>>> THIS IS THE MEETING OF THE
CID CITY COUNCIL SELECT BUDGET
COMMITTEE.
WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE
ROAD?
>> COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER DAN STRAUSS?
>> PRESENT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER DEBORA
JUAREZ?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER ANDREW J.
LEWIS?
>> SEVEN.
>> COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J.
MORALES ?
>> HERE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER ALEX PEDERSEN?
>> [ SILENCE ]
>> TERESA MOSQUEDA?
>> EIGHT PEOPLE ARE PRESENT.
>> THERE ARE TWO SESSIONS.
THIS IS THE FIRST.
THE SECOND SESSION WILL START
AT 2:00 P.M.
SESSION ONE IS DEVOTED TO THE
CONVERSATION OF PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE.
SESSION 2 IS DEVOTED TO THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S
INQUEST AND THE MAYOR'S BUDGET.
TODAY'S CONVERSATION IN THE
MORNING BUILDS ON THE
CONVERSATION WE BEGAN MONTHS
AGO ABOUT PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
AND OUR ENGAGEMENT AS A CITY TO
MAKE SURE WE ARE RESPONDING TO
COVID-19, CREATING RELIEF AND
SUPPORT AND BUILDING THE
ECONOMY WE WANT TO SEE THAT
WILL BE EQUITABLE AND STABLE.
FROM MANY ACROSS THIS CITY AND
STATE, THERE IS A CALL TO
ACTION.
WE HAVE HEARD FOR YEARS THAT WE
MUST DO DO SOMETHING TO FIX THE
TAX SYSTEM IN THE CITY WE LIVE
AND STATE WE LIVE.
LOW INCOME FAMILIES ARE PAYING
SIX TIMES MORE THAN THEIR SHARE
OF INCOMES.
THE WEALTHIEST HOUSEHOLDS ARE
PAYING THE LEAST PERCENTAGEWISE.
THIS PREVENTS US FROM INVESTING
IN THINGS WE CARE ABOUT, THINGS
WE NEED NOW: SUPPORT FOR
HOUSING, FOOD IS DISTANCE,
CHILDCARE, EDUCATION,
INVESTMENTS IN HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES THAT HAVE
BEEN DECLARED A CRISIS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PUSH AT
THE STATE LEVEL FOR PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE.
AS WE WORK ON THAT, WE MUST NOT
LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE
CAN ACT IN OUR CITY.
WE DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE
IMPOSSIBLE DECISIONS WITH AN
AUSTERITY BUZZ IT ONLY APPROACH
TO CHOOSE BETWEEN WHETHER OR
NOT FAMILIES HAVE ACCESS TO
CHILDCARE OUR KIDS HAVE A ROOF
OVER THEIR HEAD OR FAMILIES
HAVE FOOD ON THEIR TABLE OR
WHETHER WE ARE INVEST AN
OPPORTUNITY ON THE HORIZON.
WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
INVEST IN MAKING SURE THAT OUR
FAMILIES HAVE WHAT THEY NEED
AND NOT JUST AN AUSTERITY
BUDGET THAT PRESENTS THE SELF
WHEN WE BUILD REVENUE.
THE INEQUITIES WE HAVE SEEN
THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND COUNTRY
HAVE ONLY BEEN EXACERBATED BY
COVID-19.
MAKE NO MISTAKE.
THEY HAVE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES.
WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS
INVEST IN THE CRISIS THAT COVID-
19 IS PRESENTING AND INVEST IN
THE PRICES THAT HAS BEEN
EXPOSED BY COVID-19 THROUGHOUT
THE YEARS.
WE CAN LEAD THE NATION IN
RESPONDING TO THE CRISIS THAT
IS HOMELESSNESS, HOUSING, THE
COVID-19 CRISIS. WE CAN LEAD
THE NATION WILL WE HAVE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE TO ALLOW
PEOPLE TO KEEP ROOMS OVER THEIR
HEAD AND FOOD ON THE TABLE.
FOOD INSECURITY WAS HERE BEFORE
COVID-19.
DISPLACEMENT AND GENTRIFICATION
WERE HERE PRIOR TO COVID-19.
WE KNOW WE HAD THE THIRD
HIGHEST RATE OF HOMELESSNESS IN
THIS CITY PRIOR TO COVID-19.
NOW WE CAN ACTUALLY
SEE THE CRISIS THAT WAS
PRESENTING ITSELF BY THE YEARS
OF DISINVESTMENT IN PUBLIC
HEALTH.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AND WE
HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO STEP UP
AND CREATE THE BUDGET THAT
REFLECTS THE VILE IS THAT OUR
CITY NEEDS AND THE REVENUE TO
HELP PLUG BUDGET HOLES,
REINVEST, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE
ARE INVESTING IN AN EQUITABLE
COMMUNITY ON THE HORIZON.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE
CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING
TODAY.
IT IS NOT JUST THIS MORNING AND
AFTERNOON BUT OVER THE NEXT FEW
WEEKS AS WE TALK ABOUT HOW WE
CAN BUILD INTO OUR CITY
COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO THE
PROPOSED BUDGET.
THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO
SEE IN RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS.
WE WANT TO INVEST IN
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE AND
HOUSING, INVESTMENTS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES, CHILDCARE, AND
MAKING SURE OUR SMALLER
BUSINESSES, AND MOST VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES HAVE THE SUPPORT
THEY NEED.
TODAY'S BUDGET AGENDA REFLECTS
THAT COMPREHENSIVE
CONVERSATION.
PART ONE FOCUS ON AGGRESSIVE
REVENUE.
PART TWO WILL FOCUS ON THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET AND THE
SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S
BUDGET AND AN INQUEST INTO THE
BUDGET THEY HAVE.
WITH THAT, THAT IS AN OVERVIEW
OF TODAY'S PERP POSED AGENDA.
I WILL MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE
YOU AN HOUR RAKE BETWEEN THE
MEETINGS.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE PLENTY OF
TIME FOR ROBUST CONVERSATION.
THAT IS AN OVERVIEW OF TODAY'S
AGENDA.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
AGENDA WILL BE ADOPTED.
I AM HEARING OBJECTIONS.
THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED.
WE ARE GOING TO OPENED THE
REMOTE PUBLIC PERIOD.
I ASK EVERYONE TO BE PATIENT AS
WE OPERATE THE SYSTEM IN REAL-
TIME AND NAVIGATE THROUGH THE
PROCESS THAT IS PARTICIPATING
REMOTELY SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS
A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
IT REMAINS THE INTEREST TO HAVE
PUBLIC COMMENT REGULARLY.
WE WILL RESOLVE ISSUES AS THEY
COME UP. WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE HAVE A ROBUST
DISCUSSION SO WE ARE LIMITING
FOLKS TO ONE MINUTES.
WE WILL HAVE THE CHANCE TO
PEOPLE SPEAK AT 2:00 P.M.
IF YOU DID NOT SPEAK THIS
MORNING.
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS
GOING TO BE FOR 30 MINUTES.
EACH PERSON WILL BE GIVEN ONE
MINUTE.
I WILL CALL ON THE SPEAKERS ONE
AT A TIME IN THE ORDER IN WHICH
THEY REGISTERED ON THE WEBSITE.
THERE WILL BE AN EMPHASIS ON
TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE HEAR
FROM AS MANY PEOPLE AS
POSSIBLE.
IF YOU HAVE NOT REGISTERED TO
SPEAK AND WOULD LIKE TO, YOU
CAN'T FIND OUT BEFORE THE END
OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OR
GO TO THE WEBSITE.
THE LINK IS ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
ONCE I CALL THE SPEAKER'S NAME,
THE STAFF WILL UNMUTE THE
MICROPHONE AND PROMPT YOU SO
THAT YOU KNOW YOU ARE ON
YOUTUBE.
BEGINS BEAKING BY INTRODUCING
YOUR NAME AND TALKING ABOUT THE
ITEM YOU ARE HERE TO ADDRESS.
PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO
THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
WE ARE INTERESTED IN HEARING
FROM SEATTLE RESIDENTS ARE WE
OPENING UP THE DISCUSSION.
YOU WILL HEAR A 10 SECOND TIMER.
YOUR ALLOTTED TIME IS GOING TO
BE CUT OFF.
WE WANT YOU TO CONCLUDE YOUR
COMMENTS YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR
MICROPHONE AND IT.
YOU WILL HAVE 10 SECONDS TO
WRAP UP YOUR THOUGHTS.
ONCE YOU COMPLETE YOUR
COMMENTS, DISCONNECT FROM THE
LINE.
IF YOU PLAN TO CONTINUE
FOLLOWING THE MEETING, DO SO
VIA THE SEATTLE CHANNEL OR THE
OTHER LISTENING OPTIONS ON THE
AGENDA.
THE COMMENT PERIOD IS NOW OPEN.
WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST
SPEAKER.
LET ME MAKE SURE I DO A QUICK
AUDIO CHECK.
I NO LONGER HEAR AN ECHO.
THE FIRST THREE SPEAKERS ARE
HERE.
ALEX, WELCOME.
>> HELLO COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING
ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS ALEX.
I AM A RESIDENT IN THE THIRD
DISTRICT AND I WORK IN THE
SECOND DISTRICT.
I AM SPEAKING IN REGARDS TO THE
QUOTE UNQUOTE AMAZON PROPOSAL.
I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I AM VERY
MUCH FOR A PROGRESSIVE TAXING
SYSTEM TO APPROPRIATELY FUND
OUR CITY.
THAT BEING SAID, I DO NOT
BELIEVE THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS
THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT IS A PROPAGANDA
SWAY, MAKING IT SEEM THAT THIS
IS EXPLICITLY AGAINST AMAZON
WHO SHOULD PAY AND INVEST MORE
INTO THE CITY AS A PARTNER.
THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES SO MANY
OTHER BUSINESSES, SPECIFICALLY
HOSPITALS THAT ARE HAVING AN
INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TIME RIGHT
NOW.
IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE CITY
HAS SPOKEN THAT THERE ARE OTHER
CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
BUDGET, SPECIFICALLY POLICE
FUNDING.
I ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO LOOK
AT THIS FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE OF
--
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
KELLY LARSON.
WELCOME.
>> I WORK FOR PLYMOUTH HOUSING.
I AM SPEAKING ON THE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE ITEM.
PLYMOUTH SERVES 1100 PEOPLE IN
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING EVERY YEAR.
THE AVERAGE INCOME IS 11% OF
MEDIAN INCOME.
MOST RESIDENTS LIVE ON
GOVERNMNT-SUBSIDIZED
DISABILITY INCOME OR ARE
WORKING TOWARD IT.
THEY REQUIRE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
WE SERVE THE MOST LOW INCOME
RESIDENTS.
WE SERVE PEOPLE LIVING WITH
DISABILITIES.
THE MAJORITY OF OUR RESIDENTS
ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR.
WE NEED 6500 APARTMENTS LIKE
PLYMOUTH PROVIDES TO MEET THE
NEED.
PLYMOUTH HAS PROJECTS BREAKING
GROUND THAT HAVE NO SOURCE FOR
FUNDING.
THIS IS THE REVENUE WE NEED TO
CONTINUE GROWING AND PROVIDING
NEW HOMES.
WE SUPPORT THE JUMPSTART
SPENDING PLAN.
IT IS FOR THOSE WHO ARE MOST IN
NEED.
WE SUPPORT THE INVESTMENT IN
EDI AND SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO ENGAGING IN
THIS WORK AS IT PROGRESSES.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SHOW SHAUNA WEINBERG.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I AM TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF
YOUTH CARE.
WE ARE THE LARGEST AGENCY
SERVING YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
WE ARE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
COUNCILMEMBER'S JUMPSTART
PROPOSAL.
WE SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE IT IS
ROOTED IN EQUITY.
IT SEEKS TO DISRUPT A RACIST
AND UNTENABLE STATUS QUO
THROUGH A MODEST REALLOCATION A
WALL AND A CRITICAL INVESTMENT
IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THOSE
WHO HAVE THE LOWEST INCOMES AND
ARE BLACK AND BROWN.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS IMPORTANT
FOR THE YOUTH THAT YOUTH CARE
SERVES.
TWO THIRDS OF THESE ARE YOUTH
OF COLOR.
THEY EXPERIENCE ADDITIONAL
HOUSING BARRIERS DUE TO THEIR
AGE, LACK OF EMPLOYMENT,
CREDIT, AND RENTAL HISTORIES.
ADVOCATES HAVE ARGUED THAT
HOMELESSNESS REPRESENTS A
HOUSING CRISIS, A SOCIAL
JUSTICE CRISIS, AND A HEALTH
CRISIS.
WE NEED A MORAL RESPONSE AND
THIS IS A CRITICAL STEP
FORWARD.
WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT, THANK
YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT THREE ARE HERE.
WELCOME KATIE.
>> MY NAME IS KATE SIMPSON.
I AM A RESIDENT OF CAPITOL
HILL.
I URGED THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT
THE AMAZON TAX LEGISLATION OVER
WATERED-DOWN ALTERNATIVES.
TAX AMAZON WOULD RAISE MORE
THAN TWICE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY
AND THE DEMOCRATS AMAZON TAX
WITH NO SUNSET CLAUSE.
WE NEED THAT 500 MILLION A YEAR
TO FUND COVID-19 RELIEF, SOCIAL
HOUSING, AND THE GREENVILLE
DEAL.
I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY
SUPPORT FOR DEFUNDING THE SPD
BY AT LEAST 50% AND INVESTING
IN COMMUNITY AND RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD MY TIME.
>> JEAN LESTER, WELCOME.
>> HELLO.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> I AM CALLING AS A RESIDENT
OF DISTRICT 7 IN SUPPORT OF THE
TAX AMAZON LEGISLATION.
AS SAID AT THE BEGINNING,
PROGRESSIVE TAX STRUCTURE IS
SUPER NECESSARY FOR FUNDING
MANY MANY IMPORTANT
ORGANIZATIONS AND FOR GIVING
PEOPLE THE RELIEF THAT THEY NEED
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THE CARES
ACT WILL BE ENDING VERY SOON,
LEAVING A LOT OF PEOPLE IN DIRE
NEED.
I DO NOT FEEL THAT $170 MILLION
IS ENOUGH. THIS SCALE OF THE
PROBLEM IS LARGE.
IT IS NOT TIME FOR MODEST TAX
RESTRUCTURING.
PLEASE SUPPORT THIS WITHOUT THE
WATERED-DOWN ASPECT OF THE OTHER
TAX AMENDMENT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT
DEFUNDING THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT BY 50%.
I DO NOT HAVE FAITH IN THIS
COUNCIL THAT THEY WILL DO THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
MOVING ON, WE ARE GOING IN THE
ORDER IN WHICH THE COUNCIL'S
WEBSITE WAS USED TO SIGN UP
WITH PRIORITY FOR SEATTLE
RESIDENCE.
I APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN.
DANIEL SWANSON, STEPHEN RAMOS
AND JESSICA OUR NEXT.
DANIEL, WELCOME.
>> HELLO, I AM A RENTER IN
DISTRICT FOR.
I SUPPORT THE AMAZON TAX.
AS A VOLUNTEER WITH THE TAX
AMAZON CAMPAIGN I THINK THERE
IS OVERWHELMING SUPPORT IN OUR
COMMUNITY OVER THE TAXATION.
THERE IS A NECESSITY OF
CREATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPTIONS FOR BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE BEEN
FORCED OUT THE RACES
GENTRIFICATION.
COMMUNITY MEMBERS DO NOT RAISE
THE NEED FOR A SUNSET CLAUSE.
AS THESE CONVERSATIONS HAPPEN,
OBVIOUSLY THE TAX AMAZON WAS
MEANT TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE
COUNCIL REGARDING TAXATION
REVENUE.
THE COMMUNITIES THAT WOULD
BENEFIT ARE CLEARLY DEMANDING
MORE.
WE NEED SOLIDARITY OVER THE
STRONGEST PROPOSAL AND THAT IS
THE MORALE IS LEGISLATION.
I SUPPORT DEFUNDING THE POLICE
BY 50%.
I THINK COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA ROLLING HER EYES AT
THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS AN ISSUE.
>> THANK YOU.
STEPHEN RAMOS.
>> HELLO, THANK YOU.
I SUPPORT THE AMAZON TAX
LEGISLATION. I WOULD LIKE TO
NOTE THAT I AM A WHITE
TRANSGENDER ESSENTIAL WORKER.
WE HAVE A MASSIVE PROBLEM WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
JEFF POSES AND OTHER BUSINESS
OWNERS HAVE EXPLOITED BUSINESS
PRACTICES.
THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE BEING
SUBJECTED TO MISTREATMENT AND
ABUSE.
THEY ARE UP KEEPING COMMERCIAL
DEMAND AND ADDICTION.
THEY HAVE EXPLOITED AND
MANIPULATED THE PEOPLE AFFECTED
BY THIS PANDEMIC.
WE ARE GOING TO TACKLE RACISM
IN OUR COMMUNITY AND WE NEED TO
DISASSEMBLE THESE PRACTICES.
THEY DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECT
BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE.
WE NEED TO TAX AMAZON AND THEIR
PEERS FOR THE MONEY THAT OUR
PEOPLE ARE DUE AND DEFUND THE
POLICE. WE NEED TO REPAY THE
PEOPLE OF SEATTLE FOR THE ABUSE
THEY HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
AND THEN WE HAVE JESSICA.
>> HELLO.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK.
MY NAME IS JESSICA.
I HAPPILY LIVE IN DISTRICT 3. I
AM CALLING TO ENCOURAGE THE
COUNCIL TO PASS THE ORIGINAL
AMAZON TAX LEGISLATION WRITTEN
BY COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA, WITHOUT WATERING IT
DOWN BECAUSE IT MEETS THE DEPTH
AND BREATH OF THE CITY'S NEEDS.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT ANOTHER
BUSINESS TAX.
THAT SHOWS THE POWER OF THE
MOVEMENT FOR BIG BUSINESS TAXES
IN SEATTLE.
WE NEED THE ORIGINAL TAX
BECAUSE IT HAS GREEN NEW DEAL
PROVISIONS TO ALSO ADDRESS THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS.
I DO NOT WANT A SUNSET CLAUSE
BECAUSE HOMELESSNESS IS NOT A
FLUKE OF THE MOMENT. IT IS THE
RESULT OF A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS
A FEW TO AMASS A PROFIT AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE MANY.
WE WILL NOT SOLVE THIS PROBLEM
WITHOUT DEEP SYSTEMIC CHANGE.
I HAVE BEEN GATHERING
SIGNATURES, I KNOW PEOPLE ARE
EXCITED ABOUT THIS.
I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THEM.
LET'S DO IT.
ALSO, LET'S DEFUND AS PD AND
GIVE THE FUNDS TO BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITY RESTORATIVE
JUSTICE PROGRAMS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
KATIE JONES WILL BE FOLLOWED BY
REBECCA FINKS AND DAVID VAN
WINKLE.
WELCOME.
>> KATIE, CAN YOU HEAR US?
>> I AM SORRY.
GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS KATIE.
I MAY 20 YOUR SEATTLE RESIDENT
AND BUSINESS OWNER.
I SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL.
THE MAYOR IS CLEARLY NOT
LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE OF
SEATTLE.
SHE HAS DRAGGED HER FEET ON
GETTING THE BUDGET TO YOU AND
PROPOSED CUTS TO AS PD WHICH IS
INSULTING TO OUR INTELLIGENCE.
WHY ARE YOU ALLOWING HER TO
TARNISH THE REPUTATION OF THE
CITY?
WE DO NOT NEED TO REINVENT THE
WHEEL.
THERE ARE ORGANIZATIONS THAT
KNOW HOW TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
REDUCING TIME AND PROVIDING
CRISIS ASSISTANCE.
VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS ASK THE
PEOPLE FOR THE SOLUTION.
I HAVE OWNED A BUSINESS IN
SEATTLE FOR 12 YEARS.
I AM A MEMBER OF THE METRO
CHAMBER.
I HAVE SPOKEN WITH HER POLICY
TEAM AS WELL.
I HAVE A LOCATION AND I HAVE
ALWAYS SUPPORTED THE
PROTESTERS.
THIS TEMPORARY DISCOMFORT IS
LEAVING OUR CITY TO MEANINGFUL
CHANGE IF YOU DO NOT LET IT
SLIP AWAY.
TAX BIG BUSINESSES LIKE AMAZON
THAT KEEP GETTING RICHER WHILE
THE POOR KEEP GETTING POORER.
GET THE MAYOR OUT OF THE WAY AND
CUT AS PD BY 50%.
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO KEEP
WAITING.
DO THE RIGHT THING AND HOLD
PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
REBECCA, WELCOME.
>> HELLO.
I WORK FOR A HEALTH PROGRAM.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING FORTH
PROGRESSIVE TAX PROPOSALS.
WE SUPPORT THESE PROPOSALS FOR
MUCH-NEEDED REVENUES TO EXPAND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS SERVICES.
ALLOCATE FUNDING FROM
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE, COVID-19
RELIEF TOWARD TINY HOUSE
VILLAGES.
WE HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR THE
EXPANSION OF VILLAGES AT MANY
POTENTIAL SITES.
WE ARE INTERESTED IN IMPROVING
SERVICES OFFERED AT EXISTING
VILLAGES.
WE NEED ADDITIONAL 156,000 TO
PROVIDE DAILY MEALS AT EACH
VILLAGE.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT
FOR VILLAGES LOCATED IN FEUD
INSECURE AREAS LIKE GEORGETOWN
VILLAGE AND A CAMP.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP
AND TIME.
I'M EXCITED TO WORK TOGETHER AS
WE CONTINUE TO LEAD THE
NATIONAL RESPONSE TO
HOMELESSNESS THROUGH TINY HOUSE
VILLAGES.
>> THANK YOU DAVID, WELCOME.
>> HELLO.
GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS DAVID. I'M THE
PROJECT MANAGER OF THE Y LETTER
AND BUILDING.
I SUPPORT THE JUMPSTART SEATTLE
INITIATIVE BECAUSE IT
RECOGNIZES THE REALITY THAT WE
HAVE BEEN FACING WHILE SERVING
HOMELESS ADULTS IN SEATTLE.
SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE
COVID-19 PANDEMIC WE HAVE SEEN
INCREASES IN OUR COSTS RELATED
TO PURCHASING PP AND CLEANING
SUPPLIES.
WE ARE STAFFING WORKPLACES TO
ACCOMMODATE SOCIAL DISTANCING
AND PROVIDING HAZARD PAY.
WE NO LONGER CAN AFFORD IT.
WE WANT TO BRING FOOD TO OUR
CLIENTS TO HELP THEM SHELTER IN
PLACE.
THIS PLAN ADDRESSES OUR
COMMUNITIES AN IMMEDIATE NEED.
WE HAVE ONGOING NEEDS BY
FUNDING PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING WHICH IS THE ONLY
SOLUTION TO END HOMELESSNESS.
THIS DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS
PEOPLE OF COLOR AND THE LGBTQ
COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER FOR
RECOGNIZING THIS AND CREATING
THIS PROPOSAL.
THANK YOU TO ALL THE COUNCIL
MEMBERS WHO HAVE COSPONSORED
IT.
WE APPRECIATE YOU AND YOUR
EFFORTS IN HELPING US TO END
HOMELESSNESS.
>> THANK YOU DAVID.
THE NEXT THREE ARE DAVID, LEE,
AND SAMANTHA.
DAVID, ARE YOU WITH US?
>> YES, I AM HERE.
>> THANK YOU, GO AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS DAVID. I
LIVE IN DISTRICT TWO.
I SPEAK STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF
THE JUMPSTART SEATTLE.
I AM A SOCIAL WORKER AND
EDUCATOR ON HOMELESSNESS AND
HOUSING FIRST.
I AM CURRENTLY WORKING AS A
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COUNSELOR IN
THE COVID-19 ISOLATION AND
QUARANTINE SITES THAT HAS BEEN
SET UP.
EVERY DAY AT THESE SITES WE ARE
DISCHARGING CHRONICALLY
HOMELESS PEOPLE BACK TO THE
STREETS BECAUSE OF THE SCARCITY
OF PERMANENT HOUSING IN OUR
REGION.
PEOPLE COME IN, GET A WEEK IN A
HOTEL TO REST, AND THEY HAVE
BATHROOMS.
MANY REPORT FEELING BETTER AND
HEALTHIER.
AFTER THAT WEEK, THEY FEEL
BETTER THAN THEY HAVE IN YEARS
ON THE STREETS AND IN SHELTERS.
AND WE KICK THEM ON THE STREET.
MOST OF THESE PEOPLE ARE BLACK,
INDIGENOUS, AND PEOPLE OF
COLOR.
THE ONLY EXCUSE FOR THIS IN
SUCH A WEALTHY REGION IS OUR
WHITE SUPREMACIST COMPLACENCY.
WE KNOW THAT WE NEED 6500 NEW
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
ENOUGH WITH THE FALSE STARTS.
>> THANK YOU.
LEE?
WELCOME.
>> GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
>> OKAY.
>> HELLO, I LIVE IN DISTRICT 3.
I AM CALLING IN FAVOR OF
JUMPSTART SEATTLE.
I AM AN ANALYST AT THE LOW
INCOME HOUSING ALLIANCE. I
AM AN EMERGENCY RESEARCHER.
MANY OF THE PATIENTS WHO ARE
HAVING ISSUES HAVE HOUSING
INSTABILITY.
A YEAR OF HOUSING COST THE SAME
AS PROVIDING THREE DAYS OF
TREATMENT.
HOUSING IS HEALTH CARE.
THIS IS WHY I URGE THE COUNCIL
TO APPROVE JUMPSTART SEATTLE
WHICH HELPS THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
IMPACTED BY THE ECONOMIC
EFFECTIVE COVID-19.
WITH THE BULK OF FUNDING GOING
TOWARD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
FOR ASSISTANCE TO IMMIGRANTS AND
REFUGEES, THIS IS IMPORTANT.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SAMANTHA
THOMPSON.
WELCOME.
>> GREAT.
MY NAME IS SAMANTHA THOMPSON.
I AM A RESIDENT IN DISTRICT 6.
I WORK AT THE WEST SEATTLE FOOD
BANK ON PREVENTION.
RENTS WERE ALREADY RISING
THROUGHOUT SEATTLE FOR THE LAST
10 OR 15 YEARS.
WHAT WE SAW AFTER DISASTERS LIKE
KATRINA IS THAT RENTS INCREASED
AND THEN THERE IS FURTHER
DISPLACEMENT.
THIS MEANS WE WILL LOSE
COMMUNITIES HERE IF WE DO NOT
ACT SWIFTLY.
WHILE I SUPPORT THE JUMPSTART
PROGRAM, I AM CONCERNED IT DOES
NOT ADDRESS THE IMMEDIACY AND
THE URGENCY OF THE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT PEOPLE DO NOT LOSE
THEIR HOMES.
WE KNOW THAT EVICTION IS THE
LEADING CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS.
IN ORDER TO FULLY ADDRESS AND
MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE CAN
STATE SAFELY HOUSED AT A TIME
WHEN IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO
STAY HOME AND STAY SAFE, WE
SUPPORT THE TAX ON THE SUN.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
THE NEXT THREE PEOPLE ARE GABE,
HANNAH, AND EVA.
GABE, WELCOME.
>> MY NAME IS . I'M A RESIDENT
OF DISTRICT 4. I WANT TO SPEAK
TO THE HOMELESSNESS AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS WHICH
WAS DECLARED A STATE OF
EMERGENCY IN 2015.
THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN OVER FIVE
YEARS TO ACT.
WE HAVE TO CONTEND WITH THE
PANDEMIC AND RECESSION.
THE CITY COUNCIL MUST GO BEYOND
WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO BIG
BUSINESS AND THE CAPITALIST
CLASS.
BY ACKNOWLEDGING THE FOR-PROFIT
HOUSING MARKET HAS BEEN ONE OF
THE MOST VIOLENT, DESTRUCTIVE
FORCES DIRECTEDAT WORKING-
CLASS AND POOR PEOPLE.
OF FICTION, GENTRIFICATION AND
SWEEPS HAPPEN.
WE CANNOT NICKEL AND DIME OUR
WAY OUT OF THIS.
THE DEMOCRATS AMAZON TAX
PROPOSAL WOULD RAISE ONLY 174
MILLION PER YEAR, LESS THAN
HALF OF OUR 500 MILLION AMAZON
TAX AND BE DELAYED UNTIL 2022.
SECONDLY, IT WOULD BUILD FAR
FEWER HOMES, ONLY 2300,
COMPARED TO THE 10,600 HOMES.
I'M BAFFLED WHY THE
HOMELESSNESS SERVICE PROVIDERS
ARE ARGUING FOR THIS IN THE
PROPOSAL.
THE SUNSET CLAUSE MUST GO.
>> THANK YOU.
HANNAH, WELCOME.
>> HELLO.
I AM CALLING IN TODAY TO SAY
THAT THIS NEW AMAZON TAX
PROPOSAL BEING FOOT FORWARD IS
WHOLLY INADEQUATE.
THE FACT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
IS MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER ON
AN AMAZON TAX IS ENTIRELY DUE
TO THE THOUSANDS WHO HAVE BEEN
FIGHTING FOR THE TAX AMAZON
MOVEMENT.
OUR MOVEMENT COLLECTED 20,000
SIGNATURES FOR A BALLOT
INITIATIVE IN 20 DAYS.
IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS PRESSURE
THAT WE ARE BEING PREVENTED
WITH A WATERED-DOWN BIG
BUSINESS CONCESSION.
IT RAISES LESS THAN HALF OF THE
FUNDING THAT THE MOVEMENT IS
DEMANDING AND IT INCLUDES
CORPORATE LOOPHOLES LIKE A
SUNSET CLAUSE.
IT ONLY PROPOSES TO RAISE
HUNTING FOR 3200 HOMES RATHER
THAN THE 10,600 THAT THE
MOVEMENT IS DEMANDING.
THIS TOTALLY FALLS SHORT OF
WHAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS.
THERE IS AN AMAZON TAX MOVEMENT
FIGHTING FOR THE POLICY TO
RAISE 500 MILLION PER YEAR TO
FUND COVID-19 HOUSING AND THE
GREEN NEW DEAL.
OUR MOVEMENT IS MADE UP OF
PEOPLE OF COLOR, SOCIALISTS,
AND COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS.
>> THANK YOU.
EVA, WELCOME BACK.
GOOD MORNING.
>> HELLO MY NAME IS EVA.
I'M A RESIDENT IN DISTRICT TWO.
I WANTED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
THE AMAZON TAX.
I THINK YES, ALL OF THESE
POLITICIANS ARE COMING FORWARD
AND SAYING THAT THIS IS STUFF
WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE
REGRESSIVE TAX STRUCTURE, TO
ADDRESS HOUSING, WHY ARE THEY
PUTTING FORWARD A PROPOSAL THAT
ONLY WOULD FUND A THIRD OF THE
HOMES, 3200 HOMES VERSUS 10,000
HOMES FOR THE LEGISLATION?
WHY INTRODUCE THE SUNSET CLAUSE?
WHY PUT FORWARD A PROPOSAL AT
THE RATE OF LESS THAN HALF OF
WHAT WE NEED?
OUR EVENT HAS GATHERED OVER
20,000 SIGNATURES TO TAKE THE
AMAZON TEXT TO THE BALLOT.
WE ARE PREPARED TO DO THIS IF
THE COUNCIL FAILS TO PASS A
STRONG AMAZON TAX.
WE ARE PREPARED TO CONTINUE TO
FIGHT TO WIN WHAT WE NEED.
THANK YOU.
>> THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS ARE
HILLARY, KATE, AND KATHY.
HILLARY, WELCOME.
>> HELLO COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS HILLARY.
I WORK AT THE SEATTLE COALITION
ON HOMELESSNESS AS A COMMUNITY
PROJECT MANAGER.
I LIVE IN DISTRICT 4. I AM
CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE
JUMPSTART SEATTLE LEGISLATION.
WE HAVE BEEN IN A STATE OF
EMERGENCY AROUND HOMELESSNESS
SINCE 2015 AND CONTINUE TO SEE
DAILY THE NEED TO SIGNIFICANTLY
DEEPEN OUR RESPONSE. WE NEED TO
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AVAILABLE TO
PEOPLE WITH THE LOWEST INCOMES.
JUMPSTART SEATTLE PRIORITIZES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUDING
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
FOR PEOPLE IN SEATTLE WITH THE
LOWEST INCOMES.
FOR A SINGLE PERSON, THAT IS
EARNING BELOW $23,250, OR FOR A
FAMILY OF THREE EARNING BELOW 20
$9900.
THOSE ARE THE AMOUNTS THAT WE
NEED WE TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
EARN BELOW 30% OF AMI.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMIND
EVERYONE HAVING THESE
CONVERSATIONS OF THE ACTUAL
LEVELS OF INCOME WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT AND TO PRIORITIZE THAT.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NECESSARY
TO MAKE PEOPLE HAVE A PLACE TO
CALL HOME.
IT MUST CONTINUE TO BE A
PRIORITY.
>> KATIE, WELCOME.
>> HELLO MY NAME IS KATE RUBIN.
I AM WITH SEATTLE AND I'M A
RESIDENT DISTRICT 2. I AM
CALLING IN SUPPORT OF THE TAX
AMAZON LEGISLATION.
THE ALTERNATIVE LEGISLATION
DOES NOTHING TO PROTECT THE
MIDDLE EARNERS, THE MAJORITY OF
THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE IN
THIS CITY.
MANY OF US WHO ARE REALLY
STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE WITH
PAYING RENT, THAT IS AN AVERAGE
OF $2000, WE HAVE AN ONGOING
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS THAT IS
AFFECTING BLACK AND BROWN
COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO SUPPORT
SHELLEY.
THE WATERED-DOWN LEGISLATION
DOES VERY LITTLE TO HELP THE
MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO NEED
IT.
THERE IS ENOUGH ROOM IN THIS
CITY FOR EVERYONE.
WE ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THIS
COMMUNITY.
WE ALL NEED SPACE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
KATHY.
>> HELLO.
YES.
GOOD MORNING.
I AM KATHY.
AS A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT AND A RANK AND
FILE MEMBER OF SCI YOU 925.
I AM PLEASED THAT OUR CITY IS
EXPLORING BUDGET IDEAS THAT
SUPPORT FAMILIES, JOBS, AND
HOUSING.
WE MUST REPAIR THE DAMAGES DONE
BY DECADES OF RACIST POLICIES
AND GENTRIFICATION.
IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE LARGEST
CORPORATIONS IN SEATTLE PAY
THEIR SHARE.
WE NEED A STRONG BIG BUSINESS
TAX TO ADDRESS OUR CITY'S
HISTORY OF HOUSING AND ECONOMIC
INEQUALITIES.
WE NEED A CITY COUNCIL THAT CAN
STAND UP FOR US, THE WORKING
PEOPLE AND HER INTEREST.
PASS THE $500 MILLION A YEAR
BIG BUSINESS TAX WITHOUT
CORPORATE LOOPHOLES AND NO
SUNSET CLAUSE.
BUILD PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, CREATE UNION JOBS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
ONE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY BREANNA
AND THEN NAOMI.
WELCOME.
>> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES, THANK YOU.
>> I AM CALLING IN TO SUPPORT
THE PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
PROPOSALS.
IS A VOLUNTEER AT DISTRICT 4, I
SUPPORT THESE PROPOSALS AS THEY
ARE CRITICAL TO FINDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TINY HOUSE
VILLAGES AND OTHER SERVICES
THAT ATE OUR NEIGHBORS.
I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBERS
FOR THE AMAZING WORK THAT YOU
HAVE ALL DONE ON THESE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE PROPOSALS.
FINALLY, COUNCILMEMBER ALEX
PEDERSEN, LISTEN TO YOUR
CONSTITUENTS.
SUPPORT THE PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
. THANK YOU, I YIELD MY TIME.
>> BREANNA, WELCOME.
GOOD MORNING.
>> MY NAME IS BREANNA.
I LIVE IN SEATTLE AND I'M A
PROJECT MANAGER OF THE MOBILE
CRISIS TEAM AND I HAVE WORKED
THERE FOR FIVE YEARS.
WE SUPPORT THE JUMPSTART
SEATTLE PROGRESSIVE PAYROLL TAX
AND SPENDING PLAN BECAUSE IT
SEEKS TO INVEST SUBSTANTIALLY
IN MUCH-NEEDED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, SPECIFICALLY PERMANENT
HOUSING THAT IS NEEDED IN OUR
COMMUNITY.
WE NEED MORE UNITS TO ADDRESS
CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS.
AS I WORKING ON AN OUTREACH
TEAM FOR INDIVIDUALS
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS,
LIVING WITH COMPLEX BEHAVIORAL
AND PHYSICAL HEALTH CONDITIONS,
I CANNOT STRESS HOW
DEMORALIZING IT IS TO TELL THEM
THAT THE REASON THAT OUR
COMMUNITY HAS NOT INVESTED IN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
EMBARRASSING.
WE SEE 300 OR 400 PEOPLE A
MONTH.
A MAJORITY ARE SEEKING A PLACE
TO SLEEP.
WE NEED TO FIND SHELTERS THAT
ARE SAFE AND CAN ACCOMMODATE
FAMILIES.
AFFORDABLE AND PERMANENT
HOUSING IS THE ANSWER.
PLEASE PASS THIS PLAN TO
JUMPSTART SEATTLE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THE NEXT THREE SPEAKERS AND
PROBABLY OUR LAST 34 TODAY ARE
FOR THIS MORNING.
WE HAVE NAOMI, EMILY, AND DEREK.
WELCOME.
>> HELLO COUNCIL MEMBERS, MY
NAME IS MIA NAOMI.
I AM AN HOURLY WAGE CONTRACT
WORKER HERE IN SEATTLE.
I AM SO OVER BEING TAXED WELL
BIG BUSINESSES IN SEATTLE ARE
NOT.
HOW CAN YOU CALL WASHINGTON
STATE THE MOST PROGRESSIVE YET
WANT TO CUT CORNERS WITH SUNSET
CLAUSES, BUILDING FEWER HOMES
AND OVERALL BRINGING IN LESS
MONEY TO INVEST IN THE
COMMUNITY.
I SUPPORT THE AMAZON TAX
LEGISLATION AND I HOPE YOU WILL
TOO.
TO CROW JON STEWART, BLACK
PEOPLE HAVE FOUGHT FOR EQUALITY
WHILE WHITE PEOPLE WERE
BUILDING EQUITY.
PLEASE REDISTRIBUTE SOME OF THE
BILL EQUITY TO BLACK,
INDIGENOUS, AND PEOPLE OF COLOR
WITH THIS LEGISLATION.
ANYTHING LESS IS REGRESSIVE AND
I ALSO WOULD LIKE THE SPD TO BE
DEFUNDED BY 50%.
THE ONLY SUNSET CLAUSE NEEDED
IS ON THE REGRESSIVE TAX
STRUCTURE IN WASHINGTON.
STOP ATTEMPTING TO DISCREDIT
THIS AS BEING REGRESSIVE.
WE NEED 500 MILLION NOW, NOT
LESS THAN HALF OF THAT IN TWO
YEARS.
THANK YOU FOR MY TIME.
>> THANK YOU.
EMILY.
>> GOOD MORNING COUNCIL MEMBERS
MY NAME IS EMILY I AM A
REGISTERED NURSE AND A NURSING
MANAGER WHERE I HAVE WORKED FOR
FIVE YEARS.
I AM CALLING IN FAVOR OF
JUMPSTART SEATTLE.
TO COMBAT THE SPREAD OF COVID-
19, WE WORKED QUICKLY WITH THE
CITY AND COUNTY PARTNERS TO
MOVE THE BIGGEST SHELTER INTO A
HOTEL AND THE SUCCESS WE HAVE
SEEN HAS BEEN REMARKABLE WE
WANT TO GIVE OUR SHELTER GUESTS
DIGNITY.
AS A REGISTERED NURSE FOR
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE HOMELESS
AND LIVING WITH COMPLEX HEALTH
CONDITIONS I CANNOT STRESS
ENOUGH HOW DETRIMENTAL
HOMELESSNESS IS TO THE HEALTH
AND ABILITY TO THE PEOPLE WE
PROVIDE CARE FOR.
OUR STAFF IS ABLE TO ADDRESS
ACUTE AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
CONDITIONS.
THE THOUGHT OF PEOPLE GOING
BACK IN A STATE OF CRISIS TAKE
A BACKSEAT OF EVERYDAY SURVIVAL.
WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT THIS PLAN
IS US IN OUR EFFORT TO FURTHER
ASSIST WIT THE PREVENTION OF
HOMELESSNESS IN OUR COMMUNITY
NOW.
WE WANT TO BUILD A PERMANENT
SOLUTION SUCH AS SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING INTO THE FUTURE.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
DEREK?
>> HELLO THERE.
MY NAME IS DEREK. I AM HERE
REPRESENTING CVA SUPPORTING
JUMPSTART SEATTLE.
OUR MISSION IS TO PROMOTE
EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR
IMMIGRANT, LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES.
THIS PLAN HELPS US ACCOMPLISH
THIS.
OUR COMMUNITY HAS SUFFERED
GREATLY FROM COVID-19 AND THE
RACISM.
OUR ELDERS ARE SICK WITH THE
VIRUS.
OUR BUSINESSES SAW A MASSIVE
LOSS OF PATRONS.
RESIDENTS HAVE LOST INCOME.
ANY MORE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED.
OUR COMMUNITY RESPONDED IN MANY
DIFFERENT WAYS INCLUDING COVID-
19 TESTING, FREE GROCERIES AND
BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.
THIS WILL HELP AMPLIFY THE
COMMUNITY'S EFFORTS BY
INVESTING MORE IN IMMEDIATE
COVID-19 RELATED ASSISTANCE AND
IN FUTURE INVESTMENTS IN
HOUSING AND BID BUSINESS
SUPPORTS IN AN EQUITABLE WAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS
EFFORT.
I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THE
COUNCIL DOES, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
COUNSEL COLLEAGUES, I REALLY
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME IS WE DO
PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE BEGINNING
OF EVERY MEETING.
I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT
AND SOMETHING THAT I HAVE HEARD
FROM ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT
THEY THINK NEEDS TO HAVE IN.
WITH THAT WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE
FOLKS TO TESTIFY TO SEND IN
THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY AGAIN TODAY AT 2:00 P.M.
THE COMMENT PERIOD FOR THAT
OPENS UP AT NOON.
IF YOU CAN SIGN UP FOR THAT, WE
ARE CONTINUING TO WORK ON OUR
SYSTEM SO THAT THERE WILL BE
ONE SIGN-UP SHEET.
IF THAT MAKES LIFE EASIER, WE
WILL DO THAT.
I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU FOR
YOUR TIME AND FOR WEIGHING IN.
WE KNOW THAT THERE IS A LOT OF
CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPEN
AROUND THE BUDGET AND ISSUES IN
THE UPCOMING MONTH.
WITH THAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE READ INTO
THE RECORD ITEM NUMBER ONE.
>> PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
STRATEGIES FOR DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
COUNSEL COLLEAGUES, TODAY WE
HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM
CENTRAL STAFF MEMBERS INCLUDING
DAN, TOM, AND TRACY.
I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR ALL OF
THEIR TIME OVER THE LAST FEW
MONTHS.
WE KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN
ONGOING CONVERSATION ABOUT
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE.
THIS IS THANKS TO VARIOUS
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
THE THREE BILLS ARE LISTED ON
TODAY'S AGENDA.
FOR THE CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD
WITH THE COSPONSORS, WE WILL
CONTINUE TO LIST OF THOSE ITEMS
ON THE AGENDA EVERY TIME THAT
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE.
WE HAVE THE THREE BILLS AS
INTRODUCED LAST FRIDAY AND THEN
OFFICIALLY ADOPTED ON THE
CALENDAR.
THEY ARE LINKED IN TODAY'S
AGENDA FOR OUR SELECT BUDGET
COMMITTEE HEARING.
WE ALSO HAVE, AS AN ATTACHMENT,
THE EXPENDITURE PLAN OR THE
JUMPSTART SPEND PLAN.
IT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE
OF A NARRATIVE TO THAT
DOCUMENT.
THAT INCLUDES AN UNDERSTANDING
OF WHERE THOSE DOLLARS WILL GO,
HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BENEFIT,
WHAT TYPES OF SITUATIONS WE ARE
LOOKING TO LEAVE AND THAT
DOCUMENT CONTINUES TO BE
UPDATED.
IT WILL INCLUDE INFORMATION
ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
INVESTMENT AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
úI WOULD LIKE TO FLAG ALL OF TH
WORK THAT CENTRAL STAFF HAS
BEEN DOING FOR US.
I KNOW THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN
ATTEST TO THIS FROM THE FIRST
BILLS THEY INTRODUCED.
IT WAS .7%.
IT RAISED ABOUT 300 MILLION.
THAT WAS BACK IN JANUARY.
I AM LOOKING FOR HEAD NODS IF
THEY ARE SHOWING THEIR HEADS.
CENTRAL STAFF HAS BEEN REALLY
WORKING ON VARIOUS PROPOSALS
FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS.
BURNING THE MIDNIGHT OIL,
WORKING OVER THE WEEKENDS, I
WANTED TO TAKE A SECOND TO
THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR TIME,
CENTRAL STAFF.
WE KNOW THAT WE ASK A LOT AND
THE URGENCY IS NOW.
YOU HAVE REALLY REALLY
DELIVERED ON AN INCREDIBLE
AMOUNT OF WORK.
WE THANK YOU.
WE ALSO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE
FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY.
THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED.
THIS IS AS WE TALK ABOUT
LOOKING AT PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
FOR THE CITY OF SEATTLE.
WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SPENT THE
LAST FEW WEEKS AND ESPECIALLY
OVER THE LAST WEEK, GOING INTO
DETAIL ON SOME OF THOSE
QUESTIONS.
COUNSEL COLLEAGUES, TODAY IS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM
CENTRAL STAFF.
THEY ARE GOING TO WALK THROUGH
VARIOUS POLICY QUESTIONS THAT
HAVE BEEN ASKED ALREADY.
THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO REALLY
FLAG QUESTIONS.
FLAG IDEAS AND DO ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION ON THE SPOT.
WE CAN START TO HEAR WERE SOME
OF YOUR IDEAS FOR AMENDMENTS
MAY LEAD TO.
AMENDMENTS ARE DUE ON FRIDAY,
10:00 A.M.
TO BE RESPECTFUL OF OUR CENTRAL
STAFF'S TIME, WE ARE HOPING YOU
CAN MEET THAT DEADLINE.
FEEL FREE TODAY TO IDENTIFY
POSSIBLE THINGS THAT YOU ARE
LOOKING INTO, EVEN IF THEY DO
NOT TURN INTO AMENDMENTS.
THIS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
DISCUSSION.
YOU ARE WELCOME TO BRING THOSE
UP.
I ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION.
I WANT TO THANK THE COSPONSORS
OF THIS LEGISLATION FOR YOUR
SUPPORT FOR JUMPSTART SEATTLE.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK AGAIN
VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR
THEIR PROPOSAL AND FOR THE
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD
TO AGREE TO USE THE JUMPSTART
PROPOSAL IS THE BASE
LEGISLATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE
AMENDMENTS.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU GUYS.
I APPRECIATE YOU AGREEING TO DO
THAT.
THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA
SAWANT.
I THINK THAT THIS HELPS US
STREAMLINE THE DISCUSSION,
ALLOW FOR CENTRAL STAFF TO HAVE
FOCUS ON WHERE THOSE AMENDMENTS
WOULD GO TO, AND THAT DOES NOT
TAKE AWAY FROM THE PROGRESSIVE
CREDENTIALS, ANY OF THE
PROPOSALS THAT SHE PUT OUT.
THAT INCLUDES THE ONES FROM
JANUARY.
I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT
THIS ENTIRE TOPIC TODAY IS ON
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE PROPOSALS.
I SAID IT ON MONDAY AND I WANT
TO SAY AGAIN HOW INCREDIBLY
PROUD I AM THAT WE ARE WORKING
ON A COUNCIL THAT IS PUSHING
FORWARD ON PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
PROPOSALS.
THIS IS SO WE DO NOT END UP IN
AN AUSTERITY ONLY BUDGET.
THE PROPOSED BUDGET WE WILL
TALK ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON DOES
NOT INCLUDE PROGRESSIVE REVENUE
AS A WAY TO ADDRESS THE CRISIS
THAT IS COVID-19 AND AS A WAY
TO CREATE A MORE EQUITABLE
ECONOMY AS WE RECOVER.
IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FUNDING
NEEDED TO ADDRESS THE INEQUITIES
IN HOUSING, DEVELOPMENT AND
SUPPORTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
I WANT TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK TO
SAY HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT WE
AS A COUNCIL ARE HAVING THIS
ONGOING CONVERSATION ABOUT
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE AND THE
PROGRESSIVE CREDENTIALS THAT
ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSALS.
THEY SHOW THAT THE COUNCIL IS
COMMITTED TO INVESTING IN A
MORE EQUITABLE BUDGET IN THIS
YEAR AND THE OUT YEARS.
WE CAN REALLY PUT FORWARD
PRIORITIES, ESPECIALLY IN BLACK
AND BROWN COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE
BEEN HISTORICALLY DISTANT
VESTED FROM.
EVEN AS WE HAVE A CONVERSATION
ABOUT PROGRESSIVE REVENUE, I
THINK NONE OF US ARE UNDER THE
ASSUMPTION THAT JUST THIS
REVENUE ALONE WILL SOLVE ALL OF
OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS.
IT COMPLEMENTS BUT IT DOES NOT
REPLACE THE CONVERSATIONS THAT
WE NEED TO HAVE ABOUT INVESTING
IN BLACK PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND
HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AND CHILD
CARE FOR ALL AND HOUSING THAT
IS AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYONE.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY FOR
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
I AM EXCITED ABOUT THE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE DISCUSSION
THAT WE HAVE TODAY AND USING
TODAY IS THE FOUNDATION FOR
WHAT WILL COME BEFORE COUNSEL
FOR US TO CONSIDER AGAIN NEXT
WEEK.
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE
PRESENTERS.
WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU TO
WALK US THROUGH THIS.
I WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS
AN EMAIL SENT AROUND.
PERHAPS CENTRAL STAFF CAN
COMMENT ON THAT.
I THINK THERE WAS A REVISED
PRESENTATION THAT WAS SENT
AROUND.
YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IT IN
YOUR INBOX IS.
WE BEGAN TODAY'S MEETING FOR
THE VIEWING PUBLIC. THERE IS A
PRESENTATION LINKED ONLINE.
WE WILL ALSO LINK THAT
PRESENTATION AT THE CLOSE OF
TODAY'S PRESENTATION.
I BELIEVE PATTY SENT AROUND THE
REVISED PRESENTATION.
AS YOU HEAR QUESTIONS OR AS
THINGS COME UP, PLEASE RAISE
YOUR HAND SO I CAN PHYSICALLY
SEE YOU.
I WILL KEEP MY EYE ON THE GRID
SO THAT I CAN SEE ALL OF YOUR
FACES.
FEEL FREE TO SEND ME A MESSAGE
AS WELL.
THIS WILL BE THE CHANCE FOR US
TO INTERMITTENTLY THROUGHOUT
THE PRESENTATION FLAG ISSUES
THAT YOU ARE LOOKING INTO OR
QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
THANK YOU AGAIN.
I KNOW THAT ALLIE AND TRACY
HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON THE
REQUEST THAT CAME FROM THE
DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD ABOUT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE
NUMBER OF UNITS AND TRYING TO
GET A BETTER SENSE OF THE YIELD
THAT WOULD COME FROM
INVESTMENTS THAT COULD BE MADE
THROUGH PROGRESSIVE REVENUE.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE
DONE FOR CENTRAL STAFF.
RAISE YOUR HAND OR SEND ME A
MESSAGE AND I WILL Q PEOPLE UP.
I WILL TURN IT OVER TO CENTRAL
STAFF.
I SEE ALLIE MAY HAVE YOURSELF
OFF MUTE.
I SEE DAN, YOU AS WELL.
THANK YOU AGAIN.
ALLIE, TRACY, DAN AND TOM,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION
ONLINE.
>> THANK YOU.
I WILL KICK US OFF TODAY.
TODAY WE WILL WALK THROUGH A
DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED
PAYROLL TAX PACKAGES.
THIS INCLUDES PROVIDING A
COMPARISON OF THE TWO PROPOSALS
INTRODUCED TO DATE.
AND THEN THERE WILL BE A
DISCUSSION OF POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE
JUMPSTART SEATTLE PROPOSAL.
THIS WILL INFORM THE PLANTS
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL
AMENDMENTS NEXT WEEK.
IN ADDITION, FOR THE SPENDING
PLAN, WE WILL WALK THROUGH THE
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS THAT WE DID
TO ESTIMATE THE POTENTIAL
NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS THAT COULD BE SUPPORTED
FROM THE JUMPSTART SEATTLE
PROPOSAL.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THE NEXT TWO SLIDES ARE
PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE FOR
TODAY'S DISCUSSION AND FOR
PEOPLE WHO MAY REVIEW THESE
MATERIALS WITHOUT LISTENING TO
THIS PRESENTATION.
THE FIRST SLIDE PROVIDES A LIST
OF EACH COUNSEL BILL INCLUDED
IN THE TWO PAYROLL TAX
PACKAGES.
AS WE WALKED THROUGH THE
PRESENTATION TODAY, WE WILL
REFER TO DIFFERENT PROPOSALS BY
A BILL NUMBER.
TO ORIENT YOU ALL AND THE
LISTENERS AT HOME, ANY BILL
MEMBER THAT IS A 700 SERIES IS
A PACKAGE INTRODUCED BY VARIOUS
COUNCIL MEMBERS IN APRIL.
THE 800 SERIES RELATES TO THE
JUMPSTART SEATTLE PACKAGE THAT
WAS INTRODUCED ON MONDAY.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THIS SLIDE DEFINES SEVERAL
ACRONYMS THAT ARE USED ON
SLIDES THROUGHOUT THE PORTION
OF THE PRESENTATION FOCUSED ON
HOUSING.
I WILL DO MY BEST TO AVOID
USING THE ACRONYMS IN MY VERBAL
PRESENTATION BUT FOR FUTURE
REFERENCE AND WHEN I SLIP BACK
INTO THESE, I HAVE PROVIDED
THIS SLIDE FOR REFERENCE.
SO I WILL NOW PROVIDE A BRIEF
COMPARISON OF THE TWO SPENDING
PROPOSALS.
THIS COMPARISON IS INTENDED TO
INFORM THE DISCUSSION THAT
TRACY WILL WALK YOU THROUGH.
>> MAY I MAKE A QUICK NOTE FOR
THE VIEWING PUBLIC?
>> I APOLOGIZE.
>> WHEN I SAID THERE WAS A
REVISED PRESENTATION SENT
AROUND, THAT WAS THE REVISED
PRESENTATION FOR THIS
AFTERNOON, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> I AM SORRY.
THE REVISED PRESENTATION THAT
PATTY SENT AROUND THIS MORNING
WAS FOR OUR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER
TWO FOR THIS AFTERNOON.
LEASE CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE
MATERIALS THAT WERE LINKED INTO
TODAY'S AGENDA THAT ALLIE HAS
ONLINE FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC.
THIS IS THE SAME PRESENTATION,
THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGES.
APOLOGIES FOR THE CONFUSION.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
CLARIFICATION.
I THOUGHT IT WAS MAYBE SOME OF
MY CO-PRESENTERS THAT CHANGED
SOMETHING.
RATE.
OKAY SO, ON THE SPENDING
PROPOSALS SLIDE, I WILL PROVIDE
THE COMPARISON OF THE TWO
PROPOSALS.
THIS WILL INFORM THE DISCUSSION
THAT TRACY WILL WALK YOU
THROUGH IN A FEW MINUTES ON THE
DIFFERENT POLICY LEVERS THAT
COULD BE PUSHED OR PULLED AS IT
RELATES TO THE SPENDING
PROPOSAL.
I AM GOING TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW
KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO
PROPOSALS.
ONE DIFFERENCE IS THE AMOUNT OF
SPENDING PROPOSED FOR EACH
PACKAGE.
COUNSEL BILL 119774 PROPOSES TO
SPEND ABOUT $500 MILLION
ANNUALLY.
THIS IS BASED ON THE REVENUE
ESTIMATES PROVIDED FOR THE
ASSOCIATED TAX PROPOSAL.
COUNSEL BILL 119811 WHICH IS
THE SPENDING PLAN FOR THE
JUMPSTART SEATTLE PAYROLL TAX
PROPOSES TO SPEND ABOUT $200
MILLION ANNUALLY.
I WILL NOTE HERE THAT LATER IN
THE PRESENTATION, YOU WILL HEAR
FROM MY COLLEAGUE TOM AS HE
DESCRIBES THE PROPOSED TAX AND
REFERS TO AN ESTIMATE OF ABOUT
$173.5 MILLION ANNUALLY
GENERATED FROM THAT TAX.
THAT IS THE REVENUE THAT
CENTRAL STAFF DEVELOPED WITH
THE DATA AVAILABLE.
AS NOTED ON SLIDE 17, DUE TO
DATA LIMITATIONS, THE ESTIMATE
FOR THE JUMPSTART SEATTLE TAX
DOES NOT INCLUDE REVENUE THAT
COULD BE GENERATED FROM
BUSINESSES WITH A PAYROLL OF $1
BILLION AND ABOVE.
TOM CAN PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON
THE ESTIMATE LATER IN THE
PRESENTATION.
WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE
SPENDING PLAN USES THE
SPONSORED REVENUE GOAL OF $200
MILLION RATHER THAN THAT
ESTIMATE.
I WILL ALSO JUST BRIEFLY NOTE
HERE THAT THE SPENDING PACKAGES
DIFFERENTIATE IN THE FOLLOWING
WAYS.
THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN THE
SPECIFIC SPENDING CATEGORIES
THAT ARE DESCRIBED ON THE NEXT
SLIDE.
THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR 2020
SPENDING, AMOUNT OF SPENDING IN
2020 ALSO DIFFER.
COUNSEL BILL 119774 WOULD SPEND
ABOUT $200 MILLION IN 2020 ON
COVID-19 RELIEF.
THE JUMPSTART PROPOSAL SPENDS
ABOUT $86 MILLION ON COVID-19
RELIEF.
THE 119774 WOULD USE AND
INTERFUND LOAN TO FUND THE
SERVICES IN 2020.
IT WOULD PAY BACK THAT LOAN IN
2021 USING TAX REVENUES.
THE JUMPSTART PROPOSAL WOULD
SPEND $86 MILLION OUT OF THE
CITY'S EMERGENCY AND REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUNDS.
THE CHOICE OF USING THE
EMERGENCY FUNDS IS BASED ON THE
INFORMATION ON THOSE FUND
BALANCES INCLUDED IN THE
PRESENTATION FROM BUDGET
DIRECTOR NOBLE TO THIS
COMMITTEE IN APRIL.
ANOTHER DIFFERENCE IN THESE
PROPOSALS IS HOW THE
INVESTMENTS WILL BE
ADMINISTERED.
COUNSEL BILL 119774 WOULD
CREATE A NEW SOCIAL HOUSING
BOARD TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT ON
HOUSING.
IT WOULD USE THE GREEN NEW DEAL
THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BUT HAS
NOT YET BEEN IMPLEMENTED TO
PROVIDE OVERSIGHT ON THE
PROPOSED GREEN NEW DEAL
INVESTMENTS.
COUNSEL BILL 119811 WOULD
CREATE IN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
FOR THE PROPOSED SPENDING AND
INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT THAT THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CONSULTS
WITH A COALITION OF CITY
UNIONS, SMALL BUSINESS ADVISORY
COUNCILS, HOUSING LEVY
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND THE
GREEN NEW DEAL OVERSIGHT TO
INFORM DECISIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE
SPENDING.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO THIS SLIDE PROVIDES MORE
DETAIL.
>> ON THE LAST SLIDE, WE MAY
TALK ABOUT THIS THIS AFTERNOON
OR LATER IN YOUR PRESENTATION.
CAN YOU COMMENT VERY BRIEFLY ON
THE EMERGENCY FUND AND REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUND.
WE WANT TO KNOW THAT IT DOES
NOT APPEAR THAT THE MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BUDGET WOULD HAVE AN
IMPACT ON THAT. CAN YOU COMMENT
ON THAT VERY BRIEFLY IN CASE
ANYBODY WAS WONDERING ABOUT
THAT LINE?
>> WE ARE DIGGING INTO THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSAL.
WHAT WE READ IS THAT THE MAYOR
IS PROPOSING TO SPEND ABOUT 25%
OF THE FUNDS IN THE EXISTING
EMERGENCY AND REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUNDS.
THAT IS ABOUT $29 MILLION OR
SO.
THAT LEAVES ABOUT A 96+ MILLION
DOLLAR BALANCE IN THOSE TWO
FUNDS.
YOUR PROPOSAL SPENDS ABOUT $86
MILLION.
THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT
FUNDS TO BOTH MOVE FORWARD WITH
WHAT THE MAYOR HAS PROPOSED FOR
USE OF THOSE FUNDS AS WELL AS
SPENDING.
ALSO, JUST NOTE THAT THE
JUMPSTART SEATTLE PROPOSAL
INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT TO
REPLENISH THOSE FUNDS IN 2021.
OKAY.
SO, THIS NEXT SLIDE AS I WAS
SAYING PROVIDES A MORE DETAILED
COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT
SPENDING CATEGORIES PROPOSED IN
EACH BILL.
I AM NOT GOING TO WALK THROUGH
THIS IN GREAT DETAIL.
AS YOU ARE CONSIDERING HOW YOU
MAY WANT TO MODIFY THE SPENDING
PROPOSAL, THIS PROVIDES TWO
EXAMPLES OF HOW YOU COULD SLICE
THE PIE.
MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE,
THIS NEXT SET OF SLIDES ARE
FOCUSED ON THE PROPOSED
INVESTMENTS IN NEW AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES.
THIS SLIDE HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF
THE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS FOR THE
HOUSING BENDING INCLUDED IN
EACH PROPOSAL.
AFTER PROVIDING THIS BRIEF
COMPARISON, I WILL WALK THROUGH
ESTIMATES WE DEVELOPED AT THE
SPONSOR'S REQUEST FOR SUITABLE
HOUSING UNIT PRODUCTION THAT
COULD BE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE
JUMPSTART SEATTLE SENDING PLAN.
THIS TABLE HIGHLIGHTS A FEW KEY
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO
PROPOSED HOUSING INVESTMENTS.
ONE DIFFERENCE IS INVESTMENTS
IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD
BEGIN IN 2021 UNDER THE FIRST
PROPOSED SPENDING PLAN INCLUDED
IN 119774.
COUNSEL BILL 119811 BEGINS
INVESTING IN NEW HOUSING IN
2022.
2021 PROVIDES FUNDING FOR
INVESTING IN HOUSING STABILITY
SERVICES.
>> YES, JUST A REQUEST, I KNOW
THAT YOU MENTIONED THIS IN
OTHER SLIDES.
JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
VIEWING PUBLIC WHO I DO NOT
EXPECT TO MEMORIZE WHICH BILL
IS WHAT NUMBER, IF YOU COULD
PLEASE POINT OUT WHICH BILL, I
THINK THAT WOULD BE EASIER FOR
PEOPLE TO FOLLOW, THANK YOU.
>> OKAY, JUST TO KEEP THINGS
MORE EFFICIENT, I WILL REFER TO
THE COUNCILMEMBER PROPOSAL
RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE
VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT
WILL BE A MOUTHFUL TO SAY ALL
OF THE NAMES EVERY TIME IF THAT
IS ACCEPTABLE.
>> LET ME ASK THE COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
SINCE COLLOQUIALLY, I CANNOT
GET THAT WORD OUT, YOU PREFER
TO IT AS TAX AMAZON, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO HAVE YOUR IS REFERRED
TO AS TAX AMAZON AND THE ONE
THAT HAS ME AT FORT JAKE OTHERS
REFERRED TO AS JUMPSTART SO
THAT IT IS EASIER TO GET IT
OUT?
>> THAT IS FINE WITH ME.
I AM RECOGNIZING THAT THEY ARE
BOTH THE SAME BUSINESS TAX.
>> THAT IS RIGHT, YES.
THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THE MIDDLE COLUMN, THAT IS THE
TAX AMAZON BILL.
THE LAST COLUMN WOULD BE THE
JUMPSTART BILL.
BOTH OF THESE ARE LARGE TAXES
ON LARGE CORPORATIONS.
THE MIDDLE COLUMN AGAIN IS
ADDRESSED.
>> THANK YOU, I WILL TRY TO
STAY CONSISTENT.
OKAY, I WILL START AGAIN WITH
HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THE
DIFFERENCES.
AS I WAS SAYING, INVESTMENTS IN
THE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS BEGINS IN 2021 FOR THE
AMAZON TAX.
IT BEGINS IN 2022 FOR THE
JUMPSTART PROPOSAL.
THIS TABLE HIGHLIGHTS THE
DIFFERENCES IN HOUSING UNIT
ESTIMATES FOR EACH OF THE
PROPOSALS BASED ON THE
PROPOSALS AS INTRODUCED.
BECAUSE THE AMAZON PROPOSAL
DOES NOT BEGIN INVESTMENTS IN,
EXCUSE ME, BECAUSE THE
JUMPSTART PROPOSAL DOES NOT
BEGIN INVESTMENTS IN NEW
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNTIL 2022,
COMBINED WITH A LOWER PROPOSED
ANIMAL AMOUNT OF SPENDING, THIS
RESULTS IN A LOWER ESTIMATE OF
TOTAL UNITS PRODUCED OVER THE
FIRST 10 YEARS.
MORE SIMPLY, MORE MONEY MEANS
MORE UNITS.
IT IS RELATIVELY
STRAIGHTFORWARD IN TERMS OF THE
ANALYSIS.
THAT SAID, BECAUSE OF THE
DIFFERENCES IN THE PROPOSED
HOUSING INVESTMENTS, IN TERMS
OF INCOME LEVELS SERVED AND THE
PRIORITIZATION OF THE JUMPSTART
PROPOSAL FOR HOUSEHOLD AT OR
BELOW 30% OF AREA MEDIAN
INCOME, THE DIFFERENCES IN THE
TOTAL ESTIMATE NUMBER OF
PERMANENT SUPPORT HOUSING UNIT,
EXCUSE ME, BETWEEN THE TWO
PROPOSALS IS JUST A FEW HUNDRED
UNITS.
MOVING ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE
WILL NOW FOCUS ON THE ANALYSIS
THAT WE DID TO ESTIMATE THE
NUMBER OF UNITS COMING FROM THE
JUMPSTART PROPOSAL.
THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE
UNITS THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED
OVER HARD USING FUNDS FROM THE
PROPOSED PAYROLL TAX WILL
DEPEND ON MANY FACTORS.
THESE ARE COST OF LAND,
MATERIALS, LABOR COST, AND
ACCESSING TO LEVERAGING SOURCES
TO NAME A FEW.
AS SUCH, DEVELOPING THE
ESTIMATES REQUIRES MAKING A
NUMBER OF ASSUMPTIONS.
THE ESTIMATES PROVIDE A ROUGH
ESTIMATE OF WHAT COULD OCCUR
BASED ON THESE ASSUMPTIONS AND
GET THE GENERAL SENSE OF SCALE.
IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES IN THE MARKET OR IN
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES THAT
MODIFY THE CONSTRUCTION
MATERIAL, COST, AND TIMELINES,
THE INVESTMENTS COULD GO
FURTHER OR NOT GO AS FAR.
WITH THAT IN MIND, AT THE
COMMITTEE'S REQUEST, WE
DEVELOPED ESTIMATES USING FOUR
DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR THE
SPENDING PROPOSAL IN THE
JUMPSTART PLAN.
THIS SLIDE OUTLINES THE
ASSUMPTIONS THAT APPLY
CONSISTENTLY ACROSS THE FOUR
SCENARIOS.
THEY ARE USED TO DEVELOP THE
HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATES FOR THE
TAX AMAZON PROPOSAL.
WE CAN PROVIDE A SIDE-BY-SIDE
COMPARISON FOR THE TWO
PROPOSALS.
GIVEN THE INTENT EXPRESSED ON
MONDAY THAT THE JUMPSTART BILL
WILL BE THE FOCUS FOR
AMENDMENTS, WE ARE ONLY
PRESENTING THE NUMBERS FOR THE
PROPOSAL.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
THIS SLIDE SUMMARIZES WHY THE
ASSUMPTIONS DIFFER ACROSS ALL
THE FOUR SCENARIOS.
THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES BY TESTING
THE ASSUMPTIONS INCLUDED IN
EACH SCENARIO.
THIS IS NOT A CRYSTAL BALL.
AS I NOTED PREVIOUSLY, THE
ACTUAL NUMBER OF UNITS
DEVELOPED WILL DEPEND ON A
VARIETY OF FACTORS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SCENARIO ONE USES THE AVERAGE
PER UNIT COST BASED ON CURRENT
OFFICE OF HOUSING INVESTMENTS
AND ASSUMES FUNDING FOR ONGOING
OPERATING AND SERVICE COSTS FOR
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
UNITS.
THESE SERVE THE LOWEST INCOME
BRACKETS.
THIS IS THE ESTIMATE THAT BEST
REFLECTS WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT
IN UNIT PRODUCTION BASED ON
WHAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED TODAY.
SCENARIO TWO, ON THE NEXT SLIDE
USES LOWER PER UNIT COST,
ASSUMING STRATEGIES TO REDUCE
THE AVERAGE PER UNIT COST BY
ABOUT 11%.
I WILL POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS
THAT ASSUMING A LOWER AVERAGE
IS IMPORTANT.
>> I THINK YOU ARE FROZEN.
IS ANYBODY ELSE EXPERIENCING
THAT?
>> YES.
>> TRACY, WOULD YOU BE WILLING
TO STEP IN REALLY QUICKLY OR DO
YOU WANT US TO HOLD FOR SECOND?
>> I AM SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> NO PROBLEM.
I AM FROZEN ON MY SCREEN SO I
DID NOT KNOW IF IT WAS
EVERYBODY.
>> NO, MY WHOLE SCREEN, I DO
NOT KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING.
I AM HAVING TECHNOLOGY ISSUES.
SHOULD I START AGAIN WITH
SCENARIO TWO?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT,
IF YOU DO NOT MIND.
SO TUNE AREA TWO USES LOWER PER
UNIT COSTS ASSUMING STRATEGIES
TO REDUCE COSTS BY 11%.
IT IS DESCRIBING THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING RELEASING A NOTICE OF
FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING, SERVING
INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS.
THIS PROPOSAL IS SEEKING
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS THAT CAN
BUILD PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING.
IT IS AT A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER
COST.
THIS CAN SERVE AS A MODEL TO
UNDERSTAND STRATEGIES THAT
COULD BE USED TO LOWER THE COST
MORE BROADLY, ACROSS HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SCENARIO THREE ASSUMES THAT THE
SAME AVERAGE PER UNIT COST
USING SCENARIO ONE APPLY.
IT WOULD INVEST 100% OF THE
FUNDS IN BUILDING NEW UNITS OR
ACQUIRING UNITS.
IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
THE ONGOING ISSUES.
WHILE THIS RESULTS IN A HIGHER
ESTIMATE FOR THE TOTAL NUMBER
OF UNITS, IT WILL MEAN THAT
ANOTHER SOURCE OF FUNDING WILL
BE NEEDED TO PROVIDE THAT
ONGOING FUNDING FOR OPERATING
AND SERVICE COSTS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SCENARIO FOUR ALSO ASSUMES THE
SAME AVERAGE PER UNIT COST USED
IN SCENARIO ONE.
INSTEAD OF PROVIDING FUNDING
FOR OPERATING AND SERVICE COSTS
ANNUALLY, THIS SCENARIO
FRONTLOAD THE OPERATING AND
SERVICE COSTS TO COVER THE
COSTS THROUGH 2040.
BECAUSE THE PROPOSED JUMPSTART
PAYROLL TAX WOULD JUMPSTART IN
2030, THIS PROVIDES FUNDING FOR
THIS ONGOING COST BEYOND THE
TIME OF THE TAX REVENUE WOULD
BE COLLECTED.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER
TO TRACY WHO WILL WALK THROUGH
THE POLICY OPTIONS AND THEN WE
WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU.
SO, MOVING TO THE NEXT SLIDE,
WE WILL BEGIN DISCUSSIONS OF
POLICY CONSIDERATION FOR THE
SPENDING PLAN FOR JUMPSTART
SEATTLE.
AS WE HAVE SEEN, JUMPSTART
SEATTLE WOULD PROPOSED TO SPEND
$86 MILLION IN 2020.
$66 MILLION WOULD COME FROM THE
EMERGENCY FUND AND $19 MILLION
WOULD COME FROM THE REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUND.
$18 MILLION WOULD BE USED FOR
SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT,
INCLUDING DIRECT SMALL BUSINESS
ASSISTANCE, $36 MILLION WOULD
GO TO IMMEDIATE HOUSING.
THIS COULD INCLUDE RENTAL
ASSISTANCE, SHELTIE
INTENSIFICATION EFFORTS FOR
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS, MORTGAGE
FORECLOSURE ASSISTANCE, AND
PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT THE
SERVICES AND OPERATION COST FOR
NONPROFIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND SHELTER PROVIDERS.
$18 MILLION WILL BE PROVIDED
FOR IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE
SUPPORT INCLUDING LANGUAGE
ACCESS SERVICES AND DIRECT
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR
IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE
HOUSEHODS.
FINALLY $14 MILLION WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR FOR SECURITY
PROGRAMS INCLUDING CONTINUATION
AND EXPANSION OF THE EMERGENCY
GROCERY VOUCHER PROGRAM.
SO THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
FOR COUNSEL, AS IT RELATES TO
THIS SPENDING INCLUDE WHETHER
TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF
FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE $86
MILLION IN SPENDING IN 2020.
THIS WAS REALLY BASED ON US NOT
KNOWING WHETHER IN FACT THE
MAYOR WOULD DELIVER A 2020
REVISED BUDGET THAT USED ALL OF
THOSE FUNDS.
THIS MAY BE A LESSER CONCERN
NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT IT DOES
NOT TAP INTO THOSE FUNDS AND
EXHAUST THOSE IN 2020.
ADDITIONALLY, CONSIDER WHETHER
YOU WANT TO INCREASE OR REDUCE
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF FUNDING
THAT IS SPENT IN 2020.
AND THEN THERE IS THE ABILITY
TO INCREASE OR DECREASE TOTAL
FUNDING AMOUNT FOR EACH PROGRAM
OR SERVICE.
YOU CAN ADD OR DELETE PROGRAMS
OR SERVICES THAT ARE PROPOSED.
AND YOU CAN INCREASE OR
DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF
ASSISTANCE THAT MIGHT BE
PROVIDED BY THE DIFFERENT
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE SMALL BUSINESS
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IS CAPPED AT
$10,000 FOR BUSINESS AND THE
DIRECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO
REFUGEE IMMIGRANTS IS CAPPED AT
$1000.
MOVING TO SLIDE 14, THE
PROPOSED FUNDING FOR 2021 IS
THIS.
THE PROPOSED SPENDING IS $170
MILLION FOR 2021.
$86 MILLION WOULD REPLENISH THE
EMERGENCY AND REVENUE
STABILIZATION FUNDS USED TO
SUPPORT THE COVERED RELIEF
PROGRAMS.
$65 MILLION WOULD BE TO PROVIDE
CONTINUITY OF SERVICES THAT ARE
SUPPORTED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO
COVID-19.
THEY MIGHT BE CUT DUE TO
REVENUE SHORTFALLS AND ALSO TO
PROVIDE FUNDING TO SUPPORT
INCREASED COST IN THE EXPANSION
OF SERVICES AND PROGRAMS TO
SUPPORT LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES
AND OTHERS.
$17 MILLION WOULD PROVIDE
SUPPORT FOR THE COUNCIL'S COVID-
19 RELIEF PROGRAMS THAT WE
FUNDED IN 2020 AND THE
REMAINDER OF $4 MILLION WOULD
GO TO STARTUP COSTS.
SO A POLICY CONSIDERATION AS IT
RELATES TO THIS FUNDING INCLUDE
INCREASING OR DECREASING
FUNDING AMOUNT FOR EACH PROGRAM
OR SERVICE AND ADDING OR
DELETING PROGRAMS OR SERVICES
FUNDED.
MOVING TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THANK
YOU, THIS CONCLUDES THE
PROPOSED FUNDING FOR 2022 AND
BEYOND.
THIS SHOWS THE PROPOSED
SPENDING BY PERCENTAGES.
CURRENTLY 65% WOULD BE USED FOR
HOUSING AND SERVICES.
THIS COULD INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION
OR ACQUISITION IN FUNDING OF
HOUSING THAT SERVES HOUSEHOLS
THAT ARE BELOW 50% OF AMI.
OPERATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES
SERVING HOUSEHOLDS AT OR BELOW
30% AND ASSOCIATED
INFRASTRUCTURE COST SUCH AS
ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
MIGHT BE INCLUDED IN THE FUND
SOURCE.
10% OF THE FUNDING WOULD BE
USED FOR EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS.
THIS INCLUDES HOUSING AND NON-
HOUSING PORTIONS OF EDI
PROJECTS.
20% WOULD BE USED FOR SMALL
BUSINESS SUPPORT.
5% WOULD BE USED FOR STARTUP
AND ADMINISTRATION COSTS.
>> I AM SORRY, ONE SECOND.
THERE IS A LITTLE ECHO.
AMELIA, DO YOU MIND CHECKING TO
SEE IF WE MUTE YOUR LINE, IF
THAT HELPS TO HIDE THE ECHO?
>> HOW IS THAT?
>> THAT IS BETTER.
>> THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
FOR THIS PROPOSED SPENDING
WOULD BE TO INCREASE OR
DECREASE FUNDING AMOUNTS FOR
EACH PROGRAM OR SERVICE, TO ADD
OR DELETE REVENUE WOULD BE
IMPORTANT.
[ INDISCERNIBLE ]
>> WE ARE GOING TO NEED YOU TO
REPEAT THAT.
THERE WAS A LOT OF GARBLED DUE
TO I THINK INTERNET
CONNECTIONS.
WE WILL RAISE OUR HAND IF WE
CANNOT HEAR YOU AGAIN.
COULD YOU SAY THAT REAL SLOWLY
ONE HER TIME?
>> SURE.
THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR
THIS PROPOSED SPENDING IS TO
INCREASE OR DECREASE FUNDING
AMOUNT FOR EACH PROGRAM OR
SERVICE.
[ INDISCERNIBLE ].
>> I AM SORRY ABOUT THE
INTERNET CONNECTION.
I KNOW THAT PEOPLE AROUND THE
COUNTRY ARE DEALING WITH THIS.
JUST REAL QUICK, LET'S SEE IF
WE CAN DO A STOPGAP.
ALLEY, DO YOU MIND SUMMARIZING
WHAT TRACY WAS SAYING.
>> SURE.
SURE.
AS TRACY WAS NOTING HERE, THE
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS ARE
REALLY LOOKING AT ADDING,
DELETING, OR MODIFYING THE
SPENDING CATEGORIES PROPOSED
FOR 2020 AND BEYOND.
THIS COULD INCLUDE INCREASING
OR DECREASING THE FUNDING
AMOUNT FOR EACH PROGRAM OR
SERVICE, ADDING OR DELETING
PROGRAMS OR SERVICES FUNDED, OR
MODIFYING SOME OF THE SPENDING
PARAMETERS SUCH AS THE MAXIMUM
INCOME SERVED BY THE PROPOSED
HOUSING INVESTMENTS.
AND WITH THAT, WE ARE HAPPY TO
TAKE QUESTIONS ON THE SPENDING
PROPOSAL.
>> OKAY, EXCELLENT.
COLLEAGUES, I KNOW THAT THERE
ARE QUESTIONS.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND I
WILL GET FOLKS IN THE QUEUE.
AGAIN, THANK YOU TO TRACY AND
ALLIE.
I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE WORKED
REALLY HARD TO PROVIDE US WITH
THESE VARIOUS SCENARIOS.
T IS NOT AN EASY MATH TO DO.
WE RECOGNIZE IT IS NOT JUST
ABOUT THE UNITS, IT IS ABOUT
HOW WE COUPLE THESE DOLLARS
WITH OTHER MONEY THAT WE CAN
LEVERAGE AS WELL.
THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE
SCENARIOS.
>> COUNCILMEMBER, SET A HAND UP
TO MARK OKAY, GREAT, YOU ARE
FIRST UP.
TO LET CENTRAL STAFF KNOW IF
YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO ANY OF
THEIR SLIDES.
>> OKAY.
I DID NOT KEEP TRACK OF SLIDE
NUMBERS.
I WILL JUST PUT MY QUESTIONS
OUT THERE.
I WILL SAY FOR NOW, IN THE
SEATTLE SEND PLAN, AND ONE IN
THE COVID-19 PLAN, I WILL START
WITH THE SEATTLE SPEND PLAN.
I THINK THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS
THAT EDI IS A PRIORITY FOR ME.
I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT
THAT WE PUT COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR FIRST.
WE NEED TO INVEST IN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR FIRST.
SO, I THINK THAT I NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THE 2021 SPENDING
PLAN BETTER.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE
CREATED SPECIFICALLY TO SERVE
OUR BLACK, BROWN, AND
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES ARE NOT
ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.
I DO NOT KNOW WHERE IN THE 2021
PLAN THAT WOULD GO.
AND THEN, I WILL JUST PUT MY
OTHER QUESTION OUT THERE AS
WELL.
FOR THE COVID-19 RELIEF PLAN,
YOU KNOW, WHEN COVID-19 FIRST
HIT AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT
HOW TO REACT, HOW TO RESPOND TO
THE CRISIS, THE FINANCIAL
CRISIS THAT WE KNEW WAS COMING,
I WAS LOOKING FOR A WAY TO GET
CASH ASSISTANCE OUT TO
INDIVIDUALS REALLY QUICKLY.
MY STRONG PREFERENCE AT THE
TIME, REALLY STILL, IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN SOMETHING LIKE A
UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME.
WE WERE LOOKING FOR A WAY TO
GET CASH OUT THE DOOR QUICKLY.
IN PART, THIS IS BECAUSE
INDIVIDUALS KNOW BEST WHAT KIND
OF ASSISTANCE, WHAT THEY NEED
FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THEIR
FAMILIES.
I UNDERSTAND.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION
COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J. MORALES.
DAN, IF YOU COULD PLEASE MOVE
TO SLIDE FIVE, THAT TABLE
PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE
DETAIL.
>> I WORRY THAT THE RELIEF PLAN
WILL NOT PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO
THOSE WHO ARE NOT IN UDP OR
EXISTING PROGRAMS.
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND BETTER HOW
WE ARE INVESTING THROUGH THAT
COMMUNITY ADVOCATES.
>> CAN PEOPLE HEAR ME OKAY?
I THINK ALLIE IS FROZEN RIGHT
NOW.
CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?
>> I AM BACK, I AM SORRY ABOUT
THAT.
>> I THINK THE INTENT ON THE
ASSISTANCE TO IMMIGRANTS AND
REFUGEES IS TO PROVIDE DIRECT
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND TO USE
TRUSTED COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS TO GET THAT
FUNDING OUT DIRECTLY.
THIS IS NOT JUST RELYING ON
THOSE FOLKS BEING IN EXISTING
PROGRAMS BUT [ INDISCERNIBLE ].
>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> TRACY WAS JUST GARBLED A
LITTLE BIT.
>> THIS IS A LITTLE BIT LIKE A
SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE SKIT. I
FEEL LIKE I AM FROZEN.
I CAN HEAR ALL OF YOU BUT
TRACY, YOU CUT OUT AT THE END.
PLEASE REITERATE ANYTHING.
>> WELL, I AM NOT, I AM NOT
SURE WHAT I MIGHT HAVE MISSED.
I THINK THAT I AM GOING TO
START BY TRYING TO ADDRESS THE
COUNCILMEMBER'S QUESTION
RELATED TO THE EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE.
A FUNDING LINE IN THE JUMPSTART
PROPOSAL DOES NOT COME INTO
PLAY UNTIL 2022.
THAT IS A 10% OF THE PROPOSED
SPENDING, ASSUMING ABOUT $200
MILLION, THAT IS ABOUT $22
MILLION.
THE PLAN FOR 2021 INCLUDES
REPLENISHING THE MONEY SPENT
OUT OF THE EMERGENCY FUNDS IN
2020.
IT PROVIDES ABOUT 65 MILLION
FOR CONTINUITY OF SERVICES.
THAT IS FOR FUNDING PROGRAMS
THAT MIGHT SEE A REDUCTION IN
SPENDING OR INVESTMENTS IN THIS
PROGRAM.
THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE REVENUE
SHORTFALLS THAT WE ARE
EXPECTING.
THIS IS DUE TO THE COVID-19
CRISIS.
SO ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE THAT
COULD WORK IS TO AT LEAST
ENSURE THAT THE EQUITABLE
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE IS
FUNDED TO ITS CURRENT STATUS OF
ABOUT $5 MILLION A YEAR.
SO THAT IS WHERE THOSE SORTS OF
INVESTMENTS SHOW UP.
AND THEN, IT SOUNDS LIKE TRACY
COVERED THE DIRECT CASH
ASSISTANCE FOR IMMIGRANT AND
REFUGEES.
AND THEN, I WILL SAY IN TERMS
OF THE COVID-19 RELIEF
GENERALLY, THE ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL THAT YOU INTRODUCED
COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J. MORALES,
AS WELL AS AMENDMENTS YOU
DISCUSSED, THESE WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED DIRECT CASH ASSISTANCE
THAT THE CITY DISPERSES USING
PEOPLE ENROLLED IN EXISTING
PROGRAMS, GENERALLY.
OR IT WOULD INCLUDE YOUR
AMENDMENT THAT WORKED WITH
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
TO IDENTIFY THOSE HOUSEHOLDS.
THE JUMPSTART PROPOSAL ALSO
INCLUDES PROVIDING DIRECT
RELIEF.
IT IS NOT NECESSARILY FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE.
IT IS MY SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF
INVESTMENTS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES, IMMIGRANT AND
REFUGEES, FOOD SECURITY AND
IMMEDIATE HOUSING NEEDS.
SO BOTH PROVIDE RELIEF BUT IN
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAYS.
>> OKAY COLLEAGUES, I KNOW WE
ARE HAVING COMPUTER ISSUES.
IS THERE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION
COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J. MORALES?
>> NO.
I THINK THE THING THAT I AM
STRUGGLING WITH A LITTLE BIT IS
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRYING
TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE
DIRECTLY TO HOUSEHOLDS AND
FAMILIES VERSUS YOU KNOW,
THROUGH PROGRAMS THAT IS JUST
SOME OF THE TENSION AND
STRUGGLE THAT I AM HAVING.
I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH
IT, THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD.
IF THERE IS ANYBODY ELSE, HOLD
YOUR HAND UP SO I CAN SEE IT.
>> THANK YOU.
LET ME GET TO MY QUESTIONS.
I UNNEEDED MYSELF.
SO I AM GOING TO GO THROUGH
SLIDE BY SLIDE.
THIS IS AS I CATEGORIZE MY
QUESTIONS.
I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT SLIDE 56
AND SEVEN.
THIS IS AS IT RELATES TO SLIDE
FIVE.
I WOULD LOVE A LITTLE BIT MORE
DETAIL ABOUT WHAT IS MEANT BY
SHELTER INTENSIFICATION,
SPECIFICALLY WHAT ACTIVITIES
DOES IT SUPPORT?
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SHELTER
INTENSIFICATION, WE CAN
SOMETIMES BE TALKING ABOUT
DIFFERENT THINGS.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW, CAN IT NOT
ONLY BE USED TO SUPPORT
EXISTING CONGREGATE SHELTERS?
DOES IT SUPPORT NEW CONGREGATE
SHELTERS THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED
DURING COVID-19 TO CREATE
SOCIAL DISTANCING WITHIN
EXISTING SHELTERS?
CAN IT BE USED FOR NON-
CONGREGATE OPTIONS LIKE HOTEL
ROOMS OR TINY VILLAGES?
AS IT RELATES TO SLIDE SIX, I
AM JUST WONDERING IS THE TOTAL
UNIT ESTIMATE CATEGORY
INCLUSIVE OF CURRENT SUPPORTIVE
HOUSING UNITS OR IS IT
ADDITIVE?
IS THIS THE CATEGORY WHERE
POTENTIALLY CONSTRUCTION AND
SITING OF NEW HOUSE VILLAGES
COULD OCCUR.
AS IT RELATES TO SLIDE SEVEN,
THE QUESTION IS HOW WOULD
ACTUAL DETERMINATION BE MADE OF
HOW THE RESOURCES ARE
ALLOCATED?
IS THERE A MECHANISM FOR AN
ANNUAL LIMITATION PLAN OR IS IT
DONE FOR THE ANNUAL BUDGET
PROCESS?
I THINK WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT
THIS BEFORE.
I SEEM TO RECALL THAT WE ASKED
THE EXECUTIVE FOR A RECOMMENDED
PLAN.
JUST TRYING TO GET A LITTLE BIT
MORE GRANULAR DETAIL OF WHETHER
OR NOT THIS IS, YOU KNOW,
AGAIN, AN ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE
GET RECOMMENDATIONS THROUGH THE
BUDGET PROCESS?
THANK YOU.
>> YOU ARE MUTED ALLIE.
>> OKAY, THAT WAS A USER ERROR,
NOT TECHNOLOGY.
[ LAUGHTER ] STARTING WITH YOUR
FIRST QUESTION, AS IT RELATES
TO THE PROPOSAL FOR SPENDING ON
IMMEDIATE HOUSING, WHAT THE
LANGUAGE IN THE COVID-19 RELIEF
BILL ACTUALLY SAYS, WHICH IS
INCLUDED AS A PROVISION IS THAT
IT IS MONEY FORESTS SHELTER D
INTENSIFICATION ACTIVITIES OR
SHELTERED OPTIONS FOR UN-
SHELTERED HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS
AND THOSE IN NON-CONGREGATE
SETTINGS.
THIS INCLUDES COSTS FOR NEW
TINY HOMES, DEALING WITH
HOTELS, MOTELS, OR EXTENDING
LEASES ON SUCH FACILITIES.
IT COULD BE USED FOR EITHER.
IT IS LEFT OPEN.
IT IS LEFT OPEN TO BE
DETERMINED THROUGH THE
IMPLEMENTATION.
AND SO, IF YOU WANTED A MORE
SPECIFIC ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
FOR THOSE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES,
IT COULD BE A LANGUAGE THAT IS
PARSED OUT FOR MORE SPECIFIC
USES.
MOVING ON TO SLIDE SIX, THIS IS
A PORTION, ABOUT 65 PERCENT OF
THE PROPOSED SPENDING FOR 2022
AND BEYOND.
IT IS FOR A NEW AFFORDABLE
HOUSING SURVEYING ARE HOMELESS.
IT IS ALSO FOR PEOPLE AT THE
LOWEST END OF THE INCOME
BRACKET.
IT IS PRIORITIZING HOUSING,
SERVING HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES
AT OR BELOW AREA AND MEDIAN
INCOME.
IT IS NOT INTENDED FOR SHELTER
TYPE USES IN NON-CONGREGATE
SETTINGS LIKE TINY HOMES.
BUT, RELATED TO YOUR NEXT
QUESTION, IN TERMS OF HOW THIS
GETS ALLOCATED, THE BILL DOES
REQUEST AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FROM THE EXECUTIVE THAT WOULD
INFORM THE ANNUAL DECISIONS THE
COUNCIL MAKES IN ALLOCATING
FUNDING FOR SUPPORT FOR THOSE
USES.
IT WOULD BE FIRST AN
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THAT WOULD
BE ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL
FOLLOWED BY THE ANNUAL ADOPTION
OF THE APPROPRIATIONS.
>> THE PLAN IS FOR 2022 AND
BEYOND.
>> VERY HELPFUL, I APPRECIATE
IT.
AND THEN, MY LAST QUESTION IS
NOW THAT WE HAVE THE MAYOR'S
BUDGET, WE ARE GOING TO DELVE
INTO SOME OF THE PROPOSED CUTS
IN THE MAYOR'S BUDGET; ARE WE
GOING TO, AND I GUESS THIS IS A
QUESTION FOR THE BILL'S
SPONSORS, THE SPONSORS OF THE
TWO BILLS, I AM INTERESTED TO
KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE
GOING TO NOW HAVE A DISCUSSION
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE
WITH THE PROPOSED CUTS IN THE
MAYOR'S BUDGET.
MIGHT WE BE OPEN TO USING SOME
OF THE REVENUE, ANTICIPATED IN
THIS LEGISLATION TO RETHINK THE
WISDOM OF SOME OF THE CUTS IN
THE MAYOR'S BUDGET?
OR, IF WE HAVE SOME OTHER WAY
THAT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT
REBALANCE AND THE MAYOR'S
BUDGET, THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
>> I THINK THAT IS A POLICY
OPTION.
[ LAUGHTER ] THIS IS FOR THE
COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.
WE ARE STILL DIGESTING, WE HAVE
NOT YET FIGURED OUT ALL OF WHAT
IS IN THE MAYOR'S PUZZLE.
WE WILL BE LOOKING AT AS A
STARTING POINT WHERE THERE
MIGHT BE SIMILAR PROPOSALS,
ESPECIALLY FOR THE IMMEDIATE
COVID-19 RELIEF.
I CAN TALK WITH YOU AND THE
REST OF THE COMMITTEE OFF-LINE
ABOUT SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS IF
THERE ARE PROGRAMS THAT ARE
PROPOSED TO BE ILLUMINATED.
THIS IS DUE TO THE BUDGET
SITUATION WE ARE IN.
THIS IS ALL THAT IS AVAILABLE.
>> I AM SORRY, I WAS HAVING
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS.
COUNCILMEMBER GONZALES, DID YOU
HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> NO, I HAD SOMETHING IN
RELATION TO COUNCILMEMBER'S
LISA HERBOLD COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I
APPRECIATE THAT LINE OF
QUESTIONING FROM COUNCILMEMBER
LISA HERBOLD.
WE HAVE ALL JUST RECEIVED THE
PROPOSED REBALANCING PACKAGE
FROM THE MAYOR.
I DO THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE
SITUATIONS WHERE ALL OPTIONS
SHOULD BE ON THE TABLE.
I THINK LOOKING AT ONE OF THOSE
POTENTIAL OPTIONS AS DO WE SEE
THIS REVENUE PROPOSAL OR OTHER
REVENUE PROPOSALS AS A
MECHANISM TO BACKFILL THOSE
BUDGET CUTS SO THAT WE CAN
PREVENT BUDGET CUTS, THIS IS
CERTAINLY ONE QUESTION.
THERE IS ALSO THE OTHER OPTION
OF CUTTING, YOU KNOW, CUTTING
IN CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS,
PARTICULARLY THE SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT TO ACCOMPLISH THAT
WHOLE.
WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS
REVENUE PROPOSAL AS ADDITIVE,
NOT AS BACKFILL.
I THINK IS A COUNSEL, WE NEED
TO BE OPEN TO ALL OF THOSE
POSSIBILITIES AS A PATH FORWARD.
I THINK LOOKING AT THIS REVENUE
PROPOSAL IS BACKFILL IS NOT
WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
I THINK WE WANT TO SEE THIS AS
A NEW ADDITIVE REVENUE TO THIS
ISSUE AND LOOKING AT
DEPARTMENTS, LIKE THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT TO BACKFILL SOME OF
THE PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS.
THIS WOULD CERTAINLY BE MY
PREFERENCE IN TERMS OF MOVING
FORWARD WITH THE REBALANCING
PACKAGE.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON
THE TABLE.
IN TERMS OF THE BROADER QUESTION
, THE BUDGET APPROACH QUESTION
THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED BY
COUNCILMEMBER LISA HERBOLD IS
RELEVANT.
THANK YOU CHAIR.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT
DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON.
WE WILL HAVE A MORE ROBUST
DISCUSSION REGARDING HOW TO
REALLOCATE THE BUDGET.
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION.
THIS DOES HELP US THOUGH, I
WOULD SAY WITH THE PROPOSED
CUTS THAT ARE EXPECTED IN 2021.
THIS IS THE FISCAL CLIFF THAT
HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY BEN
NOBLE.
I THINK THE WORD WAS
INEVITABLE.
I THINK THE OPTIONS THAT WE
PROVIDE WHEN WE HAVE
PROGRESSIVE REVENUE HELP TO
ADDRESS THAT CLIFF SO THERE IS
NOT THE TYPE OF LAYOFFS THAT WE
ARE SEEING.
COUNCILMEMBER, DID YOU HAVE ONE
FINAL THING?
>> I DID.
I WANTED TO TAKE THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO CUE UP A
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT THAT I MAY
BE BRINGING FORWARD AS IT
RELATES TO THE ELIGIBILITY OF
THIS INSISTENCE TO BE TAXED
BEGINNING IN 2020.
I TOO AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT
WHAT 2021 LOOKS LIKE.
AND, I THINK THE AMENDMENT THAT
I HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING IS
INTENDED IS TO CREATE THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE ADDITIVE
SPENDING IN 2020.
THIS IS FOCUSED INSTEAD ON
2021.
THIS IS MITIGATION OF WHAT
DIRECTOR NOBLE IS PREDICTING.
AND SO THE AMENDMENT AS
DESIGNED, AGAIN, THIS WOULD
MAKE BUSINESSES LIABLE TO PAY
THE TAX FOR 2020 BASED ON 2019
PAYROLL.
AND, IT WOULD RAISE AN
ADDITIONAL $75 MILLION FROM THAT
2020 OBLIGATION.
AND I HAVE A COUPLE DIFFERENT
VERSIONS.
ONE VERSION ASSUMES SOME SMALL
LEVEL OF SPENDING IN 2020.
MAYBE ABOUT $10 MILLION.
AND THE MAJORITY OF IT, THE
ADDITIONAL 65 MILLION IS GOING
TO MITIGATE 2020 ONE EITHER BY
PAYING BACK THE EMERGENCY STOP
FUND OR ACTUALLY DIRECTLY
MITIGATING PAYROLL REDUCTIONS.
THE OTHER VERSION IN TOTAL PUT
THAT WHOLE I KNOW IN 2021 AND
NONE IN 2020.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I APPRECIATE IT. YOU DO HAVE
OTHER IDEAS, PLEASE CONTINUE TO
FLAG THOSE.
I SEE COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS AND
THEN KSHAMA SAWANT.
>> MY QUESTIONS ARE ON SLIDES
FIVE AND 13.
THANK YOU TRACY AND ALLIE FOR
THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE
WITH THIS PRESENTATION.
I WILL PREFERENCE MY COMMENTS
BY SAYING IT IS ABSOLUTELY BEEN
A PLEASURE AND HONOR TO GET TO
WORK WITH THE SMALL BUSINESSES
IN MY DISTRICT.
AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN
PROVIDING ESSENTIALLY CASE
MANAGEMENT FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES, TRYING TO NAVIGATE
THE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF
RESOURCES FROM FEDERAL AND
STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY.
IN THIS PROCESS, WE FOUND MANY
GAPS IN THE RESOURCES THAT ARE
AVAILABLE TO SMALL BUSINESSES.
THIS RESULTED IN A LETTER THAT
WE AS A COUNSEL SIGNED AND SENT
TO OUR STATE AND FEDERAL
DELEGATION.
SO, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS
IN SLIDE FIVE.
THERE IS THE IMMIGRANT AND
REFUGEE SUPPORT.
I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT.
THERE IS FOOD INSECURITY AND
IMMEDIATE HOUSING.
THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE HEARD
ARE EITHER NOT FUNDED ENOUGH
FOR, IN THE CASE OF IMMIGRANT
AND REFUGEE SUPPORT, THERE IS A
GAP IN THE RESOURCES THAT ARE
AVAILABLE.
WITH THE SMALL BUSINESS SUPPORT,
AT THIS TIME, WE ARE WORKING
WITH THE SMALL BUSINESSES IN MY
COMMUNITY TO IDENTIFY WHAT
CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS WE MAY BE
BRINGING FORWARD. I
FOUND THAT FROM MY COLLEAGUES
NOW.
WE DO NOT HAVE A MEMOS WRITTEN
OR FULLY DEVELOPED.
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AT
THIS TIME.
I WAS WONDERING, TRACY OR
ALLIE, CAN YOU PROVIDE US A
LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, WHEN
YOU SAY BUSINESS SUPPORT
RESOURCES, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY
THAT?
AND, IF THE ANSWERS ARE NOT AT
YOUR FINGERTIPS RIGHT NOW, I AM
HAPPY TO FOLLOW-UP OFF-LINE.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER DAN STRAUSS.
FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS
ASSISTANCE, THE MAJORITY OF
FUNDS ARE PROPOSED TO EXPAND OR
ADD FUNDING FOR THE SMALL
BUSINESS STABILIZATION FUND.
THAT HAS BEEN USED TO PROVIDE
GRANTS OF ABOUT $10,000 TO
SMALL BUSINESSES.
IT INCLUDES FUNDING TO SUPPORT
FAMILY CHILD CARE PROVIDERS AND
THEN I AM WORKING WITH
COUNCILMEMBER TERESA MOSQUEDA
ON MODIFYING THAT LANGUAGE TO
INCLUDE ALL BROADER RANGE OF
CHILDCARE PROVIDERS.
úIT PROVIDES ABOUT $320,000 FOR
THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT TO EXPAND THEIR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK TO YOU
MORE ABOUT THAT COUNCILMEMBER
DAN STRAUSS.
AS TRACY NOTED, THESE ARE THE
PARAMETERS THAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY
WANT TO CONSIDER MODIFYING.
THIS DEALS WITH THE AMOUNT OF
FUNDING OR IN THIS CASE, THE
DEFINITION OF A SMALL BUSINESS
WHICH IS DEFINED AS BUSINESSES
WITH FIVE OR FEWER EMPLOYEES.
THAT IS BASED ON THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CURRENT
SMALL BUSINESS STABILIZATION
FUND.
>> THANK YOU.
WOULD WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO
MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF SMALL
BUSINESS, WHETHER IT IS
CHANGING EMPLOYEES TO FTE OR
THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT
THE BUSINESS HAS?
>> YES, YOU CAN MODIFY THE
DEFINITION.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT
WE ARE PROVIDING SUPPORT FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES.
IT IS EITHER SUPPORTING A SMALL
BUSINESSOWNER WHO IS LOW
INCOME, AND OR, IT IS HELPING
TO STABILIZE OUR LOCAL ECONOMY
BY ASSURING THAT BUSINESSES
REMAIN OPEN AND EMPLOYING
PEOPLE AND CONTRIBUTING TO THE
CITY'S TAX BASE.
>> THANK YOU.
AND ONE THING THAT WE HAVE
HEARD, THIS MAY BE CHANGING
GEARS INTO THE IMMEDIATE
HOUSING, THIS IS RENTAL
ASSISTANCE.
IS THERE A WAY THAT SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT ARE HAVING
DIFFICULTY PAYING RENT WOULD BE
ABLE TO ACCESS THE RENTAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM?
IS THAT SIMPLY FOR RESIDENTIAL?
>> IT IS RESIDENTIAL.
BUT TO BE CLEAR, SOME OF THE
BUSINESS SUPPORT ASSISTANCE
COULD BE USED TO COVER RENT
PAYMENTS.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE BUSINESS
ASSISTANCE IS LIMITED IN THAT
REGARD.
>> SO THAT IS LEGALLY AVAILABLE
TO US?
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU.
I NEED TO TURN DOWN MY AUDIO.
I APOLOGIZE IF I AM YELLING AT
ANYBODY ON ACCIDENT.
>> THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS
CHAIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I THINK WE MAY HAVE LOST OUR
CHAIR.
I AM SCANNING HERE.
WE DID LOSE OUR CHAIR.
SO, I WILL GO AHEAD AND QUICKLY
PITCH HIT HERE.
I BELIEVE THAT COUNCILMEMBER
KSHAMA SAWANT WAS NEXT IN THE
QUEUE.
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT.
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER AND
THANK YOU TO THE CHAIR FOR
ORGANIZING THE DISCUSSION.
I WANTED TO PREFACE MY POINTS
WITH JUST AN OVERALL COMMENT.
THEN I DO HAVE QUESTIONS AND
ALSO CLARIFYING POINTS.
I WILL GO FROM ONE SLIDE TO THE
NEXT IN A BIT.
I ALSO WANTED TO JUST SHARE
WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
THAT MY OFFICE IS INTENDING TO
BRING ISSUES.
I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE
MOVEMENT OF ORDINARY PEOPLE
THAT HAS BROUGHT THE CITY
COUNCIL TO THIS POINT.
I MEAN, THE FACT THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL MIGHT BE AT A POINT
WHERE THERE IS A SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION TO PASS AN AMAZON
TAX, THAT IS A TAX ON BIG
BUSINESS, TO FUND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING; THIS IS ENTIRELY BULLY
AND EXCLUSIVELY TESTIMONY DUE
TO THE MOVEMENT, THE BLACK AND
BROWN COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND
LEADERS AND MULTIRACIAL
COMMUNITY ACTIVIST, THE RANK
AND FILE UNION MEMBERS, THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTIVIST, THE
SOCIALIST, INCLUDING THE
COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS IN MY
OFFICE AND SOCIALIST
ALTERNATIVE, BIG BUSINESS HAS
BEEN FORCED TO RECOGNIZE THE
TREMENDOUS COMMUNITY SUPPORT
THAT EXISTS FOR THE AMAZON TAX.
IT IS REALLY CRUCIAL THAT
COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J. MORALES
AND I WERE ABLE TO COSPONSOR
THIS LEGISLATION, FOR $500
MILLION TAX PROPOSAL FOR
AMAZON.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER TERESA MOSQUEDA
FOR SERIOUSLY JOINING THIS
CONVERSATION.
I ALSO WANTED TO SAY
TERMINOLOGIES HAVE EVERYTHING
TO DO WITH NARRATIVES OF WHAT
ARE THE FORCES THAT CREATE
SOCIAL CHANGE.
OUR MOVEMENT IS USING THE
PHRASE AMAZON TAX TO DESCRIBE
THE FACT THAT IT IS A TAX ON
BIG BUSINESS, NOT A TAX ON
WORKERS OR ON THE EMPLOYEES OF
THE COMPANIES THAT WOULD PAY
THE TAX.
AND, BY THAT MEASURE, THE
PROPOSALS UNDER CONSIDERATION
ARE, IN OUR VIEW, IN THE
MOVEMENT, THE MOVEMENT HAS
CHOSEN THIS TERMINOLOGY.
I AM FOLLOWING THE ELECTIVE
DECISION OF THE MOVEMENT.
THESE ARE BOTH, BY THAT
DEFINITION, AMAZON TAXES.
THIS MEANS THAT THEY ARE TAXES
ON BIG BUSINESS.
THEY BOTH USE THE EXACT SAME
MECHANISM OF CORPORATE PAYROLL
TAX.
JUST TO CLARIFY, IN MY POINTS,
I WILL TRY TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THE TWO BY CALLING IT
THE MOVEMENT AMAZON TAX WHICH
IS THE ONE FROM MYSELF AND
TAMMY J. MORALES.
THERE IS THE AMAZON TAX WHICH
IS A BIG BUSINESS TAX.
THIS IS BEING COSPONSORED BY
MANY ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT.
ALSO, IT IS WORTH NOTING, AND
THIS IS RELATED TO THE
DISCUSSION THAT WAS JUST
HAPPENING WHICH IS A VERY
CRUCIAL DISCUSSION.
WE ARE IN A DEEP RECESSION.
THERE IS GOING TO BE A BUDGET
SHORTFALL BECAUSE WE HAVE A
REGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH
COUNCILMEMBER TERESA MOSQUEDA.
WE HAVE TO ATTRACT REJECT
AUSTERITY ENTIRELY.
WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE ARE NO CUTS TO
ALREADY UNDERFUNDED SERVICES.
JUST TO NOTE THE NUMBERS, THE
COVERT RELATED BUDGET SHORTFALL
IS $210 MILLION.
I WANTED TO PUT THAT IN
PERSPECTIVE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE WATCHING THIS.
THAT MEANS THAT THE $174
MILLION WORTH OF THE AMAZON TAX
THAT THE DEMOCRATS AND THE CITY
COUNCIL ARE PROPOSING IS NOT
EVEN GOING TO FILL THAT ROLE.
I AGREE WITH THE COUNCIL
MEMBERS WHO HAVE SAID THAT THIS
HAS TO BE ADDITIVE.
I AM GOING TO MENTION THAT IN
THE AMENDMENTS THAT I BRING
OUT.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, AND
IF YOU JUDGE BY THE DOLLARS ON
THE TABLE, THE DEMOCRAT AMAZON
TAX IS BASELINE.
IT IS A BARE MINIMUM.
IT WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO
FURTHER WATER IT DOWN.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT FOR THE
RECORD.
I FULLY EXPECT THAT THERE MIGHT
BE AMENDMENTS TO THAT.
I THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY THE
BARE MINIMUM.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS
ACTUALLY IMPROVED RATHER THAN
WATER DOWN.
SO, HAVING SAID THAT, IF I
COULD PLEASE GO BY SLIDES, CAN
I GO TO SLIDE FIVE?
I HAD A QUESTION ON SLIDE FOUR
BUT I WILL HOLD THAT.
CAN WE GO TO SLIDE FIVE? I JUST
HAVE A SMALL POINT I WOULD LIKE
TO CLARIFY.
THE MOVEMENT AMAZON TAX FUNDING
GOES DIRECTLY TO HOUSEHOLDS AS
ALLIE CLARIFIED.
WHEREAS, THE THE TAX AMAZON NOW
PROPOSAL WOULD GO TO THE NGO.
I WOULD SUPPORT ANYTHING AND
EVERYTHING ALONG EITHER OF
THOSE LINES.
BUT, IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO SAY
THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL
SUPPORTS IMMIGRANTS AND SMALL
BUSINESSES AND OURS DOES NOT.
THAT IS NOT ACCURATE.
OUR PROPOSAL WOULD GIVE THE
MONEY DIRECTLY TO LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS INCLUDING IMMIGRANTS
AND A SMALL BUSINESSES.
THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL WOULD
CHANNEL THE MODEL TO NGOS.
BOTH WOULD BE BETTER, EITHER
WOULD BE BETTER THAN WHAT WE
HAVE TODAY WHICH IS NO FUNDING
FOR THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL.
WE HAVE INADEQUATE FUNDING FROM
THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
ON THIS SLAYING SAME SLIDE,
THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION.
THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION ON
SLIDE SIX, I WANT TO GO TO
SLIDE SIX.
THIS CONTAINS THE BIG SUMMARY
OF COMPARISONS.
THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
SO THE MOVEMENT AMAZON TAX
PROPOSAL WOULD FUND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FOR UP TO 100% OF AMI.
TO NOT USE TERMINOLOGIES THAT
NOT EVERYBODY IS FAMILIAR WITH,
THAT WOULD MEAN THAT 89,000,
I'M SORRY, $86,900 A YEAR FOR
TWO PERSON HOUSEHOLD OR
$108,600 FOR A FOUR PERSON
HOUSEHOLD.
THE DEMOCRATS AMAZON TAX WOULD
FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR A
250% OF AMI.
THIS IS 43,504 TWO PERSON
HOUSEHOLD.
IT IS $53,000 FOR A FOUR PERSON
HOUSEHOLD.
MY OFFICE WILL SHARE THIS ON
OUR WEBSITE.
PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THIS AND
THEY DO NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
THE NUMBERS.
I WANTED TO SHARE THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
THE NUMBER OF PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING HOMES BUILT
UNDER THE MOVEMENT AMAZON TAXES
ROUGHLY 2600.
I'M GOING BY THE ESTIMATES.
AND THE NUMBER UNDER THE
DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL WOULD BE
2300.
2600 WOULD BE IN OUR PROPOSAL.
THIS IS VERSUS 2300 AND THE
DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL.
OVERALL, THERE IS A BIG CHASM
AND HOW MANY AFFORDABLE HOMES
WOULD BE BUILT IN THE CITY
OVERALL.
OVERALL, THE MOVEMENT OVER 10
YEARS WOULD BUILD 10,600
AFFORDABLE HOMES.
IN THE OTHER PROPOSAL, IT IS
3200 AFFORDABLE HOMES.
IT IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT FOR
US TO TAKE NOTE OF THE ACTUAL
MATERIAL REALITIES OF HOW
STRONG OF AN AMAZON TAX IS
PASSED, THIS IS NOT LIKE
JOCKEYING FOR POLITICAL POINTS
BETWEEN SOCIALISTS AND
DEMOCRATS ON THE COUNSEL.
THIS HAS ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES
FOR WORKING PEOPLE.
HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE HOUSING DO
THEY GET?
ALTHOUGH, I ABSOLUTELY WANT TO
REITERATE THAT IT IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNCIL IS
DISCUSSING PASSING EMMY ANY
AMAZON TAX AT ALL.
TO CLARIFY, UNDER THE
DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL, NO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR
HOUSEHOLDS BETWEEN 50 AND 100%
AMI WILL BE PASSED.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THE
STARTING DATE WOULD BE MY
OFFICE INTENDING TO BRING IT
AMENDMENTS TO THE DEMOCRATS
PROPOSAL TO HAVE IT START
EARLY.
I HEARD COUNCILMEMBER LISA
HERBOLD SPEAKING ABOUT THAT.
I AM HAPPY TO JOIN YOU IN
WORKING ON THAT TOGETHER.
SO NOW, ON SLIDE EIGHT, THERE
IS ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH MY POINT
AND THEN CENTRAL STAFF CAN
ANSWER SOME OF THE POINTS.
SLIDE EIGHT, I THINK THE LOWEST
COST ESTIMATE IS BASED ON WHAT
WAS CALLED THE THIRD DOOR
PROPOSAL.
AS THEY SAID, THIS WAS TO
STREAMLINE ZONING AND OTHER
REGULATIONS.
THIS IS POTENTIALLY PAYING
WORKERS LESS OR IT IS IGNORING
PRIORITY LOCAL HIRES.
I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.
IF THERE IS ANY INFORMATION
THAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE OR IF
THEY COULD GET THIS INFORMATION
BY THE NEXT MEETING, WHAT ARE
THE EFFICIENCIES THAT WILL MAP
OUT THE SCENARIO?
DOES IT HONOR PREVAILING WAGES
AT COMMERCIAL RATES?
DOES IT DEAL WITH
APPRENTICESHIP UTILIZATION?
STUFF LIKE THAT, THOSE ARE
THINGS THAT WE ARE
AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMING IN HER
MOVEMENT PROPOSAL BUT
ABSOLUTELY ALL OF THOSE THINGS
WILL BE HONORED.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE
DEEP RACIAL INEQUALITY IN OUR
CITY.
ON THE SUNSET CLAUSE, JUST ONE
THING, CENTRAL STAFF CAN
CONFIRM, ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT
THE REVENUE UNDER THE MOVEMENT
AMAZON TAX PROPOSAL, BECAUSE IT
PROVIDES AN ONGOING REVENUE
SOURCE, IT COULD BE TAKEN OUT
IN THE FUTURE TO GET EVEN MORE
DOLLARS TO BUILD HOUSING AND TO
FUND THE GREEN NEW DEAL?
ON THAT NOTE, I WANT TO CLARIFY
THAT OUR AMAZON TAX PROPOSAL
ACTUALLY HAS REAL DOLLARS FOR
THE GREEN NEW DEAL PROGRAM.
THIS IS COMPLETELY ABSENT FROM
THE AMAZON TAX PROPOSAL.
THAT IS ONE QUESTION.
BECAUSE THERE IS AN ONGOING
REVENUE SOURCE, COULD IT BE
BONDED OUT IN THE FUTURE TO GET
ANY MORE MONEY?
IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL, IS
IT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT IT
COULD NOT BE BONDED OUT BECAUSE
OF THE SUN SETS?
MAYBE I AM WRONG ABOUT THAT.
PLEASE CLARIFY THAT.
WITH THE CITY PAY FOR THE
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNITS
OPERATIONAL COST AFTER 2030?
IF THERE IS A TAX SUNSET, THERE
IS NO FUNDING FOR IT IN THE
PROPOSAL.
THAT IS NOT A MINOR QUESTION.
I THINK IT IS PROBABLY CLOSE TO
500 PERMANENT JOBS, ONGOING
BUILDING MAINTENANCE JOBS, AND
SO-AND-SO, IT WILL HAVE REAL
CONSEQUENCES.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD
BE CLARIFIED.
AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION IS,
WHAT IS THE CURRENT SHORTAGE,
REALLY, ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS
ARE RELATED TO THE SUNSET
CLAUSE.
WHAT IS THE CURRENT SHORTAGE OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SEATTLE?
UNDER CURRENT PROJECTIONS, WHAT
WITH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SHORTAGE BE IN 2000 30 IF THIS
SUNSET CLAUSE WAS TO PASS?
THESE ARE NOT NEW QUESTIONS.
THE SUNSET CLAUSE IS ABSOLUTELY
UNACCEPTABLE.
IT IS A POISON PILL THAT IS THE
RESULT OF A STRATEGY OF NOT
WORKING WITH MOVEMENTS BUT
BUILDING, TRYING TO BUILD
AGREEMENT WITH BIG BUSINESS WHO
ARE DEEPLY HOSTILE TO ANY
PROGRESSION OF MEASURES.
ON THE ONE HAND WE HAVE BIG
BUSINESS JOINING THE DEMOCRATS
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE SENT OUT AN EMAIL
SAYING YOU NEED TO SIGN UP FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE WE DO
NOT WANT TAXES ON BIG BUSINESS.
THEY ARE PLAYING BOTH SIDES.
THEY CONTINUALLY PROVE OUR
POINT FROM THE MOVEMENT THAT
THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
LASTLY, ON THE LIST OF
AMENDMENTS THAT MY OFFICE WILL
BE BRINGING FORWARD, I THINK
THAT IT IS VERY LIKELY IT WILL
BE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ANOTHER
OFFICE, WE HAVE NOT HAD
SPECIFIC DISCUSSIONS.
I WELCOME ANY OTHER
COUNCILMEMBER TO JOIN US ON
THESE AMENDMENT.
ONE IS AN AMENDMENT TO USE THE
TAX METHOD IN OUR BILL AND
INCREASE THE RATE TO TWO
PERCENT FROM 1.3%.
THIS WILL BRING IN ANOTHER $200
MILLION TO TOTAL REVENUE OF
$700 MILLION.
THIS WILL AVERT ALL CITY BUDGET
CUTS.
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS BUILDING OFF
THE MOVEMENT, AMAZON TAX
PROPOSAL.
THIS WOULD NEED TO BE ADJUSTED.
IF IT IS AN ADORNMENT TO THE
DEMOCRATIC PROPOSAL, WE HAVE
AGREED TO IT.
MY POINT IS THE AMENDMENT WE
WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD TO
INCREASE THE TAX RATE, I THINK
IT HAS TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION, NOT ONLY
BRINGING UP TO THE MOVEMENT
PROPOSAL BUT THAT PLUS TAKING
CARE OF THE BUDGET CUTS THAT
WILL COME BECAUSE OF THE
RECESSION -RELATED AUSTERITY
AGREEMENT.
ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SAID
THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ADDITIVE.
WE ALSO WILL BE BRINGING AN
AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE THE
SUNSET CLAUSE.
THIS IS A COMPLETE STOP TO BIG
BUSINESS.
TO THINK THE HOUSING CRISIS
WILL DISAPPEAR IN 2030, AND WE
WANT TO ADVANCE THE EFFECTIVE
START DATE TO JULY 1, 2020.
WE WANT TO DO IT IN AUGUST IF
JULY IS NOT POSSIBLE.
I AM HAPPY TO WORK WITH ANYBODY
ON ANY OF THOSE AMENDMENTS.
I MIGHT HAVE COMMENTS LATER ON
BUT I WILL STOP THERE.
>> THANK YOU, WE HAVE PRESIDENT
GONZALES IN THE QUEUE.
THERE IS A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS.
FOR THE QUESTIONS FOR CENTRAL
STAFF, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO
ANSWER THIS.
I DO WANT TO HAVE TWO PIECES OF
CLARIFICATION.
NUMBER ONE, THIS QUESTION WAS
ASKED ABOUT DIRECT CASH
ASSISTANCE.
I WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD ON
DOLLARS GETTING DIRECTLY IN
INDIVIDUALS HANDS.
IN THE JUMPSTART PROPOSAL,
THERE IS DIRECT CASH ASSISTANCE
FOR IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES.
IT PROVIDES IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES.
AS IT RELATES TO WORKER
PROTECTIONS, OBVIOUSLY IS THE
CHAIR OF LABOR IN THE PAST, AND
COMING FROM LABOR, WORKER
PROTECTIONS OR SOMETHING I HAVE
CONSTANTY PUSHED FOR INCLUDING
INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
EFFORTS.
THIS HAS BEEN STRONG AND
UNEQUIVOCAL ON THIS ISSUE.
ON THE JUMPSTART PROPOSAL, IT
IS LISTED IN THE DOCUMENT
ITSELF.
IT IS LANGUAGE REGARDING
PREVAILING WAGE, APPRENTICESHIP
UTILIZATIONS, WOMEN AND
MINORITY HOME BUSINESSES,
CONTRACTORS AS WELL; BE PUT
INTENT LANGUAGE INTO THE
LEGISLATION.
WE INCORPORATED STANDARDS THAT
ARE BUILT OFF OF THE LANGUAGE
THAT WE REALLY PUSHED FOR IN
THE CASE SIDE, BEING A PIONEER
AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE WAS
A STRONG LABOR PROTECTION IN
THE EFFORT TWO YEARS AGO.
WE ARE REPLICATING AND LEARNING
FROM THAT EFFORT.
I WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY ON
THAT, ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH
THE JUMPSTART LEGISLATION IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCESS OF
FOURTH BY LABOR STANDARDS AND
IN COLLABORATION WITH
AFFORDABLE HOUSING EFFORTS.
WE HAVE WORKED ON THIS IN THE
PAST.
WE HAVE EMBODIED IT INTO THE
LEGISLATION.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I
CORRECTED THE RECORD ON THOSE
TWO PIECES.
I WILL PASS MORE COMMENTS
LATER.
CENTRAL STAFF, IF YOU HAVE A
RESPONSE TO ANY OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT COUNCILMEMBER
KSHAMA SAWANT PUT OUT, PLEASE
FEEL FREE TO ANSWER THOSE.
>> I AM GOING TO START TO TRY
TO ANSWER NUMBER OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT RELATE TO THE
HOUSING COSTS.
THE LOW COST OPTION THAT ALLIE
DESCRIBED IS IN FACT BASED ON
THE THIRD DOOR COALITION
PROPOSAL.
THERE'S INCLUDE A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS.
ONE IS THAT THERE CAN BE MONEY
FOR FUNDING.
>> I AM SORRY.
THIS IS WHAT WE NEED, WE NEED TO
HAVE YOU PUT YOUR COMPUTER ON
MUTE AND HAVE YOU CALL AL IN.
PLEASE HAVE ALLIE CHIME IN.
>> GREAT I THINK WHERE TRACY
WAS GOING, THE LOW-COST OPTION
IS BASED ON THE PER UNIT COST
NUMBERS, BASED ON THE THIRD
DOOR INFORMATION.
THIS ASSUMES A NUMBER OF
THINGS.
THE PER-UNIT COST IS REDUCED BY
LAND, BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES,
PERMANENT STREAMLINING, A
NUMBER OF THINGS.
WE CANNOT VERIFY THAT NUMBER.
THAT WAS SORT OF WHAT I HAD
NOTED THAT THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING HAS A NOTICE OF FUNDING
AVAILABLE CURRENTLY OUT THE
DOOR TO TRY TO GET PROPOSALS
FOR MORE INNOVATIVE
CONSTRUCTION METHODS THAT MIGHT
BRING DOWN THE COST.
THAT EXAMPLE WAS JUST TO
ILLUSTRATE WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF
THE UNIT COSTS ARE SUCCESSFULLY
DRIVEN DOWN.
IT DOES NOT ASSUME THAT THIS
COUNSEL, THAT THESE SPONSORS
WOULD SUPPORT REDUCED LABOR
STANDARDS FOR EXAMPLE IN
BUILDING THOSE UNITS.
>> I THINK THAT ANSWERS THAT
QUESTION.
WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION
RELATED TO BONDING USING THIS
REVENUE SOURCE.
IT IS A BOND AGAINST IT.
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF
CLARIFICATIONS.
SO, YOU COULD ISSUE BONDS TO
SPEND MORE MONEY NOW.
IT IS NOT, IT IS NOT CREATING
NEW REVENUE. WE JUST NEED A WAY
TO FINANCE INVESTING IN MORE
UNITS TODAY.
IT WOULD COST MORE OVER THE
LONG RUN FOR THE FINANCING
CHARGES.
AND THEN, I WOULD ASK DAN OR
TOM IF THEY HAD ANYTHING TO ADD
IN TERMS OF USING THE TAX THAT
HAS A SUNSET AID, AS THE
ASSUMED SOURCE OF FUNDS TO PAY
BACK.
THIS IS THE PRINCIPAL AND DESK
SERVICE REGARDING ISSUING THE
BONDS.
IN GENERAL, WHEN THE CITY
ISSUED BONDS, THEY INTEND TO
HAVE, YOU KNOW, A SECURED
REVENUE SOURCE.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN PAY
IT BACK BUT IF THE REVENUE
SOURCE WAS INSUFFICIENT, THE
CITY'S GENERAL FUND WOULD BE
OBLIGATED I BELIEVE.
>> THIS IS DAN, THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF.
I THINK ALLIE, WHAT YOU JUST
SAID IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
THE ONLY THOUGHT THAT I WOULD
STATE IS THAT THAT CAN BE
ISSUED FOR A VARIETY OF TIME
PERIODS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE
TYPICALLY DO FOR LT GL OR LONG-
TERM GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT IS
ISSUED 20 YEAR BONDS.
20 YEARS IS A LONGER PERIOD
THAN THE JUMPSTART LEGISLATION
AS INTRODUCED.
IT WOULD PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
THIS.
IF WE WERE TO ISSUE THAT KIND
OF TWENTY-YEAR DEBT, THE
REMAINING AMOUNT OF TIME, 10
YEARS OR MORE, DEPENDING ON
WHAT HAS BEEN ISSUED WOULD
BECOME THE OBLIGATION OF THE
CITY WITHOUT AN IDENTIFIED
MEANS FOR REPAYING THE DEBT.
IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT THE
CITY COULD ISSUE EIGHT YOUR
DEBT OR TENURE DEBT.
AND, THEY COULD HAVE THE AMOUNT
OF OUTSTANDING BORROWED FUNDS
BE REPAID ENTIRELY WITH THE
JUMPSTART STREAM OF REVENUE.
THAT IS NOT HOW WE TYPICALLY DO
OUR BONDING BUT IT IS ALSO, IT
IS ALSO A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY.
I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID
ALLIE THAT BONDING IS A FINANCE
THING MECHANISM THAT
EFFECTIVELY MOVES THE ABILITY
TO PURCHASE THINGS UP FRONT WITH
A LONGER PAYOFF.
THIS IS ON THE BACK END.
EVENTUALLY, THIS CAUSED MORE
MONEY BECAUSE THE BONDHOLDERS
WHO HAVE LEARNED MORE MONEY TO
THE CITY, NOT ONLY DO THEY NEED
TO BE REPAID, THEY NEED TO BE
REPAID WITH INTEREST.
THE INTEREST BECOMES THE ADDED
COST THAT THE CITY INCURS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF PROVIDING THE
PURCHASED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SOONER.
THAT IS THE TRADE-OFF THAT
POLICYMAKERS CAN WEIGH IN ON.
>> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU DAN.
I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION
ALSO ABOUT THE NEEDS AND HOW
WELL WITH THIS PROPOSAL MEET
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS?
I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION
AVAILABLE IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT
AT THIS MOMENT.
WE WILL FOLLOW UP WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON THAT QUESTION.
AND THEN, THERE WAS ALSO A
QUESTION ABOUT INVESTING IN
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
UNITS WITH A FUND SOURCE THAT
WOULD ONLY GO THROUGH ER 10.
WHAT WOULD BE THE STRATEGY FOR
THE ONGOING OPERATING AND
SERVICE COST? ONE OF THE
SCENARIOS, I BELIEVE IT WAS
SCENARIO FOUR, IT PROVIDED AN
ESTIMATE THAT 20 YEARS OF COST
WERE FRONTLOADED INTO THE FIRST
10 YEARS.
THE REVENUE PROPOSED WITH THE
SUNSET WOULD BASICALLY PUT IN
THE BANK, THE MONEY TO PAY FOR
THE ONGOING OPERATING IN
SERVICE COST THROUGH YEAR 20.
TYPICALLY, I BELIEVE THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING DOES, IN THEIR
CONTRACT FOR PERMANENT
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, THEY
CONTRACT OUT FOR AND COMMIT TO
PROVIDE SERVICES FOR 20 YEARS.
THAT IS OFTEN RENEWED.
IN ANY CASE, IF ANY TAX HAS A
SUNSET DATE AND OR THE FUTURE
COUNSEL DECIDES TO REPEAL A
TAX, AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF
FUNDS WOULD BE NEEDED TO
PROVIDE THE ONGOING COST.
>> THANK YOU, I SEE TRACY IS ON
THE LINE.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN.
I KNOW WE HAD TO CUT YOU OFF.
GO AHEAD.
LET'S SEE WHAT YOU HAVE.
>> I AM SO SORRY ABOUT THAT.
ALLIE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER
SOURCE.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE HAD TO LEVY IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
SERVICE COSTS AND ALSO FOR THE
HOUSING THAT WE HAVE FUNDED
OVER THE YEARS.
SO, AS IT JUST SO HAPPENS,
THERE WILL BE ANOTHER HOUSING
LEVY IN ABOUT YOUR 10.
WE MIGHT NOT FIND THE PSH FOR
20 YEARS.
THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER BACK
SOURCE FOR THE FUNDING FOR THE
ADDITIONAL 10 YEARS OF THE
SERVICE COSTS FOR THE UNITS.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU TRACY AND
THANK YOU ALLIE.
WE HAVE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
GONZALES NEXT.
I WANT TO READ SOMETHING INTO
THE RECORD.
I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
ANYBODY TAKING AWAY FROM A
CONVERSATION, IF THERE'S
ANYTHING LESS THAN STRONG LABOR
STANDARDS IN THE JUMPSTART
PROPOSAL, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE
WORKED ON YEARS AGO, WHICH WAS
ORDINANCE 119531.
IT WAS GROUNDBREAKING IN THAT
INCLUDED ADDITIONAL LABOR
úSTANDARDS IN OUR EFFORTS IS A
CITY TO BUILD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
SO I WANT TO POINT TO LINE 15,
PAGE 12 IN THE SPEND PLAN.
IT SAYS HOUSING PROJECTS FUNDED
WITH THIS TAX WILL BE BILLED
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S
HOUSING FUNDED POLICIES AS
ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 119531.
THESE INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT
LIMITED TO REQUIREMENTS AND
GOALS THAT ADVANCED LABOR
EQUITY OUTCOMES SUCH AS THE
PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES,
APPRENTICESHIP UTILIZATION, AND
EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND
MINORITY OWNED BUSINESSES.
IMPOSING ADDITIONAL
REQUIREMENTS ARE INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO PREFERRED ENTRY
OF APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS,
REQUIREMENTS OF PRE-
APPRENTICESHIPS, MENTORING, OR
OTHER TRAINING PROGRAMS AND
UTILIZATION OF WORKERS FROM
ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS.
THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR NEW
PROJECTS ON THE RESULTS OF
EVALUATION.
THIS IS THE ONGOING EVALUATION
THAT WE ARE DOING AT THE MERCER
SITE.
THIS IS BUILDING ON THE WORK WE
DID TO INCORPORATE STRONG LABOR
PROTECTIONS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE FOLKS KNOW
THAT IS IN THERE AND IT IS MY
INTENT AND THE COUNCIL'S
INTENDS TO BE LOOKING AT WAYS
THAT WE PUT INTO STATUES,
STRONG LABOR PROTECTIONS.
THAT IS TRUE HERE IN THE SPEND
PLAN FOR THE JUMPSTART
LEGISLATION AS WELL.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GONZALES,
THANK YOU FOR WAITING.
IT IS YOUR TURN.
>> THANK YOU.
I RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS 11:56
A.M.
YOU COMMITTED TO MAKING THIS A
LITTLE SHORTER TODAY.
I WILL MAKE THIS AS QUICK AS I
CAN.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE IS THERE WAS A QUESTION BY
COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS AROUND
POTENTIALLY STRANGE AND THE
DEFINITION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO QUALIFY
FOR THE OED ASPECTS OF THE
JUMPSTART PROPOSAL.
THIS WOULD BE PART OF THE COVID-
19 RELIEF FUND.
I JUST WANT TO THROW OUT A
POLICY CONSIDERATION FOR US AS
WE CONSIDER THAT KIND OF
POTENTIAL PROPOSAL.
IT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ME TO
UNDERSTAND FROM COUNSEL CENTRAL
STAFF, WHAT KIND OF PROGRAMS
ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO
BUSINESSES BASED ON THEIR SIZE.
NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT
MUCH OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAMMING
FOR EXAMPLE WAS SWALLOWED UP
SIGNIFICANTLY BY SOME OF THE
LARGER BUSINESSES.
AND, AND, A LOT OF OUR SMALLER
BUSINESSES WERE REALLY LEFT OUT
BEING ABLE TO BENEFIT FROM THAT
FEDERAL RELIEF PACKAGE.
AND SO, I THINK IT WOULD JUST
BE HELPFUL, AS WE CONSIDER A
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE
DEFINITION OF THE SIZE OF THE
BUSINESS, WE CAN GET A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PROGRAMS
ARE AVAILABLE TO WHICH ENTITIES
UNDER THE UMBRELLA IN
PARTICULAR.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU ALL WOULD
BE ABLE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO DIG INTO IN ORDER TO GIVE
THE COUNCIL MORE GUIDANCE AS WE
LOOK AT WHERE TO SET THE DIAL
AS IT RELATES TO WHO CAN
QUALIFY FOR THOSE BENEFITS?
>> GO AHEAD.
>> YES, WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT
QUESTION.
WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENT
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AS
WELL AS TALK WITH OED ABOUT
WHAT THEY ARE LEARNING ABOUT
NOT JUST TO IS ELIGIBLE BUT WHO
HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL AND ABLE TO
ACTUALLY OBTAIN THAT
ASSISTANCE.
I THINK WE ARE PROBABLY HEARING
SIMILAR THINGS IN THAT SMALLER
BUSINESSES WITH LESS
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT JUST
CANNOT COMPETE. THEY CANNOT
MOVE AS QUICKLY TO GET ALL OF
THEIR DOCUMENTS YOU KNOW, LINED
UP AND APPLICATIONS IN AND THAT
SORT OF THING.
WE WILL WORK WITH OED TO PUT
INFORMATION TOGETHER.
AT THE VERY LEAST, WE CAN
PROVIDE THE DIFFERENCES AND
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT WHO
HAS BEEN AWARDED VARIOUS GRANTS
OR LOANS.
>> THANK YOU.
AND BEN, TRACY, YOU WANTED TO
JUMP IN.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO
ADD?
>> WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO GET
THE INFORMATION.
THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES TO THE
FEDERAL RELIEF FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES.
IT PROVIDED RESOURCES TO
SMALLER CD FIS AND OTHER
COMMUNITIES.
LUCKILY, THEY ARE DIRECTLY
BEING REQUIRED TO GIVE MONEY TO
SMALLER BUSINESSES CURRENTLY.
THE QUESTION IS, IS THE DATA
AVAILABLE NOW GIVEN THAT THERE
ARE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED.
WE WILL DO SOME REGULAR
SURVEYING.
WE WILL HAVE TO SEE WHAT THEY
HAVE AVAILABLE.
WE CAN FIND OUT WHAT WE KNOW
ABOUT LOANS.
THIS IS ALSO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN
PROVIDED.
THESE ARE THE FUNDS THAT WE
HAVE ALREADY ALLOCATED. WE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT DATA
AVAILABLE.
>> RATE, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND THEN, I ALSO AM INTERESTED
IN HEARING COUNSEL CENTRAL
STAFF, WHETHER THERE IS
EXISTING LANGUAGE IN THE
ORDINANCE THAT CREATES SOME
SORT OF PRIORITIZATION OR FOCUS
ON RACIAL EQUITY.
I AM PARTICULARLY CONCERNED
ABOUT THOSE BUSINESSES WHO DO
NOT HAVE, I AM CONSECUTIVELY
CONCERNED ABOUT ENTREPRENEURS
AND MICRO ENTERPRISES AND
BUSINESSES.
THEY DO NOT HAVE ENGLISH AS
THEIR FIRST LANGUAGE.
THESE ARE PRIMARILY IMMIGRANT
AND REFUGEE OWNED BUSINESSES
THAT DO NOT HAVE THE SAME LEVEL
OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT THAT
OED EVEN EXISTS MUCH LESS THE
PROGRAMMATIC SERVICES THAT THEY
MIGHT HAVE. AND SO, CAN YOU
TALK TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
WHETHER THERE IS EXISTING
LANGUAGE IN JUMPSTART THAT
WOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC FOCUS OR
PRIORITIZATION OF THOSE TYPES
OF BUSINESSES.
>> SURE.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT, SO, THE
PROPOSAL FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS
ASSISTANCE SAYS SPECIFICALLY,
AND THIS IS ON PAGE 10 OF THE
BILL FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
FOLLOWING ALONG, ASSISTANCE
SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED FOR
BUSINESSES WHO COMMIT TO NOT
REDUCING WAGES AND BENEFITS
PROVIDING THE COVID-19
EMERGENCY.
FOR BUSINESSES WHO HAVE HISTORIC
YOU RECENTLY BEEN UNABLE TO
ACCESS ASSISTANCE THROUGH STATE
OR FEDERAL PROGRAMS, THEY ARE
AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT BUSINESSES
INCLUDING BUSINESSES OWNED BY
BLACK, INDIGENOUS IS PEOPLE OF
COLOR AND INDIVIDUALS IN THAT
CREATIVE INDUSTRY.
WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH
YOU IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA THERE.
AND THEN ALSO, THERE IS, IN THE
ALLOCATION FOR THE OFFICE OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS
ABOUT $300,000 FOR TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE.
THERE IS A SEPARATE ALLOCATION
TO THE OFFICE OF IMMIGRANT AND
REFUGEE AFFAIRS.
IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING DIRECT
CASH ASSISTANCE, OR FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE TO IMMIGRANT AND
REFUGEE FAMILIES, THERE IS ALSO
FUNDING TO HELP SUPPORT
COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
TO PROVIDE TRANSLATION AND
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE
AND BUSINESSES WHO ARE APPLYING
FOR FEDERAL OR STATE ASSISTANCE
OR OTHER PROGRAMS.
THERE ARE TWO AREAS OF THAT
SORT OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT.
>> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT AND
MY SECOND LINE OF QUESTIONING
WILL BE AROUND THE SPENDING
PROPOSALS FOR IMMIGRANTS AND
REFUGEES.
ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT, I
WOULD LIKE TO FLAG THAT I HAVE
AN INTEREST IN PROPOSING A
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND TO
THAT PRIORITIZATION LANGUAGE
THAT YOU JUST READ.
IT WILL REALLY CALL OUT A
LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY THE
NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO
PRIORITIZE BUSINESS OWNERS AND
ENTREPRENEURS WHOSE ENGLISH IS
NOT THEIR FIRST LANGUAGE.
THEY THEREFORE HAVE A GREATER
DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY ACCESSING
THESE PROGRAMS.
AND, I THINK THAT WOULD COUPLE
WELL WITH THE INTENT ON THE
LANGUAGE ACCESS LINE OF
INVESTMENTS.
YOU KNOW, MY HOPE IS THAT WE
CAN PEER THOSE TOGETHER A
LITTLE BIT MORE STRONGLY TO
THREAD THE NEEDLE THERE.
WE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 98% OF
BUSINESSES THAT EXIST IN THE
CITY, MANY OF THOSE ARE VERY
VERY VERY SMALL.
THEY ARE SMALL BUSINESSES.
IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES TEND TO
GO INTO THAT ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ROUTES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY DO SO
WITHOUT KNOWING ALL OF THE
AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR THEM.
I REALLY WANT TO FORCE THE HAND
AROUND THE CITY AND OED IN
PARTICULAR.
THIS IS UNDERSTANDING DEEPLY,
THE NEED TO PRIORITIZE LANGUAGE
ACCESS IN THEIR FUNDING
DECISIONS AND PRIORITIZATION.
I WANTED TO FLAG THAT I HAVE AN
INTEREST IN PURSUING THE
LANGUAGE THERE.
ON IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES, CAN
YOU REMIND US AS A COUNSEL IN
THE GENERAL PUBLIC, CAN YOU
REMIND US WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS
IN THE EXISTING DRAFT OF THE
JUMPSTART LEGISLATION ABOUT
WHICH POPULATION FROM THE
IMMIGRANT REFUGEE POPULATION
QUALIFY FOR ASSISTANCE?
>> DOES IT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS?
>> DOES THE LANGUAGE SAY
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS?
>> THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT SAY
UNDOCUMENTED.
>> CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT IT DOES
SAY?
>> I AM JUST TRYING TO FIND IT.
I DO NOT WANT TO READ THE WHOLE
ORDINANCE TO YOU.
[ LAUGHTER ] I AM HAPPY TO IF
THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT.
MAYBE YOU DO NOT WANT TO EAT
LUNCH.
SO, IT TALKS ABOUT THIS.
IT SAYS DIRECT FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE TO SEATTLE'S LOW
INCOME IMMIGRANTS WHO
EXPERIENCED THE ECONOMIC
IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE COVID-19
CRISIS, THEY MAY BE USED FOR NO
OTHER PURPOSE.
AND FOR PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
THAT PROVIDE LANGUAGE ACCESS
SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE WHO NEED
HELP ACCESSING AND
UNDERSTANDING FEDERAL, STATE,
AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,
THEY MAY BE SPENT FOR NO OTHER
PURPOSE.
THEN IT TALKS ABOUT
ADMINISTRATION.
IT SAYS THAT COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATIONS WILL DETERMINE
THE ELIGIBILITY INCLUDING
CRITERIA TO CONFIRM INCOME
ELIGIBILITY PRIORITIZING THOSE
WHO ARE INELIGIBLE FOR OTHER
FEDERAL STATE, OR EMERGENCY
ASSISTANCE.
MAYBE THEY ARE RECEIVING
ASSISTANCE IN A DELAYED MANNER
THAT DOES NOT MEET THEIR.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE HAD REQUESTS
FOR ELIGIBILITY.
THEY SHOULD NOT UNNECESSARILY
DELAY THE APPROVAL AND
DISTRIBUTION PROCESS.
IT DOES NOT ASK OR IT DOES NOT
LIMIT IT TO HOUSEHOLDS OR
INDIVIDUALS OR WORKERS WHO ARE
OR ARE NOT DOCUMENTED.
>> GREAT.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ME IF
ALLIE, YOU, OR WHOEVER IS ON
CENTRAL STAFF COULD CROSSWALK
WITH THAT LANGUAGE WITH THE
LANGUAGE THAT WE INCLUDED IN
THE CREATION OF THE LEGAL
DEFENSE FUND.
I WANT TO, OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS
AN AREA OF GREAT SENSITIVITY.
WE FOUND THE RIGHT BALANCE IN
THE CREATION OF THE LEGAL
DEFENSE FUND TO ALLOW IMMIGRANT
WHO MAY BE OF UNDOCUMENTED
STATUS TO CONTINUE TO APPLY FOR
THOSE FUNDS WITH OUT
COMPROMISING THEIR
CONFIDENTIALITY, SHOULD THE
CITY COME INTO POSSESSION OF
THAT INFORMATION.
THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE GOT THAT BUTTONED UP AND
TIGHTEN UP TO THE GREATEST
EXTENT POSSIBLE.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO DO A
CROSSWALK BETWEEN THE LANGUAGE
AND THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
ORDINANCE.
>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO SO.
I APPRECIATE THE DIRECTION ON
WHERE TO WORK, IT MAKES THE JOB
EASIER.
>> I AM MEETING YOU DOWN THE
PATH HERE.
I THINK THAT IF YOU COULD DO
THAT AND THEN GET BACK TO ME
WITH SOME ANALYSIS, I WANT TO
FLAG FOR MY COLLEAGUES THAT
DEPENDING ON THE ANALYSIS, I
MIGHT BE BRINGING EDITORIAL
LANGUAGE TO PROVIDE AND ADDRESS
THE ISSUES RELATED TO
CONFIDENTIALITY IN THAT SPACE
AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE
PROTECTING ALL IMMIGRANTS AND
REFUGEES WHO QUALIFY FOR THAT
ASSISTANCE.
THIS IS THROUGH THE LANGUAGE IN
THE ORDINANCE.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO THAT
ANALYSIS AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO
POTENTIALLY DO SOME OF THAT
ADDITIONAL WORK.
THANK YOU.
THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS I
HAVE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU
FLAGGING THE NEED TO HARMONIZE
THE LANGUAGE.
WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT LOOKING
AT AUSTIN'S MODEL.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE
REPLICATING THE LANGUAGE HERE
IN THE CITY OF SEATTLE.
THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
DAN, I SAW THAT YOU TEED UP THE
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION.
DO YOU HAVE MORE SLIDES?
OKAY.
LET ME JUST, BEFORE WE GO ON TO
THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO MY
COLLEAGUES ABOUT THE SPEND PLAN.
FIRST, I WANT TO NOTE, AS ALLIE
MENTIONED EARLIER, I HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH SOME OF THE
CHILDCARE PROVIDERS IN THE CITY
AND THE UNION.
I WILL BE INTRODUCING AN
AMENDMENT THAT WE ARE WORKING
ON RIGHT NOW.
I AM HAPPY TO TALK WITH ANYBODY
WHO HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT IT AS
WE DRAFT AN AMENDMENT TO ENSURE
THAT CHILDCARE BUSINESSES AND
SUPPORT FUNDS CAN BE USED AT
FACILITIES AS WELL AS CHILD
CARE FAMILY HOMES.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE ABLE TO
ZIP AND CHILD CARE PROVIDER TO
BE ELIGIBLE FOR THESE FUNDS.
AS WE THINK ABOUT THE SHEER
NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO NEED
CHILDCARE FOR THEIR KIDS, WHO
USED TO BE IN SCHOOL OR SCHOOL-
BASED PROGRAMS, SUMMER
PROGRAMS, WE ARE TRYING TO
SCALE UP ACCESS TO CHILDCARE.
THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT
EVERYBODY HAS BEEN TALKING
ABOUT, ESPECIALLY WORKING
FAMILIES AND THOSE WHO HAVE
SMALL BUSINESSES WHO NEED TO
MAKE SURE THEIR KIDS AND OTHERS
HAVE ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE
CHILDCARE.
WE WANT TO HAVE TRAINED,
QUALIFIED FOLKS WHO ARE
PROVIDING HOME-BASED CHILDCARE.
THEY ARE EXCITED ABOUT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTNER.
I BELIEVE ALLIE OR TRACY, YOU
MENTIONED THE WAY IN WHICH THIS
SCENARIO DOVETAILS WITH OTHER
ISSUES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE
SPEND PLAN PROPOSAL.
I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DID NOT
MENTION THAT WE CONTINUE TO
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRAW
DOWN THE OVERALL COST OF
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE DO THIS BY DOUBLING DOWN ON
OUR EFFORTS TO BUILD ON SURPLUS
LAND.
THIS IS LEGISLATION THAT I
PASSED TWO YEARS AGO.
WHEN WE BUILD AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ON SURPLUS LAND LIKE
THE F-STOP PROPERTY ADJACENT TO
THE CHURCHES IN THE SOUTH END,
WE IDENTIFY OTHER OPPORTUNITIES
TO BUILD HOUSING AND WE
CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THE
EXCLUSIONARY ZONING THAT LIMITS
US TO WHERE WE CAN BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURES.
WE REMEMBER THAT 75% OF SEATTLE
LIFE IS BLOCKED INTO SINGLE-
FAMILY HOUSING.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KEEP
PUSHING FORWARD ON BUILDING
SURPLUS LAND INTO DRESSING
ZONING ISSUES SO WE CAN FREE UP
MORE LAND IN THE CITY TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, STREAMLINED
PERMITTING AS WELL.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON.
THE CHAIR OF LAND-USE IS
INTERESTED IN HOW WE CONTINUE
TO STREAMLINED PERMITTING AS
WELL.
WE WANT TO REDUCE OVERALL COST
IN THE SYSTEM AND OVERHAUL THE
DESIGN PROCESS.
THOSE COMPLEMENTARY POLICIES, I
THINK THEY ARE SOMETHING THAT
WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET THE GAS
OFF ON AS WE PUSH FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND DRAW
DOWN THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT WE
CAN SEE EVEN MORE HOUSING BUILT
OUT OF THIS.
I AM REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD TODAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT WHO
WAS ASKING FOR A COMPARISON.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHERE
THE DOLLARS ARE GOING.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHETHER TO
SCALE UP OR DOWN.
THIS IS IN TERMS OF WHICH AMI
POPULATION WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT.
THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING
THOSE EFFORTS HERE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT
FOR HOUSEHOLDS BETWEEN 0 TO 30%
OF THE INCOME, A STAGGERING 75%
OF THOSE FOLKS WITH THE LOWEST
WAGES HAVE BEEN BURDENED WITH
60% OF THE RENT BURDEN.
THEY ARE SPENDING HALF OF THEIR
INCOME ON RENT.
IT IS IMPORTANT.
THANK YOU FOR ASKING FOR THIS
INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN BE
THINKING ABOUT HOW WE INVEST IN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
I HAVE ONE LAST COMMENT HERE.
WE WILL GO ON TO THE SPEND PLAN
AND HAVE CONCLUDING COMMENTS
FROM ANY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
WE ARE EXCITED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR
FOLKS, ON PAGE FOUR OF THE
NARRATIVE THAT WAS SENT AROUND,
WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH OUR COLLEAGUES AS WE SCALE
UP ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE AND
INVESTMENTS FOR THE
INFRASTRUCTURE, GREEN NEW DEAL
PRIORITIES LIKE ENERGY
EFFICIENT UPGRADES TO SUPPORT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
IMPORTANT.
WE HAVE BUILT IN BUILDING
OMISSIONS COMPROMISING ABOUT A
THIRD OF CARBON EMISSIONS.
WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT AND
SUPPORT EFFORTS TO BE ENERGY
EFFICIENT.
THIS IS LIKE THE HDC BUILDING
CHALLENGE FOR CREATING DEEP
GREEN BUILDING IN AFFORDABLE
HOUSING.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS
CURRENTLY NOT DICTATED IN TERMS
OF A SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE
CITY.
IT REQUIRES THAT AS A PERMANENT
SOURCE AND THAT WILL BE PART OF
THE FUTURE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS
CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT WAYS
THAT WE CAN DOUBLE DOWN
INVESTMENT EFFORT.
I TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
WE HAVE ABOUT 45 MINUTES LEFT
IN OUR EFFORT TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE HAVE AN HOUR BREAK FOR
LUNCH.
I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM
YOU ALL AND CLOSING COMMENTS.
>> THANK YOU.
FOR THE RECORD I AM TOM WITH
YOUR STAFF.
FORTUNATELY, I HAVE A FEW
SLIDES.
I HAVE THREE IN A PARALLEL
FASHION TO THE SPEND PLAN.
I WILL TOUCH ON THE COMPARISONS
BETWEEN THE 119772 IT IS CALLED
TAX AMAZON.
THERE IS 119810 AND IT IS
CALLED THE SEATTLE PLAN.
I WILL GO THROUGH THE
COMPARISON BETWEEN THESE TWO
PIECES OF LEGISLATION AND I
WILL TOUCH ON THE POLICY LEVERS
THAT ARE IN PLAY WHEN
CONSIDERING 119 OR THE
JUMPSTART PLAN.
SO BY WAY OF A HIGH-LEVEL
OVERVIEW, THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE
GENERATED FROM THE TAX AMAZON
IS $500 MILLION ON ANNUAL
RAISES.
THIS COMPARES TO 173.5 MILLION
FROM THE JUMPSTART PLAN.
I WOULD NOTE, IT HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED LAST WEEK, THAT
NUMBER ONLY REFLECTS THE AMOUNT
OF REVENUE THAT A CENTRAL STAFF
IS ABLE TO ESTIMATE WITH THE
AVAILABLE DATA.
THERE ARE TWO TIERS.
I WILL TOUCH ON THEM A LITTLE
BIT FURTHER ON IN THE
PRESENTATION.
THEY APPLY DIFFERENTIAL TAX
RATES TO THOSE BUSINESSES FROM
7 MILLION TO 1 BILLION AND THEN
1 BILLION AND HIGHER.
THE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
DEPARTMENT WHO PROVIDED THE
DATA FOR THE ANALYSIS WAS NOT
ABLE TO PROVIDE DATA ON
BUSINESS IS HIGHER THAN $1
BILLION.
THERE IS AN INCREMENTAL PIECE
THAT IS ABOUT 8.7% IN THE
HIGHER TIER.
IT IS NOT CONCLUDED IN THE 173
AND HALF MILLION DOLLAR
ESTIMATE.
PRIOR SLIDE PLEASE.
BOTH TAXES ARE A PAYROLL
EXPENSE TAX.
THEY ARE APPLIED TO BUSINESSES
ENGAGING TO THE BUSINESS
PAYROLLS AND BUSINESSES
ENGAGING IN SEATTLE.
THE TAX PACE AND THE TAX AMAZON
PLAN IS A BUSINESS PAYROLL
ABOVE $7 MILLION.
THAT INCLUDES ALL COMPENSATION
LEVELS.
THE JUMPSTART PLAN, SIMILARLY
APPLIES THE TAX TO BUSINESS
PAYROLLS ABOVE $7 MILLION AND
ABOVE.
HOWEVER, AS YOU WILL SEE IN THE
NEXT PORTION OF THIS TABLE, THE
TAX DOES NOT KICK IN UNTIL
COMPENSATION LEVELS ARE
$150,000 OR HIGHER.
ON THAT NOTE, THE AMAZON PLAN
APPLIES A 1.3% RATE TO ALL
NONEXEMPT PAYROLLS.
THE JUMPSTART PLAN APPLIES TWO
DIFFERENT TIERS.
ONE IS FOR BUSINESS PAYROLLS
FROM 7 MILLION TO $2 BILLION.
THEN IT BREAKS IT FURTHER DOWN
BY LEVEL OF COMPENSATION.
150,000 TO ABOUT $500,000, THE
RATE IS .7% FOR COMPENSATION
500,000 AND ABOVE.
THEN FOR BUSINESS PAYROLL,
THERE IS $1 MILLION AND HIGHER.
THOSE TWO TIERS ARE 1.4% AND
2.1%.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
EXEMPTIONS ARE FAIRLY SIMILAR
BETWEEN THE TWO PIECES OF
LEGISLATION.
GROCERY STORES ARE EXEMPTED IN
BOTH.
THERE ARE SOME BUSINESS
CATEGORIES THAT ARE JUST
GENERALLY NOT SUBJECT TO CITY
TAX.
THIS IS INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS
OR FIELD BUSINESSES, LIQUOR
STORES, INSURANCE COMPANIES.
ONE POINT OF DEPARTURE BETWEEN
THE TWO BILLS IS THE TAX AMAZON
PLAN, IT EXEMPTS NONPROFITS AND
THE JUMPSTART PLAN DOES NOT
EXEMPT NONPROFITS.
THIS IS OTHER THAN THE INITIAL
$7 MILLION THRESHOLD EXTENSION.
ANOTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
TWO IS THE TAX AMAZON PLAN HAS
INTRODUCED A JUNE 1, 2020 START
DATE.
THE JUMPSTART SEATTLE PLAN
STARTS JANUARY 21st OF 2021.
FINALLY, BY WAY OF COMPARISON,
THERE IS NO SUNSET CLAUSE
INCLUDING FOR THE TAX AMAZON
PLAN.
THE JUMPSTART PLAN INCLUDES TWO
CHAIRS OF THE SUNSET.
ONE IS A HARD STOP ON DECEMBER
21, 2030.
IT IS A 10 YEAR SUNSET DATE.
THEN ALSO, THE PROVISION THAT
THE FUTURE CITY COUNCILS WILL
MONITOR, STATE, COUNTY
LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS FOR
PROGRESSIVE TAX PROPOSALS IS
INCLUDED.
THIS WOULD OVERLAP WITH THIS
PROPOSAL.
THEY WOULD MODIFY THIS IS
NECESSARY.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO THIS IS A JUMPING OFF POINT
FOR THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS.
THERE ARE GENERALLY TWO THAT
ARE OF NOTE.
ONE IS MAKING AN IMPACT TO THE
REVENUE AMOUNTS GENERATED FOR
THE BILL.
SO, OBVIOUSLY, A RATE CHANGE,
EITHER UP OR DOWN COULD
GENERATE COMMENSURATE LEVELS OF
REVENUE INCREASES.
FURTHER, EXEMPTIONS COULD BE
ADDED, MODIFIED, OR REMOVED
FROM THE BILL.
THIS WOULD HAVE A REVENUE
IMPACT.
THE THRESHOLD, BASICALLY THE
SIZE OF BUSINESS PAYROLL IN
WHICH THE TAX KICKS IN, COULD
BE INCREASED OR DECREASED.
SIMILARLY, THE LEVEL OF
COMPENSATION TOWARDS THE TAX
THAT APPLIES COULD BE RAISED OR
INCREASED.
AND THEN FINALLY, WITH REGARDS
TO THE REVENUE BALANCE, THIS IS
MORE IN THE WAY OF HOW MUCH
REVENUE COULD BE GENERATED IN
TOTAL VERSUS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
CURRENTLY, AS STATED, THERE ARE
TWO DIFFERENT START DATES.
IF THE JUMPSTART SEATTLE PLAN
WAS STARTING IN 2020, AS
OPPOSED TO JANUARY 1 OF 2021,
AN ADDITIONAL MONITORING
INCREMENTAL REVENUE COULD BE
GENERATED.
AND THEN FINALLY, THE SONS THAT
PROVISION CAN BE UNIFIED,
REMOVED, OR OTHERWISE THE
ADDITIONAL SUNSET PROVISIONS
COULD BE ADDED.
AND THAT IS ACTUALLY THE EXTENT
OF MY PREPARED REMARKS.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HELP WITH
ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU DON, TOM AND DAN
AS WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ARTWORK.
I COMBINED YOUR NAME, APOLOGIES
FOR THAT.
THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE
DONE.
THE FOUR OF YOU HAVE BEEN
EXTREMELY HELPFUL FOR THE
VARIOUS ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN
PUT FORWARD.
I WANT TO RECOGNIZE HOW MUCH
WORK YOU ARE DOING IN ADDITION
TO RECEIVING THE BUDGET FROM
THE MAYOR.
THANK YOU.
COUNSEL COLLEAGUES, LET'S TEE
UP QUESTIONS ON THE PAYROLL TAX
PORTIONS OF THE REVENUE-
GENERATING BILL.
IT IS FOR THE SPEND PLAN THAT
WE JUST WALKED THROUGH.
QUESTIONS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J.
MORALES, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH DAN AND
TOM.
DAN, I KNOW WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS.
WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
DIFFERENT RATES.
I AM LOOKING FOR A WAY TO MAKE
THIS.
I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT,
IF WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH
THIS WORK OF ME BEING A
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE
TAXING STRUCTURE, WE NEED TO
CREATE A MUCH MORE ROBUST
INFRASTRUCTURE AND MECHANISM
FOR DOING THIS.
I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO DAN
ABOUT HOW WE CAN DO THAT.
AND, I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
THE FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES
THAT THE COUNCILMEMBER PROPOSED
PUTTING FORWARD.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SALARY
DISTINCTION IN THIS PROPOSAL IS
THE SAME IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT.
IT COULD BE 100,000 OR 500,000.
I AM WONDERING IF A MORE
PROGRESSIVE APPROACH WOULD BE
TO ASSESS INCREASING RATES
BASED ON TOTAL PAYROLL.
SO, IN OTHER WORDS, ASSESS THE
SAME RATE, LET'S SAY 1 1/2%
WOULD BE ON ALL SALARIES OVER
100,000.
BUT WE WOULD INCREASE THE RATE.
SO, IT WOULD BE BETWEEN 7
MILLION AND 100 MILLION.
IT WOULD BE 1 1/2%.
BETWEEN 100 AND 500 MILLION, IT
WOULD BE 1.7.
OVER 500 MILLION IN PAYROLL, IT
WOULD BE 2%.
THE WAY THAT IT IS STRUCTURED
RIGHT NOW, WE DO NOT KNOW HOW
MANY BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE
VERY FEW BUSINESSES IN THE CITY
WHOSE PAYROLL MIGHT EXCEED $1
BILLION.
AND SO I AM JUST, I AM TRYING TO
KEEP THE EFFECT OF THE
INCREMENTAL RATES BUT I WOULD
LIKE TO MAKE IT MORE MEANINGFUL
BY HAVING THOSE CATEGORIES
SMALLER.
I WOULD STILL LIKE TO GENERATE
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN 200
MILLION A YEAR.
THIS IS NOT REALLY FROM A
FINANCIAL ANALYST.
THIS IS THE IDEA THAT I HAVE
COME UP WITH TO TRY TO GET US
MORE REVENUE AND STILL KEEP THE
IDEA OF INCREASES.
I WOULD LOVE SOME THOUGHTS ON
THAT.
>> I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU WANT TO
STEP IN DAN.
>> PLEASE, GO AHEAD TOM.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THE
QUESTION.
WE CAN CERTAINLY TWEAK THE
DIFFERENT RATES THAT ARE
APPLIED TO THE STRUCTURE AS
PROPOSED.
AS I MENTIONED AT THE LEAD, THE
FUNDAMENTAL DATA WE ARE WORKING
WITH WAS BASED OFF OF AN
INITIAL REQUEST.
THERE ARE SIMILAR DATA FOR THE
1 MILLION+ CATEGORY.
WE ARE SOMEWHAT LIMITED IN HOW
MUCH FLEXIBILITY WE HAVE TO DO
MORE DISCRETE ADJUSTMENTS
WITHIN THE TEARS WITH THE DATA
AT HAND.
SO WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO
THAT AND SEE WHAT KIND OF
FLEXIBILITY THERE IS WITH THE
DATA THAT WE HAVE.
THIS IS JUST UNDERSTANDING THAT
THERE MAY BE LIMITATIONS TO HOW
MUCH MORE DETAIL COULD BE
APPLIED.
>> I THINK I WOULD JUST LAYER
IN AN ADDITIONAL THOUGHT THAT
THE DATA WE HAVE IS FROM THE
STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
DEPARTMENT.
THEY HAVE GIVEN US INFORMATION
ABOUT ALL OF THE EMPLOYERS AND
THE EMPLOYEES, WHAT THEY HAVE
HAD TO DO IS ESSENTIALLY SCREEN
FROM THE PUBLIC'S YOU, FROM OUR
VIEW AND YOUR VIEW, SOME OF THE
INFORMATION WHICH WOULD HAVE
PROVIDED AND PUBLICIZED PRIVATE
INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYERS.
SO, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO NOTE
THIS INCIDENT INFORMATION.
WE HAVE AGGREGATE INFORMATION
THAT CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO
ANY INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYER OR ANY
INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES.
WHAT TOM IS DESCRIBING IS
LIMITATIONS ON HOW FINALLY WE
CAN SLICE THE AGGREGATE DATA
BEFORE WE BEGIN TO TREAD INTO
THIS LAND OF BEING TOO SPECIFIC
ABOUT TOO FEW IN NUMBER OF
BUSINESSES SO THAT A REASONABLE
PERSON MIGHT BE ABLE TO INFER
WHICH BUSINESSES WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT.
THAT IS THE LIMITATION THAT TOM
WAS REFERRING TO.
THAT MAKES IT CHALLENGING FOR
US TO BE ABLE TO ESTIMATE WITH
ANY KIND OF PRECISION THE
AMOUNT OF ANNUAL REVENUE WHICH
WOULD FLOW FROM THE KIND OF
MORE FINE-TUNED RATE STRUCTURE.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT TERESA
MOSQUEDA WAS PROPOSING OR
OFFERING AS A POSSIBLE
SUGGESTION.
>> COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J.
MORALES, IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER
ISSUE, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER
LORENA GONZCEZ HAS A QUESTION
BASED ON THAT RESPONSE AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU CHAIRWOMAN TERESA
MOSQUEDA.
I THINK THIS QUESTION IS FOR
COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J. MORALES.
I WAS NOT QUITE FOLLOWING WHAT
YOU ARE PROPOSING IN TERMS OF
THE RATE.
SO, ARE YOU PROPOSING AN
INCREASED PERCENTAGE ON A SORT
OF FLAT RATE BASIS
OF YOU KNOW, ANYTHING ABOVE
150,000.
THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A ONE
POINT WHATEVER, 1.3 OR 1.4,
WHATEVER THE PERCENTAGE BEING
TAXED, JUST A FLAT RATE, IS
THAT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING?
OR, ARE YOU PROPOSING MODIFYING
THE CURRENT PERCENTAGES THAT
ARE LISTED AND PROPOSED AS PART
OF THE TAXATION RATE.
KEEPING THE BRACKETS THE SAME
BUT CHANGING, MOVING THE DIALS
UP WITHIN THOSE TEARS IS
IMPORTANT.
>> WELL, I THINK I AM PROPOSING
BOTH.
TO ME, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS
SLIDE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE LOOKING
AT PAYROLL BETWEEN, FOR
CORPORATIONS WHOSE PAYROLL IS
BETWEEN 7 MILLION AND 999
MILLION.
THAT SEEMS LIKE A HUGE
CATEGORY.
[ LAUGHTER ] AND SO, IT SEEMS
TO ME THAT IF WE HAVE ONE RATE,
A SLIGHTLY HIGHER RATE, I AM
SAYING ONE AND A HALF PERCENT
FOR SAY 7 MILLION TO 100
MILLION, AND THEN A SLIGHTLY
HIGHER RATE FOR BETWEEN 100
MILLION AND 500 MILLION, THAT
STILL GETS AT THE PROGRESSIVE
NATURE OF TRYING TO TAX HIGHER
PAYROLL YOU KNOW INCREMENTALLY
HIGHER TAXATION.
THIS IS WITHOUT HAVING QUITE SO
MANY CATEGORIES.
I GUESS THIS IS REALLY WHAT I'M
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
IS THERE A WAY TO SIMPLIFY THIS
AND HAVE YOU KNOW, LIKE ONLY
THREE RATES OVER DIFFERENT
CATEGORIES RTHER THAN FOR
RATES OVER FOUR CATEGORIES?
THE BOTTOM LINE IS I AM TRYING
TO FIND A SIMPLER WAY TO
INCREASE THE REVENUE THAT WE
ARE GENERATING HERE.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT
CLARIFICATION.
I SUPPOSE THAT IF WE ARE
LOOKING FOR A SIMPLER WAY TO DO
IT, IT MIGHT BE JUST AS EASY TO
LEAVE THE CATEGORIES, THE TEARS
THE WAY THAT THEY ARE AND JUST
SIMPLY INCREASE THE CURRENT
PROPOSED PERCENTAGE OF TAXATION
BASED ON THOSE EXISTING TEARS.
WE COULD SEE HOW MUCH MORE WE
COULD GENERATE IN REVENUE
OBVIOUSLY, I THINK THE ISSUES
THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AROUND
ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA THAT WE
ARE RELYING ON FROM ESD PLAY A
ROLE INTO A LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE [
LAUGHTER ] IN THOSE FORECASTED
MODELS.
I THINK THAT ISSUE EXISTS,
WHETHER WE LEAVE THEM OFF AS IT
IS NOW AND MOVE THESE DIALS AS
THEY EXIST OR, WHETHER WE LOOK
AT MODELS UNDER YOUR SUGGESTED
REVISION.
I JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT I
THINK THERE IS STILL A
POSSIBILITY TO JUST WORK WITHIN
THE TEARS AS THEY EXIST AND
LOOK AT MOVING THE EXISTING,
PROPOSED TAXATION RATES TO SEE
WHAT THE MODEL WOULD PRODUCE.
>> YES.
>> THANK YOU COUNCIL PRESIDENT
AND COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J.
MORALES.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OR
COMMENT?
I AM SORRY I CUT YOU OFF.
I SEE YOU SAY NO.
>> THAT WAS ALL OF MY
QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.
>> NO PROBLEM.
I HAVE THE COUNCILMEMBER IN THE
QUEUE.
IF THERE ARE OTHER
COUNCILMEMBERS, PLEASE RAISE
YOUR HAND.
COUNCIL MEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT ?
>> THANK YOU.
ON THE POINT THAT TOM WAS GOING
OVER AND ALSO WHAT
COUNCILMEMBER TAMMY J. MORALES
RAISED, AS I SAID IN THE
PREVIOUS SET OF SLIDES, YOU
KNOW, IT IS NOT SURPRISING.
I WOULD SUPPORT ANY AND EVERY
EFFORT TO INCREASE THEIR EFFORTS
. THIS IS UNDER CONSIDERATION
RIGHT NOW.
EARLIER, I AM PLANNING TO BRING
IN AN AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE
TAX RATE. I HAVE BEEN PLANNING
TO BRING IN AN AMENDMENT TO
HAVE THE TAX APPLIED TO ALL
SECTIONS OF THE CORPORATE
PAYROLL OF A COMPANY THAT IS
ELIGIBLE.
WHETHER A COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE
OR NOT IS NOT DECIDED ON HOW
MUCH THEY PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES
BUT HOW MUCH PAYROLL THERE IS
FOR ALL.
SO, I AM REALLY, POSITIVELY
INTERESTED THAT THERE IS AN
ACTUAL DISCUSSION OF INCREASING
THE TAX RATE.
I HOPE THE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE
SERIOUS ABOUT THIS.
I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO
INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF
REVENUE RAISED ONE WAY OR
ANOTHER.
ULTIMATELY, I THINK THAT IS
WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
IT IS ABOUT, CAN WE HAVE THE
POLITICAL WILL TO RAISE ENOUGH
REVENUE TO BOTH BUILD THE KIND
OF HOUSING THAT WE NEED BUT
ALSO, WE NEED TO BUILD ON THE
SKILL THAT WE NEED.
I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE POINTS
THAT COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA MADE REGARDING THAT
HAVING ZONING CODES IS
ESSENTIAL.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
MAKE ABSOLUTELY MAXIMUM USE OF
CITY-OWNED SURPLUS LAND.
THAT IS IMPORTANT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU ARE
GOING TO BE LIMITED BY HOW MUCH
REVENUE WE RAISED FOR BUILDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THE SKILL
THAT WE NEED.
SO, WE NEED COMMITMENT ON THAT.
AND, IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS
THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBER SAID,
WE NEED TO CLOSE THE BUDGET
GAPS THAT ARE UNFORTUNATELY
GOING TO HAVE GAPING HOLES
REGARDING THE IS RECESSION.
ULTIMATELY IT COMES DOWN TO THE
AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT WE
RAISE.
REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU SLICE IT,
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO
EXTREMELY PROGRESSIVE
PROPOSALS.
THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE POSTED
BASED ON THE SAME MECHANISM
WHICH IS TAXING CORPORATE
PAYROLL.
I WANTED TO SPEAK AS AN
ECONOMIST FOR A MOMENT.
I AM VERY WORRIED THAT ALL OF
THE DISCUSSION IS STARTING TO
CONFLATE THE REALITY THAT THEY
ARE BOTH THE EXACT SAME
MECHANISM.
THIS IS A TAX ON CORPORATE
PAYROLL.
I WOULD REALLY LARGE ALL OF THE
COUNCILMEMBERS TO REITERATE
THIS POINT.
REGARDLESS OF WHICH PROPOSAL
YOU SUPPORT, LET'S NOT
UNINTENTIONALLY HAS MISLEADING
POINTS WHICH I HAVE SEEN
BEFORE.
NOT TODAY.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD
IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION IN
EXPLAINING TO MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC THAT THEY ARE BOTH
ACCESS ON CORPORATE PAYROLL
REGARDLESS OF WHICH SECTION OF
THE PAYROLL YOU TAX, THE TAX
DOES NOT FALL ON THE WORKERS OR
ON THE EMPLOYEES.
IT FALLS ON THE BUSINESS.
THIS MEANS THAT IF THE
CORPORATION IS ELIGIBLE TO PAY
TAXES OR REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES
BECAUSE OF THE 7 MILLION
THRESHOLD, THEN THAT MEANS THAT
THE OWNERS AND THE MAJOR
SHAREHOLDERS WILL PAY NOT THE
EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION.
REGARDLESS OF WHICH TAX RATE IS
APPLIED TO WHICH SALARY OF THE
EMPLOYEES, THE EMPLOYEES DO NOT
PAY THE TAXES FOR THE
CORPORATION.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
REITERATE WHAT ECONOMIST'S HAVE
SAID.
THEY HAVE DEBUNKED THE IDEA
THAT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
HAS COME UP WITH AN 2018.
THEY ARE STILL RECYCLING THE
SAME OLD FALSE IDEA THAT IT IS
A TAX ON JOBS.
IT IS REALLY POSITIVE THAT WE
ARE ALL UNITED AND TALKING
ABOUT A BIG BUSINESS TAX
PROPOSAL IN SOME SHAPE OR FORM.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT
REGARDLESS OF WHAT TAX RATE IS
APPLIED TO WHAT SECTION OF THE
PAYROLL, THIS IS NOT A TAX ON
THE WORKERS.
THIS IS A TAX ON THE
CORPORATION.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT AVENUES TO
INCREASE THE REVENUE.
I WOULD SUPPORT ANY AND EVERY
AVENUE TO INCREASE THE TAXES.
OF THIS SAID, I WILL BE WORKING
ON THIS AND I WELCOME ANY OF
YOUR OFFICES TO WORK WITH US.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALSO
FOR OFFERING THAT
CLARIFICATION.
I REALLY THINK THAT IS
IMPORTANT.
THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE
EARLIER THAT SAID SOMETHING
LIKE YOU KNOW, ANYTHING LESS AND
THE PROPOSAL IS REGRESSIVE.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU CLARIFIED
BOTH FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC.
THIS IS A TREMENDOUSLY
PROGRESSIVE TO AND ANGLE.
TO CLARIFY, FOR THE RECORD,
YOUR COMMENTS WERE HELPFUL.
IQ FOR SAYING THAT.
THIS IS A VERY EXCITING TIME.
WE ALSO SHOULD NOTE, THIS HAS
BEEN MOMENTUM THAT HAS BEEN
BUILDING.
FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE
BEEN CALLING FOR FIXING THE TAX
CODE.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS ALONE IN
SEATTLE WOULD NOT FIX THE TAX
SYSTEM, GIVEN THE REGRESSIVE
NATURE OF TAXES IN THIS STATE
AND IN OUR CITY.
THAT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL
COMPLETELY REFORMED.
BUT, THE BUILDING AND THE CALL
FOR ACTION HAS BEEN HAPPENING
FOR YEARS.
IT IS REALLY EXCITING TO HEAR
THE CONVERSATION TODAY.
I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS THAT
YOU JUST MENTIONED.
I AM OPTIMISTIC THAT WE ARE
GOING TO BE PASSING PROGRESSIVE
PAYROLL TAXES HERE IN THE CITY
OF SEATTLE IN THE VERY NEAR
FUTURE.
ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA, TO ADD TO WHAT YOU
AND I WERE SAYING, TO CLARIFY,
THERE IS A COROLLARY POINT
DRAWN FROM WHAT I WAS SAYING
ABOUT ECONOMIST 'S HAVING TO
DEBUNK THE IDEA THAT THIS IS A
TAX ON JOBS OR WORKERS.
YOU KNOW, FLOWING FROM THAT, IT
IMPLIES THAT REGARDLESS OF
WHICH SECTION OF THE PAYROLL
YOU ARE TAXED, IT IS STILL A
PROGRESSIVE TAX.
NEITHER OF THESE TAXES ARE
REGRESSIVE.
I WOULD REALLY HOPE ALL
CONCILMEMBERS REITERATE THE
POINT THAT THESE ARE BOTH
EXTREMELY PROGRESSIVE TAX
PROPOSALS.
THIS WOULD BE HISTORIC.
THEY ARE BOTH TAXING THE
BUSINESS, NOT THE WORKERS.
NEITHER OF THEM IS REGRESSIVE.
>> EXCELLENT, THANK YOU.
I AGREE.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT GOODFELLAS.
>> THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO ECHO THESE
SENTIMENTS AROUND THE
PROGRESSIVE NATURE BOTH OF
THESE PROPOSALS.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT
IS IMPORTANT FOR US AS
COUNCILMEMBERS WHO ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF PROGRESSIVE
REVENUE STREAMS TO REALLY PUSH
BACK ON THIS NARRATIVE THAT
THIS IS SOMEHOW A TAX ON JOBS.
THAT, AS THE COUNCILMEMBER HAS
STATED, IT IMPLIES THAT
SOMEHOW, THIS IS GOING TO COME
OUT OF THE PAYCHECKS OF WORKING
PEOPLE IN THESE CORPORATIONS.
THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
AND, I APPRECIATE
COUNCILMEMBER'S CALL TO ALL OF
US TO BE EXTREMELY DIRECT ABOUT
THAT.
AND, WE NEED TO REALLY CREATE A
STRONG LEGISLATIVE RECORD HERE.
AND, WE NEED TO CREATE A RECORD
IN THE PUBLIC AS WE ARE
ENGAGING WITH OUR CONSTITUENTS.
THIS IS A TAX THAT WILL BE PAID
BY LARGE CORPORATIONS FROM
THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND NOT
FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF
WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE.
YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE PROPOSING
SOMETHING THAT PUSHED THIS KIND
OF TAX TO WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE,
I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WE WOULD
NOT BE PROPOSING EITHER OF
THESE PLANS.
AND, SO, I THINK IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE ACCEPT
THE COUNCILMEMBER'S CALL AND
AGAIN SAY THAT THIS IS
ABSOLUTELY A TAX THAT IS
INTENDED TO BE PAID BY LARGE
CORPORATIONS AND NOT BY THE
PEOPLE THAT THEY EMPLOY.
I ALSO WANT TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THIS IS NOT A NOVEL TAXATION
MECHANISM.
WE HAVE LOSS OF PAYROLL TAXES
THAT EXIST IN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON.
WHAT IS NOVEL ABOUT THIS IS
THAT WE ARE REQUIRING THAT IT
BE PAID BY CORPORATIONS AS
OPPOSED TO A DEDUCTION FROM
PAYROLL CHECKS.
THIS FURTHER ADDS TO THE
PROGRESSIVE NATURE OF BOTH OF
THESE PROPOSALS.
AND, I THINK IT IS REALLY
IMPORTANT FOR US TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT
REINVENTING A TOOL.
WE ARE BEING NOVEL IN TERMS OF
ITS APPLICABILITY.
AND, THIS IS IN TERMS OF WHO IS
GOING TO CREATE TAX LIABILITY.
THAT IS OUR CITY'S LARGEST
CORPORATIONS.
UNDER OUR MOST REGRESSIVE TAX
SYSTEM, HERE IN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, WE ARE GOING TO
REQUIRE THAT THESE CORPORATIONS
PAY A FAIR SHARE OF WHAT THEY
OWE IN TERMS OF TAXES THAT THEY
HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING EQUITABLY
INTO OUR TAXATION SYSTEM.
SO, I JUST WANT TO ECHO THAT
SENTIMENT.
I WANT TO PUT MY SUPPORT OUT
THERE FOR THOSE PRINCIPLES.
I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A RESIDENT
ECONOMIST ON THE CITY COUNCIL.
I AM SURE THAT SHE CAN SPEAK
MORE ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF JUST
PAYROLL TAXES AND THE VALUE OF
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE BEING
VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS GOING
TO BE PAID BY OUR CITY'S
LARGEST CORPORATIONS.
THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK YOU
COUNCILMEMBER FOR MAKING SURE
THAT WE ARE MAKING THAT CRYSTAL
CLEAR IN OUR DELIBERATIONS.
>> THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.
I THANK YOU BOTH FOR MAKING
THAT CLEAR.
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL AND
ARE DELIBERATIONS HERE, I HOPE
THAT NEEDS LOW QUESTION AS TO
THE NATURE OF THE TAX AND THE
PROGRESSIVE APPROACH THAT THE
COUNCIL IS TAKING TO TRY TO
RIGHT SIZE OUR REVENUE TO
ADDRESS THE CRISIS THAT IS HERE.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, I SEE
YOUR HAND RAISED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, GO
AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY FOR
YOUR HARD WORK ON THESE
PROPOSALS.
I WANTED TO SIGNAL MY INTEREST
IN POTENTIALLY AN EXEMPTION FOR
NONPROFITS.
I KNOW WE HAVE BEEN TALKING
ABOUT THE LARGE CORPORATIONS.
THE PREVIOUS BILL HAD THAT
EXEMPTION.
I JUST WANT TO SIGNAL MY
INTEREST IN EXEMPTING
NONPROFITS.
AND, I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE
WOULD BE AN INTEREST IN
EXEMPTING HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS,
THIS WOULD BE AT LEAST DURING
THE FIRST COUPLE YEARS OF THIS.
THEY ARE TREATING PATIENTS WITH
COVID-19.
THEY ARE TESTING PATIENTS FOR
COVID-19.
THAT IS ANOTHER IDEA.
I WANTED TO, ARE WE THREW
TALKING ABOUT THE SPENDING
PLAN?
OKAY.
>> YOU ARE WELCOME TO MAKE
COMMENTS ON THAT AS WELL.
>> SURE.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SPENDING
PLAN YEARS 2022 AND BEYOND
CREATE NEW PROGRAMS, I WOULD BE
INTERESTED IN SEEING SOME SORT
OF LANGUAGE WHERE WE ARE HAVING
THE CITY REPORT BACK TO US ON
THE OUTCOMES OF THOSE NEW
PROGRAMS.
JUST SO THERE IS A CHANCE TO
MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ALONG THE WAY,
IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A FULL
LOAN EVALUATION BUT IT NEEDS TO
BE SOMETHING WHERE THE OUTCOMES
WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE ARE
THERE.
THEY ARE TRACKED.
THEN WE CAN DO COURSE
CORRECTIONS HERE.
I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT A
POPULAR IDEA AMONG THIS GROUP.
I AM INTERESTED IN A SHORTER
SUNSET.
THE RATIONALE IS THAT YOU KNOW,
IF THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE A
FOUR YEAR OR FIVE YEAR SUNSET,
THAT WOULD ENABLE THE CITY
COUNCIL FOUR YEARS FROM NOW TO
MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AT THAT TIME.
THE 10 YEARS WILL POTENTIALLY
TIE THE HANDS OF FUTURE
COUNSEL.
THAT IS JUST ONE THOUGHT.
I HAVE HEARD OTHER FOLKS SAY
THAT THEY DO NOT WANT A SUNSET.
I AM JUST SORT OF THROWING THAT
OUT THERE AS AN IDEA.
IT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE IT WILL
BE VERY POPULAR WITH MY
COLLEAGUES BUT I WOULD LIKE TO
PUT THAT OUT THERE.
AND, I MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER
IDEAS ALONG THE WAY.
I JUST GOT THROUGH THE
LEGISLATION THIS PAST WEEKEND.
I WAS CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE
MAYOR WAS GOING TO BE DOING FOR
THE REBALANCING.
I AM ALMOST FINISHED AND I WILL
BE ABLE TO MEET YOUR DEADLINE
FOR FRIDAY IF I HAVE ANY FORMAL
COMMENTS.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU FLAGGING
THAT.
I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE
HELPFUL IF CENTRAL STAFF, IF
YOU HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE
OVERSIGHT OR REPORTING BACK,
COULD YOU REMIND US ABOUT WHAT
IS THERE, I AM INTERESTED ON
THAT PIECE AT THE MOMENT.
THIS IS GIVEN HOW MANY THINGS
WE HAVE.
I APPRECIATE YOU FLAGGING THE
NONPROFITS.
I AM NOT SURE IF YOU WANTED TO
TALK ABOUT THAT.
PLEASE GO AHEAD COUNCILMEMBER
KSHAMA SAWANT.
THEN COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF, WE
WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.
I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE
SUNSET CLAUSE THAT WAS RAISED
BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON.
I COMPLETELY DISAGREE.
I DO APPRECIATE THAT FINALLY,
WE DO HAVE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO
HAVE NOT SPOKEN AT ALL ABOUT THE
BIG BUSINESS TAXES, THEY ARE
STARTING TO SPEAK UP.
THAT IS IMPORTANT.
WE DO AS COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA YOU HAVE STATED, WE
HAVE AN INTEREST IN ADDRESSING
THE CRISIS IN OUR CITY AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE.
WE DO NOT INTEND TO SIT ON THIS
FOREVER.
WE WANT TO VOTE A STRONG
PROPOSAL OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE
AND OUT OF THE COUNSEL.
TO THAT END, IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT COUNCILMEMBERS ARE HONEST
WHERE THEY STAND.
I JUST WANTED TO HONESTLY
DISAGREE WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT
WAS ME.
I MEAN, THE SUNSET CLAUSE
IMPLIES THAT WHENEVER A SUNSET,
IT WILL FORCE THE ORDINARY
PEOPLE AT THAT TIME TO HAVE TO
WAGE A RENEWED FIGHT FOR
SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE THE
NORM IN OUR SOCIETY.
AT THE VERY LEAST, PROGRESSIVE
TAXES SHOULD BE THE NORM IN OUR
SOCIETY, NOT AN EXCEPTION FOR A
SHORT PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FOUGHT
REALLY REALLY HARD.
BUILDING MOVEMENTS IS HARD WORK.
THE BEST WAY FOR THE COUNCIL TO
HONOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
FOUGHT FOR THIS SO FAR IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A
SUNSET CLAUSE AT ALL.
LEAST OF ALL, WE NEED TO MAKE
THE SUNSET COME SOONER RATHER
THAN LATER, I WANT TO SAY WHAT
NEEDS A SUNSET IN OUR CITY IS
THE HORRIFIC REGRESSIVE TAX
SYSTEM WHICH HAS HAD SUCH A
HISTORICALLY DETRIMENTAL IMPACT
ON WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE AND
ESPECIALLY THE COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR.
A SUNSET IS A RACIST
GENTRIFICATION IN OUR SOCIETY.
WHAT NEEDS A SUNSET IS THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND
HOMELESSNESS CRISIS.
THERE SHOULD BE NO SUNSET ON
PROGRESSIVE TAXES.
THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST
ATTEMPTS THAT IS HOPEFULLY
GOING TO SUCCEED.
WE HAVE HAD TOO LONG OF A TIME
IN OUR CITY AND STATE WITH
REGRESSIVE TAXATION.
AND THAT NEEDS A SUNSET,
ABSOLUTELY.
>> COUNCILMEMBER ALEX PEDERSEN,
THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR
COMMENTS.
I SEE HER HAND RAISED AGAIN.
I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOUR QUESTIONS OR YOUR COMMENTS
ABOUT THE NONPROFIT AND THE
ISSUE OF OUTCOMES, I THINK
ESPECIALLY THE ISSUE OF
OUTCOMES, THIS IS A GREAT
QUESTION.
IF THERE IS NOT SOME LANGUAGE
IN THERE TOO BUILD OFF OF, I
WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU ON
THAT.
I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU
BEFORE WE GO TO CENTRAL STAFF
TO GET ANSWERS.
>> THANK YOU.
YES, JUST TO CLARIFY.
I AGREE THAT WE NEED ADDITIONAL
PROGRESSIVE TAXES.
YOU KNOW, IN A PERFECT WORLD,
WE WOULD HAVE A STATE
GOVERNMENT THAT HAD A
PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX.
IN A PERFECT WORLD, HOUSE BILL
2907 WOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED SO
THAT WE HAD A REGIONAL TAX.
I MEAN, THE PROPOSAL HAS SOME
VERY GOOD POINTS TO IT.
I STILL WISH IT WERE A REGIONAL
TAX.
FOR ME THE SUNSET IS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REVISIT WHAT IS
GOING ON AT THAT TIME, TO RENEW
IT.
IT IS NOT TO HAVE IT CLOSEOUT.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY IF THE STATE
HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING SINCE
THEN.
I KNOW THAT THERE IS THE
LANGUAGE HERE THAT IS PUT IN
THE BILL.
IT IS DEALING WITH MAINTAINING
A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. IT DEALS
WITH SECTION 5.3 8.100.
I MEAN, MAYBE THERE IS A WAY TO
TIGHTEN THAT LANGUAGE UP.
FOR ME, THE SUNSET WAS JUST A
WAY TO SAY OKAY, WHAT HAS THE
STATE DONE?
HAVE THEY DONE ANYTHING?
HAS KING COUNTY DONE ANYTHING?
IT WAS NOT TO SHUT UP
PROGRESSIVE TAXES AT THAT TIME.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME
CLARIFY THAT.
>> THAT IS VERY HELPFUL
CLARIFICATION.
COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF, DID YOU
HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED
TO ADD ABOUT ANY OF THE
OUTCOMES FOR PERFORMANCE
METRICS OR ANY FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONS ON THE NONPROFIT
ISSUE AS WELL?
>> [ INDISCERNIBLE ] CAN YOU
HEAR ME?
>> YES, NOW I CAN HEAR YOU.
>> I WILL JUST NOTE THAT THE
SPENDING PLAN PROPOSAL FOR THE
JUMPSTART SEATTLE PLAN, THAT
ESTABLISHES THE PAYROLL TAX
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, IT NOTES
THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IS TO
PROVIDE OVERSIGHT ON THE SERVICE
AND PROGRAMS REPORTED BY THE
PAYROLL TAX AND THE IMPACT THAT
THIS TAX HAS ON THE NUMBER OF
úJOBS AND BUSINESSES IN THE
CITY.
IT DEALS WITH DATA THAT
MEASURES THE IMPACTS OF THIS
TAX ON THE CITY'S ECONOMY.
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WILL
PROVIDE AN ANNUAL REPORT THAT
PROVIDES THIS INFORMATION TO
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE WANT TO
CREATE AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
THAT MIGHT GET INTO MORE
DETAILS ABOUT WHAT THE METRICS
ACTUALLY ARE.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH
YOU COUNCILMEMBER ALEX PEDERSEN
AND COUNCILMEMBER TERESA
MOSQUEDA IF YOU WANT MORE
SPECIFICITY IN THIS PROPOSAL TO
PROVIDE GUIDANCE AS THEY
DEVELOP THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
AND SCALE UP AND OVERSIGHT FOR
THE COMMITTEE.
>> COUNCILMEMBER ALEX PEDERSEN,
ANY FOLLOW-UP?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I DID READ THE SECTION ON THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN SOME
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES , I KNOW
THAT TYPICALLY THEY ARE DEALING
AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL.
INFORMATION IS COMING AND BEING
PRESENTED TO THEM.
AND, WHEREAS WHAT I WAS SAYING
IS THERE ARE INDIVIDUAL
PROGRAMS THAT ARE CREATED.
THEY SHOULD TAKE IN THERE SOME
MECHANISM AND SAY OKAY, THIS IS
A NEW PROGRAM.
WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES WE ARE
TRYING TO ACHIEVE TO BENEFIT
PEOPLE?
ARE WE TRACKING THEM?
THEN THEY CAN REPORT TO THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND HAVE
THE DATA READY RATHER THAN THE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE COMING IN
LATER AND SINGING, DID YOU
TRACK THIS DATA, DID YOU ASK
THESE QUESTIONS.
IT IS TOO LATE BY THE TIME THE
PROGRAM IS UP AND RUNNING.
THIS IS A NUANCE ON HOW PROGRAM
SPECIFIC TO BE ON THE
EVALUATION STUFF.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH
COUNCILMEMBER ALEX PEDERSEN.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING MORE
ABOUT THAT IDEA.
I BELIEVE I SOUGHT COUNSEL
PRESIDENT LORENA GONZCEZ HAD A
COMMON.
I BELIEVE I SAW COUNCILMEMBER
KSHAMA SAWANT AS WELL.
ANYTHING FROM YOU COUNCILMEMBER
LORENA GONZCEZ?
I AM SEEING A NO.
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT,
ANY LAST COMMENTS?
I DO NOT SEE ANY OTHER HANDS.
WE ARE GETTING TO THE CLOSING
COMMENT PERIOD.
WE HAVE EIGHT MINUTES LEFT IN
THIS SECTION OF OUR AGENDA FOR
THIS MORNING.
OKAY, I DO NOT SEE ANY OTHER
VIDEOS COMING ONLINE.
COUNCILMEMBER KSHAMA SAWANT,
COMING BACK TO YOU FOR CLOSING
COMMENTS.
>> YES, I JUST WANTED TO SAY
THAT I THINK IT WOULD BE TRULY
HISTORIC IF THIS COUNSEL PASSED
A STRONG AMAZON TAX VERY SOON.
HOPEFULLY, IT WILL BE THIS
MONTH.
I WOULD BE REALLY EXCITED TO
HELP MAKE THAT HAPPEN AND
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE FOUGHT THIS FAR.
WE CANNOT RELENT.
I REALLY WANT TO URGE EVERYBODY
WHO HAS FOUGHT WITH US TO
CONTINUE FIGHTING.
WE KNOW THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IS STILL MOBILIZING AGAINST IT.
WE SAW WHAT THEY DID AND 2018.
IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT
WE KEEP ORGANIZING.
I WANT TO INVITE EVERYBODY TO A
PEOPLE'S PROJECT.
IT IS HAPPENING ONLINE
TOMORROW.
IT IS NOT IN PERSON BUT IT IS
ONLINE AT 6:00 P.M.
TOMORROW.
PLEASE JOIN US.
REALLY QUICKLY, I WILL SAY THAT
WE NEED TO, THE ONLY AMENDMENTS
THAT I BELIEVE SHOULD PASS TO
THE BASELINE LEGISLATION THAT
IS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TO
STRENGTHEN THE AMOUNT OF
REVENUE THAT CAN BE RAISED TO
TAXING BIG BUSINESS.
AND, WE NEED TO REMOVE THE
SUNSET CLAUSE.
I WILL JUST NOTE, TO CLARIFY,
CITY COUNCILS, AT ANY GIVEN
TIME, ANY CITY COUNCIL HAS THE
RIGHT TO TERMINATE TAXES IN
FUTURE YEARS.
WE DO NOT NEED A SUNSET
LEGISLATION TO GIVE THEM THAT
AUTHORITY.
THEY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY BY
BEING THE HIGHEST LEGISLATIVE
BODY OF THE COUNSEL.
AND IF WE DO NOT HAVE ANY
CLAUSE, WHY DON'T WE HAVE A
SUNRISE CLAUSE THAT WOULD
DOUBLE THE PROGRESSIVE TAX IN
FOUR YEARS IF THE CRISIS HAS
NOT BEEN MADE A DENT IN?
HOW ABOUT HAVING THE SUNSET
WHEN THE TAXES ON WORKING
PEOPLE ARE LIFTED.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE ARE
VARIOUS OPTIONS WE CAN CONSIDER
FOR SUNRISE OR SUNSET.
THE ONE THAT IS IN THE
LEGISLATION NEEDS TO BE REMOVED
AND CERTAINLY IT SHOULD NOT BE
SHORTENED, THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER CLOSING COMMENTS
FROM FOLKS?
I WILL SAY THANK YOU TO OUR
CENTRAL STAFF WHO ARE STILL ON
THE LINE
THANK YOU FOR WALKING US
THROUGH THIS.
BEFORE WE CLOSE, ARE THERE ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS THAT CENTRAL
STAFF HAVE FOR US?
OKAY, I AM NOT SEEING ANY OF
THE TEAM PUT THEIR VIDEO ON.
ANY QUESTIONS?
NO.
OKAY.
THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FROM
TOM.
OKAY, GREAT.
WE HAVE HEARD A NUMBER OF
ISSUES THAT I THINK FOLKS WILL
CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO.
I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU
FLOGGING THOSE ISSUES.
I THINK THAT THERE IS A HANDFUL
THAT HAVE PERKED MY INTEREST.
I WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH
SOME OF YOU AS INDIVIDUAL
COUNCILMEMBERS TO HEAR A LITTLE
BIT MORE.
I KNOW THAT CENTRAL STAFF IS
GOING TO BE PROVIDING FOR US
ANY AMENDMENTS THAT THEY CAN
BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK TODAY.
AND, IF YOU HAVE OTHER IDEAS,
AND YOU WANT TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION,
AGAIN, ACCORDING TO THE
CALENDAR THAT WE SEND AROUND,
AMENDMENTS ARE DUE AT 10:00
A.M.
ON FRIDAY.
SO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR
PROACTIVE CONVERSATION TODAY.
WE IDENTIFIED ISSUES.
I THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF
COMMONALITY AND A LOT OF
INTEREST IN MAKING SURE THAT WE
ADDRESS THE CRISIS THAT IS
COVID-19.
AND ALSO, WE WANT TO INVEST
HEAVILY IN THE OUT YEARS IN
SMALL BUSINESSES AND IN HOUSING
SUPPORTS AND TRUE ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
SO TODAY WAS A VERY PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU AND
REALLY SIGNAL MY SUPPORT FOR
ALL OF YOU AS YOU THINK ABOUT
POSSIBLE STRATEGIES FOR OUR
DELIBERATION NEXT WEEK.
I ALSO WANT TO THANK OUR
CENTRAL STAFF IN EACH OF YOUR
OFFICES.
I KNOW YOU HAVE A LOT OF YOUR
PLATE RIGHT NOW.
YOU HAVE BEEN HEAVILY ENGAGED
WITH OUR OFFERS.
THANK YOU FOR CARVING OUT TIME
TO PROVIDE THE BACK ON THIS
LEGISLATION.
WE ARE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD
TO THE ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT
AMENDMENTS.
PLEASE DO SEND THOSE IN ON
FRIDAY.
PLEASE DO THAT BY 10:00 A.M.
THANK YOU AGAIN TO OUR CENTRAL
STAFF.
THE NEXT CONVERSATION THAT WE
HAVE IS A POSSIBLE VOTE ON
AMENDMENTS AND A POSSIBLE VOTE
ON THE UNDERLYING BILL WITH
THOSE AMENDMENTS FOR NEXT
WEDNESDAY.
I LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING TO
YOU THIS AFTERNOON.
OUR COMMUNITY CALENDAR AND
DISCUSSION CONTINUES THIS
EVENING.
OKAY, IT IS NOT THIS EVENING,
IT IS THIS AFTERNOON.
IT IS AT 2:00 P.M.
WE WILL GET AN OVERVIEW OF THE
MAYOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET AND WE
WILL START FROM GETTING FOLLOW-
UP QUESTIONS FROM THE FIRST
ITERATION REQUESTED TO THE
BUDGET PROCESS.
THAT STARTS AT 2:00 P.M.
WE ARE GOING TO PAUSED THIS
COMMITTEE.
THIS CONCLUDES OUR SESSION ONE
OF THE BUDDY COMMITTEE
DISCUSSIONS.
IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, THE
COMMITTEE WILL BEGIN RECESS
UNTIL 2:00 P.M.
ENJOY YOUR LUNCH EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK.
>> THANK YOU.
[ EVENT CONCLUDED ]