGET IMPLICATION THAT IS NOT
--
>> ALL GOOD QUESTIONS, AND THIS
IS A VERY GOOD FISCAL NOTE
BECAUSE THE POSITION IS TO
SUNSET ON JULY 31, 2027,
PRESUMABLY WITH THE
TERMINATION OF THE
GRANT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WONDERFUL.
AND SO HAVE WE COMPLETED 314545?
OR HAVE WE MOVED ON TO 105?
>> I WAS PREPARED TO MOVE ON TO
CLERK FILES.
I DIDN'T HEAR ANY QUESTIONS.
>> WONDERFUL.
>> THE NEXT SET HAVE TO DO
WITH ADJUSTING FEES FOR CITY
SERVICES, SO COUNCIL BILL
121105 IS AN UPDATE TO SDCI'S
FEES,
AND THESE ARE PROGRAM SPECIFIC
FOR A
VARIETY OF SERVICES.
IF YOU RECALL WE REVIEWED
THIS LEGISLATION AS
PART OF THE DEPARTMENTAL
OVERVIEWS.
THE NEXT ONE IS COUNCIL BILL
121106.
THIS IS STREET USE FEES, SO THIS
IS SDOT.
THE PREVIOUS BILL INDICATED
HERE FEES ARE INCREASED BY -- TO
ADJUST FOR INFLATION, SO 2.
6% INFLATIONARY INCREASE.
>> AND WE HAVE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT
NELSON.
>> I HAVE
A QUESTION ABOUT THE PERMIT
FEES.
SO CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN --
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN I
WAS
DOING PERMITTING REFORM
AND TALKING TO ARCHITECTS
THAT THERE IS A PERMIT FEE THAT
THEY
PAY, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY,
IF
TIME, FOR BLOCKS OF TIME THAT
GO OVER THAT INITIAL -- YOU
KNOW, THEIR INITIAL PAYMENT.
DO YOU KNOW HOW IT WORKS, OR CAN
YOU PLEASE CONFIRM
THAT?
>> I SEE MR. FREEMAN COMING TO
THE TABLE.
>> JUST THE MAN TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I THINK
WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU
ARE DESCRIBING IS THE LAND
USE HOURLY PERMIT FEE, AND SO IF
YOU APPLY FOR A MASTER USE
PERMIT,
A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME IS
PART OF THE BASE FEE THAT YOU
PAY.
BEYOND THAT, THERE IS
AN INCREASE JUST AN
HOURLY BASIS FOR TIME THAT
EXCEEDS THE
AMOUNT THAT IS ASSUMED IN THE
BASE FEE.
MOST OF THE CHANGES IN THE FEE
UPDATE ARE ACTUALLY TO
THE DEVELOPMENT FEE INDEX, WHICH
IS THE FEE THAT APPLIES TO THE
BUILDING PERMITS AND MOST OF THE
NEW REVENUE FROM THESE FEES FROM
BUILDING
PERMIT CHARGES AND THEY AREN'T
BASED
ON AN HOURLY CALCULATION, THOSE
ARE
BASED ON THE VALUE OF
CONSTRUCTION.
THERE MAY BE SOME ASSOCIATED
FEES, BUT MOST OF THOSE PERMITS
ARE GOING BY THE WAYSIDE.
MOST OF THOSE PERMITS
ARE ASSOCIATED WITH DESIGN
REVIEW OR
REVIEW AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER, MOST PROJECTS AREN'T
SUBJECT TO THOSE ANYMORE
UNLESS THEY VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO
GO THROUGH
DESIGN REVIEW,
SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE MUCH OF
AN
IMPACT EXCEPT FOR FOLKS APPLYING
FOR BUILDING PERMITS.
>> I THOUGHT THAT I
UNDERSTOOD THAT THE RATIONALE
WAS
BECAUSE THERE ARE FEWER -- THERE
ARE MORE SMALLER PROJECTS AND
LESS
LARGER PROJECTS, WHICH I GUESS
TAKES MORE OR LESS TIME, OR
I'M NOT QUITE SURE.
>> MOST OF THOSE PROJECTS
AREN'T SUBJECT TO LAND USE
REVIEW.
THEY'RE JUST BUILDING PERMIT
APPLICATIONS, AND THOSE
PROJECTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
THE INCREASED FEE.
>> OKAY.
OVER THE COURSE OF THE --
I THINK IT'S LOOKING AT THE
PAST
20 YEARS, DO YOU KNOW THE
INCREASE, THE PERCENTAGE
INCREASE, IN THESE FEES VERSUS
INFLATION?
>> WE ACTUALLY -- WE DO.
I CAN'T -- WE REQUESTED --
WE POSED THAT EXACT QUESTION TO
SDCI AND WE HAVE THE
ANSWER THAT'S IN THE Q&A.
AND I'LL JUST SORT OF,
GENERALLY SPEAKING, THERE WAS A
PERIOD OF
TIME, AT LEAST WHEN IT COMES
TO THE DEVELOPMENT FEE INDEX OR
THE VALUE- BASED FEES WHERE THE
CITY WAS NOT MAKING ANY
ADJUSTMENTS
TO THOSE AT
ALL. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF
CATCH-
UP HERE THAT'S HAPPENING,
BUT MOSTLY THE FEE INCREASE HERE
IS NOT TO MAKE -- IS IN LARGE
PART
NOT TO MAKE INFLATION RELATED
ADJUSTMENTS, ALTHOUGH
IT'S A COMPONENT OF THIS, TO
MAINTAIN THE HEALTH OF THE
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS
FUND.
AND ABSENT THE FEE INCREASES THE
COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO
MAKE DECISIONS OF LAYOFFS
OR REDUCTION SERVICES AND
LAYOFFS.
YOU WILL RECALL, JUST TO
PUT MORE CONTEXT ON THIS, IN
THE ACTIONS THAT YOU ALL TOOK
ON FRIDAY WAS A STATEMENT
OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT ASKING
FOR QUARTERLY REPORTING BY SDCI
ON THE HEALTH OF THE
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS
FUND.
SO NEXT YEAR THE COUNCIL
WILL GET QUARTERLY UPDATES THAT
THEY CAN USE TO MAKE, YOU KNOW,
MID- YEAR ADJUSTMENTS TO FEES AS
NEEDED.
>> OKAY.
WELL, I GUESS I SHOULD SIGNAL
RIGHT NOW I'M GOING TO WANT
TO PULL THIS ONE OUT, BECAUSE
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
INFLATION HAS GONE UP 35% AND
THE FEE COST
HAS GONE UP 43%, SO IT'S
ALREADY MORE THAN INFLATION
GOING UP.
AND I'LL JUST HAVE TO SAY RIGHT
HERE THE HOURLY FEE, I
DON'T THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE
REALIZE IT'S GOING FROM
SOMETHING LIKE
$4. 95 OR $496 TO $551 AN HOUR.
DEVELOPERS -- WELL, BUILDERS
IN GENERAL ARE PAYING THE CITY
FOR
HOURS THAT ARE
SOMETIMES GENERATED BY, LET ME
JUST SAY,
INCOMPETENCE ON THE PART OF SOME
REVIEWERS, AND THAT IS PART
OF OUR PERMITTING PROBLEM.
THE CYCLE OF CORRECTIONS, YOU
KNOW, THAT ARE REQUIRED
IS SOMETHING THAT I WAS TRYING
TO GET AT AND PERMITTING REFORM
DIDN'T QUITE GET THERE YET.
>> A LARGE PROPONENT OF THE
COSTS ARE LABOR COSTS.
AND SO TO THE EXTENT THE
FEES ARE CHANGED OVER TIME, THEY
MAY NOT REFLECT EXACTLY
WHAT INFLATION IS, THEN THEY
REFLECT INCREASES THAT ARE
ASSOCIATED WITH LABOR CONTRACTS
THAT
ARE APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.
>> YEAH, AND SO THE
ADDITIONAL TIME THAT IS REQUIRED
-- OR THE
TIME THAT'S REQUIRED TO GET
YOUR
PERMIT FINALLY, I'VE HAD SOME
ARCHITECTS DESCRIBE TO ME
IT ALMOST GETS REALLY CLOSE
TO ALMOST FEELING LIKE SELF-
DEALING ON THE PART OF THE CITY
BY
TAKING SO LONG, NOT PICKING
UP THE PHONE, NOT REALLY
ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM THE
GET-GO,
NOT HAVING THE SERVICE DESK
STAFFED
LIKE IT USED TO BE, AND THIS
ALL GENERATES DIFFICULTY
IN COMMUNICATION AND MISTAKES
ON THE PART OF OUR CITY STAFF
AND MORE TIME, AND NOW WE'RE
GOING
TO RAISE THE FEE IN ADDITION TO
RAISING THE RATE -- THE
HOURLY RATE THAT PEOPLE ARE PAID
TOTO CORRECT MISTAKES THAT ARE
GENERATED SOMETIMES BY
THEMSELVES.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I
WAS UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY.
>> DO YOU HAVE AN
ADDITIONAL QUESTION THERE?
>> NO.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ITEM?
I SEE YOUR HAND.
COLLEAGUES, LAST WEEK WE
WERE USING A VERY PRESCRIPTIVE
USE
OF ROBERT'S RULES SO THAT WE
COULD MOVE THROUGH AMENDMENTS
QUICKLY.
TODAY, BECAUSE WE'RE IN
BRIEFING AND THEN VOTING MODE,
I'M GOING TO RETURN TO A MORE
CONVERSATIONAL
STYLE WHICH IS AGAINST ROBERT'S
RULES, BUT
I'M MAKING THAT DECISION SO
THAT
IT'S NOT AS AWKWARD.
SO YOU'LL HAVE THE FLOOR
UNTIL WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
ITEM.
WITH THAT, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE
AND ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS ON
THE PERMIT FEES.
SO I UNDERSTAND WITH THIS
BUDGET ACTION I'M LOOKING AT
THE SUMMARY AND FISCAL NOTE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I
UNDERSTAND, WE ARE PROPOSING AN
18% INCREASE TO FEES.
IT SAYS YEAR OVER YEAR, SO
CAN YOU EXPLAIN, IS IT 18 --
THERE WERE SOME FIGURES THROWN
ABOUT JUST NOW, AND I WANT TO
MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WITH
THIS ACTION WHAT WE'RE DOING.
ARE WE INCREASING PERMIT FEES
BY 18% EVERY YEAR?
>> THERE'S AN 18% INCREASE
OVER CURRENT 2025
LEVELS. SO THERE'S -- PRETTY
MUCH
THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN MAKING
CHANGES TO FEES ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS.
>> YES, I REMEMBER THAT.
>> THIS IS A BIG JUMP
AS COMPARED TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED
IN PAST YEARS.
>> RIGHT.
>> THAT IT SEEMS POSSIBLE INTO
ME, EVEN LIKELY, WE AND OTHER
SDIC FEE ORDINANCE NEXT
YEAR BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE SEEN
IN THE PAST, WHICH IS TO
SAY THERE WILL BE ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY IN
2026 FOR THE COUNCIL TO LOOK AT
FEES AGAIN.
BUT,IER, THE YEAR OVER YEAR IS
FROM 2025.
>> THANK YOU.
AND WHEN THE DEPARTMENT, WHEN
THE EXECUTIVE PROPOSED THIS
AND THE DEPARTMENT, WAS THERE
A BRIEFING THAT HAPPENED TO
TALK ABOUT PERMIT FEES AND WHY
THIS
18% SEEMS LIKE A LOT TO ME?
THAT'S NOT JUST INFLATIONARY.
>> IT WAS DEFINITELY A COMPONENT
OF THE SDCI, THERE WAS A PART OF
THE PRESENTATION THERE THAT
WAS LOOKING AT ON A TYPICAL
PROJECT BASIS WHAT THAT WOULD
MEAN
IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL FEES
MADE WITH CONSTRUCTION TO THE
VALUE- BASED CONSTRUCTION FEE.
EXACTLY SORT OF THE SIZE.
THERE'S A POINT
WITH COUNCILMEMBER RINCK HAVING
QUESTIONS ON THAT, A FOUR-
PACK TOWNHOUSE PROJECT THE
INCREASED
FEES WOULD BE IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $2,000 TO
$4,000.
THAT'S A ONE- TIME COST
THAT COULD BE TRANSLATED INTO
THE COST FOR THE BUYER.
>> DEPENDING ON THE PROJECT,
IT HAS AND WILL NOT IMPACT
EVERY PROJECT HAS ITS OWN PERMIT
FEE ASSOCIATED WITH IT?
>> FOR STUFF THAT IS VALUE-
BASED LIKE BUILDING PERMIT FEES.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU ARE
BUILDING.
>> AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT
WE'RE DOING 18% NOW BECAUSE FOR
A
LONG TIME WE HAVEN'T DONE AN
INCREASE
IN FEES?
>> THAT'S PART OF IT AND,
ALSO, TO MAINTAIN -- THERE ARE
TWO MECHANISMS THAT SDIC HAS FOR
MAINTAINING STABILITY.
SDCI IS AN OPERATING
FUND DEPARTMENT FOR MOST OF ITS
REGULATORY FUNCTIONS NOT SO MUCH
FOR THE COMPLIANCE
FUNCTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO
THINGS LIKE
COMPLAINTS THAT'S PART OF
THAT IS GENERAL FUNDED.
THEY HAVE BUDGET AUTHORITY
WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO STAFF UP
WHEN
TIMES ARE
GOOD AND THEY DON'T
HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE
COUNCIL.
THE OTHER IS A CORE STAFFING
RESERVE SO WHEN TIMES ARE BAD
TO MITIGATE AGAINST
THE LOSS OF STAFF THAT HAVE
INSTITUTIONAL
KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCED FOLKS
WHO CAN REVIEW PROJECTS
QUICKLY, THEY HAVE, OF COURSE,
STAFFING
RESERVE TO KEEP STAFF ONBOARD.
PART OF THE FEEFEE IS
TO CUT INTO THE CORE STAFFING
RESERVE.
>> THANK YOU, KEATLE.
GIVEN THAT THE DESIGN
REVIEW, WE'VE DONE EXEMPTIONS
AND
THE FISCAL NOTE DOES TALK ABOUT
THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT
COLLECTING FEES BECAUSE WE ARE
WAIVING
THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
>> THERE WAS A BILL THE
COUNCIL CONSIDERED I BELIEVE IN
AUGUST,
EXTENDED DESIGN REVIEW ON A
TEMPORARY BASIS THAT IT IS NOT
A FULL DESIGN REVIEW.
THE REASON THERE -- AND TO
HAVE IT BE PURELY VOLUNTARY,
CHANGES TO STATE LAW THAT THE
CITY
IS BEHIND ON SO THAT LAW, THE
DESIGN CHANGE WAS DONE ON
AN INTERIM BASIS.
THE WORLD USED TO BE SUCH
IF THERE WAS A BIG ENOUGH
PROJECT YOU WOULD APPLY FOR A
MASTER
USE PERMIT THAT'S A
DISCRETIONARY
PERMIT. IT'S A CHEAPER PERMIT
TO
GET THAN A BUILDING PERMIT, AND
THEN
YOU COULD GO OUT AND SAY TO
INVESTORS I HAVE THIS
PERMIT, YOU SHOULD INVEST IN MY
PROJECT
AND THAT HELPS YOU ATTRACT
CAPITAL. THEN YOU GO TO THE
BANK, GET A
LOAN AND APPLY FOR YOUR
BUILDING PERMIT.
THAT'S NOT REALLY THE CASE
FOR SMALLER PROJECTS.
SMALLER PROJECTS LIKE TOWNHOUSE
PROJECTS ARE LARGELY
SELF-FINANCED OR OTHER FINANCING
MECHANISMS BUT FOR BIGGER MIXED
USE PROJECTS THAT WAS THE WORLD.
THAT'S NOT SO MUCH THE WORLD
THAT WE ARE IN NOW,
AND THAT'S PARTLY BECAUSE OF
CHANGES TO DESIGN REVIEW THAT
ARE REQUIRED
BY THE STATE LEVEL, AT THE
STATE LEVEL, AND PROBABLY WILL
BE FEWER PROJECTS THAT GET A
MASTER
USE PERMIT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE
FEWER DISCRETIONARY REVIEWS.
EXACTLY WHAT THAT LOOKS
LIKE REMAINS TO BE SEEN BECAUSE
WE HAVEN'T ACTED ON THAT.
THERE IS A CHANGE IN SDCIs
AND HOW THE REVENUE COMES AND IN
THE
FUTURE WILL BE THROUGH BUILDING
PERMITS AND LESS THROUGH USE
PERMITS.
BECAUSE THERE WILL BE
FEWER DISCRETIONARY REVIEWS.
>> AND THAT BEING THE CASE, WHAT
I WAS THINKING WHEN I WAS
READING THIS FISCAL NOTE, AND I
DO REMEMBER THAT WE PASSED THAT
LEGISLATION RELATED TO DESIGN
REVIEW AND CEPA EXEMPTIONS, IF
WE'RE NOT DOING THOSE THINGS
ANYMORE, WHY DO WE NEED TO
THEN INCREASE FEES?
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE
INCREASING FEES TO DO THE
REMAINDER,
BUT SINCE -- HOW WE PAY FOR THE
WORK IS THE PERMITTING FEES.
IF WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THE
DESIGN REVIEW WORK, HELP
ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD NEED
TO
INCREASE THE FEES TO DO THE
OTHER.
>> SURE.
IT LARGELY HAS TO DO WITH HOW
SDCI DOES ITS ACCOUNTING
FOR THESE THINGS.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT COST
CENTERS ASSOCIATED WITH
DIFFERENT
KINDS OF REVIEW AND THE
DIFFERENT
FLAVORS OR PERMIT REVENUE
THAT ARE FUNDING THOSE REVIEWS.
SO THERE IS A LAND USE COST
CENTER, HAS BEEN A LAND USE
COST CENTER IN THE PAST THAT'S
NOT
AS MUCH A SOURCE OF REVENUE NOW
AS IT WAS -- AS IT HAS PERHAPS
BEEN IN PAST YEARS.
NEVERTHELESS, THERE IS
AN ACCOUNTING CASE FOR SORT
OF KEEPING TRACK OF THOSE
REVENUE STREAMS SEPARATELY.
AGAIN, I ACTUALLY WOULD NOT
BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHAT
THAT ACCOUNTING CASE IS WITHOUT
DOING
MORE RESEARCH AND TALKING TO
SDCI BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH COST
CENTERS, SO THERE IS THAT.
SO EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE
CASE THAT THERE ARE FEWER LAND
USE
REVIEWS, THERE WILL STILL
BE SOME IN THE FUTURE,
PROJECTS THAT WILL BE ABOVE
CEPA THRESHOLDS NO MATTER HOW
HIGH THE CITY
SETS THEM UNDER THE LIMITS OF
STATE LAW.
THEY WILL BE NEEDED FOR LARGE
PROJECTS AND THE COUNCIL
HASN'T MADE POLICY CHANGES.
>> THANK YOU.
IF, CHAIR,
YOU'LL INDULGE ONE
LAST QUESTION.
>> THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> IF YOU'RE BUILDING A
HOME, THAT'S JUST A PERSON,
BUILDING
THAT HOME, HOW WILL THIS IMPACT
THE AVERAGE CONSTITUENT WHO
IS BUILDING OR REMODELING THEIR
HOME, ADDING TO THEIR HOME,
IF YOU WILL, VERSUS SOME OF
THESE OTHER BIGGER DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS?
>>
YEAH, THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE
IN COSTS FOR THAT.
THIS IS ACTUALLY -- I CAN
TELL YOU FROM PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE, BECAUSE WE'RE
LOOKING AT
REMODELING OUR HOME AND
COSTS HAVE GONE UP, SO SOME OF
THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE VALUE OF
THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT THAT YOU
ARE RECEIVING, BUT THERE ARE
SOME OTHER COMPONENTS THAT GO
INTO INCREASED COSTS INCLUDING
SALES
TAX.
SALES TAX INCREASES, SUCH
AS THOSE THE COUNCIL HAS
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, ALSO
MAKE AN
IMPACT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE
COST WILL BE TO THE CONSUMER.
>> DOES THIS IMPACT PEOPLE
DOING THE DETACHED ACCESSORY
DWELLING
UNITS, FOR INSTANCE, OR
THE ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS,
WILL THIS HAVE AN IMPACT?
I'M JUST GETTING AT, THERE'S
A LOT OF CONSTITUENTS -- I KNOW
I
HAVE CONSTITUENTS IN MY
DISTRICT THAT ARE LIVING ON
FIXED
INCOME BECAUSE THEY'RE RETIRED
AND WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.
YOU'LL RECALL.
I'M CONSTANTLY CONCERNED
THAT THE FOLKS THAT ARE
GETTING SQUEEZED AND ARE THEN
DOING THINGS LIKE ADDING TO
THEIR HOMES TO RENT OUT SO THEY
CAN STAY IN THEIR HOMES, HOW
DOES
THIS IMPACT THEM?
>> THERE WILL BE AN
INCREASED COST FOR THOSE FOLKS.
IT'S NOT -- FOR SOMEBODY WHO
IS JUST BUILDING AN ADU IT WILL
BE LESS THAN SOMEBODY BUILDING
A TOWNHOUSE OR IF IT'S A
TOWNHOUSE PROJECT AND THE
INCREASE WAS
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $2,000 TO
$4,000 PER UNIT WILL BE
LESS THAN THAT.
BUT THERE WILL BE SOME INCREASED
COST.
>> AND IT SOUNDS LIKE
BECAUSE THESE ARE THE PROJECTS
THAT
ARE GETTING DONE, IS IT FAIR TO
SAY THESE ARE PROT THE PROJECTS
THAT
ARE BEARING THE BURDEN OF THE
COSTS?
I ALSO READ THAT, YOU KNOW,
THE BIGGER PROJECTS ARE
STALLED -- THEY'RE NOT BUILDING
THE
BIGGER PROJECTS RIGHT NOW
BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF
REASONS WHY.
>> YES.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT WILL BE JUST
BECAUSE, BY VIRTUE OF THE
FACT IT'S MOSTLY SMALLER
PROJECTS BEING BUILT, THAT'S
WHERE
THE REVENUE IS LIKELY TO COME
FROM
IN THE NEAR TERM UNTIL THE REAL
ESTATE MARKET TURNS AROUND
BUT THEN LARGER PROJECTS -- MOST
OF THE FEE REVENUE, BECAUSE IT
IS BASED ON THE VALUE OF
CONSTRUCTION, IT IS THOSE
LARGER PROJECTS THAT BRING IN
THE MAJORITY OF THE FEE REVENUE
TO
SDCI FOR PERMIT REVIEW.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THE
SMALLER FOLKS ARE THE
ONES GETTING SQUEEZED HERE IT
SO THANK YOU FOR INDULGING ALL
MY
QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, IS THAT A
NEW HAND?
>> YES.
SORRY.
TO ME, THIS FEELS LIKE A
POLICY DISCUSSION, AND WITH ALL
DUE
RESPECT, I WOULD SAY
THIS SHOULD -- I WOULD THINK
IT REQUIRES A LOT OF -- MORE
DISCUSSION THAN WE CAN
REALLY HAVE TODAY, BECAUSE HERE
THEY ARE -- I MEAN, THE FISCAL
NOTE SAYS THIS LEGISLATION --
SDCI
IS PROPOSING AN 18% YEAR OVER
YEAR FEE INCREASE,
CONSTRUCTION, MASTER USE
PERMITS.
THERE IS NO QUANTIFICATION
OF WHAT IS THE DELTA IN NUMBER
OF PERMITS AND WHAT IS A LOT
OF THE REASONING FOR THE SIZE OF
THIS
INCREASE.
YOU JUST SAID THAT A PERMIT FOR
A TOWNHOUSE WILL GO FROM
$2,000 TO $4,000.
THAT IS DOUBLING.
>> THAT'S NOT THE COST OF THE
ENTIRE PERMIT.
THE ENTIRE PERMIT WILL BE
MORE THAN THAT.
>> THAT'S NOT THE HOURLY
RATE WHICH IS GOING UP.
I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
THIS IS HOW THE COST
OF HOUSING -- THIS IS ONE
SMALL PIECE OF WHY HOUSING IS SO
EXPENSIVE IN SEATTLE.
IT'S EXPENSIVE TO BUILD.
THE FEES THAT WE LAY ON IS
ONE VERY SMALL PART OF MANY OF
THE
EXPENSES FOR WHY IT'S
VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD HERE,
AND
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS
REQUIRES MORE DISCUSSION,
BECAUSE MAYBE
IT CAN BE USED AS LEVERAGE
TO SEE SOME SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
ON
BEHALF OF SDCI STAFF.
AGAIN, THE CORRECTIONS THAT ARE
NECESSARY. GET THOSE PEOPLE BACK
FULL
TIME AT THE SERVICE DESK LIKE IT
USED
TO BE.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE --
I'M REFERRING AGAIN -- I HAVE
THE LEGISLATION ITSELF OPEN
HERE.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT A LAND USE
HOURLY IS?
>> I DON'T HAVE
THE LEGISLATION IN FRONT OF ME.
>> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ALL
THE WAY DOWN THIS PROPOSED 2026
FEE.
IT SAYS LAND USE HOURLY TIMES
ONE HALF, D USE HOURLY TIMES
ONE, TWO, FOUR. SO THERE'S A
LOT OF INFORMATION
WE DON'T HAVE IN ORDER TO MAKE
A REALLY SOUND DECISION ON, YOU
KNOW, THIS INCREASE.
THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF HERE
AND THE FACT THAT ITIT
SLIPPED INTO JUST THE PRO FORMA
BUDGET
STUFF, THAT SEEMS -- IT'S NOT --
IT PREVENTS US FROM DOING
OUR DUE DILIGENCE.
UNDER THE COMMENTS
FOR REASONS WHY SOME OF THESE
FEES ARE
GOING UP, AGAIN, I'M LOOKING
AT ATTACHMENT A OF THE
LEGISLATION.
THE COMMENT THAT IS REPEATED ALL
DOWN THIS COLUMN IS, KEEP UP
WITH COST OF DOING BUSINESS.
THAT IS, YOU KNOW, I WOULD
WANT THERE TO BE MORE
INFORMATION
ABOUT WHY IS -- WHY DOES
THE COST OF BUSINESS GO
UP WARRANTING 18% INCREASE YEAR
OVER YEAR?
COLLEAGUES, I WOULD
JUST SUGGEST -- I DON'T EVEN
THINK
THIS SHOULD BE VOTED ON DURING
THE BUDGET DISCUSSION
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT
TO
JUST VOTE YES OR
NO. I THINK THE LAND USE
COMMITTEE SHOULD REALLY HAVE A
CHANCE
TO LOOK INTO THIS AND REQUIRE
SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN
PERMITTING BEFORE GIVING THEM
ALL
THIS EXTRA MONEY THAT IS GOING
TO RAISE THE COST OF HOUSING AND
EVERYTHING ELSE.
THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO
KNOW ABOUT THE AGENDA.
THAT'S WHAT WAS GIVING ME
PAUSE IN THE BEGINNING BECAUSE I
WAS
THINKING, WHAT POINT
WOULD I SUGGEST TAKING THIS OFF
THE AGENDA COMPLETELY INSTEAD
OF JUST VOTING UP OR DOWN
BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE
TO GET ENOUGH INFORMATION
IF CENTRAL STAFF DOESN'T EVEN
KNOW WHAT THE LAND USE HOURLY
IS, AND
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COST
OF DOING
BUSINESS IS RIGHT NOW PER
PROJECT.
>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> OPEN IT
UP FOR DISCUSSION, IF
ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
I'LL REMIND THE BODY, THE
AGENDA SAYS SEPTEMBER 30th, BUT
WE
DID HAVE A VERY ROBUST
DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE
IN
COMMITTEE WITH SDCI PRESENT.
COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ ASKED
VERY POINTED QUESTIONS IN WHICH
WE
THEN GOT INTO THE CORE
STAFFING FUND DIRECTLY WITH
SDCI.
SO JUST LETTING THE RECORD
REFLECT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
HERE?
>> I DO, MR. CHAIRMAN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ.
>> JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER,
I APPRECIATE -- I LOVE USING
THIS
WORD, ROBUST CONVERSATION,
CAN WE THEN, AS YOU ARE SHARING
AS A
CONSENT PACKAGE, THAT
OUR COLLEAGUES REQUEST
THAT SOMETHING BE PULLED AND
THEN
WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION AT
THE
END.
SO WE HAVE 32 MATTERS HERE.
SO CENTRAL STAFF CAN GET THROUGH
EACH ONE AND THEN OUR
COLLEAGUES CAN PULL WHAT THEY
DEEM, THEY WANT TO DISCUSS AT
THE END
AND THEN WE CAN BE MORE
ENGAGED, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS
AN
IMPORTANT CONVERSATION.
SO I WAS JUST WAITING FOR OUR
COLLEAGUES, WHOMEVER, CHOOSES
TO PULL SOMETHING -- BECAUSE
THAT'S THE POINT OF IT -- AND
WE DISCUSS IT AT THE END, WE
HAVE TIME
TO FORMULATE OUR OWN QUESTIONS
AND CONCERNS AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU.
SO YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT WE
HOLD DISCUSSION UNTIL
CENTRAL STAFF COMPLETES THEIR
PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME?
>> RIGHT, BECAUSE IF YOU DO A
CONSENT, AS YOU KNOW, THAT'S
WHY WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SAY, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL, YOU
KNOW,
CB 12105 UNTIL THE END, AND
THEN WE CAN SAY, OKAY, WE'RE
GOING TO
PULL THAT ONE.
WE'LL PUT IT AT THE END.
NOW LET'S KEEP GOING, SO WE
CAN HEAR FROM CENTRAL STAFF OF
THE
32 MATTERS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF
US.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
JUAREZ.
COLLEAGUES, IF THERE'S NO
OBJECTION, I'M GOING TO ASK
TO HOLD DISCUSSION UNTIL THE END
WHEN YOU PULL INDIVIDUAL
ITEMS SO THAT WE CAN GET GET THE
ENTIRE CONSENT PACKAGE AND
THEN WHEN YOU PULL AN ITEM, WE
CAN GO
THROUGH QUESTIONS,
DISCUSSION, YOU ALSO DON'T HAVE
TO PULL
AN ITEM TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM.
ANY OBJECTION TO LETTING
CENTRAL STAFF GET THROUGH THEIR
ENTIRE PRESENTATION AND THEN
COMING THROUGH ONE BY ONE?
SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO
TURN IT BACK OVER TO DIRECTOR
NOBLE.
ONCE YOU FINISH THE
PRESENTATION, COLLEAGUES,
WE'LL
COME BACK TO INDIVIDUAL BILLS
YOU MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ON.
>> WITH THAT, CHAIR, I'LL MOVE
ON.
THAT WAS
DISCUSSION ABOUT PERHAPS MORE TO
COME ABOUT
121105 THAT WAS SDIC FEES.
NEXT WAS 121106, THAT'S SDOT,
SO THAT WAS BEFORE SDCI 106
IS STREET USE FEES.
AGAIN, INDICATED THAT THE FOCUS
IS REALLY ON
INFLATIONARY INCREASES TO THOSE
FEES.
THE NEXT BILL IS COUNCIL BILL
121107. IT SETS FEES AND CHARGES
FOR THE
PARKS DEPARTMENT AND,
AGAIN, THESE ARE GENERALLY
REVIEWED
ON A REGULAR BASIS.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE BILL
AND HAVE NOT INDICATED ANY
SPECIFIC CONCERNS ALTHOUGH YOU
MAY
WELL HAVE QUESTIONS.
I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO MOVE
ON.
THE NEXT TWO BILLS ARE
RESOLUTIONS MAKING SOME ANNUAL
ADJUSTMENTS TO ELEMENTS OF THE
CITY'S RETIREMENT PLAN.
ONE IS EACH YEAR THE CITY
DETERMINES ITS CONTRIBUTION
RATES, THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND
THAT RATE IS OFTEN MADE --
THAT RATE IS BASED ON
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF AN
ACTUAL THAT IS DONE.
THIS RESOLUTION SETS THE
ACTUARIAL RATE.
32185 SETS THE INTEREST RATE
THAT IS PAID TO MEMBERS, SO
IF MEMBERS CAN TAKE
THEIR RETIREMENT AS A STANDARD
DEFINED BENEFIT BUT AT TIMES A
LUMP SUM
WITHDRAWAL DEPENDING ON HOW
THEY CHOOSE TO MAKE A BENEFIT IF
THEY DO TAKE A LUMP SUM
THIS CALCULATED INTEREST RATE
FOR
THE QUICKSES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
AND SETS THIS INTEREST RATE
BASED
ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS, BUT,
MOST
SPECIFICALLY, WHAT
MARKET INTEREST RATES ARE.
SO THOSE ARE THE TWO RESOLUTION
S RELATED TO THE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM.
NEXT DEALS WITH FEES,
TAX POLICIES AND REGULATIONS,
A SERIES OF BILLS HERE.
THE FIRST HAVING TO DO WITH
THE RED LIGHT CAMERA FUNDING
ORDINANCE.
AND THIS MAKES A
TECHNICAL CORRECTION THERE.
IT'S NOT A CHANGE IN CITY
POLICY
BUT RATHER
ADJUSTING THE PERCENTAGES OF
MONEY DIRECTED TO
ONE PROGRAM AND THE OTHER.
THE NEXT BILL IS CB- 121108
AND THIS IS A SWEETENED BEVERAGE
BILL. THIS IS ACTUALLY A BILL
THAT
WAS INTRODUCED RELATIVELY LATE
IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE
WE NOTICED -- CENTRAL STAFF
NOTICED AN INCONSISTENCY IN SOME
OF THE
LANGUAGE, SO THIS CORRECTS
THAT, CORRECTS THE ALLOCATION OF
THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX MONEY
CAN BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
BUDGET.
THE NEXT ITEM IS CB 1110, THE
SHORT- TERM RENTAL TAX, SO,
AGAIN, AS THIS ALLOWS ALLOCATION
OF THE SHORT- TERM RENTAL TAX
FOR DEBT SERVICE.
SO THE REMAINING PROCEEDS GO TO
EDI GRANTS AND THE LIKE, BUT,
AGAIN, A CHANGE IN THE USE
FOR THE SHORT- TERM RENTAL TAX,
AGAIN, CONSISTENT WITH THE
PROPOSED BUDGET.
>> CONTINUING IN THE SAME SET,
CB 121114, THIS IS RAISING
THE THRESHOLD FOR THE GENERAL
BUSINESS LICENSE, SO IF YOU
OPERATE A BUSINESS IN THE CITY,
YOU HAVE TO GET A LICENSE
IF YOUR ANNUAL REVENUE
PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN 2,000 AND
NOW WILL BE
$4,000.
REFLECTING INFLATION
SINCE THE LAST TIME THIS
ADJUSTMENT WAS
MADE.
THIS HAS THE EFFECT OF
REDUCING REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
FOR
VERY, VERY SMALL BUSINESSES.
>> THE NEXT HAS TO DEAL
WITH DEFINITIONS OF IN THE
MODEL BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
ORDINANCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
CHANGES IN
STATE LAW.
>> NEXT, CB 121123 -- I'M GOING
TO TURN THIS OVER TO MY
COLLEAGUE WHO KNOWS MORE
ABOUT THESE TWO BILLS THAN I DO.
>> THE NEXT TWO ITEMS
ARE RELATED TO COUNCIL
AMENDMENTS
TO THE BUDGET TO MAKE TRANSIT
MEASURE AVAILABLE FOR
PASSENGER TRANSIT AND ALSO FOR
TRANSIT
SECURITY.
>> THE NEXT IS HAVING TO DO
WITH REORGANIZATIONS AND
INTERDEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS SO
CB 121092 TAKES THE
MAJOR INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOL
PROGRAM AND TRANSFERS THAT FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS
TO
THE OFFICE OF POLICY -- EXCUSE
ME, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. SO IT'S THE MAJOR
INSTITUTIONS PROGRAM ASSOCIATED
STAFF BEING
TRANSFERRED.
NEXT UP IS COUNCIL BILL
121109, THIS TRANSFERS AUTHORITY
TO
ENFORCE THE GRAFFITI NUISANCE
CODE FROM SEATTLE PUBLIC
UTILITIES TO SEATTLE PARKS AND
RECREATION. AGAIN, CONSISTENT
WITH ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES THAT
ARE REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET
OVERALL.
>> THE NEXT
TWO, ONE CLOSING A FUND -- MORE
OF A TECHNICAL
NATURE, TO CLOSE A FUND THAT'S
NO LONGER NEED ED DEALING WITH
INTERFUND LOANS.
12122, COUNCIL GENERATED AND
CREATING THE NEW FUND FOR
CENTRAL DISTRICT AND SOUTHEAST
REINVESTMENT CONSISTENT WITH,
AGAIN, ACTIONS THAT
WERE APPROVED BY -- IN
TERMS OF AMENDMENTS AT THE LAST
MEETING.
>> SO THE NEXT FEW HAVE TO
DO WITH DEBT FINANCING.
SEATTLE PUBLIC UTILITIES WITH
121089 AND ON THE WATER
SIDE WITH 121091 WILL BE ISSUING
NEW
DEBT FOR THE FIRST BILL,
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE
SECOND.
121091 ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS FOR
REFINANCING SO ISSUE DEBT
SOMETIMES WE DISCOVER
THE INTEREST RATES HAVE LOWERED
AND WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THAT
TO REDUCE DEBT SERVICE SO THIS
IS AUTHORIZING THAT REFUNDING OR
REFINANCING ESSENTIALLY.
AGAIN, IN THE SAME FRAME,
12101 AMENDS AN INTERFUND LOAN
BILL.
THE NOTION HERE IS THAT WE'RE
GOING TO PROVIDE INTERFUND
LOAN FOR ABOUT A YEAR FOR
MEMORIAL STADIUM AND THAT WILL
BE
THE PERMANENT FOR THAT PROJECT.
>> COUNCIL BILL 12103
LTGO, LIMITED TAX GENERAL OM
GAGSS,
TO PAY FOR A VARIETY OF THINGS
IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
A TOTAL OF JUST OVER $38
MILLION.
RETURNING TO
UTILITIES, AUTHORIZES DEBT FOR
CITY LIGHT TO ISSUE, AGAIN, FOR
ITS
CAPITAL PROGRAM AND ELECTRICAL
SYSTEM.
THE NEXT TWO HAVE TO DO
WITH PROPERTY TAXES.
TWO PROPERTY TAX BILLS,
THE LOPPING AND THE SHORT,
COUNCIL BILL 121119 AND COUNCIL
BILL
121120 AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING
HERE IS SETTING THE PROPERTY TAX
RATES AND THE AMOUNT OF
REVENUE TO BE COLLECTED FOR THE
VOTER AUTHORIZED LEVIES AND FOR
THE GENERAL FUND AS WELL.
AND THEN IN TERMS OF 2026, THE
2026 BUDGET, COUNCIL BILL
121115 IS A GRANT ACCEPTANCE FOR
THE FIRST PART OF 2026.
A SET OF GRANTS THAT WILL
BE RECEIVED IN EARLY NEXT YEAR
AND THIS IS ACCEPTING THOSE AND
PROVIDING BUDGET AUTHORITY AND
THEN THE LAST IS COUNCIL FILE
315456, THIS WILL BE WHERE
THE CHANGES YOU HAVE ADOPTED TO
THE
BUDGET IN THE CIP WILL BE FILED.
THAT IS THE FULL SET OF BILLS
BEFORE YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES, I'M GOING
TO FIRST PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF
THE NEXT TWO OR THREE STEPS THAT
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AND THEN
WE'LL GO THROUGH THOSE STEPS
ONE BY
ONE. THE FIRST STEP WE WILL TAKE
IS CALLING OUT THE BILLS THAT
YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL OUT OF
THE CONSENT PACKAGE FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
WE'LL THEN TAKE
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND
DISCUSSION ON THOSE ITEMS AT THE
END OF THE
MEETING.
AFTER WE DO THAT, THE
SECOND STEP WE WILL TAKE IS
SPEAKING
TO ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT
REMAIN WITHIN THE CONSENT
PACKAGE.
WE CAN TAKE AS LONG AS WE WANT
THERE.
AND THEN FROM THERE WE WILL
TAKE ONE VOTE ON EVERYTHING IN
THE CONSENT PACKAGE AND THEN WE
WILL
RETURN TO EACH OF THE ITEMS
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT PACKAGE
FOR AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
SO WE DON'T NEED TO MOVE IT
OUT OF THE CONSENT PACKAGE TO
SPEAK
TO IT.
YOU DO TO VOTE ON IT
INDIVIDUALLY.
SO WE ENDED DISCUSSION AT 121105
AND CONTINUED FURTHER THROUGH.
WHEN WE RETURN TO THE
DISCUSSION WE'LL ONLY SPEAK TO
THE ITEMS
WE DID NOT SPEAK TO ALREADY.
WITH THAT, COLLEAGUES, ANY
BILLS FOLKS WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR?
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA AND
THEN COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON.
>> THANK YOU.
I'D LIKE TO REMOVE COUNCIL BILL
121105, 121106, AND 121107.
>> READING BACK 121105, 106,
107.
>> YES.
AND ALSO COUNCIL BILL 121092.
>> 121 -- SAY IT?
>> 121092.
>> COUNCILMEMBERS, I HEAR
THAT TO BE THE SDCI 2026 FEE
UPDATE.
THE SDOT STREET USE FEE SCHEDULE
UPDATE, THE PARKS 2026 FEE
AND CHANGES ORDINANCE AND
THE SCHOOL
PROGRAM ORDINANCE.
>> THERE IT IS.
THANK YOU.
TOOK A MINUTE TO FIND THAT.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, ANY
OTHERS?
>> THAT IS ALL, THANK YOU,
CHAIR.
>> JUST GOING TO CHECK IN.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE --
WE DIDN'T SPEAK TO THE
MAJOR INSTITUTIONS ONE.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO -- DO YOU
HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT BEFORE
DECIDING TO PULL IT?
>> NO, I HAVE QUESTIONS
ABOUT ALL OF THEM, BUT I'D LIKE
THEM
INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
>> FANTASTIC.
PRESIDENT.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> SO I MIGHT -- EXCUSE ME IF I
REPEAT SOME OF THE ONES THAT
MY COLLEAGUE JUST SAID, BUT
COUNCIL BILL 121113 --
>> 12113, THE 2025 YEAR-
END SUPPLEMENTAL ORDINANCE?
>> CORRECT.
121108.
121110.
I'LL JUST SAY THE LAST
THREE LETTERS OR NUMBERS.
114, 123, 12 4, 092 -- 102,
122 --
>> SLOW DOWN.
102, 122 --
>> YES.
>> ANY OTHERS?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION MARK
ON ONE -- LET ME SEE --
DID YOU SAY CLERK FILE 314546?
>> THAT CLERK FILE CANNOT
BE ACTED ON NOW ANYWAY BECAUSE
THAT
IS GOING TO DOCUMENT ALL
THE CHANGES THAT COUNCIL MAKES
SO THAT WILL BE HELD OUT.
THAT IS NOT PART OF THE
CONSENT PACKAGE.
>> OKAY. DISREGARD THEN.
>> OKAY.
ANY OTHERS?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER IF
I SAID 109, BUT 109.
>> THE GRAFFITI ORDINANCE?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER -- CHAIR,
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CONFIRM ALL
THE
ITEMS?
>> JUST LET
ME GET MY NOTES IN
ORDER. YES, PLEASE.
>> OKAY, STARTING FROM THE TOP.
COUNCIL BILL 121113, THE 2025
YEAR- END SUPPLEMENTAL
ORDINANCE.
COUNCIL BILL 121105, SDIC FEE
ORDINANCE, COUNCIL BILL
121106, SDOT STREET USE FEE
ORDINANCE, COUNCIL BILL 121107,
PARKS FEE
ORDINANCE.
COUNCIL BILL 121108, THE SWEET
AND BEVERAGE TASHGS AMENDMENTS.
COUNCIL BILL 121110, THE
SHORT- TERM RENTAL TAX
ORDINANCE.
COUNCIL BILL 121114 THE
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE
AMENDMENTS.
COUNCIL BILL 121123,
THE MATERIAL CHANGE FOR
PASSENGER
TRANSPORTATION.
COUNCIL BILL 121124,
THE MATERIAL CHANGE FOR TRANSIT
SECURITY.
COUNCIL BILL 121092
MAJOR INSTITUTION AND SCHOOL
PROGRAM
ORDINANCE.
COUNCIL BILL 121009,
THE GRAFFITI NUISANCE ORDINANCE.
BILL 121002 THE FUND CLOSURE
ORDINANCE.
COUNCIL BILL 121122, THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT AND SOUTHEAST SEATTLE
REINVESTMENT FUND.
AND I BELIEVE THAT IS ALL THE
ONES THAT HAVE BEEN
PULLED.
>> DID YOU CALL 1211 02 THE
ECF FUND CLOSURE ORDINANCE?
>> I DID, YES.
>> THANK
YOU. JUST CHECKING
THERE. AND SO I'M GOING TO
CHECK
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
AND COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, YOU
ARE
PLANNING TO VOTE NO OR
ABSTAIN ON THESE MOTIONS TODAY,
CORRECT?
>> WELL, PARTWAY THROUGH THIS
DISCUSSION, WE CHOSE NOT TO ASK
QUESTIONS, AND SO --
>> AHA.
OKAY.
I'M GOING TO PAUSE HERE, AND
I'M
GOING TO GO BACK INTO
QUESTION-AND-ANSWER MODE.
WE CAN GO THROUGH,
AND COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ, LET
ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE A
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THIS
ONE.
LET'S -- RATHER THAN PULLING
ALL OF THESE OUT TO GO
THROUGH INDIVIDUAL VOTES, LET'S
SEE
IF YOUR QUESTIONS CAN GET
ANSWERED.
IF YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW THAT
YOU WOULD NOTNOT SUPPORT THESE,
THEN
LET'S PULL THEM OUT AND
WE'LL CONTINUE ON, BUT IF THE
ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION MAY
CHANGE
HOW YOU VOTE, LET'S GET
THOSE ANSWERED RIGHT NOW.
>> UM, CHAIR, WITH RESPECT,
THIS IS AN UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF
END-OF- YEAR OR BUDGET -- IT'S
AN
UNUSUALLY HIGH NUMBER OF BILLS
THAT WE ARE PASSING WITH THE
BUDGET, AND JUST HAVING
CENTRAL STAFF READ THE TITLE OR
SIMPLY THE DESCRIPTION, YOU
KNOW, IS
NOT VERY MUCH INFORMATION,
AND WE HAVE A LOT TO GET
THROUGH.
I CAN'T COMMIT TO
EITHER ABSTAINING OR VOTING NO
JUST BECAUSE I PULLED IT.
I THINK THE ONES -- THE
ONES THAT I PULLED, I PULLED
BECAUSE
THERE IS A POLICY COMPONENT.
IT'S NOT SIMPLY MAKING THIS FEE
IN LINE WITH THAT FEE
OR CONFORMING THE STATE LAW
OR WHATEVER THAT SOME OF THESE
ARE.
MOVING SOMETHING FROM D.O.N. TO
OCPD, HOW IS THE
OUTREACH DIFFERENT IN OPCD THAN
D.O.N.
,
FOR EXAMPLE? THOSE ARE THE KINDS
OF THINGS
WE SHOULD KNOW.
I MEAN, OUR VOTES MATTER TO
US, AND WE SHOULD ALL BE TAKING
OUR
DECISIONS HERE SERIOUSLY.
THIS IS A LOT OF BILLS.
AND SO I'M JUST SAY ING I HAVE
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS ON A LOT
OF THESE THAT I ASKED TO BE
PULLED OUT BUT, AGAIN, I DON'T
KNOW IF
IT MERITS -- I THINK -- NEVER
MIND.
THAT'S MY POINT.
>> SO THEN WHAT I'M GOING TO
DO RIGHT NOW IS BEFORE WE GO
THROUGH PULLING THESE OUT
FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTES, IF WE'RE
GOING TO GO THROUGH QUESTIONS
AND
ANSWERS AND THEN WE'LL COME
BACK TO THIS MOTION OF WHETHER
WE PULL THINGS OUT OR NOT.
AND SO THE LAST ITEM THAT WE
HAD QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON WAS
12105.
THE NEXT ONE IS THE SDOT
STREET USE FEE SCHEDULE.
AND I'LL REMIND THE BODY THAT
THESE BILLS ARE ACTUATING THE
DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD
IN PREVIOUS PORTIONS OF THE
BUDGET
MEETINGS.
AND, DIRECTOR NOBLE, I MAY ASK
YOU, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING
THAT THERE ARE MANY PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT ARE USED
TO ACTUALIZE THE BUDGET EVERY
YEAR, AND IF YOU COULD REMIND ME
WHAT AN AVERAGE NUMBER OF PIECES
OF LEGISLATION ARE.
>> I DON'T HAVE AN AVERAGE FOR
YOU, AND NOT TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE
THIS IS NOT AN UNUSUAL NUMBER
OF BILLS, THIS IS PRETTY
STANDARD FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
BUDGET. THERE'S USUALLY A SET
OF FEE
ORDINANCES, A SET OF
BILLS RELATED TO DEBT ISSUANCES
AND
THEN, DEPENDING ON PIECES
THAT ARE MOVING, SOME
POLICY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
NOT TO MINIMIZE THE
IMPORTANCE OF ANY OF THIS, BUT,
AGAIN,
RISK OF -- BUT JUST TO
DESCRIBE, WE HAD MOST OF THE
BILLS
FOR THE BETTER PART OF THE
MONTHMONTH
HAVE REVIEWED THEM IN
SOME LEVEL OF DETAIL AND HAD NOT
IDENTIFIED CONCERNS, IT DOESN'T
MEAN COUNCILMEMBERS DON'T
HAVE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE
ANSWERED AND HAPPY TO ANSWER
AS MANY AS WE CAN.
I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THETHE
IS BALANCED AGAINST THE
CHANGES, AND SO DEPENDING ON
WHAT
ACTIONS THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO
TAKE,
WE'D HAVE TO REVISIT BALANCING
OF INDIVIDUAL FUNDS AND THE
LIKE, AND, AGAIN, NOT TO
SAY THAT SHOULDN'T OR COULDN'T
BE
DONE, BUT TO BE CLEAR,
THE REVENUE IMPLICATIONS FOR
MANY
OF THESE AS WELL AS EXPENDITURE
IMPLICATIONS SO WE HAVE TO
SORT THROUGH THOSE AS
WELL.
>> IF I MAY,
COUNCILMEMBERS, LAST YEAR THERE
WERE 34
ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
AND THREE
ITEMS THAT WERE AGENDA FOR
INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I STAND CORRECTED.
IT'S NOT ABOVE AVERAGE.
>> THANK YOU.
IT'S NOT ABOUT BEING RIGHT OR
WRONG. I WANT TO MAKE SURE
EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS ARE
ANSWERED SO
THEY FEEL TAKING THE VOTE TODAY.
I UNDERSTAND THESE BILLS -- YOU
KNOW, WHEN I EVEN GO BACK AND
LOOK AT SDCI'S PRESENTATION
I KNOW WE SPOKE ABOUT THE CORE
RESERVE STAFFING, ET CETERA,
I COULDN'T REMEMBER WHAT
EXACTLY IT WAS.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A NUMBER
OF WEEKS OF A LOT OF
INFORMATION AND I WANT TO MAKE
SURE
EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS GET
ANSWERED.
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, I SEE YOU'VE
GOT YOUR HAND RAISED AND
THEN WE'RE GOING TO ASK
QUESTIONS ABOUT 121106 AFTER YOU
SPEAK, FOCUSING ON THE STREET
USE
FEE AND WE'LL GO THROUGH EACH
OF THESE ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED.
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU,
CHAIR, FOR MAKING SURE ALL OF
OUR QUESTIONS GET
ANSWERED ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE
IS A SUBSTANTIVE POLICY AT ISSUE
OR, YOU KNOW, STRICTLY REQUIRE
LEGALLY TO IMPLEMENT THE BUDGET.
THESE ARE IMPORTANT TOPICS.
CAL, YOU NOTED LAST YEAR
THERE WERE 34 PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT WERE
INCLUDEDINCLUDED IN
CONSENT PACKAGE.
NOTE THAT A NUMBER OF THESE
ARE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT OR
COUNCIL
ADDITIONS.
ANY SENSE OF LAST YEAR HOW MANY
OF THOSE PIECES OF 34 WERE
MADE PURSUANT TO COUNCIL
ADDITIONS?
THAT WOULD BE A GOOD COMPARATOR?
>> CENTRAL STAFF?
>> WE CAN DO THAT.
COMPARING IS ALREADY NOT
APPLES TO APPLES.
IT IS THE RUBRIC FOR THE NUMBER
OF PIECES OF LEGISLATION.
IT VARIES YEAR TO YEAR.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA,
ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS?
THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
DO YOU HAVE GENERAL QUESTIONS?
>> NO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A
STATEMENT IF I MAY, CHAIR.
>> PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I JUST WANT TO SAY,
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE VIEWING THAT
WE
ALL WORK REALLY DILIGENTLY UP
HERE, ALL NINE OF US, TO DO OUR
BEST TO READ THROUGH ALL THE
ACTIONS
DURING BUDGET. BUDGET IS
SIZABLE.
IF YOU'RE READING THE FULL
BUDGET, IT'S HUNDREDS
AND HUNDREDS OF PAGES LONG.
SO THIS ACTION TODAY IS YET
ANOTHER COMPONENT OF THE BUDGET.
SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS
WE DID HAVE IN COMMITTEE.
NOT EVERYONE SITS ON EVERY
COMMITTEE.
SOME COMMITTEE WORK WE DO
DOESDOES YIELD SOME DEFINITIVE
THINGS.
WE KNOW SOMETHING IS GOING
TO COME DOWN THE PIKE.
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
RESPOND AT THE TIME THAT WE NEED
TO TAKE A
VOTE, AND THAT
REQUIRES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
SO ALL THAT TO SAY, I DON'T
WANT TO LEAVE IT UNSAID THAT
EVERYONE IS DOING THEIR DUE
DILIGENCE.
I DON'T WANT PEOPLE VIEWING
TO SOMEHOW THINK SOMEBODY
DIDN'T DO
THEIR DUE DILIGENCE BECAUSE
NOW WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS.
>> WE ARE AT VOTING TIME
NOW, AND SO WE ARE ASKING
THESE QUESTIONS NOW SO WE CAN
ALL FEEL
GOOD ABOUT THE VOTES THAT
WE'RE TAKING IRRESPECTIVE OF
HOW
MUCH WE DELVE INTO IT THEN AND
WHETHER OR NOT WE EVEN SAT
ON THE COMMITTEE THAT HAD THE
DELIBERATION AT THAT TIME.
>> SO JUST TO LEVEL SET,
I'M GOING TO THANK EVERYONE FOR
INDULGING EVERYBODY'S
QUESTIONS, BECAUSE WE ALL WANT
TO
SUPPORT EACH OTHER ASAS PASS
THIS
VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, WHICH IS, I WOULD
ARGUE, ONE OF
COUNCIL'S HUGEST AND
MOST IMPORTANT TASKS, WHICH IS
TO PASS THIS VERY ENORMOUS $8
BILLION, ABOUT, BUDGET
EVERY YEAR.
SO THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA.
WELL SAID. WITH THAT,
COLLEAGUES, WE
ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON EACH OF
THESE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED, AND WE'RE GOING TO
GO BY THEM
ONE BY ONE. SDCI HAS JOINED US
IN THE
CROWD.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE
FURTHER QUESTIONS NOW, BUT WE
MIGHT
LATER. WITH THAT, WE ARE ON
COUNCIL
BILL 121106, THE SDOT STREET USE
FEE SCHEDULE.
COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE
QUESTIONS ON THE STREET USE FEE
SCHEDULE?
>> I DO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
ONE SECOND.
LET ME GET TO MY --
OKAY. ON THE FEE SCHEDULE, SO
THE
SUMMARY AND FISCAL NOTE SAYS THE
UPDATES TO THE FEE SCHEDULE TO
REFLECT JANUARY 2026 SUNSET OF
THE CITYWIDE FOR STREET AND
SIDEWALK ACTIVITIES AND VENDING
AS AUTHORIZED, WHAT WERE
THOSE STREET AND SIDEWALK
ACTIVITIES PERMITTING THAT WE
ARE NOW
NO LONGER -- THAT WE ARE SUN
SETTING? THANK YOU, CAL.
>> THAT WAS A FEE WAIVER
PROGRAM THAT WAS INITIATED
DURING
COVID ERA TO MAKE IT MORE - -
EASIER TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
STREET ACTIVATION SOSO LIKE
STREET
VENDING AND STREET DINING
WAS THE MAJOR PURPOSE.
IT LED TO
COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF CAFE
STREET
LEGISLATION, AND THIS WAS
THE FINAL -- THE FINAL SUNSET
TO ACTUALLY START TO
BEGIN COLLECTIONS FOR THAT
PROGRAM MOVING FORWARD NOW THAT
WE'RE
OUT OF THE EMERGENCY.
>> SO NOW FOLKS WILL HAVE TO PAY
IF THEY WANT TO -- ARE
THOSE ALLOWED ANYMORE?
>> THEY ARE ALLOWED.
THERE IS A NOMINAL CHARGE.
I CAN'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF
MY HEAD, HOW MUCH IT IS, BUT
THERE
IS A RESET TO MAKE IT GENERALLY
CHEAPER, BUT IT WAS PART OF A
LARGER COUNCIL EFFORT TO
REALIGN OUR PRACTICES WITH -- TO
ENCOURAGE -- CONTINUE TO
ENCOURAGE OUTDOOR DINING AND
OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES.
>> THANK YOU, CAL.
AND I WAS HERE IN THE
MAYOR'S OFFICE WHEN WE WERE
WORKING ON
THAT, SO I REMEMBER THE
STREET-ERIES. OTHERS WERE NOT.
IF WE'RE SUN SETTING SOMETHING
I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHY.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING US THROUGH
THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IS THE
MAIN
PIECE OF THIS BUDGET
ACTION OTHER THAN THE TREE
PLANTING,
PRUNING, AND REMOVAL PERMIT
FEES.
CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT THOSE?
>> I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH MORE
TO ADD BEYOND WHAT THE FISCAL
NOTE
SAYS ABOUT THE TREE PROGRAM.
I THINK THE MAIN FOCUS OF THIS
LEGISLATION IS JUST
THE ACROSS-THE- BOARD CPI
INFLATION
CALCULATION TO ALL THE SCHEDULES
IS SORT OF THE MAIN BUDGET
IMPACT OF THIS.
I'M AFRAID I DON'T HAVE A
LOT MORE TO ADD TO THE TREE
PORTION
OF IT.
>> OKAY.
SO ALL OF THIS IS INFLATIONARY
EXCEPT FOR WE'RE SUN SETTING
THE
STREETERY PROGRAM.
THANK YOU, CAL.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT
NELSON, QUESTIONS ON 106?
>> YES.
SO THE ABILITY FOR THE CITY
TO GET UP AND GOING AND GRANT
THE PERMISSION AND PERMITS
TO RESTAURANTS TO BE ABLE TO
SELL
OUTSIDE WAS ONE OF THE SHINING
EXAMPLES OF, I DON'T
KNOW, WHERE -- OF NECESSITY
BEING
THE DRIVER OF INNOVATION IN
SEATTLE,
AND THAT WAS GREAT TO SEE.
SO WHY -- WHAT IS THE
RATIONALE FOR GOING BACK TO A
FEE
SINCE THE -- WHAT IS -- WHAT WAS
THE DEBT INCURRED BY THE ABILITY
TO
NOT NECESSARILY DEBT IN A NORMAL
SENSE, BUT WHY NOT
JUST CONTINUE THE WAY IT IS
RIGHT NOW?
BECAUSE IT IS SUCCESSFUL AND I
THINK, COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, WERE YOU A CHAMPION OF
THE
LEGISLATION THAT MADE IT
EASIER TO SET UP EATERIES,
STREETERIES DURING THE PANDEMIC.
>> I THINK PART OF
THE RATIONALE -- I THINK
THERE'S
TWO RATIONALES.
ONE IS THERE ARE PROGRAM
COSTS TO MAKE SURE THESE ARE
DONE ADEQUATELY AND THAT THEY
FOLLOW INSPECTIONS AND THOSE
PROGRAM COSTS HAVE TO BE
RECAPTURED
IN SOME WAY OR SUBSIDIZED IN
SOME
WAY.
SO HAVING SOME FEE TO
ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM SEEMS
APPROPRIATE.
AND, IN ADDITION, THESE ARE
PUBLIC USES OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT
OF WAY SO INSTALLING.
IN THE RIGHT OF WAY WE ARE USING
PARKING SPACES TO PROVIDE SOME
OF THESE OR OTHER STREET --
EXCUSE ME, SIDEWALK LOCATIONS,
SO THERE IS A TRADEOFF FROM THE
PUBLIC'S USE OF THE RIGHT OF
WAY WHICH WOULD ALSO TEND TO BE
A
RATIONALE FOR CHARGING A FEE.
>> GOT IT.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
WE'RE USING PUBLIC PROPERTY
FOR PRIVATE USES AND PROFIT,
SO THERE IS THAT, ALSO.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE REGARDLESS OF THE FEE
NECESSARILY, WHAT IS IMPORTANT
THAT WORK IS DONE IN A REALLY
EFFICIENT MANNER BECAUSE BEFORE
THE PANDEMIC, STREET- USE
EFFORTS FOR VARIOUS DIFFERENT
PURPOSES WAS REALLY DIFFICULT
AND TOOK
A REALLY LONG TIME AND THEN
THE PANDEMIC HAPPENED AND, ALL
OF A
SUDDEN, IT WAS EASY.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE REGARDLESS
OF THE FEE IT IS STILL --
THAT THE PROCESSES ARE EFFICIENT
AND COLLABORATIVE COLLABORATIVE
ALSO THERE
IS SOME PUBLIC OUTREACH
AVAILABLE
SO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE
NEIGHBORS OR SMALL BUSINESSES
DOWN THE
BLOCK WHO ARE OPPOSED ALSO
HAVE A WAY OF WEIGHING IN AS
WELL.
THANKS.
>> THANK
YOU. COLLEAGUES, ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS ON STREET USE
FEES?
I'LL JUST MENTION THAT IN THE
PANDEMIC, WE ALLOWED PEOPLE TO
HAVE FREE PERMITS TO DO
STREETERIES AND DID NOT
REGULATE THEIR CONSTRUCTION
METHODS.
THIS MAY HAVE BEEN FINE FOR
A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, BUT
OVER -- IF
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THESE
PERMANENT FEATURES OF THE
CITY, WHICH WE HAVE MADE
THE POLICY DECISION TO DO SO,
WE NEED TO HOLD THEM TO
DIFFERENT
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS TO
WITHSTAND WIND, RAIN,
POTENTIAL FIRE OR ELECTRICAL
HAZARDS.
AS THOUGH CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
WERE -- THAT IS WHEN
THIS FEE WAS SET UP.
THIS IS THE END OF THAT CYCLE.
THOSE FEES, THE INITIAL AND
THE REOCCURRING FEES, ARE LOWER
THAN WHAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE
HAD
TO PAY PREPANDEMIC.
THAT'S THAT.
>> SO I'M GOING TO
ASK, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, YOU
ASKED TO PULL THIS ONE.
DO YOU STILL WANT IT PULLED?
>> I DO NOT BUT I BELIEVE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MAY HAVE ALSO
REQUESTED ITS REMOVAL, BUT I'M
FINE KEEPING IT IN THE CONSENT
AGENDA, CHAIR.
>> OKAY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, DO YOU
NEED TO HAVE THIS ONE PULLED?
>> NO.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE ASKING --
IT CAN ONLY BE PULLED IF I PLAN
TO
ABSTAIN OR VOTE NO?
>> CORRECT.
>> WHAT IF PEOPLE CHOOSE TO
VOTEVOTE YES AFTER THINKING
ABOUT
IT A LITTLE BIT?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M CHECKING
IN. IF ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS
HAVE ANSWERED, I'LL MARK IT ON
MY CHART SO THAT WE'RE MOVING
ON.
>> OKAY.
MINE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.
>> GREAT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THIS
ONE IN THE CONSENT PACKAGE.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO
121107, THE S SEATTLE PARKS
AND RECREATION FEES AND CHARGES
ORDINANCE. COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
YOU
HAD PULLED THIS
ONE.
>> YES.
>> WE'RE GOING TO
TURN IT OVER TO YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
THANK YOU, CHAIR, I MEAN.
THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES,
FOR INDULGING MY QUESTIONS AND
OPPORTUNITY TO READ THROUGH
SOME OF THESE.
THE REASON I HAVE THIS PULLED
IS BECAUSE I HAVE QUESTIONS
AND CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THESE
FEES, INCREASE IN FEES AT PARKS.
IN PARTICULAR THE PARKS
DEPARTMENT ADMINISTERS KID
PROGRAMS IN THE
COMMUNITY CENTERS LIKE THE SWIM
PROGRAM,
AND SO I'M WONDERING WHAT IS
THE INCREASE IN THOSE FEES,
BECAUSE SOMETIMES THESE
INCREASES
ARE SUCH THAT THEY'RE COST
PROHIBITIVE TO SOME FOLKS AND SO
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'REWE'RE CREATING A
SITUATION
WHERE KIDS DON'TDON'T ACCESS
TO SOMETHING THEY SHOULD HAVE
BECAUSE WE'VE NOW INCREASED
THESE FEES.
SO IF THIS IS NOT THAT, I'D
LIKE TO KNOW THAT, BUT IF IT
INCLUDES
THAT, THEN I'D LIKE TO KNOW
HOW.
>> DIRECTOR NOBLE?
>> OBVIOUSLY A FAIR QUESTION.
IT IS NOT THAT.
REVIEWING THE ORDINANCE
ITSELF, IT ADJUSTS FEES IN
RELATIVELY
FEW SITUATIONS, PARTICULAR
FEES THAT ARE DESCRIBED AS
NONPARK USES OF PARK PROPERTY,
IN PARTICULAR THINKING
LIKE STADIUMS AND THE LIKE
WHERE PEOPLE HAVE NONPARK
EVENTS.
THERE ARE REMARKABLY FEW
FEES ACTUALLY ADJUSTED IN THE
ORDINANCE. THEY MISSED A COUPLE
THINGS
IN THE 2025 ADJUSTMENT AND THEY
ARE CORRECTING THAT.
BUT THERE ARE NOT BROAD-
BASED FEE CHANGES IMPLEMENTED
THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE.
IT IS JUST A LIMITED
NUMBER.
>> THE 2025 WAS -- IT WAS A
2025 AND 2026 FEE SCHEDULE
ORDINANCE, AND SO THESE ARE
ROUGHLY TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO
THAT
ORDINANCE, SO IT IS NOT BROAD
CHANGES.
>> OKAY.
GREAT.
I FEEL RELIEVED TO HEAR
IT'S NOT, BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE
PAST
WE HAVE CONSIDERED THINGS
LIKE INCREASING FEES TO, FOR
INSTANCE, THE SWIM PROGRAM.
THAT'S JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY
HEAD, AND I WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS WAS
DOING.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA. THIS WAS PART OF OUR
DISCUSSION LAST YEAR, FEES WERE
INCREASED, AND I KNOW THERE WAS
CONSTERNATION AMONGST US
ABOUT IT.
COLLEAGUES, ARE THERE OTHER
QUESTIONS ON
12107, THE PARKS AND RECREATION
FEES?
>> JUST TO SAY, CHAIRMAN,
I'M FINE KEEPING IT IN THE
CONSENT CALENDAR -- I MEAN
CONSENT
PACKAGE.
>> WONDERFUL.
THE NEXT ITEM IDENTIFIED WAS
BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON, THE
CB
121108, THE SWEET AND BEVERAGE
TAX.
>> HOLD ON A SECOND.
I'M TRYING TO FIND THE ACTUAL
FISCAL NOTE TO --
>> I CAN DESCRIBE THE BILL IN
SOME DETAIL.
>> PLEASE DO.
>> THE ISSUE HERE IS THERE WAS
A PREVIOUS BILL THAT ALLOCATED
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX
REVENUES, AND IT WAS VERY
SPECIFIC TO THE
PREVIOUS BIENNIUM AND THE LIKE.
AS PART OF THE BALANCING
STRATEGY, AND WE DID
DISCUSS THIS AT A HIGH LEVEL,
ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT HAS HAPPENED IS
THAT THE NEW FAMILIES AND
EDUCATION
LEVY, AND I'M FORGETTING ALL
OF ITS NAMES, AS APPROVED BY
THE VOTERS INCLUDED FUNDING FOR
A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS THAT
ARE CURRENTLY FUNDED WITH
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX, SO THAT
PROVIDED
SOME RELIEF, POTENTIAL
RELIEF, FOR THE GENERAL FUND.
>> BUT IT -- IN ORDER TO
TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THAT,
WE NEED -- THE SWEETENED
BEVERAGE
TAX NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATED SO
IT'S NOW GOING TO BE
REDIRECTED TO THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, SO THAT -- AS PART
OF THAT -- SO IT'S GOING TO
BE USED TO SUPPORT SOME
PREVIOUSLY EXISTING PROGRAMS SO
IN ORDER
TO DO THAT WE HAD TO REMOVE SOME
NONSUPPLANT
LANGUAGE. TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
THE
POTENTIAL GENERAL FUND
RELIEF PROVIDED THROUGH THE
FAMILIES
AND ED LEVY WE HAD TO INCREASE
THE FLEXIBILITY ABOUT HOW
THIS PARTICULAR REVENUE SOURCE
GETS
USED.
SO THAT'S PRIMARILY WHAT THIS
DOES.
IT ALSO REFERENCED SUN SETTING
THINGS THAT ARE NO LONGER
RELEVANT BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT WAS
FROM THE PREVIOUS BIENNIUM
SO THIS DOES VERY MUCH
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY
ABOUT
THE USE OF THE SWEETENED
BEVERAGE TAX REVENUE.
IT DOES THAT IN ORDER TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GENERAL
FUND
RELIEF PROTECTED BY THE LEVY.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT
PROGRAMS WERE -- SO BASICALLY
YOU'RE SAYING THAT WHAT WAS
PAID FOR BY SWEETENED BEVERAGE
TAX REVENUE IS NOW GOING TO BE
PAID
BY EVERYBODY WHO -- WELL,
BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND
RENTERS, FOR EXAMPLE?
SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT
ARE THOSE PROGRAMS THAT ARE NOW
BEING PUT ON TO EVERYBODY --
PEOPLE ON FIXED INCOME
WHO ALREADY HAVE A HARD TIME
PAYING THEIR PROPERTY TAX, ET
CETERA.
I THINK THIS IS PART OF THE
LUMP OF $300 MILLION THAT WAS IN
THE -- IS THAT PART OF THE
PROGRAM?
>> I SEE JASMINE IS HERE.
>> JASMINE CAN ANSWER IT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ARE YOU
ASKING WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX
PLANNED TO BE FUNDED BY THE
LEVY?
IT'S PRIMARILY EARLY CHILDHOOD
INVESTMENTS, SO THE NURSE FAMILY
PARTNERSHIP, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT HELPS BOTH WOMEN WHO ARE
PREGNANT AS WELL AS
YOUNG CHILDREN WITH PUBLIC
HEALTH
OUTCOMES AND IT'S CHILD CARE AS
WELL, SOME CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM THAT HAS NOW BEEN
REFUNDED BY THE THEP LEVY.
I DON'T HAVE -- I THINK TWO
OTHER PROGRAMS I DON'T HAVE OFF
THE TOP OF MY HEAD BUT
EARLY CHILDHOOD INVESTMENTS.
>> SO ALL OF THE FUNDING
USED TO BE SWEETENED BEVERAGE
TAX OR IT AND NOW IT'S
GOING TO BE THEP LEVIES,
IT CAN'T BE PAID FOR BY BOTH
TAXES?
>> IT COULD BE IT BUT IN
THE BUDGET DISCUSSION SOSO
WHAT THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED
BUDGET
PROPOSED TO
SWAP THE SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX
INVESTMENTS CURRENTLY IN DEAL
FOR THE
THEP LEVY AND THE ENED
BEVERAGE AND THE SWEETENED
BEVERAGE
TAX WILL BE USED TO SUPPORT FOOD
INVESTMENTS TO SUPPLANT GENERAL
FUND.
>> I'M GOING TO LET HER HAVE
THE
FLOOR.
>> THAT WAS THE PROPOSED
BUDGET AND I DON'T BELIEVE
THERE
ARE ANY COUNCIL BUDGET ACTIONS
TO
UNDO THAT.
>> RIGHT.
I WAS IN FAVOR OF THE THEP LEVY
AND DIDN'T WANT TO RAISE A
STINK
ABOUT THE OTHER PROGRAMS PUT IN
THERE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T
HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE GENERAL
FUND OR IN CONVO TO PAY FOR IT
ANYMORE.
IN ANY CASE, I APPRECIATE
THAT THERE IS FLEXIBILITY .
I DON'T NEED TO PULL THIS ONE
OUT.
IT'S ABOUT CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
FOR THE MOST PART?
>> YES.
EARLY CHILDHOOD INVESTMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, I
SEE YOU HAVE A HAND.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION, IT WAS
CHILD -- ANYTHING THAT
WAS SWAPPED OUT, IF YOU WILL,
DID HAVE A NEXUS TO EITHER CHILD
CARE -- ALL THE THINGS THAT THE
THEP LEVY CURRENTLY PAYS FOR.
THERE WAS NOTHING TRANSFERRED
OVER, EARLY LEARNING,
PRESCHOOL, PROMISE AND K-12
INVESTMENTS.
THEY WERE RELATED TO ONE OF
THOSE BUCKETS THAT THEP PAYS
FOR INCLUDING ONE THING THAT --
I
ALWAYS SAY A DEAL --
WAS TRANSFERRED TO DO THAT WAS
NOT ORIGINALLY PART OF THE LEVY
AND THEY WERE DOING WHAT
GENERAL FUND BUT IT HAD A NEXUS
TO THE
WORK
AS PART OF THOSE INVESTMENTS.
I HAD A QUESTION WHEN THE MAYOR
SENT HIS PACKAGE DOWN AND THERE
WERE SOME THAT WERE
TRANSFERRED TO THE LEVY AND I
WANTED TO
MAKE SURE NOTHING WAS
TRANSFERRED
OVER THAT DID NOT HAVE A
NEXUS TO EARLY LEARNING,
PRESCHOOL, PROMISE, K-12 IN SOME
WAY.
>> IT WAS NOT YOUR OVERSIGHT.
>> AND THAT'S TRUE OF THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX
PIECES THAT WERE TRANSFERRED
OVER.
NOT TAKING OFFENSE,
JUST REMEMBERING THAT THIS IS A
GREAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS A
QUESTION I, TOO, HAD.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT -- I WAS
LETTING IT GET A LITTLE LOOSE
BUT EVERYONE GETS --
>> GIVE AN INCH, TAKE A MILE.
>> WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT INDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUAL. ANYTHING FURTHER AT
THIS TIME?
>> NO, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME
ADD TO WHAT JASMINE ALREADY
EXPLAINED WHICH WAS THE THINGS
THAT WERE TRANSFERRED
OVER WERE -- HAD A NEXUS TO THE
FEP LEVY FOR EVERYONE'S PEACE
OF
MIND.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ANYTHING
FURTHER?
>> NO.
>> SO, COLLEAGUES, UNCILMEMBER
RIVERA OR NELSON,
DO YOU WANT TO PULL THIS?
WE'RE NOT GOING TO.
THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION.
THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS
THE
SWEETENED BEVERAGE TAX FUNDS ARE
DIMINISHING.
THEY ARE GOING DOWN YEAR
OVER YEAR AND THE PROGRAMS THEY
LOOKED AT FUNDING WERE REALLY
IMPORTANT, AND SO I'M GOING
TO MOVE US ON TO THE NEXT ITEM
--
>> CHAIR, JUST TO CONFIRM
THIS ITEM STILL PULLED -- IT IS
NO LONGER PULLED?
>> NO LONGER.
WE'LL GO THROUGH THE WHOLE
LIST AT THE VERY END TO UPDATE
OUR LIST HERE.
THE NEXT ITEM THAT
WAS IDENTIFIED WAS IDENTIFIED
BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON,
121110, THE SHORT- TERM RENTAL
TAX.
>> I THINK I CAN PROVIDE
HELPFUL INFORMATION.
2019 A BILL PASSED TO ALLOCATE
SHORT-TERM RENTAL MONEY
INTO THREE FUNDAMENTAL
CATEGORIES, DEBT SERVICE ON SOME
DEBT
THAT WAS ISSUED TO SUPPORT
CAPITAL,
HOUSING CAPEL AT THAT, FUNDING
FOR PERMANENT SUPPORT OF
HOUSING, AND THE
EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE.
THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE
WAS WRITTEN IN A PRESCRIPTIVE
WAY, DOLLAR AMOUNTS TO GO TO
DEBT SERVICE AND THE REMAINDER
ALLOCATED.
SINCE THAT TIME THE DEBT
HAS BEEN RESTRUCTURED IN
SOME WAYS AND SO THE SPECIFIC
DOLLAR AMOUNTS NO LONGER APPLY.
>> SO WHAT THIS ORDINANCE
DOES IS TO ESTABLISH, AGAIN,
THOSE REMAIN THE FUNDAMENTAL
USES.
IN 2025, THE RESOURCES WILL
BE ALLOCATED FIRST TO THAT DEBT
SERVICE, BECAUSE WE NEED TO
PAY OFF THAT DEBT THAT WAS
ISSUED IN
2018 AND 2019.
AND THEN THE REMAINING IS TO
GO TO PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR EDI
GRANTS
AND TO THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT TO SUPPORT PERMANENT
SUPPORT OF
HOUSING, HOUSING CONTRACTS,
AND THE AMOUNTS ALLOCATED ARE TO
BE
REFLECTED IN THE ANNUAL
BUDGET SO THIS ORDINANCE
DOESN'T
SAY HOW MUCH IN ANY GIVEN YEAR
BUT IT ESTABLISHES THOSE THREE
PURPOSES DEBT SERVICE
ON PREVIOUSLY ISSUED HOUSING
BONDS, SUPPORT OF HOUSING
OPERATIONS
AND EDI ARE THE ELIGIBLE USES
OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX.
I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT
HOW AT IS BEING
APPROPRIATED BUT THAT IS IN THE
PROPOSED
BUDGET.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED.
>> HOW WAS THE -- WHAT WAS
THE ALLOTMENT ORDER PREVIOUSLY?
HAS THERE EVER BEEN DISCUSSION
ABOUT THIS TAX PAYING FOR OTHER
THINGS?
EVERY OTHER YEAR I HEAR FROM THE
CONVENTION CENTER THEY
ARE REALLY -- THEY WOULD
APPRECIATE SOME MORE SUPPORT AND
HOW
MUCH IS THE -- WHAT IS
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CHANGE
OF ALLOTMENT AND IF YOU ARE
SAYING
THERE IS NO CHANGE
WHATSOEVER, HAS THERE BEEN
RECENTLY
A CONVERSATION ABOUT EXPANDING
THE USE OF THINGS THAT
COULD BE PAID FOR WITH THIS
RESOURCE?
>> FROM A POLICY
PERSPECTIVE, THERE ISN'T A
CHANGE. THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS
DIALED IN
BEFORE WERE PRESCRIPTIVE TO
THE NEEDS AT THE MOMENT BUT THE
SAME FUNDAMENTAL USES, HOUSING
BONDS, HOUSING OPERATIONS AND
EDI REMAIN UNCHANGED.
I AM NOT AWARE OF A
RECENT CONVERSATION ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL USES TO SHORT- TERM
RENTAL TAX.
IN ITS CREATION THERE WAS A
FAIR AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION WITH
THE STATE LEVEL BECAUSE TAXES
AUTHORIZED AT THE STATE
LEVEL ABOUT THE WAY LODGING IS
TAXED GENERALLY AND WHAT THE
USES
OF THOSE TAXES ARE.
THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE DIRECT
AUTHORITY TO TAX LODGING.
THAT'S MORE OF A COUNTY
FUNCTION. THIS IS A NOTABLE
EXCEPTION.
>> JUST TO FOLLOW THROUGH.
THE UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION ESTABLISHES VERY
SPECIFICSPECIFIC
AMOUNTS FOR EACH OF THE SPECIFIC
BUCKETS AND THIS LEGISLATION
REMOVES THOSE THAT ARE
AMOUNTS AND IT DOES PROVIDE MORE
FLEXIBILITY FOR THE
EXECUTIVE AND THE COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER SPENDING AMONG THOSE
DIFFERENT AUTHORIZED SPENDING
CATEGORIES.
>> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT,
PLEASE?
>> INSTEAD OF
HAVING THE FIRST $5 MILLION GO
INTO OPCD FOR
GRANTS, THAT IS NOW JUST
AN ELIGIBLE USE OF THE FUNDS,
AND SO IN THE BUDGET CYCLE YOU
CAN
MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT WHERE THIS
MONEY GOES.
>> GOT IT.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ANYTHING
FURTHER?
>> WHAT IS THE NEXT CATEGORY?
>> THE CATEGORIES ARE --
>> I CAN READ YOU THE
UNDERLYING
LEGISLATION. THE FIRST $5
MILLION IS FOR
OPCD FOR GRANTS TO ORGANIZATIONS
FOR THE EDI PROGRAM.
THE NEXT 2. 2 MILLION FOR
DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS.
THE NEXT 3. 3 MILLION IS FOR
HSD TO SUPPORT INVESTMENTS
IN SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, THE NEXT
1. 69,000 WAS FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES AND ANY
REMAINING FUNDING GOES TO DIRECT
GROUNDS.
>> THAT WAS THE PREVIOUS
ALLOCATION.
THE NEW ALLOCATION DOESN'T
SET THOSE DOLLAR AMOUNTS BUT
JUST SETS THE BROAD CATEGORIES
AND THE BUDGET WILL SHOW
WHAT APPROPRIATE -- WHAT
THE ALLOCATIONS ARE FOR ANY
GIVEN
YEAR.
>> SO THE --
>> PLEASE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> SO THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD TAKE THE MONEY AWAY, THE
AMOUNTS AWAY, BUT IT ALSO
CHANGES THE
ORDER?
>> LET ME READ WHAT IT SAYS NOW.
>> BASICALLY COULD WE
PAY ALL THE DEBT IN ONE
YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEN THE
FOLLOWING
YEAR GET GOING WITH ALL
THE OTHER --
>> IT MAKES IT CLEAR THE FIRST
PROCEED SHALL BE DIRECTED TO
THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE.
SO WE'RE GOING TO PAY THE
MORTGAGE FIRST, IF YOU WILL.
AND THEN IT SAYS THE REMAINING
PROCEEDS SHALL BE DIRECTED TO
ONE, THE OFFICE OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR
GRANTS MADE TO ORGANIZATIONS FOR
THE
EDI PROGRAM, AND, TWO, TO
THE HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
TO SUPPORT PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING CONTRACTS,
AMOUNTS ALLOCATED TO EACH
CATEGORY
WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE ANNUAL
BUDGET.
SO IT PUTS -- IT PUTS DEBT
FIRST, THE OTHER TWO TIED,
AND THE
ACTUAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS TO BE
ESTABLISHED WITH THE BUDGET.
>> SO IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IF
YOU TAKE CARE OF THE DEBT, WHEN
YOU SAID THE REMAINING MONEY,
WHAT IF THERE IS NO REMAINING
MONEY AND PEOPLE THAT ARE
COUNTING
ON THAT FOR DIFFERENT EDI
PROJECTS?
>> WE KNOW WHAT THE
DEBT SERVICE -- WE ISSUE THE
LONG- TERM DEBT SO WE KNOW WHAT
THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE
IS, ESSENTIALLY THE MORTGAGE
PAYMENT, IF YOU WILL --
>> HOW MUCH IS IT?
>> I'D HAVE TO LOOK
IN THE BUDGET CURRENTLY.
IT WAS ALLOCATED AT $5
MILLION, SO MY GUESS IS IT'S
SEVERAL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT
I DON'T KNOW.
I DO KNOW WHERE TO LOOK.
THIS WILL TAKE A MOMENT.
IF THERE ARE OTHER
QUESTIONS AS WE RESEARCH.
>> I'LL SAVE YOU THE HASSLE.
BASICALLY EVERY YEAR THAT WE
CAN PAY THE DEBT SERVICE AND
THERE'S LEFTOVER MONEY TO DO
OTHER
THINGS, THAT'S FINE, AND
JUST TAKING OUT THE DOLLAR
AMOUNT
DOESN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE TO
ME. I WONDERED IF THERE WAS A
CHANGE
IN OUR PREFERENCE OF WHICH GETS
FUNDED AFTER DEBT.
>> I DON'T READ IT AS A STATED
CHANGE IN THAT. THE HE KEY ISSUE
IS THE DEBT
SERVICE IS PAID FIRST BECAUSE
IT'S A
LEGAL OBLIGATION OF THE
CITY.
>> UNDERSTOOD.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ANY
OTHEROTHER
QUESTIONS?
>>
NO. NO OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION THEN.
JUST REMIND ME, SO WHEN
SHORT- TERM RENTAL TAX GOT
PASSED, IT WAS PASSED TO PAY
FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES, OR DID
THAT COME LATER?
I'M JUST TRYING TO --
>> THE BILL I WAS DESCRIBES
WAS PASSED IN 2019, SO I
BELIEVE IT WAS -- IT HAD
CATEGORIES
WHEN IT WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED
BUT
I CAN'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN
2026 WE'RE EXPECTING REVENUES
OF APPROXIMATELY $13 MILLION, 6.
75
DIRECTED TO EDI, 4
MILLION PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING
AND 2 MILLION TO DEBT SERVICE
AND THAT 2 MILLION TO DEBT
SERVICE IS PROJECTED TO BE
CONTINUED
ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AS FAR AS
THIS CHART GOES OUT BECAUSE,
AGAIN, IT'S A FIXED MORTGAGE
PAYMENTS.
SO YOU'RE BASICALLY LOOKING AT
ROUGHLY $7 MILLION TO EDI,
$4 MILLION TO PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING AND $2 MILLION TO
DEBT SERVICE ON THE PROJECTED
TOTALS OF $12 MILLION TO $13
MILLION.
>> THANK YOU, BEN.
I DIDN'T REALLY -- MY
QUESTION WAS BROADER THAN THAT,
JUST
WHEN THEY PASSED THE TAX, THEY
PASSED IT WITH CATEGORIES IN IT.
SOMETIMES WE PASS TAXES, THEY GO
TO GENERAL FUND, AND THEN OTHER
TIMES THE LEGISLATURE PASSES
TAXES THAT GO SPECIFIC TO A
CATEGORY, SO THIS IS THE
PIECE I WAS JUST TRYING TO
CLARIFY
WHEN THEY FIRST -- THE
CITY FIRST PASSED THE SHORT-
TERM RENTAL
TAX, IT ALWAYS HAD CATEGORIES.
THAT'S MY QUESTION BROADLY.
>> IT
DID.
>> OKAY.
>> IT HAD THE SAME CATEGORIES.
THE DIFFERENCE IS THIS PROPOSAL
REMOVES THE SPECIFIC DOLLAR
AMOUNT REQUIREMENTS.
>> LIKE P.E.T.?
>> I'M SORRY?
>> LIKE P.E.T. , WHEN IT
WAS PASSED IT
HAD CATEGORIES. I GUESS WHAT
I'M GETTING
TO, WE'RE PASSING THESE TAXES
WITH
CATEGORIES, INSTEAD OF PUTTING
A DIFFERENT APPROACH IS TO PUT
IT IN GENERAL FUND AND THEN PAY
FOR ALL THE THINGS WE WANT TO
INVEST IN THAT WE'VE
PRIORITIZED BUT
IN THIS CASE I'M TRYING TO COME
UP
TO SPEED ON ALL THE
VARIOUS TAXES THAT COUNCIL HAS
PASSED THAT HAVE CATEGORIES
ATTACHED TO
IT VERSUS THE THINGS THAT GO
INTO GENERAL FUND, SO I'M JUST
HIGH LEVELING IT.
>> THESE THREE SPENDING
CATEGORIES WERE IDENTIFIED
IN THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU, CAL.
>> I WOULD LIKE IT PULLED
OUT FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTE, PLEASE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I'M
GOING TO ASK, JUST FOR YOU TO
WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE RECOGNIZED,
BECAUSE I CAN'T HEAR WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING.
WE'RE TAKING NOTES.
I WILL FACILITATE BETWEEN
COUNCILMEMBERS.
I WANT TO CHECK, ARE THERE ANY
OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS THAT
HAVE QUESTIONS ON
121110 SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU
HAD INITIALLY INDICATED PULLING
THIS.
DO YOU STILL WANT IT PULLED?
>> YES.
>> YOU WOULD.
OKAY.
MARKING THAT DOWN.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO MOVE ON
TO COUNCIL BILL 121114, THE OCF
GENERAL BUSINESS
LICENSE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE AND
COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, YOU HAD PULLED THIS.
WE WILL QUICKLY BRIEF IT
AGAIN AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO
YOU.
>> I'M TRYING TO FIND
THIS ONE IT SO THIS IS --
>> HANG TIGHT, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
I WILL ASK YOU TO WAIT TO BE
RECOGNIZED.
WE HAVE CENTRAL STAFF
GIVING A QUICK REFRESHER COURSE
AND
THEN OVER TO YOU.
>> AGAIN, A QUICK REFRESHER,
THIS IS A CHANGE TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW SO
THAT IN GENERAL IF YOU OPERATE A
BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY
YOU NEED TO GET A BUSINESS
LICENSE.
THERE'S A THRESHOLD OF
REVENUE THAT REQUIRES THAT.
A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, WHEN I
WAS IN GRADUATE SCHOOL I
WORKED AS AN UMPIRE AND MADE $50
A
GAME AND STAYED BELOW THE
THRESHOLD
I DIDN'T NEED A BUSINESS
LICENSE.
IF I WAS
SUCCESSFUL IN THAT
CAREER, I MIGHT HAVE REQUIRED
ONE.
NOW THE MINIMUM LEVEL THAT
WOULD TRIGGER THE
REQUIREMENT FOR A LICENSE IS
GOING TO
INCREASE FROM $2,000 TO $4,000.
AGAIN, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH
A STATEWIDE CHANGE AND THEN AN
INDEX SO THAT WILL CONTINUE TO
GROW WITH INFLATION.
THE IDEA IS TO REDUCE THE
BURDEN ON A VERY SMALL
BUSINESS, PROBABLY CONSULTANTS
OF THAT
LIKE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU ARE
RECOGNIZED.
>> SO I READ THE FISCAL
NOTE AND NOWHERE DOES IT LIST
THE COST
OF THE ACTUAL BUSINESS LICENSES.
DO YOU HAVE THAT ANYWHERE?
AND MAYBE IT'S IN THE ACTUAL
LEGISLATION, BUT I
JUST DIDN'T PULL THAT UP.
>> I SEE TOM WALKING TO THE
TABLE.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMITTEE.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, THE COST
OF THIS BUSINESS LICENSE --
ANYTHING -- ANY BUSINESS
ACTIVITY, TOTAL REVENUE
LESS THAN $20,000 -- SO FOR
A BUSINESS THAT'S SEEKING
A LICENSE WOULD BE $68 IN 2024.
>> SO IF A BUSINESS MAKING --
COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN,
PLEASE?
>> THERE ARE TIERS.
THERE ARE TIERS OF LICENSE
THAT ARE REQUIRED.
THE FIRST TIER, TIER ONE
CAPS AT ZERO TO $20,000.
SO BECAUSE THE THRESHOLD IS
GOING UP TO $4,000, THIS
ACTIVITY WOULD FALL UNDER
TIER ONE, THE FEE IS $68.
>> AND WHAT WILL BE THE REVENUE
HIT TO THE CITY?
>> SO THE FISCAL NOTE STATES
THE REVENUE HIT WOULD BE ABOUT
$3,600 PER YEAR.
>>
OKAY.
>> AND THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE
BUDGET, THE
2026 PROPOSED BUDGET.
>> THANK YOU.
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY
ON THE FEES.
SO THE FEES ARE
TIERED, SO IF YOU'RE MAKING
UNDER 20, IS
THAT A YEAR OR PERMANENT?
ONE TIME?
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON,
THAT IS PER
YEAR. SO YOU HAVE TO GET A
BUSINESS
LICENSE CERTIFICATE EVERY YEAR
THAT YOU'RE DOING BUSINESS IN
SEATTLE.
AND TO PULL BACK A LITTLE
BIT, BUSINESSES THAT ARE NOT
LOCATED IN SEATTLE BUT DO
BUSINESS WITHIN SEATTLE, SO
THAT'S
WHAT THIS THRESHOLD PERTAINS TO.
>> OKAY.
>> SO IF YOU'RE LOCATED IN
SEATTLE OR GETTING A BUSINESS
LICENSE REGARDLESS OF
THE REVENUE AMOUNT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON.
COLLEAGUES, ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS ON COUNCIL
BILL
121114? FURTHER QUESTIONS?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU
HAD INDICATED -- YOU
HAD IDENTIFIED THIS
BILL. WOULD YOU STILL LIKE IT
PULLED?
>> NO.
>> WE'RE GOING TO NOW MOVE ON
TO
121118, THE OCF SALES
DEFINITION
ORDINANCE. AND IF CENTRAL STAFF
COULD
QUICKLY BRIEF IT, AND
THEN COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU HAD
INDICATED -- NO, THIS
WAS NOT ONE HIGHLIGHTED.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT ONE IS 121123, THE
STM MATERIAL CHANGE PASSENGER
TRANSPORTATION BILL.
IF, CALVIN, YOU COULD GIVE A
BRIEF REMINDER AND,
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU
HAD INDICATED TO PULL THIS BILL,
SO
WE'LL TURN TO YOU NEXT.
>> COUNCIL BILL 121223
IS RELATED TO COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS, YOUR PROPOSAL TO EXTEND
A SUMMER PILOT OF
PASSENGER TRANSIT SERVICE FROM
BALLARD
TO GOLDEN GARDENS.
THIS WOULD MAKE THE SEATTLE
TRANSIT MEASURE ALLOWABLE USE
OF FUNDS TO FUND THAT PROPOSAL.
>> THANK YOU.
JUST FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
I WOULD PREFER THAT METRO BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE AND
UNION- BASED SERVICE
PROVIDER, BUT WITH METRO UNABLE
TO
PROVIDE THE SERVICE AT THIS
TIME,
THIS IS THE OUTCOME.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU HAD
PULLED THIS.
>> I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT -- WHO
DEFINES WHEN IS ADDITIONAL
SERVICE THAT IS NOT METRO, WHEN
IS THAT CHOSEN, OR WHO MAKES
DECISIONS FOR WHEN CHANGES TO
WHAT OUR REVENUE IS USED FOR IS
USED FOR?
>> EVERY YEAR THERE IS SOME
WORK THAT SDOT DOES WITH KING
COUNTY
METRO WHERE THE PRIORITIES FOR
CITY SPENDING OF
ADDITIONAL TRANSIT SERVICE
SHOULD GO ANDAND
IS AFFECTED BY
METRO'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL
SERVICE AS WELL AS THE
CITY'S BUDGET TO ACTUALLY FUND
THAT SERVICE AS WELL, SO IT'S A
BIT OF A MOVING TARGET AND
IT CHANGES DEPENDING ON USAGE
AND OTHER CHANGES THAT METRO
IS DOING FOR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM
ANYWAY.
AS SEATTLE TRANSIT CAME
ONBOARD WE HAD RESTRUCTURES OF
METRO
ROUTES, AND SO THIS IS --
THAT'S
AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THE CITY
PURCHASERS HAVE HAD TO ADJUST
TO AND CHANGE OUR SPENDING TO.
OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS
WITH THE PANDEMIC, KING DOWNY
METROMETRO HAS NOT ABLE TO
PROVIDE AS
MUCH SERVICE AS THE CITY HAS
SOUGHT TO PROVIDE BOTH
FOR DRIVERS TO OPERATE THEM, SO
THAT
HAS ALSO BEEN A FACTOR IN
RECENT
YEARS. THE PROPOSAL THAT
COUNCILMEMBER
STRAUSS HAS PUT FORTH THAT IS
INCLUDED IN THE AMENDED
BUDGET ORDINANCE IS A DIFFERENT
KIND
OF SERVICE AND IT
COULD FOLLOW THROUGH FROM KING
COUNTY METRO
PROVIDED SERVICE. KING COUNTY
DOES THINGS LIKE
THE TRAIL
HEAD SERVICE WHICH SHUTTLES
PEOPLE TO PARKS IN
KING
COUNTY.
>> THEY ALSO DO SOME
RIDE SHARE -- A LIGHT VERSION OF
AN
ON-DEMAND TRANSIT SERVICE.
THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS
KING COUNTY MIGHT BE PROVIDED.
ANOTHER OPTION TO LOOK AT WOULD
BE THETHE SHUTTLE,
THE WATERFRONT DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE
OPERATED SEPARATELY AND
NOT THROUGH METRO, BUT THIS
WOULD --
THIS LEGISLATION WOULD MAKE BOTH
OF THOSE TYPES OF TRANSIT --
TRANSPORTATION
PROVISION ALLOWABLE FOR THE
PURPOSE.
>> AND COULD -- IS FREQUENCY
OF SERVICE ALONG THE SAME
ROUTES ALSO -- COULD WE BUY
SOMESOME
FREQUENCY ALONG CERTAIN LINES AS
WELL?
>> TYPICALLY WE LOOK FOR THINGS
WHERE THERE'S OVERCROWDING OR
WE LOOK FOR THINGS WHERE THERE
ARE AN EXPANSION OF CORE
SERVICE.
THE GENERAL THING THAT
SEATTLE HAS TENDED TO FOCUS ON
IS -- I
FORGET THE EXACT TERM BUT
A CORNETT WORK, THE HIGH
RIDERSHIP, SORT OF LONGER RUN
TRANSIT LINELINE THAT
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE HAS CLOSE
TO
24- HOUR SERVICE OR 18- HOUR
SERVICE.
THAT HAS BEEN A PRIORITY OF THE
SEATTLE TRANSIT MEASURE
SPENDING.
>> BUT ANOTHER COMPONENT IS
WHEN THERE IS OVERCROWDING AND
TO
HANDLE SORT OF THE DEMAND,
THAT HAS BEEN -- THAT WAS MUCH
MORE
RELEVANT IN THE FIRST
ROUND OF THE SEATTLE TRANSIT
MEASURE BEFORE THE PANDEMIC WHEN
THAT
WAS PROBABLY WHY VOTERS
APPROVED IT, BUT IN THE PANDEMIC
TRANSIT
SERVICES STILL RECOVERING AND
SO THE SPAN OF SERVICE AND THE
RELIABILITY AND REGULARITY
OF
SERVICE HAS BEEN MORE OF THE
FOCUS.
>> GOT IT.
WELL, IT'S FOR DISCUSSION NEXT
YEAR WHEN THOSE
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE RENEWAL
ARE ON THE
TABLE.
AS LONG AS FREQUENCY CAN BE
CONSIDERED, THAT WAS MY MAIN
QUESTION THERE.
>> THANK YOU.
AND I DON'T MEAN TO TAKE
AWAY FROM OUR PARKING TICKET
REVENUE
AS THE FYI GUY
MENTIONED, ILLEGAL PARKING AT
GOLDEN GARDENS IN THE SUMMERTIME
IS THE
HIGHEST KNOWN LOCATION FOR
PARKING TICKETS, AND IT IS IN
PART BECAUSE IT IS EASIER TO
CATCH A BUS FROM SEATTLE
TO MOUNT SAI THAN TO GOLDEN
GARDENS
PARK.
WITH THAT, COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK FOLLOWED BY RIVERA.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR
TODAY RELATED TO THIS.
COULD WE GET A DEFINITION OF
WHAT THE EXPANSION OF THESE
REVENUES BEING SPENT ON PRIVATE
TRANSPORTATION OPERATORS
WOULD MEAN FOR OUR SYSTEM?
EXAMPLES OF WHO THESE PRIVATE
TRANSPORTATION OPERATORS WOULD
BE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK,
I BELIEVE THE TWO EXAMPLES HERE
BEING EITHER TRAIL HEAD DIRECT,
THE PREFERENCE OF THE
SPONSOR, OR THE FREE WATERFRONT
SHUTTLE AS THE EXCEPTION.
I WILL LET STAFF BRIEF IT AGAIN.
>> THOSE ARE TWO EXAMPLES
OF SERVICES WE KNOW ARE OPERATED
AND THE ONLY TWO THAT I
COULD REALLY OFFER YOU RIGHT NOW
WHAT
WOULD BE CONTEMPLATED BY THIS
PROPOSAL.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER ELIGIBLE
ORGANIZATIONS WE MAY MAY AWARE
OF AT THIS TIME?
I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK
ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY.
>> AND MAYBE I'LL JUMP
IN BECAUSE CALVIN IS HELPING
CRAFT
THIS POLICY.
AT THIS POINT WE ARE LOOKING FOR
ANYTHING THAT CAN GET FOLKS
FROM THE 44 LINE OR THE D LINE
OUT
TO GOLDEN GARDENS PARK.
PREFERENCE IS THAT IT'S A
UNIONIZED SERVICE AND WE WANT TO
GET PEOPLE TO THE BEACH
WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE.
>> UNDERSTAND, CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
>> THANKS.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
CAN YOU -- I BELIEVE YOU SAID
THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO
ATTEMPT TO RESTATE IT.
I NEED IT PLAINLY STATED, CAL.
THIS EXPANSION IS TO
A PARTICULAR AREA OF THE
CITY, IT'S NOT THROUGHOUT THE
CITY?
>> NO.
SO THIS IS SERVING THE NATURE OF
ENABLING LEGISLATION.
SO THE BUDGET ACTION
THAT YOU ALL TOOK ON FRIDAY
IDENTIFIED
A BUDGET ADD FROM BALLARD TO
GOLDEN GARDENS AND IT IDENTIFIED
A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY
THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO
PROVIDE THAT PILOT SERVICE.
THIS LEGISLATION MAKES THE FUNDS
ELIGIBLE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THIS IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THAT
PROPOSAL BUT IT ENABLES
THAT PROPOSAL TO BE LAWFUL.
>> AND DOES IT ENABLE
THEN EXPANSION INTO OTHER AREAS
AS
WELL?
>> IT COULD.
IT WOULD ALLOW THE SOURCE
OF MONEY FOR THESE TYPES OF
PURPOSES IF OTHER PURPOSES
WERE PROPOSED IN A SUPPLEMENTAL
THAT
WOULD BE PART OF IT.
GIVEN THAT THIS FUNDING
SOURCE IS GOING TO GO AWAY NEXT
YEAR
ESSENTIALLY AND WE'LL HAVE
TO COME UP WITH WHETHER THERE
WILL BE A PROPOSAL TO RENEW, I
THINK
THIS WILL HAVE TO BE PART
OF THAT DISCUSSION FOR SURE.
>> THANK YOU, CAL.
THANKS, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 121123?
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU HAD
ASKED THIS TO BE PULLED --
>> COULD YOU SAY THE NUMBER
AGAIN, PLEASE?
>> THIS IS 121123, THE MATERIAL
CHANGE ON
STM PASSENGER
TRANSPORTATION.
>> NO, MY QUESTIONS WERE
ANSWERED.
>> WE'LL MOVE ON TO 121124.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU HAD
PULLED THIS.
WE'LL LET CAL BRIEF
IT. TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
>> SURE.
SO THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION, SIMILAR TO THE LAST
ONE,
IS RELATED TO COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA'S PROPOSAL TO FUND A CHIEF
TRANSIT
SECURITY OFFICER, AND SO THIS,
AGAIN, MAKES A SIMILAR CHANGE
TO THE USE OF THE SEATTLE
TRANSIT
MEASURE FUNDS TO
SPECIFICALLY ALLOW FOR THAT
SPENDING.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> I SUPPORT ADDITIONAL
SAFETY AND SECURITY ON OUR
PUBLIC TRANSIT AND I WAS WANTING
TO KNOW -- I REMEMBER THERE WERE
A
COUPLE MEASURES THAT WE MADE
LAST YEAR THAT INCREASED THAT.
I CAN'T REMEMBER THE
PRECISE BUDGET ITEMS, BUT ARE
THERE OTHER -- ARE THERE
OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT ALSO
CONTRIBUTE TO ANY KIND OFOF --
NOT TALKING ABOUT THE
CHIEF SECURITY
PERSON. THAT'S JUST ONE PERSON,
BUT
COULD YOU PLEASE REMIND US WHAT
ARE ALL THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY
BENEFITS WE PAID FOR ALREADY
AND HOW MAY THEY BE SHARED WITH
OTHER JURISDICTIONS?
>> TRANSIT SECURITY HAS BEEN
A VERY HIGH VISIBILITY
AND PRIORITY FOR THE REGION IN
GENERAL.
THE KING COUNTY HASHAS
A TASK FORCE SOME OF YOU HAVE
SAT ON TO REALLY FOCUS ON THIS
ACTIVITY. THERE WAS A REPORT
THAT CAME
OUT, I BELIEVE, LAST MONTH
THAT HIGHLIGHTED A NUMBER OF
TRANSIT AGENCY AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO THERE IS A LOT OF
ONGOING WORK TO TRY TO MAKE THIS
--
TO FOCUS ON TRANSIT SECURITY.
IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC DOLLAR
AMOUNTS THAT THE CITY HAS
AS PART OF THE TRANSPORTATION
LEVY
PROPOSAL, THE COUNCIL ADDED, I
BELIEVE, 1 MILLION ALLOWABLE
FROM THE TRANSPORTATION
LEVY FUNDING TO HELP SUPPORT
TRANSIT SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS.
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION IS
TALKING ABOUT A
DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCE.
THIS IS TALKING ABOUT THE
SEATTLE TRANSIT MEASURE, SO IT
WOULD SORT OF OPEN UP
ANOTHER POSSIBLE OPTION OF
TRANSPORTATION REVENUE FOR
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS, BUT IT
DOESN'T ACTUALLY -- AGAIN, THE
OTHER
ONE, THE BUDGET ACTION, IS
WHAT DIRECTS THE MONEY SO THIS
IS
ENABLING LEGISLATION NOT DIRECT
SPENDING.
>> SO IS THERE AN APPROXIMATION
OF WHAT WOULD BE THETHE
OF WHAT WOULD NOT GET FUNDED BY
ALLOWING FOR THIS?
>> PRESUMABLY YOU WOULD SPEND
LESS ON TRANSIT SERVICE.
YOU WOULD PURCHASE LESS SERVICE
HOURS.
>> ROUGHLY BY HOW MUCH?
MAYBE JUST THE SALARY OF ONE
PERSON FOR ONE YEAR.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT THAT MUCH
MONEY.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW --
ARE WE PAYING FOR ADDITIONAL
SECURITY, WHICH I SUPPORT,
AND IF OTHER -- SO YOU'RE ALMOST
THERE IN ANSWERING MY QUESTION.
>> THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT
OF SECURITY COST BUILT INTO THE
CHARGE THAT WE PAY FOR,
SO WHEN WE PAY FOR TRANSIT
SERVICE HOUR,
THAT DOES SUPPORT
METRO'S TRANSIT SECURITY
OPERATIONS IN
PART.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT
BREAKDOWN OF HOW MUCH OVERHEAD
THAT IS.
SO THERE IS SOME
CONTRIBUTION THAT WAY.
I WANT TO SAY THAT WE'RE
SPENDING SOMETHING ON THE
ORDER OF $40 MILLION IN GENERAL
TRANSIT SERVICE HOURS.
I MAY
HAVE THAT NUMBER WRONG, BUT
THAT'S WHAT'S COMING TO THE
TOP OF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW.
IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
ONE POSITION PLUS A SMALL
PROGRAM
BUDGET, THAT IS MUCH SMALLER.
THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION DOESN'T SPECIFY THE
AMOUNT OF
DOLLARS.
THAT WAS THE BUDGET DISCUSSION,
BUT THIS MAKES THAT AVAILABLE.
>> NOTED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M FINE WITH IT STAYING IN.
>> OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA AND
THEN COUNCILMEMBER RINCK.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU, CAL, FOR TAKING
US THROUGH THAT.
I, TOO, SUPPORT TRANSIT
SECURITY.
AND IN THAT VEIN, CHAIR,
IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME, I WANT TO
GIVE A SHOUTOUT TO SOUND TRANSIT
SECURITY OFFICER
BURROW WHO I WAS ON LIGHT RAIL
AND THEY
DE-ESCALATED A SITUATION.
THEY CAME QUICKLY WHEN THEY
WERE CALLED INTO THE LIGHT RAIL
STATION.
I TOLD PEOPLE MANY
TIMES THERE IS A NUMBER ON THE
TRAIN
MARKED, A PHONE NUMBER, YOU CAN
TEXT
AND SAY THE TRAIN NUMBER THAT
YOU'RE ON, IF SOMEONE NEEDS
ASSISTANCE FOR ANY REASON ON THE
TRAIN,
AND THEY WILL -- YOU CAN TEXT
WITH SOUND TRANSIT, THEY'LL
SEND THE
SECURITY OFFICER AND THEY SHOW
UP. I REALLY WANT TO GIVE HIM A
SHOUTOUT, AGAIN, TRANSIT OFFICER
BURROW, BECAUSE THE
SITUATION WAS A PERSON WAS VERY,
VERY
AGITATED, AND HE REALLY DEFUSED
THE SITUATION, CALMED THE PERSON
DOWN, WAS ABLE TO REMOVE THE
PERSON. HE WENT ALONG WITH THE
PERSON
TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE FINE.
SO A REALLY GREAT EXAMPLE OF
ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE, AND I WILL
GIVE SOUND TRANSIT A
SHOUTOUT FOR TRANSIT SECURITY
BECAUSE THEY DO A GREAT JOB WITH
THE
TRANSIT SECURITY PIECE.
THAT IS OFTEN REQUIRED ON
THE TRAINS AS WE RIDE, SO THANK
YOU, OFFICER BURROW, AND THANK
YOU,
SOUND TRANSIT, FOR PROVIDING
THAT, AND THANK YOU TO MY
COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA, WHO IS THE BIG ADVOCATE ON
THE
TRANSIT SECURITY, AND I JOIN
YOU IN THAT.
THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> THANK YOU,
CHAIR. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT
THIS BUDGET ACTION IS
A PART OF A LARGER POLICY
DECISION RELATED
TO THE SEATTLE TRANSIT
MEASURE, AND I'M WONDERING
COULD YOU
HELP ME UNDERSTAND SPECIFICALLY
WHAT THIS ACTION IS BEFORE US
TODAYTODAY IF SUBSEQUENT ACTION
IS NEEDED TO PUT THIS INTO
EFFECT.
>> THIS
LEGISLATION SPECIFICALLY SAYS
THAT THE SEATTLE TRANSIT
MEASURE SALES TAX REVENUE CAN
BE USED TO FUND TRANSIT SECURITY
AND THAT IS ALL IT DOES.
THE ACTION THAT YOU TOOK
ON FRIDAY AMENDED THE
BUDGET PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA'S PROPOSAL
TO FUND A POSITION AND A
SMALL PROGRAM IN
SDOT FOR TRANSIT SECURITY.
>> AND IS THERE ANY FURTHER
SUBSEQUENT ACTION IN
ORDER TO MAKE THE POLICY CHANGE?
>> THIS WOULD BE THE ACTION.
>> OKAY.
UNDERSTOOD.
THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, I WOULD LIKE
TO REQUEST THIS IS PULLED FOR
AN INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
I'M HAPPY TO SHARE MY BROADER
REMARKS ON THIS DURING THE
INDIVIDUAL POLICY VOTE. THANK
YOU.
>> COLLEAGUES, ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 1211 24?
SEEING NOTHING ELSE ON 121124, I
SEE 121092 THAT
BOTH COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA AND
NELSON PULLED, AND WE ALSO HAD
A PUBLISHED PUBLIC
HEARING DEDICATED TO THIS ISSUE
AS WELL.
WITH THAT, IF CENTRAL
STAFF WANTS TO BRIEF IT AT
A HIGH LEVEL AND THEN WE'LL
KICK IT
OVER TO OUR COLLEAGUES FOR
QUESTIONS.
>> I'M GOING TO INVITE
KEATLE AND WILL WITHHOLD.
I'M CONFLICTED SO BETTER
TO HEAR FROM OTHERS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL BILL WOULD
MOVE AUTHORITY FROM THE
DEPARTMENT
OF NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE OFFICE
OF PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR
ADMINISTERING PART OF THE
CITY'S
REGULATORY PROGRAM FROM MAJOR
INSTITUTIONS AND CHANGES TO
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
IT WOULD MOVE A POSITION THAT
PROVIDES A SUPPORT ROLE THERE
FROM D.O.N. TO OPCD.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, YOU
PULLED THIS FIRST AND
THEN COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
I'LL GIVE YOU THE
FLOOR, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA AND
THEN
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.
>> CAN YOU GIVE MORE INFORMATION
ON WHAT THIS PERSON WAS DOING
AT D.O.N.?
>> AMONG THE CITY'S
REGULATORY FUNDING WITH MAJOR
INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
THE
CITY CONVENES SOME ADVISORY
GROUPS, IN THE CASE OF THE MAJOR
INSTITUTIONS, THE
RESIDENT ADVISORY GROUP, THAT
PROVIDES
INPUT TO MAJOR INSTITUTIONS,
SO UNIVERSITIES AND
HOSPITALS, ABOUT THEIR MAJOR
INSTITUTION MASTER PLAN.
THOSE ARE PLANS PERIODICALLY
REVIEWED.
>> STEPPING WAY BACK WHAT
THE PURPOSE OF MAJOR
INSTITUTION MASTER PLANNING,
THESE
LARGE INSTITUTIONS TEND TO GROW
BEYOND THEIR BOUNDARIES, WHAT
THE
CITY DOES, MAJOR INSTITUTION
MASTER PLAN REQUIRES A MAJOR
INSTITUTION TO TELL THE CITY
HOW IT'S GOING TO GROW OVER
TIME
AND THEN THEY HAVE THE
BENEFIT OF KNOWING HOW MUCH THEY
CAN
GROW AND AS PART OF THAT
THEY INDICATE HOW THEY'RE GOING
TO MITIGATE IMPACT ASSOCIATED
WITH THAT GROWTH OF
TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER
IMPACTS.
THE RESIDENT ADVISORY ADVISORY
IS CONVENED BY D.O.N. AND
STAFFED BY A D.O.N. STAFFER,
AND ULTIMATELY ADVISES
MAJOR INSTITUTION BOTH WHEN A
MASTER PLAN IS BEING DEVELOPED
AND
ALSO AS A MASTER PLAN IS
IMPLEMENTED OVER TIME.
>> SO, SIMILARLY
WITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, GENERALLY
THERE ARE
MORE PERMISSIVE STANDARDS
FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BUT IT'S
OFTEN THE CASE THAT SCHOOLS
BEING
WHAT THEY ARE, THEY DON'T
NECESSARILY MEET THOSE STANDARDS
OR
CAN'T MEET THOSE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS.
>> AND SO THERE IS A
STAFF PERSON -- THERE IS A
REGULATORY PATHWAY FOR GETTING
DEPARTURES
FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
IF YOU ARE A PUBLIC SCHOOL,
AND THERE IS A CITIZENS --
A RESIDENCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE THAT PROVIDES INPUT TO
SDCI AS PART OF THAT DECISION
MAKING.
>> THANK YOU, KEATLE.
AND, COLLEAGUES, I KNEW THIS
INFORMATION, BUT I WANTED
IT TO BE STATED FOR THE RECORD,
SO ANYONE WATCHING ALSO WOULD
HAVE THE INFORMATION ON WHAT
THIS PERSON DOES.
YOU'VE ALL HEARD ME SAY IN
THE PAST AND IN
PARTICULAR ESPECIALLY RELATED TO
THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I
LACK CONFIDENCE IN OPCD'S
ABILITY
TO DO THE PROPER OUTREACH
BECAUSE
I DIDN'T THINK THEY ACTUALLY
DID THAT DURING THE
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN. I KNOW THAT D.O.N. , THE
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS,
IS OUR OUTREACH DEPARTMENT, IF
YOU
WILL, AND THAT THEY
ENGAGE RESIDENTS WHEN THERE
IS DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING IN
THEIR
NEIGHBORHOODS.
I THINK THAT IT IS
REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE
RESIDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEES.
I THINK IT YIELDS BETTER
OUTCOMES ALL THE WAY AROUND
FOR THE MAJOR INSTITUTION
EXPANDING AND FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT
ARE NEIGHBORING AND FOR THE
RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE
FEEDBACK.
I THINK OUTREACH IS REALLY
CRITICAL.
BECAUSE OF THAT -- AND THE
OTHER PIECE TO THIS IS D.O.N. ,
OPCD
AS THE LAND USE DEPARTMENT, IS
NOT NECESSARILY AS OBJECTIVE AS
AN
OUTREACH PERSON AT THE
DEPARTMENT NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> AND SO I ACTUALLY THINK THAT
THIS PERSON SHOULD STAY AT
D.O.N. AND D.O.N. SHOULD BE
THE DEPARTMENT PROVIDING --
CONTINUING TO DO THIS WORK AND
WORKING WITH THE RESIDENT
ADVISORY GROUPS AS
THESE PROJECTS COME UP.
I WILL ALSO SAY THAT HAVING
JUST LISTENED IN ON ONE LAST
WEEK,
OPCD IS PRESENT AT THESE
MEETINGS AS WELL.
IT'S JUST THAT D.O.N. DOES
THAT COORDINATION PIECE AND THAT
LIAISING WITH THE
RESIDENT ADVISORY GROUPS, AND I
THINK THAT'S AN ADVANTAGEOUS
SETUP ALL THE WAY AROUND.
>> SO FOR THESE REASONS, I
PULLED THIS PARTICULAR ONE,
AND I AM GOING TO BE VOTING NO
TO TRANSFER THIS PARTICULAR BODY
OF
WORK TO OPCD. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> I BASICALLY WANTED TO
KNOW WHAT WAS BROKEN THAT THIS
FIXES, SO THAT WAS
ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THIS
CONVERSATION.
>> GREAT.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ANYTHING
FURTHER?
>> NOPE.
>> COLLEAGUES,
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 121092
MAJOR INSTITUTIONS÷÷INSTITUTIONS
SCHOOLS
PROGRAM DEPARTMENT CHANGE?
I'M SEEING NONE RIGHT NOW.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA,
YOU'VE INDICATED YOU'D LIKE IT
RETAINED
AS HELD OUT.
I'VE MADE THAT NOTE.
12109, GRAFFITI CODE UPDATES.
THAT LOOKS LIKE, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, YOU PULLED THIS.
WE'LL HAVE A BRIEF REMINDER
FROM CENTRAL STAFF AND THEN WILL
TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
>> THIS IS A PIECE
THAT FOLLOWS OTHER ACTIONS IN
THE
PROPOSED BUDGET AND IN
PARTICULAR
EXECUTIVE HAS PROPOSED THAT
THE GRAFFITI ENFORCEMENT AND
STAFF ASSOCIATED BE SHIFTED FROM
SPU TO SEATTLE PARKS AND
RECREATION.
SO IT'S AN ORGANIZATIONAL
SHIFT, AND THIS IS A NUMBER OF
STAFF MOVING AS
WELL, AND THIS THEN ALSO
TRANSFERS THE AUTHORITY TOTO
ENFORCE THE GRAFFITI CODE
TO SEATTLE PARKS AND RECREATION.
IT'S AN ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFORT, SMART
TO CONSOLIDATE AT PARKS AND
RECREATION.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT
IS MEANT BY ENFORCED?
WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL ACTIONS?
I UNDERSTAND WE DID CREATE A
CIVIL VIOLATION -- WE
CHANGED THE NATURE OF THE
PENALTY OF
GRAFFITI THIS PAST YEAR -- NOT
THE NATURE BUT THE ACTUAL CRIME,
I BELIEVE.
WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL ACTIONS
HAPPENING AND TO WHAT EXTENT --
SO I ASSUME THERE IS NO LAW
ENFORCEMENT INVOLVEMENT
IN GRAFFITI AND ENFORCING OUR
GRAFFITI LAWS?
GO AHEAD.
>> I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHATWHAT
SP WAS DOING AND I BELIEVE SPR,
SO JUST QUICKLY TO CLARIFY, LAST
YEAR THE COUNCIL MOVED OVER
NINE STAFF, NINE FTE AND $3
MILLION WORTH OF THE PROGRAM,
THE
GRAFFITI RANGERS AND
THINGS. THE ONE REMNANT LEFT IN
SPU WAS
ONE POSITION, AND IT'S THE
PERSON WHO DOES, LIKE, THE
INTAKE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
ASSIGNMENTS AND THINGS, SO
IT'S LIKE THE COORDINATION OF
THE PROGRAM AND THE ENFORCEMENT.
THE CODE ALSO HAD A REFERENCE
TO WHERE ANY TYPE OF
ENFORCEMENT, WHICH I BELIEVE IS
THE
REQUIRING FOLKS TO DO THE
PAINTING
AND THINGS WAS -- IT'S
LITERALLY JUST THE DEFINITION
THAT'S
CHANGING, SO RIGHT NOW
THE DEFINITION REFERS TO
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
AND THIS BILL WOULD CHANGE IT TO
THE
DIRECTOR OF --
I'M SORRY, THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKS AND
RECREATION.
>> OKAY.
SO THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT
ARE GOING OUT, AND SO THIS
REGARDS
ONE PERSON THAT IS SORT OF
THE COORDINATOR OF THE WORK THAT
IS CLEANING OFF GRAFFITI
FROM PUBLIC PROPERTY, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING,
YES.
THE BILL BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY
IS JUST -- SO THE BUDGET HAS
THAT, THE TRANSFER OF THE
POSITION.
SO SPU WOULD BE KIND OF OUT
OF THE GRAFFITI GAME AND IT'S
ALL IN PARKS AND RECREATION.
THE BILL IS VERY SIMPLE IN
THAT IT JUST CHANGES THE
DEFINITION, THE REFERENCE --
WHAT DIRECTOR
MEANS.
>> THANK YOU.
I'M GOOD WITH IT IN THE THING
--
>> THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE
GRAFFITI
NUISANCE CODE UPDATES ORDINANCE?
SEEING NONE, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT, DO YOU STILL WANT
THIS PULLED?
>> NO, I'M GOOD WITH IT
IN THETHE THING, I MEANT IT CAN
REMAIN IN THE CONSENT PACKAGE,
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE ON TO 121102, THE OCF 2025
FUND CLOSURE ORDINANCE.
CENTRAL STAFF, IF YOU CAN
GIVE US A BRIEF REMINDER AND,
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU INDICATED
AN
INTEREST IN THIS ONE.
>> THIS IS LARGELY --
ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY A TECHNICAL
BILL.
THE CITY OPENS UP OR CREATES
FUNDS, FOR INSTANCE, THE TIME
IT ISSUES A DEATH, A FUND
CREATED, FIRST BRIDGING THE GAP
LEVY
WAS PROPOSED AND APPROVED IN
2006.
THESE FUNDS ARE NO LONGER NEEDED
BECAUSE, IN THE CASE OF
THOSE LEVY -- THE 2006
LEVIES, THOSE DOLLARS HAVE BEEN
EXPENDED
IN THE CASE OF THE BOND FUNDS
HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE
DEPARTMENTS, SO THESE
ARE TECHNICAL CLEANUPS.
I CAN PULL AND READ YOU THE
FULL SET OF FUNDS THAT ARE
CLOSED BUT TO GIVE YOU A SENSE,
2000
PARKS LEVY FUND, THE 2011
MULTIPURPOSE BOND FUND, BOND
FUNDS FOR 2012,
2013, 2014 AND THE LIKE.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE NATURE OF
THIS. IT'S ESSENTIALLY CLEANING
UP
THE CITY'S
ACCOUNTING FOR FUNDS THAT ARE NO
LONGER NEEDED.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> SO THERE ARE A LOT OF
LINES
HERE. I'M NOT SEEING A TOTAL
AMOUNT
THAT IS BEING TRANSFERRED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT -- WHY THIS
HAS TO HAPPEN, BUT
WHAT IS THE SEA WALL
CONSTRUCTION FUND HAS
34,000, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN,
AND IT SAYS NOT APPLICABLE.
SO WHERE IN THOSE CATEGORIES --
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO
THAT MONEY AND, ALSO, DOES THE
BUDGET ALREADY SPEND THESE
AMOUNTS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE
THIRD -- THE
RIGHT COLUMN?
>> I NEED TO READ FURTHER
WHERE THE DOLLARS ARE BEING
SWEPT TO.
THE LARGEST ONE IS $200,000.
THE OTHERS HERE ARE LESS THAN
35.
THE BOND FUNDS CAN ONLY BE
USED FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES AND/OR
TO PAY DEBT SERVICE SO TO
THE EXTENT THERE'S A BALANCE
THERE, THOSE WOULD, I THINK,
SWEPT OUT TO DO THAT, TO MAKE
SUCH PAYMENTS.
AND, YES, THESE RESOURCES SHOULD
BE AND HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR
IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET.
>>
SO THEY'RE ALREADY SPENT
THEN?
>> CORRECT.
YES, SO, FOR INSTANCE, THE
2000 PARKS LEVY FUND, THE
REMAINING BALANCE TO PARKS AND
RECREATION
FUND. SOMETHING RELATED TO KEY
ARENA,
KEY ARENA SETTLEMENT FUNDS WHEN
WE SUED THE SONICS FOR
LEAVING, THOSE DOLLARS WILL GO
TO THE SEATTLE CENTER FUND AND
THE
LIKE.
>> OKAY.
SOME OF THESE FUNDS ARE FROM,
LIKE, 2015, ET CETERA, SO
THIS IS MONEY THAT'S BEEN
SITTING
AROUND, AND SO BASICALLY,
WOULD IT BE TRUE, WE'RE LOOKING
UNDER THE CUSHIONS HERE?
>> CLEANING THINGS UP.
WHAT HAPPENS
WITH A BOND FUND, YOU END UP
EARNING PERHAPS
MORE INTEREST THAN YOU MEANT
TO BECAUSE FUNDS WERE
DISBERSED LATER THAN YOU THOUGHT
SO TO AN
OPEN BOND FUND AND THEN WILL
BE USED FOR DEBT SERVICE ON
OUTSTANDING BONDS.
>> AND, ALSO, I SHOULD JUST
STATE THAT ASIDE FROM
THE
BRIDGING THE GAP FUND, WHICH WAS
ABOUT 200,000, THE VAST
MAJORITY OF THESE ARE VERY
SMALL, UNDER
$30,000 EACH.
>> RIGHT.
YOU CAN SEE HOW A
COUNCILMEMBER MIGHT BE
INTERESTED BECAUSE
WE'RE ADDING UP ALL
THESE COLUMNS AND THINKING
MAYBE I HAVE A DIFFERENT PURPOSE
I
WOULD LIKE TO SPEND
THAT MONEY ON. I'M JUST ASKING.
>> ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS
WE DO WHEN WE GET THE BUDGET IS
TO
LOOK AT FUND BALANCES AND
FLEXIBILITY.
WE HAVE EXPLOITED IT, BUT
TAKEN ADVANTAGE WHEN IT'S BEEN
POSSIBLE.
>> THANK YOU.
ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCIL
PRESIDENT?
>> NO, BUT -- WELL, I DIDN'T
UNTIL SOMETHING BEN JUST SAID.
>> OKAY.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'VE
--
THAT THESE -- BECAUSE
THESE MONEYS ARE ALREADY
ALLOCATED TO
SOMETHING ELSE, THEY ARE
NOT AVAILABLE FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE, CAPITAL OR OTHERWISE,
CAPITAL PROJECTS OR OTHERWISE?
>> THEY ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN
THE BUDGET SO DIRECTED TO SOME
OTHER
CAPITAL
PURPOSE, FOR INSTANCE IN THE
CASE OF THE BOND FUNDS,
SO THEY'RE NOT SITTING FREE FOR
APPROPRIATION.
>> NOTED, THANK YOU.
>> FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE
MOVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
BUILDING
ON THE WATERFRONT UP
SOONER, WHICH REQUIRES FUNDING.
COLLEAGUES, I DID JUST WANT TO
REMINDED BODY THAT
THIS PRESENTATION
WAS PROVIDED TO US -- WE WERE
SUPPOSED TO
GET THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION ON
FRIDAY AHEAD OF VOTES TODAY.
THE COMMITTEE TOOK A LITTLE
BIT LONGER THAN INTENDED.
THESE ARE ALL -- ALL OF
THESETHESE BILLS AFFECTUATE THE
THINGS
WE'VE TAKEN UP OVER THE
LAST EIGHT WEEKS.
I WOULD ASK THAT WE STAY
FOCUSED ON THE QUESTIONS
THAT WILL
DETERMINE WHETHER YOU WILL VOTE
YES OR NO.
>> WE HAVE THE LAST ONE HERE --
>> DO WE WANT TO KEEP THIS IN?
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, DO YOU
NEED TO KEEP THIS ONE --
>> IT CAN REMAIN IN THE CONSENT
PACKAGE.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS 121122,
THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT AND SOUTHEAST SEATTLE
REINVESTMENT FUND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU
HAD PULLED THIS ITEM AND SO
WE'LL
TAKE A QUICK BRIEFING AND THEN
WE'LL HAND IT OVER TO YOU.
>> THIS IS VERY
MUCH COUNCIL GENERATED
LEGISLATION, SO IT
WAS INTRODUCED RELATIVELY
RECENTLY.
AS DESCRIBED ON THE SCREEN,
THIS LEGISLATION CREATES THE
CENTRAL
DISTRICT AND SOUTHEAST
REINVESTMENT FUND
STARTING JANUARY 1.
>> THE PURPLES OF THIS FUND IS A
REPOSITORY FOR PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE REVENUES TO
SUPPORT EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
AND COMMUNITY LED REVITALIZATION
IN
SEATTLE'S CENTRAL DISTRICT
AND SOUTHEAST SEATTLE
NEIGHBORHOODS.
I BELIEVE THE INITIAL FUNDING
IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $1.
2 MILLION BUT I NEED TO REFRESH
THAT.
THAT WAS IN A COUNCIL BUDGET
ACTION. I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE
BIT
MORE, ONE MOMENT, IF I CAN
PICK THE RIGHT PIECE.
THIS IS THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN
THE ORDINANCE THAT DEFINES THE
PURPOSE OF THE REINVESTMENT FUND
AND HOW IT WILL BE FUNDED.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> YEAH, I WAS WONDERING HOW --
IF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN -- AND
I DIDN'T NOTICE THIS
HIGHLIGHT HERE -- BUT I WAS
WONDERING IF
IT HAD BEEN DECIDED
WHAT CATEGORIES OF EXPENSES THIS
FUND WILL PAY FOR, AND I SAY IT
THAT WAY BECAUSE I THINK THAT
KIND OF
RIGIDITY IS UNFORTUNATE AND
USEDUSED
TO FRUSTRATE ME WITH THE
JUMP- START FUND THAT THE
PERCENTAGES AND THE USES OF
THAT MONEY HAD -- WERE SO FIXED,
AND SO I WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER
OR
NOT -- BUT FROM THIS
LANGUAGE THAT I'M SEEING HERE
THAT
APPROPRIATIONS ARE DECIDED
BY COUNCIL MAYBE EVERY YEAR
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SO IT'S
NOT SUCH A --
>> CORRECT.
RECEIVED FUNDS FROM A VARIETY
OF SOURCES SO NEITHER A
DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE PER SE
NOR BEYONDBEYOND THE GENERAL
PURPOSES
DESCRIBED DOES IT HAVE SPECIFIC
DEBT ALLOCATIONS IN PERCENTAGES
OR
DOLLAR AMOUNTS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ANYTHING
FURTHER?
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
>> OKAY.
ANY STATEMENTS ON THIS ONE?
>> NO STATEMENTS.
>> GREAT.
COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
BEN, JUST TO SAY, IS THIS
A LITTLE BIT LIKE THE ARTS FUND?
IS IT SORT OF A MECHANISM LIKE
THAT, WHERE IT DOESN'T SAY
EXACTLY --
>> EXACTLY.
>> YEAH.
>> IT BECOMES A REPOSITORY AND
YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE WHAT LEVEL
OF INVESTMENT IS BEING MADE
FOR THESE PURPOSES, AND
DEPENDING
ON WHAT YOUR SOURCES ARE, YOU
CAN DEPOSIT THEM THERE AND
KNOW IT WILL BE FOR THAT PURPOSE
AND PROVIDE YOU THE FLEXIBILITY.
SOMETIMES IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY
TO TRACK SOME LEVEL
OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO BE ABLE TO
SEE THIS SEPARATE AND APART FROM
THE GENERAL FUND MORE BROADLY
OR FROM OTHER FUNDS.
>> IT'S MORE SIMILAR PROBABLY
TO
THE FINANCE GENERAL --
>> FINANCE GENERAL.
>> A FUND LEVEL INSTEAD OF AN
APPROPRIATION.
>> GOT IT.
THANKS, CAL.
THANKS FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.
THERE WILL BE FURTHER
DISCUSSION NEXT YEAR IN THE
POLICY COMMITTEE ABOUT THIS.
IT'S DIFFICULT TO TAKE UP
POLICY AND BUDGETING
SIMULTANEOUSLY
AND BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON BOTH
WITH ENOUGH ATTENTION TO DO BOTH
WELL.
COLLEAGUES, ANY
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 121122 THE
REINVESTMENT FUND?
AND DO YOU NEED IT PULLED OUT OF
THE PACKAGE?
>> NO.
IT CAN STAY IN THERE.
>> WONDERFUL.
THE OTHER TWO BILLS THAT WERE
ON THE PRESENTATION THAT ARE
NOT PART OF THE CONSENT
PACKAGE TODAY ARE THE ANNUAL
GRANT
ACCEPTANCE, 12115 AND
THE COUNCIL CHANGES CLERK FILE
WHICH
IS 314546.
THOSE WILL COME UP ON THURSDAY.
WE NEED A WEEK TO MAKE SURE THAT
EVERYTHING IS CORRECT.
SO IT'S ALSO WHY IF ANYTHING
IS PULLED OUT OF HERE TODAY
WE MAY -- I CAN'T GUARANTEE
THAT IT WOULD BE VOTED ON -- WE
MAY
HAVE TO EXTEND OUR SCHEDULE.
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA HAS
A QUESTION, AND THEN I'M
GOING TO GO BACK UP TO THE FIRST
TWO
ITEMS THAT WE HAD
INITIAL DISCUSSION ON AND THAT
WE CAME
BACK TO.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, I
SEE YOU HAVE A HAND RIGHT NOW.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
JUST QUICKLY ON THE
COUNCIL BILLS RELATED TO THE
BONDS,
089, 090, 91, ET CETERA, THERE
ARE
LIKE THREE MORE AFTER THAT.
I ASSUME THAT DIRECTOR CARNELL
REVIEWED -- I MEAN, WHEN I
SEE
BONDS --
>> THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH THE
DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE PROCESS AS
WELL.
>> YES.
OKAY, GREAT.
THANK YOU.
THANKS FOR CONFIRMING THAT, BEN.
GOT TO DO MY DUE DILIGENCE.
THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
AND THEN COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PULLED 121113 THE '25 YEAR-
END SUPPLEMENTAL ORDINANCE.
BEN, A QUICK BRIEF THERE
AND THEN WE'LL CALL ON COUNCIL
PRESIDENT.
>> AGAIN,
SUPPLEMENTAL SO IT COVERS
INNUMERABLE -- A
NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTS AND A
NUMBER OF
CHANGES.
I DON'T HAVE THOSE DETAILS
IN FRONT OF ME.
AGAIN, STAFF HAVE REVIEWED
THEM AND ARE AVAILABLE
TO ANSWER ANY
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THERE MIGHT
BE.
THE CHANGES HERE, AGAIN,
HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED -- THE
WAY
I THINK ABOUT THIS, WHEN THE
MAYOR
SENDS DOWN THE 2026 BUDGET,
HE'S ALSO, HE OR SHE, CLEANING
UP
THE END OF THE 2025 BUDGET,
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES.
THE RESOURCES THAT ARE
TYPICALLY ENDS UP FREEING UP
RESOURCES THAT ARE THEN SPENT AS
PART OF
2026, SO THEY'RE VERY
MUCH INTEGRATED AND WE'VE
REVIEWED THEM IN THAT CONTEXT.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
AH, THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT IS
NO
LONGER WITH US.
>> SHE HAD TO STEP OUT.
>> I WOULD SAY WE WOULD MOVE
ON TO THE NEXT ITEM BUT THAT WAS
ALSO THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT'S.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, DO YOU
HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS --
WE HAVE COUNCIL PRESIDENT BACK.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, WE
ARE ON A BILL YOU INDICATED YOU
WOULD LIKE TO BILL.
DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON
THE YEAR-END ORDINANCE?
>> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.
EXCUSE ME.
I HAD -- NOT THAT I -- I
REMEMBER THAT I HAD QUESTIONS
BUT I'M NOT BRINGING THEM
TO MIND RIGHT NOW.
LET'S SEE.
SO I DON'T WANT TO WASTE
ANYBODY'S TIME.
WOULD YOU STILL LIKE IT
PULLED FROM THE CONSENT PACKAGE?
>> NO.
>> OKAY.
AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO
105,
THE SDCI FEE UPDATE TO SEE
IF YOU HAVE FURTHER
QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
SINCE IT CAME UP BEFORE, WE HAD
SDCI ARRIVE, WHICH IS
GOOD, BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK
WE PLAY BACK THE VIDEO
RECORDING FROM SEPTEMBER 30th,
WHICH,
WHILE INFORMATIVE, IS NOT AS
MAYBE DIRECTLY FOCUSED TO
YOUR QUESTIONS AS THE SUBJECT
MATTER EXPERTS WHO DO THIS WORK.
DO YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS?
>> YES.
>> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
>> HOW MANY -- WHAT IS THE
DELTA IN NUMBER OF PROJECTS FROM
ONE
YEAR TO THE
NEXT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE
REASONS WHY THIS
SAYS THIS IS NECESSARY?
>> AND, ALSO, WE HAVE
SDCI COMING UP TO THE TABLE.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO PULL UP
THE SEPTEMBER 30th PRESENTATION,
IT
HAS, I KNOW, SOME OF THIS
INFORMATION
CONTAINED THERE, AS I WAS JUST
REVIEWING IT.
AND FOR THE FOLKS WHO HAVE
JUST JOINED THE TABLE, IF YOU
COULD INTRODUCE YOURSELVES.
COLLEAGUES, THIS IS NOT STANDARD
PROCESS OF HAVING DEPARTMENTS
COME UP ON THE LAST DAY OF
BUDGET, AND WE APPRECIATE YOU
SO SINCERELY AND ALSO THANK YOU.
I KNOW WHEN WE HAD YOU
IN COMMITTEE BEFORE, WE HAD
SOME VERY POINTED, DIRECT, AND
SOMETIMES FELT -- THERE WAS
A LITTLE BIT OF TENSION, BUT
ONLY BECAUSE THIS IS A
DIFFICULT CONVERSATION OF DO WE
LAY OFF
EMPLOYEES THAT WE THEN HAVE TO
REHIRE ONCE PERMITS COME
BACK, AS WAS SLIGHTLY DESCRIBED
A MOMENT AGO.
AND ESPECIALLY AFTER WE HAD TO
LAY OFF EMPLOYEES LAST YEAR TO
RIGHT, TO STABILIZE THAT CORE
STAFFING FUND.
THIS FUND HAS HAD A LOT OF
CHALLENGES, AND WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE WE STABILIZE IT TO THE
BEST OF OUR ABILITIES SO WE
DON'T
LAY MORE PEOPLE OFF AND HAVE TO
REHIRE THEM ONLY TO
FIND OURSELVES IN A LAG.
>> WITH THAT,
I'M GOING TO -- WERE WE
BRINGING UP THIS OTHER
PRESENTATION?
>>
I'M WORKING ON IT.
>> INTRODUCE OURSELVES?
>> PLEASE.
>> YOU CAN GO.
>> GOOD MORNING.
BROOKE, ACTING DIRECTOR SDCI.
>> GREEN LIGHT MEANS ON.
>> SCOTT, SDCI.
>> THANK YOU.
>> SHANE, THE FINANCE DIRECTOR
SDCI.
>> AND, COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
YOUR QUESTION WAS HOW HAVE
PERMIT LEVELS BEEN FLUCTUATING
OVER THE
PAST TWO YEARS?
>> YES.
I WOULD LIKE BASICALLY ONE
OF THE RATIONALES IS THERE ARE
--
I THINK IT WAS FEWER BIG ONES
AND MORE LITTLE ONES, SO THAT'S
ONE
OF THE THINGS.
I NOTE THAT THE FEE
PER EITHER KEATLE OR BEN EARLIER
GOES
UP FROM 2,000 TO 4,000, THAT'S
A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE FOR A
TOWNHOUSE.
AND SO I'M JUST WANTING
TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE
RATIONALE FOR THIS AND WHEN ARE
THE
PLANS TO BRING BACK THE SERVICE
DESK?
>> SO, FIRST -- YEAH, SO
OVER THE PAST, WHAT,
DECADE, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF
LARGER, HIGH-
VALUE PROJECTS COMING IN THE
DOOR
WHICH BRINGS IN A LOT MORE
REVENUE COMPARED TO SMALLER AND
MID-SIZED PROJECTS. AND IT HAS
SUSTAINED US QUITE
A BIT OVER THE YEARS.
>> BUT THERE'S A STRUCTURAL
CHANGE IN THE TYPES OF
PROJECTS COMING IN THE DOOR NOW.
SO WE HAVE A LOT OF THESE
SMALLER, MID- SIZED
PROJECTS COMING IN THE DOOR AND
THE
AMOUNT OF REVENUE WE ARE EARNING
FROM THOSE PROJECTS IS
NOT ENOUGH TO COVER THE COST
OF DOING BUSINESS, AND WE DO
NOT ANTICIPATE A LOT OF THE
LARGER,
HIGH- VALUE PROJECTS COMING
IN THE DOOR UNTIL AT LEAST, YOU
KNOW, ONCE THE VACANCY
RATES BEGIN TO DROP DOWNTOWN.
>> WE MAY BE SEEING MORE OF
THAT.
INTEREST RATES DROP. BUT REALLY
THE VACANCY RATES
ARE HIGH AND THERE'S NOT GOING
TO BE
A LOT OF REALLY LARGE, COMPLEX
PROJECTS, HIGH- VALUE PROJECTS
BEING BUILT UNTIL THAT TIME.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> I CAN SAY THAT OUR
CONSTRUCTION VOLUMES, THEY
HAVE BEEN INCREASING THE PAST
COUPLE
YEARS, ABOUT 2% TO 5%, BUT THE
VALUATION OF THOSE PROJECT
HAS BEEN A LOT LOWER, LIKE SHANE
MENTIONED.
LAST YEAR WE BROUGHT IN ABOUT $3
BILLION, WHICH WAS A VERY
LOW YEAR FOR PROJECT VALUATION.
THIS YEAR WE'RE TRENDING TO $2.
5 BILLION, WHICH IS A
SUBSTANTIAL
DECREASE. WE'RE LOOKING AT
ROUGHLY
THE SAME LEVEL OF PROJECT
VALUATION NEXT YEAR.
SO IT'S BEEN A NOTABLE
DECLINE, THE TYPES OF PROJECTS
WE'RE BRINGING IN ARE MORE OF
THE ADU,
ANTICIPATING SOME THAT ARE NOT
HIGH VALUATION PROJECTS EITHER.
>> IT'S REALLY PUT US IN
A DIFFICULT BIND WHERE WE'RE
STILL
SEEING WORK COME IN BUT THE
TYPE OF WORK COMING
IN IS LESS COMPLEX.
>> AND IF YOU CAN SEE THE
CHART UP ABOVE, YOU CAN SEE
SINCE
2023 OUR PERMIT VOLUMES
ON CONSTRUCTION PERMITS HAVE
BEEN
INCREASING, WHICH IS A GOOD
SIGN, BUT, ON THE OTHER
HAND, THE CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT VALUATION HAS DECREASED.
AND WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO
THE LOWEST POINT SIMILAR TO
WHERE
WE
WERE AT DURING THE GREAT
RECESSION.
AND LOWER VALUE PROJECTS
MEANS LOWER PERMIT REVENUES.
SO WHAT WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH
IS A CHANGE IN THE PROJECT MIX.
IF WE -- WHAT WE NEED IN
ORDER TO REALLY STABILIZE IS A
35%
FEE INCREASE BUT WE ARE GOING TO
START WITH 18% IN 2026 AND
THEN SEE WHERE THAT -- HOW WE
DID WITH THAT AND HOW THE
ECONOMY DID AND THEN LOOK AT A
POSSIBLE IN 2027.
IF WE AREN'T ABLE TO DO THAT
INCREASE, IT WAS ANTICIPATED TO
BRING IN ABOUT $8. 5 MILLION TO
$9 MILLION IN REVENUE MER
YEAR -- PER YEAR AND IT WOULD
BE OUR LAND USE COST CENTER BY
THE END OF 2026.
WE'D BE LOOKING AT LAYING
OFF THE EQUIVALENT OF $9 MILLION
OF STAFF WHICH IS ABOUT 60
STAFF.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT IT AT ABOUT
$150,000 PER EMPLOYEE.
>> COULD YOU SAY THAT
STARTING WITH THE 60 STAFF, AND
HOW MANY
STAFF WERE LAID OFF LAST YEAR?
COULD YOU
WALK ME THROUGH THAT AGAIN?
>> YES, SO LAST YEAR 29 -- 29
ALTOGETHER, 29 STAFF.
>> I'M GOING TO -- POINT OF
INFORMATION, WHICH IS 29
FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT.
THERE WERE
MORE STAFF IN OTHER PARTS OF THE
CITY THAT WERE
ALSO LAID OFF.
>> SO 29.
WE ABROGATED 20
POSITIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE
SUNSET
POCKETS.
AND THOSE POCKETS WERE MEANT TO
EXPIRE IN 2025, AT THE END OF
2025 OR 2026 -- I CAN'T
REMEMBER
OFFHAND. BUT A LARGE PORTION --
>> SO IT WAS NINE HUMAN
BEINGS OR 29 POSITIONS?
>> 29 POSITIONS.
AT THE END OF THE DAY IT
WAS ABOUT FIVE PEOPLE WERE LAID
OFF
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN
HALF OF THEM WERE ALREADY
VACANT AND THEN THE OTHER PEOPLE
ENDED
UP FINDING JOBS BECAUSE WE
HAD THAT EXTRA SIX MONTHS OF
TIME.
WE MEANT TO DO IT AT THE END OF
2025 -- END OF 2024, BUT
THEN COUNCIL WANTED US TO EXTEND
UNTIL MID 2025 POSITIONS THAT
WERE
FILLED. AND SO WE DID THAT.
AS TIME WENT ON, PEOPLE GOT NEW
JOBS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE
LAID OFF ABOUT FIVE PEOPLE.
BY THE END OF 2026, JUFS ST
THE EQUIVALENT OF STAFF TIME
IS ABOUT 60 PEOPLE.
THAT WOULD IMPACT THE PERMIT
INTAKE GROUP WHICH IS
WHERE STAFF COME IN WHEN THEY
FIRST START AT SDCI AND THEY
BEGIN
THEIR CAREER IN PERMIT INTAKE.
IT'S THE MOST DIVERSE GROUP
OF PEOPLE WE HAVE.
THEY WOULD BE IMPACTED
HARDEST BECAUSE OF BUMPING
RIGHTS,
HR
RULES. BUMPING GHTS FOR PEOPLE
THAT HAVE BEEN THERE LONGER.
>> PEOPLE WHO WORK LONGER
WITH THE CITY, THEY WILL BUMP
PEOPLE AT LOWER LEVELS.
AND THAT'S JUST -- I DON'T
HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT.
THAT'S SOMETHING HR HANDLES.
BUT THAT WOULD IMPACT OUR
PERMIT INTAKE STAFF WHICH WOULD
DEGRADE SERVICE AND CAUSE
BACKLOGS
BACKLOGS THE PERMIT PROCESS.
AND WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
WE WANT TO BE AHEAD OF ANY
KIND OF PERMITSPERMITS COME IN
THE
DOOR.
>> THANK YOU.
NOW THAT WE'VE HAD
DEPARTMENTS REJOIN THE TABLE, I
WILL TAKE
A LITTLE BIT MORE
FIXED FACILITATION WHILE WE'RE
DOING THIS DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, DO YOU
HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR
SDCI AT THIS TIME?
>> YES.
>> THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> FROM WHAT YOU JUST SAID,
IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH IT'S THETHE
VALUE
OF THE PROJECT THAT
BASING THE NEED
FOR A HIGHER PERMIT FEE MORE OR
LESS, BUT WHY
IS THAT -- HOW DOES THAT
RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE TIME IT
TAKES AN
INDIVIDUAL FTE TO DO THE WORK TO
ISSUE THE PERMIT?
CAN I EXPLAIN
WHY I ASKED? IT SOUNDS TO ME
THAT IT'S ALMOST
LIKE, WELL, THIS IS A BIG
PROJECT. THEY'RE ALREADY
SPENDING A
BUNCH OF MONEY AND, THEREFORE,
THE
INCREASE -- OR THE COST OF THE
PERMIT ISN'T THAT MUCH WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE WHOLE COST OF THE
PROJECT, AND SO WHY WOULD IT
BE A BIG DEAL TO INCREASE IT
A LITTLE BIT.
>> SOMETIMES IT SOUNDS
THAT COULD BE SOME REASONING
UNDERLYING THIS, AND I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE --
I WANTED TO KNOW
IF, WANTEDFOR REAL, WHY YOU KEPT
THE COST OF THE
VALUE OF THE BIG PROJECTS AND
WHATEVER.
>> RIGHT.
>> AND I'M GOING TO, BACK TO
THE
COMMITTEE TABLE, I MIGHT ASK
US TO STREAM THE SEPTEMBER
30th CONVERSATION AGAIN, JUST
BECAUSE IT HIT ALL OF THESE
POINTS,
BUT
I WANT TO BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE TABLE.
>> OKAY.
THE CONSTRUCTION FEES ARE VALUE
BASED. IT'S A CALCULATION BASED
ON
OCCUPANCY, CONSTRUCTION
TYPE, AND SQUARE FOOTAGE,
WHICH PROJECT VALUATION AND
THE PROJECT VALUATION GOES
THROUGH
A FEE SCHEDULE WHICH SETS
THE PERMIT FEES.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A PROXY
FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF THE
PROJECT AND HOW MUCH REVIEW TIME
IT'S GOING TO TAKE.
IF WE BUILD EVERYTHING HOURLY IT
WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE
FOR THE LESS COMPLEX PROJECTS
SO SOME TO THE SMALLER
COMPLEXITY
PROJECTS. WITHOUT THOSE LARGER
COMPLEXITY PROJECTS COMING IN
THE DOOR,
WE LOSE THAT SUBSIDY AND WE HAVE
TO EXTRACT MORE MONEY FROM THE
LOWER COMPLEXITY PROJECTS.
>> THANK YOU.
VERY HELPFUL.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, FURTHER
QUESTIONS?
>> YES.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, THE LOSS OF PROJECTS
OR GAVE THE TWO NUMBERS BETWEEN
ONE YEAR AND ANOTHER, HAS THERE
BEEN AN EXERCISE WITHIN SDCI TO
THINK ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS TO
YOUR PROCESSES SO THAT PERHAPS
MORE
PROJECTS WOULD BE BUILT HERE?
BECAUSE ONE THING YOU WILL
HEAR PEOPLE SAY OUT THERE IN THE
WORLD IS PEOPLE ARE
DISCOURAGED FROM BUILDING OR
OPENING HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR NODDING YOUR HEAD.
IT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER
FOR BEING KIND OF MEAN.
>> BECAUSE SEATTLE IS
REALLY DIFFICULT TO GET A PERMIT
AND THE REVIEW PROCESS IS
FRUSTRATING.
THAT COULD BE ONE REASON
WHY THAT IS HAPPENING, AND SO
I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S
AN
INTERNAL CONVERSATION.
>> AND I BELIEVE IT WAS THE
DIRECTOR'S FIRST OR MAYBE THE
DAY BEFORE FIRST DAY
ON SEPTEMBER 30th WHEN SDCI
PRESENTED WITH INTERIM
DIRECTOR KAYLEE PROVIDING THE
DIRECTION
AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN
YOUR FIRST DAY, INTERIM
DIRECTOR.
WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT
OVER TO YOU AS A BRIEF
INTRODUCTION
TO CITY COUNCIL AND TO HELP
US UNDERSTAND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT'S POSITION A LITTLE
BIT BETTER.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IT WAS INDEED MY FIRST DAY.
AND SO KAY DID TAKE THAT,
CAME DOWN TO PRESENT THE BUDGET.
I WAS EMPHATICALLY NODDING
ABOUT THE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
QUESTION.
I AM SIX WEEKS INTO THE JOB
NOW, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE
FIRST
THINGS THAT I'M DOING IS
HELPING THE DEPARTMENT THINK
THROUGH WITH FRESH EYES WHAT
OUR PROCESSES
ARE, WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH
THE PACT
INITIATIVE, LOOKING AT A
VARIETY OF TOOLS, OF PROCESSES,
LOOKING AT OUR ORGANIZATION AS A
WHOLE.
>> STREAMLINING PERMITTING
IS VERY MUCH ON OUR MINDS,
SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO
GET
TO. I WILL TELL YOU I HAVE BEEN
MET WITH GREAT ENTHUSIASM WITHIN
THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT IDEAS AND
WAYS
WE CAN GO ABOUT THAT.
SO THAT IS DEFINITELY
SOMETHING THAT WE ARE LOOKING
AT.
AS IT RELATES TO THE VOLUME
OF THE TYPES OF WORK THAT'S
COMING
IN, I WILL JUST SAY WE STILL
HAVE A VERY HIGH VOLUME OF
WORK COMING IN.
IT'S JUST SMALLER WORK THAT
IS COMING IN FOR PEOPLE WHO
HAVEN'T ALWAYS GONE THROUGH
THE PERMITTING PROCESS, SO
PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE INTIMIDATED,
PEOPLE WHO AREN'T USED TO IT.
SOME OF THOSE PROCESSES TAKE
A HARDER OR LONGER TIME TO GET
THROUGH. WE'RE SPENDING A LOT
OF
TIME WORKING WITH INDIVIDUAL
PROPERTY
OWNERS, INDIVIDUAL
DEVELOPERS AND SO FORTH TO
GET THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS.
>> YOU ALSO ASKED A
QUESTION ABOUT THE SERVICE DESK.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE A COUNTER ON
THE FOURTH FLOOR OF SMT THAT IS
OPEN.
I'VE HEARD A LOT OF
FEEDBACK ABOUT THE ABILITY TO GO
BACK TO
THE 20th FLOOR.
WE ALSO HAVE A TOOL CALLED
THEN DESK THAT HAS BEEN TAKING A
HIGH
VOLUME OF SOME OF THE
CALLS, SOME OF THE INTAKE WE DO
TO
HELP PEOPLE GET THROUGH THAT
INITIAL START OF THE PROCESS
WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT
PERMITTING.
AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL TOOLS AND,
FRANKLY, QUESTIONS I'VE BEEN
ASKING TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE RIGHT
TOOLS
FOR PEOPLE COMING INTO THE
PROCESS, PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN --
HAVE
ADVANCED LEVELS OF THE PROCESS,
AND WHAT ARE THE RIGHT WAYS TO
MEET THEM
SO
THEY CAN GET THROUGH OUR
PROCESSES FASTER.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, FURTHER
QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVE A COMMENT, WHICH
IS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
EXPLAINING THAT. THERE ARE A LOT
OF PEOPLE
THAT RECOGNIZE THERE IS A
COUNTER
BUT THAT IT DOESN'T -- IT
DOESN'T --
IT'S NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR
AN OFFICE WHERE EMPLOYEES SIT
AND THEN THEY CAN GO ASK
THEIR COLLEAGUES QUESTIONS
WHEN SOMEBODY COMES UP WITH
SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE IT
MIGHT
OR MIGHT NOT CONFORM TO
THE BUILDING CODE, ET CETERA.
JUST ENCOURAGEMENT TO
ACTUALLY OPEN UP THE REAL
SERVICE DESK.
>> AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION,
I DON'T KNOW, HOW DOES --
HOW DO OUR PERMIT FEES COMPARE
TO NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS
LIKE BELLEVUE AND THE FREQUENCY
AT WHICH THEY GO UP OR
INCREASE YEAR AFTER YEAR, EVERY
FEW
YEARS?
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I WILL
REMIND YOU THIS WAS
DISCUSSED DURING THE BUDGET
PROCESS
EARLIER.
I WILL RETURN TO THE COMMITTEE
TABLE, BUT IF THESE ARE
QUESTIONS THAT WILL CHANGE
YOUR VOTE ON THIS BILL, I'M
HAPPY TO
CONTINUE THESE QUESTIONS.
OR IF THERE IS A POSITION,
BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS
ALL
STUFF THAT WE'VE LITERALLY
THIS MATERIAL IS WHAT WE'VE
GONE
OVER IN THE BUDGET BEFORE.
SO I'LL PASS IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE TABLE, BECAUSE
I BELIEVE THIS ANSWER IS IN THE
PACKET, A COUPLE MORE SLIDES
DOWN, AND THEN WE'LL COME
BACK
TO YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, FOR
FURTHER QUESTIONS.
>> I
LOOKED AT THIS A LITTLE BIT, AND
THIS WAS ONE OF THE
THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT
PREVIOUSLY.
COMPARED TO BELLEVUE, IT'S
ABOUT THE SAME RANGE WITH THE
INCREASED FEES, I THINK, FOR
A MILLION DOLLAR VALUATION
PROJECT AND THE FEE CHARGED
CURRENTLY AT
STCI AT BELLEVUE WOULD BE ABOUT
$7,283. WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE
WOULD
GO TO $8,000.
THAT'S LESS THAN TACOMA OR KING
COUNTY WOULD COST.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT, FURTHER
QUESTIONS?
>> YES.
WHAT ABOUT THE HOURLY RATE?
>> YEAH, I DID NOT LOOK AT THE
HOURLY RATE.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE
VALUATION
BASED FEE.
>> THE FEE PLUS THE HOURLY
RATE, WHICH SEEMS EXPENSIVE TO
ME,
BUT I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT
OTHER CITIES CHARGE IF THAT'S
NORMAL,
$496 OR $498 PER HOUR GOING UP
TO, LIKE, $551 OR SOMETHING
LIKE THAT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING OUR
CLIENTS TO PAY AS WELL ON TOP OF
THE FEES.
>> THAT'S FOR THE LAND USE
HOURLY RATE.
THAT'S FOR -- WE AREN'T
DOING AS MUCH OF THE LAND USE
PROJECTS ANYMORE BECAUSE DESIGN
REVIEW AND SEPA CHANGES AT THE
STATE LEVEL AND LOCALLY AND SO
THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THAT FEE
CAME
FROM WAS DESIGN REVIEW AND
SEPA PROJECTS AND NOW FEWER OF
THOSE
PROJECTS, MOSTLY SMALL VARIANCES
AND SHORT PLATTS AND THOSE
PROJECTS ARE REASON OUR LAND USE
IS SUFFERING RIGHT NOW AS WELL.
WE HAVE FEWER OF THESE
PROJECTS COMING THROUGH,
LESS HOURLY WORK.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS? WE ARE VERGING ON THE
POINT OF
I MIGHT ASK US TO STREAM THE
SEPTEMBER 30th MEETING
AGAIN JUST TO GIVE US ALL AN
EVEN FOOTING OF WHAT HAS AND HAS
NOT BEEN DISCUSSED?
>> I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT
I DIDN'T ASK THESE PRESENTERS
TO COME HERE.
I DIDN'T ASK TO TAKE UP
THIS TIME IN THE MEETING.
THIS WAS UNEXPECTED FOR ME.
>> SURE.
>> I ASKED THE QUESTIONS
I NEEDED ANSWERED BEFORE
AND SAID WHAT I WANTED TO HAPPEN
WITH
THE LEGISLATION, AND YOU SAY
THAT,
YES, THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED
AND WE ALL COVERED THIS ALREADY.
I DO NOT REMEMBER THIS -- THESE
SPECIFICS.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE STATEMENT
THAT THE FEE -- THAT SOME OF
THE FEES WOULD DOUBLE, THE
DOLLAR
AMOUNT OF THE HOURLY RATE.
SO MAYBE I WASN'T PAYING
ATTENTION, BUT I DON'T
REMEMBER A LOT OF THAT
INFORMATION BEING
PRESENTED BEFORE, AND SO THAT
IS WHY I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS PIECE OF
LEGISLATION INCREASING THOSE
FEES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
YOU'RE GETTING ALL OF THE
ANSWERS
TO THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE
ASKING
AND THAT WE'RE NOT
ASKING FOLKS TO TAKE TOO MUCH
TIME OUT
OF THEIR DAY.
THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE
MIGHT WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, I
SEE YOU HAVE A HAND.
>> I DO, CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING
HERE.
IT'S NICE TO MEET YOU,
LOOKING FORWARD TO ACTUALLY
MEETING
YOU, HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CHAT
AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU'VE
SAID, BECAUSE, AS YOU CAN SAY,
IT HAS BEEN A REAL CHALLENGE
IN THE CITY AND WE'RE ALL
GRAPPLING WITH HOW TO BEST DO IT
AND THAT
INCLUDES YOUR STAFF, WHO IS
ACTUALLY DOING THE WORK.
SO I JUST WANT
TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL OF THAT.
MY CONCERN WITH THIS
FEE INCREASE IS I'M HEARING YOU
SAY
THE TYPE OF WORK IS LESS
COMPLEX.
WE ARE GETTING LOWER
PROJECT VALUE PROJECTS WHICH
MEANS LESS
MONEY, BUT THEN WE'RE
INCREASING THE FEES FOR THOSE
SMALLER
PROJECTS, WHICH PROBABLY --
AND I SAID THIS EARLIER, BUT
THEN THAT MEANS THAT THE FOLKS
THAT ARE DOING THESE SMALLER
PROJECTS ARE BEARING THE BRUNT
BECAUSE THOSE BIGGER PROJECTS
AND HIGHER
VALUE PROJECT ARE NOT WORKING.
>> SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
SO MY QUESTION IS FACTORED INTO
THIS FEE INCREASE.
IS THERE, LIKE, SOME KIND OF --
I THINK YOU CALLED IT TIERS.
I'M THINKING SLIDING SCALE.
THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD
FOR THIS BUT, TO BE HONEST,
BASED
ON THE VALUE OF YOUR PROJECT
IF IT'S REALLY SMALL, I JUST
FEEL
LIKE, AGAIN, THE LITTLE PERSON
IS BEARING THE BRUNT OF THESE
FEES BECAUSE THE BIGGER
COMPANIES ARE NOT DOING
THESE PROJECTS RIGHT NOW AND
THAT IS
REALLY MY HUGE CONCERN HERE.
>> BACK TO THE COMMITTEE TABLE.
>> OKAY.
SO WE'RE REGULATED BY RCW
802020.
AND WE NEED TO COVER THE COST OF
PROVIDING THE
SERVICES. IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO
COVER THOSE
COSTS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY
OPTIONS. WE HAVE EITHER FEE
INCREASES, LAYING OFF STAFF, AND
THE
OTHER OPTION MAYBE WE'RE
ALREADY WORKING ON IMPROVEMENTS
TO
THE PERMIT PROCESS THROUGH
NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND THINGS LIKE
THAT, BUT THAT'S
NOT OVERNIGHT --
>> I WILL INTERJECT TO SAY IN
THAT WE HAD
ON THE 30th GENERAL FUND USAGE
WAS ANOTHER OPTION.
SORRY.
>> WHAT'S BEING DESCRIBED HERE,
AND I THINK WELL DESCRIBED, I'LL
TRY AGAIN FOR WHAT IT'S
WORTH, COST CENTERS.
THERE ARE A SET OF COSTS AND WE,
THE CITY, ARE TRYING TO
RECOVER THE COST OF PROVIDING
THE
SERVICE. IT'S NOT FOR THE
GENERAL -- IT'S
NOT FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
IT'S
FOR FOLKS WHO ARE DEVELOPING
PROJECTS OR REMODELING.
WE TRY TO RECOVER THE COST
OF THE TIME OF THE FOLKS AT
SDCI INVOLVED IN REVIEWING THOSE
PERMITS.
HISTORICALLY WE TIED THE COST OF
THAT PERMIT TO THE VALUE OF THE
PROJECT, BECAUSE THAT WAS SEEN
AS A PROXY FOR THE RELATIVE
PLEXTY, A PROXY FOR THE AMOUNT
OF TIME.
AS IT TURNS OUT, WE WERE
PROBABLY, IN SOME SENSE,
OVERCHARGING
THE BIG PROJECTS AND THAT THEY
WERE A SOURCE OF
REVENUE THATTHAT KEEP THE
FEES DOWN FOR THE SMALLER
PROJECTS.
THE LARGER PROJECTS HAVE GONE
AWAY, ON THE WHOLE, SO WE
ARE NOW LEFT TO RECOVER FEES
FROM
A SMALLER SET OF PROJECTS THAT
HAVE LESS VALUE BUT WE'RE
TRYING TO RECOVER LESSER MONEY,
BECAUSE WE LAID FOLKS OFF, BUT
NOT ENOUGH OF A DIFFERENCE.
SO WE ARE TRYING -- SO WE CAN
MONEY BY
SLIGHTLY HIGHER FEES OR GENERAL
FUND SUBSIDY TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
THOSE ARE RESOURCES WE CURRENTLY
HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED AS PART OF
THE OVERALL BUDGET PROCESS AND
I HAVE TO KNOW HOW MUCH
INCREMENTAL REVENUE FEE
INCREASE IS EXPECTED TO BRING IN
AND
THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD
WANT TO TRY TO PRIORITIZE
GENERAL FUND TO OR ALTERNATIVELY
EFFICIENCIES THAT CAN OTHERWISE
KEEP THE FEES
DOWN.
>> BUT THAT'S -- THERE WAS
A CROSS SUBSIDY OVER TIME, WHICH
IS NOT UNUSUAL IN THE CONTEXT
OF TRYING TO SET FEES.
IT'S DISAPPEARED AND SO
WHAT'S LEFT ARE FACING A HIGHER
FEE TO
RECOVER OUR COSTS.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> THANK YOU, BEN.
I'M ALSO HEARING THE TYPE
OF WORK IS LESS COMPLEX, SO
I'M ALMOST HEARING -- AND,
FORGIVE
ME, I DON'T THINK
YOU'RE INTENDING THIS, BUT
IT'S ALMOST
LIKE ON THE ONE HAND
YOU'RE SAYING LESS COMPLEX AND
ON
THE OTHER YOU'RE SAYING IT
TAKES A
LONG TIME.
SO THAT'S NOT --
THAT SEEMS INCONGRUOUS IF IT'S
LESS
COMPLEX OF A PROJECT THEN THAT,
TO ME,
DENOTES LESS TIME TO PUT INTO
THE PROJECT FROM SDCI'S
PERSPECTIVE.
CAN YOU RECONCILE --
>> I CAN TRY.
I THINK THE LINK HERE IS
THE FEES ARE BEING SET ON THE
VALUE
OF THE PROJECT AND THAT'S A
VERY
IMPRECISE LINK.
IT TURNED OUT FOR BIGGER
PROJECTS WE WERE PROBABLY
OVERCOLLECTING PER PROJECT
BASIS.
>> THAT'S NOT
WHAT --
>> WE ONLY HAVE THE SMALLER
PROJECTS,
SO THEY ARE RELATIVELY SIMPLER
BUT THEY STILL
REQUIRE SOME AMOUNT OF TIME.
THEY'RE NO LONGER --
THE DEPARTMENT -- THEY'RE NO
LONGER SUBSIDIZED BY THE
BIGGER PROJECTS SO THEY'RE
HAVING
TO FACE THE FULL COST AND THAT
FULL
COST IS
HIGHER.
>> THAT'S THE THING, BEN.
I'M HEARING YOU WILL SAY
THE PROJECTS ARE LESS COMPLEX SO
I WOULD THINK THEY'RE NOT
TAKING
AS MUCH TIME AS THE BIGGER
PROJECTS, WHICH ARE
VERY COMPLEX --
>> THE AMOUNT OF TIME --
>> ARE YOU SAYING THE AMOUNT
OF TIME IS THE SAME REGARDLESS
OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE
PROJECT?
>> THE AMOUNT OF TIME HASN'T
CHANGED FOR THE SMALL
PROJECTS HASN'T CHANGED YEAR TO
YEAR.
WHAT'S CHANGED IS THAT THERE
IS LESS REVENUE COMING IN FROM
THE BIG PROJECTS, SO THE
LITTLE PROJECTS ARE TAKING THE
SAME AMOUNT OF TIME BUT THE FEE
REF THANK YOU FROM THE BIG
PROJECTS ISN'T HELPING TO PAY
FOR THEM
ANYMORE, SO THEY HAVE TO -- THE
LITTLE PROJECTS HAVE TO
CARRY THEIR FULL WEIGHT.
>> BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS
THEY DON'T TAKE AS MUCH TIME IN
GENERAL, SO THEY'RE GOING
TO HAVE -- THEY ARE TAKING UP
THE
BURDEN, AND I DON'T THINK
THAT'S
FAIR TO THE SMALLER PROJECTS.
>> I CAN'T DISPUTE --
YOU'RE ONLY OTHER OPTION IS A
GENERAL
FUND SUBSIDY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THE REASON I'M RAISING MY
HAND, PHYSICALLY IN THE
CHAMBERS NOW IS SIMPLY BECAUSE
WE --
THIS IS WHY WE HAD SUCH A
ROBUST CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER
30th, WHICH IS -- AND
WE PRESENTED IT -- AND I
REMEMBER COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ
EVEN
SAYING, STRAUSS, WHAT ARE
YOU ABOUT TO DO HERE, WHEN I
TEED
US UP FOR THE FOUR OPTIONS.
WE COULD LAY STAFF OFF, WE COULD
INCREASE THE FEE, OR WE
COULD PUT GENERAL FUND IN.
AND THE REASON WE WANTED
TO HIGHLIGHT SO EARLY IN THE
BUDGET
PROCESS WAS SO THAT IF
COLLEAGUES HAD THOUGHTS,
FEELINGS, POLICY DECISIONS
ABOUT THE CHOICE OF THOSE THREE
OPTIONS, THAT THOSE COULD
BE TAKEN UP DURING THE BUDGET
PROCESS.
>> CHAIR?
>> IF YOU HAVEHAVE QUESTIONS.
WE ARE NOW AT 12:05.
WE'VE BEEN ON THIS TOPIC
FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES.
IF WE CONTINUE FOR ANOTHER
15, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE
ALL WATCH THE SEPTEMBER 30 th
COMMITTEE.
WE'RE THEN GOING TO
CLOSE QUESTIONS AND I ASK
THE QUESTIONS BE FOCUSED ON
DETERMINING WHETHER YOU WOULD
SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT THIS
BILL.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
I THINK THAT THESE ARE TOUGH
CHOICES AND WHAT YOU'RE
HEARING IS A GRAPPLING WITH ALL
OF
THESE THINGS CO- EXIST AND
THEY'RE
TRUE AND WE'RE GRAPPLING,
I'M GRAPPLING WITH IT BECAUSE
WE ARE
STICKING THE COST TO
THE SMALL ER PROJECTS.
I APPRECIATE YOU LAYING OUT
WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE, BUT
THEY'RE NOT
EASY. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT WE
CAN HAVE
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION UPON
HOW ROBUST THE CONVERSATION WAS
AT
THAT TIME, AND, ALSO, AS
ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE HAVE TO DO
OUR
DUE DILIGENCE ON BEHALF OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS, SO WE NEED TO
HAVE THE TIME IF WE NEED EXTRA
TIME
TODAY TO DISCUSS THIS, THEN I'M
GOING TO ADVOCATE AND
I'M GOING TO REQUEST TO DO THAT
AND
NOT APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
SO THIS IS NOT AS SIMPLE TO ME
AS IT IS BEING PRESENTED AND,
ALSO, I NEED TO BE ABLE TO, AS
I'M TAKING THIS VOTE, LAY
OUT ALL THE THINGS THAT
I'M GRAPPLING WITH SO
MY CONSTITUENTS KNOW THAT I AM
--
HAVE THEIR INTEREST AT HEART
AS I'M DOING THIS WORK, BECAUSE
THIS PERMITTING ISSUE IS A
LONG- STANDING ISSUE AND WE
CAN'T
OVERSIMPLIFY. I APPRECIATE YOU
LAYING EVERYTHING OUT AND, ALSO,
WE NEED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO
ASK THESE QUESTIONSQUESTIONS
TODAY.
SO THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING
THIS.
AS I SAID EARLIER, THIS IS --
I'M STRUGGLING WITH
THIS VOTE. I WOULD KE TO TAKE AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE.
ALL THAT TO SAY IT IS A
REALLY HARD VOTE BECAUSE I
DON'T
LIKE SADDLING THE PROJECT LEAST
IN A
POSITION TO ABSORB THESE
COSTS AND THE BIGGER PROJECTS
ARE IN A
BETTER POSITION TO ABSORB THE
COSTS.
WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE
MOREMORE DEVELOPMENT.
EVERYTHING IS MORE AND MORE
EXPENSIVE.
HOWEVER I VOTE ON THIS, PLEASE
KNOW I DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY.
I APPRECIATE THE
HARD WORK SDCI IS PUTTING INTO
IT.
IT IS, I THINK IN MANY
WAYS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT
WE'RE
MOST
STRUGGLING WITH AT THE CITY.
THANK YOU, CHAIR.
>> THANK YOU.
I SEE YOU RAISED YOUR HAND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS LAID
OUT THREE OPTIONS.
GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY, INCREASED
FEES, CUTS AND WHERE
THE COMMITTEE LANDED AS
OF FRIDAY
WAS A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT
APPROACH.
IT WAS RAISE FEES, A TRUST BUT
VERIFY APPROACH, RAISE FEES
AS PROPOSED BUT GET
INFORMATION IN 2026 THAT THE
COUNCIL CAN USE.
SO YOU CAN MAKE DECISIONS
MIDYEAR THAT COULD
INCLUDE INCREASES BUT YOU WILL
HAVE
MORE INFORMATION
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR
NEXT YEAR.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT?
>> THAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME.
WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION ON
FRIDAY?
>> THERE IS QUARTERLY
REPORTING BY SDCI ON THE
INFORMATION YOU ARE LOOKING AT A
FEW MINUTES
AGO, SO CONSTRUCTION VOLUMES
ON THE VALUE
OF CONSTRUCTION AND THAT WOULD
COME QUARTERLY.
>> SO THAT MEANS YOU BRING
THAT UP NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T
REALLY HAVE TO MAKE THIS
DECISION NOW
ON THE FEES?÷÷WE COULD MAKE IT
IN
SUBSEQUENT -- ARE YOU SUGGESTING
THAT'S --
>> SO THE FEES ARE BAKED
INTO
THE BUDGET PROPOSED BY THE
MAYOR.
>> BEFORE I ASKED THAT, I WOULD
JUST SAY THAT I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE
DISCUSSION
THAT WAS IN MY FEBRUARY 13th,
2025, COMMITTEE.
I THINK IT WAS THEN.
IT REALLY DOES GO THROUGH
SOME OF THE DISCUSSION FROM
PRETTY
WELL- RESPECTED ARCHITECTS AND
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE TO
FIX THEM, SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS
WHICH
THAT WAS THE BASIS OF
A COUPLE BILLS JUST A COUPLE
MONTHS AGO.
FIRING PEOPLE, USING
GENERAL FUND AND MOVING MONEY
AROUND OR
RAISING THE FEE, CAN IT
BE QUANTIFIED HOW MUCH WE ARE
ALREADY UNDER?
>> WELL, 8. 2 MILLION IN 2026
AND THEN IN 2027 WE ARE LOOKING
AT A
SIMILAR INCREASE, WHICH WOULD
BE AROUND 8. 2 TO 9 MILLION.
>> THAT IS THE AMOUNT OF
REVENUE GENERATED BY THAT 18%.
>> OKAY, THAT'S THE REVENUE.
IT'S NOT THE DEFICIT,
THE CURRENT DEFICIT OR THE NEED.
>> YES, SO WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT
NOW IS -- SO OUR BUILDING COST
CENTER, WHICH IS OUR
LARGEST, THE BUILDING PERMITS
FUNDS
55% OF THE DEPARTMENT, IT WILL
END THE YEAR AT NEGATIVE 10
MILLION, WHICH MEANS IT'S GOING
TO
DRAIN THE CORE STAFFING RESERVE
BY THAT 10 MILLION.
BY THE END OF 2026 WITH THE 18%
PROPOSE PROPOSED AND STAFF
RESERVE WOULD BE DOWN.
THAT'S WITH THE 18% .
THAT WOULD EXHAUST THE
RESERVE BY THE END OF 2026.
IN 2027 WE'D BE AT A DEFICIT OF
32 MILLION AND OUR CORE
STAFFING RESERVE WOULD BE
NEGATIVE 10
MILLION, 11 MILLION.
AND IT WOULD BE ZERO BUT WE
CAN'T GO INTO IT ANY MORE.
AND LAND
USE, THE OTHER PART OF THE 18%.
NEGATIVE 5. 4 MILLION BY THE
END OF THIS YEAR WHICH LEAVES
ABOUT
1.7 MILLION OF CORE STAFFING
RESERVE.
IT WILL
EXCEED THE LAND USE CORE
STAFFING RESERVE.
IF THERE IS NO FEE
INCREASE, LAND USE WILL END AT
8. 1
MILLION SO IT WOULD EXHAUST THE
LAND
USE
COST CENTER PROBABLY BY THE
THIRD QUARTER.
2026.
BUILDING IS THE BIG ONE BECAUSE
IT FUNDS 55%, ALL THE PERMIT
INTAKE, PERMIT REVIEWERS, ZONING
REVIEWERS, BUILDING
INSPECTIONS, AND THAT IS --
IT'S GOING TO
BE ABOUT NEGATIVE 10 TO 11
MILLION BY THE END OF 2025.
>> SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT
THERE, SO SDCI RECOGNIZES
HISTORICAL CYCLICAL NATURE
OF THE BUSINESS, SO IN GOOD
TIMES IT PURPOSELY BUILDS UP
RESERVES AND POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
RESERVES.
WE SHOULD THEN -- CORE STAFFING
RESERVES IS CHANGED AS DESCRIBED
AS WHEN WE HIT A SLOW PATCH,
IF YOU WILL, WE RELY ON THOSE.
THE DEPARTMENT -- THESE
COST CENTERS ARE RUNNING
IN THE RED. WE ARE SPENDING MORE
ON STAFF
THAN WE ARE TAKING IN FEES
RIGHT NOW.
WE ARE RUNNING DOWN THOSE
BALANCES. WE ARE DOING THIS VERY
PURPOSELY TO KEEP -- I'M GOING
TO
INVOKE SOME ECONOMIST SPEAK
HERE,
TO KEEP OUR HUMAN CAPITAL
SO WE HAVE A BUNCH OF CITY FOLKS
WHO ARE WELL TRAINED IN THIS
WORK
AND IF WE LET THEM GO DURING
SLOW TIMES WHEN THE BETTER TIMES
COME, WE HAVE TO FIND THEM
AGAIN, MAYBE NOT THE SAME
PEOPLE AND RETRAIN THEM, AND
THAT'S
A POLICY AND MANAGEMENT CALL
ABOUT HOW MANY FOLKS DO YOU WANT
TO KEEP IN THAT CORE, BUT WE ARE
RUNNING IN THE RED.
>> AND AS THAT BALANCE
IS SHRINKING AND IT IS NOW
SHRINKING FASTER THAN
PERHAPS HOPED AND PLANNED,
REALIZING
WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE
IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT
TO THE NEXT UPTICK WITHOUT
SOME ADDITIONAL REVENUE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS
FEE INCREASE -- THIS IS STILL A
PERSPECTIVE PLANNING
ENDEAVOR, HOW LOW WILL THIS GO
AND FOR
HOW LONG, I CAN'T TELL YOU, AND
NO ONE REALLY
CAN. THEIR MODELING IS TIED IN
PART TO THETHE OF THE
FORECAST OFFICE AS WELL SO
SEEING IN IN
RED, OUR RESERVES DRAWN DOWN
AND A DECISION WE NEED TO BUMP
UP
MORE REVENUE OR WE'RE
GOING TO RUN OUT OF THAT RESERVE
SOONER THAN WE HAD OTHERWISE
HOPED
AND THAT'S A JUDGMENT AND A
POLICY
CALL.
THAT'S THE NATURE OF
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
>> THANK YOU.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS?
I FEEL LIKE WE'VE SPENT A LOT
OF
TIME ON THIS. I'D LIKE TO
CONTINUE MOVING
FORWARD.
>> DIRECTOR NOBLE, I
APPRECIATE YOU EXPLAINING ALL OF
THAT.
IT DOES -- WE ALWAYS HAVE
TO EXERCISE OUR OVERSIGHT AND
MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT WE
THINK
IS GOOD POLICY.
WHAT I THINK IS GOOD POLICY
IS SENDING THE SIGNAL THAT WE
WANT MORE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN
THIS
TOWN. WE WANT MORE BUILDING.
WE WANT MORE HOUSING, ET
CETERA, AND SO, TO ME, THIS IS
SENDING
THE WRONG SIGNAL AT
PRECISELY THE WRONG TIME, AND
YOU
CAN SAY -- MEANWHILE, WE KNOW
THERE
ARE $10 MILLION REGULARLY IN THE
UNDERSPEND.
AND SO, TO ME, IT SEEMS
WE REALLY DO HAVE TO
PRIORITIZE BOTH OUR HUMAN
CAPITAL AND THE
FUTURE OF THE CITY AND
WANTING TO ATTRACT MORE BUSINESS
GROWTH AND BUILDING AND HOUSING.
AND SO THAT IS JUST WHERE
I'M COMING FROM.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
ALL COMING UP HERE AND
PROVIDING
MORE INFORMATION AT THE LAST
MINUTE WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING
THIS CONVERSATION WAS GOING TO
HAPPEN
TODAY.
THANKS.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.
AND, COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA, I SEE
YOU'VE GOT YOUR HAND.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE
YOUR STATEMENT NOW, THEN WHAT I
WILL ASK IS THAT WHEN WE BRING
THIS MOTION UP FOR
INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION WE DO
NOT HAVE
DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS
BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT OVER HALF
AN HOUR
ON
THIS ONE.
>> I WILL WAIVE.
>> YOU WANT TO WAIT?
IT MIGHT BE EASIER JUST TO DO IT
RIGHT NOW.
>> I WILL WAIT.
THANK YOU.
>> SOUNDS GOOD.
I'M ASSUMING, COUNCILMEMBER
RIVERA, YOU WOULD STILL LIKE
THIS ONE PULLED FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL VOTE?
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
WITH THAT, COLLEAGUES,
PLEASE HAVE YOUR LISTS READY TO
CONFIRM
OR REQUEST FOR ITEMS TO
BE PULLED OUT OF THE CONSENT
PACKAGE. AT THIS TIME I HAVE
THE FOLLOWING BILLS ASKED TO BE
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
PACKAGE. THAT IS 121105, THE
SDCI FEE
UPDATE ORDINANCE, I HAVE CBO
SHORT- TERM RENTAL TAX
ORDINANCE,
121110.
I HAVE THE 12114 THE MEASURE
CHANGE, AND 1211092
MAJOR INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOL
PROGRAMS
ORDINANCE.
I SEE CENTRAL STAFF CONFIRMING
THAT IS THEIR LIST.
THE CLERK IS CONFIRMING.
COLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER BILLS?
SDCI, I WOULDN'T GO ANYWHERE
QUITE YET.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GOING
TO COME BACK TO YOUR ISSUE IN
JUST A SECOND.
DO I HEAR ANY OTHER ITEMS?
GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE?
THOSE ITEMS ARE REMOVED 121105,
110, 124, 092.
SO UNDERSTANDING THAT, ARE
THERE ANY -- IS THERE ANY
OTHER DISCUSSION ON ANY OTHER
ITEMS?
OTHERWISE I WOULD LIKE TO
MOVE TO ADOPT THE CONSENT
CALENDAR.
>> SECOND.
>> YOU JUMPED AHEAD OF ME BUT
I LOVE IT.
I MOVE TO ADOPT THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. I HEAR A SECOND.
SO, WITH THAT, WE -- I
WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE CLERK TO
CALL THE ROLL ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
EXCLUDING 1211105, 110, 124, AND
0292.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>>
YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> EIGHT IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION PASSES AND THE ITEMS
CONTAINED WITHIN THE
CONSENT CALENDAR WILL BE SENT TO
THE NOVEMBER 21st CITY COUNCIL
MEETING. WE'RE GOING TO COME
BACK
NOW, AND I WILL MOVE, COUNCIL
BILL
121005, THE SDCI FEE UPDATE
ORDINANCE, IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND
SECONDED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT,
I'M GOING TO -- YOU JUST MADE
YOUR CLOSING
STATEMENTS A SECOND AGO, SO I'M
GOING TO GIVE
COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA THE FLOOR
FOR
CLOSING STATEMENTS AND,
COLLEAGUES, I WILL CALL A VOTE
ON THIS ITEM.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, I DON'T -- THIS IS
WHERE IF WE WERE GOING TO BE
SHORT $8 MILLION OR $9 MILLION,
WHY DIDN'T WE TAKE THAT FROM
THE GENERAL FUND WHEN WE
WERE DELIBERATING BACK AND FORTH
ON HOW TO USE ANY UNDERSPEND?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY NOW
WE'RE
PASSING ON THESE COSTS TO THESE
SMALLER PROJECTS RATHER
THAN IF WE FELT LIKE WE NEEDED
TO FILL
A GAP BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T
ENOUGH RESERVES AT SDCI, WHY DID
WE NOT
PRIORITIZE THAT SERVICE?
I WAS UNAWARE THAT THIS WAS THE
OPTION UNTIL TODAY.
THE BUDGET MOVES REALLY FAST,
AND, TO ME, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
A GOOD USE OF GENERAL FUND TO
HELP
BACKFILL FOR WHAT THE
DEPARTMENT WAS GOING TO BE SHORT
RATHER
THAN TRANSFER THIS COST TO THESE
SMALLER PROJECTS, AND I FEEL, IN
GENERAL, COLLEAGUES, THAT WE
ARE CONSTANTLY PASSING ON,
RATHER THAN MAKING THE HARD
DECISIONS, WE'RE PASSING ON
THESE COSTS TO
ALL OUR TAXPAYERS.
>> AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S
FAIR.
I FEEL LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO
LOOK -- WE DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT
REALITY AND WE'RE
CONSTANTLY TRYING TO, YOU KNOW
IT
REQUEST MORE AND MORE AT A TIME
WHEN PEOPLE ARE STRAPPED AND WE
KEEP TALKING ABOUT AN
UNAFFORDABILITY PROBLEM AT THE
CITY BUT
WE'RE CREATING THAT
UNAFFORDABILITY
PROBLEM TO A BIG EXTENT.
SO IF WE NEEDED THAT, THEN
WE SHOULD HAVE PRIORITIZED
THE SERVICE AS PART OF THE
GENERAL
FUND.
SO I REALLY -- I SUPPORT
THE DEPARTMENT AND THEIR ABILITY
TO
DO THE WORK, AND I WANT TO
ALSO SUPPORT THESE SMALLER
PROJECTS AND NOT PASS ON WHAT
THE BIG
PROJECTS -- THEY'RE
NOT DEVELOPING BIG PROJECTS NOW.
I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GIVE
THE LITTLE PERSON THE OVERDUE
BURDEN OF TAKING UP WHAT THE
BIGGER PERSON CAN'T DO RIGHT
NOW.
>> SO I JUST -- AND THEN
WE DON'T HAVE AN END IN SIGHT
OR
WHEN -- WHEN ARE THESE
BIG PROJECTS GOING TO COME UP
ONLINE
AGAIN? WE DON'T KNOW GIVEN ALL
THE CRAZINESS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY WITH THIS CRAZY FEDERAL
ADMINISTRATION.
SO THESE ARE REALLY
HARDHARD FOR US TO MAKE.
>> AGAIN, PLEASE KNOW I
DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY.
I WOULD HAVE PRIORITIZED
GENERAL FUND FOR THIS PURPOSE,
BUT
NOW HERE WE ARE TODAY AND I
DON'T SUSPECT THAT I WILL HAVE
OTHERS JOIN ME, BUT I CAN'T IN
GOOD
CONSCIENCE VOTE FOR THIS
KNOWING THAT WE HAD A DIFFERENT
OPTION WE COULD HAVE CHOSEN AND
WE DIDN'T BECAUSE WE HAD
UNDERSPEND THAT WE USED FOR
MANY,
MANY DIFFERENT CHANGES.
WE HAD MANY, MANY AMENDMENTS
LAST WEEK, AND THIS COULD
HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM.
SO THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND THAT'S
ALL. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
>> THANK YOU.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON 121105.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>>
NO.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> YES.
>> FIVE IN FAVOR, THREE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION PASSES AND THE BILL
WILL BE SENT TO THE NOVEMBER
21st, 2025, CITY COUNCIL
MEETING.
MOVING ON COUNCIL BILL
121110, THE SHORT- TERM RENTAL
TAX.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> THANK YOU.
IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.
ARE THERE -- IS THERE ANY
FINAL DISCUSSION ON THE SHORT-
TERM RENTAL TAX?
ANY FINAL
STATEMENTS BEFORE WE MAKE THE
VOTE?
SEEING NO FINAL STATEMENTS,
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON COUNCIL BILL 121110.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> EIGHT IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED.
>> AND WITH ONE EXCUSAL THAT IS
UNANIMOUS
121110 WILL BE SENT TO THE
NOVEMBER 1st CITY COUNCIL
MEETING.
THE NEXT IS 121124.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>> IT HAS BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND
PASSAGE OF
121124.
ANY FINAL STATEMENTS?
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER RINCK --
COUNCILMEMBER SAKA, I WILL
GIVE YOU LAST WORD.
COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO
COMMEND THE WORK EVERYONE HAS
BEEN
DOING TO DO RIGHT BY OUR
TRANSIT RIDERS AND OUR BUS
DRIVERS TO MAKE TRANSIT SAFER.
I KNOW THERE ARE GREAT
INTENTIONS HERE.
I BELIEVE WE ARE ALL UNITED IN
WORKING TO ENSURE DRIVERS
AND RIDERS ARE SAFE WHILE ON
TRANSIT. AND I WANT TO UPLIFT
THAT
THE SEATTLE TRANSIT MEASURE
IS CURRENTLY USED TO FUND
TRANSIT
SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION
ACCESS PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT
AFFORDABLE AND EQUITABLE ACCESS
SUCH AS THE
LIFT PROGRAM AND TRANSIT
CAPITAL PROJECTS.
I HESITATE TO CHANGE THE
INTENTION OF WHAT THE DOLLARS
ARE FOR AS CURRENTLY OUTLINED
IN THE SEATTLE TRANSIT MEASURE.
AND PARTICULARLY RISK
LOWERING, EVEN BY A SMALLER
AMOUNT,
INVESTMENTS IN THOSE AREAS I
JUST OUTLINED.
WE HAVE ABOUT $9 MILLION IN THE
TRANSPORTATION LEVY, $29 MILLION
IN KING COUNTY METRO'S
BUDGET AND $19 MILLION
FROM SOUND TRANSIT GOING TO
SAFETY
INVESTMENTS.
SO FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE
IF WE WERE TO EXPAND INVESTMENTS
IN THE AREA IT WOULD BE
MY PREFERENCE THAT WE BE LOOKING
AT
THOSE FUND SOURCES FIRST,
AND WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE
APPROACH WITH PARTNERING WITH
OUR
TRANSIT AGENCIES IN ADDRESSING
THIS
ISSUE.
SO I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH
THIS POLICY APPROACH BUT WANT TO
VOICE MY DEEP SUPPORT
FOR WORKING ON TRANSIT SAFETY
WITH
YOU ALL AND WITH OUR
UNION REPRESENTING TRANSIT
WORKERS
587 AND FOR THESE REASONS I WILL
BE VOTING NO TODAY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU,
COUNCILMEMBER
RINCK. COUNCILMEMBER SAKA AND
THEN WE WILL MOVE TO A VOTE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS BUT
WOULD APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON
BEHALF BUT I HAVE
SOME QUESTIONS FOR CENTRAL
STAFF FIRST IF THAT'S ALL
RIGHT.
>> FIRST OFF, CAN YOU HELP
US BETTER UNDERSTAND, WHAT ARE
THE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS BILL
IS SPECIFICALLY VOTED DOWN
TODAY WITH RESPECT TO THE
UNDERLYING BUDGET INVESTMENT WE
ALL
APPROVED, I THINK
UNANIMOUSLY, ON FRIDAY THAT
WOULD -- SO,
YEAH, WHAT ARE THE
CONSEQUENCES IF THIS BUDGET
ENABLEMENT LEGISLATION WERE
VOTED DOWN
TODAY, YET ON THE OTHER HAND,
ON FRIDAY, THE UNDERLYING BUDGET
INVESTMENT ITEM WAS APPROVED
IN THE CHAIR'S BALANCING
PACKAGE?
WHAT WOULD NEED TO
HAPPEN AT THAT POINT?
>> AT THAT POINT THERE WOULD
BE APPROPRIATIONS AND SDOT FOR
THE CHIEF TRANSIT SECURITY
OFFICER THAT COULD NOT BE SPENT.
>> THANK YOU.
SO JUST FOR CLARITY, IF
THIS ITEM WERE VOTED ON -- VOTED
DOWN TODAY, THAT BUDGET
AMENDMENT THAT WE ALL PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY
IN THE CHAIR'S PACKAGE
WOULD EFFECTIVELY NOT BE ABLE TO
BE
SPENT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
AND THEN, ALSO, JUST
REVISITING A PROVISION FROM LAST
YEAR,
ISN'T IT TRUE THAT LAST YEAR
AND
LAST YEAR, I RECOGNIZE
NOT EVERYONE CURRENTLY AT THE
DAIS WAS ON COUNCIL AT THIS
POINT LAST YEAR, BUT ISN'T IT
TRUE THAT WE, AS A
COUNCIL, AUTHORIZED
APPROXIMATELY
$1 MILLION FOR TRANSIT
AMBASSADORS AND BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH
TEAMS SPECIFICALLY TO IMPROVE
TRANSIT
SAFETY AND SECURITY?
>> ALSO -- ALSO FROM THE SEATTLE
TRANSIT MEASURE AS A SOURCE OF
FUNDING, IS THAT TRUE OR UNTRUE?
>> COUNCILMEMBER, THAT IS TRUE.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
SO LAST YEAR WE, AS A
COUNCIL, AND JUST FOR CRYSTAL
CLARITY,
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M
WRONG, BUT IF I'M RECALLING
THE PROCEDURAL ASPECT OF THIS,
THAT ITEM WAS A SPECIFIC COUNCIL
ADD THAT WAS LISTED -- DIDN'T
HAVE
ONE SPECIFIC COUNCILMEMBER'S
NAME ATTACHED TO IT.
THAT ITEM, WHEN IT WAS
FIRST PROPOSED IN THE
CHAIR'S BALANCING PACKAGE LAST
YEAR, IT WAS ASSIGNED AS, I
THINK, ALL --
I THINK IT SAID BUDGET
COMMITTEE.
THE INFERENCE BEING THAT ALL
COUNCILMEMBERS AT THE TIME
SUPPORTED THAT USE OF FUNDS TO
SPECIFICALLY SUPPORT AND
BOOST TRANSIT SECURITY.
IN THAT CASE $1 MILLION,
FOR THOSE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
TEAMS AND TRANSIT AMBASSADORS.
SO ALL COUNCILMEMBERS.
SO ALL THIS TO SAY NOT
ONLY PRECEDENT FOR THIS, RECENT
PRECEDENT, WHEREAS THAT
INVESTMENT PURPORTED TO ADD $1
MILLION, THIS INVESTMENT -- THIS
PROPOSED INVESTMENT BY CONTRAST
IS MUCH MORE MODEST AND
ESSENTIALLY A QUARTER OF
THAT, MORE THAN A QUARTER OF
THAT --
SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT FOR
THE RECORD.
>> ALL RIGHT.
IF I MAY, THAT IS THE END OF MY
LINE OF QUESTIONING, MR. CHAIR.
I WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK MORE BROADLY ON THE
INVESTMENT.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE
CALL A VOTE, BUT IF YOU HAVE
FURTHER QUESTIONS ON UP
PROPOSAL, THEN
I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THEM
ANSWERED, BUT I THINK THAT AT
THIS TIME
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE
TO A VOTE ON THE BILL.
>> I WOULD APPRECIATE
THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK A LITTLE MORE DIRECTLY
TO IT.
>> OKAY.
SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU
CLOSING STATEMENTS AT THIS TIME.
THESE ARE NOW CLOSING
STATEMENTS.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A
VOTE AS SOON AS COUNCILMEMBER
SAKA
HAS COMPLETED HIS CLOSING
STATEMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND, COLLEAGUES, ON
DECEMBER 18th, 2024, METRO
DRIVER SHAWN
KIM WAS MURDERED.
IN THE COURSE OF DUTY.
IN THE COURSE OF DOING HIS JOB.
OPERATOR NUMBER 21882, OPERATOR
KIM WAS MURDERED AND JUST THE
FEW WEEKS BEFORE WE HAD
PASSED, I THINK, A BOLD BUDGET
THAT INCLUDED SOME BOLD
TRANSIT SAFETY AND SECURITY
MEASURES INCLUDING THE
AFOREMENTIONED $1
MILLION FROM THE SEATTLE TRANSIT
MEASURE FUND FOR TRANSIT
AMBASSADORS IN A SEPARATE
$1 MILLION FROM A DIFFERENT
SOURCE
OF MONEY FOR TRANSIT CONTRACTED
TRANSIT SECURITY
INCLUDING SECURITY AND KING
COUNTY METRO
POLICE.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE
INVESTMENTS CAME A LITTLE
TOO LATE TO POTENTIALLY HELP
PREVENT
OR MITIGATE AGAINST
THE POSSIBILITY OF MR. YIM
MEETING HIS TRAGIC
DEMISE. AND I'M PROUD OF THE
WORK
THAT WE DID WORKING
ALONGSIDEALONGSIDE ATU
LOCAL 587 AND PRESIDENT GREG
WOODFIELD TO CRAFT THIS
UNDERLYING INVESTMENT THAT
WE LEARNED IS ESSENTIALLY
RENDERED MEANINGLESS IF WE
DON'T
PASS THIS IMPLEMENTING BUDGET
LEGISLATION TODAY, AND WE ALSO
LEARNED THERE'S DIRECT
PRECEDENT
FROM LAST YEAR DOING
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME THING.
I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE EXPAND
TRANSIT SERVICE, WE MUST ALSO IN
PARALLEL EXPAND AND
BOOST TRANSIT SAFETY AND
SECURITY. I SAID IT BEFORE AND
I'LL SAY IT
AGAIN, TRANSIT SERVICE IS NOT
ONE OF THOSE THINGS -- IT'S
NOT LIKE THE FIELD OF DREAMS.
IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME.
IF YOU
EXPAND IT, WE CAN COUNT ON MORE
RIDERS.
>> TO THE CONTRARY.
WE MUST, AS WE EXPAND TRANSIT
SERVICE, SPECIFICALLY
BOOST TRANSIT SAFETY AND
SECURITY
BECAUSE EXPANSION OF
TRANSIT SERVICE IS ONLY A
PRECONDITION,
ONE OF MANY, NOT THE ONLY.
WE MUST CREATE CONDITIONS IN AN
ENVIRONMENT WHERE
PEOPLE ACTUALLY FEEL SAFE AND
SECURE
WHILE RIDING TRANSIT.
PART OF THAT, A HUGE PART OF
THAT, ACTUALLY, IS BOOSTING
THE STATE OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
ON
OUR TRANSIT SYSTEM.
IT'S A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY.
ALL JURISDICTIONS PLAY A ROLE.
THAT'S NOT MY POSITION --
NOT SOLELY MY POSITION.
THAT'S THE POSITION OF THE
ATU LOCAL 587.
THEY COME
HERE MULTIPLE TIMES AND SHARE
THAT DIRECTLY
THEMSELVES.
>> SO, COLLEAGUES, FOR THE
COMMON÷÷ SENSE REASONS I
MENTIONED, I URGE YOUR
SUPPORT OF THIS TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, WILL THE
CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON
COUNCIL BILL 121124.
>> COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON?
>> AYE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>> AYE.
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
121124 PASSES, IS
RECOMMENDED FOR PASSAGE AT
THETHE
21st COUNCIL MEETING.
I'M NOW GOING
TO MOVE COUNCIL BILL 12102.
IS THERE A
SECOND?
>>
SECOND.
>> WE'RE ONLY GOING TO
TAKE CLOSING STATEMENTS AT THIS
TIME.
SO FOLKS HAVE CLOSING
STATEMENTS ON THIS ISSUE,
OTHERWISE
I'M GOING TO CALL FOR A VOTE.
>> WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL
A ROLE ON 0292.
>> COUNCILMEMBER
HOLLINGSWORTH?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER JUAREZ?
>> AYE.
>> COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON?
>>
AYE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RINCK?
>> YES.
>> COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA?
>> NO.
>> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA?
AYE.
>> CHAIR STRAUSS?
>>
AYE.
>> SEVEN IN FAVOR, ONE OPPOSED.
>> THANK YOU.
THE MOTION PASSES AND
COUNCIL BILL 121092 IS
RECOMMENDED
FOR PASSAGE AT THE NOVEMBER 21st
COUNCIL MEETING.
>> COLLEAGUES, THAT DOES BRING
US TO THE END OF OUR
AGENDA TODAY SO WE WILL BE BACK
HERE
IN THE SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE
ON
NOVEMBER 17 TO TAKE UP THE TWO
WERE NOT ON
TODAY'S AGENDA WHICH ARE
COUNCIL BILL
121115 AND CLERK FILE 314546.
THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT
WERE PASSED OUT OF THE BUDGET --
OR THAT WE FINISHED ON FRIDAY.
IF THE REASON THERE IS TIME
BETWEEN LAST FRIDAY AND THIS
COMING THURSDAY IS TO MAKE
SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS CORRECT,
AND SO THE ONLY EXCEPTION FOR
AMENDMENTS ARE
ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS FROM
MISTAKES THAT
WE HAVE FOUND.
IF WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT
THAT CREATES A SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGE, WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT A
WEEK,
WHICH WE CAN, BUT THAT WOULD
REQUIRE US TO COME BACK TO
COUNCIL
ON THE FRIDAY, THE DAY AFTER
THANKSGIVING.
SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES BEFORE
US.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO
ISSUES THAT WE WILL BRING UP ON
THURSDAY.
COLLEAGUES, I RECOMMEND THAT
FOLKS MAKE THEIR -- WHAT I'M
REQUESTING IS FOLKS ONLY
MAKE THEIR LONG SPEECH ONCE.
EITHER AT PASSAGE OUT OF
COUNCIL ON THURSDAY OR PASSAGE
OUT OF
FULL COUNCIL ON FRIDAY.
IT'S GREAT TO MAKE A LONG
SPEECH, IT'S NOT GREAT TO MAKE
IT TWICE.
I WILL ALSO HIGHLIGHT THAT
FRIDAY IS, UNFORTUNATELY, OUR
LAST DAY WITH COUNCILMEMBER
SOLOMON, AND SO IF YOU
ARE PREPARING TO MAKE REMARKS TO
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON, THAT WE
DO THOSE ON FRIDAY, SO THAT
WOULD, IN
TURN, SAY DO THE LONG SPEECH ON
THURSDAY.
SO THAT'S MY
RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DO LONG
BUDGET SPEECHES ON
THURSDAY.
FAREWELL TO
COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON ON FRIDAY,
BUT IF WE
GET TO FRIDAY AND PEOPLE ARE
MAKING
LONG SPEECHES ABOUT THE BUDGET
ON FRIDAY AS WELL, WELL, I'M
GOING TO SAY SOMETHING.
SO THAT BRINGS US TO
THE CONCLUSION OF OUR MEETING
TODAY.
IS THERE ANYTHING FOR THE
GOOD OF THE ORDER BEFORE WE
CONCLUDE?
SEEING AS WE HAVE NOTHING
FURTHER, THIS CONCLUDES
THE SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE
MEETING.
WE WILL MEET ON
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20th AT 9:30
A.M.
VERBAL COMMENT WILL NOT
BE ACCEPTED AS IT IS JUST
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE
WORK THAT WE
DID LAST WEEK.
HEARING NO FURTHER BUSINESS,
WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 12:38 ON
NOVEMBER 17, 2025. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.