Meeting JSON

Select Budget Committee Special Meeting 7/16/25 · x177972

Layered meeting payload combining source, parsed, summary, and hindsight references.

Meeting JSON JSON x177972

generated inline payload

Back to artifacts Meeting page Open raw route

JSON view

{ "city": "seattle", "canonicalVideoId": "x177972", "source": { "meeting": { "fileName": "x177972.json", "path": "data/cities/seattle/source/meetings/x177972.json", "sourceStem": "x177972", "variantCount": 1, "variantFiles": [ "x177972.json" ], "metadata": { "videoId": "x177972", "title": "Select Budget Committee Special Meeting 7/16/25", "date": "2025-07-27", "duration": 0, "committee": "Finance & Native Communities", "videoUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/explore-videos?videoid=x177972", "subtitleUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/documents/seattlechannel/closedcaption/2025/x177972.srt", "thumbnailUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/images//images/seattlechannel/videos/2025/budget_071625_2062505web.jpg" } }, "transcript": { "fileName": "2025-07-16_budget_select-budget-committee-special-meeting-_x177972.srt", "path": "data/cities/seattle/source/transcripts/2025-07-16_budget_select-budget-committee-special-meeting-_x177972.srt", "sourceStem": "2025-07-16_budget_select-budget-committee-special-meeting-_x177972", "size": 430353, "variantCount": 2, "variantFiles": [ "2025-07-16_budget_select-budget-committee-special-meeting-_x177972.srt", "2025-07-22_budget_select-budget-committee-special-meeting-_x177972.srt" ], "rawHash": "8ecd5c82366c1a525bbcdf04a77e3f69536fd75945f419b96c9543e1ff1d0251", "textHash": "15b0733520122dcfc1a55065cf68018edfcd38f1297a9a056693bba4fb5264a9", "entryCount": 6320, "wordCount": 30676, "speakerCount": 93, "speakers": [ "ACTUALLY A POINT OF", "ALSO WITH CITY COUNCIL", "AND THIS MORNING WE ARE GOING", "AND YOUR PARTNERSHIP ON THIS", "ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON", "CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY", "COULD YOU REPEAT THE PART", "COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND THEN", "COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH", "COUNCILMEMBER NELSON", "COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA", "COUNCILMEMBER SAKA", "DIRECTOR EDER", "EXCELLENT", "FIRST AS WE DISCUSSED THAT IS", "FIRST PIECE OF THE PROPOSAL", "GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN STRAUSS", "GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS", "GOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE", "GREAT", "HANG TIGHT", "HELLO", "HERE", "I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH", "I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY NUMBERS", "I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO THE", "I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I", "I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE", "I RAISE THAT FACT BECAUSE OF", "I SEE DIRECTOR NOBLE HAS A", "I THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION", "I UNDERSTAND THE ENCUMBER AND", "I WILL ADDRESS THAT AND", "I WILL ASK THE PRESENTERS TO", "I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT", "IF I AM UNDERSTANDING IT", "INHOUSE", "JUST GETTING AT SOME OF THE", "JUST TO SAY THAT AS I", "LOOKING AT THE LONG LIST OF", "MY NAME IS KATE RUBIN AND", "MY NAME IS MARTA KHURANA AND", "MY ONLY RESPONSE IS THAT", "NEXT IS PHOENICIA FOLLOWED BY", "NEXT SLIDE", "ONGOING TO FACILITATE THIS", "PLEASE", "SO APOLOGIZE IF I MISSPOKE", "SO I DID MENTION", "SO JUST TO CLOSE OUT THE", "SO NOTED", "SO NOW CONTINUING ON THE", "SOUNDS GOOD", "THANK", "THANK CHAIR STRAUSS AND THANK", "THANK YOU", "THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE", "THANK YOU AND APOLOGIES FOR", "THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK YOU", "THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS AND", "THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT", "THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER", "THANK YOU FOR", "THANK YOU FOR THAT", "THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL", "THANK YOU VERY MUCH MARTA", "THANK YOU VICE CHAIR", "THAT TOOK UP ONE", "THE BOX NEXT TO YOU WHICH", "THE ONE THING THAT THIS BILL", "THE PRINCIPLE POINT", "THERE", "THESE NEXT LINES WILL JUST", "THIS IS PRIMARILY", "THIS IS WHERE WE ARE", "THIS WOULD BE THE", "THIS WOULD FIT ON THE DECK OF", "TO COLLEAGUES PER PERSON", "TO REPEAT THAT", "UNDERSTOOD", "UP NEXT IS BLAKE BRUMFIELD", "VICE CHAIR", "WE ARE JOINED BY TRACE I", "WE CAN PROVIDE THAT DETAIL", "WE HAVE DIRECTOR", "WE HAVE NINE REMOTE AND NINE", "WE HAVE THAT HOUSING LEVY", "WEAL BE TALKING", "WHEN I SAY READ I SAY SLOWER", "WHEN I WAS JUST LEAVING WE", "WILL ALLOW DIRECTOR EDER TO", "WITH RESPECT TO THE DEADLINE", "YOU HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN INTO" ], "urls": { "srt": "/seattle/api/source/transcript/x177972.srt", "text": "/seattle/api/source/transcript/x177972.txt" } } }, "parsed": { "persistedAt": "2026-04-08T05:49:31.978Z", "canonicalVideoId": "x177972", "meeting": { "title": "Select Budget Committee Special Meeting 7/16/25", "date": "2025-07-27", "committee": "Finance & Native Communities", "videoUrl": "https://www.seattlechannel.org/explore-videos?videoid=x177972", "sourceVideoId": "x177972", "sourceFileName": "x177972.json", "metadataVariantCount": 1, "metadataVariantIds": [ "x177972" ] }, "transcript": { "sourceFileName": "2025-07-16_budget_select-budget-committee-special-meeting-_x177972.srt", "sourcePath": "/Users/thedjpetersen/code/seacc/data/seattle/transcripts/2025-07-16_budget_select-budget-committee-special-meeting-_x177972.srt", "variantCount": 2, "variantFiles": [ "2025-07-16_budget_select-budget-committee-special-meeting-_x177972.srt", "2025-07-22_budget_select-budget-committee-special-meeting-_x177972.srt" ], "entryCount": 6320, "wordCount": 30676, "speakerCount": 93, "speakers": [ "ACTUALLY A POINT OF", "ALSO WITH CITY COUNCIL", "AND THIS MORNING WE ARE GOING", "AND YOUR PARTNERSHIP ON THIS", "ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON", "CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY", "COULD YOU REPEAT THE PART", "COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND THEN", "COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH", "COUNCILMEMBER NELSON", "COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA", "COUNCILMEMBER SAKA", "DIRECTOR EDER", "EXCELLENT", "FIRST AS WE DISCUSSED THAT IS", "FIRST PIECE OF THE PROPOSAL", "GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN STRAUSS", "GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS", "GOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE", "GREAT", "HANG TIGHT", "HELLO", "HERE", "I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH", "I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY NUMBERS", "I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO THE", "I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I", "I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE", "I RAISE THAT FACT BECAUSE OF", "I SEE DIRECTOR NOBLE HAS A", "I THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION", "I UNDERSTAND THE ENCUMBER AND", "I WILL ADDRESS THAT AND", "I WILL ASK THE PRESENTERS TO", "I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT", "IF I AM UNDERSTANDING IT", "INHOUSE", "JUST GETTING AT SOME OF THE", "JUST TO SAY THAT AS I", "LOOKING AT THE LONG LIST OF", "MY NAME IS KATE RUBIN AND", "MY NAME IS MARTA KHURANA AND", "MY ONLY RESPONSE IS THAT", "NEXT IS PHOENICIA FOLLOWED BY", "NEXT SLIDE", "ONGOING TO FACILITATE THIS", "PLEASE", "SO APOLOGIZE IF I MISSPOKE", "SO I DID MENTION", "SO JUST TO CLOSE OUT THE", "SO NOTED", "SO NOW CONTINUING ON THE", "SOUNDS GOOD", "THANK", "THANK CHAIR STRAUSS AND THANK", "THANK YOU", "THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE", "THANK YOU AND APOLOGIES FOR", "THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK YOU", "THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS AND", "THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT", "THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER", "THANK YOU FOR", "THANK YOU FOR THAT", "THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL", "THANK YOU VERY MUCH MARTA", "THANK YOU VICE CHAIR", "THAT TOOK UP ONE", "THE BOX NEXT TO YOU WHICH", "THE ONE THING THAT THIS BILL", "THE PRINCIPLE POINT", "THERE", "THESE NEXT LINES WILL JUST", "THIS IS PRIMARILY", "THIS IS WHERE WE ARE", "THIS WOULD BE THE", "THIS WOULD FIT ON THE DECK OF", "TO COLLEAGUES PER PERSON", "TO REPEAT THAT", "UNDERSTOOD", "UP NEXT IS BLAKE BRUMFIELD", "VICE CHAIR", "WE ARE JOINED BY TRACE I", "WE CAN PROVIDE THAT DETAIL", "WE HAVE DIRECTOR", "WE HAVE NINE REMOTE AND NINE", "WE HAVE THAT HOUSING LEVY", "WEAL BE TALKING", "WHEN I SAY READ I SAY SLOWER", "WHEN I WAS JUST LEAVING WE", "WILL ALLOW DIRECTOR EDER TO", "WITH RESPECT TO THE DEADLINE", "YOU HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN INTO" ], "hash": "15b0733520122dcfc1a55065cf68018edfcd38f1297a9a056693bba4fb5264a9" }, "tags": [ "org:seattle-city-council", "meeting:x177972", "committee:finance-and-native-communities", "year:2025", "month:2025-07", "date:2025-07-27" ], "text": "THE COMMITTEE. WILL THE CLERK\nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL?\nCOUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH: COUNCILMEMBER HOLLINGSWORTH.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE.\nHERE: HERE.\nCOUNCILMEMBER NELSON: COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.\nCOUNCILMEMBER [ INAUDIBLE ]\nPRESENT.\nCOUNCILMEMBER SAKA: COUNCILMEMBER SAKA.\nCOUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN. AND\nCHAIR STRAUSS. FIVE PRESENT.\nTHANK YOU, THOSE NOT PRESENT\nARE EXCUSED UNTIL THEY ARRIVE.\nTHE FOUR ITEMS WE HAVE ON THE\nAGENDA TODAY ARE ALL FOR\nBRIEFING AND DISCUSSION, AND SO\nWE ARE GOING TO TAKE AS MUCH\nTIME AS WE NEED TO TODAY TO\nDISCUSS THE UNDERLYING ELEMENTS\nOF THESE BILLS. THANK YOU\nCOUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON FOR\nCANCELING THE LAND-USE COMMITTEE\nTHIS AFTERNOON. I KNOW SOME\nFOLKS WILL HAVE HARD STOPS BUT\nWE ALSO DO NOT HAVE A COMMITTEE\nTHIS AFTERNOON. THE FOUR ITEMS\nON TODAY'S AGENDA ARE THE\nSHIELD INITIATIVE, THE\nLEGISLATION THAT WOULD MAKE\nADJUSTMENTS TUBA CITY'S E AND O\nTAX, TWO ORDINANCES RELATING TO\nTHE MIDYEAR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET.\nTHE FIRST IS AN ORDINANCE\nACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING GRANT\nEXPENDITURES AND THE SECOND IS\nTHE 2025 MIDYEAR SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET ORDINANCE. WE ALSO HAVE\nAN ORDINANCE RELATING TO WORLD\nCUP APPROPRIATIONS, AND FINALLY\nAN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE\nFINANCING OF HUMAN CAPITAL\nMANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PROJECT, MORE\nCOMMONLY KNOWN AS WORKDAY.\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA IS NOW\nPRESENT. BEFORE WE BEGIN, IF\nTHERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE\nAGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING\nNO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA IS\nADOPTED. WE NOW MOVE INTO THE\nHYBRID PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.\nPUBLIC COMMENTS SHOULD RELATE TO\nTHE ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND\nWITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE SELECT\nCOMMITTEE. HOW MANY FOLKS DO WE\nHAVE PHYSICALLY SIGNED UP TODAY?\nWE HAVE NINE REMOTE AND NINE: WE HAVE NINE REMOTE AND NINE\nIN PERSON.\nWONDERFUL. WE'LL START WITH\nTHE IN PERSON SPEAKERS. I'M\nGOING TO CALL EVERYONE'S NAME,\nAND IF YOU COULD LINE UP SO WE\nCOULD TAKE THROUGH THIS RAPIDLY,\nWITH 18 SIGNED UP WE WILL STILL\nSTAY WITH TWO MINUTES. THAT DOES\nMEAN WE'LL EXCEED THE 20 MINUTE\nALLOTTED TIME AND WE'LL MOVE\nFORWARD. SO WITH THAT WE HAVE\nRACHEL SNELL, EUGENE WASSERMAN,\nHALLIE WILLIS, BLAKE GARFIELD,\nJASON AUSTIN, DENNIS SILLS,\nANISHA ZANE, MARTHA KIDNEY, AND\nLILLIE HAYWARD. RACHEL, WELCOME?\nCAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY: CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?\nYES .\nPERFECT. ALL RIGHT. GOOD\nMORNING CHAIR STRAUSS AND\nMEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. I NAME\nIS RACHEL SNELL TESTIFYING\nSTRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THE SEATTLE\nSHIELD INITIATIVE. IN A TIME\nWHERE OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS\nGIVING US MASSIVE CUTS, NOW MORE\nTHAN EVER IT IS CRITICAL TO\nSUPPORT RECURSIVE REVENUE. NOW\nMORE THAN EVER IT'S CRITICAL TO\nPROVIDE AID TO HARD-WORKING\nSEATTLEITES AND SMALL BUSINESSES\nIN ORDER TO CREATE A ROBUST CITY\nFOR ALL TO THRIVE. AND THANK YOU\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINK FOR YOUR\nTIRELESS LEADERSHIP IN THIS\nINITIATIVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.\nTHANK YOU. FOLLOWING RACHEL\nIS EUGENE WASSERMAN, EITHER\nMICROPHONE, FOLLOWED BY HALEY\nWILSON --\n[ INAUDIBLE ]\nTHE BOX NEXT TO YOU WHICH: THE BOX NEXT TO YOU WHICH\nSAYS PLEASE PLACE HERE.\nHI, I'M EUGENE WASSERMAN.\nI'M HERE TODAY SPEAKING AS AN\nINDIVIDUAL. NORMALLY I COME AND\nSPEAK FOR MY ORGANIZATION, NORTH\nSEATTLE INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION,\nBUT WE HAVE HAD NOT ENOUGH TIME\nOR INFORMATION TO REVIEW THIS\nPROPOSAL. SO I'LL TELL YOU WHAT\nI COME UP WITH. MOST OF THE\nMARITIME COMMUNITY WILL BE HIT\nWITH THIS TAX. WHEN PEOPLE IN\nTHE INDUSTRY ARE HAVING A LOT OF\nPROBLEMS WITH TARIFFS AND ONE\nDAY THE PORT IS FULL, NEXT DAY\nIT'S EMPTY. THERE'S A LOT OF\nCOMPETITION FROM THE RUSSIAN\nFISHING INDUSTRY. THIS WOULD NOT\nBE A GOOD TIME TO DO IT. I LEFT\nYOU THIS, WHICH IS FROM ONE OF\nYOUR PACKETS IN COUNCIL. THIS\nSHOWS YOU HOW OUT OF WHACK YOUR\nBE ENDO TAXES WOULD BE TO THE\nREST OF THE REGION, AND RIGHT\nNOW SEATTLE'S NOT DOING A LOT\nECONOMICALLY. GO IT DOESN'T\nSEEM LIKE IT'S PIERCED THIS\nAREA OF CITY HALL BUT THAT'S, I\nTHINK BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING TOO\nMUCH [ INAUDIBLE ] STUFF,\nCREATING UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS\nTHAT I DON'T THINK WILL EVER\nHAPPEN. BUT WE ARE AT A\nCOMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE IN THE\nCITY, AND THIS WILL NOT HELP IT.\nTHIS IS -- BUSINESSES, I'VE\nLOST FIVE MAJOR BUSINESSES IN\nTHE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AND\nTHREE OF THEM ARE UNION. THREE\nOF THEM ARE UNION. I LOST FOUR,\nAND ONE OF THEM WAS NONUNION. SO\nTHEY JUST LEFT THE AREA. I KNOW\nOTHER BUSINESSES ARE\nCONTEMPLATING LEAVING THE AREA,\nAND PASSING THINGS LIKE THIS,\nI'M NOT GOING TO SAY THIS IS\nTHE FINAL WORD FOR THEM BUT IT\nJUST INDICATES HOW ANTIBUSINESS\nTHE CITY IS TO THEM, NOT TO ME.\nI MUST SAY AT THIS POINT THE\nCITY HAS MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS\nIN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.\nTHINGS ARE GETTING A LOT BETTER\nBUT THINGS ARE STILL NOT GOOD.\nOUR MEMBERS STILL CARRY GUNS TO\nPROTECT THEMSELVES AND DOWNTOWN\nIS VACANT, [ INAUDIBLE ] 31%,\nWHICH IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST IN\nTHE COUNTRY.\nTHANK YOU. UP NEXT IS HALEY\nWILL IS FOLLOWED BY BLAKE\nGARFIELD AND JASON AUSTIN.\nWELCOME HALEY. HALLIE, SORRY.\nAT EVENING COUNCILMEMBER'S,\nMY NAME IS HALLIE WILLIS AND I\nAM THE POLICY MANAGER FOR THE\nSEATTLE KING COUNTY COALITION ON\nHOMELESSNESS, AND I LIVE IN\nDISTRICT 5. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT\nCOUNCIL MEMBER RINCK AND MAYOR\nHERR L'S OPPOSED B AND O TAX\nREFORM THAT WOULD HELP DETECT\nESSENTIAL SERVICES LIKE HOUSING\nAND SHELTER FROM LOCAL AND\nFEDERAL BUDGET CUTS. THE $90\nMILLION THIS TAX WILL RAISE\nEVERY YEAR IS ESSENTIAL AND\nCOUNCIL SHOULD SEND THIS\nPROPOSAL TO THE VOTERS. BUT\nIT'S NOT ENOUGH. SETTING ASIDE\nMASSIVE FEDERAL CUTS, WE HAVE A\n$240 MILLION BUDGET DEFICIT OF\nOUR OWN CREATION. THIS BUDGET\nDEFICIT WILL ONLY GET WORSE\nWITHOUT PERMANENT , NEW,\nPROGRESSIVE REVENUE SOURCES. THE\nCOUNCIL NEEDS TO PASS ADDITIONAL\nLONG-TERM PROGRESS OF REVENUE\nTHIS YEAR AND IN THE COMING\nYEARS, TO MAKE SURE THAT SEATTLE\nRESIDENTS HAVE FOOD TO EAT AND A\nSAFE PLACE TO SLEEP AT NIGHT.\nTHROUGH THIS CURRENT FEDERAL\nADMINISTRATION AND BEYOND.\nPLEASE SEND THIS PROPOSAL TO THE\nVOTERS AND PASS ADDITIONAL\nLONG-TERM PROGRESSIVE REVENUE\nTHIS YEAR. THANK YOU.\nUP NEXT IS BLAKE BRUMFIELD: UP NEXT IS BLAKE BRUMFIELD\nFOLLOWED BY JASON AUSTIN AND\nDENNIS [ INAUDIBLE ]. GOOD\nMORNING, BLAKE.\nI'M BLAKE GARFIELD, MY\nFAMILY OWNS BEDROOMS AND MORE.\nIT'S A RETAIL STORE. IT'S BEEN\nTHERE SINCE 1972. I'M ALSO ON\nTHE BOARD FOR THE WASHINGTON\nRETAIL ASSOCIATION. I VOLUNTEER\nMY TIME PUTTING ON THE\nWALLINGFORD PARADE AND I WAS\nRECENTLY ELECTED THE PRESIDENT\nOF THE WALLINGFORD CHAMBER OF\nCOMMERCE, WHICH IS MORE OF AN\nHONORARY TITLE, BECAUSE IT\nREALLY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING YET.\nBUT BEING A SMALL BUSINESS IN\nSEATTLE IS REALLY HARD AND WE\nHAVE 30 ISH EMPLOYEES AT ANY\nGIVEN TIME, OR A LITTLE BIT MORE\nTHAN THAT. WE TRY AND DO THE\nRIGHT KIND OF EMPLOYER, WHERE WE\nHAVE FULL COLLEGE TUITION PAID\nFOR SOME OF THESE WORKING\nFULL-TIME FOR US, MEDICAL\nBENEFITS, AND THE JOB WHERE\nPEOPLE, IF THEY WORK FOR US FOR\nABOUT FIVE YEARS, SHOULD BE ABLE\nTO OWN A HOME WHERE THEY'RE NOT\nCOMMUTING FROM LACEY TO COME\nINTO WORK FOR US. AND WE GET IN\nTHIS WEIRD SPOT WHERE WE ARE TOO\nBIG OF A BUSINESS TO NOT GET\nCAUGHT UP IN A TAX LIKE THIS BUT\nTOO SMALL FOR IT TO NOT HURT.\nDURING THE PANDEMIC WE HAD\n$180,000 OF DAMAGE DONE TO OUR\nBUILDING ON 45th AND WE GET NO\nRELIEF FROM THE CITY. WE\nWEREN'T GETTING SUPPORT ON\nTHAT. AND HERE WE ARE BEING\nCAUGHT UP IN A TAX WHERE WE ARE\nNOT MAKING MONEY. OUR RENT PER\nHOUSE WAS GOING TO GO UP TO\n$50,000 PER MONTH TO HAVE A\nWAREHOUSE IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE\nIF WE RENEWED OUR LEASE, AND\nIT'S TOUGH TO TRY AND THREAD\nTHE NEEDLE, TO BE THE RIGHT KIND\nOF EMPLOYER IN A CITY WHERE\nYOU'RE GETTING CAUGHT UP IN THE\nTAX, AND IT'S SO HARD TO FIND\nSOURCES FOR REVENUE. I EMPATHIZE\nWITH YOUR CHALLENGE BECAUSE\nWHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GO. I'M\nNOT A BIG ENOUGH BUSINESS TO\nTHREATEN TO LEAVE THE CITY AND\nHAVE IT REALLY BE MEANINGFUL. IF\nYOU TAX ME, THIS IS TOUGH, AND\nSO, AND IF I WAS ONE EMPLOYER\nAND I HAD $7 MILLION OF REVENUE\nFOR ONE EMPLOYEE, YEAH, TAX THE\nOUT OF ME. I DESERVE TO PAY THE\nTAX BUT IT'S TOUGH WHEN WE ARE\nIN THIS SITUATION SO I REALLY\nHOPE THAT YOU REEVALUATE YOUR\nTAX BASED ON THE NUMBER OF\nEMPLOYEES, FOR THE RECORD.\nTHANKS.\nTHANK YOU, BLAKE PARKER UP\nNEXT IS JASON FOLLOWED DENNIS\nSILLS AND THEN FINISHES AIM.\nGOOD EVENING -- GOOD MORNING,\nJASON.\nGOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING,\nCOUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS JASON\nAUSTIN, DISTRICT 2 RESIDENT, AND\nTHE PROGRAM DIRECTOR WITH THE\nMEALS PARTNERSHIP COALITION. I\nAM HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR\nOF THE SHIELD SEATTLE B AND O\nTAX REFORM PROPOSAL. I WANT TO\nTHANK BOTH MAYOR HERRELL AND\nCOUNCIL MEMBER RINCK FOR\nCHAMPIONING THIS AND URGE THE\nFULL COUNCIL TO SUPPORT. THE\nMEMBERS OF MPC ARE THE FRONT\nLINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST HUNGER\nIN SEATTLE. OUR 45 MEMBER\nORGANIZATIONS COLLECTIVELY\nPRODUCE OVER 4 MILLION MEALS,\nNUTRITIONALLY DENSE, CULTURALLY\nUPLIFTING, READY TO EAT FOOD FOR\nEVERYONE. OUR MEMBERS INCLUDE\nPROGRAMS SUCH AS THE SOUTHEAST\nSEATTLE SENIOR CENTER, STARTED\nSPEAKING NON-ENGLISH ] FIRST\nUNITED METHODIST CHURCH AND\nCULTIVATES HEALTH PART. EVERY\nSINGLE NEIGHBORHOOD IN SEATTLE\nCONTAINS AT LEAST ONE MPC IN\nMEMBER SUPPORTING EVERYONE IN\nTHE CITY. IN 2024 SEATTLE MEAL\nPROGRAMS SO A DRAMATIC INCREASE\nIN DEMAND FROM THE PREVIOUS\nYEAR. PRELIMINARY DATA SUGGEST\nTHAT 2025 WILL SEE EVEN GREATER\nNEED ACROSS THE CITY. WITH OUR\nHUNGER RELIEF SYSTEM ALREADY\nSTRETCHED TO MAXIMUM CAPACITY,\nANY REDUCTIONS IN FUNDING WILL\nPUT OUR CITY IN DANGER. TENS OF\nTHOUSANDS OF SEATTLEITES ARE\nEXPECTED TO LOSE THEIR SNAPBACK\nBENEFITS AS A RESULT OF THE\nFEDERAL BUDGET. IF WE DO NOT\nTAKE STEPS NOW TO DEFEND OUR\nHUNGER RELIEF INFRASTRUCTURE,\nOUR MEMBERS WILL BE OVERWHELMED\nAND UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THE\nDRAMATIC INCREASE IN NEED.\nSHIELD SEATTLE IS A MEANINGFUL\nINVESTMENT IN PUBLIC SAFETY AND\nCOMMUNITY WELL-BEING THAT WILL\nHELP EVERYONE WHETHER THE\nDIFFICULT YEARS THAT WE HAVE\nAHEAD . AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK\nTHE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER\nRINCK FOR CHAMPIONING THIS\nPROPOSAL ENTERS THE FULL COUNCIL\nTO SUPPORT THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY.\nTHANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.\nTHANK YOU. UP NEXT IS DENNIS\nSILLS FOLLOWED BY PHOENICIA ZANE\nAND MARGARET [ INAUDIBLE ].\nGOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN STRAUSS: GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN STRAUSS\nAND COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS\nDENNIS SILLS, I WORK AT PUBLIC\nHOUSING. WE PROVIDE PERMANENT\nSUPPORT HOUSING TO MORE THAN\n1300 FORMERLY HOMELESS ADULTS.\nVERY GRATEFUL TO MAYOR HERRELL\nAND COUNCILMEMBER MERCEDES RINCK\nFOR WORKING ON THE B AND O TAX\nREFORM. PLYMOUTH HOUSING\nPROVIDES ON-SITE SERVICES\nINCLUDING CASE MANAGEMENT AND\nPROPERTY MANAGEMENT TO SUPPORT\nTHE NEEDS OF FORMERLY HOMELESS\nRESIDENTS, INCLUDING MANY WITH\nDISABILITIES. THESE SERVICES ARE\nMADE POSSIBLE WITH SUPPORT FROM\nMANY GOVERNMENT FUNDERS .\nCHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDE\nINFLATION AND FEDERAL POLICIES\nARE ENDANGERING OUR ABILITY TO\nCONTINUE TO SERVE RESIDENTS AT A\nHIGH LEVEL. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT\nSENDING A REVENUE PROPOSAL TO\nTHE VOTERS. THIS 90 MILLION\nPROPOSAL IS A CRUCIAL FIRST STEP\nBUT CANNOT BE AN ONLY STEP. WE\nARE GRAPPLING WITH A $240\nMILLION STRUCTURAL BUDGET\nDEFICIT AND WE ARE BRACING FOR\nSIGNIFICANT FEDERAL CUTS THAT\nWILL UNDOUBTEDLY EXACERBATE OUR\nPROBLEM. TO TRULY SAFEGUARD OUR\nCOMMUNITY AND ENSURE ALL SEATTLE\nRESIDENTS HAVE FOOD TO EAT AND A\nSAFE PLACE TO SLEEP AT NIGHT,\nTHE COUNCIL MUST COMMIT TO\nPASSING LONG-TERM ADDITIONAL\nPROGRESSIVE REVENUE MEASURES IN\nYEARS TO COME. THIS PROPOSAL IS\nIMPERFECT BUT ADDRESSES THE\nCHALLENGES HUMAN SERVICE\nPROVIDERS ARE FACING NOW. WE\nWOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS PROPOSAL\nPROVIDE DEDICATED SUPPORT TO THE\nOFFICE OF HOUSING AND PROVIDERS\nACROSS THE CITY. WE ALSO WOULD\nLIKE TO SEE THE PROPOSAL INCLUDE\nA REMOVAL OF THE PROPOSED FOUR\nYEAR SUNSET TO PROVIDE A MORE\nSTABLE FUNDING FOR SEATTLE'S\nFUTURE. WE URGE YOU TO PASS THIS\nPROPOSAL AND CONTINUE WORKING\nTOWARDS PROGRESSIVE [ INAUDIBLE\n]. THANK YOU.\nNEXT IS PHOENICIA FOLLOWED BY: NEXT IS PHOENICIA FOLLOWED BY\nMARTY AND WILLIE AND WE'LL\nTRANSFER TO CALL IN, VIRTUAL\nPUBLIC COMMENTERS, SO IF YOU ARE\nCALLED IN YOU'VE GOT ABOUT SIX\nMINUTES.\nGOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS: GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS.\nMY NAME IS PHOENIX JOHN. I'M\nTHE POLICY SPECIALIST AT SOLID\nGROUND. AND ALSO ONE OF THE\nCOCHAIRS OF THE BUDGET TASK\nFORCE FOR SEATTLE SERVICES\nCOALITION AND WE'D LIKE TO\nSTART OFF BY THANKING\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND THE\nMAYOR FOR REDUCING THE STRUCTURE\nOF THE B AND O TAX, WHICH\nSIMULTANEOUSLY PROTECTS AGAINST\nDEEP CUTS TO HOMELESSNESS AND\nHUMAN SERVICES WHILE ALSO\nPROVIDING SOME WAY TO ALLEVIATE\nPRESSURE ON SMALL BUSINESSES. SO\nI'M SURE MANY OF YOU HAVE HEARD\nTIRELESSLY FROM ADVOCATES LIKE\nUS AND FROM SERVICE PROVIDERS\nABOUT A REAL NEED FOR THE CITY\nTO IDENTIFY MORE REVENUE, AND\nYOU ALL TODAY ARE GOING TO BE\nBRIEFED ON ONE OF THOSE TOOLS.\nAND YOU KNOW, LOTS OF FOLKS HAVE\nTALKED ABOUT HOW THIS HAS NEVER\nBEEN -- THE NEED HAS NEVER BEEN\nMORE ACUTE WITH THE FEDERAL\nGOVERNMENT'S DEFUNDING OF\nMEDICAID, S.N.A.P. AND HOUSING\nSERVICES. JUST SOME EXAMPLES\nFROM SOLID GROUND ON SOME OF THE\nSERVICES THAT THE CITY STANDS TO\nLOSE WITH FEDERAL CUTS, INCLUDE\nOUR RAPID REHOUSING PROGRAM. SO\nSOLID GROUND RECEIVES CONTINUING\nMONTHLY CARE DOLLARS FROM THE\nHUD, WHICH HELPS HUNDREDS OF\nFAMILIES AVOID HOMELESSNESS BY\nGIVING THEM QUICKLY INTO\nHOUSING, WITH MOVING COSTS,\nHELPING PAY FOR SECURITY\nDEPOSITS. ANOTHER PROGRAM AT\nRISK IS OUR COMMUNITY FOOD\nEDUCATION PROGRAM, WHICH HELPS\nFOOD INSECURE YOUTH AND FAMILIES\nACROSS THE CITY GAIN SKILLS TO\nCOOK AND SHOP AND EAT ON LOW\nBUDGETS, AND THEIR RECENT BUDGET\nTHAT THE CONGRESS JUST PASSED\nINCLUDES A TOTAL ELIMINATION OF\nTHIS FUNDING SOURCE, WHICH IS\nFUNDED THROUGH S.N.A.P.. AND\nTHIS FUNDING SOURCE IS ABOUT 30%\nOF THIS PROGRAM 'S BUDGET. SO\nJUST AS AN EXAMPLE OF SOME OF\nTHE REAL TANGIBLE CUTS THAT\nCOULD BE COMING OUR WAY TO\nSERVICES IN OUR CITY, THIS\nPROPOSAL IN FRONT OF YOU COULD\nHELP SHIELD SERVICES LIKE THIS\nAND GIVE A TAX BREAK TO ABOUT\n90% OF SEATTLE BUSINESSES. SO\nTHIS IS A GOOD, CREATIVE POLICY,\nAND WE REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU ALL\nTO APPROVE IT TO VOTERS AND\nPROVIDE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR\nTHE CITY TO PREVENT AGAINST\nCUTS. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR\nYOUR CONSIDERATION.\nTHANK YOU AND APOLOGIES FOR: THANK YOU AND APOLOGIES FOR\nMISPRONOUNCING YOUR NAME. UP\nNEXT IS MARTA AND WILLIE AND\nTHEN WE WILL TRANSFER ON TO\nONLINE PUBLIC COMMENTERS\nSTARTING WITH EMILY JOHNSON ON A\nRAINY BANNEKER AND THEN CAROLYN\nSANDERS LONDON.\nMY NAME IS MARTA KHURANA AND: MY NAME IS MARTA KHURANA AND\nI AND THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT\nEDITOR AT LOW INCOME HOUSING\nMANAGEMENT OR LEHIGH. LEHIGH IS\nA NONPROFIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING\nAND TINY HOUSE VILLAGE PROVIDER\nTHAT SPECIALIZES IN CREATING\nPATHWAYS TO STABLE HOUSING FOR\nOUR UNFILTERED NEIGHBORS. I'M\nHERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE\nCITY'S PROPOSED BUSINESS AND\nOCCUPATION B AND O TAX TO\nSUPPORT THE ADDITION OF\nLONG-TERM AND TO SUPPORT THE\nADDITION OF LONG-TERM\nPROGRESSIVE TAX REVENUE.\nHOMELESSNESS IN SEATTLE IS AT A\nCRISIS LEVEL WITH THOUSANDS OF\nPEOPLE LIVING UNFILTERED. LAST\nYEAR 359 HOMELESS PEOPLE IN\nSEATTLE COUNTY DIED FROM\nEXPOSURE, OVERDOSES, SUICIDE AND\nVIOLENCE. LEHIGH WOULD LIKE TO\nCOMMEND THE CITY OF SEATTLE\nCOUNCIL FOR TAKING THIS STEP TO\nINCREASE REVENUE FOR HOUSING,\nSHELTER AND HUMAN SERVICES. THIS\nTAX WILL BE PIVOTAL IN REDUCING\nCUTS TO PROGRAMS IMPORTANT TO\nTHE SEATTLE COMMUNITY.\nUNFORTUNATELY THIS TAX ALONE\nWILL NOT RESOLVE SEATTLE'S $250\nMILLION BUDGET DEFICIT IN\nADDITION TO THE FEDERAL CUTS TO\nCOME. WE NEED ADDITIONAL\nPROGRESSIVE REVENUE TO PROTECT\nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS FROM AN\nUNCERTAIN FUTURE. THE NUMBER OF\nSHELTER BEDS AND TINY HOUSE\nVILLAGES MUST BE EXPENDED TO\nSUPPORT OUR COMMUNITY'S NEEDS.\nFOOD BANKS, HOUSING PROVIDERS,\nCLINICS, SHOP CARE PROVIDERS AND\nHUMAN SERVICE PROVIDERS AS A\nWHOLE ARE FACING HARSH FUNDING\nLOSSES THAT WILL RICOCHET ACROSS\nTHE REGION. NEW PERMANENT\nPROGRESSIVE REVENUE SOURCES ARE\nREQUIRED TO SAVE LIVES. THIS IS\nA FACT THAT MUST BE TAKEN\nSERIOUSLY AS THE LACK OF\nPREEMPTIVE PLANNING WILL LEAD TO\nCATASTROPHIC OUTCOMES. IN\nALIGNMENT WITH OUR SEATTLE KING\nCOUNTY COALITION ON HOMELESSNESS\nPARTNERS, WE ASK THAT THE\nCOUNCIL ELIMINATE THE FOUR YEAR\nSUNSET ON THE B AND O TAX AND\nSEND THIS PROPOSAL TO SEATTLE\nVOTERS. THANK YOU TO THE COUNCIL\nFOR LISTENING TO THE VOICES OF\nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS HERE TODAY AS\nWE REPRESENT NOT ONLY OURSELVES\nBUT THE MANY VULNERABLE\nPOPULATIONS UNABLE TO ADVOCATE\nFOR THEMSELVES. WE ARE ALL IN\nTHIS TOGETHER. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH MARTA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH MARTA.\nNEXT IS LILY HAYWARD AND I SEE\nYOU ALSO SIGNED UP ONLINE AS\nWELL SO I'M GOING TO JUST\nCANCEL THAT ONE.\nI WANTED TO BOTH. JUST\nGETTING.\nTO COLLEAGUES PER PERSON: TO COLLEAGUES PER PERSON\nALTHOUGH I DID FORGET TO READ\nTHE RULES OF PUBLIC COMMENT THIS\nMORNING BECAUSE I DID NOT TURN\nTHE PAGE. I'M GLAD TO SEE\nEVERYONE IS ABIDING BY THE\nRULES. OVER TO YOU, LILY.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH, MORNING\nCHAIR STRAUSS AND COMMITTEE\nMEMBERS. MY NAME IS LILY HAYWARD\nAND I'M HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF\nOF THE 2500 MEMBERS OF THE\nSEATTLE METRO CHAMBER OF\nCOMMERCE WITH CONCERNS ABOUT CD\n101-2108. WHILE WE SUPPORT\nINCREASING THE STANDARD\nATTENTION TO $2 MILLION IN\nCREATING A STANDARD DEDUCTION,\nTHE CHAMBER HAS ADVOCATED FOR\nTHE SIMILAR RELIEF AND WE\nBELIEVE IT IS ESSENTIAL TO KEEP\nBUSINESSES OPEN, TO SPUR\nDEVELOPMENT, AND TO FILL EMPTY\nSTOREFRONTS DOWNTOWN AND ACROSS\nTHE CITY. WE OPPOSE DOING SO,\nHOWEVER, BY RAISING THE B AND O\nTAX ON OTHER BUSINESSES. MANY\nSMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED\nBUSINESSES WITH GROSS SALES OVER\nTHE PROPOSED EXEMPTION HAVE VERY\nSMALL MARGINS AND INCREASING\nTAXES ON THESE JOB CREATORS IS\nSIMPLY A BAD POLICY IDEA. YOU\nJUST HEARD FROM ONE OF THEM AND\nABOUT THE IMPACTS THAT THE MANY\nCUMULATIVE TAXES THE CITY AND\nSTATE IMPOSES CAN HAVE ON A\nSMALL BUSINESS HERE IN SEATTLE.\nAND JUST A MONTH AGO YOU ALL\nRECEIVED A PRESENTATION\nDELIVERED BY THE CITY ITSELF IN\nA JOINT MEETING WITH KING COUNTY\nTHAT LAID OUT THE FACTS.\nREGIONAL EMPLOYMENT HAS\nDECLINED, ESPECIALLY IN SEATTLE.\nSEATTLE OFFICE VACANCY RATE IS\nONE OF THE HIGHEST IN THE U.S..\nCONSUMER SPENDING HAS DECLINED\nAND THERE ARE FEWER\nINTERNATIONAL VISITORS EXPECTED\nTHIS YEAR. OF COURSE CHOICES\nMADE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT\nMAKE THESE CONDITIONS WORSE BUT\nIT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT\nJUST LAST YEAR B AND O WAS DOWN\nYEAR-OVER-YEAR. PET COLLECTIONS\nWERE DOWN AND THESE CONDITIONS\nHAPPEN WHEN THE ECONOMY WAS\nRELATIVELY GOOD COMPARED TO\nRIGHT NOW . AND NOT TO MENTION\nTHAT THIS PROPOSAL COMES AFTER\nTHE STATE LEGISLATURE JUST\nINCREASES TAXES TO THE LARGEST\nDEGREE IN OUR STATE'S HISTORY.\nSO WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO GIVE\nSMALL BUSINESSES THIS NEEDED\nRELIEF RIGHT NOW. THEY USE FUND\nBALANCE AND UNDER SPEND TO DO SO\nRATHER THAN RAISING TAXES ON\nSMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED\nEMPLOYERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.\nTHANK YOU, LILY. WE'LL NOW\nTRANSFER TO ONLINE PUBLIC\nCOMMENTERS AND IF ANYONE WANTS\nTO SIGN UP IN PERSON, THEY ARE\nABLE TO DO SO UNTIL THE END OF\nTHE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. I\nWILL READ THE IS JUST AS FOLKS\nARE ONLINE. THE PUBLIC COMMENT\nPERIOD IS UP TO 20 MINUTES.\nSPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE\nORDER IN WHICH THEY REGISTERED\nAND THEY WILL START WITH IN\nPERSON NOW TO VIRTUAL. SPEAKERS\nWILL HEAR A TIME WHEN 10 SECONDS\nARE LEFT OF THEIR TIME. SEEING\nAS WE HAVE 8, POSSIBLY 9 MORE\nSPEAKERS, WE WILL EXCEED THE\nALLOTTED 20 MINUTES. IF THERE'S\nNO OBJECTION I WILL EXTEND\nPUBLIC COMMENTS UNTIL WE HAVE\nCOMPLETED ALL SPEAKERS. HEARING\nNO OBJECTION, WE'LL EXTEND\nPUBLIC COMMENTS UNTIL WE HAVE\nMOVED THROUGH ALL OF THE PUBLIC\nCOMMENT SPEAKERS. UP NEXT IS\nEMILY JOHNSON FOLLOWED BY RANDY\nBANNEKER, CAROLYN SANDERS\nLUNDGREN, ENDER MOSS, WILL GRAY,\nALBERTO ALVAREZ, KATE RUBIN,\nDAVID HAYNES. YOU ARE LAST TO BE\nSIGNED UP AND YOU ARE NOT\nPRESENT. CALL HIM NOW IF YOU'D\nLIKE TO COMMENT. EMILY JOHNSON,\nI SEE YOU ARE OFF MUTE. WHEN YOU\nARE READY WE'LL START THE\nCLOCK. WELCOME.\nTHANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD\nMORNING COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME\nIS EMILY JOHNSON AND I'M\nPRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF\nDIRECTORS OF THE HUNGER\nINTERVENTION PROGRAM, OR AS\nIT'S KNOWN, TIP. I'M ALSO A\nRESIDENT OF DISTRICT 4 POINT A\nPROUD MEMBER OF THE MEALS\nPARTNERSHIP COALITION AND I'M\nHERE TODAY TO SPEAK AND PART\nSUPPORT OF THE SEATTLE SHIELD\nPROPOSAL. I WANT TO THANK MAYOR\nHERRELL AND COUNCILMEMBER RINCK\nFOR CHAMPIONING THIS\nLEGISLATION. IT BUILDS COMMUNITY\nCONNECTION BY SECURING MEALS IN\nNORTH SEATTLE TO REMOVE\nVULNERABLE NEIGHBORS, LOW-INCOME\nSENIORS, PEOPLE EXPERIENCING\nHOMELESSNESS AND FAMILIES WITH\nCHILDREN. LAST YEAR ALONE HAVE\nSERVED MORE THAN 190,000 MEALS.\nI'D LIKE TO SHARE A QUICK\nSNAPSHOT OF OUR SENIOR MEALS\nPROGRAM WHICH OPERATES THREE\nDAYS A WEEK. WE SERVED MORE THAN\n30,000 MEALS IN THIS PROGRAM\nLAST YEAR AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO\nIF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, YOU'LL\nSEE CONVERSATION AND CONNECTION\nAND FOR MANY OF THESE SENIORS\nTHIS LUNCH IS THE HEALTHIEST\nMEAL THAT THEY'LL EAT ALL DAY\nAND OFTEN THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY\nTO ACCESS VITAL SOCIAL SERVICES.\nGO AS JASON MENTIONED EARLIER,\nMOST OF OUR FUNDS RELY ON\nFEDERAL PROGRAMS LIKE S.N.A.P.\nAND MEDICARE TO SURVIVE. WITH\nRECENT CUTS TO S.N.A.P. AND JUST\nTO PUBLIC HEALTHCARE WE ARE\nALREADY SEEING MORE SENIORS COME\nTO OUR DOORS WHILE OUR BUDGET IS\nBEING STRETCHED TO THE LIMIT TO\nFILL THE NEED. THE RECENT\nUNCERTAINTY AND CUTS OF THE\nFEDERAL AMERICORPS PROGRAM\nRESUMING ONLY MADE IT HARDER TO\nCONTINUE TO RUN THOSE PROGRAMS\nAND WHILE CITY OF SEATTLE\nFUNDING IS JUST ONE PART OF OUR\nBUDGET, IT'S ABSOLUTELY\nCRITICAL. THE SHIELD SEATTLE\nPROGRAM PROPOSAL WOULD PROVIDE A\nPROGRESSIVE AND STABLE REVENUE\nSTREAM THAT ALLOWS PROGRAMS LIKE\nHOURS TO RESPOND TO GROWING\nNEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY WITHOUT\nTURNING PEOPLE AWAY. THIS IS A\nSMART INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY\nWELL-BEING AND PUBLIC SAFETY AND\nI URGE THE FULL COUNCIL TO SEND\nTHE SEATTLE VOTERS. LET'S MEET\nTHIS CHALLENGING MOMENT WITH THE\nCOMPASSIONATE LEADERSHIP IT A\nMAN'S. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.\nTHANK YOU. UP NEXT IS --\nRANDY BANNEKER FOLLOWED BY\nCAROLYN SANDERS LUNDGREN AND\nTHEN ENDER MOSS. RANDY, I SEE\nYOU'RE OFF. TAKE IT AWAY. WE'LL\nSTART THE CLOCK WHEN YOU START\nTALKING.\nVICE CHAIR RIVERA, MEMBERS OF\nTHE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE\nOPPORTUNITIES COMMENTS. I'M\nRANDY BANNEKER ON BEHALF OF THE\nSEATTLE KING COUNTY REALTORS. IN\nPLACING THE B AND O TAX\nTHRESHOLD TO $2 MILLION IT'S A\nGREAT IDEA. IT CAN AND SHOULD BE\nDOWN WITHOUT THE PROPOSED 54%\nINCREASE TO B AND O TAX RATES ON\nBUSINESSES WITH REVENUE ABOVE $2\nMILLION. YOU CAN FUND IT WITH\nTHE CITY'S GROWING PAYROLL\nEXPENSE TAX CASH BALANCE OR\nTHROUGH THE NORMAL BUDGETING\nPROCESS. REMEMBER THE B AND O IS\nA TAX ON GROSS REVENUE, NOT\nPROFIT. GROCERY AND RESTAURANTS\nARE PRIME EXAMPLES OF BUSINESSES\nWITH HIGH GROSS AND LOW PROFIT\nAFTER CERTAIN LABOR COSTS HAVE\nBEEN PAID. A GOOD RULE OF THUMB\nFOR ANYTHING, YOU WANT LESS OF,\nIS TO TAX IT. GROCERY AND\nRESTAURANTS ARE KEY TO\nSEATTLE'S HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE.\nWE DON'T WANT LESS OF THEM. AS\nTHE COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF MEMO\nPOINTS OUT, THERE'S BEEN A\nBARRAGE OF NEW TAXES THAT\nALREADY ROBUSTLY FUND THE GOALS\nOF THIS B AND O TAX INCREASE.\nTHE PAYROLL IT'S BEEN STACKS OF\n2020, THE PAYROLL EXPENSE TAX\nINCREASE OF 2023, THE SOCIAL\nHOUSING TAX OF 2024 POINT IN\nADDITION, VOTERS HAVE GENEROUSLY\nAPPROVED MAJOR INCREASES IN THE\nHOUSING LEVY RENEWAL . IT GREW\n234% TO NEARLY $1 BILLION. THE\nTRANSPORTATION LEVY RENEWAL GREW\n67%, $1.55 BILLION AND THE\nPROPOSED FAMILIES AND EDUCATION\nLEVY RENEWAL IS GROWING 110% TO\n$1.3 BILLION. THERE IS NOT A\nREVENUE PROBLEM HERE. THERE IS A\nPROBLEM IN THE CONFRONTATIONAL\nMESSAGE WE ARE SENDING TO\nBUSINESS AT A TIME WHEN THE\nCITY'S OWN FORECAST OFFICE RUNS\nA 40% TO 50% CHANCE OF A\nNATIONAL RECESSION IN THE NEXT\n12 MONTHS. THE ECONOMY IS\nFRAGILE. BUSINESSES CAN MOVE OUT\nOF A BAD BUSINESS CLIMATE. LOOK\nAT AMAZON'S DEPARTURE FROM\nSEATTLE TO BELLEVUE. MANY OF OUR\nMEMBER REAL ESTATE FIRMS WILL BE\nHIT BY THIS 54% TAX INCREASE AND\nALL OF OUR AND MEMBERS RELY ON\nTHE HEALTHY BUSINESS CLIMATE\nWITH A STRONG JOB BASE AND\nPLENTIFUL EMPLOYMENT\nOPPORTUNITIES. DON'T MOVE THIS\nMEASURE TO THE BALLOT BUT STOP\nGIVING BUSINESSES A REASON TO\nLEAVE SEATTLE.\nTHANK YOU, RANDY. UP NEXT IS\nCAROLYN FOLLOWED BY ENDER, THEN\nLAUREL GRAY, AND FOR ANYONE\nWHO'S JOINED US, IF YOU'D LIKE\nTO SIGN UP YOU CAN SIGN UP UNTIL\nPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS CLOSED.\nCAROLYN, I SEE YOU ARE HERE.\nSTAR SIX TO UNMUTE. THERE YOU\nARE. TAKE IT AWAY WHEN YOU'RE\nREADY.\nGOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS: GOOD MORNING COUNCILMEMBERS.\nFOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS\nCAROLYN SANDERS LUNDGREN. I'M\nCALLING IN ON BEHALF OF [\nINAUDIBLE ] ACTION IN SUPPORT OF\nTHE SHIELD SEATTLE PROPOSAL. AT\nPDA WE PROVIDE PUBLIC HEALTH\nSOLUTIONS TO PUBLIC SAFETY\nCHALLENGES. THOSE CHALLENGES ARE\nGROWING, YES IN SEATTLE, BUT\nALSO CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY\nAND WHAT'S MORE, THEY ARE NOW\nCOMPOUNDED BY A NEW PUBLIC\nSAFETY THREAT, WHICH IS A\nFEDERAL RECONCILIATION BILL THAT\nBY DESIGN PUTS HEALTH AND\nSECURITY FURTHER OUT OF REACH\nFOR EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF OUR\nCOMMUNITY. THIS WILL BE\nSTABILIZED. OUR HEALTH AND\nSAFETY ECOSYSTEM. EVERY MEMBER\nOF OUR COMMUNITY WILL FEEL THE\nEFFECTS OF THIS AND SO AGAINST\nTHAT BACKGROUND WE COMMEND\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND THE\nEXECUTIVE FOR TAKING WHAT I'M\nSURE FEELS LIKE A DIFFICULT\nACTION, BUT IT'S ALSO ONE THAT\nWE CANNOT AFFORD TO DELAY WITH\nTHE PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING OF\nOUR B AND O TAX. THIS IS A\nSIGNIFICANT FIRST STEP AND WE\nLOOK FORWARD TO COUNCIL SENDING\nTHIS PROPOSAL TO THE VOTERS. I\nDO ALSO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO\nSAY THAT SMALL BUSINESSES ARE\nSOME OF THE GREATEST CHAMPIONS\nOF PDA'S WORK. THERE\nMISSION-CRITICAL PARTNERS IN\nADVANCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND SO\nWE APPRECIATE AND RECORD HIGHS\nTHE CHAIR THAT YOU'VE TAKEN AND\nWILL NO DOUBT CONTINUE TO TAKE\nIN A WAY THAT IS NOT [ INAUDIBLE\n] FUNDUS LIKE I REALLY\nAPPRECIATE THE SMALL BUSINESSES\nTAKING THEIR TIME TO SHOW UP\nTODAY AND SHARE THEIR\nPERSPECTIVE ON THIS. IN TERMS OF\nIMPLEMENTATION, IT IS INCREDIBLY\nIMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS\nRIGHT. WE HAVE TO USE THESE\nFUNDS TO BUOY HUMAN SERVICE\nINVESTMENTS THAT ARE\nEVIDENCE-BASED, THAT ARE\nSTRATEGIC, THAT ARE POSITIONED\nFOR COLLECTIVE IMPACT. AT THE\nEND OF THE DAY THIS IS ABOUT THE\nFRAYING OF OUR SOCIAL SAFETY NET\nAND OUR SOCIAL FABRIC AND HIS\nCOUNCIL HAS RECOGNIZED THAT WE\nHAVE A DUTY TO REPAIR , SO WE\nLOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU\nON THAT AT PDA. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU. UP NEXT IS ENDER\nMOSS FOLLOWED BY LAUREL GRAY AND\nALBERTO ALVAREZ. DAVID HAYNES,\nYOU ARE STILL NOT PRESENT.\nYOU'VE GOT ABOUT 8 TO 10\nMINUTES UNTIL WE CALL ON YOU.\nENDER, I SEE YOU ARE HERE. STAR\nSIX TO UNMUTE. I SEE YOU'RE OFF\nMUTE. TAKE IT AWAY WHEN YOU'RE\nREADY.\nHELLO COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME\nIS ENDER. IMA HOMELESSNESS AND\nFOSTER CARE ADVOCATE AND I'VE\nBEEN FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS NOW.\nI USED TO BE HOMELESS FOR ALMOST\n4 YEARS. I AM 22 YEARS OLD. AS\nMOST PEOPLE HERE ARE AWARE,\nTHERE ARE A LOT OF BUDGET CUTS\nTHAT ARE GOING TO BE TAKING\nPLACE THAT WILL SEVERELY IMPACT\nALL WORKING-CLASS AND LOW INCOME\nPEOPLE ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.\nSERVICES FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE IN\nEMERGENCIES LIKE HOMELESSNESS OR\nTRYING TO PREVENT THEMSELVES\nBECOMING HOMELESS ARE GOING TO\nNOT ONLY NEED GREAT RELIEF AND\nCAPACITY BUT NUMBERS AS MANY\nRESOURCES WILL BE LOST THAT ARE\nNEEDED FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE TO\nLITERALLY SURVIVE. I'M\nDEFINITELY IN THE BELIEF THAT\nTHE FOUR-YEAR SUNSET SHOULD BE\nEXTENDED IF NOT ELIMINATED TO\nSECURE A FUTURE FOR EVERYONE TO\nHAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE\nTHAT OUR CURRENTLY BARELY\nFEDERALLY FUNDED RESOURCES ARE\nABLE TO BE USED. THAT $90\nMILLION IS ESTIMATED TO BE\nRAISED BY THIS TAX WOULD NOT BE\nENOUGH TO PREVENT ALL OF THE\nEFFECTS FROM SEATTLE'S $250\nMILLION STRUCTURAL BUDGET\nDEFICIT FOR THE LOSS IN FEDERAL\nCUTS BUT WOULD AT LEAST HELP TO\nATTEMPT TO KEEP AS MANY OF THESE\nPROGRAMS RUNNING AND HELPING\nHUGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE, BOTH\nHOMELESS AND NOT, THAT NEED THEM\nDESPERATELY. THIS BILL WOULD NOT\nSEVERELY AFFECT SMALL BUSINESSES\nWHO NEED THEIR FUNDING TO STAY\nAFLOAT AND WOULD ONLY BE A BLIP\nON THE ALREADY VERY LARGE RADARS\nOF CORPORATIONS THAT NOT ONLY DO\nNOT BUT WOULD NOT NEED THAT\nMONEY TO BE PROFITABLE\nBUSINESSES, AND ANYONE WHO IS\nWORKING CLASS THAT SAYS\nOTHERWISE SHOULD QUESTION WHO\nTHAT MONEY WOULD BE GOING TO,\nBECAUSE I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT IS\nNOT CURRENTLY GOING TO THE\nWORKING CLASS AMERICANS IN THESE\nPAYCHECKS FROM THESE\nINDIVIDUALS. THANKS, YOU ALL.\nTHANK YOU. UP NEXT IS LAUREL\nGRAY FOLLOWED BY ALBERTO ALVAREZ\nAND KATE RUBIN. DAVID HAYNES,\nYOU ARE STILL NOT PRESENT.\nLAUREL, WELCOME. WE SEE YOU'RE\nOFF MUTE. WHEN YOU'RE READY\nWE'LL START THE CLOCK. WELCOME.\nGOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE: GOOD MORNING MEMBERS OF THE\nCOUNCIL. MY NAME IS LAUREL GRAY,\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LSL SERVICES\nTO DISTRICT 5 RESIDENTS. I'M\nHERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF\nTHE B AND O TAX REFORM PROPOSAL\nAND I WANT TO THANK MAYOR\nHARRELL AND COUNCILMEMBER RINCK\nFOR THEIR LEADERSHIP ENTERS THE\nFULL COUNCIL TO SUPPORT. WE\nPREPARE AND DELIVER NUTRIENT\nDENSE, CULTURALLY AND MEDICALLY\nINFORMED MEALS AT NO COSTS TO\nINDIVIDUALS NEED ACROSS THE CITY\nOF SEATTLE AND BEYOND. OUR\nMURALS SUPPORT 59 PROGRAMS\nINCLUDING SHELTERS, PERMANENT\nHOUSING, YOUTH SERVICES,\nVETERANS PROGRAMS, SENIOR\nPROGRAMS, CITY SANCTIONED\nENCAMPMENTS AND MORE. OUR FOOD\nIMMERSION PROGRAM, WE RESCUED\nAND REDISTRIBUTED NEARLY 1\nMILLION POUNDS OF FOOD IN 2024,\nTHROUGH THE WOULD'VE OTHERWISE\nGONE DIRECTLY INTO THE WASTE\nSTREAM. THIS INCLUDES 220,000\nPOUNDS OF RECOVERED FOOD AND\n554,000 POUNDS OF DONATED FOOD.\nVALUED CONSERVATIVELY AT $3.9\nMILLION. DISTRIBUTED 749,000\nPOUNDS OF THIS FOOD TO LOCAL\nORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING MEAL\nPROVIDERS, FOOD BANK AND HUMAN\nSERVICES AGENCIES. FOOD IN\nMOTION IS PARTIALLY FUNDED FOR\nHOUR-LONG STANDING CONTRACT WITH\nTHE CITY OF SEATTLE . IF THIS\nPROPOSAL FAILS AND WE LOSE THIS\nFUNDING WE FACE DEEP CUTS TO OUR\nPROGRAM INCLUDING RESTRICTIONS\nIN OUR 17 VEHICLE FLEET OF FOOD\nRECOVERY OPERATIONS HAVING FEWER\nMEALS FOR OUR MOST VULNERABLE\nNEIGHBORS AND MORE FOOD ENDING\nUP IN LANDFILLS. WHILE SITTING\nFUNDING DOES NOT MAKE UP OUR\nBUDGET IT IS CRITICAL TO SUSTAIN\nOUR WORK. HUNGER RELIEF IS\nPUBLIC SAFETY. I'LL SAY IT\nAGAIN. HUNGER RELIEF IS PUBLIC\nSAFETY. A MEANINGFUL INVESTMENT\nIN THE WELL-BEING OF OUR\nCOMMUNITIES FOR THE FUTURE OF\nOUR CITY. AGAIN I THANK MAYOR\nHARRELL AND COUNCILMEMBER RINCK\nFOR THEIR LEADERSHIP ON THIS\nISSUE AND I STRONGLY URGE THE\nFULL COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THIS\nAPPRAISAL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR\nTIME AND CONSIDERATION.\nTHANK YOU LAUREL. UP NEXT IS\nALBERTO ALVAREZ FOLLOWED BY KATE\nRUBIN, MARISSA PEREZ HAS ALSO\nSIGNED UP REMOTELY BUT YOU HAVE\nNOT LOGGED IN YET. ALBERTO, I\nSEE YOU'RE OFF MUTE. TAKE IT\nAWAY WHEN YOU'RE READY,\nWELCOME.\nTHANK YOU, OUR CITY IS A\nTOP-FIVE GLOBAL ECONOMIC\nPOWERHOUSE. THE THREAT OF BIG\nCOMPANIES CLOSING SOUNDS MORE\nLIKE A HOSTAGE SITUATION THAT\nTHEY USE TO BLEED OUR COMMUNITY\nMORE THAN THEY ALREADY DO. CALL\nTHEIR BLUFF. THEY KNOW THEY NEED\nOUR WORKERS, OUR FAMILIES\nSPENDING TO KEEP THEIR\nSHAREHOLDERS HAPPY.\nCOUNCILMEMBERS MENTIONED SAFEWAY\nSTORES MIGHT RUN THE RISK OF\nCLOSING DOWN. THEIR PARENT\nCOMPANY KROGER HAS A STOCK THAT\nWENT UP 15% THIS YEAR AND OVER\n90, THAT'S 90% SINCE THE\nPANDEMIC. THEY UNDERPAY AND\nOVERWORK THEIR STAFF, MAKING THE\nREST OF US DO THE WORK OF\nCHECKING OUT. THERE SLIM MARGINS\nARE SELF-INFLICTED IT. BIG\nCOMPANIES ALREADY GET MANY TAX\nBREAKS, WHICH THEY USE TO PAY\nSHAREHOLDERS WITH STOCK BUYBACKS\nAND DIVIDENDS. INSTEAD OF MORE\nMONEY BEING SIPHONED OFF TO\nCOMPANIES LIKE KROGER, THE BIG\nCOMPANY TAX CAN MAKE SURE OUR\nDOLLARS REINFORCE OUR NEEDS AND\nSERVICES, NOT SHAREHOLDERS. GO\nVOTE YES ON SHIELD TO DEFEND OUR\nCITY. THANK YOU AND HAVE A GOOD\nDAY.\nTHANK YOU. UP NEXT IS KATE\nRUBIN, DAVID HAYNES, MARISSA\nPEREZ, YOU ARE NOT PRESENT\nREMOTELY. WE WILL MOVE BACK INTO\nTHE LAST PHYSICAL PUBLIC\nCOMMENTOR. I SEE KATE, YOU ARE\nOFF MUTE SO TAKE IT AWAY WHEN\nYOU'RE READY. DAVID AND\nMARISSA, PLEASE CALL IN NOW.\nMY NAME IS KATE RUBIN AND: MY NAME IS KATE RUBIN AND\nI'M THE COEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF\n[ INAUDIBLE ] SEATTLE , [\nINAUDIBLE ]. THANK YOU TO\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND [\nINAUDIBLE ] FOR BRINGING FORWARD\nTHE SEATTLE SHIELD PROPOSAL.\nIT'S A WELCOME CHANGE . I ALSO\nWANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT\nRAISING $90 MILLION, NEARLY A\nTHIRD OF THE CITY $251 MILLION\nSHORTFALL, IS NOT ENOUGH. THE\nTRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND [\nINAUDIBLE ] ARE PULLING FUNDING\nFOR CRITICAL PROGRAMS IN THE\nCITY BUDGET DECISION WILL\nDETERMINE WHO CARRIES THE\nBURDEN. OUR COMMUNITIES ARE\nALREADY HURTING AND WHEN IT\nCOMES TO IMPORTANT PROGRAMS\nDURING LAST YEAR'S BUDGET\nPROCESS LIKE A 40% CUT TO THE\nSERVICES GRANT, APRIL 2025\nADDICTION FILINGS, 112 FILINGS\nPER MONTH, UP FROM 385. WE\nCANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE MONEY FROM\nOUR OTHER PROGRAMS OR DRAIN [\nINAUDIBLE ] WHEN THE FUNDS NEED\nTO BE GOING TO AFFORDABLE\nHOUSING. YOU HAVE THE\nOPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS MUCH\nSTRONGER, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE\nFACT THAT IT'S ONLY FOUR YEARS\nFROM NOW. THINGS CAN CHANGE IF\nIT'S NOT WORKING IN THE WAY YOU\nENVISIONED . SEATTLE SHIELD\nSHOULD BE PASSED AND THE FUNDS\nSHOULD NOT BE DIVERTED FOR ANY\nOTHER USES. THAT IS NOT GOING TO\nSAVE US FROM USING PUBLIC\nPROGRAMS THAT OUR COMMUNITIES\nNEED TO. HELPING US WITH URGENCY\nTO CLOSE THE FULL DEFICIT AT THE\nSTATE LEVEL AND ENSURE THAT\nSEATTLEITES ARE PROTECTED FROM\nHARM AT THE FEDERAL HOUSING. WE\nNEED A PERMANENT PROGRESSIVE\nREVENUE STREAM THAT ENSURES THAT\nRESOURCES GO TO THE NEEDS OF THE\nPEOPLE, HOUSING, FOOD, PUBLIC\nHEALTH AND COMMUNITY CARE.\nFUNDING FOR BENEFITS MANDATORY\nAND ADDRESSED WITH URGENCY.\nTHANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU. MARISSA, I SEE\nTHAT YOU HAVE CALLED IN SO WE\nARE GOING TO GO WITH YOU AND\nTHEN THE FINAL PUBLIC COMMENTOR\nIN PERSON AND THEN DAVID HAYNES,\nIF YOU CALL IN YOU'LL BE UP\nNEXT. MARISSA, AS YOU'RE BEING\nPROMOTED YOU'LL PRESS STAR SIX\nAND WE'LL START THE CLOCK WHEN\nYOU'RE READY. I SEE YOU HAVE\nNOT PRESSED STAR SIX YET,\nMARISSA. WILL HOLD ON, MARISSA.\nYOU CAN LEVERING THE\nPRESENTATION. IF WE CAN HAVE THE\nFINAL PUBLIC COMMENTOR COME ON\nUP. I SAW YOU REGISTERED BUT I\nDON'T HAVE --\nHELLO: HELLO.\nMARISSA, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE\nYOU GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT NOW SO\nWHEN YOU START TALKING WE'LL\nSTOP .\nI'M SO SORRY. OKAY. I AM SO\nSORRY. I'M STRUGGLING WITH\nBUTTONS THIS MORNING. GOOD\nMORNING CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS\nMARISSA PEREZ . THANK YOU FOR\nHAVING US. I AM THE EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTOR OF THE SEATTLE HUMAN\nSERVICES COALITION. WE ARE\nSTRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THE\nPROPOSED RESTRUCTURE OF THE\nBUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX.\nTHIS PROPOSAL IS A REALLY\nIMPORTANT STEP TOWARDS\nADDRESSING THE REGRESSIVE TAX\nWHILE ALSO CARRYING REVENUES AND\nSUPPORT ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY\nNEEDS, ADJUST HUMAN SERVICES.\nSEATTLE OR WASHINGTON HAS NO\nINCOME TAX, WHICH MAKES IT\nESSENTIALLY A HAVEN FOR A LOT OF\nLARGE BUSINESSES WHO ARE OFTEN\nNOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE IN\nTAXES. THIS MEANS THEY CAN TAKE\nADVANTAGE OF OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY\nWHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY IGNORING\nTHE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY THEY\nOPERATE IN. I WANT TO BE CLEAR\nTHAT THIS WHAT I'M TALKING\nABOUT DOES NOT APPLY TO OUR\nSMALL BUSINESS PARTNERS WHO HAVE\nLINED UP IN SUPPORT OF THIS\nEFFORT TO REDUCE THEIR TAX\nBURDEN WHILE AT THE SAME TIME\nASSISTING THE NEIGHBORS THAT\nTHEY LIVE AND SURROUNDED BY. OUR\nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE STRUGGLING\nRIGHT NOW TO PUT FOOD ON THE\nTABLE AND WE ARE BEING TARGETED.\nOUR AGENCIES ARE BEING TARGETED\nBY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT\nBECAUSE WE REFUSED TO BOW TO THE\nGUIDRY AND HATE. HUMAN SERVICE\nFUNDING IS DESPERATELY NEEDED AT\nTHIS POINT IN TIME AND YOU KNOW\nWE ARE LOOKING AT A $250\nMILLION, $260 MILLION BUDGET\nDEFICIT IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE,\nWHICH MEANS THAT OUR HUMAN\nSERVICES AGENCIES ARE FACING\nLOSING NOT ONLY FEDERAL FUNDING,\nNOT ONLY STATE FUNDING BUT CITY\nFUNDING AS WELL. THIS WILL BE\nDEVASTATING TO THOSE COMMUNITY\nMEMBERS THAT DESPERATELY NEED\nTHE SERVICES THAT OUR AGENCIES\nPROVIDE. I ASK YOU TO PLEASE\nCONSIDER ASKING THE VOTERS WHAT\nTHEY BELIEVE AND WHERE THEIR\nVALUES LIE AND SENDING THIS\nPROPOSAL TO THE BALLOT. THANK\nYOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nAND YOUR PARTNERSHIP ON THIS: AND YOUR PARTNERSHIP ON THIS\nEFFORT.\nTHANK YOU. WE ARE GOING TO GO\nWITH DAVID HAYNES, JUST SINCE\nTHEY ARE HERE, READY TO GO.\nDAVID, STAR SIX TO UNMUTE.\nYOU'VE GOT TO MINUTES. WE'LL\nSTART THE CLOCK WHEN YOU START\nTALKING. WELCOME.\nTHANK YOU, DAVID HAYNES. IT\nWOULDN'T BE SUCH AN ECONOMIC\nAND BUDGET CRISIS OF DEBT IF THE\nDEMOCRATS DIDN'T EXEMPT DRUG\nPUSHERS FROM JAIL, THEN\nPRIORITIZE REPEAT OFFENDERS FOR\nHOUSING AND SERVICES BEFORE\nINNOCENT HOMELESS THAT ARE\nRACIST WE DISCRIMINATED AN\nSUBHUMAN LEAD TREATED, BUT WE\nSEE THE SAME BAD SPENDING\nPRIORITIES THAT HAVE EXACERBATED\nTHE CRISIS ON THIS AGENDA TODAY\nWITH THE AMENDMENTS TAKEN FROM\nTHE JAIL TO EXEMPT MORE\nCRIMINALS FROM JAIL HIDING\nBEHIND DRUG ADDICTION WITHOUT\nNONPROFIT BEST PRACTICES\nEMBRACING THEIR ADDICTION\nBECAUSE THERE'S A MORE\nPROFITABLE WRAP AROUND SERVICE\nCONNECTED TO UNQUALIFIED\nNONPROFITS THAT DONATE AND\nSUPPORT ELECTIONS. WE WILL SEE\nTHE SAME BOGUS, FRAUDULENT,\nRACIST GUN VIOLENCE LIKE\nCOMMUNITY SAFETY LINING THEIR\nPOCKETS WITH MORE TAX MONEY, AND\nTHEY ARE SOMEWHAT SUSPECT IN\nTHEIR EFFORTS TO BOW DOWN TO\nDRUG PUSHERS. ANYWAY, WE NEED A\nDEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT\nEFFICIENCY APPLIED TO THE\nSEATTLE BUDGET BECAUSE IT LOOKS\nLIKE THE EXECUTIVE IS REPEATING\nTHE HISTORY OF PULLING THE WOOL\nOVER THE EYES OF LAST YEAR'S\nCOUNCIL 'S IN THE SAME LESS\nTHAN TRANSPARENT STORYTELLING\nCENTRAL STAFF TO PASS THE SAME\nBAD SPENDING PRIORITIES THAT\nORIGINATED FROM THE FUNDING OF\nPOLICE, SHIFTING A PARADIGM AWAY\nFROM IMPROVING THE WAR ON DRUGS,\nAND CREATING BAD SPENDING\nPRIORITIES THAT EXEMPT CRIMINALS\nFROM JAIL, EVEN HOUSING AND\nSERVICES FIRST USING HOMELESS\nCRISIS MONEY WHILE RACIST ROGUE\nSOCIAL ENGINEERING RACIAL TOOL\nEQUITIES ARE [ INAUDIBLE ]\nEXPERIENCE ARE APPLYING A RACIST\nSKIN COLOR DISCRIMINATION\nAGAINST INNOCENT WHITE HOMELESS\nWHO ARE PURPOSELY BEING DENIED A\nPROPER INTERPRETATION OF SHELTER\nAND CAPACITY, BUT YET WE HAVE\nTHESE RACIST ON THE AGENDA WHERE\nTHEY WANT TO MANIPULATE THE SKIN\nCOLORS AS TO HELPED AND WHO'S\nNOT IN JAIL ANYMORE. EITHER WAY,\nWE NEED TO STOP THE BAD SPENDING\nPRIORITIES AND PURGE THE RACIST\n[ INAUDIBLE ]\nTHANK YOU, DAVID. OUR FINAL\nPUBLIC COMMENTOR TODAY IS\nAMARANTH A TAURUS. WELCOME AND\nTHEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE FIRST\nAGENDA ITEM. ONCE SHE'S DONE\nTALKING THAN THE FIRST\nPRESENTATION CAN COME ON UP.\nTHANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THIS\nON? THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD\nMORNING COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME\nIS AMARANTH VIATOR IS. I'M THE\nCOEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE\nCOALITION OF NATALIE AND WE\nSUPPORT OVER 35 COMMUNITY-BASED\nORGANIZATIONS WORKING TOWARDS AN\nEND TO GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE\nSUCH AS SEXUAL ASSAULT,\nTRAFFICKING AND VIOLENCE. CB\n102028 RELATING TO THE\nRESTRUCTURING OF THE AND O TAX.\nWE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS\nORDINANCE BECAUSE AT THE FEDERAL\nLEVEL ABUSES OF POWER ARE REALLY\nFORCING LOCAL GENDER-BASED\nVIOLENCE PROGRAMS TO MAKE IT\nIMPOSSIBLE CHOICE TO DENY\nLIFESAVING SERVICES TO\nIMMIGRANTS AND LGBTQ SURVIVORS\nOR LOSE THEIR FUNDING. THIS\nBINARY CHOICE ISN'T REALLY A\nCHOICE AT ALL AND IT'S AN\nAFFRONT TO THE CORE VALUES OF\nOUR FIELD, AND IT'S A RISK TO\nALL THE GAINS THAT WE HAVE MADE\nIN OUR SECTOR OVER THE LAST MANY\nDECADES. THIS ORDINANCE IS A\nSTEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION\nTOWARDS FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND\nMUCH-NEEDED LOCAL REVENUE TO\nPROTECT OUR VALUES AND ENSURE\nTHAT PROGRAMS CAN KEEP THEIR\nDOORS OPEN TO ALL SURVIVORS IN\nOUR CITY AS THEY SEEK SAFETY,\nDIGNITY, AND SELF-DETERMINATION\nFROM THE IMPACTS OF ABUSE. THANK\nYOU TO COUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND\nMAYOR HARRELL FOR THEIR\nLEADERSHIP ON THIS PROPOSAL. I\nURGE THE FULL COUNCIL TO SUPPORT\nTHIS ORDINANCE AND THANK YOU SO\nMUCH FOR THE TIME TO SPEAK .\nTHANK YOU. SOON AS WE HAVE NO\nADDITIONAL SPEAKERS PHYSICALLY\nOR REMOTELY PRESENT, WE WILL\nMOVE ON TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.\nFOLKS WELCOME TO COME ON UP TO\nTHE DAIS. WILL THE CLERK THESE\nREAD THE SHORT TITLE OF ITEM\nNUMBER ONE INTO THE RECORD?\nMENTIONED ITEM 1, COUNCIL\nBILL 1210 28, RELATING TO\nBUSINESS OCCUPATION TAX SPECIAL\nELECTION WITH NOVEMBER 4th, 2025\nGENERAL ELECTION FOR SUBMISSION\nTO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE\nCITY, PROPOSITION TO LIFT THE\nLIMIT ON BUSINESSES AND\nOCCUPATION TAX FOR BRIEFING AND\nDISCUSSION.\nTHANK YOU. THIS IS THE SECOND\nTIME THAT WE'VE HAD THIS ITEM\nIN COMMITTEE. WE DID HAVE IT IN\nTHE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND TRIBAL\nGOVERNMENTS COMMITTEE, WHICH IS\nA SMALLER SUBSET OF THIS FULL\nSELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE. SO\nWE'LL START -- WE'RE JOINED\nTODAY BY DEPUTY MAYOR GREG LONG,\nCBO DIRECTOR DAN EDER AND TOM\nMIKESELL AND JENNIFER LABRECQUE\nOF COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF AS WELL\nAS THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL\nSTAFF. WE'LL START WITH JUST\nSOME OPENING REMARKS FROM\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK AND THEN\nDEPUTY MAYOR WONG. SINCE WE'VE\nHAD THESE PRESENTATIONS IN\nCOMMITTEE BUT NOT THIS FULL\nCOMMITTEE, WE WILL HAVE TOM\nMIKESELL AND JENNIFER LABRECQUE\nWALK US THROUGH THEIR\nPRESENTATION AND DEPUTY MAYOR,\nIF THERE'S TIME AS WELL WE CAN\nGO BACK TO THE PRESENTATION THAT\nYOU PROVIDED AT THE LAST\nCOMMITTEE MEETING. WITH THAT\nI'LL TURN IT OVER TO\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR SOME\nOPENING REMARKS OF HER BILL.\nTHANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS AND: THANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS AND\nTHANK YOU EVERYONE FOR BEING\nHERE TODAY. COLLEAGUES, I KNOW A\nNUMBER OF YOU HAVE HEARD THIS\nPRESENTATION BEFORE, SO I THANK\nYOU AGAIN FOR TAKING THE TIME\nAND CONSIDERING THIS PROPOSAL.\nFUNDAMENTALLY THIS PROPOSAL IS\nABOUT GIVING SEATTLE VOTERS THE\nCHOICE THEY DESERVE ABOUT OUR\nCITY'S FUTURE. THE SEATTLE\nSHIELD INITIATIVE IS MORE THAN\nJUST A POLICY PROPOSAL. IT'S\nOUR RESPONSE TO AN UNPRECEDENTED\nCHALLENGE, AND WHILE OUR CITY\nFACES A BUDGET DEFICIT AND\nFEDERAL CUTS THAT THREATEN THE\nSERVICES SO MANY OF OUR\nRESIDENTS DEPEND ON, WE HAVE THE\nOPPORTUNITY TO LEAD WITH VALUES\nTHAT MAKE SEATTLE WHO WE ARE.\nAND THE SEATTLE SHIELD\nINITIATIVE REFLECTS THREE CORE\nPRINCIPLES I BELIEVE WE ALL\nSHARE. THE FIRST IS THAT SMALL\nBUSINESSES ARE THE BACKBONE OF\nOUR LOCAL ECONOMY, AND THIS\nLEGISLATION PROVIDES IMMEDIATE\nTAX RELIEF FOR BUSINESSES WITH A\nBREAKEVEN POINT OF $5.7 MILLION\nIN GROSS RECEIPTS, MEANING THAT\n90% OF SEATTLE BUSINESSES WILL\nPAY LESS IN TAXES. WHILE WE ARE\nASKING FOR THE TOP 10% OF\nBUSINESSES TO STEP UP, WE ARE\nPROVIDING CONCRETE SUPPORT WHERE\nIT'S NEEDED MOST. THIS IS MORE\nESSENTIAL NOW MORE THAN EVER\nWITH IN THIS PARTICULARLY GIVEN\nTHE FACT THAT BIG DISMISSES\nRECEIVED ANOTHER BIG TAX BREAK\nON THE NATIONAL LEVEL WITH THE\nPASSAGE OF TRUMP AND\nCONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS BIG\nBETRAYAL BILL. SECOND, WORKERS\nDESERVE PROTECTION AND US\nFEDERAL WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS\nSECURE OUR OFFICE OF LABOR\nSTANDARDS BECOMES EVEN MORE\nCRITICAL IN THIS INITIATIVE\nENSURES THAT WE CONTINUE\nPROTECTING THEIR RIGHTS MAKING\nSEATTLE A PLACE WHERE WORK PAYS\nAND THIRD, ESSENTIAL SERVICES\nPROTECT ALL OF US AND THE $90\nMILLION GENERATED WILL MAINTAIN\nFAMILIES HOUSED, FED AND SAFE.\nTHE SERVICES THAT STRENGTHEN OUR\nCOMMUNITY, NOT THOSE WHO USE\nTHEM DIRECTLY AND IN DEVELOPING\nTHIS PROPOSAL WE MET WITH AS WE\nSTATED IN COMMITTEE LAST TIME,\nAND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AND\nSMALL-BUSINESS CHAMBERS TO HUMAN\nSERVICES PROVIDERS, LABOR\nADVOCATES AND UNIONS. AND SINCE\nWE MET ON THIS TOPIC MY TEAM HAS\nBEEN DOING ADDITIONAL WORK ON\nTHE GROUND, CANVASSING DISTRICTS\nTO ENGAGE WITH SMALL BUSINESSES\nAND WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY\nTO CONNECT WITH 23 ADDITIONAL\nBUSINESSES TO INFORM THEM OF THE\nPROPOSAL AND GARNER FEEDBACK.\nAND SO WE'VE CONSULTED AND\nREFINED THIS TO CREATE BOTH A\nMEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR SMALL\nBUSINESSES AND ALSO TO OFFSET\nTHE TAX INCREASE IS COMING FROM\nOLYMPIA AND FOCUS THESE\nINVESTMENTS IN A WAY THAT\nBALANCES THE HARM COMING FROM\nTHE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND\nSINCE THE RELEASE WE'VE\nRECEIVED AN OUTPOURING OF\nSUPPORT FROM ACROSS THE CITY. WE\nHAVE SEVERAL LETTERS OF SUPPORT\nFROM HUMAN SERVICES PROVIDERS,\nSMALL BUSINESSES AND LABOR\nORGANIZATIONS ASKING US TO LET\nVOTERS MAKE THIS CHOICE. IN\nBUILDING ON THAT I AM GRATEFUL\nTHAT MAYOR HARRELL AND I FOUND\nCOMMON GROUND ON THIS ISSUE\nBECAUSE THE NEED IS CLEAR AND\nTHE POLICY SOLUTION IS SOUND. IN\nWORKING WITH MAYOR HARRELL AND\nHIS TEAM, INCLUDING CBO DIRECTOR\nEDER, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO WALK\nTHE WALK OF TRUE COLLABORATIVE\nPARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE COUNCIL\nAND THE EXECUTIVE. SO THE\nCHALLENGE OF THIS MOMENT\nREQUIRES NO LESS AND I KNOW THAT\nSAME SPIRIT OF COLLABORATION\nEXISTS IN THIS CHAMBER. AND WITH\nTHAT, THANK YOU CHAIR FOR\nALLOWING ME TO MAKE SOME OPENING\nREMARKS.\nTHANK YOU. DEPUTY MAYOR WONG,\nIF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME\nOPENING REMARKS AND WE'LL TURN\nIT OVER TO COUNCIL CENTRAL\nSTAFF.\nTHANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK YOU: THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK YOU\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK FOR THIS\nOPENING REMARKS. DEPUTY MAYOR\nGREG WONG FROM MAYOR HARRELL'S\nOFFICE. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE\nWITH YOU ALL AGAIN TODAY. I\nWOULD DEFER MOST OF MY COMMENTS\nTO THE PRESENTATION PART BUT I\nWOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS\nIS A POLICY THAT WE BELIEVE\nSTRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE. OUR\nCITY IS FACING SEVERAL\nCHALLENGES AND NOT JUST AS A\nCITY, BUT OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR\nSMALL BUSINESSES AS WELL. SO\nWHAT WE TRY TO DO IS TO FIND\nTHAT RIGHT BALANCE OF HOW DO WE,\nGIVEN THE FEDERAL, STATE, THE\nLOCAL ECONOMIC HEADWINDS WE ARE\nFACING, THE CHALLENGES WITH\nAFFORDABILITY, PARTICULARLY FOR\nOUR SMALL BUSINESSES, AND THE\nNEED TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS AS\nWE SEE DIFFERENT IMPACTS COME\nTHROUGH ON MOST BASIC SERVICES\nTHAT WE OFFER THEM, KEEP THEM\nSAFE AND SECURE. HOW DO WE DO\nTHAT ALL AT ONE TIME? IT'S A\nCHALLENGE. IT'S A CHALLENGE YOU\nALL FACE EVERY DAY AND WE HAVE\nTO MAKE THOSE HARD POLICY\nDECISIONS. IN THIS PROPOSAL WE\nARE ABLE TO ALLOW 90% OF THE\nBUSINESSES IN SEATTLE WHO\nCURRENTLY PAY THE B AND O TAX TO\nEITHER PAY NO OR LESS CITY\nTAXES. I DON'T KNOW, AT LEAST\nIN MY MEMORY, IF THERE'S BEEN A\nTIME THAT THE CITY HAS ACTUALLY\nLOWERED COSTS ON SMALL\nBUSINESSES. AND THIS IS A POLICY\nTHAT WILL ACTUALLY DO SO. AT THE\nEND OF THE DAY, IF YOU TAKE INTO\nACCOUNT ALL THE BUSINESSES IN\nSEATTLE, 95% OF BUSINESSES IN\nSEATTLE WILL PAY NO OR LOWER\nTAXES AS A RESULT OF THIS\nPOLICY. THAT IS A GOOD POLICY IN\nOUR OPINION, FOR BUSINESSES, FOR\nTHE SMALL BUSINESSES WHO WANT TO\nSTAY HERE, WHO WANT TO HIRE\nEMPLOYEES AND DO BUSINESS AND\nCREATE STRONG COMMUNITIES. AT\nTHE SAME TIME, WE ARE ABLE TO\nUSE REVENUE TO HELP MITIGATE\nSOME OF THE IMPACTS THAT WE ARE\nSEEING. AND WE DON'T PRETEND\nTHAT THIS WILL ENTIRELY MITIGATE\nALL IMPACTS, WHETHER THEY'RE\nFROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE\nSTATE BUDGET DEFICIT THAT WE\nSAW, OR FROM THE LOCAL BUDGET\nHEADWINDS WE FACE. BUT WE KNOW\nTHAT THEY WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT\nOF THE STING OFF AND HELPING TO\nPROVIDE SERVICES THAT ARE\nNECESSARY. WE ALSO WANTED TO\nMAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS A\nPROPOSAL TO THE RESPONSE AT THE\nTIME AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S A\nBUILT-IN FOUR-YEAR SUNSET. IF\nTHE VOTERS TO APPROVE THIS, THE\nBILL WILL SUNSET UNLESS FUTURE\nCOUNCIL RENEWS IT, AND AS A\nONE-TIME RENEWAL FOR FOUR MORE\nYEARS. AND AFTER THEN IT WILL GO\nTO THE VOTERS AGAIN BECAUSE\nULTIMATELY A POLICY OF THIS\nWEIGHT WE BELIEVE SHOULD GO TO\nTHE VOTERS AND THEY SHOULD HAVE\nA SAY ON WHETHER OR NOT IT'S\nTHE TYPE OF POLICY THAT THEY\nWANTED THE CITY OF SEATTLE. SO\nWITH THAT I WILL TURN THE\nPRESENTATION OVER TO CENTRAL\nSTAFF TO WALK THROUGH THE\nLOGISTICS AND THEN THANK YOU,\nCHAIR, IF THERE IS TIME, AND\nI'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE\nA LITTLE MORE CONTEXT FOR THE\nBILL ITSELF. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU DEPUTY MAYOR. YES,\nIF THERE'S TIME, GETTING BACK\nTO THE -- IN YOUR SLIDE IT WAS\nIN PARTICULAR THE FACT THAT THIS\nONE PROPOSAL WON'T SOLVE THE\nENTIRE BUDGET PROBLEM, THAT\nTHERE ARE MULTIPLE FACTORS,\nMULTIPLE TOOLS AND MULTIPLE\nLEVERS THAT HAVE TO BE USED TO\nADDRESS THIS STRUCTURAL ISSUE. I\nWILL NOTE THAT TODAY'S\nPRESENTATION IS GOING TO BE\nDIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE DONE\nIN THE PAST. GO I STRIVE TOWARDS\nART DISSIPATION IN TRANSPARENCY,\nWHICH IS WHY THE END OF THIS\nPROPOSAL WILL HAVE THIS IN\nCOMMITTEE THREE TIMES. SO WE HAD\nTHE PRESENTATION THAT TOM\nPROVIDED AT THE LAST COMMITTEE\nAND WE HAVE TO HOLD QUESTIONS TO\nTHE END. TODAY I'D LIKE A\nLITTLE MORE PARTICIPATION. SO IF\nYOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS ALONG THE\nWAY, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK\nTOM. THE BIGGEST HEADLINE THAT\nANY OF US ON THE DAIS NEED TO\nTAKE AWAY FROM TODAY IS THAT\nAMENDMENTS FOR THIS AND THE\nSUPPLEMENTAL ARE DUE ON JULY\n22nd. BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY\nSEEN THIS PRESENTATION BEFORE,\nIF YOU DO HAVE IDEAS OF\nAMENDMENTS, HAVING THAT\nDISCUSSION TODAY IS HELPFUL. AND\nAGAIN, THIS ONE PROPOSAL WILL\nNOT SOLVE OUR ENTIRE BUDGET\nISSUE ALONE, AND THAT IS WHY\nMULTIPLE LEVERS WILL STILL NEED\nTO BE PULLED. WITH THAT I SEE\nDIRECTOR NOBLE WITH SOME\nCOMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL PASS IT\nOVER TO TOM AND JENNIFER.\nWITH RESPECT TO THE DEADLINE: WITH RESPECT TO THE DEADLINE\nAND AMENDMENTS, I WANTED TO NOTE\nTHAT THAT IS THE LAST\nOPPORTUNITY TO BRING IS AN\nISSUE. YOU ARE WELCOME TO BRING\nTHEM SOONER. IN FACT, WE ARE\nWORKING WITH SEVERAL OF YOU ON\nSOME IDEAS NOW. IT'S A\nPARTICULARLY COMPLICATED ISSUE\nSO THE SOONER YOU CAN GET TO US,\nTHE BETTER. JUST IN EFFORT TO\nOFFER YOU BETTER SERVICE RATHER\nTHAN NOT, PLEASE COME FIND US\nAND ANYBODY AT THE TABLE IF YOU\nARE CENTRAL STAFF OR OTHERWISE,\nJUST WANTED TO ENCOURAGE THAT,\nTHAT'S ALL.\nTHANK YOU. TOM, JENNIFER,\nOVER TO YOU. AND AGAIN,\nQUESTIONS AS WE GO.\nGOOD MORNING CHAIR STRAUSS,\nVICE CHAIR WITH HER AND MEMBERS\nOF THE COMMITTEE. I'M TOM\nMIKESELL WITH YOUR CENTRAL STAFF\nALSO WITH CITY COUNCIL: ALSO WITH CITY COUNCIL\nCENTRAL STAFF.\nAND THIS MORNING WE ARE GOING: AND THIS MORNING WE ARE GOING\nTO BE TALKING ABOUT COUNCIL BILL\n121028, BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION\nTAX REBALANCING PROPOSAL. SO IN\nTERMS OF A BROAD OUTLINE, WE ARE\nGOING TO FIRST TALK ABOUT THE\nBACKGROUND OF THE EXISTING\nBUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX AT\nTHE CITY. GIVEN A BRIEF OVERVIEW\nOF THE PROPOSAL ITSELF, DIG A\nBIT INTO THIS SPECIFIC PIECES OF\nTHE PROPOSAL, TALK ABOUT THE USE\nOF THE PROCEEDS GENERATED FROM\nTHE PROPOSAL, AND THEN CLOSE OUT\nWITH SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE\nCOMMITTEE. SO CITY CURRENTLY\nLEVIES A BUSINESS AND OCCUPATION\nTAX, WHICH IS A TAX ON THE GROSS\nREVENUE OF BUSINESSES, REVENUE\nEARNED IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE.\nSO I UNDERLINE GROSS HERE\nBECAUSE THIS IS DISTINCT FROM\nWHAT IS MORE FAMILIAR, WHICH IS\nTHE COURT INCOME TAX, WHICH IS A\nTAX ON NET REVENUE OR NET\nPROFITS AFTER DEDUCTIONS FOR\nOPERATING EXPENSES. SO AGAIN\nIT'S IMPORTANT DISTINCTION TO\nREMEMBER BUT BECAUSE IT IS A TAX\nON GROSS, THE TOTAL REVENUES OF\nTHESE BUSINESSES, THE RATES ARE\nACTUALLY FAIRLY SMALL. THE\nCURRENT RATES CHARGED IN OUR\nCITY TAX ARE -- THERE ARE TWO\nDIFFERENT RATES DEPENDING ON THE\nTYPE OF BUSINESS BEING\nCONDUCTED. FIRST IS A .222%. SO\nTHAT IS LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A\nPERCENT ON ACTIVITIES FROM\nRETAIL SALES AND SERVICES,\nWHOLESALING AND MANUFACTURING\nAND EXTRACTING. AND SO, TO KIND\nOF PUT THAT INTO SOME CONTEXT,\nTHAT BASICALLY GROSSES UP TO\n$.22 PER $100 OF REVENUE. THE\nOTHER RATE IS A .4 TO 7% RATE ON\nSERVICE, TRANSPORTING FREIGHT\nFOR HIRE AND OTHER, BASICALLY\nANY OTHER ACTIVITY NOT COVERED\nIN THE OTHER RATE. AND AGAIN, SO\nTHAT'S LESS THAN HALF A PERCENT\nAND GROSSES UP TO $.43 PER $100\nOF REVENUE. THERE IS A CURRENTLY\nSMALL BUSINESS EXEMPTION WHICH\nIS $100,000 OF REVENUE. SO ANY\nBUSINESS LESS THAN $100,000 IN\nNEW REVENUE CURRENTLY DOES NOT\nHAVE TO PAY THE TAX. THE RATES\nARE AT THEIR CURRENT STATUTORY\nMAXIMUM , AS STATED IN RCW. SO\nSTATE LAW 35217 11. HOWEVER, BY\nPURSUANT TO THAT STATE LAW THERE\nIS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR VOTERS TO\nAPPROVE A HIGHER TAX RATE.\nBEFORE YOU MOVE ON, TO\nCLARIFY THE WORDS ON YOUR\nSLIDES, ON YOUR SUB BULLETS,\n.222% FOR RETAIL SALES AND\nSERVICES AND THEN .427% FOR\nSERVICES. COULD YOU HAVE THE\nWORD SERVICES ON BOTH LINES. CAN\nYOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE\nFLAVOR OF WHAT THE DIFFERENCE\nIS?\nGREAT QUESTION, CHAIR. SO\nTHIS WOULD BE SERVICES THAT ARE\nSOLD AT RETAIL AS OPPOSED TO\nSERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED SO\nLIKE A -- ACCOUNTING OR LAWYER\nSERVICES, SO THAT WOULD BE\nCAPTURED IN THE LOWER RATE. THE\nTOP RATE WOULD BE SELLING A\nSERVICE, SO LIKE A SOFTWARE\nSERVICE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,\nTHAT'S MORE PACKAGED AND CAN BE\nSOLD DISCREETLY AT RETAIL. SO\nTHERE'S A SLIGHT DISTINCTION OF\nWHETHER OR NOT IT'S KIND OF AT\nA TRANSACTIONAL BASIS VERSUS A\nCONTRACT THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED.\nWE'LL DIG IN MORE TO THIS\nLATER BUT I'D LOVE A MORE FULL\nEXPLANATION LATER ON AND NOT\nNECESSARILY AT THIS MOMENT. IF\nTHERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON\nTHE SLIDE, FEEL FREE TO KEEP\nGOING.\nSO JUST TO CLOSE OUT THE: SO JUST TO CLOSE OUT THE\nBACKGROUND DESCRIPTION, IN 2024\nTHERE WERE A TOTAL OF 42,000\nFILERS OF THE B AND O TAX SO\nTHOSE ARE NOT ALL TAXPAYERS. AS\nYOU CAN SEE IN THE PIE CHART,\nBASICALLY IT RAKES DOWN, YOU\nKNOW, CONSIDERING THE EXISTING\n$100,000 EXEMPTION, THAT ABOUT\nHALF, JUST SHY OF HALF OF THE\nTOTAL FILERS ACTUALLY OWED NO B\nAND O TAX IN 2024, MEANING THE\nREMAINING $21,000 OR SO OF\nTAXPAYERS DID OH TAX. THE TOTAL\nB AND O TAX GENERATED IN 2024\nWAS $353 MILLION. THE CURRENT\nPROJECTIONS BASED ON THE\nFORECAST ARE $359 MILLION IN\n2025 AND $385 MILLION IN '26.\nAND THEN TOTAL THIS REPRESENTS\nABOUT 20% OF GENERAL FUND\nREVENUE EACH YEAR. I WOULD POINT\nOUT THAT THERE IS A RECENT STATE\nCHAIN . GROSS STATE SENATE BILL\n2015, WHICH DID CLASSIFY SOME,\nGETTING TO THE QUESTION,\nCLASSIFIED SOME TECHNOLOGY\nSERVICES AS RETAIL AND WOULD IN\nFACT DECREASE B AND O TAX\nREVENUES AS A RESULT OF THAT\nCHAIN BECAUSE THE CITY TAX SORT\nOF PIGGYBACKS ON THE\nDEFINITIONS, THE BASE\nDEFINITIONS IN THE STATE TAX AND\nSO THOSE ESTIMATES ARE NOT\nINCLUDED IN THE PROJECTIONS THAT\nI CITED IN THE THIRD BILL, WHICH\nWERE FROM THE APRIL FORECAST,\nBUT THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE\nESTIMATES OF THE RATE AND\nREVENUE GENERATED FROM THIS\nPROPOSAL. SO NOW I'LL MOVE TO\nTHE OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL IN\nTHIS COUNCIL BILL. THIS PROPOSAL\nWOULD DO A NUMBER OF THINGS. IT\nWOULD INCREASE THE EXEMPTION\nTHRESHOLD SO THAT $100,000 WOULD\nINCREASE TO $2 MILLION. THEY\nWOULD CREATE A NEW $2 MILLION\nSTANDARD DEDUCTION. THERE WOULD\nBE AN ALIGNMENT OF THE BUSINESS\nLICENSE FEE STRUCTURE WITH THE\nABOVE-MENTIONED CHANGES. SO\nBASICALLY THE BUSINESS LICENSE\nFEE IS DEPENDED ON THE\nDEFINITIONS OF TAXABLE REVENUE\nAND THE B AND O TAX SO IN ORDER\nTO AVOID UNINTENDED\nCONSEQUENCES, THAT CHANGE WOULD\nBE NECESSARY. AND THEN FINALLY\nIT WOULD INCREASE THE B AND O\nTAX RATES TO FUND THE PRIOR TWO\nADJUSTMENTS AND TO GENERATE\nADDITIONAL REVENUE. AND WOULD\nDESIGNATE THE DUST OF THOSE\nPROCEEDS, ALL CONTINGENT ON\nVOTER APPROVAL. THE BILL WOULD\nTHEN SUBMIT THAT QUESTION IN\nBULLET ONE TO THE NOVEMBER 4th\nSO THIS IS A TYPO ON THE SLIDE,\nNOVEMBER 4th, 2025 GENERAL\nELECTION FOR THE SEATTLE VOTERS.\nALL THE CHANGES EMBEDDED IN THE\nPROPOSAL WOULD EFFECTIVE JANUARY\n1st OF 2026 AND THERE IS A KIND\nOF CONTINGENT SUNSET. THERE IS\nAN INITIAL SUNSET DATE OF\nJANUARY 1st, 2030, HOWEVER THAT\nCAN BE EXTENDED FOR AN\nADDITIONAL FOUR YEARS OF COUNCIL\nAPPROVED AN ORDINANCE BY JULY\n31st OF 2029 TO EXTEND IT FOR AN\nADDITIONAL FOUR YEARS. HOWEVER,\nTHAT IS THE ONLY OPTIONAL\nEXEMPTION. IN ANY CASE, THIS TAX\nAND THE REVENUE GENERATED FROM\nIT WOULD SUNSET IN EIGHT YEARS.\nSO I'M GOING TO NOW DIG A BIT\nINTO THE DETAILS OF THE\nRESTRUCTURED PROPOSAL, GOING\nKIND OF IN PEACE THROUGH THE\nDIFFERENT COMPONENTS. THE FIRST\n--\nTOM, JUST ONE -- KEEP GOING,\nTHEN COUNCILMEMBER KELLY HAS A\nSECOND.\nFIRST PIECE OF THE PROPOSAL: FIRST PIECE OF THE PROPOSAL\nWOULD BE TO INCREASE THE SMALL\nBUSINESS EXEMPTION THRESHOLD\nFROM $100,000-$2 MILLION. SO\nAGAIN USING THE ACTUAL DATA AT\nHAND, THE FORECAST OFFICE\nESTIMATED THAT THAT EXEMPT AN\nADDITIONAL 16,000 TAXPAYERS. SO\nRECALL BACK THAT THERE WAS\n21,000 TOTAL TAXPAYERS IN 2024.\nTHIS MOVE WOULD THEN EXEMPT AN\nADDITIONAL 16,000, MEANING THE\nREMAINING TAXPAYER BASE TO 5000\nTAXPAYERS. THE FORECAST OFFICE\nESTIMATES THE IMPACT OF THAT\nCHANGE AS ABOUT $28.4 MILLION.\nSO I PUT TOGETHER A TABLE HERE\nOFF TO THE SIDE THAT SHOWS HOW\nTHOSE ADDITIONAL EXEMPTED\nBUSINESSES WOULD BREAK DOWN BY\nBUSINESS TYPE SO IT SHOWS THE\nNUMBER OF TAXPAYERS WITHIN EACH\nONE OF THESE KIND OF GENERAL\nBUSINESS CATEGORY AND WHAT\nPERCENTAGE THAT NUMBER\nREPRESENTS TOTAL TAXPAYERS IN\nTHE CITY . JUST PULLING ONE YOU\nCOULD SEE FROM RESTAURANTS FOR\nEXAMPLE, THERE WOULD BE AN\nADDITIONAL 1343 BUSINESSES THAT\nWOULD BE EXEMPT SO NOT PAYING\nTAX AND THAT WOULD REPRESENT 82%\nOF ALL THE TAXPAYERS. SO\nAPPROXIMATELY 18 TAXPAYERS WOULD\nBE PAYING SOME LEVEL OF TAX.\nI'LL PAUSE FOR THE QUESTION.\nTHANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER\nKETTLE.\nTHANK YOU TARA STRAUSS, MR.\nMIKESELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR\nBRIEFING. ACTUALLY MS.\nLABRECQUE, DIRECTOR NOBLE,\nDEPUTY MAYOR WONG AND NOW\nDIRECTOR EDER, WELCOME. MY\nQUESTION IS IT'S PLAYING OFF\nTHE PUBLIC COMMENT AND I REALLY\nAPPRECIATE THE COST PUBLIC\nCOMMENT RECEIVED. I ALSO\nAPPRECIATE THAT WE GOT SOME\nYOUNG WITNESS TO THE DEMOCRATIC\nACTION AS IT RELATES TO\nBUSINESS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT\nYOU, DON'T WORRY. I REALLY\nAPPRECIATE YOU HAVING OUR NAP\nRECORDS REPRESENT TO INCLUDE\nWALLINGFORD AND THAT WAS AN\nIMPORTANT QUESTION\nCONSIDERATION. MY QUESTION NOW\nRELATES TO MR. WASSERMAN, WHO\nHAS NOW LEFT. GIVEN THE FACT WE\nARE A PORT CITY, MARITIME, WE\nHAVE INDUSTRIAL MARITIME, THANK\nYOU CHAIR, BIG SECTIONS OF OUR\nCITY THAT ARE MARITIME. THERE IS\nNO MARITIME BUSINESS TYPE AND\nI'M CURIOUS IS THIS PART TRADE,\nIS IT CONSIDERED MARITIME\nMANUFACTURING, CONSIDERED\nMARITIME MANUFACTURING? KIND OF\nJUST POPS PARTICULARLY WITH MR.\nWASSERMAN'S QUESTION AND POINT\nTHAT MARITIME IS NOT REALLY\nINCLUDED AS A BUSINESS TYPE,\nGIVEN THE FACT THAT WE ARE ONE\nOF THE NATION'S MAJOR PORT\nCITIES.\nTHAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO\nIN DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFICE OF\nCITY FINANCE TAX ADMINISTRATION\nDIVISION, THE ACTIVITIES AT THE\nPORT CAN ENCOMPASS A BROAD RANGE\nOF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES THAT ARE\nCAPTURED. THEY CAN -- SO IT'S\nNOT JUST ONE SPECIFIC DISMISSED\nDEFINITION. IT'S MORE OF A\nCOLLECTION OF DIFFERENT BUSINESS\nDEFINITIONS. THE ACTUAL TAX\nRETURN THAT A TAXPAYER WOULD BE\nFILLING OUT WOULD ACTUALLY\nINCLUDE ALL THOSE VARIOUS\nREVENUE STREAMS WITHIN THAT SO\nIT'S NOT -- IT DOESN'T FIT\nSQUARELY IN ONE SPECIFIC TAX\nSECTOR IN TERMS OF BUSINESS\nTYPE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT\nANSWERS THE QUESTION BUT IT'S\nKIND OF INTO THE COMPLEXITY OF\nHOW THE RETURN IS FILED.\nI UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER. AT\nTHE SAME TIME I'M ALMOST\nWANTING TO ASK, MAYBE IT'S A\nCOMBINATION OF ASSOCIATION\nSUPPORT, ALL THE PEOPLE THAT\nCHAIR STRAUSS KNOWS BETTER THAN\nI COME TOGETHER AND KIND OF GIVE\nA SNAPSHOT OF THE MARITIME\nWORLD, PULLING THE DIFFERENT\nPIECES, JUST TO HAVE AN\nUNDERSTANDING, IN TERMS OF OUR\nWOULD FOR THE PORT, HOW IT COMES\nIN MAJOR REVENUE SOURCE FOR OUR\nGENERAL FUND, WE SHOULD HAVE AN\nUNDERSTANDING WHAT THE IMPACT IS\nON OUR MARITIME COMMUNITY. I'LL\nFOLLOW-UP ON TERMS OF HOW TO\nBEST ASK THAT QUESTION AND IT'S\nREALLY A QUESTION FOR THE\nCOMMUNITY, TOO. I WELCOME THE\nASSOCIATION, MR. WASSERMAN AND\nOTHERS TO COME TOGETHER AND KIND\nOF HIGHLIGHT WHAT THE MARITIME\nWORLD IS FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE.\nTHANK YOU, CHAIR.\nTHANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER\nKELLY. OUR WORKING WATERFRONT IS\nMADE UP OF A VERY DIVERSE NUMBER\nOF SECTORS OF OUR ECONOMY AND\nTHAT'S WHAT GIVES IT ITS\nSTRENGTH. I SEE COUNCILMEMBER\nRINCK AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER [\nINAUDIBLE ]\nTHANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS. I\nWANTED TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER\nKETTLE FOR THAT QUESTION AND\nBUILDING UPON THAT, I WANT TO\nASK IF TOM COULD ELABORATE ABOUT\nSOME OF THE PARAMETERS THAT WE\nNEED TO ABIDE BY BASED ON THE\nSTATE AND HOW CURRENTLY WITH,\nYOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT\nTHE STATE HAS A B AND O TAX AND\nTHEN AUTHORIZES THE EMPOWERED\nCITIES TO BE ABLE TO LEVY THEIR\nOWN B AND O BUT JURISDICTIONS\nARE LIMITED IN TERMS OF HOW\nTHEY'RE ABLE TO CREATE ITS\nABILITY WITHIN B AND O. SO I'M\nWONDERING IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO\nA LITTLE BIT OF THAT AND THE SET\nCATEGORIES THAT THE STATE KIND\nOF REQUIRES US TO OPERATE\nWITHIN.\nI THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION: I THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK. SO IT IS\nACCURATE .SO THE B AND O TAX IS\nA STATE TAX THAT CITIES ARE\nAUTHORIZED TO LEVY. ONE OF THE\nFEATURES THAT IS PART OF THAT\nKIND OF BROAD STATE APPROACH IS\nWHAT'S CALLED THE MODEL TAX\nORDINANCE. SO ESSENTIALLY CITIES\nTHAT HAVE THIS TYPE OF A TAX ALL\nHAVE AGREED TO THIS KIND OF\nSTRUCTURAL AND ORGANIZATION\nWHEREBY THE DIFFERENT TAX\nSTRUCTURES THAT WE IMPOSE IN\nDIFFERENT CITIES ACROSS THE\nSTATE ALL HAVE KIND OF THE\nGENERAL SIMILAR FACETS SO THAT\nIS KIND OF THE HIGH-LEVEL\nCONSTRAINT. I DON'T HAVE IT AT\nMY FINGERTIPS ALL THOSE SPECIFIC\nTHINGS BUT IT COMES DOWN TO\nISSUES OF UNIFORMITY OF TAX\nTREATMENT, SO THAT'S ONE\nPROVISION WHERE LIKE GOING BACK\nTO THE RATES THAT I SHOWED YOU\nTHAT ANY BUSINESS THAT IS IN THE\nRETAIL SALES AND SERVICE HAS TO\nBE ASSESSED A UNIFORM RATE. SO\nTHAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THOSE\nCOMMON FEATURES OF THE MODEL TAX\nTHAT WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY, ALL\nCITIES IN THE STATE DO. AND THEN\nTHE KIND OF DEFINITIONS OF\nDIFFERENT THINGS WHERE THEY\nAPPLY. SO FOR EXAMPLE I CITED\nTHE SENATE BILL 2015 WHERE THEY\nMADE SOME CHANGES OF HOW\nBUSINESSES ARE -- HOW DIFFERENT\nTYPES OF BUSINESS REVENUE\nACTIVITIES, SO BASICALLY TECH,\nIN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IT WAS\nSOME TYPE OF TECH SERVICES HAVE\nBEEN NOW CLASSIFIED BY THE STATE\nAS RETAIL. SERVICES INSTEAD. SO\nTHERE ARE DIFFERENT RATE IMPACTS\nFOR THAT. SO THOSE TYPE OF\nCHANGES THAT HAPPEN AT THE STATE\nLEVEL TRANSLATE DOWN TO ALL THE\nVARIOUS CITIES THROUGH THE KIND\nOF MODEL TAX ORDINANCE APPROACH.\nIT IS A CONSTRAINT, WE AS A CITY\nWE DO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN\nTERMS OF DEDUCTIONS AND\nEXEMPTIONS AND CREDITS THAT CAN\nBE APPLIED SO THEY DON'T\nIMPINGE UPON UNIFORMITY OF\nTHINGS OF THAT NATURE SO THAT'S\nKIND OF A VERY HIGH LEVEL VIEW\nOF HOW WE WORK WITHIN THAT\nSYSTEM.\nTHANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER\nRINCK. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?\nTHANK YOU FOR THAT, CHAIR.\nAND THANK YOU FOR THAT\nEXPLANATION, TOM AND COLLEAGUES.\nI WANTED TO ELEVATE THAT POINT\nBECAUSE WE HEARD THROUGH THIS\nEDUCATION PROCESS ASKING IF\nTHERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES TO\nEXEMPT GROCERY STORES, FOR\nEXAMPLE, BUT UNDERSTANDING\nBECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS ON\nTHE STATE LEVEL TO EXEMPT\nGROCERY STORES, WE HAVE TO\nEXEMPT ALL OF THE RETAIL\nCATEGORY. SO I BRING THIS UP AS\nJUST A CONSTRAINT IN TERMS OF\nWHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO ON THE\nLOCAL LEVEL AND IN TERMS OF\nOPERATING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS\nSET BY THE STATE AND CERTAINLY\nWELCOME A CONVERSATION, TOO,\nWITH OUR PARTNERS OF THE STATE,\nABOUT HOW WE CAN TAILOR AND\nADJUST AND HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY\nWITH THIS TAX IN PARTICULAR. SO\nI WANT TO ELEVATE THAT POINT.\nTHANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER\nRINCK. COUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON\nFOLLOWED COUNCILMEMBER NELSON.\nACTUALLY A POINT OF: ACTUALLY A POINT OF\nCLARIFICATION THAT CHAIR STRAUSS\nALLUDED TO, IF YOU GO BACK TO\nSLIDE TWO, WHAT I'M TRYING TO\nGET A SENSE OF IS LOOKING AT THE\nDIFFERENT RATES WHERE YOU HAVE\nSALES AND SERVICES AND OTHER\nSERVICES AGAIN IS ONE CATEGORY\nTHAT PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS\nSERVICES AND RETAIL SERVICES, IS\nTHAT WE ARE IT'S KIND OF BROKEN\nUP? I JUST WANT TO GIVE A SENSE\nOF WHERE THAT IS.\nIN GENERAL, YES. MADE THROUGH\nTHE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS TO\nDETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A\nTAXPAYER REPORTING INDEED\nCORRECT WAY, THAT'S KIND OF\nTHROUGH THE TAX ADMINISTRATION\nAND AUDIT PROCESS. BUT IT'S\nBASICALLY IF SOMETHING IS GOING\nTO BE SOLD AS A POINT OF SALE,\nTHEN IT'S LARGELY CONSIDERED\nRETAIL. IF SOMETHING IS BEING\nPROVIDED ON AN HOURLY BASIS AND\nTHEN YOU KIND OF GET AN INVOICE\nAT THE END, THAT'S MORE CLOSELY\nCONSIDERED A SERVICE.\nAND FOR THAT, WHICH -- WHAT\nDO THOSE SERVICES -- I'M TRYING\nTO FIGURE OUT WHAT DO THOSE\nPROFESSIONAL SERVICES, THOSE\nCONTRACTS, THE HOURLY BILLING\nSTUFF, WHERE DOES THAT FIT ON\nTHIS CHART?\nTHIS WOULD FIT ON THE DECK OF: THIS WOULD FIT ON THE DECK OF\n4 TO 7% RATE.\nTHAT'S CLARITY I WAS LOOKING\nFOR SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.\nLASTLY IN RELATION TO THE\nSPONSORS COMMENT ABOUT GROCERY,\nBEEN GETTING SOME INFORMATION\nFROM WASHINGTON FOOD INDUSTRY\nWHICH REPRESENTS SMALL GROCERS,\nLOCALLY OWNED GROCERS, AND WHILE\nON THE STATE THE GROCERS ARE\nEXEMPT FROM B AND O .\nWHOLESALERS ARE NOT AND THAT\nWOULD INCLUDE THOSE SMALL,\nLOCALLY OWNED GROCERS SO JUST\nLOOKING AT HAS THERE BEEN\nCONSIDERATION FOR OUR SMALL MOM\nAND POP SHOPS HERE, AS RELATED\nTO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO\nOVERALL RELATED TO THIS. AGAIN\nJUST MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T\nHAVE ANY IMPACTS ON OUR SMALL\nLOCALLY OWNED GROCERS.\nI APOLOGIZE, COUNCILMEMBER. I\nDIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW THE\nQUESTION.\nAGAIN, JUST LOOKING AT -- I\nWAS GOING TO SAY WE ARE\nRECEIVING INFORMATION, I THINK\nWE ALL HAVE, FROM WASHINGTON\nFOOD INDUSTRY, WHO REPRESENTS\nSMALL, LOCALLY OWNED GROCERS,\nMANY OF WHOM ARE CONSIDERED\nWHOLESALERS. AND WHILE GROCERS\nARE EXEMPT FROM B AND O ON THE\nSTATE LEVEL, WHOLESALERS, FOOD\nWHOLESALERS ARE NOT AND THAT'S\nWHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT, IS\nARE WE LOOKING AT THE IMPACTS OF\nWHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO ON\nTHOSE SMALL INDEPENDENT GROCERS?\nOKAY. I APPRECIATE THE\nQUESTION. SO I WOULD SAY SO WE\nCAN'T OBVIOUSLY CHANGE THE\nSTATE'S EXEMPTIONS WHICH THEY\nHAVE PROVIDED AND KIND OF\nPULLING BACK TO THE UNIFORMITY\nDISCUSSION ABOUT RETAIL, WE\nDON'T REALLY HAVE THE ABILITY\nTO MAKE OUR OWN -- EVEN THOUGH\nWE DO HAVE SOME ABILITY TO GIVE\nDEDUCTIONS, EXEMPTIONS, AND\nCREDITS WITHIN THE RETAIL SPACE,\nEVEN THE KIND OF UNIFORM RATE\nAPPLICATION AND MODEL TAX\nORDINANCE, WE DON'T HAVE THE\nABILITY TO MAKE THOSE SPECIFIC\nTARGETED ADJUSTMENTS FOR\nANYTHING THAT FALLS WITHIN THE\nRETAIL CATEGORY. IF THEY'RE\nFALLING WITHIN THE WHOLESALER\nCATEGORY, THEN THERE MIGHT BE\nSOME OPTIONS TO CONSIDER AND\nLOOK AT BUT I WOULDN'T -- YOU\nHAVE TO KIND OF KNOW THE\nSPECIFIC TAXPAYERS BUSINESS\nSPECIFICS WHICH OF COURSE IS\nCONFIDENTIAL, SO WE DON'T HAVE\nA. SO WE CAN'T REALLY TELL ON A\nTAXPAYER BY TAXPAYER BASIS BUT\nWE CAN LOOK AT THE BROAD\nCONTOURS OF OUR ABILITY WITHIN\nWORKING WITHIN THE UNIFORMITY\nCONSTRAINT TO SEE IF THERE ARE\nCASES IN WHOLESALING WHERE AN\nEXEMPTION COULD BE PROVIDED.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER\nSOLOMON. COUNCIL PRESIDENT\nNELSON FOLLOWED BY COUNCILMEMBER\nRIVERA.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. I\nBELIEVE THIS IS PROBABLY MORE A\nQUESTION TO DM WONG AND ALSO\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK BUT THE\nTABLE CAN ANSWER IT. AT THE FNC\nMEETING ON JULY 2nd , WHEN THIS\nCONCEPT WAS DISCUSSED, I ASKED\nWHAT OUTREACH HAD BEEN PERFORMED\nBY TWO SMALL BUSINESSES AND I\nASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THE\nGSC BA HAD JUST COME OUT WITH\nTHEIR POSITION IN OPPOSITION AND\nTHEY ARE THE LARGEST SMALL\nBUSINESS ASSOCIATION IN\nWASHINGTON STATE, IF NOT\nMULTIPLE STATES. AND I REMINDED\nTHE EXECUTIVE AND CENTRAL STAFF\nTHAT I WAS INTERESTED IN HAVING\nTHIS INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY\nWHICH BUSINESSES HAVE YOU TALKED\nTO, WHICH BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS\nHAVE YOU CONFERRED WITH TO\nREALLY GET THEIR INPUT ON THE\nPACKAGE AS A WHOLE. SO I ASKED\nTHAT BY EMAIL ON THE SEVENTH OF\nJULY AND STILL HAVE NOT GOTTEN A\nRESPONSE. SO WHEN WILL I GET\nINFORMATION ABOUT THE OUTREACH\nTHAT HAD BEEN PERFORMED, AND\nHERE'S WHY I'M ASKING. NOW\nI'M SPEAKING MORE AS COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT TO SAY THAT THE TIMING\nOF THIS IS REALLY DIFFICULT\nBECAUSE OUR COMMITTEES,\nCOUNCILMEMBERS AND CENTRAL STAFF\nARE RUSHING TO FINISH\nLEGISLATION THAT'S IN THE\nPIPELINE BEFORE RECESS OR AT\nLEAST BEFORE BUDGET AND THAT'S\nA LOT OF WORK IN ITSELF, AND\nTHEN WE'VE GOT THE COMP PLAN ON\nOUR HANDS AND THAT IS A LOT OF\nOUTREACH TO NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS\nAND STAKEHOLDERS, AND ALSO OF\nCOURSE WE GOT A VACANCY TO FILL\nIN ALL OF THIS REQUIRES EITHER A\nLOT OF ONE-ON-ONE GROUP BOARD\nMEETINGS OFFSITE OR IN\nCOMMUNITY. THAT IS A LOT OF TIME\nAND NOW WE ARE BEING PASSED WITH\nEVALUATING A PROPOSAL TO END --\nWE NEED TO CONFIRM AND DO OUR\nDUE DILIGENCE BUT CONFIRM AS YOU\nJUST SAID, DEPUTY MAYOR WONG,\nTHAT IT STRIKES THE RIGHT\nBALANCE. SO WE NEED TO DO OUR\nDUE DILIGENCE AND THE TIME IS\nSHORT. AND WE HAVE A BALLOT\nMEASURE SORT OF ON OUR PLATES AT\nTHE LAST MINUTE. SO CAN YOU LET\nUS KNOW WHEN WE WILL BE GETTING\nTHAT INFORMATION? AND THIS\nQUESTION ALSO APPLIES TO\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK, THAT I\nWOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CHECK\nOFF ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE\nALREADY BEEN MET WITH SO THAT I\nCAN PICK HOW TO TARGET MY\nCOMMUNICATIONS GOING FORWARD.\nTHANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT: THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT\nFOR RAISING THOSE ISSUES AND\nFIRST TO GO TO YOUR ROLE THAT\nYOU MENTIONED AS COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT, VERY MUCH APPRECIATE\nALL OF THE VERY WEIGHTY AND\nSIGNIFICANT DIFFERENT POLICY\nISSUES THAT YOU'RE JUGGLING\nRIGHT NOW. AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE\nTIMING IS ONE THAT QUITE FRANKLY\nIDEALLY WOULD BE DONE WITH THE\nBUDGET FOR THIS TYPE OF\nPROPOSAL. WE ARE CONSTRAINED BY\nTHE STATE LAW THAT IT HAS TO GO\nTO THE VOTERS AND THAT IS WHAT\nACCELERATED THE TIMING HERE IN A\nWAY THAT UNFORTUNATELY WAS OUT\nOF OUR CONTROL, BUT ACKNOWLEDGE\nAND APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL\nBURDEN THAT PUTS ON THIS COUNCIL\nAND APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE\nTIME AND CHAIR STRAUSS FOR\nTAKING THE TIME, THREE TIMES AS\nYOU MENTIONED BEFORE. AS TO\nOUTREACH , SO APOLOGIES THAT YOU\nDID NOT GET THAT RESPONSE. MY\nUNDERSTANDING WAS THAT WE HAVE\nRESPONDED TO OUR OFFICE OF\nECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I WILL\nDOUBLE CHECK WITH THAT AND WE'VE\nMET WITH ALL OF THE BIAS. OED\nHAS A QUARTERLY MEETING WITH THE\nBIAS IN TERMS OF GROUPS THAT MAY\nHAVE MULTI MEMBERS. WE'VE MET\nWITH THE CHAMBER. WE HAD A\nCONVERSATION WITH THE GSB A AND\nMY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY HAVE\nNOT ACTUALLY TAKEN A POSITION ON\nTHE BILL, WHICH IS WHAT THEY\nEXPRESSED TO US AND THEY WERE\nPULLING MEMBERS CURRENTLY AND\nMAY HAVE A POSITION IN THE NEXT\nWEEK OR SO. AND SO THEY HAD MADE\nAN INITIAL STATEMENT ON THAT BUT\nTHAT THEY WERE STILL IN PROCESS\nFOR WHERE THEY ALTERNATELY MAY\nLAND ON IT. AND SO AND THEN\nTHERE'S THOUSANDS OF SMALL\nBUSINESSES AND JUST THROUGHOUT\nOUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS, JUST\nRAISING THIS, A LOT OF FOLKS\nHAVE QUESTIONS, I THINK LIKE FOR\nEXAMPLE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE\nGET A LOT IS A LITTLE CONFUSION\nAROUND THE EXCEPTION AND THE\nDEDUCTION . PEOPLE THINK IF I\nMAKE $3 MILLION AND GOING TO BE\nPAYING HIGHER TAXES AND WE\nEXPLAINED, WELL NO, THE\nDEDUCTION GOES UP TO 5.8 IN\nDOLLARS IN EXTRA REVENUE SO YOU\nACTUALLY BENEFIT FROM THIS BILL\nEVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE 5.8 ALIEN\nDOLLARS ROUGHLY IN GROSS REVENUE\nSO IT'S A LOT OF EXPLAINING OF\nTHAT TO OUR COMMUNITY MEETINGS.\nTO REPEAT THAT: TO REPEAT THAT.\nONGOING TO FACILITATE THIS: ONGOING TO FACILITATE THIS\nMEETING. I WILL LET YOU, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT, HAVE THE FLOOR UNTIL\nWE ARE DONE BUT I'M GOING TO\nLET THE DEPUTY MAYOR FINISH\nTHEIR COMMENTS AND I'LL RETURN\nTO YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nTHANK YOU, CHAIR. SO WE WILL\nFOLLOW UP WITH YOU. I APOLOGIZE\nIF THERE'S SPECIFIC GROUPS YOU\nARE WONDERING, IF WE TALK TO YOU\nOR NOT OR IF THERE'S SPECIFIC\nBUSINESSES YOU WANT TO KNOW,\nWE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT BUT\nWE'RE DOING IT MOSTLY THROUGH\nOUR OFFICE OF ECONOMIC\nDEVELOPMENT WHICH HAS MOST OF\nTHE RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE SMALL\nBUSINESS COMMUNITY AND HAPPY TO\nHAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU\nFURTHER, AND APOLOGIES IF YOU\nDIDN'T GET THAT BACK IN\nWRITING.\nCOULD YOU REPEAT THE PART: COULD YOU REPEAT THE PART\nTHAT YOU WERE SAYING THAT WAS\nYOU JUST SAID THAT FAST AND I\nWAS TRYING TO FOLLOW?\nSORRY, I SHOULD SLOW DOWN. I\nAPPRECIATE THAT AND IF THE\nQUESTION WE GET THE MOST SO IT\nDOES DESERVE A LITTLE BIT OF A\nSLOWER EXPLANATION. SO THERE'S\nA LOT OF NUMBERS THAT GET THROWN\nAROUND WITH THIS BILL AND SO IT\nIS IMPORTANT FOR, I THINK THE\nCOMMUNITY, FOR THE BUSINESSES\nAND FOR ALL OF THE POLICYMAKERS\nTO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S KIND\nOF TWO GROUPS OF BUSINESSES,\nI'D SAY THAT BENEFIT FROM THIS\nBILL. THE FIRST GROUP IS THOSE\nTHAT HAVE GROSS REVENUES UP TO\n$2 MILLION. THAT'S THE\nTHRESHOLD THAT TOM AND CENTRAL\nSTAFF EXPLAINED. THOSE\nBUSINESSES WERE NO LONGER PAY\nANY CITY B AND O TAX SO THEY'RE\nESSENTIALLY DOWN TO ZERO. WE\nALSO BUILT IN A SEPARATE $2\nMILLION DEDUCTION AND WHAT THAT\nMEANS IS THAT ALL BUSINESSES,\nWHETHER YOU MAKE $3 MILLION OR\n$100 MILLION, GET TO DEDUCT THE\nFIRST $2 MILLION OFF OF THE\nGROSS REVENUES BEFORE PAYING\nTHEIR TAXES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF\nYOU ARE A $5 MILLION GROSS\nREVENUE BUSINESS, YOU CAN DEDUCT\n$2 MILLION OF YOUR REVENUE AND\nESSENTIALLY BE TAXED ONLY ON THE\nREMAINING $3 MILLION. THE NET\nRESULT OF THAT IS THERE IS THIS\nTEAR OF BUSINESSES THAT WANT TO\nBE PAYING ZERO TAXES BUT WILL\nACTUALLY BE PAYING LESS THAN\nWHAT THEY CURRENTLY DO UNDER\nTHIS PROPOSAL. AND THOUGH THAT\nRUNS ROUGHLY BETWEEN THOSE WHO\nMAKE TWEEN $2 MILLION IN GROSS\nREVENUE AND AROUND $5.8 MILLION\nAND CENTRAL STAFF MAY HAVE A\nBUDGET, MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT\nNUMBER, IT'S 5.7, 5.8 IT'S\nROUGHLY AROUND THAT SO THOSE\nBUSINESSES, ALL BUSINESSES\nAROUND THAT $5.8 MILLION WERE\nLOWER IN GROSS REVENUE WILL BE\nPAYING LESS OR NO CITY B AND O\nTAXES UNDER THIS PROPOSAL. SO\nTHAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO\nEXPLAIN WITH THAT.\nTHANK YOU FOR THAT: THANK YOU FOR THAT\nEXPLANATION. YOU SAID THAT YOU\nWILL BE TALKING TO THE GSB A,\nBECAUSE I HAVE OFFICIAL\nRESPONSE, RIGHT, IF YOU CAN SEE.\nSO I THOUGHT THEY ALREADY PUT\nOUT THEIR OFFICIAL RESPONSE IN\nOPPOSITION.\nI HAD A CONVERSATION WITH: I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH\nTHEM YESTERDAY ON THIS TO\nUNDERSTAND IS THEY STILL HAVE\nLOTS OF QUESTIONS, TOO SO\nTHERE'S STILL, WITH MANY OF THE\nBUSINESS GROUPS I THINK THERE'S\nCLEARLY THERE'S MIXED\nRESPONSES. SOME BUSINESSES\nREALLY LIKE IT. SOME ARE NOT AS\nTHRILLED ABOUT IT AND SO THEY'RE\nWORKING THROUGH WITH THEIR\nMEMBERS TO UNDERSTAND WHERE\nTHEIR MEMBERSHIP IS AND THEY MAY\nHAVE A MORE FORMAL POSITION\nCOMING UP . THAT'S MY\nUNDERSTANDING. I DON'T WANT TO\nSPEAK FOR THEM FROM THE TABLE\nBUT THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF\nTHEIR CONVERSATION.\nOKAY. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU. VICE CHAIR RIVERA?\nTHANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE: THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE.\nDEPUTY MAYOR WONG, AND/OR TOM, I\nJUST WANT TO CLARIFY ON SLIDE\nFIVE, THESE 15,906 BUSINESSES\nARE NOT PAYING, IN THIS\nPROPOSAL, WILL NOT PAY ANY B AND\nO TAX OR SOME OF THESE ONES AS\nYOU ARE DESCRIBING MAKE $5\nMILLION AND SO THE FIRST $2\nMILLION WILL BE EXEMPT AND\nTHEY'LL ONLY PAY THE $3\nMILLION, WHICH YOU ARE SEEING IS\nLESS THAN WHAT THEY CURRENTLY\nPAY TODAY. IS THIS A COMBO OF\nTHOSE TWO THESE ONES THAT JUST\nWON'T PAY IT OFF?\nTHANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION,\nVICE CHAIR RIVERA. SO THIS IS\nPURELY THOSE TAXPAYERS THAT ARE\nEXEMPT OF THE INCREASE TO THE\nSTANDARD EXEMPTION THRESHOLD OF\n$2 MILLION, SO THERE WILL BE\nADDITIONAL TAXPAYERS THAT WILL\nFIND THAT BECAUSE OF THE HIGHER\nSTANDARD DEDUCTION, WHICH IS THE\nNEXT SLIDE ON THE PRESENTATION,\nNOT THE NEXT YEAR BUT THE\nSTANDARD DEDUCTION WOULD HAVE NO\nTAX BILL AS WELL BUT THOSE\nTAXPAYERS ARE NOT CONCLUDED IN\nTHE SPECIFIC TABLE.\nYOUR GOING TO GO THERE NEXT,\nI DON'T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF\nOURSELVES. I GUESS I'LL SAVE MY\nQUESTION , CHAIR, FOR THE NEXT\nSLIDE BECAUSE IT PERTAINS TO\nTHAT $5 MILLION.\nTHANK YOU, SO NOTICING THAT\nWE ARE EIGHT MINUTES BEFORE\n11:00 A.M., THE COMMITTEE\nTECHNICALLY GOES TO 11:30.\nCOLLEAGUES HAVE ASKED THAT WE\nSTAY LONGER TODAY, JUST NOTICING\nTIME SO TOM, BACK OVER TO YOU\nAND I'M GOING TO HAVE\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA ASK HER\nQUESTION ON THE NEXT SLIDE AND\nTHEN I WILL ASK TO HOLD\nQUESTIONS UNTIL THE END OF THE\nRESTRUCTURE SO THAT WE CAN GET\nTHROUGH THIS SECTION OF THE\nPRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL\nTAKE UP THE NEXT SECTION OF THE\nPRESENTATION, WHICH IS HOW THE\nREVENUE IS USED AFTER THAT. SO\nOVER TO YOU,, AND THEN\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA AND WE'LL\nHOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL THE END OF\nTHE RESTRUCTURE.\nSO NOW CONTINUING ON THE: SO NOW CONTINUING ON THE\nDETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE\nRESTRUCTURE, NEXT PIECE IS THE\n$2 MILLION STANDARD DEDUCTION.\nSO WHAT THIS WOULD REPRESENT, SO\nTHIS IS A NOVEL CONCEPT. THERE\nIS NOT CURRENTLY A STANDARD\nDEDUCTION IN OUR CURRENT B AND O\nTAX. THIS WOULD ALLOW TEXT\nPLAYERS WHEN THEY FILE TO\nBASICALLY TAKE AN INITIAL $2\nMILLION RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF\nTHEIR REVENUE AND KIND OF\nDECREASED THEIR TAXABLE REVENUE\nFOR PURPOSES OF FILING THEIR\nTAXES. SO BASED ON THE ANALYSIS\nOF THIS BY THE ECONOMIC REVENUE\nFORECAST, THIS WOULD EXEMPT\nAROUND 10.8 ILION DOLLARS OF\nREVENUE FROM TAX AND THE\nESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT . SO THE\nIMPACT ON REVENUES THAT WE WOULD\nOTHERWISE COLLECT IS $33 MILLION\nPRIOR TO THE RATE INCREASE. SO\nI'LL PAUSE THERE, PERHAPS IF\nTHE QUESTION IS WITH REGARDS TO\nTHE STANDARD DEDUCTION, OR SHALL\nI CONTINUE?\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA: COUNCILMEMBER RIVERA.\nTHANK YOU, CHAIR. MY QUESTION\nWAS GOING TO BE ON THESE\nBUSINESSES THAT MAKE $5 MILLION,\nWHERE THEY GET TO DEDUCT THE $2\nMILLION. HOW MANY BUSINESSES ARE\nWE TALKING ABOUT FROM THAT\nLEVEL? AND THEN I WANT TO KNOW\nHOW MANY BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO\nBE PAYING MORE? EVERYBODY ELSE\nWILL BE PAYING MORE.\nTHAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I\nDON'T HAVE THAT SPECIFIC DETAIL\nAT THIS TIME. I'VE HEARD -- SO\nTHE PRIOR, THE STANDARD\nDEDUCTION OR THE EXEMPTION\nTHRESHOLD INCREASE WOULD GET TO\n75% OF BUSINESSES WOULD BE\nEXEMPT, LEAVING 5000. THE\nADDITIONAL NUMBER OF BUSINESSES\nTHAT WOULD BE EXEMPT, I CAN\nFOLLOW UP WITH THAT SPECIFIC\nDETAIL. I'VE HEARD THAT IT'S\nABOUT AN ADDITIONAL 15% OF\nBUSINESSES WOULD BE EXEMPT BUT\nAGAIN I DON'T HAVE THE\nBREAKDOWN IN THAT SAME\nCATEGORIZATION BUT I CAN FOLLOW\nUP WITH THAT.\nSORRY, TOM, DID YOU SAY 50%\nOF THE REMAINDER? SO 50% OF THE\n25% 2\nSO APOLOGIZE IF I MISSPOKE: SO APOLOGIZE IF I MISSPOKE.\nTHE EXEMPTION THRESHOLD WOULD\nGET TO 75% OF THE CURRENT\nTAXPAYERS WOULD BE EXEMPT. THE\nSTANDARD DEDUCTION WOULD BE AN\nADDITIONAL 15% SO ABOUT 90%, AND\nAGAIN, I HEARD THIS INFORMATION\nFROM THE EXECUTIVE. I HAVEN'T\nSEEN THE SPECIFIC NUMBERS AT MY\nHANDS BUT I CAN COME UP WITH THE\nBREAKDOWN BY BUSINESS TYPE OF\nWHAT THOSE ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES\nREPRESENT.\nSO WE'LL GET THAT LATER WITH\nTHE ACTUAL NUMBERS OF\nBUSINESSES? PERCENTAGE?\nWE CAN PROVIDE THAT DETAIL: WE CAN PROVIDE THAT DETAIL\nFOR SURE. BROADLY SPEAKING THERE\nWOULD BE ABOUT 5000 BUSINESSES\nLEFT IN THE POOL, IF YOU WILL,\nOF BUSINESSES THAT ARE STILL\nPAYING THE B AND O TAX AFTER\nBOTH THE EXEMPTION AND THE\nDEDUCTION. ABOUT HALF OF THAT\nROUGHLY $5000 NUMBER WOULD BE\nFOLKS WHO ARE PAYING LESS,\nRATHER THAN PAYING MORE. SO\nIT'S ABOUT SPLIT HALF AND HALF.\nTHAT'S IMPORTANT, DIRECTOR,\nBECAUSE I'VE HEARD THAT FROM A\nLOT OF BUSINESSES, THAT 5\nMILLION SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF\nMONEY. IT'S GROSS SALES AND SO\nYOU KNOW YOU HAVE THOSE MIDDLE\nBUSINESSES WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY\n-- THEY'RE NOT MAKING AS MUCH\nAS YOU THINK, EVEN THOUGH $5\nMILLION SOUNDS LIKE A LOT, WHICH\nIT IS TO ME, AS AN INDIVIDUAL.\nBUT WHEN YOU'RE PAYING STAFF\nAND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND\nOVERHEAD, IT WINDS UP NOT BEEN A\nTON. SO I JUST -- I WANT TO BE\nCLEAR ON HOW MANY OF THOSE\nBUSINESSES ARE PAYING MORE THAN\nTHEY ARE TODAY. I THINK THAT'S\nIMPORTANT. WE CAN SET ASIDE THE\nLARGE, LARGE BUSINESSES. I\nUNDERSTAND THAT BUT THIS LITTLE,\nYOU KNOW THIS AREA OR THESE\nNUMBER OF BUSINESSES IS\nIMPORTANT IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE'VE\nHEARD, ACTUALLY EVEN IN PUBLIC\nCOMMENT TODAY. BUT I'VE HEARD\nPRIOR TO TODAY THIS CONCERN AS\nWELL SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR\nON HOW MANY OF THOSE BUSINESSES\nWE ARE TALKING ABOUT.\nWE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU BUT\nIT'S ON THE ORDER OF 2500\nBUSINESSES WILL BE PAYING MORE\nAND THE OTHER BUSINESSES ARE\nEITHER PAYING NOTHING FOR B AND\nO TAX OR THEY'RE PAYING\nSOMEWHAT LESS AND THE BREAKEVEN\nPOINT IS ABOUT $6 MILLION OF\nCURRENTLY TAXABLE GROSS\nRECEIPTS. IF YOU ARE A BUSINESS\nTHAT HAS ABOUT $6 MILLION OF\nCURRENTLY TAXABLE GROSS\nRECEIPTS, YOU ARE EITHER NO\nLONGER PAYING ANY B AND O TAX OR\nYOU'RE PAYING LESS THAN YOU'RE\nCURRENTLY PAYING. IF YOU HAVE 6\nMILLION OR SO OR MORE IN\nCURRENTLY TAXABLE GROSS\nRECEIPTS, YOU WILL BE PAYING A\nHIGHER AMOUNT OF A TAX UNDER THE\nRESTRUCTURED TAX BILL.\nOKAY. SO WE'LL GET FOLLOW-UP\nINFORMATION ON THAT POINT.\nANOTHER JUST TO CLARIFY,\nNONPROFITS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM\nTHESE TOTALS AS WELL, SO DO WE\nKNOW WHAT THE NONPROFIT\nPERCENTAGE IS VERSUS THE\nFOR-PROFIT INSTITUTIONS? AND\nI'M THINKING SPECIFICALLY HERE,\nOBVIOUSLY CAME TO MY ATTENTION\nJUST TODAY THAT FRED HUTCH WOULD\nBE SUBJECT TO PAYING FOR THIS,\nOUR MAIN CANCER RESEARCH\nINSTITUTE IN THE CITY. THEY'RE\nEXEMPT FROM THE STATE B AND O\nAND SO I'M GETTING MORE\nINFORMATION ON THAT BUT I JUST\nWANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE\nLOOKED AT THE NONPROFITS AND\nIMPACTS ON PLACES LIKE FRED\nHUTCH.\nI HAVE NOT SEEN ANY NUMBERS: I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY NUMBERS\nON NONPROFITS. AS WAS MENTIONED\nEARLIER, WE CAN'T GET\nINDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER INFORMATION,\nAND I DON'T KNOW IF WE BREAK IT\nDOWN BY NONPROFIT VERSUS\nFOR-PROFIT BUT WE CAN ASK AND\nSEE IF WE ARE ABLE TO GET AT\nLEAST THE AGGREGATE NUMBER ON\nTHAT. I'M NOT SURE. I HAVE NOT\nSEEN THAT YET.\nI APPRECIATE THAT, DEPUTY\nMAYOR. I KNOW WE TOUCHED BASE\nJUST A SECOND AGO ON\nTRANSPARENCY, BECAUSE I HAVE\nTHIS QUESTION SO I APPRECIATE\nYOU WORKING WITH ME TO FIGURE\nTHAT OUT AND FIGURE OUT IF FRED\nHUTCH AND OTHER SIMILAR\nINSTITUTIONS, SO THANK YOU FOR\nTHAT. THANK YOU, CHAIR.\nTHANK YOU VICE CHAIR: THANK YOU VICE CHAIR.\nCOLLEAGUES, I'M BREAKING THE\nRULE, A GOOD RULE OF\nFACILITATION, WHICH IS BEING\nCONSISTENT AND PREDICTABLE. I'M\nNOTICING THAT THE NEXT FEW\nSLIDES ARE SUMMARIES, AND SO,\nCOLLEAGUES, IF YOU DO HAVE\nQUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEDUCTIONS,\nI'M HAPPY TO TAKE THEM RIGHT\nNOW. AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH\nTHIS PRESENTATION THERE ARE TWO\nMORE SECTIONS AND IN THE NEXT\nPRESENTATION THERE ARE SECTIONS\nOF THE PRESENTATIONS. WE'LL\nHOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL THE END OF\nTHE SESSIONS AND THEN WE'LL ASK\nTHEM SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT\nDIFFERENT THAN USUAL BUT JUST\nWANT TO CHECK AND SEE IF THERE\nARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT\nTHIS RESTRUCTURE IN THE\nDEDUCTION. IF NOT, THEN WE WILL\nHOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL SLIDE C,\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT.\nI JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I\nHEARD CORRECTLY. NONPROFITS ARE\nCOVERED BY THIS. THEY WILL BE --\nI MEAN IF A NONPROFIT BRINGS IN\nMORE THAN $2 MILLION, COULD YOU\nPLEASE EXPLAIN HOW NONPROFITS\nARE TREATED WITH THIS PROPOSAL?\nYEAH, SO THANKS FOR THE\nQUESTION, COUNCIL PRESIDENT\nNELSON. SO THIS SPECIFIC\nPROPOSAL WOULDN'T CHANGE\nANYTHING WITH REGARDS TO\nNONPROFITS SPECIFICALLY. IF A\nNONPROFIT IS BELOW $2 MILLION IN\nANNUAL REVENUE, IT WOULD BE\nEXEMPT, SO THAT WOULD BE A\nCHANGE AS A RESULT OF THIS\nPROPOSAL. IF A -- AND AGAIN,\nKIND OF GOING AHEAD TO KIND OF\nSOME OF THE KIND OF DESCRIPTIONS\nOF THE COMPARATIVE IMPACTS, BUT\nIF A NONPROFIT IS HIGHER THAN\nANNUAL REVENUE OF $5.7 MILLION,\nIT WOULD PAY A HIGHER TAX. SO\nI'M NOT AWARE THAT THERE IS A\nBROAD MARKET OF EXEMPTION IN THE\nTAX FOR NONPROFITS. THEY ARE\nELIGIBLE KIND OF IN A BROAD\nLEVEL TO PAY THE TAX. SO REALLY\nTHIS CHANGE WITH RESPECT TO\nNONPROFITS IS REALLY WHETHER\nTHEY FALL ABOVE $2 MILLION OR\nBELOW AND THEN IF THEY ARE ABOVE\n$2 MILLION, WHETHER OR NOT THEY\nHAVE $5.7 MILLION OF ANNUAL\nREVENUE OR BELOW, IF THEY HAVE\nBELOW $5.7 MILLION OF REVENUE\nTHEY WILL PAY A LOWER TAX. IF\nTHEY HAVE ABOVE 5.7 THEY WILL\nPAY A HIGHER TAX.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU. ANY OTHER\nQUESTIONS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT?\nCOLLEAGUES, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS\nON THE DEDUCTIONS SECTION? SEE\nNONE, IF YOU WANT TO TICK\nTHROUGH YOUR NEXT SLIDES, WE'LL\nTAKE QUESTIONS FROM\nCOUNCILMEMBERS ON SLIDE 10.\nOKAY. SO CONTINUING THE NEXT\nCHANGE IN THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE\nA COMPARTMENT CHANGE TO THE\nBUSINESS LICENSE FEE AND A HIGH\nLEVEL, AS I MENTIONED, THE\nBUSINESS LICENSE FEE AND THE B\nAND O TAX ARE LINKED THROUGH THE\nDEFINITION OF REVENUE,\nSPECIFICALLY TAXABLE REVENUE.\nAND TO PULL BACK EVEN FURTHER,\nTHE CITY HAS TWO, A FEE AND A\nTAX SO JUST A BUSINESS LICENSE\nFEE IS ASSESSED FOR JUST THE\nPRIVILEGE OF DOING BUSINESS IN\nTHE CITY OF SEATTLE, AND THEN IF\nYOU ARE A BUSINESS LICENSE FEE\nOLDER THAN YOU MAY BE LIABLE TO\nPAY THE B AND O TAX. THIS CHANGE\nWILL BASICALLY CHANGE FOR ALL\nTAXPAYERS WHAT THEIR TAX REBEL\n-- WHAT THEIR TAXABLE REVENUES\nARE BY VIRTUE OF THE NEW\nSTANDARD DEDUCTION, AND BECAUSE\nOF THAT, THERE WOULD'VE BEEN AN\nUNANTICIPATED CHANGE IN THE\nSCHEDULE OF FEES FOR FOLKS\nPAYING THE BUSINESS LICENSE FEE.\nSO THIS IS SIMPLY A CONFORMING\nCHANGE TO MITIGATE AGAINST ANY\nUNINTENDED REVENUE LOSS FROM THE\nBUSINESS LICENSE FEE AS A RESULT\nOF THIS CHANGE. SO FINALLY, THE\nFINAL PIECE OF THE TAX\nRESTRUCTURE IS A RATE INCREASE\nWHICH INCREASES THE RATES TO THE\nNEW PROPOSED RATES OF .342% FOR\nWHOLESALE TRADE AND\nMANUFACTURING AND .658 PERCENT\nFOR SERVICES AND ALL THE OTHER\nACTIVITIES. YOU CAN SEE HERE IN\nTHE TABLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE\nSLIDE, WHAT THAT MEANS FOR A\nBUSINESS WITH $1 MILLION FOR\nEACH INCREMENTAL MILLION DOLLARS\nOF REVENUE, FOR THE RETAIL RATE.\nIT'S BASICALLY $1200 PER\nADDITIONAL MILLION DOLLARS OF\nREVENUE AS A RESULT OF THIS TEXT\nCHAIN FOR THE SERVICES AND OTHER\nCATEGORY, IT'S TO 2300, A\nLITTLE OVER $2300 WITH REGARDS\nTO THE CHANGE FOR MILLION\nDOLLARS OF REVENUE. AND I WOULD\nSAY THAT ALL THESE NUMBERS AND\nESTIMATES COME BY WAY OF THE\nCITY'S INDEPENDENT FORECAST\nOFFICE, WHO ESTIMATE THAT THE\nRATE INCREASE WOULD GENERATE\n$151 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL\nREVENUE IN 2026, HOWEVER, THERE\nARE EMBEDDED CAVEATS AND RISKS\nIN ALL REVENUE ESTIMATES,\nINCLUDING THIS ONE. TO KIND OF\nPULL BACK A BIT AND LOOK AT WHAT\nTHIS MEANS FOR SEATTLE'S RATES\nWITH REGARDS TO RATES CHARGED BY\nOUR NEIGHBORING CITIES, YOU CAN\nSEE KIND OF FIRST THE SEATTLE'S\nCURRENT RATE IN THE BOLD RED\nBARS. THAN THE SEATTLE PROPOSAL,\nTHE PROPOSED RATE WITH THIS\nCOUNCIL BILL OF WHAT IT WOULD\nLOOK LIKE AND HOW THESE COMPARE\nTO OTHER CITIES IN THE REGION.\nAND YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE\nCITIES OF REDMOND AND KIRKLAND\nARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS CHART,\nAND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY DO NOT\nCURRENTLY ASSESS THIS TYPE OF B\nAND O TAX. THEY INSTEAD ASSESS\nHEAD TAXES. AND SO NOW A FEW\nEXAMPLES. WE'VE KIND OF TALKED\nABOUT THIS A BIT WITH REGARDS TO\nWHERE THE IMPACTS ARE WITHIN\nTHIS RESTRUCTURE. THERE WAS\nMENTION WE DO NOT KNOW SPECIFIC\nBUSINESSES. THAT'S REALLY\nHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION\nSO WE'VE KIND OF JUST PUT IT IN\nTERMS OF BUSINESS A AND BUSINESS\nB JUST FOR PURPOSES OF\nCOMPARISONS, AND DIFFERENT KIND\nOF ANNUAL REVENUES FOR EACH OF\nTHESE SORT OF EXAMPLE BUSINESS\nIS. GOING FROM $250,000 REVENUE\nUP TO HALF $1 BILLION AND I\nDON'T KNOW HOW MANY BUSINESSES\nWOULD FALL INTO ANY ONE OF THESE\nCATEGORIES. THESE ARE JUST\nREALLY FOR PURPOSES OF EXAMPLE\nIMPACTS. AND THE WAY THAT THE\nTABLE IS SORTED, IT SHOWS THE\nTAX DUE UNDER THE CURRENT\nSTRUCTURE THAT'S IN PLACE TODAY\nAND THEN WHAT THE TAX DUE WOULD\nBE AFTER THE RESTRUCTURE. SO YOU\nCAN SEE CLEARLY THAT AROUND $5.7\nMILLION REVENUE POINT IS WHERE\nTHE TAX BURDEN IS LOWER UNDER\nTHE RESTRUCTURE OR HIRE\nDEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE WITH\nREGARDS TO THAT INFLECTION\nPOINT. SO ESSENTIALLY ANYBODY\nUNDER $5.7 MILLION OF REVENUE\nWOULD OWE A LOWER TAX, ABOVE\nWOULD OWE A HIGHER TAX AND THEN\nLOOKING AT THE HALF $1 BILLION\nREVENUE LEVEL, THE DIFFERENCE IS\nA LITTLE BIT ABOVE HALF $1\nMILLION OF ADDITIONAL REVENUE\nIMPACT AFTER THE RESTRUCTURE.\nAND THIS IS AGAIN , SINCE WE GOT\nOUR TWO RATES, THIS IS\nDESCRIBING THE CHANGES FOR THE\nRETAIL, WHOLESALING AND\nMANUFACTURING RATE. THE HIGHER\nRATE, THE TRANSFER SERVICE FEE\nFOR HIRE AND OTHER RATE, KIND OF\nSIMILAR EXAMPLES. AGAIN THE AND\nELECTION POINT IS ABOUT $5.7\nMILLION AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL\nTAX FOR A HALF $1 BILLION\nTAXPAYER WOULD BE ABOUT $1.1\nMILLION PER YEAR AND SO THIS --\nA LOT OF DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE\nPROPOSAL, OF THE RESTRUCTURE.\nBUT THIS PULLS IT ALL TOGETHER\nTO SHOW HOW FISCALLY IT ALL\nHANGS TOGETHER. FIRST THERE IS A\nCOST OF INCREASING THE SMALL\nBUSINESS EXEMPTION. THAT'S $28\nMILLION. SO THAT WOULD BE A\nREVENUE LOSS. ALL ELSE BEING\nEQUAL. THE $2 MILLION STANDARD\nDEDUCTION WOULD REDUCE REVENUES\nBY $33 MILLION. AGAIN, ALL ELSE\nBEING EQUAL. HOWEVER, THE IMPACT\nOF THE HIGHER TAX RATES BRINGS\nAN ADDITIONAL $151 MILLION,\nWHICH NETS TO $90 MILLION OF\nANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE. AND\nNOW I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER\nTO JEN LOOK REQ TO EXPLAIN THE\nUSE OF THAT $90 MILLION.\nHANG TIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO\nPAUSE ON SLIDE 10 AND SEE IF\nTHERE ARE COUNCILMEMBER\nQUESTIONS AT THE END OF THIS\nSESSION? ALL RIGHT. NOW OVER TO\nYOU, JENNIFER. I'M GOING TO ASK\nTHAT WE NOW GO THROUGH YOUR\nSECTION SO THERE ARE THREE\nSLIDES AND WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS\nFROM COUNCILMEMBERS AT THE END\nOF YOUR THIRD SLIDE HERE.\nSOUNDS GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO I\nWILL TALK ABOUT THE USE OF THE\nNET REVENUE, AND HERE AGAIN,\nJUST AS TOM COVERED, THE NET\nREVENUE IS THE MONEY THAT'S\nLEFT OVER AFTER PAYING FOR THE\nLOSS OF REVENUE CREATED BY THE\nSTANDARD DEDUCTION AND THE\nHIGHER EXEMPTION. ALL RIGHT. SO\nUNDER THIS COUNCIL BILL THE NET\nREVENUE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE\nUSED FOR SEVERAL PURPOSES. THOSE\nPURPOSES ARE AREAS OF FOOD\nACCESS, GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE\nPROGRAMS, HOMELESSNESS\nPREVENTION, EMERGENCY SHELTER,\nAND SUPPORT FOR WORKERS RIGHTS ,\nWORKERS RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS\nAND SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORTS.\nTHERE'S CURRENTLY ROUGHLY ABOUT\n$145 MILLION IN GENERAL FUND\nSUPPORTING THESE PROGRAM AREAS\nAND ABOUT $10 MILLION OF PET. I\nWANTED TO TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO\nTALK ABOUT WHAT THIS ORDINANCE\nWOULD DO AND ALSO WHAT IT\nWOULDN'T DO IN TERMS OF\nSPECIFICITY. YOU KNOW AT HEART\nTHE ORDINANCE OR THE COUNCIL\nBILL STATES THE CITY'S\nPRIORITIES FOR USE OF THIS NET\nREVENUE IN THE FACE OF BOTH\nGENERAL FUND AND PET DEFICIT IN\nTHE COMING YEARS. IT IS INTENDED\nTO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY IN THE\nFACE OF A LOT OF UNKNOWNS AND\nTHAT INCLUDES WHAT THE AUGUST\nAND OCTOBER REVENUE FORECAST\nWILL LOOK LIKE. AND IF THOSE\nFORECAST WILL INCREASE THE\nPROJECTED BUDGET DEFICIT. AS A\nRESULT, THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T\nSPECIFY FUNDING AMOUNTS OR\nPERCENTAGES FOR EACH OF THE\nABOVE USES. IT ALSO DOES NOT\nREQUIRE THAT ALL OF THESE USES\nBE FUNDED OR THAT THE COUNCIL\nMAINTAIN TODAY'S INVESTMENT\nLEVELS. OVERALL I WOULD SAY THAT\nIT IS THE INTENT OF THE\nLEGISLATION THAT THE NET REVENUE\nBE USED TO BACKFILL FOR PROGRAMS\nTHAT ARE CURRENTLY FUNDED WITH\nTHE GENERAL FUND AND TO AN\nEXTENT ALSO PROGRAMS THAT ARE\nFUNDED WITH PET, WHICH HAS\nINCREASINGLY BECOME FUNGIBLE\nWITH GENERAL FUND. BUT THE\nORDINANCE DOES NOT EXPLICITLY\nSAY THAT, BUT THAT IS THE\nINTENT, IS THE BACKFILL OF\nEXISTING GENERAL FUNDED PROGRAMS\nIN THESE FIVE AREAS THAT I JUST\nMENTIONED.\nNEXT SLIDE: NEXT SLIDE.\nALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THE\nORDINANCE ALSO SAYS THAT UP TO\n$30 MILLION IN NET REVENUE MAY\nBE USED FOR IMPLEMENTATION COSTS\nAND THE ONGOING ADMINISTRATION\nOF THE TAX. GIVE ME ONE MOMENT\nHERE. ALL RIGHT. AS WE TALKED\nABOUT LAST TIME, IMPLEMENTATION\nCOSTS INCLUDE $2.3 MILLION FOR\nSYSTEM CHANGES IN 2025. THAT'S\nA ONE TIME COST, AND POTENTIALLY\nANOTHER $2.7 MILLION IN ONE-TIME\nCOSTS IF THERE IS A NEEDED\nUPDATE TO THE CITY'S LEGACY\nSYSTEM FOR ADMINISTERING TAXES.\nAND THEN THERE WOULD BE\nAPPROXIMATELY $1.5 MILLION IN\nONGOING COSTS TO MOST OF THE TAX\nINCLUDING PERSONNEL. THE SECOND\nUSE HERE IS FOR THIS UP TO $30\nMILLION, IS TO MITIGATE THE\nIMPACT OF FEDERAL FUNDING\nREDUCTIONS IN FOUR DIFFERENT\nAREAS, HOUSING STABILITY FOR LOW\nINCOME TENANTS, FOOD INSECURITY,\nFINANCIAL SECURITY FOR\nAFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDERS,\nAND EMERGENCY SHELTER AND\nHOMELESSNESS. AS WRITTEN, THE\nLEGISLATION SAYS UP TO $30\nMILLION. SO THAT IS AN ELIGIBLE\nUSE FOR THIS FUNDING TO MITIGATE\nTHE IMPACT OF FEDERAL FUNDING\nREDUCTIONS. BUT IT DOES NOT\nNECESSARILY HAVE TO BE USED FOR\nTHAT PURPOSE. NET REVENUE, IF\nTHE LEGISLATION DOESN'T REQUIRE\nTHAT IT BE USED FOR THAT\nPURPOSE. IT PRESERVES\nFLEXIBILITY TO USE NET REVENUE\nTO BACKFILL FOR GENERAL FUND IF\nNEEDED AS WELL, DEPENDING ON\nFUTURE FORECASTS. NEXT SLIDE,\nPLEASE. THE COUNCIL BILL DOES\nREQUIRE THE EXECUTIVE TO PROVIDE\nSOME INFORMATION TO COUNCIL,\nBOTH IN ADVANCE OF TRANSMITTING\nTHE BUDGET, AND ALSO WITH\nTRANSMITTAL OF THE BUDGET. IT\nREQUIRES THAT AT LEAST THREE\nMONTHS PRIOR TO THE MAYOR\nSUBMITTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET,\nTHE EXECUTIVE CONSULT WITH\nCOUNCIL ON THE IMPACT OF ACTUAL\nAND ANTICIPATED REVENUE\nREDUCTIONS AND FEDERAL FUNDING\nCUTS ON THE IDENTIFIED PROGRAM\nAREAS, AND INFORM COUNCIL HOW\nTHE NEW REVENUE GENERATED BY\nTHIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE\nUTILIZED. ONCE THE BUDGET IS\nTRANSMITTED, THE COUNCIL BILL\nALSO REQUIRES A WRITTEN PROPOSED\nPLAN OUTLINING HOW THE NEW\nREVENUE GENERATED BY THIS\nORDINANCE IS TO BE UTILIZED\nAGAIN IN THE IDENTIFIED PROGRAM\nAREAS, AND I WILL STOP THERE FOR\nQUESTIONS.\nTHANK YOU, JENNIFER.\nCOUNCILMEMBER?\nTHANK CHAIR STRAUSS AND THANK: THANK CHAIR STRAUSS AND THANK\nYOU MS. LABRECQUE. I'M LOOKING\nAT YOUR LAST SLIDE SO I JUST\nWANTED TO SAY FIRST SINCE THIS\nIS UP RIGHT NOW THAT I DO\nSUPPORT THESE BULLETS, THESE\nPOINTS ABOUT HAVING THE MAYOR\nSUBMIT THE BUDGETS, THE SHELL\nAND THE SECOND BILL REGARDING\nHOW THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE\nUTILIZED. MY QUESTION GOING\nBACK, BRINGING UP MY BRIEFING\nCOMBINATION IS WE HAVE A DEFICIT\nAND SO MY QUESTION IS FOR ALL\nTHE SLIDES IN THE SECTION, I\nDON'T SEE THE WORD DEFICIT. IS\nTHAT A CONSCIOUS -- I MEAN --\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, I'M\nGOING TO ACTUALLY LEAVE THAT ONE\nTO THE SPONSORS OF THIS BILL,\nUNLESS THERE'S A RESPONSE THAT\nJENNIFER OR TOM HAS.\nMY ONLY RESPONSE IS THAT: MY ONLY RESPONSE IS THAT\nALTHOUGH THE WORD DEFICIT WAS\nNOT ON THE SLIDE, I SAID THE\nWORD DEFICIT A LOT AND I DID SAY\nTHAT BECAUSE I THINK THIS WAS\nCONSTRUCTED. THE ORDINANCE WAS\nCONSTRUCTED TO MAINTAIN\nFLEXIBILITY ABOUT USES. YES\nTHERE ARE BUCKETS BUT WITHIN\nTHOSE BUCKETS OR THOSE\nIDENTIFIED PROGRAM AREAS THAT\nARE PRIORITIES, THERE'S\nFLEXIBILITY ABOUT HOW THE\nFUNDING WILL BE USED AND ALSO\nFLEXIBILITY FOR EXAMPLE, NOT\nAROUND MAINTAINING INVESTMENTS.\nIT DOESN'T SAY THE CITY WILL\nMAINTAIN INVESTMENTS. IT\nDOESN'T SPECIFY THE AMOUNT OF\nSPENDING OR PERCENTAGE OF\nSPENDING IN EACH AREA, AND THAT\nREALLY IS BECAUSE FLEXIBILITY IS\nNEEDED GIVEN THE PROJECTED\nBUDGET DEFICIT AND BECAUSE WE\nDON'T KNOW WITH FUTURE\nFORECASTS IF THE DEFICIT WILL\nGET WORSE.\nI SEE DIRECTOR NOBLE HAS A: I SEE DIRECTOR NOBLE HAS A\nQUESTION. I'M GOING TO GIVE A\nHIGH-LEVEL BUDGET RESPONSE.\nDEPUTY MAYOR, YOU CAN GO BEFORE\nDIRECT OR NOBLE. OVER TO YOU,\nSIR.\nI'LL JUST ADD ON TO WHAT\nJENNIFER SAID, WHICH IS IS WE\nTALK ABOUT THE DEFICIT BECAUSE\nOF TALK ABOUT THE CON -- HOW\nTHIS IS RAISING QUITE A BIT SO\nTO THE EXTENT WE HAVE TIME TO\nCOVER THAT WE ARE HAPPY TO TALK\nABOUT THAT AND HOW THAT FACTORED\nINTO OUR THINKING ON THIS.\nTHANKS, DIRECTOR NOBLE.\nI JUST WANT TO MAKE THE: I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE\nGENERAL OBSERVATION THAT\nBUDGETING PROCESS IS INHERENTLY\nDYNAMIC AND I THINK IT'S GOING\nTO BE A LOT MORE DYNAMIC OVER\nTHE NEXT FEW YEARS, WE TEND TO\nBE THINKING ABOUT SHORTFALLS IN\nTHE CITY FUNDING SUPPORTING A\nVARIETY OF ACTIVITIES. I SUSPECT\nOVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS WE ARE\nGOING TO SEE LOSSES OF FUNDING\nFROM VARIOUS OTHER DIRECTIONS.\nTHEY MAY ULTIMATELY BE TIED BACK\nTO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NOT\nCLEAR BUT FOR INSTANCE WE\nRECEIVE STATE PASS-THROUGHS OF\nFEDERAL MONEY, THE COUNTY\nSUPPORTS MANY OF THE SAME\nACTIVITIES SO IF ONE TRIES TO\nGET TO RIGID AND SAYING WE ARE\nGOING TO FILL IN FOR THIS LOSS\nOF MONEY WITH THIS PARTICULAR\nSOURCE OR THAT ONE FOR THIS\nPARTICULAR PRIORITY OR ANOTHER,\nI'M GOING TO GO OUT ON A LIMB,\nI THINK YOU ARE PLAYING A FOOLS\nERRAND. IT'S GOING TO BE MORE\nDYNAMIC THAN THAT. WE ARE GOING\nTO LOSE TRACK OF WHAT THE BASE\nIS BECAUSE THE FUNDING THAT FOR\nMANY YEARS HAS SUPPORTED CERTAIN\nACTIVITIES I THINK IS GOING TO\nBE SHIFTING AROUND SO AS YOU\nAPPROACH THIS ALL , A\nRECOMMENDATION THAT YOU\nRECOGNIZE THE DYNAMIC NATURE AND\nI THINK FLEXIBILITY AND I\nUNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A REAL\nTENSION BETWEEN ACCOUNTABILITY,\nCOMMITMENT AND FLEX ABILITY AND\nYOU'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH\nIT BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT\nYOU'RE IN SOME EDITORIAL\nCOMMENT AND POTENTIAL ADVICE.\nTHANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER\nRINCK, I'LL LET YOU HAVE A\nRESPONSE AND I GOT A BUDGET\nLEVEL RESPONSE AS WELL AND\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, YOU STILL\nHAVE THE FLOOR.\nTHANK YOU CHAIR STRAUSS. I\nDON'T HAVE TOO MUCH TO ADD BUT\nJUST TO CONTRIBUTE THAT. THE\nEXECUTIVE IN MY OFFICE AND THE\nDEVELOPMENT OF THIS TRIED TO\nWALK THAT BALANCE IN PROVIDING\nTHAT SUBTLETY, CREATING ALSO\nOPPORTUNITIES FOR\nACCOUNTABILITY. THAT'S WHY WE\nHAVE THE INCLUSION OF THE REPORT\nFROM THE EXECUTIVE TO ENSURE\nAGAIN THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE\nTHAT THESE FUNDS GO TOWARDS THE\nOUTLINED AREAS IN THIS ORDINANCE\nBUT AGAIN WE HAVE A LOT OF\nUNCERTAINTY COMING OUR WAY.\nWE'VE HEARD DISCUSSIONS FROM\nTHE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ABOUT\nCUTS TO CRITICAL HOUSING\nSERVICES, HOUSING AND\nHOMELESSNESS SERVICES, A NUMBER\nOF WHICH WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THE\nSELECT COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL\nADMINISTRATION POLICY CHANGES.\nBUT A NUMBER OF THEM HAVEN'T\nCOME THROUGH YET, BUT WHO'S TO\nSAY WHAT TOMORROW HOLDS. AND SO\nTRYING TO CREATE THAT AMOUNT OF\nFLEXIBILITY WHILE CREATING ALSO\nA PLANET OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE\nTO BACKFILL FOR THOSE, THAT WAS\nTHE BALANCE WE TRIED TO PROVIDE\nWITH THIS. THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU. DIRECTOR NOBLE\nTOOK WHAT I WAS GENERALLY GOING\nTO SAY, WHICH IS THAT AS WE MOVE\nINTO THE BUDGET PROCESS,\nTHERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF\nDIFFERENT REVENUE SOURCES THAT\nWE ALREADY HAVE WITHIN OUR\nBUDGET, NOT INCLUDING THE\nPROPOSAL BEFORE US. THOSE\nSOURCES CAN BE SHIFTED AROUND SO\nTHAT WE CAN DO OUR BEST TO SERVE\nSEATTLEITES TO THE BEST OF OUR\nABILITIES. AND I STARTED THIS\nPRESENTATION OFF BY TALKING\nABOUT DEPUTY MAYOR'S LIED ABOUT\nWE HAVE THREE GENERAL BUCKETS OF\nTOOLS, EFFICIENCIES, REDUCTIONS\nIN REVENUE. WE CANNOT RELY ON A\nSINGLE ONE OF THOSE TO GET US\nOUT OF THE SITUATION THAT WE ARE\nIN AND WHILE IT IS EASY, IT'S\nNOT EASY FOR US TO SAY TODAY\nWHAT THOSE REDUCTIONS WOULD BE,\nWE KNOW THAT SOME REDUCTIONS\nWILL BE COMING IN THIS BUDGET.\nIF WE ARE NOT PREPARING\nOURSELVES TO SOLIDIFY THE VERY\nPROGRAMS THAT HAVE ALREADY\nRECEIVED REDUCTIONS AT THE STATE\nAND FEDERAL LEVEL, THESE WOULD\nEND UP AS TRIPLE CUTS AND WHAT I\nHAVE SEEN THREE BUDGETING\nPROCESSES, FROM THE GREAT\nRECESSION TO OVER THE LAST\nNUMBER OF YEARS IS THAT OFTEN\nTIMES THE SERVICES THAT SUPPORT\nTHE LEAST AMONGST US ARE THE\nFIRST TO GET REDUCED AND THIS IS\nA WAY TO BALANCE AGAINST THAT.\nI THINK THAT'S VERY\nIMPORTANT, DIRECTOR NOBLE. THANK\nYOU. THIS IS ONE OF THE POINTS\nI'VE BEEN SAYING ABOUT THIS. WE\nSHOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT B AND O\nIN AND OF ITSELF. WE SHOULD BE\nLOOKING AT A WAY WITH ALL THE\nVARIOUS PIECES AND HAVE\nCOMPREHENSIVE BUDGET REFORM AND\nSET OURSELVES UP FOR SUCCESS IN\n2027. AND PART OF OUR THING IS\nTHE MAYOR HAS THIS\nRESPONSIBILITY. I'M NOT A FAN\nOF THESE BUCKETS OR THESE LINE\nAND TO GO TO THIS POINT, I\nWOULD'VE HAD THIS THIRD SLIDE\nBE THE FIRST SLIDE BECAUSE THAT\nGOES TO THAT AND I REALLY\nAPPRECIATE THAT. SECOND IS I\nAPPRECIATE THE SECOND SLIDE\nSTILL BE IN THE SECOND SLIDE\nBECAUSE AS IT PLAYS TO THE\nPOINTS RAISED, THE FEDERAL\nFUNDING REDUCTIONS, YOU KNOW\nTHAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE\nTO OFFSET. THAT GOES TO HAVING A\nSTRATEGY AND HAVING A PLAN.\nOKAY, IF YOU LOST THE FEDERAL\nPEACE, OKAY. THEN THIRD WOULD\nBE, SAY HEY, UNDER THESE FEDERAL\nPIECES TO THE BUDGET BUCKETS, WE\nTEND TO BE IMPACTED HERE FROM\nFEMA, FOR OEM, TO ALL THE PIECES\nHERE. FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T SEE\nFEMA ON THIS LIST BUT WHERE THE\nFEDERAL DOLLARS REALLY HAVE AN\nIMPACT, AS OPPOSED TO LEADING\nWITH THIS, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY I\nTHINK WE STARTED DOING THIS, WE\nTAKE AWAY FROM THE IDEA THAT THE\nMAYOR HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY AND\nTHE ACCOUNTABILITY TO HAVE THE\nBUDGET COVER THE NEEDS OF THE\nCITY AND WE HAVE OUR ROLE THIS\nPROCESS AND LIKE WITH PET, I'M\nNOT A FAN OF THAT BECAUSE I\nTHINK IT DISTORTS THAT PROCESS A\nBIT SO A LITTLE BIT EDITORIAL AT\nTHE END BUT I WOULD SAY THANK\nYOU MS. LABRECQUE FOR THE\nBRIEFING AND FOR ME, I WOULD'VE\nDONE THE THIRD SLIDE FIRST AND\nTO HIGHLIGHT THAT POINT, THE\nSECOND SLIDE, FOCUSING ON THE\nFEDERAL REDUCTION AND THEN\nWEARING THE AREAS OF FEDERAL\nFUNDING DO WE NEED THE SUPPORT?\nLIKELY HAD THE DV PIECE. THIS\nGOES BACK TO PUBLIC COMMENT SO\nTHANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, BY THE\nWAY. LIKE HEY, HOW DO WE ADJUST\nFOR THOSE AREAS WHERE WE ARE\nBEING HURT BECAUSE OF THE\nFEDERAL CUTS? AND SINCE I AM THE\nPUBLIC SAFETY CHAIR I WILL DO A\nPLUG FOR THE FEMA RELATED AREAS,\nTOO. SO THANK YOU.\nCHAIR STRAUSS, CAN I SAY ONE\nCLARIFYING THING? JUST TO\nCLARIFY, AND MAYBE I'M JUST\nMISUNDERSTANDING YOU,\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE, BUT UP TO\n$30 MILLION MAY BE USED TO\nMITIGATE THE IMPACT OF A FEDERAL\nFUNDING REDUCTION BUT THE\nREMAINING ESTIMATED $60 MILLION\nIS INTENDED TO BACKFILL EXISTING\nPROGRAMS THAT ARE FUNDED WITH\nGENERAL FUNDS, SO THAT $60\nMILLION IS NOT RELATED TO\nOFFSETTING FEDERAL FUNDING\nREDUCTIONS. JUST WANTED TO\nCLARIFY.\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT AND THEN: COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND THEN\nVICE CHAIR RIVERA.\nJUST GETTING AT SOME OF THE: JUST GETTING AT SOME OF THE\nSPENDING BUCKET. SO YOU\nMENTIONED THE FIGURE $145\nMILLION. SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT\nYOU SAID THAT WE ARE ALREADY\nSPENDING ON THE FIRST CATEGORY\nOF EXPENSES, RIGHT? I'M JUST\nTRYING TO -- JUST HEAR ME OUT,\nTHOUGH, BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW\nHOW MUCH IS THE DEFICIT AS IT IS\nRIGHT NOW AND I KNOW THAT\nPERHAPS DEPUTY MAYOR WONG WILL\nBE ADDRESSING THAT IF WE CAN\nFINALLY GET TO HIS PRESENTATION.\nBUT WHAT IS THE DEFICIT NOW AND\nTHEN WILL THIS PROPOSAL THEN\nSOLVE THE LONG-TERM GENERAL FUND\nAND JUMPSTART OR PET SHORTAGES\nGOING FORWARD? SO JUST KNOWING\nTHE BIG NUMBER AND WHAT WE ARE\nWALKING BACK FROM WOULD BE GOOD\nTO KNOW. AND ANOTHER QUESTION\nTHAT I HAVE IS HAVING TO DO WITH\nFORECASTING THE LAST THREE OR\nFOUR QUARTERLY FORECASTS, EVEN\nBEFORE THE PET SHORTFALL, THE\nFIGURES THAT ARE IN THE RED ARE\nALWAYS SALES TAX AND B AND O AND\nSOMETIMES REIT AND THAT SHOWS\nDECREASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. NOW\nWE HAVE ADOPTED THE PESSIMISTIC\nOUTLOOK OR FORECAST. AND SO WHEN\nWE'RE LOOKING AT THE REVENUES\nOR THE INCOME COMING FROM THIS\nPROPOSAL GOING FORWARD FROM THE\nB AND O, I ASSUME THAT THERE IS\nA THE ESCALATOR ON THERE\nSOMEWHERE, WHERE WE CAN ACCOUNT\nFOR DECREASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY,\nINVEST REVENUE, RIGHT?\nI'M GOING TO TAKE A SHOT AT\nALL OF THAT SO BASED ON THE\nAPRIL FORECAST, THE PRESENTATION\nTHAT PROVIDED AN ESTIMATE OF\nCOMBINED GENERAL FUND AND\nPAYROLL EXPENSE TAX AND I REALLY\nDO THINK THAT THE USEFUL WAY TO\nBE DOING THIS BECAUSE OF THE\nFLUIDITY BETWEEN THOSE TWO FUNDS\nTHAT YOU HAVE NOW ESTABLISHED IN\nPOLICY, WORKING WITH THE\nEXECUTIVE TO DO SO. OUR ESTIMATE\nOF THAT DEFICIT IS BETWEEN 235\nAND 240 MILLION. I WOULD PUT\nSOME CARROTS, SOME GRAINS OF\nSALT ON THAT, BUT IT'S WELL\nNORTH OF $200 MILLION. THIS\nREVENUE PROPOSAL IS WELL SHORT\nOF THAT SO I VERY MUCH\nAPPRECIATE THE QUESTION BECAUSE\nI THINK EVERYBODY HERE AND\nCANDIDLY THE VOTING PUBLIC NEED\nTO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT\nGOING TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. I\nTHINK YOU WILL SEE THAT WHEN THE\nBUDGET COMES DOWN IN THE FALL\nTHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET\nTHROUGH, IF YOU CHOOSE TO\nIMPLEMENT AS PROPOSED, 2026 WITH\nREDUCTIONS BUT IN SOME SENSE\nMINIMAL REDUCTIONS. BUT THE\nCHALLENGE THAT SETS UP FOR '27\nNOW IS GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT\nAND SEVERE, IF YOU WILL, BECAUSE\n230, 245 MINUS 60 REALLY BECAUSE\n30 OF THIS IS REALLY INTENDED\nFOR SOMETHING ELSE, IS WELL\nABOVE 150 MILLION, EVEN TO PUT\nTHIS IN A BALLPARK. AND I REMIND\nCOUNCILMEMBERS, THE IDEA\nSTREAMLINING A CITY BUDGET\nSOUNDS GREAT IN THEORY BUT THE\nACTUAL REALITY, THE REDUCTIONS\nTHAT HAVE COME TO COUNCIL IN THE\nPAST FEW YEARS OR I HAVE SEEN IN\nTHIS CHAIR AND IN THAT CHAIR IS\nTHE SAME BUDGET, ARE ONES THAT\nARE ALWAYS DIFFICULT TO SWALLOW.\nTHE CITY IS PROVIDING SERVICES\nTHAT ARE OF VALUE TO CITIZENS OF\nALL DIFFERENT FRAMES AND I JUST\nWANT TO EMPHASIZE THE CHALLENGE\nTHAT YOU'RE FACING AND LOOKING\nAHEAD SO NOW WITH RESPECT TO THE\nOTHER PART OF YOUR QUESTION, THE\nOTHER PART OF THE FORECAST, WHEN\nYOU SEE THE FORECAST, WHAT RED\nGENERALLY MEANS IS WE ARE\nUSUALLY COMPARING -- TWO\nDIFFERENT THINGS WE'RE\nCOMPARING. SOMETIMES WE ARE\nCOMPARING THIS YEAR TO THE\nPREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH CASE RED\nACTUALLY SHOWS A DECLINE IN\nREVENUES. OTHER TIMES WE ARE\nSHOWING THE CURRENT FORECAST FOR\nSAKE THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR AND\nWE'RE COMPARING IT TO THE\nPREVIOUS FORECAST AND IF THE\nFORECAST GOES DOWN EVEN IF\nPOTENTIALLY UNDERLYING GO UP :-(\nWHEN I WAS JUST LEAVING WE: WHEN I WAS JUST LEAVING WE\nWERE ANTICIPATING A PERIOD OF\nLOWER GROWTH GOING FORWARD THAT\nTHE U.S. ECONOMY AS A WHOLE IN\nTHIS REGION IN PARTICULAR AND WE\nARE SEEING THAT. WE ARE\nDEFINITELY SEEING SLOWER GROWTH\nAND ANTICIPATE THAT GOING\nFORWARD. THAT IS A CHALLENGE FOR\nTHE CITY BECAUSE OUR EXPENSES\nARE GROWING QUICKLY AND BECAUSE\nTHE DEMAND FOR SERVICES AT SOME\nLEVEL WAS ALWAYS INFINITE AND\nWITH THE CHANGES IN FEDERAL\nPOLICY IS ACTIVELY GROWING TWO\nKINDS OF SERVICES THAT THE CITY\nPROVIDES SO IT'S LESS THAT WE\nARE SEEING ECONOMIC DECLINE BUT\nRATHER THE PACE OF GROWTH HAS\nBEEN SLOWER AND WE'RE EXPECTING\nIT TO BE SLOWER GOING FORWARD.\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT, I'LL LET\nYOU CONTINUE. I JUST WANT TO\nSAY, DIRECTOR NOBLE, I BELIEVE\nYOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO HAS\nSET IN THE DIRECT HER SEAT OF\nTHE CITY BUDGET OFFICE, THE\nFORECASTING OFFICE AND CENTRAL\nSTAFF, IS THAT CORRECT?\nIT'S ONLY EXISTED FOR A FEW\nYEARS BUT THE ANSWER IS YES. NO\nI RAISE THAT FACT BECAUSE OF: I RAISE THAT FACT BECAUSE OF\nTHE WARNING THAT YOU JUST\nPROVIDED THAT EVERY TIME\nEFFICIENCIES OR REDUCTIONS HAVE,\nIT HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO\nIMPLEMENT BECAUSE OF THE REALITY\nOF THE IMPACT IT HAS OF EVERYDAY\nLIVES OF EVERYDAY SEATTLEITES.\nYOU STILL GOT THE FLOOR SO\nCONTINUE TO\nWHEN I SAY READ I SAY SLOWER: WHEN I SAY READ I SAY SLOWER\nGROWTH. WHEN I SAY READ I SEE\nSOMETHING IT IS\nDRIVING HIS THE FORECAST\nREVEALED THAT THE ECONOMY,\nPARTICULARLY THE TECHNOLOGY SIDE\nHAS BEEN GROWING SLOWER . THE\nECONOMIC IMPACTS OUR LANDING\nGEAR AS REVENUE IMPACTS.\nVICE CHAIR: VICE CHAIR?\nTHANK YOU. THANK YOU ,\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE . I FIND\nYOUR POINTS COMPELLING. WE HAVE\nALL THESE FUNDING SOURCES, WE\nARE DEDICATING SPECIFIC THINGS\nTO THEM. WE HAVE THIS BUDGET\nDEFICIT. THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO\nBE A HOLISTIC PLAN FOR HOW TO\nTACKLE THE BUDGET AND THE\nDEFICIT. TOWARD THAT END, THIS\nPARTICULAR REVENUE SOURCE IS NOT\nGOING TO BACKFILL FOR THE\nDEFICIT. YOU CAN'T EVEN GET TO\nTHE FEDERAL CUTS IF YOU CAN'T\nEVEN GET TO OUR CITY DEFICIT.\nTHOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.\nWE DON'T KNOW, AND I THINK YOU\nARE GOING TO TELL US WHAT THE\nFEDERAL IMPACT FOR TO THE CITY\nSO WE NEED TO KNOW THAT. THEN\nHARD CHOICES WILL HAVE TO BE\nMADE ON -- DO WE PAY FOR\nSOMETHING WE ARE LOSING FOR THE\nFEDS? OR DO WE GO TO THE DEFICIT\n. I SUSPECT SOME OF THE STUFF WE\nARE LOSING FROM THE FEDS\nACTUALLY GOES TO OUR CITY\nDEFICIT BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING\nSOME MONEY THAT IS CONTRIBUTING\nTO EVEN A BIGGER DEFICIT THAN\nYOU JUST OUTLINED. MAYBE IT IS\nMORE DEPENDING ON WHATEVER THIS\nIS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT\nBEGS THE QUESTION WHY NOT JUST\nPUT ALL OF THIS IN THE GENERAL\nFUND AND AS YOU ARE DOING THE\nBUDGET PROCESS YOU ARE\nDELINEATED AND WHERE IT GOES. WE\nKEEP DOING THESE FUNDING SOURCES\nAND THEN NARROWING BUT WE CAN\nUSE TO SPEND WITH IT. THEREBY IN\nSOME CASES WE ARE CONTINUING TO\nCREATE THIS GENERAL FUND\nDEFICIT. ONCE WE ALLOCATE THE\nUSE TO THAT PARTICULAR FUND WE\nCAN'T USE IT FOR OTHER THINGS.\nSOME OF THE THINGS GOING THROUGH\nYOUR MIND YOU ARE MAKING THE\nSTATEMENTS ABOUT BUDGET REFORM\nAND HOW TO BEST TACKLE ALL\nREVENUE SOURCES TO THINK ABOUT\nTHEM AND DO WE JUST THINK ABOUT\nTHEM ALL AS GENERAL FUND DUE TO\nTHOSE ALLOCATIONS OR DO WE\nCONTINUE TO DO THIS IN A WAY\nWHERE IT IS VERY IN MY MIND AD\nHOC. TO YOUR POINT,\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE , AS WELL\nIN TERMS OF REVENUE I DON'T\nKNOW HOW THESE GOT DETERMINED TO\nBE IN HERE. OTHER THINGS ARE NOT\nIN HERE THAT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT\nTHE CITY FUNDING AS WELL. YOU\nMENTION FEMA BUT THERE ARE OTHER\nTHINGS THAT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT\nTHAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST. I'M\nNOT REALLY SURE HOW THE LIST\nCAME TO BE. I DO HAVE A\nQUESTION. THE QUESTION IS, GIVEN\nALL OF THAT IS THERE\nCONSIDERATION TO JUST NOT SINGLE\nOUT THINGS TO BE FUNDED BUT THIS\nWILL GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND TO\nHELP BACKFILL FOR THE DEFICIT\nAND FEDERAL IMPACTS AND THEN\nDURING BUDGET TIME ALLOCATE\nDEPENDING ON HOW THIS IMPACTS\nARE GOING TO BE.\nTHANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER, FOR\nTHE QUESTION. I WILL MAKE AN\nOBSERVATION THAT I APPRECIATE\nYOUR AND COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE'S\nGOOD GOVERNANCE POLICY AND\nLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE BUDGET.\nIN A WAY, THE BUDGET WE SEND\nDOWN AND YOU APPROVE IS THE\nROUGH PLAN. I THINK YOU ARE\nASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT OF GOING\nUP A LEVEL TRYING TO THINK ABOUT\nHOW DOES THIS WORK TOGETHER\nPRACTICALLY. I THINK THAT IS THE\nRIGHT APPROACH. I WOULD SAY IT\nIS INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING WITH\nTHE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE\nPLACE IT IS BECAUSE IT IS\nGOVERNING BY CHAOS. IT IS HARD\nTO ANTICIPATE AND RESPOND IN THE\nRESPONSIBLE WAY WHEN YOU HAVE\nSUCH AN UNPREDICTABLE LEVER . AT\nBEN'S POINT EARLIER WE ARE NOT\nSURE ABOUT WHERE THAT WILL LAND.\nTHE POTENTIAL IMPACT IS BROAD.\nWE KNOW IT IS A QUESTION OF\nWHEN, NOT IF. I THINK THERE WILL\nBE A BRIEFING ON THE SO-CALLED\nBIG BEAUTIFUL BILL AND FEDERAL\nRESPONSE COMMITTEE COMING UP\nBECAUSE THAT IS WHERE WE WILL\nREALLY SEE SOME AND ACT IN THE\nCOMING YEARS. MORE DIRECTLY TO\nYOUR QUESTION THAT YOU RAISED,\nABSOLUTELY. THERE IS\nCONSIDERATION ALWAYS . WE ARE\nTRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE OF\nASSURING THE PUBLIC THAT THESE\nFUNDS WILL BE GOING TO THINGS\nTHAT ARE COVERING THE MOST BASIC\nNEEDS AS WAS POINTED OUT WHETHER\nIT IS FOOD, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,\nTHINGS WE KNOW ARE IMPORTANT\nPRIORITIES FOR THE PEOPLE OF\nSEATTLE WHILE ALLOWING FOR\nFLEXIBILITY IN A WAY THAT WE\nKNOW THERE IS A NUMBER OF\nDIFFERENT AREAS THAT COULD COME\nTO THAT. HOUSING, HOMELESSNESS\nOBVIOUSLY VERY BROAD AND WHAT WE\nFUNDS THERE. WE KNOW THAT THE\nNEED WILL BE GREAT. IT TRIES TO\nSTRIKE THAT BALANCE BETWEEN\nFLEXIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.\nI DO NOT THINK THERE IS A\nPERFECT MATHEMATICAL EQUATION\nFOR A HOW YOU FIND THAT BALANCE.\nIT IS APOLOGIES -- A POLICY\nDECISION. I WILL REFER TO\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINK.\nTHIS IS WHERE WE ARE: THIS IS WHERE WE ARE\nANTICIPATING THE CUTS WILL BE\nTHE DEEPEST. THESE SERVICES AS\nWE KNOW HAVE OFFERED TREMENDOUS\nBENEFIT TO OUR COMMUNITY IN\nTERMS OF TAKING CARE OF OUR MOST\nVULNERABLE NEIGHBORS. WE HAVE\nBEEN EXPLORING THE PROSPECTIVE\nCUTS COMING OUR WAY .\nCOUNCILMEMBER RIVERA KNOW YOU\nWERE ASKING ABOUT HOW WE\nUNDERSTAND THOSE CHANGES. WE\nHAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THOSE OVER\nTHE PAST COUPLE OF SESSIONS. I\nKNOW YOU HAVE NOT ALWAYS BEEN\nABLE TO JOIN THOSE SESSIONS BUT\nWE WILL BE MEETING THIS FRIDAY\nTO BE TALKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT\nTHE NATURE OF THE CUTS OUTLINED\nIN, AS I CALL IT THE PEWTER --\nBRUTAL BETRAYAL BILL . WE WILL\nHAVE A NUMBER OF PROVIDERS WHO\nWORK IN THE AREAS OUTLINED IN\nTHIS LEGISLATION WHO WILL BE\nSPEAKING TO THE DIRECT IMPACTS\nTO THEIR WORK. THESE OUTLINED\nAREAS ARE INFORMED BY THE\nFINDINGS OF OUR SELECT COMMITTEE\nMEETINGS. ADDITIONALLY, THE\nINFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN\nBROUGHT TO MY OFFICE BY A NUMBER\nOF FOLKS ACROSS THE COMMUNITY.\nAND WHAT WE CONTINUE TO HEAR ARE\nTHE LARGEST CONCERNS. WE KNOW\nTHAT HOMELESSNESS CONTINUES TO\nBE THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE. SOME OF\nTHE CUT THAT HAVE BEEN\nHIGHLIGHTED AS POTENTIALLY\nCOMING OUR WAY ARE RELATED TO\nCONTINUUM OF CARE FUNDING AS\nWELL AS EMERGENCY HOUSING\nVOUCHERS. I WILL REMIND THE BODY\nTHAT THE CONTINUING CARE KEEPS\n4500 HOUSEHOLDS HOUSED . THAT IS\nHOUSEHOLDS NOT PEOPLE . WE ARE\nTALKING ABOUT THOUSANDS OF\nRESIDENTS IN THE REGION. IT HAS\nALSO BEEN INDICATED THAT THE\nEMERGENCY HOUSING VOUCHERS THAT\nCAME THROUGH THE AMERICAN RESCUE\nPLAN, THESE HOUSING VOUCHERS\nWERE INTENDED TO HAVE 10 YEARS\nOF HOUSING AFFORDABILITY\nASSOCIATED WITH IT IS INDICATED\nTHAT THESE WILL AND IN THE\nCOMING MONTHS . SPRUCE SEATTLE\nHOUSING AUTHORITY WE HAVE ABOUT\n500 HOUSEHOLDS AND VOUCHERS\nASSOCIATED . THIS OFFERS AN\nOPPORTUNITY FOR SOME PIECES.\nTHIS MATTERS AS THE CUT TO SNAP\nBECAUSE OF THE BIG BETRAYAL\nBUILT BEEN CUT BY ABOUT A THIRD.\nMY OFFICE HAS ASKED FOR AN\nANALYSIS THAT OF WHAT THAT MEANS\nFOR RESIDENTS. BEING ABLE TO\nADDRESS THAT NEED WHILE ALSO\nMOCKING AND ON SERVICES WILL BE\nA REAL NEED. I WILL CLOSE BY\nSAYING AGAIN THIS IS AN\nOPPORTUNITY TO SEND SOMETHING TO\nVOTERS. WE NEED TO BE CLEAR\nABOUT WHAT WE INTEND TO USE\nTHESE FUNDS FOR. HAVING SOME\nAMOUNT OF OUTLINING WHAT WE\nINTEND TO SPEND THESE FUNDS ON\nWILL BE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR\nSENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE TO\nVOTERS.\nTHANK YOU. THANK YOU,\nCOUNCILMEMBER RINCK. PLEASE BE\nASSURED WHEN I'M NOT ABLE TO\nATTEND I WATCH TO GET THE\nINFORMATION. I HAVE NOT SEEN\nINFORMATION DATA AT THAT\nCOMMITTEE. I JUST MEAN HOLISTIC\nDATA ON WHAT ALL THE CUTS ARE\nFROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I\nAPPRECIATE YOU BRINGING\nCOMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS IN\nCHAMBERS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO\nHEAR FROM THEM ON THE IMPACTS\nTHEY ARE DIRECTLY FACING. THERE\nIS A BIGGER LANDSCAPE HERE. AS A\nGOVERNMENT WE NEED TO GET TO\nTHAT INFORMATION, NOT JUST ONE\nBY ONE BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE\nALL OF THEM COMING IN HERE\nTELLING US HOW MUCH WE ARE\nLOSING ON FOOD ET CETERA. I WILL\nSAY I SUPPORT ALL OF THESE\nINVESTMENTS. I WANT TO MAKE IT\nCLEAR THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M\nTRYING TO SAY. THERE ARE OTHER\nINVESTMENTS THAT AREN'T HERE. I\nWANT TO KNOW WHAT WHETHER THERE\nWAS STATED THAT INFORMED THE\nLIST. WE KNOW THAT OTHER FOLKS\nWILL BE ASKING FOR SUPPORT IN\nTHESE OTHER AREAS. I AM JUST\nTRYING TO GET TO HOW THESE\nPARTICULAR, WHAT IS THE DATA BY\nWHICH INFORMED THESE PARTICULAR\nONES VERSUS WHAT I SAID EARLIER\nPUTTING IT ALL INTO GENERAL FUND\nMAKING SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH TO\nCOVER ALL OF THE VARIOUS HUMAN\nSERVICES WE SUPPORT INCLUDING\nHOUSING VOUCHERS. A PARTICULAR\nQUESTION TO THE HOUSING PIECES,\nI KNOW WE HAVE HOUSING DOLLARS\nWE ARE NOT UTILIZING CURRENTLY.\nCAMMACK GOT A BACKFILL FOR SOME\nOF THIS EMERGENCY SHELTER OR\nVOUCHER RENTAL ASSISTANCE ET\nCETERA RATHER THAN UTILIZE SOME\nOF THIS MONEY THAT IS NOT GOING\nTO COVER THE FULL DEPTH THAT IT\nAND ANY -- DEFICIT AND ANY\nFEDERAL IMPACTS FOR THESE OTHER\nHUMAN SERVICES INVESTMENTS.\nTHANK YOU. A LITTLE BIT ON\nTHE FEDERAL PIECE. I WILL SAY\nJUST AS YOU KNOW WE ARE DOING\nEVERYTHING TO FIGHT THESE\nFEDERAL CUTS WHETHER IT IS\nLITIGATION OR WORKING WITH A\nCONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION . THEY\nARE STRONG ADVOCATES SO WE'VE\nBEEN DOING EVERYTHING FROM DAY\nONE OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO\nENSURE THAT WE ARE PROTECTING\nTHE FUNDING THAT WE HAVE TO TRY\nTO ASSURE GOING FORWARD. THAT\nADDS TO THE FLUID NATURE . WE\nCAN'T SAY WE ARE GOING TO FACE\nX DOLLARS IN TRANSPORTATION\nVERSUS FEMA PICK IT IS AN EVER\nSHIFTING LANDSCAPE BETWEEN WHAT\nTHE COURTS ARE DOING AT THE\nFEDERAL LANDSCAPE IS DOING. IT\nIS SOMETHING WE ARE GETTING A\nSENSE OF. TO YOUR QUESTION, I\nWANT TO BE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND\nIT RIGHT ON HOUSING MONEY THAT\nCAN BE USED, ARE YOU REFERRING\nTO MONEY LIKE FOR EXAMPLE THE\nOFFICE OF HOUSING?\nWE HAVE THAT HOUSING LEVY: WE HAVE THAT HOUSING LEVY\nTHAT WE ARE STARTING TO COLLECT.\nIF I AM UNDERSTANDING IT: IF I AM UNDERSTANDING IT\nCORRECTLY THERE IS MONEY THAT IS\nDEDICATED TO HOUSING . IT ROLLS\nOVER FROM YEAR TO YEAR BECAUSE\nLIKE WITH MANY LONG-TERM OR\nCAPITOL PROJECTS THEY ARE NOT\nPROJECTS THAT START OR FINISH IN\nA CALENDAR YEAR. THAT AMOUNT OF\nMONEY IS THERE. IT'S BEEN\nPROMISED AND DEDICATED TO MOSTLY\nAFFORDABLE HOUSING SO THERE HAS\nTO BE A CHOICE TO TAKE THAT\nMONEY AWAY FROM A DEDICATED\nPURPOSE OF HOUSING AND\nREALLOCATED TO OTHER PURPOSES.\nWE KNOW THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING\nIS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT\nNEEDS . A LOT OF DISCUSSION\nAROUND AFFORDABILITY IN GENERAL\nFOR THE CITY. MAINTAINING THOSE\nSTRONG INVESTMENTS IS A\nPRIORITY. THAT IS NOT A POT OF\nMONEY THE EXECUTIVE WANTS TO\nTOUCH BECAUSE WE WANT TO\nMAINTAIN PROMISES AND\nINVESTMENTS IN AFFORDABLE\nHOUSING. THAT IS MY\nUNDERSTANDING OF WHERE I THINK\nYOUR QUESTION WAS GOING.\nI UNDERSTAND THE ENCUMBER AND: I UNDERSTAND THE ENCUMBER AND\nAWARDS WE HAVE MADE ARE\nNATURALLY ENCUMBERED AS\nCONTRACTS. I DO KNOW THAT THINGS\nARE NOT GETTING BUILT AND THE\nMONEY WILL CONTINUE TO COME IN.\nIF IT IS NOT BEING USED TODAY WE\nKNOW MONEY IS CONTINUING TO COME\nIN. WE CAN MAKE IT DOWN THE LINE\nON THE AWARD OR INVESTMENT. WE\nHAVE NEEDS TODAY AND WE HAVE\nMONEY SITTING SOMEWHERE TODAY.\nIT SEEMS TO ME FROM AN\nACCOUNTING PURPOSE, AND I'M NOT\nAN ACCOUNTANT BUT IT SEEMS TO ME\n-- MAYBE THIS MEANS WE MIGHT NOT\nPUT OUT A NEW RFP SO THAT DOWN\nTHE LINE WE HAVE THE MONEY TO\nCOVER WHAT WE HAVE PROMISED\nTODAY. GIVEN NOTHING IS BEING\nBUILT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD\nBE A POLICY DECISION HERE AT\nSOME POINT SOON WHETHER WE USE\nTHIS MONEY THAT WE HAVE\nAVAILABLE TO COVER SOME OF THESE\nREALLY IMPORTANT LIKE THIS LIST\nAND MANY OTHER HUMAN SERVICES WE\nNEED TO COVER TODAY,\nPARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF FEDERAL\nCUTS. I WILL SAY LAST YEAR WHEN\nIT WAS A DIFFERENT\nADMINISTRATION, WE STILL HAVE\nTHE $200 MILLION DEFICIT. WE\nWOULD HAVE THAT NO MATTER WHAT\nWAS HAPPENING AT THE FEDERAL\nLEVEL SO THAT IS IMPORTANT ALSO.\nOF COURSE, IT'S MADE ALL MORE\nHORRIBLE BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL\nGOVERNMENT. NOT TAKEN AWAY FROM\nTHAT. I WILL SAY AS TO THE\nLAWSUITS I'M REALLY PROUD OF\nTHE AG FOR JOINING THE LAWSUIT\nTO TRY TO GET THE $7 BILLION\nTHAT THE STATE WILL BE LOSING IN\nEDUCATION CUTS. THERE ARE\nASPECTS OF THIS WHERE WE DO HAVE\nINFORMATION MORE THAN MAYBE WE\nTHINK WE DO ON WHAT WE WILL BE\nLOSING . TYING IT BACK TO YOUR\nEARLIER COMMENT. ON THE HOUSING\nSTUFF, WHY ARE WE NOT MAKING\nPOLICY DECISIONS TO UTILIZE MANY\nWE HAVE TO BACKFILL TODAY SINCE\nTHIS IS ONE OF THESE THINGS\nLISTED AS A POSSIBLE USE OF THIS\nNEW TAX RATHER THAN --\nYOU HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN INTO: YOU HAVE ALREADY GOTTEN INTO\nTHE NEXT PRESENTATION.\nI WILL ASK THE PRESENTERS TO: I WILL ASK THE PRESENTERS TO\nHOLD QUESTIONS. IT'S MY\nUNDERSTANDING THE FIRST HARD\nSTOP THAT WE HAVE IS 1:00 OR\n1:15. WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO GET\nTHROUGH . WE WILL COME BACK TO\nTHAT QUESTION IN THE NEXT\nPRESENTATION. THIS IS WHY HAVING\nA TAX PROPOSAL WITH THE\nCARRYFORWARD AND THE\nSUPPLEMENTAL IN ONE MEETING IS A\nHEAVY LIFT AND IS IMPORTANT\nBUDGET PRACTICES BECAUSE IT IS\nALL INTERWOVEN AS COUNCILMEMBER\nRIVERA JUST MENTIONED. WE HAVE\nONE MORE SECTION HERE WHICH ARE\nCONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS TAX .\nTHEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT\nPRESENTATION AS THREE SECTIONS\nCARRYFORWARD, GRANT\nAPPROPRIATIONS AND THE\nSUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET. IS IT\nCORRECT THAT EVERYBODY IS GOOD\nUNTIL 1:00 P.M.? WONDERFUL.\nJENNIFER, I WILL PASS IT BACK TO\nYOU ARE TOM OR WHOMEVER FOR THE\nCONSIDERATION. WE CAN ASK\nQUESTIONS AT THE END OF THE\nSECOND SLIDE ABOUT THE\nCONSIDERATIONS AND THEN MOVE\nONTO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. I\nWILL RESERVE ABOUT AN HOUR FOR\nTHE NEXT THREE TOPICS AND\nMINIMUM OF 15 MINUTES FOR THE\nFINAL TWO SO WE CAN AT LEAST\nCOVER THEM TODAY. WITH THAT,\nOVER TO YOU.\nTHESE NEXT LINES WILL JUST: THESE NEXT LINES WILL JUST\nCOVER A FEW CONSIDERATIONS. TO\nKEEP IN MIND WHEN THINKING ABOUT\nTHIS TAX\nFIRST AS WE DISCUSSED THAT IS: FIRST AS WE DISCUSSED THAT IS\nTHE NUMBER OF TAXPAYERS ADDING\nVOLATILITY THE IMPACTS OF ONE OF\nTHE MEMBERS OF THAT REMAINING\nPOOL HAVE A LARGER OUTSIZED\nIMPACT ON THE TOTAL RESULT. WHEN\nYOU THINK ABOUT THAT YOU THINK\nALSO ABOUT THE NUMBER OF\nSUCCESSIVE CITY TAX CHANGES THAT\nHAVE OCCURRED STARTING WITH THE\nPAYROLL TAX OF 2020. AN INCREASE\nTO THOSE RATES IN 2023 FOR\nSTUDENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.\nTHEN A SOCIAL HOUSING TAX\nPROPOSAL THAT WAS APPROVED IN\n2024. ALL OF THOSE ARE BUSINESS\nTAXES IMPACTING BUSINESSES WHO\nWOULD ALSO BE PAYING THE CURRENT\nAND HIGHER TAX. I WOULD AFFECT\nABOUT A THIRD OF THE TAX\nINCREASE IN THIS PROPOSAL WOULD\nBE IMPOSED PAYING ABOUT 87%.\nNEARLY 90% OF THE TOTAL PAYROLL\nEXPENSE TAX REVENUES THAT WERE\nCOLLECTED IN 2024. THERE IS ALSO\nA REVENUE FORECAST RISK . THERE\nIS ALWAYS A RISK AS THE COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT REVEALED IN HER\nQUESTIONING. WHEN WE REVIEW EACH\nFORECAST SOMETIMES THE NUMBERS\nARE HIGHER THAN WHAT THEY EXPECT\nAND SOMETIMES THEY ARE LOWER OR\nIN THE RED. IT IS ALWAYS A VERY\nPROFESSIONAL GUESS OF WHAT\nCOLLECTIONS WOULD BE IN TOTAL\nAND THAT SAME LEVEL OF POTENTIAL\nIMPRECISION FOR THIS ESTIMATE AS\nWELL. IN THE APRIL FORECAST, THE\nFORECAST OFFICE NOTED A 40 TO\n50% CHANCE OF RECESSION IN THE\nNEXT 12 MONTHS. WE WILL GET AN\nUPDATED FORECAST AUGUST OF THIS\nYEAR. THAT ACTUAL CHANCE OF A\nRECESSION MAY BE LOWER BASED ON\nINFORMATION THAT WE'VE SEEN SO\nIT IS GOOD NEWS TO BE COGNIZANT\nIN THE FORECAST. WITH THE\nRECESSION THE TOTAL REVENUE\nCOULD COME IN LOWER THAN\nEXPECTED. THE REVENUES COULD\nCOME LOWER THAN EXPECTED AS\nWELL. THERE'S ALSO THE\nESTIMATED IMPACTS OF STATE LAW\nCHANGES I TOUCHED ON BRIEFLY AND\nHOW THE CHANGES OF THE STATE ARE\nCHANGING THE TAX BASE THAT WE\nUSE HERE AT THE CITY. THE\nFORECAST OFFICE IS LOOKING AT\nINFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE TO\nSEE HOW THOSE CHANGES IMPACT THE\nBASE . THAT IS EMBEDDED IN THEIR\nESTIMATE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE\nINFORMATION THEY ARE USING IS\nIMPRECISE THAT COULD IMPACT\nREVENUE AS WELL. GOING TO THE\nNEXT SLIDE, THESE ARE MORE TIED\nTO THE CITY RISKS, NOT\nNECESSARILY THE REVENUE\nESTIMATE. WHEN WE IMPLEMENT A\nBUSINESS AND OCCUPATION TAX\nUSING A LEGACY SYSTEM THAT'S\nBEEN IN PLACE FOR A NUMBER OF\nYEARS. THERE WAS A CAPITOL\nIMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO REPLACE\nIT IN THE FUTURE THOUGH IT IS\nCURRENTLY WE ARE WORKING WITH\nTHE LEGACY SYSTEM. TO MEET THE\nJANUARY 1 IMPLEMENTATION\nTIMEFRAME STAFF WOULD NEED TO\nBEGIN WORK NOW AND INCUR THESE\nCOST TO GET THE SYSTEM IN PLACE\nPRIOR TO KNOWING WHETHER VOTERS\nAPPROVE THE TAX. THERE ARE RISKS\nEMBEDDED IN ALL WITH REGARDS TO\nIMPLEMENTING THESE CHANGES.\nTHINGS LIKE KEY PERSONNEL AND\nFACILITATION . THE EXECUTIVE\nINTENDS TO MITIGATE THESE RISKS\nTO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. IF THERE\nIS A CHANGE TO THE SCOPE AND THE\nPROPOSAL VERSUS WHAT WAS TODAY\nTHAN THAT WOULD REQUIRE\nREASSESSMENT OF THE RISKS.\nFINALLY, THE EXECUTIVE WILL\nSUBMIT A 2026 BUDGET ASSUMING\nTHE $90 MILLION OF REVENUE IS\nSENT TO THE VOTERS. HOWEVER, IF\nTHE MEASURE FAILS THEN COUNCIL\nWILL NEED TO QUICKLY REBALANCE\nTHE RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES\nAS NEEDED TO MEET THAT\nUNANTICIPATED SHORTFALL. THERE\nWILL ALSO BE A THIRD AND FINAL\nREVENUE FORECAST PRESENTED IN\nOCTOBER IF THOSE NUMBERS COME IN\nIN THE RED THAT WOULD BE AN\nADDITIONAL CHALLENGE ON TOP OF\nTHIS THAT COULD INTENSIFY THE\nPRESSURE TO REBALANCE. THOSE ARE\nTHE FINAL CONSIDERATIONS.\nCOLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS ON\nTHESE LAST TWO SLIDES OF\nCONSIDERATION? GOING ONCE ,\nGOING TWICE, DEPUTY MAYOR, MY\nAPOLOGIES. WE DO NOT HAVE TIME\nFOR YOUR PRESENTATION. WE WILL\nJUST HIGHLIGHT IT IS ATTACHED TO\nTHE AGENDA AND THE THREE LARGE\nCONSIDERATIONS . COLLEAGUES, I\nWILL GIVE THE DEPUTY MAYOR AND\nCOUNCIL MEMBER RINCK LAST WORD\nAFTER THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND\nTHEN WE NEED TO MOVE ALONG .\nNEVERMIND. I WAS GOING TO ASK\nFOR MORE INFORMATION BUT I WILL\nJUST REACH OUT ONE ON ONE. THANK\nYOU.\nI'M GOING TO GO WITH DEPUTY\nMAYOR AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBERS\nRINCK.\nTHANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL: THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL\nCONSIDERATION AND QUESTIONS. I\nREALLY APPRECIATE IT. AS WE HAVE\nSAID MANY TIMES THESE ARE\nDIFFICULT ISSUES. WE DON'T LOOK\nAT THEM IN ISOLATION OR TAKE\nTHEM LIGHTLY. I APPRECIATE THIS\nREALLY SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION\nOF THIS POLICY. I THINK THAT WE\nHAVE TOUCHED ON MOST OF THE\nTHINGS I WAS GOING TO COVER IN\nMY PRESENTATION ANYWAYS. I JUST\nWANT TWO POINTS HERE. ONE OF\nWHICH IS TO THE COMMENTS ABOUT\nTHIS IS REALLY JUST ONE PIECE OF\nA BIGGER BUDGET PUZZLE. THE\nEXECUTIVE AND THE COUNCIL HAS\nREPEATEDLY THROUGH THE PAST FEW\nCYCLES FACED WITH DECLINING\nREVENUE FORECASTS TAKEN HARD\nDECISIONS. WE HAVE DONE\nREDUCTIONS. WE'VE HAD TO DO\nLAYOFFS. WE'VE TAKEN\nEFFICIENCIES. EVEN IN LIGHT OF\nTHIS REVENUE PROPOSAL WE WILL\nCONTINUE TO BE LOOKING AT THOSE\nSAME LOVERS RIGHT NOW. WE ARE\nALREADY ASKING THE DEPARTMENT TO\nUNDERSTAND FOR THE CURRENT YEAR.\nWE DID HARD WORK TO GET A\nBALANCED BUDGET PASSED LAST YEAR\nTHAT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN US\nTHROUGH THIS YEAR AND NEXT.\nUNFORTUNATELY THE REVENUE\nFORECAST IN APRIL UPSET THAT\nBALANCE WE HAD STRUCK AND THAT\nIS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY BUT WE\nARE COMMITTED TO SOLVING THIS\nTOGETHER. ANOTHER POINT I WANT\nTO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT THE MAYOR\nHAS BEEN COMMITTED TO BUSINESSES\nAND MAKING SURE WE HAVE A\nVIBRANT BUSINESS COMMUNITY\nTHROUGHOUT THE PAST 3 1/2 YEARS\nIN OFFICE WHETHER IT IS THE\nDOWNTOWN ACTIVATION PLAN, TEAM,\nUNIFIED CARE TEAM, ADDRESSING\nTHE ISSUES WE HEAR THE MOST FROM\nBUSINESSES WHICH OFTEN COME TO\nISSUES AROUND PUBLIC SAFETY,\nHOMELESSNESS, THOSE ARE THINGS\nWE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING. WHILE\nWE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MEASURE\nWILL HAVE IMPACTS ON BUSINESSES,\nAND AGAIN THE VAST MAJORITY WILL\nBE BETTER OFF FINANCIALLY UNDER\nIT, BUT SOME WILL BE WORSE OFF.\nWE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO BE\nCONTINUALLY DOUBLING DOWN MAKING\nSURE COMMUNITIES AND\nNEIGHBORHOODS ARE SAFE PLACES\nTHAT PEOPLE WANT TO GO. WANT TO\nBE ABLE TO HANG OUT LATE AT\nNIGHT, USE THE SIDEWALK CAFÉS\nAND RESTAURANTS, LOCAL COFFEE\nSHOP. WE ARE COMMITTED TO ALL\nTHOSE INVESTMENTS. AT THE SAME\nTIME WE ARE ENCOURAGED BY THE\nHIGHER NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS TO\nSEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE\nHAVE SPOKEN ABOUT SOME GOOD\nTRENDS IN THAT REGARD AND WE\nWILL CONTINUE TO DO SO BECAUSE\nWE ARE COMMITTED TO HAVING A\nVIBRANT BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND\nWE WILL CONTINUE THAT WORK WITH\nYOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR\nCONSIDERATION. PLEASE TO REACH\nOUT WITH QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY\nHAVE . WE ARE HAPPY TO WORK WITH\nYOU AND ANSWER THOSE.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nTHANK YOU. I PROMISE TO BE\nBRIEF WITH CONSIDERATION OF\nTIME. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR\nTIME AND ENGAGING ON THIS\nPROPOSAL. I WANT TO TAKE A\nMOMENT TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE\nPOINTS RAISED FROM OUR PARTNERS\nIN BUSINESS, PARTICULARLY LARGER\nBUSINESSES . WHEN FOLKS ARE\nNAMING ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS\nABOUT THE CITY BECOMING LESS\nBUSINESS FRIENDLY I WANT TO TAKE\nA MOMENT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT\nTHE ONLY OTHER STATE IN THE\nUNITED STATES THAT HAS A MORE\nBUSINESS FRIENDLY TAXCO THAN\nOURS IS FLORIDA. WITH SOME OF\nTHE MEDIUM-SIZE BUSINESSES WE'VE\nHEARD ENGAGEMENT FROM I THINK IT\nIS IMPORTANT TO STATE THAT FROM\nA FACTUAL BASIS. AS WE HAVE\nDISCUSSED ON THE OUTLINE SPEND\nAREAS NOT ONLY IS IT MORALLY\nIMPERATIVE TO DO OUR BEST TO\nKEEP FOLKS HOUSED, HEALTHY, AND\nSAFE I WANT TO BE MINDFUL THAT\nWHAT FOR US AS A COMMUNITY THAT\nIS FRIENDLY FOR BUSINESS, HOW DO\nFOLKS THINK IT WILL DO FOR OUR\nCOMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE AS A CITY\nIF WE HAVE THOUSANDS MORE OF OUR\nNEIGHBORS LIVING UNSHELTERED.\nTHAT IS A REALITY WE ARE TRYING\nTO GRAPPLE WITH. WE HAVE WORKED\nHARD TO PUT TOGETHER A BALANCED\nPROPOSAL THAT I THINK MEETS THIS\nMOMENT. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO\nPROVE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN\nSTEP UP WHEN FEDERAL LEADERSHIP\nSTEPS BACK. IT'S OUR\nOPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT SEATTLE\nCHOOSES COLLABORATION OVER\nDIVISION FOR A FUTURE WE ALL\nDESERVE. THE COALITION OF\nSUPPORT FROM SMALL BUSINESSES,\nHUMAN SERVICES PROVIDERS REALLY\nSPEAKS TO THAT . I BELIEVE THAT\nWHEN WE GIVE VOTERS THE CHOICE\nTHEY DESERVE THEY WILL CHOOSE TO\nSHIELD OUR CITY AND PROTECT WHAT\nMATTERS MOST. I WILL CLOSE MY\nCOMMENTS WITH A SPECIAL THANK\nYOU TO STAFF FROM DIRECTOR NOBLE\nAND TOM AND JEN, THANK YOU FOR\nYOUR HARD WORK ON THIS. IT WAS A\nJOURNEY TO GET HERE AND I WANT\nTO THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK\nIN CRAFTING THIS PROPOSAL AND\nWALKING US THROUGH THE DETAILS\nTODAY.\nTHANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER\nRINCK. CLERK, CAN YOU READ THE\nSHORT TITLE OF ITEMS TWO AND\nTHREE.\n[ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ]\nCONFIRM WITH\nME\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT IS FOR THE\nDAY.\nWITH THAT, WE'LL TRANSITION\nINTO THIS NEXT AGENDA ITEM.\nSORRY.\nI TRIED TO ASK HER AS WE WERE\nEXIT, BUT THE CLERK\nWAS SPEAKING.\nWE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT\nTWO AGENDA ITEMS, AND THERE IS\nA THIRD ITEM THAT IS CONTAINED\nWITHIN HERE REGARDING THE\nCARRY FORWARD BILL THAT HAS BEEN\nTRANSMITTED, BUT NOT YET\nINTRODUCED, AND SO WE WILL\nTAKE THE ITEMS TOGETHER IN THIS\nPRESENTATION.\nYOU WILL SEE IT IS DIVIDED\nINTO THREE SECTIONS CARRY\nFORWARD.\nAMID YOUR SUPPLEMENTAL\nBUDGET ORDINANCE.\nWITHIN HERE, WE ASK THAT WE\nWILL WITHHOLD QUESTIONS AND WE\nHAVE 45 MINUTES TO GO THROUGH\nTHESE VERY DENSE TOPICS, AND\nJUST TO\nKIND OF SET THE STAGE\nAGAIN, WHERE WE LEFT BUDGET LAST\nYEAR IS THAT WE WERE PREDICTING\nSLOW GROWTH RETURN AND THAT WE\nWERE IN IT.\nWE HAD CLOSED $250 MILLION OR\nSO BUDGET HOLE, AND THEN AT\nTHE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR THAT\nHOLD WAS RE -- CAME BACK IN A\nNEW\nFORM AFTER ALL OF THE\nBUDGET EFFICIENCIES THAT WE HAD\nTAKEN,\nAND WE ARE NOW IN A WORSE --\nA HARDER PLACE THAN WE WERE\nLAST YEAR BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY\nGONE THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF\nMAKING THOSE TOUGH DECISIONS,\nAND SO HERE WE ARE.\nWITH THAT, OVER TO YOU, TOM AND\nBEN.\nTHANK YOU, CHAIR.\nI THINK WE INTRODUCED OURSELVES\nFOR THE RECORD, AND FOR THE\nSAKE, TOM MENZEL, CENTER STAFF.\nTOM KNOWLES, CENTER\nSTAFF DIRECTOR.\nWEAL BE TALKING: WEAL BE TALKING\nSPECIFICALLY GOING INTO DETAIL\nAND COUNCIL\nBILL 130, AND 131131\nWHICH IS THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET\nORDINANCE AND WE'LL BE\nLEADING OFF WITH THE DISCUSSION\nOF THE\nCARRY FORWARD ORDINANCE,\nAND THIS GIVES AN OVERVIEW OF\nTHE\nPRESENTATION AND WE'LL\nTOUCH ON THE CARRY FORWARD\nORDINANCE UPDATE AND TALK ABOUT\nTHE\nMID- YEAR GRANT ACCEPTANCE BILL\nAND THE MID- YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL\nORDINANCE AND\nTALK ABOUT THE BUDGET PROCESS,\nAND I'LL TURN IT\nOVER TO THEM.\nTHANK YOU, TOM.\nTHE PRINCIPLE POINT: THE PRINCIPLE POINT\nOF DISCUSSION AND THE GRANT\nACCEPTANCE, BUT IN DOING\nSO, WE'RE TAKING THINGS UP OUT\nOF\nORDER. THE CARRY FORWARD\nORDINANCE MAY HAVE BEEN\nCONSIDERED AND LIKELY\nAPPROVED, AND\nWHAT'S GOING ON AND WHY?\nBEFORE I ANSWER MY\nQUESTION, I'LL START ON WHAT\nTHE CARRY\nFORWARD IS AND WHAT I'M TALKING\nABOUT AND WHAT IS THE\nPURPOSE OF THE CARRY\nFORWARD ORDINANCE? IN GENERAL,\nUNLESS\nOTHERWISE SPECIFIED, OPERATING\nAPPROPRIATIONS LAPSED THAT'S A\nTECHNICAL TERM AND WHAT HAPPENS\nTO\nTHE APPROPRIATION ONCE IT\nEXPIRES.\nAND THE DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATED\n$100 MILLION AND THEY'VE GOT 5\nMILLION LEFT AT THE END OF\nTHE YEAR AND THEY LOSE THE\nAUTHORITY TO SPEND THE 1 MILLION\nAND THEY'LL HAVE AUTHORITY FOR\nNEXT\nYEAR'S BUDGET AND THE\nUNSPENT MONEY FROM THE PREVIOUS\nYEAR, THEY DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY\nTO\nSPEND, BUT IT COULD WELL\nBE THAT THAT $5 MILLION WAS\nALLOCATED FOR IS SOMETHING THAT\nTHE\nCITY WANTS TO CONTINUE, AND\nWHEN I SAY THE CITY, I MEAN YOU\nAND THE\nMAYOR ON SOME LEVEL, AND\nIF THAT'S THE CASE, THE\nDEPARTMENT\nCAN CARRY FORWARD THE\nAPPROPRIATION FROM LAST YEAR,\nTHAT WANTS TO GET SPENT\nON WHATEVER ACTIVITY PROGRAM\nIT MIGHT BE.\nSO THAT'S WHAT IT'S FOR AND\nWHAT\nIT DOES.\nASSUMING THE MONEY WILL\nGET SPENT AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT\nINVESTMENT AND WE STILL WANT IT\nTO HAPPEN.\nNORMALLY, GIVEN THAT\nWE'RE DEALING WITH THINGS THAT\nDIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE PREVIOUS\nYEAR\nAND WE DEAL WITH THE CARRY\nFORWARD IN THE FIRST QUARTER\nAND SOMETIMES COUNCIL HASN'T\nVOTED IN THE BEGINNING OF\nTHE SECOND, BUT THAT'S\nGENERALLY THE\nTIME\nLINE. SO WHY ARE WE STILL\nTALKING ABOUT IT AND WHY ISN'T\nIT BEFORE\nYOU YET AS A REFERRED PIECE\nOF LEGISLATION AND THE SHORT\nANSWER\nIS THE APRIL FORECAST.\nTHE LEGISLATION HAD\nBEEN TRANSMITTED TO THE COUNCIL\nIN\nADVANCE OF THAT FORECAST,\nBUT WE WERE ABOUT TO TAKE IT UP\nAND WHEN THE FORECAST ARRIVED\nTHE IMPACT PARTICULARLY ON\nTHE PAYROLL EXPENSE TAX IN TERMS\nOF REDUCTION IN THE FORECAST\nMEANT THAT THE TOTAL\nAPPROPRIATIONS\nPROPOSED IN THE BUDGET THAT\nHAD BEEN APPROVED, THE 2025\nBUDGET AND THAT HAD BEEN\nPREPARED TO BE\nREQUESTED, IF YOU WILL, IN\nTHE CARRY FORWARD, SO\nUNSPENT DOLLARS IN '24 THAT THE\nCOMBINATION WAS LARGER THAN\nTHE FORECAST FOR THE PAYROLL\nEXPENSE TAX AT THAT POINT IN\nAPRIL. SO -- IT DID NOT MAKE\nSENSE\nFROM OUR VIEW FOR THE COUNCIL TO\nBE APPROPRIATING MORE MONEY THAN\nWE UNDERSTAND OURSELVES TO HAVE.\nI SAY UNDERSTAND OURSELVES\nTO HAVE BECAUSE IT'S A\nFORECAST.\nTHE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS\nFOR PASSING A BALANCED BUDGET\nLIKELY ONLY APPLY IN NOVEMBER\nAND\nIN SOME SENSE THEY COULD\nSTILL APPROPRIATE MORE MONEY\nTHAN YOU WOULD EXPECT TO GET AND\nIT\nMAKES NO SENSE AND IT REALLY\nVOIDS\nTHE UNDERLYING ISSUES TO THE\nFACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A\nMEANINGFUL RESOURCE, AND A\nMEANINGFUL\nREDUCTION IN RESOURCES.\nSO SOME RESOURCES NEED TO\nBE MADE WITH THE CARRY FORWARD\nAND\nON ITS OWN WHAT THE BEST WAY\nTO APPROACH\nTHAT WOULD BE. SO -- NEXT SLIDE.\nTHE COMBINATION OF THE\nCARRY FORWARD WOULD BRING THE\nEXPENDITURES\nINTO BALANCE. WE'RE REVIEWING\nTHAT RIGHT NOW.\nIN ADDITION, WE NEED TO\nCOMPLETE CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL\nAND WE'LL MAKE INTRODUCTION\nCHANGES SO THAT THE PACKAGE\nTOGETHER WILL NOW BE BALANCED\nFOR\n2025, AND FORTUNATELY, IN TERMS\nOF TIMING YOU WILL SEE AND HEAR\nALL THREE.\nSO YOU WILL HAVE AN\nOPPORTUNITY TO TIE THIS ALL\nTOGETHER, IF\nYOU\nWILL. AS A BIT OF A PREVIEW, LET\nME TALK ABOUT -- NEXT SLIDE,\nHOW WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE THIS\nPROBLEM AND HOW IS THE EXECUTIVE\nPROPOSING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM.\nAGAIN, THE KEY ISSUE HERE IS\nON THE PAYROLL EXPENSE SIDE.\nIF YOU RECALL ON THE\nGENERAL FUND SIDE THERE WAS A\nREDUCTION IN REVENUES FORECAST\nFOR '25\nAND THEY UNDERSPENT RESOURCES\nFROM\n'24 MEANT THAT THAT WAS MORE\nOR LESS A WASH, BUT IT WAS THE\nP.E.T. THAT WAS IVING\nTHE INCREASE GOING FORWARD\nAND CREATED A DEFICIT IF WE WANT\nTO CARRY THINGS FORWARD FOR '25.\nSO WHAT THE EXECUTIVE\nIS PROPOSING TO DO IS TO REDUCE.\nWE HAVE OVERCOMMITTED IN\nSOME SENSE BECAUSE OF THE\nTHINGS IN THE CARRY FORWARD, WE\nWANT\nTO, OR THE EXECUTIVE, TO\nOVERCOMMIT P.E.T. RESOURCES AND\nWE NEED\nTO REDUCE SOMEWHERE AND\nTHE PROPOSAL IS TO REDUCE\nTHE TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL\nFUND, AND AS A TACTICAL MATTER,\nTHIS DOES WORK, AND THE REASON\nIT WORKS IS THAT WHEN WE\nBALANCED FOR '25 AND '26, THE\nOVERALL\nSTRATEGY WAS ONE THAT\nINVOLVED RUNG DOWN SOME\nBALANCES,\nFUND BALANCES IN THE GENERAL\nFUND AND\nALSO IN P.E.T. OVER '25 AND\n'26.\nTHEY HAD ACCUMULATED\nRESOURCES FOR A VARIETY OF\nREASONS\nUNDER FORECASTS AND THE STRATEGY\nWAS TO SPEND PART OF THAT ONE-\nTIME\nRESOURCE AND PART OF THE\nONE- TIME RESOURCE IN '26.\nTHAT MEANT AND MEANS THAT THE\nEXPECTATION IN 2025 WAS GOING\nTO END WITH A\nPOSITIVE FUND BALANCE IN THE\nGENERAL FUND ABOUT $25\nMILLION. THE '26 ENDORSED\nBUDGET\nTHAT ANTICIPATED SPENDING THAT\n$35 MILLION DOWN TO ZERO AND\nTHAT'S\nOVER BY ANY AND WE'LL GET TO\nZERO. WHAT THE EXECUTIVE IS ABLE\nTO\nDO HERE IS TO REDUCE THE\nTRANSFER\nTO THE FUND AND THE FUND\nBALANCE AND WE ANNES IT PATED WE\nWOULD\nHAVE IN 2025 WON'T NECESSARILY\nBE THERE BECAUSE WE ARE GOING\nTO HAVE LESS GENERAL FUND\nRESOURCE\nBECAUSE THEY TRANSFER\nININ FROM PAYROLL EXPENSE TAX\nWOULD\nBE\nLOWER. IT DOES CREATE A\nCHALLENGE FOR\n'26 AND IT DOES SOLVE THETHE\n'25 PROBLEM AND IT WOULD\nREDUCE HOW MUCH P.E.T. WOULD GO\nTO\nTHE GENERAL FUND AND RUN DOWN\nTHE FUND BALANCE WE HAVE IN\nTHE GENERAL FUND AND THUS\nENTERED\n'26 IN A SLIGHTLY WORSE\nPOSITION\nEXCEPT, AND THIS IS AN\nIMPORTANT EXCEPT THAT THE\nEXECUTIVE IS\nSIMULTANEOUSLY WORKING TO\nUNDERSPEND THE 2025 BUDGET\nTO TRY TO BUILD UP GENERAL\nFUND FUND BALANCE SO THEY CAN\nTAKE ON THE 2026 PROBLEM.\nTHAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SET OF\nTRANSACTIONS THAT ARE GOING\nON\nHERE. GIVEN THAT THE EXECUTIVE\nIS WORKING TO UNDERSPEND\nTECHNICALLY ANOTHER\nPOSSIBILITY WOULD BE TO TRY TO\nREDUCE\n2025 GENERAL FUND\nAPPROPRIATIONS AND THE EXECUTIVE\nDOESN'T\nGET ANYWHERE AND THAT'S NOT A\nPRACTICAL WAY TO DO IT.\nTHIS IS A PRACTICAL WAY TO SOLVE\nTHE PROBLEM OF ROPRIATE\nP.E.T. AND WE DO NOT\nANTICIPATE TO SPEND THIS YEAR\nAND SOME\nNEXT\nYEAR. THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH\nIS\nTO REDUCE APPROPRIATIONS ON THE\nP.E.T. SIDE BECAUSE I KNOW\nTHAT THERE ARE RESOURCES I KNOW\nWE'RE NOT SPENDING AND THERE\nMAY\nBE OTHERS.\nAT THE END OF THE DAY, OTHERWISE\nTHEY'LL LEAVE THE CITY IN\nTHE SAME FUNDAMENTAL PLACE\nBECAUSE THE MONEY WON'T GET\nSPENT OUT OF P.E.T. WHETHER WE\nSPEND IT\nOR NOT AND THE APPROPRIATIONS\nNEED TO BE BALANCED AND THE\nACTUAL CASH FLOW IS THROUGH\nTHE APPROPRIATION LEVELS AND\nTHEY'RE NOT BEING CONSTRAINED,\nAND THEY'RE BEING CONSTRAINED\nBY THEIR OWN MANAGEMENT BY\nTHE RESOURCES AND THE\nKNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFICIT THAT\nTHEY HAVE.\nI WILL TIE THIS TO THE MID- YEAR\nSUPPLEMENTAL.\nHANG TIGHT: HANG TIGHT.\nBEFORE WE GO TO MID-\nYEAR\nSUPPLEMENTAL. DO YOU NEED TO SAY\nANYTHING\nTO CARRY FORWARD?\nJUST TO SAY THAT AS I: JUST TO SAY THAT AS I\nSAID, THE EXECUTIVE IS MANAGING\nTHE\nBUDGET NOT BECAUSE\nOF APPROPRIATION CONSTRAINS AND\nTHEIR OWN RECOGNITION OF\nTHE DEFICITS OF CASH AND THERE\nARE EXCEPTIONS IN THE MID-\nYEAR SUPPLEMENTAL WHERE THEY DO\nWANT TO SPEND ADDITIONAL WHERE\nTHEY\nARE BEING CONSTRAINED BY\nLIMITS ON APPROPRIATION AND\nTHAT'S\nALL I WANTED TO SAY.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nWE'LL SIT ON THE CARRY FORWARD.\nI SEE DIRECTOR\nEDER AND VICE CHAIR RIVERA WE'LL\nCOME BACK\nTO QUESTIONS FROM THE\nLAST PRESENTATION\nNOW AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I SEE\nYOU HAVE\nJOINED REMOTELY FROM YOUR OFFICE\nAND\nWE'LL GO\nTO THAT. .\nDIRECTOR\nEDER.\nTHANK YOU FOR: THANK YOU FOR\nTHE OPPORTUNITY.\nDAN EDER, I DIDN'T\nINTRODUCE\nMYSELF EARLIER. I APOLOGIZE.\nI AM -- I AGREE WITH\nEVERYTHING BEN SAID AND WE ARE\nNO\nWORSE WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT WE\nHAVE AND NO BETTER AND IT'S\nAN EVENING OUT OF THE FUNDS.\nTHE BAD NEWS ALREADY CAME IN\nAPRIL AND THAT'S THAT THE\nOFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND REVENUE\nFORECAST\nHAS TOLD US ON A POINT IN TIME\nBASIS THAT THEY\nEXPECT THERE WILL BE\nSIGNIFICANTLY\nLESS REVENUE COMING IN IN BOTH\nTHE GENERAL FUND AND THE P.E.T.\nPAYROLL EXPENSE TAX FUND FOR '25\nAND '26.\nAS I SAID, WE'LL GET\nANOTHER LOOK AT THAT, ANOTHER\nPOINT\nIN TIME LOOK AT IT IN THE\nBEGINNING\nOF AUGUST.\nWE HOPE THERE'S BETTER NEWS\nAND HOPE THERE IS NOT\nA PLAN. WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHERE\nWE\nREALLY ARE AND WHAT WE KNOW IS\nTHAT AS OF APRIL, THINGS WERE\nWORSE\nTHAN THEY WERE WHEN THE CITY\nADOPTED ITS BUDGET IN THE FALL\nOF '24.\nTHIS IS A RECOGNITION\nTHAT WE CAN HAVE THE GENERAL\nFUND AND THE P.E.T. WHERE THE\nPROBLEM\nLIVES. WE'LL HAVE TO SOLVE\nTHAT,\nWE'LL HAVE TO SOLVE THAT WITHIN\nTHE PROPOSED BUDGET AND WE\nINTEND DO\nTHAT.\nWE WILL TAKE THE LATEST\nNEWS THAT COMES IN AUGUST.\nHOPEFULLY THAT'S BETTER\nTHAN WHAT WE FOUND OUT IS THE\nLOOK\nFORWARD FROM APRIL.\nIF IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME OR\nBETTER NO MATTER WHAT\nTHE FORECAST IS WE WILL HAVE\nA PROPOSED BUDGET TO YOU\nTHAT ADDRESSES THE CURRENT-\nLOOKING REVENUE PICTURE.\nWITH THAT, I'LL JUST BE HAPPY\nTO ANSWER QUESTIONS.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nCOUNCIL MEMBER RIVERA, DO\nYOU WANT TO RESTATE YOUR\nQUESTION, BUT I MIGHT ASK A\nLITTLE MORE\nFOCUSED THAN LAST TIME.\nTHERE WERE MANY POINTS, I\nWAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE, BUT\nYES.\nTHANK YOU.\nI WILL KEEP IT TO THE\nPOINT ABOUT THE HOUSING DOLLARS,\nUNDERSTAND, AND OUR\nTRUSTY CENTRAL STAFF, I WANT TO\nGIVE TRACY RATSCLIFF A SHOUT OUT\nBECAUSE SHE WATCHES AND\nSHE ANSWERS QUESTIONS\nWHILE WE'RE GOING.\nI SEE YOU, TRACY AND I\nAPPRECIATE YOU.\nSHE SHARED SOME INFORMATION\nTHAT WE GOT FROM THE OFFICE OF\nHOUSE ON THIS PIECE ABOUT\nWHAT'S BEEN\nENCUMBERED AND HOW MUCH HAS\nBEEN AWARDED, BUT NOT YET\nENCUMBERED MEANING WE DON'T\nHAVE A\nCONTRACT FOR THOSE DOLLARS AND\nIT'S ALMOST LIKE A FUTURE\nPROMISE,\nIF YOU WILL.\nAND SO ON THE\nAWARDED SIDE AND FOR SOME RAN MY\nCOMPUTER NOW\nHAS DECIDED TO HUM THAT E MALE,\nAND\nWE PULLED UP THE DIRECTION AND\nDIRECTOR EDER, YOU CAN TALK\nABOUT THIS. BOTTOM LINE IS THAT\nIT HAS BEEN\nAWARDED AND NOT ENCUMBERED\nAND WE HAVE NEEDS TODAY AND\nWE DECIDE AS A POLICY\nMATTER, NOTHING IS\nGETTING CONSTRUCTED AND THAT'S\nIMPORTANT\nBECAUSE PEOPLE KEEP TALKING\nABOUT\nBUILDING OF HOUSING AND THINGS\nARE NOT GETTING BUILT.\nSO, BEN,\nGO AHEAD. SO, I JUST WANT TO\nFROM A\nPOLICY STAND POINT, WE COULD,\nWHY ARE\nWE USING SOME OF THE FUNS NOW\nKNOWING THAT WE'LL CONTINUE\nTO COLLECT THIS MONEY FORFOR\nAND AS LONG ASAS MONEY\nTHE BUILDING STARTS AGAIN, THAT\nIS A\nBIT TO TACKLE THIS PROBLEM AND\nI WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT\nAND BEN, IT LOOKED\nLIKE YOU WERE GOING TO TACKLE\nTHE QUESTION\nOR ADD TO WHAT I WAS\nSEAING.\nWILL ALLOW DIRECTOR EDER TO: WILL ALLOW DIRECTOR EDER TO\nRESPOND FIRST AND WE'LL TAKE\nTHAT.\nCOUNCIL MEMBER, I\nREACHED A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION\nTHAN THE\nPLAIN WORDS THAT YOU JUST SPOKE\nDID.\nWE ARE OPENING HUNDREDS\nAND HUNDREDS OF AFFORDABLE\nHOUSING\nUNITS. SO THERE SAY LOT MOVING\nALREADY.\nIN 2024 THERE WERE NEARLY 1300\nNEW UNITS OF AFFORDABLE\nHOUSING THAT WERE BROUGHT\nONLINE WITH THE COMBINATION OF\nFUNDING THAT\nTHE CITY PROVIDED AND\nOTHER ENTITIES WHO WERE PARTNERS\nIN IN THOSE ENDEAVORS.\nIT IS TRUE THAT THE WAY THE\nCITY BUDGET, WE AWARD PROJECTS\nAND FULLY FUND THOSE COMMITMENTS\nIN\nYEAR ONE, IF YOU WILL.\nON ANY GIVEN YEAR, WE\nPUT ALL OF THE MONEY ASIDE FOR\nTHE\nFUTURE PAYMENT WHEN WE OWE A\nNEW PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO BE\nBMENT AND WE PUT IN\n$10037 WE PUT THAT $100 ASIDE\nAND WE DON'T\nSPEND IT ON ANYTHING\nELSE. THAT ALLOWS US WHEN THE\nPROJECT NEEDS THE MONEY TO KNOW\nTHAT\nIT HAS THE FULL BACKING OF THE\nCITY. TYPICALLY PROJECTS THAT\nGET\n$100 FROM THE CITY GET ANOTHER\n$100 OR MORE FROM OTHER ENTITIES\nAND IT TAKES TIME WHEN WE AWARD\nTHE PROJECT TO GET FULL\nFUNDING, COMPLETE ALL OF ITS\nDESIGN AND\nPERMITTING AND BE READY TO\nSTART CONSTRUCTION AND THEN\nCOMPLETE\nCONSTRUCTION. TYPICALLY, THAT'S\nTHREE OR\nMORE YEARS FROM THE DATE THAT WE\nMAKE THE AWARD, AND IT IS --\nTHERE\nIS A POLICY CHOICE THAT WE\nHAVE MADE TO PUT THAT MONEY INTO\nESSENTIALLY OUR FUND AS\nLOCKED DOWN AND NOT AVAILABLE\nFOR OTHER\nSPENDING.\nTHE CITY COULD MAKE\nDIFFERENT CHOICES.\nWE HAVE NOT, HISTORICALLY,\nCHOSEN TO DO THAT.\nWHEN THE YEAR COMES A\nENSURE THAT WE HAVE THE MONEY TO\nPAY THOSE BILLS AND B, THAT WE\nDON'T HAVE -- WE DON'T USE THE\nMONEY FOR ONGOING, OTHER\nPURPOSES THAT\nTHIS IS ONE- TIME SOURCE FOR\nIT, AND SO THERE ARE OTHER\nREASONS THAT I DON'T WANT TO --\nI DON'T WANT TO ELABORATE TOO\nMUCH\nON BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE\nOTHER\nQUESTION, BUT THOSE\nIN COMBINATION HAVE LED US TO\nNOT\nTO REPURPOSE THE MONEY THAT\nHAS BEEN COMMITTED, BUT FOR A\nFUTURE YEAR TO CURRENT YEAR\nNEEDS.\nDO\nYOU WANT TO ADD TO IT?\nNO, THE HOUSING PRODUCTION\nIS ONGOING.\nIT ALWAYS TAKES A LOT OF\nTIME AND LOW INCOME\nHOUSING PROTECTION CONTINUES.\nIT WAS NEVER DRIVEN BY A PROFIT\nMOTIVE WHICH HAS CLOSED DOWN\nA PRIVATE BUILDING AND THERE\nIS SOME LEVEL OF PRODUCTION\nSTILL\nONGOING.\nYES.\nAND STILL, MY QUESTION -- IT\nIS A POLICY CHOICE BECAUSE\nAS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO\nCOVER\nIN THE FUTURE YEARS WHEN THINGS\nARE ACTUALLY GOING TO\nGET COMPLETED THOSE PROJECTS\nTHEN,\nAND YOU COULD DECIDE NOT TO PUT\nAN RFP OUT TO CATCH UP, I\nMEAN, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY, AND\nIT\nALSO HAS NOT RESERVED -- SORRY,\nIT'S\nEARNING TRUST.\nAND SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT\nHAPPENS TO THE MONEY -- NOT\nTRUST, EXCUSE ME, EARNING\nINTEREST.\nI'M NOT SURE WHERE THE\nINTEREST IS GOING BECAUSE THAT\nALSO CAN\nBE UTILIZED BECAUSE\nTHEY'RE HOUSING AND RENTAL\nASSISTANCE\nIS HOUSING IN MY MIND AND\nTHESE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE\nSTRUGGLING, THAT'S STILL\nHOUSING AND THERE ARE HOUSING\nPROVIDERS\nTHAT HAVE HAD TO CLOSE\nBUILDINGS AND I'M NOT SURE HOW\nMANY\nUNITS WE'VE LOST.\nI UNDERSTAND WE GAINED 1300 AND\nNOT SURE HOW MANY WE'VE LOST\nBECAUSE THE PROVIDE VERSE HAD\nTO CLOSE BUILDINGS AND THERE IS\nAN\nUNCLEAR PICK THE OUT\nHOUSING SPACE WHICH IS WHY\nCOUNCIL MEMBER KETTLE AND I\nHAVE TALKED ABOUT THE COMMITTEE,\nAND I\nKNOW THERE'S A SLIDE.\nI THINK WE GET THIS\nRESPONSE BACK IN A MONTH OR SO\nON WHAT'S\nYOUR FIVE- YEAR PLAN FOR\nHOUSING, SO THAT WE KNOW ALL OF\nTHESE PIECES THAT ARE\nINTERRELATED WE ARE PLANNING IN\nTHIS HOLISTIC\nFASHION, STRATEGIC FASHION AS A\nPLAN.\nDIRECTOR EGER, I DIDN'T MEAN\nTO CUT YOU\nOFF.\nTHAT'S OKAY.\nI'M JUST MAKE THE POINT THAT WE\nARE MAKING POLICY CHOICES THAT\nWE CAN SUPPORT IT AT THE\nSAME TOO AND MAKE DIFFERENT\nCHOICES\nSO THAT THERE IS SOME\nAVAILABLEAVAILABLE TODAY AND\nPARTICULARLY FUNDS THAT HAVEN'T\nBEEN ENCUMBERED\nYET AND STILL MAKE GOOD ON THAT\nLATER ON SO THAT WE CAN BUILD.\nWE DO NEED MORE HOUSING, BUT\nHOW WE'RE DOING THIS, IN MY\nMIND, IS NOT WORKING, AND SO I\nWANT A DAY\nLIKE THAT AND IT IS\nCONTRIBUTING TO THIS DEFICIT\nPIECE.\nI WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE HOUSING\nDOLLARS AND THE HOUSING SPACE\nSO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO\nCOVER ALL OF THE NEEDS INCLUDING\nTHE RENTAL\nASSISTANCE IF CURRENT PROVIDERS\nNEED HELP KEEPING THOSE CURRENT\nUNITS ONLINE, ALL OF THAT\nIS PART OF THE SAME -- THE\nSAME HOUSING -- SHOULD BE\nPART OF THE SAME HOUSING PLAN.\nTHANK YOU,\nCHAIR.\nTHANK YOU, VICE CHAIR.\nDIRECTOR EDER AND\nNOBLE, ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD\nTHERE?\nTHANK YOU.\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT, DID YOU\nSTILL WANT TO ASK A QUESTION?\nSHE'S ON MUTE.\nYES, YES, I DO.\nI UNMUTED MYSELF.\nPLEASE: PLEASE.\nTAKE IT AWAY.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nHELPFUL INFORMATION TO BUILD\nUPON WHAT WE WERE SAYING.\nTHE OFFICE OF HOUSING'S CASH\nBALANCE IS $624 MILLION AS\nOF MAY -- AT THE END OF MAY, AND\nSOME OF THAT'S INCUMBERED\nAND SOME OF IT ISN'T, BUT THE\nBOTTOM LINE IS THAT 107 MILLION\nIS\nANTICIPATED FOR FUTURE NOFAs\nAND THAT IS NOT ENCUMBERED OR\nCOMMITTED, ET CETERA, AND SO\nFAR AT THE END OF MAY, 36\nMILLION HAS\nBEEN EXPENDED. SO THAT JUST\nGIVES YOU KIND OF\nA SENSE OF HOW THE FLOW OF MONEY\nOUT VERSUS WHAT IS LEFT IN, YOU\nKNOW, IN VARIOUS ACCOUNTS\nIN HOUSING JUST TO FILL IN\nTHE BLANKS OVER THE\nLAST CONVERSATION.\nMY QUESTION IS, I KNOW THAT\nTHERE AREN'T NUMBERS HERE\nAND WE'LL KEEP TALKING ABOUT\nTHIS,\nBUT MY UNDERSTANDING\nWAS THAT THE CARRY FORWARD THAT\nWE\nFIRST RECEIVED WAS ABOUT 30\nMILLION\nSHORT BECAUSE OF THE P.E.T.\nREVENUE.\nSO THE FIX IS TO TAKE\nMONEY OUT OUT GENERAL, I\nBELIEVE, 32 OUT\nOF FINANCE GENERAL THAT\nWOULD NOT GO FORWARD TO PAY\nFOR GENERAL FUND COSTSCOSTS\n2026, IF THAT\nIS THE -- IF I'VE GOT THAT\nRIGHT, HOW MUCH IS LEFT\nIN FINANCE GENERAL IS MY\nQUESTION?\nDIRECTOR EDER: DIRECTOR EDER?\nTHERE WAS $25 MILLION IN\nTHE BUDGET AS CENTRAL STAFF\nMENTIONED AVAILABLE TO BUY\nDOWN THE ANTICIPATED, AND THE\nTHEN- ANTICIPATED COST OF\nTHE ADOPTED BUDGET.\nTHAT NUMBER HAS EVOLVED\nAS WE HAVE LAPSED SOME\nMONEYMONEY FROM\nUNDERSPEND FROM 2024 THAT IS\nNOT IMPLICATED IN THE CARRY\nFORWARD\nAND THEN ALSO, SO THAT INCREASED\nTHE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT\nWE WOULD OTHERWISE, ALL\nTHINGS BEING EQUAL LEFT OVER, IF\nYOU\nWILL, TO HELP PAY FOR 2026\nEXPENSES AND IT WAS A DECREASE\nIN THE APRIL FORECAST,\nTHAT DECREASED SOME OF THE\nREVENUES.\nTHERE WAS, BOTTOM LINE, ENOUGH\nMONEY TO LEAVE A\nPOSITIVE BALANCE OF GREATER THAN\n$32\nMILLION THAT WE HAVE TRANSMITTED\nLEGISLATION TO ESSENTIALLY\nDECREASE. IT'S DECREASING THE\nPAYROLL\nEXPENSE TAX FUND,\nSUPPORT FOR THE GENERAL FUND\nTHAT\nISN'T NEEDED IN 2025.\nTHAT MEANS THAT WE EITHER NEED\nTO HAVE A DECREASE IN\n2026 GENERAL FUND EXPENSES OR A\nDECREASE IN '25 OR '26\nPAYROLL EXPENSE FUNDS IN ORDER\nTO BE\nBALANCED ACROSS BOTH OF\nTHOSE FUNDS WITH THE\nPROPOSED BUDGET AND THE ADOPTED\nBUDGET FOR 2026.\nDOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION,\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT?\nSO, BASICALLY, ALL OF IT.\nTHE 32 MILLION THAT SORT\nOF BALANCES THE CARRY FORWARD IS\nPRETTY MUCH DOESN'T\nLEAVE ANYTHING LEFT GOING\nFORWARD.\nIT LEAVES --\n35 MINUS 32, GOT IT.\nIT LEAVES 30-SOME- ODD\nMILLION LESS THAN WHAT WOULD\nOTHERWISE BE THERE FOR 2026 AND\nTHAT\nWAS THE NEWS THAT CAME OUT OF\nTHE APRIL FORECAST IS THE CITY\nHAS LESS MONEY.\nWE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO\nPAY FOR THE ADOPTED BUDGET AND\nTHE\nMID- YEAR AND THE CARRY\nFORWARD IN 2025.\nWE HAVE A PROBLEM COME 2026 AND\nWE ARE PURPOSELY\nUNDERSPENDING AND LOOKING FOR\nREDUCTIONS\nIN SPENDING FOR 2026 THAT WE\nWILL BE WORKING ON OVER\nTHE SUMMER AND IN SEPTEMBER\nWE'LL\nHAVE A PROPOSED BUDGET FOR YOUR\nCONSIDERATION.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nI LOOK FORWARD TO THE SLIDE\nTHAT SHOWS HISTORY OF UNDER\nSPEND.\nIT'S GOOD TO FIND THE MONEY\nWHEN YOU NEED IT.\nWE'RE WORKING ON IT.\nTHANK YOU.\nANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? HARD TO\nTELL.\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT?\nNO.\nCOLLEAGUE, ANY OTHER\nQUESTIONS ON CARRY FORWARD?\nANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON\nCARRY FORWARD?\nJUST GOING TO SUMMARIZE\nWHAT I'VE HEARD IS IN THE --\nYOU\nSENT THE CARRY FORWARD\nLEGISLATION AHEAD OF THE APRIL\nFORECAST.\nTHE APRIL FORECAST CAME IN UNDER\nTHAN EXPECTED, THE GENERAL\nFUND COMING IN ABOVE WHEN\nWE EXPECTED.\nAS WE SAID LAST YEAR\nWHEN WE WERE HAVING THE JUMP-\nSTART POLICY CONVERSATIONS WE\nSAID THAT AT THAT TIME JUMPSTART\nHAD ONLY GONE UP.\nI SAID WE HAD TO BE\nCAREFUL BECAUSE THAT WAS\nUNREASONABLE AND WE DIDN'T\nHAVE TAX COLLECTION TO DO FIVE\nYEARS\nSMOOTHING. IN A FUTURE STATE\nJUMP- START\nCAME IN THAN WHEN A GENERAL\nFUND WOULD SUPPORT THOSE JUMP-\nSTART\nDOLLARS. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE\nRECEIVED\nTODAY.\nTHAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY.\nTHIS IS ACTIONS MEETING\nTHE WORDS THAT WE HAVE SAID,\nAND MAYBE I SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID\nTHAT THAT JUMP- START COULD COME\nIN UNDER BECAUSE ONLY THREE\nMONTHS LATER\nIT DID. THIS POLICY CHOICE DOES,\nIN\nFACT, GIVE US FEWER\nRESERVES TO ADDRESS 2026 BUDGET,\nUNDERSTANDING THE\nCURRENT PRACTICE OF FUNDING\nHOUSING IN\nPARTICULAR, BUT WITH THAT,\nI'M GOING MOVE US ON TO THE\nNEXT SECTION OF THIS WHICH IS\nTHE\nGRANT ACCEPTANCE AND\nAPPROPRIATION.\nSO, TOM, TAKE IT AWAY.\nSO NOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE\nMID-YEAR GRANT ACCEPTANCE\nAND FOLLOW WITH THE\nSUPPLEMENTAL.\nSO THIS IS THE SECOND MID-\nYEAR, THE SECOND GRANT\nACCEPTANCE OF THE YEAR AND\nTHERE'S BEEN\nONE THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND\nAPPROVED BY COUNCIL.\nTHE Q1 GRANTS AND THERE WILL\nBE A THIRD WITH THE MAYOR'S\nBUDGET\nPROPOSAL, I WOULD ASSUME, TO\nCLOSE OUT THE YEAR.\nTHIS SPECIFIC BILL\nWOULD AUTHORIZE STATE\nDEPARTMENTS ON\nACCEPT $23 MILLION FROM\nEXTERNAL PROVIDERS AND\nAPPROPRIATE\n$22 MILLION BY\nTHE CITY. HEAR LIMITED\nMATCHING REQUIREMENTS AND ANY\nINSTANCES\nWHERE THE CITY WOULD NEED\nTO COME UP WITH MONEY TO KIND OF\nGO ALONG WITH THE FUNDS THAT WE\nARE RECEIVING, BUT THEY'RE ALL\nMET WITH THE EXISTING\nBUDGET APPROPRIATIONS AND\nTHERE'S NO\nCITY IMPACT FOR ACCEPTING THESE\nMONIES, SO I'M GOING TO\nCOVER THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE\n$23 MILLION AND THE BILL.\nFIRST, THERE'S $4 MILLION\nBEING RECEIVED FROM THE SEATTLE\nCENTER\nFROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT\nOF COMMERCE AND THAT MONEY IS\nFOR MEMORIAL STADIUM\nREDEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S\nCONSISTENT WITH THE\nILA AND THE\nDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.\n$3.7 MILLION TO THE HUMAN\nSERVICES DEPARTMENT AND\nHSD FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF\nSOCIAL\nAND HEALTH SERVICES AND THIS IS\nFOR THE WASHINGTON CARES\nPROGRAM, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY,\nWASHINGTON'S LONG- TERM\nCARE INSURANCE SYSTEM.\nTHE GRANT DOES FUND NINE\nNEW POSITIONS AND THEY'RE NOT\nIN THIS BILL, THEY'RE IN THE\nNEXT\nBILL THAT COVERS INCREASED NEW\nPOSITIONS.\nTHOSE NEW POSITIONS THAT ARE\nONGOING AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT\nTHAT IN THE NEW BILL.\nTHERE IS A $2.5\nMILLION FROM THE CRIMINAL\nJUSTICE\nTRAINING COMMISSION AND THAT'S\nFOR\nHOMELESS PEOPLE IN SEATTLE. THE\nFUNDING WILL ACTUALLY BE\nADMINISTERED BY A\nCOMMUNITY-BASED\nORGANIZATION ON CONTRACT WITH\nTHE\nCITY, AND THEN THERE ARE $2\nMILLION TO OFFSET\nCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR\nTHE ENGAGEMENT AND EVALUATION\nFOR\nPLANNING ACTIVITIES, AND THAT\nIS -- THAT IS THE MID- YEAR\nBILL AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL.\nTHIS BILL JUST REQUIRES A SIMPLE\nMAJORITY VOTE FOR APPROVAL.\nTHANK: THANK\nYOU, TOM. COLLEAGUES, ACCEPTANCE\nAND\nAPPROPRIATIONS? COLLEAGUES?\nGOING ONCE.\nGOING TWICE.\nI WILL MAKE MY ONLY COMMENT\nAND THIS KIND OF COMES BACK TO\nTHE COMP PLAN CONVERSATIONS\nTHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING.\nI'LL BE LOOKING TO\nENGAGE WITH THE OFFICE OF\nPLANNING\nCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REGARDING\nTHE\nLIVINGLIVING INTERSTATE I- 5\nBECAUSE WE\nSEE ESPECIALLY BETWEEN 45th\nAND ALMOST 65th, REALLY.\n55th EVEN THOUGH THERE'S AN\nOVERPASS AT 55th AND THAT AREA\nIS PRIMED AND READY TO BE\nLIDDED IN A SIMILAR WAY THAT IT\nWAS DONE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ,\nWITH ZERO PUBLIC DOLLARS.\nIT RECONNECTED THE GRID,\nAND CREATED NEW OFFICE SPACE\nWHICH\nGENERATES, I BELIEVE, WAS $20\nOR $40 MILLION IN PROPERTY\nTAXES FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. , AND\nTHAT AREA WE HAVE A GREAT\nPOTENTIAL TO RECONNECT THE\nNEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE REVIVED I-\nWORK HAVING BEEN PAUSED AND EVEN\nTHOUGH\nTHIS WEEKEND STARTS THE FIRST\n30-\nDAY CLOSURE OF SOME LANES WITH\nTHE WORK BETWEEN THE SHIP CANAL\nBRIDGE HAS BEEN DELAYED\nWHICH GIVES US THE ABILITY THAT\nAS\nWE DO THAT, ENSURING\nTHAT THEY DO THE WORK IN A WAY\nTHAT\nALLOWS FOR PILINGS TO BE PUT IN\nPLACE, AND IT IS\nCRITICAL. THAT WAS COMMENTARY,\nAND NOT A\nQUESTION.\nCOLLEAGUES, I WILL TICK\nON, USUALLY THIS TIME OF\nYEARYEAR THE SUBJECT THAT WE\nHAVE\nAND TODAY IT'S COMING IN THIRD\nWITH THE MID- YEAR\nSUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET OVER TO YOU,\nTOM,\nAND WE'LL HOLD QUESTIONS UNTIL\nTHE END OF THIS SECTION AND THEN\nASK QUESTIONS.\nWE ONLY HAVE 14 MINUTES FOR\nTHIS\nSECTION.\nTHANK YOU, CHAIR.\nTHIS WOULD BE THE: THIS WOULD BE THE\nFIRST COMPREHENSIVE\nSUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET LEGISLATION\nCONSIDERED\nBY COUNCIL IN 2025.\nTYPICALLY, WE TALKED ABOUT\nTHIS, TYPICALLY IT WOULD BE THE\nCARRY FORWARD BILL AND THERE ARE\nEXTENDED CIRCUMSTANCES AND THIS\nIS THE FIRST COM PRO\nHENCIVE BILL BEFORE YOU.\nIT'S A MIDYEAR APPROPRIATION\nAND CAPITAL PROJECT CHANGE\nBILL THAT'S INTENDED TO MEET\nNEEDS THAT WERE UNFORESEEABLE\nOR ASSUMED TO BE UNFORESEEABLE\nWHEN\nTHE 2025 BUDGET WAS\nADOPTED IN THE FALL OF LAST\nYEAR.\nTHIS BILL WOULD DECREASE IN\nTOTAL, CITY APPROPRIATIONS BY\n$221 MILLION AND ADDS 11\nFTEs AND FIRST RATE OFF THE BACK\nI'LL GET TO HOW AN\nAPPROPRIATION\nBILL IS IN TOTAL OF DECREASING\nTHE CITY BUDGET AND THAT'S\nBECAUSE THE CITY UTILITIES WHEN\nTHEY\nDO THEIR CAPITAL PROJECTS IN\nTHE BUDGET PROCESS THEY -- THEY\nDO THEIR FULL ALLOCATION IN\nTHE BUDGET PROCESS INCLUDING\nTHESE THEY INTEND TO CARRY\nFORWARD IN THE\nNEXT YEAR. WHAT THAT DOES\nBECAUSE\nCAPITAL -- ALL\nCAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS BY STATE\nLAW\nCARRY FORWARD, AND I DO BELIEVE\nDIRECTOR NOBLE COVERED THIS\nIN HIS EARLIER COMMENTS.\nBECAUSE OF THOSE\nAPPROPRIATIONS CARRY OVER THAT\nWOULD BE\nA DOUBLE COUNT.\nTHIS IS A VERY CONSISTENT THING\nWITH BEST PRACTICE AND THE\nUTILITIES TO ACCOUNT FOR\nTHE DOUBLE COUNT ABANDON THE\nCARRY FORWARD CAPITAL\nAPPROPRIATIONS.\nSO BASICALLY, THAT TOTAL\nAMOUNT OF THAT REDUCTION, SO\nBASICALLY BACKING OUT ANY AMOUNT\nOF THE\nCARRY FORWARD CAPITAL IS $263\nMILLION.\nSO WHEN YOU ACCOUNT FOR THAT\nVERY\nTECHNICAL EXERCISE, YOU THEN\nUNEARTH A $43.6 MILLION\nTOTAL INCREASE IN THIS MID- YEAR\nAPPROACH\nAPPROPRIATION BILL AND TO BREAK\nIT DOWN,\nIT WOULD BE A $2.3 MILLION FUND\nINCREASE, AND\nAGAIN, I'LL TALK ABOUT THE\nDETAILS, AND NEXT SLIDE AND\nTHEN A $44.3 MILLION AND I'LL\nTALK ABOUT THE OTHER HIELS AND\nTHE\nDISTIFRPGSZ TO THE MID- YEAR\nBILL AND I DID A SUPPLEMENTAL\nBILL\nAND IT WOULD REQUIRE COUNSEL FOR\nPACKAGE.\nTHE ONE THING THAT THIS BILL: THE ONE THING THAT THIS BILL\nDOES IS IT REDUCES THE DRUG\nDIVERSION DEPARTMENT IN\nTHE MUNICIPAL COURT.\nTHERE'S FUNDING INCLUDED\nFOR PARTIAL YEAR FUNDING SINCE\nWE\nARE HALF WAY THROUGH THE\nYEAR WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT\nAND\nTWO FT POSITIONS IN LAW.\nTHIS IS ENVISIONED AS AN\nONGOING PROGRAM AND THE AMOUNT\nTHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE BILL IS\nHAPPIER\nFUNDING AND POSITION\nAUTHORITY, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A\nTRANSFER OF\nMONEYS AND AN ORIGINAL USE AND\nINSTEAD REBURDEN OF PROOFING\nTHEM FOR THE DRUG DIVERSION\nPROGRAM. NEXT IS THE\nIMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOCIAL\nHOUSING ATTACKS\nIN 2024.\nTHIS ADS $74,000 TO\nCITY FINANCES TAX ADMINISTRATIVE\nFUNCTION, BUT THIS IS\nENTIRELY FUNDED FROM\nPROCEEDS RECEIVED FROM THAT TAX\nAND IT IS AN\nONGOING -- AN ONGOING ADD GIVEN\nTHE ONGOING NATURE OF THE TAX.\nNEXT IS A $298,000 INCREASE TO\nTHE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE\nAND TO F.T. POSITIONS TO\nBASICALLY\nAUGMENT THE -- THE\nRESOURCES AVAILABLE TO RESPOND\nTO ACTIONS\nTAKEN AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL\nAND THIS IS\nALSO PART-YEAR FUNDING AND THE\nVISION TO BE\nONGOING AFTER THIS YEAR.\nAND THEN FINALLY, I'VE TALKED\nTO\nADDITIONS AND THAT WAS\n$3.3 MILLION REDUCTION TO\nTHE BILL AND THE\nANSWER IS THERE ARE ABOUT $4\nMILLION OF REDUCTION TO\nGRANTS ACROSS CITY\nDEPARTMENTS TO THE ACTUAL\nAMOUNTS THAT\nTHEY EXPECT TO RECEIVE WITH\nTHE AMOUNTS THAT THEY'VE\nBEEN BUDGETED AND THAT'S\nA HOUSEKEEPING EXERCISE AND\nBECAUSE THESE GRANTS ARE A\nPART OF THE BUDGET THEY NEED\nTO ACTUALLY MAKE THE FORMAL\nREQUEST TO REDUCE\nTHESE AMOUNTS AND CLEAR THOSE\nGRANTS OUT.\nPAYROLL EXPENSE TAX HIGHLIGHT\nAND IT'S A $1.5 MILLION\nTOTAL INCREASE AND THE FIRST\nCHANGE\nTHAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS\nACTUALLY A TRANSFER AND\nIT'S TAKEN INDEPENDENTLY.\nIT'S A REVENUE NEUTRAL,\nBUDGET NEUTRAL CHANGE THAT\nSHIFTS\n$1.2 MILLION FROM THE OFFICE OF\nHOUSING AND MULTI- FAMILY\nHOUSING\nPROGRAM TO THE HUMAN\nSERVICES DEPARTMENTS SUPPORTING\nSAFE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM, AND\nTHE PURPOSE OF THAT SHIFT IS TO\nFUND\nHOMELESSNESS, LTER RENTAL\nCOSTS. NEXT IT'S AN INESTO HSD\nTHAT WOULD FUND STREET\nLEVEL ACTIVATION RELATED TO\nTHE STABILITY THROUGH ACCESS OF\nRESOURCES CENTER.\nNEXT IS THE $527,000 INCREASE\nTHAT'S A TECHNICAL\nCORRECTION IN THE SENSE THAT\nALIGNS\nPAYROLL EXPENSE TAXES TO THE\nPROPOSAL\nIN THE 2025 BUDGET.\nTHOSE RENTAL ASSISTANCE ADDS AND\nTHE $527,000 WAS INCLUDED IN\nTHE BUDGET FROM THE HUMAN\nSERVICES FUND THAT WAS AN ERROR\nAND IT WAS INTENDED TO BE FUNDED\nIN\nTHE TAX FUND AND THIS CORRECTS\nTHAT\nTO ALIGN WITH THE COUNCIL'S\nINTENT.\nNOW I'LL TURN TO THE OTHER FUND\nHIGHLIGHTS AND I'LL JUST\nSAY THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW\nITEMS\nIN THIS BILL.\nMOST OF THEM ARE MUCH\nSMALLER THAN WHAT WE ARE\nDISCUSSING TODAY AND AFTER\nTHIS PRESENTATION IF THERE ARE\nFOLLOW-UPS FOR ANY OF\nTHE DETAILED ITEMS\nPLEASE LET US KNOW AND LOOKING\nAT THESE\nHIGH-LEVEL CHANGES, THERE'S AN\nREAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX REIT ONE\nREDUX OF $7 MILLION IN 2025\nAND THAT'S TO THE SEATTLE\nPOLICE FACILITIES PROJECT, BUT\nTHE\nMONEY, IN FACT, IT'S\nBEING SPREAD FOR FUTURE YEARS IN\nTHE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS\nPROGRAM.\nIT'S NOT AS A TOTAL REDUCTION\nOF\nRESOURCE JUST A REDUCTION IN\nTHE 2025 USE OF THAT RESOURCE.\nNEXT IS A $12 MILLION ADD\nTO REDUCE THE SEWER AT THE\nMEMORIAL STADIUM BECAUSE OF THE\nWAY\nWE MANAGE OUR MONEY\nAND PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO\nTHE UTILITIES WHERE WE HAVE TO\nBE VERY PRECISE ABOUT ALIGNING\nRATE CHARGES WITH THE USES\nFOR\nCUSTOMERS. THE $12 MILLION IS\nALSO BUDGETED\nIN THE DRAINAGE OF THE\nWASTE WATER FUND AND THE SEATTLE\nCENTER SPENDS THE $12\nMILLION AND SENDS IT TO THE\nUTILITY WHERE THE UTILITY DOES\nTHE\nWORK AND THAT'S A BIT OF A\nDOUBLE\nCOUNT. FINALLY, WITH THE PARKS\nAND\nRECREATION FUND, THERE IS A\n$1.7 MILLION INCREASE FOR\nTHE CITY GOLF COURSES AND A\n$2.6 MILLION INCREASE FOR\nTHE COMMUNITY CENTER\nREHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT\nPROJECT AND THIS\nFUNDED FROM INSURANCE\nSETTLEMENT PROCEED ATTRIBUTABLE\nTO\nTHE ARSON AT THE CAMP LONG\nLODGE.\nFINAL SLIDE ON THE -- ON\nTHE APPROPRIATION CHANGES AND\nTHE TRANSPORTATION FUND, THERE\nIS A\n$3.3 MILLION INCREASE\nFOR DOWNTOWN STREET CLEANING\nAND GRAFFITI ABATEMENT AND THE\n$2.\n4 INCREASE OF THE THOMAS STREET\nREDESIGNED PROJECT AND\nTHAT'S FUNDED WITH THE\nDEVELOPER\nSTREET VACATION PROCEEDS AND THE\nMOVE\nSEATTLE LEVITY FUND HAS A\nFAIRLY LARGE CHANGE THAT'S\nESSENTIALLY\nA TRANSFER OF $8.3 MILLION\nOF VARIOUS PROJECTS TO THE\nMADISON\nBUS TRANSIT PROJECT AND ALSO\nADDS $3 MILLION IN TOTAL FOR\nTHE PROJECT FOR\nINTEREST EARNINGS AND THOSE\nCHANGES ARE\nNECESSARY TO CLOSE OUT.\nTHE PROJECTS HAVE\nBEEN FINISHED AND HOWEVER, THERE\nWERE\nCOST INCREASES ABOVE WHAT\nWAS ORIGINALLY BUDGETED AND\nIN ORDER TO CLOSE IT OUT THEY\nNEED TO PUT\nTHESE FUNDS\nIN ORDER TO FILL THOSE GAPS.\nSO I DID MENTION: SO I DID MENTION\nTHAT THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 11 NEW\nPOSITIONS\nADDED IN THE BILL ON THIS\nTABLE SUMMARIZES THOSE POSITIONS\nAND I'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF\nTHESE\nWITH REGARDS TO\nTHE APPROPRIATIONS THAT\nWERE INCREASED TO\nSUPPORT THEM. IN F.A.S. , FINE\nADMINISTRATIVE\nSERVICES, THEY ADMINISTER THE\nSOCIAL\nHOUSING TAX. THE ARTS AND\nCULTURE HAS A NEW\nPOSITION ADDED\nTO ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT TO THE\nLAW TEAM.\nTHE LAW DEPARTMENT HAS\nFOUR POSITIONS INCLUDING THE\nDRUG DIVERSION PROGRAM AND\nFEDERAL\nRESPONSE NEEDS. SEATTLE\nMUNICIPAL COURT HAS THE\nDRUG DWERGDZ PROGRAM AND THESE\nARE THE NINE IN THE MID-\nYEAR GRANT ACCEPTANCE AND THAT\nWOULD\nBE THE WASHINGTON CARES GRANT\nFUNDS.\nTHERE ARE TWO POSITIONS ADDED\nIN SEATTLE CENTER FOR\nWATERFRONT LANDSCAPING AND THOSE\nARE POSITIONS THAT ARE\nONGOING. HOWEVER, THEY ARE\nTHREE-YEAR\nTERM LIMITED AND THEY'RE\nONGOING FOR A LIMITED TIME.\nTHE SEATTLE\nINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARE\nSWAPPING FOR\nTECH POSITIONS FROM THE SEATTLE\nI.T.\nINTO CITY LIGHT ITSELF AND THEN\nFINALLY, THERE ARE\nSUNSET POSITIONS IN SEATTLE\nDEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTIONS AND\nINSPECTIONS THAT WERE EXTENDED\nFOR\nSIX MONTHS IN THE BUDGET,\nHOWEVER, FOR THE YEAR IN TOTAL,\nASK\nND THEY HAVE THE STAFFING ROSTER\nIN\nTHE CITY AND THAT'S AN 11-\nCITY REDUCTION AND THAT'S 11\nPOSITIONS.\nTHERE ARE A FEW OTHERS\nEMBEDDED IN THE BILL\nINCLUDING THE PROJECTS IN THE\nTRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AND THIS\nIS A\nBETTER BIKE BARRIER PROJECT AND\nTHE GRANT STREET ACCESS AND\nCOMPLETE STREET\nPROJECT. FINALLY, THERE IS A\nPROVIDER LIST THAT WOULD LIFT\nTHE\nPROVISO AND THE TRANSPORTATION\nDISTRICT FUND IS NOT AN\nAPPROPRIATE PLACE\nFOR THIS, THIS PURPOSE AND THE\nWATERFRONT SHUTTLE AND ACTUALLY\nWITHIN THE\nSUPPLEMENTAL, THERE IS A SHIFT\nOF $500,000 FROM\nTHE PAYROLL EXPENSE TAX TOTO\nUSE TO ALIGN THOSE FUNDS WITH\nTHE\nFUNDING THE SHUTTLE INSTEAD\nOF USING THE TRANSPORTATION\nBENEFIT DISTRICT FUNDS FOR THAT\nPURPOSE AND THOSE COSTS WOULD BE\nFOUND\nAT THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC\nDEVELOPMENT, AND I'LL JUST WRAP\nUP WITH A COUPLE\nOF CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF\nTHIS\nBILL. ONE, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE\nTALKED A\nGREAT DEAL ABOUT A\nBUDGET CHALLENGE AND THE GENERAL\nFUND AND THE PAYROLL EXPENSE\nTAX FUND.\nTHIS BILL DOES ADD IN\nTHE SUPPLEMENTAL PROCESS\nONGOING NEW POSITIONS THIS WOULD\nBE CONSIDERED TECHNICAL\nADDITIONS IN THE BUDGET\nPRESENTATION IN THE FALL, SO\nI WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, AND\nTHEN NEXT,\nAGAIN, GIVEN THE\nONGOING CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE\nWITH\nTHE PAYROLL EXPENSE TAXTAX\nTHEY WOULD HAVE TAX\nAPPROPRIATIONS\nBY\n$1.5 MILLION. FINALLY, SO WE'LL\nTALK ABOUT THE\nNEXT STEPS IN THE BUDGET\nPROCESS AND THERE IS A JULY\n30th SELECT BUDGET COMMITTEE TWO\nWEEKS\nFROM NOW WHICH WE'LL HEAR\nTHE POSSIBLE TWO\nBILLS AND CONSISTENT WITH THE\nTIMELINE FOR THE TAX PROPOSAL.\nWE WOULD ASK THAT WE WOULD\nBE MADE AWARE OF ANY CONCEPTS SO\nTHAT WE CAN HELP YOU\nDEVELOP THEM BY JULY 22 nd.\nTHE FINAL ACTION OF THE BILL\nIS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 8t h,\nBOTH BILLS AND WE'LL GET THE\nMAYOR'S BUDGET IN LATE\nSEPTEMBER.\nTHANK: THANK\nYOU, TOM. VERY COM PREHNSIVE AND\nWE'LL END HERE AND STICK ON THE\nNEXT STEPS.\nCOLLEAGUE, WITH ONE\nMINUTE REMAINING BEFORE -- IF WE\nDO HAVE QUESTIONS I WILL ALSO\nOFFER EVERYONE THAT HAS\nPRESENTED\nTODAY, WE HAVE THE\nGREATEST ACCESS TO TOM AS HE IS\nON\nOUR CENTRAL STAFF, AND SO\nHE'S AVAILABLE TO US IF WE\nDON'T HAVE\nTIME FOR ALL OF THE QUESTIONS.\nI DO SEE COUNCIL MEMBER\nKETTLE'S HAND AND COUNCILMEMBER\nRIVERA,\nDO YOU HAVE A HAND?\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE.\nLOOKING AT THE LONG LIST OF: LOOKING AT THE LONG LIST OF\nPIECES, I WANT TO KNOW FROM MY\nCOLLEAGUES THAT I'VE\nBEEN INVOLVED WITH THE\nDRUG ALTERNATIVE.\nAND THE PROGRAM IS\nDRUG PROSECUTION ALTERNATIVE\nAND THAT'S BEEN COORDINATED AND\nALSO THE STAR CENTER.\nI JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT WE\nENGAGE ON THIS, TOO.\nIT'S A HUMAN SERVICES\nPROJECT, AND IT ALSO HAS A\nPUBLIC\nSAFETY PIECE AND IT'S BEEN LOW\nLO KATED\nBETWEEN D7 AND D1 ASH ACROSS THE\nPIT TO MY RIGHT\nAND THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING\nTHE STADIUM.\nA VERY IMPORTANT PROJECTION,\nAND TO MAKE\nIT WORK. I APPRECIATE THE\nEFFORTS THAT ARE EXHIBITED HERE\nIN\nTHIS BRIEFING TO MAKE SURE THAT\nTHEY HAPPEN SO THANK YOU.\nCOUNCILMEMBER KETTLE?\nANY RESPONSES? NOT NEEDED?\nTHE TAKEAWAY FROM TODAY, IF\nTHERE'S ONLY ONE THING THAT\nYOU HAVE LEARNED TODAY IS\nTHAT AMENDMENTS FOR BOTH BNO\nAND SUPPLEMENTAL ARE DUE ON JULY\n22nd BY NOON.\nWE ARE NOW WITH 12:45 WITH\n15 MINUTES RESERVED FOR THE\nFINAL\nTWO ITEMS, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, I\nSEE YOU HAVE A HAND, BUT WE\nCALL LAST CALL.\nIS IT OKAY TO CONTINUE MOVING\nFORWARD? HARD TO TELL WITH YOUR\nCAMERA\nON.\nTHAT'S FINE.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nWOULD THE CLERK READ ITEM NUMBER\n5 INTO THE TITLE -- ITEM\nNUMBER 4.\nCB 12 BETWEEN 32 AMENDING\nORDINANCE 127156 WHICH\nADOPTED THE 2025 BUDGET\nINCLUDING THE\n2025- 2030 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT\nPROGRAM, CHANGING\nAPPROPRIATIONS TO VARIOUS\nDEPARTMENTS\nAND BUDGET CONTROL LEVELSLEVELS\nFROM VARIOUS FUNDS IN THE\nBUDGET.\nWE ARE JOINED BY TRACE I: WE ARE JOINED BY TRACE I\nRATZLIFF AND WE WILL START WITH\nOLE, OLE, OLE, PLAYOFFS START\nTOMORROW.\nTAKE IT AWAY FOR THE PRESSEN\nTAGSZ. TAGZ -- PRESENTATIONS,\nYOU\nGET\nEIGHT MINUTES.\nI'M KYLIE ROLF FROM THE\nMAYOR'S OFFICE AND TRACI\nRATZLIFF COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF.\nSO --\nWE'LL BRING YOU SOME\nTECH SUPPORT RIGHT NOW, AND IF\nYOU WANT TO START TALKING\nAND WE WILL JUST KEEP CLICKING.\nYEP. THANK YOU,\nCOUNCILMEMBERS FOR\nTHE OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF YOU ON\nCOUNCIL BILL\n121032 TODAY.\nOOPS!\nSORRY. I WAS LAST YEAR BEFORE\nYOU\nALL WITH THE LOCAL\nORGANIZING COMMITTEE IN MARCH\nWHEN WE GAVE\nYOU AN UPDATE ON THE\nOVERALL PLANNING EFFORTS\nFOR THE WORLD\nCUP NEXT YEAR. YOU KNOW THE\nWORLD COUPLE BE\nTHE LARGEST EVER WITH MATCHES\nACROSS 16 CITY ACROSS THREE\nCOUNTRIES\nTAKING PLACE BETWEEN JUNE\n11th AND JULY 19th OVERALL.\nTHE SIX MATCHES -- HERE WE GO.\nTHE SIX MATCHES THAT SEATTLE IS\nHOSTING IS ABOUT A FOUR- WEEK\nPERIOD. THE TOP PRIORITIES AS A\nCITY\nIS CREATING A SAFE, ACCESSIBLE\nAND ENJOYABLE EXPERIENCE FOR\nBOTH VISITORS AND RESIDENTS,\nAND IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE\nACHIEVE\nTHOSE GOALS,\nSTRATEGIC INVESTMENTS IN RIGHT\nOF WAY\nINFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC\nSAFETY AS WELL AS STAFF PLANNING\nAND EXECUTION RESOURCES ARE\nNEEDED.\nSO THIS BRINGS US TO\nTHE PIECE OF LEGISLATION BEFORE\nYOU NOW.\nLAST YEAR, COUNCIL DEDICATED\n$12.2 MILLION FOR\nNEEDED WORLD CUP INVESTMENTS IN\nTHE 2025- 2026\nBUDGET INCLUDING 2 MILLION OF\nOPERATING FUNDS IN 2025 AND\n$4 MILLION OF OPERATING FUNDS IN\n2026 AND 6.2 MILLION IN CAPITAL\nFUNDS FOR THIS YEAR AND NEXT.\nTODAY IS REVENUE NEUTRAL\nACTION MOVES $6.2 MILLION OF\nTHOSE FUNDS TO OPERATING\nDEPARTMENTS.\nSPECIFICALLY, SEATTLE\nCENTER, SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF\nTRANSPORTATION, SEATTLE\nFIRE DEPARTMENT AND SEATTLE\nPARKS AND\nRECREATION WHO HAVE\nIDENTIFIED FEEDED CAPITAL AND\nEVENT ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC\nSAFETY- RELATED NEEDS AND\nTHIS INCLUDES INFRASTRUCTURE AND\nPARK FEATURES AS WELL AS\nEMERGENCY\nMANAGEMENT-RELATED EQUIPMENT\nAND COMMUNICATION IMPROVEMENTS\nAS WELL AS TEMPORARY\nSTAFFING RELATED TO THE FAN\nCELEBRATION.\nALL OF THE INVESTMENTS\nCONTAINED IN THIS LEGISLATION\nARE DIRECTLY\nGERMANE TO PUBLIC SAFETY\nRICK MITIGATION, RIGHT OF\nWAY ACCESSIBILITY AND MOBILITY\nIMPROVEMENTS AND\nNEEDED OPERATIONAL SUPPORT.\nIF PASSED, AND YOU WILL SEE\nIF PASSED AS PROPOSED, THE\nREMAINING RESOURCES TO BE\nALLOCATED ARE $200,000 IN 2025\nOPERATING RESERVES AND\n$4 MILLION IN 2026 OP RIGHTING\nRESERVES AND\n1.8 MILLION OF CAPITAL RESERVES.\nSO HERE, YOU THE SEE THE\nBREAKDOWN BY DEPARTMENT IN\nTERMS OF PUBLIC SAFETY RISK\nMITIGATION AND THEY'RE LARGELY\nFOR SCALING\nUP EQUIPMENT RELATED TO\nHAZARDOUS IDENTIFICATION AS\nWELL AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL\nSERVICE\nSUPPLIES. THE MAJORITY OF THIS\nEQUIPMENT\nIS ALREADY IN USE BY THE\nSEATTLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT\nGIVEN\nTHE SCOPE AND SCALE OF THE\nTOURNAMENT AND THE FAN\nCELEBRATION, THEY NEED\nTO PURCHASE MORE TO BE ABLE TO\nHANDLE THE INCREASED\nNEED AT BOTH VENUES AT THE SAME\nTIME.\nSEATTLE CENTER AND SEATTLE PARKS\nAND RECREATION EXPENDITURES ARE\nTO IMPLEMENT VEHICLE RAMMING\nRISK, MITIGATION MEASURES ON THE\nSEATTLE CENTER CAMPUS AS WELL\nAS WESTLAKE PARK.\nSDOT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS IS\nFOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS IN\nKEY AREAS SURROUNDING LUMENFIELD\nWHERE VEHICLE TRAFFIC ARE\nEXPECTED AND THEN FINALLY,\nTHE REMAINING SEATTLE\nCENTER EXPENDITURESES ARE\nRELATED\nTO FAN CELEBRATION SPECIFICALLY\nFOR THEM TO BRING ON\nFOUR TEMPORARY POSITIONS\nBEGINNING IN\nTHE END OF 026, AND WITH THAT I\nCAN\nTAKE QUESTIONS.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nIF YOU CAN TAKE IT BACK\nONE PREVIOUS SLIDE AND TRACI,\nANY COMMENT\nANALYSIS OR CONCERNS?\nI HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO THE: I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO THE\nPROPOSAL. THE EMO I SENT TELLS\nYOU WHERE\nWE ARE WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT\nWE WOULD EXPECT TO COME\nTO\nCOUNCIL HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE\nBUDGET THAT WILL GIVE US\nA BETTER SENSE FOR\nEXPECTATIONS AS IT RELATES TO\nOUR\nADDITIONAL COSTS THAT WE MIGHT\nINCUR AS\nIT RELATES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF\nTHE\nCOST AS IT RELATES TO THE\nWORLD\nCUP.\nTHANK YOU,\nTRACI, TO PUT A FINER POINT ON\nTHIS, ONE OF\nTHE REASONS WHY I WAS HAVING\nLESS COMFORTABLE OF TIME IN\nCOMMITTEE TODAY IS BECAUSE WE\nHAD PART\nOF THIS CONVERSATION DURING THE\nBUDGET THIS LAST FALL WHERE\nWE SET THIS MONEY ASIDE.\nTHIS IS APPROPRIATING SOME,\nNOT ALL, OF THE MONEY AND YOU'VE\nBEEN VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT\nWHAT YOU ARE FUNDING.\nSO WE, AGAIN, REVENUE\nNEUTRAL, BECAUSE WE SET THE\nMONEY\nASIDE AND WE ARE APPROPRIATING\nTODAY.\nCOUNCILMEMBER SOLOMON, I SEE\nYOUR HAND AND WE HAVE\nANOTHER MINUTE OR SO BEFORE WE\nNEED TO\nMOVE ON TO THE NEXT\nITEM.\nUNDERSTOOD: UNDERSTOOD.\nI'LL HAVE TO GET TO MY 1:00.\nCAN WE GO BACK TO THE\nPREVIOUS\nSLIDE? I JUST WANT TO SEE THE\nNUMBERS RELATED TO SPD.\nARE THERE NUMBERS RELATED\nSPECIFICALLY TO SPD?\nI WILL ADDRESS THAT AND: I WILL ADDRESS THAT AND\nI'LL PASS IT OVER TO YOU AND WE\nHAD\nADDITIONAL ITEMS IN THE\nAPPROACH WRAGZS AND THOSE ITEMS\nNEED TO GO THROUGH THE THE SRS\nPROCESS AND SO IT WOULD BE\nINAPPROPRIATE\nFOR US TO APPROPRIATE THE\nFUNDS AHEAD OF TIME AND THAT'S\nWHY\nTHE BILL HAS BEEN HELD UP\nOVERALL.\nOKAY.\nGOOD.\nTHANK YOU FOR THE\nEXPLANATION, WE APPRECIATE IT\nAND WHEN\nWE LOOK AT THE VEHICLE AND THE\nNEXT\nSLIDE. THE VEHICLE RAMMING\nMITIGATION\nMEASURES, RATHER, HAVE YOU\nDRILLED DOWN AS TO WHAT\nTHOSE EXACT MEASURES MIGHT BE?\nARE WE TALKING PLANTER BOXES?\nWHAT KIND OF STUFF?\nALL OF THE ABOVE, FOR\nSEATTLE CENTER CAMPUS, MY\nUNDERSTANDING IS IT LARGELY\nCONSISTS OF\nHARD SCAPE BALLARDS, AND I\nCAN CERTAINLY GET YOU MORE\nDETAILS ABOUT THAT AFTER THIS IF\nYAUD\nYAUD LIKE.\nI WOULD APPRECIATE THAT: I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.\nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH.\nIF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY YOU\nDON'T HAVE TO PAY A CONSULTANT\nFEE BECAUSE HE IS A\nCOUNCILMEMBER NOW.\nEXCELLENT: EXCELLENT.\nWITH THAT, ANY\nOTHER\nQUESTIONS?\nI'M AN INHOUSE RESOURCE.\nINHOUSE: INHOUSE\nRESOURCE.\nANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON\nFIFA WORLD CUP?\nDON'T MISS THE USL 2\nPLAYOFFS STARTING TOMORROW AND\nBALLARD\nFC ARE IN THE GAMES.\nTHANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH.\nWE WILL SEE YOU SOON.\nIF THE CLERK\nWANTS TO READ THE SHORT TITLE OF\nITEM NUMBER 5.\nCB 121033, AN ORDINANCE\nRELATEING TO THE\nFINANCING OF THE HUMAN CAPITAL\nMANAGEMENT\nSYSTEM PROJECT, AMENDING\nORDINANCE 127131 TO INCREASE\nTHE AMOUNT OF AN EXISTING\nINTERFUND LOAN, ALLOWING IT TO\nBE A\nBORROWING FUND FOR\nTHE LOAN.\nWE HAVE DIRECTOR: WE HAVE DIRECTOR\nCARNELL TODAY AND REMIND\nME, TOM SHOULD BE RETURNING TO\nTHE\nTABLE ANY MINUTE NOW AS THE\nPRESENTATION IS GETTING\nUPLOADED, I'LL\nKIND OF GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW.\nWE ARE CHANGING THE AMOUNT OF\nA REVOLVING LOAN THAT\nCAN RECEIVE. SO REVOLVING LOAN\nBEING ONE\nTHAT HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF\nMONEY\nTHAT CAN BE BORROWED\nAGAINST, BUT MUST BE PAID BACK\nBEFORE IT\nCAN BE BORROWED AGAINST AGAIN.\nWE ARE CHANGING THE\nCEILING OF THE REVOLVING LOAN\nAND THE\nLOAN HAS BEEN UTILIZED, SO ALL\nOF\nTHE MONEY HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT AND\nTHEN IT HAS ALL BEEN PAID\nBACK, SO WE ARE AT ZERO,\nBUT WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE\nCEILING\nOF THIS LOAN AND I'LL HAVE\nDIRECTOR CARNELL SHARE THIS\nPRESENTATION AS WELL AS I'VE\nASKED DIRECTOR\nCARNELL TO BRING ANOTHER\nSLIDE IN THE PRESENTATION THAT\nGOES INTO MORE DETAIL OF WHAT\nDO -- AND YOU'LL HAVE TO REMIND\nME\nTHE TITLE OF THESE\nINDIVIDUAL'S NAMES AND THE\nPEOPLE WO DO\nTHE WORK AND WHAT ARE THE TASKS\nTHAT THEY'RE DOING.\nWITH THAT, DIRECTOR CARNELL AND\nUNFORTUNATELY, WE ONLY HAVE\nFOUR MINUTES SO I'LL ASK\nCOLLEAGUES\nTO HOLD THEIR\nQUESTIONS.\nTHANK YOU, EVERYONE.\nI DON'T THINK YOUR MIKE IS\nON.\nIT'S GREEN BUTTON.\nGO.\nTHERE: THERE\nIT IS.\nTHAT TOOK UP ONE: THAT TOOK UP ONE\nMINUTE. SORRY.\n[ LAUGHTER ] GOOD AFTERNOON,\nEVERYONE, JAMIE\nCARNELL DIRECTOR OFFICE OF\nCITY FINANCE AND THIS IS RELATED\nTO\nCOUNCIL BILL 121033 WHICH IS THE\nINTERFUND\nLOAN. TO THE NEXT PAGE, SORRY.\nSO THIS COUNCIL BILL IS FOR\nTHE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY\nPROJECT\nALSO KNOWN AS WORK DAY.\nTHIS IS REPLACING THE CRITICAL\nREPLACEMENT OF THE\nTIMEKEEPING AND PAYROLL SYSTEM.\nIN NOVEMBER '24 AS\nCOUNCILCOUNCIL MEMBER POINTED\nOUT WE THE\nINTERFUND LOAN TO PAY FOR THE\nCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT\nCOSTS RELATED TO THE SYSTEM AND\nTHAT\nLOAN EXPIRES ON\nDECEMBER 21,\n2026. AS STATED, THAT HAS BEEN\nFULLY\nDRAWN DOWN AND REPAID\nAND IT AMENDS ORDINANCE 137131\nTO\nRECOGNIZE CHAMGES IN THE BUDGET\nAND THE INTERFUND LOAN LIMIT TO\nBRING THE PROJECT TO COMPLETION.\nSO THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION\nAMENDS THE ORDINANCE TO INCREASE\nTHE LOAN AUTHORIZATION\nCEILING FROM THE ADDITIONAL TO\n13. 2 TO\nCHANGE THE BORROWING\nFUND FROM THE 25 MULTIPURPOSE\nLTGO\nBOND FUND TO THE '26 FUND\nREJECTING\nTHE PAYMENT FOR THE\nINTERFUND LOAN AMOUNT WHICH WILL\nCOME\nFROM THE PROCEEDS OF THE BOND\nISSUANCE.\nTHIS INTERFUND LOAN\nREMAINS CURRENT WHICH EXPIRES\nIN DECEMBER 21 OF '26 AND\nIT INCLUDES THE\nBUDGET APPROPRIATION BY 13. 2\nMILLION.\nSO ONCE APPROVED, WE WILL\nCOMPLETE THE HCMS\nSYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION AND THE\nPROJECT COST BY DRAWING ON THE\nINTERFUND LOAN AND THEN WE WILL\nPAY THE\nINTERFUND LOAN WITH THE BOND\nISSUANCE.\nTHANK YOU, DIRECTOR CARNELL.\nTOM, CAN YOU SHARE YOUR ANALYSIS\nAND REVIEW OF THIS LEGISLATION\nAND ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO\nBE CONCERNED ABOUT OR ANYTHING\nTHAT\nYOU'RE AWARE\nOF.\nTHANK YOU, CHAIR\nSTRAUSS. NO, THEY DID NOT REVIEW\nFOR THE\nPROPOSAL AND I APOLOGIZE\nI WASN'T AT THE\nPRESENTATION AND THE ADVISORY\nCOMMITTEE FOR\nANY TECHNICAL ISSUES TO\nELEVATE. THAT PROCESS WAS CLEAN\nAND THE\nIMPACT COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW,\nNOT ENDORSED IT, BUT REVIEWED\nTHE PROPOSAL AND FOUND\nNO ISSUES WITH IT AND FORWARDED\nIT TO\nTHE COUNCIL FOR STAFF\nANALYSIS THAT'S SIMILAR IN THAT\nREGARD.\nTHANK YOU: THANK YOU.\nAND I WILL JUST\nNOTE FOR THE RECORD AND FOR\nCOLLEAGUES, DIRECTOR CARNELL HAS\nCOMMITTED\nTO PROVIDING A MORE DETAILED\nLIST OF WHAT THE TASKS AND\nACCOMPLISH ACCOMPLISHMENT, BUT\nANY FLAVOR\nTHAT YOU WANT TO GIVE US TODAY,\nDIRECTOR CARNELL OF WHAT\nTHESE\nFOLKS ARE DOING.\nTHIS IS PRIMARILY: THIS IS PRIMARILY\nUSED FOR THE SYSTEM\nIMPLEMENTERS, SO\nTHAT COULD BE DELIGHT, WHO IS\nOUR PRIMARY SYSTEM AND WE\nALSO MAINTAINED A NUMBER OF\nSMALLER CONSULTING FIRMS TO HELP\nWITH\nTHIS, AND THIS 13. 2 IS REALLY\nTO FINALIZE THE IMPLEMENTATION\nPROJECT, AND I WANT TO GET TO\nMY NOTES AND THAT INCLUDES\nENSURING THAT OUR BIWEEKLY\nPAYROLL\nIS STABLE ADMITTING THAT THE\nNUANCES ARE GOING FROM THE\n30+ SYSTEM INTO THE\nNEW STATE-OF-THE- ART SYSTEM\nTHAT WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR AND\nALL OF THE NUANCES THAT THE CITY\nOF SEATTLE HAS\nINCLUDING SCHEDULING AND THE\nTIMEKEEPING SYSTEMS\nTHAT THE DEPARTMENTS LIKE SDOT\nOR PUBLIC SAFETY TEAMS HAVE.\nSO IT'S REALLY ALSO SUPPORTING\nHR AND PAYROLL STAFF AS WE MOVE\nTHEM TOWARDS PROVIDING\nADDITIONAL SUPPORT, AND THIS\nIS TRULY AROUND UTILIZING\nTHE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTERS AND\nOUR CONSULTANTS TO FINALIZE\nTHE PROJECT.\nTHANK YOU, DIRECTOR\nCARNELL AND COLLEAGUE, JUST AS A\nBRIEF REMINDER HERE, WORK\nDAY IS THE FIRST WE UPDATED THE\nPAYROLL SYSTEM SINCE 1994,\nAND I BELIEVE THE YEAR THAT\n\"CLUELESS\" CAME\nOUT, IF ANYONE REMEMBERS MY\nTIME ON THE DEUS, 30+ YEARS AGO\n--\nSO THIS IS OLD TECHNOLOGY THAT\nWE\nHAVE NOW UPDATED.\nIT TALKS SYSTEM IMPLEMENTERS TO\nCUSTOMIZE THE WORK DAY\nPRODUCT FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE,\nSO WE HAVE 39 DEPARTMENTS.\nSDOT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE\nPARKS DEPARTMENT WHICH IS\nDIFFERENT THAN THE FIRE\nDEPARTMENT,\nTHIS WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE\nPOLICE DEPARTMENT AND DIFFERENT\nTHAN THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND\nALL OF THESE ASPECTS NEED TO\nBE CUSTOMIZED AND IT'S\nMY UNDERSTANDING AND THAT'S\nMY UNDERSTANDING AND\nTHAT'S WHAT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTERS\nDO.\nWITH THAT -- AND SO THAT'S\nWHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.\nSO THIS BILL WOULD,\nAGAIN, INCREASE THE CEILING BY\n$2.2 MILLION AND THEN\nAPPROPRIATE THESE FUNDS FOR THIS\nWORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED.\nIS THAT CORRECT?\n13.2, AND CHANGE THE CAPITAL\nAPPROPRIATION TO 13.2.\nYEAH.\nGREAT. COLLEAGUE, COUNCIL\nPRESIDENT, I SEE YOU DO HAVE\nYOUR HAND --\nYES.\nIF I -- THANK YOU.\nIT'S DISAPPOINTING TO ME TO\nKNOW THAT WE ARE PAYING\nOUR IMPLEMENTERS MORE MONEY\nTHAT A WHOLE BUNCH OF PROBLEMS\nENSUED FROM THE WORK\nDAY IMPLEMENTED AND I DON'T KNOW\nTHE\nSTATUS OF THE RESOLUTION OF\nTHOSE PROBLEMS\nAND BECAUSE HR REPORTS TO\nTHE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE AND I\nWOULD\nLIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE\nSTATUS OF THOSE RESOLUTIONS\nAND MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE\nINFORMATION ABOUT WHY WE ARE --\nWHY THE BILL HAS GONE UP, SO TO\nSPEAK.\nTHANK.\nTHANKS.\nSOUNDS GOOD: SOUNDS GOOD.\nSO NOTED: SO NOTED.\nWE WILL WE WILL FOLLOW UP.\nGREAT: GREAT.\nANY OTHER QUESTIONS,\nCOUNCIL PRESIDENT?\nNO.\nWITH THAT, WE HAVE\nREACHED THE COP COLLUSION OF THE\nAGENDA\nAND WE WILL HAVE A MORE\nROBUST MEETING.\nTHE JULY 16th AND THESETHESE\nWORDS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT.\nTODAY WE HAVE TAKEN A LONG\nTIME TO WALK THROUGH ALL OF\nTHESE PRESENTATIONS AND ALLOW\nFOR AS MANY QUESTIONS AS\nPOSSIBLE WHICH HAS RESULTED IN A\nTHREE AND A\nHALF-PLUS HOUR COMMITTEE.\nAT THE NEXT\nCOMMITTEE, WE WILL TAKE UP ALL\nOF THESE SAME ITEMS\nAGAIN AND WE WILL\nHAVE TO BE MUCH MORE JUDICIOUS\nWITH OUR\nTIME. TODAY WAS THE BREATHING\nROOM\nTO TAKE THE QUESTIONS AND THE\nNEXT WILL BE THE WORKING MEETING\nWHERE WE'LL HAVE TO STAY\nFOCUSED AND I MIGHT ASK\nCOLLEAGUES\nTO REIN IN THEIR COMMENTS\nIN DURATION AND NOT IN CONTENT.\nWITH THAT, AS YOU CAN SEE,\nAGAIN, PLEASE HAVE\nYOUR AMENDMENTS IN BY JULY 22nd\nAND OUR NEXT SELECT BUDGET\nCOMMITTEE IS JULY 30th.\nTHANK YOU FOR ATTENDING.\nWE ARE ADJOURNED AT 1:03 P.M." }, "summary": null, "hindsight": null, "urls": { "meeting": "/seattle/meeting/x177972", "raw": "/seattle/api/meeting/x177972/raw.json", "sourceMeeting": "/seattle/api/source/meeting/x177972.json" } }