Datasets:

lytang

/

MeetingBank-transcript

like 14

KingCountyCC_08292018_2018-0266

Speaker 0: There are two items on the agenda. One is the motion that would recommend the allocation of lodging tax. And the second, and this is new for the first time, is the Interlocal agreement that's been transmitted since our last meeting, which if there were to be an allocation of lodging taxes by the county, would be the vehicle by which those funds are transmitted in pursuant to the terms thereof to the public facilities district. We'll have a briefing on that. That's item six. So I welcome for this briefing, Jeff Mom and Andrew Kim from our central staff, and we'll let them take it from there. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Andrew Kim with counsel, central staff, the staff report for this item begins on page seven of your packet. Today's staff report builds from the staff report from the first hearing on this topic back in July. As members may recall, the first hearing focused on proposed motion 2018 0266, which would state the county's intent to specify the allocation of the county imposed 2% lodging or hotel motel tax that would become available beginning January 1st, 2021. The portion of the staff report from the first hearing remains unchanged, and today we will focus on proposed Ordinance 2018 0374, which would authorize the new agreement and an amendment to the existing finance agreement with the F.T.. And this was transmitted by the executive shortly after the first hearing. With that, if I can direct the members to page 15 of the staff report. The proposed ordinance would effectuate a portion of the proposed motion by authorizing the Executive to enter into an agreement with the BFD to make an annual contribution to the FDA as specified by the proposed motion. Attachment A of the proposed ordinance, which is on page 35 of your agenda, includes the agreement between the county and the FDA. The total contribution to the FDA would be approximately $184 million over the course of the 25 year lease term between the FDA and the Mariners. The agreement is contingent upon an executed lease between the PFC and the Mariners consistent with the May 23rd, 2018 lease term renewal sheet, which can be also found on page 111 of your agenda packet. The agreement requires that the lodging tax contribution be used solely for major capital improvements to the basic infrastructure of the ballpark. And it does not include expenditures related to baseball operations, routine maintenance of the ballpark or facility upgrades with direct revenue generation potential. The agreement also requires the BFD to inform the county of any proposed improvements on an annual basis. And lastly, the agreement requires that the BFD include the lodging tax, a contribution into a separate fund and not be co-mingled with other BFD funds, in particular the capital expenditure fund mentioned in the lease between the Mariners and the BFD. The proposed ordinance would also authorize an amendment to the existing 1996 financing agreement between the city and the county by adding provisions pertaining to advance advancement requests made by the PFC related to the lodging tax revenue contributions. By way of short background, the 96 financing agreement agreed that the county would issue general obligation bonds to fund the construction of the ballpark appropriate and transfer public funds to the PFG to finance the construction of the ballpark and have both the county NPF to acquire real estate for the construction of the ballpark. The amendment amendment number six outlines the process step BFD must follow to make the request an interest payment provision should the county issue debt to fund the event advancement request. Mr. Chair, that concludes my portion, and with your permission, I will turn it over to Mr. Mom. Speaker 0: Let's let's see if there are questions on that portion and members have questions on that. Just I've got one you mentioned there, Andrew, at the end, the potential for issuance of debt. That's a new to me in terms of my understanding what the request was. Can you elaborate on that, please? Speaker 3: Sure. So that that would just add a provision to the 96 finance. So there's two attachments to the proposed ordinance. Attachment A would be the agreement, a new agreement between the BFD and the county to transfer a portion of the lodging tax attachment B would be an an additional an amendment to the original 96 financing agreement between the city and the county. And that amendment would add provisions to the original financing agreement to it. If the BFD were to request an advancement of the lodging tax revenues, then that and and the county were to provide that advancement using issuing general obligation bonds. There are some provisions to to direct on how that issuance of the bond would occur and how that payment would also occur. Speaker 0: Does the PFA, under this proposed agreement, have the right to require the county to advance funds prior to their availability because these aren't really available until 2021? And so we would have to issue debt. Is that would we be obligated to do that if the request came in under the terms of this agreement? Speaker 3: I don't think they're obligated. We'll look into the details, but I think they're obligated. But it's just another option. If should the county want to issue debt to provide the advancement of those funds requested by the BFD? So I think just as a provision, as an alternate, as an option for the county. Speaker 0: You have anything to add on that, Mr. Mom? We've got new microphones here, so you'll sometimes see us pause a little bit to try and figure them out. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Geoff Mum, council staff. This is one of the issues that I've flagged in my in the analysis section that we need more link reviewing. Speaker 0: All right, well that sounds like a good launching point for you to go. Speaker 3: Thank you. So now at the bottom of page 16 of the staff report, and this is the analysis of the audience that Andrew just briefed you on the issues in attendance. The proposed ordinance states that the Seattle Mariners draw nearly 3 million of fans to Safeco every year, and approximately 55% come from outside of King County, according to more current data from and this is actually from the Mariners. This is a typo. It's not from the D. In 2008, approximately 45% of the attendees came from outside of King County and on average 49% since 2014. Figure one, which is on page 17, provides more details of the percentage of attendees by each county, by each county in the state. From 2014 to 2018 and 2018, approximately 25% of the attendees came from Snohomish and Pierce Counties. In addition, Figure two shows average attendance from 1994 to 2017 for Safeco for the Mariners compared to Major League Baseball as a whole. And this information comes from ESPN Sportsnet. And the next issue is the economic benefits. Speaker 0: And I'll let me ask you, Jeff, because this seems a little out of context. Why are you sharing this data with us? Speaker 3: This is just to put into context that some of the the whereas clauses in the ordinance just to go to drew up to current detail the next issues, the economic benefit the proposed ordinance states. The Safeco Field is expected to generate $46 million for local jurisdictions and $140 million for Washington state in the next 20 years. And we found that this data is based on the being venues and populous architecture. 2014 Safeco Field Long Term Capital Needs Assessment Report, which used a 20 year net present value basis and projected to generate Safeco to generate 81 million in tax revenues to the PFA and 140 million to the state and 46 million to local jurisdictions . And these are so the total tax benefit is would be 260 million through 2036, which was the timeframe of the consultant's report. Another issue in the ALA or in the agreement, rather, is the extension of the lease. And we think it's important to note that the new this proposed agreement between the PFG and the counties states that a transfer of lodging tax receipts shall continue for the term of the lease as it may be extended in accordance with its terms. And since there's in the underlying term sheet, there's terms for the PFA in the Mariners it's 25 years long, but it also includes an option for the Mariners to extend the lease for three additional years twice. So the Mariners could extend extend the lease on their own for six years, which would under this language which would obligate the county to continue making the payments to the BFD. It's my understanding in consulting with the executive staff that this is not the intent. The intent is only to have the payment scope for the term, the 25 year term on the lease. But if that's it, if it is the will of the council to it to change that, that's an issue that should be flagged. And also in the agreement, the underlying note. Speaker 0: Here in your staff report that as written, it could be another 70 for just shy of $74 million on top of the 184 million. Speaker 3: Yeah, we calculated that by just taking the what is estimated to be the last year's payment to the PFA and just holding that's that constant for the for the next six years. The Amendment to agreement section in the agreement and the underlying agreement in Section three of the new agreement states that the agreement may be amended at any time by mutual written agreement of the parties. And we wanted to flag this if the Council may wish to consider the Council's role in reviewing or authorizing future amendments to this agreement. The parties are the from the executive branch in the party, especially related to the duration or any dollar amount in amending the agreement. And then there are some other edits to the underlying agreement that legal counsel has flagged, particularly just making sure that it is in the right form. And making sure that it's relevant with existing county statute and state law. And so that's the that's the summary of the of the analysis of the proposed agreement. Next to me. Happy to offer any updates that have happened since this committee last year ever deliberated on this issue. As Andrew said, on July 30th, the the executive transmitted the proposed agreement. And then in relating to the transit oriented development bond allocation, which we briefed the committee on last time. To date, nearly $50 million of the $87 million has been awarded, and that when we produce 141 units of affordable housing. Speaker 0: 1041. Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah, that would be really expensive. And then just technically, the staff has determined that a document provided in the last staff report by the Mariners, which is which is known as the Skanska report, it's the list of the upgrade improvements that we talked about last time that it was formatted incorrectly and that it really totals up to approximately hundred and 84 million, which is slightly less than what we had originally reported at 190 million. And then I'm happy to go through the answers to the questions that were brought up during committee. If you want me to go through those, or if you want me to direct members to them. Speaker 0: What's what's the pleasure of the body? Do we want to have Jeff highlight those answers to the previous questions? Customer one Right part. Speaker 3: I think you have a lot of people in the audience. Speaker 0: Okay. Take your suggestion on that. I'm seeing nods. All right, Jeff. Sounds like you got a pass on those. We can do our reading there. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: Anything else to add from central staff? Do members have questions for Andrew or Jeff based on the staff report or otherwise? No. All right. Speaker 1: Let's hear anything I have to say. Speaker 2: I can't hear. It's not too much. Thank you. Speaker 0: I have a very soft voice, and I will work on speaking up if you can help us by making sure our volumes up on this new system, that would be great. All right. We're up all the way. All right. Next, we will turn if there aren't questions to a panel of guests that we've invited. And I'd ask them to just come forward. The first is Paul Moore. Who? Paul Moore, I'm sorry, who is a board member on the watch state, major League Baseball Stadium, Public Facilities District. Then we have Jerry Johnson, who is general counsel for the PFG. Dan Barrett, the executive vice president of CAA slash icon who was the lead lease negotiator for the PFG. Brian Slater, the senior project manager from being DEVENUS, the lead consultants for the long term capital needs. And Pat Tangent AIAA Principal Project Manager with Populous, who was the lead architect on the long term capital needs assessment. Thank you all for being here, and we appreciate your willingness to attend. Jerry, how how do you want to handle this? Do you have to have an order in mind? Speaker 3: I have the table there in front of me. Speaker 0: Once you have the table in front of you. Is that why you're sitting back there? Mr. Zimmerman, this is your first warning. You're disrupting the proceedings. If I. If I come after you again, you'll be removed. No second chances. Thank you. All right. Jerry, do you want to lead us off here? Assume there's some opening remarks and very provocative question. Introduce the panel. All right. And I've had a helpful suggestion from an audience member to pull that microphone right up to your mouth so we can all have a better chance of hearing you. Speaker 3: Thank you, Chair Dombrowski and council members. I'm Jerry Johnson, a partner in the Pacifica Law Group, together with the National Sports Facility Practice based in the Denver office of the Hash Blackwell firm. We serve as counsel to the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District for the negotiation of the lease between our client and the Seattle Mariners. Thank you for this opportunity to participate this morning. Allow me to extend the apologies of the board chair, Virginia Anderson, who is traveling out of the country and unable to be here today. The board is represented here today by a member by board member Paul Moore, a long time leader in the international district community, and respected advisor and manager of numerous mixed use projects undertaken there over the years. Paul also played a leadership role in assessing the long term capital needs of the ballpark in the run up to the lease negotiations. Paul Together with representatives of our two critiques, sorry, two key consultants will discuss that work with you shortly. This work was commissioned jointly by the Mariners and the PFG. Together we selected the team of Populus, widely recognized as the leading sports venue, design and architecture firm in the country and beyond, even venues nationally recognized sports venue planners and project managers. Today, the principals of both firms who worked on our projects are here Pat Townsend for Populus and Brian Slater on behalf of BMD venues. Also joining me at the table this morning is Dan Barrett, a principal in CAA icon. Dan was selected by the FDA as our lead negotiator for discussions with the Mariners. Down in his firm are widely recognized among the foremost sports business consultants in the country. His many other sports major sports venue clients include our neighbor, the Washington State Public Stadium Authority, for which he recently conducted a comparative financial analysis of the Seahawks new naming rights agreement for CenturyLink. The residents of our entire team were provided to you separately. With those introductions, I will turn this over to Dan to review the term sheet the PFG has signed with the Mariners. In that regard, we previously provided a summary, I believe we have, of the principal ways in which a solid majority of the PFO board believe the term sheet represents an improvement over our current lease. After discussion of the lease, we'd like to turn to the capital needs assessment introduced by Paul and supported by our facility consultants. I would propose that we close by addressing any questions you may have about the proposed agreements between the county and the FDA, which I think I can answer. Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you. Speaker 3: Go ahead. Thank you, Jerry. Our council members, thank you for allowing us to present today. My name is Dan Barrett with CAA Icon. I'm going to go through the general parameters of the lease term sheet that we've negotiated with the Mariners. As you know, we represented the PD's interests in this negotiation. I'm going to highlight some of the differences between the existing agreement and the proposed agreement. I'll start with the term of the agreement. The original agreement was a 20 year deal, which is coming up at the end of this year. There were several extension periods, but those extension periods are by mutual agreement. So effective December 31st of this year, there is no lease. There are no existing terms in place going forward. And anything that would add any going forward by either party requires mutual agreement by both parties. So it's an important element to understand. The lease does expire, there aren't any automatic renewals. We have reached a tentative agreement on a 25 year lease, which is five years longer than the original term. And it also includes two three year options to extend on the same terms as the 25 year extension. The rent for the original agreement started at $700,000 a year. It has escalated by CPI since that time and is currently just over $1,000,000 a year, just below $1.1 million per year. It escalated a little over 2.3% per year over that period each year. The proposed term sheet includes a rent of 1.5 million, also increasing by CPI each year. The original agreement included a profit share provision. Speaker 0: Can I ask you a question? The rent. How is the rent determined? Speaker 3: It was part of a series of trade offs. We went back and forth on what what terms we thought were important. We felt that an increase in the rent was something that we wanted to achieve. But there were other elements to the agreement, including a capital contribution that I'll talk about in a moment of 3.25 million. That was part of the overall agreement. And how we looked at a rent. Rent is just one element of it. When we look at leases, we look at all of the stadium occupancy costs. So we look at rent, the contribution to capital, revenue sharing, taxes that they're subject to, etc.. Speaker 0: I imagine that comparables are hard to find, but it doesn't sound like comparables were looked at to determine where. Speaker 3: They were. Absolutely. So when we when we looked at this agreement 21 years ago, when I was at Deloitte Touche at the time, we compared this deal to 12 other new stadium deals and we compared all the occupancy costs for the stadium at that time. This time it's a little bit more difficult because you have a mix of new stadium deals and you have renovations and you have lease extensions. And so if you look at the original deals that were built around the same period of time, some of those buildings are currently being replaced. Some of them have lease extensions and some of them have uncertain futures right now. And we can talk about those specifically if you'd like. But all of those were looked at in terms of their deals as well as what we were structuring here. Speaker 0: I'm just going to give just if you were to break it down and take the office space for the team alone, which is at the stadium. Do you know how many square feet that is? Speaker 3: I don't. Off the top of my head. Speaker 0: And just if you were to look at that times of market rate for office space in the city at 25 bucks a foot, I'd probably estimate triple net these days, just a million and a half a year. Speaker 3: Right. So like I said, there's a little light, there's different elements that if you add up the rents and I don't I don't want to sit here and take the Mariners position or make the Mariners arguments. Speaker 0: But just try to understand. Speaker 3: How if you take if you if you look at a real estate lease and you look at rent, that's the primary element to it. Who's responsible for operating expenses? Who's responsible for capital repairs? What are those expenditures? And if you add up the rent, the revenue sharing, the capital expenditure contribution, you end up with about a $10 million a year payment. And then if you look at the overall expenses of it, they're substantially more than that. So that's how we looked at it. It's very difficult to compare a stadium lease with a traditional real estate lease. They're just very different. And when we look at the comparable stadium leases, we're looking at what's happening in Atlanta. We're looking what's happening in Denver and Houston, in Texas with the Texas Rangers. Those are kind of the deals that are being done right now. And that's what we were comparing against. Speaker 0: Well, it's 1.5 million per year, correct? Rent. Speaker 3: Correct. Again, one element of the overall deal. Okay. Yeah. The next piece is another component of rent or stadium occupancy costs as we would look at them, which is a profit sharing element. The original agreement called for the PFA to share in 10% of net income from from the operations of the Mariners in the first 19 years of the agreement. There was no revenue sharing to the PFG or no profit sharing to the PFG. And the reason for that was when the original agreement was made, there was a $200 million catch up provision, which was an accumulation of losses that the Mariners had realized, as well as their contribution. Towards the stadium. And so for that reason, there was no sharing or no profit sharing during the first 19 years. They've caught up as a result of profits realized during that period, and this year will be the first year that there's profit sharing. So we wanted to make sure there was more certainty and less risk with that. It was an important element from the Mariners perspective to get rid of that provision. We're not aware of any provisions in Major League Baseball or even in Major League sports where there is a operating profit share provision like this. And so in order to achieve that certainty and eliminate that risk from the fees perspective, we went to a revenue sharing model which called for one and a half percent of ticket revenue, the first hundred million in ticket revenue to go to the PFG to be used for capital repairs. That percentage increases to 2% over $100 million. We estimate that that would be about 1.3 to $1.5 million a year growing over time. Another important element that we addressed in the lease was the performance standard of the applicable standard that the Mariners were responsible for in terms of operating and maintaining the facility. And in the existing lease, the applicable standard or the level that they have to maintain the building at is compared to buildings that were built between 1990 and 1999. Several of those have been replaced already. 20 year old building in Atlanta was replaced with a new building in Cobb County. The Texas Rangers are replacing are having their facility replaced in Arlington after 20 plus years. And in the case of Atlanta, the contribution from the public sector is between three and $400 million. In the case of Texas, the city of Arlington's contribution is 500 million out of a $1 billion project. There's also Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Baltimore facilities that are looking at renovation plans or potential replacement in the case of Tampa Bay. So we wanted to make sure our applicable standard going forward was comparing to the better the better stadium or the better condition stadiums in Major League Baseball. So we replaced the buildings that were built between 1990 and 1999 with the top third requirement. In other words, the Mariners have to maintain, improve and upgrade the facility to meet the top ten or top third of Major League Baseball stadiums. So regardless of how much money is available in the fund, they're going to be responsible for meeting that obligation. And one thing that we wanted to make sure to clarify in this lease that was not as clear as as the original lease was that that means upgrades as well as necessary infrastructure and necessary improvements. Our goal and our objective from the start was to try to make this building last beyond not just this 20 year period, not just to the next 25 year period. There's often been talk about this being a 100 year building, and our goal was to try to have funds available to avoid situations where the facility gets deteriorated in the back end isn't maintained. And we wanted to make sure that that applicable standard was in place to maintain that. In addition, we also wanted to make sure that the PFA had more control over how those expenditures were made and what expenditures get made. And so in in the current lease, the Mariners are required to submit an annual management plan which explains their one year plan to maintain the building. The BFD doesn't have any approval rights over that in the current lease. In the term sheet, we have a a a plan that requires the Mariners to submit a one year plan and a ten year rolling plan that the PFG actually has to approve. So the PFA will approve the management plan and the capital maintenance plan on a one year and ten year rolling basis to make sure that the facility is continuing to be maintained. And again, it's regardless of whatever funds are available in the reserve funds, the Mariners are responsible for that. I mentioned that that in the current agreement the club is responsible for major maintenance and capital improvements. The upgrades is a little bit less clear. We wanted to make sure that upgrades were specifically identified in the term sheet to make sure that those improvements get made. We wanted to avoid a situation that the Arizona Diamondbacks and Maricopa County are in and Phenix, where they had a dispute over $187 million worth of capital improvements. They went to arbitration. They ultimately ended up settling after about a year and a half with the Diamondbacks getting their lease terminated five years early and being able to explore options within Arizona as well as outside of Arizona for a a liquidated damages fee of 25 million, reducing by 5 million each year. So a relatively nominal fee there that we want to avoid that uncertainty in this agreement. We also felt it was important and and the PFG has been looking at the neighborhood around the ballpark and trying to make improvements there. We wanted to identify a funding source to do that. And so the term sheet calls for a an immediate $2 million deposit into a neighborhood improvement fund. And then there is a portion of rent at the FDA's discretion to contribute to that neighborhood improvement fund that is expected to reach about $25 million, in addition to the $2 million over the period of the lease. One of the small that's. Speaker 0: Kind of one of the interesting twist on this. It's a $25 million item. What is the intent of the BFD with respect to those improvements? What do they want to do with the money? Speaker 3: I don't know if you want me to take that or. Sure. The discussion basically is that they want to make sure this isn't a fund to do major development around the ballpark. It's really a fund to try and improve the safety, the desirability, the fan experience around the ballpark, whether that's painting, landscaping or other projects to make it more safe, more desirable. That was the original intent for that neighborhood improvement fund. There was a district study master plan that was done by the PFG that looked at some of those different elements. But that was a primary purpose there. Speaker 0: All you want in on that? Speaker 4: Sure. Yeah. One of the things that the BFD, because of our desire to protect the public interest in the stadium, is to look at the surrounding area and to make sure that, as Dan had mentioned, that the fan experience is a good one, that pedestrian safety is in there and that whatever gets develop is compatible with the BFD and the Mariners want to happen inside the stadium. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thanks, Mark. One of the smaller items that was discussed but was a source of economic impact of the PFG is that historically they've had a share of insurance expense. We've now put that insurance expense on the Mariners 100%. So that obligation goes away from the PFG. An important element that that we wanted to make sure to address was the non relocation of the team. Under the current agreement, the Mariners are required to play 90% of their games at the stadium. The the requirement to play those games is part of the existing lease since the time that that lease was constructed. The industry has gotten a little bit smarter and a little bit more. I shouldn't say smarter. They've advanced in terms of how the non relocation provisions are addressed and now they're typically addressed in a standalone bankruptcy remote document. So there's a standalone non relocation agreement that we have required the Mariners to enter into that provides more safety and more protection from the parties perspective that the team won't relocate over the 25 year period. Another element of the existing agreement requires that the the club to pay the PFG 20% of net profits from the sale of the club. If 80% of the of the team is sold. That provision has not come into play given even even though there was a sale of the team, it did not. There was a there were some carve outs for the 80% as well as to existing owners. So that provision never came into play in the original agreement. We modified that agreement or that provision to provide more protection for the PFA and the community. And what we wanted to try to do with that provision is to incentivize a new buyer to extend the lease by ten years. So it would take it from 25 to 35 years and also encourage the Mariners to sell to local interests. And so local interests would be defined as someone, a local buyer would be defined as someone who has lived or had a principal business in the area, in the Seattle area, for at least ten years. If if if the Mariners sell to members within the existing ownership group or anyone who agrees to a ten year extension, there is no payment. And I should point out that there was a cap in case I didn't point out there was a $20 million cap in the existing agreement. If if the PFA is so excuse me, if the Mariners are sold during the first 15 years of the term or if it's sold to someone who extends the agreement for ten years, then it's a $20 million payment to the PFA. However, the club is restricted from selling to any owner that doesn't extend the agreement by ten years and the last ten years of the agreement. If if for some reason a court doesn't uphold that provision, then we get 10% or the PFA gets 10% of the gross proceeds of any sale. So we're really trying to put a penalty in there in the event that they try to sell it in the last ten years of the agreement without a ten year extension. So we're really trying to incentivize local ownership and we're trying to incentivize ten year extension on the 25 year term. And then the final kind of major provision, there was a disposition of the ballpark at the end of the term. There really was no provision for demolition of the ballpark once the term ends. We made sure that there was a provision that allowed for demolition of the ballpark, if that's what the community chose, as well as the PFG would retain any proceeds and any of the reserve funds in the event that the club was no longer playing in the Seattle area. And that basically summarizes the comparison of the of the existing lease versus what the term sheet is currently proposing. Speaker 0: Okay. Dan, thank you for that. We'll have some questions. First comes from Ron Perlman, Councilmember Up the Grove and Councilman Raquel Welch. Nathan and Peter today. Speaker 3: And I thank you very much for providing this opportunity for a discussion and listening to the public later. Getting back to your reference to a study, can you speak a little bit to the safety study for this $25 billion that was done by the PFG? You said that study was done to enable it to spend $25 million around the facility. The and maybe Paula, Jerry, you guys can talk about that. I think he's talking the district master plan that was done. Oh, by the PFG that we. Yes. So the the city in conjunction with the public stadium authority for for the football and the public facilities district for baseball did a a neighborhood study. And this involved also Pioneer Square and the international district, Paul. Correct. And you were involved in that, I think. So do you want to. Speaker 4: Share this study was done probably about maybe eight, ten years ago. And basically the purpose of the study at the time was to try to get the city's comprehensive plan to include the stadium district as part of the comp plan. And in in that study, we looked at what could happen in the neighborhood, what are its needs and what are its wants. And basically, it laid out a lot of physical alternatives and also had some preliminary price tags on those so that the dollars that were presented in that study were very preliminary and early on. Speaker 3: And I don't think that it is the aspiration of the D to take on that whole financial burden. That's just a reference point in terms of the kind of thing that might be useful or helpful within the district in general. And the idea of the Neighborhood Improvement Fund, Paul, is much more narrow. Speaker 4: Yeah, the neighborhood improvement fund is is being proposed by the P of the focuses of more around the immediate surrounding of the stadium. So that's the basis of of where we're going with that particular proposal. Speaker 3: $25 million is a significant figure for that area. And I was wondering if you can fill in a little bit about how you would spend $25 million? We we wouldn't we would not. It's a city that's a city study. And again, that is not something that we that we would take on. That's not what the Neighborhood Improvement Fund is for. This is it would hopefully do things that are compatible with that. But and I would just point out that that the primary source for that neighborhood improvement fund is is the rent. So you pay the rent fees, operating expenses have to be covered, and then $250,000 gets set aside for capital improvements. The balance of that gets contributed to the Neighborhood Improvement Fund, which is around $600,000 initially and will grow over time. The total amount over the 25 year period gets used to close to about $25 million, but it's not an upfront payment or anything like that. It's a relatively small number over that, over time. Jerry, were you involved in the initial language creating the PFG? Yes. We're in that language as the mission to do our work around the district. I don't I don't recall that. So the the mission of the public facilities district and the statutory mission is basically to steward the ballpark. And the public facilities district looked at its own mission and recently expanded that to focus in addition to just the the immediate structure of the immediate environs around that structure. And it's our belief that a limited and focused minor public improvements to the streetscape to provide for fans safety and enjoyment sort of things that Paul spoke to are well within the statutory authority. I look forward to reviewing that with you. Thank you. Happy to talk with you about it further. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer Ron Councilmember Up the Grove. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I might do two questions and that's it. Well, the first one. Thanks for being here. This is a helpful and clear overview. I found it useful. I'm fortunate to be a landlord myself. I rent a little condo out that I used to have and I charge enough rent to cover the costs of the upkeep and maintenance of the condo. Speaker 2: So why wasn't that a goal. Speaker 3: Of the lease negotiations to charge enough to cover the costs of maintenance and upkeep, whether through rent or other payments? Well, we think that we've identified enough funding sources to cover a substantial portion of those expenses. We think that the risk is on the Mariners and not on the PFG. You can always negotiate a real estate deal where, you know, whether it's triple net or it's a gross lease. And in this situation, we identified the rent payment. We identified the 3.25 million that would go, which I'm not sure that I covered. Actually, there was a capital I didn't cover that. There is a $3.25 million a year subject to escalation commitment that the Mariners need to make towards the CapEx fund. So there's 1,000,005, there's 3.25 million. There's roughly a million and a half for the revenue share. And and then there's the emissions tax and the parking taxes. And those generate over the period, we think, a substantial amount to cover certain obligations, capital obligations that would maintain the facility. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my second, which is sort of a follow up to that. And given that. Do the terms of this lease. Speaker 3: Require another government such as King County, to contribute funds in order to fulfill the lease requirements? The PFA hasn't taken a position on that, but the term sheet calls for the PFG to accept what the county decides and will accept any funds, funds, if any, that the county decides to invest. So that's up. And I'm no, I'm not asking this to make a political point. I'm trying to actually. Speaker 2: Understand it then. So is there a shortfall in the lease in terms of the ability to maintain it under the maintain and keep. Speaker 3: That facility up, barring some other government, whether it's the state or the county or whoever the Mariners come to to ask for more money? Speaker 2: Is that that does the lease stand on. Speaker 3: Its own without additional public funds? Well, is there enough money in the terms of the lease to maintain and keep the field up there at the ball field up without another government contributing funds? I take that. Sorry. Ultimately, it depends. It depends on how you define the issue and how you define the cost. There's in the Brailsford and Donnelly V popular study, you'll hear that there's $385 million of expected costs. You'll also hear that there are upgrade costs, varying numbers going from 160 to $190 million. It really depends on how you define the problem and how you decide to participate or invest in it. Speaker 0: If I might just follow up before we start asking customer calls and then it comes from others to jump in. The 365 million maintenance costs that were done in the popular study are those fully funded by the economic terms in the term sheet without any outside injection of resources. Speaker 3: So again, they don't include the upgrades. Speaker 0: That was my question. Okay. 365 no upgrades. 385 three 8585. Does the rent and the contribution to CapEx and the parking tax and the ticket tax, does that cover that for the term of the lease 25 years? Speaker 3: The revenue sources, depending on what your assumptions are, are estimated to generate about 350 to 355 million. Okay. Speaker 0: So 20 to 25 million, perhaps short. Speaker 3: About maybe 30. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 0: I think that's what council member of the growth was trying to get. Speaker 3: So council member council member Dombrowski. And I just to add the conundrum, of course, is that without a lease, none of those obligations exist. Right. And so the Mariners have made the request for county funding and informed us that their willingness to enter into the lease that we've just described to you that create those obligations is contingent upon some level of investment by the Council. Speaker 0: And that's not in their signed term sheet that the PFA and the Mariners signed when they agreed to execute a lease pursuant to the terms. Speaker 3: That's correct. There's a separate communication to that effect and that is what we understand their view to be and that is what they have stated publicly to be their position. Speaker 0: And when did they first inform the PFA of that position after a couple of years of negotiating these lease terms. The my partner who. Speaker 3: The party was aware of the club's aspiration for public support, some degree of public support during most of the conversations that two years of work included the the the capital needs study and a lot of work before we actually engaged with the Mariners, that conversation was about a year in length and during that period of time the PFA was aware that the club was going to ask them, or at least they signaled they were going to ask. Speaker 0: Did they indicate the amount that they would seek? Speaker 3: No. All right. Speaker 0: And is that Gerry, while I've got you, does the public facilities district have its own taxing authority? Speaker 3: No. The public facilities, district levies and admissions tax, which is collected by the county on its behalf, it's it's called a tax, but it's really a user fee, honestly, at all of the revenue that the PFA collects from both its admissions tax and it's much smaller parking tax are generated by the enterprise itself. Speaker 0: They don't have sales tax. Speaker 3: We have no broad based tax. All of the broad based. Boxes that were provided for the original construction of the ballpark sunset when the deck was retired a number of years ago. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Cole, while sorry for interrupting your line. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for being here. This is really illuminating, and I'd like to start off right away that I'm a huge supporter of the Mariners and was thrilled when Governor Lowry called the legislature and a special session when the voters initially turned down the funding for the stadium. I want the club to be successful and it is showing that it can be successful. And it's and I want to be able to reach those applicable standards to be in the top third of all ballparks in the country. And even though fan base is down around the country, from what I understand in other ballparks, the Mariners have been doing really well, even showing signs of growth because it's a great stadium. It does need maintenance, it does need upkeep, and it does need upgrades to in order to continue that way. But I am very concerned and this is all very complicated, but as has been mentioned, Dan and Jerry and that there was nothing specific on the term sheet, but one thing that had been computed demanded by the Mariners, as I understand, and you have mentioned, was that it was non-negotiable, that there would be annual profit sharing in the new lease. So we get that and in return there would be some type of revenue sharing put into place. But my understanding is that what also was assured was that the Mariners would assume sole and unilateral responsibility to repair, maintain and upgrade the ballpark in order to reach those applicable standards. I don't know if I'm incorrect on that, but that's what my understanding is. And in Virginia, Anderson's letter that came out on August 15th, I think it made it very clear that the party would accept any funding that came about from the hotel motel tax, depending on what the council decides to do. But it wasn't requesting that we go ahead with that. And even in the closing two paragraphs, it was bolded in her letter that there would not need to be that. The PFA believes the negotiated terms for a new 25 year lease with the club would substantially increase increase the club's obligation to invest in the long term stewardship of the ballpark and give the PFA an even stronger hand in ensuring compliance with their obligations. But again, reinforcing that they were not taking any position or asking the county for these funds from the hotel motel tax starting in 2021. So I'd like to hear any other comment that you might have. When I calculated out what the public I think should contribute sum, it is a publicly owned facility. I came out with 24 to $25 million, which in fact has been mentioned here, and that would be to cover the gap between what the club's responsibilities would be and the parties responsibilities would be in covering basic maintenance. And we came out with the 25 or $24 million gap, which is what I'm very happy to to go forward with. That was kind of a statement, not a question. So if there's any response, I would be very pleased to hear that. Speaker 3: Well, Councilmember Coles, I would I would just say again that what was represented in Virginia Anderson's letter with respect to the lease is correct. But unless the Mariners are satisfied with respect to the level of public investment that they may find acceptable, then we will not have a lease. I think, in these terms, I should say. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just somewhat following up on Councilmember Caldwell's line of questioning. This was not a unanimous vote at the PFG. And I wonder if you want to say anything about the no vote and the reasons that have been given quite publicly, and if there's any response to that from the folks who did vote in favor. There's this kind of split on the board that's of interest to me. I understand it. Put you on the spot, but you're here. You're there. You're on the. Speaker 3: Spot. Well, I would say, I guess, first of all, that this body certainly understands that unanimity is a high standard and people, reasonable people can disagree. The board has only seven members. They all worked very hard over the course of the last two plus years with respect to the negotiation of this lease and providing guidance to us and understanding the needs of the ballpark and the board as its chair, Virginia Anderson explained, did not join in the request for public funding. A majority a solid majority of the board, five members agreed to a term sheet that provides that the PFA will accept public funding but and that the the condition on the lease, the contingency is not the parties condition, it's the clubs. But again, it takes two parties to have a contract. Speaker 1: It's worth. Was there any substantive discussion about the rationale for the dissenting votes and what we think those reasons were and how they're addressed in the least? Speaker 3: So the whether public funding would come into the into the facility was a topic of discussion. All of the discussions within the board about these terms were properly conducted in executive session. And certainly it's not for me to to discuss the those conversations in detail. So I would say that's an issue of this magnitude, obviously was a topic of substantial discussion throughout the period of time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. And then Councilmember Caldwell's. Yeah. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of us did get some correspondence from the dissent, the dissenting voters, and they appeared to indicate that after having the discussion, we thought that this is them speaking. We thought that the Mariners that 50 was being very generous to the Mariners. There's no reason why there isn't a good reason why the public should have the should be requested to participate by giving $190 million over 25 years to the BFD or the Mariners or the stadium. I don't know what time I suppose it is. And their argumentation, at least to me as one councilmember, was very reasoned, and it has had a lot to do with why I've been willing to support the proposition put forth by Councilmember Carl Wells that 25 million is very reasonable. It has been helpful, Jerry, that you and the others have helped clarify that even though the vote was 5 to 2, it wasn't tied to 5 to 2 in favor of asking. Speaker 3: The King County government for money. It was 5. Speaker 2: To 2 saying that if the King kind of government decides to support contribution for contributing funds to this. Speaker 3: Endeavor, that you would it that they would accept it. Am I misinterpreting? So it's close, but it's a little more nuanced there. If the board was not did not vote on the public funding question, separately, the board voted on approving a term sheet that we reviewed for you and that you have seen. And one of the reasons that at least one and to some extent the other dissenting vote on that question was the objection to the Mariners contingency that public funding would come. So there was there were typically there was never a vote on whether to ask or even accept public funding as a free standing question. Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Okay. And then finally, Mr. Chair, Jerry, did you say that the Mariners and then negotiations said that they would walk if they didn't get anything from King County government? Speaker 3: Well, it the Mariners advised the club I'm sorry, the club advised the 50 throughout the conversation that they were expecting to ask and and hoped that the county would provide a substantial amount of public funding. They returned the term sheet to us, signed with an explicit contingency condition that they would not enter into a lease consistent with the term sheet if the county were not to do that. Speaker 2: So they did say that they. Speaker 3: Would not and they didn't. Five Well, they didn't specify a number. Speaker 2: But they didn't specify the number. Speaker 3: They did not provide an amount acceptable to the club. It's how it's been put in. And was that presented to you in writing? Speaker 2: Is that. Yes, in writing? Well, it's not a public document. Speaker 3: It is a public document. The press has quoted it. It was in an email returning the signed term sheet. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Garcia, Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To any of you, I'd like to hear about the upcoming change to the naming rights of the stadium or anything about the naming rights. What I've been hearing is that could be happening. A new name different from Safeco Field and the expectation that that would to get for any organization or business to get the naming rights would involve quite a lot of funds to the Mariners or to the team. I'm not sure. And if that is the case, is the public able to be able to benefit from any naming rights? I mean, I we want to get more funds for this. Stadium. We're just some of us are questioning and that it should come directly from the taxpayers funds. And this seems to be like another category of funding that could be available. And if so, could that be used for maintenance and upkeep and upgrades? Speaker 3: So just to. Under the current lease, the Mariners have the ability to sell the naming rights subject to the statutory requirement that that name be approved by the PFA after consultations with the state legislature. That's a function of that feature of the statute you referred to. Council member that providing for the original formation, the PFO and the construction of the ballpark, the at the moment the the naming rights the club is, as far as we know, not engaged in discussions about the sale of the naming rights. They really have nothing to sell until they have a lease. And I don't know, Dan, if you want to speculate about the. Well, know that they are. I'm sorry. They're beard and I usually don't need a microphone. The naming rights are something that that the Mariners the Safeco deal is going to end. And so they will be looking for a naming rights partner. Jerry is right that until they have a long term lease, it's going to be unlikely that they'll be able to sell a long term naming rights agreement. Naming rights get highlighted frequently in these negotiations and in the political discussions regarding stadiums and arenas. And they are typically retained by the team in these negotiations. There's trade offs. You know, the naming rights are really not any different from sponsorship revenue or concession revenue or parking revenue. They just are a bigger number typically, and they're much more high profile. But we talked about naming rights during negotiations. Again, we made a series of trade offs in our negotiations and felt that getting the the rent and the CapEx contribution and the rep share were numbers that we felt were certain or certain. There's no guarantee that they will be able to sell naming rights to the building. The Washington Nationals for years have been trying to sell naming rights to their new building. Dallas Cowboys took them a number of years to sell it to AT&T. We would expect that they would sell the naming rights. But right now, we don't know what that amount will be. We don't know what term that will be. And we wanted to make sure we got the certainty of other revenue streams to cover CapEx going forward. Speaker 1: I thought. Thank you, Dan. And but it's a logical to assume that said, the proceeds from naming naming rights sales could go toward maintenance and upkeep and upgrades. Speaker 3: It's. It certainly is possible. Just like we're we're requiring them to commit 3.25 million directly to CapEx, a dedicated funding source, we could say give us 50% of naming rights towards capital expenditures. And that may be less than 3.25 million. And that would be a potential tradeoff that we weren't willing to make in that situation. We've got 3.25 escalated over 25 years is going to be a substantial payment. There are other agreements. If you take the Dallas Cowboys, for example, the city gets, I think, 10% with a cap of $500,000 a year. That that cap, the payment is substantially more. 10% is substantially more than a cap. You know, there are political ways to to get pieces of naming rights. But we think we wanted to go to the substance and make sure we had enough dollars that were certain. Speaker 1: So is it theoretically possible that the sum of the proceeds could go to the public? Speaker 3: It's all part of negotiations. So if we asked them for that, they would ask for some other trade offs. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Other questions? Just following up on Councilmember Caldwell's line of inquiry on the naming rights. It seems that that number could be could vary widely. It could be $10 million, $20 million or $40 million if you have not put any kind of capture or cap or adjustment to the financial terms of the deal based on the result of the naming rights sale, as I understand it. Speaker 3: Is we did not touch naming rights. We did not want to have the trade off where we were participating in upside and being exposed on the downside. Speaker 0: So just gave them all the upside. Speaker 3: Correct. And we and they also have all the risk with any capital repairs, maintenance and up. Speaker 0: Based on your experience with CenturyLink, I think you said you had an other stadium. Can can you or anybody here on the panel give us an estimate of what a 25 year naming rights deal for today's Safeco Field might buy? Speaker 3: Sure. And the it's naming an existing building carries less value. Typically the naming a new building, because people are used to calling it something a three time park, monster park, Candlestick Park. Probably are familiar with Candlestick Park. And I used. Speaker 0: To be familiar with Quest. Speaker 3: Field, which I used. Speaker 0: To be familiar with Quest Field. Speaker 3: Okay, exactly. Exactly, exactly. So people get used to calling it something. People are used to calling this Safeco Field. So a buyer of naming rights will take that into consideration. Their original deal was a 40 million deal over 20 years, $2 million a year. We would expect that that would increase substantially from that level because naming rights agreements have increased since that since that time, whether they could get four or $5 million a year with escalation going forward over a 20, 25 year period, it's certainly part. Possible, but there is no assurance or no guarantee that they will sit. Speaker 0: So it could be a $100 million item. Speaker 3: It again with a renaming of an agreement. You know, there are typically shorter term deals, maybe a ten year deal, maybe a 20 year deal. But it's just like any sponsorship agreement, major sponsorship agreements could be five, ten, 20 year deals. It's very uncertain what the revenue stream is that they're going to get. But it could be substantial. Yes. Speaker 0: Could it be $100 million? It's hard to say exactly. That's not. Speaker 3: It's hard to say what the what the total. Speaker 0: Anybody else have any thoughts on that? No. All right. One final line of question, if I might, before we wrap up here. And I do want to give these gentlemen a quick update, but we got a lot of folks who have come to testify, and we do want to hear from them, I guess. And Jerry, maybe you can help me with this, but the lack of a kind of a number with respect to the public investment outside of the PFG, in other words, take the lodging tax. We'll take it if we can get it. We don't have a position on the amount. I wonder, and it seems to have come kind of late. They delivered the term sheet to you saying this is conditioned apparently upon getting some lodging tax revenue. I wonder if the terms of the agreement that the paddy negotiated would have differed if you knew that there was going to be a substantial investment of lodging tax or outside tax money end of the deal, for example. The transparency seems to be reduced. We, as I understand it, have given up our right for the annual review of the books. What the public benefits would they have been different? Could there have been low dollar or free tickets for, you know, disadvantaged children, but would the naming rights pricing have come into play? This is a 180 plus million dollars we're talking about here. That is kind of you're saying, well, we'll take what we can get, but all of these terms seem to be related to one another. As you describe, the economic investment drives, the overall lease deal. And I just wonder, it seems like a big, big number to put in and say, but everything else remains constant. Everything else remains constant. Can you help me understand whether the PFG, if it had known that $180 million of outside resources were going to come into this deal, or would you have negotiated different terms along oversight, transparency, public benefit, or just economic obligations on behalf of the Mariners? Speaker 3: So I guess the answer to your your your question, council member, is it what you're suggesting is, is pretty speculative that that's not how the conversation unfolded. What I what I believe is that the Mariners gave us as much as they did in terms of improvements over the current lease in anticipation of having public support. In other words, I don't believe that we would have gotten the lease that we have before us now through the term sheet had they had no expectation of getting public funding. And I think it is important to turn to the the scope of the potential need, because one of the major improvements in the lease stand pointed out and very central to the question that you have before you, is the scope of the Mariners responsibility to invest in the building, which is broader and potentially unlimited with the combination. And this is very important of a much stronger hand for the PFG in determining the scope of that obligation rather than being purely advisory as it is now, the Mariners have to have our approval. Speaker 0: Their approval may not unreasonably be withheld. Speaker 3: True, but it's still approval. So may we turn to the CapEx? Speaker 0: I sure. But I we're not. To be honest, we have a lot of interest in the details and maybe we can hit the highlights there and we'll. Speaker 3: Try to be efficient. Speaker 0: I want to give Councilman one right power opportunity after they finish the year. So let's spend ten more minutes and then let's get to public testimony if that will work. Speaker 4: Okay. I'll try to be brief. Council Chair Dombrowski and Honorable Council Members. My name is Paul Moore, as was introduced by Jerry. I am a member of the Board of the Public Facilities District that oversees Safeco Field, and I'm here today on behalf of the board. A major element of the lease negotiations was when we started looking at this, was to determine what the future cost would be in order to keep Safeco Field in the top tier of ballparks in the Major Leagues. What we did at that time, and I think it's been mentioned before, is the public facility district and the ballclub jointly agreed to fund and participate in a capital needs assessment study. Basically, we jointly selected the consultants, the indie venues and populous architects. They. Began their study in 2015 and completed it in the spring of 2016. Initially, they were looking at our requests at a 20 year horizon. Subsequent to completing the study, we asked the peer to ask them to extend that commitment to 25 years, which they did in both the PFA and the Mariners have accepted the results of the study. The consultants estimated that the necessary improvements, those improvements that are needed to keep save Greenfield in the prime condition with the top third of comparable stadiums, would cost about $385 million over the 25 year period. And this includes, of course, contingencies and escalation. The consultants provided us also with some concept of upgrade improvements, which neither the Mariners or the BFD made any approval at the time. Since that time, and I think the council has received a document from the Mariners that they have listed a number of upgrade improvements over the 25 year period that add up to around $190 million. So the $385 million is what we believe and the Mariners believe are the necessary improvements to keep the ballpark in top shape over the next 25 years. With me at the table and Gerry is in two are Brian Slater from BTV. Then you the venues and that dangling firm populous architects who can answer any questions you might have about their study and about the capital needs. Speaker 0: All right, Pat and Brian, give us the highlights, given where we are on the program that you think we need to know. Okay. The dialog you've heard. Speaker 3: My apologies. My name is Brian Slater. I'm with B.A. Venues. Thank you for having us here this morning. We've covered much of it already, but over the next 25 years, the cost to maintain Safeco Field and a first class condition is estimated at $385 million. This is additive to maintenance and operations costs, which are detailed in the report and estimated at about 250 million over that same term. There are also upgraded concepts that are more fan focused concepts that are estimated at. As Dan mentioned, anywhere from about 160 to $190 million. Those are the highlights of the study, and we're happy to dig into any of the details that you all see fit. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Up the Grove. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as I'm asking this, you might not be the right person, but just to kind of get to a bottom line, you add up the maintenance costs you identified and the necessary improvements. Compared to the revenue that's generated without any outside money. What's the gap in the terms of the lease? If you take the revenue that's anticipated, on one hand the necessary improvements in maintenance, on the other hand, do they equal or what is the dollar delta? What's the gap? That's not over the course of the lease that's not funded. That would that would require outside funding, again, just for the necessary improvements and the maintenance. So including the 250 for maintenance. So it'd be about $280 million shortfall. There's about 30 to $35 million shortfall between the necessary improvements and the funding sources. And then if you add the operating maintenance items, that's about $250 million that the Mariners have estimated to be about 280 285 million. And that's what. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And that's what's proposed to be the team's contribution or a public contribution to be an out the the maybe I didn't ask that question correctly. The as I understand it, there's a specific dollar commitment from the team in the terms of the lease. And when you add up that commitment that's been made as well as the other sources of revenue, right? My math was different. I took the ability to fund the necessary improvements and the maintenance. There's there's two different numbers you're talking about. The maintenance that Brian just mentioned is annual operating maintenance. There was another number which was the upgrades. I think you're referring to the upgrades number. Okay. 162 190. And then we were talking about previously the the chair had asked about with. Speaker 2: I guess what I'm asking is when the. Speaker 3: With $180 million public contribution were that to be made? Does that allow funding beyond the necessary improvements and maintenance? Would that allow funding to go into that? I guess that third category that was identified as potential additional upgrades, you mentioned in the in the consultant's report, there were additional opportunities for new investments in the stadium beyond those that were deemed necessary. Would an outside contribution of $180 million allow the ability to go beyond the necessary upgrades? It would depend on how you restricted it according to the current draft of the inner local agreement. Those dollars would not be able to be spent on upgrades. However, it does reduce the obligation of the Mariners their overall obligation. But it could supplant. We have we have some situations in county government where the state gives us money for criminal justice. But they say you can't move your current criminal justice elsewhere. Would there be any restrictions if this money went to maintenance? Could money the Mariners were going put into maintenance then get pulled out and put on other things? Or do we have some know some plantation language in there? So I think as a as a practical matter, the did to turn back to the lease the lease the lease terms to contemplate lease terms as reflected in the term sheet. Do not subdivide the Mariners obligation to maintain the ballpark and invest in the ballpark consistent with the applicable standard. So all of the elements of the capital improvements required to do that, including the upgrades, fall within the scope of that obligation so we don't disaggregate them. If if your funding were to come as a result of the draft agreement and the legislation you have before you, that would be the only earmark, if you will, on the use of available funds for a subcategory of the full scope that the club is obligated to perform. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Yvonne Roukema. Speaker 3: Mr.. I'm hoping that perhaps because it's a fact finding meeting this morning, we might be able to hear from the general counsel for the Mariners because specific questions were raised, and I think they could best answer some of the questions that were raised in the process of the last hour. Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Congressman. Right back for that suggestion. Are there any further questions for our panelist assembled here at this time? I want to thank each of you for making yourself available for your work. It's helped us understand this complicated deal a little better and understand some of the facts and circumstances around it. Paul, I want to thank you particularly for your service to the public on the board and for your decades of leadership in the Chinatown International District and working to protect the community there. So we appreciate you being here on behalf of the board. And with that, Jerry, you've got to kind of wrap up remark. And then I do want to ask if he wants to to have Mr. Rivera, general counsel for the mayor, heard the dialog and may have some additional. Speaker 3: Absolutely. And I just wanted to thank you for this opportunity. And all of us here are available to you or your staff as you continue to consider this. Speaker 0: Thank you, Jerry. You are just as they send you off here, the preeminent lawyer in this state for public facilities districts. And I asked you about taxing authority. Sometimes, as you know, lawyers disagree. And I kind of put you on the spot. But but would you take a look and confirm for us offline whether or not the public facilities district has existing property tax and sales tax authority subject to a vote of the people? Our our lawyers and staff are telling us that that that authority may be there. I heard you say that it lapsed with the pay off of the bonds, but would you take a look at that and maybe get with Miss Moore here to have a little lawyer dialog? Speaker 3: Yes. You know, with that. Yes, I understand your question. I'm happy to respond to it. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Appreciate your being here. Mr. Rivera. Thank you for being here. You've heard the dialog, and I don't know if, Councilwoman, you've got a specific question or maybe Mr. Mayor just has some general responses to add to the dialog we've had. Well, thank you for making sure we excused. You are excused. You may go now. You're welcome to stay for the rest of this. I mean. Speaker 3: No, Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I think a lot of general questions were thrown out here, and I think to the best of their ability, BFD representatives were trying to address some of the answers, but I think it's important to have specific answers from the from the Mariners themselves to some of the issues that were raised , especially some of the special and speculative questions. Speaker 0: Sir, thank you very much for that. Thank you for being here, Fred, and go ahead. Speaker 3: Thank you. I have three points I want to make. And, of course, I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. First, we respect and I sent a correspondence on this issue as well. We respect the party's decision to not weigh in on the political process as to whether this body should allocate funds to the PFG for stadium capital improvements. The notion, however, that's been suggested that the party was not aware that this was a revenue stream is is not accurate, as Mr. Johnson indicated today during during our studies of revenue streams to fulfill the necessary capital improvements, lodging tax had always been part of the available revenue stream to fund what is necessary over the next 25 years or so. It was no surprise to the PFG and I would further add that when the state legislation was amended in 2005 to restrict how the funds can be used by this body, the PFG was involved in those discussions and actually lobbied to ensure that capital improvements at professional sporting stadiums was one of the allowable uses for the tourism portion of the lodging tax. So I recognize that I believe none of the current board members were around in 2005, but the PFG is a body since at least then has been advocating to use this money for this particular purpose. The second point I want to make is this is, as I think a couple of council members have noted, the financial aspects are somewhat complicated. It's a complicated building. It's a 25 year term. So there's some complicated aspects to it. But one thing that I don't want to get lost is that the $180 million in upgrades is necessary. It's necessary to meet the applicable standard. The 385 million is the base work just to keep the lights on and the water running. The 180 million, which the Mariners will fully fund, is necessary, in the words of Mr. Johns, or the parties. Letter 180 million is necessary to extend the economic life of the structure. These are these are not these are not funds that cannot be spent. And if they're not spent, you have the situation in Texas where you have a stadium that's being demolished. In Arizona, where there is litigation for two years and a stadium that's likely to be demolished. The PFA and the Mariners recognized that and came up with the responsible. Financing plan to prohibit that. Lastly, on the notion of the naming rights, and that is that is a very good question. What hasn't been mentioned is that under the term sheet, the committed revenue sources that the Mariners are committing equal $615 million over the 25 year period. So at $615 million into operation and maintenance upgrades and capital improvements, in addition, any overruns that are required, whatever whatever funding is necessary to meet the applicable standard, the Mariners are 100% responsible for that, even if it goes beyond six $615 million over the 25 years, the way the club funds, that is through its revenue streams and one of those revenue streams is naming rights at this time. We have, I think, as Mr. Johnson or Mr. Burns said, we have nothing to sell. There is no lease as of January 1st. There is no naming rights partner as of next year. If we if we do have one, that is a revenue stream that goes into funding the $615 million commitment. And so it's not additive to that. So those are the three points I wanted to make. I'm more than happy to answer any questions of this body. Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you, Fred, for being here. Questions for Mr. Rivera. Maybe I'll ask you, since you're here on the naming rights, the BFD representatives indicated they had no knowledge of any current status. Do you have a partner identified or any contingent or type of deal or an asking price for the naming rights? Can you give us any more information on that? Speaker 3: We do not have any of those, and frankly, we're unable to. Given the currently situation there, there's simply nothing to nothing to sell as of now after December 31st of this year. Speaker 0: So what is the team's current plans with respect to the name of the stadium starting next season, since signage would have to be changed here more almost to September? Is the plan to continue it as Safeco Field? Speaker 3: We haven't gone that far. That's that's one potential is to leave it up. Key arena, for example, is still Katerina, even though there's no deal there. So what? We haven't explored what the options may be. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then just a down in the details a little bit. One of the costs that have been identified is for a new or expanded parking garage. Is that in the 385 million number or the 180 million upgrade number. Speaker 3: That world? You know, actually, it's not even in the 180. That's even another number that would be part of an upgrade. That would be the Mariners responsibility as a potential concept. So that is that's not part of either of those numbers. Speaker 0: All right. That's helpful. Thank you. Other questions? Customer run rate Mark. Speaker 3: Thank you again. And thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rivera, in the discussion about this effort to improve the safety and security around the facility, what conversations have the Mariners had with the PFG relative to this? What to me is a relatively new idea that I didn't when we were involved with the original setting up of the PFG , I as a member of the King County Council, I never thought of that as a mission of the PFG. But I'm curious, have there been conversations with you relative to this part of the lease negotiations? And again, I think it was Mr. Barrett, Mr. Johnson accurately reflected the give and take of a negotiation that took two years to get to this point. The PFG made clear that it was important to them that they have funds available to improve the neighborhood. And and as part of the negotiation, there was an agreement reached that they could take money out of our rent for that purpose. I'm not aware of any any specific projects they have in mind. Only some of the general ideas that I think were reflected this morning. And I don't have any other information beyond that. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thanks, Jerry. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. All right. We will close our fact finding and staff work portion of this and turn to public comment. I want to thank everyone for being here and waiting patiently. And Mr. Zimmerman, you're now out of order.

Motion

A MOTION proposing the allocation of future lodging tax collections to support arts, culture and heritage programs, workforce housing and youth services, and capital or operating programs that promote tourism.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_07302018_2018-0266

Speaker 0: All in favor, say i ii i any post those are approved. Okay. We'll turn now to item five proposed motion 2018 0266 and asked Jeff Mumm and Andrew Kim, our central staff analysts who have been analyzing the legislation and related issues to come before us and make their presentations. Good morning. Speaker 3: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you. For the record, Andrew Kim, the counsel central staff, the staff report for this item begins on page 19 of your agenda packet. However, I would begin my briefing with some background information actually starting on the top of page 20. In 2011, the Washington state legislature passed. I'm sorry, the Washington State Legislature amended RTW 67.2 8.18 to allow the county to allocate the county imposed 2% lodging or hotel and motel tax revenues that will become available in 2021 for the following at least 37 and a half percent for arts museums, for art museums, culture museums, heritage museums at least 37 and a half percent for nonprofit organizations or public housing authorities for affordable workforce housing within one half of a mile of a transportation transit station, or for services for homeless youth and the remainder for capital or operating programs to promote tourism and attract tourists to the county. In 2015, the Washington State Legislature again amended RTW 6728 180 to give the county the ability to issue either general obligation bonds or revenue bonds to help finance the affordable workforce housing allocation of the lodging tax revenues. The bill requires that debt service or revenue bonds pledged against these revenues can make up no more than half of the 37 and a half percent of lodging tax revenues. It's one of just two episodes from the rising taxes think center jeff man counsels. Just to emphasize on this revenue stream, this is a credit against the state sales tax. So if the county the county technically opposes it, but if the county were not to impose it, the funds, a taxpayer would not see a reduction in tax. The funds would wind up just going to the state and the county would not receive any funds. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I may have missed it, but did you specify the actual source and rate and on which transactions this is imposed. Speaker 3: That it's a 2% credit against the state sales tax on hotel stays in King County? Speaker 0: Is that all hotel stays, Jeff, or are there certain sizes in terms of property? Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's a 60 room limit, but I have to get back to you place of it. Thanks, Jeff. Now, if I can direct the members to table one on page 25, that provides a good summary of the proposed motion in alignment with the with the state law. So on page 25, there's a table. Table one provides a comparison between the state law and proposed motion 2018 00266, which is before you today. The table also references past council actions taken by Council in lieu of the state legislation action and in anticipation of future lodging tax revenues. So I'll go through. So the first column of the table one provides the allocation guidelines as per the state law, which I just brief the members. And the second Collinwood specified the allocation as proposed by the current motion before you. So the proposed motion would state the county's intent to allocate the lodging tax revenues that will be available beginning January 1st, 2020 for the following. 137 and a half percent shall be transferred to Fort Culture to support art museums, culture museums, heritage museums, the arts and the performing arts. Speaker 0: This okay, I'm hearing some folks having trouble hearing pull the microphones and I sometimes talk softly myself. So Andrew and Jeff, both of you, pull up those mikes real close and Mark, crank it up to 11. Speaker 3: Make sure the second allocation would be 37 and a half percent shall be allocated to Department of Community and Human Services to support transit oriented development development, including projects that preserve or develop workforce housing and ongoing services or projects that support homeless youth. And the last allocation, 25%, shall be allocated for the following one building for culture, bond, debt service and of the remaining 60% remaining to the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium, Public Facilities, District for capital projects, and 3% of the remaining amount to the Kent Special Events Center Public Facilities District to support capital maintenance of the Acesso Show Wear Center. The proposed motion would also require the executive, in consultation with the Council, to develop a countywide strategic arts, heritage, historic preservation and Culture Plan. And the Strategic Plan is required to be sent to council by December 31st, 2019. Section C of the proposed motion would require the Council, the executive and the county visitor and tourism organizations to work in collaboration to set up a tourism promotion fund. And lastly, S.D., of the proposed motion request executive to develop and transmit legislation to support identified plan allocation as specified in the proposed motion related to the employment. Back to table one on the third column shows past Council actions related to this particular proposed motion related to the Affordable Workforce Housing allocation. In 2016, Council adopted a motion acknowledging the receipt of a transit oriented development bond allocation plan, which plans to issue $87 million of bonds revenue backed by lodging taxes for transit oriented development projects . The plan also specifies that remaining lodging tax proceeds not allocated for debt service payments would be available for annual funding awards for other TOD projects or transit oriented development projects. The 2017. Transit Oriented Development Annual report states that approximately 16.2 million have already been awarded or set aside as specified as specified by the allocation plan. Speaker 0: And Andrew, if I can jump in on that, on the 16.2 million of the $84 million, does that include the $10 million allocated to the Northgate Project? Speaker 3: The the the 16.2 million that's already been set aside is actually part of the all county allocation, the 30.2 So the 10 million for the Northgate Project has not been allocated. Speaker 0: That would be on top of that. Speaker 3: That's correct. All right. Speaker 0: And members could jump in with questions as they're going along. Councilmember Gosset. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Were you reading from the ordinance or the state law and rise to this measure? Speaker 3: So initially, Councilmember Garcia, I recited the provisions of the state law and then I so if you look at table one on page 25, the column one provides the provisions of the state law. And then I recited the allocations, specify the proposed motion on column two. And then now what I'm doing is I'm reciting some references to past council actions that you've taken in lieu of the the lodging tax revenues. Speaker 4: And okay, then can you could you reiterate what just very briefly what the state said about how much money should or shall, I don't know what language they use, go to culture and how much would go to housing like for homeless? Speaker 3: Oh, sure. So the state law states that at least 37.5% of the lodging tax revenues beginning they'll be collected starting January 1st, 2021 would go for arts and then at least 37 and a half percent would go to work for the federal housing. Speaker 4: Okay. So my interpretation is that the other 25% could go to these two items if the legislative authority and the county king wanted it to. Speaker 3: Yeah, that's correct. Correct. Okay. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 3: Continuing on, Mr. Chair. And then lastly, related to the towards the MAP allocation, in 2015, the Council adopted a motion which established the Building for Culture Program to fund capital projects that supported arts, culture and heritage using the future lodging tax revenues. Various ordinances effectuated the motion to implement the program and issued $29 million of bonds for 102 capital projects. As council members are aware, the full council will take up proposed Ordinance 2018 0257 to reallocate $1.7 million and modify the adopted list of projects this afternoon. I would also like to note that the the allocation is specified in the proposed motion complies with the guidelines of the state law. And with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Mom. Thank you, Andrea. Now, I'd like to take the committee to page 22 of the staff report. And this is where I've done a draw down on the provisions of the PFG. This is the this is the end of the proposed motion. 60% of the of the tourism allocation would go to the public facility district starting in 2021. So in 1995, the state legislature authorized the county to impose three new council magic taxes to finance construction of what's now known as Safeco Field. It was a half a percent restaurant tax, 2% car rental tax, and a 0.017% sales and use tax, which was a credit against the state sales tax. So again, this is a situation where the taxpayer wouldn't see an increase, but normally state dollars are coming back to help build the facility. In October of 1995, the county enacted Ordinance 12,000 to oppose these taxes and then also to create the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facility District, which we had been calling the BFD . And and that it was the BFD was was formed to build and maintain and operate. They've got the party is governed by a seven member board, four of whom are appointed by the county and three of whom are appointed by the state. The county can then land associated with the ballpark's construction to the BFD issued 336 million in bonds to be repaid with the revenue stream stated above and the bonds repaid back in October of 2011. And those taxes expired with the bonds. The. Legislature also authorized the FDA to impose a 10% parking tax and a 5% admissions tax on ticketed events at Safeco. These taxes are still in effect and go to maintaining and operating the facility in as a part of the financing package, the Seattle Mariners pledged to contribute up to $45 million for the ballpark's design and construction , as well as they pledged to cover cost overruns associated with the ballpark's construction. The final costs for the ballpark amounted to 517 million, with the county and state contributing 372 million, and the Mariners contributed $145 million. The the Mariners entered into a 20 year lease, which expires at the end of this year. In 2015, the Mariners and the PFG began discussing new lease terms and hired BND venues and populous architects. This is a consulting firm to investigate future capital costs over a 20 year period. The consultant team issued its preliminary report in 2015 and updated it in May of this year and identified 385 and a half million dollars worth of necessary improvements to keep the ballpark in first class condition through 2021. The report also identified proposed upgrade improvements and these would enhance the ballpark's economic vitality through that same time period. The report did not include cost estimates with these upgrade improvements. In May of this year, the PFA adopted Resolution 18 004, which identified the $385 million in necessary improvements identified in the consultant's report, and also cited the Mariners estimate for upgrade improvements to cost an additional $160 million. No specific upgrade improvements were identified in this resolution. However, the Mariners have provided a list of potential upgrade improvements to council staff totaling $180 million, and have stated that this list represents a minimum of what they believe would be necessary. Upgrade improvements. The merits of also stated a council staff that expansion of the current parking facility may also be necessary in addition to the upgraded improvements . However, executive staff has confirmed to council staff that the proposed funds to the city would only be used to support major maintenance needs at the ballpark and would not be used for upgrade improvements. An attachment A of the staff report shows the list of proposed upgrade improvements. On May 23rd, 2018, the Mariners agreed to new lease terms in a term sheet for use of the ballpark from January 1st, 2019 through December 31st, 2043. However, no final lease has been executed. Attachment seven of the report includes a copy of these terms of this term sheet. So just to make thing boiled down, boil some things down for the council members. We included a chart on page 26 and the report to show a roll up of the funds proposed under the fund allocations proposed under the motion. And as you'll see that under this proposal a over the time period under lease and the motion, 476 million would be allocated to arts, culture and heritage at 476 million would be allocated for affordable workforce housing near transit. And we show and this is the council has already allocated some of these funds and then the remainder that's 25% would total 318 million, with 22 million going for a past debt service on the Building for Culture program between 177 180 million going to the PFA, 1.3 million going to show Showa center in Kent and then the remaining being is unallocated. And then just to sum up, I wanted to briefly just feature four for future actions by the Council on Friday, the executive transmitted to the Council staff into the Council and a proposed agreement between the city and the county to transmit the funds as proposed in the motion we received on Friday. So me all review is still ongoing on that. But the Mariners have indicated to council staff that that they won't be able to start lease negotiations with the BFD until that INTERLOCAL agreement is adopted by the county and the Council also will need to take if they approve. The motion also need to take take legislative action to to approve the funds for the show work center and then the executive which would need to transmit the two reports, the strategic reports regarding arts and heritage funding and tourism promotion to the Council. I believe the next I think the council chair at the of the committee chair at the beginning of the meeting stated that the committee will take this issue up again in on August 29th. And with that, that is our our staff report and we are happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Up the Grove. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair, of a couple of questions. And thank you, Jeff, for the presentation. You noted that the parking and ticket tax revenue will go to support stadium upkeep. Do you have a sense of how much money that those public tax dollars will generate for the stadium over the duration? If there were 25 year lease. Speaker 3: Approximately $175 million. Speaker 2: That's it. And you mentioned the different categories of funding proposed in the consultant's report that were identified. There were some maintenance upgrades. And you characterized I don't know if these were your words, but there is 160 million in optional I'm calling them optional upgrades or the nice to haves separate from the necessary required maintenance and upkeep. And would there be anything preventing the 160 million that are being proposed in a financial plan for the optional upgrades from instead being spent on the necessary upkeep and maintenance? No. And last one more, if I might, Mr. Chair. That's. I don't. Speaker 0: Know. Only have three. Speaker 2: We have three. I'm sure that we have another hearing coming. That's the. You talked about the well, Andrew talked about what the state law says about spending or what have you talked about what the state law says about how we have to spend this hotel, motel money that at least 37.5% on arts and culture, at least 37.5% on housing and the remainder on tourism. I guess what is the bare minimum required by state law that we have to spend on housing? And how does that compare to this proposal? Speaker 3: So as per state law, there isn't a bare minimum I'm sorry, as per state law, at least 37 and a half percent would be spent on affordable housing. So I guess that would be the bare minimum for affordable housing, at least 37 and a half percent for arts and culture. And based on the past council actions of for the building for a culture program, I would say that based on that motion and legal analysis still ongoing on this, but the funds dedicate it for the debt service payments are the Building for Culture program should be dedicated for the tourism portion of the lighting tax revenues. Speaker 2: So to clarify, this proposal does spend the bare minimum required by state law on affordable housing. Speaker 3: That's correct. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember up and remove other questions or comments. Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Andrew and Jeff. I just want to clarify that what we're talking about is if this proposal were to go through or some version of it, that some amount of funds would go to the public facilities district for use at a publicly owned stadium, not to the Mariners organization, which is the key tenant of the building. Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. Speaker 1: Okay. So the public facilities district makes the determination in entering into contract with the Seattle Mariners and how it would be the funds would be expended. Is that accurate? Speaker 3: Actually, I believe that. And I've only I've only been able to read the Interlocal agreement between the county and the PFA. And so in that agreement it specifies that the funds have to go to and upkeep. Big. Yeah, big maintenance. Yes. Yeah. Speaker 1: Not for brewpubs or anything. Speaker 3: Great. It says it can't it cannot go to those types of things. Speaker 1: That's right. Thank you. And secondly, do you have any information about the revenue that comes in to the county that can be used for affordable housing and other projects because of the Safeco Field? I know there are other tenants besides the Mariners. Are there other other programs going on there? Concerts and all sorts of events at Safeco Field? You're looking at me quizzically, Jeff. So we have revenue coming to the county because. Speaker 3: We know. Speaker 1: The hotel motel. Speaker 3: Oh, okay. Are you asking about hotel stays? That would happen because of events at Safeco Field that are not the Mariners. Speaker 1: Yeah. Any money that is spent for people attending events. Speaker 3: I can try to find that type of information for you. Speaker 1: I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker 3: Clarifying. Speaker 0: Sure. Guzman broke the rules. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That last question confused me a little, I guess. Are the Mariners the sole tenant, and if somewhat other activities are taking place there? Don't the Mariners keep the revenue and the ticket and stadium taxes generated also go back in there? I mean, I guess it is the are the Mariners the sole tenant or are there multiple tenants? Speaker 3: Yeah, the Mariners are the total tenant and then they and yeah. And then they I guess, I don't know, but the proper term means. But they sublease that tether to concerts and events and things. The ticket tax revenue for any of those events goes to the the D imposes that tax and so it goes to the top of the ticket tax revenue. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: A few other questions or comments of staff. I have a couple of follow ups in your staff report. You indicate that the updated report you're talking about the body and populous architecture report, that the update report indicated 385 and a half million dollars worth of necessary improvements would be necessary to keep the ballpark in first class condition through 2041, where the county is not being asked to fund all of those, quote, necessary improvements with the hotel motel tax. Are we. Speaker 3: No. The county is being asked for approximately 870, $790 million. So a significant portion, but not not the entire. Speaker 0: And do you have any understanding of where that number came from? Why is it that. Speaker 3: Number, that 385. Speaker 0: 177, 290 million? Speaker 3: It's my understanding that it's the me, the delta between what under the new lease, there are there's specified contributions from a team to a maintenance fund and then, you know, had to get back to you. But the short answer is it's sort of what the what the what the team believes it needs to make the upgrade improvements . It's the. It's what's left over in the budget. What the team's going to contribute to the the facility with the can contribute through its taxes and then to make all of the necessary improvements and then $160 million worth of upgrade improvements to keep the ballpark relevant through the terms of the lease. Speaker 0: Well, the upgrade improvements here, the rationale is and there's $160 million of those to enhance the ballpark's economic vitality. Does that mean make more money? Speaker 3: I can read from you that. Speaker 0: I mean, I'm trying to understand we're talking about. Speaker 3: I think it's to make. Speaker 0: You know, to get 500 and some million dollars over the 25 years here. What is the purpose? We've got some purpose for basic maintenance and some purpose is for upgrade enhancements to enhance the ballpark's economic vitality. If I understand the base of the proposal, the Mariners will pay for the upgrade improvements. Based on your answers here earlier, those dollars could also be used otherwise to pay for the basic maintenance and necessary improvements if they weren't going for the upgrade improvements. Speaker 3: So the consultant report on page 94 of the consultants report when they talk about the upgrade improvements and this is the consultant's words and for reasons maintaining or approving upon the patron experience, expanding or maintaining revenue streams, attracting new demographic groups to the facility, and maintaining Safeco as competitive position within the market. Speaker 0: Okay. And is there any quantification of the additional revenues that those investments might generate. Speaker 3: And have been provided. Speaker 0: With respect to the timing of these dollars currently? What is the use of these proceeds? Where are they going to today? Speaker 3: Right now, they're paying up bonds for CenturyLink. Speaker 0: And are those bonds paid off? When are they expected to be paid off? Speaker 3: 2021. Speaker 0: When under the proposal, would these dollars be transmitted to the BFD if the Council were to approve this legislation? Speaker 3: The revenue stream would become available for the tourism in 2021. So that's that's the soonest that the county could transmit to the update. I'm not remembering that the terms in the alagoas is precisely, I think, annual transfer, but I don't know the precise date. But it can't happen until 2021. Speaker 0: All right. And so is there can you help me understand, is that just the expiration of the current lease that brings this issue before us today? It sounds like we're being asked to spend money today that we don't quite have yet coming in yet. Speaker 3: Yeah. It's probably best answer by executive staff, by the proposals before us today. Speaker 0: Okay. I think we do get I want to if she's here, I think Rachel Schmidt, the executive's chief of staff, was going to be present and members should have a chance to ask her questions. If she is. I don't. She's. Oh, she's here. Okay. There she is. Thank you for being here, Rachel. We might have a couple of questions for you. Are there a couple other questions, Jeff, if you might, or Andrew? Does every jurisdiction in King County collect this hotel motel tax and transmit it for disposition by the county council or other jurisdictions that keep it and spend it on other purposes? Speaker 3: So the tax is imposed by the county and county wide. However, in the city of Bellevue, the city of Bellevue retains the tax that is collected in Bellevue and hotel motel stays. Speaker 1: All right, Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: Councilman Bell. Speaker 1: The 2%. Not all of it. Speaker 3: That's correct. The 2%. The county imposed tax. Thank you. Speaker 0: And we're just talking about the 2% here. Or are we talking about something else? Speaker 3: We are only talking about the county imposed 2%. Speaker 0: I see. So I'm just trying to understand the mechanics of this. So hotel stays in the city of Bellevue would not contribute to this fund. Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 0: And what do they is that for maiden power? Is that what they use? Speaker 3: As my understanding? Speaker 0: Okay. All right, counsel. Sorry, Counselor McDermott. Thank you, Jeff. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Gentlemen, I'm interested in delineating the affordable workforce housing portion of the funds, the 37.5% or greater that would be dedicated to housing. Can you walk me through what has already been announced or invested from those funds and what remains and whether and I believe there's been an announcement from the executive about part of those. Speaker 3: I can take that one. So on page, on top of page 22 provides a list of the allocations as the Council adopted in terms of the transit oriented development program. Speaker 2: So that's the work we did a couple of years ago. That's correct. Okay. Speaker 3: And and so that would allocate that would total approximately $87.87 million, which would be funded to fund those projects. And the revenues would pay the debt service for those bonds. The allocation plan also states that any portion, any remaining portion of the Affordable Workforce housing allocation would be used for annual funding awards for other types of transit oriented development, housing projects. Speaker 2: So we've already bonded. We've already announced and bonded 87 million, the details of which are at the top of page 22. And then there's another 360 million available for annual awards or potentially to bond for a larger investment upfront. Speaker 3: That's great. We haven't bonded yet, but but we're anticipating to start with the bonding process in 2021. And the remaining, as you said, would go to the annual funding awards. But you mentioned 60 million that you mentioned. Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Could I. Do you mind if I follow up on that? The 360 million has over what time period? Speaker 3: So that's if you go to table two, that that would be the time period from 2021 to 2023. So there isn't a there hasn't been a time specified in the total allocation plan. But if we're using the time frame, as we've provided through this analysis, it would it would total approximately 316. Speaker 0: Okay. And I think I understood. Would you confirm for me with respect to the executive's announcement of another $100 million in bonding from the 37% for housing fund? Does that consume that entire revenue stream for this period of time, or would there be additional housing designated resources available. Speaker 3: If it doesn't consume all of it? It consumes a bunch of it. I've done some initial work on it, but I don't know. I haven't compared notes with the executive on things like assumptions of interest rates and things like that, but it's a good chunk of it. Speaker 0: We've spent we don't like we've announced all the allocations, in essence, it sounds like, on that. And there could be some right here. Speaker 3: I think finding an additional $100 million would take up a significant chunk of that stream. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Coe Wells. Speaker 1: Used to chair for either of you on page 25. Table number one and the first column number two. So the the allocation that could go in terms of a guideline of at least 37.5% for affordable housing, has some constraints to it. That's correct. Which are delineated in A, B and C. Speaker 0: Hmm. Speaker 1: Is there any provision under the statute that would allow some other type of funding or some other type of allocation? Or does it absolutely have to be one of those three categories? Speaker 3: There's no other delineation, Councilmember. Those are the provisions as per state law as you read it. Speaker 1: And could you just re go over number C here again? Because it's kind of convoluted. I'm trying to figure out what all could be possible within that category. Speaker 3: Sure. So provision C was a provision that was amended by the Washington state legislature in the second round of amendments to that particular provision. So initially, the at least 37% was to be used for affordable housing. But Provision C allows that portion to be bonded using either general obligation bonds, which we wish the council members have already dedicated to do so through the bond allocation plan. And it also allows it to it also allows some of the revenues to repay any bonds related to projects authorized by the Community Preserve Preservation and Development Authority, which is another entity. If they were to propose a project that that those funds could be used to repay any bonds that they would have authorized. Speaker 1: And there is a provision about housing, affordable housing or sustainable workplace opportunities near a community impacted by the construction or operation of tourism related facilities. Speaker 3: So for that particular provision where it says community impacted by the construction or operation of tourism related facilities, that that particular provision is related to any project that would be authorized by the Community Preservation and Development Authority. So it's a bit independent of the Affordable Workforce housing provision that we generally know for that particular application. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Performance Councilmember Up the Grove. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one is probably for Jeff. It's a two part question. Under the terms of the current lease, the one the Mariners are currently operating under, who's responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the field? Speaker 3: The Mariners are responsible for day to day maintenance and upkeep and and also a lot of major maintenance. If there's some unanticipated expense that is associated with the design of the ballpark or something to that, then that the parties are responsible. The Mariners, I think in practice and I can get back to you. More details on this minor stand ins then in practice the Mariners have gone in there and fix would have ever had to get fixed right away and then are reimbursed by the by the PFA for those and the PFA uses its its funds, its ticket tax revenue and rent to reimburse for those types of expansions. Speaker 2: And what do you what have you been able to discern from public sources about the any profit or revenue made by the team during the time the terms of the first lease? And also, what do we know about the growth and the value of that business? And I guess what I'm getting at is, is it possible for a business to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep and still generate wealth? So I guess it's a two. It's a two. Do we do we know what what do we know about it? From the research we've done about the so the finances. Speaker 0: And I think the region grantees are getting excited back there. Speaker 2: Hold tight, let us do our work and we get to Austin. And I know we don't have access to the private financial records, but I know there's been some reporting about the growth in the value of the team and in the revenue generated by the business. Speaker 3: Under the terms of the current lease, there's a profit sharing provision in it that if the Mariners have a profit in the year, they are to contribute 10% of the profit to the to the BFD. However, the lease also recognizes that the Mariners incurred a $200 million operating loss between 1995 and 1999, and so that every year when they do their profit sharing or when they report to the FDA their profits, they if they have a profit, they credit against the loss that they incurred. So over the over the last 20 years, according to the last profit sharing report in 2017, the Mariners have winnowed that $200 million loss down to a bit over $5 million. And the second part of your question on valuation, the team, I have no way to provide that information. There are a bunch of different news outlets from time to time provide that information. In 2016, a portion of the team, the team bought out one of the majority owners and I believe they bought about 40% stake at $600 million. So you can maybe come up with some sort of valuation. Somebody thought that that was worth $600 million. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Von Bauer, then Councilmember Lambert, who's on the phone? Speaker 2: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just picking up on some of the concerns or questions from the previous speaker customer, Goss and I have had the privilege of being through this process before. Speaker 3: And we understand that there's a lot to be said, not only for the major issues that many of the people in the audience are here to discuss. Speaker 2: But also we recognize we have we're partners in this, and it's important to know about our partners in terms of who are getting into an agreement with. I think it's also important, Mr. Chair, to recognize that Major League. Speaker 3: Attendance is the lowest in 15 years. Across the board. Attendance is down in Major League Baseball, and we're very fortunate that we have a winning team here that's been very successful. But we have to recognize that they're also facing some of the changes in today's economy. So looking at these figures, I don't want to be confused about the reality. And we're not operating in a vacuum here because the agreement we have here with the Mariners is not something separate from what's going on in Major League Baseball in. Speaker 2: Particular, in sports in general. There's a lot of changes taking place. Speaker 3: Flat screen TV is very attractive to a lot of people who are no longer attending. Speaker 2: Games at all levels. And so it's very important to recognize that some of the dollars that we are talking about may not project forward. Speaker 3: As much as they have been something out of the past. I also recognize that this is an opportunity for us to get some issues. Speaker 2: Reviewed, and especially during this. Speaker 3: Month that you've asked us to come up with. And I think it's important to see what's happening and other teams around the league. And Jeff and I hope that you have a chance to see what's happening with other negotiated contracts, how this contract stands in. Speaker 2: More recent contracts around the league. Again, we've been through this process before. Speaker 3: We almost watched this team. I don't want us to get into a nose to nose battle where we find ourselves faced with a potential loss of a major factor in this community, one of the best sporting events where families can still attend. And I'm hoping that we recognize that this is still a financial challenge for everybody across the board and that this is not a golden goose that's going to lay all the. Speaker 2: Golden eggs for all our. Speaker 3: Problems. We have to deal with a lot of problems as members of the King County. Speaker 2: Council not too long ago without. And I guess about. Speaker 3: Five years ago we had the anniversary of the time we said we'd end homelessness in ten years. And money does not answer all our problems. But hopefully today that will begin a serious discussion and our due diligence on the campgrounds process of this contract and recognize that we're working as partners in this with the mariners and not adversaries. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. And then we'll move on to public comment pretty quickly. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Interesting that parking fees are back again. That was the last item in the negotiations that did originally and in Olympia. So I think said he was here on the council. I was in Olympia when they were working on this before. So I would like to know more. And I remember earlier they were talking about the package. I'd like to hear more about that plan to vacate that amount. I'd also like to know what you believe is the condition of the building. We think that it's been well maintained as there have been some deferred maintenance. And my last question is, if we were to pay the bonds up early, how much could we save? And over again what the bond interest rate is that we are still paying. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So some follow up information on the parking revenue and condition of the stadium. Maybe you could touch briefly on that, quote, applicable standard, end quote, in this column for here. And then the interest rate and potential for early pay off is what I heard. Speaker 3: So that under the terms of the current lease, there's something called the applicable standard and we'll have more on the leases in the next briefing. But basically the team needs to keep Safeco up to a first class as a first class stadium compared to stadiums that were built between 1990 and 1999. And it's my understanding and I think the PFA and want to speak for them, but in conversations I had with them, they were very satisfied with the condition that the that the stadium has been it is in right now as far as paying off the bonds early, even if if the bonds were to be paid off early , the state law, I believe those funds wind up going to it like a youth sports facility, like a statewide youth sports facility program. So they're already spoken for. So paying them off and it's just we can't control the stream. We'd have to we'll have to get more get back to you on that one. But the funds are spoken for under statute from now through the foreseeable future. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Kowalski. Speaker 1: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Another question. With regard to the upgrades and maintenance needs that's identified by the Mariners or by the PFG, are those included in the lease requirements? Are they something that the Mariners, for example, are required to do to maintain the lease? I don't know if I'm asking. Speaker 3: Yeah. They are required. They would be required to. The facility needs to be maintained and I'll have to get that direct the exact. I can't remember how specific the consultant's report is identified in the in the there's no new lease yet. But in the resolution adopting the term sheet for the new lease, it calls out the $385 million and presumes that those will be done. That has to be done. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? We do have a representative, vice president, general counsel for the mayors. Fred Rivera is here and is available, has made himself available. If members have questions, he's going to speak during the sign up time. But does any member have a question for the Mariners organization at this time? Exactly. Sure. And we have Rachel Smith here as well. I don't want to put them on the spot if there's no questions. So does any member have a question or would Rachel, do you have anything you'd like to offer on behalf of the executive ? No. Councilmember one right there. Speaker 2: But I make sure I understood what you said. I want to make sure that we have an opportunity here from the public here. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 3: I also want to make sure that if anything were raised in the preliminary discussion by our staff, the Mariner Organization, to respond or clarify or add. Speaker 2: To the fair, they have that opportunity. Speaker 0: Okay. And I'm see a nod from Mr. Rivera. Now, come on up here, Fred. And the BFD, our public facilities district was invited. I don't believe they're here, but if there is a representative from the public facilities district, would you make yourself known? No. Okay. Thank you, Fred. Welcome. Go and introduce yourself. Speaker 3: Thank you. Fred Rivera, executive vice president and general counsel. All right. Speaker 0: You heard the dialog there. Is there anything you want to add to or clarify? Speaker 3: Yeah, I want to I want to summarize the overall expenses over the next 25 years that we've determined and also addressed the upgrade capital improvements that will be required. First, the overall anticipated expenses over 25 years is $800 million. That includes $250 million for operation and maintenance, which the Mariners will pay 100% of. There's the capital upgrades that were referenced before, and this is necessary. These are not discretionary. This is not discretionary work that needs to be done under the applicable standard and the term sheet. For the next 25 years, the ballpark will be judged against the top one third of ballparks and Major League Baseball in order to keep it relevant. Those upgrades or those concepts at a minimum will need to be required. And so that estimated $180 million is the minimum for the upgrades to meet the applicable standard under the new lease. The last component is the necessary capital improvements. That's the $385 million for which the allocation would, would would go towards. And that's the only bucket of maintenance that this allocation would address. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman up there. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for being here this morning. That's the question. That's part rhetorical, but it's an honest one. If you're to believe Forbes magazine and I don't that hasn't been independently analyzed that the their valuation of the team shows the value has increased by $1,000,000,000 over the last seven years. Given that, why couldn't the owners finance these upgrades rather than drain public resources that could be used for housing? Speaker 3: Or I'll repeat what I just said, and that is the Mariners are paying for the upgrades. We're paying 100% of the upgrades we've negotiated for over a year with the public facility district that owns the stadium. We are the tenants. These are the terms that we negotiated. I think both parties think it's fair for members of that body are confirmed by by by the county. And these are the terms that overall we think represent a fair allocation of responsibility for a publicly owned asset. Speaker 0: Other questions for Mr. Rivera. I'll say if they happen to listen or watch this. You mentioned that four members of the party are appointed and confirmed by this county. I'd like to hear from them. There they are. They are looking out and running the public entity for the public. And to be honest, Mr. Rivera, I don't I'd like to see a little bit more of them to make the case. And I haven't. Just to for two more questions, then we'll open up to public comment. Mr.. Jeff. Mr. Mom, you indicated it was a range hundred 65, $190 million with respect to hotel motel tax. Under this agreement, is there any cap or any limit or is it a percentage of the receipts? Speaker 3: Yeah, under the end of the ordinance or I'm sorry, end of the motion. It's a percentage. It's 60% of the that the tourism of the funds that would be available for tourism for 60% of the 25% of the 99 estimate. Speaker 0: So it could be higher if we keep growing and have more rooms and stays. There's no cap. Speaker 3: There's no cap. Speaker 0: And can you help me understand why? No. All right. Mr.. That's an open question that maybe something can help in like next month. Mr.. Garrett You've indicated that the Mariners do generate tourism visitors here to the region and hotel motel nights stays. Can you tell us a little bit about the studies that have been done in terms of the dollars of this hotel motel tax that the Mariners believe that they generate? Speaker 2: A third party report. Speaker 3: That was commissioned by both the PFO and the Mariners identified $3.8 billion in economic activity during the 25 year lease term. I believe it's 2.8 billion of that is right here in the county, including 3300 full time equivalent. Speaker 2: Jobs per year. Speaker 3: Inside and outside of the ballpark in the area, which you may be familiar with, Silver Cloud in Hoover, Bill Bar, those type of areas. And over the term of the lease, that'll generate $2.2 billion in wages, according to the third party report. Speaker 0: And with respect to the hotel motel tax receipts, what is the study show that those are generated from Mariners days? Speaker 3: I don't know. I'll have to get back to you. I don't know that it's specifically identified that portion. Speaker 0: There's not a number of $50 million. Speaker 3: I don't know, off the top of my head. Speaker 0: Okay. Mr. Mom, have you seen anything on that? Speaker 3: The consultant report. It says that the folks who come to Mariners games, 5% of them would need hotel stays. And I think that's 100,000 stays a year something that in that nature but I can get more information can. Speaker 0: Be helpful because we're on our guard. Speaker 2: Well, just a question relative to what I raised earlier, Mr. Rivera. You know, I've been reading the. Speaker 3: Same Fortune magazine that my colleague has been reading, and it's pointed out that Major League attendance is down. Can you speak to that and some of the concerns? Because obviously that's a. Speaker 2: Financial concern for the organization. Speaker 3: It's a major concern across the league. The commissioner addressed that at the All-Star break just a couple of weeks ago. Attendance is significantly down and that's because people are watching games in a different way. They're not going to the game. They're watching it on devices when they come to the game. It's not necessarily a sit and watch experience. It's a social experience, a social gathering experience. There's one ballpark design in the works that will only have 24,000 seats in it, and the rest will be social space. And that will have a significant impact on revenue and the ability to operate a team and to operate the stadium. So it's a paramount concern in in Major League Baseball that we're keeping our eye on and will sure to impact us in the coming years. Speaker 2: Again, as I pointed out earlier, Mr. Rivera, Guzman, Gossett and I were involved. Speaker 3: With. Speaker 2: Baseball brinkmanship when we were going to lose the. Speaker 3: Team and we were had threats. And I personally was raising questions about the ability of the organization to meet the construction and the financial plan. And I was criticized very strongly by the then chairman of the Seattle Mariners. So I hope I have some credibility in raising the questions today to make sure, because I was ostracized and criticized and front page of the Seattle Times or raising questions along with my colleague, Councilmember Larry Phillips, Councilmember Cynthia Sullivan, and then Councilmember Ron Sims. Speaker 2: And the four of us were. Speaker 3: Lambasted because we dared raise questions. But we have to raise these questions because this process is so critical. The people behind you have a particular issue. We have to look at the broader issues. I think, again, that you have a venue that is family friendly. It is the last place where people can take their families and don't get hit by. Speaker 2: Too many of our sports today are suits. Only people can afford to do it. Speaker 3: They can write off the expenses. So I want to thank the Seattle. Speaker 2: Mariners publicly. Speaker 3: For providing that resource for so many families around the sound. Speaker 2: We're going to go through a question period. I hope you can work with us, because I know there. Speaker 3: Will be some hard questions for my colleagues, but in the end, I think the solution will be a a conversation that I think will bring about a resolution of some of the issues that we raised here today and we raised by some of the audience who I hope we can start hearing from. And I want to thank you and I thank the chair. I got to leave this anecdote because my my colleague, Larry, and I will understand, there's a previous county executive negotiated with the then president of the Seattle Mariners. His name is Tim. And Tim raised, you know, finished his his negotiations. And then he said, oh, by the way, then the council is going to to be involved. And the then president of the Mariners said, council, what's the council you're finding out about the council today? The council is is a process. And in our process of county government, we hope to be a deliberative process, one that's. Speaker 2: Going to look at the long term. Speaker 3: Not the short term. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. And for one clarifying follow up, Councilmember Up the Grove, then we'll get the public come out, Councilman, for a. Speaker 2: Well, no, thank you. I the I've heard this this fear that as people attend games less and watch TV more, it can have an impact. But didn't you don't you own the TV station that airs? The airs, the Mariners. Speaker 3: We have an interest in those articles. I'm sure. Speaker 2: You. Speaker 3: Read mention how that's that's a dying business again folks folks are not watching and those in those ways and so the deliverable people are watching through what's called over-the-top methods of television. Exactly. And so that that is a that is a dying that is a dying business. And I would be happy to share with you a number of articles that mention that. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Councilmember Cole to bring us home. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking of homes, so let's see the signs around here, homes over home runs. I don't think anybody would deny that that is critical, that people have homes. And it's you know, we're in an enormous situation here in Seattle, King County, the state all over the country with regard to this. And rather than arguing over why that's the cause, we have to have more homes built and have homes affordable, which is what Claudia Bowdich, his task force that's working on. But for me, it doesn't have to be an either or a mutually exclusive situation. If we can have a sports team here, a safe field that is well maintained so we don't have roof tiles falling off as we did with the kingdom, but also have the revenue that's needed for building homes that are affordable. And I think we can find the right balance. And so at some point, I would really like to see some more numbers about what the revenue limit and what the revenue level is that we gain by having the Mariners play at this publicly owned facility that go. Speaker 0: Into. Speaker 1: Housing, human services and so forth, because I know that that is taking place. It's just where is the right balance? Maybe we have a lesser amount than is in this proposed ordinance, but we have to find that balance. So I don't know if you have any comment on that. Speaker 3: I agree with you 100% on on the on those topics. I think we did try with the four years we negotiated the term sheet to come to the correct balance of of cost sharing of of those items. And I'm happy to try to provide, along with with staff, additional information beyond those I referenced in terms of economic generation so we can get that information to you. Speaker 1: Thank you. And I should have said proposed motion not or in the thinking that. Speaker 0: No, thank you very much. Thank you for being here, Fred. And thank you to our central staff for your work on this. You've now heard some of the questions, concerns from members and got some time before this next comes before the committee to work on that. I think I said in my opening remarks about opportunities for public comment that the general public comment is heard the third Monday of every county council meeting. And I made a mistake. It's the fourth Monday, so August 27th at 1:30 p.m.. The full King County Council takes public comment on any topic, and you're welcome there. This again will be in committee on Wednesday, the 29th at 9:30 a.m. Here is an opportunity to provide public comment, and then it'll either be in committee for one more hearing for comment or up to the full council. And whenever it's heard it full council, there's public comment opportunities. So I want to clarify those prior remarks. We will now open the public comment item on this agenda. I do have a number of folks lined up. We are going to set the clock on either podium at a minute, 30, you'll have a 32nd warning with the

Motion

A MOTION proposing the allocation of future lodging tax collections to support arts, culture and heritage programs, workforce housing and youth services, and capital or operating programs that promote tourism.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_07252018_2018-0268

Speaker 1: All right. So for the record, on Mary Bergen on from the council staff and the materials for this item began on page 39 of your packet, but I'm going to begin at page 40 and just give a little bit of background on what led to this ordinance. Back in 2015, the council passed motion 14458 which declared that it is county policy to protect and conserve land and water resources and directed the executive to develop and transmit a work plan by March 30th of 2016. To do that, the executive came back with an initial work plan in early 2016 and then convened a land conservation advisory group which met throughout much of 2016 and 2017 and developed a first phase report in January of last year and then a final report in December of last year. That report set the goal of acquiring 65,000 acres of open space lands within the next 30 years, at a cost estimated over the 30 years of $1.9 billion . The group came up with a number of ideas for how funding could be secured to do that, which included, among other things, resetting the conservation futures tax to its state maximum of 6.2 cents per $1,000. That would require voter approval. And so instead of that, at this point, the Executive has come forward with several of the other concepts from the Land Conservation Advisory Group, one of which includes an increasing the bonding level against the conservation futures tax. And then the other, which is also in this ordinance to establish equity areas in underserved areas of the county. In the middle of page 41, you'll see a description of the conservation futures tax. This is a dedicated portion of the property tax that's authorized by state law to acquire property rights to conserve open space. It's been collected in King County since the early 1980s. And as I mentioned, state law sets the maximum for this levy at 6.2 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. The CFT was at this maximum level when it was first imposed in the 1980s, but since then it has eroded and it is now under $0.04. King County currently allocates about 12 and a half million dollars in CFT proceeds each year, and those allocation processes are governed by sections of the King County Code, which establish an application process for local communities. A citizen's oversight committee from whom you heard this afternoon to review the applications, and then a process by which first the executive and then the council review those recommendations and allocate funding. Now I'm moving on to page 43 in terms of the proposed changes that are included in this ordinance. The first thing the ordinance would do, as I mentioned, is change the financial policies for the CFT to allow that 80% of the proceeds could be used for debt service so that the amount of money bonded against the CFT could be increased. Currently, there is not a set limit for bonding, but there's been an informal limit set by the council, an executive of about half the proceeds used for bonding. And right now about 46% of annual CFT revenues are used to support debt service with the proposal going to 80%. That would provide an additional 6 to $8 million a year. That could potentially be set aside for debt service and could lead depending on the length of the bonds. The interest rate, somewhere between 80 and $150 million in proceeds that could be used immediately to acquire property. The second thing the ordinance would do, and here I'm on the top of page 44, is to eliminate the match requirement for what are defined as equity areas. I should note that right now any jurisdiction applying for funding through the CFT is required to provide local match equal to the amount they ask for from the CFT for equity areas. And I'll get to that definition in a minute. There would be no local match which would allow for more jurisdictions and underserved areas to seek funding. You'll see a little bit farther down on page 44 the definition of equity areas, which would require three criteria to be met. First, areas located in a census tract in which the median household income is in the lowest third in the county. Second areas located in a census tract in which hospitalization rates for asthma, diabetes and heart disease are in the highest third in the county. And then finally, areas that do not have easy access to parks, either those within the urban growth growth boundary no park within a quarter mile or areas outside the urban growth boundary, no park within two miles. There is also language in the ordinance that would allow for some flexibility so that an applicant can demonstrate and the CFTC Citizen's Oversight Committee can determine that a project proposed for funding would be eligible to be considered an equity area. With that turning to the bottom of page 44 and staff's analysis. First, the definition of equity area. As I noted, there are three criteria as well as some language that allows for flexibility. Those obviously are policy choices for the council, whether you wish to add this definition and then if you are satisfied with the combination of set criteria as well as flexibility that the Oversight Committee could apply. The next policy issue for the Council is the elimination of the match requirement for equity areas. Again, this would allow for underserved communities to apply more easily for T funding, but would mean that because there is not a local match, more money would need to come from the CFT or other sources to acquire that open space. Again, a policy choice for the Council. Next, the increased bonding. As I noted, setting the bond limit higher would allow for an immediate cash infusion to purchase property, but would mean that in future years more of the C of T revenues are being used to support debt service. Again, there are pros and cons of that. It's a policy choice for the council. And then finally, the nexus between equity and open space. The proposed ordinance talks about this to some extent, but staff has identified a number of both adopted policies and regional plans that specifically call out this nexus, including King County's Determinants of Equity Report , the King County Open Space Plan and the recently adopted Puget Sound Regional Council Regional Open Space Conservation Plan. The final issue I'll note is the ongoing erosion of the C of T. As I mentioned, the state maximum for that tax is 6.25. Since it has eroded over time to under $0.04. And this proposal would not affect that erosion. So it will continue to erode over time. Speaker 0: Mary, you used the term erode, but can you explain what you mean? Speaker 1: What I mean is that there are limits in state law by how much property taxes can increase each year. And because of those limits, the portion of any particular dedicated source of funding such as the CFA, go down in value year over year. And so again, over the 30 plus years that this tax has been enacted, it has gone down from 6.2 $0.05 to under $0.04 now. And that diminishment would continue unless there is some action and in this case, voter approval to reset that levy amount. Finally, I'll note and as you had mentioned, Mr. Chair, this ordinance is a dual mandatory referral. It was heard by and approved by the Regional Policy Committee earlier this month. And that concludes my staff report. Bob Burns is here from the Department of Natural Resources and Parks, if you have questions. Speaker 0: Thank you very much for the staff report and the presentation, Mary. Let's take a couple of questions and then we'll see. Councilmember Cole Wells is the co-sponsor of the legislation with me, if you might, when we're ready to be able to put it forward. Start with Councilmember Lambert and then Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 1: Thank you. To look at instead of eliminating the match, look at a sliding scale. I think that's a great question for the executive. So I'll call bumpers up. So well he's coming up asking the second question. So, you know, we talked about the 6.2 going down to $0.04. But during that time, the housing in this county pretty much doubled in value. So while that the amount to 4000 went down, the assessed values went way up. Right. Yes. That's so it didn't really erode the amount of money because the assessed values were so much higher. The rate has been what eroded. That was what I was trying to impress and apologize if there is any confusion. But I wasn't. And I know you weren't, but I just want to make sure the citizens listening who don't do this everyday got that little twist. And then I know that in the catalog. And maybe there's another question for you, Bob, but there is a catalog of county planners, city planners that says that for every thousand people you have, you have to have so much open space. Do you know what that formula is for? Speaker 3: So for the record, Paul Byrnes, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. So on that question, I think each jurisdiction has their own, you know, comprehensive plans and part plan. And so it varies by jurisdiction in terms of what those goals and targets are. There's not a legal requirement. I don't think that's uniform across jurisdictions. But many jurisdictions set targets and goals for numbers of acres, numbers of ballfields, numbers of certain park amenities. Speaker 1: So that that's true. And thank you. What I was asking was, what is the guideline? There's a guideline formula. And so I think it would be interesting as we go forward to maybe have something in the bill that says that you need to you need to get closer to the guidelines so that you don't end up in these problems. Because I used to know that there's what the number was, but I don't remember off the top of my head. But there is a formula. So maybe we should find that out and then see other cities that in going forward you need to make decisions that don't put us in the situation in the past. So did you ever look at a sliding scale as opposed to eliminating it? Speaker 3: So the advisory group recommendation was to eliminate the match, but what we did was assessed where are the areas of most acute need? And I think that the sense was that there weren't there's not a lot of gradation when it comes to acute need areas that are bottom third of income, bottom or top third of hospitalization, rates for heart disease, diabetes, asthma and a lack of proximity to greenspace. And the strong consensus coming out of the advisory group process was elimination of the match entirely is the thing that is going to allow those areas to catch back up and get some greenspace going. If we if we take gradations and gets very complicated, it's hard to, you know, describe an area with an acute sort of need as just, you know, gradations of of of waiver. And so the strong consensus was to eliminate the match entirely. Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lambert, Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was impacted by many of the people who testified because they reminded us that already the King County Council has preserved a lot of open space where our public funding. More so than most other places, at least proportionately speaking around the country. And I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that Larry Phillips was our leader for so many years on a county council, and he was the father of the growth manager plan when he was in the state legislature. And I also like the fact that the CFP has that program that you and Council remember had been talking about where we could give priority consideration to low income communities getting a little bit of open space because I think communities like Harlem and North Philly that you can go from miles and have no open space. You got some cement basketball courts, but no open space for a long time. Here's the challenge that I have. If we increase the bonding capacity for our county from 50 to 80% of all the money, yes, it's true that that means that right now we can bond that money and have an I think oh, I think you said about 100 3050 million available to spare. And two or three speakers said if we could spend money now better than we're waiting for later because the cost of land would be so much more. And that that's a consideration. Here's what bothers me. The FBI guy in the Seattle Times, his name is Bork. Eugene Bork. Yeah. Okay. And he said The poor people in King County in Seattle are King County. I can't remember which pay way more taxes than anybody else in the state of Washington and perhaps in a lot of other places. And they sound like we pay for 18% of their money for sales tax and most put it on their homes. But I'm sure it's even more than that if they if they do and have to pay taxes, because those are two primary taxing possibilities here. I don't know about this having more. And Mary, very clearly explain what it means. It means we have to have more capacity to pay off a larger debt in years in the future to pay off that empty debt. That would be really high. And then the other point, she said, because each year something falls. And what was that? Speaker 1: It was the rate of the tax know. Speaker 2: So it's going to be much more difficult to get resources in the future. So I wanted to ask either one of you. The debt service payment being so high in your future, what are the redeeming values of having that kind of situation? Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman, for the question so that the action in front of you today would put the financial tool in the toolbox to allow bonding at a higher level, but it would not cause any increase in taxes. So what what would happen? Speaker 2: No, I mean, why not? Speaker 3: So we would rely on an existing the existing conservation futures tax revenues, which is an existing, stable, predictable revenue stream. We would use those existing revenues to pay off any debt that would be council magically issued. And so it wouldn't require increasing the tax, it would just be binding against an existing stable funding source. And the reason we think that's prudent is pulling that capital forward allows us to accelerate the pace and buy land before it disappears to other uses and wallets. While it's maybe more affordable in the future, we project the price of land to only go higher, and the longer we wait, we'll lose these opportunities to get green space in urban areas, to protect farmlands, connect trail corridors, etc.. So those are the rationale set. Speaker 2: Up by me. Mary, also a comment on Macron because if the because are using all of this, the money, the value of it is going to go down in the future. Well, understand what it means. It's easy to pay it off. Speaker 1: What I mean, sir, is that essentially the county would be taking this existing revenue source, which Bob mentioned, and it's essentially putting more of it on the county credit card. We'd be saying we need the money upfront because land values are increasing so quickly, we're going to borrow to get more money. So it's as if you said your salary is the same, but you're going to put more in your credit card because you need to buy a new car or you're going to take out a home loan to buy a new house. And that's essentially the proposal here. So it's not a new tax. It's not an increased tax. It's just saying we're going to borrow some money now to have more up front. Speaker 2: Somebody has to be paid back. Speaker 1: So the county would be paying it back out of its existing revenues from this tax. And it just means that in future years there would be less to spend on an ongoing basis because the county would be spending more to pay back the debt. Speaker 2: Definitely would be less to spend in the future. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. If I might come at Mr.. And I think one of the reasons you got comfortable with the proposal in the Regional Policy Committee and were able to support it there is because this legislation authorizes us to go up to 80%. But there are still two additional steps before we would actually do that. At least tier one you would be able to approve the specific proposed acquisitions of land with the money or recall that comes before us every year on recommendations of the CFP committee. And two, you would have to vote to issue the debt and there may even be a budget vote in there somewhere as well. So I think there were those additional steps that would be required to where your concern, which I think is valid with respect to does the proposal comply with our financial policies? Are we not overextending ourselves? All of those issues are certainly going to be able to be presented and addressed if we were able to move forward. This simply sets the framework to be able to do it. Did I messed that up, Bob? Speaker 3: That that was exactly right, Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: This just even a blind squirrel finds the knot once in a while, so. Okay. Speaker 2: No, he's always pretty good at explaining count. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Garcia, that's kind of you to say Councilmember Lambert had an additional comment before we put it before us. Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I found it online line. So it was just what you said. But it was also that prior to from 1919 60 to 19 eighties, the National Recreation and Parks Association standard was ten acres per thousand. And then in the 1990s people were saying that there was too much parkland, surprisingly enough. And so then, then they said, but each city establish its own standard. And so some cities have like nine acres, a couple cities have 12 acres, Tampa has 9.9. So, you know, it's interesting that the cities, very few of them look like they've gone over the ten per acre, that it was actually a way of making it less, which was very interesting. But I think, you know, looking at some kind of standard, even though that was the old standard for 20 years, it gave a guideline so that if your city didn't have proper and we know that it's needed for health and all these other good reasons, including mental health. So anyway, I threw that out because they thought it was something that we should at least know how our cities are doing. Are they getting close to a 10th acre just so we know, or are they doing it like one city has four acres per thousand, which is completely not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. So know. I just want you to know that. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember about duty and then Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: Looking left. I just wanted to repeat something that we said at the Regional Policy Committee, mainly because there are people in this discussion that weren't in that discussion. First of all, there was some discussion at our P.C. about whether pulling this money forward would limit our ability to fund things in the future, which is, of course, always true when you bond because then you then tied up your revenue streams. However, I'll repeat what I said there, which is for this kind of a project, it's a very sensible kind of strategy for funding because of the risk of losing the lands that we're trying to preserve. If you don't preserve them now, the risk is that they go away. So pulling money forward to me makes a lot of sense in this kind of situation. I just thought I'd repeat that. And the other thing I wanted to repeat was this I am I'm very appreciative of and and excited by the work that's been done in the proposal that's coming forward. I am particularly excited about the equity investments. I think there's an incredibly strong case for that. And it's a it's a it's a nice way of making up for past inequities in access to open space and safe ways, places to play outside. I do want to again, though, stressed that when we talk about conserving land outside the urban growth boundary or at the urban growth boundary, that sort of brings to my mind of the discussion around the whole balance of good, the Growth Management Act. And the balance was we're going to grow inside that urban growth boundary, we're going to provide housing, we're going to provide density, smart growth, transportation, all everything that people need so that at the same time, we can conserve the land outside the urban growth boundary and not sprawl all the way to the Cascade Mountains. Right. We seem to do a pretty good job of the conservation part, but we're not doing the greatest job on the housing part and the density part. We're not keeping up with the demand for housing and the cost just keeps going up and up and up and up. So maybe I'll frame it as a question this time. Was any thought or discussion giving to a way to tie these two things together because they are linked like a TDR program for housing or any kind of innovation? A better way to try to support that second really critical part of growth management while we're doing the conservation, that is also very critical. Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you. Great question. That actually came up yet. Speaker 1: But I do say. Speaker 3: That that came up through the advisory group process. We actually did an analysis based on questions from advisory group members and we looked at the buildable lands capacity in the urban area. It's about 417,000 units of capacity. And the Land Conservation Initiative that we estimate is about double what we need for that, I think the 30 year growth target. But but that's, you know, there's the next 30 years in the 30 years beyond that that land conservation initiative would impact that by about two and a half to 3%. So the advisory group, I think, got comfortable with the idea that that's a fairly de minimis impact, but it's an impact. And the point you made is we're struggling with affordability and. Speaker 1: And can I jump in? Yeah. It's not about the impact of this. I'm not arguing that because we're taking land out of production, we should. Therefore, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is this is regardless of what our targets are and what our buildable lands may look like, we are failing egregiously at providing enough housing so that people can afford it in this market. So there's something wrong with that analysis there. There's something not working there. And this provides an opportunity to potentially encourage more density in places where people will actually build it. Maybe just put it that way. Speaker 3: Yeah. And so we've been working with the Development Committee on how do we grow the TR program, which you referenced. Speaker 1: I want to suggest that as part of this, we should try to do that. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. That's actually was we as part of the Land Conservation Initiative, we assumed a higher level of revenue from TDR as part of the non CFT revenue that would help support land conservation. The more we can grow TDR, those proceeds can help cover some of the cost of land acquisition. Speaker 1: If we pass this as written, does it limit our ability to use TDR or some other incentive program in that way? In this package, it. Speaker 3: Doesn't limit our ability to use TDR or any other private or public private partnership opportunity. Speaker 1: That's very that's very comforting. And I want to work with you all on finding ways to do that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. Customer Resolution. I want to remind colleagues that in our comprehensive plan update, we included a work plan item to explore adding flexibility and new types of TDRS with our program. And I think the department is working on that, which would include urban to urban TDR using I call supercharging TDRS to incentivize their use in underinvested communities and even some perhaps rural to rural, whether that should be TDR to be able to facilitate these things. So I think some work. Is underway on that, and I'm very interested in seeing the results. We're running low on time, and I'm going to turn to Councilmember Caldwell's to take up this item. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I proposed ordinance 2018 020268 that would make changes to the code to allow increased funding of conservation features, tax proceeds and establish policies for the purchase of equity areas in underserved census tracts. Speaker 0: All right, that's before us. Comments on passage. We don't have amendments at this time right here. Effectively, Amanda, we got to go back to their pieces, hopefully do that. Councilmember One Right, Bart tells me, is a full agenda at the IPC Council Member Lambert Thank you. Speaker 1: As we go forward in this, I think there's some things that we need to continue to think about. So I'm just going to listen quickly. First of all, our citizens are saying their property taxes are too high. So that's a problem. And one of the reasons our property taxes is too high, it's because 61% of the land is not paying full taxes and much of it is not paying any taxes. So that's a problem with this. It would probably go up closer to 63% of the land not paying full taxes in this. 3% of it would be on buildable lands. And we also have a problem with affordable housing. And yet part of the properties that were on the list, I don't know if they're still on the list, but are buildable land properties. The issue about having more open space land is that we still have many, many noxious weeds. We're not doing a good job and fire prevention in the unincorporated areas. We're not doing a good job of making sure people are not parking illegally and we are not doing a good job with the amount of garbage that is being taken into our rural areas that my citizens. One group spent $14,000 last year paying for that garbage to clean up after their property. That was not their garbage. $14,000 last year. So as we go forward and we have people out in open spaces, they need to not be bringing their garbage and leaving it for somebody else to clean up. The chance for development rights has impacts on the rural roads, and as we change that, we need to be aware that the rural roads are a huge problem. And every time we do a transfer of development rights, it makes the Rural Roads Fund worse. It makes it better for the unincorporated area incorporated, it makes it worse for the unincorporated areas. So it has an impact. That is not. But I was here when we talked about the 50% rate for bonding and there was a lot of discussion that day because people were worried that it would ruin our discussion in the future . And they were really worried that we'd get up to 50% right away and that wasn't going to happen. And so it was almost humorous. I laughed when I read 80%. I thought, Wow, we debated a long time on 50 and now we're talking about 80. So I have those concerns as we go forward. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Limmer, Councilmember Colo. Speaker 1: Mr. Chair, who shared the comments made by Councilmember Lambert that I think there is something eminently, eminently compelling about this legislation. As as Executive Constantine wrote in his transmittal letter, which is found in attachment to in the first paragraph, he referred to finishing the job of protecting and preserving irreplaceable open space lands in King County. Timing can be everything, and if we don't take this opportunity, we may lose the opportunity to actually have these lands being saved. And then on attachment for the last two lines, and this is from supporters of the Land Conservation Initiative and refers to the initiative will pair the creation of new green space with new housing units to promote livability as our cities grow and densify. We still have time, but if we wait, these lands will either be developed or priced beyond our capacity to secure. And thus, Mr. Chair, I strongly support this motion. Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Chair. Or. Well, you're always Madam Chair. You can't go wrong with that, can you? I want to just say a few remarks. I've spoken on this item many times, but I'm pleased the prime sponsor. I want to thank and commend the county executive for his leadership and initiative on this and our advisory group that worked for a couple of years, plus on putting it together with outreach to the community, including especially the co-chairs, Larry Phillips, our former colleague, and Shawn Quinn from Tugwell on the city council. There we are all from my district, talked about growing up and be able to walk out his front door to Cougar Mountain. We're both Hazen Highlanders, and we both now represent the Shawcross Scotts, whose motto is Our mascot is a Highlander as well. Like the Shortcrust delivered their mascot down to Hayes, and when it opened up, there's a connection there. But the reason that Will Hall was able to walk out his door and to Cougar Mountain was because 50 years ago, in 1968, voters in this region approved Proposition number six and the forward thrust bond package. And that bond package preserved things like Coal Creek and May Valley Wetlands and Cougar Mountain and Maplewood Park, all part of the network in south east King County that surrounded the places where Will Hall and I grew up. But for that foresight and investment by the region's voters to make a long term investment and significant down payment, those lands probably would have been paved over. This is a continuation in my mind of that tradition, but very well thought out. The technical expertize that the department natural resources in parks has brought to this proposal, the specificity with respect to which 65,000 acres we want to preserve and protect from our farmlands and our forests and our open space and parks and waters is a new level of precision and focus. And I just I think it's terrific. The equity piece fits with our county values of making sure we do right by those who have leased. So I think it is a very, very compelling proposal and I'm excited hopefully to see it advanced today. And I want to thank Bob Burns for his leadership on it, as always, with that will come through. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Belushi. Hi, Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Garcia. Speaker 2: Hi. Speaker 1: Councilmember Coldwell I. Councilmember Lambert No. Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 3: High. Speaker 1: Council Member of the ground. Councilmember Bond right there. Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: Hi. Speaker 1: Mr. Chair. The vote is seven I Council member. Member no and one excused. Speaker 0: All right, we've advanced that recommendation. I would like to expedite it to Monday's County Council calendar, given the break that's coming, and it'll just be on the regular calendar there. So thank you all for coming today on that item and to my colleagues for your work on it. We will turn now to item 38 Ordinance 2018 0257 Building for Culture Reallocations. Mary will have a staff report on this and then we'll move to take action.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE concerning protecting conservation lands in King County; adopting financial policies to accelerate the protection of vital open spaces, including urban green spaces, natural areas, wildlife and salmon habitat, trails, river corridors, farmlands and forests in King County; to address equity and social justice issues by increasing the availability of open spaces in historically under-served areas; and to address generational equity by spreading costs of protecting vital open spaces over time; amending Ordinance 8867, Section 1 and K.C.C. 26.12.010, Ordinance 13717, Section 1 and K.C.C. 26.12.003, as amended, and Ordinance 13717, Section 4 and K.C.C. 26.12.025 and adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 26.12.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_07252018_2018-0257

Speaker 0: We will turn now to item 38 Ordinance 2018 0257 Building for Culture Reallocations. Mary will have a staff report on this and then we'll move to take action. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, for the record, Mary Bergen on and the materials for this item begin on page 153 of your packet. I'll provide just a quick background back in 2015 and I'm now on page 154. Back in 2015, King County was able. Well to pay off the bonds for the long since demolished Kingdom Stadium about nine months earlier than anticipated. That meant that under state law, lodging taxes that had been set aside for the repayment of the kingdom bonds could be used for arts and culture purposes. With those proceeds, the county worked with for culture and led a community based process to develop the Building for Culture program that awarded just over $28 million in grant funds through a bond supported by these lodging taxes to capital facilities, improvements at arts and culture programs. That program was implemented through a number of ordinances, and you'll see those described at the bottom of page 155. And then moving on to page 156, an ordinance that made a supplemental appropriation of $28.5 million to allow funding for the program to go forward. An ordinance that authorized the issuance of bonds for the program. And then finally and you'll see this at the top of page 156, Ordinance 18181 that authorized the executive to enter into an agreement with for culture to implement the Building for Culture Program. Under this agreement for culture was to contract with the agencies that had been awarded funding and then also was required to report back to the council at several points, one of which two years after the bonds were issued, to indicate whether there were any organizations that would not be able, in four cultures estimation, to expend or fully expend their bond funds. You'll see on table one in the middle of page 156 that four culture did indeed report back in March of this year, two years after the bonds were issued and reported, that in their estimation, four projects would be unable to fully expend their funds. Those were the Seattle International Film Festival, which had been awarded 200,000 and would likely not expend $120,000 due to some zoning issues near their site. Pottery Northwest, which would not be able to expand its $11,300 award due to the renovation of key arena that is underway or as planned, good ground, also known as rumbling or farm that would not be able to expend $25,000 because the organization did not wish to pursue some landmarking issues. And then finally, the proposed studies center in Bellevue that had been awarded $1.2 million and in four cultures estimation would not be able to secure the needed funding to begin their construction on time. Now, if you'll see at the bottom of page 156, there is a quotation pulled out from the agreement that describes the options for any funds identified as potentially unexpended. And it notes that the projects in the agreement may be amended by the County Council to reallocate those funds to any other projects or tourism promotion activities, including arts and culture capital projects, as the County Council may determine. And it notes that if the Council chooses not to reallocate funds, any unexpended funds would be used to devise the bonds. That brings us to this ordinance that has before you today the proposed ordinance would reallocate a portion of the unexpended funds toward a number of projects. And I won't go on further in the staff report and describe the ordinance, because instead I'm going to turn to striking amendment as to which you should have at your place at the dais. And I'll pause here. We've got extra copies if anyone doesn't have one handy. S2 Striking Amendment S2 would reallocate the full $1.356 million identified by For Culture this March. It would also allocate an additional $300,000 based on information from the budget director that there is additional funding available due to interest earnings and potential additional under expenditures of bond proceeds. The striking amendment would add a statement in the statement of facts to note that and then would also add a new section in the implementing portion of the ordinance to require that for any additional funds that are allocated that the Executive would provide appropriate appropriation authority legislation to the Council to sort of close the loop. I had mentioned earlier that one of the ordinances implementing for culture was the appropriations ordinance, and so this would be an additional appropriation for those additional funds. You will then see attached to the striking amendment to exhibits, Exhibit A is the updated project list of approved projects. And then Exhibit B, which is at the very end of this little packet here, shows a red line version comparing what was in the original ordinance back in 2015 of the projects awarded funding and what the changes would be in this Stryker. And you can see that in kind of red line format of the organizations that I had mentioned previously that would not be expanding either all or part of their funding. And then the organizations recommended for additional funding. And if you turn to attachment B, I'll just go through it's organized in alphabetical order. First, you'll see the city a federal way would increase. And Mary. Speaker 0: I don't want to rush it, but I think given our time, folks, can we. Speaker 1: Let you read Exhibit B? And so then the ordinance is there and then Striking Amendment S-2. Speaker 0: That was extremely helpful and very understandable. Councilmember about duty. Speaker 1: We're going to put this on first, do it and move approval of ordinance number 2018. That's 0257. Speaker 0: 2018 0257 is before us and we like to move the strike. Speaker 1: Move striking amendment as to. Speaker 0: As to is before us and Mary as described that other comments or questions on it. Speaker 1: Okay Councilmember quickly where is but page number is the red line when it's in the extra packet that I distributed that's labeled as two and it has been exhibit thanks or attachment B, which is with the back of the packet. No. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Belushi. Speaker 1: If I mean, just briefly, I know where I was. Speaker 0: I made the motion. Let's let you speak to it. Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. And take a brief moment, Mary, accurately describe the reasons why this money has come back out of this earlier and much larger allocation and is before us for reallocation. I do want to say for the record that the fact that we're reallocating money from at least one of these projects that is going on and will be one looking for building and construction support in the future is not a statement of of lack of support for those projects. It's just timing. This this money has a hard and fast deadline on it, and it's coming up quickly. So so that's why we're here today talking about reallocating this money. It does provide us with an opportunity to support several very worthy projects. We heard about many of them today. Thank you all for coming down and telling us about your your visions and your and your projects that that will serve the public. These projects need to be like more than shovel ready. The building for culture projects had to be shovel ready. These have to be either underway or like getting underway in a minute because there's all you've got to go through there. After assuming this passes, we still have county bureaucracy that has to happen before the money can be, you know, issued, and then you have to be able to spend it. So I thank you all for your bravery in stepping up to this challenge. There is some urgency, and I do appreciate this getting on the agenda today, even though it's a very tight agenda because and I'll just say one example, the Renton Civic Theater has got to go. I mean, they've got a time window. And so. Speaker 3: I feel. Speaker 0: Sending. Speaker 1: The right note. And it's not just the sale, it's the season starting. And if they're going to replace if they're going to replace the seats, they got to replace them. So I appreciate that. And I just want to list out real briefly without going through the whole list. This proposal before it today will support performing arts. We heard from the Renton Civic Theater, but there's also the Federal Way Performing Center Heritage, Renton, Shoreline, Sammamish and Highline are all in this package culture. We heard from the Filipino Community Center, Northwest African-American Museum and educational and arts programs like Kids Quest and Kirkland Performing Arts Center and the Seattle Symphony. It's a great package. I really encourage your support and I thank everybody for working so hard because this is not easy to do you all. It is not easy. No matter how big the pie is, it is not easy to figure out who gets what. And we've all worked very hard at this, and I think we've come to a place where we're doing a lot of good and I hope that we can all support it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Balducci. Other questions or comments? Council member Gossett. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some I mean, our county executive is always talking about we are one county. And I get mixed feelings about that because we have the executive and the judicial in the legislative branches. But this is a great example of how the executive and the County Council work together to figure out how to put together a satisfactory proposal. Because I did not think that we were going to get it were it appears to me that we are. And I just have one question here on the North African American Museum. What does it mean when it's 75,000 crossed out and then 127,000? Does it simply mean they're going to get 52? Speaker 1: That is exactly what it means. They received $75,000 grant award in 2015. That award would be increased to 127,000. Speaker 2: And that was from. Speaker 1: This from this from this striking amendment. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Goss, other questions or comments? No, just briefly, I'll. Oh, Casper one, Rick Bauer, thank you. Speaker 3: Sorry. I want to pick up on what Ferguson said, but I want to be specific about the appreciation to Councilman Baldacci, because I appreciate Councilmember or former Councilmember David Constantine's working with his former colleagues, but it took somebody to help the bridge. Yeah, and I'm. Speaker 2: Sure. Speaker 3: That every card with our chair, the committee was very Dombrowski who had raised some good issues through this process. And so I think that we've all worked together and I want to commend Mike Cameron, my colleague, Councilmember Banducci, and the chair of this committee. There's been a lot of collaboration and a lot of coordination and a lot of communication. And I think we've all seen like. Speaker 0: You're so subtle right now, are you not? Speaker 2: Very good. Thank you. Speaker 0: For that. I appreciate those references. And this was not 1/1 presented, speaking for myself, a proposal that I could support because I didn't think it reflected our one King County values beginning. And that was just the beginning. And Councilman Baldacci, Doug, made clear that it was just the start. And indeed in the last several weeks, there's been a lot of work to make sure that we heard from the needs around King County. And this package, as amended today with strong amendment to is much more broadly I think reflective than the starter proposal, which was our starter proposal. We put on our best creative thinking house late, late yesterday and early today. I want to extend my personal appreciation to the executive staff, to Rachel Smith, his chief of staff, to Dwight Dybul, his chief, our chief financial officer, for their creativity in helping to be quite candid, secure some funding for the shoreline historical society which was , I thought in a jam and and needed some help. My district in the first round got 284,000 out of 28 million. Less than 1% for one ninth of the county. And I was having trouble doubling down on on that. And I think we've at least headed in the better direction. And we have a four culture panel here today and our executive director nominee is before us. And these issues around equity throughout the county are one of the reasons we're going to have, I think, this task force to take a look at that stuff. So I think the council has really stepped up here and my colleagues working together through some tough issues to make sure that we lived our our values. I'm very, very excited about Councilmember Gossett, successful advocacy for the Filipino Community Association and the African-American Heritage Museum, additions to reflect our cultural diversity and needs there. So I think we're we're in a very good place, and I'm very, very excited to be able to support it. We couldn't get your 500 shoreline when we got you three, so that that should help get it done. Thank you for being here. Any other questions or comments all in favor of us to say i. I your opposed turning to the underlying motion, motion or ordinance where we had an ordinance. Thank you. Yeah. Ordinance as amended. Councilman Belushi, to close. Speaker 1: I echo the sentiments that have been shared. I don't want to repeat myself, but I feel very, very good about this list of projects I am. I'm going to be excited to come out and see all these places when these things are all done. So I appreciate the invitation by the Filipino Community Center and I might just show up at all your places to. Speaker 0: Do the dancing and the bingo. Speaker 4: Are not done for me to. Speaker 1: Dance, I think. Speaker 4: As I do. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for your support, Marcus. Speaker 0: Save us from ourselves by calling the roll. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council Member DG Hi. Council Member Dunn. Councilmember Gossett Councilmember Kowalski I Council Member Member I Council Member McDermott All right. Council member of the Grove. Speaker 4: City. Speaker 1: Councilmember Von Richter. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 1: Even Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. The vote is eight eyes, no nos. Speaker 0: Oh, look at that. I will advance that on an excited basis. The full council on Monday for adoption. Congratulations to everybody and thank you for the work you do in the community to make this county an interesting and fun place to live. Yes. Councilmember Lambert, really quickly, thank you. Speaker 1: I just got a chart right here and I'd like to show you this is what we're dealing with. And I think it's really important that everybody knows this. So District one got 1% this year to 18%. District three 7%, District 427, District five for District 611, District 79 and District 823, a District 9.3%. So as we go forward, these need to be much more equal because every one of our districts is the same 234,000 people, and they all have the right to have the same relatively same amount of lovely culture and arts and beauty in their districts. So as we're going forward, this is where I think we're all going to be needing to work on some equity in social justice. Speaker 0: I Councilmember Lambert Councilmember McDermott has. That's prompted a comment. Speaker 3: I think. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would like to respond to that. While I don't have the graphic that the previous speaker just displayed, I would also point out that allocate the sites, the location where an institution exists, and there are a couple of districts that have concentrations of regional institutions that serve people across the city , across the county, in all 39 cities across King County and in many cases around the region and around the world. And so to expect such allocations to be broken out evenly by council district, I don't feel is the equity that we should be seeking. Speaker 0: You know, Councilmember Gossett, I know you want in on that, but I'm going to. Speaker 4: Have 25 minutes to go. I think you're going to see some of these issues play out in the next two matters. Speaker 0: So. Speaker 4: All right. It's a. Speaker 0: Healthy debate. Thank you, Councilmember McDermott, for the counter view. And there's probably views all in between those two. So, Mary, do you recommend we proceed with our task force or our nominee to for culture? What's makes more sense? Speaker 1: Well, what would you like to do, sir? Speaker 0: I think given the and I know there's interest in both, but we have a number of tests for how many task force members are here. Raise your hand. Why don't. Just to respect their time. I think we can move pretty quickly through that item. We're not going to hear from all of them in an interview format because just too many. But let's see if we can take that one up. That is motion number 2018 zero three for four items ten through 36.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Building for Culture Program, amending the list of approved projects authorized by Ordinance 18181.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_07252018_2018-0334

Speaker 0: I see 33, 34, 33, 60. We're going to have one consolidated motion on this if we get there. Yes, sir. All right. Go, Mary. Speaker 1: So again, Mary Bergen on. For the record, the materials begin on page 73 of your packet. There are 27 motions earlier this year when the council approved Ordinance 1868 for restructuring for culture, the Council requested the executive to help establish a task force to study four cultures practices with a particular focus on equity and social justice. The ordinance required that the task force be made up of at least 14 members, and you can see the makeup of the required membership. On page 73, the executive has responded with a proposal for 27 members. There are members who represent the executive, members representing for culture the council in Carolyn Bush, your chief of Staff, Arts, Cultural Access, Washington Sound City is a member and an alternate and then a number of representatives of cultural organizations from around the county, including at least one from each council district. You can see the list of appointed members beginning on page 75 of the packet. And Mr. Chair, if you'd like to have people come up maybe in groups of three, since we have three chairs, they can introduce themselves and then you can take a motion on the motions. And we do have a couple of amendments. Speaker 0: Sure. That would work for me. Does that work for all I'm saying? Nods. So will you help us facilitate? I am. Speaker 1: Not sure. Speaker 0: Exactly. Speaker 1: Here is here. So I'm going to call out names of people I believe are in the audience by threes. And then if we get beyond that, there are more people here, we'll bring them. Speaker 0: That's a lot of names because twice. So the one folks just come on, come on, come on up and we'll take the first three to fill the chairs while you introduce yourselves. Yeah. And then good idea. Then we'll have you sit back down there. We'll just do it real quick. Let me say that. Speaker 2: Go on up there. Speaker 0: Thank you for being here and for sitting sticking with us through those first two items. And we'll start with you. Just give us a brief introduction, your name and what you do and why you're interested in serving on the panel. Speaker 1: Well, good afternoon. Thank you for the Opportunity County Council. My name is Julie Ziegler. I am Executive Director of Humanities Washington. We're a statewide organization that provides cultural programing to underserved areas across the state, including many unincorporated areas across King County and and beyond. We work in both the arts and heritage sectors, the all encompassing humanities. And so if asked to serve and if approved, I would look forward to bringing our our values of geographic, social and cultural equity to the fore culture process of resource that I think is incredibly important and valuable to our county. Speaker 0: Thank you, Julie. All right. All the way from Reno, Ga. Speaker 1: Good afternoon. I'm Patricia Cosgrove. I work for the city of Auburn, where I am the director at the White River Valley Museum and the historic Mary Olson farm. And I've also had the pleasure of serving on four cultures board and writing many, many, many grants to them. So I know them from both directions and I would be honored to serve on this committee. Speaker 0: Thank you, Patricia. Speaker 1: I thank you very much. King County members. And my name is letters Amber Murti. I'm Washington State Arts Commissioner. And I also serve on different boards like Northwest Folklife Center for Washington, Traditional Arts, Upper Cochrane Performance Center, one, Redmond and Asian Cultural Center, Seattle Latino Film Festival and so on. And I'm an artist myself and I'm also an artistic as well, outreach, outreach and development director of various large scale festivals that happen around King County area and one such festival, Ireland. The Mela means joyous festival happening in the city of Redmond campus this weekend. And we are going to get our lieutenant governor as our special guest inaugurate the festival and. Also, we are going to get our federal congresswoman, Susan DelBene, as a chief guest, also among others, like State Senator Patrick Yoder and others. And our council member Claudia Bellotti knows very much about my involvement with arts, culture, heritage and traditions of this place. And and I also was on the Advisory Committee of for Culture and also so on the panels and also go on reviews to different events all around that is funded by for culture. So I'm here and I am very, very fortunate to have been selected to serve on this task force. And I will do my best bringing my knowledge, my connections and my experience. And of course, I learned a lot when I was serving on the Advisory Committee of for Culture and when I served on panels with such wonderful , experienced people who have been serving here to our culture, tradition and heritage. So thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. Speaker 0: Thank you. Locked up, Dominica. Speaker 1: Thank you, Chair Dombrowski. My name is Dominica Myers. I'm the board president of the Shoreline Lake Forest Park Arts Council. And in addition, I'm on the on the Board of Cultural Access Washington. And I am a born and raised Seattle Light from King County. I've lived and I've lived in Woodinville. Obviously, I'm currently living in Shoreline. I've lived in Woodinville. I've spent my adolescent years in Councilmember Upper Grove's district. And in addition, I've also served on one of the individual artists grants, funding panels for for culture. So have a little bit of insight on, on how that works. And I also work for Seattle Opera. So I'm, you know, in terms of my my own. Speaker 0: My grand slam home run right. Speaker 4: Here. Speaker 1: So, you know, I have, you know, kind of the outlook of the larger organizations, the smaller community based organizations, and also just being a longtime resident of King County. And so looking forward to the process. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Going. Speaker 3: Good afternoon. My name is Manny Cowling. I am the executive director for Youth Theater Northwest on Mercer Island. I also have called King County home for many, many years. Speaker 1: My family has. Speaker 3: Lived in Larry Garcia's district for. Speaker 1: 80 years. Speaker 3: I am the central area. Long. Speaker 2: A year ago. Speaker 3: My father was born over there. Yes. Speaker 1: So my passion, of course. Speaker 3: Is theater heritage. Speaker 1: Performance. Speaker 3: And community organizing around the arts. Speaker 1: I have a rich experience in theater education. Speaker 3: I certainly. Speaker 1: Understand the role that small to. Speaker 3: Midsize arts organizations play in communities throughout King County to provide valuable education and opportunities to develop 21st century skills. I also have a background in Heritage, having worked at the Wing Luke Asian Museum as their exhibit developer and manager, as well as participating in a variety of different heritage program that specifically work with communities with a special emphasis on immigrant and refugee communities. I am also a board member of Cultural Access Washington because I. Speaker 1: Believe. Speaker 3: That individuals and communities across King County deserve much more equitable service in arts and cultural activities. So I'm very excited to be on this task force. I've also served as a commissioner for the Seattle Center, as well as served on a variety of panels for a for Culture and Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs. And I thank you for this opportunity. Speaker 0: You all are busy. Julianna, how are you? Speaker 1: Hi. Good, thank you. I'm Julianna Ross. I'm a huge fan of the work of for culture, both as a regular citizen and an arts administrator. My day job is with Seattle City Light working on restoration and activation of the Georgetown Steam Plant and national historic landmark built in 1906. My other day job is an executive Taser's executive director of Sandpoint Arts and Cultural Exchange Space in Magnuson Park. There we operate the Magnuson Park Gallery and a new low power FM radio station. Space 1 to 1.1 FM space has a long history of working in partnership with the Parks Department to preserve buildings and provide arts programing in the park. This is important because not only is Northeast Seattle a cultural desert compared to the rest of Seattle, but we will also have approximately 1000 people living in Magnuson Park by the end of next year, many of them low income and immigrant families. All our services are free and open to the public. Thank you for the chance to serve on this task force. I look forward to working with people from all over the county and my fellow colleagues in District one. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Are there other folks who want to introduce themselves on this item? I think we did that real expeditiously. Impressive sampling, very impressive group. Mary, lead us forward. Speaker 1: Okay, sir, there are 27 motions. I don't know if you want to get a motion to put all of them on the floor. And then we have core amendments that maybe could be done with one vote. Speaker 0: Let's see who would help us out with that motion. Councilmember Lambert, would you like to move motions? 334 to 360. Sure. Speaker 1: Okay. I'm going to call them all out. So on the record is all right. Speaker 0: I think you can just move them. 2018 334 through 360 consecutively. Speaker 1: All right, that's what I'll do. I'd like to move. Proposed motions number 2018 033, four, two, three and 60 consecutively as listed items. Number ten, two items number 20, 36, 37. Speaker 0: Thank you for the motion. Now, I believe Mary has identified a few spellings. Speaker 1: So there were a couple of typographical errors in the motions as transmitted you'll have on your places of the dice. A little packet that says Amendment one. There is an amendment and a title amendment for three, three, four and three, three, six, just to correct the spelling in the appointees name. So if you want to just do one vote, I think you could do one vote on that amendment package. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Would you put the amendment package before us? Councilmember Lambert, Amendment one? Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you very much. I'd like to put amendment number one before us and it correct the names as a spoken. And also there's a title amendment later. Speaker 0: To there's actually two amendment ones. Speaker 1: To amendment ones to title amendment ones, therefore. All right. Three, three, four and three, three, six. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: I have understood the motion to be to move Amendment one, two, three, three for Amendment one, two, three, three, six and the corresponding title amendment. All in favor. Say I I any oppose those carry. Now turning to the underlying motions as amended. Any comments on this. Speaker 1: And top quality? Speaker 0: We really appreciate your service. I'll just I'll just make a couple of remarks. Our earlier this year, there was legislation for the council to make some change. Is it for culture or cultural development authority, which has been a wonderful institution, and a number of our colleagues serve on the board there in an ex-officio capacity, I believe. And that process, which I would say was shown, showed that there was a number of interesting issues that folks thought could be explored. But we needed some help. We needed some expertize from the community to take a look at issues surrounding for culture and the county's partnership with it, and how we might be better responsive as we go forward or more responsive and not saying we're not responsive, but more responsive to needs and interests countywide. We're looking for this task force to help us address some of those issues and give us some recommendations in partnership with for culture. For culture is currently out in the community and engaged in a listening session. I know in the next week or so they've got one up in Shoreline, for example, and we are hoping that this can be a partnership with that work to come back late this year or early next year to see whether, whether and how we can continue to strengthen our tremendous cultural development authority. So and call the role on these items unless there are other comments. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell, Duty Icon. Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 4: I. Speaker 1: Council member. Calls I. Council member. Member. Councilmember McDermott, councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember one right there. Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. The vote is ADA is no nos when excused. Speaker 0: All right, we'll expedite those items to Monday's agenda and we'll put them on consent. Council member of the Grove Tribe. Speaker 3: If we're able to hold off consent, may just have a minor technical correction to one item. Sure. Speaker 0: Let's begin with desert specific. Well, okay. Can we can we put them on consent and then pull it. Speaker 4: Or not. Speaker 0: Pull it off because it's like. Speaker 4: Well. Speaker 0: 36 motion. Speaker 3: Oh, yeah, yeah. You know, we've put it our consent, and if we don't figure it out by Monday. Speaker 0: We can pull out. Okay. All right. So we'll do that. And it's a lot of signing to go on here. Thank you. Cosmo wrote The Grove for your help on that. All right, Mary. Now take us to our appointment. Speaker 1: The appointment of Brian Carter is for culture executive director, and.

Motion

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Dominica Myers to the King County 4Culture task force, as the district one representative.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_07252018_2018-0322

Speaker 0: All in favor. Say I only opposed. Those are approved. We have two important remaining items and I want to take the temperature of the room. Given the hour. We had a lot of public comment today, 45 minutes of public comment so that in a little bit extra. One is the annual for culture report. And Deborah, you're here to give that and I know raring to go. And then that's item 39. Item 40 is a briefing on for culture plans for 2019. And that is would be Brian's deal. These this I imagine is a half hour between the two of them at least. And I want to be respectful of the importance of the items. And I wonder if my colleagues would like to have those heard and if it would be okay for culture at a later meeting this fall so they can get their due. Is there is there any time sensitivity? I'm seeing that that I'm seeing that that might work for folks. Yes. Okay. And I'm getting a thumbs up there. My colleagues. Are people okay with that? We'll get to it. We will definitely get to it. Why don't we do that? Because I think they're very important. As you can see, there's a lot of interest. I think we've made a great lot of progress today, and let's set those for as soon as we can in maybe the second meeting in September, which would be the second or the maybe the one with our second meeting in September, me, Mary, but the 19th, if that works for folks, if not, we'll do it in our in October. But we'll definitely get it get it on this fall's calendar and maybe we'll do something fun. Maybe we'll come over to Fort Culture and have a joint meeting or something with you there. And you have a little experiential briefing. Doesn't always have to be here. All right. Thank you for your support and willingness to be flexible on that. And I know he wants to go celebrate. Y'all all want to go celebrate with them as he's almost there. Is there anything further to come before the committee today? No. Mary. Oh, yes. Would you come forward? And this is Deborah to our scheme was previously. Speaker 1: Risky for the moment. Acting Director for culture. I just want to offer our thanks to Mary, who has done a phenomenal job and to all of your staff and to you for paying the attention to for culture that you have over the last several months, but also for your brilliant staff for preparing all of the really complex issues dealing with building for culture, the task force on all of the other issues in front of them. So just a our our thanks. Speaker 0: There are that is very much appreciated and we are very fond of our staff and admire and respect their hard work. Mary Chief often among them, although they're all great. And Mary, on this item, as colleagues know, we had to walk these items on Monday, given the timing of their delivery for the exact she worked very hard to get them prepared, make sure they were accurate, fixed, where necessary. A staff report completed all just in a couple of days while solving a very difficult political challenge. Speaker 4: With. Speaker 0: Grace and aplomb. So we appreciate and second, your appreciation of Mary and our team. So thanks for that, Deborah. All right. With that. Thank you. We're adjourned.

Motion

A MOTION providing for the honorary designation as Eric Anderson Memorial Field for Petrovitsky Park Baseball Diamond Number 1, to commemorate the life of Eric Anderson, who was a mentor, leader and inspiration to the thousands of students whose lives he touched as Athletic Director at Kentridge High School.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06202018_2018-0264

Speaker 0: All in favor say I any oppose those are approved. Turning to the consent agenda, this would be subject to signature accounts from up there. I would you put that before us. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the consent agenda. I was five and six be approved. Speaker 0: Thank you, Corporal Kolawole. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell, Duchin. Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett, Councilmember Kowalski. Councilmember Lambert, Councilmember McDermott, council member of the Grove Councilmember phone right there. Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: Hi. Speaker 2: Mr. Chair. The vote is three eyes. No, Nos. Six excuse. Speaker 0: All right. So these two things that we've given do pass recommendation on those items. Should they be expedited, Erin? No art regular calendar consent for council. We have two substantive items today to take up and that is the confirmation of our decennial charter review commission. I see we have a number of nominees here in the audience and we'll do a panel once we get going. Of of you. I think there's five or six. Raise your hands if you're a nominee. I think I recognize. Oh, we've got better attendance than that. Outstanding. All right, May, due to panels in your packets, there are responses to committee questionnaire for folks to get an idea to help move that along. And then I hope that we'll be able to take up our harassment and discrimination ordinance by Councilmember Cole. Wells So that'll be the second hearing on that item, see if we can't move that today, but so that we have a little bit better attendance, I think folks are coming. I've heard from Councilman one right down who is has a breakfast on these days down federal way and and that he's does regularly and he's running a little bit late and may have to dial in and I think we'll get some better attendance here in a couple more minutes. So we will recess for let's try 5 minutes and reconvene at 945. Thank you. All right. We're coming back into session after a short recess. We've got a number of colleagues who have made it to the dais. And we will turn now to proposed motion number 2018 0274. That's item seven on your agendas, which is a motion which would confirm the appointment of members of our Decennial Charter Review Commission pursuant to Section 800

Motion

A MOTION acknowledging receipt of a Cedar Hills Tonnage and Capacity Report prepared in accordance with the 2017/2018 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18409, Section 107, Proviso P2.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06202018_2018-0274

Speaker 0: We're coming back into session after a short recess. We've got a number of colleagues who have made it to the dais. And we will turn now to proposed motion number 2018 0274. That's item seven on your agendas, which is a motion which would confirm the appointment of members of our Decennial Charter Review Commission pursuant to Section 800 of the King County Charter. In your packets, colleagues, there is a committee questionnaire and responses to basic questions which should give you a general idea of what each person's interest in this work is. And we have a number of folks here, and I think we're going to have two panels. Mac, do you want to do a set up on this for us as our staff? And then. Speaker 1: A couple of you say. Speaker 0: Oh, I said it all. Speaker 3: Oh, all right. Well, as the first. Speaker 0: Set of five come up, I will note that this is the 50th anniversary of the King County Charter that was first adopted by voters in 1968, taking effect in May of 1969. It's had some remodeling over the years, particularly after the merger with Metro in about 1993, where we added some of our regional committees because the municipality of metropolitan Seattle had those municipal powers, metropolitan powers under state code, at least a couple of them were activated. But I would also note that our region is growing at 2.2 million people, 39 cities. It's complex, complicated. And I think from my perspective, we're starting to see some strain on this government's ability to respond adequately to regional challenges, particularly, and I think most acutely our regional, affordable housing crisis is is evidence of that. And what I've observed in my short time here is we tend to be we're too often it seems to be governing by one off interlocal agreements, taskforces, special committees. And that's not an efficient way, it seems sometimes to be able to address our regional challenges. So I hope that this Charter Review Commission will take a look at our charter and our region as it stands today and will continue to grow in terms of its complexity and needs and make sure that we can, if possible, have the right tools in this regional government to address those challenges for our community in the coming decades, or at least maybe for the next ten years. And of course, we also serve as a local government, about 250,000 folks in unincorporated rural, but some parts of urban King County. And there may be some work to do there as well. So I would invite up maybe by self-selection the first five folks as they're coming up and also give my colleagues any opportunity that they would wish to share some opening remarks if they would like to do so. I don't see that. All right. And I'm going to ask you to all introduce yourselves, maybe just give a short bio and why you're interested in serving. Then we'll see if any members have questions or want to engage in dialog. Thank you all for being here. Alejandro, would you like to lead off? Speaker 2: Of course. My name is Alejo. Yes, I'm executive director for the Municipal League of King County. In addition to having a keen interest in policy analysis and nonpartizan work, I have traditionally also done work with immigrant refugee communities. Speaker 1: I'm Toby Nix and I currently serve on the Kirkland City Council, previously served in the Washington State Legislature as a representative from the 45th District. And I really am looking forward to this. When I was in student government in high school, I rewrote the Constitution of our student government. That was one of the first things I did. And I have always loved digging into the structural issues. And and so I look forward to working with everyone on seeing how we can improve the King County Charter. I am Kevin Williams. I'm an attorney and partner with the law firm Ensley Best and also a member of the Washington State Bar Foundation Board. I've served on a number of different community committees and my interest in this is basically efficiency and good government. I note that Councilmember Demovsky noted that there was, you know, seems to be some inefficiencies and that might have something to do with that. I think we have over 160 special purpose districts in this county alone, and then you add that on to the various cities and then the legal hoops that everybody has to go through. Each time we approve a911 ballot, we do flood control, anything like that. These are regional issues that need to be more simplified and directed towards individuals and the people. Thank you. Speaker 2: I'm Louise Miller. Speaker 0: Not familiar. Speaker 3: Former. Are you off the council? Councilor, see that shop here all the time? Speaker 2: Exactly. About six months after I retired in 2001, I was on, you know, I was chairing the regional water quality, etc., etc.. And I've been doing things like that ever since, two different projects in the last few months. So I think maybe I might be the lowest north of the commission because everybody keeps saying, Well, wait a minute, did you do this ten years ago? Lois and I actually live in the same building now, so people get us confused. I was came from the legislature to the county council as we were transitioning and taking over metro responsibilities. So I was a member of a council of 13 members. And and the growth now compared to the size of our responsibility then is huge. So I have concerns about that. And also I realized that over the number of years that we have worked on, quote, growth management GMA, we have found that promises and maybe legislative thinking of well will take care of the problem of helping counties do their work with infrastructure. We'll find we'll take care of that later. And the problem is we haven't been able to get them to give us the ability to pull in the resources we need. Your budget is still totally lopsided to the criminal justice side. When you look at the pie chart, you see how much of the general fund goes to that. So it's a concern to me that we won't be able to keep our infrastructure up and that we need to have the authority and the ability to bring in the resources that are needed. So I think that's a major problem that maybe we can help a little bit with the commission. Speaker 0: Let me pull out a microphone right up to you there. There you go. Speaker 4: Hi. My name is Nat Morales. I am currently the organizing director for an organization called Front and Center. As a once undocumented immigrant from Mexico, I think this opportunity to serve on this commission is important not just for the county, but I think our country as a whole. It has been my mission since moving to King County from rural Tennessee to bring the perspective of community, of immigrants, of refugees, of my brothers and sisters in the movement. And I think that this opportunity will be sufficient enough for bringing the voices of community to the table. I think when we're looking at the at our infrastructure, when we're looking at who is making the decisions here in King County, here in Seattle in particular, I think we oftentimes don't include the most marginalized. And so it will be my mission and it'll be my distinct honor to be able to do that while serving on this commission. Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Well, thank you for those introductions and comments. I'll turn it open to councilmembers questions or comments at this time. Councilmember Lambert, would you like to start? Speaker 2: You may be happy to do so. It's great to see so many of you. I've seen all of you before here doing great things. So thank you for bringing that expertize began to help us. So I think what do you think you mentioned earlier about the different taxing districts. What do you think about the different taxing districts that we could do to streamline some of that? Speaker 1: I assume, Councilmember Lambert, you're directing that question towards me since I had mentioned that 161 different taxing districts right now that there has been. If you follow the growth management, there has actually been some policy statements whereby some of the taxing districts should actually merge, consolidate and things like that. We also have, you know, within the county, certain countywide taxing districts, there needs to be some form of legislation that would, I guess, incentivize further the consolidation of special purpose districts that are serving regional as regional areas. Because right now there appears to be, in my mind, of serving special purpose districts the desire to maintain local control , even when a local control doesn't necessarily benefit the citizens. But there's obstacles in that. There have been a couple of minor legislative changes out there that will make it a little bit different, make it easier. But still, there isn't the incentive to regionalize. And part of that has to do with affects of labor law, affects of local control, things like that. So I think it would be important to look at ways that the county could, as a ambarella agency, move and consolidate and maybe bring those little services under, much like it did with Metro. Speaker 2: She took, I thought, this conversation or these questions. Speaker 0: I'm not sure the difference there, but you're welcome to proceed as you wish, as long as you don't abuse our witnesses, which I know. Speaker 3: And I don't think Mr. Williams going to let you down. Speaker 2: I'm not happy the mayor worried about painting that. Anyway, I think you have a good point. My concern is, as you know, a member of many boards and commissions that the number of expertize this bridge is, I don't know how to run a hospital. I do not know how to run a fire district. I could probably administer it, but I don't know whether you need more of this kind of chemical or that kind of chemical. So I'm glad they're firemen that know this chemical fire, people that know this is the chemical used for this that this and the ratios. So that part, I think we need other experts and I don't know if they report to us so that we do all the overhead, but the one area that we do have a problem is that nobody has the authority inside the millage rate to decide who gets more millage and what do we do if that knocks off a junior taxing district? So I think one of the considerations I'd like to throw out is somebody should have, whether it's us or somebody, probably us have the ability so that if somebody wants to increase their taxing rate by $0.10, but that knocks off three other taxing districts, that we have some ability to say, no, that isn't going to work. So that for me is the part that needs to be fixed. Speaker 1: Interestingly enough, and I don't want to digress too far on on ad valorem taxes, but interestingly enough, special purpose districts, really, they make the levy request to the county. The county is the actual one that levies the taxes. All they do is make the request. And depending on what county you're in, certain counties exercise the the the power of levying a little bit differently than King County does. King County is pretty much we ask for it and we give it to you, unlike certain other counties that actually exercise a great deal of oversight. Because, remember, the process is we make the special purpose districts make levy requests, and then the county approves that levy. So I don't know if there needs to be another layer involved in the county charter that would be able to balance that out and take those things in consideration. That's a big political issue. As you mentioned, the statute already addresses the priorities between senior taxing districts, junior taxing districts. That's a that's a very interesting conversation. And obviously, it's something to have that you're going to really have to work through. The other point that I wanted to make is, is that I think it's also important to separate operational issues from policy. A lot of what you were describing was operational issues. And I'm going to be the last person in the world to tell a fireman how to put out a fire. But at the same time, I think that there's an appropriate spot for you all in in determining regional services. Speaker 2: Great. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 1: Thank you. And thanks for your comments on special purpose district reform. It's something that I've been interested in and worked on some in the last decade or so. And it is such an antiquated tax system and it's been built on layers, upon layers upon layers without a whole lot of regard to the layer, previous layer. And it's kind of a mismanaged mess. We see it most particularly what we run into levy suppression issues where junior taxing districts get suppressed and that's happened and where that junior taxing district literally has to pay the more senior taxing district not to levy its rate, which is the same thing. It's burning money for the junior taxing district. So I'd like to work with you on those issues. And I think it needs to interface also with the state legislature in terms of how we prioritize those taxing districts and how high on the world fire districts get close to suppression sometimes in hospital districts. I mean, that's just crazy. And history has taught us anything. It's taught us this that we're going to have a recession. It might be in two years, it might be five years, possibly eight years, but it's going to happen. And so we need to reform that. And I'd like to work with you in advance of that coming before. For the voters and the council. I want to say very generally, the charter of your commission is a very important process and it was really very necessary every ten years. It really should be every five. But that's a lot of work to kind of clean house and to reorganize the way that we fine tune, the way that we run as a government very broadly. And so we put our brightest minds in this table here. But I can say that about all of you. My nominee, Sean Kelly, is the mayor of Maple Valley. And he's very, very, you know, worked very closely with the Thomas School District. And I hope the council approves him as well. But these are really fine folks. It's a lot of work we're asking you to do, but we appreciate it very much. And I have found that working the charter of your commission, working with council members as that process moves along, yields a better result than if it's done in isolation. So just encourage that. Appreciate your willingness to work and look forward to working with you on special purpose district reform. Thank you. Speaker 0: Very good, Councilman Belushi. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for being willing to serve on the charter commission. It's a it's a it's going to be a bit of work. We appreciate you bringing all your expertize. One thing I've been thinking a lot about lately, and I noticed in many of the responses to the questions is how do we effectively work as a region to address regional challenges? County is the regional government, but we don't have all the authority and the responsibility here required to address effectively some of our biggest regional challenges from transportation, homelessness, affordable housing, economic development. When we talk about where does where do jobs go and how do we, you know, lift all boats around the county? We really need to be able to work effectively with cities and with the state. And it's just a topic that's on a lot of and a lot of meetings these days. So I would be really interested to hear anybody's thoughts now or when you get to meeting about how do we structure ourselves so that we can work as effectively as possible and challenge ourselves and each other while recognizing the authority and role of each level of government? If it was easy, somebody would solve it by now. But, you know, jump right in. I will say one of my interest actually in being involved with reviewing the charter is not only look at really looking at the policy analysis pieces, but really having an overview why I didn't actually like some of the questions we were asked beforehand. I thought, you know, in some ways we really can't answer those until we do like a deep dove on how our county has really changed and not only how our county has changed in terms of demographics and challenges, but also how government has changed in the last ten years about how we should be working. Speaker 4: Together. Speaker 2: How we should really be having communities in leadership, in ways that I think didn't happen as regularly ten years ago. And, you know, I have worked with other regional parts of the country and Seattle has attended Seattle and King County. Speaker 4: Have. Speaker 2: Some really good models they could be looking at in terms of a regional approach that does not seem to be as present here. I look forward to hearing more about that. Thank you. Speaker 0: And I'll just note, it's a long standing tradition that the municipal league be involved. They helped get our 1968 charter passed and of course, the few decades before that reform the Seattle City Government Charter. So we're really pleased that the Nesbitt League has a representative here and hope that we can rely on your broader organization as well on its skill set and resources to be a part of the process. Speaker 2: I'll be happy to. I think one of the things we forget and part of our job will be to educate the community as we go along. Because the reason we have so many special purpose governments in the West and it's mainly in the West, the larger West is because we didn't trust the feds at all. So we had to have our own little pockets of a commission for this and a board for that. And that's sort of how we got and and I actually was an elected member of the Special Purpose District, i.e. a water sewer district, separately elected, etc.. And I agree with the idea of the management of the what you're doing is one thing, but the governance is another. And I agree that maybe it's time that we quit worrying about being the wild, wild west and get things together. But we'll have to do a real we'll have to do a lot of educating to the general public, because I always said if King County on the day stop everything they do, suddenly people would realize how many services the county is providing that affect their daily life. And I would just add to that, I think there really can be a litmus test around safety and so on, so forth. As part of a 32 house sewer water district on Basilan, I could tell you that we've not always had the greatest water quality standards and so on, so forth, and it's difficult. One of the volunteers in the neighborhood running it, and there is a point of professionalizing that process and. Speaker 0: Putting in other questions or comments for this panel. Councilwoman Raquel Welch. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if you are in the position yet to be able to answer this question, but if any of you have any thoughts, I'd appreciate hearing what going into this process. What do you think is the number one challenge for King County? Speaker 1: I think that this is kind of Williams again. I think that when I look at the charter. And I look at what's going on in the county is. You need to be a little bit more nimble. There's a lot of issues in the world's changing rapidly, and it seems like maybe it's just because I'm getting older. But it seems like as things keep changing, it seems like the pace of change keeps getting faster and faster. And when I read the charter, I, I felt like to some degree it was antiquated and in a way, it had a lot of a lot of restraints on action. And I think that in order for the county to be able to address the issues such as homelessness, whether you call it homelessness, affordability or streamlining government, it's going to have to be a little bit more nimble because it's very confusing from a consumer perspective or a taxpayer perspective when you have to call eight different places in order to get an answer in your state and you're in the same house, you know, it's not like you're going different places, but you're there's a lot of different layers of government here that's very confusing to most people. And I think that being able to streamline it and make it easier for people to understand their government and how they work and get responses is going to be a challenge for everyone. Speaker 0: Very good. Let's see. Toby, you wanted to? Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, in reviewing the charter, I really don't see structural issues in the charter itself. That would be changing. That would make a huge difference, because I see the biggest challenge facing the county as a sustainable revenue and the limitations are not in the charter. The limitations are in state law and what what the county is allowed to do. And so it'll be interesting if we go through this process and we end up not making many changes to the charter, but giving you all a long list of requests to the state legislature. And I don't know if that's actually within our scope to do that. Speaker 0: I hope so. Speaker 1: Maybe one of the things that we end up doing. Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah. I want to just reinforce for my perspective those comments that there may be some state based changes. We need to be able to effectuate a contemporaneous, contemporaneous charter. Speaker 4: And I would say just real quickly, I also want to say that I think one of the biggest challenges right now in the county is the lack of equity when it comes to a policy that is passed, when it comes to looking at who is in leadership positions, when it looks to when it looks at how decisions are made and who they're being met by. I think that everyone, obviously on the council and everyone who represents King County is capable of doing so. And I mean, we appreciate everything all the time that council members have given and your efforts thus far. And I do think that there is still a lack of representation. I think there when we look at the county, when we look at how it has changed and we when we look at how it will continue to change, we need to make sure that government governing bodies and decision makers are reflective of the people who are most impacted by those decisions. So I think when we look at how equity is applied and that lens is applied to governance, I think that's still a challenge for King County. Speaker 2: I know. I'm sorry. Did you want to go? No, I would certainly agree with Natalie. I would also say, you know, not to be glib about this, but how do we look at this as an opportunity as well as a challenge? I mean, King County, I think, is known for innovation. Our region is known for innovation and wanting to find unique solutions. And I've, you know, had a chance to work with the council. And I know that's also a desire there as well. So the question is how can we create litmus test and the constructs of equity throughout our work that we could be striving way beyond just tinkering with things, but having that really reflect what we would like to see in the county. Speaker 0: All right. In the interest of time, Kasperowicz, can we move to the next panel or do you have a specific question here. Speaker 2: For this panel? That's okay. Sure. It was triggered by something that our panelist, Toby Nixon said. You know, one example of that is the Rhodes formula. Rhodes formula is broken. And when you talk constituents, the reason I can't fix your road as much as I would like to and as much as the 43% of the King County Roads employees that got laid off, they have no job. Would love to be out fixing your road, but because of the formula at the state, we don't have the money for that. It's mind boggling to them. What do you mean? You don't have the money for that? What do you mean? The formula is broken. How did that work? Why did that happen? Why hasn't been fixed? Oh, perfectly legitimate question. So I think, you know, having something that it has to be sustainable is really important. You know, one of the things that we do fairly well is we acknowledge where. Regional government. But the thing we don't do as well as acknowledge with the local government and I think it's really important as we go forward because if they were a city, they would be the second largest city in the state. And yet they have no mayor, they have no city council. They have us, but not all of us are actively engaged in what goes on out there. And sometimes it's a difficult dichotomy. And so I think putting the fact that this the section of our county needs to fully be represented is really going to be important. And hopefully we'll have the Department of Local Services. But what should that department be able to do to make it more empowered as a city and not just sucked up into being, you know, part of a regional government? Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Nixon, I know you've got to go. And just maybe if I can, one final question, since I think you may be our only city council member on, we have the mayor of Maple Valley who'll be serving. But you're here today. A big part of our work involves partnering with the 39 cities in the county who are the direct service providers to most of our residents. And we have some structures via the Regional Policy Committee in the Regional Transit Committee to integrate our governance. But do you have thoughts on how that process might be or what relate those relationships might be improved? Because I think there is still occasionally some tension between the county in the cities on the issues that are facing our region, just in terms of how we address them and getting them done. Speaker 1: Well, I think that the current system is actually pretty effective with the South Cities Association having representation on all the regional committees or nearly all of the regional committees and the SCA Public Issues Committee, which I serve on, and the and the board being able to work on consolidating positions among the cities in communicating with the county . I think it's been pretty effective and making sure that the interests of cities are addressed by the county. So no, I don't have anything on the top of my mind right now in terms of what would be changed. But I certainly look forward to the process and considering concerns and proposals that others might raise. Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you very much. I want to echo Councilmember Dunn suggestion that as you do your work, that you make time to make time to interview and dialog with members of the council. The executive are other separately elected officials. I'm sure you'll outline a process or work plan to do that as you get going. And we are providing staff from both the legislative and executive branches and hopefully we'll get you a lawyer. Do we have an act? We have a lawyer for we got a lawyer for him. Okay. You're going to need that. Speaker 2: We don't want too many. Speaker 3: No, no. Canon is not allowed to practice law and order. Speaker 0: But thank you for being here. We'll expect a move if you have to do, but expect to move this motion forward today. We'll invite up the next panel. You guys have cleared a lot of the heavy, heavy brush for that. Thank you all. All right, welcome. And Will, you guys saw how we did that? And we'll let you do brief introductions and a little bit of background on why you're interested in serving that. Have a little dialog and we'll start on the left. All right. Speaker 4: Good morning. I'm Beth Segal. And I guess the thing that the charter and I have in common is we both just turned 50. Speaker 3: And I. Speaker 4: Didn't get a committee panel thing. I just had cake. I am a the founder of a nonprofit that education network that focuses on education policy, primarily with suburban Seattle school districts, but also statewide issues. I have a lot of experience also representing foster children, and that actually right here in King County courthouse, also with a lot of policy and hands on experience helping the disability families and students with disabilities and special education policy specifically. Also, I have been very involved in overcrowding issues in our school districts, campaigning actively for too many losses and a few wins for school bonds. And with all of these domains, I can bring a user perspective to these discussions, whether it's people with disabilities trying to access public transportation, trying to explain to voters what a bond is and why we have to keep voting them up or down. And also, as a ten year resident of unincorporated King County, just the issues that you face, trying to raise a family and go to work every day from Novelty Hill area and the traffic and issues and things like that that we face pretty good. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: I thank you for having me. I'm Jeff Natter. I'm executive director of Pacific Hospital Preservation Development Authority, which is the city chartered but county wide PDA standard up on Beacon Hill where the stewards of the Pacific Hospital campus. And we use our funding to provide services and grants to people in King County who are addressing health equity issues. We work with quite a few organizations. I'm really excited to see members of the council again. I've been having one on one meetings with several of you. It's great to see you again and thank you for welcoming me here. I've been doing health and social services in King County now for about 30 years, and I still feel like a newcomer and in a honeymoon phase at this county. Just quickly, last week we were in my staff and I were in North Bend to meet with Encompass, which works with two small children, and we passed a herd of elk by the side of the highway. And one of the reasons I would like to really work on this county charter and feel very honored to be able to do so is I would still like this county to be a place where we can have herds of elk in the county under the shadow of Mt. Sinai and have world class opera and have competitive sports teams like the Seattle Storm. And I also think it's really important for us because the charter is only reviewed every ten years to look at the ways in which practice may differ from actual policy. In the past ten years, I think we all know in terms of administration and management, we often engage in practice that might be different than the written word and some of it's often for the right reasons. I'd like to make sure the charter can reflect that, and I really want to work with the Council themselves as the stakeholders of this of this Charter, to see what your opinions are and what your ideas are about how we can make effective changes. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Morning, Brooks. Speaker 1: Hey, Brooks Selzer. I'm an executive board member of the King County Labor Council, representing about 150,000 workers. And also the Washington Federation of Public Employees represented about 45,000 state workers. The reason I wanted to be part of this committee, which I was really shocked when Joe actually nominated me, was I really do want you guys to have that nimbleness, to actually attack some of the problems that we have in our community. And also it's just to make sure that workers are a stakeholder in our charter because, you know, those are our voters and those are the constituents that you guys represent. And that's why I'm here. Thank you. Hi, I'm David Heller. I'm a lawyer with an office in Burian and I live in Normandy Park. I don't know much about municipal law. The other lawyer knows far more about it than me. Obviously I do know quite a bit about history and the Constitution, which I think is how I got nominated. It seems to me I agree with Mr. Nixon. The biggest problem the county has is it doesn't have enough money to do what it needs to do. And I'm not sure how much of that is a structural problem within the charter. I think it is more of a state problem. So as someone else suggested, we might come forth with some suggestions regarding what the state ought to be doing to change that. Someone mentioned, and I'm well aware of this as a lawyer who goes to court, that the court system, the justice system is taking a. A huge amount of the budget and it's, in my opinion, absurd that Washington is the last state in the union after even Alabama and Mississippi in state funding for its court system. I mean, the county is paying all this money to prosecute people in the name of the state. Does not make sense to me there. There's been talk about regional solutions and I agree that we need regional solutions. But the region is bigger than King County, and I think that's something we need to think about as well. Take a quick example. If we if King County did something that caused homeless people instead of ceasing to be homeless, to move to Everett or Tacoma. Problem is not been solved, just been moved. And I think there's a number of problems as the region grows and as people leave King County, because the housing prices, they're moving to Snohomish and Pierce counties. And I think increasingly these three counties need to be working together. And I'd like to see some structures that can make that happen. And if, for example, all three counties went to the legislature and said, we need this or that, that's a lot of votes and it might have some impact down there. So I'm looking forward to getting up to speed and working on this. Thank you very. Hello. I'm Michael Hermanson. I think I bring a perspective, which is a little bit different from the other panelists I've heard this morning, simply because I have never been involved in government and have worked primarily in the in arts and culture in King County. And so I felt like, I suppose, that the position I once had that had the broadest sweep was being the director of the Museum of History and Industry. So I've had a different a different way of looking at things. I'm now retired, so my history activities are focused on it really narrowly seems, you know, as as I get older, my life gets more local. So I'm now president of the Queen Anne Historical Society, which is very narrow but still touches on a wide range of issues that affect the county. I'm also very active in bicycling in Seattle and King County. And, you know, I'm sort of the the old man out in Seattle neighborhood greenways. But I'm very interested in finding solutions to density through the reduction of our intense use of automobiles. And I think that King County, because of Metro, is really very much in the lead insofar as all of that is concerned. And the other thing thing about bicycle riding is that you get to see history where it's happening. That's one thing. And the other thing is you get to explore the whole county. I rode two weeks ago, 67 miles from Mary Moore to North Bend and back, and it's a really a great opportunity to get to know what's happened. Oh, that's the same Mount Index experience. Mount Sinai, was it in North Bend? Well, it was really beautiful. But so you get to know the county in ways that's really different, a kind of an intimacy with the landscape. That is something that I hope we can bear in mind as we explore how the the organization of the county can be improved. And I'm happy to hear, having read the charter, I'm happy to hear that there could indeed be a focus on establishing protocols for approaching the state to change the way things are operated. Speaker 0: Thank you all very much. Members questions or comments to any of these panel members? Councilmember Bell Duchin. Speaker 2: I think that you heard our questions before and some of you went and answered them. And I really appreciated the comment about regionalism being bigger than just the borders of King County. I think the only thing I would offer is I do think that there is we are bumping up against the limitations of our current structure within King County to work regionally, effectively and our different layers of government to address our problems. And I think we need to kind of solve that and work with our neighbors. I mean, I think these are and not or so it's just more of an observation. But I really appreciate your your. I wanted to make sure not to not ask you the question. You're welcome to answer it again if you like. But thank you all very, very much for giving your time and your expertize to this process. It seems like a really high powered group we have here is going to be very interesting to see what you do. I do want to share just a I my very first run for office was for a charter commission in Bellevue, and I won that race. So I've been where you've been before. But the charter itself, the the vote to establish the charter commission failed. So we never had to do anything. So you're going to go further down this road than I ever got to go. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember one right. Speaker 1: Our question after this. Speaker 0: Okay, proceed. Okay. Very good. Are there any other Councilmember Lambert? Speaker 2: Thank you. So I'm glad you were for Mary Moore to mount site because that's all my district and all 1007 square miles of it. And it is beautiful but it doesn't have a lot of busses and so and Vikings long I'm glad you can do that so there's a problem with roads out there and there are problems that are unique because of the amount of water and the number of trees and the distance and many things. How do you feel that you'll be able and this is for anybody to really be able to address the uniqueness or get to know the uniqueness outside of the urban core. Speaker 1: Oh well, I'll just respond directly. I'm one of the things that didn't come up in this conversation were were environmental issues surrounding the county. And so much of the county in terms of square feet is actually rural as compared to what we have in the urban core. And so I think that we have to take the environment and the impact on the environment into account and kind of see ways that we. To expand the purview of the county. I think there's a real balance to be achieved between, you know, providing access to where people have to work and shop and protecting the environmental quality of the of the area. I think the Growth Management Act had a huge effect. It's really been successful. At the same time, when you write from Mary Moore to North Bend, it used to be as soon as you left Mary Moore, you were in rural King County. That was the first time I did those rights not that long ago, like 15 years ago. I used to love getting out of Mary Moore, and now you have to crank up these suburban hills until you actually get to rural the rural part of the county. So it's very important to to bear in mind that we need to understand that while there are regional problems, there may be social and political, there are also huge environmental questions that need to be taken into consideration. I don't have an answer. Speaker 2: So most people do not know that 61% of this county is owned by government or open space or has an easement. So there's a lot of issues because government owns and we haven't quite got our noxious weeds under control. We haven't got a lot of things under control that need to be under control. And I think people don't realize that 61% was anybody else want to answer that question? Speaker 1: Sure. I'd like to jump in and thanks for the opportunity. I think my role and I hope our role as the Charter Review Commission is not necessarily to solve each of those problems, but to help create a framework that allows the county council and the citizens of King County to address those problems. I mean, obviously, all of us come with real strong concerns about certain issues, if not a whole variety of issues, mine being, health care for underserved. I don't think the Charter Review Commission can improve health care for the underserved. I wish we could. I wish we all could. But we're going to have to work together. And I hope that our role as a commission is to provide, as I said, that framework that allows the county council to take action to address those issues on a on a more granular level. Speaker 4: Just as a semi-colon to these, these are all really great answers. And the issues that you're raising are spot on. I'm a I'm also a lawyer. And I in reading through the charter, it wasn't jumping out to me what specific provisions are hindrances or barriers, but that is where I'm going to absolutely tap into your expertize to say, look, you know, we have these challenges. Are these things that can actually be addressed by the charter or do we need to go to Olympia or something else to follow up, especially on what Councilmember Tom said earlier in the process of whether it was campaigning for a bond or trying to help a. Speaker 2: Foster child get. Speaker 4: Services in South King County and all different types of advocacy I've done. One of the things that becomes really clear just from the lawyer perspective is exactly what he said, which is we've have layer upon, layer upon, layer upon, layer upon layer of fixes that addressed. Speaker 2: A specific problem. Speaker 4: But weren't necessarily global. Just because the reality is whether it's helping somebody take the bus or making sure waste is picked up or whatever things have to happen. And so perhaps this will be an opportunity. Speaker 2: To fix. Speaker 1: Some level. Speaker 2: To make some. Speaker 4: Global changes that could at least streamline or make things a little better. Speaker 1: I just wanted to add, I grew up in a very, very small town. It was back east, but a good analog would be Omak with that kind of a place, that kind of weather. And it was east. We did have layers and layers of government in my town which had 5000 people. That was both a village board and a town board that met separately and made their own rules. So I'm somewhat familiar with that. But I understand your concerns. And I'll just tell you quickly, I was just back there visiting. My family still owns a very small parcel of land. We have some beavers who moved in a couple of years ago and at first they were cute and now they're taking over the place and we're not sure what to do about it. And so that's part of the issue. That county is both very urban and very rural in different places, and sometimes they need different things. In my overlong essay that I wrote in response to the questions or didn't make it, it was a. Speaker 0: Very interesting response. You might take a look at that questionnaire. Speaker 1: Thank you. I suggested that perhaps we should look at restructuring the council. Maybe it should be larger, maybe it should be different. Maybe there should be some at large seats. That could be if there are groups that are not being adequately represented that or perspectives that are not being adequately represented, that could be a way to address that. I realize that's a pretty touchy subject, but it might be something for us to study and think about it real quick. Speaker 0: That's why we're done. Speaker 1: On that point. I appreciate your courage in coming forth and saying. It's, of course, been done before. Yeah, we all or some of us lived through that and having to campaign against the person that represents this district now, because ultimately the charter was struck and the 13 denied but larger. Yeah, I heard that as well. We hear what we want to hear up here. Here's the point I'm trying to make. It is so critical that this board, the commission, were made independent and I mean really independent and and to the point where, like I said, you know, worked closely with members of the council as you shape a particular proposal. But at the end of the day, you're going to have to take the tough votes. Let's talk about special purposes. Who reform? Do you think fire commissioners are going to like the idea of giving away their jurisdiction or sewer district commissioners or irrigation district or whatever it is? There are so many. You're just going to have to take the tough choices. And I appreciate the independent spirit by which that was said. And so regardless of I'm up here griping in a couple of years about something. Remember what I'm saying now? You need to be independent. Thanks a lot. Speaker 0: Councilmember Cole. Speaker 2: WELLS Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don't have much time. I'm aware, but I did ask the earlier panel about what they thought might be the greatest challenge. And one of the Palin powers thought maybe a more appropriate question would be what are the greatest opportunities but that you have before you as being a member of the commission ? Would you like to just give like a 32nd response? Any of you? Speaker 1: Well, I think we've talked a lot about managing growth. I'd like to frame it as managing change. The nature of the county in terms of our demographics and our population in the past ten years has been dramatic. The nature of the the urban versus rural of balance has been demographic. Ten years ago, Bellevue was not Bellevue as it is today, and much of Seattle is not what it is today. So I think that's a great opportunity for us just to be able to recognize what has changed in the past ten years and hopefully make sure that the voices who are the individuals behind that change, whether it's environmental, social, health related, political, are respected in the upcoming charter. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. We obviously you have 23 members who are nominated division. It's tough to get folks. Kojo, we appreciate everyone, all nine of you that were able to attend today. I sent out the questionnaire to help give members some insight into the nominees, especially those that were unable to attend. And we got pretty good responses on those. Mac, do you know how many out of the 23 responded to the questionnaire? 15 or so, 15 or so. Okay, 16 so far. I did hear from Senator Joe Fein, who was courteous enough to let me know that he would not be here today because the number two child was expected to maybe be delivered. I don't know how that's going, but I would be right now in my chair to refer to. Speaker 1: Child which just born. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: And I just got a text from Joe and mother and son are doing well and it appears to be it's £8, ten ounces born at 957. Otherwise he would have been here. Your mother and baby are very healthy, sweetheart, but before. Speaker 0: Well, he yelled to a question. Speaker 3: Well, boy or. Speaker 1: Girl, so. Speaker 0: Boy. Okay, second boy. All right. Do you know. All right. And also Sung Yang indicated that he wanted to be here but was was not able to join. I don't think I heard from other folks. I want to pass along those items. So Councilman Ron Wright power. Speaker 1: I just had a procedural question. It has nothing to do with the panel here, which I'm very appreciative of. Bob and I nominated Center Payne and I feel that he because he worked here at the county for ten years, both for Julie Patterson as well as myself, he brings a really good perspective. I couldn't help but notice that looking at the sheet that Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Baldacci, Councilmember Lambert and Councilmember Bowen are all have one nominees, whereas other districts have large is their vote weighted or I'm just curious as to how this process developed because it seemed the suburban district councilmember I do chief myself Lambert Dunn all seem to be having represented by one person on this rather large panel. I was just curious with how this was set up. Speaker 0: Yeah, that's a good question. And I see that we're going to get some help from our legal counsel to perhaps give us some background on the extensive and long process that is undertaken between the executive and legislative branch to get these nominees here. Speaker 1: Well, good morning. I am Mike Hooper, counsel to the council. And the question was, is the wait, are the votes on the charter commission weighted? They are not. It is one person, one vote when they actually serve, because ultimately what they are doing is providing recommendations for you to act upon or or not act. Speaker 0: If I took that question as rhetorical, but the underlying point was the question was, what's been the process that's led to this ban? Speaker 1: That's that's correct. I'm going to answer that. And if I may, I'm going to turn it over to the very knowledgeable Mac Nicholson on how the actuals like the actual selections in front of you. Joe. Thank you, Mac Nicholson staff. I've been working with this charter view process since 2016 and 2016. The charter requires 15 members, one from each district, or at least 15 with at least one from each district. So the way we kind of split it with the exact staff is reached out to council members for a recommendation from their district which would cover the one from each district. The executive side made appointments equal in number. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. With one additional appointment to kind of not to get to 23 total. And so from from there, the list of folks that were nominated or appointed by the council, you'll see we end up with at least one in each district. And then the executive side went through kind of their internal process to it to end up with that. The folks that they appointed, which I think is why you see the picture, it appears to me just looking at the raw number that not all districts are created equal. You mean to respect you don't Bellevue councilmember duties larger district over there and compared to some others it just doesn't seem like there was a good communication between the council and the executive to make sure that all these districts were represented. That this does not look like a well-balanced panel. It looks like a very distinguished panel, but well balanced panel. When you see the five suburban districts at one person, Dave has two people, whereas other districts have one, two, three, six, five people. It appears to me, Mr. Chair, that we could have done a much better job spreading the burden and the opportunity to represent King County. Speaker 0: I think that I concur that that is an ongoing issue, Councilwoman, right there in our major board appointments, as someone who represents both Seattle and non Seattle, one third of my district being in the city and two thirds being out, i, I am sympathetic to your point. I think the chart could be I wouldn't say misleading, but not tell the entire story. For example, a position number 11, William Ebersol is listed as King County Council District one. Public sector was. Magic Kirkland. I mean, he was a as the former mayor of Duvall and I. I don't believe well, lives in district one he may work there so I think the chart well giving a clue I think to some degree at least that is an example that jumping out at me is as maybe not indicative entirely of the geographic balance here, but we obviously could not control the executive side nominees. We did our balancing here with mostly one member per, but I think there were a couple of council add ons as well. Councilmember up the Grove. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to pick up where you ended. I was very if Mac could clarify kind of how we got to 23, each council member I know was asked to nominate someone for possible appointment. So that was nine. And then we if I recall, the executive recommended more than nine. Correct. And I thought it was ten. I may be mistaken. 11. Okay, it was 11. And then so we had a process where empowered our chair to nominate two additional and it got to 22 and there was a discussion among one of the council members and the exact surrounding concerns over one of the nominees. And that was kind of worked out between that particular council member and the exact site and resulted in the additional appointee that is kind of be part exact part council member individual who was appointed. Okay. Thanks. Speaker 0: Councilman Belushi. Speaker 2: Looking at the chart, can you just remind us which of these positions by position number were appointed by the council? Speaker 1: Yes. If you allow me to just grab my. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 0: Thanks to the panel. You may step down. And while we have our as you can follow up on Councilmember Dunn's comment, you can see why independence of the panel will be so important. Because now here we're wanting to make sure that there's been fairness in the process. Mac, why don't you come to the table here? Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: And, Carolyn, is this something that you could add some information or value to as well as a participant in this or not? Really, Max, the one. All right. Speaker 1: That's, I believe, the position numbers, if you'll give me just 1/2, because I don't have them listed by the one through 23 yet on that particular green sheet. Speaker 2: Is the first green page. You look at his 41. Speaker 1: So I'll just run through real quick. Position number seven. And these are the council appointees. Position number seven. Speaker 2: Three. Speaker 1: Position number three, position number 16, position 15. The names I. Speaker 2: Know he's just going through the. Speaker 1: Position chart. I see. Okay. Thank you. 1895 position number 18, right. Speaker 2: One. Speaker 1: Right position 21. Speaker 2: Six. Speaker 1: No position number six was a executive side appointee. Position number eight. Seven. Position number seven. Speaker 2: No, no, no. I'm saying I'm saying that. So I'm doing a running tally. Seven people. Speaker 1: Position 23. Position 21. And I've already said that. One. Speaker 2: Two, three, four. Speaker 1: I'm not talking in my sheet, but position number 414. Correct. Okay. Is a council appointment position 12, four. Speaker 2: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. So that's nine plus the. Speaker 1: Extra and there should be position 11 also we should be at 11. Speaker 2: How do we end up at 11. Speaker 1: Nine plus the two council at large. Speaker 2: One or two counsel I thought there was one odd one. Speaker 0: Now you don't remember. Speaker 1: McDermott Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I wasn't done asking. Can I finish? Well, I'm. Speaker 0: Sorry. I was clear McDermott was going to explain or kind of. Speaker 2: Answer. Speaker 0: Your question. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Yes, thank you. I was trying. Speaker 0: To get you two to look each other because Joe was trying to say, I've got the answer. Speaker 2: Sorry, I can't look at. Speaker 3: Him. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are nine appointees by council members. And then when the executive what having them have 11 appointees, there was an interest in making sure that the Council had an equal number of appointees, as the executive branch did. And so I sent out an email to all of the soliciting names and input on making two additional appointments, and based on those responses, made two additional appointments. And that's how the council seats got to 11. I'm sure those two. Speaker 0: Alejandro Trace was one. Speaker 1: And just a moment, if you would. Sure. Or if I can help me out. Speaker 0: And Linda Larson. Speaker 1: Human Director Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Cole Wells. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure it's understood that, at least in my case for District four, I had nominated one who was included. And then I was asked for a follow up because most of my selections were white men, very bluntly put, and there was the need for more diversity. So I offered another one as a suggestion, and that's what happened. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 2: I appreciate councilmember run rate Bowers concern. I often also look to district representation. But I think the point that was made by the chair is a good one. There are a number of names on here that while they have a district number after them are, they come with a set of experience and background that makes them good representatives for a much broader geography. And I will just without embarrassing her point out Louise Miller, who is listed as a District four person, but throughout much of her career was a District three three person and clearly has a much broader perspective. And there are a number of people like that on here. I feel that this is a good panel overall and I'm prepared to support it today. I do think that we should remind ourselves also that whatever recommendations come out of this charter commission come to the council and the executive, and then we get to vote at the council, whether they go forward and are voted on by the voters or not. Speaker 1: Correct. You actually have to vote on our recommendation. Speaker 2: Yes or no, but we get to vote yes or no, right? Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 0: That comes run. Right. Power it. Speaker 1: Just clarification then on the contest again. Yes. Let's assume again those five members representing suburban King County are these 23. Yeah, we have five people. Mr. Kelly, Mr. Fein, Mr. Nixon and Beth are one, and then we're actually six people representing the Duke and David district. Those six people who actually represent or live in South King are in suburban King County district. If they decide to come together on issues, are they going to be restricted by a majority vote on this panel from recommending recommending things that might affect their area? Well, I'm not sure how the charter commission's going to want to vote on these things. I can say previous reports have included both majority recommendations and minority recommendations. So if there were areas where there was a unanimous vote as a recommendation and then there would be some that were partial recommendations and then minority recommendations as well. We have 23 people on this board, six of whom are in or represent the rural or suburban areas of King County district. And those are the districts most affected by King County. With all due respect to my friends in downtown Seattle, by our decisions, because our constituents out there are the most affected by King County's decision. So I'm until I have confirmation that those six lonely voices from our suburban King County are going to be heard. I'm going to vote no. I'm sure it's going to pass. But I just I feel very just disappointed that so many didn't communicate together to make sure there more than six votes. Of 23 members representing King County suburban or working county. And with all due respect to my colleague, we talked about the broad experience. I agree with you on that. But nothing like living in your neighborhood talking. We believe in communities and if they live there, they're talking to their neighbors at the Safeway store. They're talking at their community clubs. I think it's incredible that we have six people on a 23 member board that actually are coming from districts that are primarily suburban or rural districts. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 2: So this is going back to like ground zero after hearing what Councilmember sorry, Andre Gardner said. So one third of the population of this county live in Seattle, and yet it's about two thirds of them will be representatives from Seattle. So I get the broad. But for the nine and I had said my person was number 20, 28 and 33 and I adopted her, but I had actually done a number. Well, Avatar, who is that is my number three. But anyway, I do want to point that out just for clarity. So but my question is, has to do with the executive. Is it in the charter that the executive gets to represent? To put that many in. Was that something that we had decided? How did he gets to match us and not have it be? And fine with the matching, as if he picked people from all of our districts. But the fact that each of them predominantly from Seattle, kind of exacerbates the problem outside the county, that only Seattle is matters. So how did that happen? Is it the charter? Speaker 1: Is it so the charter just says the exact points council confirms and there need to be at least 15 with one from each district or at least one from each district. As far as how the exec chose his appointees, I would defer to the executive because I don't know how he met that. Speaker 0: Remind us who is the executive branch staffer on this? Speaker 1: So there is Kelly Carroll who has been working with this. Speaker 0: And again, is Ms.. Carroll here? No, no. And who else? Speaker 1: And Kelly Knight, who's calling recently. So I don't know how many boxes. Speaker 0: Over. Speaker 2: There in the back corner. Speaker 0: Okay. Kelly's here. Ms.. Knight, would you like to respond to Councilmember Von Powers issue regarding the geographic diversity of the executive side nominees? On behalf of the executive. Speaker 2: I can. Speaker 0: Why don't you come forward if you're going to speak? So we have it on the record. Speaker 4: Name calling night. And I work on the external relations team for the exact office. This is my first time up here. It's really nice to see all of you. Speaker 1: Welcome. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Usually we do a pretend hazing, but it seems like this. Speaker 3: Is more of a. Speaker 2: Outreach. Speaker 4: I am actually coming on to this project new so I can take your feedback, bring it back to my team in the expects office and respond offline. If that works best, I feel not equipped to answer questions about our selection process because I was not working on this issue when that process was going forward. Speaker 0: That's a reasonable chance. Counseling everyone right now. Speaker 1: We have to pass this out today. Speaker 0: We do not. Speaker 1: I would like to have a chance to have a dialog with the executive, because, again, we have 23 members, six of whom are represented by district. So I think if he has that capacity or we can work together, I just want I like everybody who's been nominated. Yes. I just wish everybody would nominate across the board. We talk about, you know, Supreme Court decisions about representation. I don't see that in this process. Okay. Speaker 0: Colleagues. Speaker 1: Customer McDermott Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Nicholson, are these appointments? They're being sent to us by the executive. Are they technically all of the executives appointments? And he's taking our recommendation on 11 of them? Yes. I think that's kind of a fair way of saying it, that under the charter, the exec appoints counsel, confirms the discussions we had early in the process as a way to try to ensure that counsel had representation and had some input to have the council members pass along. Nine are turned into 11 members that the exact would then add to their list of of appointees and sent over for confirmation. And has the Council always have approved or confirmed appointments to the Charter Review Commission? No, but this is the previous Charter Review Commission recommended a charter provision that was passed by the voters to require council confirmation of charter review appointees, and also that the ending piece of having the Council act on every recommendation in an open public meeting. Okay, thank you. Speaker 0: And if I've got the numbers right from the charter, you said it's at least 15 with nine council members, one from each district having a representative person. Speaker 1: It's at least 15 with at least one from each council district. Speaker 0: I see. And do they have to reside there? Speaker 1: It's unclear. I guess I would at this point kick back to Mr. Hoover, because we did have that discussion about kind of how how strict that that kind of requirement was, whether it was a residency or. Speaker 0: That the charter says council. It doesn't. Speaker 1: The charter says. Hello, Mike Hoover, again, county council counsel. The charter says from each council district. So it's it is a little bit ambiguous. You can read it as residing there. It could be representing that. It could be that you are free to appoint somebody from that district that you think will represent that district. Speaker 0: Council member Ron Wright power. Speaker 1: And I just want the opportunity to have a chance to talk to some of the members who are being appointed to make sure that the minority of folks that are six out of the 23 voices will be heard because they represent in terms of this district or this county, two thirds of the county. And I want to make sure that I have a chance to talk to somebody individually, to make sure there's a respectful process that's going to include the minority, as well as the substantial majority who are appointed by the executive. Speaker 0: Thank you. And just one more general question, if we might, Councilman, through. Remember, it was my understanding is this has been worked for months now that it was going to be ten and ten or at least it would be even. And I will confess to see an odd number of 23 and 11 council, nine plus two at large. That's not even half. So what happened? Why why wasn't understanding that I should have been reached with I understood have been reached with the Executive Office to have a balance of counsel on executive nominees. Not here before us. Speaker 1: So if I'm understanding the question, why are we at kind of 23 instead of 22? Yeah. With that were the extra one came from and I would defer again to that particular council member who had a discussion around kind of some of the appointment in the appointment process. And, and there was a discussion that was reached or a discussion was had between that council member and the staff that resulted in the appointment of a 23rd to the body. Speaker 0: Well, I'll just say this is a problem when all council members aren't treated the same on these kind of appointments. It can lead to these kinds of challenges and concerns because, you know, I served before I came here on the redistricting commission with five commissioners, and that was a sensitive topic. There were two nominally are two now heads, and we had selected a fifth person as a chair. And one of the rules we adopted, an internal rule related to transparency suggested by Judge Carroll, was if there were contacts from an interested party, a council member, about where a line should be drawn or what precinct should be made aware that those be disclosed with the entire committee. And that was, I think, our first of its kind sunshine rule. And it worked pretty well because there wasn't a fear or concern that somebody was gaming the system. And I think what you're seeing here in this dialog is some concerns about transparency in a panel that is going to recommend changes to the Constitution, this government and the structure. And for all of the reasons, as articulated somewhat by Councilmember Dunn about independence and the importance of this work, you can you can see why we care and why Councilman Ron Redbirds are raising these procedural concerns about how we got to today on the on the nominees without raising any concerns individually about the quality of the nominees before us. He's been very clear, and I think I think probably all members here agree with that. It's outstanding group of folks, but sometimes where you sit determines where you stand and maybe from what your district you work from, like determine where you put your work in to on some of these issues. Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 2: Thank you. So I agree that these are a great list of people, but I am also concerned with what councilmember bombmaker brought up about. The idea that that happens frequently is that the people most impacted by our decisions are frequently people that are in the unincorporated area, both urban and operated in unincorporated. And yet frequently or like 99% of the time, they have a few people there to advocate for whatever is or isn't. So it's just systemically looking for ten years from now, you know, maybe saying that, you know, whatever the numbers are that the executive needs to, you know, choose the people he chooses along with each of us , where he would say, there's somebody in your district I would like to appoint. Is there somebody that you agree with so that it is more evenly divided? But even so, there are five districts in Seattle and four districts that are not. So even then, we still have a preponderance. So I think it gets back to the question that Councilmember asked earlier. You know, will the people that are going to be on this committee, like many of us have to do? You know, one minute I'm a floating district supervisor and I have a supervisor, and then you take that off. And now I'm a council member and pretty soon I'm a board member. So, you know, flexing their ability to say and keep in mind that Seattle, as wonderful as it is, is not the epicenter of the entire county , and that there are other people who live and work outside the county but also need to be taken into account. And if it's going to impact them more than other places in the county, that that really needs to be taken into concern. And, you know, one of the one of the members brought up an issue today, I think, kind of tongue in cheek. But it was on the beaver issue. That is a huge issue. And I have pictures I took. Speaker 0: I was going to tell them we could have a whole session on beavers, but we're not doing that. Speaker 3: Councilmember Lambert has no new beavers. Speaker 0: We have had committee meetings on the beaver. Speaker 2: We haven't have new pictures. But it is a serious issue. And unless you have to deal with it, those cute little things are so cute until they destroy everything. And how do you tell people who don't who only see them as cute and adorable, that when they've destroyed everything, it's not so cute and adorable? And how do you deal with it? And unless you know that, you have no idea. So I think it's going to be important that whoever is ultimately on this committee that they really have the pep talk thinking outside of one city but the entire county. Speaker 0: Thank you, katherine. I want to get to councilman wrote the grove, but just. In the interest of movements like hearing your concerns, Karl Rove of Rick Perry, but understanding the constraints of committee time and it is this committee has been it's not the committee of the whole in the past. We have been added a whole bunch of substantive jurisdictional issues around parks, sewer. We are overwhelmed. And the July and August meeting schedules are tough. I would ask and hearing your concerns and knowing that there could be a solution because these are flaws, not ceilings on nominees. If we might be able to if you would be comfortable with without recommendation, moving the members forward today, knowing that that's two weeks plus a week to at least think about that. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Councilmember up the Grove. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I as a south ender, along with my colleague, I appreciate his sentiments. I maybe don't have quite as much fear as I heard in his voice, in part because the nine of us, you know, a majority of this county council's from outside Seattle, from the you know, five of us are from rural and suburban areas, and the chair of the committee is in a divided district. So I think if there were shenanigans based on geography that took place on the Charter Review Commission, the fact those come back to the council would would provide some certainty. That being said, I think the point that I heard was broader about making sure that that life experience is truly reflected in the in the diversity and the geographic diversity and the the numbers districts. I'm sympathetic to how they can mean different things. For example, there's somebody from my district there, the executive director of a Seattle based nonprofit. I thought the example of the former councilwoman serving a suburban area but living in Seattle. So these numbers kind of at times can be somewhat arbitrary. But I I'm actually more troubled by the notion of that nine of us not being treated equally, especially if that threw it out of whack. And I don't I don't know the back story on that. But if having one council member get an additional appointment ended up skewing these even further, that would have been more problematic. So I want to express my concern about that, my, my, my empathy. But also just I wanted to point out that we do have a majority of folks up here from outside our urban core. So I think if like I said, if there was something that wasn't geographically balanced, we have a safety valve. But I would love to work with Councilman von Reich power between now and full council if there is identified needs for any changes. Speaker 2: Sorry. Just very briefly, in addition, we put this list together quite some time ago. I mean, we've been working on this for over a year and things have changed in that period of time. There are some topics that are extraordinarily hot now that were merely, you know, simmering then and things that. And so if we're going to take time and have conversations between now and another committee meeting, maybe we could consider that as well. Speaker 0: Because we're on regular. Speaker 1: I mean, we we passed that motion on to the full council without recommendation. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. It's about for us and I take the motion is not going to concern about the substance of individuals and their qualifications. Speaker 1: And I'm extraordinarily impressed with the addition of all these individuals who took the time to do it, some of whom I've known for 30 years, some I've just gotten over the last 30 minutes. But I want you to know from this is a process question, not a not a personal question, a process question. And I think you can appreciate that comment. And I want to thank each one of you for your willingness to serve. Speaker 0: A very good clinical call the role. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell Duty Council Member Done. Speaker 1: By. Speaker 2: Council Member Gossett. Council Member Caldwell. I Council Member Lambert. I. Council Member McDermott. High Council Member Squirrel. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 2: Councilmember one Right now. Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. The vote is 18 is no no's. One excuse. Speaker 0: Here again, we've given a recommendation that this be advanced without recommendation of the full council. It'll come to Mondays from now. Although under our practices and procedures there can be an additional courtesy delay if a member has it. And it seems like, Kelly, that maybe the executive might want to get with the councilman one. Right. Bauer and others have expressed concerns about regional balance on this and see if there isn't anything that can be done there to work on that. Thank you for being here. We appreciate it. MACK Thank you. Thank you to all our members and good luck. You do not need to come back for the full council meeting. We will turn now to item eight. And as we do that, Jennie Giambattista will brief us I.

Motion

A MOTION relating to the King County Charter, confirming the executive's appointment of members of the charter review commission in accordance with Section 800 of the King County Charter.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06202018_2018-0230

Speaker 0: I think we can do it in 4 minutes. Mr. REED 4 minutes. We went a little long on the charter review, and this is with respect to our environmental attributes legislation which the Council has adopted before. And I think we've got a fine tuning ordinance. Speaker 1: Yeah, very much so. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief. So this is 2013 0230. You will recall that in 2016 you approved two pieces of legislation. First, that authorized the well that authorized the sale of bio gas from the South Premium Plant to II resources, and it also authorized the sale of environmental credits which are associated with the bio gas. These credits are created under the Federal Energy Independence Security Act. Under that act, EPA used to authorize credits to generators of alternative fuels that are used in the nation's fuel supply. So in this case, Air Resources, which is an affiliate of BP products, North America, would purchase the fuel and the environmental credits in 2016. The council actually approved two pieces of legislation. The first would have approved would approve the sale of the bio gas and the environmental credits. The second, because there was going to be a waiting period during which an EPA registration process to authorize county participation in this market would be required and the legislation allowed for storage of the bio gas during that registration period. So the EPA approval process did go forward. Approval came in August of 2017 and the sale to IEI went forward. The county realized actually $629,000 for the bio gas purchase. A portion of the sale realized $5.6 million up for of the environmental credits piece. So since that time, county attorneys and AGL attorneys have been communicating and I identified a number of changes needed to the legislation. Speaker 0: They are those changes I'm going to jump in here are listed on pages 233 and 234 of the staff report. That's too numerous to list here. Morally, right? Speaker 1: That's true. All right. But I will quickly note, Mr. Chair, that that is a striker. I, I have to apologize. I got that. The request for your sponsorship for the Stryker to you quite late. And so as I understand, you are considering not acting on the Stryker this morning. Speaker 0: No, I. I'm happy to do that. I thought we had advanced this on the consent agenda when I spoke to you in the meeting here. So I thought it was too late to do the Stryker, but I'm happy if the peo and department, you know, it's fine to further refine it. Right. So we're short on time. Okay. Is the committee willing to advance this? Yeah, it can be subject to signature. Is the committee willing to advance this on a regular calendar, which I understand is basically a contract clean up? The legislation? That's correct. Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 2: So, yeah. Speaker 0: We can do without recommend. Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so. I just wanted to make sure that that I'm reading this correctly, that this is an existing contract where they pick up our gas from rent and treatment plant. Speaker 1: That's correct. It's gas and environmental credits that are created under VICE, which is the Federal Energy Security Act. Speaker 2: So there's an I have no problems with the contract. There are some issues with that. And as far as the leachate and stuff that's coming and some of the gas issues that we can talk about that another time. So I'm okay with doing that, that recommendation. Speaker 0: Does this change the fundamental economic return to the county on this contract there? Is there a major change in the economic benefit to King County? Because we spent a lot of time looking at this before. Speaker 1: It does and it basically extends the process that's in place. I will will note that there had been contemplation of an actually increase in the environmental credits revenue that has been pulled back through the striking amendment force, which I could go into. But I don't want to unless you ask me to. Speaker 0: Just for our department. Could I ask colleagues that we advance this without recommendation to full council on the regular schedule? And I understand that we've had a very limited time here, and people may want to look into it a little bit more. Councilmember Lambert, would you be willing to put them on force without recommendation? 2018 230. Speaker 2: Thank you. I'd like to propose ordinance 2018 0230. Whether you pass out is Iraq without recommending that recommendation? Speaker 0: And would you be willing to offer the striking amendment? Speaker 2: I would be happy to. I'd like to move a Stryker amendment, number. Speaker 0: One S-1, all in favor of S-1, making technical and legal changes, say I. Any oppose that's approved, ask the clerk to call the underlying ordinance roll call. This is without recommendation. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Banducci. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Gossett, Councilmember Qual. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott, councilmember of the grove. Speaker 1: Does not have the votes. I. Speaker 2: Councilmember von Richter. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the vote has five eyes. No nos. Speaker 0: Right. We've given a a. We've advanced that legislation with that recommendation to the full council on the regular schedule. And Councilmember Lambert has a question. Speaker 2: To I just want to check item number six, which was earlier today, the tentative Cedar Hill. Yes, that was on our consent calendar. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: Are you putting that on consent for the full council or is that going to go regular? Speaker 0: We did advance that on consent. So if you wanted to pull it off at the full council to discuss that, you would want to do that. Speaker 2: Well, maybe if they could talk to me beforehand, because the tonnage that's on here is considerably less than the tonnage that we have had. Okay. So I was just wondering why the numbers were different. Speaker 0: We had Pat McLaughlin and a couple other folks from Solid Waste here for that item, but we did move it out early in the meeting. So I think, Erin, I'll get you answers.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE relating to the sale of biomethane and related environmental attributes held by the county; authorizing an amendment to an agreement approved under Ordinance 18363 and amended under Ordinance 18439, for the sale and purchase of biomethane and environmental attributes associated with purified biomethane produced at the South wastewater treatment plant to IGI Resources, Inc.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_05162018_2018-0165

Speaker 0: All in favor. Say, I hope any oppose minutes are approved. All right. Now we will turn to item nine, which is a motion which would declare the necessity of an administrative planning and coordination to address gender identity and sexual orientation, inclusion in King County administrative processes, and would establish a gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force to develop a recommended King County Administrative Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Inclusion Strategy. This legislation is written in my office and co-sponsored by Councilmember Cole Wells and Councilmember Up the Grove and is really had a good partnership in its development over many months with community partners, which we appreciate. We're joined by Sam Porter, who will give us an overview from the central staff's perspective. And Mathias is here I see from our Office of Equity and Social Justice. You're welcome to come forward to if you want to do this. Thank you, Sam. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sam Porter, Council Central Staff. The documents for this item begin on page 75 of your packet. Proposed Motion 2018 0165 would require the executive to establish a gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force that would review and make recommendations to revise administrative processes with regard to gender identity and sexual orientation. Administrative processes would include but not be limited to forms, questionnaires and interviews conducted by person county personnel. The analysis and recommendations of the task force would be done not only on the contents of the forms, for example, when a form requires the individual to indicate their gender, but also on the experience of gender nonconforming gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals when accessing county services. When such questions are being asked in January 2018, the Washington State Department of Health adopted a rule change that amended the Washington Administrative Code pertaining to birth certificates to include a gender option of X to provide individuals with an additional gender option if they do not identify with being either male or female. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, gender identity is defined as a person's perception of having a particular gender, which may or may not correspond with their assigned sex at birth. A list of possible organizations to request representation from is described on page 82 of your packet and includes the King County Council Executive's office and the Human Resources Division, as well as business representatives and organizations that serve gender non-conforming and sexual minority communities and communities of color. The proposed motion outlines the following six task force objectives, which are seen on page 76 of your packet. One To review the Washington State Department of Health ruling and determine its implications for King County. To consult with county departments and community groups. To assess existing King County administrative processes regarding gender identity and sexual orientation. Three Identify processes suitable for modification and consider potential implications if a process gathers information used by other government agencies. Four Develop a recommended statement of intent to address gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion in identified King County administrative processes. Five Assess the experience of individuals accessing county services and providing requested gender identity and sexual orientation information and identify strengths and weaknesses in the current state of King County Customer Service. And six Make training recommendations for county employees to achieve excellent customer service and address the concerns of task force members. The proposed motion would require Task Force members to transmit an initial framework for completing their work, including an estimated budget to council within three months of their first meeting. The executive's final report would be due to council one year after the approval of the initial framework. And while the motion does not prescribe specific dates upon which the deliverables must be transmitted, it does state that the task force excuse me, shall expire 60 days after all reporting provisions have been completed. And that concludes my remarks. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Sam, do members have questions or comments for Sam before we hear from the Executive Branch Council member Gossett? Good morning. Speaker 4: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Sam, I I've in recent months, maybe the last year, seeing a lot of Latino people used. Latin X. An overwhelming majority of them do see themselves as either male or female. So how do you distinct distinguish that from just put an x, which means you don't identify with any gender. Speaker 1: That is a very good question. I am not prepared to answer that at this point. Speaker 4: What about what about this guy? Speaker 3: I can say some things about that. I mean, the actually, it's often what it would look Latino with Latino or Latina. The the actually Spanish is a very male focused language in the sense that when you talk about a mixed group of genders, the default is kind of the OS, which is the male. So I think generally the ax has been done as a way to be inclusive of male female, you know, would include transsexual gender, not non-binary, too. I mean, I think it's an all inclusive term beyond the male female binary. Speaker 4: So how do we do that in relationship to what we're trying to do and create more clarity? And more responsiveness to how people perceive themselves. Speaker 1: COUNCILMEMBER The task force would would address that concern and bring that up within within the context of what their the intention is. Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. And I think you've highlighted just one of the kinds of issues that we're hoping to gain more knowledge and expertize and recommendations on from the task force about how King County can respond and be more reflective of our community in our systems and processes. Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 1: Thank you and good morning. Good morning. Thank you. This is my third meeting into North Bennett back already. So I want to first respond to Councilmember Gossett. What the gentleman said a minute ago is actually accurate, that the Latin Spanish language is very much prides themselves in in having everything, including inanimate objects like pencils, have a gender determination. And it's part of their culture. And I really don't think it's really our place to be telling another culture how they speak and what their words are. So I think that we're stepping into things that really aren't the role of government to be doing right now. So I don't understand on page 75 where we're talking about the Board of Health ruling on birth certificates, how we got from that to having a task force. And it seems to me and looking at the things that the task force will do, that there's a huge overlap between our sj r h r r we have lots and lots and lots of committees. They seem to be doing government by committee, so I'm not sure what is. Where do the overlap is? Where what's missing that we need this. What is the reason for this? And what do you think the costs will eventually be? I realize that we don't know exactly yet, but in order to do this, we must have some ballpark figure of what we think this Casperson will cost. So I'd like to have those questions answered. Speaker 0: All right, Sam, take your best shot there. Speaker 1: I would defer to you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: Oh, that means I had to listen. I was listening, Councilmember Lambert. Here's my view on the task force. This is an area that. Well, let me start up start back with some general principles. King County, one of the things we're talking about now in our messaging is making sure that we are a welcoming place and this government is a welcoming place for everybody. All 2.2 million people in our county and I think we are getting a little more aware and a little more knowledgeable and a little more sophisticated about understanding the depth of diversity in our community and that there are in historic systems barriers that have been built into those systems that really can turn people away, can turn people away from participating in important government functions and can inhibit our ability to provide services as a government. 2.2. 2 million people and I mean all of them. What this task force asks us to do is bring some expertize to the table in the area of gender identity and sexual orientation issues that I don't have and that I don't think a lot of us have here in the government. And I think it's an appropriate use for a task force to bring expertize into a decision making process, to look at the issues from a community perspective, from and with experts in the community, to give us some recommendations and advice about how we can be a welcoming government, an inclusive government, a responsive government that respects and reflects the individuality and diversity of all members of our community. So whether it be in our delivery of health care, whether it be in our civil rights functions, are voting functions, our transit system, our justice system go down the list of functions that King County provides. We think that there are areas that we could be better at and be more inclusive of that in terms of how we deliver those services. So that is the motivation, if you will, behind this legislation. And with respect to the process, the suggestion to have a task force is really to have its expertize. With respect to cost, there is some probably additional cost. I don't think that's been as fleshed out, if you will. But my sense is my understanding is that the executive, while stretched, is supportive of the legislation. But these will be. Able to carry out this work. Speaker 1: Councilmember Caldwell's Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know what else I can really add to your, I think, eloquent statement here, but I would like to comment on my colleague's remarks. Councilmember Lambert. I think she is correct in saying we as a government should not be dictating to any cultural group there anything about their language or their customs, their terminology and so forth. But I don't see that reflected in this legislation. In fact, what the intent of the legislation, or at least one of the intent is to be able to become more informed by a process of inclusion, of having individuals and organizations who represent various cultural groups, gender identity and so forth, to provide the input to the county so that we are able to make informed decisions and in doing so become more inclusive and making sure that we're doing everything we can, as Councilmember DEMBOSKY stated, to be a fully welcoming county for all of our citizens. And not only am I in support of this legislation, I did sign on as the sponsor to thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: And Councilmember Caldwell's Councilmember Duchin. Speaker 1: Yeah, I am. I actually appreciate this effort quite a bit. So when you think about all the different things that the county does internally, externally, how we provide services, it's hard to even imagine the ways in which our work can impact people, how we could do a better job of serving people, how we can do a better job of interfacing with people. If we are more thoughtful and respectful about where everyone is coming from and who they are. My own personal experience is you all are probably tired of hearing at the jail. This was a really difficult issue for us with treating people with respect. Keeping them safe, you know, and basically acknowledging their rights as human beings. And we grappled with it. And sometimes it was really challenging to do the right thing. And our knowledge has changed so much over time that our practices really I don't I can't imagine that all our practices have kept up. So the idea of having a really close look at how we're doing, how we're treating people, we're a service organization. We serve the people of this county. And I think that we're going to serve them much, much better if we are thoughtful and listening and respectful of who are or customers essentially are. So I really appreciate this effort. I'm also a little like I get a little bit hesitant with the bureaucracy sometimes, you know, like another task force. But we need to bring it's just a way of saying we need to bring people together from different points of view with different knowledge to the table to help us understand what we don't know already and how we can do more and do better. So I think this is I think this is a worthy effort. And I'm I'm glad it came forward. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 1: Thank you. I also agree that it's a worthy effort. I'm just concerned that we have worthy efforts on this topic and others repeatedly and that we're getting a repetition of it, the repetition of the repetition. So I need to see what we aren't already do. We get the regular charts that show how we're doing in all these categories and and every place in the county by their classifications, the working level, the upper management, the elected, we get these charts on a regular basis. So I think with all the committees we already have, I don't know what this will provide that we aren't already doing in multiple places. So if you could get me a chart on that, that would be really helpful. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Mathias. We invited you here to share a few words in the executive's office and didn't get a chance. Speaker 3: Sure. And happy to say a few things. Good morning, Mr. Chair, and council members. I think from the executive side, I think we are strongly in support of the intent of this proposed legislation. I think as already has been mentioned, it's very much in line in terms of our intent to be a welcoming county for everybody. And also not only that, also, as we know from an equity and social justice perspective. The more we are able to disaggregate that, I know exactly who we're serving, who's in our community. We're actually better able to serve those individuals and those communities. So it's not just a I think, a feel good thing. It's actually about how we can better serve our residents. So I. We support it. And those grounds, if we don't have that, that we don't know what we need to actually do. So that's very important. I do have some some of my concerns, but I'm confident we'll be able to work through some of these things is around the resourcing and prioritization and how do we actually do this jointly with council to be able to stop it sufficiently? We have full work plans already running at full force, so trying to figure out how we actually resource that, staff it, whether we use some of the models we've used for some other taskforces, including bringing in consultants willing to, I think, explore some of those options. And I think the maybe the final thing too is just potentially a concern in terms of trying to think about this piecemeal first. First, I'll also say just in terms of generally, we've already been doing some of this work. I know I worked with one council member, Belden. She was also with the tension and the jail. Why work with your health to include sexual orientation and the and the history forms, for example, medical history, which is extremely important. Already in the employee survey, we included transgender and non-binary as categories. So I think we've already been, as a county, been making some good work and been looking at some of those kind of best practices. The concern I would have, too, is that maybe we are potentially looking at this also piecemeal in the sense that we're looking at sexual orientation and gender identity, but also we kind of sometimes run into similar challenges around other demographic categories. So, for example, race and ethnicity and we do a lot of employee we do employee survey, we do customer surveys, you know, we we track information from clients, etc.. And I think there's a lot of inconsistency in terms of how we do that. So I think that's one of the things is just thinking about how we can actually use this an opportunity to be better in our demographic and tracking, trying to make sure that we're following our best practices. Sometimes that's a complicated issue because sometimes there are some federal requirements in which we have to track information in a particular way that isn't necessarily the kind of the best practices or where we where we should be going in the future. So brings in a lot of different considerations to think about, but just trying to think about how we actually not just set up a task force this time and then, you know, next year are going to be having to set up another task. So like a race, ethnicity, for example. So that's some of my thoughts. Thank you. Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Councilmember Sure. Speaker 3: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate it. Came a little bit late, so I didn't get all your staff report. So let me just I just try to read that entire audience real quickly. So we're putting together a task force. That task force is going to report back to a variety of people, including the council, within three months. Is that right? Speaker 1: The first report would be due back within three months upon the first meeting of the task force. Though once the task force is identified and they have their first meeting, they would have three months to transmit a report, including a budget to council. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: And then one year upon the transmittal of that report, the final report of the task force would be transmitted. Wait a. Speaker 3: Minute. So one year within one year from that point, the final report would be transmitted? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 3: So I guess what maybe the chair would permit a question. What is the timeline for us directly from creating a task force to look at these issues that make sense? It's the recommendations themselves that I think that largely won't be controversial. There might be a couple in there that are controversial. Speaker 0: We're going to put a couple in for you just to be controversial. Speaker 3: Okay. Perfect. I got make you want my job to be interested. What? What? So what? What what is your vision in terms of this coming back before the council for us to take action to ratify it? Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we'll look to work with the executive branch and the task force with respect to how we would receive and then respond to and implement. If that was the decision, any of the number of recommendations that might come back, it could be on a rolling basis, you know, or it could be. Here's a final report on the general steps we think the county should take to be, you know, a better provider. You'll come up with your implementation plan and funding to do it. I don't have a set vision for that, and I would defer too to the group that will do the. Speaker 3: Work very well. The only thing that struck me, Mr. Chair, is that three months seemed like a quick turnaround. It sounds like you're building in additional time. Speaker 0: That's kind of an initial. Okay, great. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 1: If it's all right, I would also like to add that on page 84 of the packet online 131, the task force may also provide interim updates and recommendations as the task force deems necessary or as requested by the Council or executive. Or by the council on me. Speaker 0: Thank you, Sam. Council Member McDermott, thank you for joining as a co-sponsor. Would you want to put this before us for action? Speaker 3: I'm of the Give it to Pass recommendation to Ordinance Motion 2018 165. Speaker 0: All right. That's before us. Thank you very much. Any further comments or questions, Mr. Chair? Yes, Councilmember McDermott, thank you. Speaker 3: You know, we've had a discussion about other task forces and other work, but I think the testimony we heard today speaks to the amount of information, research and knowledge we have about transgender issues and issues around sexual orientation. The executive director of the Internal Gender Center showed us the statewide report for the city of Washington on trans issues. It was three pages. There's a dearth of information in this area, unlike some of the others that we tracked more carefully and were behind. I think this is an opportunity to catch up. For a community that's far too often at risk. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember McDermott, Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 0: Hey, I. I'll answer anything. I do identify as male Councilmember Garcia, and. Speaker 4: I'm going to identify your thoughts. All right. You tell me differently. Speaker 0: I appreciate the way you respect me like that. Speaker 4: And that is the last thing I wanted to say. I think this is a significant sound step forward because in terms of our commitment to equality and social justice, because it allows people who are seen as I perceive themselves in a very, very small minority to be respected and to be able to articulate to us what their perceived gender is. And we have not had that in the past, and that is clearly a form of discrimination. So that's why I'm happy and planned to support this ordinance. It's a step in the right direction. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, I apologize for my mistake. Speaker 0: That's okay. Thank you, Mr. Gosset. All right. A clerical collar on this motion 2018 0165, which is before. So that do pass recommendations. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell, DG Hi. Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 3: II. Speaker 1: Councilmember Gossett, I. Councilmember Kowalski. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 3: All. Speaker 1: Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Bond. Right. Member. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. The vote is six ies. One No. Two excuse. Speaker 0: Okay. We have given a do pass recommendation on this motion. It'll be on the ordinary calendar, in the ordinary course. Thank you, everyone, for their work on it today and your participation. Look forward to continuing with that work. And I want to thank, if I can, my chief of staff, Christina Logsdon, who for close to a year, I think has been working with folks on the legislation. So thank you, Christina. Very, very nicely done. Okay. Let's turn now to item ten, which is a briefing, I'm sorry, to the fleet of lawyers who is here.

Motion

A MOTION declaring the necessity of administrative planning and coordination to address gender identity, and sexual orientation inclusion in King County administrative processes and establishing a gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force to develop a recommended King County administrative gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion strategy.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_05022018_2018-0184

Speaker 0: And Councilmember Caldwell's, I think, wants to join you in that motion as our Vice-Chair. All right, all in favor. Say, I, I any opposed? Those are approved. We'll turn now to item five, which is proposed motion 2018 0184. This is a motion that would request the executive to develop and transmit an implementation plan for the county to coordinate efforts for a 2020 census with a focus on hard to count communities. Now, that's the term used in the motion to ensure a complete and accurate count and participation of all county residents regardless of age, income, race , housing status and citizenship status. Andrew Kim is our central staffer who's going to brief us on the motion. The motion. I know this has gathered a number of co-sponsors, including councilmembers Val Do, Chico Wells. I think I heard Desmond McDermott asked to sign on. Thank you, Councilmember McDermott. And then we have also invited Dillon Ordonez from the executive's office, who will share a little bit, I think. Dillon, are you going to present or. Mathias Okay. And we've got some his squad with him here summiteers from all the faculty on social justice and Chandler Feldt, our county demographer. It's after 10:00. You think I could get out of two? So more three syllable word, right? All right, Andrew, why don't you lead us off on this one? Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Andrew Kim with council central staff. The staff report for this item begins on page seven of your staff report. Mr. Shares, as you mentioned, the proposed motion before, you would request Executive to develop and transmit to the Council an implementation plan for the county to coordinate the efforts for the 2020 Census with a focus on hard to count communities by September 1st, 2018. As members may already be aware that this decennial census is used for apportionment of House of Representative seats to enforce voting rights and civil rights legislation, appropriating an estimated 675 billion annually in federal funds to local communities such as Medicaid and and producing and publishing data on unemployment, crime, poverty, health and education. According to the Census Bureau's 2020 Census operational plan in fiscal year 2019. That's the federal fiscal year 2019. The Census Bureau will begin its field operations, and the 2020 census kickoff is scheduled for April 2020. The operational plan also speaks to focusing on four key innovation areas for the 2020 census design, some of which include optimizing self response by focusing on more online responses and assuring data protection and re-engineering field operations by relying heavily on automation. The Census Bureau states that these design changes have the potential to save the Bureau an estimated $2.5 billion. The adopted fiscal year 2018 federal budget appropriated $2.8 billion to the Census Bureau, which was a little more than $1,000,000,000 more than the Department of Commerce's request for 2018. For 2019, the Census Bureau has requested $3.8 billion, of which 3.2 billion will be used to begin the field operations for the 2020 census, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the department's request will still be lower in comparison to spending trends a prior decennial census not adjusted for inflation. If I can have members turn to page ten of the staff report, I can speak to the hard to count communities again. The proposed motion requests the executive to transmit a plan to coordinate efforts for the 2020 census with a focus on hard to count communities that the Census Bureau defines hard to count communities as a census tract where percentage of households that mailed back their 2010 census questionnaire or obstacle. Itself response rate was 73% or less. There's a chart on page 23 of the staff report. If members would like to see page 23 and page three, the printed page 23 provides a list of all the hard to count communities now. Speaker 0: Did you bring the reading glasses? Speaker 1: I apologize for the font size. Worcestershire. Speaker 0: That's our county. Speaker 1: The so this this has a list of all the hard to count communities as identified by by in King County. The darker the shade represents a lower response rate. Of the 396 census tracts in King County, 49 census tracts listed here across 13 cities have been identified as hard to count communities. These communities had an average self response rate of 69.9%, and the proportion of population that represented people of color was around 62%, with about 40% of the population at or near poverty level. In addition, of the 49 census tracts, 33 had more than 80% of the households meeting the minimum threshold of having having Internet connectivity of 200 kilobits per second for uploads or downloads. 15 census tracts had between 60 to 60 to 80% of households meeting the threshold and one census tract had 20 to 30% of households meeting the threshold. The proposed motion would also request that the plan include. Speaker 0: Ask your question on that answer. So how many census tracts here on this sheet? Again, you. Speaker 1: Went there 40, 49. Speaker 0: 49. Is that all of the identified hard to count census tracts in King County? That's correct. And out of how many in King County? Speaker 1: Out of 396, I. Speaker 0: Said, and who did this ID again? Speaker 1: So the the identification is actually done by the Census Bureau, but the data that was put together was actually done by the City University of New York Mapping Service, the Center for Urban Research at the City University of New York. Speaker 0: I see. And the criteria, again, was it based on the last census and the response rate? Speaker 1: That's correct. The last census response rate was around 73%. So the Census Bureau used that as the threshold for anyone below that to be hard to count mostly. Speaker 0: And if we wanted to localize this, we heard Gerry say that our King County response rate was 80%. I mean, is there if we were developing and were the motion, ask the executive develop a plan under any circumstances? Would it make sense to look at our own metrics, if you will, for identifying hard to count sounds tracks? Speaker 1: Yes, that would be a good suggestion. Speaker 0: And the motion allows for that flexibility in terms of its scope. Speaker 1: It does. We'd be there. Is that the motion states that the executive finds strategies to reach hard to count communities and in the findings statement of findings we do to find that 73%. But if you want to change that to 80% to accommodate the differing metrics for King County, we can do that as well. To amend their. Speaker 0: Model, we might just think about that. Maybe we've got it right, but something to consider. All right. Thank you. Feel free to jump in colleagues with questions as Andrew goes along. Speaker 1: I'm now on the bottom of page 29, I'm sorry, page nine. The proposed motion, but also requested the plan, include the county's role as a convener to engage our county stakeholders, the county's role as liaison to the Census Bureau, the consideration of hiring a temporary full time employee, and use county moneys and existing resources to implement the plan. Assessment of risk to Undocumented. Undocumented Immigrants who participate in the Census and Strategy Strategies to Minimize Risks. Strategies on advocating the King County Federal Legislative Delegation to urge policy considerations regarding census questions and legal strategies to address possible equal protection or civil rights violations for deliberate undercounting of hard to count communities and or limiting federal funding for the 2020 census compared to prior censuses. The executive staff stated that the current staff work will work on the developing the implementation plan and therefore no additional costs will be incurred. And the executive staff also confirmed that transmitting the implementation plan to the Council by September 1st would be feasible. Executive staff also indicate that a budget will be developed to include funds for a full time employee and for other costs that will support the implementation of the plan for the 2019 2020 biennium. And lastly, executive staff mentioned that the county has already begun the 2020 census activities. And soon after this briefing, members of the executive staff will provide a briefing on the on these activities. Mr. Chair, that concludes my briefing. And as you mentioned, we have a members of the executive staff here to answer any questions and also to provide a briefing. Speaker 0: Okay. And when would the requested plan be due? Back to the council on September 1st. Speaker 1: Ah. Speaker 0: And so that would be ahead of our budget cycle. So to the extent we wanted to make sure resources were allocated to this work, that would allow time to put that into our fall budget. Speaker 1: And that's correct, Mr. Varadkar. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much for that overview of the legislation. Do members have questions from Andrew's presentation? Don't see any. I'd like to invite up Dillon or Daniels, Matthias Valenzuela and Schindler Feldt, who are in my brief slide presentation on the status of the county's work thus far and what they see going forward. There is a copy of it on your place. Dylan, thank you for being here. Brad Simon, Dallas, Oregon. Speaker 1: That's right. Dallas, Oregon. Speaker 4: Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chair. For the record, Dylan Donor is director of external relations for Office of King County Executive Dow Constantine. Thank you for the opportunity to present today and thank you to the sponsors of this motion. Chairman Barsky. Vice Chair Cole Wells. Council Member about Dutchy. And now the addition of Councilmember McDermott and supporters for addressing such a critically important issue to our county, our state and our nation. This motion expresses many of the approaches we're taking into account in the development of our work. And should the Council adopt this motion, which we hope you do, we will be in a position to meet the September 1st deadline to transmit the requested implementation plan starting in March 2020. Households across King County and across the country will begin receiving their forms to participate in the 2020 census. This past April marks a two year countdown to census day April 1st, 2020. Simply put, the 2020 census matters as we've heard. An accurate count is essential for counties, other local governments and the people who live here. Census data is the foundation for much of our understanding of community conditions in King County and supports our planning, implementation and evaluation of our service delivery. Census data is also used for the planning and allocation of billions of dollars in federal and nonprofit funding. Additionally, census numbers are used to determine the apportionment of congressional representatives. We know that certain communities are likely to be undercounted, and many of these are historically underserved communities. We share the goal of ensuring our I believe we're calling them, work hard to count communities now, hard to count communities are engaged and participate as it is imperative in our work to advance equity in King County. In terms of fairness, opportunity, and addressing the many issues faced by our region and the nation. A complete and accurate census is paramount. That is why our goal, our vision, is to have an accurate 2020 census that counts all King County residents. In order to achieve that goal. I'd like to talk about some of the values that guide our work. First, we seek to have alignment with our mission of equity and social justice. Second, will meet communities where they're at to receive input, understand their concerns, and ensure that we work together on this important effort in order to reach hard to count communities, which is a priority of ours. A consistent priority. We're hearing from those representing hard to count communities, as well as organizations that serve hard to count communities and a goal of the motion before us. It is imperative that we partner with community, especially those that rarely, if ever, have had an opportunity to give input. Third, we will strive to align resources, messaging and engagement with community and other stakeholders, where appropriate, to avoid duplicative work and maximize what everybody can bring to the table. King County is uniquely positioned to serve as a hub, a regional convener, as we did with health care enrollment for the many moving pieces and energy surrounding the 2020 census. Fourth, we will leave no stone unturned when thinking of ways to organize, educate and make the most of opportunities to reach members of our community about the importance of the census. And now I will turn it over to Chandler Feldt to talk about some of the administrative work that's been done to date. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Before we do, do members have questions or comments on Dillon's portion? I just if I can want to make one comment to raise a concern. You mentioned our success with health care enrollment in King County was a nationwide leader, and we used a community based approach there under the Affordable Care Act. But and I hear some discussion about replicating that model here, but I want to make sure that we're cognizant of the difference. And that is obviously with the census, we want to count everyone, regardless of citizenship status. And of course, the Affordable Care Act excluded a large portion of our community. So I think I just want to make sure that we're aware of that. And I was thinking about that as we develop this plan that we don't just hit the pause button. Speaker 4: We know it will not be a carbon copy. It is a framework that has used in the past for us for that effort. And so we are exploring that as a starting point and understand that the framework that we are developing will not look exactly the same. Speaker 0: Got it. Thank you. All right, Chandler, are you up next? Speaker 1: Yes. For the record, Chandler Feldt, King County demographer in performance, strategy and budget. We actually began several months ago with preparation for the 2020 census because we recognize how important it is. So we've begun scoping. Strategies and building partnerships to be able to conduct as effective a census as possible. One part of the 2020 census is already underway. It's called the Lucca program. Lucca is a Census Bureau program to improve the accuracy of street addresses. It stands for local update of census addresses. And what it consists of is that the Census Bureau has shared their address files, street address, residential files with King County. We are in the process of correcting and updating them to account for the development that has happened since 2010 and since the Census Bureau's most recent sources. That's already underway at King County Geographic Information System Group. There's several GIS professionals engaged in that work, which will be completed about July 1st. Speaker 0: So chatter on that program, what information is that a purely address system or are there other names and ownership fields are tied to those address? Speaker 1: There are no names and no ownership information or no demographic information associated with that. It's simply a list of addresses by street and house number or in a few cases, in rural route advance numbers. Speaker 0: And do you see or any need to take steps, and if so, have we to protect the privacy and make sure there's no easy, if you will, linkage between, you know, for example, our assessor's records, which often have owners who will do have ownership information or taxpayer information and addresses, what are what are we doing in that regard? Speaker 1: The Census Bureau requires very rigorous security measures to protect their address list, and we are doing the same with regard to our address information. So the work that is being done is on a separate computer, not connected with our shared drives. And at the end of this process of identifying differences between the Census Bureau's list and our lists, we will turn in a differences data set to the Census Bureau and then destroy all of the information that that they had sent. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: So that process is underway in terms of communication with the Census Bureau. The bureau has really limited resources this time compared to ten years ago. Notwithstanding what Andrew mentioned about the fiscal year 18 infusion of funds that the Congress did, that's that's only for the year that ends this October. So we still don't know what the next fiscal year of census funding will be. So, in short, were more dependent on our own resources than we were ten years ago. And we have the additional difficulty that the Census Bureau moved their regional headquarters from Seattle to Los Angeles between the 2010 and 2020 census. So we're not as as in touch with them as we were ten years ago. Nevertheless, we've had a couple of meetings with U.S. Census Bureau staff, and those have been productive in terms of figuring out resources and partnerships. Speaker 0: And are you the lead on this? Speaker 1: Dillon is actually the lead for that coordination. I'm the technical lead for the time being. Speaker 0: On on that. Speaker 1: And then that communication with the Census Bureau has also been done jointly with the city of Seattle, who has designated a couple of people as leads for Census 2020 Coordination two group. We've had a number of discussions with the Washington State Office of Financial Management Staff. They are well engaged. They're organizing a statewide complete count committee. They're providing resources to counties and cities to to develop their own programs. And both the Census Bureau and OFM are helping us identify these work hard to. Out areas within our counties and cities. That's that concludes my comment. Speaker 0: And members have questions for Chandler County demographer. All right. It's a couple more minutes here and I'm going to. Speaker 4: I'll dove back in real quick and just discuss our organizations. So far, internally, it is our intention to have an organization wide inter branch team that can help inform our efforts, as well as bring in traditional and outside the box ideas and tools to help our broader outreach and education campaigns. Cabinet has been informed of our census work and asked to begin developing ways to support. Additionally, we're in the process of reaching out to other separately electeds here at King County. As such, we are again thankful to have the opportunity today to share our census efforts with you and look forward to collaborating to achieve our shared goals . Externally, we will be forming a complete count committee comprised of representatives from a variety of sectors, for example K through 12 labor, business, nonprofit, higher ed community and tribal governments, faith based organizations, etc. that will help develop and implement our regional efforts and bring resources to the table to raise awareness and encourage completion of the 2020 census . As previously stated, there will be a strong focus on hard to count communities. It is our hope that we will have a complete count committee formed and operational by the end of 2018, if not sooner. To date, we have been working with partners from the aforementioned sectors to align efforts. Additionally, executive Constantine has sent a letter to the 39 mayors flagging the importance of the 2020 census and inviting collaboration. And I'll turn it over to Mathias to quickly give us some feedback on what we're hearing from communities and much of which we've heard from this morning from those who testified. Speaker 1: Okay. Good morning, Chair and council members. I'll be quick because I think we have heard some really eloquent testimony from the community and those are exactly the types of comments that we've been hearing from then when we've been reaching out. Traditionally, the hard to count populations include the elderly, low income communities, renters, frequent movers, people of color, immigrant refugees. We heard about a lot of them today. There's a national general fear and distrust towards government at this moment, too. And then some additional barriers, such as the new citizenship question was, which is being proposed for inclusion. Those are all new challenges for us and also the homeless population. We need to just remember the crises that we have right now in terms of homelessness and also how those populations are to count, but also the added number of people doubling up short term, you know, you know, renters or people in short term housing. We know that that's an area that's increasingly challenging for us. We've been also hearing and working with some of the other jurisdictions, institutional partners. I think they'll work especially around with philanthropy, is important. A lot of of our philanthropic partners are interested in supporting this work, such as were the organizations that I spoke earlier. We need to make sure that we are not working and cross-purposes that we're actually aligned with one overall umbrella. And I think is King County as a convener, has a unique role to play in that particular area. And just finally, in terms of a lot I think has been said around being consistency of messaging. We've heard a lot around that. I think there's a lot of things that still work out in terms of what our key messages are going to be around the particular challenges that we have in this next census. But also, I think the theme that we hear very strongly and we want to be consistent with in terms of how we've been most successful as a county, is how do we work with our community organizations. So they are the trusted local voice for our very diverse community that we need to be working with them, resourcing them. So they are the ones that are delivering the messages. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes. Any comments or questions? As vice chair of the committee, as Councilmember Cole Wells. I wonder if she would want to put the legislation before us for adoption. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I new proposed motion 2018 0184 and given a do pass recommendation. Speaker 0: And that's before us. Any comments on passage? Clinical control. Speaker 3: Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Council member. Council member. Felt. Council member done. Speaker 1: By. Speaker 3: Council Member. Speaker 1: Carson i. Speaker 3: Council Member. Cornwall. Council Member Lambert I. Council Member McDermott all right. Council Member of the Group. Council Member Yvonne MacNamara. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the vote is nine eyes no nos. Speaker 0: All right. We've given unanimous do best recommendation to motion 2018 0184. We'll have that heard in the ordinary course. We'll leave it on the regular calendar in the event that there is some fine tuning between here and final passage. And particularly, I want to thank leaders of the community that came and offered excellent testimony and very helpful testimony today. We very much appreciate it. And I would ask, to the extent that this motion needs, from your perspective, additional refinement or improvement that you work with Christina Langston on my staff and Andrew Kim on the central staff to prepare any needed amendments between now and two Mondays from now. Thank you all for being here. We appreciate your good work. And are you going to make it through this census or. Speaker 3: I town. Speaker 1: By hand? Speaker 0: Very good. All right. You're going on, what, almost for three decades or for. Speaker 1: Little more than four. Speaker 0: Little more than four decades at the county. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate you offering your expertize here. All right. We will turn now to our second major item of today's meeting, and that is the proposed dates, items six and seven on the agenda, actually proposed ordinance 2018 0138 and 0178 pertaining to the Master Labor Agreement

Motion

A MOTION requesting the executive to develop and transmit an implementation plan for the county to coordinate the efforts for the 2020 Census with a focus on Hard-to-Count communities to ensure a complete and accurate count and participation of all county residents regardless of age, income, race, housing status and citizenship status.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_05022018_2018-0178

Speaker 0: Little more than four decades at the county. Well, thank you very much. We appreciate you offering your expertize here. All right. We will turn now to our second major item of today's meeting, and that is the proposed dates, items six and seven on the agenda, actually proposed ordinance 2018 0138 and 0178 pertaining to the Master Labor Agreement . We've had a number of intermediary briefings as this project has gone along and we had a first major briefing on the proposed legislation at the last committee of the hall. Heidi Piper is our central staffer who's been leading the work on this. And we also sent out an email, I think, to colleagues to try and facilitate today's review, because there are some 60 attachments. Speaker 3: That we. Speaker 0: Were seeking not to go through 60 attachments. We wanted members to be able to look at those and bring any of that they had questions on. So hopefully you all received the e-mail. I know you received the email. Hopefully you've had a chance to take a look at it and and have any questions answered. But we are going to go through the ones that are somewhat unique. Is that right, Heidi? Speaker 3: Correct. The 12 substantive proposed append is very good. Speaker 0: The other thing that I asked central staff to do and there was a handout here that Heidi helpfully prepared, was to look at our standing labor policies. And those are listed in a chart on the left with a description in the middle column and then ask, does the master labor agreement and its appendices comport with these policies ? So the there was some indication perhaps at the last minute that they were inactive or what was the word dormant. And I think we've learned they're not dormant and we want to make sure that we're following the adopted labor policies or if we're not, make sure that we're aware of that and make a decision. Heidi, thank you for your good work on this. Why don't you what have I messed up there? Speaker 3: Oh, nothing. Speaker 0: Well, that was the first. All right, why don't you go ahead? Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Heidi, publisher, council staff. And as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, at the last meeting or the committee of the whole on April 18th, Council staff brief council members on proposed Ordinance 2018 0178 by providing overview of the substantive articles of the Master Labor Agreement or MLA and the proposed changes in the King County Code and Proposed Ordinance 2018 0138 that would require non represented King County employees to adhere to similar provisions in the MLA. In addition to the superseding and non superseding articles of the MLA and proposed ordinance 2018 0178. The MLA includes 60 appendices that represent the small table agreements negotiated individually, covering 85 bargaining units in the Coalition. So I will go ahead and brief the Committee on the 12 proposed ordinance or excuse me, proposed and appendices to the MLA that have substantive changes. And those can be found on page 45. And I will start with appendix three. Appendix three to the MLA represents 36 man. Jurors and supervisors and the Department of Public Defense. The proposed appendix would provide pay range increases for mitigation supervisors and auto stop increases for supervisor attorneys. And the fiscal impact of this appendix would be approximately $52,000. Speaker 0: And is that per year or biennium? And over the term of the contract. Speaker 3: Classification, the position classification, as I understand it, with the supervisors, they would receive two range increases for each year. So for 2018 and for 2019 and then the mitigation supervisors would receive two range increase and one of those years. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Lambert has an inquiry. Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. First of all, he said page 43. Speaker 0: 45. Speaker 3: Okay. And then also in the first section, because there's a lot of paperwork here. Back on page 29, Article two, there's no change on this. But yesterday we found out that the way our contract cities are contracted with the sheriff, that they have specific duties, number of officers, response times. You know, that's a violent unit, whatever units they want, as how they are handled in the city of the unincorporated area. It just number of officers we have left over. And one of the problems that we've had is that most of the cities do not have as long a military leave as what the county gives. And so when a person is assigned to a contract city, which is 56% of the county's sheriff's budget, they are moved into the unincorporated area budget, and that counts against the officers in the unincorporated area. So I am concerned that this is a cost that we are much well, I don't know that we are apparently over what the cities do, and that has an impact on the distribution of manpower in our sheriff's department. So I'd like to flag that and figure out how much over are we so that we can be more in line with our surrounding cities and not have that problem in the future. Speaker 1: Mr. Chair, if I could jump in just a second. And to that point, Councilmember Lambert, where's that. Speaker 3: Voice coming from? Oh, good. Okay. The body voice. Speaker 0: That's The Wizard of Oz. Speaker 1: Really? The two things I would point out about that is there are there are some unique there are some unique leaves and types of absences available to employees within the sheriff's department. And there are also specific provisions in the services contract between the county and the cities that delineate some of the items you just brought brought up . However, neither the sheriff's contract nor the contracts with the cities are a part of this ordinance that's in front of the council now. So we can certainly bookmark those items, but they're not impacted by this legislation. Speaker 3: I don't understand how that could be possible. So the very reason that they are moving is because our contract gives more benefits. So I understand that as long as they stay within their benefits, it makes no difference. But when they go over the benefits of City X, because I don't want any cities calling me and saying, don't , don't use me as an example. So City X and then they end up coming into the unincorporated area budget. So that's this this provision is what causes that to happen? Speaker 1: No, no, no, Councilmember. This provision applies just to the agreement between the county and the coalition of unions that are covered by this agreement. Speaker 3: Which is not the sheriff's department, because they have their own office. Speaker 1: Exactly. Which is not the sheriff's office and the items. I'm not saying that the items you're bringing up are not legitimate issues, but they're in two other places. They're in the sheriff's contract itself or in the contract between King County and the in the the cities that we contract with to provide. Speaker 3: And we don't expect that the sheriff's office will ever sign onto this to a master agreement or because they are what's the word they are. Where you can go to court automatically. Speaker 1: Interest arbitration. Speaker 3: Trust arbitration because they're interest arbitration. They won't be signing a non interest arbitration contract. Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 3: Okay. So as we look at those other contracts in the future, we need to take that into consideration because it is an issue that I didn't even realize until a couple of months ago. Speaker 0: Okay. It's not an issue in this legislation or agreement. All right. Go ahead, Heidi. Okay. I think we were actually on page. Speaker 1: Page. Speaker 3: 45. Speaker 0: 45. Speaker 3: Okay. Moving on to appendix ten, which would represents 31 staff who work in King County Sheriff's Office as security. Green Earth. The proposed appendix would increase the P ranges of two position classifications to address internal equity concerns. This would have a approximately a $47,000 annual fiscal impact. Moving on to appendix 15 on page 46, it's the Joint Craft Council. Construction, Crafts and Labor Agreements. This appendix represents 191 employees and a number of construction craft bargaining unit working in the airport row services and facilities management divisions. Also, the construction craft bargaining units have negotiated additional provisions in addition to the MLA provisions that are described in Appendix 15. And I would like to draw your attention to on page 47, Appendix B to Appendix 15. It's for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 289. This proposed in the appendix would increase the premium for mechanics who hold either an American Welding Society or Washington Association building official certification. So that premium would increase from $1 to $2.17 to match the premium that the other bargaining units within this appendix will receive. Moving on to appendix 19 on page 48. This appendix represents 28. Dental assistants and dental hygienist employed by Public Health in Seattle, King County. This would provide for a range wage range adjustment for dental assistants to bring them up to the King County salary schedule due to the wage increase provisions in their current CBA or collective bargaining agreement. It was not aligned with the county's salary wage schedule, so this proposed appendix would bring them up to align with the county's salary, wage or wage schedule. Moving on to appendix 22 on page 49. This appendix represents nine court reporters. Speaker 0: And I have to ask a question on page 49. Under the dental folks, what are what are, what are perplexing services? Speaker 3: That is the great question. I will call on my colleague, Mr. Kim. Speaker 0: Just a chance for some education here. Speaker 1: I am Andrew Kim with counsel, central staff. This is you're proposing is is when they can find a patient to do procedures so that whenever they do a procedure and if they move that it won't injure the patient. So essentially when they use nitrous oxide or the nitrous oxide is not does not fully sedate the patient, they use a what's called the Papoose board. Speaker 0: And it sounds like a bad day in the day. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's mostly for it's mostly for for children. And they need a special training to to put those restraints on. Speaker 0: Got it. Okay. Thank you. Ed, I don't know where you learned that, but. Wow. We may have to put Councilmember Lambert here. All right. Speaker 3: Okay. So appendix 22 for the court reporters in the King County Superior Court. This appendix would increase the real time reporting premium for court reporters. Currently, the reporters receive a if they receive a courthouse test certification for real time reporting. They would receive two and a half percent over the current collective bargaining agreement, premium to a total of 5%. And then if they receive a national certification for real time reporting, they would receive an additional two and a half percent, totaling seven and a half percent in premium pay. The executive proposed or estimates this cost for implementing this will cost approximately $25,000. Moving on to appendix 36 at the bottom of 49 and carries over to page 50. This MLA or appendix represents five fire investigators who work in the King County Sheriff's Office. This would include an education incentive, incentive payment for fire investigators and based on the years of service. If you look on the on page 50, you'll see a table that shows the amount of years of service based on the degree attained and that dictates that the percentage of your premium that you would receive. The executive estimates this costs will be about, oh, to implement, this will be about $23,000. Moving on to appendix 38, which is also on page 50. This represents 74 employees that are legal administrative specialists in the Department of Judicial Administration. These would the appendix would increase the wage ranges for several classifications. This would result in approximately $238,000 in increased costs. Moving onto appendix 39 on page 51. This appendix represents 78 employees working in the Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention. This is also a would increase the ranges, salary ranges of a number of employees. And due to the executive conducting a wage rate market analysis for each of the positions in this bargaining unit, the estimated costs would be about 105,000. Moving on to appendix 48, this appendix represents 348 employees in the Department of Public Defense. This proposed appendix would increase wages for investigators and create a la auto stop increases for attorneys, and this would result in an estimated cost of $652,000. Speaker 0: Which one was that? Speaker 3: Appendix 48 for the Department of Defense. Property Defense. Get me on to appendix 49. Appendix 49 represents 44 employees in the Department of Community and Human Services. This appendix is. Speaker 0: Going to back you up on the $650,000 items that per year. Speaker 3: This is just for 2018. Okay. The cost for 2018. Speaker 0: And then that's the new base. Yes. Speaker 3: Yes, yes. Speaker 0: Could. Could. I'd like to understand a little bit more about this. Is this for under our parity principle with the prosecutors, is there anybody here from that worked on this item? Speaker 3: Yeah, I would defer to executives. Speaker 0: I. Well, okay. Come come forward. Yeah. And Jenny, do you are you coming forward on this item. Speaker 1: To the. Speaker 3: Version? Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: Good morning. Megan Peterson with the Office of Labor Relations. This was a pretty complex set of negotiations. It was very much overshadowed by the feeling of the bargaining unit, that there is a lack of parity. There is a both a code, an ordinance, as well as the court rules that establish the need for a public defense and the prosecutors to have parity. So, yes, this was one of the driving principles for these increases. Speaker 0: I don't know about the court rules requiring compensation parity. I think they addressed staffing levels. Are you sure about that? Speaker 3: I believe they are. It doesn't go into compensation, but it does talk about the need to look at parity. Speaker 0: Councilmember Gossett and then Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that around about eight years ago, we had begun an effort to bring public defense of the parity with the prosecution attorneys office. And I'm surprised that we're just now getting to say investigators. What was the group of other investigators? Speaker 3: An attorney. Speaker 6: Yeah, but we had talked about investigators, secretaries and other support staff and public defense and were way behind prosecutors to get equity. And I hope this comes close to it. But I did have a question on an attorney. We are establishing a step increase system. Does the prosecuting attorneys have steps down? Yes. That's as a. Speaker 3: Person. Yes. Speaker 6: Oh, they have. Speaker 3: Right. Yeah. And my colleague Mr. Railton did remind me that the 652,000 actually relates just to the investigators. So those are the increases related to the investigators pay. What we did with the with the actual attorneys is we opened a gateway to allow them to progress, but there is nobody actually waiting to that will be benefited by that in this contract cycle. So I guess to address your question, what about future contract? Speaker 6: I just want to know, is it parody with the prosecuting attorney? Do they have steps? Speaker 3: They do have steps. Speaker 6: And then this will allow public defenders to have steps. Speaker 3: They already had steps they want. Speaker 6: What did we do? Speaker 3: So we allow the the attorneys who are kind of bumping up against the senior ranks to move into a senior into the senior status and to be eligible for additional pay. But this in this contract, there are no individuals or no incumbents who will actually enjoy that benefit. So the 652,000 is just for the investigators. Speaker 6: Okay. But what about the future? Will they be able to enjoy? Yes. That when they get high level. And do prosecutors already enjoy that opportunity? It's looking for here. Speaker 3: Yeah. And there is I mean, this is a it's there's more to this issue. As you know, there are case limitations for the defenders, whereas the prosecutors at the senior level can, in theory, take on as much work as their upper management would like them to. Speaker 6: All right. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 3: Thank you. I also have some concerns on that. And, you know, when you are in upper management, you get paid a salary and you just do whatever work you need to do. And so the idea that, you know, Saturday work or, you know, coming in on standby gets, you know, several hours of pay, even if you're just on standby, that's a little much as far as I'm concerned. And on Ethics 36, which was when back where they were talking about the fire investigators, it showed what happens in year two, three and four, what happens in year five and beyond. I'm going to defer to Mr. Railton, who was actually the chief spokesperson on this contract for management. Okay. Speaker 1: Bob Helton, Office of Labor Relations, Labor Relations Manager. This is the same education incentive that the Police Officer Guild enjoys, as well as most of the other commission staff, the sheriff's office, deputies, sergeants, captains, majors and chiefs. And so it doesn't increase beyond. In other words, there isn't additional increases, four more years of service. It caps out of four years of law enforcement service and whatever that percentage is for the particular degree that they have. And one of the reasons we looked at this for the fire investigators is because they are very specialized detectives, investigation investigating arson, and they work alongside the deputies and the CIA unit. So there is some commonality in terms of work, but they're under different collective bargaining agreements. So we felt that this was the right thing to do in terms of parity with their coworkers. Speaker 3: It seems to me that the job classification there, because of what you just said, it's very specialized. They should have at least a degree, but probably a B.A. degree. And yet for a B.A. degree, which should be their basic start, we're going to pay them 4% more per year. I can get the master's degree paying more, maybe not 6% more, but I can get the master's degree and I can even well, not on them because that that in an investigation they don't speak lots of languages. But I just think that that by paying into a degree and a B.A. at those rates when it should be their base qualification is a little bit extravagant. So I don't feel comfortable with that. Just one minute. Thank you. Speaker 0: Returning to the public defense addendum or appendix, Megan, you've now said twice that this was related to the workload and case requirements stipulated by the Supreme Court rules and the other rules. I have to confess to you, I am not understanding how I know what those rules are. I don't understand how they're related to these wizardry pieces and and step provisions and establishment of a committee. It doesn't seem to me it is related. Speaker 3: It's it's the RCC, not the court rules. Speaker 0: The rules of professional. Speaker 3: Conduct that there is a reference. So we can get get back to you on that. But I do want to one key point that I want to make is we recognize that we are paying senior attorneys and DPD. You know, we're paying them more based on the fact that they're in a quasi management or lead role. And so one of the things we secured in these negotiations was a commitment to work with the union to better define what seniors do and to demarcate that seniors have additional duties. Because here in the county, you know, according to our labor policies, which this council has passed, we don't pay people more just for doing the same thing right over and over. And so our interest was to say, okay, if you're a senior, you're mentoring your coaching the new attorneys in court, you're providing briefings to staff, you're maybe working on policy projects. So I don't I do want that point to be made because we recognize that in order for seniors to be paid more, they need to be doing more. Speaker 0: Okay. But the compensation here is for investigators. Speaker 3: That's right. Speaker 0: Okay. And the other pieces apply. The lawyers are the investigators. Speaker 3: Yeah. Sorry. This is confusing the other pieces. When I was referencing parity and I'm happy to come back here to to get you information where where we look to in terms of authority for establishing parity. One of those sources is the our pieces. Speaker 0: I thought it was council action when we established the Department of Public. Speaker 3: It's that as well. That would be the first thing that we look to. Speaker 0: Let me tie in appendix 16, the prosecuting attorney's association, since parity is tied to them as I read this on page 60. The Master Labor Agreement acknowledges that this agency, meaning the POW, has the authority to negotiate those issues separate and apart. Right. I'll give you a chance to look at it. So my question is, since we have a principle of parity in the Department of Public Defense, are our compensation and working conditions to extent parity applies to working conditions driven really by Prosecutor Söderberg and what he does with the with the prosecutors. Speaker 3: So that was the position of the union in our negotiations with DPD. The county was taking the position that, yes, we consider that, but the jobs are different. So to some extent, it's an apples and oranges analogy. As I said, there are workload caseload limits for the public defenders that do not apply to the prosecutors. Speaker 0: So let's say that prosecutor Soderberg is a senior deputy prosecuting attorney, $120,000. And we have a senior Department of Public Defense defender who's making 120,000. And prosecutor Soderberg says, well, I'm going to get my folks raise it 125. Are we then, under the principle of parity on the defense side, obligated to raise RS 225? That's what I'm trying to stand, is what we've set up here. Speaker 3: In terms of I would say when we're not obligated, we we will look at that and we we look at and and again, the Labor policies reference the market comparators. So one thing to keep in mind is that public defense in other jurisdictions is in a nonprofit model. So it's a again, it's sort of an apples to oranges comparison because in the nonprofit world, the wages tend to be lower. So we will we will consider everything. We will consider the budget and what we're able to pay. Speaker 0: But just as one of our labor policies. Speaker 3: Right. And just just because the prosecutor raises the pay doesn't mean that we're automatically going to be raising pay for the public defenders. Okay. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have sat on the other defense board for this state for, I think now like 16 years. So this is not a new topic to me. But with that hat on, different than his hat. But with that hat on, I look at the cost in comparable caseloads between surrounding counties, including Spokane County. And it is much more expensive to do a felony in King County than it is in our surrounding counties and Spokane, as the comparables is way more than other counties because they're not on comparable kinds of schedules. So when I have asked about why these numbers are disparate, I am told because our felonies are more complicated than other felonies. It would be fine if we were talking about Mars and Earth. But that's an odd comment that a felony in a neighboring county. To our north or to our south is so different from a felony in our county. And then I get told other things, too, which I won't get into. But I think that there's work that needs to be done here. And I have great concerns that we, per case, are paying a lot more than than potentially we would need to be in looking at that. And as Councilmember Garcia said earlier, he's completely correct that we did try very hard to to make sure that the parity between the prosecutor and the defense bar was obvious. And in so doing, I understand that we may have swung the other way where now that the prosecutor should be coming in and asking for parity with defense. The other one point that is really old. But we were told that we were not in parity because we were micromanaging the independent branches of the defense bar before we brought them in-house. And when they came in-house, they had more employees than we even knew they had. I submit that if I were micromanaging, if we were micromanaging, we would have known that there were more employees there and we were giving them money and parity all the time. Monica that used to work for us, decided not work for us after that formula was done. She worked that all out. But what happened was that the four different agencies rearranged the money after we gave it to them, and then we went to court and lost because of that. So there's a lot of history here and I think it's time to delve down again. And I think that's a really good idea that we do. Speaker 0: So are you Councilmember Lambert? There's some issues around this provision. I think people would like more information. But in the interest of time today, let's move forward and work on that offline. Speaker 3: That's great. Time to. Speaker 6: Read. Speaker 3: Appendix 49 on page 51. This email proposed appendix to the MLA represents 44 employees in the Department of Community Health Service, Human Services, and the appendix two would add a new shift premium for evening and nighttime shifts. The premium would be $0.75 per hour. The executive estimates this cost to be to implement this about a $34,000. Moving on to appendix 50, this is for represents 263 workers and the wastewater treatment division bargaining unit and also the person in the Department of Natural Resources. In part, the proposed appendix would. Offer professional license premiums for two four employees to receive $50 per month for each license. And it would also add two new license categories for specific classifications. So they would more employees would qualify for this premium since they have obtain those specific certifications and they anticipate it is going packed as about $23,000. Appendix 51 The last appendix for briefing today is for Teamsters Local 174. It represents 231 employees and various divisions. If I may draw your attention to page 54, a significant amount of the cost proposed for this appendix stems from a the solid waste division. Well, actually, there's been a memorandum of agreement that would allow for helper shifts to be added skill operators at the transfer stations. There will be eight hour helper shifts added and that would run from May 1st to Labor Day and except for. Speaker 0: On peak season. Speaker 3: 4th of July, Independence Day. And so the majority of the costs associated with this appendix will relate to that implementing that. Speaker 0: Okay. I see we have a representative from the Teamsters here. A number of council members, I guess it was late last year. I'm losing track of time, met with some of our scale operators about concerns surrounding perhaps some gender equity issues. And we provisoire, I think, some money in the budget asking for a plan for kind of employee development and advancement. Does this appendix do anything with respect to implementing that plan or addressing those issues? My. Speaker 1: Michael Gonzales, Teamsters Local 174. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you for being here, Michael. Speaker 1: Thank you for asking me to be here. Yes. This memo, you does actually address a lot of the issues that we have brought up as far as especially the present context, some of the issues with them being able to take lunches and breaks, especially during the peak season. Just so for some context, for the entire council, the school operators are a group of employees, mostly women, who are the ones at the very point of contact when ever a person of the public or a commercial driver comes in to the dump to, you know, get rid of garbage, wood, recycling, whatever it may be, they work normally either for eight or ten hour shifts. And when during peak season, if they don't have any help, they are working that shift by themselves and they are working not only the inbound when somebody comes in to pay, but the outbound when so when the personnel so I'm sorry, the inbound when they get their card and the outbound when they pay, which is probably about the length of the county. And if to give you context of this, on a week and day, they could go anywhere between depending upon the station, 4 to 800 customers and one day walking back and forth between the scale not being able to they take what's called intermediate breaks, but it's very hard to tell when those breaks are going to come. Usually they're at a customer with the mouth or food or, you know, they're hearing people honking while they're trying to take a bathroom break or something like that. So this was a I would say why they got to a point of contention, right? I mean, they felt that compared to the other work groups within the county, that they were not given the same amount of staffing to be able to have the same working conditions, working conditions and working with the opposite labor relations especially. I'd like to applaud Megan for helping us work through this issue. We were able to come up with a menu and a trial period to look and see if these issues can be addressed, especially during the peak season. We think with some other things in the contract and the other ways we've done some bedding that during the non peak season will be able to work some things out. But during the peak season we like to take a look at this and think it think it will help the issues. Speaker 0: And have we commenced this pilot project now given that it's May 1st, third, second or third. Speaker 1: Correct. The solid waste division has taken taking this very seriously. And they are they when they had recruited and got people in as far as I know it has. Yes. Started it's going to be starting this week. Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you for your work on it, both of you. And really thank you to your members who had the courage to come forward and raise these issues and work for positive change. Speaker 1: Don't thank. Speaker 0: You. Proud of them. Speaker 1: We appreciate it. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: All right, Heidi. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes my staff report. There is an amendment to the proposed ordinance, one of the two, since we're hearing two ordinances today, and that's before you propose ordinance 2018 0178, which would approve the MLA. That amendment is on page 203 of your packet. Speaker 0: And it replaces an incorrectly transmitted appendix 51. Correct. That's the one we were just, I think review. Speaker 3: Correct. That's the one. Speaker 0: I want to get that one right. Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 0: And then on the ordinance 0138, it looks like there is a striking amendment which would make technical changes. Correct. Those are all staff requested. Correct. All right. What is the will of the body? Are members comfortable having had briefings, an opportunity to review this, to move it forward? Today, the full council in the ordinary schedule, I'm seeing nods and one shaking. No. So we will vote accordingly. I ask for a motion to put 2018 0178 before US Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 6: So move the chair. Speaker 0: For the Vice Chair Councilor calls. Would you be willing to move the amendment. Speaker 1: A. Speaker 0: Putting. Yes. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Amendment number. Speaker 0: One. All right. This is the putting in, correct? Appendix 51. All in favor Amendment one. Say I. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 0: I'll oppose Amendment One carries turning to the underlying ordinance as amended. Comments or questions. Councilmember Bell Duty. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've been holding off for the appropriate time and hopefully this is it. So the overall accomplishment here is, is pretty big deal for King County. We have a lot of bargaining units and. Many, many collective bargaining agreements and the accomplishment of starting to streamline in a real way the provisions, the language around a lot of these practices, I think, can only really help. It'll help the employees and the managers understand how to implement, implement more correctly, to have people feel they're being treated fairly and for us to be more accurate and actually incorrect in how we implement. So I think this is a major accomplishment and I want to thank everybody involved for that. I want to ask in the spirit of continuous improvement and lean, which you reference in your materials. The primary objectives here are efficiency, equity, engagement in recruitment and advancing coalition bargaining. I would like to make sure that as we move forward into the next phase 20, 19, 2020 and onward into the future that we are checking back to make sure we're achieving those goals. I'm looking at the fiscal note. It comes out to about a total of 5 million in addition between the previous fiscal year and 2018 with 60 bargaining agreements. If you had done them all separately and added them all up, it's probably ballpark where you would have been. So I'm just guessing. But it's going to be nice to sort of make sure that we're keeping track of how we are capturing efficiencies by doing things this way that we can then use to provide service for the public. That's, I think, a key goal of having a more efficient labor relations for all of us. So I don't know if you could talk to that just a little bit. I really appreciate that comment because it's something that we are very cognizant. Is our overarching North Star goal in bargaining in coalition for a master labor agreement. I see this as a very much iterative process and getting the first master contract was, you know, 99% of the battle. And now that that's in place, we are socializing it with our unions, with our employees. We will continue to build on that success. One very real, very tangible efficiency and cost savings that the county has implemented in the last four years is bargaining and a total compensation methodology. So as opposed to the past, where benefits and wages were sort of siloed, we are making it very transparent with our workforce that we have to look at everything the county is paying for or the employee experience, and we have to cost that. So we're in that regard. We're better off now than we were even last year. You know, I think Denise and Michael could attest to that. When we talk to total compensation, we never we no longer see balking and eir roles at negotiations from the members. It's like, yeah, we get it. That's what most employers in the country do. Speaker 0: Councilmember of the group. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I figure this is a big enough deal. Wanted to at least offer a few comments. I, I think what we have done, taking some of the credit for the good work you've done, I think is impressive, in part because we're working in a fiscal environment that's very challenging. You know, we're given the limitations on local governments, the ability to remain a generous and fair employer and to actually make these positive steps towards I know what the executive has touted as being the employer of the future to have what you just called the whole workplace experience stay modern, stay make sure we're a place that people want to continue to work and to do that in such a fiscally constrained environment and do it in partnership with the employee groups, and to reach resolution in and of itself as an accomplishment and to do it in a way that appears to be consistent with the policies we've adopted. It's it's kind of a funny role. We play it, you know, the ability to vote up or down, you know, sometimes I think it would be great if we could each negotiate each of the nine of us the things we like or don't like. But that would be utter chaos and I'm sure a violation of laws and processes. So recognizing that our responsibility is to vote it up or down, I, I think it's the obvious. The obvious course of action would be to approve it and not only prove it, but approve it with a sense of pride for the work that's been done. Speaker 4: To reach the the agreement we have in such a difficult. Speaker 1: Fiscal environment. Speaking as the budget chair, I'm very thankful. Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 3: Thank you. I am really excited that we have a master labor agreement. When we first talked about this, was it five years ago? Everybody was like, oh, this is like walking into a bomb territory. This is dangerous. So I'm really pleased that that we did it because they think it's the right thing to do. And like Councilmember LGT keeping track of how much easier it is to not be spending time all the time negotiating, but actually getting the work done and dealing with real problems. My concern is that there's going to be $5 million more, and I assume that's on top of steps that people will be getting. And we were just briefed last week that the county and the general fund will be $25 million deficit. And so now that number could go up to $30 million. And that concerns me. That's a huge number. And I see things popping up that I just don't like, like donning and doffing. A couple years ago, I didn't even know what donning and doffing was, but we pay for it every day. And, you know, giving signing bonuses, I had no idea that I was working for a baseball team or football team. You know, places where a B.A. or an AA degree should be the basics for getting hired. Now we're paying, you know, bonuses for. So I'm concerned by the scope creep of our pay scale in these categories. And so that is my one concern. But my overall concern that how long are we able to afford this? But I really like the format and I'm hoping that when we do the next contract that there won't be so many amendments. I think it was probably part of the wish list of getting this together. So thank you for your work. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Other questions, Councilmember Gossett, or comment? Speaker 6: Yes, thank you. It's just a comment and it follows along with the ones that you and councilwoman ideology and councilor of the Grove and Councilmember Lambert have made. And that is I'm really recognizing this as well. We have a human resources department, but I'm recognizing that it has special work that Labor Relations Office does because these are highly complex and challenging questions that we have and they impact dozens of a union. So to be able to sort it out, make some reasonable accommodations with our labor representatives and then be able to articulate what they mean is, you know, a monumental job and probably get a little more challenging even in the future. So I wanted to say to them that we definitely appreciate that the work that you do on behalf of our government and our residents of King County. Speaker 0: I think, Mr. Gossett just returning to the economic issues, we have Labor policy on compensation, which directs the Executive to consider the following factors. Economic number one economic conditions include could. Inflation and deflation in the region. I think our inflation is ticking up in the region to revenue and cost forecast for the county customer. Lambert mentioned that we had a briefing council member of the committee on it and while there were some concerns there, I assume that the cost forecasts were incorporated into that budget. That presentation by Mr. Diver. Third, comparable work compensation and for the status of accounting reserves. The presentation indicated we were actually taking up our county reserves toward an 8% number, if I recall correctly, at least in the general fund. And this applies to not just the general fund, but also some of our utility funds, always division and and wastewater. And I don't think transients in here as transient tragedies as in the. Yes. Transit in there. Okay. So I guess my question is, in the staff analysis they indicated is unknown to council staff at this time, what are the executive considered the factors described in the compensation labor policy? So my question to the executive is did you consider these factors when negotiating the wage provisions of the appendices, which are the applicable provisions before us? Speaker 3: Absolutely. Speaker 0: Very good. All right. Thank you. I want to give if there are no further comments from my colleagues, I also want to thank everyone who worked on particularly Megan, you and your shop, but Denise Cobbs and Dustin Frederick, who brings a lot of expertize and years of experience as well and is who else I want to give you all of. Speaker 1: Course, my quick comment. I'm sorry. I do not want the work of the ADR ADR office, especially with Polly Davis, to go unnoticed, especially within our caucus with 90 people on the bargaining unit, Denise and I, and with, you know, trying to get 90 people to decide whether the sky is blue sometimes can be a challenge. And she really put in a lot of work in her office, putting a lot of work, also helping the practice and get it done. So at least. Speaker 0: Some alternative dispute resolution wasn't just between management and labor, but between labor and labor. Speaker 1: But I think what they always saying was renegotiations both the negotiations happened between Labor's own members, but they were, they were incredible in helping us to reach that. And I just wanted to make sure that she and her office were recognized for that. Speaker 0: Very good. So the 2018 0178 as amended is before us. Then the clerk will call the roll. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Banducci. Councilmember done by Councilmember Garcia. Councilmember Colwell. Councilmember Lambert and Councilmember McDermott. High Council Member of the Grove. Councilmember one right there. Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. The vote is eight eyes, no noes. Councilmember one right there. Excuse. All right. Speaker 0: Because of the compensation issues related here, I would request that we expedite this to Monday's council meeting. If folks have a questions that don't get answered, we can have a one week courtesy delay, which is our tradition. But let's move this along. We'll turn now to ordinance 2018 0138, and I'd entertain a motion for to pass a recommendation on that one. If anybody wanted to move it. Councilmember up the grove was put up by Vegas. Speaker 1: I think, Mr. Chairman, the proposed ordinance 2018 01784 giving a do pass recommendation. Speaker 0: And Council member Cole Wells as our Vice Chair, would you be willing to move the striking amendment making technical changes? Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that the striking amendments. Speaker 0: In favor of the striking amendment making technical changes recommended by the staff say I opposed that Carrie's turn to the underlying ordinance. And we all said what we wanted to say on this package of legislation. Looks like we have the critical. Speaker 3: Call the roll. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Duty. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 6: I. Speaker 3: Councilmember Colwell, Councilmember Lambert and councilmember McDermott. High Council member of the Grove, Councilmember Yvonne Wright Bauer. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the vote is seven eyes, no no's, councilmembers Balducci and Von. Right. They were excused. Speaker 0: To be given a do pass recommendation. We will expedite ordinance 2018 0178 as well to Monday's calendar. We will have those on the regular calendar because this is a big deal and folks may want to talk about it. I want to thank my colleagues and executive staff and our representatives from Labor for helping us get through a pretty dense set of materials, pretty complex. It's quite a long process. And especially I want to thank Heidi five, Chuck and Pat Hamacher and your colleagues on our central staff for their great work. Anything further? Nothing. We're adjourned.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE approving and adopting the Master Labor Agreement negotiated by and between King County and the King County Coalition of Unions representing employees in the departments of adult and juvenile detention, community and human services, elections, executive services, judicial administration, information technology, natural resources and parks, permitting and environmental review, public defense, public health and transportation and the assessor, council, district court, superior court, sheriff's office and office of the prosecuting attorney; and establishing the effective date of the agreement.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_04182018_2018-0138

Speaker 0: I think. So. We'll see if we can't make some work here. All right. Thank you all. All right. Now we are going to turn to the next item on the agenda, which is a substantial piece of work that the county has been engaged in with our partners in our workforce who are represented by labor unions for a number of years now. And that legislation, with respect to the master labor agreement and participating workers has been transmitted by the executive introduced. This is our first presentation on the actual legislation. Heidi Papageorgiou has prepared the staff report and is going to give us an overview of it. And we are joined by see Denise here, Denise Coughlin with the Coalition, one of the two leaders of the coalition, as well as executive branch representatives as well. And Heidi, will the executive branch and then the. Be joining you at some point here at the table or presenting. Speaker 4: As you were, which I will do the overview of the MLA articles and if there's questions that I'm unable to answer, okay, we're. Speaker 0: Doing it and you just may if you all want an opportunity, once Heidi's done, you're welcome to give us your take on it. So thank you. And I think for members interest, this will be our first presentation and then we'll look to get questions and issues resolved and hopefully we can act on it at our next committee of the hall and move it forward. Speaker 4: That is correct. Mr. Chair. Heidi, Perpetual council staff. The staff report begins on page 33 of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2018 0178 would approve King County's First Master Labor Agreement between King County and the King County Coalition of Unions. Also the companion led ordinance proposed ordinance 2018 0138 would amend the King County Code to add a number of master labor agreement provisions that would also apply to not represented King County employees. I will begin my staff report by briefly discussing the county's previous process of negotiating collective bargaining agreements, or CBAs, and the structure of the proposed Master Labor Agreement or MLA. I would then conclude my staff report with an overview of the proposed Emily articles and the proposed changes in the King County Code. Prior to the proposed MLA, the County negotiated the different provisions pertaining to human resources processes, leave benefits and payroll practices and individual CBAs. In 2016, Council adopted Ordinance 18405 that require King County and the King County Coalition of Unions to discuss the structure for bargaining, standard practices, procedures and CBA provisions via MLA. The proposed Emily was standardize those practices and procedures and 31 superseding articles that would apply to 22 unions and the Coalition. Under the proposed Emily, a CBA would be known as an appendix to the MLA and would no longer be a standalone agreement. The superseding articles and the proposed MLA would take place of the individual appendix articles on the same topic. With some exceptions, the proposed MLA would also include seven non superseding articles that may or may not replace their article on the same topic in the individual appendix. Council staff will present the 60 MLA appendices at the committee's next hearing on May 2nd. Speaker 0: 60. Speaker 4: 60? Speaker 0: How's that going to work? Speaker 4: Well, you. Speaker 0: Know. Speaker 4: Be slow. Okay. The proposed MLA also includes a memorandum of agreement between King County and the Coalition relating to the county's implementation of a county wide career progression classification project. Essentially, that project would include if all employees whose positions are reclassified. That project were not o those employees were not to suffer a loss in pay. I would like to now draw your attention to table one on page 37 of your packet, and this table summarizes the superseding Emily articles. The table, I'm just kind of going through the crosswalk of the table. The first column is the Emily article number and the Emily the article name. The effect of the Emily on the proposed ordinance. The King County Code Citation that will be impacted as well and make those corresponding changes and the effect what the proposed ordinance for the Kane County Code would be. So starting with Article 2,000,000,002 military leave, that would essentially mirror the language that's currently in King County code. And so that provision would require no change for the code, but just include language in the MLA under Article three unpaid leave of absence that essentially would distinguish the approval authority for medical reasons of leaves and non-medical reasons for leave. Speaker 0: I guess I'm going to I'm going to stop here for just a second. Sure. We've got I'm looking at your chart here, 38 articles, right, in this chart. Speaker 4: Correct. Speaker 0: All right. Now, for the committee's benefit, I want to give a little preview of where you're going here. Are we going to. Is it your intention to walk through all 38 of these? Speaker 4: That's my intention. Unless you, Mr. Chair, you prefer otherwise. And I can just highlight. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I want to I hear Councilmember Lambert saying that she would like you to go through all 38 of them. I'm not sure you're going to. That's a lot. And I feel, with all due respect, that we're going to I want to take a sense of my colleagues here, whether there's interest in walking through those or whether folks can maybe take a look at them and ask if they've got specific questions. Could you highlight let me suggest this. Could you highlight what you view based on your work as some of the. He or major provisions in the articles. I understand maybe they're all important, but and then if members have questions about specific ones that you don't cover, we could come back to that because in the interest of time and and and efficacy and interest, I'd like to maybe highlight the key ones. Okay. Speaker 4: Absolutely. Speaker 0: And then we're going to have to figure out how to do 60. So. Speaker 4: Yeah. So jumping over to Article four, leave for volunteer service, that is on page 37 of your packet. The essential change for that is that the currently the county allows employees to utilize up to three days of sick leave to volunteer at an employee's child's school. The MLA and the King County Code would change to allow employees to utilize the sick leave for nonprofit organizations. Also at the child school and any the nonprofit organization would have to be approved on the employee giving program list. So that's one substantive change. And jumping over to Article six on page 38 of your packet. Now donated leaves, one primary change is that with the donated leaves, currently, if an employee receives donated leave, the leave would revert back, revert to the the donor after 90 days of the unused leave. So this would remove that requirement and the donated lee would reside with the donor or donate donated. Speaker 0: All right. Let's me do that one because of the donated leave item is very popular here. I think it gets a lot of attention and use. I want to make sure we understand what the change is. And I confessed to having lost track there. Speaker 4: Yeah. So with the the donor the donor would offer what, provide donated leave to an employee who is eligible. And then after if there's a remaining 10 hours remaining that was unused for the recipient, usually that donated leave would be would go back to the donor, the person who's donating the leave after 90 days. And what this would do is that that donated leave, those 10 hours would continue to stay with the recipient indefinitely. Speaker 0: Correct. So once you give it away, it's gone. Speaker 4: It stays that way. And currently, the county, what after the 90 days move that leave back to the the donor. Speaker 0: You know, have you heard what the rationale is for that? Why the why the change or could someone how did you want to help us out? Come on. Speaker 4: Up to my knowledge, is the administrative burden to go back and forth and have that out to the donor. Speaker 0: All right. And we're going to have a we're going to get all sides here. Speaker 1: In the. Speaker 0: Morning of management and labor. Speaker 4: I'm Megan Peterson. I'm the director with the Office of Labor Relations. So the rationale is this was an administrative burden for payroll and central payroll staff to administer with the leave going back and forth. Sometimes it would get missed. It was also sometimes a basis for employees, you know, in some rare cases to sort of game the system if they were close to the cap or over. And so they would donate the leave and then it would come back to them after the end of the year. Speaker 0: And what about cash out value upon retirement or severance from the county would would recipient of donated leave be entitled to cash payment. Speaker 4: My understanding is once it's with them. Yes, that was that right. No. No. Okay. Apparently. No, that can't be. Speaker 0: That says no. Speaker 4: Yeah, this is our h.r. Policy advisor here are. Speaker 0: And then if you want to come forward to or do we need to. Speaker 4: Denise's here is. Speaker 0: Asking that denise. Speaker 4: Come for. Speaker 3: Any issues. Speaker 4: Related to non rep code changes associated with the MLA. Okay. Speaker 0: And it sounds like with some implementation expertize as well since she's running that fancy new computer system we bought them. All right. Thank you for being here, Denise. All right, Heidi, everyone. Okay, now on Councilmember Lambert. Go ahead. Speaker 1: You so hypothetical. We were talking about gaming the system. So, Mr. Jones, that we all love is going to retire. So we all give him 10 hours of sick leave, which he can then cash out as a bonus. That's not. No, no. So what I'm saying is prevent that. Speaker 3: So I recently worked with our brick and B people on this. So no, it's actually kept in a separate bucket, but they call them. Speaker 4: Buckets. Speaker 3: And it's separate on your pay stub like it actually says donated leave versus sick leave. And the donated leaves never been subject to cash out either for vacation. Or for the retirement of, you know, sick leave under retirement. And it will continue to be that way. So somebody can't give somebody a bunch right before they retire and then they can cash it out. Speaker 1: That's a great answer. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Speaker 4: Go ahead. Okay. So jumping over to Article seven on page one of the AP parental leave, as you may recall, in 2016, the county piloted paid parental leave and with ordinance 184054, their total compensation for the the unions, it extended the program to 2017. And then for the MLA, this would include provisions to contain the program and also for the non representative employees to have that same benefit. And those are the corresponding line numbers for the proposed ordinance for relating to non-representative employees. Speaker 0: Continue, not containment continue. Speaker 3: I'd also like to add that there were some union groups who hadn't originally signed off on paid parental leave, and this would encompass those groups and it would become part of the contract. So everyone in the coalition who signed off on the MLA would participate in the parental leave program. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert has a question. Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. So if I remember correctly, paid leave, parental leave. There was no requirement that you could work for like a week and then go off on paid parental leave, and then at the end, you'd be required to pay it back. It didn't work for six months after. After it. Is that still the same answer? Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. So? Well, there is a requirement that you have to have worked for the county for six continuous months of service at the time of the qualifying event. And then you also have to return to the county for six months of service following the leave. Speaker 1: Okay, great. So that was my question to that at the six months. Speaker 3: It's in both the MLA and in the code. Speaker 1: And on both ends point after. Okay, great. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 4: Okay. So the next article is Article eight relating to bereavement leave on page 39. For this change, it would increase the number of bereavement days of up to five days instead of three days. And the King County Code would also reflect that. It would also remove the language that entitles eligible employees to use up to three days to sickly if they have exhausted their bereavement leave. That's one item for the non representative represented employees. The next article. Article nine vacation leave cap. There will be a there's a certain cap depending on your hire date for King County employees. Employees who are hired after December 31st of 2017 would have a vacation leave cap of 320 hours, and employees hired before that date would have a cap of 480 hours and that will be consistent in the code as well for non reps and jumping to Article 12 Professional Development Page 41. This is a new pilot that will be available for representing employees to have a professional development program, kind of a scholarship program of $150,000. And there will be a one time program that will be available and obviously this does not apply for non reps. So this will just be for beginning January 1st of 2019. Speaker 0: And how you when you say one time, does that mean one year. Speaker 4: Or 20 in one year? Yes, correct. And so are there any other questions regarding fund raising? Speaker 0: Here's my comment. I think repeatedly we hear from our reverend workforce and others about an interest in additional training opportunities. Has been a consistent theme in my five years here. I know we're short of money, but a one year $150,000. Development program is pretty lean. There's a comment. So from from my perspective. Speaker 4: We we did. Speaker 0: I know you got it. There's cost and they negotiated that. But. Hopefully going forward, we can continue to invest from my perspective and our employees and their opportunities to grow and develop. It's just an interesting idea. Speaker 4: I think it's it's fair to say the discussion at the table was very collaborative on this issue, recognizing that we do have a need for greater training opportunities. And so we just like to study it over the course of the year. And then actually the intention is to extend it, assuming it's working well. Speaker 3: Okay, Denise, and this is something that we took from very successful programs and other public places. I know the Seattle city of Seattle has a program like this and the city of Portland also has a program like this. So, yes, it's very limited this time. But if it's something that continues to be successful, labor is, of course, open to expanding the program as much as. Speaker 4: Sure as we can response. Speaker 0: And I sense this is beyond kind of what might be mere professional training, but this is more development, leadership, development, management, development, that kind of thing. Speaker 3: So the way that it's used in other jurisdictions is if it's something that's not related to the job or something that they couldn't get approved at the department level, they go to the separate body and essentially apply for a scholarship and it could even have something that has nothing to do with what they currently do, but they want to explore another career. Speaker 0: Well, that sounds good. Speaker 4: Thank you. So moving on to Article 14 is on page 42 of your packet relating to reclassification and resulting pay. This would describe the reasons for reclassification for an employee and also particular groups. It also results with the the pay or the resulting result in pay of a reclassification. And this would also be mirrored in the King County Code. Currently this is shown and the career service rules for the county for non represented employees. But this would codify it and put it in in the code. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert, you're a bit of an expert on this. On the classification and resulting pay are you see that is okay. I confess to not understanding this and oh. Speaker 4: Reclassification. So if. Speaker 0: You could help. Speaker 4: Me a little more. Yeah, sure. So looking at I. Speaker 0: Was looking for a cover letter to help me out, but she's pointing to, I think. Speaker 4: The the column here for position reclassification. So if an employee requests for their position to be recast, they would have to follow these certain reasons. For instance, an employee's position is not assigned to the correct classification or there has been a significant or gradual change in the employee's body of work for at least one year, and that individual could request for the position to be recast to maybe it will result into a higher salary grade or the same salary grade once they're place in the correct classification or even a lower salary grade. So this will define that process and have a uniform process for for those reclassification requests. Speaker 0: What were the objectives of management and Labor with respect to these these changes? Help me understand what we're trying to achieve here from each side. Speaker 4: So with respect to reclassification and spousal special duty in particular, we have a myriad of stripes of approaches in the various collective bargaining agreement. So this was a true efficient consistency, a conforming one standard for all of the 60 governments. Speaker 0: This is a good example, then of what we were trying to achieve with the master labor agreement. Speaker 4: Yeah. Spot on, example. Speaker 0: Sure. Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 1: Well, thank you for thinking. I'm an expert on that. Maybe that's what happens to you on the employment committee for a decade or more, but thank you. So my thought on this was when you give somebody special duty, it says 30 days to 12 months so that you can have them out of classification for 30 days without increase in their pay right now. Speaker 0: Think you might be jumping to Article 50? Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 0: Let's note you highlight article 15 and Councilmember Lambert can follow up. Speaker 4: Yes, sure. So Article 15, special duty on page 43, these would be assignments that would last a minimum 30 days, but up to five years. And there's specific reasons for those assignments that to classify a special duty employee. And those are highlighted under, for instance, the 30 days to 12 month assignments must be approved by the department director. If the reason is due to work that exceeds either the volume or the complexity of what is routine and is for limited duration. There's also a section for term limited term employees, so we can talk about that. But for special duty, there are provisions that if the employee is in a special duty to have to result in pay of that, that the employee would get a premium pay for working in that higher level or for that special duty assignment. Speaker 1: So my question is to share with that, that you can take some reclassification for 30 days before you have to pay them out of classification. Speaker 3: So I'll chime in here. If you look at Article 37. Speaker 4: There's a separate article. Speaker 1: For working. Speaker 3: Out of classification for less than 30 for less than 30 days. Speaker 1: And when does that begin? Speaker 3: It is long as it can be one day from one day to 29 days. Speaker 1: So that was my concern. That first was the nightmare and paperwork, if it's going to be one day. So I think that's that's counterproductive to the simplest simplification effort we're trying to do. And actually, I think it's a benefit to work out a classification for a day or two or three or whatever, to find out, is this a classification I'd ever be interested in? You could work in a job for two days and say, this is not for me. And and why not have that as an opportunity for people to go into different classifications and see what fits for me? So I don't really like Article 37. But anyway, that's just my thought. Anyway, thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Speaker 4: Okay. So moving on, Article 26, grievance procedure on page 46, this outlines the steps for filing a grievance for the coalition members and essentially and also the level of management that will be notified for those each for each of those steps. Speaker 0: I suspect this is another area where consistency. We didn't have it before, but we're going to have it now. Speaker 4: Yeah, we're we're very excited about this. And the next one is Article 28 relating to economic equity on page 47. This would essentially allow should any non coalition bargaining unit with King County reach a more favorable combined general wage increase or benefit funding rate, that the Coalition would be able to reserve the right to reopen the MLA to bargain that impact of that decision. Speaker 0: Is that applied to non Coalition member unions, is that what you're saying? There were these are these are bargaining units within the Coalition if they achieve a better economic terms in a side agreement that you could reopen. Speaker 4: So this would apply to groups outside of the coalition with the exception of are safety sensitive our paramedics county sheriffs and then decisions where a higher combined general wage increase and benefit funding rate is awarded through an interest arbitration process which obviously the county has limited control over. Speaker 0: Those would be accepted. Speaker 4: That doesn't that would not trigger the economic equity banner. Okay. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 4: Okay. So last one that I have is Article 29 Coalition of Unions Incentive Pay. Last one part that superseding articles on page 48. This would provide a premium for the coalition members to receive up to a total of 3.25% premium for signing on to the MLA. So you may recall in January 2018 the Coalition received 1.75% general wage increase. And in the staff report, it also notes that the Coalition received a 1% premium in 2018 and that is not correct. The Coalition has not received that additional 1% yet because the MLA has not been approved. So just kind of breaking out the total premium based on the first or the 2017, 2018 total compensation Emma Way the council would allow a half percent general wage increase for the Coalition. Also the one premium, 1% premium for reaching a tentative agreement of the MLA. And then the 1.75% general wage increase would total to 3.25% if the MLA was approved by council. Speaker 0: Is any of that a one time? That doesn't go into the base? Speaker 4: No. It all goes into the base. Speaker 0: Okay. And how does that compare? I'm looking at the. November 2016 ordinance that adopted the memorandum of agreement here for 20,017 2018, and it addressed these wage increase and premiums. It looks like the numbers here are a touch lower for 2018. It looked like it would be a 2.75% increase for the Coalition. Is this 50 basis points higher for the 4%? Is that superseding this agreement? Speaker 1: And so that's right. Speaker 4: Yes. So in the course of bargaining, the master labor agreement last year, we agreed to an additional bump of half percent to the general wage increase. Speaker 0: Okay. So the Coalition agreed to 2.75 in this prior agreement and now we're bumping that seven basis points. Speaker 4: So the Coalition the agreement was a base gwp of 1.75. Right. On ratification of the MLA, an additional 1%. Okay. So that was, I believe, in the 2016 memorandum you're referencing. Speaker 0: That's right. And it covers 2018. Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 4: And then last year, we agreed to an additional half percent. Speaker 0: I see. So that was already been superseded. This agreement had already been superseded. Speaker 4: So the half percent will take effect. The one additional 1%, an additional half percent upon your adoption and implementation of the MLA. Speaker 0: All right. So it hasn't been approved? Speaker 4: That's correct. Speaker 0: All right. So what is the economic cost to the county of the 50 basis points. Speaker 4: There. Speaker 0: Beyond what you're saying agreed to? Speaker 4: It's 5.2 million. All right. Speaker 0: And that was. Given in exchange for what? Commitments on Labor's side beyond those that they already agreed to in the IMO way. Speaker 4: I can speak to but I'll let. Speaker 3: You. I mean, I get, I guess I would say, you know, that was part of the MLA. It's, it was something that was a big project. And in the course of bargaining, you know, there was that originally a coalition incentive for passing the MLA and we negotiated that up. So I would say that the reason for it is part of the MLA package. We are in total compensation bargaining right now and we committed to that. I'd also note that politically right now it's difficult for us because the non represented employees now are making more than we are because they got a 3.25% wage increase in January . So I mean that's already been passed. So I guess we're asking for the same wage parity as the non represented employees. Speaker 0: All that's compelling, I just don't think what I'm looking at here is are we paying twice for the same thing because that doesn't make sense. I've always felt that we ought to give representative folks who are participating this a premium over non and that was we were supposed to do that. I mean I guess I'm. Speaker 3: Well that didn't happen because the non reps got the same amount. So I mean the premium concept essentially for us on Labor side, I mean it's kind of just turned into a general wage increase. Speaker 4: And and to point out that Labor will be the coalition groups will be receiving retro payment back to January 1st. So they will they will have received the same amount in terms of the represented and non represented annual wage increase for 2018. That's true. If if it's passed, if it's a premium. Speaker 0: Okay. Council member Lambert. Speaker 1: Yeah, I see where you're going. And I've been worried about this too. I was when we first started this, and I am a huge supporter of the National Labor Agreement. The idea that we have, what is it, 78 bargaining agreements and 104 unions or some number like that, correct me if I'm wrong, is absurd. So but then when we signed to get on the master labor agreement, I was good with that because I thought it was fair to everybody and so I was fine with that. But now I'm beginning to feel like I'm working for a baseball team and I want, you know, my left fielder. So I'm going to do a signing bonus. You know, I don't think that the taxpayers are going to be really pleased with that continuing. And, you know, I've been on the Budget Committee and, you know, I think it was last year or the year before, I don't remember the amount that the salaries went up was almost the same amount of money as we had to cut out of the general fund. Now I realize that not every employee is paid by the general fund and it's a small relatively amount. So I'm aware of that. But it was interesting to me that the amount we were cutting was about the same amount as as what the salary increases were. And again, I know that it's not straight across because they aren't all directly in place. The $5.2 million is a lot of money, and I haven't heard yet what the count is going to be directly and maybe our budgetary knows better, but I had heard around 40 million so that, you know, a pretty large percentage of what end up having to cut. So it's difficult to see that. And I'm hoping that signing bonuses are a thing of the past and that the idea that working for the county is such a privilege because we get to serve people every day that and B do do as we talked earlier, we do do market analysis on a regular basis. So if we didn't do that, I'd have a completely different opinion, but we do do that. So I think between the market analysis and the benefits and the holidays that and the opportunity to serve, it's a really great place to work. So I'm not sure that signing bonuses should be necessary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaker 0: Thank you. With respect to the general wage increase, which is our new kind of term, as I think about for COLA, we don't have a COLA anymore. It's a general wage increase. We've gone here, as I understand it, to fixed amounts. Is that right? Speaker 3: Yes, that's. Speaker 4: Correct. Speaker 0: Is that consistent or inconsistent with the adopted labor policies of the County Council? Speaker 4: I don't know the answer to that offhand. My I don't recall reading in the old policies which have sort of been dormant for a while reference to that the DWI or COLA. You know, I do want to make just a couple of comments in response to Council Member Lambert's concerns. One issue that was at play in the negotiations last year is that the CPI for the area was rapidly escalating. So I don't have the figure at my fingertips here, but 3.25 is either close to or potentially below what the CPI is for 2018. Speaker 3: Right now, it's really 3.5 if. Speaker 0: You include housing costs, which is a big. Speaker 3: Number of Seattle, Tacoma. So it's you know, I feel like it's pretty fair how they do the CPI. Speaker 4: So we we both labor and management felt very solid in the 3.25% general wage increase. And I can't stress enough the efficiencies that this master contract will bring to our complex labor landscape here. So, you know, labor and management felt that this was a very solid, very fair deal. Speaker 0: And is the 3.5 for 18 only as 19 addressed? Speaker 4: 19 is not addressed. As Dennis referenced. We are currently in negotiations for total compensation for 2019 and 2020 and that will include the general wage increase as well as benefits. Speaker 0: Okay. To a comment and and then maybe a question, if I can remember, but the comment is, under our charter, the counties that county council, the legislative branch sets the labor policy. And when you say they are dormant and you can't tell me whether we have a variable or fixed rate in our policies, somebody is dropping the ball there. Either this legislative body is not exercising its obligations to set clear Labor policy and have the executive bargained as our agent, as the charter calls for or the executive is bargaining without any regard to the adopted Labor policies. And I think that we should have some dialog and do some work on that and make sure that we are giving the executive direction as is our obligation under the Charter with respect to Labor policy and understand from the executive who is frankly sometimes closer to the negotiating table, who is too close to negotiate, what is working and not working so we can have clearer Labor policies that give adopted policy and guidance to our bargaining agent, because I for one, feel that this is an area that hasn't had the attention it deserves, given the amount, and given that it's our biggest cost to do everything here at the county labor as it is with any organization. So I want to and I'm asking you to work with me as our head of MLR to take a look at our labor policies, make sure their current and fresh. I'm going to ask my colleagues to engage on this as well, because otherwise it's we're no longer setting policy. We're merely ratifying of what you bring to us. And I, for one, believe that's where we stand today. And that's not proactively setting policy, but merely ratifying what comes before us. And I think that's a dereliction of our obligations under the charter, and it's not fair to the voters. So I want to work with you on that. Speaker 4: We would welcome that opportunity. And I understand there was an effort in the 2016 time frame to refresh, update Labor policies and that. Speaker 0: There was some work on that. I don't know that we got to the finish line. Yeah. Speaker 3: I mean, our our concern and I think we were kind of the stalwarts and that is we really want to take an active role on that as well. The past I know we have and Dustin who's not here today, but as another Coalition co-chair has been involved in past Labor policies, it would definitely be something that we're interested and I'm not trying to make excuses for labor or for management, but keep in mind we're now in our third set of negotiations right now because we've been implementing such a revolutionary problem rolling basis. In 2020, they'll all catch up. So total comp and the MLA bargain will happen at the same time. And I'm not saying we wait until 2020, I'm just saying there is hope at the end of the tunnel. But it's been a bit of a slog and I think Megan can attest. Speaker 0: And the approach has been with respect for the executive to come in and brief the Council on an as needed basis with respect to the status of the negotiations and kind of have some dialog and get some informal feedback. To be honest, I don't believe and I appreciate that. I think that's been fine, but I think we owe you more. We owe you clearly thought out policies that are developed in consultation with our stakeholders. We're keeping our fiduciary obligations in mind, keeping our best employer obligation in mind that then you get a vote, that they're adopted , that you know where to go. Dialog, you get different members perspectives and off you go. And it's kind of a well we told them so let's I appreciate it sounds like there's an interest in kind of working on that and. I look forward to doing that with both of both of you, if I can. Casimir Lavrov reiterating my question was with respect to the management side, up for benefits out of this massive agreement in York. You mentioned that the executive believes there are vast or significant. I think maybe was your term of benefits of the simplification here? How do we and what are our plans for measuring that? Because we hear about it. And sometimes I feel like maybe those benefits are there. They may be there. They probably are there. But how do we quantify and we know what them what the general wage increase will cost. And you said about $5 million. How do how do you help us turn to the public and the labor and everybody and say, here is the savings and the efficiencies we achieved? Is there any plans to kind of assess and measure that? Speaker 4: Absolutely. So the executive branch is knee deep in looking at metrics to, you know, justify efficiencies, to tell the story of how we are saving taxpayers money. And we will be looking at how long our negotiations take, what efficiencies are gained from bargaining in coalition in terms of the time spent versus bargaining at 61 different small tables for the full gamut of what the CBA covers. One issue that we're continuing to to advance is the need to get away from retro payments, which are very costly. Yeah, they're difficult for our payroll staff to administer. And Denise can attest to this. And the last two total compensation bargains, we have delivered the agreements well in advance of contract expiration. Speaker 0: And that is consistent with adopted labor policy. That is that we should not have expired agreements. And I too often I was going to ask you one of my questions. How many how many how many folks are working or how many agreements are there that have lapsed. Speaker 4: Right. Speaker 0: Which often lead to those retro pay issues. Speaker 4: So so we're cognizant that there are models in the private sector of of bargaining over two weeks for an entire, you know, three year contract. Speaker 0: That's what I would call a Railton special, you know, expeditious. Speaker 3: And, you know, we may not we. Speaker 4: May not get there. Two weeks may be a little ambitious, but certainly blowing past the contract expiration. Bargaining in excess of a year is something that we've moved away from with Labor support. Speaker 0: But if I got you correctly, you're hoping through the efficiencies that you achieve here with the master Labor Agreement to be able to take your resources in a while are and on the Labor side of the table and address these contracts before they expire. I mean, I had to cut to thin today. Speaker 4: That's right. Speaker 3: And this essentially did that because we took all of the collective bargaining agreements under the MLA and we brought them all up at the same time. So we didn't have any coalition agreements expire, which I think is a huge win. Speaker 0: That is a big win. I mean, that's that's the right thing. Yeah. Folks not folks are working with a contract instead of without and management's working with the contract. Speaker 3: And it wasn't easy. I mean, making sure that Michael and others worked very different. Speaker 1: Or. Speaker 3: Worked very hard over that issue. Speaker 0: All right. Why don't you, Heidi, help us with any final hot topics? Oh, I'm sorry, Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. So this has been a topic that we've worked on for many, many years. And and getting the master agreement has been the heart of it. You know, we want people to know what the requirements are. I remember one time when I asked for something and they said I would be a change of working environment. And I said, For what? Well, you want to evaluate, you know, customer service. And I'm like, No, that's not a change of work environment. I expect every employee to put their best customer service. So there were some odd things in the past. The donning and doffing is not my favorite, not provision that was really important to one of our chefs, but I don't know that the chef is that interested in the donning and doffing policy. So, you know, I think there's some in the policies in the past that, as you said, people are added on. The other thing was there's two things. One, that the policies for labor used to be in a little handbook, but it wasn't on the computer. And I don't know if it's an ordinance or it's on the computer anymore. I don't know that. And the other thing was that when we did pass a contract that frequently there would be add on route changes that they called pocket changes that were made that were never reported back to us. And so we did a pilot a couple of years ago where we had our attorney at the time temperature and look at all of those were brought over to us, which we didn't even know existed, which was a problem. And. Then they put them in categories of no big deal. Questionable and something that definitely should have been negotiated. And the two lists did not match up. There were a lot of things on the no big deal that I attorneys that was a big deal. So that was enlightening to know that there were things happening post us that we were never informed about. So I think as we go forward, there has to be a circle that comes all the way back to us and that we're in it. Speaker 0: So I think as we work on those Labor policies, we might want to specifically address this issue of side agreements and whether we want to formally adopt or clarify the notion of minor. MODERATOR Major and what should get council approval or what shouldn't? I think that, frankly, it's somewhat vague right now and it's just being done as it's being done. So I know that's an interest of yours, Councilmember Lambert. And there's kind of been a protocol developed, and if it's big, send it over. And if not, maybe not. Speaker 4: So if I could speak to that. Our office airs on the side of of transmitting monies to council, especially where they have a fiscal impact. Speaker 0: We also don't approve them. Speaker 4: Yeah. And we view you as our partner. So, you know, the other issues, we're really trying to limit those after the fact, most inevitably working conditions, issues come up that need to be addressed. But that's part of of the greater efficiency as well. Speaker 0: Good. All right. Heidi, anything further at this initial briefing? Oh, Councilmember Dutchy, before we jump to that. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. Speaker 0: Thank you. Sorry. I apologize if I missed. Speaker 1: Come all the way down here. No, no. That was first on my way of thinking. Yeah, I. I look at all this information and the scope of the effort that's clearly gone in underneath all of this is pretty impressive. So I want to thank everyone who was involved for I know each one of these provisions was probably debated in some great detail and probably many of them were hard discussions. When you went back to your respective home offices and talked to the folks you are representing. So thank you for that. I think the the benefit of moving in this direction, of continuing to streamline, consolidate, make things consistent is going to really pay off, as you said. I do want to understand the changes a little better. And I know we're not voting on this today, but I wonder if, like, for example, when I look at the table one, there's a column that talks about the effect of the MLA and then the effect of the ordinance changes for non reps. I want to make sure I understand the changes from today's agreements to the MLA. So like what's new here in this third column of this chart? What's and I'm not 100% sure I've followed all that and it's possible that it's because there's changes to multiple different things. But I would love to understand where we're seeing new things increases, decreases, changes. So the one that jumps out at me, for example, is I'm just going to pick on this one the vacation accruals. Vacation accruals have been something that we have all worked very hard on for a very long time. And I see Debbie Bellum in the back nodding because we were on this some years ago and there was a level of accruals that was the standard limit in county policy and I believe it was fairly well implemented through the bargaining agreements. I don't recall that there were a lot of exceptions to that in the bargaining agreements, except that I'm going back a couple of decades now. Nobody was enforcing them. So you had people with hundreds of hours above the limit on their books, and we went through a very painstaking process of bringing that down to where then it was the amounts were being enforced. And the reason that matters, the reason why it's a problem for somebody to carry a zillion hours on their books is because it's an unfunded liability and we don't know when it will hit. So it makes it hard to budget it, you know, and then if especially if we had layoffs and people wanted to cash it all out and we weren't. So to have the limits is important for as a budgeting exercise. At the same time, we want our employees to be able to manage their leave. We want them to save up some amount of leave for when there's an unexpected need to take some time off and they can use it. That goes for sick leave and vacation. I want to understand, when we increase it now up to 400 and some odd hours, which is a fairly significant increase, what does that mean and why are we doing that? Speaker 3: So we actually. Speaker 4: Decreased the cap. This was one of the most contentious within our. Yes. Okay. So work a lot of nodding. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're we're cognizant that. We are an outlier here in King County in terms of our vacation cap relative to. Speaker 1: Our prime is I misremembered the numbers, but I did remember it was an issue. So I guess I'll put that and just say I can only imagine what a difficult conversation that was with your members. And and I appreciate that we're working in that direction because that's just about fiscal responsibility. I mean, we trying to have policies that allow people to be gone when they need to be, when they're sick, when their kids are sick, when their family's sick, take a reasonable amount of time off because we want people to be refreshed and sharp and some of our jobs are really physically demanding. We want people to have their time just to recharge so that they're well and have, you know, a good attitude. At the same time, the way the leaves have been used in some ways is has been really a challenge from, you know, maintaining a fiscal responsibility towards the taxpayer. So thank you for that. But I'm just like, that's it. So you said it's gone down. I read it and I was using my memory to say, Oh, I thought it went up. Which underscores my larger point, which is I need to understand what the changes are better than I can get from this chart. And I don't know. Speaker 3: We had to grandfather in current employees got as many of them were relying on that pass for VEBA and for retirement and for other things. So the balance that we struck and what I could tell my constituents is any current employees get this grandfathered in, but it's going away. And any employees that start after, I believe it's December 13th of last year and I think start with the new cap. They're on notice. I can plan for that for their financial future. Speaker 1: And I think that's totally fair. People need to have I mean, they've planned to they've worked with specific policies over time. To yank them out suddenly is to break to break a you know, to break the reliance that we have created. The point is, I'd like to understand where we were and where we are. And that doesn't appear in this. This chart is super easy to read. I suppose what I'm asking for is a slightly more complicated chart, and that would be helpful before we get to final passage. Thank you very much and thank you all for your work and thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember Belushi. Heidi, final highlights at this initial briefing. Speaker 4: I think it's all covered. One thing just to highlight with the non represented employees, the fiscal impact of that, that there will be about approximately $540,000 to implement with a 257,000 general fund charge. Speaker 0: And I know we talked about this, but you've got to remind me, are they getting the same general wage increase and why is that? I thought we should have like a 50 basis premium on the represented side. I guess that's a you know, we say they're getting it. That's a decision the council makes every time a budget and we don't have to do that. Right. And the last time I had this discussion with staff, it was, well, if we don't, they'll organize a new union and but they haven't. So I'm I think it's something we ought to we should consider carefully. You your workers are giving up a lot of things that they're entitled to in terms of individually negotiating contracts, in terms they made sacrifices. The table that has to be recognized, it seems to me. So I'm it wasn't that long ago there was a differential. I thought so. Maybe. I know Pat's telling me now. All right. All right. So why are we talking about the unrepresented workforce here in the context of this, in terms of their general wage increase? Speaker 4: So according to the executive, the the intention is to continue the practice of extending the same benefits and standards to non. Speaker 0: I see. So when where if we're going to endorse this, he's warning us or at least not warning but giving us the heads up here that has an implication for your unrepresented workforce on the budget. Speaker 3: So the other. Speaker 4: Issue is that they're part of this package you'll be considering involves changes to the code. Speaker 0: I see four non. Speaker 4: Represented employees that are tethered to the master labor agreement provisions. Speaker 2: There's actually two items. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: There's the ordinance implementing the MLA and there's the. Speaker 2: Ordinance changing the code. Speaker 0: As it pertains to the owner. And, and okay. So I'm going to ask for some more information on the unrepresented workforce and the code changes if we're cementing into code some kind of policy that would tie their annual general wage increase to that in the Labor. If that's true and the represented refers to you. Speaker 3: Know so what the ordinance that's before you it just brings the code in alignment with the benefits and practices that were adopted in the MLA. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 3: To build on the efficiencies that were previously. Outlined. And to bring even. Speaker 4: Greater equity to the King County workforce. Speaker 3: By extending those same. Speaker 4: Benefits and practices to our. Speaker 3: Non represented employees. So that extends those standards and efficiencies to another like 19% of our employees. Speaker 0: And council member of the GROW our budget committee chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it's not really a budget comment. I, I just wanted to appreciate the line of questioning and I think it is worth exploring between now and final passage. When I worked at the state level, we struggled with the same question of do non-representative employees get to enjoy all of the benefits of those who are participating in with representation and advocacy without any responsibility to participate? And there's a Supreme Court case pending right now with the issues of why it. Speaker 1: Is and some of the solutions. Speaker 0: That the state implemented in some years in the budget were to when there was an increased benefit, were to provide that benefits sooner to the represented employees and have the implementation dates be later for non represented. But it's a question that we struggle with at the state level too, and I think it's a very valid one that I hadn't thought of until your line of questioning. Thanks. It's an interesting issue. I mean, we want to treat employees equitably and not have a set of second class employees. But we also have this dynamic of. You know, folks negotiating at the table and what that means. Speaker 3: And I just want to clarify, the non-representative place have gotten that 3.25 since January and our membership has not received that. Speaker 4: So just ironic, Claire. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Well, I, too, want to thank the executive branch and the coalition for these years of hard work and working in a. Really a collaborative way to achieve shared objectives while not ceding your respective interests from the management or the workforce side. I know that sometimes sounds inconsistent, but and sometimes is inconsistent. You've got to you can't always have a shared objective, but it seems like you guys have really made great progress here. As we go forward and maybe in our next meeting of the committee, I'd kind of like to get a sense of whether we've kind of done the big master labor agreement with a lot of things or whether we've kind of gone small and or narrow, if you will, and these these 60 agenda raises that kind of issue for me. And I know that was an issue at one point in terms of how it was characterized when when you started off versus where you at and ended up and what the implications are that for kind of the next round of national labor agreement bargaining and do we broaden its scope or have we gotten most of what we were hoping to achieve out of the process? Speaker 4: That would be, yeah, a great discussion. And I suppose it matters whose perspective you have in terms of whether it's a small master first master contract or large. I there were many other topics that the county was interested in tackling, but, you know, this was the first ever master contract and it was a seismic shift psychologically for our labor groups. And so, you know, we'll continue to evolve. Speaker 0: Or good anything else. Thank you all for your work on it and we'll look forward to getting questions answered between now and the next committee and the next committee and moving it forward expeditiously. I would for members knowledge, let me make a suggestion here that we have this at our next committee meeting. And unless there is a concern from the legal beagles that we would try and adopt it and on an expedited basis for adoption at the full council meeting that following Monday, because obviously there's a retroactive pay issue here and we like to move things along on that, or at least I do when we can. All right. Is that. I'm seeing nods there. So. Well, we're going up the next meeting with the anticipation that it would be passed out with a do pass recommendation on an expedited basis for that by Monday. All right. All right. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE relating to standardizing benefits that were bargained in the Master Labor Agreement; amending Ordinance 12014, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.010, Ordinance 12014, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.040, Ordinance 12014, Section 14, and K.C.C. 3.12.110, Ordinance 12014, Section 19, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.190, Ordinance 4324, Section 27, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.210, Ordinance 18408, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.219, Ordinance 12014, Section 21, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.220, Ordinance 15558, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.222, Ordinance 12014, Section 22, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.223, Ordinance 13743, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.224, Ordinance 7956, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.225, Ordinance 12014, Section 23, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.230, Ordinance 12077, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.240, Ordinance 12014, Section 25, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.250, Ordinance 12498, Sections 1 and 4 through 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.335, Ordinance 12014, Section 50, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.15.020, Ordin

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_03212018_2018-0148

Speaker 0: All right. Well, hold off on approving the minutes and move on to proposed ordinance number 2018 0148. As we have discussed a number of times in this committee and at the full council, the voters of King County previously approved a charter amendment making our county charter gender neutral. And then, since early last year, we've been working to complete that same body of work for the entirety of the King County Code, which has been quite an effort. We've had a number of different updates to the code. This is our fourth and final ordinance before the committee. It would be really cool to complete this work during Women's History Month. That'll be a that would be aggressive. But let's try and and I just want to say, before we even start this one, that staff have just done an incredible amount of work. This has been detailed, very, very large body of work and combed through literally hundreds of pages of code to make this update. So I want to thank Erin Osnes, who's here today. Sam Porter Bruce Ritson, I don't know if he's here. And Russell Peifer, who's just been there. Hello? No, you're waving it. You're waving in somebody else. Not at me. That's not Russell. Okay, Albers, but welcome to you. Anyway, now we'll move on to a briefing by Sam Porter. Speaker 2: Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sam Porter, Council Central Staff. The documents for this item are found on page nine of your packet. Proposed ordinance 2018 one for eight as the last, as you mentioned, in a series of four ordinances that would make changes to the King County code, removing gendered pronouns and historically gendered terms wherever possible. The proposed ordinance only includes changes to Title six that pertain to business licenses and regulations. No substantive legal or policy changes are proposed to be made through this process, but other drafting corrections are have been incorporated as proposed by the code advisor. As you know, motion 14680 was passed in July of 2016, directing the Clerk of the Council to develop options for how to apply gender neutral references throughout the King County Code. The same day related ordinance 18316 passed, which placed an item on the November 2016 ballot to amend the King County Charter, as you mentioned, to make the language of the charter also gender neutral. This charter amendment was passed by a majority of the voters in November of that year. This proposed ordinance is consistent with Washington state law that rendered the state law gender neutral over a period of six years. Throughout the code, the series of four ordinances replaced gendered pronouns such as he, him, she or her with the title of the actor in impacted sentences. Table one on page ten of your packet contains a sample of other proposed changes to historically gendered terms in the proposed ordinance before you today. As with the previous ordinances, executive staff have been consulted regarding the proposed changes and their feedback has been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. And that concludes my remarks. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. Is there any discussion, comments, questions? It seems that we do have a quorum at this time, so. Speaker 2: Councilmember Colwell Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd also like to thank the staff for your work and for councilmember founded Ship to lead in bringing this forward. It's really interesting. I I'm very observant of gender, language and the need for respecting the rights for women and conversely, to be able to be identified in a way that reflects the other gender. And I do notice that people occasionally on Facebook or whatever get upset about this. And I have one constituent who continually makes remarks whenever this topic comes up. And he, you know, he by golly, he is going to use man and he to reflect women and girls all the time and no one's going to stop him. Well, I bring this up only because I think it's important that people understand that in our passing this legislation and it's going into our code throughout it, we're not in any way directing people to speak a certain way or to write a certain way. They can still do whatever they want. This is just reflected in our codes and people. Sometimes you don't get that. But we're not out there as the speaking. Right. You know, the the politically correct way to speak for people. We're here reflecting a need that had arisen in our own code. So I just want to make sure that people understand that. Speaker 0: MANCHIN Thank you, Councilmember Carlos, and thank you also for pushing us to do the entire code because we probably would have stopped us with the charter. I mean, this is it's good to get it done. Councilmember Lambert has a question. Speaker 2: Thank you. Could you tell me why ears was not an appropriate term? The base of air comes from here. Oh, you got to be kidding me. I'm not kidding you. I wouldn't kid you. Speaker 0: And I will say, just as a person who once upon a time studied and practiced just enough a state law to be sound like I know what I'm talking about when I don't. But beneficiaries is a broader, more inclusive legal term as well. It's not errors. I think people think you're just inheriting money beneficiaries or people who might be receiving other kinds of benefits besides just property. So I think it's probably an improvement. Gender. Wiser? No, I'm guessing. Speaker 2: So I didn't have the benefit of knowing that nuance. So thank you for saying that. But you could have an error. Is this correct? An error? Who is not necessarily a beneficiary? Speaker 0: I don't think so. Beneficiaries a broad term. I mean, somebody, one who benefits from. And you certainly benefit if you inherit somebody's property. But an error, I think, is commonly understood to be somebody who inherits property. Interesting. Well, my other lawyer friends want to dove into this debate. I know your discretion. That's very smart. Speaker 2: So I could actually have an error. Say I had a say. I had a child that I chose not. Speaker 0: To have. Speaker 2: In my will. They would be an error, but they wouldn't be a beneficiary. Speaker 0: I don't think that's correct. That's correct. No, but. Right. But it's a it's a decent question, legal counsel, to. Speaker 2: Look at this. But we will run this one. Speaker 0: Both times and again and be sure. Speaker 2: Counsel. Yeah. I'm sorry I missed hearing what the response was to Councilmember. Legal Counsel did review this ordinance, but we will run this question by the minute. I mean, why error? Oh, it was just them. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. I would appreciate a motion to move this out of committee today since there's only minor question. And even if we made a change, it would be easily done at full council. Councilmember Lambert, would you like to do that? Speaker 2: Should I be happy to? Do you want to with with that recommendation? I don't care. Either way. Speaker 0: I think with a recommendation would be good. You know, we can make one last amendment if we need. Okay. Speaker 2: Manager I'd like to move ordinance citizen 18 0148 with a duplex recommendation. Okay. Speaker 0: This motion is before us. Any final comments or questions? I will just add on to what Councilmember Caldwell says. You know, it's you don't get a lot of those kind of at least I don't get a lot of those kinds of comments from people who object to us making our language more inclusive and respectful. But I like to tell the story of walking down the hallway upstairs where there's pictures of historical pictures of the council over time. And there have always been women council members. And the fact that our codes don't recognize the half of the gender that has sat up here, it's I think if we're not recognized in the code , then how are we doing with the public at large? I think it's just a matter of respect and inclusion, and we're not telling anybody how to live their lives or how to use their own language. I think it's a very positive change and I've supported it all along and I thank you, my colleagues, for supporting it as well. All right. With that, all those and. Oh, sorry, a no amendments. Would you please call the roll? Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member. Demovsky Council Member. Dunn Council Member. Gazette Council Member. Cornwall Council Member Lambert I Council Member McDermott. Speaker 1: High. Speaker 0: Council Member of the Grove. Speaker 2: Council Member one right there. Madam Chair, I Madam Chair, voters. Six ayes. Speaker 3: No, nos. Three. Speaker 0: Excuse two. Thank you. The item will move forward. I'd like to expedite that. Speaker 2: No, no. It requires special noticing because there's the regulations. Speaker 0: All right, we want expedited. There's legislations that require public notice. So we have to do we have to take a regular path. All right. We'll do our best to try to get it done before the end of the month. But can we go back and approve the minutes of the March 7th meeting? Councilmember Lambert.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE clarifying Title 6 of the King County Code, establishing a gender neutral code and making technical corrections; and amending Ordinance 1888, Article I, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.01.010, Ordinance 1888, Article I, Section 4, and K.C.C. 6.01.030, Ordinance 1888, Article II, Section 4, and K.C.C. 6.01.080, Ordinance 1888, Article III, Section 1, and K.C.C. 6.01.110, Ordinance 1888, Article III, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.01.150, Ordinance 2287, Section 6, and K.C.C. 6.04.060, Resolution 12714, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.04.170, Resolution 12714, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.04.200, Ordinance 7216, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.08.042, Ordinance 4270, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.08.090, Ordinance 4206, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.08.100, Ordinance 13548, Section 4, and K.C.C. 6.09.030, Ordinance 13548, Section 13, and K.C.C. 6.09.120, Ordinance 13548, Section 15, and K.C.C. 6.09.140, Ordinance 13548, Section 17, and K.C.C. 6.09.160, Ordinance 1294, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.12.020, Ordinance 1294, Section 3,

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_03212018_2018-0069

Speaker 0: We'll take a look at that. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? All right, Jeff, thank you very much for covering. And we will take this up again at our next meeting. We'll move on to item seven, which is an item to approve the enhanced 911 systems strategic plan. The enhanced 911 system is a really large and complicated system, and it's a very critical system. It's what people rely on when they call for emergency help. It's comprised of 13 public safety answering points or piece ups, as we have all learned. And they all they're necessary there behind the scenes, but they're necessary to answer 911 calls and dispatch the appropriate help. This plan has been in motion since this committee and the Regional Policy Committee established the work program in 2015. So today we come to the culmination of a great deal of work over a long period of time. The Regional Policy Committee approved this item at its March 7th meeting and it is now before us for approval. I will say when we started this work, I know it was very contentious. It happened before I came on the council. But one of the very first things I was invited to after being elected was a meeting of some of the 911 folks on the east side. And they told me at that time we were really worried. This was really terrible, but it's going a little better now and it just went better and better. And we've really all come together. It's been it's been great to see how hard work and patience and working through issues can really pay off. And that owes a lot to the folks sitting in front of me right now. I'll introduce in a moment. So there's been a tremendous amount of work and we're now ready to move forward and tackle the issues of the E911 system together with all of the piece ups. So with that, I'm going to call on Lisa Kay to brief the committee and then introduce the panelists who are here to walk us through this decision point today. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 2: Lisa K Council Staff. Today, I am honored to be joined by the co-chairs of the planning group that led the staff work on the proposed plan. Kathy Lombardo, who's the interim manager for the E911 Man program, is to my left. To her left is Laura Ueland, who is the executive director for Valley Communications, one of the public safety answering points where I'm going to be calling them piece ups. And then Tom Connie, who is the deputy director for the Department of Executive Services. He was also co-chair of the Finance Task Force for this work. As you mentioned, Madam Chair, proposed ordinance 2018 0069 would approve the King County Regional E911 strategic plan, and it would establish the King County Regional E911 Advisory Governing Board. My staff report begins on page 113 of your packet, and the plan itself begins on page 127. The substitute version of the ordinance before this committee today was approved by the Regional Policy Committee, as Councilmember Belden, you mentioned. It adds a requirement for an annual report to the Regional Policy Committee on implementation of the plan's recommendations, and it also corrects a typographical error. Council members Baldacci, Dunn and Lambert served on the 15 member leadership group for this planning process, which also included elected officials and staff from Sound Cities, the city of Seattle, the county executive , the sheriff, a fire commissioner, and two of the piece ups. You'll find the complete list of the leadership group, the planning group and task force members on page 365 of your packet, which I think is the last page of your packet. Actually, it's not the last page of your packet, said the Regional Policy Committee. There's more. With the chair's permission, I'll keep the briefing at a fairly high level, given that this committee has had past briefings. If you want more detail, just feel free to interrupt me or you can ask at the end. Okay, I'll start with a short introduction to E911 recap the genesis of the plan that's before you today, and then summarize its major elements. So a911 call that's placed within King County today touches at least five major telecommunication systems from the time the call is placed to when eight is dispatched. You can see a general illustration of the system in FIG. one on page 271 of your packet. So, for example, a person in King County uses a private telephone service provider to make a911 call on what's called the public switched telephone telephone network. The private service provider routes the 911 call to the State Emergency Services Network, which is called the S9+. The state then routes the call to the regional E911 system, which is managed by King County's in an on one program office. The program office then facilitates the call delivery to the correct peace up staff at the Peace Up, then answer the call and dispatch appropriate search resources. And keep in mind that call, answering and call dispatch are two separate functions within a piece up. That'll come up a little bit later in this briefing. Knowing those five steps is important because the strategic plan before you today applies to just a subset of that complete system, just the county's program office and the call taking functions of the piece ups. So two of those five steps are addressed in this in the system plan. Those two functions. Are funded by a 70 cent monthly excise tax assessed per telephone line. The call dispatch functions are separately funded by the local agencies served by the World Peace APS and King County, which are listed on page 114 of the staff report . There is a 13th piece app, which is the test piece app, which is used to do trial runs of new technology before it goes live. It's pretty important to get it right before you incorporate it into the system. So the system was relatively straightforward when we all had the same kind of analog telephones, but that's been changing, as you know. And the federal government launched an initiative some time ago called Next Generation 911, which I'll be calling New 911 to modernize existing landline based technologies and upgrade systems to support wireless and other emerging technologies such as text, photo and video transmission, so that they can be used with the 911 systems. Today, Washington State is in the midst of upgrading its emergency services network to support these additional energy 911 functions that upgrades called sign up to. And it drives some very significant local changes. Basically, if the county and the peace apps want to fully implement the new 911, I'm getting into too much detail. Mr. DEMBOSKY Here, you're like. Speaker 1: Well. Speaker 0: You know, it's an important item. Don't, don't don't be self-conscious about the level of detail. Just keep going until until instructed otherwise. Speaker 5: Variances in the work you're doing and how we can accelerate the enhanced 911 deployment because it's so vital to get responses to folks. Frankly, oftentimes in DV situations, in crisis, where you can't get on the phone. And so we've had an interest in the. So I think I'm paying close attention. I didn't mean to. Speaker 2: So I wasn't sure how to interpret your concentration. Speaker 1: All good. Speaker 2: In any case, if the county in the piece helps want to fully implement what the changes that the state are going to make available with their I net two, then the program office and the piece ups have to implement and support compatible systems. That local implementation, as you know, has been a challenge both in terms of how to best keep up with that technology, which is just changing so rapidly and how to pay for the new systems because it will be more expensive than what we're doing now. Unfortunately, neither the federal nor the state government has provided any local funding for that new 911 initiative, and King County's forecasts for some time have shown that projected system expenditures are going to outstrip revenues, leading to a significant deficit. And I'll get to that a little bit later, too, in this context. Then the County Council, in collaboration with the Regional Policy Committee, approved an ordinance in October 2015 that resulted in the strategic plan that was before you today. The plan was unanimously approved last November by the Multijurisdictional Leadership Group for recommendation to the County Council. It addresses three major areas governance, technology and finance. And I'll go over those briefly for you. I'll start with governance. The plan recommends and the ordinance establishes a new regional advisory governing board with specific roles and responsibilities and a decision making and appeal process. You can see the details for that on page 116 and 117. In your packet, the governing board would be advisory to the nine month run program office, would have 12 voting positions, one for each piece up and operate by consensus as much as possible. In the event that a vote was needed, a positive vote has to meet two thresholds approval from 40% of those present and from piece ups representing 60% of current call volume. The plan also provides a detailed process for decisions and appeals in the event that the Program Office and or the executive don't agree with a recommendation from the advisory governing board, you'll see a diagram for that on page 146. And if you want to see a verbal explanation of that, that's on page 117. And I can walk you through that if you have questions about that. Moving on then to the technology recommendations. The technical technology plan identifies extensive performance measures and targets associated with strategic objectives and actions. But most critically, the plan identifies a path forward for an energy 911 based on a process to implement a new single platform system architecture while monitoring the assumptions that support that preferred option. This moves the core elements of the 911 system infrastructure from each individual piece up to a single host platform that will have three or four nodes. The task force found that compared to directly connecting each of the 12 piece ups to the state's I net using the single platform architecture but provide increased security. Be more fair and equitable with increased capacity to manage call volume surges would make more capabilities available, provide greater interoperability and provide for common management solutions. The major drawback is that single platform architectural will likely incur new networking costs of about $700,000. Per year to connect the platform nodes to each of the piece ups. That cost wouldn't exist if the USA network was directly connected to each of the 12 piece ups. Assuming that the state didn't change its current funding commitments because several of these assumptions, as I just mentioned, the technology and that is the changing and the costs are a little bit in flux in terms of what the state is going to pay for. The leadership group put a very strong caveat in the plan that any additional information that emerges during the RFP process for the single platform provider could modify the preferred course of action so that there are some steps in here that would be that would raise red flags if this decision needed to be revisited. Turning next then to the finance recommendations, the consultant in the Finance Task Force developed a first time ever financial model of the regional E911 systems revenue and expenditures, with a lot of help from the piece ups in the program office. The new model provides a financial baseline for the system and projects, and the bad news is it projects a negative fund balance starting in 2023, which is a few years later than had been estimated previously. However, using the model, the consultant was able to develop and quantify estimated impacts of changes to revenue and expenditures that could be implemented to eliminate the forecasted deficit. Those are listed on a page on page 119. So as you can tell, there are some pretty big decisions that are still remaining to be done. This plan provides a framework to make some of those decisions, and it has a high level implementation timeline for specific governance, technology and finance actions. So you'll see that there are key milestones for formation of the Regional Advisory Governing Board. The target was first quarter of this year to complete new contracts between King County and the peace ups. By the end of this year. To connect the state air, sign up to to King County by the first quarter of 2019 to execute a new contract, to develop that single new platform, new single platform system architecture by the third quarter of 2020 with a project with a system in place by the first quarter of 2022. And then also, very importantly, to identify any potential expenditure reductions and implementation of any new revenue sources by the end of 2021. The new the new Advisory Governing Board will have significant involvement in working with the program office to meet these milestones. Council's primary involvement will be through the budget process and also approval of the contracts that the executive will negotiate between the county and the peace ups. That completes my report. Madam Chair and I and my cohorts at the table here would be happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Lambert has a question. Speaker 2: Thank you. I don't remember on page 121, I don't remember that we had talked about the egis to connection to King County taking. Was that five or six quarters and then the contract for King County? Is that what we had agreed to, that it would take that long? I'll ask Cathy Lambert. I'm sorry. For part of the other. Yeah, the other capital. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 4: Sorry. By the way, Cathy Lombardo, program manager for 911. Speaker 2: Could you repeat the question? I'm sure I'm just looking at the implementation timeline and looking at how long it is between areas. Yes, I know that two connection to King County in the contract for the system architecture executed. So it goes from the first quarter of 2019 to the third quarter in 2020. Speaker 4: Well, those aren't dependent. Well, they are dependent on one another. But the actual contract for the platform has to we have to go through an RFP process. We have to actually design the system first and then develop an RFP to actually implement the project. So those two, while the LSI Net two is required for the platform, they're not. I think you're thinking about them differently than maybe you need to be thinking about them in terms of the implementation for the platform versus Eastside. The two are. Speaker 2: Separate. They are separate. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. I got that right. Speaker 0: And the other questions, what would you like to say? A few words, how you've come to the end of a long process. Surely somebody would like to say something. Speaker 2: You want to start? Speaker 0: It's not required. Speaker 1: But I was Tom County, deputy director of the Department of Executive Services. I just want to remind you of a couple of quick points. One, before we forget about it, I've got to say, Lisa, thank Lisa for a contributions to the process. She was steadfast, insightful and impactful through all the time we were going through this. So thanks again from all of us in the group and as. As a reminder, we have moved the E911 man program office. The council did that to case Haiti over the past year because increasingly it really is a technology platform delivery service that is kind of the regional function. And this is this is a case where the process we've gone through, it's been long and a bit arduous, but the process is as important as the strategic planning product you see in front of you. This the process and the plan give us it has put the program in a position to adapt it to what is clearly an evolving kind of technology world. So you're saying that to the specific kind of definitions of what, next year 911 means there's still a lot of things that are not completely defined that we're in position now to more flexibly and transparently kind of meet the challenges in front of the system. So I appreciate all the efforts. Speaker 2: Laura mullins, executive director of Communications Center. And I would echo everything that's been said so far. This has been a long, arduous process, but it has been role defining. It is it is a new reality in King County for the peace efforts. This process has elevated the attention to the King County Council and beyond. So we have attention and your support has been tremendous. So thank you for that. This is a technology, world and environment and the peace efforts support did support the movement to create. But this is also a people job and this is a people world. People called 911. They want to hear a voice. They want to know that something's happening. So the peace efforts, while we support that, we are also very cognizant of the relationship that is required to deliver. Speaker 0: The nine on. Speaker 2: One service. And we have a fantastic foundation through this process of strong relationships. So if nothing else, I'm thankful for that. I'm thankful for all of it. But this has redefined the relationship among the county peace efforts and it's fantastic. Great. Thank you. We've come a long way, baby. Speaker 4: And I'm going to just use the phrase creative chaos, and I'll tell you why in a second. But with when you have creative chaos on my mind, you come up with a much better solution than you would have ever had when you started separately. So recently we've been talking about some things internally and with several other piece of directors, and we have this constant debate about people and and technology not versus technology. And we actually have, I think, competing, sort of chaotic roles. The county is responsible for a technological solution. The piece that directors are responsible for people, but so are we. But at our base and at our core as King County, our responsibility is that technological system that enhances the ability of the peace of directors and their their folks to actually contact or connect with people in the community when they're at their worst days ever. And so from that vantage point, that creative chaos is going to continue. But we have a framework now, I think, for working through that. And we yeah, we've come a long way, baby. I guess I'll close the same way I started. Speaker 0: So it has taken a really focused and flexible approach from all the folks at the table. There was a lot of expertize around that table, but also a lot of history, and that can be some of the hardest thing to overcome. And I'm just really impressed with how you all did it. So congratulations to you and thank you very much for the hard work. I just have two quick one comment and one question and then maybe we can move to action. My comment is to Lisa. I just want to thank you so much for the very clear and simple description of the appeals process. You may recall I was concerned about how complicated it was for quite a while, and I get it now. And that's largely due to I know how hard you work to to be able to explain it in a way that an average human being could track. So thank you so much for that. And the second question is about the ten year financial plan. It's good news that the the date at which our projected fund balance will go negative has been pushed out by quite a few years from where we were, but we still need to work on it. How will that process come back here? Will that come during a budget cycle? Will that be a report? Is there a particular plan for that to come to council? Speaker 2: So I'll give you a preliminary answer and then I'll probably turn to Tom as the finance chair or if Laura wants. Anyhow, I think it's going to come to you by way of the budget. And you may see some some initial numbers in the upcoming biennial budget proposal as some of the groundwork is laid. You'll also probably see some of it. You may see some of it depending on what the content is that's going to be in the contracts that are negotiated with the piece ups. But Tom, did you have any other thoughts. Speaker 1: Out of the one thing to add in the Regional Policy Committee if there was an addition of an annual report back to that committee? So as part of that report, they'll be a touch back to see like, okay, so what is the financial position of the fund right now? Great. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you all. We'll look forward to following along with that. And I would that I want to ask Vice Chair Lambert to move this put this item before us for a vote. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to propose ordinance 2018 0069.2 of the Dew Point recommendation. Speaker 0: Okay. Final comments. Questions. Council Member Tomasky. Speaker 5: Bingaman Chair I just want to add my words of appreciation and respect for folks coming together. It's a different presentation than we had when. This first started. And I think it's a it's a credit to the peace gaps in your leadership, but also to the county and its willingness to listen and respond as a kind of regional government and a convening entity, as well as a service provider. And I think we can take some lessons from this experience. It's very impressive that you've worked together to come up with a governing structure, and that will help solve the problems that will come up and the challenges that will come up on a on a going forward basis so that things don't bubble over. Right. And that's just really impressive. I know that probably took a lot of work and and discussions and compromise. So I just wanted to commend commend you all at the county and out in the field that do this work. Nicely done. And to you, too, Lisa. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Did you say something, Councilman Leonard? Speaker 2: So thank you for having served on the committee. I got the privilege of seeing all those balls in the air, and they actually didn't fall on anybody's head, which was a good thing. And it's largely because of all of you at the table being willing to jump in to creative chaos. I love that term and being able to be really clear about the the different issues that we were dealing with. And there were many of them, for instance, what the state was doing and all the different variables that we not rush because we didn't know what was ahead and making a decision before we knew some of the variables. Coordinating with all those piece ups. And they had very different opinions about almost everything, including whether they really want to talk to each other. It was interesting to watch the body language. The first couple meetings, it looked like the Hatfields and McCoys coming together. But by then, you would have thought it was a family reunion of people who loved each other deeply and dearly. So that didn't happen by accident. And so I really appreciate the work that you did to make that happen. Dealing with the revenue deficits and what year that was going to be and inconsistencies across the county where certain groups want to do certain things further and faster because of enhanced 911 and and all these things that were shiny but not capable and trying to hold back the shiny, fun, exciting stuff to the realities of getting the basics done. So there was a lot that went on and I really appreciate all the work where we are now, the committees, the governance structure. And this was not that easy, left over three years. And I'm sure both of you actually, I'll take your word, are tired. But you have really made a huge service to this county and to the protection of everybody. I had to call 911 this morning on my way to work because somebody was smart enough to cover their loads. And there was actually a a lawn mower spreader in the middle of the lane, which is strong enough to do some really bad damage to somebody. So I thought about what privilege it is that we have in 911 and the work that you have done. So I just want to say thank you. And to Lisa, you didn't pull out your hair. You had to staff each one of us. And in the beginning, this was even more complicated because we hadn't landed any place. And so thank you for being able to continue that they were making. Speaker 0: Yeah. And I also have I have the list of thank you here as well that I will I will say as part of the getting there, there were some really big decisions around governance, finance and policy that were around technology that were all not clear at the beginning. And they all had to be worked through in great detail. So I just want to call out the co-chairs of those. The Governance Task Force was co-chaired by Diane Carson Carlson of King County and Stacey Ellick. The Finance Task Force was co-chaired by our own Tom Koni and Marilyn Beard from Kirkland. And the Technology Task Force was co-chaired by Sheila Picard from Bellevue and Bill Kehoe, our former I.T. director. And they all really had a big ship to steer in to bring this all together. And then I finally want to say to Kathy Lombardo, you came out of retirement to help us and that you didn't have to do this. You could have been on a beach somewhere. And I understand you're going back into retirement now once this is once this is put to bed. So thank you so much for bringing all of your energy and smarts and patience to this process. You did a fantastic job. Thank you so much. I will also again thank Lisa K.R. Council staff because having three council members with varying degrees of engagement and understanding and knowledge and interest is always a challenge. And you were our bird dog on this and you really watched it very closely, made sure that the council's needs and interests were met so that when it came to this point, we can have, as you see, a very strong level of support for the final product. And that doesn't happen by a. That happens with a lot of hard work. So thank you. Okay. Did you want to say something? Speaker 2: They did. I just wanted to thank my own staff. And you might want to think your own personal staff. April Sanders, who worked really hard on this and was on one of the subcommittees. And I also want to know if we can put a tracking device on Cathy Lombardo so they can find her. And I think the next time you need to. Speaker 0: Check out the nearest Alfa Romeo dealership. You'll find her there eventually. Yes. No, I will. Thank my own staff. Krista Commons. And who put a tunnel to my chief of staff who put a ton of work into this and was very, very instrumental on the task force that she served on, but also kept an eye on equity and how we were making sure that we were including people who we might not be thinking about in our customer base. So thank you for that. All right. With all the thanks and the Academy being thanked, maybe we're ready to move to a vote. Would you please call the roll? Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 2: Councilmember Garzon, Councilmember Commonwealth I. Council Member Lambert I. Council member McDermott. Speaker 1: Oh. Speaker 2: Council member of the Grove. Council member upon return. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is six eyes, no no's, three excuse. Speaker 0: All right. If it is acceptable, let's expedite it and put this on consent. That way it can be approved before Cathy leaves. And you can take that with you can take a copy of the final ordinance with you. All right. Thank you all very much. Great job. All right. Our final item today is a briefing from the county executive on the executive's office on the employment program called Investing in You. As we all have discussed before, the executive has placed a focus on the county as an employer and investing.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE approving the King County Regional E-911 Strategic plan and establishing the King County regional E-911 advisory governance board.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_03072018_2018-0086

Speaker 0: As written minutes are before us. Any questions? Comments, changes. Seeing none. All those in favor please signify by saying i. I. Anybody opposed. The minutes are approved. So this brings us to proposed ordinance number 2018 0086. As I said at the outset, this item would make changes to the governance for for culture King County's cultural development authority . As I just noted, we had extensive public comment at our last meeting. And today we're going to take up both in this ordinance and a motion on a similar related topic. So I'm going to call on Staff Mary Bourguignon and Wendy Sue, who to brief both the ordinance and the motion up front, if you would, before we go into debate and deliberation. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Mary Bergeron from the council staff. And I want to first acknowledge our colleague Leah Crinkle, Sofie, who took the lead on the analysis as well as the drafting of the various pieces of legislation and is not able to be here today. So I am filling in for her. I will start with a very quick overview of the ordinance, since you had an extensive briefing at your last meeting. The proposed ordinance 2018 0086 would, as you noted, make a number of changes to the oversight of fort culture. Those can be summarized in three specific areas. First, the for culture budget. The ordinance would require that the Council accept by motion four cultures board adopted budget prior to transferring funding to for culture in the next fiscal year. And the ordinance requires that for culture transmit the budget directly to the Council for the Council's review. Next, in terms of the four culture board appointment process, the proposed ordinance would change the composition of the board establishing nine positions that would be appointed by county council member by district, and then six appointments made by the county executive . In addition to the five ex-officio members as exist currently, the ordinance would also remove the requirements for a specific balance of expertize on the board. And then third, the for Culture Executive Director. The proposed ordinance would provide for the County Executive to appoint and the Council to confirm the four culture executive director recommended by the for Culture Board. The ordinance would also provide for the county to remove the executive director by ordinance. So that's a brief overview. Madam Chair, I think captures the main points in the proposed ordinance. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert has a question. Speaker 2: Thank you. There was some language in the the different kinds of expertizes that said business was an expertize. Is that language in or out at this point? Speaker 1: There is general language in the ordinance about wanting to have, you know, various sort of interest in ability in arts and culture. But there were some specific call outs for different types of expertize that have been removed in the ordinance. Speaker 0: And just a preview. Spoiler alert. I have an amendment to put those back in. Speaker 2: Oh, that would be wonderful. I think business is a pretty important one to have. Okay, great. Thank you. So, could you tell me what it is? Speaker 1: Sure. It's Page. 29 of your packet. And we are if you look at line 64 and you'll notice that what it says is, oh, sorry, no, this is the public art advisory committee, not the board. Hang on, I'm an I'm council member. I can get back to you on that. I'm going to need to get to the appropriate amendment and I'll be able to find it more quickly. Oh, there's only. Speaker 2: About 20 of them, so I can't imagine. Thank you. Speaker 1: It's just now I'm almost I am I am here. So the language that was removed from the in the proposed ordinance reads At least one director shall have expertize in arts. At least one director shall have expertize in public art. At least one director shall have expertize and heritage. At least one director shall have expertize in historic preservation and at least one director shall be from the business community. So that expertize language was stricken from the proposed ordinance in favor of the more geographic focus of having nine members appointed by Council member by district. Speaker 2: Q Okay, great. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Any other questions about the ordinance before I ask staff to brief the motion? Speaker 3: Councilmember TOMASKY Thank you, Madam Chair. Question on point on the last item with respect to the ordinance that removed those a column minimum expertize requirements, did the ordinance does the ordinance replace them or call for that expertize to be otherwise available to for culture? Speaker 1: So for culture has a number of advisory committees and the proposed ordinance would retain those advisory committees and retain the expertize that is recommended for those advisory committees. Speaker 3: See. So it moves the requirements over to the technical advisory committees to have each of those specialties correct. Okay. And has staff done any analysis on whether there's any change as a result of the available expertize, as a result of where that where those folks sit on a technical advisory committee versus the board? Speaker 1: So I think. Mr. DEMBOSKY, two weeks ago in the panel discussion board members presented for cultures perspective that this would be a change in the composition of the board. Right. What the ordinance would do would is focus more on a geographic distribution for the board. Speaker 3: Okay. I heard that they were removed. I heard that testimony. I didn't hear the part about the expertize being retained in the technical advisory board. So that actually is helpful to me. Speaker 1: Yes. So there are four advisory committees to four culture and those each have a specific focus. Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions or comments at this time? All right. Let's move on to briefing the motion, please. Speaker 1: Thank you. Wendy Sue, who counsel, staff. And the next item on the agenda is proposed motion 2018 0155, which would establish a cultural development task force. Under the proposed motion, the County Executive in Council, in coordination with for culture, would convene a task force composed of local elected, local elected officials, representatives from Fort Culture, and then also

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE related to the cultural development authority; identifying responsibilities of the county council; amending Ordinance 14482, Section 34, and K.C.C. 2.46.180, Ordinance 8300, Section 3 as amended, and K.C.C. 2.48.030, Ordinance 14482, Section 38, and K.C.C. 2.48.065, Ordinance 14482, Section 39, and K.C.C. 2.48.075, Ordinance 14482, Section 40, and K.C.C. 2.48.085, Ordinance 14482, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.020, Ordinance 14482, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.060, Ordinance 14482, Section 9, and K.C.C. 2.49.080, Ordinance 14482, Section 11, and K.C.C. 2.49.110, Ordinance 14482, Section 17, and K.C.C. 2.49.160, Ordinance 14482, Section 18, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.170, Ordinance 14482, Section 19, and K.C.C. 2.49.180, Ordinance 14440, Section 3, and K.C.C. 2.49.200, Ordinance 14482, Section 58, as amended, and K.C.C. 4.40.015 and Ordinance 17527, Section 57, as amended, and K.C.C. 4.40.110, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 2.49, decodifying K.C.C. 2.49.070 and repealing Ordinance 14482, Section 10, and K.C.C. 2.49.090.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_03072018_2018-0155

Speaker 1: Thank you. Wendy Sue, who counsel, staff. And the next item on the agenda is proposed motion 2018 0155, which would establish a cultural development task force. Under the proposed motion, the County Executive in Council, in coordination with for culture, would convene a task force composed of local elected, local elected officials, representatives from Fort Culture, and then also representatives from local, regional and statewide arts, cultural and heritage organizations. The task force would be charged with leading a review of cultural infrastructure across the county. They would also look at the accessibility of arts, cultural and heritage programing, as well as the structure and practices. Speaker 3: Of fort culture. Speaker 1: The task force would be comprised of at least 14 members, including at least two from the King County Council, the executive or the executive designee, two representatives from Fort Culture and representatives from arts, culture and heritage organizations, including at least nine from small organizations. The county would provide funding to support an independent consultant that would be selected by the Task Force and the Office of Equity and Social Justice would also provide additional staff support to the task force. The task force would be charged with preparing a report containing recommendations to the county to promote geographic and social equity in the allocation of funding, to support the development of cultural infrastructure being developed around King County and also to improve the accessibility of programing. The report would be transmitted under this motion. It's requested to come to the Council by April 1st, 2019, and that's a high level description of what the motion would set forth. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: I think Councilmember Caldwell's maybe you can say a few words about the motion since it's your proposal and it's new. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. And as everybody here knows, they did want this motion on to the at the council meeting on Monday, which is normally not something I would do. However, I in from a lot of discussions that were going on last week among council members, among staff and council members with staff I had really hoped to have today offered a striking amendment and there was confusion about that, whether it would be something that we could do procedurally or not. So I went ahead and had staff draft this and some motion. And it had been too late to introduce it by last Thursday morning. So that's the reason why after this is the motion. I would like to say, though, that the idea of a task force really came from my colleague, council member Dombroski, and I thought it was a brilliant idea and I really applauded him for contemplating that and talking with people in his community. I know he's worked very hard to engage individuals and organizations in his community, and where I had some heartburn about that was more on the timing of it, and that was in effect to delay implementation initially of the idea of the ordinance going into effect. And after that, the task was to report its recommendations. As it turns out now, that delayed implementation is not in there. And for his amendment, if I'm saying this correctly, so to me it's the cart before the horse to follow an amendment on to the either the underlying ordinance as it was introduced or on the striking amendment that we have before us. I believe very strongly that to have things really work, really work, there should be collaboration and an engagement of those in the community who are artists, who work in culture, heritage, and to be able to get their input and then go ahead with an ordinance. And I'm afraid that if we go ahead with an ordinance now, then we would lose all of that opportunity for increasing access to the arts. And that is why I would like my motion to go forward in lieu of the ordinance so we could do it in the right order. And I would like to say something that it's been on my mind for a long time, and I think it's really important to state we had a, I thought, a terrific public comment period two weeks ago that demonstrated the care, the emotion, the passion that is felt among our arts, cultural heritage, communities. But some people, I think, unfortunately, took a very aggressive approach. And I believe that some of my colleagues took umbrage with that. I believe strongly and I will say it over and over again, I know that every one of my colleagues is a supporter of the arts and our cultural and heritage efforts to expand into all communities of our county. I know that is an absolute certainty, and what demonstrates that is many of my colleagues want to have more in their own neighborhoods, in their communities, and that's part of the reasoning behind introducing and sponsoring the ordinance. Given that, I think we need to step back and say, okay, some people may say that our culture is not broken, so why try to fix it? I'm probably more in that direction. If we had a continuum, some people are saying it is broken, we need to fix it. My district doesn't get enough awards. Underrepresented communities do not have enough outreach to them. The process isn't a good one. Well, if that is the belief, then we need to work together to come up with the best solution so everybody can buy into this. And every every area of our counts as a county will have the opportunities and the actual access to the arts, culture and heritage programs that we also want to be part of. And Councilmember Gossett, in my taskforce, my motion, I do include on page four, line 85, if I may read, Madam Chair, one of the recommendations that this task force would be charged with would be to promote geographic and. Social equity and the allocation of funding, including strategies to promote the submission of award applications. Because I have heard loudly and clearly from Council member Goss, who so superbly represents the underserved communities in our county, that many artists do not apply for for cultural works , even if there's outreach about the awards possibility and solicitation of applications. But they don't submit applications. And that is a very important part of what our culture should be doing more of. I know they do it, but they should be doing a lot more of that. I don't want to belabor this, but I think this is the proper order to take. Work together collaboratively, make recommendations and then. Then we go on to having an ordinance, a proposed ordinance that would deal with what the real solutions can be. So please, let's not jump the cart before the horse. And, Madam Chair, I'm not sure how you want to deal with this. I also have a striking amendment that would I be able to do this as well. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. So I just want to say, as a process matter, I recognize that the motion is after the ordinance on the agenda. I thought it was appropriate to have it briefed so people understood what was before us. And to give Councilmember Caldwell's an opportunity to explain the rationale, because she is offering a path that is different than the ordinance. And if there was interest on the council in pursuing that path, we really can only take that opportunity before we vote on the ordinance. After we vote on the ordinance, it's kind of moot. So that's why we've discussed it in this order. Is there anybody else who'd like to comment? I will comment. I believe that Councilmember Caldwell's is correct. There have been a number of things presented in our meetings and in public discussion about the rationale behind the ordinance. And I think the best of them and the ones that bring us all together that we all agree on are the need to do a better job of pushing arts and cultural organizing opportunities out into different geographic parts of the county, and especially to underserved communities, neighborhoods, groups of people. I don't think there's a one of us in this room or on this dais that doesn't think that that's a priority. We talked about it at length during the debate about the Cultural Access Washington proposal last year, and it was universally agreed that we need to do more of that and with those more resources, that would have made it easier to do more of that. Now we're dealing with the resources that we have. But but there's a desire, clearly, for that to become a more concrete effort, for that to become a more urgent effort. And I think that that is the best rationale I have heard for us at the council talking about for a culture now. And I think that Councilmember Caldwell's motion goes directly at that issue. It asks us, as elected officials representing our constituents to get together with the arts and cultural and heritage community and work on exactly these issues, and then come back with a proposal that attracts them directly. So I think it makes good sense. I would support it if I don't see anybody else here who would support it. However, then I think it would be time to move into talking about the ordinance. And so I'm looking around to see if anybody else wants to say anything. Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know that I alone provide critical mass, but I want to offer some thoughts as well. And that is that the sponsors of the original ordinance before us today have said that some of their work is to address transparency and involvement across the county, but also that there isn't a particular problem that the ordinance is trying to address. Well, if there isn't a particular problem the ordinance is trying to address, then I think a community wide conversation with the council well-represented in the task force along with for culture other arts advocates, including regional around the county and local small arts organizations across the county, in each of our districts is the way to put together a conversation about what improvements could we make? I'm not about to argue that Fort Culture is a perfect organization, but I do believe it is a very good one. And if there are ways we can improve it, let's have that broad community conversation about a mutual agreement, about where those opportunities are and then enact them. And so I really do believe that Councilmember Caldwell's motion is the way to start the conversation and then have a group private come before the full council. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I my preference would be the the ordinance that's listed on the agenda. And while I don't question my colleague's motives, I believe she's sincere. There is to be a joke in Olympia that if you want to kill a bill, turn into a study or a task force. I don't believe that's her intent in this case, but I also believe it can be an unintended consequence of it. Also, I would note, I believe one of our colleagues, Councilperson Belsky, has an amendment that would do an evaluation and continued work after implementing some changes in the underlying ordinance. So there's a path forward that is not, as I know it's not in the order or doesn't achieve the same effect, but it does provide for some engagement, an analysis of the impact. And for those reasons, my preference would be to move forward with the ordinance. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. I concur with Councilman of the Grove, and I wanted to ask you, why did you make a distinction between accepting this and going forward with the other amendments to the original ordinance? Audie. I think if we adopted that, that would mean that we wouldn't go forward. Speaker 0: That essentially my understanding of the intent of the motion is that it would be to take a step back from the proposal that's in front of us that is represented by the ordinance and convene this group of people, work through issues and recommendations and bring those recommendations back as. A different ordinance based on whatever the recommendations would be as opposed to going forward with this ordinance. Council member of the Grove is correct. There's another amendment coming to the ordinance that would do this differently. That would it would add on top of the governance changes a task force to look at something. So but Councilmember Cole Wells, you want to speak to that question because I answered for you. Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like to speak to this without coming across as being defensive. But but I also was in the legislature. And, yes, there was a strategy that was used occasionally, even frequently, times, to really forestall anything from happening by setting up a task force. The federal government does that with commissioner, and I would like everybody to know totally. That is not my intention with this task force. And I know council member to go was not referring to me as someone who would do that, but he still said it right here. And I want to make it clear I had this task force motion drafted so that it would be very specific to get at the underlying issues that are in the ordinance that is before us and in the striking amendment. I just cannot believe that we really would be going ahead with this ordinance that would have some very dramatic effects on our artistic, cultural heritage community in our county without having. A collaboration to bring about real recommendations. And that's my intent. Not to just forestall something. Not to do something symbolically. My preference, Madam Chair. Yes. Is that we would adopt this motion, give it a do pass recommendations, send it to the full council without going ahead with the ordinance. I think that's the proper thing to do. And I, I really would like it if my colleagues would just think about this and what we could do if we were to go ahead with this motion, if we do not have the support here. I understand that. I just hope that people don't get so vested in this ordinance that I think would have actually the unintended consequences that were referred to by another colleague of mine. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. I am sensing that the will of the body is to move to the ordinance at this time. And if. Unless I hear objections, I've heard three objections, but I have not heard more than three objections. And so understanding that I think we should go on with our agenda. We have lots to discuss about this ordinance and let's do that now. So I will start by calling on Councilmember Up the Grove. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the proposed ordinance to 18 0086 advance to full council with a do pass recommendation. Speaker 0: And there is a striking amendment. Speaker 3: Councilmember the. Thank you, Madam Chair. And move that striking amendment s one point to be adopted. Speaker 0: Okay. Now, you didn't brief the striker when you briefed the ordinance, so maybe now would be time to brief the. Speaker 1: Strike guide and overview so the striking amendment can be found on page 81 of your packet, and it would make a number of changes from the proposed ordinance. First, in terms of the budget, it would stipulate that the pop culture budget be transmitted to the executive 125 days before the end of the fiscal year, rather than being transmitted directly to the council. In that way, the For Culture Budget could then be transmitted to the Council by the Executive along with the Council's normal budget work in the fall. It would then defer the requirement for culture, budget review and acceptance to begin in 2020 rather than on the effective date of the proposed ordinance. It would allow transfers of funds to for culture to continue in the next fiscal year if the Council did not act on the motion by November 30th. Transfers would only discontinue if the Council rejected the for culture budget by motion by November 30th so that this would have an affirmative requirement of the Council to act. Next, the striking amendment would make a number of changes to the for culture Boyd Board appointment process. In would provide for a process for notification and input from the for culture governance nominating committee on board vacancies and require that the current for culture process for nominating vacancies in the board occur only by request of the executive or council member making the appointment. And I do have I know that the whole process for appointments and nominations has been confusing. We do have a fairly detailed matrix on the different iterations of this. If we have many more questions on that that we can distribute. Finally, I will note that the striking amendment would make changes to the provisions related to the Executive Director by eliminating the ability of the county to remove the four culture executive director. Speaker 0: Okay. I think the proper way to do this is to entertain amendments to the striker and then have discussion about the whole thing. However, it looks after we've gone through that process in the way I'm going to proceed with this as I'm going to take up each one in order on your matrix, we have six plus a title amendment which may or may not be relevant when we get to it. Speaker 1: The title amendment is required if the striking amendment passes without amendment pending on other amendments, there may need to be more changes to the title at form. Speaker 0: So that will hopefully be the least of our problems today. And then and I will ask staff to brief each one and then ask the proponent to make a motion and speak to it, and then we'll have to be served. So amendment number one, if I can ask staff to brief that one and then I'll call on Councilmember Dombroski. Speaker 1: Okay. This means members, this amendment would establish a task force as part of the ordinance. It would be similar to what Councilmember Colwell proposed. There are a few differences and I would just point those out on page two of the packet. The task force membership differs from what was in the motion that we discussed in Councilmember Dumbbell Ski's amendment. The task force would be staffed by an independent consultant and that consultant would be funded both by the county and the Cultural Development Authority with the Office of Equity and Social Justice and Counsel providing technical assistance to the Task Force. The task force would similarly be providing a report on the governance and social equity practices for culture and make recommendations around those particular issues. Under Councilmember Dombroski approach, the report would be required by February 1st, 2019, and I would note that it would not delay implementation of the governance practices, and instead it inserts language such that if the Council were to approve the report by motion acknowledging receipt no later than April 1st, 2019. So about two months after the report in motion would come to the council, then the budget review process provisions would essentially kick in in 2019 as opposed to 2020, which is what's included in Striker as 1.2. Speaker 0: Okay. I want to actually allow the proponents to speak first and then maybe it's actually actually this is going to be just a flow. But let me give Councilmember Dombroski the opportunity to speak. Speaker 3: First thing about chair. I move adoption of Amendment one and would like to speak to it. Speaker 0: Please go ahead. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. Amendment one is less my amendment and more of the communities amendment. And it it it is not perfect in terms of its timing. I agree, frankly, with Councilmember Carl Wells. I had occasion to refer to another piece of work this body did that was related to our Immigrant and Refugee Commission, which we stood up a week or so ago. And the process with that started over two and a half years ago in the community with a request for some additional work in the county around that. And I was interested in just proceeding to have a commission and get going and my staff and the community said, no, really, we need to have more of a process to develop what that commission should look like. And so we had a task force and they did two years of work and and had a number of meetings around the county with our King County Office of Equity and Social Justice, and came forth with a recommendation which was ultimately adopted by the Council and stood up. And it had that at that time I thought that was a very good process here. You know, we were going a little bit different and it is in a more of a traditional role where council has got a set of policy solutions that are aimed at addressing a number of of perceived issues. I, I think that it's good enough, but I don't know that it's perfect. And so my notion here is that I think we can benefit and have even further refinements, improvement by having more listening. And if one thing has become clear to me from all of the input I've received on this from the community and my confab and collab session at the Sandpoint Arts and Cultural Center and additional meetings with community members here and elsewhere, is that I think more dialog is necessary around arts, culture and heritage funding in the county. I don't think that if this legislation passes that it's the end of this process, but maybe rather the beginning. And I also reflect on the Prop one debate, the access for all debate and the issues that came out around that, around equitable funding, countywide and governance and that kind of dollars. And those were real challenges that we addressed here. So this this amendment would say, rather than this being the end of this discussion, this legislation ought to carry that it's maybe more of the beginning and that we ought to look through an equity lens. And that's the core of this and the frame in which we approach it, an equity lens at how far culture is doing with respect to its mission, and then have a series of dialogs and discussions around the county. This task, it would be overseen by a task force and staffed by an independent consultant, jointly funded by the county and for culture. And so we'd have to ask for our culture's help on that. They get to decide it would bring in a representative from the council, from the executive, from for culture, also from COA Cultural Access Washington, which I think is an important entity here, but then have mostly in the task force small and diverse arts, culture and heritage representatives throughout the county. We'd ask for that report back to us with recommendations with respect to how far culture is doing its governance and and really broader issues about how we can really support and improve our funding and support for arts, culture and heritage in the county. This amendment was drafted in close consultation and work with some community members and the in the arts and theater community. It has been reviewed by an independent equity consultant. We took every single suggestion made and put it in here and it's been a multi-week process. So I've shared it with each of you real time as it's been developed and calling Councilmember Caldwell's last last week in terms of the concepts as soon as it was ready, we've we've shared it with you and, you know, that's, that's that's what it does. I just remain convinced that we need more dialog on, on this topic doesn't mean that the solutions here today aren't something that should be done, but we need more dialog and then I'm personally open to continue to have further changes in a go forward basis depending on what this work comes back to and on. So I would ask for your support. Speaker 0: Okay. There was a question from Councilmember Caldwell's and then Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do have a question of either Wendy or Councilmember DEMBOSKY directly or a councilmember up the grove. And that is. I had heard councilman. Up to Grove in an earlier comment that this amendment would serve as an evaluation. And I wasn't clear on that. It looks the language looks very similar to my task force motion's language, which is to look ahead and collaborate with the community and come up with recommendations rather than an evaluation of either what's being done with the ordinance. I'm just not sure. Maybe maybe Councilmember Grove could answer that. Speaker 0: Who would like. Speaker 3: This? I'll take a stab at it. And then, Wendy can I would turn your attention, Councilmember Caldwell's to line 57 on page three, which in the paragraph outlines the task force report contents and it says it shall include its assessment, its task force and evaluation of four cultures, governance, structure, processes and practices, including but not limited to its grant award process through equity and social justice. Lance should say an acronym such as using the Community Stakeholder Process. In this section, the results of its assessment evaluation to make recommendation to for cultures, practices, governance and oversight structure to promote geographic, social, racial equity. So it does include an evaluation of what we have and it may come back with an but a grade or it may say, hey, pretty good, but you could refine and improve. And I think it would benefit. My my intention is that it benefit everybody in this community to understand where we stand and how we might be better. Speaker 2: Thank you very much for that clarification. It's a little different than the language in my task force motion, but I think we're trying to get at the same thing. It's just mind would do is be forward instead of perhaps having to unwrap some of what's already been placed in our codes, which can be a much more difficult process item. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: This is making it easier for them. Excuse me. Sorry. 1/2, Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Councilmember Dombroski, for talking with your colleagues and me in particular last week as this idea was coming together and being crafted, I was I need to say, I was more interested in the idea of it conceptually might have included the delay in when the overall ordinance was put into effect, because that way I believe the task force would better be able to inform future work of the Council and how one culture might respond to the recommendations from the task force if in fact the ordinance itself goes into effect in the same time frame. Meanwhile, the task force is asked for ideas. It's I'm concerned that we're presupposing what the outcome is and not investing as much value in the task force's work as we might otherwise do. And so in its in its form before us today, I don't know that I'll be able to support it. Speaker 3: I think Councilmember McDermott and I agree it is imperfect, but it seems to me that the underlying ordinance and its three core changes, and that would be confirmation of the executive director approval of basically now a part of the budget after this work is done, and the third being the geographic change of the board appointment process. Those are just three things. And frankly, this is a more comprehensive, open ended assessment. So I it's a broad we we would be open to and presumably receive a broader set of recommendations. So I understand where you're at, but my sense was of the body that there was the will to proceed with these three basic reforms or some shape of them. And I didn't want to have that be the end of the conversation. I didn't think there would be I didn't sense there was support to put a stop to the underlying ordinance. So that's why it's worded that way. Speaker 0: Okay. Other comments or questions? I have a comment. I think I'm going to be a little repetitive and preface pretty much all my comments today with the statement that I really do believe that everybody on this council is intent upon reaching a similar goal of expanding access to cultural opportunities in multiple ways. But I do think that some of the steps that we are proposing to get there, either, in my opinion, missed the mark in that they don't actually get us there, or they could be actually concerning. And and I'm I'm going to speak just to the language of this section either we've been talking about. The amendment says that will convene a task force, it says. Generally, the types of people to be on the task force and their work is to assess and evaluate. Quote four cultures, governance, structure, processes and practices including but not limited to grant award processes. And it says that how they will do that is through an equity and social justice lens. So this. I have two serious concerns with the way this is written. And I don't believe this is the intent, but I'm concerned that this is the result. My concern my first concern is it says that we need to look at the governance structure and processes and practices through an equity and social justice lens. So we're going to make changes to the governance and some of the processes and practices. Now, without having a discussion through an equity and social justice lens, we're just going to make those changes because we know they're right. And then we're going to go back and see whether there are changes that should be made and apply our equity and social justice lens. It's just it's backwards in my mind. But more importantly, the concern all along that I have heard loud and clear from the arts advocacy community is that they want to join in this work of looking at more equitable ways to support arts, culture and heritage in communities. And their concern with this ordinance is that it's really just a power grab that's going to allow a like log rolling, that it's going to allow a combination of five or more council members to decide how money gets moved around. And I have defended that to some extent and said I don't think that that's the intent nor what's really going to happen. But now this amendment would actually get us into grant processes. It gets us into talking about how the grant process has happened. I think it takes us a step further towards exactly what the community is afraid of. I don't know that that was what was intended. In fact, I'm fairly sure it wasn't. But this also kind of just feels like, okay, you all, we don't really you don't care for what we're doing. We heard that. So we're going to give you some more homework on top of it. We're gonna do it anyway and we're going to give you some homework to do. I just don't. It's too much to me in this order and I can't support this, although I could certainly support something like this if it was developed in a collaborative way with the folks who are going to have to implement it. So I'm going to vote no on this amendment, but that's not because I don't think that it could be made to work. I just think that this the way this is written doesn't work. And it, in fact, triggers some of the things that I think are the things people most are most concerned about. So I'm going to vote no on the amendment and no one else, anyone else. Speaker 2: Councilmember Kowalski. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question. Are we taking up each amendment one at a time and then vote on yes, one. Speaker 0: This one as before as it's been moved and it is before us for. Speaker 2: Then, Madam Chair. Yes. And I move on to Rule 18 be for the committee to withdraw from consideration. That's one too, so that I may move strike three for deliberation and action. Okay. You like me to explain what. Speaker 0: Rules I would, and then I'm going to need some parliamentary help because I did not know I. Robert's rules would be here today. Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay. Yes, please. Do you want to read? Do you want? Sure. Speaker 0: Lawyer. Lawyers. We got them. We got lawyers. Yeah. We don't need the guns and the money. Speaker 2: Yet, but. Speaker 0: It's coming. Please. Speaker 1: For the record, Kendall Moore. Speaker 0: Under your rule 18 B, after a motion has been stated by the chair and read by the clerk, the. Speaker 1: Motion can then be withdrawn by the consent. Speaker 0: Of the committee as long as it is done before any. Speaker 1: Decision or. Speaker 0: Amendment has been made. So the timing of the councilmembers motion is appropriate to take up before there's any vote on amendment the Demovsky amendment to S 1.2. So is the motion to remove consideration of the amendment to the striker or the striker itself? I believe that the. Speaker 1: Motion. Speaker 0: Is to the striker itself so that it can. Speaker 1: Be withdrawn and then as three be considered. If S three it fails. Speaker 0: Then you can go back to Striker 1.2. Is this a debatable motion? It seems like one of those non debatable motions, but I'm not 100% sure. Speaker 1: It is it. We don't want that. Speaker 0: No, it is not listed under Rule. Speaker 1: 17 as a motion to be. Speaker 0: Decided without debate. Okay. So that means there can be debate. Councilmember Caldwell's, we want to speak to your motion. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Do I have to move? Oh, no. You made a motion. Just. I made a motion. I do not want to get to this point, but as it was not determined by my colleagues to go ahead with my motion to create a task force, I decided to go ahead with this motion. But again, I cannot stress enough how important it is that we work with the community and we come up with recommendations before we implement a new law in our code. That just does not make sense to me as the order that we would customarily do things. We need to have that dialog. If we're talking about transparency and we're talking about accountability, why have a task force that is something and come back to us with recommendations after we've already created a new ordinance? It just doesn't flow. It's not it's not workable. And therefore, I do have a striking amendment, striking Amendment three that would create a task force in code instead of through a motion. This is what makes sense. This is where everybody can be pleased with what we're doing. We can have a meaningful, significant working together of all of the different players, and that will have the opportunity for real success and to get to resolutions and solutions, which is what we all want. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments? Council member of the group. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr.. Madam Chair, I was unaware this motion was coming, so I didn't care to discuss it, but I. I think at this point there is support for the process that we've embarked upon, which is consideration of an ordinance, a strike amendment that we're into and amending that. And I think to take an unusual step of stopping our debate on that, it, I don't think makes sense. I think we've had an opportunity here for voices. I think the making of the motion has allowed a an argument to be made that needs to be made and heard. But I would encourage people to vote no on this so we can continue to do our work. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'll make a comment as well. I feel like I need to explain my vote on this. I agree in substance with Councilmember Caldwell's 100%. I think that that is absolutely. Right. She has outlined the path that I wish had been taken, but it wasn't. And we're here and we have got a majority and in fact, a supermajority of this body that is supportive of this ordinance. And I'm committed to trying to make it the best it can be and to go forward from here. I don't I'm not a I'm not a sponsor or even a supporter of this path. But sometimes you have to make the best with what you possibly can achieve. And that I feel like that's more important than trying to go sideways into a vote that I know will fail. And so I'm just not I'm not going to vote yes on this. And it's not because I'm not with you, Councilman Raquel Welch in spirit, but I think the procedural side trip is going to be unnecessarily divisive, and I just don't think we should take it. Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms.. Moore, may I ask you a question? We currently have before us striking Amendment 1.2 and if an amendment to it, if we were to follow our normal procedure, take up the amendments to it, then take it up perhaps as amended. If it were to fail, we would then be able to take up an S3. That's correct. Okay. So this motion before us at the moment is not the only way we might consider s three if ifs. Speaker 0: S 1.2 as amended does not pass, then yes, you may take up a subsequent strike. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: That's a really good point. Thank you for pointing that. Speaker 5: Out there about. Speaker 0: Okay. Question from Councilmember Gossett, can you you might not want to walk away. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. What do we do? I mean, I support changes to the budget review and acceptance process as well as board notification and input. Our process for vacant for future vacant positions. But I still want us to go forward with having the ability to be involved in the process of hiring and firing the executive director . So I went out to vote no. Speaker 0: Well, what you have just described is an option that is not in front of us today to keep those two processes that you like and and or to keep the process that you like and change the two that you don't like. That that is looking down my list of amendments. That is not a combination that will be in front of us. At least it doesn't seem likely to be in front of us today. And then so whatever comes out of this process of amending the striker, I think it's going to be up to every individual council member to decide whether the balance we ultimately strike is something that we can support or not support. Speaker 5: All right. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 2: Thank you. So let me make sure that I understood the answer you just gave. So if we voted no on S1, then we could have the same thing happen that we just had happen, that we could end up with S3 at both S1 and as three get no votes, then we go back to the underlying ordinance. Speaker 0: So, yes, although I understand that procedurally, they're actually that we're actually going to be there's a striker that makes some maybe technical changes or just a striker that it's like a substitute ordinance, but it is exactly the same as the underlying. Speaker 1: There is a striker that has been prepared. S2 That is exactly the same as the underlying ordinance. With one difference it adds a line numbers to the attachments so that when you make amendments, we can easily describe where they are. Speaker 2: And where is that on a list? Speaker 1: You do not have that in front of you, but will should the need arise. Speaker 2: Okay, so how do we get to the need to arise to that? Speaker 1: If one thing breaking amendment fails, then councilmembers can choose to either amend the underlying ordinance which would be presented to you as a striker as to or to move forward with Councilmember Caldwell's amendment, which is striker S3, which, as she noted, would delete everything in the ordinance and replace it with a requirement for a task force. Speaker 2: So just so I'm clear, because this is as clear as mud. So I want to make sure as clear made as to. Speaker 0: As we got to where I want as well to. Speaker 2: What? Okay, so s 1.2 goes down. Then we have the opportunity to look behind door number two or door number three. Door number three would be why Councilmember Caldwell suggested door number two. Speaker 1: Is the original. Speaker 2: The original. So we would get back to all the points that we had thought about originally. So. Right, is that right? Speaker 0: That's my yes. Speaker 2: Okay. So there is an option to get to the original by going to eschew it as 1.2 goes. Speaker 1: And I would note you could just adopt the underlying ordinance with no changes if you wish to amend the underlying ordinance. And we had received a number of requests to do so for the purposes of being able to describe and identify excuse me, where any changes were to the two attachments to the ordinance. We created a striking amendment that had line numbers just just for procedural ease. I know it's confusing, but it's hard when you've got a 54 page packet and you're trying to make line amendments in it. Speaker 2: Can I just clarify, please? Okay. So for clarification purposes, to make life easier, because this is a little complicated, we could vote down if we chose to one, point to three and go back to the underlining underline underlying. And then if we felt at council that. Speaker 0: It needed. Speaker 2: Some minor. Adjustment for the amendments. We could do that at council. Certainly that would make life much easier because then it would be exactly like what we do normally. So I just put that out as a way of simplifying the unsayable. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Caldwell's to close. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair, to this. I have no illusion that my motion will be adopted, but I do want to make sure everybody knows this was not made capriciously. It is totally within the rules of our council proceedings, as I mentioned, that it is under rule 18 B, so it was proper to do and I do. I would love it if you all supported it, even though I don't think that will happen. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. With that, I'll call for a vote on the pending motion. Does everybody understand the pending motion? Yes. All right. All those in favor please signify by saying I. All those opposed. No. Okay. The motion does not carry. And I believe that was since that was kind of an intervening motion. Now we are back to the pending motion, which is Amendment One to striker one point to. Are there any further comments on Amendment one? Councilmember De Bousquet, would you like to say anything before we vote? Speaker 3: Just just to close. And I think there are good points on both sides, and that in an ideal world, we would perhaps, on an issue this complex, have a broader look and do this process leading up to it. But where we are, where we are and and I think some of the base reforms and the reason I co-sponsor this are necessary. My district has been without a voice for two years. The for culture folks say that they've had since there were 23 clean audits. It's not true. The state auditor had a cygnet had a a a internal controls weakness which taking the other represented a significant deficiency in 2009. That's why I support the budget approval for financial accountability and oversight. I think that these light touches, if you will, are important and necessary. But again, and why I'm ready to move forward with them today. I don't like the higher fire. I think that the underlying striker that changes that is good. But I do also think that this topic and I give credit to the Arts and Culture and Heritage Committee for coming forward needs more discussion. And I'll say this. I've heard from folks in my community who are too afraid to come into this chamber and raise a different you're shaking head to share their differing view because of the nature of the testimony that's been that's been given and they have a different view about for culture. But I've reached out to my office so and I'll say this, a lot of them look a little bit different than than than the voices we've heard from in terms of diversity. And I'm I care about those voices and those artists and those organizations, and they're not they're not able to be here. So I think we do need some reform. I also think we need some more discussion. And I think that this process has shown that. And I think that the debate around Prop one last year and its results have shown that. And that's why I'm offering this. I also think, by the way, I didn't say this that it sisters in with a process that has been recently commenced by for culture and I give them credit for it to reach out. I think they've heard the message that more dialog is necessary and they have commenced. I understand a listening process and this would marry up with that. At least that's the intention and have a more comprehensive approach. So I ask for members support. Speaker 0: Okay. With that, I will call for a vote on Amendment one to the striker. All those in favor please signify by saying I opposed no. Can we do that one more time with hands? All those in favor, please raise your hand and signify by saying I all those opposed. No, no. The motion carries 5 to 4. Okay. This brings us to number number amendment two and I'll ask staff to please brief Amendment two. Speaker 1: Sure. Amendment number two, excuse me, which is being offered by Councilmember Balducci, would add language to a section of code that describes the county's policies regarding cultural programs and that new language would read. King County recognizes that meeting its goals for regional distribution of cultural activities requires regional planning, outreach to cities and communities throughout the county and a regional investment strategy. So again, this would make changes to an existing code section to add language. Regional policy goals. Speaker 0: He's got a complaint. Okay. Thank you. And since I'm the sponsor, I'll speak to it really briefly. The key language change is it's a very brief one. It's on page two of the amendment. It lines 29 to 31. And all it does is state the that the whereas is or the factual finding type language in this ordinance is framed differently than I'm used to seeing. It says King County recognizes, as opposed to other framings that I'm used to seeing. So this one follows that framing and says King County recognizes that meeting its goals for regional distribution of cultural activities requires regional planning, outreach to cities and communities throughout the county and a regional investment strategy. And I believe what this does is just sets a it's non-binding, goal oriented language that sets our goal to to do that broader regional outreach that we've been talking about since the access for all, at least at this council, since we've been talking to the council about the access for all. I know that the board has been talking about it as well. So I think it's simple. I don't think it adds much other than to make explicit the policy that many of us have been talking about. And I would ask for your support. Councilmember of the. Speaker 3: Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that amendment to be adopted. Speaker 0: Oh, and oh, thank everything. Mr.. Speaker 2: The girl. Speaker 3: At in discussions. Speaker 0: That. Speaker 3: I've had with the for culture board leadership. I think that clearly articulates a vision that I've heard from both the agency and from colleagues on this dais. So I think it captures a common vision. Well. Speaker 0: I appreciate your support both for the amendment and the process. I don't know if that makes me a bad chair or a bad member or both, but there you go. It's before us. Any other. I would just. Speaker 3: Be in your vice chair to. Speaker 0: It. Thank you. Anyone else on this one? Okay. All those in favor of amendment to please signify by saying i i any opposed the motion carries. And that brings us to Amendment three. Speaker 1: Amendment three would simply require that six votes would be necessary in order to reject the foreclosure. By my Motion. Speaker 0: Councilmember. Speaker 4: Madam Chair, to move adoption of Amendment three. Speaker 0: Showing us how it's done. Would you like to speak to Mr. McDermott? Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. If the Council is going to take control of the foreign culture budget, then we're going to need to have a compelling reason to deny the approval of that budget. If there's truly a troubling and compelling reason to reject the budget a problem with it, then that would easily be a90 vote up here on this council. And this amendment would ensure that the council wouldn't be accused of trying to steer money to our own districts or politicize the funding of foreign culture or the grant process, as some are concerned this ordinance might be doing. And so to protect the integrity of the budget in the process, I ask for support in a supermajority of six votes to approve to disapprove the full culture budget. Speaker 0: Okay. Any questions or comments? Speaker 5: Councilmember Gossett I wanted to ask Councilman Mike what happened to the adherence to the old reliable American rule of majority rule? Speaker 4: Councilmember Gossett When something spots in our rules, we require a supermajority for particular actions. And this is one where some members of the public are concerned that by needing to approve for culture the Public Development Authority's budget, that we are in some sort of a power grab and this offers them a very direct assurance that's not the case. And as I said, if there's a problem with the budget, there's an audit finding this comes from a democracy raises or a concern, then there should be an easy nine o vote. And this offers the public assurance with a by requiring a nine and a six vote supermajority. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Bloomberg. Speaker 2: Thank you. I ever heard that term power grab and it's very disconcerting to me. My job is to represent the citizens of the county and not just any one particular category in any one particular budget. We have sat down and made 17 budgets since I've been here and we've worked together collaboratively, and I think 16 of the 17 have been unanimous. So I don't see where there would be any problem as using the same that we use for regular budgets to do this. I think that taking any budget. Speaker 0: Whether. Speaker 2: It's this one or any other one and saying, oh, you're special, you need seven or you even more special, you need eight or you're worse, but you need nine. I just don't think that's right. We we do the budget 16, 17 years. Speaker 0: It's been unanimous. And I don't think that that is. Speaker 2: Necessary for any budget. To be able to get special privileges. So I wouldn't be earning no on this. Speaker 0: Okay. Any other forms of cancer, preventive medicine, anything. Speaker 3: That I'm sure just to help me get some context on this is is there anyone, lawyers or staff that could give us some examples of what else in our counsel processes or ordinances that might require a six vote majority or super supermajority? Speaker 1: I will note that an emergency ordinance requires the supermajority and then takes effect immediately. I will defer to legal counsel for any additional examples. Speaker 3: Vetoes of or overrides of the County Executive vetoes also requires will. I remember that. Speaker 5: Of the article I. Speaker 0: Cannot. Speaker 1: See, and I did actually look at this specific and there are other examples that the higher the other example that I. Speaker 0: Found, particularly. Speaker 1: In the code, is with regard. Speaker 0: To a transportation section. Speaker 1: In for a title for a 29 that requires. Speaker 0: Six affirmative votes in order to accept. Speaker 1: A report. Speaker 0: So it would and that was by ordinance. Speaker 1: So so I wasn't able to find another one with regard. Speaker 0: To. Speaker 1: Motions in the code in. Speaker 2: Our rules. Speaker 0: In the council rules. There are provisions that require six votes by motion with regard to regional committees. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 5: Not a license. Speaker 0: Okay. And that's both that's both ordinances. Speaker 1: And I. Speaker 3: Stand, if I might. Madam Chair, is more on the regional committees. You're referring, I think, to our kind of override procedures, is that right? We, the County Council, wanted to take a different position than one of the regional committees. Yeah, that's right. Okay. Speaker 5: No water policy. Speaker 3: I'm getting nods from colleagues. Speaker 0: So it's six affirmative votes to adopt a motion dealing with countywide policies after referred to the regional committee and fired when they failed to act. When the regional committee failed to act within the required time or that, as you say, as. Speaker 1: When you are going to be when the council is going. Speaker 0: To be adopting something different than the. Speaker 3: Regional committee adopted. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Speaker 0: Comes from rapporteur. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have sort of a strange process as it is right now, either an annual or depending on how we're doing our budget biennial basis. This Council votes to appropriate funds to for culture. Right now it can be very modest for certain elements their programing. Soon we will be administering and transferring hotel motel tax dollars again where we were. A simple majority of this body can vote right now to not transfer that funding. I think it sets up a bit of an odd scenario. If we were got to a point for some reason where a majority of this body was unhappy transferring those funds for whatever reason. I don't see that scenario. But if that were to happen, the funds could be withheld by a majority vote today. And regardless of the outcome of this amendment, this amendment speaks to whether or not this process of going the budget up or down and the triggering of that would require a supermajority or regular majority. And I just think it would be kind of odd to have this scenario where if you had half of the council got to a point where they were uncomfortable providing the public funds and then but if five, but not six. And so this doesn't trigger it. But then you when it comes time to appropriate your a it's a a simple majority. So I, I think it's an issue worth exploring how this this process works a little bit more. But I think this sets up a little bit of a weird, a weird scenario. And so I'm I think today I'm going to vote no and. Speaker 0: I'll say a few words before turning to Councilmember McDermott to close on this amendment. I agree. It's a little unusual. I think the example of the regional committee override is actually an an example that's on point. If we don't like something that comes out of the charter based regional committees that are are, you know, a city county committees, this council can override what they're doing by a vote of supermajority vote. So there is some precedent. It is also a little bit odd. And perhaps the oddest thing about it is, given the timelines that we typically have when we take our budgets, a simple majority of the council, even with this ordinance in place, could change the ordinance back to a majority vote and then have a majority vote to deny the budget. So, I mean, it's just it's it provides some protection, but not a ton of protection. However, I'm going to vote in favor just because I think with with because we're making changes in a direction that is causing concern about council, uh , using our, our split vote power to drive money to certain places. Since that's the concern. And I think this provides some level of comfort to people who have that concern. On that basis, I will vote for the amendment. Councilmember Lambert and then Councilmember Mike. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. And your example and from in my mind has a dichotomy in the fact that the Regional Policy Committee, the Regional Water Committee, is all made up of elected officials, people who people can. Speaker 0: Unelect if they don't. Speaker 2: Like that choice. This is the first time I can think of where a body that is getting that authority, who is not made up of unelected elected people. And I am very concerned that elected people need to be making the decisions so they're accountable to the people. So that difference for me is huge. If if all the people were elected as a separate body, then I would have no problems. But being that these are not elected people getting the duties, but without the responsibilities of having to go to the elected people with. Speaker 0: This is what they did. Speaker 2: I think that's not okay. Speaker 0: So no thank you, Councilman McDermott, to close on this amendment. Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman. Councilmember Balducci, Councilmember Lambert, the Fort Culture Board is a public development authority, and we're not trading in this ordinance. The Fort Culture Public Development Authority like we do every other public development authority. They have budget authority. We're setting this one aside and treating it very separately. So when addressing whether elected officials make those decisions and other public development authorities, in fact, they do not. Council member at the group speaks to the majority vote being able to stop the transfer of hotel motel tax funds today to the foreign culture accounts. And that's very true. But what would change under this ordinance is the requirement that the Council approve the budget, adding that one more authority or power, if you will, in this council. And that's why I think it's important to address and add a supermajority, six votes to reject the budget because of that change from what we currently do. It won't be now perfectly analogous to what we're doing today. And as Councilmember Lambert addressed, I share your concern that people would think this was a power grab. And when people think there's a power grab involved, it is serious and concerning. And I think that this amendment is one way to offer the entire public across King County. That is not what this is about. In fact, this is about making sure that if there is a significant problem in the budget, this council steps up and stops it. I would ask for your support. Speaker 0: Okay. With that, I think we're ready to vote on amendment number three. All those in favor please signify by saying I opposed. No. I'm not sure I heard the vote on that. Whether we'll do it by hands again. All those in favor, please raise your hand and say I. I am opposed. Nay, the amendment carries. All right. We're doing well on amendments. Let's move on to amendment number four. And this is another one regarding the budget process. And I'll ask staff to please go ahead and brief it. Speaker 1: Thank you. Amendment four is also, as we mentioned, related to the budget process. This particular amendment would essentially set forth criteria under which the council could reject the for culture budget. The Council would have to find that the budget would result in a deficiency or we're not sure that the purpose of the Authority's programs could reasonably accomplished . And then there would be three specific criteria that would, one of which would have to be present in order for the Council to reject the budget. And those are shown at the bottom of page one, in top of page two. But briefly, if projected revenues for the following fiscal year were less than budgeted expenditures, if the revenues were at least 15% less than in the current year, but there was not a commensurate reduction in expenditures and vice versa. And then if the Cultural Development Authority has not complied with requirements that are specified in the county code related to for culture reporting. So those three, one of those three criteria would have to be in existence in order for the council to reject. And then afterwards the Council would or this amendment would set forth a process by which the Council or representatives of the council would meet with representatives of poor culture within 15 days of the Council rejecting the budget. Within 15 days of that meeting, the Four Culture Board would transmit a revised budget, and then within 15 days the Council would either need to reject the budget again by motion, or if they did not take such action within 15 days, then the transfer of funds would continue. Speaker 0: Okay. Does that cover it? Okay. Council Member Coel's, would you like to put this before a statement? Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the amendment number four. Speaker 3: And if you're. Speaker 0: A council member done right there. Speaker 3: I'd like you to reconsider the motion. Speaker 0: We have a motion pending. Can you hold off until we finish the motion that's pending, and then we'll get to you. Speaker 3: I want to make sure that my place in line with you on what I believe would. Speaker 5: Feel like it. We have a motion. We have a motion before us. Speaker 0: If I may, Kendal Moore, the council members motion. Speaker 1: Is a motion to reconsider the last. Speaker 0: Amendment. So I think it's appropriate that you take. Speaker 1: His motion to reconsider. He was on the prevailing side for I believe it was amendment number three. Speaker 2: Before you take up. Speaker 0: Amendment number four. Well, a member for is on the table already, just got moved. Speaker 3: But I have to be. It has not been acted on. Speaker 0: No, I'm asking staff just one time if it's the will of the count of the chair and there's no objection, then you can continue with number four. But it was just to preserve the council members motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration of Amendment three. Can we see? Back after we do for you. Go back to three without him losing his opportunity to make a difference in the will of the. If there's no objection to that. And it's the will of the. Okay, hold on. Hold on, hold on. We're discussing. Okay. Right now, we have a point of order about whether we're taking up for first and then a motion to reconsider on three or something else. Council Member McDermott to discuss the point of order. Speaker 4: Thank you, Ms.. Moore. After a. Afternoon, Mr. Brewer. Speaker 0: We're trading up the lawyers here now. We have our senior attorney. Speaker 4: With a new motion already before the committee. Is it still appropriate to move for reconsideration of a previous motion that's been adopted? Yes, it is. And I think. Speaker 3: If I may follow up on the prior advice, the in generally it's preferred to take motions for reconsideration as soon as you can in relation to the thing that's being reconsidered. However, under your rules, the only real final deadline is prior to passage of the ordinance. So you could roll it back later. Consider around Rick Perry's being prudent by moving it now to make sure what happened earlier. But in answer to the chair's question, you probably could go ahead, finish consideration of four and go and then move to reconsider three. Since it doesn't amend the prior one itself. Speaker 0: Okay. So if if the motion on amendments three to be for reconsideration is not precluded, which is what I hear you saying. Yes, then just as a matter of logic and flow, it would make more sense to take that up first. Yes, I don't see that there's an alternative, so let's do that. Okay. Let's move on right there. Would you just state your motion one more time so we may. Okay, let's just clean up the record here a second. We have a motion pending on Amendment four. Councilmember Cole Wells, will you. Would you withdraw that motion just for the moment? Speaker 2: I'd be glad to withdraw that. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And Councilmember Bond right there. Would you restate your motion for reconsideration, please? Speaker 3: For the record, having voted on in majority sided on the previous motion, I quote, I ask for a reconsideration of the vote. Speaker 0: Okay. Motion for reconsideration is on the table. You speak to a. Speaker 4: Point of inquiry. Speaker 0: Point of inquiry? Yes. Speaker 4: Can somebody walk me, refresh my memory on what votes would would come before us as a revote to reconsider that, then I vote on the revote in the motion itself. Yes. There are two votes in this process. Yes. Speaker 3: Yes, that is correct. You first vote on whether to reconsider. If that passes, that puts you in the position of the previously. Speaker 0: The amendment. Speaker 3: Should still be before. Speaker 0: You. Okay. Is there any particular vote requirements on the reconsideration of the record. Speaker 4: Of those present? Speaker 3: Actually, I don't believe that my motion is debatable. Speaker 0: Is reconsideration, I believe may not be debatable. Speaker 5: Oops. Speaker 0: Why do I think this is a point of inquiry which are actually is a point of order? We're asking for process. We are really working out the rules so that. Speaker 2: We. Speaker 0: Don't have to go back and read them again overnight. Speaker 3: Know, usually you just all do this by consent. Speaker 0: I guess that speaks well to the general run of this behavior. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 2: You have. Speaker 0: Three lawyers who you want to get. Speaker 3: That done. Speaker 2: Don't move your bags. Speaker 1: Until you get my picture. Speaker 3: That is an expensive billable hour right there. It is not listed as one of the motions. That's non debatable. Speaker 0: So that being the case, we have a motion to reconsider in front of us. Council member Von right there. Do you want to speak to it or shall I just. Councilmember McDermott wanted to say something. No. All right. Not seeing any comments or questions. All those in favor of reconsidering Amendment three please signify by saying I. I opposed no. Speaker 3: Division. Speaker 0: As opposed division calls for a roll call. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 3: No, it's not fair for him. Speaker 0: Okay. All those in favor of the motion to reconsider Amendment three. Please say I and raise your hands. All right. Opposed. No reconsideration is approved. Is there a motion upon reconsideration? Speaker 3: So moot. Speaker 0: What are you moving? Speaker 5: What are you moving? Speaker 3: The original. I'm. Speaker 5: I'm changing everything. Speaker 3: Before. Speaker 0: Oh, I see. So somebody needs to move Amendment three again. Yeah, and we're going to vote on it. Speaker 3: Again, and then I'm going to vote no. Speaker 0: Okay. I think we gather, but thank you. Speaker 5: He's making it clear. Speaker 4: But Councilmember Bowen right there, you have not heard my silver tongued argument this time. Give him a. Speaker 3: Chance. Speaker 5: He let him talk. Speaker 4: Madam Chair, I move. Adoption of Amendment three. Speaker 0: Okay. Amendment three is before us again. Is there any further comment? Speaker 4: Madam Chair, I would I would stand by my earlier comments and again point out that if an if, as we require for the first time the authority to approve the for culture budget, not simply the transfer of funds, but approve their budget new authority. And there is concern in the public about a power grab. This is our opportunity to offer firm commitment to the public. That is not the case. If there is a concern about the budget, it should in fact be one of those nine no budget votes. Councilmember Lambert speaks of a supermajority of six votes would not be a high hurdle for a flawed budget. And so I would ask members to join me in supporting Amendment three. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember one right there. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 0: All right. Any further comments or questions? All those in favor of Amendment three please signify by saying I and raising your hands. Speaker 5: I know, I know. Speaker 0: And they are in favor of. Speaker 5: Oh, no, I'm sorry. Speaker 0: I keep. Raise your hands and keep them up. One, two, three, four. All those opposed. Councilmember Colwell So you're voting no on the amendment bring down. Yeah. Okay. If the amendment fails on a vote of 5 to 4. So let's correct the record for debate. No. It fails 5 to 4. Yeah. Five opposed. Thank you. All right. So this brings us back to Amendment four, which has already been briefed. Councilmember Colwell. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I once again move the amendment for. Speaker 0: OC amendment pause before us to speak to it. Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I have full confidence that this strike or some variation of it, were to go to the full council and be approved. That it's I full confidence that all members of our Budget Committee and all members of our council will be very prudent in terms of how they would vote on a budget submitted by Ford culture and that there would not be any game plan. We don't know about the future. However, none of us would want any mischief to take place with the vote on a very important measure that not only means a great deal to the staff of Fort Culture, but also to the arts advocacy community across our country , across our county. So this amendment simply places some parameters around what would need to occur. And as Wendy brought out, one of the three criteria would need to be present in order for us to vote to disapprove the budget that was submitted. Certainly, if there were deficiencies in the Ford culture proceedings, then I would be very much concerned with that and likely vote against their budget. I if there were instances in which there were unexplained fluctuations in the revenues or any expenses or failure to submit financial documents as required, then I think that that would be very compelling to vote against the budget and have Ford culture take it up again. But I do believe that having these private parameters in place, the criteria as well as the process for what happens if the Council were to deny the Ford Council budget is very important to include, and therefore I ask for your support of this amendment. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask Councilman Cowell's what is the reason for this special treatment of for culture? Because the cultural programs in this county were on the county directly for 37 years. And it's been about. Two years that has not been on our jurisdiction. Plus, we have six independent agencies that we vote on and we don't they none of them can come back and say, please take another vote. We have no information, so why would we do it for a culture? Speaker 0: So I'm going to interject here just for a quick second. I think it's funny. Just let me interject for a moment, please. Just privilege of the chair. It's fine to ask, I think, each other questions about the meaning. But if you're basically making an argument, pro or con, against the amendment, I don't think that council members need to answer to other council members directly. You basically you're making an argument to say, I don't see the reason why we need this. Councilmember Caldwell's, when it comes around to her time again, can certainly speak to that if she chooses. But I just I don't want to get into that because I think that that way we end up debating each other, which is not the purpose of. And I apologize. Councilmember Gossett, I appreciate your. Speaker 5: So you just want us to ask the question. Speaker 0: Or make your statement? I mean, if I were if I were Councilmember Caldwell's lawyer, which I'm not, I would object and say that that was a leading question. It could be framed as an argument. I just would. You're welcome to make right. Which everyone here is welcome to make if you're interested in hearing her rationale in more detail. I think you've made that clear. And she it's up to her. She has the the right to decide whether any of us would have the right to decide whether we want to to make particular arguments or not. So let's go round and let everybody state their case. And then Councilmember Caldwell's will have an opportunity to close and hopefully she will speak to that, I'm sure. Councilmember Dunn, I'm sorry. Speaker 3: Could Councilmember Gosset repeat his question? I missed it. Speaker 0: Okay. I think that is a question that is an informational question. If you will yield to the question, will you yield to the question, Councilmember Garcia, what was your can you can you state your question one more time for Councilmember Dombroski? Speaker 5: My question to Cousin Nicole well, sir, was why do we need to impose further parameters around the acceptance or rejection of the for culture budget? Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank Councilmember Garcia. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, Councilmember Lamberts in waiting. Speaker 2: Thank you. I have a question of staff. So online 48, the projected revenues are at least 15% less than the current year. So that's the criteria that they couldn't get less than 15%. So isn't that similar to supplementation? I'm. I'm sorry, could you. Speaker 1: Repeat your question? Speaker 2: Yes. Online 48 on page three. Speaker 0: Of the amendment. Speaker 2: The projected revenues are at least 15% less than the current year. That's one of the effects of this. So as I read that, it looks to me like it either is supplementation or is the reverse of supplementation. Speaker 4: Madam Chair. Yes, one of them promotion. Can we please be clear that the you're not you're citing from the effect statement and not the actual amendment itself? Speaker 0: I think staff could have pointed that out to look at. Yeah, but let's proceed. Speaker 2: I'm hoping that they jive. Speaker 1: I am. I do, too. Speaker 2: Yes. So I'm not too worried about that one because they should be driving. Otherwise, I had two big problems. Speaker 0: Yeah, go ahead. Speaker 1: Councilmember Lambert. So the actual lines in the amendment that I think you're referring to are 13 and 14 on peak one where projected revenues are less than budgeted expenditures. I, I don't believe that this relates to supplementation, which is something that which is a state law that restricts certain county property tax levies, as well as the sales tax. But it would be a situation where, you know, you're you would be looking at a budget where the expenditures were greater than the revenues. Speaker 2: So I've written out or assisted in writing about 24 budgets. So let's just say the fact that we were in Olympia about six or seven days ago complaining that we're the only county in the state that. Speaker 0: The. Speaker 2: The state is holding over us, the supplementation issues, and we are present in that. And now we are asking somebody, we are allowing in this the same thing to happen. So it's just it's just jointed here. On one hand, we're saying to the state, don't do this to us. And on the other hand, we're saying, but we will allow for culture to do this to us. So to me. Speaker 0: It's a little schizophrenic. Speaker 2: And the other thing is that I'm feeling a little resentful about the word game playing power grabs. You know, those are names. Somebody could say, you're a martian. It doesn't make me a martian. It doesn't make me a power grabber or that I'm playing games. And I think it's really sad that we are allowing anybody or any group to. I guess the word I would use is impugn the motives for those of us that been in the legislature. So anyway, I will not be voting for this. Thank you. Speaker 0: The other kinds of questions that council member McDermott. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. The first time around, my arguments on the last amendment were successful. So I will try them again here. And that is to point out, the full culture is a public development authority. Public development authorities have authority over their own budget. Sure we transfer the revenue to fort culture as is stipulated. But they have the authority over their own budget for the first time. We are assuming the authority over approving or disapproving their budget. If we are going to do so and treat this public development authority in a special way, unlike the other public development authorities across this county that serve the people of King County, then I think it is appropriate to have be very specific about on what accounts we would disapprove their budget in this amendment. Steps in to do that and I think it's very important that if we're going to treat foreign culture differently, especially uniquely than we do any other public development authority in their budget, then I think it is imperative upon us to be very clear about by what measurement we will hold them. This amendment does that. Please vote yes. Speaker 0: Thank you for their comments. Councilor Tomasky. Speaker 3: I'm going to vote no on this because it it it specifies a limited number of bases. But frankly, if I if there were concerns heard from the community otherwise that the budget was inequitable, didn't meet our equity and social justice objectives that are shared by our culture, continued the pattern of of. Deficit funding to the extreme. I'm not sure where the 15% comes from. I mean, this just this these criteria, even if you agreed with the notion that there should be criteria, which I think takes away all of the kind of judgment that folks send us here to try and exercise, and we always get it right. But I think more often what we do I from watching this on today and seeing it for the first time, I couldn't say without. You have to reflect that these are all the criteria. Even if the argument is that there should be some criteria and these are the only criteria. Not not not not a flaw, but a ceiling. So I just based on those concerns, I can't support this one. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'll speak and then give Councilmember Caldwell an opportunity to close on this amendment. I have to say, and I this is where you get to see the legislate, the sausage being made, because although I am a council member who doesn't believe that we need the approval authority over the budget at all that's being contemplated in this ordinance. If we are going to adopt legislation that says the Council has budget authority, then these kind of restrictions don't make a lot of sense to me. If 15% is some kind of a threshold, is 14.9%, just not good enough. But 15% is it just it strikes me as odd. I don't see budget authority being constrained this way in any other scenario that I can think of. And I've lived through too many experiences where we've had decision making constraints, say, on hiring or firing of a high level manager of some kind, and found that with all the good intentions, the restrictions that were written years before didn't give us the flexibility to do something that made a total sense in the moment when we got to making the decision. And so I'm just concerned that this kind of thing could come back to be a real problem, even though I don't support us actually having this new power of voting over the budget in a way that's different than we have, just generally because we have power over the funding stream. So I'm going to vote no on this amendment. But it's it's not because I disagree with the concept of limiting. And I will say that because over my objection, the task force is going to potentially be a thing. I would say if this all goes forward, that we ask the task force to take a look at what makes sense in terms of budget approval or disapproval, those criteria, because I think those folks would be better positioned to advise and make referrals after they've completed their work if that happens. So I'm going to be a no on this amendment. Councilor McDermott. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you and Councilmember Dombroski make a really good point, and that is this amendment, although I supporting it, and think that some parameters on why we might reject the budget once we have the authority to approve a public development authority's budget for the first time is inexact. I'm choosing to support it. You both have made arguments about what's not included, and I'm not certain that it's the exact right criteria. I have to say, I think that's why the task force to study and reflect before we take the blunt action of the ordinance before us is a good idea. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: Councilmember Coles. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very emotionally wrought situation that we're in right now. But I do need to clarify a couple of things, at least from my perspective. It was said that the use of the term game playing was very offensive and I'm not sure the good council member heard me say that. I am confident there would not be any. Here you have heard it. Okay, well, that was my reference and I'm sorry if I misheard you, but it it's not my intention that we would have any game playing. And I have not cast aspersions on anybody's motives here, and I would not do that. Secondly, a comment was made that this is the first time that individuals had seen this amendment. Well, we were all sent out the packet last night electronically. I have not seen the other amendments, just as no one had seen this amendment of mind before that packet was sent out. So I do just want to make sure that it's understood that this was not something that magically appeared and was kept from anybody, but really more to them to the amendment itself. I hear what people are saying and I can see both sides of it. We don't want to place unreasonable, unreasonable restrictions on our ability to vote for or against a budget that's been submitted. I can't think of all the potential in the universe of restrictions to put in here, but we put in three criteria, one of which could result in a legitimate vote against endorsing supporting the budget that's been submitted . I'm more comfortable with having some parameters here because this is an action that will have very serious consequence for a public development authority, which we're not imposing on other ones. And I think that we need to take that seriously. And that's why I'm comfortable with including these parameters of the if the will of this body is to not do that, I think it's going to make it more willy nilly in a sense. You know, somebody could just say, well, I don't like this budget because of this one little thing. And that would be something that could just emerge. And it would have profound it could have profound impacts. So I'm asking you to support this. But this amendment. And that's it. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Motion in favor of Amendment four is before us for a vote. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I oppose. No motion does not carry in the opinion of the chair. Okay. That brings us to amendment number five and I'll ask Jeff to please brief Amendment number five. Speaker 1: Sure. Amendment number of amendment number five is proposed by Councilmember Bell Dutchie and it would reinstate the expertize requirements for the board of directors, as we had discussed earlier, the professional requirements for the board that exist currently but would be removed by the proposed ordinance and would continue to be removed by the striking amendment would be that the board would include one expert in arts, one expert in public art, one expert in heritage, one expert in historic preservation, and one person from business. I will note two things about this amendment. The first is that the combination of the professional requirements and the geographic requirements could prove could produce additional challenges in finding people who are qualified, who both live in the district and have the needed expertize. I will note, however, that the striking amendment that is before you sets up what I would describe as a somewhat iterative process in which the OR Culture Governance Nominating Committee would notify for the district appointed positions, would notify the relevant council member prior to a vacancy , and provide information about the board composition, as well as recommendations about helpful attributes, which could, if this amendment passes, include the type of professional expertize that would be needed. Speaker 0: That's councilmember. SAMBERG If you could put that before us and then I'll speak to it, then we can have questions in the world. Speaker 2: And be great. I will be a ventriloquist. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: I would like to put your amendment before us. Amendment number five. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. And I'll just speak to it briefly. The intent here is really just to retain a requirement that has existed since the Foreign Culture Board was adopted, was created to have expertize in at least four seats arts, public art, heritage and historic preservation. This is a 15 seat board, and it will require some coordination and work among the executive appointees and the district appointees, and probably a little bit of keeping more than one person in each of these categories around so that we can balance over time while inserting while strengthening the geographic representation as the ordinance anticipates. I think it will require some work. We will have to cooperate together with the executive and with the nominating committee and the and the for culture board to maintain this. But I think it is a incredibly valuable level of expertize, and I would hate to lose it. So I'm going to ask that we retain this language by putting it into the Stryker. Thank you for your consideration. Councilmember Lambert, followed by Councilmember Garcia. Speaker 2: Thank you. I think it's a really good idea because it brings in lots of different perspectives. And I'm really glad to see that the business person is there because this is a big budget and it's nice to have somebody with. Speaker 0: The business. Speaker 2: Aspect bringing it to the table. My concern is that it might need a little bit of tweaking in that, you know, if if I'm going to put somebody forward, hopefully they'll be called this time and that person doesn't have one of those specialties. Then they might be able to say, Well, we don't want that person. So I'm wondering if it should come from the at large appointees, because then there's more discretion if it came from the at large appointees, because there is. Speaker 5: A department like that. Speaker 2: There is five At-Large appointees. So anyway, I just throw that out as an idea. Thank you. Speaker 0: Mentioned Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. I I'd like to reinforce a little bit about what Mary said that we should at least think about, and that is that we have nine individual appointments. And right now these four appointments are being requested that we consider and are nine appointments. And I know the situation is going to arrive where the board recommends someone with a particular expertize, but it's not the one that the County Council member had in mind. It doesn't mean that the person that the county council person has in mind does not have experience and judging art and culture. Speaker 0: Shares. Speaker 5: And. Speaker 0: The. Speaker 5: Preservation needs of particular communities. It just means that he or she district is not already considered an expert in those four areas. I think it's burdensome to require. Speaker 0: I don't like. Speaker 5: That there are work and having these four, but I think it's very appropriate for when we do get input from the board of our culture that the input that we get will say we really thank you, we really like for you excuse me to exclude someone or consider someone who we've helped identify that lives in your district and has really excellent preservation experience. I think that's sufficient. I don't want it just this prescribed, so therefore I will be voting against the amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr.. As member Lambert has a question. Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, I just went out, Councilmember Goss, that I was listening to you and you convinced me I'm going to be changing. I have. Speaker 5: Influence. Speaker 2: And you always do. And I'm going to be changing to it now. I did have an idea of how to change it so I could remain a yes. And that would be to have been what I was hoping was a friendly amendment to say at least one director from the at large positions shall have expertize. But without that, I don't feel comfortable. I think that it could be a. Speaker 0: Really good whereas whereas. Speaker 2: We'd like that to happen. But I think that the problem you suggests could happen will happen. And so in that case, I've changed. Speaker 0: My mind a. Speaker 2: Know. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 0: Up. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think Councilor Lambert suggested a path forward that also is attractive to me. I if I think whether this passes or not, I think we ought to talk about this issue more between now and full council and. I really considered that idea that country Lambert mentioned as one way to get at it. I don't have real strong feelings. I think that one of the purposes of the technical advisory committees is to bring the technical expertize. On the other hand, I think there's value in making sure you have different points recommended. I believe the underlying audience. Speaker 5: And. Speaker 3: Staff may have to remind me, did we actually enhance the requirements to ship move these specific requirements to the technical advisory committees? Or were they already there? Speaker 1: They were already there, but they are strengthened. In your proposed ordinance, sir. Speaker 3: Okay. So it would not be as if there was not input in those technical areas. That being said, I, I think I think the changes were made. The underlying ordinance in part to not create such a puzzle of assembling, of combining the geographic and the skill based. And I think there is a path there ought to be a way to do both. And I don't know that this hits the mark, but I think there's a lot of logic to the idea of saying, okay, the At-Large positions will be. You know, sort of expertize based and the the council positions would be geographic based. So regards to happens today I think we ought to keep working on this. Speaker 0: So thank you for that. And I just want to make a quick statement before we carry on here. I should have said this in my opening, and I apologize for breaking it up this way. I think that there underlying this amendment for me and part of why I'm proposing it in this way and why I didn't consider having the executive appoint these folks for the five or six At-Large appointments. Why I didn't propose that and why I don't consider it a friendly amendment is because I believe that we as the council member, even in a future where we would have geographic only appointments that we make as council members, have a shared responsibility to continue to create a balanced board. I think that to say that there's going to be geographic seats and then maybe expertize seats sets up a sense of a split potentially on the board where we're sending people who are from our districts who are just there to look out for. Am I getting as much money as I should and or into the places I want to see it go? Or are we thinking broadly about what we're doing to the arts and culture ecosystem together in a balanced way with expertize across the board? Yes, it is a little more complicated, but I've seen it done in places before. This is a big county with a lot of people with a lot of expertize. I believe the way the ordinance is written, for example, if I was able to appoint somebody from District six, I could appoint somebody who lived or worked in District six. That is a pretty wide swath of people that I would have to choose from. Speaker 1: Councilmember I just want to make a clarification. Your amendment number six, which is coming up, would have the live or work requirement with the the striking amendment as drafted currently would have to be someone who resides in the deceased or resides then your amendment that is coming up next would change it. Time for work. Speaker 0: Well, let me amend my statement to say in hopes that at some point before the end, we allow the council members enough flexibility to select somebody who lives or works in their district, which would, I hope, seem non-controversial, especially if we have a say, then we should be able to do this. And it keeps the council engaged in making sure that the board as a whole has a broader point of view and a localized point of view, as opposed to just strictly a localized point of view. I think that's healthier. I think it's a better functioning board if we do it that way. So that's why I proposed this this way. I understand if people feel differently, but that's why I proposed it. Councilmember Carlos. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I support this amendment. Currently, the process for fort culture, I think, is actually very positive. One where there's an effort, a very strong effort to achieve a balance of for a new council member excuse me, a board member to be appointed and confirmed. There is a nominating committee that reaches out to me currently to the council member where there is a vacancy on the board. And there also is a determination of what skill set is needed in a new vacancy for appointment that would complement the skill sets that are in existing board members, also addressing geographic distribution and ethnic and economic and so forth. A whole lot of factors go into this. All the meetings of the nominating committee are open to the public. They're totally transparent. Now, if we were to adopt this, and I hope we do not, we are going to lose some of that balance. I don't think it would be lost completely, but it would be more difficult because there would be more of a vacuum of looking at the whole context. We will lose some of the holistic efforts that go into selecting board members, and that's a real concern to me. And there's also the situation that can happen and has happened where somebody who is on the board of per culture moves away. I had no concerns. I had no board member representing. In the fourth council district. I do now. There is one, but that individual had moved from another council district and now shows up on mine. Then Councilmember Gossett has three members of the board from his district. But we have to look at it as a whole, and I believe that this amendment would be very helpful to go more toward that direction. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember and Incumbent Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. For culture, we talk about it, but visually in writing, it is not two words a full hour. It's the word. It's the number four. That four represents art, public art, historic preservation and heritage. Those are the four areas of expertize we're talking about that are currently required on the For Culture Board. Let's be really clear about what we're doing by not adopting this amendment. We are standing for a for a culture board that doesn't have expertize in the four areas for culture addresses, oversees and directs on our behalf, please vote to include expertize in the four areas for culture overseas on the four culture board. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. I think we've debated this one fairly thoroughly, and I don't have any need to add anything. So I will call for a vote on amendment number five. All those in favor please signify by saying I opposed. Oh, me being in a chair. Okay. All those in favor please signify by saying I and raise your hand. You got four eyes. All those are signifying. All those voting. No. Please raise your hands. That's five. The motion fails on a 5 to 4 vote. Okay. This brings us to amendment number six. And I think everybody will be very pleased to know that after a debate on some very simple amendments, now we have a really complicated amendment. Yes, let's go. I will. This is the hardest one. Speaker 1: This is an amendment offered by council members Balducci and Caldwell's that would make a number of changes to the board composition and appointment process. Speaker 0: Can I just also say that it's also the last one, at least on this sheet. So just for those watching at home, if we make it through with this striker, there's not a lot more amendments that we're aware of. So just in case you're trying to figure out how much longer we're going to go, you know, well, that's there's lot I'm not promising anything. If a striker fails, then we're in a different position. But so we're getting close to the end of this segment, I guess I should say. Please go ahead. Speaker 1: So I will say council member. There is a detailed matrix that describes all the many iterations of the board composition and appointment process. I'm hesitant to distribute it at 1140 in the morning, so I'm going to try to quickly talk through it and hope that I will make sense. First of all, board membership. The way the striking amendment is written, there would be 15 board directors with nine of them appointed by district, by individual council members, and the remainder the remaining six appointed by the county executive in Amendment six to the striker. The positions one through nine would be council district specific but broad in that the director must live or work in the Council district. So that would would be a little bit broader than what is now that they must reside in the district next. In terms of the role of the nominating committee in the striking amendment, the nominating committee may nominate one candidate for each open position and send to the full board after they have solicited input for the positions one through nine from the relevant appointing council member in Council in the Councilmembers Amendment six to the striker, the nominating committee would again be required to solicit recommendations from the relevant County Council Member for positions one through nine or from the County Executive for positions ten through 15. In addition, would be required for positions one through nine to invite the relevant County Council member to attend the meeting or meetings when the district has that specific position is discussed . And then the nominating committee would recommend two or more candidates for each open position and send to the full board. The four culture board would then recommend two or more candidates to the executive for each position within six months of a vacancy occurring four vacancies in the Council district specific positions. These recommendations would also be sent to the relevant County Council member for those County Council Member positions. The Council Member, instead of appointing that position, would have 30 days to forward on a name, either from the board's recommendations to the executive or to reject the board's recommendation and ask the board to start over with a new slate of candidates. The executive, similarly for positions ten through 15, could reject all recommendations from the board or choose to appoint one of the board's recommendations and would appoint would make the formal appointment for all 15 directors. The County Council would then confirm all 15 directors. So it's a little complicated. I hope I've described it accurately. Speaker 0: Can I just ask one question, since this is a time before us yet, but it's I'm a co-sponsor to this one. My understanding of the districts specific ones, at least the intent was that the the nominating committee would do their job, the for culture board to do their job. And they would recommend the names to the council member, not to the executive and the council member, just to the councilmembers. Is that not what it says? Speaker 1: We went back and forth with this language. Yes. Yesterday, I think it I'm sorry. I think yeah. It's to the council member and then the council member has 30 days. Speaker 0: To move some one or more on Virgin. Speaker 1: Active takes action if the council member does not take action within 30 days. Speaker 0: Okay, that's that's all I wanted to confirm where where we landed on that particular issue. Thank you very. Speaker 1: Much. My matrix had not caught up. Speaker 0: Okay, we have questions on this one and I'm going to entertain questions before we have a motion councilmember of the girl was waiting and then Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 3: And then two quick questions. One, would you verify that the and maybe staff is doing this right now that the underlying striker, what the limitations are on who a councilmember can appoint I think. Speaker 1: Okay so in the striker in section 5.2 of Attachment A, which is the For Culture Charter, it notes that director. Shelby, residents of King County and Shelby chosen to reflect the geographic and cultural diversity of the county. I would need to go back. And so then the positions one through nine and I may have been misstating this was my understanding of the intent. The appointed positions have to represent the Council district. I had interpreted that to mean reside and that may not have been your intent council member of the group. So I realized I have I misspoke. Speaker 3: I don't think it's important. It was it was meant to be more flexible. So I wanted to clarify that. And then another and this is wading into debate because it may be a leading question. Forgive me, an I'll keep it brief. Nonetheless, as I understand the process designed here, this does give the for culture board the ability to reject it. If there's someone that the county council member wants to appoint from their district, there is a mechanism here where they would that person would still have to be approved by the For Culture Board and existing for Culture Board members. Speaker 1: It would be an iterative process. The For Culture Board could make a recommendation. The County Council member could then choose to reject the entire slate and ask the for culture board to start over the for culture. Speaker 3: So can they reject our name? Speaker 1: I think that they could choose not to recommend the name from the county council member. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: The mayor weighed in on this factual question. As this exists and as many people have said earlier today, this is by no means a perfect process. This was an attempt to balance out and include roles for the nominating committee, the for culture, the for culture board, the council member for each individual district, and then the council as a whole who confirms and it does as I see it, and intentionally so allow each party to have a real a real point in the decision process. So, yes, in your scenario, there could be those frustrating situations where the board is just not sending forward the person that you wish they would, but you also have this ability to send them back and say, let's do work again. And I think the entire process is intended to be set up to drive some advance collaboration to avoid those. I mean, it sets up motivation anyway. Then somebody down to my left had a question. Were you done council member of the girl with your questions. Okay, Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 2: Thank you. So just to clarify what you just said and this is like amazing. You can keep all this in your head, so thank you. Yeah. So would it be that that you have to turn the whole slate back or just the nomination. Speaker 0: For your. Speaker 2: District that you didn't particularly want? Speaker 1: Just going to try to find the exact language here. What it what it specifically says is that the relevant county council members shall have 30 days to either one recommend one or more candidates to the county executive for appointment for the board position or to request the board recommend two or more different candidates. And if the County Council member does not take any action, then the County Executive shall appoint a director from those candidates recommended by the board. Speaker 2: Okay, so but if if we didn't like the person for some reason that they put forward, then we could say, No, that's not okay with us. Pick a different person. Speaker 1: You could say to the board, the slate that you have sent is not acceptable. Please start over is the way that the. Speaker 2: Okay, so that's the word I would have to have. I would then have power over everybody not getting their way, which I don't think would go over very well. Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 0: That is, I know my peers I can. So that may be what it says in the in the but that is not what is intended for you. Typically these happen vacancy by vacancy. And so you're taking up like let me just use my own district. District six has a vacancy and the nominating committee comes up with two names. The four culture board forwards those two names. To me, I get to say whether those two names, one of them goes forward to the executive, two of them go through the executive or all of them go back to the board. Those are my options, the way we intended not. I get to say whether District three or District nine go by i, i now we do. Speaker 1: Have and I may have misunderstood Councilmember Lambert's question. Council members would not weigh in on each other's districts. Each council member would be would be in charge of the nominations or the recommendations for their own district. Speaker 0: So the word. Speaker 2: Slate is what threw me. Speaker 1: I apologize. Okay. So I meant that the number two or more for that position, that would be. Oh, okay. Speaker 2: Okay. I was thinking a slate of all. Speaker 1: Of us, your ability would be to say to the board. None of those candidates. The two or more meet my needs. Please start over. Speaker 2: Now, here's my last question. And I was told it might be more complicated than I think it is. So online 22 position. Speaker 0: For works for District four. Speaker 2: But online the next online 24 position five works for District eight. That could later on be confusing. So I'm wondering if it would be a friendly technical amendment that at some point when this is drawn, I realized it was the existing law. But that doesn't mean we have to keep it that way. Everything else is position one is district one. Position two is district two. Position three is district three. So I. Speaker 0: Know when position three. Speaker 2: Is missing. That's my job to take care of. So on here I would have to remember the position seven was mine, which would be a list. Speaker 1: So here. Here is the challenge. Councilmember and Leah was the one who originally drafted this with Mr. of The Grove. This was very complex because you are dealing with a board that is already in existence and already has positions. And so short of essentially vacating the board and starting over, the best option that staff could come up with was to say, identify the board positions that had someone from existing districts already in them and then continue that district representation in that position. It is confusing. We could certainly try to find another way. We we did this was one I will say that had quite a bit of study and work with legal counsel to try to figure out the best way to sort of reorient the board moving forward. Speaker 3: We know that. Speaker 0: It's at the risk of unduly lengthening the medium to councilmember positions. Have numbers. Yes. Are they the same as the district numbers? Anyway. It seems like something we could work on after today, but it's I don't know that it has any substantive meaning. It's no. Speaker 2: Substantive. It's just that it makes it confusing for going forward. And I see what your dilemma is. Let's think about it later. Speaker 0: Let me ask the four culture board members here by show of hands. Do any of you know what number position you hold? I am seeing no hands for the record, so I don't think it has any substantive meaning. But we could talk about it after. All right, Councilmember Dombroski, we're doing questions. It hasn't been moved yet. Speaker 3: If this amendment were to hang, could somebody live in Snohomish County, Pierce County, kill Test County, other county, so long as they worked in the district and be appointed? Speaker 1: There is a different section in the Fort Culture Charter that requires board member board directors to be residents of King County. Speaker 3: And that would remain unchanged. Speaker 1: That would remain unchanged. Speaker 0: Anchor gossip. Speaker 5: Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I think that this amendment will be too cumbersome, too complex, and not likely to work. Mr. Arthur Grove had an in the original ordinance that for culture board would be able to recommend people to each of us for consideration when we have a board appoint to their work. And that's open in our district. I don't know what happened to that for us to move to something this complex. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Because Councilman Coles, at this point, would you put the motion before? It is not before us yet. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move amendment number five. Speaker 0: Thank you. It's a moment. I'm sorry. Do you mean I'm going to. I'm going to hear that as Amendment six. Okay. Did you want to speak to me? Speaker 2: Very cute. As the co-sponsor of this amendment, I had had a lot of discussions last week with colleagues and staff that what I wanted to get at would be to codify the really the process that occurs presently, but to make it even stronger. And if we are going to have appointments by council members to our own district, basically, I think it's important to note that the process that has existed so far on codify but based on custom, is that the nominating committee, again, look at the whole picture, look very holistically in terms of skillsets needed, but also to determine that that all parts of the county are being represented geographically, so socio economically, ethnically and so forth. And I thought they were doing a pretty good job, very transparent, very, very deliberate. And when I was contacted about a possible vacancy in my district, I provided a name of someone I thought would really work well. Ultimately, he was not selected. However, I want to make sure that we can. We go along with what is recognized as the need for geographic distribution, and that appears to be having an appointment by District Council member. In doing so, though, I think that there is a process that could be undertaken similar to what our culture does now, but be enhanced. And I think this amendment embodies that. But to say that any council member can appoint anybody in consultation with for culture I think opens up the potential may not be the reality hopefully, but the potential for having members support somebody appointment in turn appointing agreeing to appoint the one that I want. And I think that would reduce transparency. This amendment will not only reflect a process that will be transparent, but also serve the needs of what we want to have a balance with skill sets, geographical representation, ethnic representation and so forth. So to me, it's it's a really essential amendment. And I ask for your support. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Councilmember Dombroski. Speaker 3: Thing. Madam Chair, I'm not going to able to support this. I think it is overly. Cumbersome. And the process that Councilor Caldwell's has described, with all due respect, has not been my experience. And I want to take this moment to correct the record that was made at the last committee of the whole hearing by the For Culture Board member who said, We reached out to your office and your staff, Mr. Maskey by email and otherwise. And I sat next to her and I said, I don't believe that occurred. I received your broadcast email to the community. I then had a lunch with the executive to say, I'd like to be involved, but when asked to say, Show us where you reached out otherwise to my staff and me, they couldn't because they didn't. And I don't think it's fair to my staff to have their commitment to their work publicly and incorrectly impugned. And so I wanted to take the moment to correct the record. I think as the ordinance itself exists, it calls for a consultative process. I intend, if this carries, to engage in that in a serious way and to take seriously the input and recommendations of the Recruiting and Appointment Committee for Culture. I think I'm interested in a balanced board that brings the talent and resources with respect to expertize to it, but. I think that we need to we need to have a little more flexibility than than would result if this event were to carry. And finally, I note that the full council must confirm every one of these nine appointees. So if there were some serious problem, if the foreign culture folks said, hey, this, this person is no good, it's really bad, I think that could be a problem here at the fall for council. So I think there is that safety check as well. But based on the experience I've had, I think that I would like to be involved in this process. I want to do it in consultation with the board. I think that we can do it without the strictures that this amendment would impose. Speaker 0: Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I see the existing independence of foreign culture as a very good thing. I'm passionate about our public art, historic preservation, cultural activities throughout my district and frankly, across the county as well. I serve as a board member of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, whether it's general interest of mine or particular interest as a member of the Board of the Washington Trust. I take an active role in promoting projects and giving that input to, for culture, their board members in their process. That's my input. That's my process. That's the current process. I'm concerned by the ordinance and the striking amendment before us in that. Then it has each councilmember a point one person from their own choosing. Losing that oversight, that public transparency and that selection process. And this amendment takes a step toward more reflection and interaction about who that will be, more transparency. It does not go back to the underlying existing foreclosure process, but it is a step closer to it rather than individual council members being able to make their own appointment to the OR Culture Board to represent their own interests. I would ask for support for the amendment. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Lambert had a question. Speaker 2: Yes, thank you. I hope that as an elected official that I'm not here for my own interest. I have 234,000 people whose interests I'm supposed to be representing. So I know this conversation. It's there's several different ways that this. Speaker 0: This. Speaker 2: We've talked about. So I need clarification. What does the underlying bill S1 and State one. S 1.2. What does that say about how we appoint somebody? Briefly, because I know there's ten different. Speaker 1: Ways in the striking amendment council member, the nine board directors who are district specific are appointed by individual council members. There is a nomination process that the for culture board and nominating committee would engage in, but the appointment is made by the council member. The executive appoints the remaining six At-Large positions. All 15 positions are confirmed by the Council. Speaker 2: So let me just make sure I understand this so I, I could get. Currently, I get names from whatever board it is and I can look over those, interview those people, see that many times I know them. So it's just like, great, that person is super and it goes or I never met this person, so I need to have coffee with them and get to know them. So then it goes through the process. Speaker 0: Is. Speaker 2: Is it just that. Speaker 1: Seems different. It's a. Speaker 2: Little bit more. Speaker 1: Like what you're referring to is, is your confirmation process where the executive has made an appointment and has submitted a motion of confirmation to you and you're trying to determine whether to approve that confirmation. In the striking amendment, you would actually be making an appointment to the position that represents your district. You could do that either from someone who had been nominated by the board or the language says or other qualified candidates. Then after that appointment is made, the full council would confirm by motion. Speaker 2: Okay, so. So in my mind I get the. Speaker 0: Best of both. Speaker 2: Worlds. They can give me suggestions which is helpful to me. Or I could go find somebody else if I didn't like that to suggest those are three suggestions, but either way I have a hand in collaboration with them. But I make the final. Speaker 1: Decision that would make the appointment in for the positions one through nine in the striking amendment the executive would not play a role in. A council would make those appointments and then the council would confirm. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. It help me a lot. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember McDermott has a question for you. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually wanted to make a clarification, and that is as we talk about previous appointments in previous work in the Foreign Culture Board, there haven't been vacancies from districts because we haven't had district seats to date. There may people, the members of the Culture Board obviously live around the county and live in various districts, but there aren't currently district seats. So it's there may not be someone serving from a particular district, but I don't know that it's accurate to say there is a vacancy from a particular district because there is not a district seat at this point in time. That's a fundamental change would be making if this ordinance was adopted. It seemingly in any form today in that there would now be seats by each district. Speaker 0: Was that a question? Speaker 4: No. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I got a little lost there. All right. I think we're ready to vote on this one. Just to close. This is my final substantive amendment. I've offered two substantive amendments and one policy amendment to this Stryker. I have really appreciated the efforts of the chair to try to soften the underlying ordinance through the Stryker. I get that this one is possibly not 100% of the way there in terms of the process, maybe could be made less cumbersome. But what I'm asking my colleagues, if you are willing to support this amendment, is to send a signal that we intend to allow the nominating committee, the for culture board, the council members from each district, some level of balanced decision making that that causes us to work together, as opposed to a position where the councilmembers just picking and we have a nominating committee and a board process where they go through potentially a lot of labor and effort to find good people. And then we just pick whoever we want anyway. That doesn't strike me as the right balance, the right relationship between the council members and for culture. So I'm going to ask my colleagues to please consider voting yes on this with the understanding that I will be very open between now and final passage to work on any aspects of it that seem too complex or cumbersome to try to streamline it. But I will also say that I'm disappointed that the substantive amendment that I offered before couldn't be acceptable. And so if this one goes down, I'm going to have a real struggle with how I support putting the ordinance together at the end. I just need to lay that out there. All right. All those in favor please signify by saying I, i. Any opposed? No. Okay. The motion fails that I think we now come to final passage on Stryker 1.2 discussion on the Stryker as amended, pointing out that the amendments are to add the task force and significant workload and a nonbinding statement of policy that we're going to work on regionalization. So basically the underlying motion is before us, which removes the ability to fire the executive director, set some process and timing around developing of the budget review process, including a timeline for us to act on the budget or it goes through. And let's see, I think that's then there's other there's other minor amendments and any if there's no. Speaker 5: Councilmember Gossett Thank you, Madam Chair. May I ask a question of Councilmember of the Grove or if. Speaker 0: You will yield to a question? Speaker 3: Here's what it is. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 0: That's the right answer. Speaker 5: To the Remove Council ability to fire executive director. When you developed the original ordinance, being able to fire the executive director was in there. Why did you decide to take it up? Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilor Gossett. Following the introduction of the original ordinance, I spoke with colleagues on this body who had concerns about the ordinance. I met on a number of occasions with the leadership of the Fort Culture Board, consulted with the county executive and listened to public testimony. And as a result, I felt it was important to me as elected official to respond to what I heard, offer to compromise from my views and seek a path forward that could receive broader support than the underlying ordinance. And so that is why. Speaker 5: Broader support than sticks. Speaker 0: The question was, were you seeking broader support than six councilmembers? Speaker 3: No, I was seeking to find a public policy that I thought had broader general support from. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be voting no on the striking amendment, as I prefer the underlying bill that had been worked on. So I'll be voting no. And that's why I didn't have any amendments striking today. However, if the speaker does pass, I'll have some amendments at full council. You know, the question of the council having the ability to move the executive director, it's difficult to get everybody to agree on anything up here, as you probably noticed. And when we do, it's because there's some good reason for it. And I don't see that there would be that problem unless there was not good communication and there have been problems. And so that says, as I said earlier, that there has been some lack of communication and that goes on two sides. And on final passage at the end, I'll have some comments. But given that we are the fiduciary agents of tax dollars, as our budget chair said earlier, we have to authorize the money going into there. And in doing so, we are giving up some of my fiduciary abilities. And and it's going to people who are not really elected by the citizens. So I do get comments from people saying this happened or that happened or why did so much money go here or there? And I think it's good for us to be more involved in knowing we will not repeat. We will not be getting at the granular level of saying this grant or that grant it be talking about buckets of money that are going out in the four categories, but we won't be going into the grant level. And I know. Speaker 0: That there was a lot of. Speaker 2: Concern about that, but that was kind of a straw man that was never going to happen, or at least not at this point wasn't going to happen. So I think that keeping our fiduciary responsibilities is important. I don't think we'll ever have to exercise those. I think that would be sad if we had to. We have lots of groups that bring us forth like conservation futures that bring us things for us to improve. And and we do and we do a really good job of collaborating and working on that. And most of the time we say yes because we feel very strongly that a good job has been done. So I support the underlying ordinance that is not the striker, the underlying ordinance. And so I'll be voting no on the striker. Thank you. Speaker 0: Other comments? Councilmember Colwell. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. The question for staff, because the last amendment failed with the provision that an individual who can be appointed or I assume retained, if the individual moves his or her residence, that individual would still be eligible to represent that district if he or she were employed in that district. And I'm assuming the way the intent was in an and a capacity that has to do with our culture, etc.. So that would no longer be in there. And the only requirement would be for residents. Is that correct? Speaker 1: Councilmember I had earlier spoken about living in one of the nine districts. I misspoke. The actual word in the striking amendment is representing you. So there is no language about live or work that was in Amendment six. The word in the striking amendment is representing. And I will look through the charter to see if there is a provision if somebody moves. I don't believe that there is there are provisions that board members can be removed for Nonattendance But I don't believe there are provisions for board members to be removed if they move. But let me just double check. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: I'm going to fill the silence by reminding us that we also confirmed in response to a question that there is a residence requirement that board members reside within King County. I think everybody's got that in. Speaker 1: So I'll note that there is a provision in the striking amendment in the charter that the county may, by ordinance, remove any board director or directors. And there is not that I can see anything that relates to people moving out of their district. That is certainly something we could add. Speaker 0: Okay. Did that answer the question? Yes. All right. Any other comments? Council member of the group. Would you care to speak to close Stryker US 1.2. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I spoke to it in answering Councilor Gossage question that it was my attempt to listen and respond. I know it doesn't go as far as everyone wants, but I think it strikes a good compromise and a good balance and a good path forward by making some changes that will make this, I think, even more workable and have broader support. So I encourage your support for the striking amendment. Speaker 0: Okay. With that, I'm going to call for a vote. All those in favor of Striker s 1.2 as amended. Please signify by saying I am opposed. No, no division those saying I please raise your hands. Five eyes others opposed. No, the motion carries all right. Because that striker carried the other strikers don't pertain and we move to final passage and this is to refer the or. Speaker 1: There's a title amendment title amendment one. Speaker 0: And the title amendment is good to go. Speaker 1: Let me that it will need to be amended at full council. But it would be good to get this title amendment done. And then we we have just one amendment to your policy language. We would have to add in. Speaker 0: Councilmember after provision of title amendment one, please. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. Remove a title T one, be. Speaker 0: Adopted t one is before us with the acknowledgment that it will have to be amended further. All those in favor please signify by saying i i any opposed the title amendment at least carries without objection. Yes. Okay. So this brings us to the underlying ordinance. Any comments on the underlying ordinance as amended? Councilmember Paragraph. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the members of diligence and debate today. This ordinance represents good government. It is responsible, measured and fair. It ensures an appropriate role for elected officials directly accountable to the voters in the management of public funds. It makes modest changes to our processes we as a council use to oversee an entity which we created and for which we administer 100% of the funding. It completely maintains and protects the independence of the grant selection process. In other words, it does not put us directly or indirectly in the business of selecting which individual arts and cultural programs or projects get funded. I think comparing this to other PDAs is like comparing apples to oranges. The relevant comparison is how do other local governments fund arts and culture? And let me be clear, under this proposal, King County arts and culture funding will still remain much more independent and much more removed from elected officials than any other local government in our region. Take the city of Seattle, for example. The Seattle mayor can hire and fire the director of their Office of Arts and Culture. Every member of their commission is appointed by elected officials, and the City Council approves their budget. Under our proposal, the County Council will simply confirm the executive director nominees selected by the For Culture Board. I think this will result in greater support for and buy in from the County Council and that's a great thing. Under our proposal, the County Council will approve or reject the budget. But unlike Seattle and most other local governments, King County will not have the ability to amend the budget for arts and culture. No pork barrel politics. The budget is a very basic, high level document that includes things like revenue assumptions, financial plans and staffing levels. The budget does not identify which projects or programs are to be funded. That grantmaking process only takes place after the budget is approved and the funds have been transferred. Only then will the agency begin their work of reviewing and distributing grants using the exact same process as has always been used in the past. The County Council will not be involved. The process for reviewing and selecting grant recipients does not change under this proposal. Finally, the changes to the board appointment process, which give greater flexibility to the county executive and a more direct role for county council members are common for local governments. We, however, retain in the striker a formal role for the for Culture Board Nominating Committee to help recruit and recommend individuals to the executive and make general recommendations to council members. This change will help ensure the alignment of the general priorities of the Board with the priorities of the County Council and in turn, the citizens we represent. Specifically, this closer connection between the people through their elected representatives and the Board will be beneficial as we hopefully consider making major new investments in arts and culture in the years ahead. The pathway to greater council and public support for new revenue to manage. Simply expand arts and cultural funding in our region will require greater integration and coordination. Taken together, these changes will strengthen political and public support for arts and cultural funding and provide an appropriate role for elected officials while preserving the independence of the grant selection process. Now I want to finish by sharing some of my philosophy that shaped my thinking on this issue. The most important and most powerful person in a democracy is the citizen. When you remove the elected representatives of the people from having any authority, you have removed the people from having any authority. Elected officials. Not appointed board members. Not hired staff members. Elected officials are the only people in a democracy over whom the citizens have power. We answer to voters we stand for election where the points of accountability in a democratic government. And I've always seen arts and culture as a populist democratic endeavor. It's why I believe that governments have a responsibility to invest public dollars in arts and heritage. It's not because of just the benefits to our economy or the benefits to our quality of life. It's because they represent vehicles for free expression of the people through which social change and enlightenment occurs. It's often said that art doesn't just mirror changes in society. It has the power to drive those changes. And to ensure this continues, the people need to be part of the process. And in a democracy, the way we do that is through the people selecting their representatives at the ballot box. If we, the council, wanted to select what art projects get funded, we could do that. But we're not. We're preserving the independence of the grant making process. If we wanted to dismantle or get rid of for culture, bring it back in house. We could do that. But we are not. We are simply providing a very modest and responsible role for the elected officials who are accountable to the voters. And I encourage your support. Speaker 0: Oh, no, no, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We can't have outburst from the audience or the day as everybody does. This is the time for the council members to speak. Okay. Who is who is not? If we have I'm sorry. If we have outburst, I'm going to have to ask people to leave. So let's just. I understand this is very emotional. I feel I think everybody up here is feeling it. So thank you for your professionalism. I really do appreciate it. Oh, that's okay, then. I think that's I think that's best. Thank you. All right. Now, I'm sorry. We need people to let the elected officials have their opportunity to speak, whether you like it or don't like it. That's how this works. I'm sorry. Council member of the Grove. Okay. Anybody else like to say a few words? Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair, that we have an ordinance before us today that the sponsors have said isn't. This isn't in response to a problem. And so I have trouble understanding exactly why we have it before us today. I spoke, um, a fair amount this morning about comparisons to other public development authorities, PDAs, and their level of independence . The analogy of how other jurisdictions handle their arts heritage preservation programs, I believe, are advisory. And that's the fundamental difference between for culture and, for instance, the city of Seattle in who makes up the board and how that and how they're appointed. The other public development authorities across King County, the Pacific Hospital, the Washington State Convention Center, Safeco Field, CenturyLink, others don't have the same level of oversight. This is unique and unnecessary and in my opinion, inappropriate and particularly troubling to me in this ordinance is the loss of expertize in the four areas that for a culture overseas, we currently in current operation require expertize in public art, art, historic preservation and heritage. The four areas that for a culture overseas directs and enhances for our communities across King County. A vote for this ordinance removes the requirement for expertize in the Board of Foreign Culture for these four areas. I find that exceptional. I find that I find that exceptionally disappointing and I cannot support this ordinance. Speaker 0: Councilmember Cole. Speaker 2: Wells Thank you, Madam Chair. This time I would like to thank our staff who have just worked incredibly for quite a while, even over the weekend, to get our amendments ready and very appreciative, I'm sure, by everybody here. I'd also like to thank Councilmember Upton Road for his willingness to meet with individuals, to hear their perspectives, to consider other lines of thought in having his striking amendment drafted. And I appreciate everything that he's had to say. I was really tempted to vote for the striking amendment if it had included the amendments that we brought forward. And I think they were really critical ones. Now I will be voting against the striking amendment. Unfortunately, I think it's a lot better than the underlying proposed ordinance. But to me, we're making a very grievous mistake in going forward with this. I think that I don't even think I believe strongly that for culture has been a model of transparency, openness, accountability, responsiveness. I'm not sure what happened with Councilmember Dombroski because I have heard directly when there is an appointment open and in my district and I certainly have been responsive to that. I don't understand that that message that I guess is what she said. But this is a very problematic proposal that is going to the County Council, and I am hopeful that we can continue to address those areas in which we may be imposing some very deleterious, quote, unintended consequences and effects not only on this agency, but in terms of what we want to come out of this. And I'll say we more generically, but I don't want this to go forward, period. But if it does, I want it to do so in a way, in a manner that will not be harmful. And I very much fear that it will be harmful not only for the agency itself, but more importantly for what it reflects and who it represents. It's not solely the artist and those in the cultural heritage, etc., community. But it's also reflective of our communities to further diversity. Geographic Yes, that's critical. And I want to codify what the practice has been and even strengthen that that was voted down. And it's also reflective of our in a sense, our constituencies. I am very blessed. No one would think otherwise. Representing the fourth Council District, where we have the large institutions, we have the small galleries, we have a plethora of fabulous arts, culture organizations. But I want that to be available all across the county. I don't believe this is the best way to effect that. Not just change, but a continuation of what the Ford Culture Board has worked very hard to achieve more outreach in some communities so that they will have more applications submitted. That's really critical. And an amendment address that that was turned down. But please, really, let's all take a step back and think this through before it comes up for a council vote. I think this is better than the underlying ordinance, but it's not where I think we need to get to to make this a win win situation . But I still think my taskforce is the best approach to do that. But with that, Miss Madam Chair, I will be voting no. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is really been hard because everybody actually wants the same thing. Everybody loves art. And, you know, frequently when we feel pressured by any group and this week has been an exciting group because we've been pressured by several groups, unfortunately, none of them been the taxpayers. And so when when we have to balance and I guess maybe because I've helped raise six kids, I've learned about how you have to balance for everybody to sort of get along. But I was here when the PTA was formed and I know why it was formed. I know how it was formed. I was in those room when it happened. It it worked well when it was in house, but there were some recessions, there were other problems, and we were made some promises. And so we went along with it. Sessions Over the promises for no fault of anybody's were things that happened that nobody anticipated on both sides. So I'm not nuts. Anything bad about anybody. But some of the promises for reasons beyond everybody's control didn't happen. So, you know, that happened. It's out there. I served on the board for a while. I loved serving on the board. It was a great board, professional people, people excited about the arts. You can't have too many people around you that are excited. Speaker 0: About art because. Speaker 2: They're usually very happy people and like unity. So it bothers me that we're at this place, bothers me that people would say that anybody up here would appoint somebody that didn't have artistic talents or artistic interest. I did have a curator from New York that had moved into my district and came to me and said, You know , I'm really lonely here. I would really, really like to get involved. And I said, Well, you know, maybe we can find a border commission. What are you interested in this as well? You know, I was the curator of museum in New York and I'm like, oh, my gosh. So I put her name forward and said she was a curator. And so I think she's pretty talented. But then when I called to see why, you know, she'd gotten the appointment and why her name hadn't come through my office, and they said, Oh, she wasn't qualified. And I'm like, What do you mean she wasn't qualified? Well, when we interviewed her, she wasn't really qualified. So I called her and said, How was that interview? Did you feel like things didn't go well in the interview? She said, Nobody called me, so that was a problem for me. So then I have been on a number of taskforces where departments are getting the 1% for the 1% for the arts, for their department and for various reasons because of what the duties of the. Department. Were there very specific ideas. Speaker 1: About what they needed. Speaker 2: In art? And one of the specifications was not be sharp, which I thought was a particularly. Reasonable request. And the comments that they got back were pretty much we know this better than you do. And I was like, well, actually you don't, because these people over here, this is the art that's going to be in their office on a regular basis, and that's not helpful. Speaker 0: So. Speaker 2: You know, I'm sorry that I'm right. So I think that the communication issue is a problem and it's something that needs to be solved. The people who are going to be living with the art every day need to have more input than they've had in the past. You know, there was an issue where we got international news for a piece of art that was not appropriate. So there have been things and I'm hoping that as we go forward, there will be better communications because we all want the same thing. We all want good art. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. In other comments, Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. There's been a lot of stuff going on here in details, some of which are detail, some of which aren't. But I appreciate the work that people have been putting in and Catherine to Boesky said committee that will look at these issues in little bit more detail with the consultation of floriculture in and sports. I just want to take a moment. I'm going to support this legislation. I think it's necessary and I think it's good to drive. I don't think it's necessarily the system is broken. I don't actually think foreclosures do a very good job. But I do think it creates greater accountability. And so there's always room for improvement in any agency, and I think we can create improvement here. I just want to take a moment to thank those for culture, for their tireless work over the years. We have a wonderful community, a great arts community, something to be very proud of. The supporters and organizations of that group need to be thanked. Thank you for being here for your activism. It's hard not to take this as a snub before culture, but I don't see it that way. I see it's taking a good organization and making it better, and so I'm going to support it. Thank you all for your work. Speaker 0: Thank you. Before I call for the vote, I'll just say a few words. I'm not going to add a whole lot. I have a lot of thoughts and and a very serious level of concern. But I'm going to reserve lengthier comment for final passage when we get to the full council, because I continue to hold some hope that between now and then, perhaps the those of us who feel strongly that we're sending the wrong message and those of us who feel strongly that we're sending the right message with this ordinance can maybe find slightly more middle ground. And I would like to see us get to a place where there could be a90 vote as opposed to a 6 to 3 vote, as was alluded to earlier. I think that because you can doesn't mean you should. And when we say that we're trying to achieve a certain result with what we're doing, then we ought to be really mindful that our methods, how we go about things, what we do, actually drives towards the goal we say we're trying to achieve. Because I don't feel that that has been the case with this process or with this result on this ordinance. So I will be voting no today just for purposes of the folks following who may be following along, who don't watch our processes. Very often this vote that we're about to take will be to move this ordinance as amended with the do pass recommendation to the full council, where it will be taken up at a later date. So with that, I will call for the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Speaker 1: Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 2: Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 2: Councilmember Colwell No. Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 0: Council Member. Speaker 2: McDermott. Speaker 4: No. Speaker 0: Council member of the Grove. Speaker 2: Councilmember Yvonne Bauer. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote has six eyes. Speaker 1: Three. Speaker 0: Nos by your vote. Ordinance number 2018 0086, as amended, is passed out of committee with a do pass recommendation. We will move it to full council without expediting and it will be on the regular agenda. All right. Thank you very much. We have gone way over, but council members, council members, if a quorum of us could stay, we have one poor gentleman who's been waiting for his confirmation for hours. Let's bring him in. Thank you. And before we do that, though, I'm sorry. I am I am totally forgetting my script here, but I need to, just as you all are standing up and moving on, I need to say thank you to staff Mary Bergen on Wendy Sue, who led critical Zoghbi who wasn't able to see this all the way through because she's home, hopefully having a very healthy baby. And Kendall Moore, our attorney and Bruce from the Coder Advisors Office, I know you all worked so, so, so, so hard to help us walk through all of the changes and get us through this today. Thank you very, very much. We all appreciate your work. All right. We're moving on to motion, not motion. We're moving on to there is a King County code, so motion 2018 0087. The next one and this is our final item today as council members will recall, the position of deputy director of the Department of Elections is a position that is designated as

Motion

A MOTION calling for establishment of a task force to conduct a review of cultural infrastructure across King County, the accessibility of arts, cultural and heritage programming and the structure and practices of 4Culture, the cultural development authority of King County, and to report its recommendations to the council.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_03072018_2018-0087

Speaker 0: We all appreciate your work. All right. We're moving on to motion, not motion. We're moving on to there is a King County code, so motion 2018 0087. The next one and this is our final item today as council members will recall, the position of deputy director of the Department of Elections is a position that is designated as requiring council confirmation in the code. I thank you, my colleagues who have stayed. We are going to hear from Julie Wise and our staff about Mr. Nathan Valladares, who has been and you'll tell me if I've not heard your name, who's been proposed for the position. He's been working here for a little while already and he's up for confirmation. And I will just quickly ask Heidi Poppycock from council staff for a brief report. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think he summed it up very well, what I was going to say. Okay. Speaker 2: I want to turn it over to Director White. Speaker 0: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for having us this afternoon. I have known and worked with Nathan Valadares for just about 12 years before I appointed him. My deputy, Nate, was our operations manager at King County Elections. He's been a steadfast fixture at elections. And truly, Nate is really the epitome of professional public servant. He's acquired experience in all aspects of election administration since 2006, has supported King County elections and conducting more than 50 successful elections, including three presidential elections. And he's also a Washington state certified election administrator. He's a longtime shoreline resident where he and his wife live, a robust and busy life with their two young daughters. Nathan out there has been a rock for me since I've taken office in 2016. I've come to rely on him. It's my pleasure to introduce to you all today, Nathan Balderas. Thank you so much and welcome, Mr. Balderas, who I now know is pronounced Balderas. Thank you. Anything you'd like to share with the committee? Speaker 3: Well, I know. Speaker 4: We just finished. Speaker 3: A long debate, so I will make my comments brief. But thank you for the record. Eight Others Deputy Director Designee for the Department of Elections. I believe my paramount duty as an election administrator in King County is to ensure the security of our elections. And so that's one of the top topics that we care about. I'm also excited about continuing our work, removing barriers to voting. When Julie took office in 2016, she quickly prioritized voter access, increasing voter access as a priority. And I'm excited to continue that work with her. Lastly, I'm excited to balance the day to day operations of our department with while simultaneously looking at the future of elections, what our election is going to look like in five, ten and 15 years in King County as technology changes, as our society changes. What will our the voters of tomorrow expect and demand? So those are the types of challenges I look forward to working with Julie in the elections tomorrow. Very good. Be happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Councilmember Gossett almost always has really good questions for the candidates, so I'm going to call on him first. Speaker 5: Thank you very much for our return. I had the opportunity to meet individually with Nathan, so I know from talking to him almost an hour that he is extremely experienced. That is education and and technical training for elections. Work is the pur. And then the last thing I liked about him is that he's a that those two things usually don't go with being a people person, but he's a people person. My staff and I really enjoyed just talking to him there, the ease within which he spoke with us. And I'm sure that when people call the elections office and they're pushed up to his office because they're upset because somebody lost their down ballot, he's going to be able to hammer them for that. So for all those reasons, I think we're getting a really excellent deputy director for our elections office. Thank you, madam. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Kemp. That's high praise. Usually he grills the people sitting in your seat, so you're lucky you got that offline. Any other comments or questions? I will add my welcome. Elections is, of course, one of the most important functions of King County government that we provide fair, open, transparent elections that are accurate. And it's been a real challenge for us in the past. And I know that our former elections director and our current elections director have been working very, very diligently over years to make sure that our systems are what they need to be. I read over your experience. It's very impressive. We're really lucky to have you here. So thank you for. I'm going to King County and working in this role. I will say that if you're going to be King County in a King County elections, you need to get used to me repeating my Battlestar Galactica thing. So if you're going to work on technology, recall the lessons of Battlestar Galactica. Why was Battlestar Galactica the ship that survived the attack of the Cylons? Because it wasn't connected to the network. They got. They got hacked. So let's make sure that our our system is safe from hacking anyway. All right, before we lose our quorum, I think we should just go ahead and accept a motion if someone would make it to confirm, to recommend confirmation of Mr. Nathan Valladares with a do pass recommendation to the full council. Speaker 4: And I'm sure he will have a do pass recommendation. The motion 2018 87. Speaker 0: It has been moved. Any comments? All those in favor please signify by saying I do need a roll call. I'm sorry. We need a roll call. Roll call. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 1: Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn. Hi. Councilmember Gossett Oh, Councilmember Commonwealth. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 0: Councilmember up the Grove. Councilmember von Richter. Speaker 2: Madam Chair. Speaker 0: AI Madam Chair, the. Speaker 1: Vote is seven. Nice. Two Nos. Two. Excuse me. Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion passes unanimously and we will. Let's expedite that and put it on consent so you don't need to come. We'll take our final vote on consent. And congratulations. Welcome formally and we look forward to working with you. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. With that, that brings us to the end of our agenda. Our next meeting will be Wednesday, March 21st, when we anticipate discussing an additional and, I believe, final gender neutral code ordinance, the E911 one strategic plan, our federal legislative agenda, and a briefing about the county's priorities.

Motion

A MOTION confirming the director of elections's appointment of Nathan Valderas as deputy director of elections.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_02212018_2018-0086

Speaker 0: It's been moved and is before us. Any comments or changes on the minutes seeing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I any opposed minutes are approved unanimously. Okay, this brings us to proposed ordinance number 2018 0086. This item would make some changes to the for Culture King County's for Culture Development Authority. And as I said earlier, we're going to ask this. Our staff, our King County Council staff to make their report first, then move on to the panel discussion and then we'll take public testimony after which the committee will have a chance to deliberate on everything that we have heard. Okay. So we have a striking amendment to consider today, as well as the original proposal. And with that, I will call on council staff Leah Greco Zoghbi and Wendy Sue, who thank you both for all your work on this topic. And please go ahead and give us your staff presentation. Speaker 1: Good morning. Council members and audience members. I'm Leah crackles at the council staff. With me is Wendy Sidhu. The materials for this item begin on page nine of your packet. The ordinance for you is concerning county oversight of King County's cultural development authority known as for culture, and it would amend King County Code, the fourth for Culture Charter and for culture bylaws. I'll begin with some brief background and then Wendy and I will present the analysis of the legislation prior to the existence of our culture, King County Arts and Cultural Services were administered by the Office of the King County Office of Cultural Resources and within the Executive Office. In 2002, the King County Executive proposed and the County Council adopted an ordinance creating the Cultural Development Authority, later named for culture to assume their functions previously provided by the Office of Cultural Resources, as well as some additional functions under state law. Counties by ordinance may establish a public development authority defined and often called PTA defined as a special purpose quasi municipal corporation created by a local government to carry out a specific public purpose. The proposal to form the PDA was in response to changes in cultural funding at the time, including a reduction in lodging tax revenue available for up. Operations and a reduction in the County General Fund, which resulted in the elimination of General Fund support for cultural grants in 2002. In forming the For Culture PDA, King County wrote an adopted four cultures charter and bylaws and selected the acting executive director and members of the Nominating Committee to select the four culture. The initial for Culture Board currently the primary funding sources for for cultures ongoing operations are a special account which was formally called the Endowment Fund. And I'll get into that more in a little bit. And the 1% for art funding, which is which comes from capital budgets, from county construction projects, investment earnings and county general fund money for maintaining King County's art collection. So table one on page 11 of the staff report shows four cultures projected revenues for 2018. Historically, a portion of the lodging tax collected in King County has been dedicated to arts and culture. And then in 1995, the state legislature reduced that support requiring and also required that 40% of the arts and culture revenues received after January 20 or January 2001 be set aside into an an and a down endowment account, which was to begin supporting arts and cultural functions in 2013 in lieu of that lodging tax support. So in 28 and then in 2011, the state legislature once again established a permanent funding stream for arts and culture in King County by dedicating a portion of the lodging tax revenue to arts and culture beginning in 2021. And so currently for culture is living off that endowment. Table two on page 12 of your packet shows the uses for lodging, tax for arts and culture in King County over time. Moving to an overview of the proposed ordinance, pages 13 through 15 of your packet provide a section by section summary of the proposed ordinance. But in the interest of time, I'm just going to give a brief summary. So the proposed ordinance would require that the King that King County or the County Council accept a accept by Motion for Cultures Board adopted budget prior to transferring funding to forge for culture in the next fiscal year. It would modify the for Culture Board appointment process to include one boy board appointment each by county council members and six appointments by the county executive. The requirements for a specific balance of expertize on the board would be eliminated, and it would provide for the county executive to appoint and King the King County Council to confirm the for culture executive director and recommended for selection by the for Culture Board. And it would provide for the county to remove the executive director by ordinance and it would provide for the county to amend for culture bylaws to make them consistent with changes to the For Culture Charter. Table three on page 16 of your packet shows a comparison between the proposed ordinance and existing conditions. Now turning to the analysis of the proposed ordinance, the ordinance page 17 and 18 of your packet discuss comparisons of the proposed oversight of fort culture to oversight of other PDAs, public agencies and public art programs in the region. The full comparisons can be found in attachments six and seven, which begin on page 171 of your packet. The comparison shows that for culture, beginning in 2021 would receive more public funding than most of the other agencies in the comparison. It also shows that this proposal would make for culture one of only two PDAs where the founding government plays a role in confirming the agency's executive director. And it would make for culture the only PDA to have its operating and capital budget approved by its founding government. I'll now turn to Wendy, who will provide the analysis of the budget impacts. Speaker 0: Thank you, Wendy Sidhu Council staff and Mr. Crackles IP pointed out earlier this proposed legislation would establish a process for the County Council to review and accept for cultures budget by motion. Specifically, the ordinance would require for culture to transmit its board approved budget for the following fiscal year to the Council by late September each year. Under the proposed legislation for culture would be required to transmit information. Similar to that which the Council receives when the executive transmits the county's biennial budget. Specifically, the elements that would be required in the proposed legislation would be budgeted operating expenditures and full time equivalent positions for the next year. Capital expenditures for the following six years. And then supporting data including but not limited to a financial plan for the preceding year current year in the next five years. And a description of significant changes from the current fiscal year budget to the next year's proposed budget. Under the proposal, if the Council were to not accept the budget by motion, which would mean either rejecting the motion or not taking action before the end of the year, then the county in the following year would begin to discontinue transfers of the county funds that go to 44 culture currently. And these funds include the hotel motel tax revenues that Ms.. Zaki described that will begin resuming in 2021, as well as 1% for art funding, the capital program funding that goes to for culture as well as general fund support. And the general fund support is the money that goes to culture to essentially take care of the county's art collection. Under the proposal, the transfers would not resume until after the council had accepted a four culture budget by motion and according to the sponsors of the proposed legislation, the rationale for this proposal is to provide greater public accountability over the public public dollars being expended by for culture. Council staff did talk with for culture to try to understand what the potential operational impacts would be according to for culture. Preparing and transmitting the budget to council on the timeline that's proposed would require some significant changes to the agency's budget process. Historically, they've adopted a budget or they've proposed a budget to the board in December once the county budget has been adopted and the amount of county expenditures are known, and then the board approves the budget in January. And so under this approach they would need to provide a budget to their board that was based on estimates of revenues and expenditures, which could mean that throughout the fiscal year they would need to make updates to their budget to reflect actuals as as they were learning more information about their financial condition. I would note that the legislation would not require that those budget updates come to the Council. Once the council had actually taken action on the motion, there would be no need under the legislation for for culture to make any updates subsequently. However, in the case that the Council didn't approve the motion by the end of the year or had rejected it in that case, it's possible or even likely that for culture would probably want to submit a revised budget to the council. Council staff asked for culture to provide information on the potential impacts to the actual programs. If the transfers of these funds were to discontinue for a period of time for a culture indicated that if the council rejected or didn't accept the budget by the end of the year, then they would have to announce that they would be postponing funding for all programs until the budget impasse was resolved. According to For Culture in 2019 and 2020. So before the lodging taxes resume, the primary impact would be to the 1% for art program. Public art projects have multi-year schedules, and the 1% funding from the county is typically transferred to for culture in the beginning of the biennial budget period. And so if the funds stopped being transferred, the public art program would have to be suspended, which could lead to layoffs as well as delays in implementing the public art projects. In addition to stewardship of the county's art collection, would also need to be suspended if general funds ceased to be transferred. And this could lead to temporary layoffs of employees. So turning to page 20 of the staff report, by 2024, culture does expect to have depleted most of its reserves. So the grant programs that are funded by the lodging, tax and special account funding would also be impacted most before cultures. Application deadlines are early in the calendar year, which would be problematic if the Council didn't accept the Fort Culture budget by the end of the preceding year. Without significant reserves, to be able to rely on the grant awards could be delayed, which would potentially delay projects or impact organizations or individual artists that receive funding. And then I would also note that for culture would potentially only be able to cover 1 to 2 months of their general operations. If transfers were discontinued before, they would have to consider layoffs. Council staff also worked with the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget and asked for input on the proposed budget review and acceptance process. They had a number of requests. Specifically, they requested that the Fort Culture Budget be transmitted. Via PSP so that it can provide a quality control review before the transmittal to the council. A PSP also suggested that the for culture budget transmittal include information on administrative expenses and estimated expenditures by program area, but limit the estimate of capital expenditures to only one year as per culture does not manage a significant capital program. PSP also expressed the executive's interest in specifying that the Council should act on the motion in order to accept the port culture budget at least 30 days prior to the end of the year. And then lastly, PSP requested that only the hotel motel tax revenues be withheld and pending council acceptance of the budget in order to prevent any delays or implementation issues with the public art programs and or the 1% for art programs or the stewardship of the county's art collection. I would note that the acceptance of the four culture budget that contemplated in the proposed legislation would be a separate action from the appropriation of county funds for transfer to fort culture. That's something that the Council does as part of its biennial budget process. It appropriates the hotel the the funding sources that the county transfers to for culture as part of the budget ordinance. And so that would continue to occur. And so the budget ordinance would remain a vehicle for potential expenditure restrictions and provisos on those funds. That concludes my remarks, and I will turn it back over to Julia. Speaker 1: Thank you, Wendy. And so we're turning to page 20 of the packet for the impacts to the for culture board of the proposed changes to the report or to the board nomination or appointment and makeup. And so the proposed ordinance would change the board nominating process and board makeup such that new appointments and re appointments due to vacancies unexpired terms would be appointed six by the executive and one each by each county council member. The executive and Council member could make appointments from among those forwarded by the For Culture Board or other qualified candidates. According to the sponsors of the proposed ordinance. The rationale for the proposal is to increase communication between the for Culture Board and the County Council and to ensure diverse geographic representation on the For Culture Board. The proposed changes would not impact the current board members as the changes would take effect in the case of filling vacant or expired terms. Four Culture has expressed that while they welcome County Council input into the nomination of Fort Culture Board members, they are concerned about having board members not appointed by individual council members rather than as part of a whole, that that could decrease the overall diversity that they strive for on the board. And I think you will hear more about that when there are four culture board panel comes up. So I will move on the table beginning on page 21 of your packet shows a comparison of the makeup and nomination appointment and confirmation process for select county boards and commissions. And while the table shows that the nomination and appointment process is, ah, they vary quite a bit. One common thread is that the executive appoints most members and the council confirms appointments and that is the case even for boards and commissions that are required to have members residing in each council district or where the council plays a role in the nominating process. The proposed ordinance would make for a culture the only board in this comparison to have a member directly appointed by each council member turning to the Executive Director impacts on page 24 of your packet. The proposed ordinance would keep in place the provisions that allow the Fort Culture Board to manage the selection of four cultures, executive director, oversee the executive directors performance and remove the executive director. The proposed ordinance would add provisions requiring that the four Culture Board recommend to the recommended executive director candidate to the county executive for appointment and confirmation by the County Council. The proposal would also allow the county to remove the executive director by ordinance. According to the sponsors of the proposed ordinance. The rationale for the proposal is to increase the responsiveness of the for culture executive director to the County Council and Executive who directly represent the people of King County and for culture , has expressed concern about the proposal. And as they point out that the. Executive Director would be an employee for culture, and that hiring and firing by an outside entity would be a concern for that reason. And that they also noted that they believe the proposal would create confusion for the executive director reporting to multiple entities and would deviate from the governance structure typical of PDAs and nonprofit organizations. To compare this proposal with the management of other county departments and independent agencies generally, King County Department Heads and other appointees are appointed by the executive, confirmed by the Council, and can only be removed by the executive. There's further feedback from Fort Culture on the proposal on page 24 of the packet and in the attachments beginning on page 185 of your packet. You'll also hear from them during the panel discussion after the staff report. So turning to page 25 of your packet, there's a striking amendment that's been proposed by the sponsor of the proposed ordinance. So I will briefly describe that it would make the following changes to the proposed ordinance charter and for Culture Charter and for culture bylaws. It would eliminate the ability of the county and the county to remove the four culture executive director. It would stipulate that the four culture budget be transmitted to the executive rather than the council 125 days before the end of each fiscal year. And then to the executive would transmit to the council with the regular budget process. And it would require that the for culture budget review and executive acceptance process begin in 2020 rather than on the effective date of the proposed ordinance. It would allow fund transfers to continue in the next fiscal year if the county or the council did not act on the motion by November 30th. So transfers would only discontinue if the Council rejected the four culture budget by motion by November 30th, and it would provide for a process for notifying and get it and providing input from the for Culture Governance Nominating Committee on board vacancies. All other elements of the proposed ordinance would remain as previously described, and that concludes our staff report. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I have just been told that we can open up the balcony. I'm waiting for somebody to come along with a key. Apparently, it's been closed due to the as I said it, I heard the key in the lock. So we're going to be moving some chairs in upstairs that can help to accommodate a few more people. But I do want to take just a few minute recess at this point because it'll be noisy. So I'm going to call it into recess for about hopefully no more than 5 minutes. And we can accommodate a few more people in the chambers. There's at least 40 or 45 people up in the overflow and I see people standing outside. So I'm hoping we can get a few more people in here. So we'll be in recess for about 5 minutes. Is this on? We're going to continue in about 30 seconds so people could take their seat. If you have a seat. I'd appreciate it. The overflow room remains available for those who don't have chairs upstairs. Welcome for those who do that. So, of course. So. All right. We'll be back in session. Thank you all for your patience. I'm glad we were able to accommodate a few more people here in the chambers. And at this point in the agenda, we have three representatives from the Board of Four Culture.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE related to the cultural development authority; identifying responsibilities of the county council; amending Ordinance 14482, Section 34, and K.C.C. 2.46.180, Ordinance 8300, Section 3 as amended, and K.C.C. 2.48.030, Ordinance 14482, Section 38, and K.C.C. 2.48.065, Ordinance 14482, Section 39, and K.C.C. 2.48.075, Ordinance 14482, Section 40, and K.C.C. 2.48.085, Ordinance 14482, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.020, Ordinance 14482, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.060, Ordinance 14482, Section 9, and K.C.C. 2.49.080, Ordinance 14482, Section 11, and K.C.C. 2.49.110, Ordinance 14482, Section 17, and K.C.C. 2.49.160, Ordinance 14482, Section 18, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.170, Ordinance 14482, Section 19, and K.C.C. 2.49.180, Ordinance 14440, Section 3, and K.C.C. 2.49.200, Ordinance 14482, Section 58, as amended, and K.C.C. 4.40.015 and Ordinance 17527, Section 57, as amended, and K.C.C. 4.40.110, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 2.49, decodifying K.C.C. 2.49.070 and repealing Ordinance 14482, Section 10, and K.C.C. 2.49.090.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_01172018_2017-0507

Speaker 0: It has been enthusiastically moved and is before us. Any comments or changes? All those in favor of approving the minutes please signify by saying i, i any opposed? All right, so this brings us to motion number 2017 0507, a motion to appoint Cheryl Whitney, who I think we all know from our time here at King County to the Harborview Medical Center Board of Trustees to fill the remainder of a four year term. Cheryl's from District six, my district. I'm delighted she's agreed to serve on the Harborview board. She's here with us today, along with Patrick Gallagher of our council staff, who will present the item. Please go ahead. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. Council members, for the record, Patrick Homemaker Council staff. As you noted in your introduction, Ms.. Whitney has been appointed to the Harborview Medical Center Board of Trustees by the county executive. She will be serving out the remainder of a four year term that runs through the middle of July 2020. So it's got about three and a half years, about three years left in the Harborview Medical Center board is comprised of 13 members, nine of them appointed by districts, and four at large by the county, the county executive, the board as the representatives of King County at Harborview Medical Center and oversees its operations, including the selection of the executive director. The since 2011, Ms.. Whitney has been co-owner of Whitney Jennings, a Mercer Island based full service management consultancy. And prior to that, Ms.. JENNINGS Ah, excuse me. Mr. Whitney served as a consultant to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Those are her more recent positions. And as you noted in your introduction, Madam Chair, she has a long history of almost 20 years with King County, and her final position at King County was as deputy county executive, so that I would conclude my remarks. Madam Chair, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Also with us today is Jennifer Yu, who serves as a staff at Harborview and is the staffer who's coordinates the board appointments. Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Mr. Hamacher, I want to ask a question. Then I'll call on Councilmember Gossett. I just want to ask Miss Whitney if you would take a moment just to tell us about yourself and your interest in serving on the board. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the council I sat in, probably not this chair, but one like it. And for my confirmation as a department head here and a King County. And I'll be honest with you that I think I feel as nervous now as I did as I did on that day. There's something about public service. It never fails to be weighty, and I think that's as it should be. So I cannot tell you what an honor it is to be sitting here and to be considered for this position. I fully understand that a board position with Harborview is big and this institution is a jewel in this region and means so, so much so. I I'm I'm I'm honored throughout my career at the county, as Pat mentioned, I spent almost 20 years here at King County. Throughout my career, I had the opportunity to be up at Harbor View on many, many, many occasions. And I have watched the staff there perform at. Miracles. But as impressive as the life saving work that I have watched them do is the grace and the dignity that they treat each individual that is in front of them. And the grace that they show is so incredible and so powerful that the opportunity to have the opportunity to be a part of that culture is an incredible opportunity and honor and one that I really look forward to. I was asked to say a little bit about myself in terms of my history and how that might be of use to the board. And I would say that I a number of things, but what I hope is that my understanding of the leadership here at King County, of the systems here at King County, that so many of the faces have changed, those systems remain. And whether it's jail health or public health, human services and their daily interactions with Harborview, I hope that my my understanding of those organizations and those agencies is useful. I will say that I, I got my beginnings at King County in the Budget Office. So I know a great deal about the difficulty of balancing a budget for this institution. I hope my understanding of that work is useful here. I at one point served as the deputy director of what used to be executive administration, the general government department that housed the facilities management function. So I hope that that role will also be useful as the board is looking at potential facilities issues on into the future. And the very last thing I would say is that I was honored to be a part of the original work, King County's original work on equity and social justice. I'm incredibly proud of where that work has has gone. But that is a lens that I know from speaking with the staff at Harborview is critical to them. So I hope that I bring that perspective to the work each day. So thank you so, so very much and thank you for being willing to serve. Councilmember Gossett And then Councilmember one right there. Speaker 1: Thank you. My first question, Madam Chair, is for Patrick. And I wanted to know, is she a District Six appointee or one of four at large? Speaker 2: She's a she is an appointee representing District six. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. I know. Speaker 2: I can. Speaker 1: Help her. She she sat on somebody's knee when she was three and she was already impressively articulate person, even as a little girl. I went to college with her uncle, so I'm really looking forward to this. But I have now I have a question for you. I put my professional hat back on. It was nice to hear what you said about the staff in general at Harborview, from your observations. But what if it were brought to your attention as a new board member that some low income patients of one of Harvey's clinics came to? The board or the board found out that there are allegations that they're being abused or misused are not treated adequately. I want to know how you would handle that kind of situation. Speaker 0: And thank you for the for the question for the important question. And you will note in my comments that because I have I have seen firsthand and under very difficult circumstances the incredible grace of the staff at Harborview that I would find it I would find it shocking. But as someone who has been a part of the management structure of this organization with 13,000 employees, and knowing that there isn't perfection that that takes place every day, you do have to step in and you do have to step in seriously and raise issues. And when you when you hear them and you have to do it immediately. So I would have no I would have no hesitation about raising it with Paul and with the staff. And in fact, I would see that as my obligation. Speaker 2: I'm sorry that Paul Hayes is the executive director at the hospital. Speaker 0: My apologies. Speaker 2: To. Speaker 0: Councilmember Gordon right there. Speaker 2: Well, thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to thank Councilmember Garcia for clarifying where he began his remarks. In this era of getting nervous, everybody is is a long term relationship and friendship. Cheryl, first of all, congratulations and thank you for your willingness to serve. Those of us who have worked with you in the past and know the skills you're bringing. And I want to thank Councilmember Claudia Baldacci for recommending you for this confirmation. I share with you my belief that our review is one of the one of the gems of King County, who truly has produced a service that across the board, blue collar, white collar, no car is happening. A hospital that has received and served so many people, and those of us who have had relatives or friends who have gone there, have always, in my case, received nothing but positive feedback by the people who work there, because a hospital alone is not what makes it work. It's the people who work there and the service they provide and the quality of service and care. And I agree with you, I've heard nothing but positive feedback as you look at the budget, which something that you've had a keen background with with Executive Sims, as you look at the problems, the financial problems, what are some of your personal and professional concerns about the place of medicine and general and specifically as it relates to Harborview? Speaker 0: So thank you. I have as because I haven't yet attended a board meeting. I'm not I'm not deeply ensconced in the the on the details of of harbor of his budget. But certainly as as a resident of this county, of this state, as a citizen of the U.S., when you look at the overall issues that frame and Medicaid and the health care structure in general, we're in a period of flux and it's it's unknown what's going to happen with that. So I'm I go in with a very clear eye as to the importance of and of health insurance and whether or not the fragile population that Harborview serves will continue to have access to health care and what that means in terms of reimbursements and just the bottom line for the hospital. So that is one of the things that I will be I'd been watching it before and having this honor to be sitting on this board. It's something that I've been extremely passionate about. And so I am I'm deeply, deeply concerned and interested in that you might see in my. Resumé that I'm also a board member at DSC Downtown Emergency Services Center and at DSC. We are on we are working on issues of behavioral health, particularly on that and how that interfaces with primary care and the funding and of of both of those systems. So I have a very a very keen eye for that and will be we'll be watching and to see how how I can be useful and where we proceed as a country in addition to to what's happening here in the region. Speaker 2: Well, again, I think the only constant in this world is change. And we see the change every hour and day and the needs by which health care. I sat on our board for 12 years. The Franciscan Health System, which is a nonprofit, takes in St George, St Clair, St Francis, St Anthony's. I wish I was looking for fire insurance, but at the end of the day, we looked at change. And and my concern again is about mergers and how we try to figure out ways to make the hospital financially secure it. We're we were a nonprofit, obviously a Franciscan health system, but you're a nonprofit. And again, unfortunately, nonprofits can end up in debt and then collapse. And right now, I look at the some of the challenges facing UW medicine in general. And our review in particular. And I'm worried. So I think it's really important that someone with your background understands as much as we may want to serve as many and as often and as much, we may collapse the system in the process. So it's very important to bring your judicial and balanced view to understand there is a price to be paid and a financial accountability in the long run. Speaker 0: So I agree. Thank you, sir. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: I can't remember Up the Grove, followed by Councilmember Lambert and Councilmember Dan Belsky. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for your willingness to serve. As you well know, Harborview has a unique mission, at least in this state, in terms of that public mission. And there's a special relationship between the county and medicine, and we value them as a partner. But there are times where the values and priorities may differ between the senior staff at UGA Medicine and the Board of Regents versus the County Council and the county executive. And we've tried to spell out in our agreement certain values and sometimes we interpret those differently and we see it most notably around employee relations sometimes. And I think often a majority of this body and the county executive view part of that public mission as setting the example for how we treat employees. And often we've seen you dub medicine in the in the desire to save costs really kind of do that hard nosed business model. Bottom line, how do you navigate that? Where do you see your responsibility as a board member when there is sort of a little bit of a difference in approach and values between You Dove Medicine and King County over issues like particular employee relations or compensation and contracts and things like that. Speaker 0: And it's a challenge, right? I mean, it's a it's a big deal. It's a challenge. But this is in my mind, this is public service. And the the the varying points of view, the bottom line and the care that we want everyone to receive. All of these things require a balance. And I have and after the 20 years of battle scars here, I, I just I don't have fear about this issue of I'm trying to because because I believe that that everyone is trying to get to the best possible place as it relates to providing excuse me, providing services to the community. So knowing that we have our eyes on the prize of how we're trying to move forward and trying to then be able to reconcile and and work through tough issues. And I, I think that's I think that's the job of the board. Right? I think that's I think that that's our responsibility to hear where all the concerns are and then to set to set to set a course. So I'm in the end on the hypothetical of, you know, what may come about. And I'm I'm I'm not afraid of that and have spent 20 years of my county government career doing precisely that, listening to to the various concerns, understanding the financial impacts. And but I'll say about the employees that they are the miracle. I mean, they they are what is what is making that that place move. And so their their concerns and their ability to do a good job has to be a North Star for for the organization. And I and I hope I hope that to be the case because, in fact, they're the ones when you when you talk to anyone who has had an interaction up at Harborview, it's how they were treated, the expertize that was brought to their room and that and the dignity that they were shown. All of that is critical so that the employees as far as I felt this way when I worked at King County, I'll bring that attitude to to this board that the that the Louisa are central to this as a Lambert thank you to you and your expertize and it gets to the adage if you want something done, ask a busy person. So thank you for being able to do that. And everybody said what I wanted to say, so I'll just say ditto. On the idea of interfacing the DC population with the Harborview population and also 1811 House and. Now those facilities have one another mutually to make sure that people are treated with respect and also on a path to changing their lives. And also the the contract that we have that's wonderful with your job and making sure that their financial viability going forward doesn't negatively impact us. And having that really clear conversations, that may not be easy. And I know for your experiences here and sitting in conversations I watched, I know you can have those conversations quite well. So thank you for being willing to say, Hey, customer. Speaker 3: TOMASKY Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for bringing this nominee forward. She touched on her experience in the Budget Office, which at the time was done on the fourth floor of this building. Speaker 0: If I ask you, you're dating me. But yes. Oh, I'm dating myself. Speaker 3: I'm dating myself. I worked across the hall. I mean. Speaker 0: Yes, in executive. Speaker 2: Walks, the executive. Speaker 3: Office because it was there, too. Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 3: But Cheryl, I think you touched on this in the response that comes up, the gross inquiry. I think one of the most powerful tools you will have as a board member, an independent board member representing the best interest of the hospital. Its mission is its budget approval for the hospital. Right. And your budget experience and your expertize there, I think will be a very powerful and that plays into, I think, a lot of the issues that we care about with respect to how we look to Harborview to serve its mission population. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 3: And in the course of our negotiations with the updated contract with the University of Washington, which I encourage you to read and a motion surrounding it, we updated that mission, keeping it central tenants, but emphasizing them to make sure we reminded the hospital that we're there to serve that mission population is those who are uninsured, immigrant and refugee communities, you know, traditionally underserved populations. And even with the Affordable Care Act, I think, as you know, there's still five or so percent, maybe more of the population who are not covered by insurance because of the exclusions in that. And I'm I'm hopeful that we as a community working in partnership with Harvey and you that medicine can look at filling that gap which would be consistent with our reviews mission and would be interested in working with you on that. Great. With respect to the budget, I'm not sure I have some questions here. We just want to get well dialog. Now, one of the things that we did with the Harborview Agreement with University of Washington was for the first time ever, strike a deal where you don't mess and pays about. I think that we're only $5 million a year into our public health fund now. They can do that in cash or trade. So far it's been cash, but those dollars have been life saving for our public health department that's been cut there. And I want to call that provision to your attention. There's there's a that's a challenge is the budget is tight in the medicine world and, you know, medicine and and I ask that you watch that and be continue to be supportive of that because it's you talked about keeping our eye on the north star of serving the population it well it's two different entities public health and you're missing they are serving that same part. Speaker 0: Of the country. Speaker 3: Because we were up the grove talked a little bit about employee relations and labor and there are some provisions in the contract new that address labor relations. And unfortunately, from my perspective, it's continued to be an ongoing struggle. And I was very pleased to hear your response to concern about the groans about your commitment to the workers, because they are the health care is not the building. That's right. It's not the machines necessarily. But but it's them. And I hope that you'll carry that philosophy forward. Speaker 0: And absolutely. Speaker 3: And remember that as a trustee, you're, of course, there for the for the community. Like my question getting to it is I noticed in your publications that you've got extensive experience and work on issues surrounding equity and social justice and leveling the playing field. Yes. And you are no doubt aware of the major demographic shifts where our review at one time was in the epicenter of probably the community that was least served in terms of access to quality health care. But geographically, now, many of those patients live far away right now, you know, is a terrific partner and maybe helping solve the challenges that creates because of their clinic footprint throughout the county. And I wondered if you've got thinking or ideas about how we could take Harborview and its wonderful partnership with you, that medicine to it to address disparities countywide, particularly as they become more geographically spread and. Speaker 0: Great. Great question. Great issue. And I so I'll be honest with you, that that my. My uninformed kind of knee jerk reaction to that would be to talk about that footprint of clinics that are that are spread throughout the region, that that's absolutely critical and you're absolutely spot on that the how the population and that we see the. They call it the in academia the suburbanization of poverty that it is that that we need to think so differently about these issues. I talked about my work at DSC, where we're working with this chronic homeless, mentally ill population and its work has been centered in in Seattle, but that we have been talking as a board about how are we supportive to those communities that are that are seeing the same issues that are taking place around around the county. So this is on top of mind and deep and heart for me as an issue. And very, very I'm very clear that that the city of Seattle itself is not the sole epicenter and that that these issues are are around the region. So I, I carry that issue with me in my lens about service provision. And I hope to, to understand this more thoroughly and what is actually happening on the ground, because I know a couple docs that work out in the surrounding the surrounding communities. I know that those services are taking place, but I would but it's something they need to know a lot more about and what access looks like for people. Speaker 2: Who are at the heart of. Speaker 0: Of harbor views, service population. I want to give Councilmember Gossett the last word here. Speaker 1: I thank you. One final question. I appreciate that, Madam Chair. And this is I kind of follow up on what Councilmember Dombroski was asking, you know, about staff relations. While you were one or Ansell's top deputies, he was successful in getting a couple of policy changes through the King County Council, one of which had to do with contracting out. So we actually passed some policies and that for these workforces, King County has a policy of not allowing those services to be contracted out. So hypothetically speaking, if a situation arose where the University of Washington has day to day managers at the hospital say, well, we need to save money. So these workers at Harborview or that are served by Harborview, we don't have to, you know, contract that out because we've got to save money. Just I mean, you can vote the way you want to vote for. What would you take into consideration and taking that kind of vote should you be confirmed today? Speaker 0: And I would be I would be thinking about precisely the issues that we thought about here when we were talking about not wanting to degrade our service level for for a bottom line. What we one of the things that I feel very proud of King County government for is working with employees, working with labor in order to solve heart problems and the the unions and what we you know, we have many here at King County are not and are not naive about what about the financial position. So I don't come at this thinking it's an it's an us versus them or it's that black and white. I my tendency because my experience is that working with employees and working with labor, that you actually get to some good, you get to some good answers. And that translates into a bottom line as it did here when we worked on health care issues. And that actually worked and in pocket actual real life savings, not glossy and not just happy talk, but real life savings. So my my inclination is to try to be working in partnership and to see where we can actually achieve that, you know, what's real, that you need to balance the budget. But at the same time, being able to work with the people who know that work in order to be able to come up with solutions. I've seen it. We've all seen it. We we have done that here. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I really. Appreciate your being here and answering all our questions. I think we're all i, i although this is one of the longer interviews we've done, I think everybody's very excited to, to have your expertize and deep experience and obviously carrying on on the board. So at this point, I would entertain a motion to approve proposed motion number 2017 0507 appointing Cheryl Whitney to the Harborview Medical Center Board of Trustees with a do pass recommendation. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to make that motion. I'd like to propose motion. 2017 0507 the do pass recommendation. Thank you. And moved and seconded. Any comments or questions? All right, all those in favor please signify by saying I. I opposed. Speaker 2: All right. I thought we had broken. Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. Is that a roll call vote? Let's call the roll. Thank you. Thank you. Council member and Staff Council Member. Dombrowski Council Member. Dunn Council Member. Gossett I Council Member. Commonwealth Council Member. Lambert High Council Member. McDermott High Council Member of the Grove. Council Member. Von Richter. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 0: Madam Chair, I. Madam Chair, the vote is seven is no nos. Council members Dunn and Caldwell's excused. Thank you. By your vote. You have passed the motion and thank you again for your service. This can go on concerns and most people want to revisit and invite Miss Whitney back again. All right. Well, let's put it on consent and on regular order. And this will come before the council in two weeks. Thank you so much. I know it's a it's going to be very exciting to work with you. All right. Our next item is ordinance number 2017 0481, which would establish a King County Immigrant and Refugee Commission. This was a follow up to a recommendation by the King County Immigrant and Refugee Task Force. And today we're just receiving a briefing.

Motion

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Sheryl Whitney, who resides in council district six, to the Harborview Medical Center board of trustees, as the district six representative.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_01172018_2017-0481

Speaker 0: All right. Our next item is ordinance number 2017 0481, which would establish a King County Immigrant and Refugee Commission. This was a follow up to a recommendation by the King County Immigrant and Refugee Task Force. And today we're just receiving a briefing. And here to brief us are council staff members Andrew Kim and Mike Reid. Welcome. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mike reads as deputy counsel. I'm here, as you indicated, with Andrew Kim, and we will provide a brief bit of background on this. This ordinance actually starts on page 17 of your packets. So as you've indicated, Madam Chair, that the discussions on this this topic began in 2015 when the council was presented with information about the increasing numbers of new arrivals from throughout the world that were settling in King County. Demographic and sensitive information confirmed that there had been a significant increase in the immigrant refugee population. Council discussions at that time centered on means to address the challenges faced by these populations, as well as means of assuring access to county services for these populations. The concept of a commission had been suggested as a means to address these concerns. The parameters, however, of such a commission were uncertain, particularly regarding representation on a such a commission. So the the council at that time in 2015 established a task force on immigrant refugees to make recommendations about the shape and character of such a commission. Again, addressing representation and addressing structure, addressing its purpose and the duties of such a commission. That task force began meeting in October of 2015 and continued this meeting through through June of 2016. I'd held meetings throughout the county and it hosted input from a significant number of members of the immigrant Mexican community to get their their ideas about the shape and character of such a commission. A final report was developed and issued in July of 2016. That report actually is in your packets, I believe, on page 39 of the packet. That became the basis for the development of the measures before you today and which resulted from discussions between the executive and the and council staff for its formulation. Andrew will take it from here. Thank you, Mike. Good morning, Madam Chair. And Council Members, Andrew Kim, a council central staff. I'll continue the briefing by summarizing key provisions of the proposed ordinance. This can be found on page 19 of your staff report. Section three outlines the purpose of the Commission. The two primary responsibility of the Commission are one to act as a central point of contact, communication and coordination of all stakeholders serving and engaging immigrant and refugee residents. The the task force states that this responsibility would fill a significant gap, since no organization or group plays a central role. The task force also states that this will help to take a regional approach to complex issues that stretch across multiple municipalities. And the second responsibility, primary responsibility, is focus on. Focusing on understanding and addressing challenges faced by immigrant and refugee communities living in suburban cities and unincorporated areas of the county. The task force states that this responsibility would help alleviate the lack of county resources invested in suburban and incorporated communities, which disproportionately impact the immigrant and refugee communities . Going to page 20, Section four outlines the criteria of the 17 member board where 13 are voting members and four are non-voting members. I won't list each criteria here, but you can find the criteria of the voting members on page 20. The four non-voting members are to be community leaders that are actively engaged with local government, business or philanthropy, philanthropic organizations to raise the visibility and capacity of the Commission. Section five outlines the joint effort between the Council and executive in conducting outreach to solicit candidates. It also directs that the list of candidates for appointment would be finalized by a Joint Committee of Executive and council representatives and past commissioners. Section six requires the Commission to produce an annual report to the Council and to make the annual report. Related briefly and related briefings available to the community. Section seven requires the Commission to convene at least monthly with four Commission meetings to be held in suburban cities or unincorporated areas and to hold at least one large community briefing each year. Section eight requires that an employee from the Office of Equity and Social Justice and one Council employee staff the work of the Commission. And lastly, Section nine requires the executive to reimburse Commission members for travel expenses and or parking fees for attending meetings, starting on the bottom of page 21 Staff Writer. Some additional analysis the proposed ordinance incorporates, as Mike said, most of the recommendations from the Immigrant and Refugee Task Force report. However, it does not incorporate all the recommendations. Some of the key differences include. Number one, the task force recommended providing an honorarium or stipend to commissioners. However, this is not included in the proposed ordinance. Another difference is that the task force recommended three staffing options where they strongly recommended an option to establish an office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs. The proposed ordinance shows the lowest cost staffing option of of providing one FTE to support the work of the Commission. And lastly, the task force provided no recommendation on age as a factor for Commission membership. But the proposed ordinance includes a requirement that members should represent a range of age groups, including persons representing youth issues. Lastly, the annual cost to support the work of the Commission is estimated to be approximately $147,000. The breakdown of that cost is listed on page 23. Madam Chair, that concludes our staff report. And and we have several members of the Immigrant and Refugee Task Force joining us today and as well as executive staff from the Office of Equity and Social Justice. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for that briefing. I understand, Councilmember Garcia, your office has been working on this. Would you like to say a few words or begin the discussion? Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have some questions for our staff, but I'm also going to have some questions for the folks that he mentioned that are present. First of its staff, why does it say that this commission will only deal with issues relative to immigrant and refugee folks who reside in unincorporated Kane County or the suburbs? The reason I ask that is that I represent a district that's 90% okay in Seattle, and I've had bukele meetings. I mean, I've had many meetings in South Asia with Eritreans, Ethiopian Somalis, Thai Vietnamese and on the recent killing and and not dealing with refugee problems in the city of Seattle. What's the thinking? Speaker 2: Yes, Councilmember, let me clarify that. So the work of the commission doesn't exclude the work that they would do for the entire county, but it does and includes the city of Seattle and other areas of King County. But what it does do is that it calls out the commission to focus on issues concerning immigrant refugees that live in the suburban and unincorporated areas. So rather than is not limiting their work to those communities, but it's asking them to make that a focus of their work. And I might I might briefly add that you may recall that that over the course of the work, the task force, there was input from members of the community, noting that historically the focus had been on immigrant refugee communities within within urban areas or within the cities themselves or within the city, Seattle in particular. But that there was an increasing concern about the limited access and limited resources that were available to immigrants and refugees who lived in suburban cities or in the unincorporated area, which tended not to receive the same degree of attention. So this was an attempt to highlight and focus on the the that concern. Speaker 1: Okay. And Andrew or Mike, originally somebody said that they thought the commissioners should get paid 20 that idea come from. Speaker 2: So the concept of the honorarium or stipend was recommended by the task force. So in the task force report which is attached to to your staff report, they they recommended that that the the commission members be compensated for their work because many of the commissioners are often overworked and asked to serve on many other committees. So that was the task force's recommendation. But it's not included as as part of this proposed ordinance. Speaker 1: It's not a part of it. See, because I've been involved in I think I've been a county council member for 24 years and we've set up a lot of I mean, I was the sponsor of the Civil Rights Commission back in 96, and my co-sponsor was Kent Pullen. So we wanted bipartisan support. And then I've been involved in sort of a lot of task force and advisory groups and never have we had as part of the mandate to pay people for the advice that they give us. So my fear was that if we set a precedent here, we'd have them all coming back, say, we're overworked and we're giving our service like watch all because that wasn't paid time. So I'm kind of happy that wasn't included in the final document. Thank you, Manager. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bassett. Any other councilmember up the grove? Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. And this may be a question for the sponsor, unless staff has some context. Well, one one super quick, easy question. And then the one I was saying, one is the assumption and I didn't look at the fiscal note. Are there funding sources other than general fund available? Were that 147 likely come out of general fund? It would most likely be coming out of the general fund. A majority of that cost is its personnel cost. And the executive staff have noted that that 0.5 FTE that was staff that commission is that there's an existing employee in the Office of Equity Social Justice. So we wouldn't be adding additional funds, but it would be kind of existing expenses, right. At least from the executive side on the council side, that that has yet to be determined. But yeah, which was my question. And this I don't know if it's more appropriate for the sponsor or to see if you to take a stab at it. In terms of the rationale for having part of the staffing come from the county council staff, it's a little bit different. We the Women's Commission, the Civil Rights Commission, or many of our other county task forces. Art. We have staff here that will support our work on those, but we don't have dedicated staff, that is, to staff the commission and wondering what the thinking was in terms of why. Why for this particular commission, we would have the legislative branch provide part of the staff support. And so against I just kind of want to understand it. Yeah. So when, when, when, when we were drafting the proposed ordinance with members of the different council offices because the immigrant and refugee work was more of a collaborative approach, even the task force, I think, I believe, was staffed by a council staff member and an executive staff member. I believe they wanted to take that collaborative approach to the commission as well. So which is the reason for that? Speaker 1: I I'm going to add to that because you said maybe the sponsor might want to say something about this. I support the idea of the commission having on staff and that would be half from the executive and a half from us. But my rationale is more political than anything else. With half the staff, the half time staff person being a part of our staff, the I think that the accountability of that person to the priority issues relative to immigrant and refugee populations in King County that are now almost 19% of the total, we'd have more of a say compared to where they are leaving the staff support and the staff are all in the executive. That was my thinking. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other comments or questions. This is not actually a we can take action today if we're prepared to, but it was on for a first briefing today. So it's the looking around to see the will of the body. Then we will want to just do it. I'm seeing some desire to do it. Councilmember Garcia, would you be willing to put proposed ordinance number 2017 0.1 before us? Speaker 1: But of course, I don't care. Speaker 0: I refuse. Yasmin, it is commendable. Speaker 1: I would like to propose that the King County Council adopt ordinance number 2017. That's 0481, establishing an immigrant and refugee commission here in King County. Speaker 0: It's been moved by the do pass recommendation. Any other comments or discussion before we move to a vote? I will say just one thing. I want to appreciate the members of the commission who worked so hard and on a volunteer basis to to make these recommendations that were now starting to move forward with, thank you for your work. I see a lot of friendly faces out there and thank you Martires also for being along with us. I look forward to seeing this body come together and I'm excited about the work that we'll be able to do with this kind of support from the community. All right. Councilmember Tomasky, the. Speaker 3: Thing that I'm sure just very briefly, I appreciate the action here by the committee today. I want to also thank the members of the task force. A couple of years ago, when my office was working with Councilmember Gossage to kick start this initiative, I said, why don't we just form the commission? Let's just let's just cut to the chase. Why don't we just have one? And my staffer, Christina Logsdon, who's put a lot of work into this, said, well, you'll get a better product if you work with the community. And I think that today's legislation bears that out, that the task force process and the deliberative approach that they've taken in conjunction with the executive's office has led to a thoughtful proposal, I think, before us today that will stand the test of time. And so I just want to take a moment to thank the task force for their thoughtful work and thank my staffer, Christina Logsdon, for her work on this and commitment to these issues. And just one final thought on the compensation experience that you had. Some some words on. My understanding of this issue is, frankly, it's again and again we go and we turn to leaders in the community for their expertize and advice, who often face additional challenges and hurdles in just kind of getting through the day, to put it bluntly. And this notion of of kind of going to the well for free, I think, to some degree comes from a real privilege, the attitude that some of us have more time and resources to be able to do that. And I think we should think about in the future whether or not we are taking that privileged viewpoint and not reflecting on what we're asking folks to do for free. And it can be a burden and a barrier to service and therefore impede the work that we want and the results we want from organizing from groups like this. So I'm open on that question and I don't think it has to apply universally, but in a particular case, particularly on immigrant refugee community commission, immigrant Refugee Commission, that might be staffed by folks who faced more challenges in our community and we're service without compensation is a higher barrier, but something I think we should look at . So I'm I'm. Speaker 1: Okay. I don't have any problem with looking at it. I think that those who advise on juvenile and adult criminal justice issues could make a case that they're providing invaluable services that or they aren't getting paid. I also think that people who are advising us on, you know, any emergency setting up an effective emergency services strategy in King County could make a case and they would bring up Katrina in not having adequate means of reaching out to the poor and disadvantaged. And they're often invisible. So so many groups that we have set up advisory boards and commissions for over the years that would make the case for that. But I definitely do not mind having that discussion with you and other members of the county council and the community as we move forward. Speaker 3: Again, thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: Well. Speaker 0: My sense is that the. Decision is not made by this action today. It's just not in it. It's a silent as to this issue. And so it remains sort of an open issue, I believe. That's correct. Okay. I will add my $0.02 that I think it's important that we, at a minimum, give people food when they come to these meetings. It just everything goes better when you feed people a second. Yeah. As a member of the group. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. The discussion made me want to weigh in as well. I think as a matter of philosophy, I agree wholeheartedly. The challenges, as Councilmember Gossett mentioned, this is an are only condition. And are we in a position to be able to afford to do that? And how do we do it equitably among our different volunteer agencies and do it? And which leads me into my my budget grump comment on budget terrorism. I love this work. I'm excited to support it. Obviously, I think we need to watch moving forward for bureaucratic creep and make sure that this is lean, mean and focused on delivering the services. You know, there are some staffing models proposed that were significantly more costly and more robust than other task forces. There's a recommendation to look at opening a new office. I think we need to recognize that we're taking this progressive and exciting step forward in a budget landscape where we continue to have our ability of revenue to grow beyond 1% plus new construction and have other pressures, you know, whether it's underfunded public defense system, a 500 felony case backlog in the courts, you name it. So I think one of our challenges will be to make this as effective and deliver the results that we need for this community while also being able to fund the direct services that benefit immigrants and refugees as well. So that's my my budget grump were a word of caution about some of it. But that being said, this is a long time coming and it's, I think is going to be an important tool, particularly for the folks I represent in South King County. In our discussion with the Harborview appointee, we talked a little bit about the suburbanization of poverty and the shifting demographics. And in these small suburban communities down south, you don't have the centralized government like you have in Seattle. You don't have cities that have the professional staff and expertize to do the kinds of community engagement and service delivery that's needed. At the same time, we have probably the most diverse population and in particular the largest concentrations of immigrant and refugee populations. So having the county take a step forward to centralize and streamline and improve our work to serve that population, particularly with the you know, I obviously don't object to the line that Councilmember Gossett was exploring serving the whole county, but having a little bit of a focus on those suburban and unincorporated areas, I think isn't necessarily a bad thing. And so I'm really excited about this and appreciate Councilmember Gossett, bring it. Speaker 1: Forward. Speaker 0: Okay. Any other questions? Comments? I'll ask the court to please Calderon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. Hi. Councilmember Garcia. Hi. Councilmember Cornwell's Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. Hi. Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Yvonne Ricardo. Madam Chair. Hi, Madam Chair. The voters are nice. No noes. Councilmember Caldwell's excused. Thank you very much. By your vote, proposed ordinance number 2017 0481 will move to the full council with a do pass recommendation. I think we will not put this one on consent. Councilmember Gossett So this is an opportunity to speak to it. Okay, very good. All right. Thank you very much. Staff. We will move on to proposed ordinance number 2017 0475. This item would approve and adopt two memoranda of agreement with the Joint Labor Management Insurance Committee, which represents benefits eligible employees represented by labor organizations except transit operators

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE related to the establishment of a King County immigrant and refugee commission; and adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 2.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_01172018_2018-0062

Speaker 0: We have two final items. Maybe we can get through them relatively expeditiously. Both are about solid waste. So I'm not I'm going to skip my introduction and just call on our staff. Mary and John and Terre Rose to walk us through both of these items, and we'll take them up one at a time. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. For the record, I'm here, Rose. And with me is Mary Bergeron of Council Staff Proposed Motion 2018 0062 would acknowledge receipt of a report on garbage collection in unincorporated areas in response to a budget proviso requirement. The materials for this item begin on page 141 of your packet. The Council adopted a budget proviso as a part of the 2017 2018 biennial budget requiring the executive to conduct a public outreach process, prepare additional analysis on recycling rates, and provide a report to council prior to advancing any proposal to reduce garbage collection frequency from every week to every other week in the unincorporated area, the proviso is written such that if garbage collection frequency was not planned to be reduced, the report to council could say this and no further analysis or reporting was required. On November 15th, 2017, the executive transmitted a letter to the Council stating that reduced garbage collection will not be pursued from every week to every other week in unincorporated areas of the county, from the state through the end of 2018. And the executive's letter, as transmitted, satisfies the terms of the proviso the Council will have the opportunity to set longer term policy direction regarding garbage collection and recycling rates within the context of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which is anticipated to be transmitted later this year. That concludes my staff report, and I'm happy to take any questions. Okay. I'm sorry. Could you say your last sentence again? There's a little. Sure, sure. I was just mentioning that the Council will have a property opportunity to set longer term policy direction concerning garbage collection and recycling rates within the context of the comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which is anticipated this year. Okay. So this is just I need to get up to where we're at. We are item eight Web page area of 141 141. Speaker 4: And the motion is on page 147. Speaker 0: That's what I'm looking for. It's a so the motion is to acknowledge receipt of the report. That's what we are being asked to do today. Is there comments or questions about this item? Councilmember two. Speaker 2: Thanks. So the report that has come back to us that we are accepting now says that it won't we won't go to every other week garbage collection for the duration of what period. Speaker 0: The letter filed with the clerk is from the date. So November 15, 2017 through the end of 2018. Speaker 2: Through the end of the year. Okay. But after that, and there hasn't been any commitment one way or the other in terms of from solid waste on the issue. Correct. Okay. Just want to make sure we have all the facts. I have some comments. We're just accepting report and I know some comments. Speaker 0: Are just or something you report. So if you have comments, now would be the time. Speaker 2: Okay. So just real quick. So again, this accepts the proviso I sponsored and it essentially requires the division to either do significant outreach if they are going to go from one week to two weeks or to delay the policy until after the current by any. And so the division is acknowledged and I think it's great that they're not pursuing every other week garbage collection policy through the current year. But I just want my colleagues to know that when I was first elected to the council, illegal dumping was a huge issue in my district and it continues to be a huge issue in my district. Rates at the transfer stations, combined with growth, have just created a situation where all the people are going out to the unincorporated areas and dumping their trash or washers and dryers or even cars in some extreme situations. So as part of that response, I sponsored legislation that created a voucher program to help low income residents clear dumping grounds. And in the first year, over half the vouchers had been awarded, which just goes to show the extent of the problem. Also, I represent a lot of neighborhoods that are, you know, very unhappy with frequent odors coming from the facilities that we have out there. Of course, in my district, the landfill material composting is out there. There's a lot of odors coming from those facilities as well. And so switching every other we garbage collection is probably going to drive up the collection of work organics which are sent to my district for processing and increase the smell. And with the current rate that the folks have been contacting my office about odors, I'm not comfortable with a every other week policy change going forward until there's a plan to really address the odor concerns. You have no idea how many thousands of emails I get because of the odor related problems down there in that quadrant of the county. So I had a chance to survey my constituents with my newsletter here just last year, and I wanted to get a sense of how they felt about this issue. And and well over half of the residents surveyed said they would be unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with this policy change. And you can understand why. I mean, it's you know, that, you know, you've got situations like, for example, you've got all kinds of critters out there in the unincorporated areas, especially rural King County. And if you're leaving your garbage out for two weeks as opposed to one week, there's a greater opportunity for critters to get in there. There's smell issue, there's rodents and sanitation related issues. And and it's just it's just one of these things that and it's also, you know, even if the containers increased slightly, you still got an issue. You know, we're going to charge them the same amount for the same, but we can charge them the same amount for half the volume being reduced from their house for or from their home. Right, if they're only coming every other week. So those problems that I really have and so I just don't think this is a place to experiment and we'll be very dogged in pursuing that. Continuing on beyond the by any means. I know all the waste understands and appreciates. I just wanted to get that information out. Thank you. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: And I would urge we accept the report. Okay. Speaker 0: You can simply thank you. Well, I just want to say I agree completely with the previous speaker that we are per capita. We have lots and lots of families out there. And because there's more families with more people in the house that you are going to have more garbage than. You know, averaging a, you know, one or two person household. And as he said, garbage shows up elsewhere. And it has gotten, in some cases, so extreme that we've had to hire a helicopter to come in and bring large items out that have shown up in all kinds of crazy places, which is not safe for other people and just makes it an eyesore. So I think, Councilmember, one of the things that your people need to know that the current garbage plan would take the at the height of garbage piled councilmember, the height of garbage piled up now can go up to 780 feet above sea level. But the proposal is it would go to 800 and I think 20 feet above sea level. So that they're complaining now just wait unless we change our plan. But the plans before us, we'll have an opportunity to talk about that. The other thing is that because of the garbage issues, we do have beer cans available and I think it's $4.99 more a month if you want a beer, garbage can. So for those people out there that are having problems with the bears, you can under our contract ask for a beer, garbage can. Thank you. Thank you. All right. If there's no additional commentary, I would accept a motion to approve motion number 2018 0062 of the do pass recommendation. Speaker 2: Gladly. Madam Chair, would we propose motion number 20180062 with a do pass recommendation? But we would also ask that it be removed from the consent agenda very well. Speaker 0: Any other comments or questions? I'll ask her to please call the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 0: Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 0: Council Member Cole Wells. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. All right. Councilmember Staff members. Councilmember one right there. Madam Chair, I. Madam Chair, the vote of Seven Eyes, No No's, council members Cole Wilson and one. Right. They were excused. All right. By your vote. You have. We have passed proposed motion number 2018 0062 of the do pass recommendation. That is to accept the report and it will not be able to consent calendar. So I'll move on to the last item on our agenda today, which is proposed motion number 2017 0505.

Motion

A MOTION acknowledging receipt of a report on garbage collection in unincorporated areas by the solid waste division of the department of natural resources and parks, as required by the 2017-2018 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18409, Section 107, as amended by Ordinance 18544, Section 68, Proviso P5.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_01172018_2017-0505

Speaker 0: By your vote. You have. We have passed proposed motion number 2018 0062 of the do pass recommendation. That is to accept the report and it will not be able to consent calendar. So I'll move on to the last item on our agenda today, which is proposed motion number 2017 0505. It's another solid waste motion, this one accepting a report regarding system tonnage because the county Cedar Hills Land Regional Landfill is nearing its capacity. As we all have discussed here many times, it's important to carefully monitor the tonnage that we're disposing and study options for long term waste disposal. As part of that effort, the Council adopted a proviso, you will recall, in the 2017 2018 budget that required two reports from the Solid Waste Division. The first, which we will hear about today, is on 2017 system tonnage. The second is due in June on long term options for the landfill. So once again, we have with us Mary Bergeron and Tara Rose to help us with a briefing. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mary Bergen on from the council staff, for the record, and you have introduced the council's rationale for this proviso. As you noted, this system tonnage report from 2017 is the first of two reports that will be required on this topic. And if you will move ahead to page 155 in your packet, I will share the results of the analysis that the division did to prepare this report. What they did because this report was due on December 1st of last year, this report provides actual tonnage figures from January through August and then estimates for the remainder of the year. And when you see the second report, which is coming in June, you'll see actuals for the entire year. I will note first that in preparing to do this report, the Solid Waste Division had prepared tonnage estimates through the year 2036 and they had presented those to you back. At the same time, you adopted these provisos when you were adopting the solid waste rate. These and if you look on page 156, you can see a table that outlines what the projections were for each year. And if you look at the shaded row 2017, you'll see that the division was estimating about 851,000 tons last year. They had estimated, if you look, a little bit of a decrease from the year before because of the reopening of the city of Seattle's North Transfer Station and Recycling Center, which they estimated would take some of the load off the county stations. If you then jump to the bottom of page 157 and look at the actual results that the solid waste division has transmitted, you will note that tonnage, in fact increased 10% above those projections. So 932,000 tons rather than the 851,000 that were projected. This has implications for the landfill capacity estimates that this additional 81,000 tons will shorten the landfill life by about a month. And moving on to the next page. Also has operational impacts because this additional tonnage was about 230 more tonnes of waste per day that were transported to the landfill than had been estimated. That resulted in about 3700 additional roundtrips between the transfer stations and the landfills last year. The division has noted that they have been addressing these operational impacts through overtime to date, but may be coming back to the Council for additional appropriation or possibly even FTE authority. And finally, I'll note that this additional tonnage resulted in about $11 million in additional revenue above and beyond what had been forecasted for last year. And the division notes in that case that they recognized they don't have appropriation authority to use that additional revenue and expect they may be coming to the Council through one of the supplemental budget ordinances. I will close by noting that the additional unanticipated tonnage for last year will be addressed in more detail. In the second of the two provides a report to the one that will be coming to in June that will also include more information about the landfill. And I think this does provide a good segue way for the Council to your upcoming discussions and deliberations on the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, a draft plan of which was released last week. And the executive's recommended plan is anticipated to come to the council probably mid this year. So this kind of sets, I think, the ground for what you will be looking at. And with that, Madam Chair, that concludes my staff report. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. Councilmember Lambert has a question. Thank you. So help me on these charts. So special waste is going to go from 1500 to 2500 in approximately 20 years. What is changing that? That is going to be so substantially the same that that's going to happen because it increased population. Speaker 4: So I think we've got staff from the division here and I think they might be best to answer that question. I had been focusing mostly on the total column and focusing mostly on 2017 things. That was the topic of this report. Speaker 0: And talk about that when we meet next. And the same thing in the next column, going from 1300 and 13,500 in yard waste down to 16. But, you know, lots of people are doing rock gardens and other kinds of gardens so that there aren't as many yard ways. So we'll add that to our list next time we talk. All right. Thank you. Okay. So one of thing, please. Anything is I. I just saw and something that was written that that a clean wood is no longer going to be accepted at the house and transfer station. And I didn't know that was happening until it apparently happened. So I'd like to talk about how that happened, and I'm not really happy about it. So thank you. Okay. I don't know if we do have executive staff here. I don't know if they want to come forward and say a few words before we go ahead and accept the report. But yeah, only if you want to get in and you're not required. Speaker 2: If you have a question that we'd like to. Speaker 0: Hear enough. I do have one question, and that is when this projection comes in a significant marginal but significant amount higher, this actual annual tonnage comes in at this level higher. And it says that that would that would mean the capacity of the Cedar Hills landfill be reached about one month sooner. Does that assume that the rest of the projection comes in as previously projected, or do we now reset the rest of the projection and say even if things increase at a rate similar to what we assumed before, but now we're up to 932, we're starting with a different base. Is that how you get to one month? I mean, I know that this is we're prejudging the question of the next report, but it seems to me that that seems odd that that much of a change to the curve would result in such a small impact to the life of the landfill. The Please Make Morehead King County Solid Waste Strategy Communications and Performance Manager. This provider was very specifically focused on 2017. Speaker 4: And so the one month change in the landfill. Speaker 0: Life is based on the change in tonnage for 719 2017 only. And it's the second proviso that speaks to the broader change in the overall projection. Manage and so forth. Okay. Once again before us, today is just the motion to accept the report, and that's motion number 2017 0505. If there's no further discussion, I would entertain a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to propose a proposed motion 2017 0505 with a do pass recommendation. All right, it's been moved. Any comments or questions saying nonetheless the clerk to please call the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Gossett. Council Member. Cole Wells. Council Member. Member. High Council Member McDermott. High Council member of the Grove Council. Member of one right bar. Madam Chair. Hi, Madam Chair. The vote is six eyes. No nos. All right, by your vote, we have approved proposed motion number 2017, dash 0505 with a do pass recommendation. This one also, I think should be on the regular course along with the other one. And that brings us to the end of our agenda today. Our next meeting will be Wednesday, February 7th, when we anticipate continuing our work on the King County Code, changes to make it before gender neutral, and receiving a briefing about the Hearst Supreme Court decision and for cultures budget and.

Motion

A MOTION acknowledging receipt of a 2017 Solid Waste System Tonnage Report prepared in accordance with the 2017-2018 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18409, Section 107, Proviso P2.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_12062017_2017-0500

Speaker 0: Thank you. I'd like to move the minutes of November 29, 2017, as written. It's been moved and is before us. Any comments or changes? All those in favor please signify by saying I. Motion carries item five and six are to ordinance to proposed items. One Motion one ordinance that will be presented together because they both are related to probably my favorite projects of 2017. This was like a New Year's resolution that I'm I'm I'm having a lot of help making come to you before the end of the year. It was a yearlong effort to review all our ongoing reporting requirements and code. So everywhere in the county code that says to somebody that they must report to us to determine which ones are useful and should continue, which ones can be combined or changed in frequency, and which ones are no longer useful and can be eliminated. We briefed the committee on this project in September. We have had a tremendous amount of staff work on this and so I just really want right up front say thank you for that because we're getting to the point where we can now start to update the code, but there are quite a few little technical ins and outs that need to happen in a multiplicity as code update of this sort. So Tara Rose from staff is here to present the staff report. Aaron Osnes is also here. Don't you go ahead and take it away. Speaker 6: Excellent. Well, do Madam Chair, members of the committee for the Record, Tara Rose, council staff. And as the chair noted items five and six on today's agenda concern making changes to reporting requirements to council the materials for these two items begin on page 11 of your packet. And Madam Chair, with your permission, I'd like to brief item 6/1 and then circle back to item five. Speaker 0: Please. Please do whatever order makes the most sense. Thank you. Speaker 6: So then I'll begin on page 12 of your packet and start with some background on the project, just a little refresh. So at the direction of the chair this year, council staff are engaged in a research project reviewing the King County Code to identify required reports to council and focusing on those that are at a regular ongoing frequency. Proviso responses and reporting requirements to other entities such as the Executive were not included in this effort. And as the Chair noted, the committee received a briefing on this project in September. Staff found 119 of these ongoing reporting requirements to council and also identified the enacting legislation for each requirement. And some of these date as far back as the 1970s, reporting requirements generated by state law or in a local agreement are not included in this number. Council analytical staff and other legislative branch staff were consulted about whether these reports generated by code requirements were used in their analytical work, or if they could potentially be eliminated or streamlined through consolidation with other reports or a reduced frequency. And as part of this effort, analysts were encouraged to think about if the reports were used in their analytical work, if the information was easily available elsewhere, or by request, if circumstances had changed relative to when the report requirement was created, and if a reduced frequency would still give sufficient information. Proposed Ordinance 2017 0501 Item six on the agenda is the culmination of this work and would eliminate 28 ongoing reporting requirements, change the frequency of eight combined 13 reporting requirements into five ongoing reports, and make miscellaneous changes to seven. And I'll describe some of those miscellaneous changes in a moment before I go into more details on the changes that would be made by the proposed ordinance. I want to pass out and orient you to a handout. No pause for a second while it's passed out. Speaker 0: Council member Mike Bowers on the phone. So if he doesn't already have this, maybe describe what you're talking about. Speaker 6: We'll do a first. So this handout is an updated version of attachment three in your packet. There's been an update to the work plan portion of the attachment, which I'll go into later. I will be using this handout 4 to 4 page numbers, and I'll try to be very explicit that when I'm giving page numbers for the packet and the staff report and pages for the attachment, but if I'm being unclear, please, please ask and I will provide any clarity that I can. So as you can see, this updated attachment that was just passed out provides additional background on each reporting requirement and the specific change that would be made by the proposed ordinance. It's sorted by change type, and by that I mean reporting requirements that are eliminated on one list that have a change frequency on another list, etc.. In the September 20th committee of the whole briefing, reporting requirements were assigned an identifier consisting of a number and a letter. And these identifiers have been continued from that briefing. In addition to the changes described in the handout, the proposed ordinance 2017 0501 would make the changes to gendered pronouns and historically gender terms in King County Code titles one through four A And this is to match the changes in proposed Ordinance 2017 0489, which passed the Council this week. The proposed ordinance in front of you today also would make technical corrections to the code suggested by the code adviser, such as updating outdated names to reflect current names, deleting duplicative words or inserting missing words, etc. Examples of these technical corrections and their associated line numbers are provided on page 13 of your packet, so not the handout. So moving ahead to page 14 of your packet. As noted earlier, the proposed ordinance would eliminate 28 ongoing reporting requirements, and the full list of reports proposed for elimination can be found on pages one through seven of the attachments of the Matrix. Some common reasons for elimination are identified in table one in your packet and the staff report portion. Some reasons include that the group responsible for the report is no longer active. The information request in the report is accessible elsewhere or that conditions have changed since the enacting legislation. In addition to eliminating 28 reporting requirements, the proposed ordinance would also change the frequency of eight. In the full list of those items can be found on pages eight and nine of the handout. The Matrix. With one exception, the changes represent reduced frequencies. So for example, semiannual two annual. The exception is related to the county's affirmative action plan, which was identified as Report 18 C on the attachment and current code requires the Executive to transmit the Affirmative Action Plan every five years, and executive staff have requested that this be changed to a four year reporting cycle in order to reflect a federal requirement for the county to apply for certain federal funds. Speaker 0: So I want to pause there for a second because I think this is a good example of what we're trying to do here. We have got, for good reasons, a code requirement that says make a report every five years and the federal government saying make a report every four years, which ends up with multiple reports doing the same things in successive years as opposed to just one time every four years. And we all get the same information. This is just sort of the efficiency that you can have when you go in and clean up every now and again. So I think this is a good one. I'm looking over the H.R. people. They're nodding. So that's good things. Speaker 6: Moving ahead to the next section of the staff report, which is on page 15 of your packet. Proposed ordinance would combine 13 reporting requirements into five ongoing reports, and the full list of these reporting requirements and their associated change can be found on pages ten through 12 of the attachment handout. And then finally, the proposed ordinance would make miscellaneous changes to seven reporting requirements. And these changes do not fall cleanly into the previously described categories of eliminated change frequency combined. And the full list of these reporting requirements and their associated change can be found on pages 13 through 15 of the attachment. That handout four of these changes concern what I am referring to as one off reporting requirements, and these are things that were inadvertently codified back in the day. So these reports, these were a one time only reports. And according to the King County legislative drafting guide, in general, ordinances that are of a general and permanent nature should be codified. And then those ordinances that are temporary or relate to very specific circumstances are not codified but kept in the clerk's office, for reference. And so three of these one off reporting requirements are more than a decade old. And council staff have raised no issues with eliminating these one off requirements. And then the fourth that I would point out, is more recent and concerns the best starts for kids, youth and Family Homeless Prevention Initiative Implementation Plan. And this plan has already been adopted by council. So additionally, for your reference, a list of reporting requirements that are left unchanged in the proposed ordinance can be found beginning on page 16 of the the handout attachment. Additionally, a small subset of the unchanged reporting requirements have been flagged as potentially in need of further updates, but that required additional research and consultation outside the scope of this project. And these items were placed on a list to be considered for a future work plan, and the work plan can be found beginning on page 28 of the handout. At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned that this portion of the attachment had been updated. And I just want to point out that item 12 W, which concerns revisiting the Harborview reporting requirements, was added to the workplan. So that is the difference between the attachment that's in your pocket and the attachment that I handed out. Switching gears. I'll now brief propose motion 2017 0500. Unless the chair wishes that I pause for questions. Speaker 0: And have any questions here, I'll just state that the side conversation back here was about the vacancy report. And one of the things that you may have mentioned is there's a couple at least in here that were reports that are ongoing reports. They're actually happening. They're valuable reports, but they're only listed in a motion. And so sort of the reverse of what you were just saying about one time reports that shouldn't have been codified. These probably should have been kind of filed since they were in a motion. We don't codify motions. So what we're doing with those and the vacancy report was the one we were talking about back here, is that we're going to codify that and make it at a reasonable free frequency and continue receiving the same information, but quarterly instead of monthly. And now it will be in the right place, written the right way. Speaker 6: That is correct, yes. Since that relates to proposed motion 2017 0500. Would you like me to please clean up? Okay. Perfect. Speaker 3: Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Councilmember D'Ambrosio. Speaker 3: Before we say, is this the right time to ask the questions about specific reports? Please chart. Speaker 0: Yeah, please do. Speaker 3: I'm trying to give you a reference here. Speaker 0: All right, so if. Speaker 6: You just give me a subject, I might be able to find it quickly. Speaker 3: The Special Duties Report. Speaker 6: The one that H.R. produces. Speaker 3: This is 23 on in the materials, 23 executive boards on the number of employees on special duty assignment. Can you remind me? I think I know what that is, but remind me what a special duty assignment is and the rationale for proposed elimination of this report. Speaker 6: I would have to follow up on the specifics in terms of special duty assignments. But this this report is something that the council does receive. However, staff provided feedback that it was unclear what analytical value it provided and that it wasn't used in their analytical work. Hmm. You know, that certainly that's, you know, staff's perspective. And so council members may have different feelings. Speaker 3: A generation may be able to help us out here. He looks like he's halfway out of a. Speaker 0: I'm going to dove in while Mr.. Issue comes up because i recall working on this report in h.r. And in a department. My understanding is my recollection, i should say, is that this is a way to keep track of how many people are working out of classification and presumably receiving some kind of of out of class pay so that that doesn't become used all the time and result in reclassifications. So there's different ways of getting a reclassification, right? One of them is you look at you don't have the right kinds of staff. You need different kinds of staff. You have for budget, for a different kind of staff that may cost you more. And you have to go through the regular budget approval process and the possibly the FTE approval process to do that. Another way is if you work somebody out of class, intentionally or unintentionally, that then that employee can later on, sometime down the road apply for reclassification through the personnel board and actually get themselves reclassified without any of those approvals. So I imagine that this was a means of keeping an eye on tracking and managing so that reclassifications are intentional and not unintentional. That would be my guess. Speaker 3: Mr. Issue Councilmembers John Rich Just after King County Council. Madam Chair, you are correct. This might even go one step further in just being able to keep track of those individuals who have been given that clock, that special duty assignment, so that it isn't an end around a reclassification process either. It allowed the members to understand the different kinds of special duty and just to know what was going on. That information is available in a variety of different forms as well today, and any work that's being done on this, it just wasn't used for analytic purposes. And in the check ins on this, staff have mentioned this has been of minimal additional value. This was also instituted at a time when we didn't have as good of an H.R. system, and that information was a little more difficult to draw it together. So that's all I have on that. Speaker 0: The only additional thing I would add is for all of these reports that are recommended for elimination, there were a number of different reasons. One is we're not actually getting this report. It doesn't exist anymore. And that could be for a variety of reasons, including there used to be a committee. We were supposed to get reports about the committee. That committee hasn't existed for 20 years. So, of course, we no longer get reports about that committee. I mean, could be that obvious. There are reports that we are getting that staff advised they don't use for any purpose and or the information is available to them in a more useful format in other ways than an annual or routine report, etc.. And we could possibly either in a systematic way for all of these or for targeted ones that councilmembers have questions about, provide information about the why it's not really. This chart is on eight and a half by one sheet of paper I imagine they're tracking goes quite a bit beyond that and we could probably provide more information if that's helpful. Speaker 3: So I appreciate all all of that and I appreciate that there's reports that staff doesn't need, but there's does and I've gone through in a lot of these, it looks like they should be gone and it's good work. There are some that I think are informative to members as we make sure we understand to the best we can kind of what's going on in the government from budget making decisions and operate policy setting things. And this one, it's pretty fresh as a 2011 originating legislation and the report is being done. We have a 2016 version of it. I confess to having not read that, but I think I might go look at it and just just see. Speaker 0: It's absolutely fine. Speaker 3: I was the special duty thing I had. Maybe it was another thing in mind. Speaker 0: So our commitment going into this work was that if a member raises their hand and says, I received this report, I use this report, this report is useful to me. I would like to keep it that we will do so. Speaker 3: Also on the seventh, see the lobbyist reporting. That's pretty. Stay 1998 originating legislation doesn't look like it's been done. What's the rationale for eliminating the reporting requirement? Speaker 6: That is correct, that the original legislation is from 1998. And so within the ombudsman role is the investigation of alleged violations of the lobbyist disclosure code. And the OMBUD has indicated that while relatively rare, I think they've had three, that they would include that in their their report, the Ombudsman's report on their sort of exercise of functions . Okay. Speaker 3: So we won't be losing that information. It would be coming from another place. Correct. On the six E, I'm going backwards here. The School Technical Review Committee reports. Can you help me understand? Speaker 1: As someone says, Aaron, often someone who sits on that committee, I tell you, this report is never done. Okay. Speaker 3: So why what? Why didn't why do we ask? Why isn't it done? Speaker 1: This is supposed to come over as part of the school impact ordinance. It never has. Speaker 0: Who's required? What is it? So let's talk a little bit more about the requirement, because there's not a column here that says who the code requires to provide the report and. Speaker 1: Required to provide the report. The School Technical Review Committee consists of council staff, deeper staff and PSB staff. We spend a whole day with the school districts going over their plans, making sure that they're, you know, compliant with the requirements of the formula for the school fees and that their student generation rates make sense and meet our for our requirements and their couple of facilities plan makes sense. The thinking at the time was that I believe that wasn't here was that a report would come with the ordinance that implements those plans. At this point, those plans are updated on kind of a peripheral basis. I mean, they're they don't change a whole lot other than just the number of projects in the in the student generation rate. So the report doesn't add a lot of value. Speaker 3: What is the concurrency that we're looking at? Speaker 1: Other school facilities are required to be concurrent with the county's comprehensive plan for unincorporated areas. Speaker 3: Concurrent. I understand. I understand. Transportation, concurrency. I don't understand. Speaker 1: Let me get back to Ed, what that phrase means. Speaker 3: And I am the last one, Madam Chair, if I may, is just the one above that on the interleukin mitigation program, which is a pretty cool program that we do here. And that's pretty fresh legislation. 2016, are we going to get that information and then another from another source to kind of see how that's working? Speaker 0: I sense that Mr. Ricci has stepped up to answer the last question. So first of all, let's yeah, let's let's let's let him do that. And then and then we'll ask for an answer to that question as well. Speaker 3: Mr.. Dombroski, to answer your question about concurrency, it is actually the exact same concept as transportation concurrency. Concurrency is a land use term that is used to call for all utility and facility support to be concurrent with the development that is being implemented. And schools have been determined to be one of those base utility or base facilities. So electricity has to be concurrent, water capacity has to be concurrent, transportation has to be controller in schools and other of those types. And so it falls into the same concurrency construct and that it has to be funded within that same six year period. And so with that, is that a predicate to, say, approving certain amount of growth and planning and zoning for certain amount of residential growth, which is also why you had the school impact fees like you acted on earlier this week. I should pay for it. Correct. That is to ensure that it can be concurrent. I see. So if we need to have concurrency in terms of school capacity to make sure that we are not over zoning for growth when we need this data, and then you can answer that later. Okay. I'm just I'm thinking out loud on it. It's kind of an interesting question. Thank you, Mr. Ricci. Speaker 1: And on the critical area of mitigation, we Murphy and Lou the Willard reports to the federal government as part of their requirements. Right. Speaker 3: So the Clean Water Act program. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not exactly the same reporting requirements as the county, but it's again, an elimination of one report that they would have to do. Speaker 0: So what I've what I've captured here, Councilmember, if I may attempt to summarize, is that you would like more information about items five E, six E, seven C and 23 E before we get to final passage on this, would that work for you? Speaker 3: I don't need anything more than seven C. That was a helpful answer. Okay. I got a couple other notes here, but those were ones that I would like that I'll get with. Start between now and final. Speaker 0: Very good. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert, his question, I think you mentioned and thank you for your hard work on this. So I guess they can go back to working on my book at night rather than reading reports. So they'll be great. There's still going to be 50 plus reports to read. So yeah, no worries there. No worries there. Well, I've been reading more than that and that's a good job. But what does concern me is that as we went through this, we realized that there were regulations to do these reports that just never showed up and that's not okay. So I think that now that we've streamlined it and reduced some of the requirements that we need to list, that is, you know, what are the dates, what is due and when, you know, quarterly there's semiannually and and yearly. But I think we all need an annual list. I know you guys have it in the back, but it doesn't always filter up to the council members. I'd like to have that chart and you know, I may have my staff put reminders on my calendar so I know what report should do when so that we don't get in this place before. Speaker 1: I mean, in the future. Speaker 0: The other thing is that it's got to be more clear that we asked for information that we we get that information. So that was a little disconcerting as we went through this and as we went through this. And there were many good conversations. So thank you for those. We decided that it could be put in the budget. So there are a couple in here that I definitely want to make sure are in the budget. So I'd like to do an amendment that says in the budget these things will be there because as the last council members are there certain things we make important decisions on? And for example, 9ei have no idea how we would make a decision on nine E, which has with animal control without the information that is there. And we have had voluminous negotiations over the past 12 years on that, and we need to be able to track that. So that's an example of one of the things I'd like to see for sure would be in the budget where. Speaker 1: Here it says it could be. Speaker 0: I want to make sure that there's about five of these. The not only could be but ah so that's that I'll give you that those. And then on page 34 line 351 and 352, what do you. By nine C what exactly of the ordinance I mentioned. Sorry. Yeah, but what's the other one? Speaker 6: Sorry. Can you repeat the number in there? Speaker 0: It's page 34 of the ordinance lines 351 and 352 leading governance transition efforts for the urban area consistent with the Growth Management Act. Speaker 6: So this is actually one of the code revise or technical corrections. So this this isn't related to the reports ordinance. And I think let me have that example specifically. Speaker 1: So this was added to the code by a previous ordinance, but not properly underlined. So this is a technical change to fix that previous ordinance problem. Speaker 0: And what where on the website does it say leading governance, transition ordinance for the unincorporated areas consistent with the DMA? Speaker 1: We'll have to get back to you. Speaker 0: Okay. Just it's only half the county matters. And I think that we have a whole county that matters. So thank you. Okay. With that, won't you go ahead and brief the motion now? Okay. Speaker 6: Great. Will do. So propose motion 2017 0500, which is item five on the agenda and is the companion legislation to the proposed ordinance that we've been discussing. Reporting Requirement three, which was also previously mentioned, requires the executive to report monthly on vacant budgeted positions. And that was requested by motion 11154 and was not codified. And so in order to change the frequency from monthly to quarterly, the proposed motion in front of you would rescind motion 11154. And that is because it's addressed in proposed Ordinance 2017 0501, which would codify the reporting requirement, given that it is of a general and permanent nature, as well as change the frequency from its current frequency of monthly to quarterly. And with that, that concludes my remarks on both ordinances. But I'm happy to take questions or to brief the amendments. Speaker 0: So it seems like there's some desire to just dig in on a few additional details, some of which have been laid out here today, some of which may come up in between now and final passage. I would like colleagues to try to move these forward maybe without recommendation today, because it would be great to get it done before the end of the year so that the new requirements at least will be known, if not fully codified by the beginning of January and can go into effect then. So I think what we need to do is take up the motion first. We have a series of amendments to make these effective. So we take up the motion, if we could, without recommendation, and then we'll do the amendments to perfect it and then take a vote on moving it out of committee without recommendation. So, Councilmember Lambert, can I ask you to please put in front of us motion number 2017. 500. 500. That's right. Okay, I'm ready. Madam Chair, I'd like to move Ordinance 2017 0500 with a do with our recommendation. Okay. The motions before us. There is a technical amendment one which would update a whereas clause with the correct number of the companion legislation. And I move amendment number one. All right. Any comments or questions on amendment number one? All those in favor please signify by saying i, i. Any opposed amendment one passes and then there is a relevant title amendment to one that I'm sure I'm entitled. Amendment number one. Any comments or questions? All those in favor please signify by saying I want any other amendments to proposed motion 2017 0500. Their motion is to improve it without recommendation. With the clerk. Please, Calderon. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. All right. Councilmember Garcia. Councilmember Colwell. Councilmember Lambert. Hi. Councilmember McDermott, Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Fine, right there. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 0: Madam Chair. Hi, Madam Chair. Speaker 6: The vote is ADA is. Speaker 0: Known as Councilmember Gossett Excuse. Thank you very much for your vote. Proposed motion 2017 0500 as amended will move to full council without recommendation. Do we need to expedite these in order to get them on the calendar before the end of the year? And would you support a majority of the objection to that? Speaker 3: I have no objection, Madam Chair. Does anyone else on the committee have objection? Speaker 0: You're the one who's going to have to cram the agenda through. Speaker 3: You're the one who has to join me in sitting through it. Speaker 2: Excellent. All right, good. Speaker 0: We will expedite that. We will expedite it. No, you are proposed. Next, we have proposed ordinance number 2017 0501, which would implement the the changes to the reporting as discussed today. And I would accept a motion to move that forward without recommendation.

Motion

A MOTION relating to deleting the requirement of the executive to provide to the council a monthly report showing vacant positions by department; and rescinding Motion 11154.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_12062017_2017-0501

Speaker 0: We will expedite that. We will expedite it. No, you are proposed. Next, we have proposed ordinance number 2017 0501, which would implement the the changes to the reporting as discussed today. And I would accept a motion to move that forward without recommendation. Madam Chair, I'd like to move Ordinance 2017 0501 without recommendation. Thank you. It's been moved and is before us. There are two amendments. Councilmember Lamour, can I ask you to put Amendment One before us and then we'll ask Tara to explain what the amendment does. Okay. I'd like to move amendment number one. All right. Thank you very much. Amendment one is before us. Can you please describe Amendment One? Speaker 6: Of course. So Amendment One concerns three public records related reports that would be combined by the proposed ordinance. And those reporting requirements are identified as 45 C and 60. And background information about these reporting requirements can be found on page ten of the handout. So in order to combine these three requirements, the proposed ordinance sets up sort of a two step process. Reporting requirement for C requires each agency to report on performance in responding to public records request during the previous year and in current code that's due to council by April 1st. And current practice has been agencies submit them some combined and some individual. So we end up getting a lot of reports. So instead of transmitting these to council first, the proposed ordinance requires that these be four submitted to the Public Records Committee, and then by February 15th and then the Public Records Committee would back up these agency reports with the two reports, five, C and six, so that they are responsible for and transmit this combined report to council. By March 1st. After introduction of the ordinance, executive staff indicated that it wouldn't be possible for agencies to meet the February 15th deadline, and so Amendment One would change the dates in the process I just described . So the agency reports would be due to the Public Purpose Committee by March 20th instead of February the February 20th date in the proposed ordinance, and would make the transmittal deadline to council for the combined report to be April 1st instead of March 1st. Speaker 0: I have a question about that. As you as you laid it out, it sort of was came clear to me, is that really enough time between March 20th and April 1st for the Public Records Committee to do their work of combining them and getting them transmitted to us? That's only 11 days. Speaker 6: I reached out to executive staff and they indicated that it would be okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Maybe it's just a ministerial act that they have because they all have been working on their reports already and then just combine them and send them on over. That works. We don't need to take more time than it takes. All right. Any questions or comments on Amendment one? Seeing none. All those in favor of Amendment one to Ordinance 2017 0501. Please signify by saying I any opposed. All right. We also have an amendment to Councilmember Lambert. Would you put that before us? Thank you, Madam Chair. I've moved item number two. All right. Amendment two is before us. Chair, would you also please brief Amendment two or so? Speaker 6: Amendment two concerns Section 24 of the proposed ordinance and relates to the county's project control officer reporting requirement. I. Currently the Project Control Officer transmits a quarterly report that concerns compliance with King County's construction management policies and procedures, and this is referred to as 14 C. And the attachment this reporting requirement is was one of the the ones that comparability she mentioned that is required by motion and is not codified. So Section 24 of the proposed ordinance would codify reporting requirement 14 C while changing the frequency from quarterly to annual and in reviewing motion 13 zero 26, which is the enacting legislation for this requirement, staff discovered another reporting requirement related to summarizing findings in regards to changes in scope, schedule and budget, referring to capital projects and this reporting requirement would also be codified by the proposed ordinance. Executive staff have indicated, however, that their current practice has been to transmit one quarterly report that complies with both 14 C as well as the reporting requirement. That I just describe regarding scope, schedule and budget. And so Amendment two would combine these two reporting requirements in the proposed ordinance to align with the project control officer's current practice. And then this combined report would be transmitted to council annually. Speaker 0: All right. Any questions about that? See? None. All those in favor of amendment to please signify by saying i. I any opposed. All right. Are there any other amendments for proposed ordinance 2017 0501c? None. Brings us to final passage. I just want to say a word before we call for the vote. This is like one of those things. This is one of those projects that I don't know why anybody would ever take it up. It's there's there's there's no glory in this. There's there's no headlines. I don't know that our constituents will ever notice or care, but we are taking a step toward making King County government more effective for those staff members who have important jobs out there that are providing us information that we need. In other ways, we're now sort of removing one potentially meaningless task, some of these which have accumulated over the years. So I think it's very, very worthwhile, but it's kind of one of those unsexy things that I just really appreciate everybody's time and energy to work on it because you can't put it on a resume, but you've done a great job and I think this is going to really pay some dividends for the county, and I appreciate everyone's time with it. With that, let's call for the roll to move ordinance 2017 0501 to full council without recommendation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 1: Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. Hi. Councilmember Garson. Councilmember Coble. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. Hi. Speaker 0: Councilmember up the Grove. Speaker 1: Councilmember Voting rights are high. Speaker 0: Madam Chair. Hi, Madam. Speaker 5: Chair. The vote is eight. Speaker 0: Eight no. Speaker 1: Nos. Councilmember Gossett excuse. Speaker 0: Very good by your vote. The motion that the motion carries and we will expedite that to full council. Thank you. Thank you both very much for all your work on this. This was Terry's first really big project that she started a while ago now when she was moved into this position. So congratulations on getting your part of it. Almost done. Summer All right. You know, I realize that we did not ever call the roll, so perhaps we could do that task before we get too much further towards the end of the meeting.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE relating to county reports and making technical corrections; amending Ordinance 13320, Section 13, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.130, Ordinance 13320, Section 14, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.140, Ordinance 16679, Section 27, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.12.300, Ordinance 12550, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.14.020, Ordinance 17706, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.15.020, Ordinance 12075, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.16.025, Ordinance 14199, Section 11, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.16.035, Ordinance 10563, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.42.080, Ordinance 6818, Section 10, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.42.090, Ordinance 14482, Section 17, and K.C.C. 2.49.160, Ordinance 473, Section 15, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.52.150, Ordinance 12022, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.59.110, Ordinance 18217, Section 2, and K.C.C. 2A.300.510, Ordinance 174 (part), as amended, and K.C.C. 3.08.110, Ordinance 12014, Section 18, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.180, Ordinance 12014, Section 29, and K.C.C. 3.12.290, Ordinance 12014, Section 50, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.15.020, Ordinance 142

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_12062017_2017-0295

Speaker 0: Madam Chair. Here. Councilmember Dunn says that he is here as well. Okay. All right. Thank you. So that brings us to item number seven on the agenda, proposed motion 2017 0 to 9 five, which is a motion to adopt the executive's plan for addressing major technology emergencies. This motion is in response to a request sponsored by Councilmember Lambert. And here once again to brief us is Tara Rose. Speaker 6: Thanks, Madam Chair. Still, Terry Rose, council staff. Item number seven on the agenda is proposed motion 2017 0295, which would adopt the executive's plan for addressing major technology emergencies. This materials for this item begin on page 161 of your packet motion 14750 requested the executive to develop and transmit a plan by April 3rd, 2017 that would address major technology emergencies that might occur in the Office of Emergency Management, the Department of Natural Resources and Parks, the Department of Elections and other departments as requested by department directors. Motion 14750 requires that this plan be adopted by council by motion, and for it to address at least the following four areas. The first A Method for alerting city sorry the King County Information Technology Department on upcoming operational events. A list of events in 2017 and 2018 where there may be increased technical capacity required due to higher than normal needs, such as an election day, for example. Third, a method for alerting the city to technology emergencies in specific departments. And then fourth, a resource on call plan for technology emergencies for specific departments. So they plan to address major technology emergencies. Was transmitted to council on July 5th after the executive requested a two month extension. The plan, transmitted to council meets the content requirements outlined in motion 14750. And I will briefly describe how each of the four areas is addressed in the plan. I'll now flip a head to page 163. The plan indicates that both executive branch and separately. I'm sorry. Okay. Motion 14750 requires the plan to describe the method by which departments will alert cascade of key operational events so that KPI teams identify resources that may be needed and ensure that no changes to key technology infrastructure are made during those times. And the plan in response to that indicates that both executive branch and separately elected agencies use its change management process to alert Keysight about upcoming operational events, where a temporary moratorium on it changes is needed. Agency staff request a change moratorium at least two weeks in advance, if possible, for known events, and identify the critical business processes , websites, systems, locations and any other technology that must remain up and supported. According to the plan, agencies can alert KCET of any operational events, and that includes planned or those that are emergent by contacting the customer support services team via phone, email or web within. If within the King County Network, these change requests are then processed by the City Change Advisory Board, which conducts weekly meetings and is comprised of the KCET Business Continuity Program Manager and IT staff and agents in executive branch and separately elected agencies. And the same process is used in emergencies and for unplanned events. And while a two week notice is preferred, when events are known, an emergency change process or moratorium can be submitted and implemented immediately as needed. For example, the Department of Natural Resources and Parks uses this process for flood warnings or when the flood center is activated . Moving on to area number two, addressed in the plan, motion 14750 requires the plan to include a list of events in 2017 and 2018 where there may be increased technical capacity required. The planned repeatable events identified in the plan are listed in table two on page 164 of your packet. Executive staff indicate that events needing moratoria are harder to predict in advance for both the Department of Natural Resources and Parks and the Office of Emergency Management. Though both agencies use the change management process, I just got just described for emergency situations as needed. Moving on to area number three, addressed in the plan motion 14750 requires the plan to include a description of the method by which the Office of Emergency Management, the Department of Natural Resources and Parks, the Department of Elections and other relevant departments will alert KCET to emergency technology issues. And as noted previously, the plan indicates that all agencies can alert KCET of operational events, both planned and emergent, by contacting the CASA Customer Support Services Team. And the phone number listed in the staff report is answered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and alerting the that team begins the change management process described previously. Moving onto area number four addressed in the plan. Motion 14750 requires the plan to include a resource on call plan to ensure that the departments named in the motion want access to needed technology expertize in an emergency. The Case Customer Support Services Team is the central contact number for all planned or emergent events, as they noted. And the plan indicates that KCET has identified on call staff for the various systems and components of the county's technology infrastructure such as phones, network servers, applications, etc. and if necessary, KCET made it clear a major incident depending on the type of emergency which generates a Skype call and a request for all on call staff to engage in the call within 10 minutes. That concludes my remarks. Unfortunately, no executive staff were able to be here today, but I'd be happy to take any questions as well as follow up with the executive staff following the meeting as appropriate. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Questions or comments? I'm Chair Councilmember Lamer, so I think you did an awesome job. So this came about because we had our phones crashed during a flooding emergency and we had no alternatives or backups or a way to reroute or anything else. And then later we had our websites crash, so it was clear that we weren't really stepped up to deal with emergencies and to know who to call as quickly. And for those people to know what you know, what times of the year this could be expected because these aren't really emergencies. They become emergencies because we're not properly staff for the things we know that are going to happen. So that's why we started this. And it's good that we have the chart from elections and Willard, no other department said that they have any spikes in their computer or web users. Speaker 6: Agencies use the change management process described for things that may not be a like annual repeat event such as elections. And so they use that process and these are just the sort of known repeat events. Speaker 0: And then did they identify any supplies that we might need, you know, greater capacity to move more onto another server, more server space, a generator? Were there any other supplies that they thought that might be helpful? Speaker 6: There was no mention in the plan transmitted of additional supplies needed. However, I can follow up with executive staff and I would imagine that would. Speaker 0: Be my one question. And then how are they going on that? And then how would they alert all the other agencies about this? Are they going to publish on their Web site or put out countywide email about it? How are they going to notify all the other agencies? Speaker 6: And that would be a question for executive staff. And I can follow up and circle back. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I think it's valuable to review the approaches being used and make sure that we're in in providing appropriate oversight. One of the, I think, major innovations that was put in place, I want to say four or five years ago now, it never used to exist is the 24 hour helpline . And that's the that the helpline is what you're referring to when you say the on call place. So that if you know somebody who worked at a 24 seven operation, it used to be that if somebody and many people were working and many things were happening in the middle of the night, if they had an eye problem , it had to wait until the morning. You could call and leave a message and somebody might get back to you. We had our own staff who we could call out, but as you imagine, with three or four guys, you don't want to do that too terribly often. So having the 24 seven on call number is a major improvement in terms of responsiveness to exactly this kind of thing. That's not to say that there aren't still there is still work and there are still things we can learn from subsequent emergencies that happened after that innovation. But to me, that was probably the biggest thing that was done to to be prepared to deal with i.t. Demand and challenges that are not planned. So yeah, we had, by the way, in response to your department request, we had very few planned heavy I.T. draws at the jails. So there were things that we would do. But, you know, running a scheduling program once a year doesn't put a really probably appreciable demand on our computer system. And the times we did have demand that we didn't expect, it tended to be on like the health records system. And that had to do with the system that was being put in place. And it was unplanned. It just happened and was addressed at the time. So I thank you for for raising this issue. It's just something that we don't tend to think about a lot. Another unsexy thing that actually. Exactly. Is very, very important. Okay. Thank you very much, Terry. We appreciate the report and behalf of the executive staff. I guess I would say usually we can be afford to be a little bit flexible when their schedules don't allow us to come. But there's no more meetings this year. So this was a matter of timing. And that brings us to our final briefing for today and for the year, and that is item number eight on the executive's investing in you policies on human resources. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. This motion pending almost already to be done. And it's just so okay that there is a motion that we need to take up. Councilmember Lambert, would you please move approval? Thank you. Yes, I'd be happy to. I'd like to move proposed resolution 2017 095. And I also like to thank Bill Kehoe, who worked with me on this. You no longer works here, but I will send him a copy done in L.A. and we got it done. Very good. Thank you. All right. Motion 2017 0295 To adopt the executive's plan for addressing major technology emergencies is before us. Any comments or questions? Will the card please? Speaker 1: CALDERON Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Councilmember DEMBOSKY Councilmember DUNN All right. Speaker 1: Councilmember Garcia. Councilmember Caldwell. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 1: Councilmember McDermott Hi. Councilmember up the ground. Councilmember one right there. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 0: Madam Chair. Hi, Madam Chair. The vote is eight is known as Councilmember Gossett. Excuse that that motion carries. And I would put that motion on consent and expedited December 11th. Thank you. All right. Now we will move to their final briefing of the year.

Motion

A MOTION to adopt the executive's plan for addressing major technology emergencies, as requested by Motion 14750.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_11292017_2017-0489

Speaker 0: The next thing on the item anyway, we'll go to number five and hold off on roll call and approval of the minutes until we have a few more folks. Thanks. Welcome. So number five, I recall that in 2016, the council put a charter amendment on the ballot to make our charter gender neutral, and it passed by 65% , which was very nice. That was motivated by the, I believe in part by the election of two new female council members who found ourselves surprised that our orientation day to be referred to as council man. I'm sorry, Heidi, we didn't go far as your item. And I'm just kind of juggling the balls here this morning after that charter amendment passed with our staff to review and update the county's code to make a general gender neutral. This is a much larger body of work, a significant body of work, and we're going to take it in stages. Today's ordinance is the first of what will be several ordinances to eliminate gender specific terms from the county code. And we are lucky to have Sam Porter and Aaron Osnes here to brief us today. Thank you for your work on this. Thank you. Please go ahead. Speaker 1: Sam Porter, Council Central Staff. The materials for this item begin on page seven of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2017 0489 is the first in a series of four ordinances that would make changes to the King County Code to remove gendered pronouns and historically gendered terms wherever possible. This ordinance pertains, as the chair mentioned, to titles one through four of King County Code. No substantive legal or policy changes are proposed to be made in this ordinance, but other drafting corrections are proposed by the Code Advisor. This proposed ordinance is consistent with Washington state law and county code bars to be written in gender neutral terms. In the proposed ordinance, gendered pronouns such as he, him, she or her are replaced with the title of the actor and impacted sentences, for example, in sections that refer to the director as he or she. The revision changes the gendered pronoun to the director, naming the title of the actor and disregarding gender. Table A on page two contains a sample of other proposed changes to historically gendered terms. A comprehensive list of the gendered terms addressed in the ordinance is available in attachment two of the staff report on page 213. In your packet, executive staff and the King County Ombud have been consulted regarding the proposed changes. Their feedback has been addressed and incorporated into the proposed ordinance in attachment three. On page to 21 of your packet is the timeline for future ordinances, and the plan is for three additional ordinances to be presented to this committee completing the review of remaining titles of the King County Code. This work should be completed by May of 2018. This concludes my report. I would like to recognize Russell Patel from the clerk's office and the Council Coder Advisor Bruce Bruce Ritson for their extensive work during this process. Aaron and I can answer any questions at this time. Speaker 0: ABRAMS Thank you very much. So I hope that, colleagues, you've had a chance to take a look at this. It seems fairly non substantive and non-controversial. I think the only thing that stood out to me certainly was the change from ombudsman to ombudsman. A quick search through the Internet suggests that that is a movement that is happening. Lots of other places have changed. Their ombudsman office to ombudsman is going to take a little getting used to. But are there any questions, concerns? Councilmember Caldwell. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on that issue, on ombudsman, as compared the ombudsman, we wrestled with that at the state legislature as well, and the code revised its office and it was changed to ombudsman there. But I expect we may run into some more issues that will come up as we go along, because some are terms of art, some are terms that are recognized by the federal government in terms of occupation. So there's a lot more in to involved with this than I initially thought. It took the legislature six years to complete this project and I had thought it was going to be pretty straightforward at the onset. So thank you for your work rustles and as well. Speaker 0: Thank you. Is there any other discussion or questions? Are we prepared to move this out today and take this first bite and let the staff move on to the next one? I'd entertain a motion I can't remember. Speaker 1: Lambert Thank you. The Post Ordinance 2017 0489 with a do pass recommendation. Speaker 0: Okay, it is. The motion is before us. Any comments? All those. There's no amendments, so I suppose we're prepared for. Speaker 1: A roll call. Marcus Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Speaker 4: Hi. Speaker 1: Councilmember Dunn All right. Councilmember Gossett Council Councilmember Commonwealth. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 1: Council Member Lambert I'm Councilmember McDermott. Right, Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember One right there. Madam Chair, I Madam Chair, the vote is 18 is no nos. Councilmember of the Grove excuse. Speaker 0: Okay, by your vote you have passed this ordinance number 2017 zero 49 of the do pass recommendation. I'm going to suggest we send it. We're going that we expedited just because December 11th is starting to get to be a very packed meeting. And I understand the chair has asked that we take up as many things December 4th as possible. Okay. That's what says here on my notes. Anyway, somebody wrote that for some reason it's on and I would suggest that we put it on consent. It doesn't seem like it needs to be. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. Can we go back and do the roll call at this time?

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE clarifying Title 1, Title 2, Title 3, Title 4 and Title 4A of the King County Code, establishing a gender neutral code and making technical corrections; and amending Ordinance 1371, Section 1, and K.C.C. 1.02.010, Ordinance 11348, Section 2, and K.C.C. 1.05.020, Ordinance 11348, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.05.040, Ordinance 13320, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.020, Ordinance 13320, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.030, Ordinance 13320, Section 4, and K.C.C. 1.07.040, Ordinance 13320, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.050, Ordinance 13320, Section 7, and K.C.C. 1.07.070, Ordinance 13320, Section 8, and K.C.C. 1.07.080, Ordinance 13320, Section 10, and K.C.C. 1.07.100, Ordinance 13320, Section 12, and K.C.C. 1.07.120, Ordinance 13320, Section 14, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.140, Ordinance 13320, Section 15, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.07.150, Ordinance 159, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.16.020, Ordinance 159, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.16.080, Ordinance 159, Section 9, and K.C.C. 1.16.090, Ordinance 11683, Section 9, as amended, and

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_11292017_2017-0490

Speaker 0: Thank you, colleagues, for a good discussion. And to the members of the public who came out in support of this this proposal, it's very helpful to have your input. Our final agenda item today is proposed ordinance number 2017 0490, which would make changes to the county's sick leave and other human resource related policies. These changes are being proposed to bring county code into line with the statewide initiative 1433 that passed last year and guaranteed all workers in Washington state paid sick leave. We do have an amendment today for technical changes and there may be a need for additional amendments. We have staff member Heidi Petrarch here to brief the committee. Thank you for running down when we prematurely announced this item and then waiting. And we appreciate. Speaker 1: You being here. No problem. Thank you. Exercise. I thank you, Madam Chair. Heidi. Poppycock. Council staff. The staff report begins on page 229 of your packet. Proposed Ordinance 2017 0490 would amend the King County Code to incorporate the new state law requirements relating to paid sick leave. To provide some background in November 2016, Washington State Voters Approved Initiative Measure 14 three or EI 1433, which authorized a number of changes pertaining to paid sick leave me minimum wage, automatic service charges and employer retaliation. These changes have been codified and. After 4946 of the revised Code of Washington. Under the new state law, employers are required to provide basically to most employees. Beginning January 1st, 2018, the required changes relating to sick leave accrual and sick leave usage are described on page 230 of your packet. There are four new sick sick leave accrual laws that employer employers must adhere to. First, most employees, including part time and seasonal workers, must accrue paid sick leave at a minimum rate of one hour for every 40 hours. Worked to pay sick leave must be paid to employees at their normal hourly rate. Three employees are entitled to use accrual accrued pay sick leave beginning on the ninth calendar, day after the start of their employment and for unused paid sick leave of 40 hours or less must be carried over the following year. The new state law does allow employers to provide more generous accrual and carryover policies moving on to sick leave usage under the new state law. Employees are authorized to use sick leave for the following reasons to care for themselves or their family members, including for medical diagnosis and preventative care. When the employees place the business has been closed by order of a public official for any health related reason, or when an employee's child's school or place or care, a place of care has been closed for such a reason, and also for absences that qualify under four leave under the Washington State Domestic Violence Leave Act. The new state law does allow employers to provide more generous paid sick leave policies or authorizing paid sick leave usage for additional purposes. If there are no questions regarding the four primary changes for I 1433, I will go ahead and proceed to the executive's proposed changes. Speaker 0: Any questions, Councilmember Garcia. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. Heidi, how are you doing this morning? Speaker 1: I am doing well, thank you. All right. Speaker 5: Who is it that would make the decision as to whether or not given these new areas where employers and paid sick leave, who would make the decision that Susie says her child's school are closed on Tuesdays she needs Wednesday Thursday and Friday are to find a new. And that what if our employers said no because we need you right now is that those kind of authority they are there or do you automatically have to give people sick leave in these new four categories. Speaker 1: According to state law? Yes, the two have based on those requirements for the use of sick leave. Those are authorized uses when eight. And this is how it has to be by order of a public health official. So if that place of business is closed so. Speaker 5: That public health would have to say you couldn't offer it. And has public health said that that business closed for poor health conditions or something like that? Speaker 1: You know, I will defer to the Human Resources Division representative to interpret that. Speaker 5: Okay. All I'm saying, Madam Chair, is that I just want to get clear that the same flexibility that employers have now continues, despite the fact that we're adding these four new categories that they can use and legitimate, legitimate, they give paid sick leave. Speaker 0: It seems like our executive staff who is here may have a comment on this topic. And why don't we invite you up and please welcome. Thank you for being here. Please introduce yourself for the record and thanks for answering the question. Speaker 1: Thank you. Denise Pruitt, in your opinion, you're. Speaker 5: Closer to you. Speaker 1: Sorry. Denise Pruitt, senior policy adviser from the Human Resources Division. So in that in the specific instances that are laid out in the new minimum wage act, yes, there isn't discretion for the employer. So but but that instance that you're speaking of is very specific. So it's, you know, in an instance where so this actually happened at my son's high school once where during the bird flu, the CDC, there was an outbreak in his school and they closed the school down to clean the school and make sure it didn't spread. Yeah. And so it's it's a pretty specific instance. It won't be for things like snow days or, you know. Like an earthquake or anything like that. It's really specific to health related reasons, and it's has to be closed by a public official. So it can't just be my kids schools closed today, so I'm taking a sick day. Is that. Speaker 5: Okay? Speaker 1: Answer your question. Yeah. Speaker 5: And employers would know this. How at the public health department. Speaker 1: I, I don't know that for certain, but I would think that we would be able to confirm, to verify that, because it would be kind of a big deal, I would think, of a if a whole school or, you know, things were closed like that that would be to verify. Speaker 5: Thank you and thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. I have one question, and I don't know if you're going to cover this. So if it is, we can just wait until the time comes. But does the new accrual rate change the accrual rate that we currently use for represented or non represented employees? Speaker 1: So no, it does not change and we'll get to that. How the new state law applies to King County and what King County currently provides. And so we'll get to that very well. Speaker 0: Why don't I let you continue with your presentation then? Speaker 1: Okay. Oh, no problem. So if I may draw your attention to page 232, and that's to table two. And that shows essentially as a crosswalk of the proposed changes. It shows that what the county currently provides and the proposed change in the executive's rationale. And so the first one discusses currently that short term temporary employees and administrative interns do not qualify for any leave benefits. And under the proposed ordinance, it would add language that states that short term and temporary employees would an administrator in terms would not receive comprehensive benefits. This new state law allows short term temporary employees interns to recruit sick leave benefits only. However, they're not eligible for comprehensive leave benefits, which would include like vacation leave and paid parental leave, those types of leaves. The second one, currently the count. The county does not reduce its part time or temporary employees compensation in lieu of benefits by the value of sick leave. The proposed ordinance would require temporary employees and part time employees to receive compensation in lieu of benefits. But their compensation would be reduced by the value of their sick leave benefits. And so and this is just according to the executive to offset the sick leave benefits, that short term, temporary, poised and administrative interns will receive. Number three. Speaker 0: Different kind of stop. You actually understand that. One, what would what does it mean to reduce compensation in lieu of leave benefits? What does it mean to do that? What would that look like if we did it? Speaker 1: Hello. Thank you. So right now in the code, we have a provision that if our temporary employees exceed a certain number of hours, so essentially they exceed half time. You may recall this that we got we do what we call referred to as back benefit pay and they get a payout of compensation in lieu of the benefits that they didn't receive. And as it stands, now, that they don't get any benefits. So we're just adjusting that benefit calculation to offset for the fact that they will now be receiving sick leave. Speaker 0: Understood. I, I don't recall that because we used to just not use part time employees or temporary employees over the maximum amount. Speaker 1: Because this happened. Speaker 0: It was such a hassle if you went over the maximum amount. So we just managed so that we didn't do that. Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Please go ahead. Speaker 1: Okay. So on number three, so currently the short term temporary employees and administrative interest are not accrued sick leave. And under the proposed ordinance and based on the new state law, short term temporary employees, administrative interns would receive accrued would accrue sick leave at a rate of 0.0 to 5 for each hour and pay status. And that's based on the new state law for number four. King County currently provides 1.8 4 hours of sick leave for every 40 hours worked. And currently the county does not allow sick leave accrual for overtime hours. The proposed ordinance would add language stating that if an hourly employee works over 74 hours in one week, the employee would accrue a sick leave rate of 0.02 5 hours for each hour over the 74 hours and the. The logic behind that is with the minimum state are with the state new state law, one hour of sick leave earned for every 40 hours. The county offers 1.8 4 hours per every for every 40 hours. Worked or not for every for an hour, for 40 hours worked. So that is more generous than what the state is offering. And so if an employee works in a rare occurrence, 80 hours in one week, the county would provide 2 hours of sick leave for those 80 hours. And so currently with the county county already providing 1.8 4 hours, the can, we just have to make up that difference to get to the 2 hours. Okay. Okay. And so moving on to number five, currently short term temporary employees and initially interns did not accrue sick leave. The proposed ordinance was language that excludes employees from a critically. If you are short term temporary employees employed in social service programs designed to help youth gain basic work skills. And according to the executive, these employees are exempt from the new state law. Number six Currently short term temporary employees and administrative interns do not accrue sick leave for employees who are eligible for comprehensive leave benefits accrued sick leave is canceled upon separation or termination except by reason of retirement or layoff or separation for medical reasons. The proposed ordinance would allow sick leave accrued by short term temporary employees and administrative interns, and that will be canceled by separation, retirement or termination of county employment. And the rationale for that is that the county is not required to cash out unused basically to in to an employee. Number seven, currently, if an employee resigns in good standing or is separated for medical reasons or is laid off and returns within two years, the employee sick leave would be restored except for former employment in a term limited position. The proposed ordinance would remove this language, and the rationale for that is that if an employee returns to county employment within two years, accrued sick leave would be restored. That's the county's policy and also the new state law allow sick leave restored within 12 months of any employee. So the county is more generous than that. Number eight. Currently, the code describes two specific scenarios that are eligible for sick leave use. For example, sick leave may be used for employee exposure to contagious diseases and resulting in quarantine. Then the proposed ordinance would add language that authorizes sick, sick leave that mirrors the new state law. So an employee's family member, mental or physical illness, injury or health condition. And so you can see in the proposed changes column those different reasons that will be allowed for sick leave. Number nine, the current that the code states that verification from a health health care provider may be required to substantiate the health condition of the employee or family member or leave request. The proposed ordinance would remove this current language and and language that states that the county may require the employer to provide reasonable notice of an absence from work as long as the notice does not interfere with the employee's lawful use of sick leave. This essentially mirrors the state law. Speaker 0: Passed request from Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 1: So as to how an employee employer would do. If you have an employee that's decided they're sick and they're taking all this leave and you don't really think they are sick. What is your ability as an employer to deal with that? Unfortunately, the way the new law is written, it's going to hamstring us a little bit in terms of its impact. So we're working right now to review all the departmental policies and practices. We're no longer permitted under the new law to discipline employees for their use of sick leave, and that includes like patterned behavior. And you also can't factored in to things like performance evaluations and merit increases. So we're the rules. The regs just came out a couple of weeks ago. So we're still trying to wrap our head around the ins and outs of what we will be permitted to do and won't be permitted to do, but it will actually be able to do less than what we've been doing. So having had some past experience in dealing with this issue that is disruptive to the work of the government or the work of any business. So you said the regs I see here that you have an RTW is is what you just said. Is it in the RTW itself or in the regs referring to the RTW? It's in there. It's vaguely in the RTW, in the Minimum Wage Act. It's more specifically in the wax. Okay. So I think we need to petition that the WACC be reviewed and to make that clear, because that is not good government policy or business policy. So I know that there is a lot of the whole because this applies to every employer in the state. So as you can imagine, there's a lot of and and the fact that, you know, they they pushed the rules out so late in the year and it takes effect January 1st. You know, everybody's scrambling to try to figure. Out one, how to implement the changes and then to how to how to deal with the new regulations. So I think that there will be a lot of employers making those comments. So I was once on day work, you know, if you, A.J., like it. But it's the group that oversees how the work it's interpreted to the CW. And let's just say there's a lot of creativeness in how that happens sometimes. So I think if we could go back and look at that, but I think we need to really press on this. This is not an acceptable change and can be very disruptive to businesses and government and say, okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Please go ahead. Okay. Speaker 1: So moving on on to number ten on page 235 of your packet. Currently, if a county employee fails to return to work by the expiration date of the leave of absence, it may cause for removal or termination. And under the proposed ordinance, it would remove this language. And the rationale for that is that this is no longer permissible under the new state law. Number 11 currently the code states that verification from a health care provider may be required to serve substantially of health condition or of the employee or family member for leave requests. The proposed ordinance remove this language as we just discussed, and would add language that states that verification of an employee's sick leave is for an authorized purpose, may be required for absences in excess of three days. Also, verification may not result in an unreasonable burden or expense on the employee and may not exceed privacy or verification requirements otherwise established by law. And this new language mirrors the new state law. Moving on to number 12 on page 236 of the packet. Currently, county employees accrued sick leave on the first day of employment. The proposed ordinance would remove this language and this is the rationale for this is that is not current, not the current practice at the county and it's not permissible under the new state law. Number 13 Currently the county employees are not allowed to use vacation leave during the first six months of employment. The proposed ordinance would remove this language and allow an employee to utilize vacation leave during the first six months. This will be reflected in the master labor agreement for representative employees that will be forthcoming to the Council and the Executive will recommend the same policy for non reporter for not represented employees. The remaining changes are technical, so I won't get into those. The 2018 costs for implementing I 1433 is approximately 607,000, which of which 221,000 will be charged to the general fund? That concludes my staff report. And Madam Chair, there is a striking amendment to the proposed ordinance that would define two terms and make technical changes. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you both very much for walking us through. This is a technical exercise. This is a pretty major change for us. I guess I want to preface this by saying that the the concept is, of course, something that this county strongly supports and endorses the idea that people should be able to take time off when they're sick. You may hear a little bit of raspy ness in my voice today. I blame one of my colleagues who didn't stay home when he was sick. Sorry, it's not fair, but I do. I blame him. And so I want people to stay home when they're sick for selfish reasons, but also because we owe it to our employees and the people who work here to be able to get well to be with their family members when they need sick time. This statute, in my view, is addressing employers that have long not valued that sick leave benefit the way this employer has. And so I support the concept behind it completely that that should be the standard that people should be able to take sick leave when they need it. The challenge is that when you run a especially a large, complicated operation with a lot of different employees, with a lot of moving parts, with operations that are required to go 24, seven hour wastewater treatment plan has to run 24, seven. Our jails have to run 24, seven hour police have to be out 24, seven. It does become more and more difficult to staff those functions, not at a reasonable cost at all, to have people in place to do the things we need them to do. If we don't have the ability to manage attendance in some way at the same time that we are balancing the employees need. And so I share the concerns that were articulated by Councilmember Lambert. And I look to item 11 about employment verification. And I'll just say there is a practical reality here. There are not too many doctors that won't sign a note for their patients for whatever reason, whenever. And I just don't know that we're going to be able to practically manage attendance with these kind of rules. So I, I share the concern that in trying to do the right thing, we not kind of overcorrect to the point where we actually can't run our. Operations for the benefit of the observer taxpaying and the public we represent. That said, it is a law and we have to follow it. And so I don't see much option other than to pass this ordinance and continue to work through our legislative advocacy to make sure that in doing the right thing, we're not unduly hampering and hampering hamper rating. I mean, in a word, hampering employers who who need to provide services. So with that, I would ask Council Member McDermott to put this item in front of us. And as a reminder, it is proposed ordinance number 2017 0490. Speaker 4: Madam Chair, I would move the committee the whole of the to pass recommendation to ordinance 2017 490. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. McDermott. And would you also move striker s. Speaker 4: William Sherry move adoption of Striking Amendment One. Speaker 0: Thank you. Would you care to speak to it? Speaker 4: I think it's an excellent, striking amendment. Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Very good. Any further comments from this council member? Kolawole. Sorry. Yes. Speaker 1: If I may. Yeah. Madam Chair, there is also an amendment to the striking amendment sponsored by Council Member Cole Wells. And if the Council member wishes, the amendment will be distributed. And I can say. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I was looking for it. Thanks. Speaker 0: Please. Councilmember Wells, that's being passed out. Would you like to speak to it? Speaker 3: I'm speaking without saying it. It's right here. However, thank you. So this amendment, it's it's mentioned in the effect statement would allow county employees to utilize sick leave to increase their safety if they or family member have been a victim of trafficking. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: And if I may speak on that, I'm sort. Speaker 0: Of considering I consider it. Have you moved it? Put it before us. Please speak to it. Yes. Speaker 3: This is similar to a law that just passed in New York City. And we know that there are issues relating to human trafficking here in King County. We recently had a report that was accepted by the full council that came from a consultant that deals with labor trafficking in King County. We've already done quite a work on sex trafficking. So victims of trafficking, domestic violence and sexual abuse, as well as their family members will, if this amendment is adopted, would all be able to have time off from work to plan their next steps, especially being able to focus on safety without fear of loss of income. We know that individuals at times have to go to court because of having been victimized by these terrible scourges, and many are fearful of their safety, especially if they've been brought into the country for purposes, for illicit purposes. And I think we should follow the example of New York and adopt this amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. How many additional days can a person take off from work if they indicate the hours that they think their daughter is, you know, being turned down on the block or something like that? Traffic. Speaker 3: Well, I'm assuming that this does not give any additional time off from work. It just would allow these individuals to be able to, you know, to utilize what's available for all other to. Speaker 1: Utilize sick leave for that. Speaker 5: Purpose. But they wouldn't get extra simply. Speaker 1: Correct? Correct. Or not in addition to it's whatever the sick leave accrued by the employee. Speaker 5: I'm going. What is the definition of traffic like? Like like for example, I is like getting a young lady that's in your household to work for them or or. Speaker 0: Not answering her calls because. Speaker 3: You're under a state law as well as federal law. And I'm just remembering this and I'm not looking at the definition that trafficking involves force, fraud or coercion. And as such, it's very difficult for people to get out of that and actually be able to come forward. I don't think this would be utilized by many people, but it does exist. We know it exists. And so I'm expanding the availability of sick leave for those individuals for purposes of safety and security. Speaker 0: Can one of you remind me what our current practice is and policy about sort of safe leave if people are going to court or fleeing domestic violence or I believe we have a policy that says you can use sick leave for those kinds of purposes. Is that correct? Speaker 1: State allows it. Speaker 0: So this would kind of expand that concept just to include people who are fleeing or exiting trafficking and or have been trafficked for their safety. It's really consistent in my mind with the whole idea of the sick leave expansion that's happened some time ago now for for domestic violence victims. And I think it makes good sense. I'm happy to support this amendment. Council Member. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just would like to clarify here we are talking about providing options to individuals or because of their family member has been. Speaker 0: Understood. Speaker 3: Without fear of repercussion at their job. Yeah. Speaker 4: Councilmember Dombroski about chair great amendment. Thank you. Councilman Caldwell's for bring it forward and it looks great. I think in concept I have a technical question and it applies to this, but all of this and that is do these changes have to be negotiated with our labor partners? And if they do, have they and if they all have to be negotiated, have we consulted with them for feedback? Speaker 1: Yes, to all of the above. So we are so they can't waive it. So the so we have to bargain the effects, right. So the the unions will still have to comply with the laws. So we will have to make some changes to some of our CBAs and Office of Labor Relations is currently going through the contracts to determine which contracts will need to be changed. For the most part, I think the the labor unions will be fine with most of the changes because most of the changes are actually beneficial to two employees. There is a weird thing about what's the word I want to use incentive programs that we'll have to eliminate. Like some of our contracts have incentive programs, and you may be aware of a council member from DHS that encourages employees not to use their sick leave, that they're then if they don't use sick leave for the year, they're able to convert a certain number of days to vacation leave. We will no longer be allowed to do that under the new law because there it's discouraging people from using sick leave. So we're working on those things right now. And like I said, labor relations hasn't is I know there is a meeting on Monday, I believe, to talk with the labor unions to notify them that we will be working on that with them. Speaker 4: So on Councilmember Caldwell's amendment to allow the use of sick time to increase the safety of the employee or family member when the employer founder has been a victim of trafficking inspired state law, would that have to be negotiated? I mean, there's some terms in there. You know, you could see questions with a family member. Maybe that's the fine. I don't know. But is that something that would have to be negotiated? Can we and I really like the idea. Can we just add it on here and or how does that work? Speaker 1: I don't think so. Speaker 4: I'm going back to my paid leave. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. You know you will because it was a we were adding on a benefit, but. Right. You had to negotiate it. Speaker 1: And some of the other ones, like the domestic violence, one is is in the law. So there has to be compliance with that. In theory, yes, they could push back on this, I think, and I can see from a practice I also agree with this amendment. But from a practitioner standpoint, I can already hear some of the departments saying, how do we confirm that that's that's what it's being used for. Speaker 4: Was there as their language in the underlying ordinance that calls for negotiation. Of these terms. I mean, all of them. Speaker 1: No, it doesn't need to be in the order. I mean, we have to do it regardless. So. Yeah. Speaker 4: So I it seems to me we should adopt this and move it forward in that there are technical, legal or labor issues between now counsel will figure out how to address. Speaker 1: Well, as you know, the ordinance, I mean, applies to our non-representative employees regardless. And then yeah. So that if it'll apply to anybody that doesn't have something different in their contract. Speaker 3: Madam Chair. Yes. Member. Yeah, I appreciate the support that I'm hearing. I think it would be helpful. Before we go to the full council with a vote there is that we got a copy of the state law that I think W is applicable here. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. I think we're prepared now to vote on Amendment One to s one. All those in favor please signify by saying i, i any. Speaker 1: Opposed. Speaker 0: Amendment one is adopted. That brings us to Amendment S1. Any further comments or questions on the striking amendment? Seeing none. All those in favor of S1 please signify by saying i. I any opposed S1 carries. And now we are back to. Speaker 1: The. Speaker 0: Proposed ordinance itself. 2017 0490. The only thing I would say before final passage here is this cost of $600,000 is for one year. It's in the 20 1718 biennium, but it's being implemented on January one. So this means this implementation of this new law is going to cost us a King County $1.2 million every biennium. Just it's understanding it's the right thing to do to have robust sick and sick leave programs. But we we just need to remember that there's a balance. We also have to provide services effectively and efficiently to the public. But this is being driven by a state law change that I believe we have no no ability but to implement. And it's got some really good things in it, along with some things that seem challenging. So I will support it, but look forward to working to perfect the whole concept of attendance management as we go forward. All right. Any other comments? Well, the court, please call the roll. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Garcia. Speaker 5: Hi. Speaker 1: Councilmember Cornwall I Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. Hi, Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Yvonne right there. Madam Chair. Hi, Madam Chair. The vote is six eyes no nos. Council members Dunn, Lambert and Van Dyck. They were excused. Speaker 0: Okay. By your vote, will you have approved proposed ordinance number 2017 0490 be advanced to the full council with a do pass recommendation? Is there any need to expedite this? It doesn't seem like it. Speaker 1: If you would like to get there on December 4th and not have, you know, full council packed on December 11, though, that will be just. Speaker 0: It can seem like there's any objection. And without objection, I'll also ask for it to be on the consent agenda so we don't have to go through this again. Oh, amendments. Speaker 1: Yes. Just one potential technical amendment. Speaker 0: Well, then we'll put it on the consent end. So sorry. All right. This brings us to the end of our agenda today. Our next and final meeting of 2017 will be next Wednesday, December 6th, when we will anticipate discussing the elimination of unnecessary reports. I'm super excited about getting an update on the East Side rail corridor, reviewing a report on the county's plans for addressing technology related emergencies and receiving the last briefing of the year on the county's human resources programs, including diversity and hiring. And I look forward to seeing you all. Then we are adjourned.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE relating to paid sick leave; amending Ordinance 12014, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.010, Ordinance 12014, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.040, Ordinance 12077, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.125, Ordinance 12014, Section 36, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.188, Ordinance 12014, Section 19, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.190, Ordinance 12077, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.200, Ordinance 4324, Section 27, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.210, Ordinance 12014, Section 20, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.215, Ordinance 18408, Section 2, and K.C.C. 3.12.219, Ordinance 12014, Section 21, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.220, Ordinance 12014, Section 22, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.223, Ordinance 13743, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.224, Ordinance 7956, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.225, Ordinance 12014, Section 23, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.230, Ordinance 12077, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.240, Ordinance 12014, Section 25, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.250, Ordinance 12014, Section 26, as amended, and K.C.C. 3.12.260 and Ordinance 9967

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_10182017_2017-0325

Speaker 0: And then item number four at a minimum, five and six, sorry, are both regarding the construction of a new solid waste transfer station in the city of Algona. We have an existing station in the city of EL going to do an operation for more than 50 years and is in need of an upgrade and expansion. We've been planning additional capacity for the last decade. The executive has now proposed locating a new transfer station directly north of the existing site on county owned property within the city of Algona. The two pieces of legislation before us today are a construction agreement and a land transfer agreement, which outlined the conditions through which the city of Algona would allow the proposed new transfer station to proceed. We have Council Staff Mary Bourguignon and Tara Rose here to brief the committee and representatives from the Solid Waste Division are also here if we have any questions for them, and we're hoping to take this up for action today. So with that, I'll ask staff to please go ahead and brief the committee. Speaker 1: Thank you. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Mary Burge and from council staff and I'm here with Terre Rose, the materials for this presentation begin on page five of your packets. But I'm going to start with the large map that is at your place. Thought it might be helpful just as a geographic orientation to point out the area that we are discussing. So if you look at the map, you'll see that we are located in the city of Algona. If you follow the large arrow, you can sort of see the surroundings and you'll see that there are two properties highlighted. The one to the south that is highlighted in red is the existing Algona transfer and recycling station. That property was purchased in portions by the county beginning in the 1930s and the transfer station has been operating there since the 1960s. That property is approximately 200,000 square feet. It's somewhat topographically constrained and therefore is proposed to be replaced by this site just north of it that is outlined in Green, which is the proposed location for the new transfer and recycling station. That property is approximately 300,000 square feet. Before I leave the map, if you look just a little bit farther down to the south, you'll see a bright blue line along the West Valley Highway south, right at the border between the city of Algona and unincorporated King County. The agreements contain a provision that the city and county would agree to a boundary adjustment so that the city of Algona would control the entire entirety of West Valley Highway. Along that stretch. Right now, the boundary is sort of in the middle of the road and we split the maintenance. And so for ease of maintenance, as well as cost reductions to the county, the agreement would include this proposed boundary adjustment. If you'll flip the map over, you'll see a closer up view of the two properties. And I just want to point out one thing here in the green property, you'll notice that it's comprised of several individual parcels with some city streets running in between them. Those city streets would be vacated and made over to the county as part of the agreement so that we would then own the property in its entirety to be able to operate the proposed transfer station. So with that, I will turn back to the packets and we'll move to page six. Just a quick history of this property. I mentioned that the existing site has been in operation as a transfer station since the 1960s. In December 2007, when the council approved the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan, it recommended that King County modernize the regional solid waste system and develop several new transfer stations, including a new one in South County. In 2014, when the Transfer Plan Review final report was adopted, that decision was reiterated with a proposal for a new transfer station in South County in 2012 as part of its search for possible locations for a new transfer station. The Solid Waste Division purchased the proposed site in Algona and then began an environmental review process that looked at three alternatives the existing site, which was a no action alternative, the new site that had been purchased in Algona as well as the site in Auburn. That environmental review process concluded last year. It identified the new site in Algona as the preferred location, and at that point the city of Algona challenged the Environmental Impact Statement. The two agreements before you today would allow for the proposed New South. County Recycling and transfer station to move forward. They include a land transfer agreement and a construction agreement. And the city of Algona City Council passed legislation approving both of them earlier this year. I will also note, just in terms of the history of this process, that several years ago, in 2012, the Council required that prior to the Solid Waste Division beginning any design work on this transfer station that it conclude commit to and transmit a report on procurement methods for the new transfer station. And it has done so, in fact did so in September of this year and has recommended that it use traditional public works bidding for the procurement for this new transfer station . With that, I'll move on to page eight and just run through the two agreements. You'll see that on the bottom of page eight is a section about the construction agreement, which is covered in proposed ordinance 2017 0324. So I'll start with that one. That agreement first requires that a procurement method be identified. I noted that the division has indicated they plan to use traditional public works bidding, and the agreement would commit that by September 30th of 2019, which is called the Project Decision Date, that the county would select a procurement method, notify the city and take the first major step toward construction. And we have worked with executive staff and understand that they feel confident that they can meet this deadline. Next, the agreement outlines the number of terms that the city and county have agreed to in terms of mitigate mitigation and the permitting process. It would outline the development standards that the county must comply with, as well as the cost for the permitting, which would be a cost of up to $300,000, and would guarantee that the city may condition but not deny the conditional use permit needed to operate the transfer station. The city would also, by this agreement, agree that the mitigation included in the final environmental impact statement is adequate and that the county would agree that the county would complete this mitigation prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy for the new transfer station. The county would agree to be responsible for newer modified utilities needed to serve the new station. Though the agreement does outline provisions for a late comers agreement for any nearby properties and the county and city agree to use the Mitigation Reserves program for in lieu fee mitigation to address wetlands on commercially zoned properties in the city. Next, the agreement. Speaker 0: I'm sorry, Americas as possible. So can Councilmember Lambert. Could you explain a little more that last sentence the in lieu of fees for what. Speaker 1: This this would be as part of the overall mitigation process the city and county have agreed to a way to manage wetlands and they would use the in lieu fee mitigation program as a way to do that. Speaker 0: Explain a little more about that in live the program. Speaker 1: So that is I can get you that offline. That is a separate part of the county code and it's a program, I think Erin Austin's has briefed on it within the last year or so. But I can get you that offline if you'd like. Great. So next part of the agreement is that the county and city have agreed to various maintenance and mitigation work that would be completed on West Valley Highway to handle the additional traffic expected from the transfer station. There are maps in the agreement that I don't know that we need to go over, although we can. But there are segments identified and various tasks outlined for what the county would be doing both during the construction process and then on an ongoing basis to mitigate any impacts for traffic to the site. Next, I had mentioned the street vacations that would be needed since the property that is proposed for the transfer station is comprised of several parcels. The agreement outlines a street vacation process through which the county would agree that the city owns the street right of way and the city would agree to vacate this right of way prior to the county receiving a building permit with the county to pay for appraisals and the full value of the right of way. And then finally, there are sections in the proposed agreement that outline the dispute resolution process and, if necessary, an arbitration process. If there are no more questions about that agreement, I'll move on to the land transfer agreement. Speaker 0: Let's pause for 1/2. Any questions at this point about this construction agreement? Okay. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 4: So I'm just I'm sorry. Speaker 0: Go ahead. Councilmember. Speaker 4: Very briefly, on the street, they. In compensation issue. Are we when you said we'll pay the full value, is that as it is that unemployment. Speaker 3: Has been raised? Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: So next, moving on to the land transfer agreement, which is covered in proposed ordinance 2017 zero 325, this agreement where the construction agreement covered essentially the new site. This agreement would cover the existing site and it would cover the county's deconstruction cleanup and transfer to the city of the existing transfer station property, as well as the ownership , maintenance and operation of West Valley Highway in the area that I had pointed out on the map. Specifically, this agreement would require that the county would test, deconstruct and then transfer the existing station property to the city. And there are specific requirements outlined for the county to complete additional hazardous substance testing in addition to Phase one environmental site assessment to deconstruct the existing station by removing all of the facility except the wall, stormwater facilities and sewer water lines within 18 months of the station being closed. Cleaning the property to state standards for industrial properties. And then indemnifying the city. And I will note that legal counsel did point out that this indemnification would continue past the county's closure of the site and its transfer of the property to the city, but identified this as a business decision and not a legal concern. And then finally, as I noted, the property would be conveyed to the city after the cleanup next. As I had noted, the city and county share a boundary that runs along the middle of West Valley Highway in a portion of the area between Fifth Avenue South and First Avenue North. And as part of this agreement, the two entities would commit to a future boundary adjustment so that the city would control the entirety of the West Valley Highway right of way in that area. I will go on to note that fiscal impacts for the two agreements for the biennium are an estimate of $400,000, $300,000 in permitting costs and $100,000 for some of the work needed on West Valley Highway, specifically to reimburse the city for its local matching fund for a grant for that work. In terms of the larger budget for the new transfer station, the budget is estimated at $113 million. This project has been identified as a high risk project, which is part of the mandatory phased appropriation program, meaning that the council would need to approve each phase of the project. At the moment, the Council has, through the 2017 2018 biennial budget, appropriated funds for design and planning work. But future work and construction is not anticipated until the next biennium. And that concludes my staff report, unless there are questions and we do update McLaughlin here from the division. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Very, very good report. Any other questions at this time? I have a sort of a couple of general ones. This appears to all hang together and make a great deal of sense. Do we feel that these agreements resolve all siting issues between the city and the county? Speaker 1: I would let the executive speak to that. Speaker 0: I want to come on up and. Share your thoughts. I mean, I understand that there are contingencies built in here. But in terms of the decision to select this site and to move forward to the next steps, do we feel that we have a good resolution that is well supported by all parties? Speaker 4: Yes, Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to be here. For the record, my name is Pat McGrath, and I serve as your Solid Waste Division Director. I do say with confidence that this represents an agreement that settles any, any and all concerns that the city has brought forward. As we as we've kind of pursued this siting approach. And the agreement represents the interests of both the county and the city in a very balanced and fair way. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. And then my second question is, when I look at the terms, nothing jumps out at me as being particularly, you know, the way they all, as I said, hang together when you when you read them in this logical way. But I think about risks going forward. I heard the words hazardous substance testing. And I mean since this is I don't know actually what uses are there now. Do we expect any surprises? That's a really nonsensical question. Do we do we worry about any surprises? Speaker 4: Well, we certainly yeah. It's it's a it's a valid question. It's a question that the city brought forward. We don't have any concerns and we don't anticipate any surprises. But there are there are contingencies and in a legal framework, in the event that such is discovered. But the reason we don't have that concern is that we've done some preliminary investigation and and review to make that determination. And we will continue to monitor that process throughout the course of the contract. This contract actually calls for some additional review periods to make sure that if there is anything that it's identified early on and remediation can be addressed in a timely fashion, but we don't have anything to to raise that concern to us at this point based on how that property has been used. Speaker 0: Thank you. I will say that for all of last year, the mayor of Algoma was my vice chair on the Regional Transit Committee. So we had, you know, occasion to chit chat about what was going on down in Algona. And he was very complimentary of the way that the Solid Waste Division worked with the city, at least at that phase as we were getting towards agreement. And my understanding is that this is something that they are satisfied with, which is another example. I think along with some of the work we've done in my district recently of the division working hard with our our city partners. So I do appreciate that. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? This is before us for action today. And we have two ordinances. The first one is proposed ordinance 2017, down to zero 3 to 4. I would entertain a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to propose ordinance 2017 0324 with the do pass recommendation. Okay. I don't see any amendments. So with that council member up to the third one, Rick Bauer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I had the opportunity to also know the Mayor of Algona quite well. I represent our going on the County Council, and it's been a roller coaster. But the roller coaster, I definitely found it equally remote. I don't think Pat and his staff are finding that it's the mayor of going is very not parochial. He's very personal and very, very caring about the city. And like a lot of our areas of South County, there is a sense that maybe they were the poor stepchild. And I want to thank you for making him part of the family, because as the process moved forward, he became more comfortable about what was happening. I really admire Dave Hill, the mayor, because he cares about his city, cares about a very tough economic community that doesn't get treated as well as some other cities. And King County and you and your staff did an outstanding job of reaching out, making him a part of the process, making him treated with respect, because that's a big issue for a lot of folks in South King County is a sense of lack of respect from Seattle and so on. Thank you. Publicly and I think Councilmember Banducci for her help on this as well. Speaker 0: All right. And yes, ALGON is well represented by its city and its council representatives. So thank you. Any other comments with that? I'll call for roll call, please. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Councilmember DEMBOSKY, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett, I. Councilmember Cole Wells. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. Council Member of the Grove City Councilmember Yvonne Record. Speaker 1: Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Hi. Speaker 1: Madam Chair. Speaker 0: The vote is salmon eyes. No nos. Councilmember Stone and Bond right up to Grove. Excuse OC by your vote. Proposed Ordinance 2017 does two or 3 to 4 will move to the full council with a do pass recommendation. And is there any reason to expedite that? Speaker 1: Madam Chair, the companion legislation oh 3 to 5 requires public notice, and it's been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing on November 13. Speaker 0: So notes for that if you want. Speaker 1: Well, this one doesn't have that restriction, but if you want to keep them together, they could both go together on November 13th. Speaker 0: I think it's clean is to keep them together so we won't expedite them and we won't put them on consent. All right. That brings us to proposed ordinance 2017, DASH 0325, which is the companion land transfer agreement. Councilmember Lambert, when you put that before us, I'd like to proposed or in 2017 zero 3 to 5 of the do pass recommendation. All right. It's been moved and is before the body. Any further comments or questions? Okay. Marker. Please go ahead and call the roll. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dombrowski, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Garza, Councilmember Cole Wells. Councilmember Lambert, hi. Councilmember McDermott. Hi. Councilmember up the Grove. Councilmember one right there. Speaker 4: Hi. Speaker 0: Madam Chair. Hi. Speaker 1: Madam Chair. The vote is seven is no nos. Council members done in. Speaker 0: The grove excuse to right by your vote. That measure is also moved to the full council with a unanimous to pass recommendation. So we'll go on to the public hearing and next steps. Thank you all very much for your work on this agenda. Item number seven. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilmember Lambert is correct. We should go back and improve the minutes while we have folks here. So if you would like to put the minutes of October 4017, 2017, meaning before us with the due package recommendation, any comments or questions on the minutes?

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE approving an agreement to transfer land between King County and the city of Algona and authorizing the King County executive to sign and implement the agreement.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_09062017_2017-0301

Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Those are the minutes of our special meeting on page three. Others in favor please say I, i, others opposed. Nay, the minutes are passed. Okay. So that takes us down now to proposed ordinance 2017 0301 and item number five, the ordinance creating the route through Emergency Leadership Program. And so this is sponsored by councilmembers Dombrowski, McDermott and Heidi Puppy. Chuck, would you begin? Thank you, Madam Chair. Heidi Papa, our council staff. The staff report begins on page seven of your packet proposed ordinance 2017 0301 would create a new fellowship program and King County Government to honor the late Ruth Woo for her dedication to public service. To provide some background on Mrs. Woo. She was born on November 28th, 1926, in Kalispell, Montana. To Tom and Ricki Oya. Her father, Tom Oyer, worked on railroad gangs in Montana. After her father died, the family moved to Seattle, where the mother worked as a seamstress and later to an Oregon farm. In 1941, World War Two began and led to the internment of Japanese-Americans. In 1942, Mrs. Wu's family was banished first to the Tool Lake internment camps in California, then to Camp Mini Doka in the Idaho desert. She she graduated from Hunt High School while interned at Camp Minnetonka. After camp she married Hiroyoshi excuse me, only Yama, whom died in 1960. They had two children, Teresa and Janice. In 1975, she married Benjamin Woo, an architect and influential leader in the Seattle Asian community and a father of five. Mr. who died in 2008. In the late 1950s, Mrs. Woo worked as secretary for the city of Seattle Mayor Gordon Clinton. After working as a secretary, she moved to Olympia to work as a receptionist for then Governor Dan Evans. When Governor Dan Evans ran for a third term in 1971, Mrs. Miller offered to campaign for him. Mrs. who managed her first political campaign for Mr. James Oliver in 1975, whom she had met while working at the governor's office while he was running for state Supreme Court Justice. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. who managed Mr. Douglas Stewart's campaign for City of Seattle city attorney. She eventually held a succession of administrative professional positions for elected officials. Mrs. Will passed away on July 13, 2016, in Seattle, Washington. At the age of 89, Mrs. Woo was well known in the Asian-American community with a talent for organizing political campaigns. Mrs. Moon was created credited with shaping the careers of a cadre of notables from both political parties, including former Governor Gary Locke and former King County executive Ron Semmes. The fellowship program that would be created by proposed ordinance 2017 0301 to honor Mrs. Wu would award one person who has demonstrated a commitment to public service a full time paid term limited to a temporary position in King County government. For a term of one year, the fellow would be an employee of the Department of Executive Services, Human Resources Management Division or h.r. D The fellow would be assigned to work in various county agencies for periods of 3 to 4 months at a time, working on projects such as following a piece of legislation through the legislative process, preparing briefings and assisting with outreach and executive branch policy administration. Each agency would reimburse h.r for the cost of the fellow for the period assigned to that particular agency. A selection committee will convene annually to review the applicants of the for the fellowship program and to recommend an applicant to be appointed as the fellow to h.r. The members of the selection. A committee will be appointed by the county executive and the chair of the Council. Council staff and Council's legal counsel has identified technical corrections to the proposed ordinance for Council consideration, which includes the striking amendment in a title amendment starting on page 15 of your packet. The striking amendment S1 would insert the new section of the fellowship program in Chapter 3.12 of the King County Code instead of Title two. The title Amendment one would confirm to the effects of this striking amendment. Executive staff in the Office of Labor Relations recommends that as the Fellowship Work Program is developed, an ongoing dialog regarding the program should commence with the labor unions that represent the employees of King County. Madam Chair, that concludes my staff report. We have three of Mrs. Woo's friends in the audience this morning. It's Ms.. Dolores in Bangor. Ms.. Joan, Yoshi, Tommy and Mr. Frank Rae. Thank you. Can I ask you a question on line 23 on the S1? What is that? On the word most. I've never seen us do that. I think it's just a citation since it's not capitalized and because it was a particular issue, speech issue in a quote. So that is there is a quotation and then with the persons of M. Since it's not capitalized, I would presume and we can it's just different. I never seen that before. Okay. So with the three friends want to come up to the table if you like to make any comments, would you like to come on these microphones? You have to pull very close to your mouth and it's the bottom line. And please introduce yourselves for the record. Good morning, Madam Chairman, and members of the Council. My name is Josh Utomi. Speaker 4: I'm Dolores Bonga. Speaker 0: Hey, would you like to make any comments about this? I guess Ruth Wu had a extensive network. Everybody shaking their heads so could tell. Everybody has touched with her. Been touched with her at some point or another. She always was great about trying to find young people to fill positions that she would hear about how she found that out. And none of us really knew. And then she on her campaign, she always looked to have young people be involved. And I believe, although she never articulated it this way, that it was her way of introducing young people to public service and government service. And she was very successful over the a lot of us are in those positions because of that. So I urge you to pass this legislation today. Thank you. Do you want to make another comment? Yes, please. I want to. Speaker 4: Thank all of you for taking this magnificent step. We were thinking of a way to memorialize Ruth's life, and we could think of nothing better than to help young people become part of government. The beauty of this bill as well is that this fellow will be able to go to three different departments and I'm hoping their finance and budget and policy and operations, because then that individual will be able to, as Ruth did, influence many, many others to join government and to be a contributing member. This also fits in beautifully with your equity and social justice legislation, and we're very, very thankful for your doing this. Speaker 0: Thank you. I think I have a clue. I want to use tricks. I met Ruth in December 2011 and she called me because she'd been watching me on TV and she wanted to give me some information. And it was one of the most pleasant meetings of meeting somebody knew. And her expertize, her kindness, the kinds of things she said and how much she knew, she'd been watching a lot of television. So I was really impressed with her ability just to see and know so much. So I, too, along with everybody else, will miss her a lot. And I appreciated her phone calls. So this was framed by two members of the committee. Do either of you want to say anything with it? Okay. McDermott. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. The staff report outlined Ruth's political work, but Ruth also ran the licensing agency in Rainier Valley. And I was actually home from college. Grew up here in Seattle, was the women's college in Spokane, and home for a college break when someone else who had done some political mentoring of me told me I needed to go meet. Did I know Ruth Wu well? No, I didn't know Ruth. Well, you need to meet Ruth. I'm going to call her and tell you to come in. You need to go by the licensing agency, introduce yourself and have coffee. I didn't quite understand why at the time. Only later did I understand how important and valuable that coffee, that time with Ruth would be. And Ruth was somebody who did, in her small way, mentor me and in much larger and more direct ways, mentor so many other people. And like Mr. Banga said, really invited and prompted many people to think about a career in involvement, whether it was a queer or not involvement in public service that they wouldn't otherwise have done. In addition to the people already introduced, they see that Judge alum Dean LAMB has joined us and I suspect you here for this item , not for something else in our agenda. Ruth Ruth's reach is deep, and this is a way of continuing that legacy, of introducing people, involving people in the public process, in government. And I think it's much the way Ruth would have done it herself. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Dvorsky. Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Want to echo Councilmember McDermott's remarks and really thank former Councilmember Salonga. And Joan Yosh, tell me, former deputy county executive, I think that was your title here in Lake administration for really bringing this forward. I think it's apropos of Ruth that it was this is a community based and community driven proposal. And that was what Ruth Wu and then her husband were all about, community based and community activism. And I think it's important I want to emphasize in here that Ruth was bipartisan and she may have been more Republican. The Democrat. I don't really know. I don't know that a lot of people knew she worked for Republicans and Democrats, but I think her driving force was inclusion and opportunity and making sure that those who were not always easily in the system or had access to the system or put into places and opportunities and connected with folks so that they would have those opportunities. And that's the goal of this program. As much as it's a tribute to Ruth, well, it really is about making King County more responsive and a better government to serve the diverse community of King County that we have today at 2.1 million people. We don't just go around making tributes to folks. That's a secondary benefit. And I think it's something that Ruth would appreciate and never like credit. She didn't want attention. I think she skipped an event that was set up to honor her one time. Right. But many times, yeah. And so she might be a little reluctant to have her name on this, but I have no doubt that she would be supportive of the thrust and goals of the program, and that is to bring rising stars into the government, train them up and ensure that we get the benefit of their service here to the county and that the county is able to better serve their communities in a reciprocal way. So I'm pretty excited about this. I hope that at some point it will succeed and its success will generate more positions, that the fellowships will be on be grow beyond just one. And I really want to thank Dolores and Joan for bringing this really good idea forward and then your advocacy for it. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, so which one of you would like to be okay? Oh, sorry. That's a member of our right there. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I had the privilege of first meeting Ruth when I was chair of the Transportation Committee of the State Senate. And I had not a lot of knowledge about some agents, and I was one of my colleagues in State House. Gary Locke said, Yeah, I had to meet Ruth to understand and appreciate some agents because we had legislation before us to eliminate some agents. And of course, Ruth took a keen interest in that issue, and I first got to know her through that process. And then when I became a member of the King County Council, the added privilege of getting to know Ben and Ben was an incredible partner, friend and mentor to everybody as well. And. Ruth, Ruth Seattle is very long, but Ben did his work as well. He did and should not be forgotten. I think it's nice to point out how nice she was, but she was tough. Certainly there was a certain state representative who thought it was his turn to become to the King County Council. And there was another person in the community that he thought he should be on the King County Council when a vacancy occurred not that long ago. And and she made it very clear her who her choice was. And her choice was eventually appointed to the King County Council. So, Ruth, as a person who not only was kind and a mentor, but she was a tough political person who understood which fit the district best, in this case, the South Seattle district. And she, as a person who has a great legacy and so many people in so many places, and this is a great continuation of her endearment to so many people by helping others. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I like how she reached out. You know, it was it was really important that she would always take the time to reach out. Councilmember Would you like to put this before us? Councilman McDermott, would you like to put this before us? Speaker 6: I'd move that. We give a do pass recommendation. Speaker 2: To ordinance 2017 3001, the Ruth Ruth Fellowship. Speaker 0: Okay, so before us, we have 2017 301 before us and I'll go down to the other. Would you councilmember or like you strike. Speaker 5: That's one striking. Speaker 0: In my look at a strike has gotten on page 15 others in favor of striker one please say I right those opposed nay and council member making. Speaker 5: The title amendment. Speaker 0: Okay and title amendment number one impeach 19 all those in favor title them one please. They I I you're now on the underlying as amended. Any comment? You got them. Okay. Would you please call for the votes? Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Speaker 5: I. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn. Hi. Councilmember Gossett. Councilmember Caldwell's council member McDermott. High Council member of the Grove. Councilmember Yvonne. Right, member I. Madam Chair. Councilmember Ritchie. Madam Chair, the vote is five eyes. No nos. Great. I don't think we'll put it on the consent count because I'm assuming people want to speak on it. So we'll just put it on the regular course. And thank you so much. Speaker 5: And Madam Chair, would it be possible to expedite it? Speaker 0: To expedite it? Okay. We can expedite it. Speaker 5: Nope, nope, nope, nope. I guess we have scheduling. Speaker 0: Sorry. Speaker 6: Sorry. Thank you. Speaker 0: Very much. Good thing they have staff that knows how to do arm signals. Okay, we're good. All right, so it'll be on the regular course. Thank you so much for being with us today. Thank you. All right. So now we will move on to item number seven, which is 2017, briefing 172.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE creating the Ruth Woo emerging leaders fellowship program; and adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 3.12.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_07262017_2017-0231

Speaker 0: That's the plan for tonight. And with that, unless there's any comments by members, we will move right on into agenda item number five, which is an initial introduction to the newly formed Puget Sound Taxpayer Accountability Account. I think we are going to have a number of conversations about this, but we're going to kick this off tonight with Jeff, mom of our council staff, who will provide us a briefing on the state law that created the account and on the motion that we may take up hopefully later this evening. So welcome, Jeff. Look forward to your briefing. Speaker 8: Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Go ahead. Speaker 8: For the record, Jeff. Council staff. And so tonight's briefing on the Puget Sound Taxpayer Accountability Account, you'll find it on pages three and four of your packet. The Washington state legislature created the account in 2015 when it passed the state's transportation revenue package, and the account is to be funded by a sales tax offset fee of 3.25% and all sound transit three construction projects. So transit three projects are exempt from sales tax and the offset fee is equal to about half of the state sales tax. So transit will pay this quarterly, this fee quarterly. That's not me. I left my cell phone in the car until the until they they pay a total of $518 million initially. You expecting that to happen in 2035? It's also important to note that these that these funds are subject to appropriation by the legislature so they don't automatically come to the county. But in whatever budget vehicle, the legislature has the appropriate the funds and from now until presumably 2035 and then I included a chart on page four of your packet. This is a this is the preliminary estimates of how when the funds will start flowing into which counties. And you know as any as any forecast this will be inaccurate. But I wanted to show how lumpy the distributions are. You'll see that early on. It's in the early years, it's less than $10 million a year that will be coming to King County. And in some years, it's as much as 44 million. So it's really it's a it's a volatile source. It's based on sound transit's construction schedule. So if there's any delays or issues with this schedule, then the the funding amounts change. And, you know, that's based on logistical issues and also the economics behind the revenue streams. So the use of the funds state the state law is fairly broad regarding the use of the funds. It says that counties may use the funds for educational services to improve education outcomes in early learning in K-12 and higher education, including but not limited to for youths that are low income, homeless or in foster care or other vulnerable populations. So those are all voluntary, are all allowable uses. It's not those aren't exclusive uses, but it's basically the legislature giving examples of things that they wish the funds to be spent on. There is no appropriation for the of these funds in the current state 17, 18 or 1719 biennial budget. And we are doing some more legal analysis to see, you know, if these funds can be spent on capital and operating or that those types of examples, the work is still very preliminary. So that's the the the account in a nutshell and happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Any questions for staff about how this customer benefit manager. Speaker 5: This one definitely will come down to King County, because I was concerned that you said there's nothing in the current state. Second, 2017 2019 budget that indicates this money is available. It's for education. Why is it going to come to King County and how much potentially is the amount that might be available for educational purposes? Speaker 8: In total, Councilmember Gossett, it is estimated that King County will receive over the next 17 years $315 million for educational purposes. The funds are the 580 million that is total is split among the counties based on the population that in the county that lives within the sound transit service area. So 61% of the sound transit district lives within King County. So King County will receive 61% of the funds over the that. Speaker 5: It is $517 million. Speaker 8: 518 518 million total. Speaker 5: For the three county area. Speaker 8: Correct. Speaker 5: And we have the potential of receiving 60% of that. And are they specific as to what we can use it for in terms of education? Because I'm trying to figure out, is it primarily for poor and disadvantaged youth or what? Speaker 8: The way I read the state law is that it's very broad, is for educational services to improve educational outcomes. And then the law goes on to say, including but not limited to specific populations, foster youth, low income youth in others. Finally, you know, you just mentioned that that to answer the first part of your question about why it's not in the 1719 budget, I presume because the if you look at the chart on page four, the funding amount is is in it. Well, significant to my family, but it's insignificant in in if you look at the the overall amount, it's a little bit over $360,000 might wind up in the account. Speaker 5: All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions? Speaker 4: I understand, Madam Chair, if I may, this was not your first staff report. This is your second staff report. But you didn't get hazed for your first one. Speaker 1: So consider yourself. Hays Jaffe did a great job. Thank you. That's the same thing as I understand it. Put it on the right. I can do better than that. Speaker 8: But do you have anything council. Speaker 1: Member have to give? Speaker 4: I am a lot. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. I think the only thing I would add, just following up on Councilmember Goss, it's the question. And the answer is, is that just to be very clear, as it says on the chart, these are estimated projects, distribution. These are projections we're projecting based on when sound transit spends money by implementing the transportation projects in 83. If those are, as you said, delayed for any reason in S2, we had a retrenchment where the number of projects was cut back. That would have if that had happened with this, we would see different numbers. So we can't really we can't plan on something. I think that relies on these being the exact numbers, but it does give you in order a sense of magnitude and of how it ramps up kind of gradually and then becomes a very significant resource in outer years, like in the late 2020s and and on. Yes. Speaker 1: So it's an estimate. It's also true that if certain transit were to speed up implementation of its program, when it would come in sooner. Speaker 0: That that is. Speaker 1: Possible. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were considering. Speaker 4: The full range of options. Speaker 0: I admire your optimism. Thank you. I share it in some sense, but we like to keep expectations down. Okay. So. Okay. You wanted to talk a little bit, Jeff, I gather, about the motion as well. Or do you wanna do that when when you have it in front of us? Speaker 8: I prefer to do that when you have a attorney. Speaker 0: Thank you. I will. In the in the along the vein of of hazing. Jeff wrote me some really nice chair remarks here that now say thank you, Jeff, for your. Speaker 3: Excellent staff are. Speaker 8: Just happy to be here today. Speaker 0: So if there are no more questions for Jeff, let's move on. Speaker 1: Thank you for that report. Speaker 0: Okay. As I said, unfortunately, we have to move around just a little bit because of some of the schedules. But we now will go to our panel and I want to invite them to come down at this time.

Motion

A MOTION directing legislative department staff to prepare a report, in consultation with all councilmembers and the executive branch that provides strategies for how King County can engage stakeholders in a public process to determine how to use proceeds from Sound Transit 3 in the Puget Sound taxpayer accountability account.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06122017_2017-0094

Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Let's make it a 15 minute recess. We'll be in recess until about 5 to 11. Thank you. All right. I will call the meeting back into session. We are ready to start on agenda item number six, which is briefing number of 20 $17 009 for the sale of convention police station. This would office action would authorize the executive to sell convention PlayStation to the Washington State Convention Center for construction of a convention center addition. As council members are aware, this item was also included our committee of the whole last week I felt that we were close enough to being able to make some decisions that I wanted to add it to today's agenda, partially because there's not another committee of the hall meeting for a few weeks after this one. Since our next regularly scheduled committee, the whole meeting will be the time for our labor summit, our annual labor summit. On Friday I sent out proposed chair striking amendment. I am aware that there are other amendments, both public and not yet public. I have a revised agenda today, a revised amendment, I should say today that is asked to and I'd like to ask staff to go ahead and distribute that. Now, while they do that. Speaker 3: It's it's at your places. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: We were we were working and imagine that. Speaker 0: So wait, you told me to say it distributed. Then you went ahead and distributed. It's like a Scottie move right there. I couldn't. Speaker 2: We need 3 hours cup. Speaker 0: It's done now. Yeah. The only substantive change between as to and the in the striking amendment that was distributed on Friday morning is a change that delays action on the PSC agreement. That's an agreement to move some electrical and communications equipment on the site that's necessary for metro and sound transit operations. The original striking amendment said that we would cap the cost at $17 million to make that move. But because it's early days and and the number is hard to nail down, there's a process approach now that would allow that to come back for a decision at a later time. This is consistent with the proposal that Councilmember Dombrowski sent out on Friday. Thought that was a good approach. So I asked staff to incorporate it into the chair Stryker so I hope are prepared to work through these items today, see if we can't reach a decision on a package that we can forward to full council. I would ask Council Member Cole Wells, who's the lead sponsor, to move the item before the committee. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the chair striking amendment to proposed ordinance 217 zero. Speaker 0: I think we actually have to move the underlying item first. Speaker 4: I was so anxious. Think so. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move proposed ordinance 2017 009 for it. Speaker 0: All right. And then would you be also willing to put the chair's directive, which is amendment as to before us for discussion? Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Some of the chairs striking amendment as to the proposed ordinance 2017 0094. Speaker 0: Okay, that's before us in accordance with council rules 1683 With the item now before the committee, I would ask that all amendments be distributed to each member. If there are additional amendments and ask council members who have amendments they may wish to offer related to this item to provide those to our committee assistant at this time. Speaker 3: In Councilmember, the amendments that we are aware of is there, as we know are made public. Is council striking amendment as to which you was just moved by councilmember caldwell's? There is a Councilmember Lambert amendment to insert a price cap on the TPS. Yes, there is a Councilmember Gossett amendment to increase the affordable housing contribution and require that that that affordable housing be built on the site of the project. And there is a Councilmember DEMBOSKY amendment adjusting the timeline for a vacation of the CPS site. And I would also add, Madam Chair, that because we prepared your speaking notes before we checked in with you this morning, there's one other change in your striking amendment also that adjust when the county would leave the CPS site. Do you want to speak to that? Speaker 0: Yeah, let me speak to that a little bit. I thought that would be a standalone amendment, but it's an abstract. Okay. So the then let me just describe the change that was is now in situ. So there's a second change in as that makes it different than the striking amendment proposal afforded on Friday. And that is regarding the date by which the county must vacate and sound transit must vacate the convention place tunnel station for busses. The I think as we all are aware at some points in a. At this point, that is September of 2019. Busses are going to have to come out of the tunnel anyway because of the expansion of light rail. This language would state our our I don't know if preference is the correct word, but our policy that September of 2019 is the date that busses should come out of the tunnel unless the Convention Center expansion project has their permit by July of 2018. And unless they make a statement to us by September of 2018 that they are ready to start construction. If they do those two things, then they can start construction in March in a way, or they can be constructing in March in a way that causes the busses to have to leave the tunnel earlier. The thinking behind this is that there's a balance here between allowing this large and impactful public project to move forward, but not having us vacate the the convention police station and have it be empty, sit empty for a period of time when it could be used for a little longer for the benefit of the traveling public . Did I capture that accurately without speaking those disciplines? All right. So that's the striker that's before us. Do we have a perfecting order for the amendments? Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. Beginning on page 133, in your packet, we've got the other amendments laid out in order with the sponsors listed for each sold. Go Councilmember Gossage, then Dombrowski, then Lambert. And that matches the order of the purchase and sale agreement. Speaker 0: Web page again, please. 133 133 Okay. So with that, unless there's some preliminary discussion, Councilmember Dabrowski, thank you. Speaker 2: Preliminary because just procedurally, I want to make sure I understand where we are with respect to amendments. And Pat, I think you can help. I had prepared working all last week with the various stakeholders, basically a striking amendment to the underlying ordinance that was that was approved by Metro Transit, the Convention Center Authority, outside counsel of the Gay Councils Council assault. And you've prepared, but we have another striking member from the chair here and then you've got some one off amendment. So I'm wondering does to a in in that you've got for me here incorporate all of the agreed changes in the kind of omnibus amendment that I prepared last week. Speaker 3: Staff believe that the substantive difference between the two purchase and sale agreements at this point is the exit date for the station, and that is what is incorporated in Amendment two. And I was the other documents, the other the two striking amendments yours, which staff have not released yet because it's been confidential to this point. And Councilmember Bell, ducks are substantively the same on all key terms except for the vacation date of the station. And so that's what is an amendment to. Speaker 2: So let me ask you this. The purchase and sale agreement that's on my omnibus amendment, which you're welcome to release the details summary of which was shared for me with all colleagues as soon as we got concurrence by everybody, including the exact office. But you've said they're substantively the same have the as the convention center. Their lawyers and our lawyers reviewed and consented and agreed to the proposed purchase and sale agreement on the Baldacci amendment. Speaker 3: I don't know what the maker of that amendment has shared outside of the county, and so that would be a question best directed to her. Speaker 2: Okay. So let me direct this question that you then you say that the purchase and sale agreements on the two are substantively the same. I mean, this is a $200 million and sale agreement that we spent a lot of time working with lawyers on last week to get the language precisely correct. And by lawyers, I mean with all the parties, have the lawyers on the Baldacci strike in their conserved contract concurred and participated in its drafting? I mean, their clients are going to have to sign it, right? Are we just is this a one side proposal? Speaker 3: I don't know who the who the chair has shared her striker with. All right. Speaker 0: I'm happy to speak to that. I have shared the proposal with the Essex office and they reviewed it. I have had a conversation, a verbal conversation with representatives of the project, but they have not had a chance to review it. However, this is a committee and if we take action today on the concept, if we agree that this is the right concept, then we have some time between now and the final vote at the Council to have legal review and a. Address any issues that may have been introduced. I'm not aware of any sitting here today. Speaker 2: And thank you, Madam Chair, if I might follow up, please. So we've got some issues around the legal nature of the document. But the other difference you mentioned Pad, that you thought the vacation of the tunnel was the big thing. We had spent a fair bit of time last week again with the Essex Office and Metro Transit and the Convention Center, and lawyers for the county and the courts are working on the transit power substation agreement that TPS has and trying to figure out whether we could figure that out now and the cap issue and all that . And we had some eventually landed on some specific language there where the parties would continue to go work that presented to the council for a potential override. And is that now where do we stand on that? Between the two version. Speaker 3: The council and the chair striking amendment has the same allowance for that agreement to be moved to after closing and continue to be worked on. And the Council has the same kind of conceptual review and ability to object to the agreement. Yours does have additional language that was worked out between the attorneys for the parties on indemnification and a it's not really a binding date, but a a go goal target date that was added at the convention center attorney's request. That is not in the chair. Speaker 2: Striker Okay, very good. And so Madam Chair, there's some differences just that arise from the way we've come here to today between the two approaches, and I'm happy to proceed. As you wish. I'm trying to get this deal done. I've been for it from the beginning, and I've worked very hard since the Budget Committee to try and bring folks who have to sign this document together in rooms to work out the details. And details on this are important because of the complexity of it. And so I think on principle, there is for most issues, consensus, although I'm satisfied with a minimum date of March 19 for the vacation, the tunnel and you are, I think, have a preference here for September of 19, but that may be the substantive policy difference. But there are some technical differences. And so I don't know, Councilman Baldacci, if you have a set of amendments, say that there was the will of the body to go with the more advanced document that has concurrence by all the parties. If you have a set of policy amendments to that omnibus amendment, that could advance your policy objectives of a September 19 departure. But I think that might be another way to approach it. Speaker 0: I calendar Bousquet. I want to acknowledge the hard work and the detailed work that you have done. There may very well be a couple or even more than a couple of technical items that are in the document that you've been working on that are not in the document I've been working on. But. Those things weren't. Haven't been. At least not vetted by. By me and in my office. And so what I would like to try to do today, I mean, we have options. We have we have quite a few options here in front of us today. One is we work through the action on the table in front of us. And if we get to an agreement in principle, because the amendments that we have, other than some of the language in yours, it are much more policy level and much less technical level. If we can get to a decision on the policy and there are technical changes that need to happen between committee and council to make sure we are affecting the policy in a way that is implementable, if you will, then we can take that up at the council meeting. Alternatively, you know, this is a special meeting. We've been going for a while. We could take some time. We could wait until the next council meeting, which will be in early July. I would I think on balance, the I would rather proceed and get to the policy level discussion, see where we all are, and then decide what to do about the technical, assuming we can get past the policy. That would be my preference today. Speaker 2: I think it comes from, well, duty. I guess I'll just say this and I think after budget we should pass this up to the full council was referred to this committee. You and Casmir Caldwell's and I had convened a working group of members of staff to see if we can get to an agreed amendment. It became clear last week that there was not an agreement among the three of us on a key policy issue, and that was the vacation date of the tunnel. I was very pleased that we were able to get that kick from September of 18 to March of 19 plus perhaps later, depending on the project's construction schedule. We worked very hard with the proponents to negotiate that, but your office indicated that that your preference was a September minimum 19 departure, and Councilmember Caldwell's was trying to find those. I couldn't tell, she agreed, but was willing to work on things. So that's what prompted me to proceed to see if I could get. And with all due respect, they're much more than technical amendments. But to get an actual deal with all of the stakeholders of approved that they would sign that the buyer would actually sign and there are protections in there for Metro with respect to the TPS and the comp facility as they go about the site. And I'm happy to talk to those. So I'm having trouble understanding why we would not why we would continue to ask folks to come and spend time, resources, energy on perfecting a purchase and sale agreement that has been perfected, that addresses all those issues and instead advance one that's incomplete, that's been not negotiated, that's not had the consent of the parties that the buyer we don't know if they'll sign it over basically the departure date policy question. And I think that's really the main difference here that needs to be resolved. So maybe you will advance through yours. You have expressed a strong desire to advance a chair striking amendment and and staff has prepared this. But I don't think it gets what I'm hearing is it doesn't address the practical reality of a purchase and sale agreement which isn't ready to go. And I would then suggest to my colleagues, if there is interest that that is there and it's ready and I'm happy to talk to it at the right time if we if we can get to it. So again, I'm trying to get this done. I think that this project, by continuing to experience delay, puts it at risk. And I don't want to do that. Speaker 0: Thank you. I, I don't know that we need to have further discussion on that topic right now other than to say I think we're all trying to get this done in a way that works for the various stakeholders, including the transit riders of King County, who we serve, including some of the labor representatives who are still working through issues from there and the hotel motel workers. I mean, there are stakeholders who have not been at the table. And so let's just see how far we get. Let's just go and see how far we get. And when we when we we hit a point where there's a relatively firmed up policy decision here, then we can talk about whether there are additional things we need to take up before council. And I will certainly follow the will of the body with regard to what we want to do next. So with this action in front of us there, the First Amendment that has been offered is from Councilmember Gossett. It's Amendment one, a Councilmember Gossett. Would you like to put that into the window to put that before us? Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to draw folks attention to Amendment One. Located on page 133. I've been thinking about and wrestling with this. Concept of how do we improve equity and social justice, particularly as it relates to the lower income workers that are working in hotels and motels and the downtown area, as well as the ones that will be working and the expanded part of hotels and motels to deal with the hopefully, hopefully increased number of folks that will be attending conventions as they are. Some of the basics. The essence of that. America. Help me with this. The specific aspects. But the basics are the amendment are located in effect statement at the bottom. This increases the affordable housing requirement from 5 to $10 million and required that affordable housing be constructed on the side of the project. About whether we estimate the number of units the 5 million would have purchased. Speaker 3: I think it's I think it's hard at this point to determine that. I think it's a rough rule of thumb for affordable housing units is typically around 300,000 a piece. But I think you've summarized the key differences in the amendment. Remember, the deal came over with essentially a buyer option. They could either contribute 5 million to the county for affordable housing programs or build the affordable housing on site. This amendment would say that that number is now 10 million and the buyer option has gone away. So that would need to be built on site. Speaker 1: All right. And but we don't have a total number of expected units for the apartment building part. Speaker 3: I don't I don't know that the project does not yet have permits from the city, so they don't know yet how many apartments can be built on the site. Speaker 1: So. Thank you, Madam Chair. That is my amendment. Speaker 0: Okay. Amendment one is before us. Did you have. Did you want to speak to it further? Councilmembers. Speaker 1: I want to hear the responses from members. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Coldwell. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for Councilmember Gossett, and it is have you discussed this amendment informally or formally with the purchasers. Speaker 1: Particularly people that are going to who build it? Speaker 4: Well, the purchaser or the representative, I believe, Mr. Matt Griffin, about the thoughts, as long as we're trying to be inclusive and determine what all the parties think about striking amendments and amendments. I'm just curious, have you spoken with them? Speaker 2: No. Speaker 1: I haven't spoken. I'm not real clear on who the developer partner is. Speaker 4: Mr. Griffin. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. No, I haven't spoken to them. I just think that this is a reasonable price to have to pay, given our commitment to equity and social justice, and that the previous time I was not minimally reasonable to me. Speaker 4: Thank you. Mr.. That's please. Thank you. So there are actually two major parts to this amendment. So we could find some of us might agree with one part, but not agree with the second part, which may be challenging. Have a quick follow up question with Pat. Pat. I think I asked you kind of a similar question before, but has because I am new here. Is it normative to require construction of affordable housing on site as compared to having the the the other option that we had originally? Speaker 2: I think that. Speaker 3: We do so few deals where we actually have a piece of county land being sold and then essentially immediately developed again. I don't think there is a normal we have done it both ways. The Kingdom North Lot, for example, there were requirements that it be built on the site and other other deals. We've required a contribution. So, you know, this one having an option of either one for the buyer as originally proposed. Is consistent with the various directions the county has gone before. They didn't quite answer your question, but I don't think I don't think there is a clear answer to it. We've done it both ways before. And I think that's this is not outside of the norm from that perspective. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: I have a couple of questions. First of all, my understanding is that there is expected to be a discussion with the city of Seattle as part of either their permitting process or their Ali vacation, road vacation or both, and that there's a likelihood of a requirement for affordable housing that comes out of that process. Is that correct? Speaker 3: So where we are currently as part of this deal, the developers offered King County the $5 million payment that was proposed as part of the permitting actions and the community benefit process at the city. They have offered 9 million as part of two different programs, so 4,000,001 and five and the other. And every time I try to figure out which is which, I get them backwards. So 9 million total to the city, 5 million to the county. But neither deal actually is done yet. And so that number may move. Speaker 0: Right. And just for reference, the sales price is about 144 million. Speaker 3: It's 160. But they're paying 20 million cash at close. And 140 million is where that numbers is. Your head is being financed. Speaker 0: Got it. So that's if you're talking about approximately 14 million out of that that amount. I just want to remind us that the executive's proposal included a buyer option to pay cash or build on site. And Councilmember Lambert, among others, questioned that about what would get us the affordable housing built soonest. Do we have a sense of that? Speaker 3: I think certainly building on site would be the latest or the or certainly later than cash to close because a cash a close option would result in a check being written to the county later this year or whenever the closing occurs. That would then be used for county affordable housing programs building on onsite. Real realistically, the the apartment or condo building that's being built wouldn't be opened before 2021. So you're still talking quite a bit down the road before that housing would be built on site. Speaker 0: Okay. And I want to I want to acknowledge Councilmember Dombrowski for the concept of requiring cash at closing because of the idea that that would accelerate the opportunity to provide $5 million worth of affordable housing as quickly as possible. Okay. Any other comments or questions about this amendment right here? Councilmember Garza to close. Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Chair. An additional concept that influenced my mind was listening to the representatives of Unite here and some of the people who have represented inner city communities on this project, and others where people have a difficult time grasping and understanding the commitment to affordable housing when it's not tied more specifically to the actual project . I would tie it to the actual projects. Then we have what Mayor Arroyo used to call almost a guaranteed habit, scattered site and low income housing in various neighborhoods. Now, I've just given the money to the city or the county. The only place where low income housing can be built is when low income developers are developing. Yeah, and it seems to be mostly low income community. That's all right. But I like the idea. I love the, you know, the working poor living in units in the same buildings with moderate and market rate housing falls. That adds more to the enriching social experience that occurs in the buildings. And I don't see how we can get there unless we start as the government requiring that it be on site and trying to facilitate that occurring. So I think any consideration that is given to my No. One. Hey, thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Garza. Okay. I'm prepared to call for a vote on amendment. What is each one? A all those in favor. Please signify by saying I. I opposed. No, I think I'm going to have to call for a show of hands. All those opposed. Please signify by saying, I am raising your hands. You say that you support that. I heard those of those who are in favor of the amendment. Did I say opposed? It's been a long day already. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying I and raising your hands. Okay. And those opposed? No. Okay. The amendment does not carry. The next item is where I am right now. One item to a council member. Ambassador. Speaker 2: Thank you. I think I'll withhold this amendment at this time. And because I just think it's going to make more sense to offer my combined omnibus amendment and I will probably speak against adoption of the chair Stryker because it does not it just hasn't been negotiated with the parties. And I think there's a more efficient way to go the alternative way. And I'll ask Pat if this makes sense, because you've prepared this and I'm really not sure mechanically how you've set it up. Pat Would it be possible to offer two way which relates to the timing of the departure from the tunnel? Right. As I understand, yes. What it also and say that regardless of how that carries or is a I said to adopt and would then be possible to offer an oral amendment to substitute my purchase and sale agreement form as the attachment to the Belushi's striking amendment to get it to get in other words, get a current purchase and sale agreement or more up to date purchase agreement that has all the material terms negotiated attached. Speaker 3: I would have to defer to legal counsel on that. The item that is before the committee right now is a striking amendment with an attachment. I don't know if a right oral amendment to replace the attachments would be in order or not. I just don't know the procedural ruling on that. Speaker 2: But okay, so procedural there's that issue. But, but just mechanically, because we've got a very basic kind of ordinance, if you will, with the language that references that attachment. The attachments seem to be kind of stand alone documents and trying to just mechanically you're. Speaker 3: Asking for a legal conclusion. I just don't know the answer to it, because an amendment is. Kendall, the thing and I don't know if you can split that amendment into two things or not. I just don't know. Speaker 0: So what you have Kendall Mora, deputy legal counsel, what you have before you now is S-1. And as part of this to excuse me as to and as incorporated in as to is the purchase and sale agreement to which all of your amendments are now running or actually to the attachment. So I, I would conclude that offering a, an amendment to replace attachment a at this juncture, it would be out of order because you are you have to deal with your S-1, which includes the attachment. Speaker 2: And that S-1 is. Speaker 3: To. Speaker 2: You as to attach attaches attachment which to the purchase agreement which. Speaker 0: Is incorporated into the Stryker. It's part I mean, it's what you are dealing with now is ask one and it's attachment ex S-1. I'm sorry, I keep saying that as to what to call it the belt dutchie Stryker. Right, easier. Speaker 2: So what you're saying is an amendment, but we're offering amendments to the Balducci Stryker. This would just be another amendment to it which would say substitute in a different attachment. Speaker 0: But your amendment to replace attachment a yes would now be, I would conclude out of order because it wasn't handed out at the beginning of this. Speaker 2: No. Well, we have handed it out. I asked that thing out and it was handed out. Speaker 0: But is then. Speaker 3: That amendment is a striking amendment though. It is not. Speaker 2: It is part of it. Speaker 3: So I think I think I think what I'm hearing from legal counsel, that's. Speaker 2: Out of order because of the procedural. Speaker 0: Rule. Let me ma'am is. Yeah. Speaker 2: I'm just saying I'm trying to we have 318 to a three. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 2: What I'm trying to do is not mess it up by offering to a which is change the personnel agreement. If, if we could get your if we could get your. Speaker 0: Eyes to. Speaker 2: You see what I'm saying? Speaker 0: It would be cleaner if you're willing to, if you will, perfect or complete the Stryker with the striking amendment that's currently in front of us mine with whatever substantive policy amendments there are that might include yours, which is different language around the dates, it might not include yours, but then when it comes to actually maybe swapping out the purchase and sale agreement, which is what this is all really about, is adopting the purchase and sale agreement, maybe we could do that as a separate thing at the end after we've it just might be less confusing that way. And I think that's what you started to say. Speaker 2: And yeah, I was told by my staff that staff had prepared any amendments necessary to advance kind of my package on yours. But now. I'm saying that that actually didn't occur. So what I think I'll do my share is not before the fair. Speaker 0: This all happened between Friday and this morning. Speaker 2: So now I have a mic and maybe I think I will probably just argue against adopting the striker and then if it fails, advance my S-3 because that would be the consolidated document. Speaker 0: That might be a cleaner way to go if that works for you. Speaker 2: I mean, if if if your amendment carries if you're striking minimum carries, then mine probably won't. Right? Speaker 3: I don't I don't think can I think if the chair's striking amendment carries, I don't think you can offer a revised striking amendment. Is that correct. Speaker 0: That's correct. Because all the decisions will have been made with regard to the bout dutchie the purchase. Speaker 2: And so yeah. Speaker 0: But we will have, as I said, at least a couple of weeks between now and the council meeting. If there are items that you feel were not picked up that are important to try to merge them and then we can take up additional action. I guess it. Speaker 2: Seems goofy to me, but I mean there's a lot of items, but I think I will I will not offer mine and we will see if yours has adequate votes and then I'll offer. If it does, then we're done. And if it doesn't, all offer mine. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Thank you. So we'll move on to Amendment three A, which is Councilmember Lamberts. Thank you. That Chair, in looking at this important project, I had a feeling that there were many items that were taking and reducing the amount of our net proceeds from the sale. And one of them, I felt we needed to have some kind of oversight over. And that is if you look on the effect statement on page 137, it says that it adds a sentence that obligates them to pay for all costs for the TPC work above 70 million unless the county approves a higher amount. I think we've we've talked about that the price. And my concern is that the price would escalate so much and we would have no input in that. So I think as being notified and being able to have some say on that is very important and not be a blank check because I believe that there could be instances where that might be exceeded and we should know about that. So it's just to make sure that we have oversight. Okay. Okay. Amendment three A is before us. Any questions or comments? Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 1: Thank you. I wanted to ask Patrick and I thought that the Common Council already had the ability to approve a significant price increase. Or is this different than that? Speaker 3: I think to be fair, we are trying to thread a very fine needle in this case because what has changed in the striking amendment is the movement of this TPS agreement to, more likely than not, post-closing. And also you have an opportunity that's in this amendment for the Council to review, and if they don't like it, reject the TPS agreement. And this this language, I think is a policy statement. But because this has to be reviewed by the Council later on anyway, I it's it's a bit odd in the in trying to get it in just but but from a policy statement perspective I think it works. But because the agreement already has to come back and the council already has a 30 day review and opportunity to reject, I think that's what makes it a little unique. Okay. Speaker 0: Comments. Other comments for questions. I had. Speaker 2: A couple of. Speaker 0: Comments. Yeah. Come from an and I think there might be some more before you close. Speaker 2: Councilmember DEMBOSKY I think that I'm chair so this issue, the TPI SRS that is the transit power substation memorandum of understanding is one of two major follow on agreements beyond the purchase and sale agreement. I will be candid and say I didn't realize the complexity of it until after several hours of meetings last week with the executive branch, with the Deputy General Manager, Victor Bass of Metro Transit, with the county's lawyer, Matt Hanna from Cairncross and help him and with that central staff. And it is an integral piece of making sure that this works smoothly. It has two components. There's a communications facility and a power facility which are covered by this agreement, both of which are important in operating our bus system in the tunnel and our light rail system. And this is what it comes down to. It is a life safety issue. This equipment, power and communications are essential for safely operating the tunnel, both in light rail and busses. There's a complexity to this in that the there's some issues around who would be obligated to pay the cost of moving certain of this equipment, sound transit or King County. And there are also some advantages to having some of those things worked out later. That's just the highlights of the complexity around this issue and the amendment that I have, the personnel agreement that resulted from extensive hours of discussions, including on this particular topic I tried to achieve, and I'm not sure that Councilmember Lambert's amendment were well-intentioned , achieves the goal in the in the best way. Her amendment sets a firm dollar cap of $17 million on it. And I think in doing so, she's trying to protect the benefit of the bargain, which is a principle I think everybody here agrees to. Now, interestingly, if the number had come over to us at 22 million, I think we'd be trying to protect the benefit of the bargain and saying 22 million. We at least I don't have the level of granularity to know what if it's 17 million or 22 million and who should pay and what's right. So what I think the better approach is, given the complexity of this, while still trying to achieve Councilmember Lambert's objective, which I share with you, to protect the better, a bargain is to keep the council involved with the process that is set up to, say, continue negotiations. Mr. Executive, with all the parties Sound Transit, the Convention Center and Metro Transit, continue those negotiations. And then once you think you've got a deal, report back to us at the council and give us adequate time. If we don't like it to reject it. And that's the structure that is in. I think my I know it's in my mind abundantly. I think it may have made its way into law. So I think the hard cap in this case is, is a is a well-intentioned idea to preserve in a bit of a bargain, but it's a blunt instrument to blunt, I think , for the complexity of this. And and again, the complexity of this particular issue didn't become apparent to me until last last week. Councilmember Lambert. So for that reason, I'm not going to support it, but I know that the intention behind it is good. Speaker 0: I'll add my own comments. I, I agree that I think all of us have our eye on the ball of not of creating some certainty that the benefit of the sales price not be, you know, frittered away and additional costs that we'd have no control over. I think that the language that I frankly cribbed from Councilmember Dombroski gives this body a veto. It gives us an opportunity to say in the future, we don't like that price that you came back with. And so no. And forces, you know, to go back to the table. And with that, we can achieve the same goal. And it's even slightly more flexible, I think, because there's nothing that says that even a slight overage could, could, could trigger that. We have to be thoughtful and we have to act in good faith, of course, at that time. But we have we still have some control over what's happening with that that cost that we don't really know exactly today what it will be at the point in the future when it is incurred. So I agree with the intent in both cases, but I have incorporated the procedural approach for a reason and B, I think that meets our our needs. So I'm going to I'm going to vote against the amendment, but I definitely support the motivation behind the amendment. Any other comments before Councilmember Lambert? Councilmember Lambert, go ahead. Thank you. Well, as you said, this happened over the weekend and this was written before over the weekend. So I think it signals our intent. I am excited about the project and what it can do. I would like to see the affordable housing be part of it because then I know for sure it will get done. And that is. My concern that there's affordable housing get done. I am not feeling like I always have confidence that when affordable housing is being done for this or that, it it is the quality or the quantity that we had originally thought. So if it's in the building, I know that it's not going to be of lesser quality. But when you look at the price and you look at the comps per square foot and maybe this is part of my closing statement, but it was in the it was in the middle. It wasn't at the very top. And that concerned me. The desirability of this property is very, very high. So for that reason, it should be at the top. The length of this contract is longer than I have seen in some contracts, which is favorable, and that's fine with me too. But that also should put us up towards the top. The size of the down payment is smaller than I would have liked, which should put us up more to the top. So. Oh, and then I see these other costs that we don't really know what this is going to be and we really don't know what that's going to be. And you just know that we hadn't seen the language over the weekend when we wrote this, but it keeps lowering the price per square footage. And one of the things I'm going to want to know when we get this done is what what did it ultimately come out to be as the cost the square footage ? Because I wasn't really pleased where it was when it started. And if it keeps getting lower, then I'm really going to be less pleased with that. And in addition, during the time of this construction, if the current trends in real estate properties cost continue to escalate at the same rate, then it's even a lower rate of what we have offered here. So I'm trying to look out for the taxpayers and I think in the way you put this together, bringing it back to the council again. So we continue to do that. I just hope that we don't feel as we have in some projects, Oh, this is so much into it or that so much has been done already that will just go along with it. I'm not ready to go along with it. As we go on it. It means that the taxpayers are not getting the full value of what that property was worth. So I'm going to withdraw this in light of the fact that you have put it in your striker and be ready to vote on final passes. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. That concludes the submitted amendments, which brings us to a final vote on Amendment S two as amended. Are there any comments or questions at this time, Councilmember? Speaker 2: Do you think that you're just procedurally at somewhat awkward here and that I guess I'm asking Mike. I'm having a little difficulty in being able to present the differences that I would offer in SE three, and I think that's the choice before council a fully prepared negotiated agreement that the lawyers have looked back, that Metro Transit is looked at, that the exact office is looked at and the buyer has looked at and agreed to, but which folks have not been able have been briefed on it fully. And I want to make sure that folks know that that's here. It's in front of you. It's S three. And I'll do my best to highlight some of the things. One, well, anyway, and I guess maybe I'm asking procedurally, you would like to have an up or down vote on yours first. Is that is that right? Speaker 0: That's what was before us. And so that's the next step. But if you would like to take your time now to explain the differences, I think that would be the now would be the time. Speaker 2: Okay. I guess I appreciate the opportunity to do that. I would I would ask maybe Mr. Hanna, our counsel, who has had a chance to look at mine if he would be available for for four questions or an overview or. Pat, do you have anything that you would like to add? Speaker 3: I would think that Mr. Hanna giving legal advice would need to be an executive session, which I think can be done. I can hit the highlights of what was in your amendment, I think in open session without. Speaker 0: Before we do that, I have a question, if you don't mind. Councilmember Caldwell's has a question. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I had requested that a side by side comparison be developed between Mr. between Councilmember Dombrovskis and Council and the chair approaches. And I know there was one change in the Chair's approach in terms what's reflected in striking amendment as to I think though that what went out on Friday or Saturday may not have gotten to all council members relatively. Speaker 3: I, I don't believe it did council member I believe it went to you because at the time that the the other striking amendment wasn't available yet. So I provided it to Mr. Dombrowski. The chair striker has since changed to that document. That document would not. Speaker 2: Be relevant. Speaker 1: That. Speaker 4: I perhaps by the time we get to the full council meeting. It could have a side by side, certainly. And regardless of what happens here, it's just helpful for me anyway. And I think it could be helpful for others. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for. Thank you. Councilmember Domanski, you had the floor and thank you for allowing the question. But can you please give a brief summary assurances? Speaker 2: Sure. Speaker 3: I think and actually we tried to do a similar so if you take the two amendments at the top of the page is actually same format. I think from my perspective, both you, Madam Chair, and customary Taberski talked about the difference in the date. Customary Dombrovskis would be March 30th of 2019 unless the permits were not issued by the City of Seattle by June 30th of 2018. And yours, Madam Chair, would be September of 2019. Almost the opposite. Unless by June of by the end of June or July one of 2018, the city has issued permits. And then later that year, the project provides notice to the county that they will be ready to take over the site in March. So that's certainly a difference. The other major difference that I would say is through that work with legal counsel on the TPS US agreement itself, while both agreements have to come back to the council and the Council has a similar review and rejection period. Councilmember Dombrovskis includes more protections for the equipment that is on the site, which is a big deal. And what's changed there, because both amendments move that approval of that agreement, most likely to a post-closing scenario. That means after the deal closes, after we've transferred the property to them, the the power substation and communications equipment will still be on site. So Councilmember Dombrovskis purchasing sale agreement adds additional protections for the county to make sure that we have continued operations of the site undisturbed and puts I'm not sure what I would call a target date in there for when the parties should reach agreement, although that agreement still has to come back to the council. So I think from the staff perspective and one other change, although maybe this doesn't rise to the level of major change, but I pointed out, just to be fair, both amendments say the same thing for how the proceeds shall be used first for costs from the sale, then for routes or services impacted by the early closure. Then for the long term Metro connects. As you're aware, if we do transfer the tunnel earlier than planned, the county will avoid a couple of years, one, maybe two years of debt service depending on when it transfers. Councilmember Dombrovskis amendment also says the debt service payments that are avoided go into that pot as well for allocation and that could be three, three and a half to 4 million to 8 million depending on whether it's one or two years debt service payments, it's probably going to be one. So in that 3 to $4 million range, I think unless Mr. Dombrowski thinks something else, I think those are the major differences between the two documents. And if I missed something, I'm sorry. Speaker 2: And I think that was a good summary. I think in addition and this is important with respect to affordable housing, I have added language agreed upon with the purchaser in the recital section on page one, page seven of my amendment. But page one of the purchase agreement that reflects the commitment by the Convention Center to the Seattle Affordable Housing Piece of the $9 million that is not in the chair striking purchase and sale agreement. And I thought that was important, given the interest in affordable housing to be able to kind of cement that public commitment in the purchase and sale agreement as a as a floor. And that's on lines 19 through 26 of my purchase and sale agreement on artwork. Pat, is there any difference on the artwork language? Speaker 3: No, proper, proper. I'm using decommissioning because I can never say of the other word. Proper decommissioning of the artwork is a condition of closing in both agreements. Speaker 2: Okay. I think also on that note, I'm sorry to jump back to you on the TPS. There's another thing that we negotiated and agreed upon was the, you know, suspension provision. And this is on page seven of line 738 of my purchase agreement. And that is if the demolition work on the project's critical path is suspended by the buyer for a period of three days or more, then our termination date may be extended by like period. In other words, what I'm trying to do here is here's my main goal keep the tunnel for our operations as long as we can , but not interfere with the project's construction. So when they're ready to go. They would have it. And if they suspend their work and we could continue to use it, that clause lets us keep using it. And that's been my main thrust here while trying to build an objective test, which, frankly, Pat, you suggested the hard date of June 30th as the permit date and and then the service changed thereafter. So there's a number of other language provisions in here, I guess, colleagues. Boils down to two things. One, my strike amendment is the result of a lot of work of all the parties that have to sign it, and they're advising the council. The Chair Stryker doesn't reflect that work. And importantly, and I think it's a big win, frankly, for our operations, we pushed the date to March of 1904 coming out of the tunnel. Cast member Belushi's has a September 19 date and I don't know whether that's agreed upon or workable mind. Could go back to to to two 2019 if the convention center doesn't have their permits and I have additional flexibility in there to get us as long as we possibly can without interfering in the project. So we're trying trying to advance a sale. I took a lesson from Councilman McDermott when we were doing the Bellevue site, when finally we could we figured, one, you couldn't negotiate with nine council members. And he went into the room with council duty and negotiated and brought back a recommendation. And we tried to do this with three council members, but it became apparent that there was a difference in policy. And that's why I was available. I attended all of the meetings and and continue to attend them. And and the policy is around that vacation date. And I don't want it to interfere with the project. We've made some very good progress in here. We've capped at $4 million the ramp cost. That was an open item before, but we've got a hard cap on that to protect the benefit of the bargain. And Councilmember Gossett, with respect to housing, please know, in addition to the language in my purchase and sale agreement that makes the developer commit to that promise over at the city of Seattle, we do have a preference for workforce housing. Both of the amendments are the same in this regard and a priority for 30 to 50% AMI on the lower end. And I think that's good and that's the same across both. So I think I would ask I think it's it's fair to ask the lawyers if there's anything we've missed here that Mr. Hannah would add. I think it'd be important for colleagues to hear it, given the amount of work you put in on last week. Speaker 0: Mr. Hanna. Do you want to come forward and add anything? Speaker 2: Mr. Hanna is the special your lawyer. Speaker 0: He says he'll introduce himself a. Speaker 2: Special deputy prosecuting attorney and other outside counsel working for the prosecuting attorney's office advising King County on that. He's our lawyer, but our lawyers. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 0: Welcome, Mr. Hanna. Thanks. Speaker 5: Morning. I had a chance to review the amendments in the last hour. So from my very brief review, I would say the only other difference is with respect to the threshold that the convention center would have to meet in order for the timeline to either be extended to September 2019 and Councilmember Dombrovskis version or for the exit date to be rolled back from September to March. And Councilmember Vale teaches for a version in council member duties version. There is a threshold that needs to be met. The language, I believe, is take control of the site, that the notice to the county would be that the convention center would need to, quote, take control of the site, which means continued operation of the site as a transit base would impair the construction of the project. The threshold that is in Councilmember Dombrowski, his version. Bear with me just one moment. Would be that the permits necessary to commence construction, which are contingent contingent upon the issuance of a master use permit and demolition and construction on the site for the project has not begun by by June 30th. So in one case. Councilmember Dombrowski, the threshold that must be met is that permits are issued and that the convention centers mobilize the state site and begun construction. Councilmember Belushi adds Notice that the convention center needs to take control of the site. So a slightly different description of the threshold and each version. That's the only other substantive difference that I was able to identify in my very brief review here in the last hour. Speaker 0: Well, we appreciate your your on the spot legal work. And there's a question from Council Lambert. Thank you. So I've had the privilege of working with the city. Is that the I'm trying to get a new P for our out of street facility, which has been a nightmare. So I want to make sure that if they treat the convention center as charmingly as they've treated the county, that this may be built in the years 75, 92. So what do you mean when you say take can ask me how I really feel. What do you mean? You say take control in order to be able to to work in this space. You have to have a grading permit, assuring permit part of that, and you require that there's a variety of permits. So does the language take control? Also assume that. Speaker 4: You have those permits in hand? Speaker 5: Councilmember Lambert, I'll mention right off the bat that I candidly was not involved in the development, the language around taking control of the site. And and so I don't want to interpret the intention that was behind the use of that language. But if I read the language that's proposed in the in the agreement, it states that this is simply notice from the convention center that the convention center will need to take control of the site. So I think there's a built in assumption that permits have been issued and that there are other ways ready. Right. So there's a two part test that looks like in Councilmember Belushi's version. The permits are, in fact, issued in the same way that it is in Councilmember Dombrovskis version and that we received this notification that they're prepared to take control of the site. So again, they have the permits and are otherwise ready to proceed. Speaker 3: They have acted customarily. Did the both amendments treat Seattle permitting in essentially the same way and that they June 30th or July one is the target date? One of them says it's September unless they meet this threshold. One of them says it's March, unless they don't meet this threshold. So if Seattle, as you put it, treats this project the way they treated the CFTC, you will be beyond that June 30th date and I'm not even sure which year, and that's the reality of it. But that is not a substantive difference between the two documents. The subsequent notification is the difference. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 4: I think that that's. Speaker 0: Really an important part, and I'm really glad to see that it's got that second part test. And I would say it's not only the year I would be talking about what century after having dealt with that. So make me go to Wednesday morning meetings for four years to talk about something. It makes me a little testy. So thank you. Okay. Councilmember Gosset. Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is for Councilwoman Ranking Biles, because I'm trying to figure out what happened, because to me, these two documents look like plans that we got. The only difference is, as they are Stryker and the other ones they have. DEMBOSKY Stryker, and you talked about the meeting with all the parties that took place that led to your being bought off on by all the parties. And my question is, were the other two council members on the subcommittee of three invited to that negotiating session? And if they weren't, why not? Speaker 2: Customer recalls that they were. We were working together, including doing the recommendations up until, I think Thursday or Friday. I did not invite them to the Thursday or was at the Friday meeting meant for me because at that point all of the points which had been agreed upon is there are a lot of similarities were done, but there was a fundamental difference in opinion on the vacation of the tunnel date. And Councilman Belushi wants September of 19. In a way, Councilmember Caldwell said, I agree with Claudia, quote unquote in the meeting. And I said, Well, I just don't agree. And so then I continued to work with the parties to try and get something that reflected the March date. Now I kezman remember Caldwell's is certainly capable of speaking for herself, and I want to say that she has been open to trying finding a resolution throughout, but that those two things, when it became clear to me that cars were real douchey, who wasn't there but her chief of staff was said that she wants to use this trigger period for coming out of the tunnel to make and basically a September date. Or it could even be be worse, to be honest with you, under the prior language. But that fundamental difference in direction caused me to say, well, I don't agree, I want to be out in March or as soon after is as we need to be to let the work commence. And so that's why I advanced this work. Speaker 1: And you are by yourself to all the other partners? Speaker 2: Yes, I did so. But that's the only choice. They had to advance the deal. I did not want to negotiate with myself on a complex deal. I thought, in fact, I'm the only one that has invited repeatedly the purchaser to come into the room. And that was with Councilman Belushi and Caldwell's a week ago or more to try and get this done. And so I think it's been inclusive until there was a fundamental disagreement on the policy, and then I continued to advance the measure. So I've tried to put together a deal that will actually be signed that the buyers willing to sign, that the executive supports that works for Metro. And that's what I've done before with with the alternative. And so they're not twins, but they're closed because there's mostly agreement, but there's some big differences. And on a deal of this nature, I don't think you can sit in a room on the 12th floor and write words and then pass it in legislation and expect the other side to sign it. I think you got to bring them into the room, hear that their concerns are listened to. Our own lawyers who I brought into the room to work the deal and put it together and bring in the deputy county executive to get their input. And Victor observed, So I've done the best I can. I want to move this project forward. My alternative is ready to go. It will be signed. It protects Metro. Very importantly, that TPS language that I have in there protecting our equipment is not in the Baldacci amendment. Not in there. And that's an important piece of language for a life safety system. I'm not saying it can't be fixed. We're kind of in a procedural wrangle here, but I've tried to move this ball in a responsible way from a governing perspective. And there is a fundamental difference in policy between Councilmember Bell, Dutchie and me. She wants the floor of September 19, a year later than they first wanted in 18. I got working with them six more months March and it could be later. But I do not want to cause a delay on this project and put it at risk. And that's been the thrust of my work. And that's why the convention center has agreed to it and Metro has agreed to it and the executive has agreed to it, and our lawyers have blessed it. Speaker 0: I want to call on Councilmember Caldwell's and then move to a vote, because we're already well past the end of the meeting time, if we could. Councilmember Caldwell. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel compelled to speak on this, and I think this disagreement could have been avoided. And we were agreeing on a lot of things in a meeting that Councilmember Dombroski. I requested our attendance last Wednesday with very little noticed and unfortunately the chair of this committee, she was not able to attend. I it was not a convenient time for me to meet either, but I went there and at one point I did say that I would like to say I agree with Councilmember Bell. Do try to stay in the tunnel for the better sense as long as we could, but without disrupting putting the deal together. That's a very different comment than saying that there was a total impasse and there was a fundamental difference in opinion. I am the sponsor of this legislation. The site is in my district and I believe as such that I was certainly to be considered one of the parties who should have been consulted with continuing work to bring everything together. I also believe strongly that Councilmember Bell Banducci expressed, as Harris has expressed, a very similar if not the same view as I had expressed at this one meeting. I was not informed of a follow up meeting. I was not invited to attend, nor was my staff. And if that had happened, I believe we would be here today with an agreed upon striking amendment that everybody could be supportive. And I think we really are in a very unfortunate position at this point. And I'm not appreciative of the procedure in terms of how we got here, rather the process. Ready to go with that. I think there is time to reach agreement, whether we postpone this to a later meeting or we go ahead and take a vote, which I am fine with on Striking Amendment two, sponsored by Councilmember Belge. Then we can have time to perfected before we get to our council meeting, which I believe would be on the 26th. Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 4: But I felt the need to say this. I don't like to get in. You know, he I said you said this type of thing. And I think we blew an opportunity to all work on this together. But I'm going to let you know, I want everybody to hear this when I'm the sponsor of legislation and especially when it's in my district, I want to be consulted. Absolutely. And I don't want it to be said later that I had expressed a fundamental difference. So why consult with me any more? That's not appreciated. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. I think we're ready to move to vote. I just want to say a few brief comments in closing on the substance of the amendment that's before us. I think what this amendment fundamentally does, if it passes, is it sets a policy direction that says on the question of removing busses from the tunnel, that that will happen in September of 2019, which is the same date that sound transit is scheduled today to remove busses from the tunnel anyway because of the expansion of light rail. Unless the the convention center project proponents by July 1st, 2018 have their permits in hand and by September 30th, 2018, give us notice that they're ready to take over the site in a way that they need the busses gone. The point of this is that the busses can be removed from the tunnel earlier. They can be removed from the tunnel by March of 2019 under this language. But what we don't want to see happen is the busses be removed from the tunnel and then the site sits there for months unused when it could be being used for the benefit of the traveling public. That is the big picture policy direction that we will be adopting. The changes that were described that are in Amendment S-3, that's not before us. There are some things and they are a number of things that might be I might support these ultimately, but I just hadn't seen them until today and hadn't had a chance to look at them. Those things that I had seen before today that I agreed with, that Councilmember Dombrowski proposed. I have tried to include in the Stryker because I think there are some good, good innovations in here that that that make it possible. We will have to have legal review of this before we take final action on all sides to make sure that it is implementable. But I believe it sets a course that we then can implement. Final comment I want to say is there's an issue that is kind of in the room but not in the documents, and that is the request that we have had from representatives of hotel motel workers to make sure that their interests are being considered as part of this sale. I understand there's some discussions going on right now outside of our process to try to address those. And I think it's important that we allow those to go on and not and not rush through this in a way that that forecloses that discussion. With that, I'm just going to go ahead now and call for a vote on an amendment as to as amended. Is this a voice vote? Speaker 1: But what is this. Speaker 0: We can do either? Okay. Would you like a voice vote on it or wrong? Ah, okay. Do you care, Councilmember? Domestic violence to voice vote. All those in favor of amendment as to as amendment please signify by saying I. I opposed. Speaker 2: No. Speaker 0: Okay. The motion carries our electorate. Okay. I have been asked for division. Okay. Councilmember Dombrowski, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett, I. Speaker 4: Councilmember Crowell's I. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert I. Councilmember McDermott, High Councilmember of the Grove, Councilmember Yvonne Wright. Bauer No, Madam Chair. Hi, Madam Chair. The vote is 652 nos. Councilmembers Dombrowski and Councilmember If I'm right, they're voting no. And Councilmember Dunn excused. Okay, so at this point now. We still have some more work to do, but this is prepared to move to council in the normal course. Speaker 2: Of the reproduction strike. Speaker 0: Oh, I am so sorry. We have the final passage. Any words on final passage? Councilmember up the Grove. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start where you left off. One of the things I've thought a lot about during this discussion is who are the stakeholders? Is it just those who signed the agreements, or are there more people impacted? Obviously, with a proposal like this, the benefits are widespread, but there also can be adverse impacts, as is often the case. And so when I think about stakeholders, I also think about the obviously the transit riders, not just the transit agency. And I think that the approach in this Stryker is one that that I'm supportive of. But I also wanted to echo your comments. It is my understanding, too, that the men and women who work in the hotel industry and their representatives have met recently with the Washington State Convention Center to talk about how these costs and benefits are shared and ways in which the costs and benefits can be distributed in more equitable ways. And I don't know what the answer is. We do know that one of the largest economic beneficiaries is the hotel industry, and that's generally speaking, that's a good thing. But we also have employees who work in many of these hotels in Seattle who have been struggling, not only struggling economically, but struggling with their relationships with their employers. And I'm I think the Washington State Convention Center would be wise to engage more specifically in those conversations, both before we take full action, but also, I think as this hits the city of Seattle, I think that it's important to keep a broad view on this. You know, I support this because I believe that overall the economic benefits are a positive for our region. But I do think that those are important discussions that the convention center should take seriously and engage in specifics as as we continue to move through the process. And so I appreciate your comments, Madam Chair. I wanted to reiterate those. Speaker 0: Thank you. Other comments? Okay. I think Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm hopeful that this will get into a form that eventually can be signed. I'll be voting no today, obviously. I think it'll it'll advance. I think there's generally consensus about the terms, but we're we're, in my view, risking a multi hundred million dollar project by continuing to impose a delay. Ironically, the language on your take control words compared to the language that was in mind could mean that the convention center boots us out of the tunnel sooner because my language required that they actually start work on the site. Your language has them take control and then we're gone. But that is what it is. And and I think that we'll eventually get it get it done. And I think this is a good public project. Sometimes people forget that the public the convention center is a public institution created by the King County Council, and that we confirm every member of the board of directors. And one of the people sitting on the board is the secretary of the King County Labor Council. And I was very pleased and proud to push the convention center behind the scene to get to a project labor agreement with the building and construction trades, because I think this is a good project for generations of jobs and we'll build that up. So I hope that we can get it done and I think that we've made some improvements here. But I hope that folks, as they negotiate, will actually quit negotiating with themselves and reach out to folks that have to sign the agreement and get something that's workable. And I trust that will occur. The executive will veto it and the party won't sign it. So more work to do. And I commend you and enjoy working with the folks who are on the other side. They're good folks who are smart folks who are trying to do the right thing. Speaker 0: Okay. I think we're ready to vote. The the very last word I will give as the as the proponent of this, if if the maker of the motion will indulge me, is that I think we have all been trying very, very hard to balance a variety of public benefits. There are opportunities here. There are also impacts here. We all are attempting to do our best to represent the people that we are sent here to represent and to get the best deal possible for the residents of King County while supporting a project that can do a great deal of good for the residents of King County. And to the extent we have hit that balance today, I am pleased to the extent we need to do more to strike the right balance. I am open and with that I would urge your support and I think we're ready to call for a vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett. Hi. Speaker 4: Councilmember Colwell. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. All right. Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Bond right now. Madam Chair, I tried to go to seven days. Councilmember DEMBOSKY voting no and Councilmember Dunn excused. Okay, that counts. Mr. Hamacher. Speaker 3: Just a very quick announcement, Madam Chair, just for everyone's recognition on the schedule, you have an advertised public hearing for this item scheduled for a week from today on the 19th. That's a state law requirement. The convention center proponents, however, have asked that the council delay this action until the 26th, so you'll see a advertised public hearing for the 19th. That's because we had to publish and get that out to the public. But if this is on a regular calendar, it would be up at council on the 26th. Speaker 0: Does that mean that we will move the public hearing to the 26th so that a year can both happen on the same day? Or will we hold the public hearing on the 15th? Speaker 3: I think you should hold the public hearing on the 19th. And if the chair desires, though, he can keep the public hearing open until the 26th if he wants, or he can close it on that day. Speaker 0: We will leave that in the chairs. Good hands. Okay. Thanks you, everyone. This meeting is now.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the conveyance of the surplus property located at 906 Pine Street, Seattle, Washington, in council district four.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06072017_2017-0094

Speaker 0: I when the opposed approval unanimously. All right. That brings us to item number five for discussion today. This is the proposed sale of Metro Transit's Convention Police Station to the Washington State Convention Center Authority that we've all just been talking about to construct an expansion of the convention center. This item was extensively, extensively briefed in the budget and Fiscal Management Committee is now before the committee of the whole to work on some technical and other issues. There is a striking amendment and process. It's not before us today, but it will be before us very shortly. And but we I want to thank councilmembers Dombrowski and Caldwell's for working with me to try to bring this to a place where we can have an up or down vote in a timely manner. Because I think that we hear the urgency and we hear the interests, and we're trying to balance those and make sure that we do our due diligence as as one of the speakers stated. So, okay. With that, I will ask our staff, Pat Hamacher, to give us a status update and maybe lay out some of the issues that we're working on. Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Council members, for the record, Patrick Hamacher, Counsel Staff. I'm going to turn your attention to page 20 in your packets. And almost all of the staff report is verbatim the same as what was in the Budget Committee. But, Madam Chair, you asked us to highlight one issue that was in the staff report but didn't get a lot of attention. And then we'll flip to the end, which is the update, as you hinted, as you said in your introduction about where we are with the status. So the item that I want to cover is the bottom of page 20 and end of the page 21. It's areas of the sale, particularly revenues of the sale or expenses associated with the sale that are of interest to council members to make sure that the county actually retains the proceeds from sale, from the sale of the of the convention place station. And the two big areas of risk that I want to touch on are covered in this section. And they are the temporary work that this is essentially the ramp that would allow the transit busses to continue in and out of the site during the work the convention center is doing, but hasn't yet when their work is being done, but hasn't yet displaced the transit functions into the CPS station, and that is currently projected to be up to $4 million. The scope and timing of that have yet to be worked out between the convention center and transit. So there is some risk there. The additional piece is the what we call the the TPS, which is the transit power substation work, that is equipment that is owned by transit and communications and power transmission and other utility equipment that is jointly owned. And the total of the equipment is owned between King County and Sound Transit. And that relocate that equipment needs to be relocated as part of the construction and is currently projected to be in the $17 million range. But once again, the final scope and schedule and what the budget actually will look like hasn't been negotiated yet. So those really are two areas of risk on the expense side for transit that are still up in the air, not not for any lack of intention to have it clear, just that the negotiations haven't been done yet between transit and the convention center authority. So that's what I wanted to highlight there. And I'm sure. Speaker 0: That what I really asked for, I mean, we've highlighted these issues and. And frame them and you just highlighted and framed them is there's a big difference between we know what we're building and there might be a change in the cost of materials and that can be significant. But, you know, it's a percentage here, a percentage there versus we don't know exactly what we're building. And this could mean this number could be way off. And that's what I'm really asking, is what's the range of possible swing in those actual costs? Do we have any clue the no. Speaker 2: We have a lot more certainty around the ramp because that is a much more narrow number. I've seen between six and $8 million as the current projected one. The fact that you have sound transit and Metro Transit and the Convention Center all negotiating over the TPS agreement, what needs to be done? Ultimately, we know what works there, but how and when it is done is what can drive the cost and the risk. There is potentially millions of dollars in difference. Okay. Speaker 0: Well, that's something that's of concern to me. I just wanted to highlight that because it's of concern to me that we set a sales price and then that's the benefit of the bargain can get significantly degraded by the fact that our cost to close the deal and do what we said we were going to do could go way up. And we don't know that at this time. And I think we need to get a little more certainty around that one way or another. I mean, there's different ways to do it. Yeah. So. Okay, thank you. Please continue. Speaker 2: That's an excellent segue to page 30, which is the very bottom of page 30. This is a status update on the items. And I'm sure that you and your colleagues asked us to highlight essentially the areas you're still working on. And the very first item there is price certainty around the two agreements that we were just discussing. So that's one of the items that's still under discussion. The agreement as transmitted by the executive, gave the buyer the option of building affordable housing on site or providing a payment to King County. Same value. But whether they built it or whether they paid the county for it, the notice essentially notification and a verification opportunity for the county around the stress test associated with issuance of bonds for the project. The next item is how to address concerns with the decommissioning of the public art on the site. And then finally the amount of time or the date at which transit will be required to vacate the site. So those are kind of the big picture items that are still in progress. And at that point, I'll stop and I'm happy to answer any questions. Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thanks, Mr. Hamacher. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Manager. I am concerned about the affordable housing piece and I would rather have it in my mind in the facility so that it gets done simultaneously. And having had to deal with the city of Seattle on a building permit that the county is trying to get, I think that it would be better for us to have it inside. So at what point could we decide which way that's to go? Can we do an amendment here to decide that so. Speaker 2: That the agreement that came over from the executive, it's the buyer's option. They can, at closing, make a payment to the county or commit to building affordable housing on site. The part of your question where you said right away, though, that's the real issue because any housing that's built on site would not be constructed until at least 2021, which is when the rest. So they're going to build the convention center addition. They're going to build the footings for the two new towers. And at that point, housing could be built. And currently they're projecting an office building and an apartment or condo building. So it would not be until at least that time that any housing would be done in 2021. Speaker 0: Sounds fine to me. I'm just worried about a be 2015 or 29. So in order to not be 2090 and I have some concerns about some other history we've had where they were going to build offsite housing and I'm not aware that ever got done. So it is part of this and conditional that you don't open your office building until the affordable housing is done, then I know it'll get done. And so I want that to be tied a little more closely. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Garcia. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. My concerns are very similar to Councilmember Lambert. I was kind of surprised by the lack of, you know, labor or work or solidarity that was expressed this morning. We have people testifying that were with your name here. But let's talk about it at the end of the process, after the decisions have been made and other people are saying, well, they weren't there at the beginning when the hard work to its effort was. Therefore they don't have any legitimacy. So I don't understand why we can't make a commitment for low income housing up front even though the housing not be going to be spent. I pad indicate into 2000 22,021. We as a government have been okay on too many big projects for a commitment to housing and that not take place. And it is the condition that the executive worked out is very minimal. You hear just saying and I think it's a moral and good idea that if you're going to be on how they make some of it affordable for the people who work in hotels, which are mostly refugees, immigrants, African-Americans and other low income workers that are serving as maids, butlers, cooks. So I don't understand why we would bypass making that kind of commitment upfront. Speaker 0: Or. Speaker 3: Not just affordable for some low income housing and whatever. Is the bailout as ideal that one union's ideas are superior to the other and the other because they represent low income workers? Got to wait later after we get our jobs. I don't see that as solidarity. Thank you, Manager. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Councilmember Lambert, another question. Thank you. Yes, I just wanted to ask about the permitting for the building construction. So having been for the last three years, every Wednesday morning dealing with a building permit from the city of Seattle and Purgatory, be a nice word for how that is. Are there any things in here where we need to put any protections that any delays that are caused by the cities? I can't use the word ability, but I should use the word ability. Ability to to get permitting out in a timely manner. Would there be any impact to us? Is there any protections we need to build in that? If it's not done by a certain time and there's a cost allocation escalation that there's no impacts on us? Speaker 2: Most of the answer to that question is no, because this is a land sale. We're selling the piece of property. The area where I would say the answer is yes is as transmitted. The date for when Transit asked to vacate the station is September 30th of 2018. Unless there is substantial delay on the project. And as we've noted previously throughout the staff report that what that substantial delay is isn't defined. So I think the the only real place where a city delay would impact the county would be in that if they delay permitting, theoretically transit could stay in the station longer. And there's up to a year there. That's really that's really not clear. But we're anticipating sound transit would like the county to be out of the tunnel September 30th of 2019. So there's quite a difference there between September of 2018 and 2019. So that's the one area where I think the city permitting delays could impact our role in the transaction. Speaker 0: So anything we can do, they say you can't be paranoid if it's already happened to you. So the fact that we've had to deal with this for our own building, building, if they'll do it through the county, then it could happen to other people too. So I think we need to just show that up so that there's some kind of way that we are completely protected. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions on this topic? Well, just in closing, as I said, we are closing in on an amendment. I heard some comments from council members this morning that suggest that you might be thinking about other amendments as well. And I our plan is to take that up after at the special meeting where we're going to do the appointment to the legislative vacancy in the. This is the 3040 646. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Douglas. Speaker 4: Despite rampant rumors, I am not making calls for one of the candidates. Speaker 0: Excellent. Speaker 3: I thank you. Speaker 0: And that is so. But there's going to be represent. Speaker 4: Part of it. Speaker 0: Councilmember Garcia, I think we'll be able to use half of that special meeting to keep this moving because we get into summertime and we have some breaks in our schedule and it gets a little bit difficult to keep things going. So I want to keep the momentum going. Speaker 4: Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Accounts from. Speaker 4: Damascus. I apologize. Say this. I haven't done it yet, but I did have one question that I wondered if Pat might be able to answer. This is, I don't think senior staff report, but with respect to the party, the DSD, the downtown sale transit tunnel early and turning that over to exclusive sound transit operations is their existing debt service that the county is paying today on the tunnel. And if any of that we do that, are we relieved from that debt service? And we have an idea of what those savings are to the county that soundtrack that understands hundreds of up. Speaker 2: The first part is, yes, there is existing debt and if we give up up joint operations early, we would be absolved of that. I think it's about a year and I think it's about 3 million. But don't quote me on the number, I will confirm that to you. There is a debt service payment and we would probably avoid at least one year of that. But I just need to find out what the number is. Speaker 4: Appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm referencing your earlier comment about amendments. When would an additional amendment have to be ready to be discussed? Speaker 0: Well, the final date would be when we take this up at the full council, but the earliest date would be as of next Monday morning. Speaker 3: And next Monday. Okay. Because I want to look at an amendment. We have a government wide commitment to equity is also just as in my mind, that means considering what impact our major policy decisions have on other poor minorities and other disadvantaged folks who want to put it together. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gossett, Oscar Castro, the best known. Speaker 4: What sense would it be? Helpful. You and I and Councilman Carlos have been working diligently with staff on this and on the affordable housing piece. It seemed to me there was a growing consensus, at least among the three of us, that it might be worth sharing and correct me either of you if I get this wrong. But with respect to the $5 million payment for affordable housing in the county, I have heard a couple of preferences among us, and that is one that we pursue the cash at closing option. And I think the thinking behind that is twofold. One, it occurs sooner and allows us to deploy the money faster to build affordable housing sooner so we don't lose through 2021 inflation. The value of the $5 million, right? If it were to be built into the project years later too, it allows some little bit more control at the county to direct those proceeds, perhaps for workforce type housing or transit oriented development housing where we'd have the flexibility to locate those on projects that are ready to go or high need or that suit our policy objectives. And I know Councilmember Garza has been a leader on ensuring we get down to the real affordable housing. 30% am I 50% in mind that would allow us to target those dollars that way? So we've had this discussion today. I thought it was fair and appropriate, so everyone was on the same page to share some of the thinking in the room. As I recall it. Speaker 0: Just as a process matter, there will for sure be a chair striking amendment. There may be a joint strike imminent, there may be a separate striking amendment, then there may be standalone amendments. But we're going to try to get as much of what we all agree to into one as possible, just so that we're able to take things up in an orderly fashion. And I think we're I mean, I think we're getting there. I guess that's what else I think we're getting there. And I appreciate hearing the issues that have been brought up this morning. Speaker 3: Councilmember Costa, I just wanted to thank you, Madam Chair, said Councilwoman Dombroski there it is nice that, you know, the three leaders of this issue have discussed this, but I would like to have the opportunity to meet with you all and try to make a case for more concrete commitment to low income housing because. Always that big is off the hook by saying, Y'all give us some money and we'll find somewhere to build low income housing. And we hit our tendency of building all the low income housing and already low income neighborhoods. I don't see why we can't commit to building that in the neighborhoods that were being expanded. And we're going to allow the developer to invest in building, you know, hotel, motel or apartments. We should do something for the lower income workers. Not exclusively, but something. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Dawson. Councilmember Colwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Packed question. I concur completely with the motivation, the desire expressed by Councilmember Garcia, but I wonder about what the history is in recently of the council dictating to a developer or a business what they do, how they spend their funds and how they design. So, I mean, can we require that they. Speaker 2: Oh, I think I think certainly you could. I think I think the the desires expressed by the developer or through the executive's proposal are just that you're making a contractual agreement with the developer for what is built on land that you currently own and are being asked to sell. So you certainly could obligate that. And in fact, we have obligated developers to build housing on site in the past. To Councilmember Lambert's point, there have been quite a few hurdles in actually getting it built. But certainly you you have the authority to require that to be built. Thank you. Speaker 0: For much. Speaker 4: That's great. Speaker 0: That's what I is for so that we can surface issues and hopefully do something with them. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is in the event I don't connect with the three of you, so we might as well pass thoughts along. Now on that. I am I mentioned this before in the Budget Committee and I'd repeated again, I'm very supportive of the Councilmember Dombroski suggestion that we take Castro closing part because the geographic flexibility in addition to the the real dollar, the real protecting the value of those dollars to the extent we can legally and I don't know to what degree we can legally. Speaker 2: The ability to target. Speaker 4: Additional housing units to a workforce that's going to be generated in Seattle as a result of this project and the increased need there. And I don't know how, you know, our attorneys have looked at this, but in essence, can we find ways that units become available for the lower wage workers who are in that industry? And I don't know if Pat, if you recall the conversation with legal to agree we do that or is it simply doing housing in that price range and marketing it to them versus restricting? Speaker 2: We have done some analysis of that and the initial conclusion conclusions ironically were actually that it's very hard to target the industries in Seattle with their new rules because of the first. So I would not give that as a as a legal opinion or a final answer. The the councilmembers that we've been working on this have have wanted to target based on images the lower the lower end of that spectrum. And that's fairly common to do. I think it may be difficult to do a industry specific target in Seattle, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done with the $5 million as a whole as it went out into other programs and and actually funding affordable housing projects. What you end up with is a project with a whole bunch of funders and with a whole bunch of different restrictions. This part has that and it goes into a pot and there's a really complicated process they go through to try to allocate it in this case as quickly as possible because of the need out there. But I think that's workable. Ironically, it might be difficult to target that and then back into the city where the where the jobs are being generated. Speaker 0: So Councilmember Lambert's. Speaker 4: A noble a noble a noble goal that it might be a question of if you can't legally set aside units, we at least maybe want to set a goal of good communication and targeting of marketing in our clients to that segment of workers. Thank you both here. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. Or maybe even some agreement, if it were going to be in that area that we buy it. We've made it so that over cost in all of our contracts it'd be really nice weather and whenever we are expecting housing to be built that we have some follow up dates that you know, five years from the date it's supposed to be down to three years. And if it isn't that there's a fine levied with that because I don't think that the follow up has been as good in the past on some of them to make sure we got all the units we thought we were going to get. So that's my concern. Okay. Thank you for that good discussion. And I just want responded Councilmember Gossett, and I appreciate your acknowledging those of us who have been working on this issue. But as always, the decision will be the bodies, what happens. And I hope that we can engage with your proposals and and do something in that regard. Thank you. All right. I think we're ready to move on to item number six. Are we? Very good. And that is a solid waste overview. So we're going to have a briefing now regarding King County Solid Waste System and the development and approval process for the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which is the overarching plan that looks to the future and talks about how we're going to continue to perform this critical function.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the conveyance of the surplus property located at 906 Pine Street, Seattle, Washington, in council district four.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_05032017_2017-0177

Speaker 0: Okay, it's been moved. I hear some questions in conversation. Councilmember Lambert, thank you. Well, we didn't really get much time to look at this. So are you going to go through this whole report with us or how are you going to do this? My understanding, and I'll look to Mike for this, is that the point of the motion is to have our legislative staff do that, to go through the report, to go through the laws, to go through our policies, and then come back to us with the report about how well what we're doing complies with all of that guidance and then recommend any actions that they may at that point. But this is sort of like a preliminary step. And are we going to are we going to differentiate anyways between legal and not legal immigrants? Speaker 1: Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Council Member McDermott Thank you. Speaker 1: I'd like to underscore this point, something you said a moment ago, and that is that the guidance from the Attorney General's Office is how to be compliant with federal law and be as supportive of people within our community as possible. So everything within the guidance before us would be clearly designed to articulate what's within federal law. Speaker 0: And ask a question of staff at this moment and maybe my colleagues. We have the only two items today. Both of them are on the same topic. And the second item is an executive session on the topic of immigration law and our and legal matters related thereto. We have our lawyers here to speak to us. Would people prefer that we take up the executive session before the motion? Yeah, I'm seeing some nods. Speaker 1: Okay. But I just need to be educated. Speaker 0: We can. Okay, so let's. Let's proceed in this way. Let's finish discussion. Comments, questions about what the motion is in open session. Then go into executive session and we have a motion pending. And we will either we will take it up after the executive session. But let me just I'm looking to the motion maker of the motion to see if he is amenable to that order of business. Speaker 1: Madam Chair, I'm not going to I'm certainly not going to object. But let's be clear about what we're in executive session for in the conversation within executive session is within those confines, we. Speaker 0: Will announce that and stick to those rules when the time comes. Okay. Councilmember Dunn, just real quick. Speaker 1: I just because of the important subject matter contained in this and because as we're hitting this as an issue of first impression, I am inclined to ask for a one week courtesy delay after we've done all of this today and may not grant it, but I'm going to request it. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other comments or questions on the topic of the motion so we understand what's before us. Councilmember Gossett Was that a wave or just a twitch? Okay. Well, all right. So at this point, let's let's take up the executive session. This is item is this item number six? Just an executive session? So what we're what the executive session is regarding. Go ahead. Councilmember. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Reid said that we may have a representative from the Attorney General's office here. I don't know if they were part of the presentation in executive session. If not, if we ask if they have comments to address the motion before us before we go into executive session. Speaker 0: Okay. So none of that made it into my script today, I have to say. So I'm happy to invite them, but we're sort of just flying by the seat of our pants here today. And I prefer in future to sort of schedule these things out, if we could. If we have a guest to speak to the attorney general's guidance, then we should bring that person up and have them say what they have to say now, I believe. Yes. Speaker 1: So we have Colin Melody, who's a with the attorney general's office. She's, I believe, had the the civil rights unit. And Ms.. Melody, can you join me at the table here? Speaker 0: Welcome and thank you for being here today. Apologies for the sort of on and off nature, but we're happy to hear from you and appreciate your coming to our meeting today. Good morning. And we're happy to address questions now or later if there if there are questions that come up. I was asked to just come and talk a little bit about why we developed this guidance and then answer any questions that council members may have about what's in it and what's not in it. And so we developed this guidance after some statements began coming out at the federal level about whether excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt . Could you pull that microphone just a little bit closer? Some of the members are having a hard time hearing your voice. Any better? Council member okay. Thank you. So following following the change in administration, there were a number of executive orders and public statements about the potential requirements of local jurisdictions, counties and municipal jurisdictions to comply with federal law and also to serve as federal enforcement agents to cooperate in federal and immigration enforcement activities. And a lot of the jurisdictions in Washington had questions about how their current practices might or not might or may not sort of comply with that federal law. And we began getting questions from around the state, from local lawmakers, from law enforcement. So sheriffs, county prosecutors, public defenders, other lawyers who interact with immigrant clients, witnesses and victims educators, and other state government officials who provide public services where they need to understand what their obligations and rights are with respect to how they choose or don't choose to act as deputized immigration officials. And so what this guidance is designed to do is to answer some of those questions and to explain what federal law is. Federal law does have some requirements, and then federal law provides a lot of flexibility for local jurisdictions to determine whether and how they're going to act as immigration officials . So it's the guidance as organized by subject matter area, whether you're providing local services, whether you run a local jail, whether you are law enforcement or educators, employers or other other sort of actors in our and our public life. So it contains some general rules governing interaction between federal immigration authorities and local jurisdictions and then some specific laws related to specific, specific areas. So, you know, generally that is what the guidance contains. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have about what it is or why we produced it. Okay. Any questions from members? Comes from Damascus. Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Melody, thanks for being here today. I've been interested, along with others, including Councilman McDermott. I think of the courthouse issues and the impacts to the administration of justice that may result from the fear of folks coming to testify or to undertake any kind of the public business we have here in the courthouse. And I know our Supreme Court has written a letter and is working on on that. But one of the other areas that King County works in and that's identified in here is public hospitals. And we own Harborview Hospital. It's under contract for the management of it with you'd have medicine, but I wonder if you are able to maybe highlight some of the issues that arise around public hospital ownership and management and what your recommendations are. Speaker 0: Sure. So there are. So within the specific areas listed in the guidance, there are some specific federal and state laws that provide specific protection. And the health care field is one of those. So kind of HIPA and federal privacy requirements are going to and there are some sort of analogous important state law requirements about health care. Record privacy are going to prevent the disclosure of certain kinds of immigration sort of information, immigration related information to federal officials and that might have health status check in, check out surgery, scheduling, other kinds of information that might indicate when somebody is going to be at the hospital or maybe has been at the hospital. What for and when they're going to be released because it's medical information. So generally, there's a rule that state officials and including state hospital administrators cannot or county you know, public public officials cannot cannot prohibit their employees from talking with immigration officials about immigration and citizenship status. But besides those two pieces of information, immigration and citizenship status, there is no requirement to share information about anybody who's admitted to the hospital, who's visiting the hospital. And in fact, because of other privacy laws and the health care context, there may be real limitations on what folks can share. And so our best practices recommendation is to develop a policy so that staff that work in the hospital, who are not lawyers and are, you know, don't have all these statutes in front of them, can understand what information they may provide to federal officials and what information they may not provide federal officials because of these other privacy protections. Does that answer the question. Speaker 1: In a very detailed way? Speaker 0: Lawyer. Speaker 1: Yeah, and I guess I misspoke over one of the particular I think it's a unique situation. Our view is we, in cooperation with the University of Washington in this council, made sure it didn't go away when it was threatened to have a clinic particularly aimed at refugees and health care needs that arise from and relate to those members of our community. And I'm this is some general guidance, but I want to signal for my colleagues that it's an area that we might want to look at because it would it would be very sad if folks didn't want to come for treatment from trauma arising from refugee status or some things that go on in other parts of this world that we treat up at U Dub Hospital or Harborview because of fear arising from from these issues. So I'm particularly interested in that and maybe we can work on that a little bit. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. All right. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. For several years now, we've had an ordinance that relates to the treatment of alleged immigrants and refugees who are housed in our King County jail. And the ordinance that we identified about two or three dozen serious crimes that we would be willing to allow ICE officials to take the interview, to take away if they desired, etc.. But they that they would have to submit some paperwork to us that provided evidence and proof that this person is an illegal immigrant. And instead of dealing with that, they said we're not complying with ice, and they stopped making any effort or taking anybody out of the King County Jail. So to me, that was not related to us being a sanctuary jail. That's not. Allowing them to do their job and to do it us more strictly adhering to the law. What's your thinking on that from the perspective of the attorney general? Speaker 0: Well, there's a number of jurisdictions that will require ICE to submit evidence of probable cause of a federal immigration crime before they will hold an individual beyond their term of commitment in the county jail. So if King County is holding somebody because of a conviction for 30 days and ICE request, hey, could you please hold them for two days longer so that we can come get them? Many jurisdictions, including my understanding this one, say yes, as long as you provide us with some sort of judicial warrant or an affidavit of probable cause about the immigration crime that they've committed. That is an increasingly common practice nationwide, because there have been a number of court decisions that have said holding somebody without that kind of evidence is a constitutional violation. And so and so my understanding is that ICE is in the process of considering whether it will comply with those court orders and provide that kind of evidence. But to date, their position has not changed. As as as you stated and they've said that their administrative paperwork should be sufficient. Speaker 3: Now, I thank you. Speaker 0: I thank you again. And I will add on that topic, Councilmember, that that was an interesting development as we were talking about the ICE detainers, that sort of federal decisions started to come down saying that holding people in jail beyond the period of time that we have any state law, probable cause reason to do without a warrant or without some reason, you know, it starts to become very risky to do that. And we don't in this county do that. And I noticed that on page 27 of your report, you actually address this and say that it best practice would be absent an order signed by a judge. Immigration detainers are not mandatory and should generally not be used to hold people any longer than the jail would otherwise hold them. And I think that is inconsistent with our practice at this point. I want to thank you so much. This this report is very valuable, and I'm sure that many counties and cities feel this way. But on behalf of King County, thank you in your office for putting it together, for doing this work so that we can now do our work and be in compliance. And we want to do that. So I appreciate your time. At this point, if the counsel is ready and willing, we will move to executive session. The purpose of the session and the grounds for the executive session under RTW 4231 ten are to discuss with legal counsel litigation or potential litigation to which the county is likely, is or is likely to become a party. When public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the county. We will be in executive session for approximately 30 minutes, I'm guessing, until about 1040. And I'm going to ask the clerk at this time to please post the doors to that effect. And anyone who is a member of the public or county employee not directly necessary for the discussion, please leave the chambers at this time. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Right. We're going to start up again. Okay. Many of the committee of the hall will be back in session. We just completed an executive session on a matter of potential litigation to receive legal advice. And now we are back on item five, which is motion number 2017 0177. And there is a motion pending to move it out with a due pass recommendation. But I would ask if the motion maker would consider to move it out with no recommendation at this time. Speaker 1: Duly considered and accepted, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Okay. That's the motion before us. Discussion on the motion. Okay. Is he here? Yes. They can come back in. Yeah, we're in public session. Okay. All right. We're going to be in recess just for a moment again. Reagan wanted to make it. Recession and we are once again on proposed motion number 2017 0177. This is item five and the motion before us is now to move this item out of committee without recommendation. Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 1: Because when we courtesy delay. Speaker 0: Yeah I appreciate the request this meet this this committee only meets every other week and our next meeting is a town hall in Kent on the subject of transit fares. So a one week courtesy delay from this committee would turn into a one month courtesy delay. So I would prefer, as the chair, that we go ahead and move it out without without recommendation and without expediting and then sort of take the time necessary for council members to get up to speed at the council level rather than keep this until July, potentially before final action. I apologize, Councilmember Dunn. I just think that that that hopefully will give you enough time. All right. And the other comments or questions with that will call for this is a roll call vote. Yes. Okay. Please call the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Speaker 1: By. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn No. Councilmember Gossett Hi. Councilmember Caldwell. Councilmember Lambert No. Councilmember McDermott Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Run. Right. Bauer Oh, Madam Chair, I met with the chair. You have four eyes, three no's, councilmembers Dunn, Lambert and Von. Right. Bauer and two members excused Councilmember Cole Wells and Councilmember at the Grove. Does that pass? Because we have a majority of the members present? Yeah. Subject to signature. Speaker 1: Right. So that signature. Get off the curbside. Speaker 0: Okay, but we don't. We only need a majority of the members present in any event. Correct? Correct. In the right subject. Yep. Okay. All right. So this moves on to council without expediting and with with without without recommendation. All right. That brings us to other business. There is one item, colleagues of other business. Today is a historic day here in King County. He's not here. It's a historic day in King County. There's no formal proclamation. But I'm going to take the liberty to speak for council and say that we informally together proclaim today a day of celebration and encourage all residents of King County to join us in wishing Councilmember Dave up the Grove a very happy birthday. Speaker 1: Oh. Speaker 0: He scooted out. So maybe I can tell everybody how old he is. Speaker 1: He's one year older than. Speaker 0: Rod and me. All right. And then, yes, Councilmember Gazette. Speaker 3: Councilman Bryan Rayburn said nobody's ever done that for him. Speaker 0: Well, I will. If he leaves, I'll say how old he is. Speaker 3: Oh, yeah, right. Speaker 0: Okay.

Motion

A MOTION related to county services to immigrants and refugees, and the Washington State Attorney General's Guidance Concerning Immigration Enforcement.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_04192017_2017-0178

Speaker 0: Thank you all very much. By your vote we will move that along and I am very confident we will be ready for our flight on Tuesday. So this brings us to item number five, which is the proposed ordinance motion propose ordinance 2017 0178 regarding King County access for all. This ordinance council will recall is a revised version of the executives transmitted access for all program to improve public access to arts, science and heritage programs. On Monday, this ordinance was introduced and it was duly referred to this committee and to the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee. Part of the purpose of that dual referral was because the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee does not have a meeting scheduled until May 10th. And if we are to. Take up any action on this as proposed for the April August ballot. It would need to be done before May 10th. So we have this meeting to have discussion and proposed changes to the new and updated ordinance, if we choose. And then we'd have to figure out a path forward procedurally because one is not really apparent at the moment. But this enables us to at least have discussion of the substance today. So with that, I'm going to turn to our. Okay. Before I turn to our lead staff, I'm going to call on Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. And if the chair permits, I'd like to just give a little introduction. Speaker 0: I think that would be very welcome. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. As my colleagues know, I introduced on behalf of the executive the proposed ordinance that was transmitted to us. And I did that along with Council Chair McDermott and council member of the Belle Duchy. And I have to say this has been quite an experience, and what the three of us did I can guarantee is to listen to our colleagues, listen to the concerns that have been expressed and those mainly focused on not enough geographic fairness, equity, that the regional organizations, which are the large ones, get too much funding and the community based organizations get too little of the funding, and there's inadequate attention to social and economic equity. Another concern was that there was inadequate oversight of fort culture, which would become the agency to oversee access for all. And there was concern that not all school districts in our county would benefit. And another major one is that the implementation plan should be approved by the Council. There were other ones, but those are the main categories that I heard anyway need to be addressed. So as it was not possible to continue the discussion in the Budget Finance Fiscal Management Committee, I worked with my colleagues to develop a new proposal. So this is a new one. This is a new ordinance. And I believe that it really does address these issues that I mentioned, including a $1 million per district floor requirement, equity and inclusion being enhanced seed money so that new organizations could emerge, could develop, especially in those council districts where there are very few opportunities for organizations to develop currently strong reporting and accountability language in this new measure. And then there are some miscellaneous technical changes, but I commend this to you, and I am very appreciative that we are able to have a discussion on it today. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Caldwell's for that overview. I think it's really helpful to set the stage and continuing. I am going to call on our council staff here today, Lia Zoghbi and Andrew Kim, to walk us through the new ordinance and make sure that everybody understands what is in it, that we have an opportunity to ask questions. And then when I think when we've established a base level of understanding of where we are, then we can turn to discussion about where we ought to go. Speaker 5: So good morning for being here. Thank you. Good morning. Council members. I'm Lee Zoghbi and with the council staff and with me is Andrew Kim. Council staff. The materials for this item begin on page nine of your packet. This proposed ordinance is a revised version of the Access for All program, and to briefly recap the program, it would provide public access to arts, science and heritage programs and experiences in King County, and the program would be funded by a 1/10 of a percent sales tax for seven years, proposed for voter consideration at a special election on August 1st of this year. And because members are familiar with the executive transmitted from a proposal, I would have us skip to the analysis section on page 13 of your packet for a comparison of how this version compares with the executive proposed ordinance. So there's a table on page 13 that compares the major program elements, the Public School Access Program, the Regional Cultural Organization Access Program, and the Community Based Cultural Organization Access Program. And so the major change you've. C is that there's a shift of funding from the regional cultural organizations to the community based to community based programing, and the requirement that includes mandatory requirements for regional cultural organizations to provide equity and inclusion benefits and a geographic distribution public benefit. So those benefits would be aimed at providing cultural programs for people with economic and geographic barriers to access. The regional cultural organizations would be required to spend at least 30% of their award annually on equity and inclusion benefits. And then of that, at least 10% of that would or at least 10% of their total award would have to be spent on programing that it's occurring outside of the cities where regional cultural organizations are not primarily located. Speaker 2: Are. Speaker 5: Occurring in those cities. If I said that right, regional cultural organizations would also have the option of meeting that geographic geographic distribution requirement by contributing their 10% of their award to for culture to distribute to community based cultural organizations. So overall, you see that requirement reflected on the chart with the $3.8 million shift from regional choral cultural organizations to the community based cultural organizations. The requirement for regional cultural organizations to contribute at least 20% of their wards to the public school access program, and at least 30% to equity inclusion benefits means that at least 50% of their award is restricted to specific uses. So you see that reflected in the chart with the $19 million that is now unrestricted, unrestricted for regional cultural organizations. Speaker 4: What page you are? Speaker 5: I'm on page 13. So the first column of numbers is the new proposal, and the second column of numbers is the executive transmitted proposal. And. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Anytime. It might make sense, but it's related. Please go ahead. Councilmember, tell Americans where you finished asking your question. Speaker 4: No, but I'm glad I'm okay. Speaker 0: Councilmember, I have to go, but go ahead. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. Lia, did you say 3.8 million is moving from the regional organizations now that 3.8 million will go to the community based organizations. Speaker 5: So the way it would actually work is that 3.8% of the total awards that would go to 8 million are yes, 3.8 million would be required to be spent in communities that don't have a regional cultural organization. Or there is the option of providing it directly back to for culture to distribute to community based organizations. So how I would look is there's a few different options. Organization, regional organizations could provide programing in a, you know, somewhere other than where they're located. Speaker 3: They could do that already. And it was. Speaker 5: Correct. Now they're required. What percentage? That that's at least 10%. Okay. But the 30% has to be used for equity and inclusion benefits, and that would be also considered an equity and inclusion benefit. Speaker 3: If I might have a follow up. Can we legally do that? Say, I mean, I'm intrigued by this idea that we can have 70% go to the regionals, but then ask that a percentage be given back to for culture. So has that been through legal review, the ability to say you can meet, we can comply with state law? And still direct the regionals, know if the regionals are giving a piece of it back, could we direct 50% or 90% to go to for culture and then distribute? Speaker 5: You couldn't direct it specifically what you what how it structured is they can either they have choices for how to meet the 10% requirement. We can legally require. So they can do that by providing the programing, by partnering with a community based cultural organization, or they are given the option if they want to, to give the money back. So that is what we can do under state law. Speaker 3: Okay. So there's not necessarily any I'm not trying to be facetious here, but there's no guarantee there will be money going to poor culture, to the regional organizations. It's just an option there. Speaker 5: Correct. But there is a guarantee that that 10% has to be spent in communities. It can't just be spent where. Speaker 3: That 90% could still be spent in Seattle, or if it were a Seattle based organization, 90% could be spent community benefit Seattle and 10% could be in the busses out to the other. Speaker 5: Technically, not really that either because 20% have to go to the public school program, which has to go countywide. And then also, well, it's kind of technically difficult, but it doesn't have to go countywide. But there's there's very specific requirements what what the public school access funds have to go to. And it you know, it has to be spent at, you know, at the public school level for all districts within King County, all public schools, the 30%. Again, it is a requirement that of at least 30%, the award has to be spent on equity and inclusion benefits. And those could be in the form of providing discounted, you know, admission to an organization, or it could be in the form of taking programing out to the community. But at least 10% of their overall award would have to go out to the community. Speaker 3: Thanks. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 4: And thank you, Madam Chair. Leah, I have a question on the last comment that council member of the would just throw that I can understand that equity and inclusion means the regional, cultural and scientific entities are providing public transit or bus access and that taking some of their programs into the schools and perhaps the neighborhoods. But is that the same as what you said earlier, about 3.8 million being transferred to their communities to set up regional culture. Speaker 5: As I understand your question, it's that two different things. So that. Speaker 4: To be honest, I'm. Speaker 5: Not sure the 20%, 20% of a regional cultural organization award would be going to the public school program, the Public School Cultural Access Program. And that program involves transportation to students, to cultural organizations. It also involves cultural organizations taking programs to cap classrooms so that the 20% then there's an additional additional and and that was always required in this ordinance. There's an additional 30% requirements. And of that for equity and inclusion. And many of those benefits, you know, the defined benefits involve either providing overcoming barriers to access for people who have economic barriers or people who have geographic barriers. And so the additional requirement would be that 30%, you know, a third of it, 10% of the overall award had to be spent towards mitigating those or has to be spent in communities that don't have regional. Speaker 3: Cultural or. Speaker 4: Economic. That's meant by whom, as spent by the regional organizations or for culture or given to our community groups, for them to define what cultural aspirations and programs they like to see develop. Speaker 5: So that that would actually get worked out at the contract and implementation plan level those details. And so it could look different for each cultural organization. But when they are entering into contract with for culture to receive their awards, the specific benefits, they would come forward with a proposal of how they would meet this requirement culture. Speaker 4: I would define what culturally legitimate for these organizations. Speaker 5: Not for the community organizations. For the regional organization. Speaker 4: I know, but I'm talking about the 30% that you said now that would be made available for creative, cultural and scientific activities that take place in the communities. Are you, senator for culture would be the determiner of what groups get that money? Can I find a figure? Speaker 0: I want to step in for a quick second. One of the items we discussed wanting to see in this proposal for the sponsors was the idea that there would be involvement of the council members in helping to shape the implementation plan, which would include a plan for geographic areas and specific geographic areas. I should say plans plural for specific geographic areas and how those would be met by the cascading flow of money, but also countywide equity plan and how that would be developed. And that then after having had that upfront input into what those plans should say as part of the implementation plan, then we would as a council have to approve the implementation plan so that we would see it back and be have an ability to make sure it reflected what we wanted to see it say. And then my further understanding is that the implementation plan will be used to flow down to the contracts with individual agencies so that when for culture creates the requirements that each agency has to meet in exchange for the support through this policy, that that those contracts would collectively have to meet the vision in the implementation plan. Am I saying that about right? Speaker 5: That's correct. Speaker 0: I don't see it really clearly in the language, I guess, of at least of the staff report. And I haven't, I'll be honest with you, looked at this closely this far down into the ordinance, yet this is happening like in real time. But I want to make sure that that language says exactly what I just said in the ordinance. But by the time we get to doing anything with it. You. Yeah, 1/2. I want to make sure that she got it. Speaker 4: She write it down yet? Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah. Councilmember and I would be much happier if we saw your pen actually write something. Marc Andrews. Okay. Thank you. Andrews Pen is right in council. That works. Okay. So Councilmember Lambert and then Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 2: But we trust you. You know where to find the tape. I'm sure you're listening to the tape. It makes for excitement on page 14 on some area, the equity and start up plan on the first bullet says Cultural Opportunity Act six is expansion plans for the east, west and south sub areas of the county. So yeah, there's no north. But mostly when we talk about east, we're talking about maybe close to two thirds of the county is in east, which means that it ends up closer to Seattle than, say, North Bend or Snoqualmie. And in a meeting yesterday with people, they said, you know, we're really tired of things never getting out beyond the halfway mark of this county. So I think we're going to need to add another category there. At least one. I'm not going to speak to that. When somebody wants to speak to North, that's another issue. But I don't know how he said. Speaker 3: Whether I'm next. Speaker 2: Okay. 92, that for you, sir. The people yesterday to me say we don't want to be called the Far East anymore because that's not where we want to be called. So I don't know what we want to be called, whether we want to be called outside the rural areas or around the rural areas or unincorporated areas. But we need to have another thing in there so that it isn't just and not that I don't love Bellevue. I do love Bellevue, but what's in Bellevue doesn't necessarily help the people out in sky comas or in in Oklahoma. So I think we need to be looking at that 1007 square miles to make sure that they aren't left out again. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Carl Wells. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just and I agree, I believe there should be another category I thought that was being put in. But I do think another point is very important here that is added to this new proposed ordinance, and that is that the equity advisory committee that would be established by foreign culture would have at least nine members on it, appointed by or confirmed by the Council. That means that every council member of the nine districts is able to determine who would be a good representative of her or his district, and the council would confirm those appointees. I think this would go a long way toward the council. The council excuse me, the council would confirm those members appointed. So that would go a long way to address what I believe a council member will do. She brought up and council member. Council. Speaker 0: Okay. Any other questions, comments at this point? Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Speaker 3: Thank you. And I'm trying to get orange. I just came from the Shoreline Rotary, my annual presentation there and their annual one of their annual inquiries is with respect to sound transit. And it's been, I don't know, 20 years since they've had a supposed North End or an actual North End representative on the board. And so this is fresh on my mind because having a meeting at the table, make sure you're at the table and not being eaten. So why isn't there in this new proposal? Why was the North End left out? I mean, we have strong cultural organization as a shoreline historical society, the Kenmore Historical Society. We have a void, if you will, a gap in in in capacity up there. Why was it left out? Speaker 0: I know. I will I will dove right in there and say we had we have had a number of discussions among us who were working on this. We've invited others to join us in working on it. And we're inviting now for people to join us in working on it and perfecting it. So I think that regardless of why it is the way it is today, this is the point of a discussion with all nine of us is now we are all nine here. We were all nine talking about it and that we can perfect things that are missing. And I think that that's an important thing to do. But the I will tell you, the way the discussion went was, should we have a plan that each council member engages in advising for culture what it should say by district? That was the initial idea. And if you look at a map of our districts in some places, that makes a whole lot of sense. In other places, it doesn't make as much sense to do it by district. That's just because the district lines me. You know, they were written for a purpose, which is to basically get us all as somewhat equal amount of population to represent. They weren't necessarily drawn based on, if you will, watersheds of arts and culture and heritage. Speaker 3: Well, as someone who drew those lines and knows the law, one of the factors you look at our communities of interest. Right. So that's in the state statute on redistricting. And so. Speaker 0: I understand that obviously. Speaker 3: You have northeast, south and West together. And so it seems like a choice was made here to leave the north end out. And I'm just wondering why. Speaker 0: No, no, no. We we what we talked about in our meeting was having sub areas. And the sub areas in this county have typically been represented by north east and south north is, you know, think about transportation, you've got skateboard, you've got seashore, you've got ETP. I don't think those are perfect. And I'm perfectly open to talking about smaller and different segregation, but that was the discussion. There was no discussion of let's leave the north end out. Nobody said that. And in fact, we put the north end in. But like I say, if there's a different and a better way of doing it in, you know, your district, as I know my district, as we all know our districts better than anyone else. Speaker 3: Well, maybe maybe I'm just misunderstanding, maybe the communities in there, but it's not in their name. Speaker 0: Councilmember Cole. Well, I thank you. Speaker 5: It was intended to be part of West, but if it if I can certainly reword. Speaker 1: And Madam Chair. Go ahead, Councilor. I did get a text from a staff that yeah, it was I thought it was going in there. That was the intent, just there was never any intention to leave it out and it was an error that it did not get included. So I think we should go along with what the chair has indicated that we're here to get this perfect, and that includes making technical adjustments as needed. Thank you. Speaker 0: And I. I meant what I said. If north, south and east aren't the right words, clearly west isn't the right word. But if north, south and east aren't the right words, or if that's not enough words, then we should add more words or change the words. That's fine. Speaker 3: And thank you. Thank you for the information. I think it may be less about the labels and more about logical communities of interest that are based on a history of investment or not investment, or any communities of common interest and how they might work together or not. And so I'm not sure if those are further defined in the ordinance somewhere, but that's really my kind of thinking on it. You just, you know, if you're going to go with this approach of having these regional plans, what what should those regions look like? Speaker 0: There's a great discussion to have. And I that's what I meant, actually, is if if the words north, south and east don't capture the logical communities of interest because they're too broad or because they're not in the right places, then I think it's a great discussion to have about what are the right categories, how small, how focused . That's a good conversation to have. Speaker 5: But I would I. It also add that that requirement is within the implementation plan, with the intention that it would be further defined within the implementation plan that the Council would be approving. Speaker 0: And I'm sorry, I don't mean to make this into too much of an informal discussion here, but but it's also very important that the ordinance say clearly what we expect to be in the implementation plan, because if it doesn't say that clearly and the implementation plan then doesn't include what we assumed would be in it, we don't have the authority to require that to be in it. So, I mean, the ordinance language is very important for that reason. Did I see Councilmember Garces hand a few minutes ago? Councilmember Garza, were you waiting? No. No. Okay. You were in the middle of your presentation. Why don't we let you continue? Speaker 5: So that was the explanation of the chart and the first change from the underlying ordinance. If there aren't any more questions about the the chart, the next requirement is that I did. Speaker 3: Madam Chair, I think clarify back to the numbers, if I might, a very brief one. Speaker 0: Go ahead, Councilman, before. Speaker 3: We get too far ahead on it, because I think this is important, this question of whether or not the new measure. Shifts money from regional organizations to community based organizations. And I'll say my read first, it's partly a comment I want to just make. I want to make sure I'm understanding this accurately. I think I am. Regional organizations would receive the same amount of money under this proposal as the original one. This just says 10% of it has to be spent in communities outside, you know, whether it's intentional. And the classic example we use is the science center vans. It's an easy one to understand. Or if they volunteer, they could voluntarily give some money back to for culture. So one scenario, if they chose to do things like Vans, is that the community based organizations would get not one dime more in dollars under this, but those communities would have. It just kind of locks in what we've been talking about, which was that organizations could come into your community. I just want to because I it's at the core of one of my concerns is that distinction between investing in a community versus investing in a different community and having them come into yours. And I just wanted to the way it appears the money flows here is that the money is proportional money to regional and communities the same under both versions. We just say the regionals need to spend 10% on certain things that benefit communities other than the one they're located in. I just want to make sure that I'm following that correctly. Speaker 5: That's correct. Speaker 3: Okay. And some of that, how we communicate is a matter of. Speaker 5: Correct and made data. Speaker 3: Differently. Speaker 5: But I if the chart dynasties, say organizations, probably we'd be at this point better to categorize this total amount as spend on communities, most of it going to community based organizations. But we can't tell you exactly what that would be at this point until those contracts are are signed, because. Speaker 3: It kind of that throws me because then we put it in categories and we say it's kind of another example. The schools, if I understand it, 10% of the money goes to school districts. Other money goes to regional organizations that they spend on school programs. And so sometimes we conflate the terms. School access program with money for the schools. And when we do that, it makes it appear as if the regional organizations are getting much less money than they are. If we pull out the portion that they're spending on the schools, pull out the portion that they're spending on community organizations, and we say, look, they're only getting 40% of the money. The reality they're getting a much larger percentage, but they have some strings attached on how they spend that. And that's good or bad. It's a matter how to communicate. I just want to make sure we're transparent about where the dollars are, who's getting to make them make those decisions about the dollar. So that's as more of a comment than a question. But I think it I think it's a fair one to correct. Speaker 5: And and really, in terms of who's making the decisions, even with the the public school access program restricted funds, it really is down to that contract level. So it it's it's a proposal by the regional organizations, but it's a process to determine if if the proposal meets the eligibility requirements and the eligibility requirements will be based on what is in the ordinance. Speaker 2: Councilmember Coles. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Leah, I would I think we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. Lia has not gone over the whole proposal yet, but there are a couple of provisions I think do need to have attention. One is that unlike the original proposed ordinance, this one includes language that each council district will be receiving of a minimum of $1 million to be directed toward community based organizations. That is something very different. Yes. And secondly, we did include language. And I cannot tell you where it is right now, but you can go over it as a path forward for council districts to add a path for community based organizations to be come or have created centers. Big centers could become regional centers themselves so that people from Seattle, from my district, could go to another area of the county to attend an event, to go to a museum that would be a new regional organization. So money is spent in that district as well for hotels, restaurants, shops and so forth. So we are trying very hard to address the need, legitimate need, I believe, to get an equitable distribution around the whole county in every district. Thank you. Speaker 3: Madam Chair. Speaker 2: That the member for the. Speaker 3: Question on point Councilmember Caldwell's that's a really interesting idea, an appealing idea for a district like mine and I think other members on the council and I could see that really bringing value. You know, Councilmember One has been a good supporter of the new federal waste center and you can see the enthusiasm around from the community surrounding that and what that will mean at the federal way. And I could see something in the kind of redeveloping North End, you know, Kenmore Mall area. In this proposal, how would that be funded? Are there dollars in the funding allocation method that could bring that to life? And if so, how much? It sounds like an expensive undertaking, but there's a lot of money here. So is that is that in here to fund that? Speaker 5: So what Councilmember Caldwell's is referring to would be within those those Sabrina plans that would be developed. And so those those plans would be intended to look at the funding available within the different categories, and it would be different in different areas and how, you know, direct how that it should be developed or how it should be used over time to develop such things as a regional center for specific purposes. And that then would be used by more culture in working with their organize the organizations that they're providing grants to and looking at how distributions should be made protected, particularly within the competitive pool to achieve that vision. Speaker 3: Okay. And maybe this may be an offline explanation, but I'm not seeing on your helpful chart on page 13, which seems to allocate the dollars where that money would come from. I mean, one of these centers would 10 to $20 million. I would assume. Speaker 5: It could come from any of the categories. It would be. A matter of the organizations that the money has to go to, organizations other than the public school access, the 10% part of the public school access program. So everything else has to be achieved through awards to to cultural organizations, either regional ones or community based ones. Speaker 3: So in theory, could a regional one say the zoo or the Seattle Art Museum? Would they somehow in their bucket of money, be funding a North King County Regional Cultural Center? Speaker 5: Is that possible that that wouldn't that? I don't think that's the way that it's written currently. It would be borders that money. Speaker 3: Well, I'm honestly, I'm trying to understand where the where the money is to do this. It's I guess it's a I love the concept and it seems to have a lot of value. I mean, it's very appealing. I mean, next. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert's been meeting him and Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 2: So I really like the idea of some regional planning like this, both what Councilmember Caldwell says, and then the other day, Work Council member of the Grove said, When we bring people into Seattle, there's a multiplier effect and it be interesting to know what the multiplier effect is. You know, for every dollar spent in the arts, does the surrounding community get $15 because people are getting dinner there and they've spent the night at the hotel or pay for parking, whatever? Because, you know, a lot of our districts could use some economic development. So how do we get something in other districts, too, out of this money so that we would have some economic development going on? Because this is a wonderful thing and it should be available to other places. The other thing is that as I'm listening to this, there are districts in this county that don't really have the wherewithal , as I'm wondering, much like with our best starts for kids, if we could have a navigator, a listener, an expert, whatever we want to call this person. Speaker 1: Who. Speaker 2: Was on tap that anybody could say, I need you to help me get an X in my district and help with the expertize of that. Is there somebody like that in here or there? Speaker 5: There is actually there within the community based cultural organizations. That 1.8 million you see for admin administration of the community based cultural organization program. The vision is to have technical assistance, to have some, you know, to to provide technical assistance for organizations, to help them learn about the program, to help them apply for a grant funds to learn about what they may be eligible for. And the vision would be actually to have some of those technical support people co-located out in communities, not Seattle, where our culture is currently located. So one in the north, one in the east, one in the south. And then beyond that, there's some planning towards using money for communications, using money to develop initiatives, basically. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Gossett, followed by Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, this is in response to a response that you made to Councilman Dombroski. I thought that at the beginning of this process and peak my interest when you said we're going to have $3.8 million available for community based cultural activities, even possibly a couple of regional centers. But then later, when he asked about who makes the decisions about this money or this kind of money, it wasn't clear on who that would be. I'm trying to figure out, is this 3.8 million and for Culture Bank and we have to go to them and make a case. Or is this part of the council's strategic plan where the King County Council will have some say and determining who gets this money is just it's not clear. Speaker 5: The 3.8 would be part of the Regional Cultural Organizations Award. So the state law provides a formula where the regional organizations get their award. You know, we talked about they don't just get a blank check that it's actually an eligibility. Speaker 4: Says how much each one of them get. Correct. Speaker 5: And I know we've done that, but the 3.8 million would be is a restriction on those funds to be spent in communities. Speaker 4: That's what DEMBOSKY was asking. Like if the zoo get 4.7 million and the Pacific Science Center gets 4.2 million. Are you saying that in order to come up this 3.8 million, each of them are giving up 800,000 and putting it in a pot that smaller regions can apply to. It's true that our culture or some other entity that's going to make the decision on who gets this money, how much and what they can use it for. Speaker 5: Yes. Okay. So there are three basic options of what those regionals could do with that restricted portion of their award. They could spend it directly on programing in communities. They could partner with a community based in. In that case, that would be a joint decision between Fort Culture and the regional organization on how to spend that money . They could partner with a community based cultural organization in a community, so that would be a joint decision with the cultural, the regional and the community based cultural organization. And then again with for culture, because it would be a contract for the award. The last option would be and it could be somebody first. I don't there's no particular order, but it could be to return the funds to for culture and then it would be a part of that community based cultural organization, competitive pool that. Speaker 4: Would apply. Speaker 5: Health care would administer. Speaker 4: And people would apply for. Speaker 5: Cultural organizations would apply for money. Correct. Speaker 4: And then the decision makers would be for culture and the people that they put together to help them make these decisions. Speaker 3: Correct. All right. Speaker 0: Councilmember Caldwell's followed by Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Miss Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of points and I'll wait until Councilmember Garcia returns to address what he brought up. But with regard to the comments or questions made by council members up to Grove and DEMBOSKY, which I thought were there are very important ones I would like I would invite you to turn to a couple of pages in our briefing, page 14, again on the fifth bullet sub area equity and start up plans. And you may see on the third one it refers to a cultural organization's start up plan for fostering the development of new cultural organizations. And the overlying part of this one requires that for culture develop plans with. In consultation with County Council members. We also have been created the Equity Advisory Committee, which we would confirm the appointments to that representing our district. But more pointedly, if you will, turn to page 53 in our briefing, this is the actual redlined version of the proposed ordinance for us. And on that, which is page five and insert 53, page 53 in our materials, page five of the redlined ordinance and on the statement of facts, number 11 and 12, all added, all in red line refer to this access for all funding would foster the creation and development of new cultural organizations throughout King County, reduce geographical barriers and ensure that all residents have easy access to arts, science and heritage resources. And very poignantly, number 12, access for all funding would support the growth and development of arts, science and heritage centers throughout King County to promote healthy and vibrant communities. I wanted that those two in there to make sure that our intent is included, to be able to have that path forward, to create the centers that have been mentioned. It's integral to this proposed ordinance. Speaker 0: I think you can smell Councilmember Dunn followed by councilmember. Speaker 3: Of the girl. At first. Let me say you're doing a good job up there right now. Speaker 5: I'm going to tell you when you're ready. Speaker 3: Yeah. Doing a good job. I guess my interest is there or, you know, not a lot of arts district things in my district. I want to be able to create something out of whole cloth that doesn't exist there because there's nothing there right now. And so the flexibility is important to do just that. And I just want to make sure that we can build that in. Speaker 5: Yes, it is. It's built into the state statute that funds can be used, community based cultural organization funds can be used to fund startup costs for new organizations. Speaker 3: What about capital, though? Speaker 5: Yes, capital. Regional culture organizations cannot fund capital, but community based ones can. Speaker 3: Very good. Thank you. Yes. Speaker 0: And Councilmember Dunn, if I may, you're being a little unfair. You have three excellent community based organizations on our list here, and we just we'd like to see more. Speaker 3: Yeah, I wish we had more. The way my district is sort of balkanized, there just isn't that urban core that traditionally carries the arts organizations. Thank you. Speaker 0: Very good. Councilmember at the. Speaker 3: Grove. Madam Chair, I'm worried I'm wading into beginning a discussion back and forth that we want to wait on. Speaker 0: I think that I think we're there. I myself. But thank you for asking. I appreciate that. Speaker 3: I have I I love the language in here that calls for development of plans for how we get geographic equity, how we address that. But we're spending the money and then we're going to go have a plan. I one, I think we should have done that before we created how we drive all the dollars out. And I also think there's an important distinction between non legally binding and, you know, findings language that we want to do this or language that calls for the creation of a plan is very different than putting money aside to do that. And there's no guarantee that there will be any money to do that. There is the the pot of money for community based organizations. We could tap into that. Maybe that could happen. Maybe in some areas. That means it comes out of the other community based organizations. You know, I. I wish that's what our plan did. I wish whoever wrote the state law had done that kind of planning and create a system that allowed us to invest those dollars in ways that created that. But if we make a decision to put something on the ballot, the buy formula drives a huge chunk of the money into the large regional organizations that are geographically centered largely and then say, we'll have a plan and we'll that might try to achieve some other things. It doesn't provide certainty and it it appears almost like window dressing on something. It's a good faith. I think it's a listening and response to concerns. But, you know, if you know, there's only 7 million a year for capital in there and if we're going to spend 7 million a year on developing this, this means there won't be capital for small organizations. There's all trade offs in those decisions we make and we punt on those decisions, which is okay. I mean, it's an implementation plan and contracts for how people spend the money. But I just think there's a difference in point. I think it goes to the question Councilor Dombrowski was asking. Around. Where will the dollars come from? And also, is there is there any level of certainty at all other than it's eligible? There'll be a plan. Maybe we'll do it, because I believe you can. I think the up my soapbox squirrel. I actually believe in that vision that if we had a part of, you know, this is a $500 billion plan, let's say you put a 50 million into something up north to develop a string of historical museums up there and then developed a plan on how to we'd settle for 40 . Yeah, well, 50 million is only 10% of this whole thing. Speaker 1: Are these two. Speaker 3: And you know if the dollars went, if we had certainty that those dollars would be there to implement the plan, whether it's 100 million, 50 million, 40 million in a community, then you know, you're getting that. But to say, well, the plan and they can compete within that existing community, part of money I don't think provides a level certainty that gets me comfortable. I think that's a to comment and a I guess a debate on that on that point. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Cole. Well. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, as council member at the Grove pointed out, there is a requirement for a plan for the funding, but no funding takes place before an implementation plan is approved by the Council. So I think that if we can keep that framework in mind, then we can see that the Council will not approve any plans. No money will be provided until the plans are approved and the Council will be having a lot more involvement in that implementation plan itself, especially through this equity committee with a representative from each council. The ordinance proposed ordinance also includes a provision that the board culture board will have to hold meetings out in the communities to get the community input what they want. And the last thing I'd like to say here is this is a process. The money is not going to be there instantly. It will be gradually increased as the revenue comes in. And that's why I said that we included a path forward. So there could be these large regional centers in sub areas and individual districts have to work toward that. And that's what we will be doing with our involvement with the implementation plan. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that Councilmember Antigulov articulated my vision and analysis really quite well. And then let me give you an example of why I say that. And let's add that we're going to get $3.8 billion moved from the big organizations, big regional organizations that could be flexible and used and all over the county first roll out first. Then in response to Councilmember Dunn, who articulated the possibility of building a big community based cultural center in his district. She said that he said that would we have to use the community based funds? And she said yes. And I had earlier thought that the big extra money was coming from the big organization. So when I come out of the ground and said that whoever set this up, they really put us in a bind because they put in the legislation for any county over 1.5 million we want is a prescription problem. All the big organizations get a lot of money based on their traditional attendance rates and the amount of money that people are already putting in these cultural institutions that have been here a while. And and then when there was a lot of funds coming from the community, they said, let's see what we could do to try to get a more equitable process established. But it would have been much better to have a lot more flexibility and $500 million coming for control and scientific development or county if one. We, the legislative body, have a lot more flexibility from the get and setting something that we collectively thought would be democratic and real responsive to our people . And I think that's the reason we're having so many struggles now. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. I feel a little compelled to just kind of put a little historical context on this, though, that this legislation was worked through Olympia for eight years, quite a number of years. And my understanding is it was supported by a legislative agenda and lobbying each step of the way by county council members. So it has been here a number of times over the years. I know my predecessor was very active in advocating for this bill, both at the County Council and at the state. So I there's a big difference between a bill that we're not trying to implement and a big tax ask that we're not like imminently about to do. But and today, when we're being asked to imminently do it, but it's the structure is not something that is or should be news to this council. Okay. Were you done, Leo? And we got into discussion or did you have more? Speaker 5: I hadn't finished providing the comparisons. A lot of them have come out. So it's up to you if you want to make sure that I get them all in or if you feel, you know. Speaker 0: I'm going to ask for you to finish, please. And if there are things that we've already sort of talked to, maybe you just hit them quickly and carry on. Speaker 5: Thank you. Okay. So. So first, there would be a requirement for for culture to distribute a total of at least $1 million in each community based or in each year to community based cultural organizations in each county council district. So that's a change from the original ordinance and next requirements for Four Cultures annual report on the program to the Executive and Council would include specific provisions, including a report on the distribution of funds and numbers served broken down by council districts. So members would be able to track that over time. The first report would be transmitted in 2019 rather than 2018 because that's when the money would be coming in. Next, the proposed ordinance would require the council require council approval by ordinance of the implementation plan, and it allows for amendments to the implementation plan, which could be initiated by the executive or the Council. But the Council would approve any amendment by ordinance. The proposed ordinance also restricts proceeds of the tax exempt start up funding from being spent until the implementation plan is improved approved by the Council. Next it in group includes require requirements for for for culture to develop three plans and those have been discussed somewhat. But let me lay them out what they are and they each plan would be developed with community input and also includes council can't even talk anymore in consultation with county council members. So the first one would be a cultural opportunity and access expansion plan for the sub areas of the county and we will correct those. And the next one would be a county wide cultural access equity plan for achieving equity and inclusion outcomes. And the equity inclusion outcomes are listed in the ordinance, and this would be a plan for how to specifically achieve them. And last would be a cultural organization start up plan for fostering the development of new cultural organizations. A next requirement would be that it would require at least nine of the members of the Equity Advisory Committee that for culture would be creating to be recommended one each by each county council member and confirmed by the King County Council. And finally, it makes a number of technical changes to clarify the ordinance and comply with state law, including amending four cultures charter to make it clear that they have the authority to administer this program. Speaker 0: Okay. That brings us to the end of the presentation. Is there any other questions or discussion at this time, Councilman Domanski. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I was looking at this red line version, which is helpful. And in section ten, on page 78 of our materials 30 of the ordinance, there's some new language here around the Charter of the Cultural Development Authority. It says it's approved. It says it references an attachment A which isn't here. Help us understand what's going on in this section. Speaker 5: I'm sorry. That's my mistake. The attachment age should have been in your packet. Speaker 3: So is the legal question, you know? Feel free to toss it to our legal beagle over there, Jim. Speaker 5: It was a legal recommendation just to make it explicitly clear that for culture has the authority to to administer the act this for all program. I mean, they have broad authority, but one of the things they don't have explicit authority is to provide funding for, for example, science organizations. So this just cleans that up, make sure that they have that that actual change in the attachment. A if you saw is, is pretty small, but I will make sure it's distributed. It's like a one liner. Speaker 3: We are we by this ordinance changing the charter of our culture to give it new powers. Speaker 5: Yes. Just narrowly focused to administering this program. Speaker 3: Okay. And if we're doing that by this ordinance, can we make other changes to the For Culture Charter in terms of its. Speaker 5: You could if they were related to the access for all program and fit that one one subject role. Well, I probably shouldn't be giving legal advice, but that's what I've been told. Speaker 0: We want to invite him is. Speaker 3: Nodding. I think they got it right. Okay. At least for today's purposes. I want to echo Councilmember Dunn's comments. This is a complicated ordinance and it's very clear you're prepared and know it well. It's been helpful to hear your answers to the questions. Good job. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any comments or questions. Okay. So I've heard a number, by the way. I think there's been a really good discussion. I echo the thanks to the staff and especially Lee. I know I have a sense of just a sense of how many hours you have spent to get to the level of mastery that you have today. But it's been very, very helpful to us. So thank you so much. A lot. Speaker 5: But could I just also say poor Andrew. Speaker 1: Doesn't say anything, but. Speaker 5: He is doing a lot of work. Speaker 0: There. Looks really good, you know, just he looks like he he gives a lot of confidence just because of his demeanor. You have. Speaker 2: You know, from. Speaker 5: Your work with him behind the scenes, but. Speaker 0: He thank you as well, Andrew. I mean, I know that there have been a large number of people, I mean, district staff as well, who have been working, just working very, very hard to get this to a place where we could have just the type of discussion that we had today, which I think was very, very helpful and productive. I appreciate everybody is engaging with it where we are right now, if I may, was sort of wrap us up here over this agenda item is, as I said at the beginning, this ordinance does has been duly referred to budget in fiscal management and to this committee. I am not going to unless somebody waves their hand frantically to me and asked me to ask for a vote to move this out of committee because it wouldn't really accomplish anything. If we want to move forward and discuss this further and potentially take up an action that will have to happen at an upcoming meeting of the full council, because, as I said, the Budget and Fiscal Management Committee doesn't meet until after our timeline has run out to do what was proposed in the initial ordinance. And so that decision will have to be made by the body at council whether and what they want to do and I don't think we're going to do that here today. So I think I'll just leave it there for now. Councilman Domanski. Speaker 3: Think that chair and. Speaker 0: Your Councilmember Dombroski is up and then you're next. Speaker 3: Sorry, Councilmember Garcia, thanks for having this again, this working session today and for bringing forward this new ordinance. Just procedurally following on that, can we get reoriented or refreshed or reminded about the timeline that the council is facing? Assuming that we were shooting for that August 1st, 2017, ballot measure, I know there's some different vote requirements being on when you do it and let us know what what we're what our time. Sure. Speaker 5: So the last and the last council meeting to do it as a regular action, it would be with minimal processing, meaning the chair and the executive would need to sign it right away and that it would be May 1st. And then after that you'd have until May 12th to pass it as an emergency. But the last council meeting would be May 8th unless there were a special customers. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 4: I had a question of first of all, thank you, Madam Chair, and a question on something you said and and I need, Councilman, I think about the way and and here it is. And I understand why the council as a whole decided to refer it is to committees. It was originally in the budget and now it's a budget. And Kyle, if. But it is not going to or nor has any intention of and had before our deadline of May 1st, what was the value, what was the necessity of referring it back to budget? If there's a likelihood that we're going to make the decision on that before it could even get the budget. And I don't understand that. And it was a redland budget. Speaker 0: I believe councilman of the Grove might have a word or two on that topic. Speaker 3: Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks, Councilmember Gossett. And I can only speak for my personal perspective and understanding, and I'll be candid with folks as it was, we have some divisions on this council as to whether or not this is the right plan and the right time at the last council meeting. Some members were you know, there were there were different paths forward. And it was unclear whether or not there was the support at the time to pull this forward. And the the two committee chairs talked and it appeared there was support to refer it back to the Budget Committee. But there also is a shared desire to support the public interest of having greater debate and discussion in order to facilitate trying to find a solution before the clock runs out. That would have been harder if it had been referred to the Budget Committee because we didn't have a meeting to have this kind of discussion and input . So even though. There wasn't necessarily support for it to go around the Budget Committee. There was support to keep trying to keep trying to find solutions to that that meet a majority of the council. And by having by doing the dual referral, it allows it to essentially, if we were to vote it out today, it would go to the Budget Committee. But if it had just gone to the Budget Committee, we would not have had the opportunity to listen to each other and listen to the public and keep exploring solutions the same way we could. So it was a way to keep the discussion moving without, quite frankly, the budget chair feeling like it had been pulled out of the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. So that's my best attempt to explain why I thought a dual referral made sense. Speaker 4: So the Budget Committee would possibly never will hear this. Speaker 3: That's a scenario I think I can. I think that if this were to pass, the likely scenario would be a majority of the council feels strongly that it needs to come up and would vote at full council regardless of what committee it was were referred to. I would hope that that, you know, anytime committee chairs don't want that to happen to themselves, but. Procedurally, if the decision today is not to advance it out of this committee, then that would be the procedural path forward, as I understand it, if it were to advance and I don't know, let maybe the chair. Speaker 0: You know, add a word in. First of all, I agree with everything that our budget chair, councilmember of the group, just said. That was an accurate rendering of my understanding of how this came about. It was a compromise. And the compromise was to for the purpose of allowing discussion and an opportunity to try to. I've been using the word perfect, the ordinance, but I guess I should say to amend the ordinance to a place where perhaps there could be stronger support for it going to the ballot on on the council. If we succeed in that, then I think you might see that there's a path to vote at full council because it would be by agreement and without objection. However, if we can't get to the point where people were council members feel that they want to advance this, then we would be back, in my opinion, in the same place we were out before today, which is that there's no agreement to move forward at the Budget Committee and therefore it does not move forward. So this is just give us one more opportunity publicly to discuss the specifics, to discuss particularly the new proposals. One of the challenges in all of this has been, although some of us have been working on amendments, they weren't widely shared because they were very slow in coming along. There was a lot of work to do here. And and council members rightly said that they would need to see and understand exactly what was being proposed before they could have a position on it. I mean, that's eminently reasonable. And so today was that opportunity. And we're going to see after today where we are, whether we can get close enough to have a vote at council , at full council, or whether we can't. But it's going to be the will of the body either way. I mean. Right. We we vote as as nine and you need a you need a majority on something like this. I'd like to see more than just a bare majority anyway. So I think we're trying to get to a place where more of us feel that it's something that they can support. Councilmember Gossett, thank you. Speaker 4: Earlier you had said that one of the amendments is that $1,000,000 go to each council district. But then when I made an inquiry about that, they say, oh, Councilman Garcia, it doesn't mean you're district because there are different entities located in district that are already cumulatively receiving more than $1,000,000. Well, that's not every district getting $1,000,000. Speaker 5: That may have been an earlier concept, but the concept that is in the ordinance your district, every district would be guaranteed to receive at least one. Speaker 4: Additional million. Speaker 5: Dollar community. The community based cultural organizations within your district would be guaranteed to receive a total of at least $1 million. Speaker 4: Why did the chair say no? Speaker 0: I said, it's not you. As she was speaking and you asked an additional million dollars and I don't know if she heard you say that. So she was not saying every district gets an additional million dollars. Speaker 4: Well, so was I correct originally that if there are organizations in District two that are cumulatively are getting $1,000,000 or more, then I would not get $1,000,000 for community based cultural entities. So an additional yeah, that's my question. Speaker 5: I'm not sure if I understand your question. So there's there's the regional culture organizations that are distributed by formula, the community based cultural organizations by state law. Their process is a competitive process. So there's not really a guarantee necessarily of who gets what. I know there's numbers that have been circulated. Speaker 4: The numbers. Speaker 5: Correct. That's based on the previous grant awards that have that that occurred in 2015. So each council district would be guaranteed to have their community based cultural organizations receive a total of 1 million each year at least. So if if you looked at, you know, a chart that showed that you already were that District two was already receiving that to your culture, then it wouldn't add any to. Speaker 4: It wouldn't be another million added. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: The specific purpose, if I may, Councilmember Gossett, of proposing this type of law was because in the original proposal, there were some districts that got I mean, almost literally nothing in community based. Okay. Yeah. Because as Councilmember Dunn pointed out, if you didn't have cultural organizations in your district, there was nowhere for the money to go to . And so the idea here was to set a floor of some reasonable amount that could be used to develop and grow cultural organizations in places where they don't exist already. That that was sort of the concept. Yeah. All right. And remember. Speaker 2: And just adding on to that, there was one in my district that got $583 and I got people to do 83,000. You know, no. 500, 3000 might have been wonderful. There were those zeros further down. So not having a floor made that really not as good as it could have been. I think we'll figure this out. Speaker 0: Councilmember Graham. Speaker 3: Just want to clarify, we're talking $1,000,000 annualized every year now. Okay. Just want to correct. All right. Speaker 0: Thanks for good clarification. Okay. Councilmember up the group. Speaker 3: Thank you. And I'll try to be brief. Since we didn't, we kind of we're in the middle of questions that we the comment kind of went quickly. And I, I just want to make one point because this may be one of the last chances, may or may not be what the last chance is to talk about it , kind of that why the geographic distribution matters in my mind. One of the tremendous benefits of arts and cultural investments is the economic return to a community. These are important and worthwhile public investments. And I was looking at the American Planning Association website. These aren't my words. I want to be used to plagiarizing. They actually, as a planning association, acknowledge the value of arts and cultural investments in a community. They point out it improves a community's competitive edge, creates a foundation for defining a sense of place. It attracts new and visiting populations. It integrates the visions of community and business leaders and contributes to the development of a skilled workforce. Simply put, they provide direct economic and community benefit to the communities in which they're located. I've often heard the county executive and others talk about the differences in equality between one zip code and another in this county. Now, some people live shorter, lives in the poorer areas. And I think that if we want to have an arts and cultural funding plan that serves the purposes and the mission of this one, then it would have. We can, I believe we can. I have optimism that we can find a way to provide direct dollar investments into the lowest income, most ethnically diverse portions of the county so that those types of benefits are shared. There are benefits from people coming into your community. There are tremendous and I said it before, I really value and appreciate it. When Seattle Theater Group runs a camp for low income kids in South King County, or when the Pacific Science Center brings bands to schools. And overall, this plan will increase the amount of that. And that's good. But the idea of a very significant sales tax increase that burdens working class people the most without a significant investment into the lowest income parts of the county, is at the core of my concerns. I just wanted to make sure I had a chance to get that on the record as to why I feel the way I do. And I appreciate the million dollars per district, but at the end of the day, it's sort of I don't mean to say this in a negative way, but it's kind of fiddling around the edges while the main thrust and strategy of the plan remains, um, rather problematic. So it's because I value these and because I want to see these benefits shared, but I'm hopeful that we can keep moving in that direction of of ensuring that kind of direct investment in every community. I just wanted the opportunity to get that on the record and appreciate it. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember at Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate what Councilmember up the Grove said very much. That's been the fabric of what I've worked on as a public policy maker for a long time. It's spread across the policy areas to a and when the Prosperity Partnership came up with one of its recommendations for creating such a plan like we had before us, and I think that was in 2005, somewhere in there, if they looked at what was happening in Denver in particular, they had created something very similar to what we have here. And I believe the voters in the greater metropolitan Denver area have twice now three times voted on continuing that plan. And I don't recall all the other cities and counties, the metropolitan areas and the in the country that have since done the same. I know there are quite a few of them. And the point behind this was to do what the title of this act indicates access for all and. As such, the work in the legislature for eight plus years was focus. That has been the focus not to get money to the big boys, so to speak, the regionals, but how we can not only spread the opportunities throughout the county for especially for under in underrepresented areas, for access to arts, culture and science heritage, but also to create those economic opportunities in throughout the entire county. Madam Chair. Would it be all right if we had Jim Kraft come up for a moment? Because because he represents Cultural Access Washington, which worked on this for so many years, and I would appreciate him in just a couple of moments from him. Speaker 0: Councilmember Ordinarily, I would be very, very flexible with that sort of thing. But we had a panel at the last call me that when we discussed this where we had a number of people who had a full opportunity to present the perspective of the proponents. And today is really meant to be about debate among the council members in our opportunity to have discussion. And we've gone well over the amount of time that was allotted for this. So I would just as soon move on to the next agenda item. And I apologize for that, but I don't think that that is going to advance our discussion any more today than we already have been able to advance it. So I would prefer. Speaker 1: To add not appreciate that, but we do have a new ordinance before us. Speaker 0: I understand. Thank you. Thank you for understanding. I appreciate that. Councilmember Councilmember run right where you've been waiting. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I make sure everyone understands that this afternoon at 1:00, the Regional Policy Committee will also have this before it. And it's an opportunity for the gentleman who is just referenced to speak before us. We have a substantial list of people who are going to speak before the RTC on this very issue. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. I appreciate that. I think that would be a good opportunity. Speaker 3: You know, and I can speak to why I wanted to speak. I was just really. Speaker 0: Oh, please go ahead. Councilmember Yes. Speaker 3: You know, when I was a member of the state Senate, I took a very strong regional view, even though I represented at that time South King County in North Pierce County, because I looked upon some of the major players in our arts and related communities that reside in downtown Seattle, as you know, regional assets. And we needed to protect them, particularly as it nurtured. So I'm going back 30 years, 40 years. Well, they've had a good protection and they've got a lot of nurturing by us at the state level, by the state. Those of us who in the suburban areas are very happy to also nurture our burgeoning in growth industry of arts and sciences. And it's time, you know, again, as a state senator, I bucked a lot of criticism in my community to support taxes and plans and programs to support, whether it's a civic science center, Seattle Art Museum , other major projects, because I saw them as major assets that benefited my community. My community is looking back now to Seattle saying help us. You know, I think it's very interesting. We use the word access to arts. Well, access to arts is very difficult for a lot of us because of transportation problems. You know, it's very difficult for people in Councilmember Lambert's district to drive down to Seattle. It's very difficult for people in councilmember up the groves to drive down to Seattle or even public transportation. We don't have light rail in federal way. And I just want to ask you, let's focus on that word access. There's not a lot access in Maple Valley to downtown Seattle. So we need to focus on trying to put some arts back in those communities. I would also talk about there's this body has taken a very strong position on recognizing that we've got to even the field. Well, it's interesting. The field has changed dramatically. If you look at the demographics of my district in 2017, it looks more like councilman regardless district in 27. So when you look at the demographic changes that taking place in King County and you want to talk about access to the arts and you care about the issues I've been raised here, I think we better take a long look and make sure there's more equitable, equitable access to the arts. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. I think we have had a really good, robust conversation. We could do this all day. I would like to take the the final 15 or so minutes and and get to the the scintillating and very important topic of solid waste. So perhaps we could have one of my SO yeah, if we could move on to the next agenda item. Thank you very much, everybody, for that discussion, for that presentation. And we will now take up our final agenda item for today, and that's item six, where we have staff from the Solid Waste Division to speak to us

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE creating the King County Access for All program to support cultural organizations, imposing a one-tenth of one percent sales and use tax to finance the King County Access for All program conditioned on voter approval, and providing for the submission to the qualified electors of King County at a special election to be held in King County on August 1, 2017, of a proposition authorizing the sales and use tax imposed by this ordinance; and amending Ordinance 14482, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.060.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_04192017_2017-0160

Speaker 0: So perhaps we could have one of my SO yeah, if we could move on to the next agenda item. Thank you very much, everybody, for that discussion, for that presentation. And we will now take up our final agenda item for today, and that's item six, where we have staff from the Solid Waste Division to speak to us regarding a demand management pilot program. Council will recall that during the budget process we spent some time reviewing the issue of how to complete the solid waste transfer network. And I think that you all are keenly aware that we have a long awaited, solid waste, comprehensive plan that needs to be adopted. And some of the issues have to do with the how our transfer network builds out and whether or not to proceed to build a new Northeast transfer station. The executive budget recommended a demand management pilot project to test whether the service needs of that area could be addressed through strategies partially to address, through strategies to control demand . It's an issue we've been hearing quite a bit about, including at the regional that regional water quality, but Regional Policy Committee and in particular, there's been interest on the part of the council on how the pilot would deal with places like the Holden Transfer Station in Kirkland, which serves Northeast King County. So we had a proviso which the executive transmitted a response to. We're going to ask our staff, Mike Reed, to provide an introduction. Are you prepared? Yes. Okay. And and then I understand that the division will be presenting a PowerPoint. And so I want to ask Mike, would you please proceed with the report, understanding that we have given a little bit of short term, short change this discussion a little bit, so maybe we can just do a high flyover and come back to it at a future meeting. Thank you. Speaker 3: I'll do this very high level again. You've noted, Madam Chair, that that that the council did approve a $2 Million increment for a pilot project for demand management in the 2017 2018 budget. And the context, of course, is, is that the the region is working to complete its upgrade of the transfer network because of a decline in tonnage that occurred over the course of the Great Recession 2720 ten. There were questions raised as to whether the full buildout was was needed. And what you indicated in the years 2013 to 2015, you you called for a review of that buildout process and the results came back, said in certain some two things. First up, that you need not build the full transport network. And in particular, the northeast sector could be served through a demand management strategy. And I'll talk in just a minute about what that what that constitutes. But secondly, that if you were going to do a demand management strategy, you needed to test that on the ground. You needed to have a pilot project to, in essence, test whether it would work in real time. Demand management is basically a tool to push transfer demand up from those hours of the day. And those are locations that have limited capacity or no capacity to those locations and hours of the day when there is greater capacity. So the executive proposed in the 2017 2018 budget a $2 million pilot project for demand management. The council approved that that funding, but also added a proviso. And that proviso said, in sum, we there are some remaining questions. One has to do with the Houlton transfer station. Does that station remain open or is it closed during this demand management process? And secondly, does recognizing that that there's a compromise, a planning process that's going on and that is expected to be concluded prior to the end of this demand management process, how do you incorporate the results of that process into that comp plan? That was the sum of the of the proviso you did provide for withholding $1 million until a report was provided back to the council addressing those those questions. That's the substance of this morning's presentation that that has been transmitted to counsel. And I should again note that there is a motion in your packets that would approve or acknowledge receipt of of that response. With me this morning is Megan Moorhead. She will she's the strategy communications and performance manager for file with the business you present the the proviso response. And also Pat McLaughlin, who's the director of the division, is here as well. Madam Chair. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: Good morning. Thank you. Welcome. And please go ahead. Speaker 1: Loved it. Here talking solid waste with you. And let's go pretty quickly through this presentation. You've already heard about the budget proviso and its history. So we were asked to submit a implementation plan that says what we're going to do as part of this pilot. So why don't I just get into the recommendations for that? Demand management basically asks whether we can serve users of our regional system without a transfer station in the northeast area. Now, where's the northeast? Well, it's that kind of green upper right hand side of our service area. You can see the Houlton station. And Kirkland is the one station that's currently serving that area. We're recommending a 12 month pilot program starting in mid 2018. That's a little bit later than what you had heard when you approved this pilot during budget, because we found through our interaction with our stakeholders and partner cities that we needed more time to set up for a successful pilot and work out host city concerns. So what's going to happen? We're recommending that we suspend services at Houlton to best simulate the absence of a northeast station. That means about 135,000 transactions during our yearlong pilot will be redirected to what we think will be the Victoria Station and also to shoreline, about 90% to Victoria in the Eastgate neighborhood of of Bellevue and then the rest to Shoreline. Let's go back. We're recommending that we retain the self service recycling that's there on the the OTN site as a convenience for northeast area customers. So what does that mean? That means we're going to more than double the tons that are going into the Victoria Station and more than double the transactions. That's the number of people kind of coming across the scales. How are we going to accommodate all those extra people at the station? At Victoria, we're going to do that by extending the hours on weekdays, taking it from 4 p.m., closer to 10 p.m. and on weekends, extending a little bit in the morning and taking the evening closer to 8 p.m.. We're also trying to get people to use the station outside of the peak hours of use, and those peak hours of use are from 11 to 3 p.m.. And so the study that was conducted said we needed to double the price during peak hours to get people to choose to visit at different hours. And so a doubling of the minimum fee for self-help customers would occur during the peak periods at Victoria. They would pay the same if they used hours outside of the the peak periods. We're going to as part of the budget, you approved temporary staff to accommodate these changes in hours and the increased use at Shoreline. Our first strategy, though, would be to use the regular full time staff that would be taken from the suspension of service in it at Houlton and redirect them first to this pilot project and then use temporary staff to fill in the gaps. So part of this is measuring beforehand and then during the pilot what some of the effects are. And our regional partners have had a lot of questions about what's this going to mean in terms of the amount of time it's going to take for customers to go through our stations. Will there be queuing out of the stations, sites and onto local streets? Will there be noise? Can we actually put the amount of waste that we think we're going to see through our stations without having it pile up? What's going to happen to local intersections as well as regional highway and and road systems? The Proviso asked us to look at other options that were not recommended. Those included increasing rates at home and curtailing hours at home and or changing the mix of services at home. We felt that leaving open open except in a minimal way for recycling, would not replicate the absence of a North-East station and so would undermine the credibility of the pilot. So what's going to happen? Right now, we're talking with the host cities about what permit issues need to be resolved and the associated environmental review with that for us to actually proceed with the pilot. We'll need your authorization of the suspension of hope services as well as the peak prices at Victoria, and that would be coming at the end of this year. The haulers would need to plan new routes because now all the collection, curbside collection that's currently going to Houlton would now be going to either Victoria or Shoreline. The haulers would need to plan that route and if they needed to recover some of the costs of those new routes, either through their city contracts or by going to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, they would need it next year to open up those contract discussions or go down to the state and talk to them about rates. Clearly, this is going to have a big impact on customers and we need to do a very solid communication plan and rollout of that plan as we move into the implementation of the pilot and during its implementation. So we plan on doing that next year and then through the end of the pilot. And currently this isn't a precise date, but mid 2018 start date is our estimated beginning of the pilot. So the final you. You were so interested in this pilot that there were two provisos related to it, the one with the implementation plan requirement we're talking about today. But there's a second proviso that requests a status report after a seven months of pilot project implementation. And so we expect to be coming back and talking to you again about the lessons learned and recommendations around around how to proceed with the pilot. And so that's the pilot project. There was a question in the proviso about how could we proceed with a pilot project on this schedule? Well, we're still trying to update our comprehensive, solid waste plan according to a schedule that would have the solid waste comprehensive plan going out to the public in October of this year. So here we've got a 2017 public review draft comp plan, but we won't have results from the demand management plan until mid 2019. So just to remind you, the comprehensive Solid Waste Plan Act is required by state law. It sets the long term goals and capital program for the regional system. It goes to action not just by the county, but also by our city partners and identifies cost impacts and funding sources. And it helps implement regional goals such as climate protection. And here are just the categories of policies that are adopted as part of the plan. You can see that transfer is one of the categories that we have to address as a regional system. And it does seek to to answer questions about what's the best combination of facilities and practices to serve to serve the transfer needs of the system. And that includes either new stations like the Northeast or approaches like demand management. So here's the comprehensive plan adoption timeline. We're working with our two advisory committees, our city oriented and our stakeholder oriented advisory committee to evaluate policy options that would go through September of this year. At that point, we would have three months of public review at the end of the year, at the end of the year, and then we go through a very prescribed state process for review and approval. Our state regulators, Washington Public Health and and ecology review the plan. After we finish public comment, then it comes back to the Regional Policy Committee and to the County Council and then on to the cities for their endorsement, and then finally back to the state. And they get a period of time where they can do the final approval. So there was a question, what kind of policy would could we put in the plan that would allow any outcome of the pilot project to be to be accommodated, either continuing demand management in the long haul or doing a new northeast station. So we gave you an example in your implementation plan of a policy that might do that using level of service standards from the Council adopted 2007 transfer plan. Other service standards could be used instead. Basically, the policy might say to to meet the future transfer needs. We would want to if we're using the 27 standards, have 90% of self haulers within 30 minutes of a transfer station have cell Paul customers make it through their transfer stations in 16 minutes or less, that sort of thing. And then if if the pilot can't reach those service level standards, then it would might give direction on moving forward on a northeast station or an equivalent alternative. Speaker 0: I'm done. Excellent. That was less than a minute. So thank you for observing the queue. No, I gave her a one minute cue about 30 seconds ago and she she nodded at me and meant it beautifully. So Councilmember Lambert has a question. Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, first of all, I am very concerned about this. This is where my neighbors take their garbage and I take mine when I need to. So the idea of it being 30 minutes away, I think is too long. I think too many more than enough. I am concerned about people. I know everybody's supposed to cover their loads, but not everybody covers their roads well and putting more debris on the freeways, which is also dangerous. That is a concern to me. Doubling the price and doubling the distance is also of a concern to me. And then if we decide that the community that knew when they bought their homes that there was a transfer station, there has a whole year of not having this in their neighborhood, then getting it back going again is going to cause conflict. And then if we decide that we're not going to put the new station there and the new community that didn't know when they bought their house that was going to be there is going to be up in arms. So I think we're doing a lot of things to ultimately come to some problems, and I am very concerned about those. Won't put that on the record. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor, for Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. Page 14 of your slide deck. How is council approval of the peak pricing ordinance in November of this year? And I'm wondering if today's motion in any way sets the stage by means or hands, builds an expectation that we are accepting the pricing numbers that were in your presentation today. Speaker 2: My understanding is the motion. Speaker 0: Just acknowledges it's. Speaker 1: Not on. Sorry. The motion acknowledges receipt of the implementation plan and says that by that receipt the proviso is met. It doesn't say we endorse the content of the plan. Speaker 3: And so you were not you wouldn't feel that we were locked in any way and argue at a later date that we had to approve or needed to approve the peak protein or the timeline. The routes. Speaker 1: Will come back in November with the peak pricing ordinance, where you'll have the opportunity to get into the. Speaker 3: Details. Thank you. Speaker 0: So I will just add. Oh, we're we've reached the end here. There's no money associated with this proviso as my understanding. Correct? Speaker 3: Actually, I believe there is a $1 million withholding until the council approves the. Speaker 0: Just pointing out not noted in the motion language or in any of the staff presentation materials. So in the future, it's really a good idea that the motion should recite. He might have said it. But I you know, there's things going on here. It's not written. And I wish in the motions that it should be written. So with that, are we before I ask for emotion, I want to also say on the record that this is a appreciate the report. The information's helpful. And in fact, it's going to be necessary for us to engage with future requests for decisions. As as you all are aware, and I think my colleagues are aware, the Salaries Advisory Committee and the Municipal Solid Waste Advisory Committee both have expressed serious reservations about this approach. I have the I enjoy having the district where it will be hosted. And and there are strong differences of opinion within my district with regard to whether this is a good thing and a necessary thing or a terrible thing. And it should never be never be done. And those those differences of opinion are mirrored by differences of opinion about whether we should or should not build a new north east transfer station. And so it's it's a it's going to be a really challenging discussion. And I think everybody's aware of that now. The public is also aware of it. So with that, because we have withheld some money from the agency's budget requiring this report and we have, in fact, received the report, I wonder if somebody would be so kind as to move approval of proposed motion 2017 0160 with the do pass recommendation. Speaker 3: So move, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there a. Speaker 2: Comment? Just clarification. So we're approving the report showed up, but not that we like what it says. Speaker 0: We are acknowledging receipt. We're not even approving the report. We are acknowledging that we received it. And I, I feel very strongly that we did receive it. So I am going to vote in favor of the motion. Speaker 3: Okay. Adamant about that? Yeah. Speaker 0: I'm really, really, really. Speaker 3: Feels we only need for one quick please. Speaker 0: Go ahead. Councilmember. Speaker 3: This envisions by closing voting a scenario where voting for the pilot where voting would be closed kind of permanently to see how that works. I did see in here you referenced there'll be some kind of still sample recycling and some special days, right? Maybe have a yard holidays or things. Yeah. Speaker 1: We continue solid waste use on the site, but only for recycling orientation. Right now there's cell Paul a small self. Paul pull through area that would remain open as a convenience for the local customers. Speaker 3: I guess if we're modeling scenarios long term, it's always been a question in my mind of whether home could be reduced in terms of its type of operation, say from our full MSW facility to maybe a yard waste and recycling facility. And I hope that as you develop final plans for the pilot, that maybe that notion might be able to be tested if there if that makes any sense, and that that's not just one council member with an idea. So anyway, I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. At this point, I would ask for the clerk to call at home. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett I. Councilmember Cole. Well, I. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember Mr. Stein. Councilmember up the Grove. Speaker 2: Councilmember gone right now. Madam Chair. I thank you. Speaker 1: Madam Chair. The vote is ayes, no nos and council. Dunn Excused. Speaker 0: All right, with that, the motion carries and we will take it up. Council. I don't see any reason to expedite, but it can go on consent. And with that, we are completed with our agenda and we are adjourned.

Motion

A MOTION acknowledging receipt of a demand management pilot program implementation plan in accordance with the 2017-2018 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18409, Section 107, Proviso P3.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_04052017_2017-0161

Speaker 0: At our special meeting on March 29th, the committee selected five final candidates for two vacancies in the Southeast Division. We will be interviewing those candidates this morning. Welcome to you all. Thank you for being here today. And I thank you all for participating in this process. It's been it's taken a while. And we appreciate your patience. But we want it's a very important decision. We will make sure we get it right after the interviews. I expect that we will go into executive session to discuss the candidates qualifications and then after that, we will come back into open session. And if we are ready, then we will take action on the motions. So we'll begin with a brief staff report and then go right into the interviews and I will turn to our committee staff. Leah Zoghbi for the staff report. Welcome. Speaker 1: Laughs Good morning, council members I'm Leah Crackles I'll be counsel staff and the materials for this item begin on page nine of your packet. There are currently two vacant judicial vacancies in the Southeast Division of the King County District Court. Under state law, the King County Council is directed to fill district court vacancies by appointment. Speaker 0: The King County Code provides. Speaker 1: A merit selection process for filling such vacancies, which includes advertising existing or anticipated vacancies rating interested applicants by the King County Bar Association and any other bar association with an established Judicial Candidate. Evaluation Procedure Review of all the candidates and interviews of the final candidates by the Council's Committee of the whole and then final appointment by the King County Council. Speaker 0: The nominees are the appointees. Speaker 1: Will serve until a successor is elected this November, and they will be eligible for to run for election. On page 23 of your packet, you will find a table that summarizes the candidates bar association ratings. And at the beginning. Speaker 0: Of or beginning on page 29. Speaker 1: Of your packet, there's a table prepared by council staff that compares the candidates, according to some of the criteria found within the judicial questionnaires that. Speaker 0: They've each filled out for the Bar. Speaker 1: Association process. In addition, you've each received a binder with a more comprehensive information about the qualifications of each candidate. And that concludes my staff report. Speaker 0: All right, thank you. So the process we're going to follow today is we're going to interview one candidate at a time to maintain fairness. I'll ask the candidates who are not yet have not yet been interviewed to wait in the council conference room outside the dais here with the audio off until it's their turn to be interviewed during each interview, we're going to give each candidate an opportunity to make an opening statement of up to 2 minutes. Then we're going to ask a series of questions with up to 3 minutes. To answer each question, we've allotted approximately 20 minutes for each candidate, and I'm going to try to give everyone a closing statement of up to 2 minutes. But we're going to have to watch the clock and see how much time we really have for closing statements. I'm going to ask you to be a little flexible, if you would. If you have anything to say, my suggestion would be get it out before the closing statement in case we run long. Thank you for that. Questions will be the same for all candidates, though we will. There may be a limited number of follow up questions from members on the committee. So there's a set of warning lights here to help people keep within limits. The countdown timer will show the time remaining. When 30 seconds are left, the yellow light will go on, and when the time is up, the red light will go on. So candidates should not feel obligated to use the full time that is allowed, but of course that is the amount of time you have. So you may use it if you choose. When a candidate's interview is over, you're welcome to remain in the council. Will Chambers at that point and we'll carry on and have staff bring in the next candidate until we're done. So we're going to do this in alphabetical order. I would like to ask if you would escort all of the candidates to the conference room now live, and we're going to see if we can't get a few more members down here before we start with the first candidate so that everybody has a chance to be heard by as many people as possible. Thank you. We're going to be at recess for just a few minutes. We are prepared to get started with our interview of candidates for District Court in the Southeast District. Our staff is now going to bring in Ms.. Edmiston, our first candidate. And again, just for those who are joining, we are going we have five candidates. We are going in alphabetical order. There will be an opening statement of up to 2 minutes. We have a series of five questions which we have assigned to councilmembers who graciously volunteered to ask questions. And we are all those folks are here. Welcome, Ms.. Edmiston. And then just continuing on each candidate, council members will have up to 3 minutes to answer. Each of the questions will be using the time are here in front of me and then they will be offered an opportunity to give up to a two minute closing statement , although I have asked them to be flexible with that because we are starting a little late and we want to get through everybody and have time to deliberate today as well. All right, Miss Edmiston, welcome. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. Would you please go ahead and make your opening statement of up to 2 minutes? Speaker 1: I will. Thank you all for taking the time to interview me this morning. I'm very grateful for the opportunity. As you know, from my materials. I'm Bobby Edmiston. I'm here today seeking appointment to the Southeast Division of the King County District Court. My diversity of experience has given me the knowledge and perspective to be a good judge in the district court. I have a wealth of criminal practice experience, having represented clients in both felony and misdemeanor cases. I also have a wide variety of civil practice experience, including my current practice area representing parents and children, independency matters, representing parents accused of being in contempt of court related to child support, and representing refugee and immigrant clients in public benefits cases, as well as victims of domestic violence in the family, law and protection order contexts. But what I want to emphasize for you all about that experience is that I know the King County District Court and specifically the South Division. I've spent approximately 70% of my career working in the King County District Court in the Southwest and South divisions. In addition to the diversity of experience I already shared, I also have the appropriate temperament to be a good judge and a fundamental belief in the respect and the dignity of all who come before me. Attributes that come with me daily in my practice, representing my clients and working with my professional colleagues. And that will transition with me to the bench where I will ensure that all who appear before me, whether the accused, law enforcement, victims, witnesses or aggrieved parties, will be treated with respect and have their dignity maintained. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. The first question will be asked by Council member Cole Wells. Speaker 1: Thank you about chair and I miss anything other than what you've already told us. What do you believe is most important about your background for this position? And, and why do you really want to be a district court judge? I read something interesting this morning that I'd like to share with you all as as a start to answering this question. I was reading an article about racial disparity within the court system. And it starts off with a quote that I will paraphrase where they indicate that our laws are the promise to our citizens and others before us. Our justice system is how we keep that promise. And that that quote really spoke to me in my current role as a public defender. And it speaks to why I want to sit behind the bench as a judge in district court. I think that it is very. Important for a judge to recognize not only the legal issues that face the court, but also the social issues, the issues of and access to justice that we see, the issues of racial disparity within those who are charged, those who populate our jails as well, those who are released pretrial and who are not. I think that that recognition and a commitment my personal commitment to. Being introspective and very honest with myself in terms of what I bring, what I bring with me, what baggage, for lack of a better term or what. What cultural issues? Come with me. Is something that's important. And I. I get concerned that that can be overlooked by judges. And looking at that. Speaking to the issues of, for example, pretrial release, which is one of the issues that I noted, where I'm concerned about disparities. We have a wonderful court rule. And I think that I as a judge will be a person who can. Act upon the mandate of that court rule. Maintaining that promise, tying back to the quote that I paraphrase of a quote that I shared with you all at the beginning. Maintain that promise to our citizens to uphold that court rule that presumes release. Absent risk of violence is within the community or absent. Risk of substantial risk of failure to appear. And I think that that requires a level of courage to maintain. A fidelity to the text of that rule. That is something that I have developed over the course of my career as a public defender, being courageous enough to argue new and novel legal issues even when they're unpopular. Recently sinking an emergency contempt finding against the Department of Social and Health Services when the question of whether emergency contempt actually exists is a legitimate question. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember McDermott. Would you like to ask the next question, please? Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm one oppose a hypothetical situation and ask how you would respond to it. A defendant in your courtroom is displaying mental health or behavioral issues in being disruptive. How would you maintain control of your courtroom while also respecting the rights of the defendant? Speaker 1: So this is a scenario that I've seen in my practice and I've seen it handled well, and I've seen it handled in a way that escalated the situation. As I indicated in my opening statement, something that's very important to me is maintaining the dignity and demonstrating a respect for all who appear in my courtroom. In that situation, I think that to a certain level, if the court proceedings can be maintained in an orderly fashion, despite the individual's behaviors, that we simply proceed forward and not necessarily potentially embarrass that individual. But if we reach a point where the court proceedings cannot be maintained, I feel quite strongly that the best thing that a judge can do is speak directly and frankly to that individual about what the expectations are in the courtroom about that they will have the have an opportunity to speak directly to the court, whether through counsel or directly, and that the expectation is that they have an absolute right to remain in the courtroom. But if they cannot, they're also welcome to wait outside in the hallway, and that court staff would be happy to go, let them know when their hearing has been called. I think that that also, however, brings up issues related to therapeutic courts as well. And it would be my responsibility as the judge to make sure that if there are symptoms that appear to be relatively obvious mental health symptoms that I share with that individual, that there are options other than. The conventional court, for that matter, is in King County district, for example, a mental health court. And I would like to advise or ask defense counsel to please advise this individual about that court, about that therapeutic court, as well as making sure that I advise in clear, plain language from the bench as well, so that they're familiar with all options that might best serve that particular individual. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert, we get we finished quickly. Councilman Lambert's up next. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: So much. Okay. Good to see you again. My question is, in. Speaker 0: Your role as this decision maker. Speaker 1: Describe a time when. Speaker 0: You knew you were wrong or figured. Speaker 1: Out you're wrong. How did you realize that you made the mistake? How did you what made you change. Speaker 0: Your mind and how did you correct yourself or. Speaker 1: Reverse that mistake? I'm just going to go with the first example that jumps out. Early on in my felony practice, which was early in my career, it was about 18 months after I started my criminal defense practice that I transitioned into felony practice. I had a client that was particularly challenging in terms of communication, didn't have a cell phone, didn't have email, and we really did struggle between hearings to communicate oftentimes in court was our best opportunity. And so thinking that I was being self-motivated and prepared for an upcoming case setting hearing, I walked right on over to the prosecutor's office and and I asked them to make an offer. And I prioritized what I thought should be the priority or would be my client's priority, which was no jail time. Thank you. And quite proudly and quite naively, that afternoon at the case setting hearing, I announced to my client, Guess what? I got you a great offer to reduction to a misdemeanor and no jail. So proud. And my client said, Oh, that sounds good. There's no probation, right? I said, Oh, no, it comes with two years of probation. And my client was very upset and said I'd do a year in jail before I do a day of probation voluntarily. And at that point, I realized, oops, this is very much the wrong decision. And as the decision maker, it had been mine and my fault. And we ended up continuing the hearing over our prosecutors. Objection. Who had said, no, no. Ms.. And Mr. was in my office this morning and negotiated. They have an offer, they should be ready. And I had to accept the responsibility for my mistake because it was not anybody else's issue but mine. And so I stood before the court and explained that I had made the mistake and I was appropriately going to advise my client what his options were in terms of even the choice to retain me or continue to have me as counsel or seek a new attorney. And then I got also the distinct pleasure of going back to the prosecutor's office and and renegotiating, which was not personally enjoyable but needed to be done for my client. That informed me that experience, informed my practice for the seven and a half, eight years that have come after in terms of a client centered approach to the work that I do, in terms of acknowledging that every individual that I work with is an individual who has different needs, who has different interests, and who has different priorities from one another and from what I might anticipate, and that I need to meet them where they are and advocate for them there. I will bring that lesson with me to the bench in District Court acknowledging that what might be a positive proceeding for somebody where they feel that they have achieved justice or achieved a resolution is is good for them, might be different for the next person. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Fourth question will be asked by Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was listening with interest to your response to the first question that we presented to you, and you started off by talking about the issue of racial disproportionality in our criminal justice system and how you would deal with it. This is kind of an enhancement to that. That's not a specific question that we'd like for you to describe what you have done in your present, personal and professional life to address racial disproportional racial disproportionality. Particularly in our court system where it's been very controversial. Speaker 1: Thank you for that question. In terms of addressing racial disproportionality, both on a personal and professional level, the fundamental one. One of the fundamental things that I have done is I have refused to believe that I fully understand the issue or that I know everything about the issue. I don't. What I have embraced is a continued desire to learn, to learn about the intersection of racial disproportionality and our court system, and about communities different from my own as well, both in terms of the richness of those communities and the obstacles that those communities and challenges that they face community wide and as individuals within that community. And so within my personal life, I have put myself in a position to have those conversations that can sometimes be very difficult or awkward about issues such as has privilege about overt aggressions, but also microaggressions. I've put myself in a pause and the categories micro assault and so on. I've made sure that I am not a silent observer when I see these issues before me, that when I see somebody's behavior behaving in a way that I think displays a bias or a micro-aggression of some sort, that I speak up and call them out on that not in an attacking manner, but I try to address the issue in a way that invites a conversation not only for the other, but so that I may learn and grow as well in a professional context. I have also addressed this issue by calling it out and putting a name on it. I think that a fallacy over the course of certainly my upbringing in my career that I've seen repeatedly is individuals believing that we are somehow in a post racism society, which is obviously not true, or that just because I don't believe that I am a racist, that everything is okay and that I am not behaving in a in a racist manner. And so we end up stifling or silencing ourselves and the discussion about the effect of race, class, cultural issues in our professional discourse. I have just recently stood before a court and shared the experience of my client, who is a young African-American man who was raised in the foster care system, who had his children at a very young age and has had and his life experience has been very different than that of the attorney general, the social worker from the department on the case and the judge that I am presenting to. And I believe that his experience and his background has borne on his behaviors that are now being questioned in the court by the Department of Social and Health Services. I'm in a dependency practice right now and really use the opportunity to say to the court, just because it is not similar to our experience, to the Department's experience , to the attorney general's experience, does not mean that my client's behavior was was wrong or should be judged and tried to use that as an opportunity to educate. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Fifth and final question will be asked by Councilmember Dombroski. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Bobby, for being here again. We some of us are there to interview you before, so your answers today are helpful beyond those. I have the fifth general question, and that is related to kind of court operations and budget issues. And it is this the county's general fund, which supports district court, has an ongoing structural crisis, that the court is regularly having to find ways to do more with less. What ideas do you have for how the court might operate more efficiently? Speaker 1: I love that question. Thank you, because I have a very specific thought on the topic. Obviously, there are financial constraints in every area and certainly the court struggles with that issue. I think that one very concrete challenge that the court has has to do with appearance of specifically criminal defendants for hearings that we operate in a very , in my mind, outdated system where individuals come to court, for example, for an arraignment, a pretrial hearing or whatever type of hearing or readiness. And when their next hearing is scheduled, they're given a small, usually pink, sometimes white sheet of carbon paper that has their next hearing date on it. It's been my experience that my clients, my hundreds of clients over the course of my career in district court have so many obstacles that they face, whether it's homelessness, other poverty related issues. Housing instability. Speaker 5: And. Speaker 1: So many possible obstacles that keeping track of that little tiny piece of paper or transferring that date to their phone to their calendar is just not necessarily a reasonable expectation. And they miss hearings. And then we have the inefficiency and additional costs related to that inefficiency of issuing warrants, of booking on warrants, of return, on warrant hearings , on incarceration costs related to needlessly missed hearings, whereas. A modest capital investment in an automated system or utilization of court staff. If we didn't have an automated system to provide a courtesy call or a courtesy text message for folks, Hey, you have a hearing in 48 hours. The same thing that, for example, my doctor's office is able to do when I have an appointment. I think would dramatically increase the appearances of of litigants in specifically criminal but other proceedings as well if we utilize such a lesser system. And although it would be a modest cost up front would pay off, I would expect in dividends for the system as it was imposed because we would have more people appearing, fewer warrants, fewer return on warrant hearings with less need for public defenders, prosecutors, judges, jail guards, all of the staff and cost that comes with those hearings going in. I've seen in other jurisdictions where such a system has been used and that there has long term been a cost savings as well as a human savings in terms of people staying employed, maintaining their housing because they're not needlessly incarcerated. Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any follow up questions, councilmembers, before we move into the closing statement? All right. If you would, Ms.. Edmonson, please give us your closing statement. As I said, up to 2 minutes. But since we've gone a little long, maybe you could make it brief. Speaker 1: I will do my best. Thank you. Speaker 0: So much. Speaker 1: Thank you all so much for the opportunity to speak and meet with you today. I believe that I am the right candidate for appointment to the King County District Court Southeast Division. My diversity of experience has given me both the perspective. And the experiential understanding to assess the complex, both social and legal issues that confront our district court on a day to day basis. My ten years experience as a public defender has given me the experience and skills to manage a high volume calendar. Having managed a high volume caseload, being familiar with how to read a docket quickly to identify legal issues, having experience clearly, quickly, concisely, in plain English, articulating those issues to the folks who are about to go before the court so that they may know what to expect. And being familiar with the electronic record systems that are used in the court, whether E, C, SDR, Jabs or J, I switch it on it to my out. I possess the courage, the intellectual integrity and fortitude and commitment to justice that is necessary and has prepared me to continue to confront the complex issues of racial disproportionality that are facing the Court today. Given all of this experience and these attributes, again, I believe that I am the right candidate for appointment to the King County District Court. And I thank you very much for your time today. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Really appreciate your time, your diligence. This is a very detailed process and you've provided us a lot to think about and we're ready for the next candidate at this point. Please. That will be Jason Petrus. Speaker 2: Generally.

Motion

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the southeast division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_04052017_2017-0162

Speaker 0: Or we can share all those details. Thank you both very much. This brings us to proposed motion number 2017 0162. And I'm going to call on Council Member Dunn to make this motion. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would move proposed motion number 2017, dash 0162 and to speak to it. Speaker 0: Well, first, we will need an amendment. Speaker 2: To amend the. Speaker 0: Name. I mean. Speaker 2: Yeah, all right, before I make that motion for a minute, I just want to say that all of you, all five of you, I feel very comfortable with you on the bench, very high quality candidates, very important job. As you know. You know, every case, as some of you noted, that comes before you is the most important thing to that person. And I'll tell. I just appreciate your willingness to serve on the bench. I have seen over the years that those who don't get appointed here very frequently will get appointed in the next round or they get elected to the bench. And so I would not give up for those of you who don't make it, I continue on because you all have a special talent. But with that said, though, it's my distinct pleasure and honor to move to amend this ordinance with Jason. Address his name. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Any further comments? Speaker 2: Just at this point is an excellent candidate for this. He's extremely well qualified, as noted, and like his is his judicial temperament and his work ethic. And I think he'll bring a lot of really important qualities to the bench. Speaker 0: That's it. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. And the other comments. All those in favor of the motion adding Jason Poitras as his name. Please say I, I and he opposed motion carries. Any further comments on final passage? I will just again say that we had the benefit in this in this round of interviews of five eminently qualified candidates . And I think that I would be very comfortable and pleased and we would be fortunate as a community to have any one of you serving on the bench. So I want to second what Councilmember Dunn said about not giving up, because it would be it would be my pleasure to appoint any one of you at some point in the future, and I hope that you will continue in your seeking this role. Mr.. Put just some of the strengths that I saw. Although you have a unique you bring a really different set of background skills we haven't seen before, but I think that can be a good thing. I think those different experiences as a an administrative law judge, as a hearings officer, got you into into people's cases in ways that that I think will be beneficial on the bench. I really appreciated the diligence and the amount of time over your career that you've put into pursuing your goals. It's it's apparent from everything you do that you are intentional and that you are that you are driving towards a result. And I think you will bring that to your daily calendars in a way that will serve the people in the court very, very well. You had a very impressive list of references as well. I ran into one of them at lunch this weekend, so I was hearing about you. But I want to thank you all again for participating. And if there's anyone else I'd like to add. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 3: Thank you. My client that I would add and I think will benefit from from Jason, is that he comes from a very well known inner city community and our country. And because of those experiences, I think that the passion and compassion that I believe is necessary to combat racism and classism and other problems that we have in our entire government here are bringing some really solid benefits. And he's a few years younger than me, so he'll be bringing them for a while. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. All right. With that, I'll ask the court to please call the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn. 1/2. Councilmember Garza. Speaker 2: Votes five. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Garcia five. Councilmember Cole Wells. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. Councilmember up the Grove. Councilmember Yvonne. Speaker 1: Wraith Bauer. Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Chair. The vote is seven is no nos. Council members of the Grove and one right GA excused. All right. With that, the motion passes unanimously with a do pass recommendation that should also be expedited. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: And related to this, coming. Speaker 0: To this coming Monday at the earlier time, as announced by our chair, and that concludes our business before the committee today. If there is any other business to come before us seeing none, we are adjourned.

Motion

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the southeast division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_12072016_2016-0119

Speaker 0: Minutes are approved as read written. Okay. We're on to number five. This is proposed ordinance 2016 0119. It's an ordinance accepting an agreement between King County and for culture and the Preservation Action Fund will be administered and governed. And with that, let's bring in. Speaker 2: Good morning. Every morning for the record Mary Bergeron from the council staff and the materials for the site and begin on page 11 of your packets. As you noted, proposed ordinance 2016 0119 is a proposed agreement between King County and for culture that would allow for the implementation of the Preservation Action Fund. This fund is a $2 million component of the 28 million plus fund, the Building for Culture program that the council approved last year, largely due to the early repayment of the King Dome. What the Preservation Action Fund would do is to allow for the preservation of and I will quote here from the work that you did last year, the acquisition stabilization or redevelopment of significant but endangered historic properties. You will see on page 13 of the materials a description of the components of the Preservation Action Fund as outlined in the agreement. And I'll focus on three areas in particular. First location. This program is designed to serve properties that are located outside the city of Seattle. And so that means essentially three areas are properties in unincorporated King County properties in the 20 suburban cities that have agreements with the King County Historic Preservation Office, or the cities in King County that have their own historic preservation function. Second, the partners that will be participating in this effort, the Preservation Action Fund, has been designed and the agreement is structured as a collaboration among four culture historic Seattle, the King County Historic Preservation Program, and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation. And third, that leads me to the mechanism of how this program is proposed to work and how the agreement would implement it. And that is that the partners would identify a priority property. Historic Seattle would then acquire that property, use funding from the $2 million Preservation Action Fund to renovate the property. Historic Seattle would then place a permanent historic easement on the property and would sell it, returning the funds to the Preservation Action Fund for Future Use. With that description, I'll turn to page 15, which begins the analysis of this agreement, and I will note that staff and legal counsel identified several issues that I will outline briefly. First is just a technical clarification. The approval of the agreement, the council at the time that you approved the Building for Culture program for I proviso this fund and required that an agreement be quote approved by the council the transmitted ordinance would accept it. And so you'll see that both Amendment one and title amendment one would change the language to the required approved. Next issue is historic. Seattle's ability to work outside Seattle, as I described this program would function in that historic Seattle would essentially be an agent of for culture doing the work needed to renovate the target properties. Historic Seattle is currently a public development authority that is chartered to work within the city of Seattle. And as a result of questions about historic Seattle's ability and authority to work outside the city boundaries, we reached out to historic Seattle and their legal counsel there is attached in your packet a letter from legal counsel from Historic Seattle , and the relevant components of that letter are summarized on page 15 of the Stafford. Report, noting that the city of Seattle would have to take action by ordinance to allow historic Seattle to work outside the boundaries and in addition, would need to authorize historic Seattle to enter into an agreement with either King County for work in unincorporated areas or with the relevant city for work in a suburban city. Speaker 0: So on that, do we know if city council has decided to take this ordinance up? Speaker 2: We do have staff here from historic Seattle, and I can defer that question to Mr. Kelly. Speaker 0: Okay. And I want to say that I was on this board for a culture, and it was a fun board to be on. But at one of the meetings, I did not. But and at one of the meetings, historic Seattle stood up and said that one of our projects was so exciting that they had specific expertize they were willing to share with us. And it's wonderful to have partners stand up in a meeting and say, This is so exciting. I want to help you. And it's that kind of collaboration that makes this so special. So I don't know who was here from historic Seattle, but I was really impressed with their willingness to help us because they had that specific expertize. So I'm excited to see that kind of partnership continuing to develop because preserving these things are important to all of us, whether you live in Seattle or don't in Seattle, anything that's charming here we want to keep. So thank you. So you think that they will be doing that fairly shortly in Seattle? Okay. I'm going to ask from a council member, do you have question right there? Speaker 1: I had a question on a prior topic that she got by. Speaker 0: Okay. Do you want go back to that then? Yes. Okay. Speaker 1: If that's okay. Thank you, sir. You laid out and I was trying to figure out where in your staff report it is located, but kind of three requirements. And one of them I think had to be if they were a non city of Seattle and a non unincorporated area. In other words, what I think you said 23 urban serving cities. Speaker 2: Yes. And we do have Jennifer Meissner here, who is our historic preservation officer that can speak to that in more detail. But King County does, in fact, contract with 20 suburban cities for historic preservation services. In addition, a number of the larger suburban cities have their own historic preservation function. One of the requirements of this program would be that the building be landmarked in some way, hence the requirement that either it be in unincorporated King County, where our historic preservation office would oversee that, or in a city that either contracts with us or has their own function. Speaker 1: And that's because that's the only way you can land more building than through the federal process, I suppose. Speaker 2: Correct. And we do, as I mentioned, have Ms.. Meisner here if you want to. Speaker 1: So just I need to get educated here. Among Shoreline Lake, Forest Park, Kenmore, Bothell, Woodinville and Kirkland. Which qualify or don't qualify? The shoreline has the shoreline. Historical Society Bothell is a very active program. Woodinville has a historic society trickling down. Speaker 2: Good morning, councilmembers. I'm Jennifer Meissner. I'm King County's historic preservation officer. And to answer your question, we do have interlocal agreements with 20 suburban cities, including Kirkland and Woodinville. And many of the cities you just named. The City of Bothell has their own preservation program, so they would be able to administer and landmark properties within their jurisdiction Speaker 1: . You got to be more specific on the cities I enumerated about Shoreline Lake, Forest Park and Kenmore. Speaker 2: Kenmore has it. We have it in our local with Kenmore Lake. Forest Park. No. What was the other one? Speaker 0: Sorry. Speaker 1: Shoreline. Speaker 2: Shoreline. Yes, we do have an interlocal agreement. Speaker 1: Shoreline with Lake Forest Park. Be excluded from this. Speaker 2: Well, I think the I, the excuse me the idea around protecting the properties was, yes. If they're located in unincorporated King County or within a jurisdiction that with whom we have an inner local, we would pursue landmarking. If not, the other mechanism to protect. Speaker 0: The properties. Speaker 2: In perpetuity would be through an easement, a historic preservation easement that would be held by historic Seattle. So there actually is an opportunity for properties located outside of those specific jurisdictions that have a program to be protected. But it would be through easement, not through landmarking. Speaker 1: And easements would qualify for this $2 million fund. Speaker 2: Yeah, the easement would lay out very specific requirements, preservation requirements, very similar to landmarking. But the difference would be the King County Preservation Program or the program within the jurisdiction would not have a design review authority that would fall for it through historic Seattle. Since they would be holding the easement, they would have specific requirements placed on each property to make sure that it's. Speaker 0: Protected in. Speaker 2: Perpetuity and that their public investment. Speaker 0: Is is also protected. Speaker 1: Okay. I just the easements a different path. What I'm what I want to understand is particular to my district and then particularly to the 17 suburban cities in King County that aren't in the 20. Right. And we cover with this fund. Yes. Every historic property one way or another. Speaker 2: Yes. They any property would be eligible to be considered for the fund. Speaker 0: It's just that protection. Speaker 2: Mechanism would be different if it's not within and in a local city or unincorporated area. Speaker 1: Okay. And thank you for that, Mary. What is the remind me of the source of these moneys? Speaker 2: So this is from the Building for Culture program, which was a combination that bonds remember that the council issued a year ago from a combination of 2015 lodging taxes that were leftover after the kingdom that was paid off, as well as some future county lodging taxes post 2021 when the lodging tax, as you will recall, lodging taxes from 2016 through 2020 are going to pay off the football stadium after 2021, the lodging tax returns. And you'll remember that there are three components to the lodging tax. There's an arts and culture section which is dedicated to four culture. There's a tourism promotion bucket, and then there is an affordable housing bucket, which you will recall the council has earlier this year bonded against for the transit oriented development housing program. Speaker 1: Okay. So thank you. It's the tax that somebody staying in a hotel pays or part of that tax. And have we we've done the affordable housing work there with the bonds and we've done the culture work. How about the tourism development piece of that revenue stream? Has that been worked yet? Speaker 2: So there is in in the work that the Council did a year ago in approving these bonds, there is a fairly complex a year by year accounting of who pays what toward the debt service. And my understanding, and I was not involved in this effort a year ago, is that there is some portion of the tourism promotion bucket of the lodging tax post 2021 that would be involved in helping to repay the debt service on building for culture. But again, that was an action the council took a year ago. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And. Speaker 0: Okay. Please proceed. Thank you. You stay there just in case you minded your question. Okay. Stay there. Just in case we need you and then we'll go ahead. Speaker 2: So returning to our was I had noted that historic Seattle would need to go through a series of steps to be able to work outside the city of Seattle in response to the necessity of those steps. There is some clarifying language in Amendment One that legal counsel has worked up that would require confirmation to the county by for culture that historic Seattle has or will have the appropriate legal authority to administer projects outside the city of Seattle. So I think, Councilmember Boesky, that gets in some level to your question about historic Seattle's ability to get that approval from the city of Seattle. Speaker 1: And who governs historic Seattle. Speaker 2: They are a public development authority. They have a charter and a board. Speaker 1: And their board is appointed by the city of Seattle. Speaker 2: I can speak to that. All right. Speaker 1: So the way it works in District. Speaker 0: O. Speaker 1: Is the executive director sports. Yeah. Imagine that. Speaker 0: Was that a prerequisite for getting the job? It had to be, Kelly. Speaker 1: What could be better than one visitor to. Speaker 0: The same or wed, anyway? So. Speaker 2: So moving on. And yes, we do have to Mr. Kelly is available to answer questions from their respective organizations on the bottom of page 15, the disposition of Properties. As I noted earlier, the Preservation Action Fund would not be a revolving loan fund whereby, say, the owner of a property would receive a loan to renovate their project their property. Instead, if a property is chosen for this program, historic Seattle would purchase it, renovated its place, a permanent easement on it, and then sell it, returning the money to the fund. I note that this has been discussed with a number of council members over the course of the analysis of this program. That is what is proposed in the agreement. That is a policy decision for the Council. And finally, I would note the permanent easement, which Ms.. Meisner spoke to. Any property, whether in a landmark city or not, would be subject to a permanent historic easement applied by historic Seattle, because historic Seattle would be holding that easement rather than either for culture or the county. Amendment One includes language that has been added in consultation with legal counsel that would require review by the county through the prosecuting attorney's office of a template for such an easement. We have received a recent template of a historic Seattle preservation easement. The amendment would require that the prosecuting attorney's office review that and require that any easements used through this program would be substantially in the form of the approved template. With that, I will jump to Amendment One, which is. Speaker 0: Just up there for those two for a second. I have some questions on top of page 16. So you just explained the process that the sale proceeds would go to the path to be used for future projects. Suppose then we end up being able to grow that to a pretty substantial amount. Is there opportunity? I think at this point you can only do one a year, right? Is that. Speaker 2: What? There's $2 million. So I think the intention had been that you probably wouldn't be able to do many more than one at a time. But I'll let you either. Speaker 0: If we were supposed to. Speaker 2: Culture term this. Speaker 0: Historic fix something up that was, you know, in a dilapidated, dilapidated state that is now gorgeous and we sell it for $8 million. So we now have a lot more money in the account at that point. Is there any limits on us being able to do three projects for projects by project marketing? He's really saying no. Speaker 2: So how many are going to be done at one time? Speaker 0: Yeah, that's. That's really good dream. Yeah. Okay, good. I want to make sure it was expandable. Great. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: On page 16, you'll see outlined what Amendment One would do. And this is an amendment that is sponsored by Councilmember Val. Amendment one would make changes both to the underlying ordinance and to the agreement itself, which is has been transmitted as an attachment to the ordinance. To the ordinance. The amendment would add a finding section to clarify that historic preservation can result in tourism promotion benefits, citing as examples Pioneer Square in the Pike Place Market and would note that the Preservation Action Fund would make it possible to provide similar public benefits in additional communities throughout the county. And then it would also make the accepted. Speaker 0: Approved. Speaker 2: Language change that I discussed earlier. For the agreement, the amendment would. Swap out the transmitted agreement with a new version that would make a couple of changes. First, it would note that all projects must meet the requirements of the underlying funding source, which again are the bonds that were approved by the Council as part of building for culture. Next, it would require that historic Seattle must demonstrate its ability to work outside the city of Seattle. And again, as I noted, for culture would need to certify that to the county. And then finally again, noting that the form for the preservation easement to be used by historic Seattle would need to be approved by King County following review by the prosecuting attorney's office. There is also a title amendment to make the approved except change in the title. That concludes my report. Again, we have staff from the various organizations here for questions and we have the amendment and title amendment available for. Speaker 0: So if I'm clear on this, historic Seattle would sort of be our subcontractor to for culture. So that's great. So not that I think things are going to go wrong, but should there be something wrong? Like any subcontract, you can just say, we're not doing that anymore. Is that right? Or do we have to have a formal agreement that changes that? Speaker 2: There are requirements in here about reporting. There are provisions in the agreement for termination, there are for culture, would be managing the fund and would have those responsibilities. Speaker 0: And you said that the contract form would be substantially the same if there were changes. What changes it from being a minor change to a substantial change? Speaker 2: That would be a question for the attorneys, but that that is typically the substantially in the form, as is, you know, the typical contract language when you say, you know, it must be like this and only minor changes, okay. Speaker 0: Right. Are there any questions from anybody? Councilmember Thank. Speaker 1: You. Speaker 0: For following. Speaker 1: Up on Mike prior. Speaker 0: To say. Speaker 1: Rude questions. That's all right. Our legal counsel has whispered in my ear that with respect to my and I'm sorry I waive the privilege counsel. With respect to my inquiry about Lake Forest Park example that that would require an are local agreement between the city of Lake Forest Park and historic Seattle in addition to the ordinance of the city. So council would have to adopt confirming that is their intent to proceed pursuant to the charter language in their charter. Speaker 2: I believe that's correct that that historic Seattle would need to enter into an agreement. There have to be an agreement between the city. Speaker 1: And then what would motivate Mr. Kelly historic Seattle to expend effort to enter into 17, up to 17 or local agreements with non covered suburban cities. And I'm looking for if we got a fair shot here, I want a fair shot for our communities on this regional source of dollars. And yes, exactly. I think we all share. And when you look down the project list, which was adopted by this council, but you know, you want to make sure that we're targeting the high profile projects, but that we serve history throughout the county. Yeah, I'm okay. Kelly, thanks for the executive director of Historic Sir. I like that people are paying attention to my last name rather than my first person. To answer your question, it's our mission. You know, it's our mission to preserve historic structures and throughout the region, quite honestly. And for the first time, I think in a long time, we really have a great team that we've assembled between Fort Culture, Jennifer and the County Preservation Program and the Washington Trust. And we're all well equipped with our own skill set to really make an impact in arts, culture and preservation in the county. So short answer your question. It's permission as the that's your entity preserved or protected any historic structures outside of the city of Seattle. To date, we have not in relationships with the cities in the county. Absolutely. So I'm on I'm also on the King County Landmark Commission. So I'm fully aware of sort of the complexity of of landmarking process. The quick by the numbers for those of you who aren't familiar with historic Seattle, we're a nonprofit, historic preservation organization. We educate, we advocate and we preserve. We've been doing this for 42 years. We've saved 45 buildings in the city of Seattle. We have 14 wonderful staff members, two and a half million dollar annual operating budget. 90% of that annual operating budget comes from eight properties that we currently own within our portfolio, and we have a $30 million balance sheet. So we've been doing this a long time. It's a great opportunity for us to continue to do it in the future in a larger scope. Thank you. If I might, it's. Seems like I'm interested in the efficiency or perhaps lack of efficiency in this process. We've got a lot of entities here. We've got a lot of our local agreements. We have a lot of legislative action that's required for $2 million. And that's a lot of money, but it's a lot of process and a lot of staff time and a lot of costs. And is there any alternative to simplify this? We're supposed to be the regional government here, but why. Speaker 2: That is or maybe. Speaker 0: It was a question. Speaker 2: For Jim Kelly from Fort Culture. This is the proposal that was transmitted by the executive and had been originally proposed by for culture, as you might imagine. Mr. Dombrowski, this the question of complexity was one that both staff and legal counsel raised. But this this is the proposal that was transmitted. Speaker 1: Before we asked. Mr. KELLY. I'm asking you, Mary, as our very talented, independent central staff analyst, whether there are other options. And I know this is late in the process, but this may be something on a go forward basis, maybe not for these dollars, but I'm interested in efficiency and and well achieving the objective as a regional historic preservation function. Speaker 2: There are certainly many ways to achieve historic preservation. I had noted earlier that one of the most common ways is through a revolving loan fund in which owners of buildings use money from a fund and do the maintenance or renovation and then return the money. My understanding from for culture is the concern about that approach is that you wouldn't have the ability to grow the fund or to sustain the fund, but I would let them speak to that. So there are certainly other ways I had mentioned that this is a policy choice for the Council about this chosen way to approach the the proposal. But it is a proposal that for culture has developed. And as as I've talked with the team over the course of the year, one that they feel very strongly about in this case. Speaker 0: This guy. Mr.. Kelly Number two, just answer. Speaker 1: I would I a very interesting question, Councilmember De Bousquet, especially about the efficiencies, because you're right, historic Seattle has to get an agreement, for example, with Lake Forest Park so that they can do work in Lake Forest Park. That's a step. On the other hand, one would assume that Lake Forest Park has a historic resource that it's interested in preserving. I can assure you there are a number of properties there. It's a very historic community. So, yes, it requires a couple of steps to get there. But I would argue that those steps are actually, in the long term healthier because they get the city of Lake Forest Park thinking about historic preservation. They don't have their own ordinance. They don't have an inter local agreement. So to this point, historic preservation has not been high on their priority scale. So we enter into a conversation with Lake Forest Park to say, How about this expert historic preservation development entity working in your community? What advantages does that give you? And I think it begins a conversation that actually enhances the visibility and the viability of historic preservation. So rather than look at it through an efficiency perspective, I look at it as a through an advocacy perspective where we can expand the role of historic preservation in King County because communities better understand how it functions and get help in doing it right. Appreciate that, Mr. Kelly. The evidence you're using, the fact they don't have an area local agreement, is not indicative of the. With all due respect, the city's commitment. They in 1997 for their own Historic Preservation Commission, they've marked a number of properties with plaques in the community. It's a big part of their culture, actually. So I'm looking out and there are a number of these small communities throughout the county. I mean, tell us more about Dutchy has the points communities and I don't I don't know what their status are but the Beaux Arts but you know it's $2 million here but there's a lot of things that are going on here, too, to bring that to life in terms of action by multiple bodies. And and it just raises the concern about whether we're approaching this in the most efficient way possible. With respect, the 2 million is it's not going to be a revolving fund. Are they going to be grants? Is that the. No, no, they it is essentially going to be a loan, not a loan fund, but money expended to rehab a building. Money recouped when the building has been sold. And and who decides? Who decides on which buildings, which projects? Yeah, that's a very good question. It's one that we probably discuss in the greatest detail, and it's a collaborative project for entities that sort of go on this. Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, King County of Our Culture and Historic Seattle. And, you know, I hesitate to say what I'm perch to say, which is a building that needs the work. We will know it when we see it. We will recognize that certain buildings have a future life as a result of rehab. Some don't will avoid those. Is there a market for the building post rehab that will be a consideration that takes place. The significance of the building? Either it's a landmark or certainly eligible to be a landmark. So the buildings that we save have to have some significance. There's not a point system that says if you score a certain number of points, we're going to do that project. I just think it's for entities that are fairly well versed in this field and work very well together. And we hope that if you're aware of projects in your communities that you'd like to to say that you think or threaten you, bring those to our attention. But there's no science to identifying which is the most likely candidate. Well, who decides? Is it for culture or. Speaker 0: The groups together? Speaker 1: It's it. All four of us have to go along. What if there's. Oh, so there's a veto power under this agreement and it's basically, you know, agreements that you mentioned, Councilmember Lambert, how thrilled you were when Historic Seattle stood up in a meeting and said, we want to help. I think it's that spirit that's driving this. So it isn't necessarily contract language that says you get to veto because you have a stronger voice than I do. I think it's a project that's being entered into with the right intentions and spirit, and I believe that we will be able to identify projects that you will be pleased with. But I don't have any kind of scientific way to approach which projects do we choose and why would we say no? You know. Speaker 2: County Council Member I would just note that Section six of the agreement and it's Exhibit B outlined the selection process and do note, as Mr. Kelly had stated, that the members of this Form four part team would either have to reach consensus or that the decision would default to for culture in terms of selecting a project. Speaker 1: Okay, that's the answer I was looking for. What is the mechanism to decide if there's not a consensus? Speaker 0: Ask a public question. Council Member WG There's an attachment, and I believe it's an attachment to the agreement that lists out projects and has values next to them. Do the project have to come from that list? Speaker 1: No. That is actually a list of projects that were funded by building floriculture. Speaker 0: Okay. Understood. So we don't have a sense yet of what the the order and list of projects might be. Speaker 1: No, that's correct. And might I point out, Madam Chair, and I realize we're getting late through 60 communities that have similar funds, this is not something that's unique to King County. It's a preservation tool that we've not had at our disposal before, but it's been used effectively across the country. These revolving funds have generated. I think we have some statistics in a PowerPoint. Millions of dollars in tax revenue for buildings that were rehabbed and put back on the market. Speaker 0: This one's particularly funny to me because I was on the board. There were some talk that this building might have to be destroyed. And at that point, I realized that I had space in my building that we're talking about, not today, not the courthouse. We're talking about the the town, the Townsend house. It's called the Trueblood House, Republican House. And so anyway, I went home after you and I had discussed it and talked to my husband about the potential of it being moved to our house and buying it. And so. So we had that discussion and so am I. I wish now because Redmond did change their ordinance where I actually could have done that. But so I am anxious to find out who gets it and where it goes, because I thought it was going to be my house when I got older. So and it's it's a very amazing house. Speaker 1: Can I follow up on that? Because I know there is also what cultural relics you represent. Kirkland And there is that house that had to be moved. Is that it? If there's a project that's teed up for this, I think members of the council should know about it. That was exactly the that is exactly the project that we had in our scopes when we were talking about this. We knew that the people who owned the true blood house, basically their family was growing. They had outgrown the house. They wanted to basically tear the house down and build a new house on the site, realized the house had value, decided that they tried to save. It was actually purchased by Nickles Brothers, which is a company that moves houses for a dollar. And they spent about 120,000. They purchased it for a dollar. They don't move your house right now. You can get it for a dollar. But if you want to get it here a lot, you're going to look at the several hundred to get it there at any rate. So but that is exactly the kind of project that came along that the Preservation Action Fund could have gotten. The house for the dollar, found a piece of property, purchased a piece of property, put it in, put down the foundation, do all the hook ups, put it back on the market, reinvested in the fund. That's exactly the example that we're looking for. I think, Jim, this does speak to your previous comment about advocacy, because I think through all of our efforts and thinking ahead and forecasting what this Preservation Action Fund could look like, we've sat down with the owners and the parties that are associated with the Trueblood House and we're able to save this house without spending any money. It's purely an advocacy effort at this point, but it's it sort of speaks to the power that this action fund has and that the ripple effects from throwing the stone in the in the pond can be great in terms of preservation. Speaker 0: All right. I am ready now, I think, for lot of questions answered to move the audience. Madam Chair. Yes, there was a motion. Is there a. Speaker 1: Time sensitivity to this? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: What is it. Speaker 0: That you bought house? It's about that you bought houses has been moved, but it can't stay where it is forever. Speaker 1: Actually, I think the council member, Baldacci, the Trueblood House, is going to be saved by property, a private person. It has a market. Now, since the conversation started with the city of Kirkland and with the owners of the Trueblood House, somebody has stepped up and is basically moving the house to a private site. So the short answer to your question is not really it would have been time sensitive had we been trying to save the Trueblood House. But the Trueblood House, as I pointed out, is being saved on its own privately. Okay, let it be preserved. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I apologize. Will it be preserved? Are we what what what confidence do we have that it will be preserved with the private owners? Speaker 1: I'm totally confident it's Kirkland and have any. Speaker 0: Other local resident. Speaker 1: So it will be a Kirkland landmark? It already is a Kirkland landmark. So it will be protected. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Madam Chair. Maybe I'm okay with moving forward today on this, but I would expect I'm interested in making sure every community in our region has a fair and equal shot at participating in this fund, and I could envision a number of ways to do that. But it might be that we require at least the opportunity for any city who would not be able to participate today either because there isn't an interlock. Call agreement with historic Seattle or they are not in partnership today with for culture another entity that they at least be invited and have an opportunity to execute that agreement before these funds are expended. Something like that. In other words, I, I want to make sure that because of the nature of how this is, that we're not intentionally but inadvertently leaving out a community. And I it's it's fairly complicated. So maybe that's okay today and I can figure out off line between now and final. But that's my concern. Well, actually, I think that what you're what you're asking for is very much what we would like to see. We'd like to see the Preservation Action Fund being an incentive program so that cities will sign up either with an interlocal agreement or start their own program. So if that was the outcome that more cities wanted to sign interlocal agreements to get access to these funds, that's great. Yeah. And they just may not know about this structure. Speaker 0: Yeah. Madam Judge, I was going to make a I was going to make a motion. But given that the immediate preservation action that we were attempting to to implement with this is now handled. If if the council member would like a little more time to make sure that issue is resolved, there really isn't any time sensitive sensitivity that we have to move it out today. Speaker 1: I certainly wouldn't want to print that because I share the objective there, obviously. But if that, I'll defer to other members of the committee. But that's my interest as I've expressed it. Speaker 0: So I would just as soon let's let's say, move it to January and take it up at the next council meeting for actions that are a little time to address. You think it's just this complicated? It took me a long time to wrap my brain around it. And that's and so. Speaker 1: This is just an area of particular interest to me. And I think the whole community, you see, for example, every time we come we talk about this, the Danny Western column with links is closing and the chanty is closing and our community's growing and changing so fast. And, and the work you do all you do I love it's amazing. And we have this is really just a little bit of money to help facilitate that. I don't want to do anything that would cause another loss. And perhaps if we get it resolved between now and Monday, we could relieve the committee and full council and get it adopted. I don't want to unnecessarily delay that. We're we're fine with that. Speaker 0: Council member of the Grove. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. You may have noticed Councilman Bell has been sort of speaking on this one. My name is the sponsor. And as you may recall, this was originally referred to the Budget Committee. And I had a number of questions and concerns, and I wasn't much concerned as much as a different vision, I think, for how these dollars were to be spent. Some I just never, never got excited about the this the whole revolving fund idea and the target mostly because of how it it limits the use of the dollars and to a very specific purpose. And there's pros and cons to that and I know that and there are pros and cons to other ideas, and I never got there on this one. So what I did was but I know it's important, professionals at the agency feel strongly this is a good idea. I've colleagues here who have projects teed up and ready. So I acquiesced to this coming to Cao instead of budget and letting councilman due. Take the lead on it. In part, I was just so councilman asking you had some process questions too. And I just sort of, you know, it wasn't something I was going to fall on my sword for. And there's good things will come from this. And so I did want to let people know that kind of process, how to deal up here. Speaker 0: And it was one of the things I thought that we would take up in January just as a work plan, because there are so many different issues and all these issues. And as both Mr. Kelley's have said, there are lots of exciting buildings and barns and structures across this county that are important to the entire fabric of this county. And as you said, a lot of the new people are coming that don't know the history of this county. And if it all disappears, that changes the charm of what we have here. So, Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. And we're clear in the agreement that covers this. It's intended to cover unincorporated King County in the cities outside of Seattle. I'm representing parts of syntactic tech and Berry Berrien. I share that the interest that's been articulated during the meeting that we make sure that the option is available throughout the county. But as a former board member for culture and a current board member of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, I know how fast some of these opportunities can slip through our fingers when we know about them and how fast opportunities can come up with a small window. So while taking this up in January and working on it is good, I want to make sure that we take it up promptly in January that we don't. While maybe the opportunity that was at hand immediately is taken care of, that we not miss other opportunities by making sure that we pause for a moment. Not longer than a moment of strong interest of mine. Speaker 0: And I share that with you also, Councilmember. Are there other accounts that sort of give priority to areas outside of Seattle so that there's sort of equal weight all across the county? Speaker 2: Are there other funding sources available? Well, for cultures, ongoing grant programs are available throughout the county and in and in the city of Seattle. There are no other funding sources that I'm aware of that are only dedicated for areas outside of Seattle. Speaker 1: Jim That landmark challenge grant, which is a grant program for sure you make, Tim, of this landmark challenge grants is a grant program for historic properties in King County. And to be eligible for that, they have to be King County landmarks. There are no King County landmarks in the city of Seattle because Seattle has its own landmark ordinance. So our grant program tends to exclusively fund projects outside of the city of Seattle, just by the nature of the the jurisdiction. Speaker 0: Okay, great. Well, we will take this up. Thank you for being here. And it's great to get more information about this. And all the great work on our landmark is all right with that woman. Thank you all. Thank you. And move on to number six. This is ordinance 2016 0459, an ordinance approving grant fund allocations for projects funded through the Water Works Grant Program. And this is round two. And so Mike Reed is our staff and that's would you take this away?

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE approving an agreement between King County and 4Culture on how the preservation action fund will be administered and governed in accordance with the 2015/2016 Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 17941, Section 74, as amended by Ordinance 18179, Section 2, Proviso P1.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_12072016_2016-0459

Speaker 0: And move on to number six. This is ordinance 2016 0459, an ordinance approving grant fund allocations for projects funded through the Water Works Grant Program. And this is round two. And so Mike Reed is our staff and that's would you take this away? We begin on page 81. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. And so this is 2016 0459 and has indicated that the staff report begins on page 81. This is, as you've indicated, the second round of grants since the restart of the Water Quality Grants program. You recall that there was a legal process that resulted in the confirmation to the courts of the eligibility of our wastewater rate funds to support these water quality grants. The Council did approve legislation in 2015 and 2016, establishing a grant criteria providing for grants, ranking committee with representation from a variety of interests, including from each of the Council districts, as well as providing for staffing and administration. And I will note, by the way, that I've seen a matrix of the, the, the grant ranking committee. Four of the positions on that grant ring committee are vacant from, from district. And so we would encourage councilmembers who have not yet made recommendations for names for that committee to do so. The council the council did approve an initial round of grants in the in July of this year. This is the second round of grants completing the cycle for the 2015 2016 biennium. This round of grants includes, I should say, as I went through, identified a number of themes and and characteristics of the grants, a number of things jumped out. So first that there are a significant proportion of the grants that are from non-governmental organizations, including the YMCA is a Youth in Action program, the Allenwood Community Waters Program, the Mountain Town Greenway Education Project, the Environmental Coalition of South Seattle's Environmental Stewards Program. The Seattle Tilth Watershed Stewards Project. In addition to these non-governmental association and community groups, there are projects from our governmental partners who are participants in the region's wastewater system. These includes a Redmond's street sweeping for water quality proposal. Seattle Public Utilities has a proposal that is is recommended to monitor water quality in injection wells that receive effluent from green stormwater infrastructure projects. Bellevue has a project for stormwater retrofit. There's also in this package and an emphasis on education projects. And so the Island Wood Project I mentioned earlier is a community wide project that educates students about political pollution prevention, encourages them to propose solutions to local runoff problems themselves. There is the The Sound Greenway Education Project, which provides hands on education to about 4000 students, which includes classroom sessions, field investigations, the service learning stewardship opportunities are sustainable. Seattle's project, which is referred to as the Green Duwamish Project Design Laboratory that involves providing South County teachers an opportunity to design and test curriculum relating to local water quality and also to facilitate student led community impact projects. Diversity is a value that jumps out as you look at the various projects here. So the YMCA is Youth in Action Project is intended to provide hands on experiences to diverse students addressing environmental needs in the home communities of these these students. The Wood Project I mentioned the community wide project. It's an emphasis on a diverse body of students to whom they provide an educational experience related to water quality. The Environmental Coalition of South Seattle Project provides workshops on pollution, CSOs and water quality to a multilingual, multicultural group of participants. The other key theme that I noted was that these there are a number of the projects which provide which identify specific water quality problems and provide remediation to those problems. And so the Redman project is a street sweeping for water quality project. These are focused. This project on the next one are focused on our urban creeks and streams. In this case, in the Redmond case, the concern was to show how frequent street sweeping was needed in order to achieve the health of a local urban stream. In the case of the UW Bothell Upright Bothell Campus Project, North Creek apparently has a steam stream for which there's been identified as a significant fecal coliform presence in the stream, which has been traced to a large quarry which is on the campus of that that university. And so the project proposes using small rolls of a bio filter filtration material, which is embedded with mushroom bodies. And these mushroom bodies would would be placed such that water is channeled through and sorry, after it's traced to a large what I call a rooftop cross, all the cro. Yes, yes, the famous in the north. They go back and forth every day. It's a big murder of crows, you know. A murder of crows. It's a murder of crows. They're murdering North Creek. Now, your district councilman, Roderick Bauer? No, your district. My mike. It's not my quads, Michael. Mediation NYC. Oh, which I believe refers to mushrooms. These are this bio bio filtration medium is embedded with with mushrooms or fungus, which is intended to filter the stormwater as it's channeled through and over this medium. So that's what that refers to. Speaker 0: No. Speaker 1: It wasn't. I would like to thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if you're the right person, Mike, to ask questions about some of the thinking behind the decisions to what are you able to speak to some? And there may be questions that are sort of what do you call rhetorical questions to make a point, you know ? Sure. So we do have Elizabeth Louden here, who's a water works grant manager. Maybe I'll ask her to come forward at this point to answer specific questions. Speaker 0: So one of the questions that piggybacks that so when you're answering his question, my answer piggyback to that, I'm looking at the percentage of education there is to on the ground, actual studies and work, and it's a very high percentage. So was that high in Brown in round one or is this inordinately high because this round two. Good morning, council members. My name is Elizabeth Loud and I'm the water quality, the water works grant manager. And so for this round there were a a higher number of education projects and that was discussed by the grant ranking committee and higher than the previous round. And they felt that they wanted to fund recommend for funding the projects that that were strongest and that were best at meeting the criteria of providing benefit to water quality and demonstrating a connection with wastewater treatment division responsibilities. So they did note that there was a high number of education projects and they felt that those were the best projects out of the 39 submitted to meet the criteria. Go ahead and at the gross question. Speaker 1: Sure. Thanks. And we preface my remarks by saying I'm one of those who has struggled to find someone to represent District five on the committee. And I feel like I've paid the price for it a little bit in the sense. And so this is somewhat of a leading question. But to what degree was geographic equity considered as one of the factors? And the reason I ask this is a comment as much as a question, and it's not you. It's a committee of folks, but you might be able to offer some insight to it is that in South King County in particular, there's little to no there's a couple of kind of broad projects that got a little bit of money that serve all of the the county. But there seems to be a lack of investment in South King County and in particular, Council District five. At the same time, we're sending a quarter of $1,000,000 over to Kitsap County, to a large, well funded environmental center. And the committee passed on funding a King County Environmental Center doing a similar project in South King County at a fraction of the cost. Why would what benefit in the rest of your fare? QUESTION But what do my constituents get out of this? And I guess is and do you know the rationale for sending the money over to Kitsap County instead of investing in environmental education programs here? And then to what degree do you think the committee members took into account geographic distribution? That's not your decision. So I recognize that. But you might be able to at least offer some helpful insight and. Speaker 0: Sure. Yeah, I know. I'm happy to answer that question. So first of all, the funding for the island would proposal is for work that would be happening with the Seattle school district districts. It would not be going to Kitsap County per say. So as you may be aware, Island Wood does did merge a number of years ago with another nonprofit called Home Waters, which works in the city of Seattle. And more than half of their programing is outside of their base on Bainbridge Island. So they do a number of programs around King County. And so I think that addresses that issue that it is a large dollar amount and it was something that the committee considered. They do scrutinize the higher ticket items carefully to see if there is a regional benefit. And with this with the island, what project they the committee saw a benefit to being able to implement to develop over the course of three years develop and implement curriculum on a very large scale because the Seattle school district is the largest school district in Washington state with the hopes that this curriculum could be shared with other school districts in the future and that the lessons learned could be shared with other entities who are doing similar projects. So hopefully that answers the the I. And what piece of the question and in terms of geography. So I mentioned the committee does look at fit to criteria and what there's there's a process where they have several meetings where the they will read all of the application materials and do individual scoring. Speaker 2: And then we look. Speaker 0: At those preliminary scores and then have long discussions about them. And so some of the other factors that go into play, sometimes they change their ranking based on discussions because there may be an aspect of a particular proposal that they weren't aware of or something else that that they'll learn through the discussion process from other committee members . And in addition, they do look at geographic distribution as well as other factors. So they're looking at types of projects. Is is there they're looking at the whole portfolio of recommended projects are that are there are a diverse number of types of projects. Is it diverse geographically? Have they they they had a preference or recommendation not to fund more than one proposal from the same entity in in a single session. And I'm trying to think if there are other factors for distribution, but they are looking at distribution as well. Speaker 1: So a clarifying follow up. So do you know the extent to which and people disagree over how to allocate money all the time, but it's nothing new. But the notion that the whole county's paying in rate payers throughout the county, we want to make sure we get ahead of it. You know, water doesn't follow political boundaries, but the extent to which we want to make sure that. Generally speaking, the communities they're all paying in get a return, get to see these dollars put to use in their can, you know, in their community and is a political lowercase p kind of lens on things. But I think it's real and a democracy, you know, those that contribute, you know, you try to share the costs and benefits broadly and in an equitable way. So I wondering if it really got down to that level of analysis of looking simply at a map and say, okay, are we covering all the county? You know, what percentage of dollars are going to, you know, one big city versus others or are we catch in the northeast, south and central parts of the county? And then the second part would be to what degree? You know, sometimes capacity makes things more attractive. You know, and a lot of our grant programs, we've looked at kind of the social justice inequity, where organizations that already are well funded or have the ability to put together more competitive applications at this level. Were that where some of the committee members able to dove in and move an application didn't appear as competitive on the surface, if it's coming from a smaller organization or a newer organization, was there the ability to dig dig a little deeper and account for some of those institutional advantages that some of the big players have? Speaker 0: Yeah, those are those are excellent questions. And so, first of all, the percentage of money there was a look at what areas I had projects represented. They did not consider the exact dollar amount per district or per area, but they were looking at is do the do the does the portfolio of of projects that are recommended for funding represent all parts of the county and they felt that it did. Speaker 1: This one did. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 1: I like the South King County. Speaker 0: Sure. So the South King County I Ecos Environmental Coalition of South Seattle so there. Speaker 1: Wasn't any direct us to what. Speaker 0: Page. Oh 82. Speaker 1: Seattle is not South King County. Speaker 0: So right. So yeah well that's. Speaker 1: I mean has the word south in it but that's South Seattle. Speaker 0: Sure. Yeah. And, and Ecos actually works. Speaker 1: So. Speaker 0: They're not limited to the city of Seattle. So they're working with they're working with different community groups. I don't know if you consider Tukwila part of South Bend County. Yeah. I'm sorry. Speaker 1: The chart, what it's throwing me is there was the, the project location was listed or my chart. Speaker 0: Now. Speaker 1: Is Seattle on. Speaker 0: Okay. That's okay. So one that would help with that. Yeah. Clarifying that. Okay. Not everybody has the information that you have, which is unfortunate. We should all have that chart. Speaker 1: Well, especially the following I requested. Oh. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, it would help overall informed on this. Speaker 1: I can make copies of that if you'd like. You know, even now I. Speaker 0: Know that we have a whole lot more time to get into this, I'm sure. No, no, I'm having the same feeling you're having. First of all, if I can jump in with you too, on this, I feel like there's a lot of silo work being done right now. When you look at the BRIGHTWATER mitigation account, which obviously is not this account, but it's the same agency, there is so much money going into broader mitigation account for education and for training and for all kinds of things. For education, it is an an inordinate amount of money. So we have an account for that. This was supposed to, in my mind, be for on the ground projects and experiments. So we would have more research on like one project you talked about was like street sweeping for water quality. So we would have some good information on how you do that. And to me, that's what these projects were for. What am I going to learn to make it better for water quality? And so I'm a little surprised by the delineation here. And secondly, in the same venue as what Councilmember other Grove was saying, there is not one project on here for the local government in this county, not one. And it's almost half the landmass of the county, I'm sure. Yes. Councilmember by right that I think this. Speaker 1: Issue should be brought up again at another meeting because they come from the Grove and you have raised some issues that I'm particularly interested in. I know it comes from I wrote that GROSS predecessor was particularly interested in geographic representation, and you and I have represented both ends of the county. So I would in light my mindful, the fact that the third district we're supposed to have started 20 minutes ago and that you're always going to come after the flood district to say, I would recommend we hold this issue after the new year, because I would like to have everybody have a spreadsheet and everybody has the same equal distribute. Both paper, as well as perhaps a good understanding of the distribution of the funding around King County because they have a cross before they raised it. Speaker 0: It's okay. It's okay. Speaker 1: We don't have a clue. Speaker 0: I think you're absolutely right. Councilmember McDermott was also showing that the chart doesn't really show clearly what communities are involved in which. So I think we need better information on that. And I'd also like to get information back on the amount of money that is being spent, an education out of the BRIGHTWATER funds through the Brightwater education account and how many classroom hours we are doing up there on that, because that was what that was supposed to be for. So I think we. Speaker 1: When you're done. Speaker 0: Okay, I think we need to hold this one and get better information, delineate it by area and get information about the Brightwater education account. And then we will hear from Council Member Dombroski around chair. Speaker 1: Couple of things to stay here. I think Councilmember up the grove meant this, but he used the word countywide and I think he meant within the sewer service area just so everyone's on the same page, because the Councilor Lambert's comments seem to indicate that, again, we were done countywide. But I think we're all understanding that these projects need to be in or connected to have a nexus to the sewer service area or benefit to the service area where the rate payers are, because that's the source of the funds. Correct. First line second point to keep in mind is I believe that this is kind of remember when we and this council took the rate vote, we took the rate vote to add the water works funding to the sewer rate, wholesale rate. And we set up a process to have half council designated and half committee recommended subject to council approval within the committee recommended a random reform bill which we all supported. I think we all support it, but to add some additional district representation to it, right? And so that's where we are working on getting that stood up. And Mike, I think you noted that to address some of this geographic balance, which was important to me and as you can see why it's important to everybody on the dais here. This, I believe, is what you've called the second round of the committee designated projects. So we've had one round that's come through, right? Correct. And this is the second round. So as we sit on the dais and look for geographic balance and project balance, I think if you could help us by getting the members the totality of the projects around one, around two is that makes sense. So sure, there may have been some funded last time that might balance out this round if people saw them. And we just can't remember that. Right. And Councilmember Domestique, I might note that at this afternoon's Regional Water Quality Committee, there is going to be a presentation which will include actually both round one, round two, and I'll look to Sherman to confirm that it will also include the the council directed projects as well. And I correct. Yes, that will be the council director projects. I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's our job to do those. And but this time this committee recommended half. I think the points being made about balance are good because the ratepayers, countywide or not, came up with answers are paying it. Finally, I kind of want to echo Councilmember Lambert's issue. I think she's raising about kind of some of the education pieces. And I've been interested in making sure that this money that is designated for water quality be spent on water quality, improving water quality. And I understand how education you can make an argument that education of our community to be individual stewards of our streams and wetlands and rivers and lakes can have a value. I get that. But it is to me more tenuous and further away than a direct investment in in-stream and in water body projects and improvements. We got into a little bit of trouble on this before in the cover litigation by funding, you know, salmon celebrations and things like that. And I personally think we need to be very careful and steer clear of that and make sure that we are keeping our word to the ratepayers about making sure that these dollars go for water quality or projects and programs that have a true and direct nexus to improving water quality. That is the Metro mission from what it was formed by the voters. And when we stray away from it, we get into a little bit of a trouble. So finally, I don't remember who adopted the criteria that the committee is using to measure this. Was that was that an advisory committee itself that adopted that or did we approve those here at the council? I just don't recall we did. Speaker 0: So there are criteria listed in the implementation guidelines. Speaker 1: Yes. Good for yourself. Yes. As folks look at this issue, I think it's important that we go back, remember that we adopted the criteria. And as part of that, we said, hey, come to come in. We want council approval on the recommended projects. And that's for this very reason to make sure that the community is balanced in its distribution of the funds and true to the criteria that the Council has adopted. So just some big picture. Speaker 0: No. And may I add one point. And in the implementation guidelines, it does list education projects as one of is an example of the type of project that could be funded through this through this grant fund. So and at the time, I was concerned about that because I also knew about the other Brightwater accounts. And I think, you know, in, you know, when we do everything in silos, you know, it's easy to say and it is round two and this is much more on that one education piece. But I think for the taxpayers, we want to look at globally what we're spending and make sure that we know what we're spending over that category and making sure that we actually have some documented science that helps us to make good decisions for the future. Like I like that one example that was cleaning the streets so we can do that better. So I think it's a good idea to take this back and look at it again, maybe have any harm. I don't know. Is there any harm in us holding it till January? Well. Speaker 1: It's okay, Sharman saying no problem. Speaker 0: Okay. So I think let's have some offline meetings about this. We can talk with council member at the Grove and others that are interested council member about duty to do night. Me. Yes, I, I wanted to say one thing and I have been in the place that councilmember up the group finds himself in with regard to any number of grant making works that we do, not just water works but others that go through this kind of a process. And and I have found up until this morning that I usually look at the list and feel exactly the way councilmember up the group felt, which is that, you know, my district pays an awful lot into all of this stuff. In fact, in some buckets we pay more than any other district and we don't see it coming back to us. And that's okay in a sense. I mean, there's got to be a balance, there's got to be a level of balance it but none of them individually are going to look like we put a dollar in. We got a dollar out exactly like today. I feel very happy because there's one project that's clearly within my district and another that probably slops over into mine a little bit. And that's nice. But I'm. I will. Yeah. And Councilmember Dombrowski advised me every time I say something like what we just heard, you know, I felt the same way my first year on the council. And I was told that if you watch over time, there's a kind of an evening out that naturally happens. I haven't been here long enough to see that yet. Today I feel a little bit of evening, but I support very much as looking at the fuller context as as Councilmember Dan Malcolm and you, Madam Chair, pointed out, there's there's a broader context here for these particular kinds of programs, and I am very happy to see that and assess that. So I support that direction. Thank you. Thank you. And as as one of nine members of local government, that is every day. And so I feel the pain. Speaker 1: Councilmember, just briefly, I appreciate Councilmember Valdez's comments. I and with one exception, I don't think it naturally occurs. I think we have to build oversight and systems that make sure it occurs. And that's why, for example, on this project, I ran that legislation to make sure council members could have a representative on the committee, because without it , it's not by intent. It just, you know, people look out for their neighbors if they're at the table and if you're not at the table, you're dinner, someone may not look out for you. So that's what we're doing here today. Speaker 0: Great. So we were I'm happy in early January to meet with anybody that wants to meet with me on this topic, and then we'll bring it back probably the end of January. Thank you. Thanks for the good discussion, everybody. All right. We're going on to the next proposed motion, 2016 0548. There's the motion approving the third quarter 2016 expenditures for emergent needs and anticipated project costs. Summary Report Provided Prepared by the Road Services Division. The Road Services Division.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE approving grant funding allocation for projects funded through the WaterWorks grant program, Round 2, in accordance with Ordinance 18261.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_12072016_2016-0548

Speaker 0: All right. We're going on to the next proposed motion, 2016 0548. There's the motion approving the third quarter 2016 expenditures for emergent needs and anticipated project costs. Summary Report Provided Prepared by the Road Services Division. The Road Services Division. Thank you for being so patient and welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. These are the key accounts of staff. I will do this very quickly for you today. Given the time consideration of my staff, report for this item begins on page 97 of your packet. As you may remember, counsel included a proviso in the 20 1516 biennial biennial budget. It requires the executive to provide quarterly reports on expenditures from emergent needs and quick responsive projects. This is the last of those quarterly reports and would release approval of a motion would release $75,000 of the $525,000 expenditure restriction. The report before you today shows the transfer of a little bit over $3 million of appropriation authority from quick response to two slide repair projects to bridge design projects, one road repair and a pedestrian signal. Those projects are listed on page 98 of your packet. The report also shows four emergent needs. Transfers. Does appropriation of about $1.2 million to reconcile with adoption of the first omnibus that was to fund the snow and ice material storage budget. The report also shows transfer of $735,000 from emergent needs to reconcile some indirect cost rates for some specific projects. Those are listed on the executive's report on page 108 of your packet. Great. That completes my report, Madam Chair. Thank you. And I appreciate that we've gotten these reports all year long to make sure that we know what's happening with emergencies like slides. So we know about that. And I think this is very straightforward and I would be ready for a motion if somebody would be ready to put this before us. Speaker 1: So move, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. We have before us motion 2016 0548. Are there any questions? The clerk please call for the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Remember Belushi? All right. Number DEMBOSKY. Speaker Number one council member got about $0.85. Member done. Speaker 1: By. Speaker 0: Councilmember Gossett County Councilmember Cole. McDermott. All right. Yeah, that's my girl. I am number one right here. Madam Chair, I am just, you know, I don't know. And Councilmember Goss said, excuse. Thank you. There was one item on the agenda left. And what we're going to do with that is to hold it until next year. But it is a review of all before that branch people leave. I want to tell you, I was at a meeting last night and a citizen came up to me and said we asked for some help from roads and they were out within two days to help me on this problem. And we expected it would take at least a month for them to respond to us. And we are so thrilled. So I just wanted you to know good things. Thank you. Here's the last one. Maybe on consent calendar and expedited. Okay. So on our last item here, these are the things that we covered this year. You can look it over. It's on page 13, 114. It has been a very busy year, and I thank you for all of your hard work.

Motion

A MOTION approving the Third Quarter 2016 Expenditures for Emergent Needs and Unanticipated Project Costs Summary Report prepared by the road services division in the department of transportation as required in the 2015/2016 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 17941, Section 53, Proviso P2.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_11282016_2016-0530

Speaker 0: Please say I, I, those opposed. Nay, the minutes are approved as written. All right, that's great. So we finish in strange order, but. No, no, no problem. Thank you. So now let's go on to number seven. And this is proposed motion 2016 0530. And this is the appointment of our Department of Transportation director Rob Gannon as general manager. Rob is no stranger to us and we are so pleased to have you here. And Mr. Wagner, do you want to begin? Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nick Wagner, council staff. And as you well know, to my immediate right is Rob Gannon, the general manager, designee of Metro Transit, and to his right is Rhonda Berry, who is deputy executive for operations. The staff report on this motion begins on page 101 of your materials. Last year, Metro delivered 121.8 million passenger trips, which constituted more than 75% of all transit boardings in King County. Metro's operating budget for the 2017 2018 biennium is $1.58 billion, with almost 4600 FTE. Additional information about Metro services are provided on the first page of the staff report and in Attachment five, which is it? Pages 117 to 123. As Metro General Manager, Mr. Gannon will be responsible for Metro's operations, planning and budgeting. He's been serving as interim general manager since March 19th of this year. During that time, according to the executive's transmittal letter, quote, Mr. Gannon ably demonstrated that he will be a leader in reaching our shared goals of increasing mobility in the region, improving outcomes for residents and employees by increasing opportunity and equity, addressing climate change and instituting meaningful reforms that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of King County governance. Before becoming interim general manager. Mr. Gannon served for about three years as Metro Deputy General Manager and for about two years as human resources director for the entire Department of Transportation. His other work experience is listed on page one or two of your materials. Mr. Gannon's appointment is supported by letters of recommendation from the director of the city of Bellevue Transportation Department, the executive director of the Puget Sound Regional Council. The Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation. Speaker 1: The executive director. Speaker 2: Of the Transportation Choices Coalition and the Chief Executive Officer of Sound Transit. Copies of those letters are in your materials at pages 125 to 129. Mr. Gannon has a Bachelor of Arts degree and a master of public administration degree from the University of Montana. That concludes my staff report on was there any questions? Speaker 0: He went to another little, little school besides the University of Montana. Speaker 2: He did attend a program at the Harvard Executive Education Program. Speaker 0: Yes. And the Naval Academy in Annapolis. So that's pretty impressive, too. Thank you. Great. That's a great recommendation. And, you know, it's exciting to me when employees come in to briefing on various subjects and they say things like, we love our new manager. He is wonderful. He comes around and talks to all of us. He cares about what the employees are thinking. He listens to us. And it's really exciting to hear employees talking about their manager and that way. So I want you to know that the people who work for you are just saying wonderful things and that's really, really exciting. So thank you. You're welcome. That's very welcome. It's nice to have you with us. And would you like to comment? Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council members. I appreciate the opportunity this morning to offer a few comments on behalf of Executive Constantine as you consider the confirmation of the appointment of Rob Gannon as the next general manager of Metro Transit. Every day, Metro carries about 400,000 riders to destinations throughout the region. That number includes about two thirds of all commuters to downtown Seattle. Our region continues to grow, and as our region grows, so does the demand for transit. In order to meet these needs. Executive Constantine has stated that he wants to give riders more more service, more choices, more ways to make the writer experience even better. King County Metro's long range plan fulfills this vision by creating 26 rabbit ride lines around the region, by growing our network of express busses, running every 15 to 30 minutes all day, and by creating more local service that meets community needs. We will also make investments such as bus only lanes that will create fast, efficient and reliable transit throughout the system. There's a lot of work to be done and to make all this happen. Metro needs strong leadership as the executive set out to find the next rental general manager. He used some pretty straightforward criteria. He wanted someone who knew transit and appreciated its vital role in building strong communities. He wanted someone who could listen and lead, someone who could forge partnerships and bring people along to fulfill common goals. Someone who respected our employees and whose wisdom and judgment would engender the respect of others. In short, he wanted someone who could take the best transit system in the nation and make it even better. Based on those criteria, executive Constantine selected Rob Gannon to serve as Metro General Manager. Rob has the experience and vision to ensure Metro meets our transit needs now and into the future. When the general manager position became vacant. Transportation Director Hill Taniguchi and Dao talked a lot about what should be included in the job description as they listened to stakeholders and began to pull together goals and requirements. It became increasingly clear that Rob was the leader we were looking for. His knowledge of Metro operations and the needs of the organization helped inform Metro's budget, including capital investments, service hours, technology projects and staff development. Rob's work with our nationally recognized partnership to achieve Comprehensive Equity or PACE sought to improve communications among employees and create a workplace that respects and embraces diversity. Rob helped bring together law enforcement, youth advocates and judicial leaders to address youth fare enforcement. He is committed to driver safety, as evidenced by his advocacy for video cameras to be installed on our busses. And he has visited neighborhoods to talk to customers about bus shelters and other metro issues. And I had the pleasure of being with Rob and Harold in my own neighborhood as they talked about those things that my neighbors still asked me about have every other day. Rob's past included experience at Amazon and dovetails with our focus on improving the customer experience by improving internal systems. So in closing, I'll just say that whether it's integrating Metro Transit Service with sound transit and other partners or making sure bus shelters are clean and welcoming, Rob will lead the effort to ensure Metro is known for customer service second to none. You have in your package letters of support for Mr. Gannon, and I look forward to council confirmation of his appointment. I also look forward to working with him to forge the future of Metro Transit. Thank you very. Speaker 0: Much. Thank you. That is a huge undertaking, but I think we have broad shoulders here to do it with about 4600 employees to help. And so, Mr. Gannon, would you like to share your vision for your priorities? Speaker 1: I would. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the committee. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me here today and for considering me for this important position. I want to start my brief remarks by saying thank you to all of you for your support extended to me during my time as interim general manager. All of you were patient, but you were also made clear. You also made clear the demands our customers place on the agency. I look forward to working with the Council to ensure we always keep our customers needs at the forefront of our planning and our implementation. My thanks certainly go as well to executive constantly. It is a great honor to lead Metro Transit, but it is an equal honor to be part of the extended leadership team at King County. I'm committed to meeting the executive's high standards and expectations and reaching them as best possible to deputy executive Rhonda Berry into our department director , Harold Taniguchi. Thank you both for your leadership. You've always been generous with your time. Your encouragement and your thoughtful counsel. I have successfully navigated many a narrow and potentially hazardous path by way of your timely advice. I will continue to rely on your mentoring, and I want to say a special thanks to my many friends and close colleagues who have run King County, especially within Metro. The people of the agency have helped me understand where our challenges lie and what it takes for us to overcome them and be successful. In all honesty, I'm not here today in front of the council without all of them and the tremendous work they do each and every day to make Metro a vibrant part of our community. So I want to say just a few words about what being the general manager means to me. As I stated earlier, it is truly a great honor to lead such a fine transit agency and I hope that hard work the patience to listen first before taking action, remembering always that we are a service organization made strong by more than 4600 people, and that relationships and partnerships do in fact matter, that those things will continue to guide my path as a leader. Our power to do more for our community lies in our commitment to service. And that, in just a few words, is my grand vision for Metro. We are fortunate to have many wayfinding points that guide our efforts and set our direction. Our business plan for the biennium helped shape the budget you recently passed and my deep gratitude for that and that business plan sets a course for our near term. Our six year capital plan provides the early milestones of our journey, and Metro connects the truly visionary document created by the contributions of many stakeholders, jurisdictions, dedicated staff, and all of you show us where we should be heading. And in addition to those core planning documents, we are flanked by the guidance of the Strategic Climate Action Plan and the Equity and Social Justice Plan that you just heard about. Altogether, this framework will position us to increase transit service by more than 70% over the long term, removing as many as 300,000 vehicles from the roadway, and ensuring that an even greater portion of our low income and minority populations have access to frequent service at Metro. We are an organization with a clear and compelling vision through the leadership of both the Executive and the Council. We know where we are headed and my task as the leader then our imperative as an agency in truth is pragmatic, effective, coordinated execution. So from day one. And each day thereafter, my charge as the leader is this to keep our system safe and make it even safer for our employees and our customers. Deliver great service today while also working relentlessly to improve reliability and extend our capacity for tomorrow and to make Metro a great place to work. During my five years with King County, I have interacted with many people at all levels operators and mechanics, service workers and shelter cleaners, electrician and linemen, supervisors, chiefs, planners and senior managers. I say in all candor and from my heart, they all share a devotion to making Metro a great transit agency. And I see my job as helping make that possible, which is to say my role as a leader in this organization of dedicated professionals is to work with them to provide the best service possible to the public . Under my leadership, we will be dedicated to becoming an industry leading safety organization so that our customers can feel safe no matter the time or location they choose to engage the services Metro offers. We will work to improve our on time, performance and the overall reliability of our network, whether through corridor improvements, working with our partners at our start, expanding service to the new areas, working with surrounding jurisdictions, or even more effective integration with our colleagues at Sound Transit. We will optimize our current service while we build while we build the capacity to do even more for our region. I believe today Metro is a great place to work and I now want to ensure that all of my colleagues feel the same and that each and every one feels safe and respected. We need to devote more resources to training, more for our operators and mechanics, more for our up and coming managers and supervisors. We have outstanding talent that we can develop, and we need to continue to attract the region's best and brightest. More than any other concept, I believe that our path to service excellence lies in the trust that we build with our workforce. And that is the same trust that we must build with. Our customers are routinely challenged by colleagues to remember. Always, we serve our neighbors and our families. We transport our friends and we help them get to where they need to be. Yes, we provide mobility for the region, but Metro is an essential part of the community that connects people to opportunity and knits together our growing cities. In our expanding region, we help sustain the connections. People. A place and place to people that make us more than just roots and stops on a map. Metro transit must itself continue to be a community 4700 people strong serving the larger community that is King County. So again, my sincere my sincere thanks to all of you for inviting me here today and for considering me for this position. I am both overwhelmed and invigorated by the support I have received. I am confident that our agency, our community of people dedicated to providing outstanding service to customers is equal to the challenges that lie ahead. I look forward to working with you as a partner and a colleague and serving as your general manager. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Well, that was wonderful. And I just want to make a couple of comments. Your Metro Connect's report is fabulous and you're people are energized about it. And the idea that so many people have bought into that vision is really important so that we're all going in literally the same direction. So that's really wonderful and I really appreciate that. I appreciate how that report has diversity of modes, where they were going to be in a van or we're going to be in a bus or we're going to be in an alternative minivan, whatever. I think that it helps to have the entire county covered with different ways of getting around. I think it's very helpful for us that we've gotten to know you over the last couple of months better than even before. And your comment about leading by serving is truly been noted and appreciated by so many. So I really appreciate that. Most people don't realize that we are the 10th largest transit company and the nation, and that's a huge undertaking. And so we know that you'll be an excellent leader. The only thing I don't get on my bus in the morning is my latte, which I have to stop on the way to to get so that I will be fine for my rides. The one thing I want to say, and I don't know how to do this, but when I grew up in San Francisco, if there was a person in those days, I think anybody over 50 was old. I don't think that anymore. But in those days, if somebody was over 50 and I was like nine, I was taught that you get up and left, that let the older person have the seat. And I see, you know, especially on really crowded routes, that there are people in their 80 standing and there are teenagers sitting. And I'm wondering what happened that we don't see that same kind of thing of somebody knowing, you know, I'm 15 and that lady over there is 92. Maybe I should get up. And I'm wondering if we need to do a little campaign about the fact that it's a nice gesture to let people who are older have the seat, especially when it's a crowded. So anyway, that's just one thing that I was thinking about the other day as I gave up my seat to make sure somebody older than 50, way older than 50 had the seat. Anybody have any comments like to make Councilmember Balducci? Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm very, very pleased to support the appointment of Mr. Gannon to this position. I've known him for a number of years, first from the executive side. And I have to say, I feeling a little bit of sympathy for your position at this point as being a non jailor who got to run the jail system for a while. You were a non or a formerly non transit person, but not not a transit person by birth who is who is now going to bring. And I think that one of the benefits of that and I don't say this to pat myself on the back, is that you have to understand that in any activity, the substance of the activity kind of is what it is, right? Jailing people, you run the jail or running the transit system, you drive people around. But what makes it work is how well you serve people and how well you work with the people that you work with. It's all about the people. All of our jobs would be much, much easier if it wasn't for all the people. So we need. All right. And a bus system certainly would be a lot easier. Just be lines on a map and some busses to maintain and fill with gas or hook up to the electrical system. But and I think that the one of Rob's really outstanding characteristics that anybody who's met him for any amount of time knows is that he he is fundamentally respectful, humane leader, that he works with people. He truly values the people that he works with. He truly works hard to help those folks have have a work environment where they can do their best and that serves the public best. And so I think that that is going to really serve you well in this challenging position that you have somehow been talked into accepting the job. I do want to say that, you know, as as RTC Chair, we've already seen Rob at work at the Regional Transit Committee and how he is, you know, innovating in how the agency will work with. Communities to implement the long range plan to implement new bus service. We are in a fortunate period where we are adding bus service and that's a whole lot nicer than removing bus service, but it's a similar challenge. How do you do it? Well, especially the things that people rely on every single day when they walk out the door, like those of us who ride the bus rely on the busses. Any change is is challenging. And so being able to walk people through the emotional reactions to change, even if you're adding more service, if things move around, it's hard for folks which we saw with the adjustment to the new light rail lines, which are a wonderful thing but require people to change how they interacted with the transit system. Communications will be critical, absolutely critical. How we explain what we're doing, how we involve the community, how we here, as you said, listen and lead, not just lead and how we speak and explain what it is that we're doing as experts in the field who need to explain it to the people that we serve who are not experts in the field. I know that you will do a wonderful job at all of those critical tasks, and I'm very, very excited that you're willing to be here. All joking aside, you are going to be a wonderful addition in this role. And I am I'm happy to work with you. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Speaker 4: Council Member Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. Gannon, for being willing to take on this job. I am pleased to co-sponsor the motion for your confirmation here today, and I want to note that this is an historic piece of legislation. It's the first time that the County Council has confirmed a director of the Metro Transit Division since Metro Transit was merged into the county in 1994. And that's because of work this council did to require confirmation. I think we're seeing the benefit of that now to get to have some dialog with Mr. Gannon, who is a tremendous candidate for the position. I wanted to echo Councilmember Belushi's remarks as they centered around two things. First, your demonstrated, humane and compassionate leadership style, which I saw firsthand when attended the press conference over at the South Base here on Rob Rome. Our many, many dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of your employees turned out from the folks who I think are mechanics to drivers to just clean up the base. It was still your top leadership. It was really you could feel the warmth and affection for you that you've garnered. And that doesn't come without investing the time and work and having the right approach. So I think customer, although she was right on the second angle with respect to people, I think it is important to remember the history of Metro. The voters created Metro in 1972 and approved its funding with a 3/10 of a penny sales tax. And the voters again approved its merger in the King County government in 1992. And I think that we owe the voters of the region and our riders kind of the utmost deference and respect. And I think your reputation as a listening leader will play very well and serve this community very well, who has a 40 plus year connection to this transit agency and without whose continued support, we wouldn't be able to deliver 125 million boardings a year and continue to grow and expand it. And I have confidence that you will have, as a guide star, the voters and the taxpayers of the region as you manage this very complex system. I could say more, but I want to just give you a little positive feedback. A couple of weeks ago, my older son was goes to Roosevelt decided he wanted well he has a temporary worker card has a regular income we won his youth worker card and I thought, well, what does that take? So I called up here, line off the website. So now I get it. Youth worker card and very helpful customer service rep said, just bring down his student I.D. or birth certificate, come down to King Street and they just set up instant answer. No way, it was great. Went down to King Street, was ready for a long line, was ready for a lot of dialog, literally within 3 minutes. Terrific. A front desk person there behind the window, got the card, answered all questions. And I just thought it was a very good experience from a kind of other users perspective with respect to, again, people. And I thought those were great examples of people. I hope as we continue to go forward and restructure this system as light rail expands throughout the region, that we will pay particular attention to the riders input . And I'm as you know, I've got a piece of legislation that we've been working on here about public process, which is important to me. Governor Baldacci described the restructures as wonderful, and I think probably from a strategic systems perspective. Speaker 5: To be fair, I described the light rail as wonderful. Speaker 4: Rail. I thought you were saying the restructuring. Are some of my constituents who've gone through those big restructuring are these might not agree with wonderful but I, I think event because it's very it's painful it's disruptive to people, as you know who get accustomed to terrific bus service kind of. But it is the future. And I. Hope that we can build on Metro's strong public outreach process and input process to see if we can strengthen that further and make sure that folks, as we continue to implement Metro connects or when we when we start to implement Metro connects, that folks feel that they've had an opportunity to participate in that process because it's so personal to them. Transit for many people, it's their everyday experience. And then and I think that cements and build support for our system when we do that. I just have confidence that you'll do that based on your reputation as a leader. And I want to thank you for serving. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: So I. I hope that this hasn't been painful. When we had the process and we changed the rule. Many people said it was going to be a painful process to directors. So I hope it wasn't painful and that I used to have a draw of all the nice things my students said about me and the days when they didn't have their homework done and they weren't being nice. I pull that draw out and read my nice notes to remember, so I hope you never have to look at your nice notes that every day will be a pleasure and that you know that we appreciate the good work your being you're doing. Councilmember. Councilman, did you want to make a comment? Okay. Councilmember Gossett And then. Q Oh, okay. Councilmember Gossett Followed by Dan, and then I'm going to ask Katie about if she'd like to put this before us since she's a transportation. Are your transportation okay? Would you put this before us then? And you're also the co-sponsor. Great. Okay. Councilmember it. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. The question I get asked frequently about Metro is about rising cost and working lives. And if we can afford we reimburse, I mean, not putting a no amount of money and for their arca less car each month, it's easier for them just to pay the dollar quarter and hope they have the money that Amy. Is there anything they were going to do in the future to be able to drive down the cars for very low income riders? Last week for the transit union, we were able to lower the bus ticket cost to agencies that helped them by cutting the cost and how. But we were not able to increase the number of bus tickets available to those agencies. What's your thought on this issue? Speaker 1: Councilmember Garcia, thank you for that question. I think in broad terms, any agent of the government, especially perhaps a leader of a transit agency, has to keep an eye on costs. We have to be efficient with the way we deploy our dollars, our service and our resources. But we also have to be mindful that our transit dependent population cares less about agency cost and much more about their personal costs. I think that the forklift was an important step in a very good direction to improve access to transit, especially for those in the low income category. I think there is more that we can do and can continue to explore how to extend that resource, whether it is looking to see what is the right level for our Human Services ticketing program or exploring another version of a low income fare. It's also making access to those fair media even more accessible, if that makes sense. So I think in the coming weeks we are going to launch a mobile ticketing pilot, which will make it easier to travel without an orca card. And I think that's another important step that we will able to be we will be able to engage. I think in the end, what it takes, however, is a wide range of choices for our customers so that they can figure out what works best for them. And that as a government, as an agency, as a transit leader, we're always mindful of what is the impact of our fare structure on some of our most vulnerable users. So I'm committed to continuing to keep that front of mind as we look at how our revenues are being deployed, how our service structure is extending to the various areas of the region and really to some of the earlier comments from council members do always keep in mind what an individual rider faces when he or she boards our transit system. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunham. Speaker 1: Mr. Gannon, thanks so much for being here. And, you know, I've. Speaker 2: Had the privilege of chairing the Regional Transit Committee for seven years, working very closely with. Speaker 1: Kevin Desmond and Victor Basso and all the transit leaders. And it's a very well-run organization and one of the best agencies, in my judgment, in King County government. Speaker 2: And the public sees that, too, if we do survey. Speaker 1: Work around the community. Metro rates very high, but you do come in to fill big shoes. Kevin Desmond is one of my favorite managers here in the county. But what I'm seeing with your outreach to the community and what I've seen so far with your work on the Regional Transfer Committee, which I serve now, helping out. Speaker 2: Baldacci is. Speaker 1: Really a great approach to engage in the community, what you're talking about with Mr. Gossett. So no tough questions for me to day. Look forward to supporting your confirmation and we'll say this is the first time we've done it. But I do I grant the executive great deference in this process and think I think unless there was some substantial problem. Speaker 2: I would never overrule the. Speaker 1: Executive's judgment on this. And it's not even close here. You're you're going to be great. And I'm really glad to be able to support your work, your nomination. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I also like to bring out the accolades here, reinforce them. I'm very pleased to be supporting in favor. I would like to also mention that with regard to the issue of transit for low income riders, I believe we did include a budget proviso in our budget that we approved two weeks ago to have King County that should conduct a study on that. So that's something that I think most all of us care about. So let's see what is forthcoming. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. With that councilmember Tabasco, I should like to. Speaker 4: Make the motion to share any problem to expedite this till this afternoon to this afternoon's council meeting. Speaker 0: That's good by me. Let's see what legal stuff says. Can we? We can. Okay. I don't believe we can, but we can expedite it to the next meeting and. Speaker 1: Do not take action this. Speaker 2: Morning and review the threat. Speaker 0: Okay, but we can have it at the next meeting and we can even put it on consent and get it. Speaker 4: Done this month or I mean, in December. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. You met Chair happy to move adoption with a do pass recommendation of pardon me, a proposed motion number 2000 60530, which would confirm the Department of Transportation Director's appointment of Mr. Gavin as the general manager for Metro Transit. Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you. With that, the clerk, please call for the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 6: Council member. About the. Councilmember Dombrowski both councilmember done. Speaker 5: By. Speaker 6: The members opposite by Councilmember. Speaker 0: Colwell i. Speaker 6: Councilmember mcdermott, councilmember of the grove councilmember Vaughn right there. Speaker 0: I have chair I. Speaker 6: Know knows councilmembers McDermott and out of the grove excuse. Speaker 0: Well Mr. Cohen and that was a real squeaker. But I'm glad that you pulled it out and we're very excited about working with you. And we wish you decades of good success in your new job. So with that, we will put it on the expedited for next week. And I'm thinking since we already talked about it, that we might just because of the timeline, but I can see that. Is that okay or do people want to have another opportunity to talk about it now? Speaker 4: What's going on? Speaker 0: Okay. Well, let's put in our consent to start with and then that way your ears won't have to ring next week, we'll just vote on it. And so we'll start with that and somebody wants to talk about it, then we can pull it off. All right. Thank you so much and have a great day. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Now we're going up to item number six. And I'm glad you brought your fan club. It's a good thing. And I'm sure there's 4500 other people back at work. 4600 willing to congratulate you, too. Number six is the 2000 60391 roads in a local agreement template for city contracts.

Motion

A MOTION confirming the King County department of transportation director's appointment of Robert Gannon as the general manager of the transit division of the King County department of transportation.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_11282016_2016-0391

Speaker 0: Okay. Now we're going up to item number six. And I'm glad you brought your fan club. It's a good thing. And I'm sure there's 4500 other people back at work. 4600 willing to congratulate you, too. Number six is the 2000 60391 roads in a local agreement template for city contracts. And I'm sorry we've had to keep you waiting this long, but the agenda today just got moved around. Welcome. Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Lisa Kay on council staff. This item proposed ordinance 2016 0391 is before you today. The staff report is on page 61 of your packet. I'm joined with join by Road Services Division Director Brenda Bauer to my left. This legislation would allow the executive to use the contract template on page 81 of your packet for road maintenance agreements with any City and King County Council currently approves those contracts individually. Rhodes has existing contracts with 29 cities for a variety of services. The list of cities is included on pages 93 to 95 of your packet. The existing contracts in the new template provide for forecast recovery to the county for cities are currently seeking new contracts with King County. That would be Bellevue, the city of Medina, Normandy Park and Euro Point. After executing those contracts, words would expect to transition contracts with the existing cities over time. They adopted Strategic Plan for road services that you updated in 2014, directs roads to ensure that contract services do not materially reduce the capacity of the division to provide services to the county's network. According to executive staff, Rhodes has moved away from providing generic services to agencies that have capacity to do that work in-house. They adopted biannual budget, for example, anticipates $3.7 million in revenue each year from the contract cities, which is a reduction from historical levels which have averaged about $5.8 million between 2012 and 2015. You can see those figures on. Speaker 0: Table one on page. Speaker 5: 64 of your packet. Staff have prepared the technical amendment on page 79 of your packet, as recommended by Council's legal counsel. The amendment revises wording about Council's authorization of the use of the template. That completes my report, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Brower. Welcome. Do you like to talk about this work? Speaker 5: Yes. Brenda Barrow, Road Services Division Director. Thank you for considering this change. It would provide a standardized template that is consistent with the work of the office and the Council's attorney to identify a template that would be a smart template that we could offer all cities and would expedite the work there, would reduce the amount of time we spend negotiating individual agreements with agencies, and that would create a lot of efficiency for us. It would also create a lot of certainty for us to have consistent terms for all the different cities we have moved away from. Providing, as Lisa said, generic services to most of the cities with a reduced workforce. We didn't want to provide services that would be in conflict with work on county roads. So very generic services are we've moved away from and we're focusing our staff on county roads so that that is not an issue for us.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the use of an interlocal agreement template for municipalities within King County seeking to contract with the King County department of transportation to provide road services.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_10172016_2016-0501

Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Patrick Hamacher, counsel, staff items five and six in your packets. Our proposed ordinance 2016 0500 and proposed motion 2016 0501. That the package of legislation taken as a whole continues a program that's been in place for several years, and that is for the wastewater treatment utility to issue instead of long term debt, but to have some portion of their debt portfolio be short term debt. In this case, it allows the department to take advantage of the very low short term debt markets. This program has been in place for many years. Last year at this time, the executive requested an extension of the program, which the council granted but was unclear at that time whether they wanted to continue the program beyond an additional year. So the Council gave the executive a year to study the program. The executive has recommended continuing the variable rate debt program covered by this ordinance. I'm now speaking from the bottom of page or the top of page ten in your staff report. The ordinance allows the issuance of $100 million in variable rate debt. In other words, debt tied to short term interest rates as opposed to long term interest rates. This provides the department a hedge against interest rate risk. The executive staff is estimating that the interest rate on these bonds will be about 1%, as opposed to between four and 5% on long term debt. The financial plans for the wastewater utility allow up to 20% of the outstanding debt to be covered by variable rate bonds with inclusion of this $100 million. 14% of the wastewater debt will be variable rate, so it's well within the policy limit. There's currently about $3.6 billion in outstanding wastewater treatment division debt. The executive has requested an expedition of these two items because the current bond program is expected to expire at the end of November. The proposed motion that is included with the ordinances would approve. Usually you don't know who's going to win the debt when you approve it because it's long term debt and it's essentially a competition on the day of the sale because this is a ongoing program that will roll. They actually know who the selected vendor has been. They've selected State Street Bank as the result of a competitive process where the county received nine bids and their bids were independently evaluated by both the county financial staff and also the county's financial advisor. So taken as a whole, they would continue the existing program. There are no other policy implications of the package before you, and that concludes my staff report. Speaker 0: So three quick questions. So how long will this program go and is this program we can have indefinitely? No. This is a. Speaker 2: Program that can roll indefinitely. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 2: Consistent with the policy, because it consistent with the wastewater treatment division policy. Speaker 0: And approximately how much money do you think this will save us? Speaker 2: Well, that's something in this case, what you can do is compare short term to long term. Long term debt is between four and 5%. They're expecting in the short run this to be about 1%. So there's a significant savings there. But because it rolls regularly, it wouldn't it's not really that you would make that comparison over time. If short term rates were to spike, you might just not continue this program. So it's it's a huge savings. Speaker 3: In the short term. Speaker 2: If it ever stops being a savings, you can roll out of the short term debt into more long term debt. Okay. Speaker 0: Any questions from anybody on the council? I'm glad to see that we're doing this. And because of the interest rates being so low, do you think there's going to be any more looking to get us closer to the 20% so we can save more money? Speaker 2: I haven't heard of any plans from that. I can I can check with the executive staff. It's it's been kind of the program's been in the kind of $500 million range for a number of years. So that program has stayed the same. What has changed is as we've built bright water, the overall debt of the division has gotten bigger and so the percentage has gone down. So I think there the executive branch is comfortable with the size of the program, but I can ask them that offline and get your answer to that. Speaker 0: All right. Councilmember, would you be willing to put both of them together? Are you alright with me taking on both together? Ordinance 2016 500 and Motion 2016 5a1. Speaker 3: Which I move. We give a do pass recommendation to ordinances 2016. Speaker 2: 505 oh one. Speaker 0: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments but that the critical piece calls for the. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Baldacci High Council Member DEMBOSKY Thank you. Council Member Dunn Council Member. Dorset. Council Member. Coles I. Council Member McDermott. High Council Member of the group. I don't have to provide right there. Madam Chair, today, Madam Chair, the vote is six I's and three Council members excused. Council Member Dombrowski, Council member in council member of the Grove. Excellent. Thank you very much. Okay. Sorry. Council member Van Wright, not council member of the government. Okay, great. Thank you. So we're going to go back now. Speaker 2: What would you what would you like to do with those items. Speaker 0: Since you needed it right away? Expedite. And I think it's okay to put on consent. So let's expedite consent. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for reminding me on that. Okay. Let's go back up to our special item today. And this is a proclamation for October as Filipino-American History Month. We are very excited. We have many friends in the audience and we're glad to see you with us. And Councilmember Gossett, you are in charge of the proclamation.

Motion

A MOTION authorizing the execution and delivery of a continuing covenant agreement in connection with the remarketing of the county's Junior Lien Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2015 Series A and B, in the aggregate principal amount of $100,000,000, establishing certain terms of those bonds, all in accordance with Ordinance 18141, as amended by Ordinance _____; and rescinding Motion 14459.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_10172016_2016-0401

Speaker 0: Thank you. And we will see you before next year because we have a lot of questions. And I. I love my TEDTalks, but there are some books I'd like to hear, too. All right. So now we're going to move on to three items that are our roads department. So we will be looking at proposed ordinance 2016, 404 11 and 401. So this cable you come up and then also our roads, people, if you want to come on up too, that would be great. All three of you can come on up this case. Please take it away. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try not to contact you. I'm afraid I have a call today. I'm Lisa K Council staff. Today I'm talking about item 8/1, which is proposed ordinance 2016 zero 400, which is an update of Title 14 of the King County Code. I'm joined today with by the services director, Brenda Bauer, Deputy Director Jay Osborne and the county road engineer Rick Braider. My staff report begins on page 249 of your packet. There's also additional information that the executive provided, additional background information beginning on page 425 of your packet. Today's update is going to include or that I'm sorry, the update that will be brought to the course of at least two meetings is going to cover most policy and technical changes. Today, I'll be going over the policy changes as described on tables one and two on pages 252. 252 of your packet staff analysis is ongoing with respect to some of the changes to the road vacation provisions in Table two. And I'll be bringing you some of that information back to you at your November 7th meeting. Also at November 7th, I'll describe changes to the road design and construction standards that will be adopted by this ordinance and a striking amendment that has been developed by legal counsel. Your legal counsel in consultation with the panel. There are a couple of other things that are relevant to those Title 14 update that you'll be other types of legislation that you'll be seeing over the next weeks and months. Specifically early next year, you'll be seeing updates on chapters of Title 14 that deal with rights of way, the permit system for county property utilities on county right away, wireless communication facilities and utilities on county properties. Also you have legislation before you now. And as an update to King County Chapter 14 or Code Chapter 1470, which is the Transportation Concurrency Management Program that's been referred to this committee of the hall. You also have an update to County Code Chapter 1456, which is the NON-MOTORIZED program, and that will be before council in the context of the comprehensive plan. UPDATE Finally today, as item ten, you have proposed Ordinance 2016 0401, which moves a section of Title 14 to Title 28 having to do with. The commute trip reduction. So with all that, I'll come back now to table one on page 250 of your packet. These markets, these modifications would make policy changes. I said, as I said, to Title 14, and they're grouped in your staff in the staff report in four categories. Just for ease of review. There are two administrative changes. Three changes having to do with repealing provisions. Two provisions that establish new authority and four that modify regulations. Are we good to go on this? No, not really. So I'm the first one. So it's going to delete the requirement for the directors annual report. But the WEC says we have to have annual bridge reports. So if we have to do a bridge report, it seems to me that we should have a comprehensive report. So why are we deleting the annual report? If I can say that we will be what? I will be walking through each one of these with you, each one of the proposed changes. So when next time, as we speak. Now. Okay. All right. I will turn to Director Bauer to speak to the deletion of the annual report, as you said, which is the first administrative change. We've always submitted an annual bridge report to the council. And what were one of the things we were trying to do was to get rid of conflicts or repetition with state law. So where there is a state law that requires us to do something, then we you often get out of sync over time if you have a separate and close provision in county code. So is there something we can put in the county code that says that when you submit the state report that you submitted to us on the council so that that's what the state report does. Yes. Okay. All right. So if that's what we're doing, why are we changing this? Then what? Over time, a lot of what happened was that the provisions of state law were written also in county code. And to clean up the code because they get out of sync just even by a few words over time. You know, a good practice is not to repeat what's already in state law. Speaker 2: In county code. Speaker 0: And so I'm in the process of being in Title 14 right now. So I will have some other questions besides what's in here. But I'm not all the way done yet, so I'll say that. Go ahead. Okay, then the next administrative change is shifting responsibility for assessing the cost of sidewalk repair and reconstruction from the council to the King County DOT. Director, the the theory here the concept here was that you have all of the subject matter expertize contained at the at the departmental level and it provides an efficient way of centralizing that authorization. And I would ask Director Bower if she has anything to add to that. No. I think that the best practice for that sort of technical assessment is at the department level, rather than asking the council to assess costs on a repair project. Yes. Since that's not in our bailiwick, that would be good. Go ahead. Okay. Moving on to the repealed provisions. The first one is a provision that directs. It's an entire section speaking to install installation of public benches in the county right away. Actually, there are no public benches or any benches in the public rights of way, and this provision runs contrary to the desire to keep a clear zone area. So this would be stricken in the proposed update. So why do we ever think we were going to have benches in the right away? What was the thinking behind that? What was the year that that was from J. Speaker 2: So I'm Jay Osborne, deputy director at ROADS. That legislation was from 1945, and there were issues with benches asking people to stop here, warning that there were concerns in the road going ahead. We no longer have benches and have not had benches in the right away for quite a while. So this is the first code clean up since 1994 at the Metro merger. So we're also going through and getting rid of some unused provisions like that one. Speaker 0: Okay. So the horse and buggy time is a little different. Okay. Go ahead. Okay. Moving to the next one is actually deleting Section 14.38 of the King County Code, which allows for road closures and openings by petition. And this action would then repeal that section. As I said, the according to the road service staff, the provisions have never been used and that closing a road doesn't absolve the county of any of the maintenance responsibilities or toward liability. Moving to the next item. This would delete the mitigation payment system. The system right now is not generating significant revenue due to low development activity of the small. This the direct impacts would still be addressed through the super process and it repealing the system wouldn't affect the concurrency program or intersection standards. Okay. Questions. Keep going. Okay. The next to deal with or to establish new authority on page 251 emergency permits. This would be providing authority for the county road engineer to issue special use permit during disasters. When you close some of the roads, you're still going to need to be able to get emergency provisions and some emergency vehicles , possibly school busses across the roads. And this would allow the county road engineer specifically to do that. So being that we have some bridges that are at their weight bearing capacity, I'm really wanting to make sure that you have enough authority for any emergency. So as we go forward, maybe you and I are flying can talk about are there any other emergency powers that you need? And I had a conversation with somebody the other day about an emergency issue and a bridge, so we can talk about that offline. And I'd also like to know, Brenda, what your emergency powers are, too. Are they all the road engineer? My emergency powers are to tell the county road engineer what to do. All right, that's good. Okay. So should he be on a vacation? Which probably won't happen. But if you were on a vacation out of the country, do you have the ability to do everything that he has to do? And if you're on a vacation, does he have the ability to share back and forth that? So whenever the county road engineer is unavailable, we have an acting county road engineer, so he takes vacation, he's ill, whatever. We have another someone who has an engineering degree, a P license that I do not have who can help us make those technical decisions. But as is true with all of our organizations, we have the ability to act in the absence of one person. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Okay. We'll move now on to the regulations that have been. I'm sorry, one more of the new authority again. This is enforcement entitled 14. It's on page 251. And it authorizes the county road engineer to enforce specific sections and subsections of this. Previously, the existing language gave this authority to the King County D.A., director and to the sheriff. And so this would give the authority to the county road engineer, the sheriff subsections relating to road closures, road restrictions, load limiting bridges, standards, road vacations and road variances. Okay. So the sheriff still has the same authority had before to. Yes. Okay. So offline on those two subsections, load limiting bridges. I'm very concerned about that and also road vacations. So those two are ones I'd like to know more about later. Okay. Okay. Moving on to the modified regulations. This is on page 251 of your staff report. Standards for utility for poles have been broadened to apply to every utility pole and other utility structure, not to just every new placement and every planned replacement. Okay. So that's a big deal. And so I think the companies and I think this is the one that there was a recent court ruling on, this is something that allows us to address the issues with clear zone that we did our presentation to you recently. Okay. So everybody that a law degree up here needs to know about that. So if you don't, we can be briefed anyway. Okay. So that's a big deal. All right. Go ahead. Okay, then the next modified regulation is for sidewalk repair and responsibility. This define this is section 14.50 2.020 of the county code and the new. The proposed changes would define the procedures to the floor. Notice to property owners. It again provides provisions for appeal and for the director to assess the cost of the repair or the reconstruction on a sidewalk that's been damaged or not maintained against. And so the costs would be assessed against the abutting property owner there is. And as with the existing language, the lean would be capped at 25% of the assessed value of the abutting property. So one of the things I'd like to know about is how do you repair site? I mean, how do you maintain a sidewalk? I sweep it. I have no idea how else to do. And over time, the cement begins to become what it powdery. So do you want me to get out with my. No. This really has to do with where the essentially property owners have damaged the sidewalk as a result of their tree roots. Speaker 1: Or. Speaker 0: Other instrumentality on their property that resulted in damage to public infrastructure. Okay. And that's another thing I want to talk about is trees in the sidewalks, because they plant these trees and I know we have a list of trees, but they plant these trees with these huge roots and then they all come up and they try to walk around. And it's very dangerous, especially for seniors or people trying to use canes or crutches. So. Okay, we'll talk about that later, too. All right. Okay. Okay. The next one is planning street maintenance. And this language just specifies that plants are prohibited in the temperate clear zone unless there is a curb present. Okay. The next item on page 251 also is intersection standards. And this language makes clear that there will be no administrative fee charged to review intersection standards and that any traffic study that is required would be paid for by the owner of the proposed development and the county staff would be reviewing those studies as they came in . Okay. So that completes the policy issues with respect. With the exception of the Road Vacation Authority section, we're still working with legal staff and roads in our analysis on that. The one issue I would bring to your attention is that the proposed changes would enable the County Council to proactively initiate a proposed road vacation. Currently, those need to be done via petition. That petition authority would remain, but the Council would also be able to initiate it and would be able to initiate on behalf of the executive. Yes. Speaker 8: As you're working on that, I believe state law has been updated recently, but at least under our old system, a fluke could occur in terms of the valuation of our big kid and right away where you'd have your classes, I think three class era, but then you'd look to the assessed value of the parcels on either side . So say you had a 60 foot ride away and you were going to vacate it by 30 feet, going to each of the abutting property owners. If you had low valued land, say on one side, it could be rural or could be underdeveloped or for whatever reason could be low by land. And so you had a subdivision on the other side which is higher valued land. You would bless you, Councilmember Lambert, if you could result in paying a multiple for the very same property on one side of the market and right away of what you would require the money to pay on the other side. And it was it just made no sense. I word you can be paid $100 a square foot for land that was next to $5 a square foot. And I hope that we can in these reforms, if the state law doesn't do it, get to a spot. I see it's adding more flexibility to get to a spot where we have some consistency of coherency in that little fluke of our population that. Speaker 0: That part of the code is completely gone in the revised version. And we do have a lot more flexibility in state law and we are taking advantage of that in our proposal to allow the county to essentially right size its right of way to the right of way that. Speaker 2: Is actually used by the public and. Speaker 0: Valuable to the public and kind of. Speaker 2: Remove some of the. Speaker 0: Liability that the county carries. Most of this right away we're vacating by virtue of the vacation requirements is not a value to us and is of limited value to the adjacent property owners. Typically we carry tremendous liability for it, but we don't get property tax, we don't get and we're often doing work to keep it from being dangerous to the public. Speaker 8: So trees grow in impacted trees, what have you. But we've got a system where it might cost about one issue of diverge of. Speaker 1: Article. Speaker 8: One. And the second issue is just I think it's in here to the extent we can incentivize an adjoining property to pick it up, even though they may not want truly they wouldn't want to pay a lot of value for it, but they might pay something. It gets on the tax rolls, it takes it off of our books. But if there's a burden, not a burden, but a barrier because of the high price that doesn't match the added value, they just won't do it. And it stays on our books in something more useful. I'm interested in the work there to get values correct. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. That completes my report on the Title 14 update. As I said next, I believe at your November 7th meeting, I would be coming back with additional analysis of the road vacation section of the road standards updates, and a striking amendment that your legal counsel has prepared with appeal. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Thank you for all this. And I want to move on to the next one, number nine, which is 2016 411. Thank you, Madam Chair. Item nine on your list, Coastal Counsel Staff. Item nine on your agenda is approval of the quarterly report from the Road Services Division on emergent needs and unanticipated project costs. My staff report begins on page 435 of your packet. This is the sixth of seven quarterly reports required by a budget proviso that the proviso had two objectives. First, to provide closure, policy oversight of road services expenditures in light of a budgeting shift from specific project investments, i.e. individual capital projects to a program based capital project or capital budget that pooled funds for common purposes. And second, to help monitor whether expenditures from this pool of funds track with Council's policy objectives set forth in the strategic plan update. This the pardon me? There are two minor amend or two transfers. The quick response transferred $580,000 for two projects. And the. Pardon me. Let me just get to my page here. The first was $500,000 transferred to the Doctrine Road Southwest Erosion Project, and the second was $80,000 to the Bredell Over Crossing Repair Project on the Kent Black Diamond Road. Emergent need transfer was just a $21 transfer to close out the Southwest Roxbury Project. For a budget record reconciliation. And that completes my staff report manager. So on the quick response, how are we doing on making sure that we are able to go out when there's an emergency and do a quick response? Speaker 2: Jay Osborne, Deputy Director. So with the quick response program we've been funding, as you've seen in these quarterly reports that have come before you, things that have arisen or damage to the road system that needs to be fixed. The Doctor and seawall is one that's underway currently, as is the very day over crossing, which is almost complete. You'll see in the next quarterly report there was a lot of landslides on Vachon. So you'll see a number of transfers for additional projects on based on the amount of money that we have in the budget. We at this point aren't expecting to carry over a huge sum into the next biennium. We have about 3 million left unexpended going into this stormy weekend, which turned out to not need huge amounts of money. Speaker 0: Thank goodness. Speaker 2: In that in that. So. Speaker 0: Okay. I'm also looking at our preservation money and it's greatly concerning that there's 9 million in 2013, but only 7 million in 2015. So we've had a $2 million, 17% reduction. And so that's that's an issue. Where do we where does that put us. Speaker 2: In the budget? That's before you. You'll see, we just finished how high? Our high accident location safety report. So there are a number of safety projects that are funded in there. There is a slight uptick in the amount of preservation we're able to do because our revenues have increased slightly going into the coming biennium. But there are no bridge projects or any standalone preservation projects. We're concentrating primarily on pavement preservation and drainage work came the budget proposal. Speaker 0: So the idea you don't have a stand on preservation and also there's no money going into bridges is of great concern to me. And we asked the Federal Government to go back to separating their roads money from their bridge money. Do you know in the latest, did they do that or is bridge money now still in with the roads money? Speaker 2: There is a separate amount of bridge money that comes down through the state. But part of what you're referencing in the Federal Highway Trust, this House of Representatives has not acted on that legislation at this point. Speaker 0: Okay. So when we go back early next year, hopefully they'll have acted on it, but not having it. For me, it's a lack of transparency. We know how many bridges we have. We have 181, is that correct? Under 81 bridges, we know what state of repair disrepair they're in. And the federal government should be giving us a proportional share of that each year. And the fact that they're not is really disconcerting. So then on table two, Miller Bridge replacement, 2.5 million. That was taken up in the 2013 a.S.A.P. Where's that now? Is it just non-existent or is it still being tracked that that was taken out so that if we ever had money, we can go back to that. Speaker 2: That project that was in there initially was scheduled to be funded by FEMA. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 2: But as you know, FEMA had declined to fund the repair work of that bridge in there. We do have some road end proposals and some of the FEMA adjustments in that area that have been offered up. But we still do not have funding to reconnect that bridge. Speaker 0: So just for everybody to know what he said is absolutely correct. But the problem that has been exacerbated is that that is a train stop. And there used to be three ways in and out of Skye Comet, and the train usually covers two of them. And that was fine because you always had the third, but because this is out, there is no third. And so we have had four times now where skirmish has been cut off and one time it was cut off for four and a half hours. Nobody could get in, nobody could get up. And that is not acceptable and is very dangerous. So I am working with our federal legislators on dealing with FEMA on this. So I just want you to flag it that it is still very much in my mind and something that I'm not happy about the federal government not stepping up. I think they should have. So. Okay, so that's an issue we need to still keep working with. Okay. Anything else? Madam Chair, would you like to take action on that today? I would, so let's see. Council member would you be willing to put number nine? This is four for eight, is that correct? I mean, this is 4041121201110. That is number nine. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. Look at the wrong number for one one. Just looking at the page number. Sorry. That doesn't mean you can remove it. Speaker 3: I mean, if we give it. You passed recommendation to motion 2016 for 11. Speaker 0: Great question. Okay. Clerk, will you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member. Banducci Council Member Dumbass I Council Member Done. Speaker 2: By. Speaker 0: Council Member Gossett II. Councilmember Colwell IV Council Member McDermott. Speaker 2: But. Speaker 0: Council Member of the Grove Council member run right there. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is ADA is no nos and council member van right there. Excuse. Okay. I think that we really don't need to talk about this probably at the full council unless you want to. I was thinking consent. Okay. Okay. With consent for this. Okay. Does it need to be expedited or not? No. Okay. So regular and concert calendar. And we will continue to work on all the many issues that all of that contains. It's heartbreaking. Okay. So that takes us on to the next ordinance. Thousand 16 0401. This one will be very quick. Madam Chair, this is item ten list Lisa K Council Staff. Item ten on your agenda is proposed ordinance 2a160401. My staff report begins on page 449 of your packet. This ordinance would simply move to consolidate sections of the county code that address the Commute Troop Reduction Act into Title 28, which is metropolitan functions. So the existing county code, Chapter 14.60 on computer production would go into a new chapter in Title 28. Okay. And there are no structural changes or policy changes. I just feel really moving it so that it will be more consistent. Yes, ma'am. And because we haven't done since 1994 and it's about time. All right. So that sounds like an interesting thing. Any questions? It is. Would you like to do that? Speaker 8: Do pass recommendation on proposed ordinance 1016 0401. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any questions? Okay, quick, could you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Council member. Belushi I council member themselves. Council member done by Council Member Gossett II Councilmember Caldwell I. Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 3: Grove. Speaker 0: House Member of the Grove Councilmember run right down. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is either none of the members on right are excused. Thank you. I think we can also put that on consent on regular calendar. So that will be good and we will continue to work on the other off line as we prepare for more things. And hopefully we will not end up with needing a pogo stick to get over our roads. Thank you so much for being with us today. Okay. Our last item is a great item also, and this is a ordinance 2016 0431 is an ordinance establishing a task force on labor trafficking and economic exploitation and requiring a report

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE relating to commute trip reduction; amending Ordinance 10733, Section 1, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.010, Ordinance 10733, Section 2, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.020, Ordinance 10733, Section 3, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.030, Ordinance 10733, Section 4, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.040, Ordinance 10733, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.050, Ordinance 10733, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.060, Ordinance 10733, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.070, Ordinance 10733, Section 8, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.080 and Ordinance 10733, Section 10, as amended, and K.C.C. 14.60.100, recodifying K.C.C. 14.60.010, K.C.C. 14.60.020, K.C.C. 14.60.030, K.C.C. 14.60.040, K.C.C. 14.60.050, K.C.C. 14.60.060, K.C.C. 14.60.070, K.C.C. 14.60.080, K.C.C. 14.60.100 and K.C.C. 28.94.110 and adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 28.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_10172016_2016-0431

Speaker 0: things. And hopefully we will not end up with needing a pogo stick to get over our roads. Thank you so much for being with us today. Okay. Our last item is a great item also, and this is a ordinance 2016 0431 is an ordinance establishing a task force on labor trafficking and economic exploitation and requiring a report with recommendations on the steps the county can take in addressing systematic issues related to the things. This was brought to us by our sponsor today that represented representative sorry Council Caldwell and the whole history there. And Mr. Curry, would you begin the briefing? Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Clifton Curry of Council Staff. Our materials today begin on page 473 of your packet with the staff report. In addition, what's been passed out prior to the meeting is a PowerPoint presentation related to labor trafficking and also a very good summary of all of the landmark Washington State accomplishments to prevent human trafficking . So it gives a good legislative history. And rather than spending a lot of time on the history, the the count, the state of Washington and the King County Council have shown a significant interest in issues related to human trafficking and recognizing that here are King County in the Pacific Northwest is a gateway to most of the rest of the world. We have very high population of immigrants moving through this area. Trade is regular. We have very much access between freeways, ports, one of the largest airports in the Pacific Northwest that we are can be seen as a hub for trafficking. The council, in following, along with the state legislature and the federal government, have recognized the seriousness of human trafficking and. Have taken a significant number of actions. Again. I point you to both the summaries and my staff report where there's a discussion of the history of the actions taken here in the Council. However, most of those actions have been directly related to human trafficking as it relates to the commercial sex, sexual exploitation, and especially in the area of sexual exploitation of minors. And the council has done a great deal working in that area, as have the communities in the Pacific Northwest. But one area that hasn't gotten the same level of review, at least at the county level, is human trafficking related to labor. And that's when individuals are. Well, I'm going to read the definition here. Victims of human trafficking include children who are involved in commercial sex trade. Adults age 18 or over who are coerced or deceived into commercial sex and anyone forced into different forms of labor or services such as domestic workers held at home or farm workers forced to labor against their will. And human trafficking is a federal agent. It is against the law at the federal level and at the state level with the concentration, primarily looking at the sexual exploitation, especially sexual exploitation of minors. Been very successful and several programs members have had briefings from the prosecutor's office and other programs. However, as the state has looked at labor trafficking and there's a recognition that there's several different options that have never been systematically reviewed in such a way as to look at, not just looking at the traditional providing services to victims and survivors of trafficking, providing education and so on, very similar to what happens in the arena of sexual exploitation. But there are also several policies and other efforts that both governments can take and business can take that have the impact of reducing the the number of people who are involved in labor trafficking, by changing procurement policies, looking at how education is done, the workplace, and looking at different forms of enforcement which has never been done systematically here at the county. This proposed ordinance which begins on has a striking amendment, and the striking amendment basically has been modified to update with a lot more input and so on. And I'll be talking, Madam Chair, to the striking amendment, which begins on 489 of your packet. This amendment would require that the executive convene a task force to assess and address the systematic issue of labor trafficking and economic exploitation in King County. The task force would have a fairly comprehensive membership. The full list is on page 490 of your packet today. The striking amendment would require that the executive for all members except the identified county officials, make the appointments to the task force by January 15, 2017, and that the executive notify the Council at least 30 days prior to appointment of who's being appointed so that you have an opportunity to look at those individuals and groups before the final appointment, which is the way things often happen. The task force would be charged with consulting with county departments, businesses, community groups to determine the effectiveness of the delivery of services to victims and survivors of labor trafficking and and economic exploitation. And have that group make recommendations to improve both the services and the policies within the county to both address in for government sector and for the private sector best practices. The amendment sets April one, 2017, as a deadline for the Task Force Task Force's first meeting, and it actually has an expiration date of June 1st, 2018, for the task force unless the Council takes action to extend that group. The amendment requires that the executive support the efforts of the task force with staffing and neither resources. And the Executive is also required to prepare a report based on the work of the task force. That includes, among a variety of things, a list of governmental agencies that currently interact with potential victims of labor trafficking, an analysis of laws, a review of county ordinances, rules and practices that could be changed. Analysts analysis of how current labor experiment practices leave workers. Verbal identification of existing best practices. An analysis of support services provided to the victims and survivors. And recommendations for strategies to prevent the incidents within the county of labor trafficking and economic exploitation. To improve the delivery of services to victims and survivors. To provide better education for businesses on current domestic and international labor laws. Education for workers of their rights. And to increase community awareness of labor trafficking and economic exploitation. The expectation is the report would also include an implementation plan for any recommendations that could be implemented by the county and a description of how the report's recommendations will align with other regional and local human trafficking efforts. With a recognition that for those task forces and groups, for example, the county's. Commercially Sexually Exploited Minors workgroup, there wouldn't be duplication of effort and there would be a coordination of recommendations. The executives report would be due to the Council in December of 2017. The proposed ordinance, as modified by the striking amendment, would continue the county's work on human and human trafficking and expand that the traditional view of sexual exploitation and move it into the realms of labor trafficking. Following very similar models that the county has used elsewhere to look at not just county wide issues that affect government and labor and local businesses, but also groups in the county such as the Immigrants and Refugees Task Force that have worked with similar groups and individuals. And Madam Chair, if the no questions for me on the striking amendment, there's a panel this morning to talk about the issues related with labor trafficking and the importance of this issue. And if you would like to hear from the panel now and then, I would be available afterwards for discussion related to the striking amendment. Speaker 0: So the panel can be come up. That'll be great. I'm sure there'll be some questions first before the panel. I have some questions, too, but we'll start with Councilmember Balducci. I want to start with a bit of a process question, because I have a very large number of questions about this proposal, starting with where's the data and ending with where's the fiscal node, where is the law enforcement community? Where's the executive? This is a very big ask, and I'm really concerned that I don't see any detail behind it at all. So I think having a discussion today about the issue of labor trafficking and the problem I think is a really good start. But I feel like there's steps to go before we're ready to adopt a particular approach. I just want to just lay that out on the table because I didn't hear or see any of my questions answered today. Councilmember Kobus. Madam Chair, if that's all right with you, I could give a little bit about how they find sure they'll be fine working on for a long time to get to this point. I in fact, we began working on this proposal last February here when I started at the County Council the month before, and with the tremendous work on the part of my staff or a Toshihiko Hasegawa, we are here today with, I think, a very solid proposal. And among all that we did to prepare for the day was to meet with community organizations last February and March. I get a considerable amount of feedback in terms of what the needs are, what would be the best ways to address these needs, what the county could do, given the the significant amount of work that had has been done on sex trafficking. We've worked with the prosecutor's office, with the sheriff's office, with many departments and agencies in the executive branch here, including, I'd say, over the last couple of months, every week or every other week, we've been in meetings, we've met with our budget chair and we've really come up with something that we think makes a lot of sense . Now, I'd also like you to keep in mind that the work on human trafficking more generally, but labor trafficking specifically has been going on at the state level for a long time. And in fact, starting in 1995, when three Filipina American women were murdered here at the courthouse. So those were Suzanna Ramrod Blackwell, Phoebe designed and Veronica Loretta and Susanna was eight months pregnant when her husband murdered her self and the other two women who were there to help her here at the courthouse. And it was Emma Kotecki who was here today, who I believe brought the information to Velma, the lawyer, Representative Velma Valeria at the time, and the Filipino community rallied together to make sure that we in the legislature knew and understood what was happening, something called human trafficking, which we didn't know much about at that time. Representative Valeria led the efforts in the legislature, and we also have with us current State Senator Bob Hasegawa, who this year had legislation of his past that dealt with labor trafficking terms being added and. A lot. There have been about 40 laws enacted in our state where the number one state in the country. But we have a lot more to do, and mainly that has to do with labor trafficking. The public is more aware of sex trafficking also very, very important. I would appreciate that we hear the panel. And if you can accept that a whole lot of background work has been done on this and we are, of course, continuing to look at what the fiscal issues are, the challenges. But we're thinking about on the order of $25,000 to get this taskforce implemented. And we'll let the panel talk. Thank you. Well, Councilmember. And I'm sorry to basically want to say something. Speaker 8: Thank you. And I apologize for jumping in, but I have to go due to our conflict. And I'm very sad because I want to hear this panel. Then I will watch it later. I'm pleased to join as a co-sponsor with Councilmember Cowell's of the legislation, and I have at times participated in the existing Csac task force here , which is oriented and aimed at kind of children in this issue area. Before I came to the council, I was somewhat active with the American Bar Association, and they have done really tremendous amount of work in this area and have a number of recommendations, which I hope as we invest in this work here at the county, we will look at one of which is maybe a shift away from the focus on criminalization, which we should do, but more to support of victims. And I think that that will be a place that the county can play an important role in giving the kinds of services that we do here in addition to the criminal prosecutorial work . But I wanted to just let you know that I'm sorry. I have to go. I really appreciate you being here. I think this is very good work. I think it could integrate well with our new Office of Immigrants and Refugees. And there is a proposal in the budget to have a staffer there which might be able to assist with some of this work. And I'm excited that hopefully this will pass out and I'll certainly be supporting it. But I'm excited to see the work that this task force of its convening does in terms of its recommendations and then how the county can carry out on a local role. Our support services for the city of Seattle and King County, as you all know, is, I think one of the top five cities in the country because of our early report status, at least it used to be, and some of the work we were doing at the ABA. And so this is very important work and I'm happy to support Councilmember Caldwell's leadership on it and I appreciate your being here. Speaker 0: So a couple of things before we get started. On line 23, the three people were murdered. And so at the King County Courthouse, I didn't think that was human trafficking. I thought that was a domestic violence case. Cliff. Now you want to answer that? Somebody says you know the answer to that. Actually, initially started we also viewed it initially as a domestic violence case. But when we look at the issue of migrant brides, it had the definition of human trafficking where they're forced out of their country because there are no economic opportunities for them. They are brought here thinking that there are going to be economic opportunities. And then there was a study that was done at the University of Washington, which. Called the issue of these migrant brides or mail order bride as a bride trafficking. Okay. So last time we were told certain terms are pejorative and certain terms aren't. Yes. So is bride trafficking, except it is not accepted. What is the correct terminology? Correct terminology that we are currently using as migrant brides. Migrant brides. Okay. Migrant marriages. Okay. Is that as explicit as saying the other terms of the term seem like it's a little bit more so says the flavor of this is not a good idea. Or migrant brides doesn't sound quite as intense. Anyway. All right. Whatever the right word is. I was just surprised to see that in here. That that was that. And then I like to say that I was in the legislature when I'm a first brought this to us in the late nineties and we're like, What? What is this? So I'd like to thank you for your leadership on this all these years. It's great. Thank you. So that. Would you like to begin? Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Velma Gloria and members of that council. Thank you for hearing this particular legislation. I wanted to particularly say thank you to council member Kimiko Wells for her leadership and for her staff to pursue this issue. When we first introduced the Bill of Human Trafficking or to make human trafficking a crime on the state level, it was with the intention of having it be more inclusive. It wasn't just to study or to address the issue of sex trafficking, but to also include labor. And now, as I travel the world, it would hopefully include organ trafficking under the international trade agreements. What we have done, actually, it's commodify human beings so that human trafficking has not become part of the globalization process. This ordinance will allow us to take a look and play an important role in studying and looking at the issue of labor trafficking and economic exploitation and hopefully look forward to possible solutions. The issue of funding this task force. I hope that the Council will find some money, $25,000. I don't think it's that great of a request to get the task force started. And we really encourage that. You support this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and council member. I would like to thank everybody that Velma did bring this excellent PowerPoint. It's not time to have it shown, unfortunately, but I think I would encourage you to take a look at it. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me. And there's also another sheet of the member state accomplishments, too, that goes back o 2000 to that's here for the record, too. Also, I want to point out, because they know, as we've discussed this many times, we are one of the number one states. Partly because we are on the circuit or on the West Coast, but also because we are very aware of this. And so when we have had concerted efforts of doing targeted arrests, we've had a lot of them because our police are doing such a good job of targeting. So I know the last time we talked about this that several different people were concerned that it made them sound bad as opposed to the fact that they're really on top of this and doing a good job. So we're glad they're making a lot of arrests. We just wish that there weren't arrests to be made, which is a little different. Would you like to see for us? Speaker 6: Yes, thank you. And my name is John White. And I want to echo from a representative on The Voice gratitude for hearing this issue today. And I'm here to speak on behalf of Doctors Sutapa Basu at the Women's Center at University of Washington. Human trafficking, specifically, labor trafficking, is a prominent human rights abuse that touches all corners of our world, including the people in this room. The International Labor Organization estimates that 21 million people are victims of forced labor around the globe. Over 75% of them are victims of labor trafficking and are exploited in industries such as agriculture, construction, domestic service, fishing, manufacturing and more. Living in a global economy means that decisions we make here at a local level impact workers in King County, but also around the world. The 2013 Rana Plaza disaster, where nearly 1200 people died from a building collapse, included workers making garments for big brands that do business in King County. Locally procured goods are also at risk, for example, in the Bangladesh tasering fashion factory fire that killed 112 workers. The New York Times traced their supply chains back to Apparel Commission to the U.S. military, given the widespread worker exploitation worldwide and the potential connection to our local economy. We in King County can move towards preventing instances of labor trafficking and economic exploitation by examining our labor and procurement practices and identify areas that are vulnerable. For example, manufacturing of goods and services such as apparel and electronics, along with our construction workforce, are areas known to be prone to labor trafficking. And in 2015, 60% of the King County spending went to goods and services and 12% to construction. Government and public agencies have tremendous power in prevention, particularly through procurement. Our preliminary research through our preliminary research, we have learned that there are many cities, counties and states that have passed and implemented various ethical sourcing and sweat free ordinances that we can unpack and learn from. This task force will allow our county to take leadership on this issue and look at our own procurement practices and vendor supply chains and engage our community to collaboratively identify and support meaningful action items to take a stance against labor trafficking. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for. My name is Dr. Mar Bretman with businesses ending slavery and trafficking. And thank you so much, Councilmember Caldwell's, for proposing this legislation. And thank you for hearing us today. I am here to support the founding of a task force. We know that labor trafficking not only is being driven by products and services that we're buying overseas, we also know that it's happening here in Washington State. We don't yet know the prevalence or scope of what's happening in Washington state. And I think that's one of the things that this task force needs to work on and help us to understand better. But according to recent research, the prevalence could be quite high. A study out of San Diego focused on one small population of undocumented Spanish speaking immigrants. We know that documented Spanish speaking, documented immigrants in Washington state are also subject to labor trafficking. But in that specific population studied in San Diego, they found that one half experienced some form of employment violation. 27% of those classified as trafficking violations. 15% of workers experienced sexual abuse, physical abuse and or threats. 20% experienced deprivation, including things like food deprivation, sleep deprivation. And there were also several were forbidden to leave their leave their place of work. 24% were denied pay. The top industries in which this happened were construction, cleaning, landscaping, food processing in restaurants and manufacturing. So in King County, which seeks justice and equity for all people, we need to understand what is happening in our county to our most vulnerable populations and how we can uphold the rights of those populations. So I am very supportive of founding this task force because we do need to begin working on this issue as a county. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I want to apologize. I do have to leave to go to another meeting. And I really am sorry. I wish this meeting had gone faster and I could have listened to everything. And as I said at the beginning, I'm learning about this issue. Our report just didn't have any real data behind it. It had a lot of generic general statements in it. It's a very large task force. There are seven county departments that are asked to participate in a short period of time. I'm concerned about the cost. I'm not at all unsupportive. I'm very supportive. I understand that there's an issue. I understand our status as a port city makes us particularly susceptible to this kind of this kind of problem. And there's been a lot of effort, and I and I don't want to in any way send a message that it's not an important issue to address. I want to understand what exactly it is we're proposing to do and whether this is the best approach to do it. I also, by the way, am very, very appreciative of Councilmember Caldwell's efforts and her comments. I really look forward to learning more about what she has learned because, again, it is not here today. This is called a new to me. So I'm hoping that we can have this back one more time for a little bit more information. That's all I'm asking. And I, too, will go back and watch the the playback of everybody else's comments that I won't be able to stay to here today. Thank you for your report, Madam Chair. Just. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Member. I appreciate your remarks a lot, but I think what you're doing is really pointing out to the need for creation of this task force. We do not have all the data that are needed where King County. King County is the economic engine of the state of Washington versus Puget Sound. But talking with the prosecutors and sheriff's office, I worked on this for a long time. There is ample information that trafficking takes place here. Labor trafficking is not as visible to people as the sex trafficking, but it is present, there's no doubt about that . But what one of the main reasons we want to have this taskforce is to be able to determine what the incidence and the prevalence are. So thanks. Thank you very much. Would you like to begin? Speaker 6: Sure. Hi, I'm Nicole Valastro King, and I'm the executive director of the Fair Work Center based in Seattle, but also King County. And I just want to echo all of the incredible words said before me and the leadership of the people talking before us. I actually didn't come to this work thinking about trafficking. I came to this work thinking about wages and workers. And, you know, I sat on the Seattle Task Force for the $15 minimum wage campaign. And during that time, it became abundantly clear that we needed more resources for workers when their rights are violated. I had a number of people come to me and say, You know, Fifteen's great, but I'm not getting minimum wage right now. And so we're like, Oh, well, there's a real need for community supported enforcement. And so we founded the Fair Work Center to train workers about their rights at work and then also provide legal services. And now we're one of the only part of the King County Bar Association, the only neighborhood clinic that is devoted to employment services, even though at the state level, similarly, a civil legal aid study done by the Supreme Court showed that employment issues is one of the top five issues that people in our state have. That's a problem that people in our state are facing, and it's not one of the top five services available to them. So there's a really big need for services for workers. Anyway, we're doing this, we're training workers about their rights and then all of a sudden we get more and more people who've been trafficked coming in. And, you know, we were just like, we just wanted to make sure you were getting paid the right wage. And what we're finding is that there's such a strong relationship between labor trafficking and workplaces that violate other rights. So if they violate health, health and safety code and then also are violating minimum wage, often there's an element of coercion that happens for the people we serve. They're told, you know, well, if you report us, we're going to report you to ICE. Or if you report us, you know, like I actually we had a worker come in whose employer threatened to murder her child if they're reporting them. So it's it sounds like over the top. But if you recently moved to this country, you don't have a network or a safety net to support you. It's something that's really real and happens. And I so support this task force because, you know, we came at it from another angle and we're finding that it's such a bigger problem than we could have ever imagined. Thank you. Speaker 0: So thank you. Is there a phone number that people could call? I'm sorry. I didn't see you there. Did you disappear or you're not? I'm. I'm so sorry. Your angle. I didn't see you at all, so please proceed. Speaker 2: And I'm happy to answer that question as well. So my name is Robert Pizer, and I'm the executive director of Seattle Against Slavery. I just want to echo the background and like work that's been done on this issue for nearly 20 years now, looking broadly at the issue of human trafficking, just to put some specific examples to what this looks like in King County in the past few years, we had a 14 year old who was brought into this country with the promise of education, but instead in Kent and Federal Way was forced to work in a factory. She was making pastries and chocolates that went out in restaurants and grocery stores, and she wasn't given any wages. She was put under threat of violence and forced debt on her and her family and spent years in that environment, as well as cleaning the house of the people who she was being trafficked by. We had a woman who was a mother who was threatened with the murder of her children if she did not take care of the house and the children of King County residents. And she was in that situation for years. We had a South Asian man who was working in a restaurant and he was told he would be deported. And what we know from the Tacoma detention center is that we have trafficking victims and survivors who are being. Report it. Who have been residents of King County. Before there was commercial, commercially, sexually exploited children task force. People said, well, how do we know how much of this is really going on? We don't have the numbers and we don't have the data. But two years into that process, we have the data on hundreds of victims and survivors. We have convictions of hundreds of men who have been trying to buy children for sex. And I think what we see is that the survivors of human trafficking, the foreign nationals in Washington state, there's more labor trafficking survivors attempting to access services than sex trafficking survivors among foreign nationals. So even though we don't have the numbers at this point, task forces like the one that's proposed in this legislation are key. They are the point where all of these community stakeholders come together, where we make decisions about what public awareness do we need to be doing and what's effective. What services need to be available to survivors of trafficking. And what training for King County employees needs to happen? Because right now the city of Seattle is getting training for their employees on how to identify labor trafficking. And the 13,000 employees of King County aren't getting that same training. So I think this task force has a tremendous opportunity to really reshape what it looks like for people who might be at risk of labor trafficking in King County and what the rest of the state and the country needs to do about the issue of labor trafficking and the number. If someone were identified as being a labor trafficking victim or survivor who needed services is 8883737888. And that will connect them directly with both law enforcement and service providers here in King County and around the state. Speaker 0: Okay. So you said it in a really good way for us to remember. It's eight, eight, eight on both ends. And then in the middle is 3737. Okay. So 883737888. So you don't have to be identified. You can identify yourself. And even if you have concerns about what's happening to me, they could call me or a friend. Speaker 2: Or if you're a service provider, who has someone come in who tells you a story and you say, I don't know what the services who are are that are available for this person. You can call that number and get technical assistance. Speaker 0: Okay, great. And then one of the other things that would be good to have, as we talked about this years ago, and I don't know if we ever got it finished, but we asked to get information not only on what businesses can do, but what can we as a citizen do. And one of the things they told me was when I go get my nails done, look at the picture on the wall with the license and see if that picture matches that person or the description matches the person that's actually doing this so that we can see whether or not. So suggestions like that that all of us can do, I think are really important. So because the time I think what we're going to do is ask for some more things. Cliff, where you find out from Seattle what their training is to see if we can borrow. And we also put up a study that we did two, three, four years ago and find out where we are on that study. And then I think that the executive has put literally millions of dollars new into ESG. So out of that millions of dollars, I'm sure we can find 20,000. So that's not the part that's bothering me at all. So I would also like to know what the average age of the person being trafficked is so that maybe we can look at some basic manifestos for kids money to see if any of those would qualify. And then we'll carry this to another meeting and make sure all that members have the information they need. But I think the sheriff and the prosecutor should be here also and the other groups that are impacted with doing this to see what their timeframes are. So we will get you a date. It will be either end of November, beginning of December, but we'll get you a date before the end of the year and we'll have all that information. Speaker 3: Councilmember Thank you, Madam Chair. I might also suggest that we. Mr. CURRY We do some work to compare this proposal to work that has been done in the past, and I'm not sure whether it's continuing INS sexual exploitation in sport through the sheriff's. Speaker 2: Department as well. Speaker 0: That would be very helpful to know and know that and then. Speaker 1: Make sure that. Speaker 3: We're not duplicating. Speaker 2: And everything is complementary. Speaker 0: Not duplicating or that we don't come up with the same outcomes that we had in the last report. You know, let's find out where we got in the last report and make sure that all those things are happening, too. So, yes, Councilman Gomez, for clarification, very much appreciate your holding this briefing. Are you saying for late November, early December, to come back to the Senate to revisit this proposal? Jordan in Spain should be prepared to vote for it. Terrific. And I would again like to acknowledge that we have Senator Hasegawa here, who has been particularly involved with these related issues of wage theft and the underground economy that does exist, that takes away revenue from our tax base when we do not have full reporting and compliance with the law. So thank you all on my behalf for visiting here. And I hope that Dr. Brennan and will be able to share more as well about what she actually does in working with businesses and corporations here in Cancun. She's done amazing work over many years and in a variety of different formats. So we thank you for all your work on this. I did have an opportunity once to see somebody who had been deprived of food for a very long amount of time, and it was the first time I'd ever seen that depth of food deprivation, and it was really frightening to me. So anyway, thank you. It's hard to believe anybody in this county, although that event happened in my very own city. So I know what happens in this county and it should never happen this county. So thank you very much. We will see you again. So thank you so much. And with anything else, this meeting is adjourned.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE establishing a task force on labor trafficking and economic exploitation and requiring a report with recommendations on the steps the county can take in addressing systematic issues related to labor trafficking and economic exploitation.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_10032016_2016-0473

Speaker 1: grade you. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's bring up our next panel, which will be 2016 0473 and in a minute. Yeah. Okay. This is developing a plan for addressing major technology emergencies that might occur in three different departments that we wanted to start with. The Office of Emergency Management, Natural Resources and Parks and the Department of Elections. Mr. Hamburger, would you begin? Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Patrick Hamacher, I'm I'm apparently being joined by Mr. Gillis. I'm also delivering a report for Mr. Giambattista, who's there in the office today. The proposed motion before the committee would call on the executive to work with three departments between the departments and committee to come up with a plan to address emergencies and the way that they would handle it. Related Emergencies within the department. The project, which essentially would start out like a pilot project, would require the departments to work with KCET on how they would be alerted on upcoming events, a schedule for major events that could be adversely impacted by I.T. emergencies. The how the how KCET would be alerted if there were issues to come up and the a resource or on call plan for dealing with those issues. That plan would be required to come back to the Council in April of next year for review and could lead to more widespread roll out throughout the county. And that concludes my staff report. Madam Chair. Speaker 1: Thank you. That's pretty straightforward. Thank you very much, Mr. Key. How would you like to make any comments? Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Bill Kehoe, King County Chief Information Officer I think this is a a very good ordinance. It will improve the coordination between city and our separately elected agencies in our executive branch agencies when we have an event and an event can be a flood warning and could be an election cycle . There's many events that could occur that require our assistance and coordination. So this will formalize what we are trying to do today, which is to coordinate much better with our agencies around these events, make sure that we have the right recovery plans. If something were to go wrong, make sure we have the right resources on call, make sure that we have alerts so that we don't make any changes to our technology during one of these events. So there's moratoriums that we have to adhere to. And so we're looking forward to working with our with our agencies, in our executive branch departments and increasing the coordination and collaboration to make sure that nothing goes wrong during these critical events. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Robertson. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think a couple of weeks ago we had the emergency management program leadership. Speaker 1: Judy Miller. Who was it? Judy Miller. Yeah. Speaker 3: That was before us. And she said that we're trying to get cell phone numbers into our system, but we have to rely upon people calling that registering. And what that did, to my mind, is say that a lot of working class and poor people get different cell phones every four or five months, and they rarely would think about even if they saw ADVERTISMENT on TV to register with anybody. So my question to you is, how do we get information about an emergency that has are out the down quickly? Speaker 2: Are we just we're out of luck. Thank you. Mr.. Mr.. Gossett, I think for this, this audience is really for internal coordination. For external coordination and our residents. You know, that's difficult for, you know, the folks that you mentioned. I think there's email, there's texting potentially is other technologies that we could look at in addition to the cell phone. But unless someone has access to that, it is difficult. Yes. Speaker 3: And there's no way that every time someone gets a new cell phone number, it just automatically goes into our system. Speaker 2: That was that technology doesn't exist yet. It probably does exist, but it certainly isn't something that we have available. You have to work with the various phone carriers and sometimes their cell phones that are, you know, just for day use or, you know, they're free, essentially. So those are more difficult as well. But that's a that's a real that's a really good problem to look to solve in the future. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. And thank you for remembering that we were briefed on some of the emergency needs and the coordination. And so I'd like to thank Carolyn Whalen, Judy Miller. Christy, true. And of course, you, Bill Kehoe, for the coordination on this and being willing to put this together so that when there is an emergency that the phones don't go to get overwhelmed or the computers slowed or crashed. And if they do happen, where do we do next to make sure that that doesn't happen for very long? Council member of the Grove. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Bill, do you anticipate you can do this with your existing staffing and resources yet? Speaker 2: That's a great question. I was actually thinking about that as I was walking up here. We have a lot of processes in place today, so we're not going to request any additional funding or resources a change management process. So I think it's just increasing the level of coordination. So I don't think there's a huge impact on on our staffing. Thank you. Speaker 1: The other questions Councilmember Dombroski. Speaker 3: Thank Madam Chair. Please to a to move for the do pass recommendation propose motion 2000 60473. Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other questions? Please call for the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council member Belushi. I want to come to Members and our city council member. Speaker 0: Then Council member Gossett I. Council member Caldwell's I. Speaker 6: McDermott, High. Speaker 0: Council member of the group. I am. Some are proven right. All right. All right. Speaker 1: Madam Chair, I am sure the vote of. No, no, no, no. Thank you very much. And with that, I think we can put it on the concert calendar, since it is an internal working document. And well, I don't know, Mr. Goss, that might want to talk about the idea of mentioning again to various people. Let's just put it on the real calendar and very good timing. Thank you very much. All right. Let's go on to our next item, which is the briefing 2006, Briefing 187, and that is our four culture update. Two weeks ago were updated on what they've done in the past and this update as required by code is what

Motion

A MOTION requesting that the executive transmit a plan for addressing major technology emergencies that might occur the in the office of emergency management, the department of natural resources and parks and the department of elections, and departments as requested by department directors.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_09212016_2016-0439

Speaker 0: Okay. All right, then. We won't start with you then. All right. Always interesting. Okay, then I guess we will have to start. And no, they don't have their panel here at all, so. Okay. So what we will do then is we will have to start then with item number five and that will be proposed motion 2016 0439 . And this is a briefing today on a motion supporting the expansion of Social Security and Medicaid programs and benefits. And so, Mr. Nicholson, if you'd like to begin the briefing, that would be great. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. And members of the council. First time presenting in front of you. So looking forward to it. Speaker 0: Excellent. We won't be painful as possible. Speaker 2: I appreciate. Speaker 3: That. Speaker 0: I mean, pain. Life, not pain. You didn't catch that either way. Thank you. Speaker 2: So the proposed motion in 2016, dash 0439 would add four items related. Speaker 4: To Social. Speaker 2: Security and Medicare programs to King County's 2017 federal legislative agenda. Specifically would add to the agenda that Social Security benefits should be expanded to address the financial insecurity among among present and future recipients, and that this expansion of benefits should be paid for by eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That cap right now is at $118,500. Employers and employees each. Speaker 5: Pay. Speaker 2: 6.2% of their salary up to that cap. The motion proposed motion would also state that the Medicare program eligibility should be expanded to include younger people, and that benefits should be expanded to include comprehensive dental vision and hearing coverage, and that this expansion should be funded by raising the Medicare payroll tax. That tax rate is currently 1.4 or 5% of all covered wages, and it's paid by the employee and the employer. And that's really what this proposed motion does. I know there's a panel here to further discuss the issue and answer questions. Speaker 0: Remind me again. So it's 1.4 or five. Is that matched or is that split? Speaker 2: The employer each pays it. So the employee pays 1.4 or 5% and as does the employer. Speaker 0: Okay, great. All right. That sounds like a given. You survived and did a nice job. So welcome to presenting. Okay. If the panel would like to come up. I know we have several people. The president of the Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, Mr. Ravi Stern, policy director, Economic Opportunity Institute, Dr. Marilyn Watkins, and somebody from the Washington Community Action Network. And I'll let you pronounce your name when you speak. That would be great. All right. Would you like to begin? Speaker 1: Yes, I will. Thank you very much for hearing us this morning. My name is Marilyn Watkins. I'm the policy director of the Economic Opportunity Institute. And this is Social Security is one of the issues that I've worked on in that capacity for the last 17 years now. So, first of all, the Social Security and Medicare programs are vitally important to everyone here in our country and including here in King County. 22% of Kane County households receive Social Security income, according to the most recent American Community Survey data. And that income that people receive, it totals nearly $5 billion a year that comes into King County's economy because of Social Security benefits. We typically think of Social Security as a retirement program, but I want to share actually my own story to illustrate that this is something that's really important to people of all ages. Nearly 20 years ago now, when my children were nine and 11 years old, my husband dropped out one day of a heart attack. I was working part time, as many women do at that time, and so we were, even though we were a middle class family, financially secure in many ways, we were very much dependent on my husband's income. And from the very beginning, within a couple of weeks, Social Security benefits where survivor's benefits were flowing into my checking account. And every single month until my younger son turned 18, we received a Social Security check every month from the government. That was just hugely important to maintaining economic security, allowing me to keep our house, keep a functioning car, keep two growing boys and sneakers without holes and pants that weren't too short for them. It just made a huge difference for us, even as a middle class family. And it's something that that really impacts everybody. Every day, 15,000 children here in King County receive Social Security benefits directly. And the estimate is that twice that number of kids are actually benefiting from Social Security because they live in a household with somebody who's receiving Social Security benefits. So this is something that really spans the lifespan in terms of its importance to our economy. But as good as Social Security is, as important as it is to everybody's economic security, we could make it so much better. Almost every you know, every few years until the last couple of decades, we've actually tweaked and improved and expanded Social Security. And it's time to do that again for our changing economy to make life more secure for people thanks to Social Security and Medicare. Seniors as a group have the lowest levels of poverty of any major demographic group in our community. But very many live right above that poverty level. The percentage of people living between poverty and 150% or 200% of poverty really still struggling to meet the basics is really high. And of course, many people's medical bills and other expenses actually go up as they get older. So it's time to scrap that cap on the Social Security payroll premium, let everyone pay equitably into the system. And that would really provide us with the with the resources to expand the program, to expand benefits, especially for women of all races and men of color who historically and still today make less money for all sorts of reasons than than do white men. And we see the highest levels of poverty and near poverty among very elderly women who are widowed or single in other ways, who really, really struggle to cover the basics. And we could make life a lot better for them by expanding benefits. And I'll turn it over to my colleague. So she now. Hi, my name is Sochi Markovich, and I'm an organizer with Washington Community Action Network. I know my name's a hard one to say. So thank you. So we're a grassroots organization and we have 40,000 members throughout the state. And we strongly support expanding and strengthening Social Security because we view it as a racial, economic and gender justice issue. So for women, I think I'll talk about women first. So women not only are paid less than their male counterparts, they are often the caregivers for their family members. And I'll just talk about my mom as an example. So I have an older brother who has special needs and my because of the expense of like finding specialty care, my mom has stayed at home with him and has like maybe two years of work history, which is not enough to qualify for Social Security. And so she will not get any Social Security whenever she gets older. And she has to rely on my father for for that economic security. And having that dynamic is really problematic because, one, I think that leads to many women staying in unsafe. And luckily, my parents are not in this category, but there are women out there who stay in unsafe relationships because for that economic security, especially when you're older and if we had something like a caregiver credit, which would recognize the work that women do as caregivers and and count that time towards Social Security so that they could get Social Security, that is a will help. So so so many women in our not only our country, but in our state. And then I think as far as racial justice goes, Marilyn was touching on this. People of color are disproportionately impacted by poverty, lower wages and not having pensions. And so they are disproportionately reliant on Social Security. But the average payment you get a month is about, I think, 1300 dollars. And if talking about King County in particular, when you look at things like rent it, it doesn't match up with the actual costs that people face. So the last study I started is from Zillow. Rent in the Seattle is about $2,000 a month on average. And if your Social Security payment is 3000 dollars, there's no way you can really. Find a place to pay that rent with just your Social Security. And I know that a lot of people have this idea that renters are just young folks. But if you look at the communities of color within King County, 70% of African-Americans are renters. And so there are many, many seniors, as well as people on disability who are renters and are, you know, at the whim of the ridiculous housing cost in the city. And Social Security is not keeping up with those costs. And health care is also getting more expensive, especially for people as they get older. And so it's really important to make sure Social Security actually keeps up with the cost that people face. And so if we scrap the cap and people are equitably paying into the Social Security fund, then we're going to be able to expand Social Security to help fill these gaps that women and people of color face. Speaker 3: Thank you. My name is Ravi Sternum, president of Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action. We're an organization of some 1200 members. We're multigenerational. We take as our primary role trying to make it possible for everyone in our society when they reach the years that they are, should be able to have a decent retirement, that they're able to have retirement with dignity, respect and some economic security. Just in the last two days, it was rather incredible yesterday. And then again this morning, I got emails from news services, one from Bloomberg and the other from one called Just Bread that talked about what we are facing in terms of the retirement crisis. It's estimated that our retirement deficit is $7.7 trillion. That, as most of us remember, when we were coming up, we were told that being able to have retirement was a three legged stool and the three legs were Social Security, a pension and savings. And the reality is at this point that we have a one legged stool or a defined benefit. Pensions have become smaller. The percentage of people that have it now are smaller and smaller. We have a growing population that depends on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. So what does that mean? Well, there's something going on called the age wave where you have this huge population that's moving from being baby boomers. And I think that's probably where most of you are into their retirement years. And what we have is we have this huge deficit and we have a Social Security system that's going to become more and more critical for our ability to be able to have retirement with dignity, respect and Medicare, which is also absolutely essential for seniors and people with disability to be able to live with dignity and respect. Medicare fails to fund vision, dental and hearing. There are emergencies that can be funded through Medicare, but basically for anything that is basic, dealing with your your teeth, your hearing or your eyes, you have to come out of pocket. Social Security, the average benefit is 1300 dollars a year. So we're looking at a situation where senior poverty is going to become more and more a reality in our lives, and we have to deal with it. We're coming to you with this resolution because you are influential and what you say matters. And if you say, listen, we recognize in the county that we have jurisdiction over, we have a crisis that's creeping up on us and one only needs to go outside. I got the statistics from the downtown emergency center in Seattle. And over the last nine years, the age of the people that they're serving over the last nine years has gone up by ten years. The age that the face of poverty is growing older and older, the face of poverty is more and more women and people of color. And we have to have a response to that. And you can help influence that with this resolution. What we're asking you to do in this resolution, as Mack said, is we're asking you to say that King County is in favor of expanding these programs with Social Security. It's just an equity issue. As as was said, the cap is $118,500. What that means is that someone who's earning $1,000,000, whereas we are paying 6.2% or we're paying 6.2%. Someone who's earning $1,000,000 is paying point 1/10 of 1%. They're done paying into Social Security after the first couple of weeks of the year. It's crazy. We need to have an equitable system that, in fact, provides the kind of Social Security system that we're going to need. What it does do, according to the chief actuary of the Social Security trust fund, is it means that Social Security will be able to pay full benefits for the next 57 years. 57 years is an actuarial lifetime. So we need we need to take that step with Medicare. We need to make sure that it covers the essential services that seniors need, including dental vision and hearing. We can do that by raising the social I mean the Medicare payroll tax from 1.4 or 5% to 2%, which would raise $90 billion annually, which would cover the cost of vision, dental and hearing. That would be the equivalent of $0.08 an hour for someone earning $15 an hour. So we're asking you to pass on to the full council this motion that will provide for the council going on record supporting the expansion of these two vital programs and having your federal legislative agenda reflect that, and letting our congressional delegation know that you're on board with this movement that is happening across the country at this point . And we'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Speaker 1: And I just also want to say, I realize I forgot to mention this, is that as a young person who was in college during the recession, we don't have a whole lot of faith in IRAs and borrowing case to really be there for us in 40 years. And I don't really know anyone my age who has a pension. And so for people in my age group, we know that Social Security is like the only thing we can really depend on in retirement. Speaker 3: Just how old are you? Speaker 1: So I'm 26. Speaker 2: Example, Robbie. Speaker 3: Someone might ask you the same question if you want to. Speaker 0: That's great. I do hope, though, that people your age will start looking at what are some of the funding mechanisms that they can have, because as I said, it is a three legged stool. So hopefully saving a little bit. And I know even with my grandchildren, I decided to put a little bit away every month and a 529 account for their education when they first start. This is so little, it's not going to make any difference. And now, five years later, I'm looking at them somehow going, Oh, my gosh, this pays for your college. And it was painless for me because it was such a little amount. So it was it was good to be able to do that. Councilmember Coble. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, Rob is eloquent as ever. That was very, very moving. And also Sochi and Maryland, just really compelling testimony. Thank you for bringing this to us. I, I don't know if you're aware of another mechanism. That we have in the current year. We may have yesterday in the Health, Housing and Human Services Committee, we gave a do pass recommendation and this will be going to the full council pertaining to the Veterans Human Services Levy, which is currently operating and which likely will go on the ballot next August or November. And in a motion that we passed out of the committee yesterday, we directed the executive, the county executive to come back with the report in January with an assessment of how well this Levy's been doing and what might be some areas to expand it, including older adults. This would be services for older adults. So you might want to become engaged in this effort as well. There'll be community conversations going on later. That's starting next week and into October. So it's just a suggestion. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember at the Grove. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. A comment and a question and I have no comment. So she made about young people trying to say something that resonates with the experience I've seen with even college educated folks coming out of school now trying to get employment that covers one the cost of their student debt, plus being able to afford to live. I know a lot of folks who even tucking that little bit away, they're already making choices between being able to afford their bus fare or food or medicine. And so it heck, we make Bankers County Council. I'm having trouble putting money away, but but I have no excuse. But I just want young people in particular now. And I think student debt is a factor in that to having to make choices among basic needs and not having that ability to put something into savings. That was one of the things I like is, you know, it's the classic line for the movie you had me at. Hello. But one of the things I enjoy is hearing effective spokespeople articulate issues, and it helps me be a better advocate. And along those lines, I'm wondering if you can help me answer. One of the most common questions or the pushback comes from, you know, increase in the payroll tax or Medicare. Yikes. You're piling on working people. So what what do I say to someone who who says that that creates an economic burden on people who may be stretched already making lower wages? Speaker 1: Well, you know, I think we have a lot of evidence of all kinds that social insurance, including Social Security and Medicare, has been one of the most effective things we've ever done together as a country. And it actually, as our economy continues to change and evolve and as people actually, you know, unlike when Social Security was founded , people don't get out of high school and get a job and stay in that job for their whole career. People move around a lot. When I get resumes of young people applying for jobs, they often have changed every year or two. And and that's just increasingly common. But I mean, employers aren't don't have loyalty to their employees. And employees really do need to move around a lot as well. And actually, a social insurance program like Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security follows people around. So you actually continue to be able to have those benefits as you move from job to job to job. That's that's a really important thing. These amounts that we're putting into these programs are very low. And one of the keys to our to this proposal is actually making the system a whole lot more equitable by we years ago scrapped the cap on Medicare, but we still have that cap on Medicaid and as we've seen inequality and increase in our increase in our society. And it's really particularly evident here in King County that the growing income inequality where you have the top one and 10% actually doing really, really well on everyone else is not even keeping pace with inflation in terms of their income. This is one of the things that we can do that is really going to help everybody survive and thrive together because our whole economy does better when when individuals have the economic resources at every level in order to just go out and spend for those basics that are going to really keep themselves and their families healthy. Speaker 3: I just would want to add, I mean, clearly, your question relates to the payroll tax on Medicare, not on Social Security, because we're not taxing anyone who can't afford it. So we we we were asked that question before. And as I said, it's $0.08 an hour or it comes down to three. $3.20 for a $15 wage. $3.20 a week, or what comes to around $14 a month. So it is a weighing question because people are I know I'm not going to say that it's not it's a weighing question. And so it is a question of how do you weigh off those same young people not being able to access that, not being able to take care of themselves, their hearing, their vision, their their dental work when they get older against what will be a small amount, but nevertheless an amount that they would pay out. And I just think that it's a matter of values there. That's right. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it. Speaker 1: And for allowing. Speaker 3: Us to make the president. Speaker 1: I have a report that we've prepared on Social Security. I'd like to. Speaker 0: Create five for you. Thank you. Okay. And with that, we're going to move down to number eight. Our briefing 2006, briefing 155. This is the maritime and recreational boat industry impact. And if you would like to come on up, we will go straight to your presentation.

Motion

A MOTION supporting the expansion of the Social Security and Medicare programs and benefits and the elimination of the cap on earnings that are subject to the Social Security payroll tax, and directing the council clerk to distribute this motion to Washington's congressional delegation.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_09072016_2016-0351

Speaker 0: Thank you. Others in favor the minutes as written. Please say I I those opposed. Nay, the minutes are approved as written. We will be postponing item number four and we will be going into a briefing since we have employees here that we would like to honor their time. So we will start at number seven, and that is the briefing and the update of the sheriff's new domestic violence unit. Mr.. Does would you begin briefing us? And welcome to our sheriff and also to Mr. Martin. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Yes. As you mentioned, we will be hearing from the prosecutor's office and the sheriff on their new domestic violence unit, and that is relative to report 2016 be 0159. And as background for the briefing, the Council added in the 1516 Biennial Budget 872,003 FTE to reestablish a domestic violence unit within the King County Sheriff's Office. The prior DV unit had been cut in 2009 as a result of reductions made during the Great Recession. The ad was accompanied by a proviso that required the KSO to produce a report that included an analysis of expected impacts of establishing the DV unit and the identification of desired outcomes, goals and specific performance measures for the unit. The Kato produced that report and it was subsequently accepted by the Council in April of 2016. So with that as background, I would just go ahead and turn it over to David Martin, senior prosecuting attorney and the King County sheriff, for their briefing. Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. DAWSON Thank you, Madam Chair. It's good to be here and talk about something that's been such a success. Now, when I came into office in 2012, one of the things I wanted to do was reestablish the domestic violence unit in the sheriff's office. As I mentioned, we had it through 2009, but I thought it was time to start over again and really emphasize these, particularly in these crimes are insidious in the effect they have on the community and the effect that they have on families.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE relating to the city of Kirkland's South Kirkland Park-and-Ride elevator and pedestrian bridge project; approving an interlocal agreement between King County and the city of Kirkland to provide partial funding for the project, and authorizing the King County executive to execute temporary and permanent easements for the project.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_09072016_2016-0443

Speaker 1: Good morning, John. Tricia staff to Kent County Council. And Madam Chair, if it's okay, I will provide you a staff report on both items five and six, which is proposed motion 2016 039 No and propose motion 2016 0443 because they are linked. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: First of all, proposed motion 2016 039 NO. Is a proposed amendment to your organizational compilation or your rules? What it would provide for is structure in which employees of King County Council would provide 100% of their services to the King County flood control district while still remaining as employees of King County. What this would do would create within, similar to your independent agencies, create within the legislative branch a flood control district administration unit in which to house the employees and create the roles and general responsibilities of a flood control district executive director within your org motion. The org motion amendments would then go on to cover four key areas related to employment. First and foremost, all of the employees that would be part of this unit would be exempted from your traditional Employment and Administration Committee processes and the Flood Control Zone. District Executive Committee would be providing recommendations directly to the Council, as you will find with a proposed motion 2000 1644 three related to job descriptions and others. So specifically, that relationship would apply to the creation of job descriptions. The County Council would be those who would approve them. Based on a recommendation from the Flood Control Executive Committee for Hiring Processes, the flood control district would be responsible for establishing the hiring process and making a recommendation to the King County Council for appointment and for the Council's consideration for performance evaluations. The Flood Controls Executive Committee would provide performance evaluations of the executive director, and the executive director would be responsible for evaluations of those employees with other employees within the unit. And when it comes to disciplinary actions, those would be the responsibility from the front line, from the executive director to the staff reporting to the executive director and from the executive committee to the executive director. In in cases where those disciplinary actions may be more significant, two weeks suspension without pay or more. Or termination. All of those decisions would be appealable to the King County Council, as is your current practice for legislative branch employees. So it maintains that final linkage with the county from an employment standpoint, relative determination. Speaker 0: You may ask your question just for clarification. So it would not go through the EEOC, correct? Okay. It would come to the committee of the hall. Speaker 1: It would go to the full county for county council, which your practice would be then to send that information, whether it was a special, I believe, if in the case of a termination, it would be before the full council. Speaker 0: Okay. So Labor used to come to this committee, but it now goes to. Speaker 1: Any of the substance committees that where the substantive matter resides. And when it comes to Labor policy, the full council meets as a Labor policy committee to address Labor policy. Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you. We don't do that very often, so I forget. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. In your packet. There is one amendment which would clarify that the executive director not only reports to the County Council member who serves as the chair of the district, but is also responsive to all our members of the District Board of Supervisors. This is similar to language that exists with your chief of staff, as well as with my position, the Chief Policy Officer. Unless there are any questions on the job description, I'm on the organization composition. I'll move on to the job description. Speaker 0: Let's wait. Just for council member Goss, this question. That's my guest. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the final decision making entity for this position is not the county council. It's the Board of Supervisors. Am I wrong on that. Speaker 1: Mr. Gossett? Well, the Board of supervisor, while the executive committee, not the Board of Supervisors of the Flood Control District, makes recommendations. The County Council is the final decider on all of its employees, and these employees do ultimately, they are ultimately county employees. And so they will receive the council will receive recommendations flow from flood control and from the executive committee. And they can deliberate and act on those as they would any other matter that comes before them. And when it comes to the suspension without pay or termination, the only time it would come before the county council is if the employee receives that level of discipline. Speaker 5: And from whom? Speaker 1: From the executive committee or executive director. And the employee chooses to appeal that decision. Speaker 5: And an employee can appeal to the King County Council, but. Speaker 1: Only under those two circumstances, correct? Speaker 0: Yeah, because they are King County. We're changing it now. And so that's what. Speaker 5: This is all under flood control. Speaker 0: It was. And we're changing it now to open it up for getting more potential people interested in the job. And so that's this is a big change. And you're right. And so that's why we wanted people to have more opportunities to see this. Speaker 3: So and I'll jump in real quick. Thanks. Councilmember Goss, at the the direction of the executive committee was to put as much control in terms of employment related decisions with the executive committee, the King County Flood Control District. At the same time, however, making sure that the employee, him or herself, is actually an employee of King County. We did that because we found in our last applicant process that the prospective employees cared a lot about being a King County employee with the benefits commensurate with being a King County employee. And so we were able to put a placeholder on a couple of positions there. And then what happened after we did that, we realized that there were some legal concerns about how we had it initially scoped. And so District Legal Council, working with King County Legal Counsel, came to this compromise, which gives the district exactly the maximum amount of control under law. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. You bet. But I am glad the supervisor done that. We're at the point of having an executive director because I think we'll save a lot of money and have more accountability, given what our staff just described from this person. Agreed. Speaker 0: And thank you, Mr. Garza, for being such a strong supporter of getting this job description out and working. So I think that what we should do, sir. Yes? Speaker 1: May I continue on with the staff report and complete the other item, and then you'd be in a position to be able to take action on both items? Sure. The next item again is 2016 dash 0443, which follows the changes to the organizational compilation and would provide for the King County Council to approve a job description for a flood control district executive director who would be housed within that flood control district administration unit that would be created by the previous that the discussed piece of legislation you'll have before you the actual draft of the job description. It was it has just completed its legal review and we just handed it out so it can be attached today as you forwarded for that on this position, which would provide that executive leadership for this organization, for this government would be governed under the King County legislative branch, 13 staff salary table. It is proposed that it would be salary range. 133, which is a minimum of 121 936 through 163 991, which meets the general framing of criteria as the flood control district was looking at a midpoint that was competitive in the market. It is impressive rated that somewhere between one in five staff would be reporting to this executive director position as well as the contractors for financial clerk of the board and other services, as well as providing the oversight of the larger county agreement and administration of the of the government itself and performance evaluation, since that is a piece of Labor policy that you always have questions on again is covered within the organizational compilation and this position will be reviewed by the Flood Control District Executive Committee conducting those evaluations. There is the amendment which is on page 115 of your packet, which would attach the job description which has been handed out to you today. Speaker 0: Right. And the first one, 390, also has an amendment and it is done by Councilmember Banducci and an amendment number one, a page 211, done by Councilmember Jim Balducci. I went to read the exact same thing and found out she'd already written it to so two minds thinking exactly the same thing. And basically it clarifies that the executive director is responsive to all members in addition to reporting to the council member that serves as the chair. So all of us have input in dealing with our employee. Speaker 3: So with that and that makes that language because it makes it consistent with what the current language in the King County Council organization, Charterhouse. Speaker 0: Yes. For both the chief of staff and for the policy director. So. All right. Well, since this is under your bailiwick, Councilmember, would you like to put before us a motion, a proposed motion? 390. Speaker 3: Yes. Move. Proposed motion number 2016 390. Speaker 0: Thank you. And there is an amendment. Amendment number one. Speaker 5: What word and where is that? Speaker 1: Page one. 11 of your packet. Speaker 0: Yes. On 11. We're just talking about I. Speaker 3: Will move Amendment one at this. Speaker 0: Time. Okay. I'll let everybody read Amendment number one. Speaker 5: Okay. I like Brandon. Explain it. Speaker 0: I just did. That's what I just said. Speaker 5: But you just explained the amendment as amended. Speaker 3: It clarifies executive director is responsive to all members reporting, including the council chair of the district. Speaker 0: As when I said that Councilmember Bainbridge and I had the same idea. Speaker 5: And what was the idea? Speaker 0: That's you're reading right now that it was clear that the person we hire is responsible to all of us in court and continuity with the two other positions that have this exact same language. Speaker 5: I know the what was it before. Speaker 0: It was just delivered. It just replied report it only to the chair and nobody else. So now it's to all of us reports to him. But all of us have information. Speaker 5: The Chair. Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. So now it will be addressed to him and to all of us, as we do with our other two employees. Okay. With that, we have a Fourth Amendment number one. All of those in favor of amendment number one. Please say I, I, those opposed nay. Okay. We are now have 390 as amended before us. Are there any questions for those that that are back? Welcome. This is the re of job description or and the reorganization plan for the flight control district. Okay. Speaker 3: Let me just speak to that. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: I'm in. But this is simply a motion that allows King County to use two of its employees to serve or up to two. One right now, executive director to serve as the executive of the King County Flood Control District. And it makes the reporting language consistent with what we have already at the King County Council with respect to how members in the Chair interact with the Chief of staff. So it marks those two issues parallel with respect to the Board of Supervisors and our upcoming executive director. It has broad support. And then the next item is a motion that's going to approve the actual job description, which. Speaker 0: Is in front of you. Speaker 3: Now, which is there, the actual descriptions there. So I'd urge you support on item number five of today's agenda. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 5: I still have the difficulty of understanding the difference between the King County Council and the Financial Control District Board of Supervisors. Because councilmen are down. There have been. A that I recollect that I made a decision as a executive committee of the flood control district that I knew that several members of the King County Council, more like than now, would not have supported. And then there's been something that I could easily support as a King County Council member, but couldn't as just a narrow Board of Supervisors member. So let's admit it now. We just voted on just as King County Council and is a non state board of Supervisors meeting mean. Speaker 3: So right now at this moment I'll try and take it. We're sitting we're sitting as the Metropolitan County Council right now. We're not sitting as the Flood District Board of Supervisors Committee of the whole. So with our King County hats on, which is always sort of hard to remember which hat is on. Speaker 5: Right. Speaker 3: Right now we are essentially saying we will allow this a King County employee to be hired with a reporting structure and they will become the executive director through a local agreement. And for a reporting structure that is substantially similar to what we have with respect to the way the King County Council members interact with the chair of the council and our chief of staff. So that's what we're saying at this time. And jump in. Speaker 0: It is complicated, Mr. Garza. I agree, because this is brand new. And but what it is doing is it just what Councilmember Dunn said? And so this person will work for us as council members and then we will contract as council members for them to work for us. Speaker 5: The supervisors for the executive director word. Yeah, for the supervisors. Speaker 0: That is correct. Speaker 5: And day to day supervision still will be directed by the chair of the local control district. Speaker 0: That is correct. That part will work like it does today. Speaker 5: All right. Speaker 0: Okay. With that, there are no further questions. Kurt, please call for the vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Balducci, Councilmember Dombrowski. All right. Councilmember Dunn. All right. Councilmember Gossett. Hi. Councilmember Colwell. Hi. Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 2: Hi. Speaker 0: Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Yvonne Wright Bauer. Speaker 1: Hi. Speaker 0: Madam Chair. Hi, Madam Chair. The vote is seven eight no nos and councilmembers Balducci and F the Grove. Excused. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. So now we have before us. So, Councilmember Dunn, we have before us. Four, four, three. Speaker 3: Move proposed motion number 2016 0443 to speak to it, please do. After a lot of experience with executive directors and a lot of legal wrangling to get it just right, and we have finally come to what I think is a very fine job description for the flood control district executive director. This requires approval of the King County Council as we sit today, but also, of course, the King County Flood District Executive Committee, at least, and I think also the district as a whole. So everybody, it's a salary grade 133. There's a summation and just the career features we are looking for, including the essential duties and responsibilities. There's been a lot of work in this, a lot of specifics. We think that it is or at least my own view is that this is exactly what we need in terms of the proper candidate to run the flood district as executive director, based on a lot of experience, but also because it's a King County employee has the benefit of benefits that we struggle with as a district because we're not set up to do that, at least not yet. And it also provides a salary high enough to attract somebody. I think it starts about $130,000 a year, give or take. Speaker 1: A little on the range is 121 through 160. Speaker 3: Okay, 1 to 160. Thanks for correcting me in somewhere in there, we think there is somebody who would be willing to try it. And and the hope is we get somebody that can do this for four years and in that shorter period. So that's that's my motion. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Garcia. Speaker 5: I have a question for her councilman. And certainly featuring two or three times you said this person will be supervising four or five staff persons. I never knew the executive directors of the path, but I can tell control district the supervisor more than one or one and a half people, though. Speaker 3: It's a good question. I haven't said four or five, definitely. That's not what I've said, is up to up to two, one or two. Speaker 5: And three or four. Speaker 3: I know that. No, the the thought which. We have discussed in executive committee but never taken formal action on. But we've had a fair amount of discussion. It was the idea of hiring an executive director and then based on the workload that we've seen in the past, that that executive director would be involved along with the board in hiring a policy analyst type of person that would backstop a lot of the heavy lifting. And there's been a little bit of talk about the possibility of bringing on a public information officer, which would complete the staff. But that is a decision yet to be made. But we wanted to scope out the job description to include the possibility of supervision depending on what policy decisions are our executive committee and board make in the future. Speaker 5: All right. Why does this position require a valid driver's license? Speaker 3: Because that individual is going to be going to tons of community meetings across the district, neighborhood associations, town halls, chambers of commerce, as we as we discuss. Speaker 0: And Councilmember, I'd like to add to that answer. Transportation and you're in my district is so difficult. They need to get there by their own vehicle. Speaker 3: Often there's no way to get to many of my facilities by bus. Yeah. Speaker 0: Another day, another Uber. Yeah. Okay. So we are ready now to list before us. We have an amendment. Mr. Dunn, would you like to put your amendment forward. Speaker 3: As an amendment one? Yes, I would move to remove Amendment One, which is listed on page 115 of your packet, which is just attached to the job description for approval. Speaker 0: And that's a job description. It was handed out a couple of minutes ago, so it was on the dais. Okay. So with that a clerk, would you please call for the vote? Oh, we have an amendment. Sorry. Speaker 3: Ma'am. Speaker 0: I was late. Speaker 5: On the amendment. Speaker 0: Are those in favor? Amendment number one. Please say I, I those opposed. Nay. Number one is adopted. So we now have before us and 2016 0443 as amended. Would you now please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Baluchi, Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn, I am Councilmember Gossett. Councilmember Caldwell side. Councilmember McDermott, High Council member of the Grove. Speaker 2: Hi. Speaker 1: Hi. Speaker 0: Madam Chair. I am chair of the vote is ADA is no nos and council member about D.C. excuse. Okay. So a couple comments. Both of those can be expedited and I believe for consent. That's okay with everybody. So that would be good. We can get this moving right along for those in the listening audience, if you're interested in a job of this category, working with nine fun people and and another great group of staff and the job description will be online shortly and it will be under a motion 2016 0443 so you can look it up. We are definitely looking for some great people to come and do this job. So they'll have big shoes to fill, though. And we'd like to thank Kris Lund for all of her work in doing that. She's been an incredible executive and we appreciate all her years of service launching this agency. Before we end. For those that weren't here, I just wanted to give you a summary of the briefing today on local government. We had a briefing on the issues at File City Park, which is a local park that we as local government oversight over. Last year, they had 26,000 visitors to that park and a huge number of garbage problems which we are working on and will continue to work on. And so we asked people as they go out to the parks to please use the garbage cans appropriately. And secondly, we talked about the pristine parks that the topic today was local parks and that progressing as quickly as possible visioning that was done about four years ago. So we would like to see that proceed as quickly as possible. And then we also had last month a fire road that was taken out by, I believe the state government may have been the federal I'm not sure which government it was. And because of that, it has made our rescues for people who have been injured on those trails much more difficult. And I am very concerned about more of our fire roads being destroyed by the federal or state government and putting more and more of our people in danger. That continues to be a huge problem. People assume that any place in King County, you can call for an ambulance and that is not accurate. And so they get into places that are very difficult to make rest. And without the proper roads, that is making it even worse. So I wanted to alert you to that problem, and hopefully we can write a letter or make some request that this will not continue in the future. So any other business that needs to come before this council member Gossett I. Speaker 5: One question for you. Speaker 0: Sir. Speaker 5: Can you say that the advertising for the King County Flood Control District Executive Director is going to commence immediately? Speaker 0: Yes, I hope so. I hope we just did. That was the beginning. And. Speaker 5: And then when does it end? So I can tell people. Speaker 0: I don't know the answer to that. STAFF When will it end? Speaker 1: Upon approval, your the human resources folks will be proposing a time frame, I believe, of three or four weeks, and you'll have specific dates within just a couple of days. And we'll look forward to getting that out to you. Speaker 5: All right. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I've already made phone calls to people that I know that might be interested. So I think the broader our information goes out, which is why the reason it's on TV. Hopefully we'll find somebody who would love to do this job and we would love to work with and we've done amazing work. Help me with the number. Before we started this district, there was $3 million a year to deal with the floods in this county. This provided originally it was $36 million a year and there's a lot of that now. I don't remember what it is. Do you remember what it is off the top of your head? It's around 36 million a year. Speaker 5: And that you didn't hear. Speaker 1: 52 million. Speaker 0: 52 million. All right. It's gone up. It's good. 52 million a year and project that. Speaker 3: It can be more than that. Speaker 0: It's going to be. Speaker 3: Depending on how we spend in past years, it can be up to 60 or 60. Speaker 0: It just depends on where we are in the project design or the project combination. What's happening? It's very. Speaker 2: We put about 400. Speaker 5: Money. Speaker 3: $440 million on the ground and project since the flood district's inception. Almost to have already almost a half a billion dollars. Speaker 0: Say that loud so people can hear that. Speaker 2: All the roughly. Speaker 3: $440 million in on the ground projects since the inception of the flood districts are approaching half a half a billion dollars. So very significant program. Speaker 0: This started in, what, five years ago. Speaker 3: That's about seven some years old. Speaker 0: Seven years ago. Okay. So seven years ago, we would have had 21 million under the old plan and now it's had almost half a billion, which has made a huge difference in environmental issues as well as flooding issues. So it is a very exciting project to be working on and I'm thankful to all of the supervisors that have worked on that project. With that, the meeting is adjourned.

Motion

A MOTION approving a job description for the King County Flood Control Zone District executive director.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06292016_2014-0320

Speaker 0: Yes. You got a new house. Okay. So thank you very much for being here. That's for having look forward to seeing you soon. Thank you. All right. We're going on to our next item. We have a quorum with us still. So that's item number five, proposed ordinance 2014, interestingly enough, oh 3 to 0. And this is a ordinance relating to bringing better technology to our chambers. We had a briefing on this before. So this one, Mr. Wagner, if you would, reverse the amendments so we'll know what the amendments before us. Speaker 2: All right? Yes, Madam Chair, for the record, Nick Wagner, council staff, the staff report on this legislation begins on page 13 of your materials. This ordinance, as you said, addresses the issue of when council members are permitted to attend council meetings by telephone or other electronic means, which I will refer to as remote attendance. Two weeks ago, on June 15th, as you pointed out, the committee considered three possible amendments to the ordinance. As a result of that discussion, there is a new amendment, Amendment four, for the committee to consider, and that amendment is that pages 27 to 32 of your materials, the first three amendments, one through three, are no longer being considered. There is also in your materials a red line showing the changes that amendment or would make in the original ordinance. And that red line is that pages 33 to 38 of your materials, the staff report focuses on Amendment four, since it is proposed by the sponsor of the original ordinance. The current county code provisions governing remote attendance were reviewed on June 15 and they are summarized in the background section of the staff report on pages 14 and 15. The changes that the proposed ordinance would make, if amended, if Amendment four is approved, are described on pages 15 to 17. First, the ordinance would allow a council member each calendar year to remotely attend without a showing of cause up to five meetings of each council, standing committee and five meetings of the full council. Second, the ordinance would allow remote attendance at additional for council and standing committee meetings on the basis of quote good cause unquote, which is defined to include the following five categories. First, an emergency as defined in the county code section 12.50 2.010. And that is an emergency in the nature of a public emergency, not a personal emergency. Second, special council meetings held during the council's summer or winter recess. Third, situations where it would be, quote, difficult, unquote, for the member to attend the meeting in person due to the member's attendance at a meeting of an outside committee to which the member has been assigned. Under the Council's organizational rules. Fourth, urgent circumstances as defined in the ordinance, subject to approval by a majority of the members present at the meeting and last other circumstances constituting good cause again subject to approval by a majority of the members present at the meeting. The third change that the ordinance would make is in the definition of urgent circumstances, and that change is is shown in the red lining on page 16 of your materials. Briefly, the ground of inclement weather would justify remote attendance if it made it difficult for the member to attend the meeting. It would not need to be so severe that travel to the meeting would pose an immediate life, health or safety risk to the member, which is the current standard. The second category of urgent circumstances is a member or family member's medically related issue or other urgent need for attendance, which would justify remote attendance if it made it difficult for the member to attend the meeting. But it would not need to be an emergency and the member would not need to be unable to attend in person. In addition, the definition of family member is broadened to match the class of family members whose death would allow a county employee to take bereavement leave. And it is made clear that the death of a family member would fall within this ground for remote attendance. The fourth proposed change that Amendment four would make is to require a member attending remotely to have the member's voice be audible so that the public can hear the discussion and voting process. And finally, the ordinance would add the following notice provision to facilitate connection to the broadcasting system. Requests for participation by telephone or other electronic means should be made half an hour in advance of the meeting when possible. And that concludes my staff report summarizing Amendment four. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: I think you need to go on to do five and five a. Okay. Speaker 2: Okay. Well, there there is an Amendment five, which I believe Councilmember Dombrowski intends to propose. And I think copies of it were circulated informally yesterday. But here are additional copies for members this morning. Speaker 0: So just. Speaker 3: Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Just a second before we get started. So is Amendment five supersedes or we vote on four and and five to amend it? Or is five? What we need to supersede for. Speaker 2: Amendment five is a anticipated proposed amendment to Amendment four. Speaker 0: Okay. So we still vote on four, but then the friendly amendment for five would be added to it. Speaker 2: Well, since amendment five is an amendment to Amendment four, it would need to be voted on before you vote on Amendment four. And then if it's adopted, then you would vote on Amendment four as amended by Amendment five. Speaker 0: Okay. I just have four and then there's five. A So after we go through five, then we'll go five. Speaker 2: A Well, what you were referring to as five A is depends on Amendment five being divided into two parts. I don't know whether that. Okay. That remains to be seen. So for the moment, I'm what I will do is describe what Amendment five in its current form would do to Amendment four. Speaker 0: Okay. So. So it's up there. Council member dombroski has a question or comment. He'd like to make a number five. Speaker 3: Well, I guess what I just wanted to say preliminarily was and thanks for your work on it and distributing it was I wanted to share it with members and get their views. I'm not dead set on offering it, but I it expresses kind of more closely where I'm at to the extent there are going to be any changes in this part of our operating procedure. So I offer it for consideration before actually offering it. Speaker 0: Okay. I am I'm good with it being a friendly amendment. I think that, you know, there are some good things like changing the word difficult to safe. So I think that you did a nice job on that. The only part as we we'll hear is that I have one reason for being remote, that if you're out doing county business, for instance, a member of Naco, which is our National Association of Counties, or Wasatch, which is our statewide or any other time, if you were asked by the executive to go speak at something so you're actually doing county business. It seems to me that if you're out doing official county business that you shouldn't be marked, be not able to take some time away from that to listen in and provide your input remotely. So that's the only thing different from what's in five. So that's where I will have an amendment. We can vote on that. But otherwise, I think you did an awesome job on number five. So would you go ahead and explain number five? Speaker 2: Sure. So what Amendment five would do is, first of all, reduced to a total of five of five, the number of times per calendar year that a council member may attend by telephone or other electronic means, either a full council meeting or a meeting of a standing council committee. So Amendment four would allow five times per entity, five times for the full council, five times for each standing committee that a member is a member of. This would reduce it to a total of five for all of those five per year. Second, the Amendment five would eliminate from the circumstances constituting good cause for attending remotely. Two things. First, difficulty for the member to attend the meeting in person due to the member's attendance of a meeting of an outside committee that the member has been assigned to under the Council's organizational rules that would no longer be a constitute good cause. And second other circumstances constituting a good cause. Both of those would be removed from the grounds, constituting a good cause for attending remotely. The third change that Amendment five would make is to limit the inclement weather that is deemed to constitute urgent circumstances, justifying remote attendance to inclement weather that makes it unsafe rather than merely difficult for the member to attend the meeting. And last Amendment five would provide for the meeting chair to rule initially on a member's request to attend remotely because of urgent circumstances, subject to appeal to the members present at the meeting. And the chair's ruling could be reversed only by an affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members present at the meeting. And that those are the key elements of Amendment five. Speaker 0: Okay. So if we were to divide this question so that we could talk about whether or not being gone for a county business someplace else, where would that be? Divide it out. Speaker 2: The provision having to do with outside committees is line six of Amendment five. Speaker 0: Okay, so I have never done this before on dividing emotions, so I'd like to move that. We divide the motion and take line number six out so that we are able to discuss that. And then then we have the amendment. Do you want to talk about. Okay. Yes, Mr. Chair, there. Speaker 4: I think that's inappropriate. The chair cannot make a recommendation, him or herself, he or she has the right. Speaker 2: To overrule or the chair could give the gavel to the vice chair or or another member of the committee, as I understand. Speaker 0: So would you be willing to do that or are you not willing to do that? Speaker 3: Can I say something? Absolutely sure. So I don't think a motion to divide is debatable. And so before it's made, I want to make a comment. Speaker 0: All right. So that's great. Speaker 3: So if I just everyone's on the same page, I think what you're interested in, Councilmember LAMB. It is adding as an additional reason for a for cause in, if you will, participation in outside committee. And my amendment would not permit that. And that's something I'm not supportive of. I think that we should move very carefully in this direction and that this should be our first priority in a number of outside committees. Allow you to dial in to them. So I would be opposing the motion to divide if it were offered, but I would be happy to temporarily chair the committee if you want to make that motion. Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Speaker 2: Chair, if I could request clarification, I don't recall whether either amendment or Amendment five has been moved yet. Speaker 0: They have not. Yeah, they have not. I do remember that. Speaker 3: All right. So, council member Cole Wells. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I would like to ask a question unrelated to this amendment. Just more background. Thank you, Nick. I think last time when you had your initial briefing was mentioned about what some other jurisdictions do. I think you mentioned Seattle. Could you just review that? Speaker 2: Yes, there is. Speaker 1: Information in. Speaker 2: In the materials. There is a table. And this is in attachment six to the staff report. Page 43 is that the incidents pages 43 through 47 or 46 of your materials? And what it contains is a comparison of the remote attendance rules of King County with several other jurisdictions the Seattle City Council, Bellevue City Council, PSR Sea Sound Transit Board. Snohomish County Council, Pierce County Council, Spokane County Commissioners Court, Noma County and NACO Executive Committee. So the effort there is to compare their rules on remote attendance with King County's. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. So as you can see, those surrounding counties, they many of them have no limitation at all. So hours being five is more than conservative. It is baby step. Speaker 3: Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Speaker 2: I was trying to do the math on the total number of cow council committee meetings we have. I think we figured it's around eight per week. If you add KHOW and council and budget and tree and law and justice and geo health, healthy services and employment in the math with the recess has taken in that about. That's about 400 meetings a year and I'm talking necessarily not asking the question, but it's about 400 meetings a year. And so the five is just about 1.25% of the total meetings. Well, what do you think? It would be about almost exactly 1% if we made it four. But I just wanted to make the point of the sheer number of meetings and to put it in perspective. Thanks. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember. Council Member Lambert, would you like to put the ordinance before us? 2014 032. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to move proposed ordinance 2014 zero 3 to 0. Speaker 3: All right, that's before us. And Council member Gosar. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it was back in 1956 when I was a little boy, I had a bike and at first my two friends I could beat on and in races with my back against them. But then I started to lose and I thought that wasn't a bike. And I went to my dad and I said, You got to get my bike this part because it's not working well. He checked it over. Nothing was wrong with it. So he said, Sandy, you can't ask us to waste money on getting something fixed that's not broke. Why are you doing this? And I wasn't able to answer. I have that for some reason. That same feeling here. What is broken about our process of voting that requires that it needs fixing? Over the last seven years, we've had 26 members on the county council, people that are going nuts now and those who have served and we have not had one. Our regular meeting on a monday where we failed to achieve a quorum of five people so that we could take up issues and vote on what I think five year period. There was only one car or committee of the whole meeting where we did not have five. At the beginning of the meeting with 10 minutes later a member came and we had five. I fail to see anything that's broken as it relates to our voting because we always allow for three meetings but real serious emergencies at our regular county council meetings. Nothing has vote broken in my estimation, so I can't support any of the proposals to fix something that's not broken. I don't see the practicality or the need for it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilmember Gossett. Other questions or comments. Councilor Lambert, would you like to speak to your ordinance? Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, first of all, I think that when you look at the attachments, how many other counties and government bodies are using technology for whatever reason when you're behind other counties and being able to do that? And it's not just a matter of everybody being present for a quorum. What is the matter is that everybody's district be represented, even if you are not here physically, that you have something that's going on, including an emergency where you're stuck home because of a storm or whatever. It's much easier if you represent someplace close by, but if you represent someplace far away, then it is much more difficult because there is more flooding and snow. Right now, as Councilmember Gossett said, we are allowed to do it three times for council meetings, but no time for committee meetings. And we have some very important things happening in committee meetings that should you have to be gone for whatever reason or something comes up in your life that you are away. I think it's important to be able to also call into a committee meeting so that your voice and your vote for your constituents constituents is there. I do not see it as a bad thing to not be here. If you are, for instance, doing the county's work in some other place, or whether you're taking and dealing with an issue in your own district that you need to be someplace else too. This is a very large county, and as you may know, almost half of it in landmass is mine. And so there have been many times when I have been far away and having to drive back in again for a meeting. So things do come up. We're talking about five, which is less than 1% of the meetings, which you had to have the ability to use electronic communications. I do not think this is overly burdensome, and I think it's an important tool that should we have an emergency or an opportunity to do something that we believe is also important, like dealing with emergencies or speaking at a national conference that we've been asked to speak at, that we have the ability, though, even though our bodies might be in D.C. or Olympia, that our voice can still be here communicating and representing our citizens. So with that, I'd like to put the motion 2014 0320 before us and move amendment number four. Speaker 3: The Amendment four is before us. Speaker 0: I think number four is the basis I am planning a number five, which will be the, I hope, friendly amendment. But it underlies what we've been talking about, basically talking about for three years. So I think it's time that we go ahead and come into the 21st century. And so with that, I would like to put number four before us. Speaker 3: For is before us. Let's turn to amendments two four right before we vote on four. Jim, we need a little guidance here on parliamentary procedure. Amendment four has been moved. There was an amendment to Amendment four. Speaker 0: Would you like me. Speaker 3: To should that be or should the amendment be offered? Speaker 4: Well, this is an innovative way to talk. Speaker 3: You're not disrupting the meeting. I'm going to put us into recess and ask you. Let's go into recess. All right, let's go into recess. Speaker 4: This is. Speaker 3: Thank you, Marco. We're back on the record. Mr. Brewer, the question is a parliamentary one Amendment four has been offered. There is an amendment to Amendment four, label five. Do we need to vote first on four before turning to five or do we need to vote on. Speaker 2: No, you would. You would vote if I understand the facts. Speaker 5: Mr. Chair. Speaker 2: An amendment has been offered and now someone is seeking to amend that amendment. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 2: First vote on that. On whether to amend the amendment. Speaker 5: Thank you for deciding to. Speaker 2: Vote on the. Speaker 3: Amendment. It's all right. Thank you very much. Councilmember Lambert, do you have a further motion? Speaker 0: Yes, I would like to divide and we have to put number five before us first, right? Yes. Okay. I'd like to move amendment number five. It was written by a colleague after much thought. And I think it's a good amendment. And so I'd like for it to be a friendly amendment to number four. Speaker 3: By amendment five is before us. Speaker 0: And I'd also like to move. Speaker 5: If. Speaker 3: I can add. Speaker 4: One thing at a time. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 0: But I think we have to debate. Do we have to divide it before we vote on a. Speaker 3: Motion to divide amendment question divide the question on five your state, your motion. This is a non debatable motion. Speaker 0: I'd like to move that. We debate the motion and take our item six line six, which is the item that would discuss whether or not you are on county business someplace else. I mean, if we take this out, then you would be able to go to county business someplace else and phone in appropriately. Or if we leave this in, then you would not be able to do so if you're on county business. Speaker 3: Okay. All in favor of dividing the question, say. Speaker 0: I, I. Speaker 3: Any oppose say no. Speaker 4: No. Speaker 3: The nos have it. The question will not be divided. We'll turn to a vote on Amendment five. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm someone needs to explain to me what Amendment five would do to four if we voted yes. All right. Speaker 3: We can ask that. Would you prefer staff to do that matter? Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 3: Yours that I don't give a shot at it because that was as best I can in the nick can fill in. But Amendment five, in essence, would change this legislation to provide for a total of five council meetings or committee meetings per year participation electronically. It would reduce the number or the types of four cause participations by phone to those articulated and set forth in the amendment. And that includes whether that makes it unsafe to travel here. The current standard requires a threat of imminent danger, and I felt that that was frankly walking up too close to the line for a member . Imminent danger is very close to, you know, peril. Unsafe seemed to me to be a more appropriate standard and would provide further that if you had an ill family member, an immediate family member as defined in the code, that that would be justification procedurally deleted. Speaker 4: Your family member would be left. Speaker 3: It would be put in there. Yes, I would. Yes, it would be in there. It's a little broader in terms of describing the family members than the current code, and I think that's more appropriate and reflective of its contemporary design. It adds grandchildren, says our grandmother. It puts the determine on with respect to those four causing participation requests that benefits the authority to decide that in the chair of the council or the committee subject to an appeal. If the member doesn't like the decision and the appeal would require a two thirds vote. So it keeps it this frankly dramatically narrows the original proposal. My view is that we should proceed carefully here if this is adopted. I'll be watching very carefully the next six months as we head toward reorg as to whether or not this is working and how it's working. The five was chosen, frankly, for some of us who are parents to take a spring break, which doesn't always coincide with our work here, but still be able to participate. The five would allow, I think most members who are want to participate in a council meeting as well as their committee meetings that we the opportunity to do that. In that sense, I think it's a little bit of a family friendly change, but also I think it's trying to strike a balance to ensure that we continue to be here face to face and participate in the good debates and dialog on a face to face basis, which I personally think is very, very valuable. Prioritizes that the work here of this council is job one and the committees here is job one. I know we all do a lot of outside committees, no more than Councilmember Lambert, of course, who does the most. It's I understand our interests there, but that's the nature of of this. And you could add anything that I might have missed. Speaker 2: Just I think you touched on it. But two things specifically, the justification of attendance at an outside meeting would be eliminated from Amendment four and then the general other circumstances constituting good cause that category would be taken out. Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Does that help, Mr. Gossett? Speaker 4: Yeah, but his last point. What did you say about outside attending outside committee B. Speaker 2: Amendment Amendment four would allow as a reason for attending remotely the member's difficulty in being here for a committee or council meeting because the member of the member's attendance at an outside committee that the member has been assigned to under the council's organizational rules, that exception would be removed by Amendment five. Speaker 4: All right. Thank you for the clarification. Speaker 3: Thank you. Other members have questions to Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a question. I have a comment. And are we in final? Speaker 3: We're debating Amendment five. Yes. Yes. Speaker 1: So I have wrestled with this a great deal. And I can see the positives and some of the drawbacks on each perspective, each side here. But I really think. Speaker 0: That it's. Speaker 1: Councilmember Dunn brought out we're talking about five medium senator, 400 roughly a year. This is a very small number. And I believe strongly that all nine members here and future members who replace us at some point, I want to be here and they work very hard for their constituents and they don't treat this willy nilly in terms of taking it seriously to be here to participate and vote. But things do come up and we are all professionals. We're involved with associations. We have times when we're ill that make it very could make it difficult potentially to be here at every single meeting. But when people take the the opportunity to call in and participate, which I've done a couple of times, even though I haven't been able to vote and this is on a committee meeting and a council meeting. I can't vote, but I'm participating the whole time, even though I'm somewhere else that a professional association which I may have been chairing. So I think this is an adult thing to do. When we look within the context of our other local jurisdictions, counties and cities, for example, we really stand out from the norm. And I think and I am going to support the striking amendment. I think we need to be adults here and give credit to our colleagues that they are not all doing are doing something because they're not taking their job seriously. We all do that. So I strongly support the striking amendment. Thank you. Speaker 2: Madam Chair. Just for clarification, the the the amendments are not technically striking amendments. Amendment four would replace all of the operative language. The original ordinance, Amendment five would modify certain provisions of Amendment four. Speaker 1: So I will just correct clarify in my remarks to amendment number five. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. All right, so no further debate. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Belushi. Speaker 1: Thank you. Just really briefly, I think Councilmember Coles has put it very well. To me, this is about expanding participation, especially in a body like this, where we represent districts. Any time one of us is not able to participate in a meeting, our district is not represented in that meeting. And so I think to allow some additional flexibility to participate is is really important to the people we represent. It's also not at all uncommon for bodies like ours to have call in rules and make that possible. But I think, on the other hand, we have to acknowledge that it really does impact the quality of the discussion and debate when we have people on the phone and we wouldn't want to see it on a regular basis just for those occasions when when it's really necessary. So I think that this strikes a nice balance. I appreciate the amendment. I'll support it and I'll support it at the end of my motion as well. Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilmember Belushi, any further comment on five? All right. All in favor of five. Speaker 0: Say I. Speaker 3: Any opposed? No. Five carries turning to Amendment four as amended. And is this get us to final passage? Speaker 0: I think it just gets us to that with. Speaker 2: Government after amendment we got to vote on because amend and you get the underlying right. Speaker 3: So this is frankly a fairly procedural vote at this point, all in favor of Amendment four as amended by Amendment five, say i. I. Any opposed? No. Okay. Amendment five carries Amendment four as amended by five carries. Now, turning to the underlying legislation. Are there further comments on it as amended? Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 2: I'm going to support this ordinance, and I think I would have preferred the number would be more like for about a 1%. We're all but four or five. I think it's I think that's and I think folks know I've been battling the flu this week. I'm just coming back. And it was really tricky situation. Monday, I was sick as a dog and really sick. But this Annenberg nonpartisan issue was up and I was the fifth vote and I sure would have loved to call it. But I drove down here and actually actually driven down here. And I came in here and I voted and I went back home and was still sick. But, you know, that's an example. Then what would happen is what the majority and will of this council was, which was to make prosecutor non partizan would have very likely been thwarted by the access situation. So, you know, I've had situations with the ice storm of 29 where trees were down. I was living out in rural, unincorporated King County by Maple Valley. There's no way to get in, you know, just you can't do it. So there are these and it was dangerous to for that matter. So the circumstances here were fair. Again, it's one point roughly 1.25% of the meetings. I know the members abuse it, so I'm going to support it. Speaker 0: Thank you for the passage. Oh, okay. Speaker 3: I have returned the chair to Councilmember Lambert, having completed our procedural issues. Speaker 0: And thank you for doing a good job and getting through this. It's for the listening audience. This was a complicated one and there were lots of changes even this morning. So, so and final passage. There's nobody else that wants to speak. I agree with the idea that being face to face is is always optimal, but then life happens and so not good. And so this acknowledges life like Councilmember Dunn, who brought his flu or sick, whatever it was. We appreciate that you did that. But it was if you had been driving himself, he didn't look like he was in any condition to be driving. So we appreciated you doing that and bringing a driver. I have come here in the snow this badly and not been pleased that I was driving here when I knew it wasn't safe. This will allow us and I serve on 11 internal committees. So for me that'll be 528 different committees in a year. So, Councilmember Dunn, the 1% would work for me. So you got your 1% and I appreciate all the comments that been made. And with that, I think we can have the clerk call for the vote. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Banducci. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, Councilmember Dunn, Councilmember Gossett, now Councilmember I. Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 2: By. Speaker 1: Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Yvonne right there. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is Six Eyes Council Member Gossett no council members of the Grove and one right. They were excused. Speaker 0: Okay, so we can have some choices here. Do we want to expedite and put it on consent or do we want to discuss this all over again? I'm good with whatever anybody wants. Speaker 2: Madam Chair. I wouldn't expedited. I don't see a need to expedite it. And with dissenting votes, I wouldn't put it on consent either. Speaker 0: Okay, then we will go in their normal procedures. Right. Speaker 3: Madam Chair, I just want to note that calling it the 1% ordinance almost cost it a vote by me. Speaker 2: More than one vote. Speaker 0: Oh, that's funny. Yes, we are dealing with that in Olympia. We don't need to deal with it here. All right. Okay. Now we are doing pretty well and we will go on to our next our next order of business. And that would be, I think, what I'm going to do. I'm going to skip if it's okay. Do you mind being the last? And I would bring up our our last item, which will now be the one before last, which is our chaplains.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE relating to telephone or electronic attendance at council and standing committee meetings; and amending Ordinance 11683, Section 15, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.24.145.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06152016_2016-0044

Speaker 0: Thank you so much. We'll now move on to item number five. This is a charter amendment and this is charter amendment number 2016 0044. And it would be to make the office of the King County prosecuting attorney nonpartisan and provide for filling vacancies in that office in the same manner as vacancies in other nonpartisan county elected offices . Mr. Wagner, did you want to make some beginning comments? Speaker 4: No, Madam Chair. I gave a staff report at the committee's last meeting, and I don't have anything to add unless there are any questions. Speaker 0: Okay. So we did have the presentation, like you said, two weeks ago, and we had our prosecutor speak. We had a member of the legal staff for the county. Answer some questions. So today we are ready potentially to take the vote. And so I am open for somebody to put this before us. Councilmember Gossett, would you be willing to put this before us? Speaker 6: Okay. When you say but this before. Speaker 0: Or since 2016 0044. Speaker 6: Okay. I'd like to know that we had ordinance 2016 0044 or four. And as Councilmember Lambert said, we had a very robust discussion on this issue at our last meeting. But, Councilman Lambert, I think that it would be helpful to members if the staff or somebody kind of indicates and reiterates what the issue is, because we have a different listening audience today and then recommend that we vote. But I'm putting that before us now. Speaker 0: Okay. So you want to give us like two sentences or a very brief rendition again, of what this does? Speaker 4: Sure. There are basically two two effects of this amendment. One is that currently for Partizan offices, each candidate's party preference is listed on the ballot. If the if the candidate so requests or each candidate's party preference is listed. If this office were made nonpartisan. That would not be permitted. So each candidate's name would be on the ballot. But there would be no indication of party preference, party endorsement or anything like that. The second effect has to do with the way in which vacancies in the office are filled for a partizan office. The the council is required to choose someone to fill the vacancy from among. First of all, it has to be someone from the same political party as the person who previously occupied the office. And the replacement has to be chosen from among three persons nominated by the County Central Committee of that party. For nonpartisan officers, that is not the case. It's entirely up to the council's discretion who to choose to fill a vacancy. Those are the main differences. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Garcia. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm going to urge members to vote for this measure and remind or reinforce the fact that what we're doing is presenting an amendment to our charter or our county constitution that would essentially make put the King County prosecuting attorney in the same state as of every other elected official here in King County . And that is make him nonpartisan. I believe that the majority of people in the community who are eligible to vote will come out and vote and vote positively for this measure, because it's a progressive measure that I think will serve the community really well. Lastly, I mentioned this last meeting, but I'd like to mention that again, I think it is particularly beneficial to African-American and other people of color communities who have the perception, rightly or wrongly, here in Seattle and King County, as well as and just about every other urban area across the nation that, if they are at the prosecutor , is have a party, they will like Republicans and that he or she is going to think a certain way or if he or she is a Democrat, that that he or she is going to think a certain way. And that certainly is not always been the case. And I mentioned that our last meeting, there are lot the two prosecutors that I worked under have been very responsive and accountable to all of our people, all of our communities, not always in a way that I would like. But I think taken as a whole, they've been very responsive. And I mentioned a damn saddleback in particular, where some of the most challenging cases, those dealing with three strikes, has shown significant insight has been beneficial. And I just think that this measure is important and that this is the time to pass it. And I hope the members will join me in putting this on the ballot this fall for our voters. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. I'm sorry to see you here, Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll have a charter review in two years overseen by the King County Charter Review Commission. And that would seem to me a good timeline to have this conversation about making this charter change. I would also point out that all the all 39 counties in the state have a partizan election for their prosecuting attorney . And therefore, I'm going to oppose this today and ask members to join me in voting no. We can take this conversation up as part of the charter review in two years. But I also want to be very clear that my vote today is in no way a reflection on the excellent work that Mr. Sandberg does every day in this office and has brought some very innovative programs and to the office, and I commend his work highly. It is not at all a personal reflection, but a concern about when best to have this conversation. Speaker 1: Councilmember WG So I also had some questions about the timing. And Nick, maybe you can help me out here. How long has this office been? Speaker 4: Partizan Since 2008. Speaker 1: The press. Speaker 4: Oh, no. I'm sorry. Not sorry. I was thinking of a different question. I'm not sure the answer to that question. Speaker 1: But as long as we can. Speaker 4: Remember, at least 50. Speaker 1: Years. Okay. And these positions have been nonpartizan since the vote in 2008. That's what you were thinking, right? And so the next regular vote is in two years, is that correct? Speaker 4: That's what actually the county charter requires the executive to appoint a charter commission every at least every ten years. And the ten years is up in January of next year. Speaker 1: By January of next year. Speaker 4: Right. Speaker 1: I'm just kind of wondering why that is. So if we're going to start looking at charter changes in January of next year, why are we doing this particular charter change now? Because I'll tell you, when we first arrived here and I was sworn in, I was and then I was given my notebook full of the charter and all the information. I noticed that it referred to the the office of councilman. Right. And I'm not a councilman. I'm a council member. So I thought, okay, that seems like a fairly easy thing. We should just change it. And I talked to staff and so we should just change that because it's obviously out of date. And I was told, well, yeah, but we will take it up at the next charter change and that makes sense to me. And so I just sort of held back on making that change, which is admittedly less substantive than what we're talking about here. But why take this one up now? What's the what's the the impact of taking it now versus waiting until we do the charter as a whole? I think Councilmember Gossett might want to say something. Speaker 0: Councilman Gossett. Speaker 6: Thank you very much. I would like to respond to councilman about dirty, if I may, Madam Chair. Last year, after discussion with our chair, our councilmen, our fellows, he and I decided to put forth a change in the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight and submit that to the voters for a charter change. And my response is that both what they are and what the prosecuting attorney is in the criminal justice arena, that throughout our nation we've inherited some really difficult times, creating a more solid, open and and and fair relationship between criminal justice officials and oversight entities and the communities, all particularly the African-American communities around the country. And I just think that it's time to lead. We, we think, were successful with all our Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. And I'm just I just think it's time that we should do it with the only nonpartisan elected position in our county that's central to the operations of our criminal justice system. Yesterday, when we were in our Law and Justice Committee, it was pointed out that, you know, in King County, we're about seven times more likely to refer African-American youth to consideration for having charges filed against him or her than we are white youth and other year. And I just want to create the fair environment possible. And not having our prosecutor be partizan is a significant step in that direction is not a revolutionary step, but it's a significant step in the right direction, in my opinion. And I think we should do it now rather than waiting in two years and hope and hopes that the commission would take this issue up. Speaker 1: Madam Chair, though, that, in answer to my question, completely remarks. Speaker 0: Thank you and then will be followed by Councilmember Van Barrow. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Gosset, for your answer. And look, clearly the voters prefer to have these positions be nonpartisan. I mean, I think that's an obvious fact. They've made the council nonpartizan, they've made the executive nonpartisan. In fact, the only remaining partizan position we have here in the county is the prosecuting attorney. So I think it's a matter of, you know, sensible organization of the county and and organizing in a way that the voters support. This proposal makes some sense, but the timing of it to me, I'm not hearing a compelling reason to do it right this minute. I'm not hearing you. Compelling reason not to do it. This minute doesn't cost us anything. There's already going to be a ballot measure it there's always going to be a ballot to go into the general. Right. As you know, in the general election. Is that correct, Nick? Yes. No, but but the idea that that somehow changing the partizan or nonpartizan nature of the prosecutor now would somehow affect people's perception of the fairness of the office. I haven't heard particular problems around the perception of the fairness of this office. In fact, I think this office has a tremendous reputation for fairness and justice. And I also don't see any connection between whether this is a partizan office or a nonpartisan office and the disproportionate referral of African-American youth to the criminal justice system for charges that I just don't see that tie at all. What it is, is it's about how the voters perceive the office when they are casting their vote. And I think, quite honestly, the reason the change is now is because there's an election next year. Let's just be honest with people that that's the reason why we're doing things. I don't necessarily have to stand in the way of it, but I think the claim that there's some big problem we're solving here today, personally, I will admit I voted no on the on the, you know, in my personal ballot on the changes to the partizan nature of this body and the exact elected executive. Because I do think that party affiliation is shorthand that a lot of voters rely on for some types of values that an O candidate brings to the table. However, the voters didn't agree with me. The voters decided to make us nonpartizan. So I'll tell you, I'm torn about whether to support it or not. I think probably this is the wave of the future, regardless of what we do. And and therefore, maybe it's time to get it over with. But I think that we should be open and honest about the fact that we're doing it now because there's an election next year and it's going to be easier. Speaker 6: For elections next year. I don't know. I just think, you know, what election. Speaker 1: The election for the prosecuting attorney, it's. Speaker 6: Not next year. Speaker 4: When it 18. Speaker 1: Well, then why don't we just wait and do? Okay, well, then I'm going to vote no along with Councilmember McDermott, because I was misinformed. I'm sorry. I was. I misunderstood. So because I think we could wait until we do it along with the rest of the charter update. Speaker 0: So I'll step in there for a second and then Councilmember Vaughn. Mike, there are some of them, right? And I go after you. Speaker 4: I'm going to pick up. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 4: No, no, no, no. Quite. You've been. Wait. Speaker 0: Okay, Councilman, go ahead. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: So that's polite people here today. That's okay. You know, when you look at the fact that we are home rule charter and the people have already voted, as Councilmember Balducci said, for having a nonpartisan people representing them. I think that this is consistent with that. You did mention the only remaining office that is not nonpartisan, and I think it's important to do this. The Charter Review Commission takes a year or more. And I think, you know, a lot of people like to have things, you know, not quite so many things on the ballot all at once. So I think it's a good idea to be able to have this brought forward now. And I think the idea that the people who are coming forward, we have with us today a former prosecutor, Chris Bailey. I believe I've been told that Jenny Durkan will also be supporting this. So we have former prosecutors that are supporting this, and I think it's a good time to do this and there's no reason why not to. So Councilmember Caldwell's next. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, you said just about everything I was going to say, but I as I understand, Jenny Durkan, you as former U.S. attorney, will be on will be one of the voices on the ballot in support of this measure. I wrestled with this a lot, too. As I understand, the charter review can take a year, yes, to two years. And so that plays into my decision to support this proposed ordinance. I also believe that of all of the positions that are elected in King County, the prosecutors should certainly not be a partizan office. I mean, there should be nothing partizan about law and justice. And we I think the people of King County would like to know overall would like to know that there are not partizan issues coming up for this office. So although I've wrestled with it, I am going to support the proposed ordinance. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. And right there. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank customer Raquel Welch for articulating why I'm going to also supported by the privilege of sponsoring the original. Legislation that was eventually passed through initiative to make King County Nonpartizan. We wanted to make this position Nonpartizan, but we were restricted by state law at that time. Council member duties correctly said that the voters have spoken loudly and clearly on this issue in a bipartisan fashion, and I think. Speaker 3: That this is an opportunity for us to follow up on what Councilmember. Speaker 4: Gossage said. We've been very fortunate in the history of this county to have an incredible number of individuals serving both as prosecuting attorney and also in an office. And they've dealt with issues that have evolved from the original time that we got involved beyond Ferguson in particular, and very sensitive to a number of issues in this region . And we have had prosecutors we've been blessed with who have evolved and responded to the changes that have taken place in King County. And I think if we're going to recognize that the voters of this county wildly called for nonpartizanship, we should finish the job. I don't think we're overwhelmed by work right now. I think we can do some of the work that could precede what the Charter Review Committee is going to review. But I'm prepared today to take action and support with the public guilt by initiative in King County. And I want to thank Councilmember Gossett and Caldwell in particular. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With that, I will. Okay. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I've been listening carefully to the debate and discussion here with an open mind. And I've had the opportunity to meet with prosecutor Senator Byrd a couple of times on this and, in fact, speak with former prosecutor Bailey at a recent event about it. And, you know, I think my cosmetology torn on it when I was out door belling, you know, people saying, well, is it a Democratic or Republican? They say it's nonpartisan. They say, well, what are you. You know, they kind of want to know your philosophy a little bit. And that party preference, remember, we don't run in this state anymore on a party ticket. You prefer a party. Now, that's a and it's a distinction to preserve our top two primary system. But I think it does give a little information. And the staff report pointed this out to the voter, at least an initial clue. And most folks still, I think, vote the person, not necessarily the party, and will do further investigation if they're interested. I appreciate the arguments about wanting to not have justice be a partizan issue, but I don't think stating a partizan preference brings partizanship into the administration of justice. I just don't. And I know I've certainly not seen that in Prosecutor Söderberg nor his predecessor, Mr. Mailing in Mr. Mailings predecessor Mr. Bailey wrote a terrific book addressing some of the history of the office. But I do think that the prosecutor's political philosophy matters and the parties matter a little bit, whether you're for or against the death penalty. Whether you are more in favor of sentencing reform initiatives, diversion initiatives. Our prosecutors led, frankly, by example with the programs like Lead and 180 and has really been a leader on these issues. And as Councilmember Garcia points out, is looked back at some three strikes cases where you felt justice in the in hindsight was not ultimately served and has gone and petitioned the clemency board to do justice. And so I have the highest degree of respect for Mr. Chabot. That's not what this issue, in my view, is about. But I don't think taking off the label eliminates Partizanship. And I think, in fact, you can see it right now in our state Supreme Court races where they are nonpartisan, but there are three challengers to three sitting incumbents. And to be quite blunt, there is a partizan bent to those challenges. There's been some frustration that some of, I think, are more conservative friends about some of the rulings of the court. And and I believe that generally one political party is supporting some challengers. I mean, I'm just being candid that taking off a partizan label doesn't take politics out of politics. So I don't think that that argument here is a compelling one necessarily. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do this or that the voters want do, but I don't I'm not convinced by that argument. On the process, it is true that we have sent charter review amendments to voters out of the regular cycle. We did that last year and cast member Lambert's point that sometimes there's value in not overwhelming voters, which I remember I think is a good one. In this case. I'm surprised that kind of the lack of input we've received. I think one of the values you get from a charter review process is you have the Municipal League and the League of Women Voters and civic leaders come together and debate in a robust way these issues of governance, structure and what reforms should be undertaken. And we could have had a little bit more of that here in the process. I did some of my own research. I reached out, talked to people I trust like Hugh Spitzer. He's the kind of an expert on Washington constitutional law. And I don't think he would mind me saying he agrees with the prosecutor that this should be nonpartisan. So I would have liked to had a little more input on it. And to be honest, I'm still torn on on what to do here. But I want to share my my thinking on it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. Well, I agree with you also. He's true. And I don't think that whether you're for or against diversion as any relations, whether you're already I know others and I know does that agree with that? So and I do know that the book that Chris Bailey wrote talked about a time when there was Partizan ism in the office. And as citizens get the opportunity to vote on this, hopefully this year they will have plenty of opportunities to read more about it and to properly vetted. So with that, the clerk, will you please call for the vote? Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Customer of duty. Now, Councilmember Dombrowski. Speaker 2: No. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn by. Speaker 1: Councilmember Gossett, I recall. Well, Councilmember McDermott. Speaker 4: No. Speaker 1: Councilmember of the Girl Council member. But I know. Speaker 6: Quickly. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Speaker 6: Captain. Until it was on the farm. Speaker 0: Yeah, he's on the phone, but he can't vote and. Speaker 4: Yeah, it's not recorded. Speaker 1: Yeah, understating my preference. Councilmember. Speaker 4: I. Speaker 1: Madam Chair, I am sure the voters by those three, those that's voting no are council members duty Dombrowski, McDermott and council member of the Rivers excuse. Speaker 0: Thank you very much with that. The motion has passed ordinance just passed charter amendment. And is there any objection to expediting it to this week? It will not be on consent, obviously. Is there. Speaker 2: Needed for. Speaker 0: That? Well, we need to have it done before the end of the month in order to get it on the ballot. So I think since we've had the conversations there. Speaker 6: Like right. Speaker 4: Now, I don't it does have to be on the you know, to take final action before the end of this month, but before the August recess. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. I thought it was the end of this month, not the end of July. Okay, well, then it doesn't matter. Okay, well, that would be great. Okay. Thank you. And thank you very much for your being here today, both of you. All right. That means is item number six and make it by paperwork here. Item number six is proposed ordinance 2014 zero 3 to 0. This is one we've been talking about for a number of time. This will not be voted on today.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter to make the office of King County prosecuting attorney nonpartisan; amending Section 610 of the King County Charter; adding a new Section 649 to the King County Charter; amending Section 680.10 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the qualified voters of the county for their approval or rejection at the next general election occurring more than forty-five days after the enactment of this ordinance.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06152016_2014-0320

Speaker 0: All right. That means is item number six and make it by paperwork here. Item number six is proposed ordinance 2014 zero 3 to 0. This is one we've been talking about for a number of time. This will not be voted on today. This is purely a briefing, although it does say possible action at the top. It is purely a briefing to talk about where we are, get some background information, and then during the next week or two weeks, people can decide what they want to do and we will move from there. So, Mr. Wagner, will you please brief us on this issue? Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nick Wagner, counsel. Staff. The staff report on this item begins on page 67 of your materials. This proposed ordinance addresses the issue of when council members are permitted to attend council meetings by telephone or other electronic means, which I will refer to shorthand as remote attendance. There is a proposed Amendment One, which is that pages 81 to 85 of your materials that makes several non substantive wording changes in the operative section of the ordinance. On the recommendation of the code revise or so in my staff report, I'll be referring to Amendment One. And a red line has been distributed to each council member this morning that shows the changes that Amendment one would make in the original ordinance. And I should make clear that the changes that Amendment one would make are in red. There's lots of underlining and crossing out, which is in the original proposed ordinance, Amendment One makes only the changes that you see there in red. I'd like to begin by describing the current county code provisions governing remote attendance, and you can find that description on page 68 of your materials. Currently under Section 1.24.14 or five of the county code, remote attendance at full council meetings is permitted in three situations. First, in an emergency as defined in section 12.50 2.01 area of the county code. And here we're talking about a public emergency, not an individual council members personal emergency. The second situation is if if there's a special council meeting convened during the council's summer or winter recess. And the third situation is if a council member declares to the council chair before or during a meeting that the council member is unable to attend the meeting in person because of urgent circumstances and the term urgent circumstances is defined to mean either of two situations. First, inclement weather that poses an immediate life health or safety risk to the member. If the member were to travel to the meeting and the examples given are a flood alert or snow in the member's district or in an area that the member would have to travel through to get to the meeting. And the second situation is a medically related emergency or urgent need for assistance that makes the member unable to attend the meeting. And the emergency. The emergency or urgent need for assistance must must be either the members or that of the member's immediate family, which is defined as you see there in the middle of page 68. Pardon me always. A member. The definition of family member. Speaker 6: I think would be helpful for the listening audience to know what is meant by immediate family. Speaker 4: Currently under the code, it includes a spouse or domestic partner, a child, a child of a spouse or domestic partner, a parent. And that would be the member's parent, the parent of a spouse or domestic partner of the member, the grandparent or of the member or the grandparent of the member's spouse or domestic partner. Those are all the categories that are included. Currently, only three meetings per calendar year may be attended remotely on the basis of urgent circumstances. As I said before, the current rule limits remote attendance to meetings of the full council. There is currently no provision for remote attendance at council committee meetings such as this meeting today. The changes that the proposed ordinance would make are described on pages 69 to 71 of your materials. And as I mentioned, I'll be referring to the language in proposed Amendment One, which is attachment to pages 81 to 85. First, the ordinance would allow a council member to attend up to three meetings of standing committees of the council each calendar year, as well as three meetings of the full council to provide context for that change and the other proposed changes. There is a table attachment six which follows page 92 of your materials. It compares the meeting attendance rule rules of King County and nine other government or government related entities. Eight of those nine entities allow remote attendance in some form, and none of those eight distinguishes between meetings of the full entity and meetings of its committees. Six of the other entities place no limits on the number of meetings per year that a member may attend remotely. One has a limit of six meetings, and one has a limit of four meetings unless absent for medical reasons. The second change that the ordinance would make is to allow remote attendance at more than three full council meetings and three committee meetings per year on the basis of urgent circumstances. If a majority of the members present at the meeting vote to allow the member to attend remotely, and if it were a full council meeting that we were talking about, the ordinance would permit remote attendance only if there were a quorum present at the meeting. The other eight entities that permit remote attendance that are listed in the table that I refer to. One makes remote attendance contingent on approval by other members of the entity, and seven do not. The third change would be in the definition of urgent circumstances, and that change is shown in the red lining at the bottom of page 69 and the top of page 70 of your materials, as proposed in excuse me, inclement weather would justify remote attendance if it made it difficult for the member to attend the meeting. It would not need to be so severe that travel to the meeting would pose an immediate life, health or safety risk for the member, and a medically related issue or other urgent need for assistance would justify remote attendance if it made it difficult for the member to attend the meeting. But it would not need to be an emergency and the member would not need to be unable to attend in person. Of the eight other entities that permit remote attendance. Five do not limit the circumstances under which is permitted. One permits it only under extraordinary circumstances such as emergencies, illness, accident, being away from the agency's region due to official business or similar circumstances, and one permitted only for emergency meetings. It was clear the fourth proposed change would require a member attending remotely to have the member's voice be audible so that the public can hear the discussion and voting process. Six of the comparable entities listed in the table have a similar requirement. And fifth. And finally, the proposed ordinance would add the following notice provision quote to facilitate connection to the broadcasting system. Requests for participation by telephone or other electronic means should be made half an hour in advance of the meeting when possible. And, quote, five of the comparable entities have no notice requirements for attending remotely and three have some form of notice requirement. There are three proposed amendments in your materials. Amendment one, as I mentioned, which is attachment two at pages 81 to 85, consists of non substantive changes in wording. As shown in the red line that you have in front of you Amendment two, which is attachment three at page 87, would permit remote attendance when a council member would have difficulty attending a meeting because of the council members need to attend a meeting of an outside committee to which the Council member has been assigned under the council rules. And I should mention that both Amendment two and Amendment three, which I'll describe in a moment, are amendments to Amendment one. Amendment three would expand the definition of family members. That's because the individuals whose urgent need for assistance would warrant remote attendance to include all immediate family, as defined in section 3.12 .010. g g of the county code. And that section specifies the family members for whose death King County employees are eligible for bereavement leave under Section 3.12 point 210 of the county code. And those additional family members are the member's daughter in law and son in law, and the siblings and grandchildren of the member or of the member's spouse or domestic partner. And that concludes my staff report, unless there are any questions. Speaker 0: Council Member Goss. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Chair. Where is this list of eight jurisdictions that you keep referencing? What page? Speaker 4: There's a table following page 92 of your materials. Speaker 0: 92 and at the top right here. Right. Yeah. There's always has to top this here. Speaker 6: Okay. And there I could see some of these changes being necessary if we had a problem with member attendance. Belichick It's been 13 years since we haven't had a quorum at Cairo and 21 years since we weren't able to get five people at a regular county council meeting. I'm trying to figure out what is broken that would be fixed by allowing this kind of flexibility. And I do see now that there are other jurisdictions that do it, but why most jurisdictions don't do this. And I just think it's so much more responsible when you have a rule that one has to be here and there are serious emergency reasons for one not being here in order to vote. May I answer my question? Speaker 0: Okay. Let me answer that one. All right. Unfortunately, I've had more opportunities probably than most people to want this to happen. First of all, I think it's important for us to come into the 21st century. Speaker 6: And what does that mean? Speaker 0: It means we use the technology that's available to us. As you can see, all of these other entities make it available. There have been occasions when I have been out at a Nako convention doing county business of which, you know, I'm assigned to that committee and while I'm out doing county business, I'm marked absent from county. So I don't get any any credit. And it looks like I wasn't doing my job when in fact I was doing my job. But it doesn't appear any way. And in one occasion, I did go and listen to the part of the meeting so that I could put comments in so that I was attending back and forth to meetings at the same time. And I'm sure we're all aware that there are many times when we need to be in two places at the same time. So having the ability to use this technology is important. There was a time when I called because there was a huge snowstorm in my district and the person from the county said There's no snow here. And I said, well, that's true. There may not be any snow in Seattle this morning, but there is in my district and I chose to come in, but it was not a safe driving environment. And I was driving and thinking, what the heck am I doing? Although those were the exact words I was thinking because it wasn't safe. And so there needs to be opportunities because it's a very large county. There can be things happening in one part of the county that are not happening in the other. And the third reason is even more important is it brings the voice of that district that is available because you are available to the phone, to the conversation. Should that community voice need to be heard on any and all topics? So I think it's important that we allow and encourage all the members to be here in whatever way they can be here. Obviously, it's the best possible for us to be here personally, but when the circumstances are either dangerous or you've had a family emergency or you're in one case, I was on the phone when my husband was in surgery. And, you know, it was good for me to be concentrating on something that wasn't quite as nerve wracking as what was going on in the operating room. But I was here. I was making the conversations that needed to be for my district and hearing what needed to be done. So I think it's important, and that is why all these other jurisdictions are already doing it with much more flexibility than we're talking about here. We have had this available to us in our council meetings, not in our committee meetings for years, and it has not been abused. So I think it's time for us to move on to the next step. So, member Dunn. Speaker 4: I think there's going to be some questions relating to this. I, I support this in principle. We might need to smooth that just a little bit because I think it will actually approve, improve attendance as opposed to early. And I think it's always good for us to be able to connect in as having lived having served on the council, lived in Maple Valley where, you know, traffic was a roughly an hour and windstorms and trees down. I think there's a lot to be said about this just provided that it's not abuse. And I'm very confident it won't be this without a similar provision in place for a while. And it certainly hasn't been abused by the members. But I would mention that a few of us have called in. In fact, our council by Roger goes on the phone right now. And if you've done that, you realize that the acoustics are not good. And we need to, if we're going to support this, make a commitment to and and and those TV that we will. Improve the system so that we can hear and communicate well. It is sometimes difficult to hear the chair and other members of the committee for a variety of reasons. So I just wanted to add that that thought. Speaker 0: Thank you. I think that's really important. And I know I listened to it a lot. Even committees when I'm not on, when I'm driving and there are certain members who speak right into a microphone, you can hear every word and there are others you cannot. So I think as a politeness that we all need to hold each other up to saying, Hey, I don't think you're speaking as a microphone. Councilmember Bell, D.C.. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. So I possibly stand alone as coming from a jurisdiction where we did have a rule allowing this sort of thing. When when I was at Bellevue. And in fact, our rules are listed here and similar to what Councilmember Dunn was just saying, it wasn't used all that frequently. I recall using the rule myself. For example, when I was on vacation, it wasn't a family emergency of any kind. I was enjoying the beach with my family, but that was for scheduling reasons that couldn't be avoided. That happened to be the week of the meeting when the council was going to be debating some very big and very contentious issues around the light rail project that I had been working on very, very diligently for a long time, and I wanted to participate. And so I did. And it was challenging. I mean, it's not easy to have that kind of a substantive discussion when one of the members is on the phone. But I feel that it was important that I had the ability to do that, and it was important to the ultimate outcome of that issue for the people of the jurisdiction that I represented at the time. So I understand the value of this. And frankly, there's a lot of regional bodies that allow for phone calling, sound transit allows for it. And we have members here who have taken advantage of that. It's on transit. Others have. I think that it's important that we have everybody we're stronger body when the entire body is represented, whether it be a committee, whether it be the full council, whether it be this committee of the whole. And so I think in general, reducing barriers to participation is a good thing. And for that reason I'll support this. However, it is logistically very challenging in this chamber. I really appreciate what Councilmember Dunn just said, and I had it noted that I was going to say something as well, that if we're going to move to having marginally or even substantially more frequent phone participation, we have got to do something about the setup. It's just okay. The heavens have spoken. Wow. That's great. Yeah. We've got because they've got the acoustics in the chamber are not just for the people who are calling in, for the people who are in the room listening to the person talking. They're not they're not the best. And so we I think we'll have to look at a budget item possibly to upgrade our system, you know, as we go forward. So I think it makes good sense. As Council Member Lambert said there, we have had the ability to do this with committees and I haven't noticed that people take on do advantage of it. And so it seems like a really it seems like a common and not at all controversial thing to me to do. We just have to make it work. We have to commit to each other that we're going to make it work. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And I think the courtesy is going to be really important to, as far as, you know, letting somebody know that you can't hear. And also at the end of each section to be able, say, you know, council member at the Grove, do you have anything you need to say so that, you know, the person on the phone knows that they don't have to be interrupting? Hello. Hello. So that they know that they'll have some opportunity to make input. So I think, you know, some minor adjustments to making this work will be needed. Council Member Oh yes. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a comment and then a question and I appreciate what's been said thus far. And in fact, I think as Councilmember Dunn said, it can increase attendance or participation even if telo telephonically. I recently last month was chairing a commission meeting in another state and tuned into the Health Housing Human Services Committee , which had Vice Chair Lambert chaired. And I went through airport security besides parking the rental car going through it that my husband did that and I was on the phone through all of that, through airport security, through waiting at the gate, boarding the plane, and was on for the whole time of the committee, except the last few minutes. So my partner said it was very difficult and I think it would be nice if, you know, I'm going to that amount of effort to participate that I could be able to vote a vote or an action were needed. My question is on amendment number two and two questions on it, actually, and this has to do with the A members. I'm looking for tenants at a meeting of an outside committee in which the members service would make it difficult. Now, in my case, it was an outside commission of north of Western State. But if that wouldn't be included, I would not think. Are we talking about an outside committee that's in a formalized committee that council members are assigned to? Speaker 4: My intention in drafting the amendment, council members council member Lammers direction was to refer to the the provision in the council rules that provides for the chair to appoint members to various outside committees. And that was my intention. I don't know if that council member, Lambert may want to explain her view on that. Speaker 0: Now, we were trying to find something that would be a guideline, and so that's what we use as our official list. So my example was it being at Naco and not being able to participate, even though I was on the phone and I, I could have so. Speaker 1: I can understand that with Naco, but I don't think other committees would be meeting the same time. That may be an exception. Speaker 0: I bet. Well, Mr. States, if I. Speaker 1: So in transit or, you know, whatever outside communities that. Speaker 0: Have found transit is actually listed on that resolution. Speaker 1: Oh, I know it is. And I'm just in. I can't I'm trying to think of circumstances where outside committees would be meeting the same time as our council meeting, which is the designated time. Speaker 0: So if you want to amend that, add something or it's fine. I was just trying to get the idea that we shouldn't be absent from doing our duties if we're actually doing our duty. And that's why we're absent. Commissioner Make absolutely no sense. Councilmember Bassett. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nick, what is the current policy for being marked absent from attending our meeting? Speaker 4: Well, the clerk may want to elaborate on this, but my understanding is that if you're permitted to attend under the current rules, then you would be marked present. And if you're otherwise, you need to be physically present. Speaker 6: And anything you want to add. Speaker 1: Well, so members are either present or excused. There's no. No, we don't. Speaker 6: What about the from. Speaker 1: So right now, for council meetings, if a council member participates by phone, we're required to. The chair makes that announcement at the beginning of the meeting, and then we note that in the minutes that the member participated telephonically. Speaker 6: You know what goes on the record? Speaker 1: Well, then they're there. Then for council meetings, members who participate telephonically are considered present for purposes of the quorum. And then they their votes are counted when we take the oath. Speaker 6: What about for the committees? Speaker 1: For the committees. There's no that's what this I think this ordinance does is extend that rule that applies in the council meetings to the committee meetings. And make some other technical changes. But essentially now there is no provision for participation in a committee meeting by telephone. He keeps the Sony C one. Speaker 6: Madam Chair, one of the additional concerns that I have, again, and reflecting back upon our history and there's been the concern Don needs to hear this. There's been two political races that involved members of this body running against each other where attendance at meetings became a key issue. And there's been three other meetings where King County Council members were running against others in the community that are not concerned with where it was raised, their attendance. And in all five races, attendance at meetings became one of the two or three more important issues that members of the general public considered. So I would need to know whether or not being able to call and make you present or not present at a meeting. Speaker 0: It would make you present. You were present if you are here telephonically or if you were here in person as you are during a council member under existing rules. But you are not allowed to be present even if, as Councilmember of the Grove is present at this moment, is not considered present for this meeting because it's a committee meeting and not a council meeting. So if you are telephonically at a council meeting, you are present as if you were here in the body. Speaker 6: And this is also expanding non emergency reasons that you could call in. Right. Those concerned about duty used an example where she was at the beach and she was able to call in and Bellevue. Speaker 0: Yeah, I really do not go that far. I'm on another committee and in one meeting they were able to say anybody can can be attending remotely any time they want in one sentence, as long as everybody can hear them. And and I had to laugh as I voted on that. But, you know, they can do it in one sentence. And here we are, months and months and months later at several pages long. I think the most important thing is that everybody has life around them, whether it's happy circumstances, death, bad circumstances, illnesses, traffic accidents. And there are ways of getting here, you know, whatever happens, you know, rainstorm, snowstorm, sleet, hail, whatever. And we have to deal with those. And we're professionals. And as has been said in doing this at the council, it has not produced any problems. Nobody's abused it. And I think that we need to take in in my mind, this is the next baby step. It's not even as robust as five out of the eight surrounding jurisdictions that have no limits on the reasons and six out of eight that have no limits on the number. So this is a very, very modest step, but it does allow each of us to participate and have our individual citizens be able to participate through us, no matter what the weather is or what other issues are being faced. And so that is your question. Speaker 6: Yeah. Essentially extends what we currently have to all of our committees and makes the criteria. One can use a more flexible and broader. Speaker 0: Yes. In the fact that you can go to other council approved meetings and not be considered absent and that there are more family members such as grandchildren and in my daughter in law as the son in laws that should they die, you would be. Speaker 6: Is this sick? Speaker 0: Well, I think it's been. Speaker 6: A little traumatic. Speaker 4: What it would do is the amendment you're referring to would expand the group of immediate family members whose urgent need for assistance would justify attending remotely to include all of the categories who currently if if they did die, the member would or a county employee would be entitled to take bereavement leave on that account. So it uses the same just the same categories of, of individuals for this purpose, as well as for the categories that are currently makes someone eligible for bereavement leave. Speaker 6: So you are only talking about bereavement then. See, I thought Cathy said the relative would have to be dying in order to be able to call that. Speaker 4: No. No. It uses those categories. It borrows those categories. Speaker 6: Category categories, the. Speaker 0: Bereavement category. Speaker 4: The relationship categories, and. Speaker 6: Number of bereaved means about to die. I thought. Speaker 4: Right. Certain category if someone in a certain category, certain relationship to a county employee dies. The county code provides that they can take bereavement leave. Right. This proposed ordinance would use those same categories and say if any of those individuals has an urgent need for assistance and I'm paraphrasing now, that that would be a justification that would constitute urgent circumstances, justify a council member to attend remotely by phone or other electronic means. Speaker 6: All right. Thank you for that clarification. Speaker 0: So just to make sure I'm clear on the language. What does amendment number three mean? That you could be marked absent if you have a sick family member? But does it also mean if your family member died, you would still be marked present if you participated? Speaker 4: Well, if a family member died, I guess I haven't. Speaker 0: Thought about under that category. Speaker 4: That is. That would. Speaker 0: Be urgent. There'd be an urgent care category. Speaker 4: Well, yeah, it's I guess it doesn't really fit the definition that the proposed ordinance would use it, which is that there has to be a medically related issue or other urgent need for assistance that makes it difficult. So you might want to clarify that if that's what your attention is. Speaker 0: Well, medically urgent, I guess, with death is considered a pretty medically urgent issue. But if anybody's questioning whether death is considered medically urgent or not. Speaker 1: Then it's all over. Yeah. Council member Belushi. Speaker 4: See what happens if we just. Speaker 1: We still don't know what. Speaker 6: We're going to replace it. Speaker 1: Just a confirmation. As I read this, you basically have three discretionary times when you call in for whatever reason, which would cover not only a death, but my beach vacation or I mean, we don't do that every year, by the way, but so you'd have up to three times as I read this as a councilmember to choose to call in. Speaker 4: No, no, that's. Currently, there are three different categories of reasons why. Speaker 1: I'm talking about with the amendment, but they're new with the. Speaker 4: New rule. Okay. All that would do it would address the urgent circumstances as a ground and it would modify the definition of urgent circumstances. But it would not create it would not give members the right to attend remotely in the absence of urgent circumstances is. Speaker 1: So I would go further. I don't. Speaker 0: Know. That's what I was hoping somebody would say that I would like to do a new striker that took in the fact that we have. Speaker 1: For. Speaker 0: That we have four amendments before us because this has been here for so long that some of the language has gotten older and that we do keep the three for no reason and then we go into the urgent. Um, so anyway, this is up for a briefing because there are obviously some various opinions about how this would be implemented, should be implemented. It just boggles my mind that other groups can do it on one or two sentences in one meeting. But anyway, here we are. So during the next two weeks, if you would like to bring amendments, let me know and we will go for that. Council Member Duncan. Speaker 4: I have to make this point because of the record on it. With all due respect to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Goss, our districts are different and yours is is right here and close. And I know you don't do a lot of skateboarding, but if you wanted to, you could skateboard to work. My friend. My district goes, Do you know that my district goes all the way to where King County borders, Yakima County and Natchez Pass. And I have people that live out there and I am frequently out there and it is in elevations up to 6000 feet. Kath has got places, I've got almost 8000 feet. We are out there doing a lot of work and sometimes things happen and I had a situation where down at the state of the county last year and I got in a really bad situation in terms of traffic and and just missed the meeting and then of course, you know what happens there, but if I could have called in, it would have been fine and I would have attended. So I just I want people to remember that we all come from different circumstances. When I lived out in rural, unincorporated King County outside of Maple Valley, and it took at least an hour to come to work in traffic, that's that was really hard on my family and my children because of the amount of commute times going back and forth. These are choices we make. But I'm urging my colleagues to remember the diversity of our districts and what challenges may exist, especially relating to weather, where the big windstorm with 29 trees around it couldn't get anywhere and power was out. So anyway, just just to chew on food for thought and always with great respect. Mr. Gossett you had to stop that skateboarding came out. Speaker 6: You. Speaker 1: Mr. Guys. Speaker 6: But what are we, uh, I mean, other examples are that Councilman DEMBOSKY there's a way out north, and for three years he's been on the county council and never missed one meeting being physically here. Speaker 4: Mr. Dombrowski is is. Speaker 2: I was doing so well, you know, in avoiding this conversation. Speaker 4: He's always sat right at the front of the class to give that kind of guy. Speaker 0: A halo came with it. Speaker 2: Position. I appreciate the comment there. I was just but I you know, last week I was out in Reagan's district at his invitation to look. Get some of the marijuana growing issues and and income and coming back. I was reminded, you know, we were coming down the valley highway and the traffic there, it it it is a long way out there. And these are big districts. And I, I think very often every day when I'm coming down either on the bus or in the car or now sometimes on light rail, how easy it is for me from Northeastern to get here to participate. I mean, it's it's easy and I'm lucky then. So I, I'm not sure we'll look at these from this perspective. I've supported these interest in having a little more flexibility here. I think it's a pro participation measure. I want to make sure we do it the right amount so it stays a pro participation measure. There is a lot of value in face to face dialog and in that I want to preserve that. It's one of the great things about this body, I think, is that we're here and can see each other and the debate is richer. We've got to fix if we're going to be more flexible, we've got to fix this technology because frankly, today it's more disruptive than it is helpful when you're here in chambers on the call. And it just is. But I think there's solutions to that. I think there probably are solutions to that. So I look forward to working with you, Councilmember Lambert, I think to see if we can get this to the right spot for a little more flexibility while preserving the really tremendous value of being here and working with all of you. Face to face brings. Speaker 0: A lot of thank you and I appreciate that too. I think, like I said, we have work balance. We have very large districts, my district, 1007 square miles. And it's a little different to be commuting if you have a meeting in the morning and frequently I do. I have a mayor's meeting at 7 a.m. at North Bend sometimes and getting back in here on time and sometimes I listen to the meeting on the way in, so then I'm prepared when I get here. And it does help us that have large districts to be able to be in two places at once. And as Councilmember Caldwell said, lots of times we are scheduled from more than one place at the same time. So all of these things are helpful to us and we need to be able to get to that. This is a robust discussion and so I look forward to hearing from you as to exactly what you would like to see. We will try to get a compromise. Everybody has very different ideas and so not everybody's going to have 100% what they want in it. But I think as long as we can keep the flavor of getting this done and moving on, it will be great. So we have now moved the other two items for today off to the next meeting. And so at that, this meeting will be a.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE relating to telephone or electronic attendance at council and standing committee meetings; and amending Ordinance 11683, Section 15, as amended, and K.C.C. 1.24.145.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06012016_2016-0044

Speaker 0: This. Okay, so I'm wondering about making sure, since that is if we should go on to if they record a quarterly update and we can't do that because he's missing, you know, we'll just take it in order. So could you begin on our ordinance number 2016 0044? Speaker 2: Yes, Madam Chair. Nick Wagner, Council staff. The staff report on this item begins on page 11 of your materials. This proposed ordinance would place on the November 2016 ballot a charter amendment that would make the office of King County prosecuting attorney nonpartisan and would, among other things, provide for vacancies in that office to be filled in the same manner as vacancies in most other elective county offices. Currently, every King County elected office except prosecuting attorney is nonpartisan. On the other hand, in all 39 Washington counties, the office of prosecuting attorney is a partizan office. For non charter counties this is prescribed by state law which is quoted on page 12 of the materials for charter counties. The ICW allows county offices, but not state offices to be designated as nonpartisan in the county charter. So if prosecuting attorney is a state office, state law requires it to be partizan. If it's a county office, the RTW would permit a charter county Charter County to make the office nonpartisan by charter in four of the seven charter counties in Washington, including King County. All of the executive branch elective offices except prosecuting attorney, are nonpartisan. This disparate treatment of the office could be due to uncertainty about whether the prosecuting attorney is a state office or a county office, and therefore whether the county is permitted to make the office nonpartisan. In an opinion issued last November, the Washington attorney general expressed the view the prosecuting attorney is a county office for election purposes and that a charter county therefore may convert it from partizan to nonpartisan by charter amendment. And that opinion is attachment to in your materials that pages 25 to 30. In reaching this conclusion, the attorney general considered not only the CW but also the Washington state constitution, which provides that counties, quote, shall not affect the election of the prosecuting attorney, close quote. The attorney general interpreted that constitutional provision to mean only that the office of the prosecuting attorney must remain elective rather than being made a point of those, according to the attorney general. Charter counties do have legal authority to convert the office of prosecuting attorney from PARTIZAN to nonpartisan by charter amendment. The effects of the proposed Charter Amendment, if it were placed on the ballot and approved by the voters, are described on pages 13 to 14 of your materials, starting at the bottom of page 13. First, the election of the prosecuting attorney must be conducted as a nonpartisan election. This means that no candidate's party preference may be listed on the ballot. This does not preclude candidates from seeking party endorsements or affiliating themselves with political parties in their campaigns. Nor does it preclude political parties from endorsing or campaigning for candidates. Nor does it prohibit any form of partizan, identification or advocacy except on the ballot itself. The second effect of the amendment would be that upon taking office, the prosecuting attorney is required to, quote, designate one or more employees who serve as a deputy or assistant in such office to serve as an interim official in the event of a vacancy. Close quote. If there is a vacancy in the office of prosecuting attorney, the amendment would require that it be that it be filled like a vacancy in any other nonpartisan elective county office. Which is to say that the council appoints as acting prosecuting attorney, quote, an employee who served as a deputy or assistant in such office at the time the vacancy occurred, close quote. And that person shall serve quote until the vacancy is filled by appointment pursuant to general law for nonpartisan county elective offices, close quote. The council is not required or would not be required if this amendment were approved by the voters to appoint someone from the same political party as the former prosecuting attorney and from among three persons nominated by that party's county central committee. As would be the case if the office remained partizan. The fourth requirement or the fourth effect of the matter. Speaker 0: That there are six. I have a question. Okay. So when the prosecuting attorney takes office, he designates one or more employees to serve as deputy or assistants. So not that this is going to happen to a prosecutor, but suppose he should die. And so then that person would the interim official would then take over as the new prosecuting attorney or as the interim until he appointed using the same procedure that we just did. The three judges with. Speaker 2: That person would take over as the interim prosecuting attorney, and then the counsel would be, who would have the option of appointing someone who served as a deputy or assistant in the office to serve as acting prosecuting attorney until such time, if the county wish, the county could just leave it at that until the next election. Or the Council could appoint someone. Anyone who meets the requirement. The qualifications of office to be the I guess you call none acting prosecuting attorney until the next election. It's kind of a convoluted process. Speaker 0: As to why it's going to be a Hanabusa. Okay, so the person he appoints to be the interim from the very beginning is not the person that would necessarily step up because we'd have or they'd step up for a while until we decided which of the existing deputies or assistance in the office would fill it until we got to the person. Okay, I get it now. All right. That is a little convoluted. Okay. Go ahead. Thank you. Speaker 2: The fourth effect of the proposed amendment is that the qualifications for office and the timing of the election of the prosecuting attorney shall be as prescribed in state law. Before discussing the practical effect of making the Office nonpartisan, it's important to understand what partizan elections in Washington look like. Unlike traditional Partizan elections in which the political party endorsing a candidate is listed on the ballot with the candidate's name. Washington's top two primary system permits only a candidate's party preference to be listed with the candidate's name in a partizan election. The ballot may not show whether the candidate has been nominated or endorsed by a political party. Whether a party approves of the candidate or whether the candidate is a member of or is otherwise affiliated with a party. In traditional partizan elections, the listing of the name of a political party below a candidate's name on the ballot informs the voter that the party endorses the candidate, which is information that the voter can use in deciding whom to vote for based on the voter's familiarity with the party and what it stands for. Party endorsement has been described as a low cost and usually reasonable policy guide for voting. Since it enables the voter to avoid a more time consuming process of determining the candidate's positions on issues of concern to the voter, and in my staff report, I compare it to the way a consumer might rely on a consumer magazine's ratings of products. A more important decision, but still there is some similarity there. The candidate's preference for a political party does not necessarily mean that the party supports the candidate. For example, two candidates running against each other might express a preference for the same party, and the candidate could express a political party preference for strategic reasons, despite holding views not shared by that party. The bottom line is that some of the informational benefits of traditional partizan elections are unavailable to voters in Washington under the top two primary system. Still, even a candidate's expressed preference for a political party provides some information about the candidate that a voter might find useful on pages 15 to 17 of your materials . Starting at the bottom of page 15 is a discussion of some of the most common arguments for and against Nonpartizan elections. First, there's the argument that potholes and bus schedules, for example, have no political affiliation in the sense that there's no political disagreement about whether potholes should be fixed and busses should run on time. This argument is then extended to say that local government is really all about management issues, not politics. So party labels are less important in local elections and don't belong on the ballot. On the other hand, one could argue that a willingness to raise taxes, to finance road improvements or mass transit or the allocation of resources between those two may depend on an elected officials political perspective. Similarly, one could characterize as representing a political viewpoint a prosecuting attorney's position on issues such as whether it's an effective use of public resources to press felony charges against against certain low level criminal defendants, or whether to support diversion programs for nonviolent offenders or to decriminalize certain drug offenses . This latter view would suggest that local offices and issues have political dimensions and should be treated as such on the ballot. A second argument for treating local elected officers as Nonpartizan is that political allegiances and party affiliations are sometimes based on national issues that don't carry over to the local level. The local branch of a political party, for example, may take positions on local issues that the voter, if he or she knew about them, would not support. Voting on the basis of a party label on the ballot could lead such a voter to vote mistakenly against his or her own preferences. Another argument for making nonpartisan an office like prosecuting attorney or for that matter judge, is that such officers should be conducted in a nonpartizan and unbiased manner. But an endorsement by a political party does not necessarily mean that the endorsed candidate, if elected, will be biased in favor of that party in performing the duties of the elected office. On the contrary, a party might endorse a specific candidate for prosecuting attorney, for example, precisely because the party believe the candidate will be even handed. In Washington, though, the only permissible reference to political parties on the ballot is the candidate's preference for a political party, which does seem more suggestive of bias than a party's endorsement of a candidate. This arguably strengthens the case for having nonpartizan election of the prosecuting attorney in Washington, compared with states where a party's endorsement is permitted on the ballot. Fourth. It has been argued that nonpartizan elections are inherently less rancorous than partizan elections. In Washington, though, nonpartisan elections are required to be nonpartisan only in the sense that party endorsements, affiliations and preferences may not be shown on the ballot. Candidates are not precluded from affiliating themselves with political parties in their campaigns or from seeking partizan endorsements. Nor are political parties precluded from endorsing or campaigning for candidates. Partizan Identification and advocacy are prohibited only on the ballot itself. Another rationale for removing party affiliation or preference from the ballot is to motivate voters to find other sources of information about the candidates. In practice, the evidence suggests that many voters in nonpartizan elections rely on information, shortcuts, or I should say, substitute information shortcuts like the race or ethnicity suggested by a candidate's name or the candidate's name, familiarity which favors incumbents and well-financed candidates, or that a voter might decide for lack of a reason to favor one candidate over another not to vote at all. This possible negative effect of having a nonpartizan ballot may be limited to some extent by Washington's practice of providing a voter's pamphlet containing information provided by the candidates. Finally, if partizan information is unavailable on the ballot and voters have not found substitute sources of information, they may end up voting by mistake for a candidate who does not share their views. Besides being undesirable in itself, in a jurisdiction where a clear majority of voters supports a political party, such mistakes are statistically likely to favor the minority party. That concludes my staff report, unless there are any questions and as you see, also available to answer questions. Are the prosecuting attorney, Dan Söderberg and Tom couple from the Pierre. Speaker 0: Any questions before we bring our prosecutor and legal staff and then as a senator again? Sorry about that. Councilmember Caldwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Nick, I went in under a system of the non the nonpartisan position, just as it's the case of our running for office where we have nonpartisan offices and I don't recall this can a candidate place the party designation on the yard signs? Speaker 2: Yes. The only thing that is affected by the nonpartizan status of the office is the ballot. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And then I had one quick question. So judges are considered county employees, aren't they? Are they state employees? Speaker 2: I'm not sure about that. Okay. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. And Mr. Söderberg and Mr. Couple, if you want to come on up. I can't remember. Do you have a question? Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. How many of the elected officials here in King County are Partizan? How many of the elected officials in King County are part of one and that is. Speaker 2: The prosecuting attorney. Speaker 3: Why is that the case? Speaker 2: Well, I can only speculate that it may be due to uncertainty about whether it is considered a county office or a state office under state law. The the rc w permits the county the county charter in the charter county to make county offices nonpartisan and state. An office is a state office. Then the rc w requires that it be partizan. Speaker 3: So I think, Madam Chair, that we should have some consistency in county government. We should all either be partizan or nonpartisan. And that's why I'm looking forward to supporting this measure. But I would like to hear from Dan and our lawyer. Speaker 0: Great. Their next. Mr. Senator, welcome. Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Members of the Council in the onset of King County prosecuting attorney, also senior deputy prosecutor, Tom couple with me to answer any legal questions you have. And the question that you asked, Mr. Gosset, is is is the question why is it in King County government that the only office that's a partizan office is the prosecuting attorney? And the technical answer to that is that there was some ambiguity about whether it was a county office or a state office. Now, that ambiguity has been clarified by the attorney general's opinion that Mr. Wagner referenced, and I think I provided you each with a copy that that says that in a charter county that you have the right to ask the people how they want to form their government. And so now that that ambiguity has been resolved in favor of asking the people how to resolve how to form their government, then they're within, the tougher question is, well, then if you could change it, why wouldn't you? Why would the prosecuting attorney be the only partizan office when by anybody looking at it, it should be the one that shouldn't be partizan? I mean, Mr. Wagner's excellent report makes some of the arguments about, well, a party label can be shorthand to give limited information to people who don't otherwise want to do their own research about the candidates. I would suggest that that might be true for members of Congress, for the state legislature, even potentially a county or city legislative body where issues of budgets come up, where taxing and priorities of spending come up. But I would I would submit that it is very misleading to have that binary approach for a Justice office like the Office of Prosecuting Attorney Binary BI You either play for this team or you play for that team, and that somehow that label is going to tell everybody everything they need to know about this person's approach to justice. And there's a reason that we don't do it for judicial positions, because judges are supposed to make the best decision they can on all available evidence and try to do the right thing. Well, my office does that, too. The prosecuting attorney's mission is to do justice. And we don't go to a touchstone of a party platform to decide how to best prosecute cases, how to best use the resources that the county gives us. The party affiliation is misleading and worse than misleading to voters. It undermines the single greatest challenge that the criminal justice system has today, and that is to build confidence with the communities most impacted by crime that they can trust us, that they should participate with us, that they should testify when they see a crime, that they should call 911. And all the efforts that we've made to build a system of community justice are undermined by the fact that you can look and say, well, wait a second, you're a member of the Republican Party. How can I trust you to do that? And so I'm asking to harmonize this office with the rest of the county and and take away that that misleading label. Now, the it's not hypothetical to imagine a time that the prosecuting attorney office could become a partizan office. And it wasn't that long ago. And I would I would recommend to you who haven't read it Christopher Bailey's book called Seattle Justice, that tells the chapter of our local history that happened right here in this building. When Charles O'Carroll was the prosecuting attorney from 1948 to 1970, he was not only the prosecuting attorney, he was also the de facto head of the Republican Party. And if you wanted to have a job as a deputy prosecutor, you had to be sponsored by a Republican Party official or precinct committee officer, and you had to agree to work on Mr. Carroll's campaign, either donate money or put up yard signs. It was a political machine, and it eventually, as the story is told, it fell apart because it was a political machine, because corruption invaded this this office. And since 1970, during the eight years of Mr. Bailey's term, during the 28 years of nor mailings determined over the last nine years that I've had the privilege and honor of being the prosecuting attorney, we've done everything we can do to have internal policies to keep politics out of the office. So in my office. You're not allowed to endorse the prosecuting attorney. You're not allowed to give the prosecuting attorney any money. Know, we try to keep people at arm's length from the from the partizan political nature of the office. But I will say that adopting this ordinance, allowing the people to vote on the structure of their government and if they were to vote and I relatively confident that the people would have no problem saying, well, of course, the prosecuting attorney's office shouldn't be a partizan office. That would be the culmination of the last 45 years of reform in this office to make sure that that the the excesses and the corruption that went with a very partizan office never comes back to this office. So this, I think, is an issue for you of an issue of good government. It's an issue of harmonizing the the office of prosecutor, agreeing with every other elected official in this in this office. And I think we've got the clear sign from the attorney general that this is permissible. And now that it's permissible, I think answering that question about why this is the only prosecuted only partizan office becomes nearly impossible to to to answer without completely misunderstanding the role of the prosecuting attorney's office. So I'll stop there. Happy to take any questions that you might have been. Speaker 0: Any questions come from. Speaker 3: Thank you. So you're saying that every prosecutor in King County since 1970 has been a Republican? Speaker 1: Every prosecutor since 1948. Speaker 3: Been 28. Okay. I mean, I was listening to you, and I think that the argument is basically true, because the first time I ever went to jail was under Charles Carroll. And he said that people like us were nothing but outside agitators coming up to Seattle to agitate our Negroes. But all of us were born here. So that's that's something to think about. Thank you, ma'am. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. I don't see any other questions. And just a couple. Did you have anything you want to add? Speaker 4: No, not unless there are any legal questions. Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 4: Councilmember domestics have a little time, but this is, I think, for Nick. The fact of nonpartisan county offices is relatively recent. If I'm correct, can you enlighten us a little bit on the history of the executive and the council or any other elected offices in the county? Were partizan versus nonpartisan? Speaker 2: Sure. The first office to become nonpartisan was the sheriff's office, which was made a charter office in 1996, and it was made a nonpartisan charter office. Then in 2008, Initiative 26 made the offices of assessor, council member and executive. Nonpartisan. 2008 Right. Speaker 4: Also 68 when I think the Charter was adopted on Royal Charter until 2008, all those offices were partizan. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 4: And how did that charter amendment come about? The 2008 charter. Speaker 2: It was by a recognition. Speaker 4: Going to give credit where credit is due. Speaker 0: Customer of mine, right? Yeah, that's right. No. Speaker 3: What does that mean? Speaker 2: Sorry. It was by by initiative. And also that same year, a different initiative. Initiative 25 made elections director, a charter office. And it too, was nonpartisan. Speaker 0: Oh, I had forgotten that one. Yeah. Great. So you're all alone, and that's not a fun place to be, so. Speaker 1: Well, it is a fun place to be in the sense of being pro-second turning is a tremendous job and a great responsibility and tremendous challenges. And I think that eliminating that partizan label, you know, in the end, whether it's me or anybody else, we want to be judged by the people on our approach to justice, on the decisions that we make every single day, not by the consonant that's next to our name, but rather on the content of the administration of justice. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Dombroski has a question followed by Councilmember Chair. Speaker 4: And this is maybe more of a legal issue, but it's it's kind of a novel legal issue, given the attorney general's opinion of last November, I guess it was I was just looking at the statute here. 2904 110 the parts of the statute. Subsection. The statute. Yes, sir. The state statute. Arcia between now 411000 county officers. Right. Except judicial officers and those officers for which a county home rule charter provides otherwise. Those are the parties that officer. So the issue is, is your office a county office or not? When you bring charges, when you file. Right. An information or or brand charge, isn't it, in the name of the state of Washington? Speaker 1: Yes, that is the charging language. And I think the attorney general's opinion distinguishes a county office for the purpose of the election versus a county office for the purpose of the function of many of the functions that we do are not state functions. When we provide advice to our clients in this from the civil division, we're not acting on behalf of the state of Washington. We're clearly acting in the best interests of the people of King County. And so that there are definitely functions where we do invoke the name of the state of Washington. But for elective purposes, it's clear from the attorney general's analysis that it is a county office. Speaker 4: So that's the distinction. It's the only center that analysis is. What area are you talking about? You're talking about the function of the job or the how the how the job is elected. That's right. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Because it sounds like. Speaker 3: Although. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've heard your arguments, and what I've observed about you is that despite the fact that you're a Republican, it doesn't appear as if you let that get in your way. Because I studied the way you and some of your top deputies review cases, some of which are very serious, like three strikes. And I have written down here that I you. Excuse me, concerns that you and your top deputies and over the last since around 2008 have been willing to support 15 or 16, I'm not sure persons that were in jail for three strikes and now most of them were sentenced before you became a prosecutor and you have ended up writing letters and that the low level of their charges, robbery tools are such that it's not likely that you are, given what you understand the circumstances to have been in their cases would have a levee that three strikes you're out on these persons and the governors whoever they might have been and the the pardons or clemency boards. I forgot the correct name over these last 12, 13 years. I have ended up concurring with you. And I think all but one of these three strikers or a man, all of them were black and they ended up getting out. And most of them that are out, all of them, as far as I know, have been able to reassess their lives. And I live in a positive community, contribute to a lives. Now that they're out, why do you have to have your office changed to continue that kind of fair assessment? Why do you have to be nonpartisan? Speaker 1: Well, thank you for bringing that up, because I think it's a perfect example of the justice function of the office, where we're we're more like a minister of justice. We're not the judge, of course, but we have that we're in that same line of work of trying to do the right thing. And in each of those cases, I believe that the men had and the one woman had served sufficient time and that their their conduct while in prison made them no longer a threat to public safety. And that to keep them in prison until they died would have been an injustice. So when making that decision, I'm motivated by what's the right thing to do. And I didn't go and ask the political party if they thought that was a good idea or not. I just did it because that's what I thought we should do. So I think by removing that label, then I don't we don't I can be judged on the decisions that I've made and not some shorthand of, well, you're, you know, this are next your name, so you must believe in this. You know, the things that I believe in, I as a prosecuting attorney, I believe in because I've been in the office for almost 31 years now, and I have a sense of what a just outcome is. And so that's what I want to be judged by. Speaker 3: Okay. Madam Chairman, I would ask a question about prosecutions. Speaker 0: And then we need to wind up after that. Speaker 3: Thank you. Have you had the opportunity to read Bob Ferguson's opinion that he is delivering as the Washington state attorney general? Yes. Yes, I have. And I like that. I know that is evolved, but I've always been confident that you render independent judgment. What is your opinion of that opinion? Well. Speaker 4: We've looked at it pretty closely, actually, and our conclusion is it's the better view. It's the better legal conclusion. I would say that it's not settled unless or until a judge were to decide that issue, and that is a possibility. However, you know, having been looked at it and looked at the authority cited in there, I do think we're pretty comfortable that it is the better view. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Senator. Councilmember. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dan, have you had occasion to speak with your counterparts in other counties? Speaker 1: I have. Sure, I have. And it's important to note first that about half of the elected days in America are nonpartisan. So we were outliers across the country and in the state of Washington. Those prosecuting attorneys who are from charter counties are very interested in pursuing this as well. In fact, the question came from the newly elected prosecutor in College County to the attorney general, because the College County is undergoing, you know, its charter formation. And so I think that is that that and I should go back to in 2009 and 2010, I had two bills in the state legislature that would have made this. Office, a nonpartisan office, statewide changing the RTW. And neither Bill got out of committee. The legislature is a partizan place, as you may recall, from your experience there. And so I was I was I said, fine, we tried. And at that time, I had every member of WAPA on board saying, yes, we think that this is more consistent with our function as ministers of justice than it is as a partizan office. And so there's widespread support for this in the state. Speaker 0: And how many of the 39 counties are Charter seven? Seven. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So our plan is that we will vote on this in two weeks. And so we will look forward to seeing you then. And thank you for coming and sharing this with us. Speaker 1: Thank you. And in the meantime, if any questions, you know where to get me, I'm on the fourth floor. Speaker 0: Thank you. We thank you and thank you for living out what Norm said to all of us, that we are the face of justice. Thank you so much. Okay. We're going to go on now to number five. No, number six are going to get number five until the end and bring up number six right now, which is

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter to make the office of King County prosecuting attorney nonpartisan; amending Section 610 of the King County Charter; adding a new Section 649 to the King County Charter; amending Section 680.10 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the qualified voters of the county for their approval or rejection at the next general election occurring more than forty-five days after the enactment of this ordinance.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_06012016_2016-0260

Speaker 0: Thank you. Are those led to approve the meeting minutes as written? Please say i. I those opposed nay. May 4th on May 18th, approved as written. That will now take us to number seven, which is the proposed motion 2016 260260, a motion approving the first quarter, the expenditures for emergency needs and anticipated project costs. Summary Report Prepared by the Road Services Division. So this case. Thank you, Madam Chair. Please again, council central staff. For the record. Speaker 5: My staff report on this item begins on page 51 of your packet. Speaker 0: This motion 2120160260. Speaker 5: Would approve the first quarterly reports for 2016. Speaker 0: From the Road Services Division on emergent needs and unanticipated project costs. Speaker 5: As you'll recall, Council. Speaker 0: Approved a budget proviso requiring these reports in response to an operational shift in roads from planned investments that has individual CHP projects taken from the transportation needs report to reactive system management. With funding pooled in a number of response oriented programs, including emergent needs and quick response, this change was a response to the roads funding shortfall, the division's experience with emergency roadwork expenses and a desire not to cancel capital projects if emergency repairs required additional revenue. This first. Quarterly report shows the transfer of $620,000 from the Quick Response Project. Speaker 5: To the Upper Preston Southeast and Southeast 97th slide repair. Speaker 0: And there were no transfers from the emergent needs funds. The remaining appropriation in quick response is. Speaker 5: Approximately $5.9. Speaker 0: Million, and the remaining appropriation for emergent needs is approximately $5.6 million. Approval of the motion today would release $75,000 to the road services division for the proviso. That concludes. Speaker 5: My report. Director Bauer and Director. Speaker 0: Deputy Director Osburn are in the audience if you have additional questions. I have a couple of questions. Bauer. Okay. Good morning, Jay. How are you? Speaker 2: I'm well, thank you. For the record, Jay Osborne, deputy director, King County Roads. Speaker 0: So when you say the disproportion of certain project numbers, will they still stay on the books, though, like, for instance, the Miller Miller River Bridge replacement? Well, that's still stay on the books in case we ever get anything. FEMA money for that. Speaker 2: So we have a transportation needs report. Speaker 1: That is the 20 year list of all. Speaker 2: The projects that need. So when a project is unfunded, it remains in the. Speaker 1: TNR as an identified need for future funding options. Speaker 0: Okay, I have not given up on that. And you should know as roads if you haven't already heard that stock comment was closed off for 5 hours. I can't remember. That was Saturday or Sunday because the railroad pulled up across again and closed the entire town off. So with no Miller Bridge as our alternate way out, that's not a good idea. So I'm very concerned about that. So I'm glad that it's in here. And I'm hoping that as we go back to Congress, we can talk about FEMA replacing this bridge because it was destroyed during a flood. So anyway. Okay. And I'm glad to see that you took care working on the slide repair. How how is it completely repaired now? Speaker 1: The work on Upper Preston is done. Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. And what about the guardrail. Speaker 2: And the guardrail repair, I believe, is part of a maintenance. Speaker 1: Activity that we've concluded as well. Speaker 0: Okay, great. It's frightening to go see that slide and the guardrail. So I'm glad that you've got that fixed. Great. Okay. That is our report. And anybody. But please to put that before us. Sure. Speaker 4: We have to manage and move adoption from Motel 60260, which would approve the first quarter to that 16 expenditures for emergent needs in a budget cost summary report. Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you very much. Clark, will you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Customer, Double Duty Councilmember. Speaker 4: And Ambassador. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Gossett, I Councilor Colwell, I'm Councilmember McDermott. Councilmember up the councilmember memory card today. Madam Chair, I'm not terribly excited and I know some council members felt duty. MCDERMOTT And vermouth are excused. Excellent. Thank you very much. And I appreciate all your hard work on this. I do have a couple of questions on some of the other ones that we can get off line later. Madam Chair. Yes, I'm sure I'll again ask, expedite and can't. That's not expedite in case they have an amendment later on. But we can have it next week. But I'm concerned. No. No. No. Okay. All right. Be great. And now number eight. And this is Briefing 2016, briefing 117.

Motion

A MOTION approving the First Quarter 2016 Expenditures for Emergent Needs and Unanticipated Project Costs Summary Report prepared by the road services division in the department of transportation as required in the 2015/2016 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 17941, Section 53, Proviso P2.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_05042016_2016-0220

Speaker 0: Okay. So it'll be expedited, but not no consent. Okay. So the next two motions that are before us to 2016, oh two and nine and oh to 20, we're going to move those together. So would you please move both of those at the same time? Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm pleased to move adoption of 2016 219 and 2 to 0 to the full council unexpired basis Monday. And we've had a good discussion. We've had good interviews. I think members still want to have time to consider these qualified candidates and continue to check background and and resources and recommendations. And so at this time, I wouldn't expect to offer any motions to amend these two motions, but we've moved them with that recommendation today. Speaker 0: And that would be fine. Any questions or comments? All right. With that clerk, would you please call for the vote? Thank you. Madam Chair comes from our beloved council member. Speaker 5: By. Speaker 0: Councilmember. Speaker 2: Don. Speaker 0: Gossett. Councilor Coles councilor in the. Speaker 1: McDermott. Speaker 0: House. Member of the Grove. Councilor I'm right there. I know. Chair The seminar is no nos in council members. Speaker 2: On my cards. Speaker 0: Excellent. With that, we have completed our work for today. County is very fortunate to have so many qualified individuals who are willing to serve their communities as a district court judge. And we are 4 minutes beyond the time that I thought it would take us and just we had to take a recess for our recess, friends. We were right on track. So with that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.

Motion

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the west division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_05042016_2016-0218

Speaker 0: So thank you very much. So with that, we are going to move the first motion. The first motion is the one for Southwest Division, and that is proposed motion 2016 0218. And because it's Southwest, we are going to have a Southwest Councilmember Council member at the Grove. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the proposed motion 2016 0218 be adopted. Speaker 0: Thank you. Would you like to make a motion of filling in a name? Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would move that the name of Laurel Gibson be inserted on line 18. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All those in favor of the. Speaker 1: So I speak to it. Speaker 0: Yes, please speak to it first. Yes. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Madam Chair, this is really an honor for me. Speaker 1: To be able to nominate Laurel Gibson to the Southwest Division District. Speaker 2: Court. She got her undergraduate degree from University. Speaker 1: Of Washington and her. Speaker 2: Law degree from Seattle University. She's been practicing criminal law for 12 years. And but most. Speaker 1: Importantly and what stands out in my mind is she brings four years. Speaker 2: Experience both as an administrative. Speaker 1: Law judge, but as a pro tem in this court on the Friday calendars. And the folks she worked with, the current bench and the staff have nothing but praise for the work she's been doing in the district court right now. I want to also mention how much I enjoyed listening to the remarks this morning of Brian Todd. He brings a tremendous life experience and commitment to people who are disadvantaged, and I hope he stays engaged and we get to see his name again in the future. And so we were blessed to have many excellent candidates, but I think we will be very well served in Southwest Division Court with what I hope to be a Judge Laura Gibson, and committed to you. Speaker 2: For your support. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any other comments? Can I please ask our clerk? Yeah. Okay. So the name being built into I treat that as an amendment and we vote on that as an amendment or since it was already a blank, do I just go forward and do it as just so I think we'll treat that as an amended motion? Okay. That's what I that's where we will report it. Okay. That's what I was going to do. But I want to make sure. Okay, good. So, Councilmember Domestic. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair, of be very brief. I wanted to echo Councilmember up the Grove's comments in support of Ms.. Gibson as the appointed judge for the Southwest District. Really excellent job in the interview is a great background, great recommendations. But I also wanted to recognize Mr. Todd. I thought he did very well and made a very compelling case, really appreciate his service to the community at El Centro de la Raza and in the community legal clinics. And I want to note that the most compelling recommendations for me were for Mr. Todd from court staff bailiffs who sometimes don't up bailiffs wrote in in his materials. And to me that was very telling about Mr. Todd as an individual, as a person, as a human being, how he treats the court staff. And it wasn't just one, but there were multiple letters from court staff. And I think that we'll see. Mr.. Todd again. Speaker 0: Thank you. And that also tells our bailiffs we care about them. So thank you for pointing that out. Anybody else? All right. So before us right now is the amendment, oral amendment, to put the name of Laura Gibson in to this motion. All those in favor of the amendment, please say those opposed. Nay amendment is on. And so now before us we have the underlying legislation 2016 0218 Any questions or comments? The clerk please call. Did we push? Do okay. Call for the roll. Okay. Please call the off. Thank you, Madam Chair. You didn't I remember Dumbo Knight Councilmember Dunn Knight. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 2: Councilmember Toll. Speaker 6: Well, I've. Speaker 0: Been a councilmember. Speaker 2: Experiment, all right. Which remember. Speaker 0: The girl? Navajo Code Council councilmember of the girl, I think. Speaker 1: Councilmember. Speaker 0: Brown right there. Speaker 6: Madam Chair, I don't know who is Ada. Speaker 0: Mike Bowers Excellent. So that one will proceed to Monday. And we want that on the consent calendar to want to talk about it. We want to talk about it or not. Do you want to consent for us to say a few words? Okay. So it'll be expedited, but not no consent. Okay. So the next two motions that are before us to 2016, oh two and nine and oh to 20, we're going to move those together. So would you please move both of those at the same time?

Motion

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the southwest division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_04252016_2016-0218

Speaker 0: Member of the Grove. Councilmember run right power here. Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we have a very exciting opportunity to fill three judicial positions on the district court. And I'd like to thank the members of the subcommittee who have worked long hours in interviewing 15 different people. And so I'd like to thank Councilmember Balducci, Councilmember Gossett and Councilmember Dombrowski for joining in on that. And as you can see from the binders that are sitting here, there was lots and lots of information. So today we will not be taking actions on the motions themselves. What we're going to be doing is reviewing the qualifications of the candidates to select final candidates to be interviewed. So what we're deciding is to decide to decide, okay, so we will look at the name and then we will be able to pick which of those candidates that we would like to interview at our next meeting, which will be Wednesday, May the fourth. All of the candidates were told the May 4th date during the interviews because we hope to choose by May the ninth, because on May 17th begins the filing week for those positions. We'll begin this meeting with a brief staff report to provide some background for those in the audience who are unfamiliar with the selection process. Then we're going to go into executive session to discuss the individual candidates qualification. Mr. Wagner, would you please begin? Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Nick Wagner, Counsel. Staff It is the council's job under state law to fill judicial vacancies in King County District Court. The procedure for doing so is spelled out in the county code, and it's summarized on pages 3 to 4 of your materials for this council meeting. Briefly, the count. The Council clerk publishes a notice of any vacancy, and interested individuals are required to apply either to the clerk or to one of the bar associations that has an established judicial evaluation committee. As defined in the county code to be considered for appointment by the Council, an applicant must be rated by a Bar Association's Judicial Evaluation Committee, and the committee must refer the applicant to the council. With the rating, there are three eligible candidates for the vacancy in the Southwest Division of the District Court and ten eligible candidates for the two vacancies in the West Division. The committee has received several hundred pages of written materials from the 13 candidates and from the bar and the bar associations. And each committee member has been provided a copy of those materials to review. In addition, some council members, as you mentioned, Madam Chair, have informally interviewed the candidates. The county code provides for this committee to review the candidates and select final candidates to be interviewed by the committee. And those interviews are currently scheduled for May 4th. That's when Wednesday of next week. The purpose of today's meeting is to complete the initial review process and to select the candidates to be interviewed. That concludes my staff report. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And on page 18 of our packet, it gives the criteria that we are looking for in selecting judges. And I think that these criteria excellent. And we're definitely what we had in mind as we were doing the interviews. So with that, Councilmember Garcia, do you have a question? Yes, thank you, sir. Speaker 2: Who are the three candidates for consideration for southwest Marion Courthouse? Speaker 0: Okay. That is on page four of the packet that they just gave. Speaker 2: Or that they just gave. Speaker 0: And are are. Speaker 2: For today. You don't have it either. Speaker 0: I know I have it right here in front of me. Speaker 2: And page for. All right, Mr. Wagner? Yes, sir. I now have the three names that we considered for Miriam. Right. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. At this time, the committee will go into executive session to discuss the candidate's qualifications. When we come out of the executive session, I entertain motions to select final candidates to be interviewed by the committee. On May 4th, the grounds for the executive session to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for the appointment of elective office as provided in our c w 4230 dash 110 Subsection eight. The committee will be in executive session, I thought for 20 minutes, but I'm thinking that's not going to be right. So I would say 30 minutes, which will take it until five. If we need to go beyond that, we can. And I'm asking the clerk now to post the doors to that effect. And we must now ask any member of the public and all county employees who are not directly impacted or necessary for this discussion to please leave the council chambers. So thank you very much. Okay. And. Oh. Okay. So the committee is back in open session. I'll now entertain a motion. We're going to have two motions, one for the the Southwest Division. And then after that, we'll have it for the West Division. They will be interviewed when we have the final candidates to be interviewed, and they'll be interviewed on May 4th. It will be in the morning and it's looking like we will start at 9 a.m. And I had told some of the candidates it was evening. So we'll have to make sure that they know that it is in the morning. So I'd like to call on Councilmember Gossett for a motion for the Southwest Division candidate. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. We had an excellent discussion and executive session. I thank all councilmembers will concur that these are some really outstanding and well experienced lawyers and judicial officers that we considered for this judgeship. And I'd like to move now that the following candidates be designated as our final candidates for interview by the Committee of the Whole to fill a vacancy in our Southwest Division Court of King County. And the two persons are long Gibson and Brian Todd. Speaker 0: Thank you. And so do I call for a voice vote or do I call for a roll call vote was possible. Okay. All those in favor of the two names put forward, Laura Gibson and Brian Todd. Please say hi. Those opposed. Nay, those are the two names. Councilmember, would you now put a motion for the candidates for the West Division? And before you start, because there are two positions here we were we'll have more than two names coming forward.

Motion

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the southwest division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_04252016_2016-0220

Speaker 0: Those opposed. Nay, those are the two names. Councilmember, would you now put a motion for the candidates for the West Division? And before you start, because there are two positions here we were we'll have more than two names coming forward. So with that, please make your motion. Speaker 2: Okay. Miss Jones, do we have to delineate between the two positions, or can I just put forth five people for those two positions? I think you need to wait. Speaker 0: Let's just put it together and then we can figure that out later. Speaker 2: All right, I I'm going to go by what our chair said, and the five names indicate that they are being considered for filling to empty seats in our west division of the King County District Court. Therefore, I move that the following candidates be designated as our final candidates to be interviewed for two positions that are now vacant and the West Division of the King County District Court. The five names are as follows. These are Pat, Love, Sadie, Mary Lynch, Andrew Simmons, Samir Singh, Le and Greg Hara Hira Kala. Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion is before us. Nice job. All those in favor of the five names put forward for the Seattle district. Please say i. I. Those opposed they. Their names are before us. So I want to thank all 13 of the original candidates for participating in the first phase of the process. Our county is very fortunate to have so many qualified individuals, many serving already as pro terms and who are willing to continue to serve their communities as district court judges. Those who were not chosen to be interviewed can continue to develop their judicial skills and experience. And I am sure that we will see you again at other vacancies in the court. Speaker 2: Madam Chair, I want to mention to the public that they are also all still qualified to run for these positions. Once they are advertised the following week. Speaker 0: That is correct. They may still be able to do that. And then after our decisions, they'll know who they are running against and in which position so they can make that choice should they choose to do so that maybe they'll think we did a fabulous job. I think that is all of the business before this committee. Is there anything else, Mr. Wagner, that we needed to bring up? Speaker 1: No, ma'am. Speaker 0: All right. With that, this meeting is adjourned.

Motion

A MOTION making an appointment to fill a judicial vacancy in the west division of King County district court.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_03302016_2016-0187

Speaker 0: Thank you. Any comments? Others voting. I appreciate i. I as opposed nay the minutes approved as written. Takes us up to number five which proposed ordinance 2016 0187. And this is an ordinance extending the required completion date for the final report of the task force to make recommendations on the creation of the King County Immigrant and Refugee Commission. This is a pretty straightforward issue and just changing the date. So, Mr. Reid, would you like to talk to us about that? Speaker 2: Okay. Very briefly. So you are aware and have been. Speaker 1: Actively involved in. Speaker 2: Leading the council discussion for the. Speaker 1: The county's discussion on. Speaker 2: Issues related. Speaker 1: To the increasing numbers of immigrants and refugees. Speaker 2: In King County. And you recall that. Speaker 1: In those discussions, the Council has indicated an interest in exploring the potential for a commission, an immigrant. Speaker 2: And refugee commission, to help address other. Speaker 1: Needs of these incoming residents. In that context, you expressed interest. Speaker 2: In receiving input from community voices in helping to shape any such commission. And so last year through Ordinance 18085, you established an immigrant and refugee task force to make recommendations regarding. Speaker 1: Our Commission membership duties of the Commission and the mission of that Commission. Speaker 2: That Task Force has been. Speaker 1: Meeting since October one of 2015. Speaker 2: And has transmitted a status update on February 1st. That status update is included as part of your package to. Speaker 1: Effectively carry out its work. The Commission. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. The Task Force has undertaken a series of of robust outreach efforts to to the various immigrant and refugee. Speaker 1: Communities it has undertaken what's. Speaker 2: What are referred to as community conversations in various locations. Speaker 1: Throughout the King County. Speaker 2: Region with immigrant and refugee communities. The commission is about halfway through that process. So they have scheduled 20 outreach sessions, at least 20 community conversations. Nine have happened. Speaker 3: I believe 11 are. Speaker 1: Yet. Speaker 2: To go. I'm sorry, 11. Speaker 1: Have happened. Speaker 2: And they are yet to go. And it is noted that the existing reporting deadline, which is May 31st of this year, will be a challenge to meet with that robust outreach effort. They, in that context, have requested. Speaker 1: An extension of about. Speaker 2: 37 days to July eight of this year. The legislation before you does accomplish that, that revision extends the reporting data for. Speaker 1: The Immigrant and Refugee Task Force to July 30. Speaker 2: And July 8th of 2016. Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Well, I think that's pretty straightforward. And they're halfway through, as you said, they've had 11 meetings. They have nine more to go. And I think that's great that they're working so hard on this. And I also thank you for the background data on page 43 that it was quite interesting. So if there are no questions about that, I would take a motion. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, would you like to make a motion? Speaker 2: Be happy to, Madam Chair, move approval with a do pass recommendation of proposed ordinance 2016 0187. Speaker 0: Thank you. There are no other questions or comments. Please call for the vote. I'm sorry. Wait a minute. I didn't see your hand up. Speaker 4: I'm sorry. I had a question on the Immigrant and Refugee Task Force when we had a particular day by which they were supposed to provide certain information. And as I understand it, they asked for an extension. And I was talking to the counselor, and I can't remember whether or not you talked about that yet. Speaker 2: So they did have an interim report that was due on, I believe, February 1st. Speaker 1: That interim report was transmitted and. Speaker 2: Actually it is included as part of your packet. So you want to look at the latter part of. Speaker 1: Your package, you'll see that interim report. So there is a final report that is. Speaker 2: Due according to the. Speaker 1: Ordinance that approved last year. Speaker 2: Final report due May 31st of this year. Again, that that date is the one that is going to be a challenge for them to meet. So they request an. Speaker 1: Extension of that date to July 8th of this year. Speaker 4: And did you already talk about that? Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, we can talk about. Yeah. Speaker 4: Okay. Yeah. I favor giving them that. It's, you know, extension because I want them to have an opportunity to do the very best job they can and articulating and laying out what they think would be most helpful to the immigrant and refugee communities of Cancun. Thank you, Manager. Speaker 0: Thank you. And that is exactly what this does. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so we have it before us. And so, Kirk, would you please come for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 5: Councilmember Baldi. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dombrowski, Councilmember Member by Councilmember Gossett. Hi, Mr. Caldwell. Hi. Councilmember McDermott, Councilmember up the road, Councilmember Yvonne Bauer. Madam Chair, I am Chair. The vote is seven. I is no nos and council members, unlike Robin von Erichs. Excused. Excellent. Thank you very much. And that takes us up now to item number six. And this is proposed motion 2016 0117, a motion approving the fourth quarter of the 2015 expenditures for emergent needs and anticipated projected costs.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE extending the required completion date for final report of the task force to make recommendations on the creation of a King County immigrant and refugee commission; and amending Ordinance 18085, Section 3.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_03302016_2016-0117

Speaker 0: Excused. Excellent. Thank you very much. And that takes us up now to item number six. And this is proposed motion 2016 0117, a motion approving the fourth quarter of the 2015 expenditures for emergent needs and anticipated projected costs. Summary Report Prepared by the Road Service Division and the Department of Transportation. As is required, there will be an amendment. This is the fourth quarter report and the report says it's the third quarter report. So there will be a technical amendment. So with that, this. Okay, would you begin? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Lisa Kay for the central staff. For the record, my staff report begins on page 53 of your packet. As you mentioned, proposed motion 2016 0117 would approve the fourth quarterly report from the Road Services Division on emergent needs and unanticipated project costs. Council approved a budget proviso requiring these reports in response to an operational shift in roads from planned investments. That is to say, programing projects through the CHP, individual projects to reactive system management, which pooled funding in a number of response oriented programs, including emergent needs and quick response. This budgeting change was a response to the roads funding shortfall, the experience with emergency roadwork expenses, and a desire not to cancel capital projects if emergency repairs required additional revenue. This fourth quarterly report shows the transfer of $98,000 from the Quick Response Project for a slide repair project in Preston, and about $1.2 million in transfers from emergent needs to supplement three unanticipated grants for risk reduction from the flood control district as the fourth quarter report. This report also then shows the cumulative expenditures in these programs for the first year of the 20 1516 biennium. You'll see on table five of the staff report, which is on page 57 of your packet, that both programs have large balances. Halfway through the biennium there's approximately $11.11 million remaining in quick response and approximately five and a half million dollars in emerging needs. As you mentioned, Amendment one to this motion, which is on page 67 of your packet, would correct a typographical error. That concludes my report. Road Services Director Bauer is in the audience. Okay. So both of these accounts have money left in them. But then I look on page 55 on the projects deleted is this was done as first and then 2000 1314 VIP. So is this just to give us some background that these projects have been deleted in the past? What's the purpose of that chart here? Now, this this chart carries forward from the very first quarterly report, which basically shows the projects that were stricken from the CFP and in favor of shifting to this operational response in these pooled funds. So now that we have some money that we didn't expect to be in there, can some of these things go back on on the agenda? I would like to defer that to Director Bauer, please. Okay. And there's one on here, the Miller Bridge replacement, which the federal government. This was destroyed in a flood. And the federal government has chosen not to replace this bridge. Which absolutely breaks my heart. And the 2.5 million is not the total cost to replace that bridge. But in my mind, FEMA should still be taking care of that. But we also see some other bridges that are in dire need. So there you are. Brenda, would you please go ahead and Mr. Bauer and talk to us about why there's money left? And can we go back and reimburse some of these accounts to do some of this work that needs to be done? Brenda Bauer Road Services Director The challenge that we're facing is, is that we have unpredictable levels of failure and also want to take advantage of some opportunities like the grant opportunities we had, which allow us our money to go farther. A couple of years ago, we had at least $7 million worth of failure, destroying the winter season. So we can have a very high dollar's worth of failures. And we are increasingly seeing a greater level of failure in our system because we're not able to preserve and maintain it at an appropriate level. So what we will be doing is in the development of our budget process, taking a look at whether there are carryover funds that we didn't need to use in this last biennium that would be reprogram for a different purpose. And what that purpose would be, it might not be these specific projects. Okay. Although the some of the projects on this list are very serious. That's true. We have a lot of we have a transportation needs report update that's coming out through the comprehensive planning process that lists very significant needs. And I think, you know, the average citizen may not realize how severe this is. Could you again and you did an excellent job a couple of weeks ago saying how many roads we should be overlaying for maintenance and then how many road maps we're planning to do this year? We're planning very few road miles, really a lot of carryover work. Speaker 2: From the prior. Speaker 0: From the prior year that the contractor wasn't able to get to and a few others that we had some matching funds for. We should be overlaying. So there's an ideal amount and then there's amount associated with the fact that we have a failing road system. Most of most of our Tier one and Tier two roads could use reconstruction and not just overlay. So we our problems are more extensive than a standard road system. So I think that's really important for citizens to know. And I think if I remember correctly from the chart that if you maintain a square foot schedule of $2.97, a square foot reconstruction is 159. That was by a 19 for 2014 chart. Right. And there are a variety of estimates for different types of roadways for how much additional money you're spending. But the reality is, is if you if you don't maintain your asset, then you're replacing it sooner and that results in the higher cost. And part of maintaining our asset is that seal that we put on the top of the road, which is the road. Speaker 1: Surface. Speaker 0: And we are not able to have an adequate program to even resurface roads. However, a lot of our roads are aging and need to be rebuilt, which is a major capital investment for the county. Okay. And early news is always informative. Thank you. All right. Are there any so. Yes. Councilmember Member Gosar. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. But are we do we have any specific strategies from the executive that are being utilized to identify the possibility of future funding to increase our commitment to our more critical road needs? Speaker 0: Well, we as I reported recently, we completed a Bridges and Roads Taskforce effort, which identified kind of a strategy for what kind of revenue would be equitable and appropriate to address the roads issue. And now the effort is to sit down with city partners and work with them to identify quite specifically what sort of revenue tool would be appropriate. The challenge is, is that we have a declining number of people living in the unincorporated area, and it's just really not enough people left in the unincorporated area to adequately fund a network that serves the entire region. So we need the cooperation of our city partners and their resources in order to address this. Speaker 4: Problem and that effort. Is that underway? Right. Speaker 0: That effort is underway. All right. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: And away, but going at a glacier speed, according to my clock. But it's underway. So I'm I'm happy it's at least underway. It's a $40 billion asset that citizens should be very concerned is being destroyed day by day because we don't have because of the state formula that is broken and we don't have the capacity to take care of properly. So it doesn't look like a lot happened to help us in this last legislative session. So. Okay. Yes. Councilmember Dombroski. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Just think I'm going to keep bringing this up because I'm kind of curious about and I talked to Ms.. Bauer in the last presentation on roads that we had. But this notion of our franchise fees and really their modesty for folks are using our rights of way. Mm hmm. What? How can we if there was consensus on the council of an interest in exploring that issue, is there interest in the road services division and looking at whether our franchise fees are set at the right amount and what mechanisms we might have to adjust that? I mean, what's the process there? Would it be on a budget proviso? Would you like a motion? Can we just do it with you? Speaker 0: So franchises have been negotiated not directly with. Speaker 1: By the road. Speaker 0: Services division. This is something. Speaker 1: That is undertaken by the. Speaker 0: Executive and facilities management. So we're not involved in the process. Speaker 2: Of. Speaker 0: Negotiating those agreements. I know that the executive has been taking, you know, paying close attention to our franchise agreements. And they they're probably it it's probably good to have a conversation with them about the approach that they're taking on that. Speaker 2: That's helpful. So it's not your department. Speaker 0: It is not our department. Who does the franchise agreements, although we might benefit from them. Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: It is a very good question and I'm glad you keep asking it. And so it's a good thing to keep in front of us because we're going to I was going to say we were going to get desperate. We were desperate four years ago. So we're desperate. We get that. We're we're going to have to start looking for things like that. Okay. So with that, I could use a motion to put this before us. Councilmember Taberski. Speaker 2: Okay, Madam Chair. Happy to oblige with a motion to approve proposed motion 2016 01171 to do. Recommendation. Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you very much. When you put amendment number one on page 60, 74. Speaker 2: I offer Amendment one. Speaker 0: Great. And this is the one we talked about. This is a type of graphical error and moving it from the third quarter to the fourth quarter. All those in favor of amendment number one, they say I those oppose any number one is passed. So that takes us to the underlying as amended. There are no questions. Please clear call for the vote. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Council Member Banducci Council Member Dombrowski Council Member Done. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 0: Council Member Gossett. Speaker 4: High. Speaker 0: Council Member Cole Wells Hi. Council Member McDermott. Speaker 2: Finance. Speaker 0: Council member of the group that's a member of on right there. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is seven is no nos and council members of the broken bone. Right our excused. Thank you very much. And thank you, Ms.. Boro, for being with us today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 5: Is that do pass or consent. Speaker 0: Honey? Was that do pass or do you pass consent? I miss that, yes. And let's do it for both number five and number six. I think both number five and six could be put on their consent agenda. They're pretty straightforward and let's expedite both of them. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. That takes us up to number seven. And number seven is going to hold its place for a future meeting either at this body or at the full council due to some amendments.

Motion

A MOTION approving the Fourth Quarter 2015 Expenditures for Emergent Needs and Unanticipated Project Costs Summary Report prepared by the road services division in the department of transportation as required in the 2015/2016 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 17941, Section 53, Proviso P2.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_02172016_2016-0095

Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I want you to know, you, as all of you were a huge asset. And I so appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's move up to number four again. Thank you. We're finished with that already in this meeting and for sure came in late. And we're moving to agenda number four, proposed ordinance 2016 and 95. And this ordinance will expand the list of appointees eligible to represent the King County Council on the leadership group, the enhanced 911 Strategic Plan Scoping Committee. So with that, we could have. Greg Minor. There you are. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Greg Doss, counsel staff here, filling in for Lisa Kay today to talk about proposed ordinance 2016 0095, the staff report for which can be found on page seven. By way of background, the County Council approved on October 26, 2015 Ordinance 18139, which defined a governance structure to oversee the development of a King County regional e911 strategic plan. The structure has been unanimously recommended by both the King County Regional Policy Committee and this committee. Of the whole ordinance, 18139 created a leadership group that is charged with finalizing the recommendations that will be included in the Strategic Plan Process Report. This report will be submitted to the Regional Policy Committee, the County Council and the County Executive by May 31st of this year. The leadership group is made up of three county council members, various city council members, elected public safety officials and several peace up representatives. A table on page eight will outline the membership for you ordinance 18139 also identified as the three King County Council members, the chairs of the Budget and Fiscal Committee, Law and Justice Committee and the Council Vice Chair of Regional Coordination in support of this ordinance, the County adopted on December 14th Motion 1448, which officially appointed these members to the leadership group. This brings me to the ordinance before you today. As the chair mentioned, this ordinance would add the. Vice chairs of the aforementioned groups to the list of individuals who can be appointed to the leadership group. The voting structure of the leadership group would not otherwise change if the County Council chooses to pass this ordinance. It may need to make a change to the motion that makes the appointments the Council introduced yesterday. Such a motion 20 60111, which has been referred to the Law and Justice Committee. That motion and the ordinance before you now could both be expedited by their respective committees and passed by the full council as soon as March 13. This timeline would allow the new members, the vice chairs of the leadership group or of the aforementioned committees, to take their place on the leadership group and vote with that group before or when the first meeting occurs sometime in mid-March. Now, take any questions you might have. Speaker 0: Excellent. Okay. I don't see any question is pretty straightforward. Council Member DEMBOSKY Would you put this before? Speaker 1: I think, Madam Chair, move adoption of proposed ordinance 2016 0095. Speaker 0: Okay, there are no questions. Will the clerk please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Banducci. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 5: Council Member. Speaker 0: Cole Wells. Councilmember McDermott. Councilmember of the Grove. Speaker 4: Councilmember Bowen. Right. Speaker 0: Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the vote is six days. No no's and council members. Dunn Gossett of the Grove. Excused. Okay, great. So we will expedite this so that it can coordinate and and put it on consent also. That'd be great. Okay. That takes us up to item number six. This is our Eastside Rail quarter quarterly update. And so we have our Eastside Rail Corridor people here is briefing 2016, Briefing 18. And there's a lot of action happening with this corridor.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE adding the vice chair of the budget and fiscal management committee and the vice chair of the law and justice committee to the list of persons eligible to be appointed to the leadership group of the E-911 strategic plan scoping committee; and amending Ordinance 18139, Section 2.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_02032016_2016-0094

Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you so much. Congratulations. I look forward to working with you for the next 30 years. Yes. Let's put that on the consent calendar and there's no objection we can expedite it's and she's already working. So now takes us to our next agenda item proposed ordinance 2016 0094. And as you can see on our agendas, we have not only the page numbers but approximately the time that we have allocated, and we will have the time allocations on each of our items this year so that you know how much time we've allocated. So this is an ordinance related to operation maintenance of the Harborview Medical Center and the King County executive, and the President of Harborview Medical Center Board of Trustees executed a hospital service agreement with the Regents of the University of Washington and a mission statement and admission policy for Harborview Medical Center. This was a lot of work by a lot of people, and we are very pleased that we are here today with a proposal. So who should we bring up first? Okay. Would you like to come on up first and introduce yourself to us? Here are. Yes. Grant Lewis. Speaker 3: Good morning. I'm Clayton Lewis, and I'm president of the Harbor View Board of Trustees. And I'm here today representing the trustees, the men, the women that you've appointed to represent both you and, of course, the citizens of King County. As trustees, we are both honored and humbled by our responsibility to Shepherd Harbor view on its journey. And what I want to do today is share with you a couple of comments. In the first day we are here recommending enthusiastically that you adopt the contract before you. For the past 20 years we've been operating under this contract and if you see it, it's 14 pages long. It was found signed by then King County executive Gary Locke, and it looks like it might have been produced on a mimeograph machine. But a contract has served us extraordinarily well in terms of the relationship between King County and the University of Washington. As you appreciate, Harborview is really the crown jewel of the medical system of King County, and the residents of King County are extremely fortunate in a number of fronts. First were the adult and pediatric trauma center for a four state region. So if you're in King County, you have immediate access to Harborview. But because the services, the quality of care are so impressive, residents from the states of Alaska, Montana, Idaho are flown here if they need that level of care. Second, as a result of that, we have specialty areas that people choose for elective surgery in orthopedics, neurosciences, Optum ology, vascular surgery IV because of the both quantity of care that take place at that facility. In addition, Harbor View and the trustees take very seriously our responsibility for disaster planning and management for King County. In the case of an emergency. And finally, if you go to Harborview and if you talk to the employees there, each one will tell you how passionate they are about serving individuals from all walks of life, regardless of their ability to pay. Serving the mission population. So as trustees, as we entered this process of looking at a new contract. We were focused on four areas. First, how could we improve service to the mission population? And as we looked at that, we looked at the quality of care. We looked at how can we be more efficient, especially in partnership with King County Public Health. How could we make sure that we're providing a continuum of care so that individuals in the mission population are being served at every step along their health care journey? And finally, looking at accessing new funding sources. The second thing we were focused on is how could we strengthen the partnership between U dub King County and Harbor View to make sure that we're serving individuals from all walks of life? As you know, when we started this contract 20 years ago, the University of Washington had one medical center and then the relationship advantage in Harborview. Today, the university medical system is expanded dramatically with Valley, with Northwest, with other clinics. And what that allows from a system perspective is to make sure we're providing care to the mission population throughout King County. Next thing we wanted to do in this contract and we believe we've successfully done, is provide greater clarity of the responsibilities of King County, the responsibilities of the university, and the responsibilities of the trustees. And then finally, and this is probably the most complex was how can we create a contract that actually can operate and provide the right framework, the right structure for ten years to start and potentially 210 year extensions? It's impossible to imagine what health care is going to look like in 30 years, but we wanted to provide a contract that gave us the right framework as we're building out this partnership. Now, we started this journey in September of 2014, and like any long journey, you start with, you get to know the people you travel with very well. And I just wanted to call out a couple individuals and say thank you very much. First to Patrick. I believe you'll hear from Patrick and Sung and I literally would meet sometimes three times a week over the course of the past year in terms of putting together this agreement. And Patrick did an extraordinary job of representing the interest of King County, the interest of the council, and was really a very strategic and thoughtful negotiator. Michel also was a key member of the team, as was John Gerberding. And then I'd like to call out Councilmember Dombrowski, who's been on the committee from the start and really guided us thoughtfully in terms of strategic decisions and some important considerations. And then most recently, we've been joined by Councilmember ARP to grow up and gossip. So here today in summary to passionately, we had a unanimous recommend. Speaker 2: Clayton, let me help you out and councilmember Cole was. Speaker 3: Oh, thank you thank you did not know you run the committee all said I appreciated you being at the event but thank you. And so here in summary to say the trustees unanimously, enthusiastically are recommending this contract for your approval and consideration. Thank you. Speaker 0: Well, we are very excited and that we have come to this great contract. And for the superior work that you do, it is to help me with this effort. The only level one trauma center west of the Mississippi River is that right. Speaker 3: Now what we do actually is we're the trauma one center for a four state region. And what's unique about that and really so important is that you may go to some cities where they may have two or even three trauma one centers. And what the studies indicate about that is that when you split the trauma, serving the trauma patients, it becomes somewhat inefficient because literally at Harborview, we have specialist on staff 24 hours a day. So we literally serve Montana, Alaska, Idaho in the state of Washington. So we serve the largest region of the country, largest geographic region, as the only trauma one center. Speaker 0: Indeed, you need telemedicine when you're talking about people from Montana. Is that how you help in trauma? Speaker 3: So we do do tell about we have both telemetry programs and then telemedicine programs throughout the four state region. Speaker 0: It's great. I have been able to go to a dinner party where you were talking about the opening of your burn center many years ago and looking at the difference between the old methodology and the synthetic skin methodology. And I almost made it through the dinner without crying, but not quite. It was really profound to see the differences and the people talking about the trauma that they've been through in their bodies, such as severely burned, was really a profound experience. I'll never forget that. So I'm very thankful that you had that capability and such amazing different kinds of expertize, no matter. Where you go. We had a meeting last year, I think it was Mr. Up the Grove had a meeting up at your facilities and it was wonderful to have the opportunity to, to walk through and not worry about being a patient, but to just be able to walk through and look around and see all the different things you had available. So thank you very much and thank you for the hard work. This was not easy. We have calculated how long it will be until Mr. Hamacher can retire after the next 30 year contract is done. So. So. Thank you so much. Of course. And tell the board thank you for their hard work and we're glad things have come together so nicely. Speaker 3: Appreciate that. And I just stress also, even in the Berne example, that speaks to the power of the partnership with the University of Washington. As you know, the University of Washington receives more grants than any other university from a public level and especially within the trauma center and all the care. A lot of the research that takes place, the teaching that takes place is a foundational to the quality of care we're able to provide. Speaker 0: Thank you. I have a sibling who was trained at your hospital. Oh, excellent. Yes. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 2: I'm sure we're going to. Is Clayton going to leave us or is he going to stay when? Speaker 0: I think he's probably going to stay because we may have questions from him, too. Mr. Hamacher, welcome on board. Speaker 3: So. Good morning, council members. Patrick Hamacher I'm going to now go over the staff report that's in your packet. It begins on page 13. As Clayton indicated, Rochelle was a big drafter of this as well. But I'm going to go through the staff report and any of the hard questions. I'll have her answer at the bottom of page 13, Harborview Medical Center. Many of you know, this started as an eight bed hospital in South Seattle in 1877. Speaker 0: I wasn't here then as I wasn't here. You know, that came. Speaker 3: In in 1931. It moved to its current place on First Hill, and it's now a 413 bed inpatient facility that serves just under 65,000 emergency room admits and about a quarter of a million clinic visits per year. So it is a major provider of health care. It was originally owned and operated by King County. It still is owned by King County. But in 1967, the operation of the hospital switched to the University of Washington and has remained that way, too, till today. As Clayton noted in his remarks, the original contract was heavily rewritten in the early nineties, but actually a lot of the terms are very similar to what they would have been in the late sixties. So coming into this project, it was a very dated document that needed a good amount of worked from a modernization perspective. Moving to page 14 of your packets, the staff are going to highlight the changes to this agreement from the prior one, particularly those that have a major policy impact. And the first is what's known as the concept of support for the hospital's mission population. This the mission population itself is identified on the bottom of page 14. But how this provision of the contract will work is there is a commitment by the parties to work together to find a way to better serve the mission population in a way that makes it easier for King County to avoid some of the inefficient costs we're currently incurring. And this is a partnership whereby the parties will agree to find ways to make about $5 million a year in efficiency improvements that will result in lower costs for the county. That can be, as many people have said, that can be in cash or trade. Hopefully the goal is to have that be in trade so that the services are provided the more efficient manner. But that's one of the key provisions of the contract. The second key provision towards the bottom of page 14 is a refreshing and modernizing of the way in which the mission statement mission population was written. There were some dated terms hadn't been looked at in many years, so this contract would update the mission population for the hospital. There are quite a few changes in the contract related to governance. I have now moved to the top of page 15. The one of the key things for the county's leadership team in the negotiations was that Harborview maintained its identity independent of both the county and the University of Washington. And so this contract requires that it puts the board in the position of approving any change to the logo, signage or branding of the hospital, and lays out stipulations for how and where the logo and u dub and King County signage and branding shall be used to appropriately match the board's role in maintaining the hospital independently. The county's role as the owner of the hospital and the university in the role of the operator of the hospital. The next one pertains to retention of services on the campus. All of the services provided at the medical facility have been broken into core or non-core services and core are the big ones like the trauma center, the burn unit and many of the clinics. The board approval is required for changes to the locations of any core service and consultation is required for any changes to non-core services. That in fact has been the practice over the years but was never written down or a requirement of any of the relationships. So that's been formalized. The board also under this contract has the authority to hire and retain their own staff if it's necessary to do that to perform their oversight roles. Right now, all of the staffing for the board is provided by the university. It does not require that they hire their own staff. It just merely gives them the option to hire the staff for the board, provided that it's included in the medical center budget. The one of the other changes that I think will be good for the council's review of Harborview is the timelines for the Harborview Capital budget are being adjusted in this. Contract to match and give the county time to actually review it prior to taking effect. Right now, because the hospitals on the state fiscal year because of YouTube is the operator, you don't see their capital budget sometimes until 3 to 6 months after it's taken effect, which gives your rule, which very heavily limits your role in an oversight capacity. So the contract binds the parties to a new process. Earlier in the year, it will be transmitted to the Executive and into the Council for a year review and approval prior to it taking effect July 1st. The in terms of also increase to governance, as you're aware that Harborview has a board while Yudof Medicine also has a board, and this contract requires you to the University of Washington to appoint two members of the Harborview Board to also sit as full members of the UW Medicine Board. The there are a number of provisions in the contract pertaining to the executive director of the hospital. The most important two concepts, I believe, are that the executive order. It's clarified that the executive director reports jointly as even though they're a Yudof employee, jointly to the to the board and to the University of Washington, and makes it clear that at the board's direction, the executive director will be removed by the university. And then one of the other issues that arose. Now I'm turning to page 16. There are a couple more related to governance. The county does own the hospital and has a vested interest in that hospital being maintained properly. So the contract requires the university to maintain the hospital with best practices for a medical facility and to staff the hospital accordingly in order to assure that that occurs along the same lines of matching the interests with the operations. It does shift the responsibility for commercial leasing on the campus from our facilities division to the similar division at the University of Washington. So the university will be in charge of negotiating the leases for the space on the on the campus, the commercial leases, the coffee shops, the subways, the banks that are on the campus. Those will still have to be executed by the county, but the negotiation process will be done by the university. And the hope there is that it is done more quickly and more in line with the university campus needs or with the medical center campus needs and currently occurs. The other related issue related to capital is right now projects under $1 million in capital cost are managed by the university, and anything over 1 million on the campus is managed jointly by the university and the Facilities Management Division. That is a number that was picked in the early nineties and has never been changed and as a result it leads to way more projects and was originally intended being managed by jointly instead of just by the university as the operator. So this contract increases that amount from 1 million to 5 million, the contract. Now moving to issues related to labor. This is on the bottom of page 16. The contract notes that the one of the key assets at the hospital is the relationship with the employees that work, that there's over 4000 employees that work on the campus and for the first time expectations of the operator of the campus in terms of the labor, labor management practices are included in the contract. These are not binding. I would describe many of them as aspirational. In other words, what the county would expect of its operator to occur. But the university is responsible for its particularly its collective bargaining and its labor management. And this contract keep respects those appropriate lines there. I've just directly copied a couple of the key provisions from that section of the contract into your staff report. Section 3.122 says that the university shall seek to maintain a positive employee and Labor relations with their employees at the campus. Section 2.3 directs the university to have a process in place for continual improvement for employee and labor relations on the facility. And two Section 3.1 to 5 requires training for employees at the university, at least as high as what they would receive at University of Washington Medical Center. So it's a baseline set at their other academic medical facility that they have to at least achieve, if not better. So there, I think, key provisions on labor moving to the bottom of page, middle of page 17. There are another several other key general conditions. The first you heard Clayton mention the term, the term of the agreement is a ten year agreement with two automatic rollovers. So a total of 30 years unless one of the parties. Out at the at the tip each of the ten year window renewals. The current agreement includes no dispute resolution provisions except for termination, which is rather dramatic if it was a relatively minor dispute. So this new contract includes a labor dispute process that the parties will follow, protects everybody's rights to still go to court or to terminate. But it includes a process that should be filed short of that. Speaker 0: Could you elaborate on that just a little bit? What would the process entail? Speaker 3: Sure. So the process is what I would describe as very standard mediation arbitration provisions that were, quite frankly, just missing from the prior agreement. And we've included consistent with what would be in other county contracts of this nature. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: And it was that section itself was relatively straightforward because, of course, the university has similar language as boilerplate in their languages as well. Speaker 0: Can I get a copy of that later? Speaker 3: Sure. The entire agreement actually was included as an attachment. The staff report. Speaker 4: Madam Chair, it's actually on page 72 and 73. Speaker 1: Section 13 of the contract. Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: The the other thing that I think was is important but was missing from the current contract is there was no language in there on the conducting or supervising of research at the facility. As you're aware, it's a major research facility as well. So the contract we worked with our outside attorneys and our consultants on this to include standard language for the conducting of research on the facility as well. So I think those are all important changes to the agreement. The only other item I would note for your consideration as part of this is as part of the agreement. A number of code changes will be necessary to implement the agreement. One of the two of the substantive ones we covered ahead of time the university being our agent for negotiating at the campus, and also the changed from the capital operations from 1 million to 5 million. Additionally, the timelines for the new capital process need to be incorporated into the code as well. Staff are working on that and we'll be able to bring that forward to full council. We're working with legal counsel right now. It will be a very straightforward ordinance and we'll be able to bring that forward whenever this agreement goes to full council to implement. With that, I'd be happy to take any questions, Madam Chair, and that concludes most everybody. Speaker 0: That was a very comprehensive report and a lot of work. And I can see why you were meeting for so many times each each week for that period of time. One thing I did want to say is that, listen, population order what each population's requirements are about on page 14. I was concerned that the order wasn't was in exactly the order I would have put it in. And so I was told that they're all important, so they're all first. And so I want to just point that out for the record that there offers is not in the order in which they appear and it's supposed to be in alphabetical order, which took me a while to see because it all starts with persons. So that was a little interesting. But anyway, I just thought that was important that all of those are of equal weight and people that will be served. And so that was that was great. Any questions anybody has about this contract? Well, obviously you've done a really good job either in the pre briefings or in the work or all together. And so I'd like to thank our attorney, John Gerberding, that's sitting in the back is upright, which is a good thing after working on this contract and also and Kim Gilmore and singing and then a special shout out. I know that everybody contributed at the end, but there were some people that were on from the very beginning and spent years. Councilmember Debusk, I believe you were there from the beginning as well as Council Member Haig. So I think all the members and Council member Philips. That's right. So that three of you who started from the beginning deserve a shout out for all the good work that we got to this place. And I'm glad we have more people now that will be working on this. And I think the beauty of it is it is now modernized. It is much more comprehensive. It makes better sense. And we're all really familiar with it now. So 30 years from now, we will be ready for the next briefing. So it will be great. So, Councilmember Dombroski, just something. Speaker 2: I would just like to make a couple of remarks of my colleagues would indulge me. And I want to start by thanking in particular Clayton Lewis, who has been how long have you served on the board? Clayton ten years, ten years, a decade of service. This is not compensated service. Clayton is a busy guy in the private sector who does this for the betterment of the community. And it is hard to find the kind of qualified people that to serve on the board that Clayton represents. I think he's customer McDermott's nominee, if I've got a correct good judgment there, Councilmember McDermott. But I mean, I got a chance to see him in action and the time you mentioned, but the time that he invested personally in this was above and beyond the extraordinary amount of time that our Harvey trustees invest in that work and the ordinary course. But for two years, Mr. Lewis has worked on this and has brought his expertize from the private sector to bear on this project. And it is an incredibly good result as a result of his personal commitment to it. I will tell you this, you had essentially three parties here. The county confirms the contract. Technically, I don't know if were were a party, John could address that. But the trustees, the University of Washington and the county are particular objectives weren't always aligned. And I would say we turned to kind of an interest based bargaining, if you will. What were our shared interests that we could identify and get to? Yes, and it took a little longer than than we anticipated because the bargaining was tough and the stakes were high. But Mr. Lewis and along with the county executive office through Sung Yang and our staff Rochelle Celebration, Ian and Pat Hamacher were really instrumental as a team and coming together, I think, to advance the shared interests of serving the mission population and the agreement before you colleagues I think really does that. And there's some exciting things in here that if we make them work and I think we will, there's tremendous commitment on the behalf, on behalf of all parties here and some very, very exciting things in in here in terms of synergies, opportunities for efficiencies, opportunities to deliver care in a better way, opportunities to serve the mission population in its new locations where historically, you know, in 1970, that mission population was centered in the city of Seattle. Today it's not I mean, it's here, but it's much more suburbanization consistent with the suburbanization of poverty phenomenon that we know and have studied so much here. And so to be able to find synergies in cooperation with our public health clinics, which are more spread out with other functions at the K engages in public health at j o health. We don't specify in here where those opportunities must be, but we and that's good. There's, there's an opportunity to work together to find the best places for them. We are giving up some stuff with respect to example leases, but that's an informed and knowledgeable decision. I think it's a good idea. It's more procedure than substance. Who negotiates those? It's a good thing. The capital number from 1000000 to 5 million, that's a give, but it's in the interest of efficiently operating the hospital. What I will tell you is that I think this agreement conforms with the seven or so objectives that were laid out in the motion that this council adopted in July of 2014. At the beginning of this process, they were call that we had a process that put forth the overall objectives and the contract, I think, reflects those. And so I really commend it to you. But I want to take a few moments to thank the negotiating team who spent a lot of time on it, and in particular , Mr. Lewis, because he didn't have to. He didn't have to. And we really appreciate it. Clayton Thank you. One more. Thank you. As we got down to the final difficult open issues and there were a couple of them. President Ana marie Cao said the University of Washington made a personal investment and sent Randi Hodgins as her representative to help get the deal done, if you will. And I think that her personal interest and commitment to this project was instrumental in getting us here today. So thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: Thank you. And thank you for all the work that went into that. And please think the entire board for their work and dedication. And it's always a pleasure to see their innovation and dedication to you. So thank you for all your hard work. Appreciate that. Okay. With that. Speaker 2: Emotion. Speaker 0: Yes, please. I'd like to have a motion. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's see. Is this an ordinance? Where are we. Speaker 3: Going? Speaker 0: To turn it. Speaker 3: Over to zero nine. Speaker 2: For I would move adoption of proposed ordinance to a60794. Speaker 0: And then. Speaker 2: Request expedited expedition to Monday's council meeting. If that works on the time frame. Speaker 0: Yes, because the UW Board of Regents will be voting on February 13. So this having been expedited will be helpful to that. So that would be great. So, clerk, would you please call for the vote? Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Bell, Dutchie. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, Councilmember Member. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 4: Council member Gossett. Council member Caldwell. Council McDermott. All Oh. Council member of the. Council member Boatright Bower. Mr.. Madam Chair. I am sure the vote is seven eight no nos and council members. Speaker 0: Gossett and Von right there. Excuse. Excellent. Thank you so much, everybody, for your good work. Mr. Hamacher. Speaker 3: I just would point out one more thing, Madam Chair. I know that during the staff report, that amendment to effectuate some of the code changes needs to be done as well. We will, as soon as that's ready and reviewed by legal counsel, will distribute all of that to you with a summary. But you should expect that to catch up with this as well for next week. So we'll get that distributed as we're frankly seen as it's written, but it's almost done. Speaker 0: So that'll be separate, even though this is on the expedited calendar that will be taken up. Speaker 3: We've been advised we should do it at the same time. So we'll take it up with suspend the rules on on Monday to adopt this at the same time as the contract. But I want to get that out to you as soon as it's done so you can see it ahead of time. So you're not surprised. Speaker 0: Excellent. We'll look forward to that. Thank you for letting us know. Thank you so much. This takes us up to our last order of business. And I just wanted to make one announcement. We have I have received those of you that sent in ideas on what you'd like the current committee to do this year.

Ordinance

AN ORDINANCE related to the operation and maintenance of the Harborview Medical Center, authorizing the King County executive and the president of the Harborview Medical Center board of trustees to execute a hospital services agreement with the regents of the University of Washington and adopting the mission statement and admission policy for the Harborview Medical Center.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_01072016_2015-0535

Speaker 0: The minutes are before a scene of discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay motion. Kerry's minutes are adopted. That brings us to item four on our agenda. This is proposed motion 1215 535, which would fill a vacancy in the state and the vacant position of state senator in the 36th Legislative District. The vacancy is due, of course, to the election of our colleague, Council Member Cole Wells, now representing Council District four. Councilmember Gossett. Might you put the motion itself before us? Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, I would like to propose that we adopt motion number 2015 0535. Speaker 0: 2015 0535 is before us. I thought the since the state senator is a partizan partizan position and since Senator Caldwell's is a Democrat, the state constitution requires us to choose from among three nominees recommended by the King County Democratic Central Committee. Three nominees have been recommended for consideration, and I believe that two of them are with us this morning. The nominees, in alphabetical order by last name are Liz Campbell, Rubin, Carlisle and David Kaplan. Speaker 2: Mr. Kaplan on the phone. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. And for your information, everyone else is Mr. Kaplan is joining us by phone. And, Mr. Kaplan, you are already part of the audio system. So anything you say that is make two mikes throughout the chamber. Mr. Kaplan has informed us that he's out of state, attending a business meeting this week and therefore is unable to join us in person. But he is joining us by telephone today and will speak to his candidacy or his interest as well. And we'll begin with a brief staff report. Nick Wagoner of our central staff is staffing the issue. Good morning, Mr. Wagner. Happy New Year. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only thing that I would add to what you've already covered is that in accordance with the state constitution, the King County Democratic Central Committee has nominated Mr. Carlisle, Ms.. Campbell and Mr. Kaplan for the Council's consideration, and they are listed in the committee's email to the Council in order of preference based on the vote of the precinct committee officers. And that vote was 172 votes for Mr. Carlisle, nine votes for Ms. Campbell and four votes for Mr. Kaplan. Written information on all three nominees is included in the meeting packets that were distributed to council members in advance of the meeting. That's all I was going to questions of. Speaker 0: Mr. Wagner. All right. Committee members have had an opportunity to review the recommendation of the King County Democratic Central Committee, together with the written materials that but and we have found that a key part of the process is an opportunity to interview the three nominees. I'll start by inviting Ms.. Campbell, Mr. Carlisle and Mr. Kaplan to make opening statements of no more than 2 minutes each, then to answer questions from council members and of Ms.. Campbell. You're welcome to join us at the table now as well, please. I think it would be first of best if we hear from the opening statements of each nominee and then have a chance to have questions and dialog to assist nominees and timing of their opening remarks and the answers to questions we have in front of me a light that will be green for the first 90 seconds, then yellow for 30 seconds left. And when the red light comes on, we'd suggest your time is up. My notes also suggest that you don't have to use all of your allotted time. Well, we'll go in alphabetical order by last name, starting with Ms.. Campbell. Bruce Campbell. Good morning. Speaker 4: Good morning, Joe. How are you? I'm well, thank you for having me here. So I want to say first that I was very honored. It was actually Representative Carlyle. And I talked and and he asked me if I would like to put my name forward, if I were to be nominated by the present coordinating officers to join him up here. And I'm I'm very grateful for that opportunity. And I, I agreed to do that. And several police and coordinating officers volunteered to to nominate me for the special appointment. And there were there were two in particular who I had go ahead and do the nominating. And the second being, because they represent most of what I do within the Democratic Party organization, I think, and that's what I was the most proud of. And so that was that very young man who's African-American, who I've been mentoring and and who has become a precinct coordinating officer as as part of his process, becoming really politically engaged and working working with the party and a woman whose background is somewhat similar to mine and needed to leave a marriage and is is now a single mom. And being PCO is is quite an opportunity for her. For the most part, I, I tend to be very, very active recruiting people in empowering people and mentoring people within the community. I tend to represent a. Place of being liaison between the fine grain of what happens in a community and how it reflects upon the legislation that that is borne of it. And I get along pretty well, actually, with Representative Carlisle, and he knows that he and I talk a lot sometimes, and that is because there does sometimes exist a disconnect between the 30,000 foot level of legislation and how it plays out on the street. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Representative Carlisle. Good morning. Speaker 5: Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And me, thank my good friends Liz Campbell and Dave Kaplan for their citizen engagement in this process has been very meaningful. I'm really honored to be with you today. I want to start by expressing my deepest thanks to Council member Wells, who is just not only beloved in our community, but really is a wonderful successor to our good friend Larry Phillips and just really is as a wonderful voice to this council. I'm also pleased that Councilmember Banducci is first meeting as well. So thank you so much. I've had the great honor of representing our district in the legislature for seven years. I've served as chair of the Finance Committee. It's been a great honor. I've learned a great deal and grown a great deal and been very instrumental in working on some of the largest issues around public education, around higher education, around tax policy and writing budgets, environmental policy, and many other issues. And it's been an extraordinary opportunity to engage with my community. I live on Queen Anne with my wife Wendy, who is a physician at Ballard, Swedish, and my four children who attend public schools in our our city. And I've just really enjoyed connecting on a very deep level with the citizen activists of our community. And serving in the legislature as a citizen legislator is, I think, incredibly powerful relative to keeping people grounded in real issues affecting real life. So it's been a great honor to serve in the House. It is an incredible honor to succeed. Council Member Cole Wells and I very much appreciate your support and I appreciate this great honor. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Mr. Caplan. Speaker 2: Yes, it is indeed an honor and a privilege to participate in this process. I do apologize for not being there in person. I am at the Consumer Electronics Show down here in Las Vegas. I live in the world of technology. And of course, this is my primary trade show. Every year at this time. So I really had no choice but to be here rather than there. I am one of the few Democrats in the 36th District who's not running for Congress. And and and I'm delighted that Reuben is one of the others. I think it's very clear that the will of the voting precinct committee officers in our district are aligned behind Reuben Carlisle, and I look forward to hearing the announcement of his appointment to the Senate. And I think that's all I need to say this morning. But again, thank you so much. And I think Blaine was let go. I'm having blanking on the name, but whoever reached out to me and set this up so that they could be on the phone with you this morning, I do want to say thank you. Speaker 0: Mr. Wagner. We like Mr. Wagner to me. Speaker 2: Because he's a nice guy. Speaker 0: All right. I want to thank you. I want to thank all three of you for stepping up and being part of the process. I myself was at one point appointed to the Senate from to a vacancy in the state Senate as a House member and came before this very council in this process. So I find this to be vital and informative on both sides and would open it up to questions from my colleagues for any one or all of the nominees. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for all three of the nominees, and it's a question that I often ask prospective candidates for public service as legislators here in our state, whether it be at the county or the state level. And we're supposed to use these times to get a deeper sense of the ideals and ideology that guide prospective candidates. I mean, this is not a question about disproportionality within the criminal justice system. In Washington state, nearly 19% of all the men and women. Who are incarcerated in our state prisons are black and and our total population is only 3%. That's pretty significant disproportionality nationally. The figure is 2.3 million. And all the jails in the country and about 45% or 900,000 are African-Americans. So what do you think are the causes and what at least at the state level can be done? They get more? Or what do you think if anything needs to be done to address this problem? Speaker 4: Are we staff. Speaker 6: Sabbatical? Speaker 0: Whatever order you deserve? Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: Okay. So I'm really glad that we're opening with that question that that's exactly, I think the key. In in Washington state really exists in racial disparity. And nowhere is it more obvious than in the criminal justice system. It does exist in every system in the state, but it's just easier to see in the criminal justice system. And there are some things that we that we have been doing. And I think we're going in the right direction. And I want to continue. And one of them is I voted to legalizing marijuana. We had a situation in the state of Washington where 59% of the arrests and convictions, jail time families decimated for cannabis were African-American . In a situation where you've got 7% of the population, 59% of the arrests were African-American, primarily male. Clearly, this was part of a racist system. This was a set up. And we're trying to reduce that harm. We're trying to reduce that disparity at the state level by recognizing that when we have state level laws, that implementation means an impact that has that much racial disparity. Then we can go ahead and say that law is racist and change it. We can say that that that's something we're going to do. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilmember. The issue I would say that I have in the past, in all of the years that I've served in the legislature, I've been the prime sponsor in the House of Legislation to replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole. And the two things that drive me to that position are, one, my own personal religious conviction. And two, is a deep acknowledgment of the systemic reality of disproportionality in our criminal justice system. And as I've studied that issue and learned more and more about it in terms of the death penalty throughout the throughout the entire criminal justice system, the implications are extraordinary and profound. And so I have led on that issue in large part because of the disproportionality. I think the one ray of hope is that I think that there's an extraordinary movement toward a tipping point of public attention from the presidency on down that is really bringing this issue to the fore. And, of course, your many years of service have led in King County on this. But I think we're at a place where there's a consensus among the parties that and others that we really need to step up to sort of not only rethink our entire infrastructure, but the wraparound services around parole and other sides of that. So I think that that your attention and many others have really changed that. I think the state is behind the county and some other organization institutions in its thinking, but there's definitely been a profound change the last few years, and I think we are now reaching a point where there's some bipartisan consensus to really address some of the core issues. Speaker 1: Thank you. Oh, no, that third person. Speaker 0: Mr. Caplan. Speaker 2: Oh, well, of course, I agree with what's been said by Mr. Campbell and Mr. Carlisle. The only thing that I think I could add is that, you know, having grown up on Mercer Island, having made some mistakes in my younger days, I know what it's like to get in a jam in our people, give you a second chance and and not mess up your life. And I know that that's because I lived on the island. My dad knew the police chief, you know, all the things that go into being a by product of privilege and frankly, wealth. And I think we're way past due for sentencing reform, particularly in the context of nonviolent crimes, and particularly in the context of what happens to people of color in all states and I think throughout the country. And I think it's shocking that we even have to have this conversation in a progressive state like Washington. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, welcome. Good to see you. First of all, I'd like to thank the Democratic Party for doing the process fully, legally and completely. It is refreshing to see that we are actually abiding by the law and how this process works. So thank you. And the process that we're doing now represents all the citizens, whether they be Democrat or Republican or independent. And I really want you to know that I appreciate it for all of the citizens that you have fully complied with, that the process is supposed to work. So that being said, good job. Thank you for being here and being willing to serve. And that's really important. And David, thank you for taking the effort to be here by phone. And you're welcome. You don't need to return my phone call. This is it. That's great. So good to meet you. So here's my question. King County is the economic engine of the state, and yet we get treated sometime in Olympia as the dog to kick. Speaker 1: Or. Speaker 6: Whatever. Maybe a bad analogy, but sometimes we're not well-liked out in Olympia. I'm sure you might have heard that as remember once or twice. And yet we're the economic engine. We're trying to be forward thinking. We're going to be able to do really great things that the tone we're winning awards nationally, and yet we are stymied because of things that happen by some of the decisions we're having. About 6000 new residents in this county per month, but we are getting continual reductions in funding formulas that used to be 60, 40, 60 coming to our court doing the work. 42 The state got flipped the other way. 4068 We still have to do the same amount of work. That is difficult. When they say they changed the definition of an unfunded mandate so that as long as they get more money than the year before it. An independent mandate that could be a penny. And yet we now have whatever 50 new duties to do. How are you and Olympia going to help us as the county is supposed to carry out what you want us to do? That's what we want to do. More and more, less money is coming here with more jobs to do. What are you going to do to help us as a county? Speaker 5: I'm happy to take you first and thank you, Councilmember. I would say I really appreciate the issues and I put a sort of a lot of work into this. First of all, in my role as chair of the Finance Committee in the House, I committed an entire year of work to look at local, city and county finance options relative to local options. Local authority. Look at the property tax base. Look at the 1% limit. And look at the revenue sources, both from a revenue share, from transportation and other categories all the way through the new source of revenue associated with marijuana. But the the deeper undertone of the growth in costs that you have and the limited revenue, given that tax base, I think really opens the important policy question around how can we strengthen our partnership with other parts of the state to acknowledge that the 1% limit is incredibly structurally difficult for counties? Cities have a portion of you know, of course, and of course, counties are sort of stuck in that middle ground. So I think there's a very legitimate challenge associated with when we look at the 1% overall constitutional limit of property taxes. How could we rethink that? My central position has been and this is popular in some areas and quite unpopular in others, my central position has been most of the taxing authority has migrated to special purpose districts and my position has been that the county should be the central entity that controls most of that taxing authority in partnership with the entities that want to utilize that. But if you look, for example, just for the sake of the conversation at the King County Library system and many other systems that have their own revenue sources, I would make an argument that the county is sort of the fiduciary governing entity that probably makes more sense for those special purpose districts to have some stronger line of authority. So in my previous or my role as finance chair, I've spent a lot of time on that issue. I think revenue sharing is important. We're up to about $575 million in revenue share from all the different sources, much as some of that goes to the counties, but a lot goes to the city. So I think the reconsideration of the balance between cities and the counties and state is the work on a financial side that the legislature has got to do better. And I think we have not been successful in this area. Speaker 6: So you may make a follow up on that quickly. Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 6: Thank you. So I think that your idea is important, and especially when it comes to the junior taxing districts deciding how much more taxing authority they want to take. We have no authority to say in in one case recently, one of the junior district, one of $0.07. But by them taking the $0.07, it kicked off other junior taxing districts to get zero. And we have no ability to say these junior taxing districts, which included a hospital, a fire district and a cemetery district would get nothing. And we have no authority to stop that. So that's something that I think falls right in line with that. And the other problem is that the formula for unincorporated roads was devised 25 years ago. At that time, they devised a report that was 600 and I think 38 pages telling what needed to be done 25 years later . That is still not done. And we are still using the broken formula that they knew was broken 25 years ago as a temporary placeholder. So if you could help us with that, we would be very happy. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Caplan. Speaker 2: Well, first of all, I want to apologize because I'm on a cell phone and there's been a little bit of static on the line. But if I heard correctly, the question is about tax reform in general or specific to the locality. I'm not clear. Speaker 6: Specifically to King County being able to have enough of the revenue we give to the state back to us so we can actually do the job. Speaker 2: Well, all I can say, in addition to what's already been said, is that our view I'm one of those people who pays being attacked every quarter, whether I'm profitable or not. I'm one of those people who watch as my property taxes go up every year because as I think grew and pointed out, I'm constantly being asked to vote for good things that we need. And, you know, I do believe that the county has a very specific transportation issues that need to be funded and. I'm not quite certain what else to say. We're way past due for tax reform in this state and way past due for some spending reform in this state. And I know that Rubin will take a leadership position on those issues. Speaker 1: This coming year. Speaker 4: My turn now, please. Okay. All right. So. So it's a it's a good question. King County is the economic engine of the state. It's it's the county that produces the most wealth. And that and that wealth is spread throughout the state. And that's part of being a donor state. We're kind of a donor county in terms of Washington state, a lot of times where. Where the tension comes is between the city of Seattle and and the county. I guess I'm thinking specifically of things like lead expansion and, you know, that's that's a major cost saver in the end . And then to have their biggest about who's going to put up the money for for just a little program expansion into King County and through the sheriff's office for training things like that seems silly to me as a citizen. I'm wondering if the legislative delegation from the district can. Very specifically, you asked what what one could do from this seat and beyond. Legislatively, there is always the option of acting as liaison, acting as negotiator. And I think that the county system and and those who are in executive positions in the city could, in fact, sit down with the state delegation, and we could talk about how the balance works and how the balance looks in the end. Places where there are overlap. Seemed to me to be low hanging fruit where we could move maybe $0.02 back. And as you said, $0.07 matters. So that's that's I think one way to just get a little bit of of revenues shift the tiniest bit of just kind of staunching the bleeding for the county and and beyond that. Yeah. Maybe there needs to be a shift in the burden in creating the taxes in the first place. Maybe cities need to stand up and say, okay, we're going to go ahead and do a B.A. tax and be the bad guy because somebody does, in fact, have to pay. We have to pay in. And then we all get everybody drives on those roads and we all know that they need to be improved. However, from the state Rivlin, I'm going to ask you. Speaker 6: It seems to me. Speaker 4: That there are some transportation packages that go through the state that involve new highway money. And it seems to me that taking out an old, bad, unincorporated King County Road and putting in a new road that works could count if just maybe one or two sentences was added. And I know that you are really good at adding sentences. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Caldwell's. Speaker 6: New question. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 6: I have a follow up question to what we've been discussing about the county being the economic driver of this state. And in fact, King County is home to about 40% of the state's jobs and produces nearly 50% of the state's economic activity. And we know this again, it's been very difficult for some legislators from the rest of the state and their constituencies to seem to accept that. And oftentimes, as I know personally, from having been in Olympia for a long time, initiatives that benefit or would benefit King County gets stalled in the state legislature. So we know that. But how will you go about dealing with that in the legislature and working with legislators from other areas of the state to be able to convince them that the county's initiatives are important to them besides our constituencies here? Did I get. Speaker 4: To do this one? Speaker 6: Sure. Okay. Speaker 4: So. So I don't think that I'm going to suddenly come up with a really great, brilliant new answer that you haven't already tried. Oh, but I. I can mention the things that I think worked the best. And I think that the first one, the most obvious one, is trading. What do you want? Here's what I want. And. And I would like to trade with you. I will support you. You support me. That's how it works. Because we're all here together. And the second is one that, you know, this is going to sound somewhat juvenile. I call it field trips. I am I am really a big proponent of you. Take me to your county and show me show me what it is. I will I will go there. I will spend time there. And I'll start helping you in a very personal way. And I will start sending what I have. We have resources here that we can use there. And it's not just dollars and vice versa. I want field trips for for folks from other counties that might be further east in Washington to come here to King County and see what it is that we're doing here. We do an awful lot and we share an awful lot. And I'm not completely sure that all the all the counties know really what's involved in governing and running King County. And I would like to share that with them. And I would like them to understand we're in this together. And I think that sometimes that falls apart. And my biggest two things are always trading and sharing represented. Speaker 5: This question of, of course, is goes to the core of a lot of the challenges in in Olympia. I've been a an activist on the issue of opening up the data. And I do that because I think transparency of how the money flows in our state on the tax side and then on the spending side is actually transformational. Interesting. So I've had the Office of Financial Management for the last number of years develop the data in one place that puts out where the money comes from and then where it goes. So the whole concept of there being eight counties in our state that are net contributors of of dollars and there are 31 that are net recipients. That gets politicized a bit and it gets seen as a sort of a poke in the eye one way. But the data itself is actually very powerful and it shows how the money flows. I've had some incredibly thoughtful and enriching conversations with with Republican colleagues in the cafeteria and others really going through the data and talking about how the money flows to Benton County or to Iowa or wherever. And there's actually a spark of really sincere and authentic interest in that conversation. And so, for example, the rural sales tax credit about 28 or so million dollars per buy, all we're really doing with that particular program is lowering the amount of the state sales tax in rural counties. Well, the conversation I've had with colleagues has been, well, what if we took those dollars and applied them very directly in terms of spending into rural economic development, very targeted, very real, and not just sort of evaporate into state government and to a person, they've all said, you know, that actually would really make a really valuable difference if you think about spending those types of dollars. So I've really had a good time bringing that table and that data to the table. And now the Office of Financial Management has institutionalized that. And they they release that data every year because of those requests that I did. And of course, you see graphs and charts that come out from different newspapers and things, but it is interesting and I think it's really helped change the conversation a lot. Speaker 0: Mr. Kaplan. Speaker 2: What can I add to what has already been said? Advocacy, transparency, clarity and a little bit of compromise. Some of what's been going on in state government, it seems like through the years there's been an effort to keep it secret from state citizens. And I think when we understand things holistically, we come up with better answers. And it's one of the reasons that I think we have and will be a great senator, because those are the things that he has made a priority in his role as our state legislator. Speaker 0: Thank you. Further questions. Council member Belushi. Speaker 6: Yeah. I just want to add my thanks to all of you for participating in this process and the local district and the King County Dems. It looks like it was a very thorough process and very well done, very collaborative and has resulted in some excellent candidates. So I'm really pleased to have this be my first meeting to be having this discussion with you all. As you all know, and I probably don't need to quote it to you, but I will. The the state constitution says that the paramount duty of the state is to make ample provision for the education of all children within its borders without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste or sex. And this will be the big issue when you arrive in your new role. So I'd love to just hear you talk a little bit about where you see this issue going, how we're going to meet that obligation. And, you know, coming from a place of meeting the obligation to everyone without breaking the things that are already working. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on that topic. Thanks. Speaker 5: So I appreciate the question, of course, very much. At McCleary and our state's paramount duty goes to the core of of the work in the next year or two. And of course on the reality is, is that we have reached a point where our ability for the state to assume the compensation of our state's teachers and ensure that local levies are not being required to fund that base level of salary, that that or that salary is extremely expensive. And we've gradually slipped, of course, now to a point where Seattle and other many other districts in in King County have a very high local levy rate. The core value proposition, of course, of local levies is supposed to be wraparound services and enhancements and modifications relative to sort of customized learning at the local level. We have a huge structural problem, and the fact of the matter is that the work of the governor and the legislature recently to try to come to some degree of consensus of the elements of a grand bargain is struggling, and it's struggling because of the elements of a grand bargain incorporate levy issues. And the issue of equity is very important to that. So I think it's fair to say that this is job one. It's fair to say that we have to have a very serious recognition of the need for compromise of the elements of a grand bargain. But I also think we have to acknowledge that it is simply unsustainable to think that we're going to put an overwhelming majority of our effort into lowering local levies. Meeting the spirit and the essence of McCleary without additional resources that would compensate for those districts that would see a reduction in local levy, but no commensurate increase in salary in in education funding. So there are the elements of a grand bargain. Issues around levy reform are very important to King County because of the fact that most of the local levies have reached, you know, 25, 28, 32%. So we are not going to get to a place where we can lower local levies to 15 or 20% without substantial new state resources, so that it becomes a very legitimate policy conversation around what the options are for that. And I've been knee deep in this issue, worked very hard in the House, and I very much think that this is the work that we have to do in the Senate and onward. Speaker 4: Okay. So so I come from a place or a mindset or a background or something that I always thought that when the state Supreme Court said to do something, that you did it. And I was kind of shocked. I was really shocked that the legislature and really part of the legislature would turn to the Supreme Court and say, no, make me. I was I was I took a lot of of nerve, I think. And here we are, the whole state kind of held hostage by that moment. And I'm not really impressed with with how the back and forth as has gone. And I'm thankful for the leadership that we've had in the 36th District. Our delegation. Senator Cole Wells. Representative Carlisle. And then when Representative Todd time came in, I have has held very fast on McCleary being our paramount duty to fulfill the catch in your question was without breaking anything. And I just had a call the other night from a colleague who's whose work is primarily on the human services part of childhood and who had been lobbied to to please give over and make her primary focus be funding McCleary no matter what. And she had to say not if you're going to take it out of here. And I think that that is really important because there are some things that we are not going to take that money out of cuts, hit human services first and then education. So we're not going to take more money from Human Services for in order to fulfill. McCleary The thing that I have looked at as the most attractive has been capital gains tax to go ahead with capital gains and to make sure that McCleary is fully funded. Yes, it is our paramount duty and that is going to be the first thing. Last legislative session was called the three M's and one of those M's was McCleary. It was mental health, marijuana and McCleary, and we didn't quite finish any of them. But McCleary really is the outstanding it's it's the elephant in your room. And I know that we're going to send Raven back and he is going to close some more loopholes and he is going to find some more money. And we, I hope, are going to do what the state Supreme Court tells us to do and fully fund McCleary without breaking anything else. Because if I have to go another legislature legislative session saying we didn't meet our obligation with McCleary, but at least we did not break anything else, then that is what I live with. Speaker 0: Mr. Kaplan. Speaker 2: Oh, I would just add that know, going back to one of the earlier questions, when you spend revenue wisely, you don't need to ask for as much upside. And if we had sentencing reform, if we had, you know, a different path for young people and nonviolent offenders, I think we'd free up significant amount of cash. But we cannot take the money that we need to fund education from the very things that create the safety net and the infrastructure that allows us to move forward as a state with compassion and with a rational game plan. So, yeah, we need more revenue. I agree with Liz that the capital gains tax would probably be the most palatable at this moment in time. But I do think there are areas where we're spending money unnecessarily and we could redirect some funds. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you for the questions. Seeing none. We have the motion before us and we would need a amendment to address line 11 in the motion. Is there Amendment Council member Carl Wells. Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to make an oral amendment to include the name. Speaker 0: Please. Speaker 6: So we mentioned. So this is my first time. Speaker 0: You're doing great. Speaker 6: To include Marilyn Carlyle as an appointee to the state Senate. Speaker 0: Thank you. An amendment has been made to add the name Reuben Carlisle to the blank online 11 in the motion before us, appointing Representative Carlisle to the State Senate discussion on the amendment. Councilmember Lambert, did we. Speaker 6: Move that ordinance to start with? We did. Okay. There's back this. Speaker 0: Councilmember up the grove. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this where we comment on the. The selection? Speaker 0: This is final. Please be boring. This is adding represent Carlisle's name to the blank. Speaker 5: I would like to speak in favor of the motion. Speaker 0: I had the chance to. Speaker 5: Serve for a number of years with Carlisle in the State House. And the good thing, I think the public is well served when the senators are House trained. Speaker 6: Oh. Speaker 1: I never thought I. Speaker 0: Was going to share. I never told this before. Speaker 5: An old dear friend, Senator Ken Jacobson, once said he knew I was a basketball guy and he was talking about the difference between the House and the Senate. And he said the House is like college basketball. The coach calls the shots. You have this big team mentality. And he said the Senate's like the NBA. No one tells Kobe Bryant what to do. Speaker 0: And I think Rubin may be a good fit there in that he not. Speaker 5: Only was excellent team player, but he's also, I think, stood out for being an independent thinker, for being someone who is willing to question, not hesitate to. Speaker 0: Bring independent analysis and question assumptions. Speaker 5: Whether it was the state data center. Whether it's tax policy, you name it. He's been willing to stand up not only for his constituents, but for the people, the state. Speaker 0: Of Washington, and bring. Speaker 5: Intelligent, independent analysis to the questions before them. Speaker 0: And the Senate. Speaker 5: Is very fortunate, and I wish you well. Speaker 0: Councilmember Dunn. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you all coming up through this process. That can be daunting running the Pico Gantlet to get to here. It's almost as tough as that actual campaign sometimes, but I suspect you didn't have any problem coming through. And I wanted to show some bipartisan support for your appointment. You've you've always struck me as somebody who's got your heart in the right place. And, boy, you know, you're speaking my language when you're talking about special purpose district reform, and you get all of these different districts are raising their own taxes and not paying attention to what's happening on the $5.90 cap. And we saw it here a few years ago in the Library District, maxed out statutory authority and suppressed the flood district. And so we had to run around paying fire districts not to levy their rates. And so that's something we got to keep our eye on. And the answer's fairly simple, but it takes an enormous amount of political courage to make those reforms because you're messing with special purpose district funding. But keep up the good work. We look forward to partnering with you here at the local level to help you as we fight those and other battles. So I wish you the very best and I want to commend others for their participation as well. And you got a good audience to get some of your. Views out as well here. So anyway, I look forward to voting for you and working with you in the future. Thanks. Speaker 0: And my apologies to the maker of the motion for not calling on her first council member, Coles. Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a very meaningful vote that I'll be taking, given that I have so much admiration for Representative soon to be Senator Robin Carlisle, as well as Liz Campbell and David Caplan. I don't know if you're all aware that we had over 200 PCOS participate in, I believe at the actual meeting at which and votes took place, there were 197 and something on that order. 92, one, 92 and we had, I believe, the highest number of PCOS in the state and the highest number of registered voters and voter turnout in the state. So what this amounts to is that we have a very active district and they get involved, they get engaged. And I am really thrilled with the caliber of the three contenders for this seat. Really outstanding. And the other reason that this is very meaningful to me, of course, is that I'm voting on my successor. And we, of course, don't lay any claim to having a lifetime important seat in the Senate or the House or county council. But I was on this I was in the legislature for a long time and just had just been completing now my 21st year in the state Senate. So that's significant for me and I don't let go lightly. I think, frankly, that I have resigned it and that there was a lot of emotion involved with that. But I think that I know that Reuben will be outstanding in the role as state senator for our 36th legislative district, and I have no doubt about that. I just wish I could peek into the caucus meeting that that that rule. And you will do terrifically and God bless the Senate in what would be very good hands. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And kind of any councilman down there to. Yeah, because I'm just kind of adding to what you said in relationship to Drew and his margin of victory. The percentage is as wide as my margin of victory when I run for office. With him and what he's been able to accomplish in his district. I look forward to support you. But I want to add that Liz and David are extremely accomplished and safe and we have our way to continue their their involvement in their district as well as broader politics, because we can use their talents to really. Speaker 0: All right, Senator. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciated Gene Caldwell's comment about lifetime tenures with how the Senate and perhaps the county council. But I may agree with two of the three I. Oh, oh, yeah. Yeah. I had the privilege of being in the state senate for 20 years, and I say this unabashedly. The 36th District, House and Senate has always been one of the best represented districts in the state legislature. I say that without question. It's always had a vigorous group, whether Republican or Democrat, believe it or not, there were some Republicans at one time, and I told my colleagues the only Republicans left safe in Seattle are those in the Woodland Park Zoo. Elk. And I'm sorry. Speaker 6: There's. Speaker 1: Thank God I had a chance to meet ruined through a phone call he made to me because he wanted to hire somebody who had worked in my office. And we had a great conversation. And he was fortunate enough to hire that person and that person was fortunate to be a mentee of yours, and you did a great job with them. He's now in the private sector, working hard for his community in the 36th District, and that was Matt Gausman. And so anyway, I join with my colleagues. It's been a great conversation we've had today and I look forward to working with you as you represent this district in the state legislature. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to compliment all three of you on how qualified you are and your passion for good public policy and caring about our citizens. So thank you for that. I agree with Councilmember at The Grove that having senators or House change is a very good thing. I think it helps us ensure that that the debate between the Rotunda are not too far away. Remember, once we actually had a line across the rotunda and we all held hands, so it was clear that that is a passable space. So I think that's really important. And I want to say that I appreciate the transparency that you've brought to the legislative process and especially to finances. I think it's not that we don't as a county, want to help other parts of the state, but not to our citizens budget. And it's gotten in place now where I believe has come to our citizens detriment. And there are some ways of compromising that certain things are in better shape in different parts of the county. Keep moratorium on taking our money and our for instance roads get to look at good is quality based on some standards and the rest of the state and then we can go back to a different formula. But I think we really need to look at how much more we can share before it hurts us so badly. So I really appreciate your open communications and I look forward to it continuing as a senator and I know you have all of our cell phone numbers and I'm happy to receive calls up to 138. And please know that you're working hard. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: She was telling me to AM just 20 minutes ago. Speaker 6: Well. Speaker 0: For the comments on the amendment hearing and others in favor of the amendment, please say I opposed nay motion that the amendment is adopted. The motion, as amended, is before US. Councilmember Dombrowski. Speaker 1: Technical amendment on line for the correct the name of Senator Jim Caldwell's to strike the I and replace it with me. Speaker 0: Oh yeah we will the I believe the clerk will take care of that for us. Indeed. Very good. Thank you. Further discussion. I'm final passage. If the clerk would please call the roll. Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Counselor. Double duty by Councilmember Dombroski by Councilmember Dunn. I remember Gossett. I always thought well, I was never remember either one more of the girl councilmember by my count. Hi, Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. Votes no nice, no notes, and then excused. Speaker 0: Thank you. By your vote we've given a do pass recommendation to motion 2015 535 and we will expedite that to the full the special meeting of the full council at 130 today. Speaker 1: Do they have to come back? Speaker 0: They're welcome. They're welcome to be here for that. They're not required to be a council member. Speaker 6: Lambert I just want to be sure that they take with them our agenda so that their, their first assignment is with and I think you that very much. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: All right. They all. Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. We appreciate your participation, and you're welcome to hang up. Thank you. At any point you wish. Thank you. All right. And that takes us to item five on the agenda. Proposed Motion 2015.

Motion

A MOTION making an appointment to fill the vacancy in the position of state senator for the 36th legislative district.

KingCountyCC

KingCountyCC_01072016_2015-0534

Speaker 0: All right. They all. Thank you, Mr. Kaplan. We appreciate your participation, and you're welcome to hang up. Thank you. At any point you wish. Thank you. All right. And that takes us to item five on the agenda. Proposed Motion 2015. Speaker 5: 534 Will there be an opportunity to please brief remarks before this afternoon, or is that the appropriate time? And is. Speaker 0: Thank you. Well, it's legal. Speaker 5: I understand. Speaker 0: You're. Speaker 5: Trying to learn the committee. Speaker 0: Are we today? Our next item is Motion 2015 534, which is the motion filling the anticipated vacancy in the state representative seat in the 36th legislative district. And Counsel, if we can begin with the motion, Councilmember Gossett would be willing to make the motion. Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to move at this time that we adopt proposed motion on a 2015 0534. And this is a motion making an appointment to fill the vacancy in the position of State Representative for the 36th District. Speaker 0: Thank you. The motion is before us and it is referral to the full council would be on the assumption that the full council will take its final action this afternoon to appoint Representative Carlisle to fill the Senate seat and represented Carlisle has indeed resigned the Senate seat. With that said, again, since it is a partizan position and Representative Carlisle is a Democrat, the state constitution requires us to choose from among three nominees recommended by the King County Democratic Central Committee. Three nominees have been recommended for our consideration, and they are again in alphabetical order by last name Newell Frame, Jeff Manson. And so. Right. Senator Barneveld, once again, we'll start with each I invite each one of the three of you to join us at the presentation table. And we'll again start with a two minute introduction from each one of the nominees and then proceed with questions from the council. And so to continue the order. Good morning and Miss Frame. Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 0: Good. My floor is yours. Speaker 6: Well, good morning, members of the King County Council. Honorable members. My name is Noel Frame, and it would be the honor of my life to be the next state representative from the 36th District. I am seeking this position because I want to tackle the biggest challenge facing our state fully funding our public schools. I grew up in battleground in southwest Washington and experienced firsthand how underfunded classrooms can impede a quality education. Knowing that students today are experiencing what I experienced two decades ago is my motivation to wanting to be a leader on education funding. I believe that to fully fund our schools, we need comprehensive tax reform. And I believe for that to happen, it's going to require a robust statewide conversation with voters. And as that is the reason I think that you should appoint me today. I am a communication specialist and an organizer at my core. I've been involved in statewide civic engagement work for 15 years. I worked in the nonprofit, private and public sectors, and I offer the experience and perspective of bridging the divide that will be so critical to reaching consensus around school funding and tax reform issues. I have lived in the 36th District for more than a decade now, but my house, my first home just two years ago and ran a full campaign for this position in 2012. I came out of that campaign stronger, more confident, and even more tenacious than I was before. But that passion and that resilience certainly did not start with my campaign. I grew up the child of two restaurant workers who are here with us today. We are a family of very hard workers. But for too many people today, working hard still isn't enough to pay the bills. In the Legislature, I will work to strengthen economic security for our middle class and those in poverty. I also come from a family with a long history of mental illness and all of its related challenges like addiction. As a consequence, I served as a foster parent to two of my younger cousins. Mental health issues were not managed properly as that has a devastating impact. And I want to work on mental health issues. My name is Noelle Frame and I ask for your vote. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Manson. Speaker 3: All right. Good morning. Thank you. It's an honor to be here and in particular, to be part of one of the first official items of of business that my council member, Jeanie Caldwell's. So I've been working to make the world a better place since I was ten years old and helped found the Earth Club at my elementary school. And since then, I've tried to use every moment to maximize my own impact for social justice, economic justice and environmental justice. It's what led me to law school and to being a legal aid attorney. And for the last six years, I've served this state as an administrative law judge, where I've seen how state laws and state budgets affect the most vulnerable in our society at the ground level. Meanwhile, I've also served as the chair of the 36th District Democrats, where I have worked to inspire people to change public policy through grassroots organizing and citizen activism. So last year I threw my hat in the ring because I was ready to fuze those two roles together, taking my deep policy expertize as a judicial officer and my organizing skills to the Democratic Party and serve the 36th District as a progressive champion in Olympia. And I'm glad I ran because it was such an incredibly enriching civic experience. We have an engaged group of 216 CEOs, 192 of whom participated in this process. And they represent every neighborhood, every conceivable profession, and reflect the demographic diversity of our district. And a substantial portion of these CEOs took the role very seriously. A good portion of them took the time to meet with each of the five candidates for at least an hour at least once, and then followed up with questions by email and by phone. They pored over our questionnaires and websites, attended several formal candidate events, including a two hour long moderated forum. So it was truly one of the most comprehensive and intimate vetting process as we could have had to choose the three nominees here today. I'm honored to have been the the second choice of the CEOs, and I accept their first choice as the right choice. And so I encourage you to appoint my friend, though I'll frame today, but I'm happy to answer your questions about my qualifications and my background. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. It is wonderful. Speaker 6: Good morning, council members. It's an honor to be here today. I'd like to start by thanking my husband, Joel merkel and my family for their support during this appointment process. You may know that I'm a public sector attorney, but I'm also a wife and a mother to a spirited 16 month old daughter, a community activist and a proud progressive Democrat. I've spent the last ten years as a public servant working on behalf of the people of this state, currently as a public sector litigator, fighting for the rights of Washington workers. As a mother and education advocate, I've become increasingly concerned with our state's chronic underfunding of education, particularly public education. I thought appointment to the state house, in part because I believe we can and should do better for Washington students. It was an honor to participate in the appointment process and engage in meaningful conversations with CEOs about how to tackle the enormously consequential challenges facing our district and the state. The key messages I heard over and over again is that we need effective leadership, more effective leadership to champion and reform our regressive and unfair tax structure and increase revenue for vital social services to fully fund education in accordance with McCleary and create an excellent public education system for all our children and to protect our environment for future generations. I would not have thought this appointment if I did not believe I was uniquely qualified to tackle these challenges. I remain excited about the possibility of serving the people of the 36th District and using my legislative experience, skills and relationships to champion students, our most vulnerable and our environment and Olympia. While my desire to serve the people of the 36th District has not changed, I do support the nomination process and know our friend's nomination and I think it was a fair process. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today, and I would welcome any questions that you have. Speaker 0: Thank you to each of you. Questions from Councilmembers Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a question for you three also related to economic and racial disproportionality. Recently, it was mentioned in the Seattle Times that Seattle is now one of the most expensive cities to live in, in terms of the cost of housing and the Seattle Times reporter Mr. Eugene Ball. The article not too long ago and he said that the average black household family income has now gone down to the ninth past in the United States, $25,700 a year. And when compared to white annual income, it's just $70,200 a year, he said. That's a tremendous economic gap. Do you think that that's something we should be concerned about? And if so, is there anything that state legislators can do about the cost and availability of housing for our most dominant families around the state type place? Speaker 6: Thank you. Yeah, affordable housing costs in general is obviously it's a crisis here in the city and in our 36th district. And much of what we can do at the state level, we can do things like continue to invest in the housing trust fund so we can have more affordable housing available here in Seattle. I look forward to working with the city as they advocate for their housing affordability and livability agenda action items to again continue to add affordable housing and working class housing stock here in the state. But I want to go back, I think, to the racial disproportionality question, because I think so much of that goes back to our educational system. We know that. The opportunity gap, often referred to as the achievement gap, is a problem here. Last I checked, the opportunity gap was not decreasing but increasing in Washington state. So much of what we need to do is invest in our public school system and always, always bring a racial equity lens to that work. So much of what we can do to address racial disparities in education is early interventions. And I just want to say we should be so proud with King County, with the Best Arts for Kids Levy as a huge investment in early learning and early interventions for families that will no doubt have a strong impact on families of color and low income families to help try to level the playing field. Investments in early learning is one of the best places that we can start to level the playing field of that opportunity gap and later those economic opportunities available to folks. So I think the focus I bring on fixing the tax structure, working on K-12 and hopefully early learning as well will be will help address some of the challenges that you've addressed. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you. Speaker 3: So I agree with what Noel said. I think looking at the affordable housing, you can look at both the expense side and the revenue side, if you will, of an individual family. On the expense side, I think investing in more low income housing is something the state can do, can also allow municipalities to reasonably regulate their own rents, which I know Seattle has been interested in doing. I don't think we'd be following some New York City style rent control, but putting some reasonable limits on rent increases as a way to immediately limit the affordability issue. And then on the revenue side, on the individual family sort of income side, I think housing can become more affordable if people have more disposable income. And I think raising the minimum wage, I'm glad Seattle started that and got that ball rolling. I think we can do that around the state. I support raising the minimum wage statewide, nationwide. In fact, I also think if we reformed our tax structure to be less regressive, it would also end up with lower income families, would have more money with which to to pay for housing. Speaker 6: I think of Seattle is currently in affordability crisis. I'm very much a proponent of housing first and I think we need to drastically expand the availability of affordable housing, particularly to communities of color, low income communities and vulnerable populations. I think part of this on the state level is going to be an increased investment in the affordable housing trust fund. I also think, particularly to your point, there's things that we can do to regulate and prohibit employment and housing discrimination, which still occurs. And there's some legislative solutions that have been proposed, particularly to address housing discrimination. And I think that's extremely important in terms of addressing the problem. I would agree with Noel that I think it starts, you know, in terms of expanding access to not just early learning for children, but in addressing the opportunity and achievement gap. I think we absolutely need to do everything that we can to address the opportunity of achievement gap, including reforming school discipline in schools, implementing the restorative justice model and ending the school to prison pipeline. I think that's extremely important in addressing this problem. So I think we need to expand first and foremost the amount of affordable housing. I also think that it's important to look, you know, at investing in Washington workers. One way to do that is to increase the minimum wage. And I'm a proponent of increasing the minimum wage. And in fact, I'll fight as a litigator for the rights of workers and every day. Speaker 0: Thank you for the questions. See none. Councilmember one right there. Speaker 1: I'm going to have to wait till she makes your motion. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Caldwell's to make a motion. Speaker 6: Let's see if I can get this right. The time I believe we first need to open an oral amendment right. Speaker 0: We have. We've already moved the motion itself, and so we need an oral amendment. Speaker 6: So with that, Mr. Chair, I propose number 20 201505341. I offer an oral amendment on line five to add Reuben Carlisle No, no. Yes, sir. I was wondering. But there are, there are two things here. Speaker 0: Correct? Correct. You and ignore ignore the peanut gallery. Just keep going. Speaker 6: Online. 12 to add the name of Noel Friend. Speaker 0: Thank you. There's an oral amendment to add the name of Reuben Carlisle to line five and Noel frame to line 12 of page 45 of our packet two motion 2015 534 and I will do better this time to speak to the motion, wrote Council member Cole Wells. Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a delight for me and a privilege to be able to speak to this amendment to add both Reuben Carlisle's name, as I read it, resigning from being representative for the 36th District and to add Noel Frame's name to be appointed as state representative. I've known them both for many, many years, and just as I stated earlier, when we took up the matter of the State Senate appointment, rather than Carlisle will make an outstanding state senator and I believe the same for Noel Frame to become an outstanding state representative as this is my district. I can also say that I will be very proud to have them representing me. I will be their constituent to the State Senate and the State House and they're both really superb Senate. Though I would like to say that Jeff Manson and Sarah Reed involved are also superb. And I wish we had three state representative, I mean, actually for Gail Thomas and I would love it if all three of you could be in the State House and perhaps in the future you will be able to assume such positions or similar ones that with that I'm delighted and I would like us to go ahead and make the appointment. Thank you. Speaker 0: The amendment has been moved and seconded. Council Member one Rick Barrow. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chair. When this first came before us during the holidays, I received some calls from some folks who thought, you know, maybe he had some strong feelings about some of the candidates and I had never had a chance to meet anyone. Well, I had a chance to meet one, but one of the candidates that were selected, but I did not know the other two. And Councilmember Larry Gossett encouraged me to meet with Noel. And I did that. And I got to tell you, it wasn't really enervating experience. You have a long resumé here of civic involvement and passion for issues and compassion for your neighbors. And she and I talked about where some of this began because I've been involved in my community in the Qantas Club. And while you may look at it on her résumé of all these great activities, I looked at the fact that when she was a teenager, she was the leader, the governor of Key Club. Now, a lot of people don't understand that, but that is as tough as you can get to get to be a teenager to be at that. She was flying to Alaska, flying to the East Coast as a teenager to work on behalf of programs that serve communities and especially those who have students in need. Qantas is about service and you know, some people suggested again during the holidays, jump the line, go to somebody else. No, I'm sure glad that I had the chance to meet with her, talk with her, listen to her. And I understand why Larry Gossett is such a big fan of hers. She is a person who has compassion about her neighbors and. Speaker 5: Passionate. Speaker 1: About her district, and she brings her incredible work ethic, which really impressed me. So I'm very happy to join my colleagues in supporting this. Good luck. Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Councilmember Lambert. Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to just say the same thing as the previous speaker, but elaborate on just one other part. And the idea that she spent the time to do this process in not only being here and meeting with Beth, but also coming to our meeting where we were talking as a council with the electeds about what it is that we are seeing our issues and be there to really hear us. The people that are trying to do what the people in your job are telling us to do. But it's difficult when we start getting our hands tied behind our back and our money to do it. So I really appreciate it. Not only that you were there, but I was watching you because I didn't know at that point who you were exactly. And you were really assimilating that information. And I really appreciated that fact. You were listening, and I thank you for that. The other thing is that in our meeting, I got to find out that we share similar passions. And as councilmember right there said, you know, this is not the thing that started last week with you. The fact that you were, I think, 25 and raising two teenagers, we share in common being a foster mom at 21. I know what that looks like and it takes dedication and hard work. And I appreciate that you have lived what you believe. I thank you. I look forward to working with you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilmember up the Grove. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Even though we're a nonpartisan body, I'm going to be briefly partizan here and say that I am proud that the Democratic Party has such a deep bench of talent here, and I'm speaking in favor of the motion. But I also had the chance to get to know Sarah over the years and impressed with her, and your presentation was great. Jeff We're friends and. Speaker 0: Common and. Speaker 5: We're lucky to have three people who have this kind of energy and. Speaker 0: And, and smarts. Speaker 5: I've known Noelle probably 15 years or so, and I was thinking about what it is I like about her. And it was. Speaker 0: One of the things that. Speaker 5: Cathy alluded to. One of the coolest things about Noelle is the work you did as a foster mom at a young age. I couldn't have done that. It's a it's a labor of love. And you did that while balancing a professional, difficult professional career. When I think about what I know about you, it's as a champion of education, largely someone willing to fight, even when unpopular, for the values you believe in that are supported by your district. I just think you'll do a great job and I'm really excited for you. Speaker 0: Thank you for the discussion. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying I am opposed. Nay, the amendment is adopted. We have the motion as amended before us discussion and final passage. If the clerk would please call the roll. Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Well, Duty Councilmember Dombrowski. Councilmember Dunn, High Customer Resources Chi member Caldwell. I'm Councilmember Lambert, Councilmember of the girl. But Councilman, run right there. Hi, Mr. Chair. Hi, Mr. Chair. There was no noise, no notes, and then excused. Speaker 0: Thank you. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation two motion 2015 534 and we will expedite that to this afternoon's full council meeting. Councilmember Gossett. Speaker 1: Yeah, I just like a point of personal privilege. I'd like to thank Noelle's mother and dad for being willing to share her with all of our community. Speaker 0: Well, thank you. And as we have said, there will be a special meeting of the county council at 130 to act on these recommendations from the committee of the hall. And since this is a special meeting, there is nothing else on our agenda. And we will adjourn and I will see everyone at 130 for the full council meeting.

Motion

A MOTION making an appointment to fill the vacancy in the position of state representative for the 36th legislative district.

KingCountyCC

AlamedaCC_03152022_2022-1791

Speaker 2: Recommendation to address next steps and projected costs for commercial streets, which are parklets for a two year extension. Speaker 0: A Q and so I am seeing a city of Alameda zoomed to. Does that indicate or is that you, Madam Kirk? Mr. LEVITT. Speaker 2: We're working on promoting the planning, building and transportation director. Speaker 0: There you go. Okay. So we will bring up I believe that would be Andrew Thomas and. Speaker 1: And. Speaker 0: Then Councilmember Harry Spencer. You'll have somebody to ask your questions or make your comments to. I'm ready to make comments, if that's all right. I would like to give the planning, building and transportation director the courtesy of we don't want to make him out of breath by ready to get to the zoom. Theory is like it. It's daytime, wherever. Speaker 1: It's apparently sunny at that point. Speaker 0: Yeah, it's always sunny in El Reno. All right. So went, hello, we have a mr. Thomas. Do you want to just introduce yourself and your colleague there? Speaker 1: Oh, yes. Andrew Thomas, planning building and transportation director. I'm joined tonight by Robert Vance, our city engineer. The item before you tonight is really just a status report on our ongoing effort to manage Parklets and the next steps for the Commercial Streets program. We will be coming to the council at a in the next couple of months with an actual contract for what we described in the staff report. So the actual decision making and voting really will be occurring when you authorize the money for the next step in the project. But we wanted to give you an update on where we are at and the direction we were headed. So that was really the purpose of tonight's report. I think Mr. Ransome myself are here to answer any questions you might have about those next steps. Speaker 0: Perfect. Well, Councilmember Harry Spencer pulled this item in some way to turn the floor over to her Councilmember Herr Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. I don't have any questions. I just have comments. So I'm happy to actually thank staff for their comprehensive report of this item. I have thought that we should follow what other jurisdictions, some other jurisdictions are doing in regards to having payrolls for the parklets and not as opposed to decorative concrete barriers that are the reason I want I want to commend staff because they were very forthright in saying that, yes, in fact, the corrals are not only less expensive than the anticipated cost is almost the approximately $200,000 difference at the corrals or less, while also acknowledging that the crews are safer. And so I appreciate that that's my position. So I will not be voting for this. I think it's critical that especially when we can save money, $200,000, that that be made very clear that rather than doing something that is safer and less money, the recommendation of the council's direction has in fact been to do something that provides less safety and at a higher cost. So I will be voting no for this. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Kelso, Woodside. Speaker 1: Well, I appreciated the staff analysis indicating K rails are safer and and less expensive. So to me, I think I would rather just adopt the K rails as opposed to the, the what the, the, the alternative. So I'll, I'll move adoption of this with the proviso that that we pursue k rails and kiwirail's in place of the the the what's on the table. Speaker 0: Okay. And let's hear from what did you want to second that Councilmember Harry Spencer. Okay. Is that decorative, concrete barriers? And then I see Councilmember Enough hands up. Councilmember That's why. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 3: Know we have our our city engineer on the line. And I believe that the misrepresentation of what the staff report says about safety, I think needs to be clarified. I'll ask it is a leading question. My understanding is that it is the position of the engineers about who are in charge of safety on our streets, that the proposed decorative barriers are actually just as safe at 25 miles an hour and provide the level of safety as necessary and the rails which are designed to tip for freeway medians. In terms of the level of say that many in most cities don't aren't even putting barriers out, let alone decorative ones. Speaker 0: And Mr. Vance may be calling you to comment. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. City Council Members. Yes, it is our position that the these concrete barriers to provide a satisfactory level of safety to protect the the parklets. We haven't done a side by side comparison of the rail versus the the concrete barriers, but my research has shown that they do provide the protection that we're providing that we're asking for. Speaker 0: Whether they get it at speeds above 25 miles per hour. Speaker 1: I don't have crash data that shows exactly how these two would perform side by side. So I can't make it. I can't. I mean, that was. We haven't done testing to show that. But I mean. But we've determined that these are safe for the conditions that are on the street today. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Harris Spencer. Speaker 3: And then if I could. Speaker 1: Sorry. Speaker 3: I guess I was going to say I won't be supporting the motion simply because I believe that almeida's actually even with these decorative concrete, more decorative, nicer looking concrete barriers is going far and above what most cities in our in the Bay Area are doing for Parklets. And also that I think designing our downtown business district so that they look like freeway medians would be a problem. And since we're doing this as a place, a way to kind of increase the placemaking on Park Street in Webster Street and the increase in them being a place where people want to be. I fully support the staff recommendation. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Carlos, from the site. Back to you, Councilmember Hurst. Let's hear from Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas. Speaker 1: I just from a process perspective, we don't need a motion. We don't need direction at this point. I think what I'm hearing, though, is we have to come back. Our plan is to, first of all, come up with a striping barricade plan. Then we can cost it out. Then we bring it to council to contract out for a single contractor to buy the barricades for us and place them for us and do the necessary striping of the striping on the street. So we plan on coming back. But I think, you know, if you would like what we can do is come back with a contract proposal that prices both options and the council can make that decision at that time. Just one quick point that I think we I hope we emphasize in the staff report, I can't remember a while ago we wrote the staff report visiting with the business community, talking to all the businesses. There was a feeling of the current situation with the water filled barricades and just the appearance made. The entire street, particularly on Park Street, look a little bit like a construction zone. And the Kay Rails, everybody felt the highway corrals will perpetuate that for another two years. So the decorative concrete from a bit from the business's perspective and I think from staff's perspective, we felt like since the goal of this program is to support our business community, help them survive through COVID and out of COVID, this this concern about trying to make Park Street look a little bit more uniform, less of a construction zone for the next two years. So that's why we were recommending the decorative. But at the end, all we can do is we can price them both out, bring them both forward for the final contract. And the council can make the decision at that point whether you want to do the more expensive rails or the or the the less expensive excuse me, less expensive rail versus the more expensive decorative. The other option is you can tell us right now. Don't come back with that other option. And just we just want one option. And you can determine right now what that option might be. Speaker 0: And I like the sound of your approach because what we're hearing, Spencer Then I have a thought and then decide and then I have good council rehearsed back there, so I would just like to read from a staff report. That's why I want to commend staff for being forthright about this, the safety issue in the report. And it does say from a safety perspective, staff believes the decorative concrete barriers provide a significant increase in safety and esthetic improvement over the current water filled barriers, which is great, although a K rail is heavier and would provide additional collision protection from staff's perspective, that extra protection is not needed for a street with a 25 mile per hour speed limit. My position is that safety is the most important when we have an accident and we have had accidents here in town. You can go out and you can see the areas where they've been hit. We've been fortunate that we haven't had people being injured. However, not every city or jurisdiction has been so lucky. And so for me, safety is, in fact, the most important. And I appreciate the esthetics and other cities do, too, that do have rules. And what they have done is they painted them. They decorated them to blend in or put planters on one side of them versus the other to try to address that. That city throughout the state and I believe Fremont in Northern California from my research is using the K Rail. So I appreciate being able to share that. And I do like the staff being upfront about the safety issue. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Desai. Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to say overall in I'm incredibly supportive of the program on Park Street and Webster Street. I know, you know, people are concerned about, you know, the reduction of the to two lanes in one direction, two lanes in the other direction to one lane in one direction. But but I really do feel it slows things down and it does make life a lot more enjoyable on the on on either street. And and I will say, you know, I think just more information. Speaker 2: I think would be great. Speaker 1: You know, I think the mayor, for example, raised, you know, what if. How does it how does the decorative barrier hold up at maybe 30 miles per hour or 35 miles per hour? If we could just get more information, that would be great. So, you know, I could be convinced to support the decorative. So but, you know, I think what the planning director had suggested is just, you know, holding off, bring more back, more information, I think is a thought is I can live with that. So I if we pursue that that direction, I'm more than happy to withdraw my motion. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, I would side with you on that. And what I just wanted to add is that cost isn't my primary consideration, it is safety followed by a statics. And the the thing about, you know, noting that this is a street with a 25 mile an hour speed limit. I think we all know that most of our streets have a 25 mile per hour street speed limit, but unfortunately, people exceed the speed limit and sometimes terrible things happen. And we have had on Park Street twice the same Parkland has been hit. And mercifully, one time the most recent was after hours and nobody was there. But the first time people were injured, not seriously. But I so what I would love is to pursue the planning director and with the city engineer's input, obviously suggestion that they just come back with those comparisons and side by side of the cost, the benefit and maybe they really are comparable. And so, you know, here we've got the data to go with one over the other. But I think at this point, I just you know, I think we do have to do our street designs with the understanding in mind that not everybody is a law abiding driver. And we but we just want to protect people. I do like the program. So. So Councilmember, they said, what's your pleasure? Speaker 1: I'll withdraw my motion and take up planning director Andrew Thomas's suggestion as to how he will proceed and will look for more information. Speaker 0: Just to persist after action. Okay, so good counsel, everybody. Nodding heads, casual remarks. Wait, your. Speaker 1: Thoughts? Speaker 3: I think it's great. At the end of the day, we can I mean, we could remove cars that would be the safest. I don't see anybody. It's but again, everything can always be safer. The question we need to ask is, does it add and does it provide an adequate, good faith effort for safety? We have people driving up on the side under crosswalks and sidewalks all the time. We're not building concrete barriers at the car, at the at those intersections where people are driving under the sidewalks. So I think, you know, it's our engineers say. The question shouldn't be how can we go even further? The question should be, ah, is it safe enough? And for me, that's the that is the analysis I'll be looking for. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, we'll look forward to deciding coming back to us. Thank you so much, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Vance, as always. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And moving down the alphabet, we go next to item five H. Madam Kirk, would you introduce that one for us and why you're introducing it, city manager or whomever? Would you please bring the annex team in on this? These are the CFOs, right? Okay. Go ahead. Or will we? I don't think Mr. Thomas and Mr. Vance, are they. Speaker 2: Yeah, we're both bringing the people here. Talk it out. Speaker 0: Yeah, we can. Public works director. We can ship everybody away. Speaker 2: Yeah. Five Each has adopted a resolution declaring intention to establish the city of Alameda Community Facility, District number 22, dash one Alameda Marina and authorize levy of special taxes there in an adoption of resolution declaring it.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Endorse Next Steps and Projected Costs for Commercial Streets (Parklets) Two Year Extension. (Planning, Building and Transportation 20962740)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03152022_2022-1783

Speaker 2: Yeah. Five Each has adopted a resolution declaring intention to establish the city of Alameda Community Facility, District number 22, dash one Alameda Marina and authorize levy of special taxes there in an adoption of resolution declaring it. Speaker 0: You know what that is? You guys just. Speaker 2: Read the whole thing on mute. I am so sorry, I. Speaker 0: You didn't read the whole thing on mute. You got to declaring. Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. Declaring intention to incur bonded indebtedness of the proposed development community facility. District number 22, dash one. Speaker 0: And at least Laura has a secret code, has a side job as an auctioneer, as you can tell from the speed with which she's able to get those out. I can't talk that far that fast. Thank you. And with us, we have our public works director, Aaron Smith. Welcome. And do you want to. Well, we could do this one or two ways, counselor. Harry Spencer, you pulled this item. Was it to hear an explanation? Did you have comments or questions? I have questions. All right. So why don't we start with your questions and we'll see if we can keep moving through our consent calendar and get to our rather lengthy, regular agenda. Blogs are also joined by Liz Acord. Hello, welcome. And oh my goodness, the Gainesville here bus. Well, so just like that they appear and director Smith you want to just introduce the team who's accompanying your. Speaker 2: Certainly. Ken, Jerry, that okay with you? Speaker 1: Go ahead. Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry. Speaker 1: Totally fine. Speaker 0: It's Women's History Month, so I'm kind of. Speaker 2: Okay. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor, members of council. I am Aaron Smith, public works director here with me this evening for this item is called to make our Urban Council. Sarah Mares Our special tax consultant, Michael Bush, our municipal advisor, Liz Acord, our public works coordinator. We also have from Al Main Arena Sean Murphy. Sean, I'm going to let you introduce Little Charles as your attorney. Charles Olson. Also here with us is Elizabeth Mackenzie from our attorney's office. And I believe that's all the squares since I think I did it. Yeah, okay. Speaker 0: We ran out of squares with all this stuff in there. So, you know, though, for the benefit of the public, who's watching? Could one of you, any one of you on the screen and that includes your assistant city manager, Jerry Bowden. Just give us an overview of what's with this item, both this item and the the next one. But well, let's stick to one. What's this item about? Speaker 1: Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor. Vice Mayor, members of the City Council. Jerry Bowden, assistant city manager. This is a community facility, community facilities district discussion. This is part of the Alameda Marina project. This is a special financing mechanism that's been used several times in the city of Alameda. This particular master plan for the area anticipated significant infrastructure costs. The the community facilities district that is before you this evening and tonight is really just moving forward with resolutions of intention for this item and the following item, which is really an opportunity for the public to see what we're up to for the first time in a public setting. And essentially the districts themselves are designed to finance a seawall as well as as well as some some road improvements out on Clement Avenue. And that is obvious that so far from the total infrastructure investment that's going into this area, but that's the those are the items that we put into this district, which will essentially help to to finance those those infrastructure improvements that will have community wide benefits in a lot of ways, but that are associated with the project. So there's a seawall that goes along the outer edge of the project. And then if you've been along Clement Avenue in recent months, you've seen all of the improvements that have gone in out there as well. So, you know, we can certainly there's a there's a large team. This this is a process that's somewhat unique. It's not something that we do every day. But several of the people on the screen have done this work with the city in prior examples. And so we're happy to answer any questions that you may have about this action and the process going forward from here. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Burton. Okay, let's go to Councilmember Harry Spencer pulled this item. Councilmember, the floor is yours. Thank you. Mayor and I had shared my questions with the city manager in advance, and I'm not sure he was able to get clarification. But there is a sample tax bill that is attached to the item. And if it's possible to and I'm sorry to ask that the clerk not that'd be nice if you could show that because I'll be referencing that. But that tax bill as, as you're working on that, it references town home sample tax bill and it shows the CFP on an annual basis of being an additional 5500 up to almost $8,000 per year, so that the annual property taxes and special taxes for these properties that it says it starts at 1600 square feet and at a price base price of just over $1,000,000 would end up being from 20 to $26000 per year for these taxes. And my question is that I know that this project included some condominiums, and I didn't see a tax bill for those units. And I don't know if when that shows a town home of 1680 square feet. Is that the condominium or what is the price points we're anticipating of what the additional taxes would be for condominiums, for the CFD. He'd like to take that. Speaker 2: I will. Speaker 1: That was. Speaker 2: A hello. Speaker 1: There. Speaker 2: Amazon. The screen change just as I said that. Speaker 0: Well, and just introduce yourself when you do, because it's I don't recognize voices readily. So. Yes, Miss Maris, please. Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor, members of the council. My name is Sarah Myers with NBS. I'm acting in the capacity as the special tax consultant for this project and I prepared this sample tax bill. So within this particular project, only the first phase of the development is included, and that includes only the townhomes that are being developed. So it is the townhome product that is in this district by itself. The size ranges you see and the lowest base prices for those units are representative of the product that is being developed. And then you can see the additional information that shows the general property taxes, the other items that are on the tax bill, other special assessments or taxes or charges, and then specifically this particular CFD special tax to come up to the total amount of the property taxes, special charges and CFD charges that would go on these parcels to result in the overall effective tax rate of 1.9% across the board. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mary. That was helpful. Councilmember Spencer, you still on the floor? Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate that clarification. So I just want to confirm then when the can whatever phase the condos are in that this will not have any relevance to that. Or if they do a CFD, then we will not be these numbers will not apply at all. Speaker 2: The Community facilities district number 20 2-1 for Alameda marina that has the facility's funding is not applicable at this time to any property other than those townhomes. There are if you look at the boundary map associated with this item, the other phases of this project are in the what's called future annexation area. And so there is potential that they could be annexed in the future to this CFD, but they're not in the boundary at this time and those proceedings would come before you at a later date if there is a desire to annex that property to the CFD. Speaker 0: To, too. Yes. All right. So then is that staff's position that that is unlikely of occurring or that's actually probable? Speaker 1: I'll I'll take that one, if that's all right with you. Speaker 0: Mr. BURTON. Speaker 1: So, Councilmember Herr Spencer, it is entirely possible. There's there's a there's a significant amount of infrastructure going into this area. And the idea of increasing bond capacity over time is something I think that that is is probable, but not it's not readily available at this time or not a decision that the developer can make at this time , because those projects just aren't before us to be constructed at this point in time. So when they when they are ready to come online, there's that possibility. If we're still looking for ways to finance infrastructure at that point in time. Speaker 0: You know, with the anticipated square footage of those units would be. Speaker 1: I don't I'd have to look to the development team to see if they have any estimates on the condominium projects. Speaker 0: Development team, any, any. And we don't want you to guess, obviously, but if. Speaker 1: Yes. Sorry. Hi. Speaker 0: Hi, Mr. Murphy from Alameda Marina. Did you want to. You want to. Speaker 2: Offer. Speaker 1: Me to answer so. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members. Thank you for hearing this consent item. It's important item for our project and for, frankly, the seawall, which is critical infrastructure. So the answer, councilman, or of question, the future condominiums will likely have a average size of between 700 to 1100 square feet. Speaker 0: Spencer, you have a first if you want. Thank you. Thank you. And that's good to know, because that's significantly less than the 1680. So that if, in fact, a staff comes back at some point to recommend that this S.F. that those condos be annexed into the CFD, then could I anticipate that it would be a percentage of based on the square footage? Because I'm trying to find out. I'm hoping that those condos will be somewhat priced favorably so that people in the middle will be able to try to buy them. And my concern will be that all these additional charges will price them out of the market and actually defeat the purpose. Speaker 2: If those parcels are annexed in the future, we would do a similar analysis to that sample tax bill that you see to determine what the effective tax rate is. And these special tax rates would be set accordingly. Speaker 0: Thank you. That completes my questions. Okay. Questions, comments or a motion from other council members. And thank you all for being here, all of you experts. Councilor Daisuke, I think I saw your hand go up. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. Just a quick comment. I'll be voting no on this, because I do believe for the same reason that a recent and nearby project, I just think there ought to be more affordable housing. So I appreciate that that I think 60% of the overall project is affordable. But the reality is our local rules require 15% off the off the bat. And I think, you know, the density bonus that was obtained by this, you know, they're getting a bonus on the number of additional units that they can build for doing something that they were required to do anyways. Usually when you get a bonus, it's because you did something above and beyond. And so I think the 16% is just it's not above and beyond. So that's why I'll not be voting for this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Conservation Council member Spencer. I'd just like to clarify. How many townhomes are there in this complex or this development total? Speaker 1: You have that information? Mr. MURPHY. Yes. There is 182 townhomes within the development. 25 of those 182 are affordable and therefore exempt from the CFD. Speaker 0: In the rest of the units, because isn't this whole complex like 760 units? Speaker 1: That's correct. Speaker 0: So what's the rest of the units then? Speaker 1: That is a combination of apartments and condominiums of higher density, basically medium density project. Speaker 0: Okay. And then the apartment happens to the apartments in regards to paying their share of CFD. Speaker 1: So there is a significant infrastructure cost across the the various parcels, the apartments. There are a cost of about $12 million for total infrastructure costs that are outside of the CFD. And so it just it's significant there's significant infrastructure cost for this project in comparison to its land area. Speaker 0: But do they pay me to continue their. Yes. Yes. Yes. But do they pay a CFD then for those units over time, or do they just pay the 12 million and then they're done because it's in the CFD over time, like it's 30 years or something. Speaker 1: There's a CFD. 20 2-2. But I turn that over to Sara or Jerry to to speak about. Speaker 0: Well, we're not going to speak about it now because we're on this particular item, but we will get to it next because it was also full of guilt. So every your question is what again, are you going to what do you think we're going to be hearing about that? So I'll go ahead and I'll move the item. Okay. So you move adoption of this resolution. I think you do have a Second Vatican Council councilmember, John. That's why it's seconds. All right. Any further discussion seeing then maybe have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 2: And that was a doctrine of both resolutions, correct? Speaker 0: No, it's not just one. Speaker 2: There's two resolutions. Oh, yes. Yes. Speaker 0: We're within the right item. 1783. Speaker 2: It has two resolutions within its, I don't think exactly. Councilmember de SAG. Speaker 1: No. Speaker 2: Sir. Spencer Knox. Right. I know the mayor as the Ashcraft I. That carries 4 to 1. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, everybody who was on the screen. But don't go anywhere because we're going to close this item and we are going to move on to item five I. And Madam Clerk, if you would, introduce that item for us, please. Speaker 2: That Senate resolution declaring intention to establish the city of Alameda facilities, district number 22 attached to Alameda Marina, shoreline improvements, maintenance and adaptive measures, and to authorize levy of special taxes there in adoption of resolution declaring intention to incur bonded indebtedness of the proposed city of the account for this District 20 2-2.

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Declaring Intention to Establish the City of Alameda Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina), and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein; and Adoption of Resolution Declaring Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the Proposed City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina). (Public Works 80700001)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03152022_2022-1784

Speaker 2: That Senate resolution declaring intention to establish the city of Alameda facilities, district number 22 attached to Alameda Marina, shoreline improvements, maintenance and adaptive measures, and to authorize levy of special taxes there in adoption of resolution declaring intention to incur bonded indebtedness of the proposed city of the account for this District 20 2-2. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And so, Mr. Byrd, Miss Smith, whomever who wants to give us an overview of this item. Speaker 1: So I'll start. And then we can certainly, certainly use other members of the team to fill in the blanks that that they feel are important. Again, thank you, mayor, vice mayor, members of council. This this is a follow on item to the first community facility district. This is really an opportunity to take a proactive approach to potential changes to the the sea of the seawall that's being constructed. So if there are issues with either new requirements or or maintenance that needs to be taken care of, and there are you know, there's an inability for the the responsible parties to take care of it or that there's just a significant amount of new additional or new investment that needs to be made. This is an opportunity for for a subsequent community facility district to kick in and create a special kind of a back up tax that would allow us to have reserve or funding in place to to make those improvements in the long term. So essentially, once the first community facility district that covers the original costs, those bonds are paid off. There'd be an assessment at that time and these bonds could then start. So that wouldn't be an overlap with the with the first district. This would be subsequent to. And it's just an opportunity for us to make sure that this important infrastructure is maintained over time and can be enhanced if necessary. So with that, I'll conclude my presentation. I don't know if Director Smith would like to add. I see a hand. Speaker 0: Yes, please. Speaker 1: With the mayor. Speaker 0: Absolutely. The public works effort with please. Speaker 2: The evening again. Madam Mayor Council. I'm Aaron Smith Public Works Director. Jerry, thanks for that overview and intro. I just wanted to highlight one key point of this second CFD and it's I think maybe one of a first of its kind that's really contemplating revenue needed for potential sea level rise adaptation measures. So the seawall is currently built to end of century height based on current projections. So if that falls short, literally and figuratively, the this CFD would allow revenue to be collected to construct the seawall and shoreline improvements to a higher level for additional protection. There are some other nuances to what we're calling the triggering event. So these two CFDs will never be assessed. At the same time, the the bonds, which was the previous item, would be paid off before the second CFD kicks in and then their specific triggering requirements, one being the adaptive measure. So I spoke of others being the one Jerry had. So I just wanted to kind of highlight the uniqueness of, of putting in place this CFD for adaptive measures. Speaker 0: And then thank you for the further explanation because I am very proud of the work that's been done. It's very proactive and forward thinking, and it's been almeida's approach with our climate action and resiliency plan that we have to take this stuff seriously. As you all know, we are an island, so that counts over her. Spencer Kim, we'll start with you because you pulled this item for discussion. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Mayor. And I. Speaker 0: Really appreciate staff's and. Speaker 2: The star crew's. Speaker 0: Assistance in trying to figure out what the ask really is. So it sounds like and I please forgive me I don't recall it was the former 120 years. So are we talking that this would kick in at the. Speaker 2: Earliest of 20. Speaker 0: Years or what is the timeline? So what did you miss with. Speaker 2: Its 30 years councilmember? 30 years to pay off the balance of the first CFD. Speaker 0: Okay. And with so that we're actually talking that we're being asked tonight to make a decision for an issue that may or may not arise in 2052 or sometimes they're about. Speaker 2: That's correct. Speaker 0: Is there a reason why this couldn't come back closer to the expiration. Speaker 2: Of the. Speaker 0: Former item so that we're not so that we actually are not making decisions for that far. Speaker 1: Out? Yeah. If if I could answer. Speaker 0: Mr. Gooden, please explain the rationale for this. Sure. Speaker 1: That there will be people who will be buying real property as part of this as part of this development. And so the idea is to inform those property owners from from day one. So the disclosure package will include this as a requirement. Trying to impose a tax after somebody is already there means we'd be dealing with a lot more property owners and likely less support to do something like this. And so this is an opportunity for us to set this as the, I'll say, pun intended, high watermark or the the goal for this particular project to be able to to sustain itself over time. Speaker 0: May I continue? And I'm just going to add, we're going to limit the number of puns. Just kidding. Go ahead. I think Mr. Bowden, assistant city manager, has more to add. Speaker 1: Mr.. Back to your. Speaker 0: Tim was bringing his own counsel. Sure. We always want to hear from the attorneys. Speaker 1: Mr. Jimmy Loggins wanted to mention that the master plan for this community specifies that we have this district. Also, the quote, trigger event is only if the property owner responsible for these measures does not implement them. So it really is a backstop. And I would emphasize also what Mr. Bowden said, that once the you have all the registered voters in there to get a two thirds vote for something like this is very difficult. That's why it's written into the master plan that it be put in upfront, even though it may not take effect, it may never take effect if the property owner responsible does what they are required to do under the master lease and the bccdc permit. So it's really a safeguard for the city to be sure that this flood control measure is adequately addressed well into the future. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Olson, attorney for all made of Merida. Was there anything you wanted to add, sir? Speaker 1: Charles Olson. I may have an marine. Yes, mayor and council members. Just you just add, as Mr. Tenet indicated, this this was built into the master plan from day one as a as a way to address this issue. And it is really very dependent on the future of sea level rise. The project is built to adapt the 42 inches of sea level rise. That should be good until the end of the century, but no one knows. And so it is consistent with the master plan approval from 2018. Speaker 0: Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Back to Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. So the prior item was specifically for the townhomes. But does this include townhomes, condos, anything else that could be approved between now and 2050 to automatically. Speaker 2: Hi, Sara. Mary's with NBC again. Yes. This if you refer to the boundary map that's attached to this item, you'll see that it does include additional area that was indicated to be future annexation area on the previous item. That area is included in the boundary of this CFD. So it does include the apartment property, the live work property, the nonresidential property, as well as the townhome project. Speaker 0: Okay. And my understanding was, though, that the prior item for the condos, it would have to come back to council for a vote. Whereas what I'm hearing now is that for this item, there would be no more. There would not be a future vote. Speaker 2: That's correct. Those projects are already in the boundary of the CFD. Speaker 0: And I really appreciate the explanation of because right now, how many people, how many. Speaker 2: Property owners are there. Speaker 0: That will be voting to approve. Speaker 1: This? Speaker 2: Is it to property owners? Speaker 0: Mr. Tim McGraw. Speaker 1: It's still three young girls. Also three is correct. Speaker 0: And who are those three? Speaker 1: I'll defer to Paul related to aluminum arena. And the third is the townhome developer. Speaker 0: Okay. And then in the future, for instance, in 2040, how many property owners would there be and who would they be? Speaker 2: They would be voting on the idea. Speaker 1: Nobody votes this. Once we put this in place, it's in place. The people who buy property, owner or rent or whatever, there will be disclosure that this CFD is in place, but there's no future vote and the number of people who may eventually reside here, it's really hard to predict. I mean, who would have thought some of the things world events are happening and financial markets are moving? So to predict the future 30 years out, a little tough. Speaker 0: That doesn't really answer my question, so I'm going to try again if possible. My understanding is we're being asked to approve something tonight because and someone did speak to this one of y'all that in the future has to get the two thirds of the property owners. And right now there are three is what that answer was. So in the future, whether it be ten, 20 or 30 years from now, I think we're probably talking because we already were told that there would be about. Speaker 2: 790 units or something. Speaker 0: Like that. We're talking hundreds, I think, but that's what I want to make sure, because that goes to, I think, why we're being asked to approve it tonight as opposed to the 30 years. And I'm going to, if you will, hold on for just a minute. Assistant city manager has his hand up and behind you, but the upper screen part of my screen. So, Mr. Bowden, you want to comment? Speaker 1: Sure. I think that in terms of the when the vote takes place to Councilmember Spencer's point, it is it is much more efficient to do this now and much more straightforward. The more property owners that come into the mix, if we don't take this action now consistent with the master plan, it gets harder to implement over time . And whether there's you know, whether there's 50 or 100 or 500 property owners in this area today is today is certainly the the most straightforward time for the city to take this kind of this kind of belt Dalton suspenders approach to making sure that that seawall is properly maintained into the future. If if we do wait it if we waited ten years from now, the the likelihood of being able to get that two thirds vote necessary for this kind of for the for this kind of a financing mechanism is a lot less likely. And so I think Mr. Tim makes a point about it's hard to predict the number of property owners is true. I think what we're trying to do here this evening is is move forward with a master plan contemplated financing mechanism at a time when we have three property owners who are willing to support this effort, understanding that it helps protect their their investment, but also ensures that future property owners in the area are also going to be protected as well as other neighborhoods in the city of Alameda. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Brady. And now we'll go back to Mr. Tim. Speaker 1: Just a very quick technical point. The city's municipal code provides that if there's less than 12 registered voters residing within the boundaries of the proposed district, the vote is by property owners with one vote for each acre or a portion of an acre. So as long as we don't have 12 registered voters under your municipal code, the vote is by property owners on the statutes designed for exactly what we're doing here to put mechanisms in place and then obviously inform property owners that they're there. And you've done cities, a number of other ones that have put in place similar measures. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to Councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. And I just want to clarify also that. So the three owners right now are all the developers. They're similar. It's different from a person going out and buying a house and becoming that owner. But in regards to the amount of money anticipated that what this would be, because we saw that the for the next 30 years, the prior vote that I did support would add an additional the CFD was, I believe, 5500 up to like 9000 per year for the 30 years. What is the dollar? And there was no tax bill attached to this as an example. So do we have any idea what we are committing to in the future of what the cost would be to the people then that are, you know, the hundreds of people then that are owning. Speaker 2: The properties on an. Speaker 0: Annual basis. This mayors, I wonder, is that where you'd like to to address? Speaker 2: Yes, please. Thank you. So anything you know, to puzzle your point about not being able to predict the future, it's very difficult right now to predict what the values of those homes would be in 30, 40 years from now. And the effective tax rate is based on the value of the home. So for that reason, it is difficult to predict what those might be. However, the CFD is established, this particular CFD for the trust to is established at rates that start lower than the rates that you saw for CFD 20 2-1 for the facilities. So they are starting at lower rates in fiscal year 2223 and the special tax rates are going to increase by 2% on an annual basis. So when property owners are paying into CFD 20 2-1 for those facilities, they will have a special tax as shown in that rate method of apportionment and those rates increase by 2% a year. When we get to the point, if we get to the point that CFD 20 2-2 kicks in, they will be paying less than they were paying before when the bonds for the first CFD were outstanding. So. By that measure, I think that we're we're looking at a lower effective tax rate eventually, if this CFD were to kick in because the base rates are lower than they are for the facilities, CFD and they both increase at the same percentage rate on an annual basis. Speaker 0: Thank you, sir. Harry Spencer. Any further? Thank you. Yes, but those numbers could change. Even though you're saying that that's currently what you're anticipating in the future, if, in fact, the cost of maintaining the sea wall or not is there not somehow it's open so that whatever the costs are would then be passed down to the homeowners Speaker 2: ? No, it's not. Open in the dollar amount that is established in the written method of apportionment is a maximum special tax, and the most that it can increase by on an annual basis is 2%. Speaker 0: And that applies to the one that we're talking about this 22 days to. Speaker 2: It applies to both of the CFD is actually. Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. And what is the start, the starting rate then in 2052? Speaker 2: Uh, 1/2. I have to look that up. Speaker 0: I will just add that it's pretty exciting to see this project take shape and I really like the cycle track that runs along Clements in front of it and and I appreciate the weekly updates I get on the construction and. I'm very excited to see this taking shape. And I'm happy to continue. Yeah. Well. Ms. Mares is, is then scrolling through your data, but just shout it whenever you're ready. Did any other council members want to comment? That's why that's your immediate. Speaker 3: I guess, asking a quick question. My understanding is tonight we are just setting in motion a process that does not commit us to actually all it does is set a set in motion on a process that sets up the election that we can certify later. But we could actually decide at that time not to call the election ahead of that. Is that correct? Speaker 1: It is. Speaker 0: Mr. Burton. Speaker 1: I was going to say that is correct. This is this is just the initial step, and there would have to be an election. The challenge is that this is a financing mechanism that was contemplated in the in the master plan. And so I'll stop there. I think that you all know where I'm going next. Speaker 0: So we go to the lawyers. Yes. Speaker 3: I understand. So I guess my my my comment and maybe request is, since we have at least three weeks before that's back before, you know, I personally I appreciated the opportunity to meet with everybody on the screen and ask my questions. So that's why I don't have any questions there. I'm wondering if maybe we could move forward with a vote and if there are further deep dove questions that can be answered. And we have three weeks until the next meeting and we have the opportunity not to move forward at that point in time if if the questions are unsatisfactory. Speaker 0: And thank you for bringing that up. And because I also want to thank all of you on the screen who met with me. I'm sure you spent a solid hour going over these details. And I did ask lots of questions. I think I would like to see this continue to move forward. And I wonder if there is a way and we certainly want council members questions to be answered, but I wonder if there's a way to do some of that off line council day. So I see your hand up. Speaker 1: Thank you. You know, I think we all here in Alameda know that our city, unlike any other city in the Bay Area, let alone California, is affected by sea level rise. And it's really simple. We either rise to the challenge of sea level rise or we sink. I think what's before us is quite innovative. While I certainly have my qualms with regard to the amount of affordable housing. I think that the financing mechanism contemplated for the future and there will be an increase in sea level rise. So that's without a doubt and I think it was just about ten days ago, I think the federal government issued a new saying that they're eight inches off. So if you're saying 42 inches a sea level rise at end of century, well, it's now 50. So so I think the mechanism that's before us, I think, really warrants any of us to step up and say, you know, we've got to support this. I might have my qualms with the housing project, but I think that's what what this is. Financing is important for all of Alameda and hopefully other projects along the waterfront do something is similar. Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments. Councilmember Desai and I agree completely with you. And also, as was noted, it doesn't just affect this development, it would affect other properties in the vicinity. So we're protecting a lot of folks and properties and council redesign that have been in motion. Speaker 1: Should be happening. I would be happy to move. Staff recommendation. Speaker 0: Okay. And Councilor, we're not a second. Okay. We have a motion in a second. And Ms.. Mayors, you have your hand up. And I know you were doing some research, so please go ahead. Councilmember That's what you did. Speaker 3: My and I just want with the direction that that staff connect with Councilmember Spencer to get her get any further questions that she has answered before the next meeting. Speaker 0: Thank you for that. And Ms.. Mayors, let's go back to you. Speaker 2: Thank you. I just I have that data that was requested. And so I'm just looking at one of the property types rather than going down the entire list. But just taking a look at the townhome property that is less than 1680 square feet. So that's just kind of the base unit that we're looking at in the CFD 20 2-1. That property in 2223 has a rate of $5,498 escalated to 2050 354. That special tax rate ends up being $9,958.87. And then we move over to the CFD 20 2-2, which is the maintenance CFD or the adaptive measure CFD. And that starts out with a with a special tax rate of $2,289 in 2223. And in the same time period that 2050 354, that rate would be 4000 147. So again, just comparing that to what they would have been paying in the other CFD, it would have been almost $10,000. Speaker 0: Thank you. Yes, Councilman Harry Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. And is this one also 30 years. Speaker 1: Or so ago through. Speaker 2: Is the the CFD is actually levied in perpetuity. It does not have a 30 year term. It doesn't. There is no expiration on this. It's as needed to fund the special tax requirement. Speaker 0: So if anyone wanted to end it, then what would they need to do? Speaker 2: If a citizen at the years down the road wanted to end the special tax, they could petition the city to end the special tax. Speaker 0: But then is the majority of council. Then that would determine in the future in perpetuity at some point whether or not they wanted to end the tax. Speaker 2: Sorry. Could you say that again? Speaker 0: So then it's the council. The majority of council in perpetuity. It doesn't. The the voters, the homeowners could not put something on the ballot. They have to try to convince three council members. Mr. TIMBERG, you're nodding your head as you want to say something. Speaker 1: That is correct. That is correct. They can petition the council to terminate the CFD, but they don't have the right to just bring it to a vote. This is under your ordinance that governs this type of district. Speaker 0: So I just want clarification in perpetuity. And at some point council. Speaker 2: Could also increase. Speaker 0: The amount or not. Speaker 1: No, they cannot increase it without a vote. But to terminate it would require a council vote at any time. Three council members could terminate that CFD. The reason why it's in perpetuity is because the maintenance of the wall is not going to stop in any given year. Again, this is a fallback in case the property owner isn't doing the maintenance. This tax may never get levied, but if it if we need it and the property owners are not maintaining the seawall and there is an adequate protection, this CFP can continue to levy what is required each year up to the tax rates to maintain the flood protection. Speaker 0: And you I believe Erin Smith had her hand up. What did you want to add, Ms.. Smith? Speaker 2: Just to follow on, I think Paul was touching on it there. Each year it's determined whether that maximum assessment amount needs to even be levied. So it could be levied and then determined no longer needed. But the amount levied is only that which is needed for the maintenance and or adaptive measures. Speaker 0: Hey. Thank you so much. We have a motion and we have a second and it's almost 9:00 and we're still on consent calendar. So how quick would you call the roll, please, for this vote? Speaker 2: Councilmember de Shag. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 2: For Spencer. No. Speaker 1: Actually, I Vela. Speaker 2: I Mayor. Speaker 0: As Ashcraft, I. Speaker 2: That carries 4 to 1. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you so much to our staff and to our outside experts, all of you working on this. We appreciate and I'm always fascinated to talk to you about this project. And I really do commend you for the forward thinking approach to an existential reality that we all face here in Alameda. So I think you're leading the way that other cities will follow. So thank you so much for your time. All right, counsel, I do believe we've come to the end of the consent calendar. Yay! So then we move on to our continued agenda items. And, Madam Clerk, if you would, please. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Speaker 3: That's okay. I just. Given that it's given. It's 9:00, we're just about to start the things we didn't get to last meeting. Before we get to the regular agenda, I'm wondering, I know there's interest in seven C in the city. Staff for seven C and seven D are the same. I'm wondering if we might move 7e2 to the continued items as well that our planning, land use and transportation folks who needed to be here for this last item, one of the last items, you don't have to sit around and wait till 11:00 to find out. We're not going to get there. I, I, I'm not I don't think I'm pessimistic here. Speaker 0: No, I think you're great. And I think let's do a quick vote so we don't get too much further. So I think. Speaker 3: I move that we move item seven E to the continued items at our next meeting. Speaker 0: And just thank you, Vice Mayor, just for the sake of clarity, madam, quickly you tell us what that item is. Speaker 2: Seven E Yes, seven E is the Alameda Loop shuttle basically item. Speaker 0: Thank you. So just before we vote, anybody who's in the audience waiting to hear that one or the transportation plan which we already had moved to the next item. When we come back before you on April 5th, I believe it is, those two items will be up at the top. It will I should not count chickens before they hatch. Let's take a vote and then I'll tell you whether those items will end up at the top of the next agenda. Councilmember Jane, a quick comment. Speaker 1: Quick comment is, you know, we have a process in place for removing items. And and I think we should stick to that process. I believe we remove items at a certain point. Speaker 0: So thank you for your comments. We have a motion. We have a second way. We have a roll call vote. Speaker 2: Please remember they said no. Her Harris Spencer. Speaker 1: I. Knox Phi Phi Phi Alpha. Speaker 2: I may as the Ashcroft lie. That motion carries four, two, one. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. So now we go back to the the regular agenda. And now, Kirk, if you would, please introduce our first item. Speaker 2: Six days introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager or designee to execute a First Amendment to the lease with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc, a California corporation for approximately 700 square feet of retail space in historic Alameda Theater, located at 2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122, to provide six months of rent deferral with a three year repayment period

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Declaring Intention to Establish the City of Alameda Communities Facilities District (CFD) No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements Maintenance and Adaptive Measures), and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein; and Adoption of Resolution Declaring Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the Proposed City of Alameda Community Facilities District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements Maintenance and Adaptive Measures). (Public Works 80700001)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03152022_2022-1749

Speaker 2: 60 is adoption of resolution amending the fiscal year 2122 budget and adoption of resolution amending the City of Alameda City Employees Association salary schedule to add a classification of streetlight maintenance technician and amending the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers salary schedule to remove the streetlight technician. Upgrading to maintenance work positions to streetlight technicians. Effective March 12, 2022. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then are do we have all the staff we need on screen? Speaker 2: We're promoting. Jennifer, tell who's going to be giving the presentation. Speaker 0: Okay, good. Speaker 1: And Madam Mayor, if I could. Speaker 0: Say as a city manager. Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah. So I'll just very briefly introduce I think Ross McCarthy may also get promoted into the into the screen. And so just so you know who those two folks are. Ross McCarthy is our new relative, still relatively new city controller in the finance department. And so welcome to Ross and then Jennifer tell you all know as our budget manager and Jennifer will be doing the presentation this evening. So over to you, Jennifer. Speaker 0: You know, Jennifer Taylor, she has a whiteboard. Speaker 2: Not today, I hope. Hopefully won't need it tonight. Speaker 0: And welcome, Mr. McCarthy. All right. And, Mischelle, the floor is yours. Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor and council members. Jennifer, tell budget manager in the finance department. I will be discussing the mid-year budget update for fiscal year 2021 to 22. Madam Clerk, are the slides available? They're getting them up now. Okay. Next slide, please. And one more slide. Thank you. First, an overview of the topics we'll cover tonight. We will provide an update on current year revenue projections. Go over the mid-year budget requests from departments and review the proposed pension and other post-employment benefit payment per city policy. Following this presentation, the city manager and department heads are available to answer questions. Next slide, please. Staff are projecting a net increase in general fund revenues of approximately $6.3 million. This includes increases to property tax and property transfer tax due to change of ownership at higher assessed value. We are also seeing that transient occupancy tax or hotel tax is recovering from the pandemic downturn and the transaction and use tax that went into effect in 2019 is to continuing to perform strongly based on online transactions and large construction projects within the city. The AMP transfer to the General Fund was under budgeted, so this is a technical correction and recon park is experiencing increased class enrollment following reduced activity during the pandemic. Next slide. We are projecting a net increase in non general fund revenues of approximately $936,000. These changes include increased reimbursement or in residual payments from HUD for the home and CDBG programs. Grants from the Office of Traffic Safety and the Alameda County Transportation Commission. Private funds from the Sweeny Park Foundation. And Blue Rise Ventures. Under budgeted developer contributions from Catullus for Alameda Landing. And an update to the levy for the recently established Alameda Point Community Facilities District. Next slide, please. Now we will discuss the mid-year expenditure adjustments requested by staff. Next slide. The city manager's office is requesting $50,000 from the General Fund for developing a strategic communications plan. Next slide. The Community Development Department is seeking to appropriate the additional HUD and residual payments funding for the home program to increase the under budget professional services accounts in the Fleet Industrial Service Center or FISC Fund. And to carry forward the previously unspent budget for transportation demand management and Alameda Point staff is also seeking to increase the part time pay budget for in-house legal counsel in lieu of using contracted legal services for Alameda Point. Next slide, please. The fire department is seeking additional one time appropriations from the General Fund for engaging a consultant to conduct a community risk analysis or standards of coverage. Analysis of staffing and deployment. A local march of about $55,000 for an assistance to firefighters grant for procuring portable radios to comply with fire industry standards. And replacing the self-contained breathing apparatus, air compressor and fire station to next slide, please. The Information Technology Department is seeking appropriation of $60,000 from the fund balance of its internal service fund for enhancing the city's tools for cybersecurity and forensic monitoring. Next slide. The Planning, Building and Transportation Department proposes to reallocate 25% of the personnel charges for four code enforcement staff from the Planning and Building Special Revenue Fund to the General Fund in order for staff to dedicate a portion of their time to enforcing non building ordinance ordinances. The staffing costs to the general fund through the remainder of the fiscal year would be approximately $45,000 or approximately $135,000 annually. Speaker 1: Next slide. Speaker 2: The Police Department's fleet maintenance cost allocation was under budgeted, so the increase was about $37,000 is a technical correction. The department is also seeking to appropriate the Office of Traffic Safety grant funds discussed earlier. Speaker 1: Next slide. Speaker 2: Public Works is seeking one time general fund appropriations for improvements at the fast run animal shelter, barn conversions at City Hall and City Hall West, a citywide facilities security upgrade project and acquisition of a sweeper for protected bike lanes, the Alameda Landing, Alameda Point and Marina Cove community facilities districts would also contribute a portion of the cost of the new bike lane sweeper. Public Works is also seeking to upgrade to maintenance worker. Two positions, two streetlight technicians. Speaker 1: Next line. Speaker 2: Do you little landfill maintenance was under budgeted in the SA solid waste surcharge fund. So this increase is a technical correction. Staff are seeking one time appropriation of integrated waste funds for engaging a consultant for a zero waste implementation update as well as carry forward of unspent bottling can funds from prior years. Staff is requesting a budget increase in the parking and facility maintenance funds for emergency repairs to the Civic Center garage conveyance and a technical correction for the transfer from the Bayport Fund to the General Fund. Next line. Staff requests a one time increase for seaplane lagoon ferry terminal roof maintenance. A one time allocation from the Bay Farm Island Dike Assessment District for Northern Shoreline Repairs and an allocation to the Cross Alameda Trail Connector Capital Project from County Grant Private Funds and measures BMB Bike Pedestrian Moneys. Finally, technical corrections are needed for the sewer payment in lieu of taxes and an arbitrage rebate report for the 2012 sewer revenue bond. Next slide, please. The Recreation and Parks Department is seeking a one time general fund support for emergency repairs to the stalled storm damaged internal boat launch, Shoreline Park, asphalt repairs, smart irrigation clocks for conserving water and emergency repairs to the Lincoln Park fence. As discussed earlier, master class activity is returning to pre-pandemic levels, so additional budget is requested for the increased class activity. The department is also proposing to reallocate 50% of the personal charges for park maintenance for person 44 person from Marina Village to the General Fund to increase Alameda Family Services, Case Management Services at Mastec and to appropriate private funds from the Sweeny Park Foundation for a Monarch Butterfly Garden. Next slide. Non-Departmental adjustments include clean up of city debt service transfers with the net savings to the general fund due to shifting the police building debt service payment from the General Fund to the Construction Impact Fee Fund. There are increased costs associated with a new letter of credit for the 2003 Alameda Point Revenue Bonds and PA's administration of the OPEB or other post-employment benefits trust fund vacation pay off from employee retirements and resignations was also under budgeted in the OPEB internal service fund. Next slide. Per the city's pension and OPEB funding policy, the city commits half of the general fund surplus from the end of the prior fiscal year, assuming the 25% operating reserve target has been met in order to accelerate paydown of unfunded pension and OPEB obligations. As of June 2021, this amount is approximately $9.2 million. By policy, 75% of the sample or $6.9 million would be paid to CalPERS, and 25% or $2.3 million would be contributed to a Section 115 Trust for Future Payment of pension expenses. The city manager recommends reviewing this budget item further with City Council as part of the mid-cycle or budget year two work session in May. Next slide. In total staff recommend increasing revenue expectations citywide by approximately $7.2 million and increasing expenditure budgets by $4.6 million. With the proposed pension OPEB payment of $9.2 million. Citywide expenditure budgets would increase by a total of $13.8 billion this fiscal year. I will now turn it back to assistant city manager Bohdan. Speaker 1: Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Estelle. Mayor Council and really concludes our presentation this evening. We're open to any questions that you may have and as as budget manager tell mentioned, we, we have department directors available to answer questions about the requests as well. And obviously all of us on the screen can jump in to. Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you very much. Nice presentation, Estelle. And I'm sure the ABC if you contributed to it. So before we go to any public comment, do we have public comment that I'm quick? Speaker 1: We do not. Speaker 0: Well, then we'll close public comment on this item at this time. And Councilmember. And that's when I see your hand. Speaker 3: Thank you. I just a quick question that popped up during during the presentation, the across Alameda Trail Connector project. What is that? So I realized I didn't catch that when I asked you when we met earlier today. Just short answer. Speaker 0: It's just I think I see the assistant city manager and meeting. So I'm assuming he wants to take that one. Is that. Speaker 1: Correct? I actually don't. I. I was going to look into the backup that we have for this doctor for these items. So give me one moment. And Mr. Howell may be doing the exact same thing. So we'll get the we'll get you the answer. Speaker 0: Hold that hold that thought. And anybody else have a comment or question while we're waiting to hear about the cross our media trail item. Speaker 2: I'm afraid I don't have further detail on that project, but I'm hoping that perhaps someone from Public Works might be able to elaborate. Speaker 0: Is watching and can. Well, we'll bring you onscreen. So would that be like it? That Public Works director Aaron Smith has rejoined us. Welcome back. Can you can you enlighten us about this item in the budget? Speaker 2: Yes, sir. I'm I'm also just double checking with our city engineer. This is the connection at ninth and one street. That makes that section whole in there. So grant dollars. I'm sorry I'm live time getting some additional information from our city engineer, so bear with me. So it is the connection at Nathan Wood to connect to Sweeney Park. Speaker 0: And is that just for the public's clarity and mine? Is that read those two nice mosaic columns. Ah, is that ninth hills where. That's what you know that you. Speaker 3: Don't think so. I think further up. I remember correctly. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. Speaker 0: Nice and good. Okay. Speaker 2: I'm getting actually. Amy, are you sure? Speaker 0: You're welcome to jump able. Speaker 2: To help and. Speaker 3: So. Speaker 2: Happy for me. Speaker 0: Maybe I'll get right back to you. Also Redux, as. Speaker 3: You say, while we're. We're waiting for Amy to log it, I'd be happy to make a motion to approve the budget as recommended. Sorry, I didn't mean to get. I was really hoping this was like I. Speaker 0: I was thinking. I was thinking that I would just convene a full staff. Yeah, because we've got 50% right on screen. Hi, this Walter. It's welcome. Speaker 1: Hello, Mayor. I can provide a quick answer. Speaker 2: So we received a grant from Ictsi and it's for for connection points from the cross Alameda Trail through Sweeney to to the south to the neighborhoods at eighth and Wood. And the 1 to 8 is the lovely mosaic columns. And then two on the north, one that connects toward triumph, the one that connects toward Challenger. Thanks, Amy. Speaker 1: I'll just round it out because I finally found what I was looking for. There's other money coming from private and from private sources as well for this for this project. So it's a team effort. Speaker 0: Yeah. And those are really important connections to and that that project just gets better and better. But I will look forward to not being down that path on my bike. But it is, it's I mean, it's good now, but it's going to be great. Okay. I'm sorry. Not sorry. You made a motion, did you? Speaker 3: I did, yes. I moved. I moved approval. The budget as recommended. Speaker 0: Okay, I. Speaker 1: Do. It is right. Speaker 0: To have a second. Then hold the discussion. Here is second. Okay. And then let's open the floor for discussion. Council member Harriet Spencer. Thank you, Mary. So the item has to resolutions a mid-year budget and a mid-year workforce change. And first of all, I want clarification that the motion has actually to approve the two proposed resolutions. Promoted. Speaker 1: If it is. Speaker 0: That's your intent. And secondly of the motion, you would concur. You're nodding yes. Yes. All right, then. I'm trying to figure out which one of these motions, and I don't. Maybe it's the first one. Includes the. Speaker 2: Movement of the 9. Speaker 0: Million to pay down the. OPEB unfunded pension liabilities. Or is it not included in either of these because it's going to come back later. Assistant city manager. Speaker 1: But it is included in the. It's included in the first resolution and it's part of the non department pension OPEB discretionary advance pay down. And, and the idea is that we would we would take care of that the policy itself would be something that we would come back to with the, the mid-cycle discussion and the budget workshops Speaker 0: . Which are already scheduled in May. Is that correct, Mr. BURBANK. Speaker 1: We were talking about this today. I'm not sure that we have the dates yet, but we are scheduled. We are we are planning for budget workshops in May. Okay. Speaker 0: Well, we won't announce them then at this moment. Go ahead. Bet. You bet. I bet you can. Over here, Spencer. Thank. Thank you. So, assistant city manager. So what language is the language that speaks to the 9,000,000th to pay down the unfunded pension liabilities? Speaker 1: There's a there's an exhibit attached to the resolution, which includes which includes a non-departmental item towards the bottom of the table on page one of two. It shows the $9.2 million payment. Speaker 0: Okay. So there's this. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: So I do want to make a comment because when you read the resolution itself, it doesn't speak to the $9 million items specifically. And that is, in fact, the most expensive, I believe, item we're being asked to approve. And there is other language that describes other things that are being included or whatnot. But I think that that's a significant ask and I and I would like it to be more specific in the future. I have also asked what is the current amount. Speaker 2: Of reserves. Speaker 0: If before this 9 million and after this 9 million, and how much has been paid today. Speaker 2: From the reserves to. Speaker 0: Pay down the unfunded pension. Speaker 2: Liabilities. Speaker 1: Under this policy? So maybe I'll try and I'll try and answer the question generally. And then I think budget manager tell has a, has a table that's been put together that summarizes the, the set asides that have been made and payments towards our pension and OPEB obligations based on the policy since it was adopted six or seven years ago. But really, the way the policy, the intent. Speaker 0: Of Mr. Burton before you continue. Sorry for the interruption, but we'll. Mr.. Will be able to actually share that table because I don't believe it was in the staff report as the pay down amounts. It is not in. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Please continue. Speaker 1: Though. So I will say that the the intent of the policy is to to be able to set aside funds when there's when there's a surplus of revenue that comes in. So above the set amount, the surplus is set aside and then put towards pension and OPEB. So the the intent behind the policy was to take it in the, in the good years when the Reserve has been met for the General Fund, but it was identified by council that additional money would be, would be allocated towards the the ever growing pension and OPEB obligations that the city is facing. And so that that is that is how the $9 million was derived. Times the funds that were part of the budget process because of COVID and for a variety of reasons that budget manager tell mentioned when she opened up the presentation. Revenues came in strong. Expenses were also kept under, kept, contained. And so there was a significant surplus this past this past year. And so we are in a position to be able to follow the city policy as it exists today and set aside the $9 million towards that pension obligation. And and I hope that answers the question. I'll turn it over to budget manager tell to to show the table because I think it's easier to describe it in that way. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm sorry. That's the first part of the question. Yeah. And we'll get the the data that you asked for and then it probably maybe will show up in the tables. You're going to show us. But didn't we suspend payment to this this fund during the during the pandemic, I thought. Mr. Levitt. Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 0: You were not. I think because there was so much uncertainty right in the beginning, we didn't know what our finances were going to look like. Mr. LEVITT. Speaker 1: Yes. No, we were very we were conservative in many of our estimates. As as as you well point out, in May and June, when the budget was passed in 2020, No. One and that this budget was passed in May, June 2020 or the previous one was. And at that time, no one knew quite what we were facing moving forward. And so we were we were very concerned at that time. That was right during the start of the lockdowns and across the state. And so we weren't sure how long ago and what the impacts would be to multiple businesses. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. Okay, Mischelle, on to you. Speaker 2: I will share my screen to show hopefully this document so that this first table, hopefully is visible, shows the payments that have been made since the policy was adopted in 2017. So as we just discussed, fiscal year 20 1920 is when we opted not to make that that discretionary payment. So the amount was lower then. And in this last year, as part of the mid-year process, we contribute about $10 million. So comparable amount to the 9.2 proposed. Now as a result, so year excuse me, not year to date, but since inception of the policy the city has paid to CalPERS or contributed to pension OPEB trust funds $37.5 million. And I believe was there also question about the sort of the alternative scenario, had we not been the status of reserves, had we not been making the payment? Speaker 0: Spencer I was looking at. Thank you, Mayor. I'm actually looking at the shared screen right now so I can see people. But my other question goes to what has happened to the reserves during this time? Speaker 2: Where where were we? Yes. So we so with Comptroller McCarthy today, we put together this table showing and apologies. There's a lot of a lot of numbers here. But this this has been our actual general fund, year end fund balance for each of these fiscal years since 2017. And column E shows where we would have been had we not made any pension or OPEB contributions during that time. And so it's it's effectively adding together what would have happened had we not made the contribution with our net annual activity, which is our sort of finance way of saying revenues, less expenditures, and then getting to that that ending fund balance for the general fund. Speaker 0: May I continue? Yes. And just a clarifying question. Does this include finance charges we pay on outstanding debt? Or does that even apply? Speaker 1: Well, if it's an obligation that is part of the general fund, it would. But if it's another funding source, then it may not be captured in this table. Yes. Speaker 0: Continue and please continue from her center. Thank you, Mary. So is the current. The the reserves. Because there's not on these reports that we received. There's not a line item. Speaker 2: That says reserves. Speaker 0: And when I'm looking at this, I still don't see an item entitled reserves. So is the reserves. This actual general fund ending balance? Fund balance. Are you calling out the reserves or what are the what is the amount of the reserves? Speaker 1: Yes, that's the reserves. So. Yeah. Speaker 0: Go ahead, Mr. Bowden. Either way. Speaker 2: Yeah, I might actually defer to Comptroller McCarthy. This is more of an accounting question than a budget question. You're kidding me. Speaker 1: Excuse me. Yes, you're correct, Councilmember Spencer. Ah. Ah. Accounting terminology for fund ending balance is reserves. I guess opposite the reserves equals the funding balance. Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And if the city had spent more during COVID. Then we would have less money spent more on the community during COVID. Then we would not have as much money available now left in reserves or available to sweep from reserves to pay down the pension fund. The pension. Speaker 1: Yeah, correct. I think that the the pension the pension set aside or the funding policy that was created with regard to pensions is really it's a balancing act. The idea is that we're still maintaining a flow of of revenue for ongoing organizational and community needs, while at the same time acknowledging that long term pension and OPEB obligation that the city has. And so we're just really trying to make sure that we're putting resources towards both of those competing interests in the in the near term and with the long term perspective. Speaker 0: And can we go back to the slide that shows the pension contributions in the past for it was. Speaker 2: Four years or something? Speaker 0: Five years. So this proposed 9.2 is actually would be the second highest contribution and ironically is occurring during COVID, which suggests to me that we actually, as a city should have been spending more money on people and their needs. And we have many people who are hurting right now as we in fact, we heard from a tenant earlier who were deferring rent on. So I have concerns that we're thinking that during COVID we are having. The quote was In the good years and this isn't it. I don't know how we as a city can be saying we're having good year and acquiring all this excess money instead of spending it on the community. Thank you. Thank you. You know, I think that I am look forward to discussing the this policy and whether we need to revisit it and maybe make some modifications when we implemented it back in, I guess, 2016, 2017. The I mean, we still do have the issue of our unfunded pension liabilities with 2020 hindsight, but I'd like to see a little more steady go into it. The formula might be a good one, but perhaps we should cap the amount that we will put toward this in any given year. But that's, you know, again, subject to discussion in our May budget workshops. The other thing I would say is every time I talk about this policy is we want to make sure that we're. We're not stringing beads without a knot at the end. So we have to make sure that we're doing something to. Get a handle on our pension and our OPEB costs and, you know, find some constructive ways of doing that. I know I have not had a chance to follow up, but I sent to city staff some relevant city staff materials for. It's either tonight, maybe it's tonight's Hayward City Council meeting. Unless they met last night. Where? Or maybe there's a special finance committee meeting where they're looking at how they can address this very topic so we can learn from others. This proposal came from a presentation to the League of California Cities that many years ago. But, you know, I think it's probably good too to look at some other approaches OC other council members council data. Speaker 1: Well, thank you. You know, this isn't the first time I have, along with other council members, expressed deep concerns about the formula that was arrived at in I believe, in March 2017 or sometime in 2017, because my concern really comes down to this. So what we're seeing over the four or five year period in which the formula has been put in place, we're seeing a cumulative 37 million, $37 million to buy down our pension obligations, as well as our outstanding OPEB unfunded obligations. And let me make sure to be clear, clearly, we have to pay down those obligations because we have $356 million in unfunded. That's unfunded. We don't know which we know we're going to have to pay this much, but we don't know where the money is coming from. We have $356 million in unfunded liabilities towards. OPEB and and CalPERS of the 2.356 million 277 is CalPERS. So clearly we have to figure out a way to buy down pay down that unfunded liability. But I as I said one year ago, the formula that's in place I don't think is the right formula, largely because. For two reasons. One is, any time that you're going to desert, you're going to spend thousands. A magnitude order of magnitude amount of dollars, like $37 million on something. I think clearly the people of Alameda need to be involved in it. There have been many things for which the vote the people have voted on that was much less than than $37 million because at the end of the day, the people need to under make it be involved in making a choice. Where do we want this $37 million to be spent? Or the other question is maybe it's not $37 million, but maybe it's $20 million, but whatever. So it's really that formula that has kind of driven this kind of. Incredible amount of spending without, in my opinion, the proper involvement of the residents. And on top of that, $37 million, now we're budgeting $9 million. So. So the so that's my my first concern. It's it's one of public involvement in transparency. Speaker 2: I think the second. Speaker 1: Concern is saying, oh. Speaker 0: Sorry to hear that again. Speaker 1: The second concern that I have about this reserve is that you have to understand that especially in the past two fiscal years, as demonstrated in our comprehensive annual financial report. TAFFER So this is an audited budgeted statement. So last year we had budgeted a certain amount of spending. That's we budgeted at the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2021. But we actually came in the actual spending came in under that by $13 million. And it came in under that for obvious reasons. You know, there was COVID. But in the previous year it was also similar on the on the similar order where we had budgeted a certain amount of dollars. But the actual that that we actually we spent for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2020 also was roughly around $13 million. The issue is, is that when we're actually underspending that which we originally budget. What's happened is that the savings, if you will, guts put programed into the reserve. And so what happens is that we're kind of overexpressing the reserve and by overexpressing the reserve, we're also therefore because of the formula where resulting in this amount of dollars that that it just. In my opinion, it's just wacky. So. You know, I expressed the same concerns last year and I think two years ago as well. So I think for tonight, I mean, I think for now, I'm just going to have to vote no because we really have to fix this. Now, let me end on saying this. I'm not saying don't spend I'm not saying spend $0 of your reserve towards paying down that. $356 million in unfunded liability. I'm not saying $0, but by the same token, I think $37 million is just out. You know, it's just that order of magnitude is just. Wait, wait, wait out there. And and I'm also saying that I think the residents need to be involved. I think the residents will be supportive of us having some kind of formula. Don't get me wrong, I think they would actually be supportive, but I think they also want to know that the formula is reasonable. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our city manager, Eric Levitt, has patiently had his hand up. So I'm going to go to him next. Mr. Levitt. Speaker 1: Mayor, mayor and city council. First of all, I want to say a lot of good points have been made regarding the pension in relation to the mid-year budget. I totally understand and appreciate those those statements. I think the Council was proactive in trying to set up a policy and set a policy. We're seeing some of the differences that that creates for you and what we've done in the past two years. And I just want to make sure everyone's aware of what I'm recommending for this mid-year is the same as what we did the previous two years, is that you put it as set aside, but it would not be going to the pension, to the pension, to the pension obligations until you get to your budget workshops in a in a couple months. And the reason I say that is because we put it in because that's the policy that's in place. But I also understand there's a lot of things that are also priorities that you're trying to deal with currently. And so I'm just saying set aside, but you could use it, you could decrease it. So for instance, two years ago we did the same strategy and then COVID hit between the mid-year and the annual budget. And at that time, the council did not move any money towards the pensions because obviously we were trying to deal with an emergency that was was coming at us very strong. And then last year, we had, as it was pointed out, a big amount that was going to pensions, but the council decided to reduce it somewhat, still quite significant dollars towards the pension obligation. But to reduce it, I'm recommending you do the same strategy where we have the 9 million at this point the mid-year, but that before you passed the final budget that you may want to adjust that amount because this 9 million represents the policy. But as a council, I think you should be reviewing that policy annually. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Levitt. And elsewhere, we're next with your hand up, please. Speaker 3: Thank you. But I guess I have a few questions in December. I think it was December. We passed the Vision Zero Action Plan and a part of that. As part of that, there was a direction from the council to start putting $2 million a year towards additional new safety projects. And I don't see that in this in this is staff deciding that that's a that's a year or two of the budget item. The. I guess it didn't. Sorry. It just didn't dawn on me until halfway through the presentation. Speaker 0: I know. Thank you for that. And and also, we we did answer your question about the cross-sell immediate area where those expenditures were. And so. Mr.. Mr. Bowden, I don't think this is one for Mr. McCarthy. Do you do what can you tell us about visions, your expenditures? Speaker 1: Well, I'll I'll jump in. We do not have the $2 million set aside budgeted currently, but that does not mean that in the budget workshop for a year or two of our our annual budget process, that we we can't have that in place for you. And just just to maybe step back a little bit, the the the mid-year budget is is really an opportunity in most cases when we don't see the kinds of surpluses that we're seeing to do technical fixes, clean ups, and just make sure we're in good shape. And the mid-cycle budget is really our opportunity to kind of bring some policy discussions back into the mix, which is why we were talking about the pension policy, and we'll certainly talk about hopefully some city council priorities that come up. So apologies for not having the $2 million as the $2 million transportation related item in the in the list this evening. But we certainly can for the next full year budget discussion, which would be the budget workshops in May and hopefully adoption in June for for the next fiscal year. Speaker 0: That's very nice. Speaker 3: From my comment will be I think we spoke pretty clear clearly and pretty loudly that what we were doing in December was taking fast and decisive action. And I appreciate that. You know, there may be some reasons why I feel like we actually we gave direction and I'm a little surprised that we don't, especially with the large surplus. You know, one could have taken $1,000,000 in it in the in the budget for this year. But I understand that we may wanted to wait for the next one. You know, my concern is that we should not be waiting to think about what we're doing with that money until July. Right. When that in the next year's budget and whatever else. And I just, you know, I, I understand the process and all that, but I guess my concern is that there was kind of a let's figure out how to hit the ground running and get some contracting in place. You know, here's the state manager's recommendation included, you know, kind of using that to get contracts in place and whatnot. And I'm just a little concerned that that we're going to be waiting to even start talking about it in May and that we're going to be a fall or the end of the year or possibly beginning of next year before we can even start doing that. Which is which is a year after our commitment in December. I don't need it. I mean, I see the same managers and I will I don't need a response to that. I'm just going to flag that, that that is kind of a concern. And, you know, my expectation really will be at the provider workshops that that that that there is a funded program based on council direction that is a part of that a part of that budget and that and that we are we have we have begun work on that so that we're ready to hit the ground running when the year to budget hits. Speaker 0: And before I call on the city manager also note that we have a council priority setting workshop coming up even before the May budget hearings, which is yet another opportunity for the Council to emphasize and prioritize where it wants to see staff work and and expenditures directed. So City Manager Eric Leavitt. Speaker 1: So councilmember and city council and mayor and city council to answer that we can bring that back as part of the annual budget or mid-cycle budget. But in addition to that, after that direction from City Council, I had meetings with the transportation director as well as the public works director. And where they want to try to emphasize is two ways to try to expedite the projects that they already have in the pipeline. And they were saying they already have the funding. It's just trying to get that funding spent. So adding 2 million doesn't necessarily spend it, but they're trying to actually spend faster. So I can get an update of where we are and what we can do to continue to try those efforts. Because I understand what the council wanted to do in that was expedite the transportation. I did have initial meetings, I haven't followed up and I will do that now. Speaker 0: Sort of an x y. Speaker 3: I guess we've had conversations before the council meeting. The comments were made at the council meeting. It was written into, I believe, the resolution that that money was was made available to get consulting and contracting things in place to increase the capacity. And so I guess I'm all I know we're I don't want to get too far off, but but I just, you know, I I'm a little concerned that we're giving budget direct, that we're giving budget direction and then decisions are being made that we can't use the money. And, you know, the commitment that the council made to the community in December is is is going to be on hold until we have a different plan. So I'm just. Anyway, I've already moved approval of this budget. I'm not asking to make changes here, but but with the workshop coming up, I want to make it really clear that that. We need a plan. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Levitt, back to you. Speaker 1: So I just received a message from the Public Works director and that those those actions based on that action, are in the mid-cycle review right now. To come back to you as part of the mid-cycle. And I understand what you're saying as far as expediency. But I also want to let you know that she did just communicate that those were while heard. And they are in the mid-cycle right now. Speaker 0: Thank you for that. Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a second cast member. Disagree? Speaker 1: Yeah. Just got it. I will vote no. But it is with utter respect to our city staff, city manager and assistant city managers. But, you know, is that I think, you know, you guys did good, great work. And so you gave us the information to have this kind of public dialog with it. So I certainly appreciate it. But for now, I'm going to vote no. Hopefully we can work things out several weeks from now. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Okay. Are we ready for that vote? Madam, quickly, we have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 1: Councilmember Dechant know. Speaker 2: Her as Spencer. No, actually, I avella. I may. Speaker 0: As Ashcraft fly. Speaker 2: Like carry 3 to 2. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And yes, I second that. Councilmember De Saxe, thanks to staff all of you on screen, off screen who joined us briefly. Thank you. And this is important information. And as soon as we get those dates nailed down for the May, budgets will make that budget hearings will make that information public. And I think maybe did I hear that we're going to use some tools that help people do some. Planning or flight awareness dealing with thunder. So come to the budget hearings. It'll be great. Hurray! Thank you, everyone. Okay, at this time, we have to finish the continued agenda items, but we are going to take a break because we've been at this two and a half hours and my zoom rules are 2 hours and we take a break. Let's be back at ten oh ten. It's 1958. You got 12 minutes, everybody. See you at ten at 10 p.m.. Thank you. And thanks again, Steph. Okay. Harvey, everyone. I think we have quorum. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Laura, are you ready? We are. All right. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: Welcome back, everyone, from break. This is still the city council meeting for the city of Alameda. It's March 15, 2022, and we are moving on to the regular agenda. Would you please introduce the next item? Speaker 2: Presentation by the Alameda Point Collaborative on the Alameda Williams campus at McKay Avenue.

Continued Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule to Add the Classification of Street Light Maintenance Technician; Amending the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule to Remove the Streetlight Technician; Upgrading Two Maintenance Worker II Positions to Streetlight Technicians, Effective March 12, 2022. (Finance 10024056) [Continued from March 1, 2022]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03152022_2022-1757

Speaker 2: Is recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with interim Jordan, anchoring businesses and construction in an amount not to exceed $31 million. 277,673 for the Army. 2.4 Use area infrastructure replacement phase one and Phase two number p.w 11 1955 An adoption of related budget resolution. Speaker 0: Ex Madam Clerk and we are joined again by our public works director Aaron Smith. Welcome back. And the floor is yours. Speaker 1: Right? Speaker 0: The screen. Okay. Speaker 2: So making sure we can get thumbs up. Everybody can see my screen. Speaker 0: And see your screen. Speaker 2: Excellent. Good evening again, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Council, Aaron Smith, Public Works Director. I'm very excited to be here this evening to present award of a construction contract to build backbone infrastructure in Alameda Point's adaptive reuse area. Council is considering two items this evening award of a $31 million contract to A and B, construction and a budget amendment to appropriate 5.8 million from the base reuse fund to the capital budget. Alameda Point's adaptive reuse area shown here highlighted in yellow, is a historic district. Buildings within the reuse area are planned to be incrementally sold to private property owners on a parcel by parcel basis. Upon receipt of funds from the sale of properties, the city is overseeing the logical implementation of the backbone infrastructure under the Capital Improvement Program. Five buildings have sold to date, shown here in yellow, generating 31 million in revenue governing. The phased implementation of infrastructure in the reuse area is a 2017 agreement. The city has with estimated the city agreed to build out the water system in three phases as shown here. Phases one, two and three. Color coded. The agreement has specific requirements and milestones for the water system, design and installation. Following a building sale in any one of the given phases, since buildings have sold in both Phase one and phase two, the city is obligated and is replacing the Old Navy installed water system in these phases. As this work is advancing ahead of city phase two and the West Midway Project. We are also bringing in Eastbay mud infrastructure from Main Street into the reuse area along that section of West Midway in West Tower shown here in purple. In addition to the water system, the project includes all backbone infrastructure in phase one there, and all backbone infrastructure include sewer storm, joint trench, street lighting, landscaping and complete streets with bike, pedestrian and transit facilities. It also the streets will capture 100% of stormwater runoff and have that treated in the fire retention areas before discharge to the bay. This substantial project was successfully bid and we received four responsive bids. The low bid was A and B or is A and B construction out of Berkeley. Their bid came in and the total $28 million figure is shown here on the slide. When you add it, 10% contingency councils considering award of the construction contract of $31,277,673. To award the contract. We're also seeking a budget amendment to appropriate 5.8 million from the Base Reuse Fund to the capital budget. This will allow not only award of the contracts this evening, but ensure adequate funding for additional soft costs during a two year construction period. The appropriation or the budget amendment tonight can be considered a request to advance building CIL revenue from the sale of Building 92, which is in Phase one. Building 92 was originally going to be sold in 2018, but the Surplus Lands Act delayed the sale and now that requirements in the Surplus Land Act have been met. The building is intended to be sold this summer. The last building evaluation was in 2018 and it was 7.2 million. The following sale of Building 92 that that actual sale amount would be deposited back into the base re-use fund. So I kept my presentation nice and short. I hope I can't see everybody, but I hope we're smiling because this is a really exciting project for me. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and have a productive conversation. Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Murph. I think we are smiling. That was a great presentation. I love those graphics where you have all the colored arrows showing every which way, where things are. I mean, who knew sewage could be and sewer and water and electrical engineer? Totally. Anyway, before we go to our clarifying questions, we have public speakers on this item. We do not. Okay. Close public comment on this item. Council. Comments. Questions. Motion. Hands up, counselor. Not sweating. Speaker 3: I have a couple questions. I'm not sure if you're able to pull back up the map first, only because I don't know how to I don't know what to call it. But this you should schedule phases one, two and three. What is what is the is is being minor? The VA doing the not phase one two and three part of the. Or the beehive. Speaker 2: Those are exercising. Only go back. I'm sorry. Councilmember, what area are you. Speaker 1: Discussing in. Speaker 3: The area is not listed one, two or three up in the beehive and whatnot. I'm just curious. Speaker 2: Understood. Yeah. So that's considered part of the development area in the master infrastructure plan. Our community development director, Lisa maxwell, would be able to speak in more detail. I believe that area is called Edge K, but the intent is that it would be sold to a developer and the developer would be bringing in the infrastructure. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: And then where the were the top blue, the blue, that section that doesn't have a number under the blue arrow. Speaker 2: Yeah. My understanding these are not considered backbone street. So the adaptive reuse area when when these areas are subdivided and sold, the adjacent development would be bringing in frontage improvements. Speaker 3: Okay, great. I guess the other question that I, I guess one could ask is the $31 million program we heard earlier that when the city does programs of this size, we take it to the voters if the voters approve this. Speaker 2: Not the the project specifically, but the policy around building sale revenue being spent on backbone infrastructure in the adaptive reuse area. Speaker 3: If the voters approve that. Speaker 2: That's my understanding. I'm going to look to perhaps our city manager's office as well. I know the master infrastructure plan contemplates this approach. Master infrastructure plan was brought to council and approved, and they do contemplate this sort of logical implementation of the backbone infrastructure in the reuse area. I can follow up with you further, Councilmember, just specifically when when that building sale revenue into backbone infrastructure was formally approved? Speaker 3: No, I'm sorry. I understand how it's done. My question is, is whether or not there were any votes of the city electorate that approved this project or anything like this project. My my understanding my memory and understanding and involvement is that that it was all council directed. Including that the fiscal neutrality project that our policy that you're discussing. Speaker 0: And that's what I would if it would help. Mr. SMITH Were you perhaps harkening back to an earlier discussion this evening? Speaker 3: Well, yeah. As I said, we heard earlier that projects of $30 million and even $9 million are are always approved by the voters and that it's not council appropriate to be making decisions. And I'm just trying to understand whether or not this project falls into that. Speaker 1: Well, I could see. Speaker 0: I think I was busy when they let me call on you. I was going to say. Why don't we let I? Because I think you might be referring to council members this statement. So why don't we hear from council decide what you were, what you said or intended to say? Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't see any issue here. The earlier discussion was about the use of general fund money and the choices we make between activities funded by general fund money. In this case, this is basically a pay as you go kind of activity where the proceeds of the sales of a property are being paid to, are being used to pay for the infrastructure that will eventually help this area. Is just two completely separate subjects. The one was about general fund and the cumulative amount of money that you could have had different choices to spend the $37 million. This is a very specific project where it's about the sales and the uses of land proceeds. It's not unusual. I mean, we don't have to go to the voters for the sales of land proceeds at Alameda Point. We haven't done that. So. Speaker 0: Thank you. So I just wanted to give Mr. Smith the benefit of some backstory. Kels, we're not quite that to you. Speaker 3: Think so? Yeah, I think I have one other comment that I may make later, but I'll just point out that it was it was a council policy that made the sale of these buildings, put the money into a fund that was going to go back and be used to fund this infrastructure. That was that was a council decision. So these aren't special funds like act funds or park funds or whatever else. These were council decisions that that made these large decisions about how to move funds around to address large, significant city costs. And I don't have a problem with it. I just that. Sorry, that's that. My apologies if I wasn't clear. Ms.. Smith, I don't have a problem with that at all. I think it's a very small one. In fact, I've been a very strong proponent for maintaining the Fiscal Neutrality Project program and really making sure that we maintain that commitment to our community, that that that we are fiscally neutral out here. I just I think you can draw the lines wherever you want, but at the end of the day, we don't have a threshold by which we go to the voters for certain things. And I think this is a perfectly good example of how past councils have made policies that have driven decisions that are now being implemented by this council in order to meet long term needs. Thank you. I think it looks great and I will be looking forward to supporting it when there is a motion. Speaker 0: Would you like to make that motion? Speaker 3: Yeah. I'd be happy to. I will move approval of this. Of this item. Speaker 0: Thank you. Grab a second. Will continue our discussion. Councilmember Daza a. Speaker 1: Second with continued discussion. Speaker 0: Perfect. Would you like to go next on the discussion? Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you. This is an exciting project that will move the redevelopment of Alameda. Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai made his way to options. Sorry. So the city clerk tried so hard with me, I. I'm supposed to stop now. We need to do that housekeeping vote because it's coming up on 11 p.m.. So we have a couple more items to go. We've got seven C on automated license plate readers. We have seven D on addressing catalytic converter theft and we have what? We have three council referrals. I would entertain a motion to complete this current item or on and the other to seven C and at 70 and the agenda in the meeting. Then we need four votes to do it. So whatever we do, we got to do it between before 11:00 or it becomes a moot point. So anyone want to make a quick motion to hear this item and two more. Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 0: Counselor desk. The excitement. You might like to have a second. Speaker 1: It's not. Speaker 0: Very reassuring. No. Okay. Um hmm. So we just want to say, I would. Speaker 3: Make I would make a motion that we just finish this item. It'll be 11:00 when that happens that we hear the rest of our updates and everything else. Speaker 0: Just continue the rest of our updates. What updates. Speaker 1: Are you? Speaker 3: We agree. We have counsel communications and oral communications. Sorry. Speaker 0: Well, we don't have any more communications because we finished before 15 minutes was up. So we we have. Okay. So that's a motion then to do finish this item and here council communication, correct? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Anyone willing to second councilmember Harry Spencer. Thank you. Actually, I thought he was going to second member Desert Motion. And I'm interested in seconding that motion and following what you had suggested, Mayor. Oh, okay. Which was to do those three items. Speaker 1: You still need more votes. Speaker 0: Isolate for votes. Yeah, well, you never know. You never know. Okay. We've had a motion by Councilmember Desai that's been secured by Councilmember Herr Spencer. I'm. We have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 2: Disorientation. I heard Spencer. I knocked. Right. That was the No and Bella no cash high. That motion failed due to two since it required for it. Speaker 0: Okay. Then I would ask that we also move those two items that we're not going to get to tonight on the regular agenda to the item six on the next council meeting. Speaker 1: As I move. Speaker 0: And wait until tomorrow, Harry Spencer had her hand up for. So let me call her then back to you. Kelso Spencer. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to try to at least get through a finish of this one and then do the 75, which is the cameras, and go for it quickly and then tell you what the then that's the motion. Finish this item and do 70 days of your second council release. Okay. Roll call vote on clerk, please. Speaker 2: Council Member Dave i. I for spencer. Speaker 0: I next. Speaker 2: Five. Sorry, I can hear you, but I think that was a no also. Speaker 3: Now, I don't know what's going on with my microphone, you know. Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Speaker 1: You know, where is Ashcroft? Speaker 0: I that. Okay, we revert to revert to plan B. So those two items said then. What did I say? C and D go to item six in the next agenda. Okay. Council member knocks away. Speaker 3: All right. I think I was I was going to say, are you looking for emotion? I'll be make that make that emotion for you. Speaker 0: Is it emotional? Which is to direction? Speaker 2: Yes. You need emotion to put it on that section. Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Yes, I need emotion. Okay. Gebert Herrera, Spencer crossover here. Spencer, you're making the motion. Okay, Catherine, that's what you're seconding, correct? Speaker 3: Yes. Okay. 70 and continued items, correct? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 3: Yes, I. Speaker 0: See. Okay. And in the order of the same order, I don't want to change your order. Right. But they're going to be like numbers three and four on the section six. So seven, you should follow the when we carry them all over is my point or 7f2 for that matter. All of them would carry out just keeping the same order from the original agenda as well. Speaker 1: Mm. Speaker 0: Yeah, that actually makes sense I think because that was the order in which they were listed, but they're coming at the top of the agenda so we ought to be able to get through them. Let's see if we can get through the vote to do that. Okay. We have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 2: A birdie flag. Hi, Parish. Spencer. Hi. Next fight? Speaker 1: Hi, Mila. Speaker 2: I may as. Speaker 0: I carry. Speaker 2: Sci fi advice. Speaker 0: All right. Okay. And apologies to any staff for those two items that we didn't get to. But let's continue. Where were we? We were we had measures second. And does anyone any further discussion? Councilmember Harry Spencer. So I'd like a point of order in regards to and I'd like to know can, can I start talking about a prior agenda item and how that vote may be consistent. Speaker 2: Or inconsistent with my position. Speaker 0: On this item? Because asking the city attorney, city attorney is that what you're asking? Khurshid. Speaker 1: If so. Councilmember Without knowing specifics, generally, as long as your conversation relates to this item, the Brown Act gives you latitude. So, for example, you could explain that I'm voting yes on this item because among other things, you've looked at this item from a prior agenda item from a different perspective, and that has helped you to get to. Yes. Speaker 0: What about if I said I voted against I voted no on a prior item that dealt with the pension. Councilmember Herrera Spitzer Mr. Shinn was still talking, so I would ask, just let him finish. And then I will be happy to have you answer your next question. Please finish what you were explaining, Mr. Chen. Speaker 1: I'm good. I'm good. Thank you very much. My apologies. Speaker 0: Okay, so we'll try to talk over each other, okay? Question. Next question. Councilor Gregory Spencer. Thank you. Yes. So I could understand that the city attorney had completed his comments as I appreciate being able to continue mine and unfortunately I was interrupted one more time. But I'd like to be able to continue my comments because earlier we had a council member essentially I'm going to bring up comments from a prior agenda item that have, as far as I can tell, no relevance to this item. But I too voted no for the prior item. And I would like a point of order in regards to may I continue and discuss why I voted no on that item and yet I will be voting yes on this item. Speaker 1: Well. Speaker 0: I'm city manager of. Speaker 1: My question. Speaker 0: Well, is it. Speaker 1: A question for me. Speaker 0: Madam? I'm not sure. It's it's not true. It's a legal question. I you know, I think what we what we do and we we we all work hard at what we do. And sometimes maybe we get a little agitated about things. We we. But at the end of the day, we're doing the people's work. People are watching. People have stayed up until 11:00. They might be interested in how we're going to move the infrastructure on this very important project for our city forward. You you have 9 minutes. We all do for our allocated time and your you know, as long as you stay within the Brown Act and as the city attorney has explained it, you have some latitude. I mean, you have the right to to discuss. So I would imagine he would champion, although he's very always very courteous, but he would let us know when we're veering into Brown Act, the danger zones, wouldn't you? Mr. Shand So. Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a matter of mayor and council member. If I may just share one, maybe I can try to be further helpful here now that I'd have a little more specifics from Councilmember Spencer, which is that I think my suggestion is that instead of necessarily explaining and going into detail about what you did at a prior agenda item, you use, whatever your prior experience is to relate to how you might vote in this case. Speaker 3: So that would be my suggestion. Speaker 1: Is to relate everything to this matter. But you certainly could use prior agenda items to inform your decisions here and to compare and contrast. I hope that's helpful, Councilmember. Speaker 0: May I continue? Yes, you may. Thank you, Mayor. So I do appreciate the comment from the city attorney, but I think that's actually a different response to what we had occurred earlier between two council members and I. Two did vote against the 9 million being allocated. But I do think that that's actually in the former agenda item, and I really don't think it's. Speaker 2: Appropriate to be. Speaker 0: Discussing at this time. So I actually do want to stay within the boundaries of this agenda item and not discuss the 9 million or voting no on a prior agenda item. Speaker 2: Because I really don't. Speaker 0: Think it is relevant to this item. I think it did stray outside of the Brown Act. And in regards to this item. I think that I want to commend staff. I think that I'm very happy seeing this move forward. I, I do think that there has been multiple. Speaker 2: Agreements. Speaker 0: From former councils and it's been implemented that the moneys from the projects out of the point will be spent out at the point to support that infrastructure and the building there of and that the balance of the city will not be imposed upon to complete any of the projects out there. And I. There were multiple. Actually, I think that we did have several votes go to the people where council was pretty much given kept trying to figure out how to make progress out of the point. And at least one measure failed out there. So I think council has tried to hear the public and try to figure out how we're going to do this. And I think the policy of fiscal neutrality was in fact a good policy. And I think it's really helped us try to balance the needs of the community at large and really encourage and in some ways force this the staff and the city council members and the developers to to actually do a heavy lift out there. And I don't I don't I want to actually focus on that. This is a really heavy lift that staff is bringing forward. And I don't want to distract it with other agenda items because I. Speaker 2: Think this is really good work. Speaker 0: So I do really want to commend the staff and. Speaker 2: The developers throughout this. Speaker 0: Year trying to figure out how we're going to build and develop. The point that we have all found has turned out to be extremely expensive, extremely expensive and really, really hard to do. So I want to thank I think it's Director Smith now for doing this work. I'm looking forward to the project moving along and I think we are making a good attempt to do our best for the people at large. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Harry Spencer at their comments. Questions. Councilmember Desai. Speaker 1: Thanks. Yes, thank you. So, you know, I just want to say, you know, what I like about the project that's in front of us is that. I do think that it's consistent with the vote of the people in the sense that when I got elected to City Council in 1996, my message was that Alameda Point has to pay for itself. So I think in that sense that that message certainly got through. And so I really appreciate that. All joking aside, I think this is a great use. People understand that Alameda point, you know, the money that's generated out there through the land proceeds really have to be funneled back in. There's just there's no need for, you know, having elections on every item out of Alameda Point. So that was kind of a broad statement that I ran on in 1996 successfully. And then ultimately in 2003, I finally created the fiscal neutrality policy for Al Gore. Made a point. And I see everything that's happening here still being aligned with what we talked about and what we decided way back, you know, more than 25 years to 20 years ago plus. So so I'm excited about this project and I think, you know, the things that are just happening around there from not just Blade AM thank God that they were able to hang in there all these years, but also the new kind of outdoor beer at the hall or whatever it is. There's a lot of exciting things going on and I think this is going to be a part of that. And so I certainly appreciate. I appreciate the residents of Alameda hanging in there with us. And I think, you know, these are great days that are going to be coming down even faster than than we think. Thanks a lot. Speaker 0: Thanks, Councilmember, they said. I would agree this is a very exciting time. I agree with councilmember herrera spencer. This is a heavy lift. I really commend staff. Public Works director Aaron Smith and all the folks you've worked with. And just there's there's lots of moving parts when you talk about all these different utilities there. There's a lot of different representatives that go in there. And yet when you go out to Alameda Point, it really is pretty impressive with what has developed. I mean, those of us who've been working on it a long time know there's still more to come. But we've come a long way and this is an absolutely essential part of this this development, and to enable it to move forward. And I'll just throw out an enticing little date for your calendar. Is that on Saturday, April 9th, just a few weeks from now, we're going to be doing the ribbon cutting for the waterfront park at Alameda Point. So I've got it scheduled from, well, I guess 1 to 5. But I think the ribbon cutting is somewhere of the beginning of people's lives. Lots of excitement is planned that I'm not a part of planning. But yeah, we'd love to see members of the public and I'm sure it'll be a beautiful day. So anyway, we need a vote to move this item forward. And I think we had the motion and the second, so there's no further discussion and that's in hands up. Now we have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 1: It's an invitation. Yes. Speaker 2: Sir. Spencer, I. Next slide. Speaker 1: Hi. Speaker 2: Vella. I may, as I like, carries by writing. Speaker 0: All right. That's great news. Thank you so much, staff. And we appreciate all your hard work on this. All right. So with that, we move down the agenda to item because we've already done the city manager's communications. So then we just jump right down to council communications.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with Andrew M. Jordan, Inc., DBA A&B Construction, in a Not to Exceed Amount of $31,277,673, for the Alameda Point Reuse Area Infrastructure Replacement Phase 1 and Phase 2, No. P.W. 11-19-55; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Capital Improvement Program Budget by Increasing Revenue and Expenditure Appropriations in the Alameda Point Backbone Infrastructure Capital Improvement Project (C75000) by $5,790,913 from Available Fund Balance in the Alameda Point/Base Reuse Fund (290) to Construct the Alameda Point Reuse Area Infrastructure Replacement Phase 1 and 2, No. P.W. 11-19-55. (Public Works 31041520)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12212021_2021-1561

Speaker 0: So if you could take that into consideration, other folks like on Haight Street, when we'd be walking in the summer and the porch concerts would be going on, they'd be asking, Can our street be a slow street? They think, That's great. I've been invited into someone's beautiful backyard. When I admired her flowers on the street side of. Her property. I think that it has been said by other speakers this was away during the pandemic. And, you know, the grim news is we're still in the pandemic, but it got people out and exercising and just doing things that are physically and psychologically healthy to get out and get some fresh air, sunshine, socialize, say hello to people, you know, keep your distance and all that, but wave and say hello to the people you you pass. It's a good thing to do. And so I do think it helps build community. Other streets are doing this. I am sometimes in the snowy valley in San Francisco and it's pretty cool too to see, you know, skateboarders going down some of these hill streets that are now closed off to a slow street. So I think that change is always hard for people to get used to, but it's actually good for us to learn and try new things. And I think Slow Streets are a good idea and I am certainly prepared to support the the proposal as staff has has recommended to us. So who wants to go next? Council member, Desiree. Speaker 4: Well, thank you. Let me just make several points, maybe two or three. I think the first point I want to make is that we have to remember that when the Slow Street program began in February, March 2020, we were into the pandemic at a time when we were very unsure about, you know, how to negotiate that.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Appointment of a Member to the Open Government Commission. (City Clerk 10022020)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12212021_2021-1451

Speaker 4: But as policymakers, though, we need to make a tough call as to why does this street get a slow street, and why does the street not get a slow street? Why does Buena Vista Avenue not get a slow street? And I think that's kind of a policy discussion that we really need to kind of hash out. So I'm going to vote no on continuing the social programs for the reasons that I said. And I'm going to encourage us, though, to kind of come back and figure out, you know, you know, how it is that that that , you know, why does one street get it get designated a slow street and another doesn't? I mean, are there issues of equity that we need to think about? I don't know about that, but, you know, we definitely need to figure that out. Speaker 0: Were you asking staff to explain how these streets get chosen to be so street? Speaker 4: Oh, no. Ultimately, I think as we go citywide, I think there's a process in place now that that we're going to get to it. So so I'm confident that that process is going to have that discussion. But but in a way, though, if you're asking us to continue that, I speaking from my, you know, see if I feel that we have to have that conversation now. But but I get that it's it's it will be underway. Speaker 0: Well, perhaps just for the benefit of the listening audience, who might be curious as to whether this was just an arbitrary decision as to which states were chosen? Was Wheeler or whether this death. Do you want to touch on that briefly? Speaker 5: Sure, Madam Mayor. I'm happy to. Yeah, there were a variety of reasons. We selected the streets. We did. One is that all of these streets are already bicycle routes or. And or. They were also being considered as future bicycle boulevards. And the active transportation plan effort, which are bike boulevards, are low speed and volume neighborhood bikeways that are shared with cars. They're also streets that already had a relatively higher number of people walking and biking on them, streets with relatively less traffic because there are two lane residential streets that could be made into those streets so that there would be less traffic disruption, whereas larger streets would obviously disrupt a lot of traffic. Obviously, we kept them off of bus routes as well because we didn't want to disrupt bus traffic. Speaker 4: Yeah, I get it. But but people on our streets also deserve to live to to live on a street where it would. Speaker 0: Seem every day to save everyday. Hello? I'm still conducting the meeting. Let me. Let us, please let us have our staff comment. Now, go right back to you. Ms.. Wheeler, please continue. Speaker 5: Sure. Just two more points. We also, in our first survey, asked the community where they'd like to see slow streets. And these streets that were selected were the ones that were most frequently selected as those streets. And we were looking for having that kind of equity across the island and looking at providing that. So those were the reasons. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Desai, back to you. Speaker 4: Yeah, no, no, I. I appreciate. And every reason that you said is absolutely valid. But I think as policymakers, you know, we need to think about some of the neighborhoods and residents, even if they don't self, you know, self-select themselves as wanting slow streets. We need to say, hey, they're just as worthy of having a slow street. So it's I think it's, you know, it's who gets the lottery pick of full streets. And we need to kind of figure out and I am and don't get me wrong, I know you guys will do that through the process that that's coming underway . So don't get me wrong, but I'm just saying that that should be done now for me to support extending this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor Vella. Speaker 1: So I want to think thank you, Mr.. For clarifying the fact that our safety and calming efforts are actually not to blame for the traffic deaths. I think that that's a really critical point. I also think that there has been a lot of staff work, a lot of commission work, a lot of discussion behind the selection process in terms of where this bus streets are located. And I think in many ways, at least, the behavior that I've seen is that as vehicles are driving down even other streets, we're seeing the type of driver behavior we want to see, which is people are slowing down. That's the whole point. People are driving in a way that we would hope they drive on every street, which is cautiously keeping an eye out for others who are using the road whether or not they're in a vehicle. These are really key things. And I think in many ways, if we need to expand the types of traffic calming measures on some of the side streets or the streets within the vicinity of slow streets, I'm very supportive of that. If we need to put more resources towards those things, I think this council has been supportive that in fact we've taken steps both in our past meetings to make sure that our streets are as safe as possible and that we are prioritizing that. I think that I would like to see our slow streets become permanent. I would like to see an expansion of them. I would also like to see an expansion of traffic calming traffic calming measures. And I think that in many ways, making sure that we are allowing for safe routes to school, allowing for safe travel across across the entire city, using slow streets, I think that that's very appropriate and in line with our vision and our community's vision in terms of what we want and really opportunities, equitable mobility opportunities. So I'm it sounds like there might be the votes here tonight continue. It's very happy about that. I find seeing an expansion and a discussion in terms of what Councilor Knox White has put forward. I think that there's been some other comments that are helpful. You know, I think that, you know, I'm ready to move forward tonight with, at a minimum, the staff recommendations. I don't know. Councilmember Knox, why did you make a motion earlier? The question to the chair. I know that there were some suggestions. Speaker 0: And I just want to chime in. I want to see this move forward. But my comfort level is with what the staff has recommended. I, I feel that's most respectful to the staff. They put a lot of time and effort in this into this. And so I'm more than happy to support the staff recommendation, and I don't believe we've had a motion yet. Councilor was adamant bossy he and needed. Speaker 3: I hear that I hear the concerns about that about the expansion and won't propose that so I'll move that we continue the program extended until the implementation consistent with the upcoming AGP is complete. Speaker 1: And I'll second. Speaker 0: In accordance with the the staff recommendation, correct? Speaker 3: Yes. With a change in the timing? Yes. Speaker 0: What changed in the timing. Speaker 3: So not ending in a year and coming back for further extension, but extending it until such time as the ATP is implemented. That's the planning document that's deciding what to do with these streets, whether to remove them, etc.. Speaker 0: So before I decide how to vote, I would like to hear from staff. So. Ms.. Wheeler. This, I believe, is your staff report. There was your recommendation or anyone else who wants to take this on. The recommendation is to. Continue this. Speaker 1: For. Speaker 0: I'm really sorry to. Speaker 1: Have an. Speaker 0: iPad that freezes. I'm sorry I cannot pull it up. Speaker 1: Hello? Speaker 3: If we can, maybe we can jump in. Yeah, I think you. Speaker 0: Jump in and save the mayor. Speaker 3: Things like that. Rochelle, do you want to add the recommendation? Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 5: Thank you. The recommendation is and the staff reported to continue it through the end of December 2022. So a year from now, I think that we could also tie that to the adoption of the HDP, but I'm not sure that's what council member Knox White. Let me for. Speaker 3: Let me jump in. I think. Speaker 0: Mr. Thomas. Speaker 3: Either thought that staff thought was extended for one more year by then we hope to have the eight the Alameda Transit, the active transportation plan done. And that's going to that's going to determine and that is the process that Councilmember De Saag was talking about, picking which streets, you know, become permanent slow streets or permanent bicycle boulevards . I think what council member Knox. Right. Is saying is. That logic makes sense. So let's just make the council direction clear. We will extend the slow streets until such time that you get back here with the active transportation plan, because that's the plan that's going to determine the future. I think what Councilmember Knox White was trying to avoid was a situation where we're working through the public process where. You know, you're about ready to finish the active transportation plan. But then we hit this date of December 2022, and we're not quite done with the active transportation plan, but we're close avoiding the need for another council action to extend it until the time that active transportation plan is done. So from staff's perspective, tying it directly to the active transportation plan makes a lot of sense. Speaker 0: Well, that's all well and good, but it sure wasn't anywhere in the staff report. So I, I do understand that. I'm not sure that I think it's so onerous to ask for another extension, and we hope that it's done. But I. I guess I'm one who well, I'm not a transportation professional, and I very much respect what our staff comes forward with. And I ask questions, you know, I do. And but I was satisfied with this recommendation. So. But what I do want is to move this plan forward. But. You know, again, I was prepared to support the staff recommendation. Okay. So. Its face mirrors that your hand up to speak. Speaker 1: And I just have a chair for this comment. Is it possible to just make sure or, you know, that, you know, to have that you're saying that you think that the plan will be ready in a year? Is it perhaps that they are? We just have the direction to the plan come back along with this in here? Speaker 0: Well, I've said that. Let me just jump in really quickly, if I might, that I would be satisfied if we had in a year's time an evaluation, a check in. Staff can look at lessons learned, information gotten over the course of the year, still moving forward towards the actual transportation plan, finalization. And we can it to that. But I do think we should come back for a for a review, just an update in a year's time. Mr. Thomas with that? Speaker 3: Yeah, no, that's look. And that's absolutely. Staff can do this either way. It's it's if you want to see us in a year, we can absolutely be back in one year with an update on the. And at that time, if we're close to finishing the act of transportation, but not quite there yet, the council at that point can decide whether to extend a little longer or. Or not. Speaker 0: No, I'm. I'm willing. This course is a compromise. I'm willing to go with Councilmember Nuts for its motion. However, I would like the addition of a review in a year's time of this both streets program. Speaker 3: From staff perspective, that certainly works. Speaker 0: Okay. Make her the mission. Speaker 3: Are you asking me to add that I'm not supportive of the staff spending time doing a review of something, that we are going through a planning process and have a plan that's already going to be done. I just I'm worried that we're going to send staff off to spend dozens and dozens of hours to do a report . They're going to come back and we're not going to do anything with the report. I just worry that we have such a small staff. We have things that we've been wanting. We have a bridge RFP that is not out there because we keep piling on for staff. I just worry that the review ends up not being much more than just a report back. And I think the ATP is the purview. That is the place where the planning has been done, where the conversations have been had, where staff has come in with their best recommendation based on the conversations they've had with the community and the. Speaker 0: Well. I've heard staff offer that they're able to do this. I don't think it sounds that time consuming. Speaker 3: Are you asking me to withdraw my motion? I'm happy to do so. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. So to make a motion. I think I think the vice mayor. Yeah, it's probably better to go off camera because her audio has been getting a little shaky. Speaker 1: Sorry my zoom is doing. And I was so I can't I can't see anyone. Speaker 0: I was just saying you could actually turn your video off because I think it's impacting your audio or maybe your is just weak. And for clarification. When does staff anticipate having the actual transportation plan? Speaker 5: We suggested December because we think we will have an active transportation plan to you before the end of next year. So that's why we suggested that December 2022. Speaker 0: To us in December. Okay. They were saying the same thing. Okay, Vice, we're going to try it again. Okay. Tell you what I would call a break. I think everybody's audio needs a little or their connections need a little rest. So it is 904. We'll be back at 915. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: So. Speaker 0: Okay. I am counting. This is. There's Malia. Yeah. And team. Oh, let's. No, I shouldn't have said anything. Speaker 2: One of the. Oh, darn, she has gone. One of the things we talked about is maybe she if she didn't like you suggested mares leave her video offering help her bandwidth issue that we think she's having. Speaker 0: Right. But she disappeared altogether. Speaker 2: She's reconnecting again. Speaker 1: Sorry. I'm here. No. Rebooted the wi fi. Speaker 0: Yeah, but if you think it's too much to have audio and video on it once, feel free to ditch the video. All right. So whenever everyone's ready. Speaker 2: I think we're ready. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Knox, wait. Speaker 3: So I think I have an amendment to the motion on the floor that may get us where we need to be, which is that if staff has not returned in 18 months with a finalized ATP, they will they will return within 18 months with a review of the city streets for counsel, consideration and direction. So they get allows staff to get to the ATP on the time when they expect it without having to stop and do additional review of the Slow Streets program. But if for some reason they fall behind, they will have the ability to do that review and come back for final. Speaker 0: This, Wheeler said. December was when she anticipated. Speaker 3: Yes. And I'm saying if they can't get back for that bad, they come with the ATP. There's not going to need to be a discussion about those streets because the the streets for bike boulevards, etc. will be already identified in the ATP. Right. That that that plan supplants the the Slow Streets plan. So there's there's not Slow Streets and the ATP, it's the slow streets until the ATP, if they fall behind for some reason, hopefully they won't then then there will be a review of the slow streets. But we're asking them not to spend any time reviewing Slow Streets, put it into the ATP and let's just get past the Slow Streets era. Speaker 0: To let it go 18 months before a review. Speaker 3: Yes. If if the ATP doesn't come back, the ATP will be the review. That is where they will come back and say, here's what we want to do. We've talked to the community. Here's how we want to move forward. There's not an we don't need to review the streets at that time because they're going to end regardless. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 1: I'm fine with that. I think that I know. You know, I mean, the main thing is, is that I want to see the slow streets continue for a year and. I guess my question is to staff in terms of what they think the timeline is. I also just want to avoid having additional kind of items coming back to council when we have other business to discuss, if, if, if it's going to be 14 months or 12 months or something like that. I don't want to have a second agenda item, but. I'm open to hearing the shadow of doubt. Speaker 3: But Mr. Chairman, just look, we staff can guarantee that we could get a ATP back in 12 months. But as you know, it's the the the staff work to prepare an ATP is not the tough part it's the working it through the process with the Transportation Commission and the community. So I think that's where we we struggle to give you a definitive date because we like to bring these plans to the council after they've kind of gone through the natural kind of public review process. So we are, as Rochelle said, we're pretty confident that we think the that process will get us back to council in in 12 months. We also do appreciate Knox Councilmember Knox White's point, though, that it was sure would be a shame to take if we're within a month or two of getting back to council with the final ATP, it would be a shame to put it on hold. While we do a lot of work on a update report. I would say though that if that is the situation, I would reassure the Council and Councilmember Knox Way we're not going to spend a lot of time on that annual report or that update report. We're going to that annual update report is going to say, hey, we're almost there. Council will be there in two months. And this is what the ATP says about the streets, because at that point it'll already have been to Transportation Commission at least. So the draft ATP will be out and in circulation that we can guarantee. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. I do rely on staff recommendations. We've had a motion and it's been seconded. You seconded? Correct. Vice Mayor. All right, we have a roll call vote, please. Yes, Councilor. Responsive. Speaker 1: Thank you. I'd just like to echo member de Sox comments in regards to this, that staff should be considering the equity of having these. And there have been many suggestions of rotating those streets. And I don't think I've ever heard anyone volunteer for more car traffic. But as we've heard, there are many people that are very happy to have less car traffic. And so I think that's a legitimate concern. And we have heard and I have heard people especially on this, to say that they have increased car traffic as a result of the Pacific Street. And I think that the equity issue is a valuable one and I really appreciate Member De SA raising it and I hope that staff will take that to heart. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor said. Speaker 4: Just quickly, you know, at the end of the day, what the slow streets is about is putting barriers that prevent basically through traffic. And, you know, there are some streets who want those barriers and they should be have valid reasons to get it just as anyone else. Speaker 0: And that you're out of time. Thank you. We have that roll call vote, please. Speaker 2: Councilmember. Speaker 4: You know. Speaker 2: However, spencer. Speaker 1: No. Speaker 2: Not quite. I Vela. Speaker 1: I may. Speaker 2: As Ashcraft say that Carrie Strait is here. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Now we move on to item six, B and C here. I think some of the same staff are probably. Staying for this, correct? Speaker 2: Yes, I believe so. And would you like me to? Speaker 0: Yes, please. Speaker 2: Recommendation to advise the city manager execute a Second Amendment to the agreement with close associates to increase compensation by $270,906 for total aggregate compensation, not to exceed $345,876. To continue providing technical services related to roundabouts. Speaker 0: So that we have public speakers on this item. Speaker 2: We do not. Oh, we have one now. Speaker 0: Okay. And so because I was going to ask counsel, if you had just clarifying questions of the staff report before we discuss, because this is an extension of a contract, but any of. Any clarifying questions from Council on me? Do you want a staff report? We are trying to move along and maybe even get two council referrals tonight. Kelso overheard Spencer. Speaker 1: I don't have clarifying questions, but I thought I heard that there is at least one public speaker. Speaker 0: And I am. But we we do clarify on questions and then we go to. Speaker 1: I understand. But there was also comment, I believe I heard you say about skipping the presentation. And I do not support that. And I do support hearing from our public. Thank you. Speaker 0: It was, in fact, a question if you would like a presentation. I take that as an affirmative answer. So let's go ahead and have the staff presentation and then we will go to clarifying questions from the council and then we'll go to our public speakers, however we may have. So, Mr. Thomas, are you introducing this item? Speaker 3: I will. Mayor Thank you very much. Andrew Thomas, Planning Director. This is a contract extension. It's in this contract has been focused on the question of an evaluation of roundabouts. Roundabouts serve two purposes for the city of Alameda. One is they increase safety at intersections, but they also smooths and improve travel times so they are can be very effective in both achieving our vision zero goals and traffic safety goals, but also our goals to keep traffic moving. They also have the benefit of being in the long term much more much less expensive to maintain than traffic signals. So that's another plus. There is a downside. They're expensive to build. So what we have been doing with this contract is evaluating locations in Alameda that would be appropriate for roundabouts. The two then put us in the position to come to council and recommend where a roundabout really makes the most sense because a roundabout is expensive to build. We want to put the city in the best possible position to to compete for outside funding, regional and state funding and federal funding to build roundabouts. We put ourselves in the best possible position if we as a community have identified the location and the conceptual design ahead of time. And that can only be done through this kind of study and with community and council participation. So that's the goal of this of this contract amendment. Speaker 0: Thank you. Clarifying questions from counsel. Counsel for her, Spencer. Thank you. Speaker 1: And does this well, this work include the videos of what they think it's going to actually be. Speaker 3: At this point. This is just trying to identify where roundabouts can physically and practically work. The next step would be once we've narrowed down the limited locations. They don't work everywhere. These are full scale roundabouts. They don't work everywhere. Once we have a have identified the locations where they work, where they could work. And we start designing conceptual designs for those specific locations. We can do graphics and videos and those kinds of things. Speaker 1: Does this work include doing that? It's much more preliminary. Speaker 3: It's more preliminary. Speaker 1: Okay, thanks. Speaker 0: Other clarifying questions, counsel and I let's see, is Mike Austin is he one of the presenters? Speaker 3: I think he's Michael is part of our consultant team that he's here to help us answer questions, I believe. Speaker 0: And I think I saw it. Did I see your hand go up? Mr. Austin, did you want to comment? Speaker 3: Yeah. That's okay. So please offer. In addition to what? Speaker 0: Yeah. Sir, can you first tell us to tell us who you are, what you do? Speaker 3: Sure, absolutely. So, I'm Mike Alston. I'm with Kinsman Associates. And we've been working with staff, as you mentioned, on roundabout work throughout 2021. And what I just wanted to mention very briefly is we actually do have a task in here. As he mentioned, it's much further down the line if alternatives are are advanced. We do have a task force three visualizations exactly. To the council members point. So that task is and is in the proposed scope of work. Speaker 0: Thank you for this amazing conservatory, Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you. So then I want to just clarify so that this additional money does, in fact, cover what you're calling this visual. Speaker 0: Sexualization, I think. Speaker 3: Yes, ma'am. That's correct. Speaker 1: For each of the proposed round about center. What is that within the scope? Speaker 3: Your choices. So as he mentioned, we do include it not for a multitude of locations, but for if alternatives are identified at certain locations where a roundabout would be viable. Once a project concept got to that point where we know enough about it to visualize it, then we do have a scope and task in that scope to visualize a proposed concept. So we're not going to go making a bunch of videos about roundabouts, but if we identify locations where it's viable, we then develop a design at a certain location. The point at which we bring it to transportation commissioned the public and City Council. We would provide a visualization. That's the purpose of that item. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And my one clarifying question is so I have I seen the recommendation, the staff report, we're recommended to approve the next steps and they're laid out. What's the time frame like? How soon? Assuming we approve this extension tonight, how soon would you get started? And what's the approximate length of time you think this will take? Speaker 3: Michael. Do you want to down? Speaker 0: Go ahead, Mr. after thing. Speaker 3: Yeah, sure thing. So, banks. We have a proposed schedule in the back of our back of our amendment that indicates that this work would happen throughout 2022. So we'll keep we'll keep staff in the loop as we progress our work. There's several guests in there, but we've got it all occurring in 2022. Speaker 2: Mayor, you're muted. Speaker 0: I was saying it was in the back of the head. I must have missed that. Okay. Good to meet you. Okay. How many public speakers do we have now? Speaker 3: Just one. Speaker 0: Okay. Let's hear our public speaker. Speaker 2: We now have two. But the first is Zack BOLLING. Speaker 0: Geddy Lee, Speaker BOLLING. Speaker 4: Why they even council. I am a big fan of roundabouts. I'm always a huge advocate and from past meetings I just wanted to talk about this item specifically just around the contractors work on the First Amendment of this was some of. Speaker 3: The outreach meetings they did. Speaker 4: One of the things that would be great for this second amendment the additional work. Speaker 3: Scoped they did some. Speaker 4: Work with helping staff around doing outreach with community around the McCartney Rhode Island Drive. One of the things that kind of came out of that is I think there's some misinformed ideas of of of roundabouts that would be great to help with public education around the safety benefits and how much they can improve, especially if we're looking at some of the other arterials and of Alameda that they've kind of documented. They want to do a screening and and go through Alameda to find additional places for these roundabouts. If we're going to charge forward with doing more roundabouts, I think getting more education about the benefits of roundabouts and our future amendments would be great. But I'm a big supporter. I think there's been a lot of great work so far and that's basically all my comments. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker, Brian Kennedy. Good evening, Speaker Kennedy. Are you able to. Speaker 1: Yourself, Jacob? Can you. Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. Good evening. Speaker 3: Everybody. Hey, I want to give a shout out and also a a no no to all of you. A good shot I saw on the city valuated Facebook page. A shout out to transgender folks who have been violently assaulted and condemning that. And that's a wonderful thing. So, you know, no one wants to be like that. However, you guys blew it. You blew it. The mayor, the vice chair, all you guys and all of you who I like you did not give a shout out as was requested. To the nationally recognized item of illegal alien. Speaker 0: I am going to stop you there. This is not a this this comment is not related to. Speaker 3: How kick ass it. Speaker 0: Is. Speaker 3: Madam illegal alien from. Speaker 0: Madam Clerk, I would ask that we move on to the next speaker because this may be oral communication. It is not concerning the amendment of this contract. Do we have any other public speakers? Speaker 2: We do not. Speaker 0: With that I am closing public comment on item six be and I will open it up to Councilor Bloxwich. Speaker 3: Move approval of the item as requested by staff. Speaker 0: To have a second. Speaker 3: Oh, and that other question. Speaker 0: Well, we'll get a check and then we'll do a discussion or decide. That was Vice Mayor Vela, second Councilmember de sa. Speaker 4: Yeah. Can you just for purposes of the public identify maybe three or four of the different places that we might want to be evaluating with the additional supplement to the contract? Three. Thanks. Speaker 3: Sure. We are the Clement extension as it as it interconnects with Tilden is one of the primary locations we want to look at the we've been looking at Macartney in Harbor Bay and then we have those are the two. And then the other one that we've been looking at is Lincoln Avenue, Marshall and Pacific, sort of that at that and that location. And then of course, we continue to work on and evaluate the opportunities for us. It's a difficult situation at that central Sherman And you know that we've had a hearing or two about that. We're still working that through. This is all about setting us up as a community and the council, putting you in a position to say, yes, that location makes sense. We've seen the visualization. We like the concept staff go get money for that roundabout. I mean, if you're not there as a council, then we're not going to compete well for that. Grant So it's really about. Kittleson, their expertize, their skills, their knowledge, their visualization techniques, putting, having, putting us in a position to be able to communicate and educate. I completely agree with Speaker Beau Dowling Bowling about that. We need to educate so that the community can say, yes, we like that idea about a traffic roundabout at that particular location. You as council can say, yes, we support this, we want to make this happen. Staff, go get that money. If we don't have that kind of community support and council support, there's we're not going to be successful going for that, going for the grants. So that's really that's the goal of this of this contract at the end of the day. Thank you. Speaker 0: Anything further Councilmember doesn't know. Okay. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Staff and the public comments. I really do like the ideas visualizations and I wanted to and I don't know what these are going to look like, but I'm hoping that they will include very pedestrian. So I know one of at least one is near school proposed and that has a lot of. New drivers, a lot of pedestrians and a lot of bicyclists and trying to, if they can, show where all those people are going to go during drop off and pick up that. Exactly. And where they know where they go and where they stop and how that really what that will look like. And and and also, of course, at the other intersections. But that's something I'm looking forward to seeing. I do have concerns about putting these in, but I see this as an educational element of, you know, helping us try to see and to educate us as well as the community members. So I really am looking forward to the visualization part, and I agree with the Speaker in regards to education. And I would say, you know, including myself and others, have raised questions that's trying to make it clear is honesty for me where everyone goes, because it's my understanding the circle keeps going, the traffic keeps going. But then when you have your bicyclist, where do they go? When you have your pedestrians, where do they go without slowing it down and without honestly having people have to wait and keep hoping that a car is going to stop when there's not a signal or a stop sign. Thank you. Oh, I know. One more. Sorry. The money's. What is the source of the money for this contract? Speaker 3: This is a measure B and B money. We have it budgeted. Speaker 1: So no general fund moneys. Speaker 3: That's. That's correct. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Now, quickly, we have a roll call vote with. Speaker 2: I'm sorry for data. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 2: However, Spencer, I knocked. Right. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 2: Vella. Hi. Next mayor as the Ashcraft High that carries by five. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And thank you so much to our consultants. Good to hear from you, Mr. Austin. We look forward to this project moving along. All right. Take care. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Thank you. Thank you. Other than Mr. Steyn. Thank you. Okay. And now we are moving on to six B and we're going to try a really fast transition now. No, it is not just B, we just did it. This is now we're getting into the regular agenda. Speaker 2: Oh, we found. Speaker 0: One more thing. 368 This is what I was thinking of because I would say we need to cue the speakers on six C, please. Yeah, like. Like magic. Okay. Madam Clerk, would you please introduce item six? Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Recommendation to provide direction to staff regarding the installation and use of automated license plate readers, including fixed and mobile equipment on Alameda Police Department vehicles. Speaker 0: All right. Well, good evening. I see that we have our police chief, Nishant Joshi, and from the city attorney's office we have Allan Cohen, who represents APD and of course, our city attorney. Even Chen is here. So would I be correct to assume that, Chief Joshi, you're going to lead this discussion, this item? Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. Madam Mayor, let me just put my I'm going to share my screen. Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 3: And I just want to confirm you're able to see. Speaker 1: That we. Speaker 0: Are indeed. Speaker 3: Okay. All right. All right. Give me 1/2. Just go to make a comparison. There we go. Okay. Good evening. My name is. And Shawn Joshi. I am the police chief for the Alameda Police Department. Tonight, I will be presenting on automatic automated license plate readers, and I hope to provide some insight on the benefits and the limitations of this technology. I'll start off with a brief overview of what a LPR technology is. In summary, LPR are cameras that read and record photos of license plates of vehicles as they pass in front of the camera. This technology is an investigative tool that assists by automating the current manual process of officers running license plates while they're on duty and in their cars. A highlight of the term investigative tool because I want to emphasize LPR doesn't solve cases. People saw cases. LPR is a tool that helps law enforcement develop, solve and hopefully clear a criminal case. Because this technology works. 24 seven. The data gained improves investigative efficiency. There are many agencies in the region and throughout the country that use LPR. Here's a visual of what a return could look like. The camera is alerted to a passing vehicle and recognizes the characters of the license plate. The system takes a photo and documents the make color, date and time of the vehicle even further. These systems have the ability to take a partial plate, and based on the make model, color, date and time, the system can pass out the vehicle and or similar vehicles. Now, similar vehicles would require additional steps of victim identification. So we would go from something as simple and vague as a victim or witness describing the vehicle as a Ford or grade sedan to every Ford, our great sedan that was in the area at the time of the crime. Those vehicles would then be presented to the victim for further identification. What this does is it reduces the amount of time needed to make an identification. Most importantly, we aren't stopping and investigating every gray vehicle. Instead, we're stopping the gray Toyota with license plates, such and such. Based on the HPR return and victim identification as a new police chief, one of my initiatives includes reducing our policing footprint. By leveraging technology that gives clear direction and focus in our investigative and enforcement actions. I want us to be an agency that's intelligence led and data driven. I don't want us to be a guessing agency. So data is stored in a secure system for a specific retention period. We can and will continue to require documentation of a search reason prior to accessing the system. There would be an audit trail that identifies who accessed the system and what the reasoning was. So the current practice requires inclusion of a police report number and a brief description on why the search is being done. The system isn't run by a human and simply detects objective data. There is end to end encryption. Officers would receive instant feedback on stolen vehicles, Amber Alerts, wanted persons and things of that nature. This technology does support my intelligence led initiatives. There is no facial recognition technology. It isn't used for immigration enforcement, nor would it be shared for that purpose. The system wouldn't be connected with a third party like DMV, nor would it provide personal identifying information or personal data. APD currently uses mobile LPR and these cameras are installed in four patrol vehicles. Of those four, two of those vehicles are not in service. We've had this technology since 2014 and there's existing policy that governs the use of LPR. Although the mobile apps provide some investigative benefits, they only capture data when they are in the field. Fixed al PR would capture data 24 seven. Our city has a very unique geography in specific entry and exit points, and I believe we could address crime by taking advantage of this environmental design. We would strategically placed these aerial powers at all entry and exit points of the city in tandem. Both versions would augment each other. Where fixed al PR would gather photos of vehicles entering and exiting the city and mobile, al PR would gather photos of vehicles in the city. The current policy authorizes a six month retention period. I am actually looking at reducing that retention period to 90 days and I'm even open to a shorter retention period. I do understand the risks and the concerns associated with this type of technology, as I mentioned before. Access and use would be limited to a case follow up and would require supervisory approval. The data would automatically be deleted based on the authorized retention period and it cannot be retrieved. Again, there's no facial recognition software. We would do regular audits to confirm access and use is on a need to access and use basis and that the access were authorized by a supervisor. Violators of the policy would be held accountable and accountability would also include the next level level of supervisor. I've reviewed the use of HPR with our Privacy Resolution 1565 with the city attorney. The resolution prohibits facial recognition and allows limited collection of personal information. Well, this al PR proposal will not have facial recognition technology, nor will it collect personal information. As far as a crime concern, I have watched auto theft consistently increase and it's currently up by about 40%. This trend isn't just an alarming trend. Other cities are seeing the same spikes. However, it's important to recognize some offenders steal cars and use them as a means of transportation to commit other, more serious crimes. I do see benefits in my staff becoming alerted every time a stolen vehicle enters our city. It's difficult to quantify success with Alpers because there aren't very many controlled experiments that have taken place. Solve cases. Don't always document that the case was solved because of LPR. You may recall earlier in my presentation when I said cases are solved by people in LPR as a tool that helps with that. I have received some qualitative input from various agencies that have LPR. All of them say that technology is invaluable and serves as a powerful resource that helps identify the actual vehicle rather than officers looking for and investigating possible or similar vehicles. I did come across a study called The Impacts of Large Scale License Plate Reader Deployment on Criminal Investigations. The study experienced similar challenges in that solve and or clear crimes aren't coded with language or data that says the crime was solved by ale pr. The study looked at clearance rates and salt rates and there's a difference between clearance rates and salt rates for a case. To be clear, there's a much higher standard. And then when a case is cleared cases. I'm sorry. Then when cases are solved, cases that are cleared must include arrest, the case being charged and that the case is prosecuted. Cases that are solved could be something like an officer makes an arrest of a person for auto theft and the registered owner decides against pressing charges after getting their car back. That case would not be cleared, but it would be solved. All in all, the study found that ale peer assisted in solving cases approximately 20% of the time. I can provide additional case studies. There was a kidnap case in Georgia. LPR Help locate the vehicle used and reunited the mother and child in less than 5 hours of the kidnaping. Morgan Hill PD and San Ramon PD saw an efficiency increase by at least five times cases. They said that cases were being solved in less time with LPR as compared to when they did not have LPR. Benicia PD recovered 11 firearms during a stop of a vehicle that was identified by LPR. Fairfield PD reported that they made arrests of two suspects with the use of LPR. San Mateo had a pretty brutal home invasion incident of an elderly victim and that case initially had no leads. But LPR helped identify the persons responsible. San Marino PD and their city counselor attribute their 70% reduction in burglaries to LPR. San Jose PD was able to resolve ten shooting incidents through the use of mobile app here and they were just approved expand their fixed systems. We've had a few recent incidents and I'm going to be vague about them because they're still open investigations. I do expect some follow on search warrants and arrests to be made. But in those cases, although we don't didn't have fixed LPA technology, this may have delayed our case development. We did rely on LPR from other cities to develop our cases without getting into too many details. These are significant cases that we spent a significant amount of time developing them. Knowing what I know about those cases, I'm 100% certain they would have been resolved much sooner if we had fixed ALPERS. In all these cases, the offenders were not from Alameda. Just to recap, a LPR recognizes license plates and vehicles, not people. The system would not provide personal identifying information. The system will delete the information as early as 30 days. We would require reason and supervisor approval to access and we would audit the use to ensure adherence to policy. Alpers do several things. They are one additional tool to help with case investigations. With solid oversight, we can increase investigative efficacy while protecting privacy concerns. Most importantly, we have an opportunity to use technology that doesn't include human bias and reduces our policing footprint by focusing on specific, specific vehicles involved in crimes. Rather than casting a wide net for similar vehicles involved in crimes. I recommend we move forward with the installation of fixed equipment and consider or consider expanding the mobile HPR equipment to all LAPD vehicles assigned to field duties. And that concludes my presentation. Speaker 0: Good timing, Chief Joshi, with 12 seconds left over. So thank you for that. I'm sure we have some public comments on this item, but before we go to public comments, let's hear clarifying questions. Council member No sweat. I think I saw your hand. Speaker 3: I have two questions, mostly procedural. There's council policy direction that when anything like this comes forward with a a I'm sorry, a personal privacy analysis report needs to be attached with the request. And I didn't see that attached. Is that has that evaluation been done before we consider whether to move forward with this? And Chief Joshi, I apologize. It's not really quite I don't believe it's a question for you. I believe the city manager, the. Speaker 0: City attorney or the city manager who would like to meet Mr. Cohen. I see you did. Is that. Speaker 3: I mean, I did review the privacy resolution, but I didn't see anything in the privacy resolution that required an analysis. Of course, if if council wanted a written analysis, we certainly could provide one. Sure, I did. I can tell you I can tell the council we did review the resolution with the ALP's policy. And I and it does appear to it does not appear that there are any inconsistencies between the ALP policy and Council's privacy resolution. Thank you. I'd be happy to forward you the email I sent to the same manager two weeks ago about this. There is actual council direction that a personal view and we've used it before. When we approached the Alpers for the ferry terminal parking forward staff did provide that. So I know the staff is aware of it. The other question I had. Speaker 0: Was actually, can I just stop you for a moment? Council member Next wait. Since you referenced the city manager, Mr. Levy, did you want to add anything? Speaker 3: When that was offered to me, I did for that to the chief as well as to Gerry to look into. And I think that the chief asked Alan to look at it, but look at it further. Speaker 0: All right. Back to you. Councilman. Speaker 3: Thank you. And then I guess the second question is, when we gave direction to bring this item back last March, part of the direction was to bring back studies that showed that there was an actual effectiveness and not just anecdotal stories. And again, Chief, I know you weren't here saying that these are kind of unfair questions to have to ask in this greater presentation. I appreciate it. But I did want to know I didn't see any studies that actually showed that there was actually an effective or even a drop in crime in cities. We have dozens of cities in the Bay Area, hundreds of cities across the Bay Area. Multiple studies have been done. But is it fair to say we have found no studies to say that they actually have an impact on crime? So those are the studies that we look for. It's I did attach a study from. Yes. Speaker 0: Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina. Speaker 3: Yes, I did attach that. That was a study that became aware of the challenge with there is a there aren't a lot of studies that specifically look at HPR because cases that are solved or that are closed or that are cleared aren't necessary. There's no no coding that says this case was solved or resolved or cleared because of LPR. LPR is a tool that's used. So in this particular study, what the researchers did was they search through all the narratives to look for the word or any association with a LPR, to try to drill down and see if there was if there was some type of connection. It would be similar to if if a video was used from, you know, a convenience store or a robbery and that robbery was solved because of follow up investigative steps that are that are taken. If there wouldn't be an interest and attribution to the video itself, they would be cleared, as you know, based on all the evidence. So so that those are some of the challenges that a lot of researchers have found when looking for, you know, rates or success rates associated with a LPR. So I did go. And so, you know, when I look at this, I look at this from a qualitative and quantitative approach. It was difficult to find quantitative data, but qualitative data, every single agency that I spoke with, they were in support of it. They their, you know, their their agency. A lot of the agencies are expanding the use of it. And so they do find value in the in the equipment. And then also being a, you know, a practitioner of this, I have seen value in in this technology specifically. One of the biggest values that I see is that we're able to identify specific vehicles rather than having a vague description, so that we can truly reduce our policing footprint and focus on specific vehicles. So that's where I see the value. But again, that's that's more qualitative data. So I hope I answered your question as best that I can. Speaker 0: And you and other clarifying questions, counsel. Speaker 1: Councilmember Harry. Speaker 0: Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you. I'd like to direct this to the, I guess the city attorney's office member or not. So I just raise this issue in regards to that council requiring, if I heard correctly, some sort of written analysis of privacy. First of all, I'm not sure when that direction was given. If someone knows when that direction was given from counsel and that if, in fact, they think that the work that the chief has done and other staff members have done, including Attorney Cogan, if that satisfies. But if they if they whatever they think. I actually think it's the prior council and their direction. Speaker 0: Who would like to address that? Speaker 3: I mean, I can address it. I'm happy to address it. I haven't had an opportunity to review. I did just receive an email from the city manager. Speaker 0: Mr. Cohen Excuse me, I mean, to interrupt and just say perhaps you could just give a brief description of what the personal privacy analysis is. For the benefit of counsel, I refer to Spencer, who wasn't on the council when this was established. Speaker 3: I have what I have reviewed prior to this meeting was the resolution that the Council adopted in December of 2019, setting forth a number of principles that the Council wanted considered when. Overall, it was the overall overarching privacy principles. And the resolution contained three components. It contained sort of a list of general principles, a, the internal or the administrative rules that the city manager adopted with regard to privacy of information technology, which was deemed not to apply to. Four uses that were consistent with a legitimate law enforcement purpose. And then there was a third component of the resolution related to facial recognition technology. So I reviewed that resolution and discussed it with the chief and with the city attorney, and I did not see anything in the current iteration, the staff report or the policies that appeared inconsistent with Council's general direction, which was which was to allow limited retention of certain materials. So that could impact privacy so long as it was used consistent with a law enforcement purpose. And as the chief said earlier, so long as it didn't employ facial recognition technology. Speaker 0: Councilmember Herb Spencer. You saw the floor. If you had something further to say. Speaker 1: It, I real quick. Thank you, Mayor. So if I heard correctly that it's the city attorney's opinion that that this is appropriate to proceed. Speaker 3: Based upon my review of the resolution. Yes, I know there does not appear to be an inconsistency, but certainly if council would like a more detailed, in-depth, written analysis, our office would be happy to provide that. Speaker 0: Kels over her, Spencer. And then to you. All right. Speaker 1: Thank you. So I appreciate your attorney, Cohan's offer, however, that really goes beyond. But I'm asking I and it sounds like the attorney's office, city attorney's office is saying that this is consistent with the former counsel's resolution. Speaker 3: That is my opinion. That is our opinion, yes. Thank you. Speaker 0: And then, Councilman, I could just see your hand go up. Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess I'm. I just want to clarify. So when counsel gave direction to use the San Francisco data privacy policy until such time as staff returned to the city council with an Alameda specific policy, and that policy requires the creation. And we have staff, you know, having done this in the past, create the creation of a personal privacy impact evaluation report. I guess I'm confused given that that that report itself is not in this how staff came to the conclusion that there was consistency with staff with with the policy direction of the council. Prior to council member Hunter Spencer survival since you asked about the timing. Speaker 0: Okay. And so you are asking that question of Mr. Cullen, are you? Speaker 3: I believe so. Is he's saying that it is. I will be candid that that I was not aware of counsel's direction to perform a written analysis. What I reviewed was the December resolution. So it's not here. Which was the question I asked earlier. Thank. Speaker 0: Okay. That's for Villa. Speaker 1: I guess my concern is we've we've I mean, I was part of that previous council and I was one of the people that had a concern about the privacy analysis and also the privacy having a privacy policy. And that was supposed to be the the kind of the the fix was to to do an analysis as these things came to us. So, you know, is it possible to get an analysis and then have this item come back or certainly. Speaker 0: Okay. The so. I think that that's something for the council to decide. Right now, we have six speakers lining up to speak. This is an item that was continued from a previous agenda. I am sorry that this wasn't clarified sooner, but I. It's also not clear to me that council is going to implement anything tonight. I think we might just be giving direction to come back with more information, including the privacy analysis. Speaker 1: But I. Speaker 0: And either of the. City attorneys who are on screen, if you want to weigh in. But I. Mr. Cohen, I think you're in the hot seat tonight. Speaker 3: All I can say is, you know, to reiterate what I said, I was not aware of the direction that. Related to this, providing a written analysis. And now that, you know, I will take a look at the email that was just forwarded to me as we were speaking. And I will review the email and review the requirements, and I would be happy to provide an expeditious written analysis if that's the council's direction. Speaker 0: So let me ask this. Okay. I am mindful of time because we have well, all of our items are important. That we. Speaker 1: Do. Speaker 0: Is so you need. Well, okay I would like it is my desire to move forward with our public speakers at this time and what we decide to do with this item. We can we can decide that is I would like to hear the public speakers unless there is some reason that anyone from staff thinks that that is not. The appropriate way to proceed. But you'll need to meet yourself and speak if you do. City attorney Cheyenne. Speaker 3: Yes, Madam Mayor. While the speakers are going forward, may we ask the city clerk to look at the council directions, if possible, electronically, to sort of confirm what directions were given and not given? Because we are seeing some emails, email communications between the councilmember, Councilmember Knox White and the city manager for the first time right now. So it will be helpful for the city clerk to confirm what council tractions were given and not given. That will be helpful. Speaker 0: Okay. I have another idea. I think that's a that's a great suggestion. Mr. Chan, I'm just wondering if under the item seven B, I'm thinking of maybe holding this one for a moment and moving forward on item seven. Be a better ARPA funding, but are we going to be needing the same staff involved? Not Chief Joshi, obviously, but I'm just trying to be as efficient with time as possible, noting that it's now past 10:00. This is well. How how long do you think you need a mr. Chen? Because we can certainly call a break. Speaker 3: I think that's more of a question for the city clerk. Speaker 0: Madam Clerk, where do you think? Speaker 2: Can pull it up while you're doing the speakers or if you want to you know stop this item and go to it is different staff for seven be. So if you wanted to pause this item and call seven be it's your prerogative I'm I'm fine with either. Speaker 0: I feel like the staff on this item should perhaps also be listening to the public speakers. But I want to keep things moving. Speaker 2: There are now ten speakers just to give you an update on speakers. Speaker 0: Okay. Mr. Chair. Speaker 3: And Madam Chair, I think my understanding is that there is real confusion. I'm just looking at some communications between staff about whether or not a personal privacy policy was actually in the direction from the council or not. So I think it is it would be helpful at some point for the city clerk to confirm what the council direction really is, because that, I think will clarify the council's direction either now it or continue later today, another council meeting. But I think the city clerk's report back on what the council direction is or was will be really important. Speaker 0: Agree. Madam, quick, if I were to move ahead on seven BYU for you, work that out with it. Do you have the staffing to do that? Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 2: I can. I can step away and stuff can handle. Yeah. As soon as you call the other item. Yes. Speaker 0: Okay, cool. So that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to jump ahead to seven B and let's see if we can get through that and then we'll come back to to succeed. All right. All right. Madam Clerk, I don't know how you do it, but could you please introduce this item? And I'm going to assume that we have waiting in the wings, whoever the appropriate staff are, for this issue. Speaker 2: This is the assistant city manager and also Jennifer Tout will be promoted to me is adoption resolution amending the capital budget by increasing appropriations in the 2021 American Rescue Plan Project by 1,911,000 for replacement of three portable and portables and decking at the Midway Shelter Food Bank Facility, repairs and purchase of wireless hotspots for lending. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Mr. Chan, do you feel like you need a city attorney on this one? And if so, do you have someone to send us or. Speaker 3: I don't need to be searching with the city clerk, so I think I'll be fine then. Speaker 1: You just. If you need me. Speaker 3: She can text me. Speaker 0: She contracts you. Perfect. All right. So good evening, everyone. Welcome. So, Mr. Burden, this tale of who's going to lead us off on this item. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor. As the abstract. I'll lead off. I'm not sure if city clerk here is going to be able to advance slides for us or not on this. But if not, I'll just flits through. I don't know if are. Speaker 0: You able to do a screen. Speaker 1: Share? Speaker 3: It looks like it started for us. Speaker 0: Look at that. Okay. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 3: So, so good evening once again, mayor and council. It's great to be with you again. The city council's taking a really thoughtful approach to assessing our priorities relative to the American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA funds that have been provided to the city by the federal government. We are in the process of receiving about $28.6 million in total. We have to fully assign this just a reminder for council and for people who are tuning in for the public side, we do have to assign those funds or allocate those funds to projects by December of 2024 and then the full spend, all the funds has to be has to be completed by December of 2026. So in May of this year, the Council did adopt a set of guiding principles for the use of these funds and directed staff to focus on a relatively short list of topic areas. In July, we discussed again with kind of narrowing a focus down to housing, affordable housing in particular, as well as some technology needs to support people that have been more impacted by COVID, which is really the central purpose of the ARPA relief funding that they came from the federal government in September. We continue to focus on housing and wireless technologies, and I'll say next slide. All right, we got the slide up and then I play straight through with that that slide. But we'll go to slide three now, please. Speaker 0: So magic. Speaker 3: Yeah. Since since September, there have been a few council discussions related to ARPA funds for specific projects. The projects are listed on this slide just for the sake of time. I won't go through them, but they are worth about $8 million of the ARPA funding and so that will move to the next slide. I mentioned the time limits. And so that to that end, we are continuing to try to keep moving forward with projects and our ARPA spending with respect to the areas that are consistent with the criteria that were set by council. We just want to be moving forward in a timely fashion so that come, come the end of 2026, we've reduced every dollar that has been that's been put towards our community. So at this time, we are recommending these three projects start recommending the Midway Shelter receive $1.8 million. They have decking, that is between all of the different buildings and structures out there that is in need of repair, as well as three fairly essential portable buildings that need to be rebuilt. They're just at the end of their useful life. So that's a $1.8 million project ask at this time. Similarly, the food bank a lot less money, but the food bank facility is in need of some repairs as well. The parking lot and one of the sheds that are used for storage need about $42,000 worth of work. And then the last item is, is another relatively small one, but can be fairly significant. This is the lending hotspot for wireless hotspot lending program. This will put wireless services into the hands of individuals and families that need that service. Up to 30 families or individuals would have better Internet service through a library lending program at no cost to them. So the total cost of those three projects that I just summarized are about $1.9 million. Next slide. Thank you. Based on the funding that's already been appropriated, the items recommended this evening, we're we're really looking at most of the first tranche or a lot of the first tranche of our ARPA funding, which is a little over $14 million. And that work will be underway fairly quickly. Staff will continue to seek direction. This is not your last opportunity to talk about ARPA funding. We'll probably be back on a quarterly basis. Give or take. Budget manager Towle has been instrumental in this effort. She's helping us not just with helping to set up these recommendations, but also in terms of the tracking and reporting that goes with ARPA dollars. So at this time, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the spending plan and budget appropriations to fund the additional projects that have been summarized tonight. And we will be back in in early 2022 to continue discussing ARPA eligible projects. So that concludes our presentation this evening. But your manager, Tal and I and others on staff are available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And, Mr. Burton. Nice work. Let's see, do we have any from the clerk's office to tell us if we have public speakers? Let's see if we can tell if. Speaker 3: There are there are about four people with their hand up. Speaker 0: I did see that. Okay. And so this is a little tricky. I think I need someone from the the city attorney's office, a city attorney, city clerk's office, to to actually call on the people and bring them forward. Let me let me see how to do that. While we're all figuring that one out, are there any clarifying questions for staff? Coke. Hold on, everyone. So it's kind of winging it today, huh? Speaker 2: Is it time to do it? Yeah, I think it magically appears. Speaker 0: Yeah, basically. I think we have some public speakers. Speaker 2: We do. We have five. The first is Carey Thompson. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Thompson. I just didn't know how to do that. Welcome. Are you able to knit yourself? Speaker 5: Me? Speaker 0: Yes, you are. I can hear. Speaker 1: You. Oh, good, good. My name is Kerry Thompson. I am a lifelong resident of Alameda, and I am the vice president and branch manager of Poppy Bank here in town. I'm also the president of Alameda Homeless Network. Speaker 5: And this hope, this. Speaker 1: Nonprofit was started in 1989 by then Mayor Ralph Basato. Can we. Speaker 0: Pause? Pause here time, please. If you would, madam. Click. Can you help us? We're getting an echo from Miss Thompson. Is she should do something different. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 2: Oh, you got it. Speaker 1: Is that better? Speaker 0: Yeah, that's better. Speaker 1: Okay. Are you all. Speaker 0: Right? Speaker 1: Okay. That's okay. Speaker 0: We'll start your time again. Speaker 1: The nonprofit was started in 1989 by then Mayor Ralph Esposito in 2008. Speaker 5: And began chose building futures to operate Midway Shelter H and continues to raise private funds all year long to keep the. Speaker 1: Shelter operating on behalf of aging. I want to thank you for ensuring that the women. Speaker 5: And children served at Midway have a safe, welcoming place to call home while they recover and forge positive, positive futures. I really urge you to approve this funding to make sure that the work that HHS and the Building Futures has brought to the community and to help these women and children continue productive. Speaker 1: Lives and become. Speaker 5: Wonderful citizens of Alameda and give back. You know, I recently met a. Speaker 1: Wonderful woman who was a former resident, and she is now. Speaker 5: Very happily. Productive citizen has raised her daughter. Speaker 1: And now is raising grandchildren, and she is just so thankful for the work that Midway has done for her. So I. Speaker 5: Just encourage you to approve. Speaker 1: This funding. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Thompson, our next speaker. Speaker 2: Alec Graber. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Graber. Are you able to? Speaker Graber. I never know what to do to help people. Speaker 2: I know I hopefully she has the most recent version of the Zoom. There's a way I can ask them to unmute, and sometimes that prompts them, but it looks like she's not able to. We can call the next speaker. Speaker 0: Why don't we do that? Speaker 2: Okay. Brian Kennedy. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Kennedy. Speaker 3: Good evening, everybody. Have a shutout and a question for everybody here. Several years ago, then, President Trump declared a day of remembrance. A day of remembrance for victims of illegal aliens. Speaker 0: All right. I'm going to stop you there, Mr. Kennedy. This is as far as comments on our expenditure of ARPA funds. So if you'd like to comment on our expenditure of our funds, please do so at. We lost him. Okay, it looks. Speaker 2: Like we can. He's. He's back if he wants to speak on our behalf. Speaker 0: Okay. And again, this is item six C direction 30 7a7b regarding the appropriations for American rescue plan dollars. Speaker Kennedy. Speaker 3: And you're skipping the topic b the feds have buried you. You should be. Okay, that's enough. And with that smirk off your face. Speaker 0: All right. We'll go to our next speaker. I see Speaker Graber is possibly needed. Speaker 2: Yes. Let's see if we can get her back in table. Speaker 0: I know I said that in the mute comes up. Speaker Graber Are you able to mute? Think the gremlins got into the system tonight. Let's try for our next speaker, because we've got two more speakers. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Just keep trying. Speaker 2: Yes. Thompson Thomas. Speaker 0: Was there. Okay. Speaker 1: Good evening. Made it. Now the mayor, city council. Speaker 5: Members and staff. Some of you may know me as the newest, I think, retired fire captain from Alameda Fire Department. So I guess I'm used to being up at this hour on calls. This is just a different kind of call. But I'm trying to stay pretty active in Alameda with organizations, so I'm really happy to see a couple of the organizations I support on your list for receiving these funds. Speaker 1: But for the past six. Speaker 5: Years, I've served on building Futures Board of Directors as Secretary, actually with the main impetus for first joining the Midway Shelter, because it appeared that every organization I was involved with in town had something to do with Midway Shelter, big or small. Everyone likes to support Midway Shelter. Speaker 1: So I could not refuse when they asked me to join the board. Speaker 5: But the physical structure of Midway really does need some serious help. The portables are old, and more than that, they're really heavily used. They're not like my children's school. Speaker 1: Portables, where they're used five days a week. Speaker 5: 10 hours a day. They are used 24 seven, and they are really heavily used and they are worn out. So I really do think the city manager for recommending this funding to rehab. Speaker 1: Midway and to the city council for hopefully approving these funds. We know the impact that Midway Shelter has. I mean, the women and children there, they get case management, they. Speaker 5: Get domestic violence support, they get linkage to housing programs. But there's really also something special that they get there. And I have the opportunity to talk to staff. Speaker 1: Now and then. And I once asked them, you know, what makes Midway extra special? What makes it work? And one of the staff members said. Speaker 4: It's because they love. Speaker 5: On their ladies and children. And that's what they. Speaker 1: Said they love on their ladies and. Speaker 5: Children. But for them to keep giving the love to their clients, they really need a safe and secure structure to do this in. Speaker 1: And so I would really hope that. Speaker 5: We consider the funding for this project because their work is truly. Speaker 1: So important. So thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 2: Jennifer Murkowski. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Murkowski. Please be able to mute. Yes. Speaker 5: Hello. Thank you for their. Speaker 1: This important topic. I strongly support Midway Shelter and the food bank and I apologize because of the lateness of the hour. I have forgotten the third item that you are considering, but the first two are. Speaker 3: Really quality. Speaker 1: Programs that I value the city investing in. I just asked, this is not the last of the ARPA dollars. There is a lot of incredible needs and I encourage the city to actively engage with its community members of what are additional valued resources to use these dollars for. I think you've identified some excellent choices tonight, but continued community engagement so that we really invest the dollars most. Speaker 5: Effectively at this critical time. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further speakers? Speaker 2: That's right. Speaker 0: They're hiring. So with that, we will close public comment on item seven B and we'll take council comment. I see Councilmember Harris, but I'm going to go with Councilmember Desai just because he hasn't spoken by then. Back to you, Councilmember Spencer. Speaker 4: Actually, it's just a quick question. Were we able to figure out how to get in touch with Israel Graber? Speaker 2: She's still on and she lowered her hand. So I'm not sure if just, you know, is like. Speaker 0: Or perhaps wants to speak on a different item because she certainly emailed us on different on some different. Speaker 1: Items. But you're. Speaker 0: Right. Yeah. Okay. Councilor Spencer. Speaker 1: I'd like to move approval of this item in total. I really think all three of these. And I do want to thank all the speakers and everyone that we received letters from emails and staff's work on this. As we've heard, sentiment is very good work that wrote one of the smallest items is the hotspots. And that's one of the things that I've been hoping and I know many people have. And it goes to how do we get Internet service as quickly as possible during a pandemic? And so I'm very happy to have that be included in this. But the other two projects we have going on right now, the food bank work, is actually to address flooding that goes on in their facility and leakage. So I think that's absolutely critical. And of course, Midway Shelter that we heard and this I think congratulations to Gail Thomas on your retirement is great to hear her here speaking and sharing another speaker in support of Medway so that I'm moving that we adopt staff's recommendation. Thanks. Speaker 0: Okay, I'm going. Just before I look for a second, I want to just add a little bit of staff direction that I hope that the Council will will also adopt. One of the things and I'm all for the proposals that are before us. I did want to note really quickly that you saw the chart of expenditures and one of them was about $26,000 that we spent of our money on the feed, our immediate program, where we actually paid our meter restaurants to prepare meals that were then taken to homeless shelters, midway, the FEMA trailers, Village of Love, and even to our encampment. And we actually raised another almost equal amount. So we were able to keep that program going, I think nine or ten months and every week a different once or twice a week, a different restaurant got a guaranteed income. We got to provide this money. But I did want to recognize that Alameda residents organizations, including our Police Officers Association and our firefighters Local 689 underwrote some of those costs. So it was, you know, we put in seed money and they matched it. And then the other item that I would like us to consider, and this is part of direction to staff, I would like us to consider the ability to explore, setting aside some of the money from the ARPA funds to provide a match for the A Universal Basic Income Program. And so we've talked about that a little at this body that's come up before. And right now in the governor's budget, Governor Newsom has allocated $35 million for a pilot program that local cities and counties can apply to. And but it will require some some match of some local local funding match. We don't have all the details. We've been in communication with our senator, Nancy Skinner, his office. She also chairs the Senate Budget Committee. And so they're watching for the guidelines to come out. But I'd like our city to have the flexibility to allocate some of our ARPA funding to be matched, to get us started with a a universal basic income program, something to explore in the coming year. So I would love to have the Council's endorsement for including this as a staff direction to explore. And I'd also like to name Councilmember John Max White if he would be willing to work with me on exploring this potential program, because I know we've both both expressed interest in it in the past. Okay. With you, Councilmember, if we get the endorsement of our colleagues. Yeah, okay. And and so and then I guess I have one question I'm all for. This is perhaps for you, Mr. Burton, that on page six of my staff report, it talks about staff as county water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure staff for evaluating the benefit of using our defense to pay for construction of a portion of these items to allow the city to advance projects that are experiencing delays. Would this be funding that would then be reimbursed by a developer, went to developer, came in to those particular items into those particular areas.

Continued Agenda Item

Recommendation to Approve a One-Year Extension of the Slow Streets Program through December 2022. (Planning, Building and Transportation 20962740) [Continued from December 7, 2021]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12212021_2021-1430

Speaker 0: items to allow the city to advance projects that are experiencing delays. Would this be funding that would then be reimbursed by a developer, went to developer, came in to those particular items into those particular areas. Speaker 3: We've thought about it both ways. We thought about it as an investment in the community based on the allowed uses of ARPA dollars. And then we've also thought about it as a as a possible reimbursement, depending on how the the the project continues at Alameda Point, there's still things that are moving through our process internally. And so this gives us some options. But the, the eligible uses do include water and water, sewer and broadband infrastructure. So we thought we'd put it into the mix for future discussion. Speaker 0: Absolutely. So it'd be fair to say that we don't have to make the election at this point in time, whether the city picks up the final tab or. Okay, that's that's fine fee. So Councilmember Harris Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you. I wanted to ask, I guess the city attorney I don't in the title of this document does not include UPI and nor is it in the list I can see in the staff's report. And so I'm wondering if that's actually part of the that was noticed. Speaker 0: Hi, Mr. Chan. Speaker 3: Councilmember I'm happy to answer. Generally, the Council is able to give very brief direction to staff that's related to an item in front of the council. And so in this case, the Council is being asked to spend ARPA funds, and I believe the direction that's being asked is to look into, not make any final decisions and not allocate any funding, but look into the other way of spending. As long as it's brief direction that does not involve a lot of discussion, it's fine because what would happen out of that brief reaction to that? I'll take a look and bring back to you a real item. Speaker 1: Thank you. I think it's important to get that on the record. Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you for doing that. Okay. So we have a motion, I take it with the with the direction. Speaker 1: I think I also think I need to accept the friendly amendment, so I'll accept the friendly amendments. Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Then I'm looking for a friendly second Councilmember Knox Way. Speaker 3: And Lee second. Speaker 0: Already we get a friendly roll call vote place. Speaker 2: And somebody said yes. Cary Christiansen. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 2: Knox Right. Speaker 3: By. Speaker 2: Vela. I as the Ashcroft. Speaker 0: I and I probably should have included. Thank you. Go ahead and finish. I want to just say that these guys five guys, five guys and I do want and I'm sure the council agrees, we really want to send a huge shout out to our wonderful colleagues and partners at Building Futures and the amazing work they do, not just at our Midway shelter, they do the vital work all over this county and also the food bank. They've been doing amazing work since that well, even before the pandemic. But then they just really had to kick it into high gear with very short notice. And the Hotspots Lending Library is great idea. So thank you. Thank you. We're going to do a lot of good things with this money. So have we given everyone enough time to return to item fixing? Because we're going to close this item, item seven be now. What's what's up next? Staff and the celebrity manager. Speaker 3: Yes. So we've we've looked at it. And so my recommendation is we've looked and there are different opinions whether or not the report back to council as far as how it complies with the privacy resolution and ordinance. There have been different opinions on it, however, and there was some confusion within the emails earlier before this item came to council. So my recommendation is I still believe that it meets the policy. It's just the report to council showing how it meets the policy. If the council wants to move forward with us bringing back Lpas and either fixed or mobile, I'd recommend we bring that privacy, that we bring the privacy analysis at that time when we bring that item back. That would be my recommendation at this point. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for that. And I take it you've concurred with the attorney. Someone from the city attorney's office say you're in agreement. Yeah. Mr. Chen. Speaker 3: Madam, and happy to share my thoughts, which is that we did the city clerk pull the council motion and she shared with all the staff and she can share with the council probably by sharing a screen, reading the motion. It is not entirely clear to me that a personal privacy policy is necessarily required. But that's just reading the one page of minutes. The city managers indicated that if the council wishes to move forward, he would have staff. He would have his staff prepare such a statement in any event, which would seem to satisfy the council's needs and probably obviate the need to call this question that we and we at least we we, as in me, just heard about this question in the midst of the council discussion. So I think the city manager solution is an elegant one response to the council's needs and allows us to move forward if the council desires. Speaker 0: We like elegant solutions. All right. Um, so at this time, because there's some decisions to be made whether this move item moves forward, but if it does, then it would come back with this personal privacy policy if I get the word incorrect. Speaker 3: And now the analysis. Speaker 0: Analysis. Analysis. All right. So we are back on item six C. And as I recall, we had speakers, public speakers on this item, Madam Kirk. Speaker 2: We did. We were at the show. Yeah, we do. They're raising their hands again, so. Speaker 0: We'll. Speaker 2: Win. But now. Speaker 0: Would it be good to reintroduce this item since we're short? Speaker 2: That's a great idea. We might. Speaker 0: We might be confusing people. Speaker 2: Yeah. So we're back on 60. That's the recommendation to provide direction on staff regarding installation use of automated license plate readers, including fixed mobile equipment, and now these police department vehicles. And we are back up to eight speakers. Speaker 0: All right. So with that, I'm going to take the public speakers, please, Madam Clerk. So you and your right to tell them about time. Speaker 2: Since there are more than six speakers, there's now nine and each speaker will get 2 minutes. And the first speaker is Bill Pye. Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, speaker pie. Speaker 3: Good evening. Can you hear me? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 3: So thank you. My name is Bill PY and I'm President of the primary board for the Community of Harbor Ballard. We're located on Bay Farm Island and our community is comprised of 20 homeowners associations and almost 3000 homes in total. My thanks to all members of the City Council, the mayor and staff for your efforts on behalf of our city. Happy holidays to all. So my comments today are to make clear that the community will be. I'll supports expanding the use of automated license plate readers, all referred to them as helpers at strategic points in our city community. We've been doing this discussion for years and I think that the recent increases in crime and staffing constraints at the police department make this issue even more important to consider now. Now we recognize that the Alpers are not a cure all for crime by all, by any means. But we believe they can be a valuable asset in helping to discourage crime. To cite one location specific to our community where Bay Edge Road becomes Harbor Bay Parkway. This backdoor entrance to our community allows criminals to rapidly exit the area and be on Ron Cullen Parkway within a couple of minutes. There's no way law enforcement can respond quickly enough to address that kind of issue. I realize that there are privacy concerns and residents who do not wish the APD to have the information collected by Alpers. But with proper safeguards, we believe the benefits outweigh the risks given the relatively limited number of interest routes to our city. Automated license plate readers could have a strong impact once criminals know their plates will be photographed and recorded. The community of probably firmly supports installing automated license plate readers at appropriate points within our community and our city. Thank you. Thank you. And happy holidays. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker. Speaker 2: Sure. Kim. Speaker 0: KDP Speaker Kim. Speaker 3: Happy holidays, everybody. Thank you. Mayor Ashcroft and city council members for allowing me to speak. My name is Richard Kim, and I am the past president of the East Shore Homeowners Association, which consists of 142 single family homes on the east end of the main island. First of all, I commend all of you for the hire of Police Chief Michel and Joshi. Our association had the honor of meeting with him and hearing his vision and plans for the safety of our city. We fully support his vision and would like the Alameda Police Department to have the technology and the resources that will allow them to address our number one concern, which is safety. During the past two years, we have experienced robberies, vandalism, assaults and even deaths. One of our neighbors had a home invasion on Friday midday at 230 in the afternoon. Earlier this year, the invaders had a gun and thank God nobody was injured. This is not the Alameda that we know. A discussion on license plate readers has been an ongoing one and we hope it will be approved. There are three data points which we consider. One, there was a reduced headcount of sworn officers for the Alameda Police Department and they need the help of technology to the readers are an investigative tool and they do not replace officers and by themselves do not solve crimes, but act as a deterrent to crime and save people hours . A good example of this is the city of Piedmont, which uses these readers. And lastly, there are fears about privacy and preventing access to the data that we feel that resolution proposed by the city can make this a win win proposition. I humbly ask this forum to approve the installation and use of the automated license plate reader. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 2: Denise Anderson. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Anderson. Speaker 2: Good evening. Speaker 1: Some years ago I was pulled. Speaker 5: Over and approached with. Speaker 1: Guns drawn. Speaker 5: Because my car was the same color as a car involved. Speaker 1: In a crime. Speaker 5: Not even the same car, just similar and. Speaker 1: The same color. It was extremely traumatizing. But there isn't any evidence that Alpers would prevent mistakes like this. Speaker 5: If these devices truly, really, truly assisted in. Speaker 1: Significantly increasing clearance rates. There is no way these departments wouldn't be tracking that to justify these and other cities. A quick search of any social media platform, and you'll find dozens upon dozens of stories of people with stolen license plates. While this is just anecdotal evidence that is just as valid as the anecdotal evidence presented by Chief Joshi. We are. Speaker 2: Quickly experience a crime wave instigated by very. Speaker 1: Organized criminals. But now I'm supposed to believe that these sophisticated masterminds can't figure out how to unscrew license plates and keep a stash on hand or print counterfeit dealer plates. There's a lot of money to devote to more surveillance. It hasn't proven to be an effective and reducing crime or helping to clear a significant amount of crimes committed. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. My next speaker. Speaker 2: Zak Bailey. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker bowling. Speaker 3: Hi there, counsel. Yeah, I see how the department can see. Speaker 4: The importance of this. Speaker 3: Tool, but I do have concerns about. Speaker 4: Privacy. I'm concerned about secret subpoenas, rogue actors, misuse. I'm an engineer, but for 20 years, I've been working on implementing systems that are private. Speaker 3: Secure, secure by design. Speaker 4: In ways that can't be reversed. And as an engineer, I seriously want to look in depth at these different vendors, exactly how they implement their data storage. In that vein, I would urge an in-depth analysis of any solution from any vendor, because Googling and looking at most of the products that I've found, I'm concerned just on reading product data sheets because these don't look like they were written. Speaker 3: By security engineers. It's my understanding that the. Speaker 4: Mobile. Speaker 3: License plate reader. Speaker 4: Systems are more real time. They don't store and review for later, so there's not as much of a storage component with it as there would be with a fix system. Speaker 3: So concerned about the cross-referencing that these devices. Speaker 4: Do, I'm concerned about the incremental data collection more than just license plate readers and timestamps, but just the full images and what could be accidentally cotton. Those concerned about the. Speaker 3: The fact that there is a bit in one of the presentations that shows if they're a resident or not and I don't know if that's just informational, but that kind of information shouldn't be automatic. Speaker 4: That it should be more investigation, should be should be for that. So I'm not against the idea of automatic license plate readers, but I'm very concerned about how they're implemented currently by any vendor that exists. And it terrifies me that a subpoena or somebody could come along and collect this data. Speaker 3: Or. Speaker 4: Some other entity could collect this data without anybody following our policies that we set. And that's my concern. So I'll leave it at that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 2: Elk Irvine. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Garbine. Speaker 3: Good evening, council members and Mayor Ashcraft, thank you for permitting me to remark on this. I'm a bit frustrated and confused by the by the mechanism that this agenda item has been heard and then not heard and then deferred. However, as a resident of the Fern Side Marina neighborhood, where we have quite a bit of crime, I'm speaking as an individual, but I am definitely speaking in favor of the installation and use of fixed and mobile automated license plate readers by the Alameda Police Department. I believe it is this council's primary responsibility to provide for the safety and security of city residents. And while there may be adjunct concerns in this, I trust Chief Joshi to do the right thing and follow council direction. And I want you, though, to give him and his department the chance, because these things appear to be a valuable crime fighting, an investigatory tool that will primarily serve the strong interest. And I believe your primary duty, the primary interests of the community in public safety and security. Therefore, I very respectfully ask that you go ahead and permit APD to acquire a fixed and mobile automated license plate readers. I thank you very much for listening to my remarks.

Continued Agenda Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Kittelson & Associates to Increase Compensation by $270,906, for a Total Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $345,876 to Continue Providing Technical Services Related to Roundabouts. (Transportation 20962743) [Continued from December 7, 2021]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12212021_2021-1347

Speaker 3: Therefore, I very respectfully ask that you go ahead and permit APD to acquire a fixed and mobile automated license plate readers. I thank you very much for listening to my remarks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 2: Marilyn Roffman. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Rothman. Speaker 1: Hello again. Speaker 5: I tapped into the same thing a previous. Speaker 1: Speaker noticed in the first screen of the presentation. Why would. Speaker 5: Anybody need to know whether some car. Speaker 1: Hat was a resident. Speaker 5: Or not? That has nothing to. Speaker 1: Do with crime. Nothing. I find that the. Speaker 3: These. Speaker 5: Readers are totally. Speaker 1: Detrimental to public privacy and will actually increase the police imprint, which I am against. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 2: Michael Robert Long. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker one This one. Speaker 3: And you hear me? Speaker 0: Yes, we can. Hi. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor and council members. This past October, the presidents of 50 of our highways across Alameda met with this police chief. We asked him to address the unease that many in our nearly 7000 homeowner households felt about the crime happening all around our island community. Given that you have capped the storm ranks at 50 and 88 excuse me, more than a few presidents support the idea that to keep Alameda safe, the use of the technologies such as license plate readers is crucial. With some homeowners talking about moving to a safer city, we are at a tipping point. This is especially true here in Bay Farm, where increased auto steps have directly affected the number of our neighbors. With the support of my Board of Directors and as President of the 201 households in the Costa Brava Highway, I support implementing the Chief's plan to deploy Alpers with the caveat that the shelf life of that data collected and its access are strictly controlled, as he has discussed. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Let's see, we have yes, we have 12 minutes left. Okay. Let's get to our public speakers and then council. We need to take a housekeeping vote. And I want to commend all the public figures you're doing brilliantly at staying within your time limit. So thank you. Who's next? Speaker 2: In a hurry. Speaker 0: Koski welcomes Speaker Rakowski. Speaker 1: I thank you. I am concerned. Yes, we are an island, and that is a strategic point. But we are not at war with our neighbors. And setting up license plate readers at the entrances and exits to the island give off a message of unwelcome that could have a negative impact on our residents and our businesses and our community and our values. This is an expensive proposal with questionable value, and I am also concerned that while it is being pitched to. Speaker 3: Us to be able to solve. Speaker 1: Dramatic missing persons and strong robberies, things of that sort that in fact caught up in the license plate, readers will be struggling folks with unpaid parking tickets or with their vehicle registration behind in these hard times. And I'm not seeing protections built into the policy that the goal is that this is being. Speaker 3: Sold. Speaker 1: For our community towards actually going to be how this program would be utilized, especially given sort of recent experiences with the mobile license plate readers. So a lot of questions and I am looking forward to a more complete analysis on privacy coming back to council. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 2: Melody Montgomery. Speaker 1: Hey. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Montgomery. Speaker 1: Good evening. Thank you for having me. First of all, thank you for Jennifer. To Jennifer, for all her words, she just spoke. I agree with everything she just said. A Alpers don't stop crime. They're not a they're not anything that stop crimes. And as you'll see the analysis, look more and look deeper into it, you'll find the same numbers that we found. They make it makes citizens feel like they're watching. Like are we living in an oral society where Big Brother is just going to. Speaker 4: Have eyes on all the time? We're leaving the island. We're coming back to the island. We're leaving the island or coming back to the island. Speaker 3: It's not a comfortable feeling, and it's not. Speaker 1: Some place that you makes you feel like home. Typically, these things have also been placed in targeted neighborhoods where we'll be placed the east side, the west side. I think you already know. Citizens. Alameda do not need to be monitored like that. I'm going to respond to something, things that the chief said about knowing when stolen. Speaker 3: Vehicles are on our island. Speaker 1: But then he said that we wouldn't they wouldn't be using the information unless a crime was done first. So there was confusion just in his presentation about how the data will be used and where it would be used. Yeah. So I think we need a deeper policy and we need to know. Speaker 3: More about that. Speaker 1: That it's already confusing. So once again, these do not prevent crime. And so I'm asking you just to say no. Speaker 3: Just say no to a alpers. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank your next speaker. Speaker 2: Laura. Katrina. Speaker 0: Did you speak to Katrina? Speaker 2: Then I couldn't find the mute button. Speaker 0: You found it? Speaker 2: I found it. I also want to encourage a on the Alpers. I know in the past there was an article that came out last year that APD was surveilling our community, using facial recognition, disregarding counsel's direction, and that was with the Clearview technology. And the article broke through like a national news cycle. And that's not something that I think the Alameda needs to be known for. Right. So I, I have doubts about the use of the use. And I could see there being poor judgment and misuse of this really sensitive information. Additionally, the Electronic Frontier Foundation says that this data and it makes sense campaign in an intimate picture of the driver's life. And so it can be used to target drivers who visit sensitive places like health centers, immigration clinics, funerals, protests, etc., etc., religious houses of worship. And so, again, I want to also understand what is this going to be used for? I think that they're what I've heard in other speakers, like there's fears about crime and there's this people are revealing they're experiencing more crime to the point that other speakers have made. Like, I don't believe that this is going to change the clearance rate of what APD is able to solve. And it's a reactive measure. It's not a proactive measure. And so I would recommend that we spend the money, the 500 to $700000, to reduce the root causes of what maybe some of these crimes are. Instead of using that money to surveil the community and create a state where we're being watched, because, again, to the point that I think Miss Montgomery made it, it doesn't feel like a place that I want to be. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. At this time, I know we've got one more public speaker, Madam Clerk. However, it's 1055, and we do need to take that vote. So could we please. So, Counsel, we have to be able to consider any new items after 11 p.m.. We have to have a motion councilor and that's why it's got his hand up. Speaker 3: I'm mean here, all the remaining items up until midnight and take another vote of midnight if we want to go for that. Speaker 0: And this takes four votes to pass. Do we have a second to that? Councilmember de SAG. Going to midnight is your. Okay. You said it. Okay, madam, quickly. We have a real cover. Speaker 2: Please disappear everyday. Speaker 3: Shall I? Speaker 2: Not quite. Sorry. Her expense account? Speaker 1: No. Speaker 2: You moved on my screen. Not right. Hi, Vela. I may, as Ashcroft know, that motion fails to do. Speaker 0: Do we have a motion to perhaps. Speaker 1: Get through. Speaker 0: The regular calendar? Or anything else. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 1: I'd like to finish this item. Speaker 0: Well, we will finish this item. This is about whether we take another item after 11. So we don't have a motion to take another item after 11. Councilmember de SAC. Speaker 4: Well, you know, seven A is a police matter. I'd love to take seven A as well. So that's my emotion. Speaker 0: Okay to finish seven? Yeah. Okay. Anyone want to second Councilmember Jason's motion? Seeing no hands up and then no further motions. Madam Clerk, this means that we will complete this item. Correct. Subtract 660 and then. And we'll hear nothing further that requires vote. Speaker 2: Correct. So you would just you've already heard same in their communications would be just sections nine and 11 that you would hear. Speaker 0: Correct. All right. Okay. So back to our public speakers. Madam Clerk, I think, is even stranger. Yes. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: And and Speaker Graber has reappeared. So let's try and get her to we will welcome Speaker Estrela. Speaker 3: Yes. Some of the speakers were figuring that maybe the PR was going to be at some fixed jail locations like at bridges. And this agenda item is just putting a L PR on police vehicles. So just to clarify that. But that's that's what you folks said earlier. The regarding the local resident box that eight years ago at 530 in the morning I was on my bicycle riding past a car that was broken into. So I called the Almeda Police and gave them the license plate. And about an hour later, they showed up and said, Oh, it was for a local resident and it was for that address. So they were able to contact the the owner of the residents there about the the car being broken into. So I just saying that that may be a way that the local resident box is used. I have no idea. But it sounds like that's more in the case filing the portion rather than an immediate return on an inquiry on the license plate. That's my $0.02. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. It just so as not to confuse the public. I do want to note that this is this item is a recommendation to provide directly to staff regarding the installation use of automated license plate readers, including fixed and mobile equipment on Alameda Police Department. Vehicles in the staff report lists out the actual fix the proposed fixed locations. Okay. Our next speaker is. Speaker 2: Are you like her neighbor? Speaker 0: She just disappeared. How does that happen? No. She's back. She's not. There you are. Welcome. Yay! You're unmuted. Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening. I just want to say that I'm I'm really disappointed that it appears the council's not going to be taking action on this tonight. I think this has been going on for over three years. The council needs to face up and make a decision on this. I hope once you get this report from Mr. Cohen about allaying the privacy concerns that the council will move ahead and vote for this. It's not. I'm going to get the bad feeling that there are certain people on the council that just are philosophically against this, regardless of the benefits. Speaker 5: That they may provide. Speaker 1: To our citizenry. We really need to be thinking of protecting. The residents. Speaker 5: Alameda residents, first of all. Speaker 1: And I believe that there was a. Speaker 5: What do you call it, a survey. Speaker 1: On next door. And the survey. Speaker 5: You've probably heard about it or seen it. The survey was 84% of the people want the readers. Speaker 1: Only 16 are against it. Now, I know tonight the speakers. Speaker 5: Were more like 5050, but that does not portray. The general residents of Alameda. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 5: That's my take on it. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. And we finished our public speakers have smoker, correct? All right. So with that, I will close public comment on item six C and we'll take it back to the. Speaker 1: To. Speaker 0: The Council. Speaker 1: For. Speaker 0: Discussion direction. So again, this is we're being asked to provide direction to staff regarding the installation and use of a as Vice Mayor de. Speaker 1: I have a couple of concerns. One is I thought that we gave pretty clear direction in the December 2019 meeting about the privacy issue, making sure that we had a privacy policy in place and that we would be following the San Francisco public privacy policy in the interim. And so I just I'm a little worried that we're we're undoing an act of the council. And I thought that that was pretty clear direction that was given. And if our meeting minutes don't reflect the the audio, I mean, I'll go back and pull the audio clips if need be. But I'm just I'm concerned that we're undoing an act of council relative to that. The second thing is, and I'll make this very clear, I've made this clear in pretty much every meeting that we've had on Alpers. And I feel like this is maybe the third or fourth time this has come back while I've been on council , that this has nothing to do with whether or not I trust our current chief. I trust our current chief. I like our current Chief. I will continue to trust until I have reason to not. That said, I am philosophically opposed to Alpers and philosophically opposed to them because the data shows that they are not efficient or effective against crime fighting. And in fact, I think what we do see is that they cost a lot of money. And I you know, I do worry about the kind of placebo effect of spending money on technology that is not going to be as effective as we say it is. I do think that we have given money to our police officers. I've certainly been supportive in that regard of making sure that our police department has funding to fill vacancies and that we are doing everything that we can to not only fill vacancies, but to fill them with quality officers and to give them training and all of the things that we need to to to have a good police force. So I just my concern remains the same, which is that I think that this sort of technology creates a lot of opportunities for abuse of power that I that I do not want to support and I cannot support. And I don't really understand that there is really no data to show that they are a deterrent other than kind of the anecdotal things that we hear. So I am just, you know, my position hasn't changed. I've waited for for data and studies that really show otherwise. My privacy concerns, my concerns about privacy remain. I do want to see staff movement on those policies. I understand that there were issues even relative to our existing mobile. ALPERS There were some with the previous privacy policy that had been proposed and staff was going to work through those issues. And I look forward to that policy coming back and being finalized that we're not kind of stuck in this limbo of using the San Francisco policy in the interim. But that's where I'm at. This is nothing. This is not a statement on whether or not I trust our police chief. I just really do not support this. I think this is a large expenditure and I don't know that we're going to get our money's worth, and I don't know that we're going to see the deterrents that we expect. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I consider her a Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank all the public comments and all of the emails. And I know this is a controversial issue. I want to thank our chief for all of his work. And I want to thank our former chief, Paul Larry, who brought this while I was mayor. And at that time, yeah, well, I wanted to I wanted to quote him to make sure I have it here. So back in looking at an article from February seven, 2018 online, and what he said then is, quote, This is chief power. Larry, if there are people in the room who are concerned that the police department is racially profiling folks, here is the tool that does not do that. It doesn't care what Larry said. It doesn't have the ability to racially profile. And I remember him saying it at the time, and I and I've heard similar comments. You know what what these things can and cannot do. And I do support the chief's recommendation. My understanding, Chief, is your first and even as listed on the staff. Alternative one. I understand that. That's actually your right. Your first ask is direct staff to move forward with the next step in implementation of fixed airports and revamping and expanding the Mobile Dale PR program. So in your professional opinion, is that your primary ask of counsel tonight? Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. Speaker 1: Right. So I would that would be my motion to move forward in that. And Chief, could you explain so in regards to what does that actually look like to move forward? You mean would you all be coming back? Would you be coming back at some point in the near future? What does your timeline look like? Speaker 0: Good achieve Joshi. Speaker 3: Sir, I was trying to get off it so I would take guided direction from from council on on next steps. But what I my my recommendation is that we move forward with being able to install the equipment, the camera, the clippers at the at the fixed locations that are that are designated and in the staff report. Speaker 1: May I? Speaker 0: You may continue. Cancer. Cancer. Thank you. Speaker 1: And so do you need additional funding and approval? Because I know back in the day we approved, I believe, 500,000. When Chief Larry was here. Speaker 3: So I think that cost with sickness it would would be significantly less. As I've done more recent research, I think I don't have exact dollar amount, but I think it would be somewhere. There are 13 locations where we want to where we would install the cameras. And each camera is $2,750 a year for the first year, and then it drops down to $2,500 a year per camera. So if we have 13 locations and we installed one at each location, it's I think it's around 35 or $36,000. Speaker 1: And then regards you. Speaker 0: Have this work ahead. Speaker 1: Thank you. And in regards to the mobile units. Speaker 3: So the mobile units, they are a about $200 per vehicle per month. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you very much, Chief. So I have made a motion there was discussion regarding this privacy program or just I'm not really sure what a privacy impact report that the prior counsel had requested, I believe I'm not really sure, but it looks like I've heard from attorneys saying that they think it's the work that's already been discussed satisfies it. However, I am happy to someone that as part of the A friendly amendment, I'm happy to entertain what that looks like. I'm not really sure what it is so far, but I did make a motion to move his first request. Thank you. Speaker 0: We can have a fifth. There's a second for that and then we'll have discussion. I will let you know that I'm not supporting that motion and I'm guessing that you don't have three votes. I could be wrong. But Councilmember Desai, did you want to speak at this time or should I. Speaker 4: Be more than happy to speak? The necessity of license plate readers has been expressed by various councils and and police chiefs and and residents over a long period of time. I recall attending a meeting with Council member Lina Tam. I believe it was in 2013. It could have been 2014 and and Chief Noonan could have been the police chief at the time. I can't quite remember if it was 2014 or 2013. And it was a meeting held at Bayport in the west end of town. And, you know, mentioned was made up of the the use of license plate readers. And as a result, you know, we did have a discussion about that in city council. And over the years, certainly when and that was when Mary Gilmer was mayor and then certainly when Trish. Councilmember Herrera Spencer was mayor. We certainly had that conversation then as well. I think the time of license plate readers, whether there are fixed or placed on on mobile vehicles. I think the time has come in the period of time between 2013, 2014 and today, the way in which crime is occurring. Throughout, you know, the United States, but but including here in the Bay Area, including here in Alameda, is so vastly different and more sophisticated, especially in the turn in the use of social media. I mean, work up until recently, we were at our wit's end, you know, trying to deter or stop capture, you know, people who were doing these wild drag races over at Alameda Point. And clearly, certainly in parts of east end of town, there is crime that's going on and it's crime of a sophisticated nature. Just only recently, there was like, I don't know what you call it, bum mass of people who had broken into a medical marijuana place on the east end of town. And then they coordinated it to break it on the west end of town. And the very same night and on the very same night that they broke in on the west end of town, they came back one hour later and I heard them breaking into. And I think we're at a point in time where we not only have to, you know, finally fulfill the vacated position, unfilled positions in our police department that we're beginning to fill. And there was a great event last week, by the way, in the hiring of three new police officers. But we not only need to fill those unfilled positions and provide the officers with the proper training, but we also need to give them the tools. And that's all. LPR Cars are automated license plate readers. They're just tools to help our police. You know, improve the way in which they either deter crime or if crime happens, capture the people who perpetrate crimes. They're not perfect tools. And I don't think we're at a point where we can wait seven more years in hopes of finding the perfect tool, to be sure.

Continued Agenda Item

Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff Regarding the Installation and Use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR), including Fixed and Mobile Equipment on Alameda Police Department Vehicles. (Police 10031110) [Continued from December 7, 2021]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12212021_2021-1456

Speaker 4: You know, improve the way in which they either deter crime or if crime happens, capture the people who perpetrate crimes. They're not perfect tools. And I don't think we're at a point where we can wait seven more years in hopes of finding the perfect tool, to be sure. You know, these are expensive. They're expensive in 2014 and they're expensive in 2021. But. We here in City Hall, we've got to amp up our game in terms of deterring crime and solving crime. And this is one tool that that I'm looking at that that I think can help us. You know, it's not the perfect tool, but I don't want to wait another seven years for the perfect tool. I think the issues of privacy are absolutely important. They're absolutely critical. But, you know, I have confidence in our city attorney's staff and I have confidence in our city Manor's staff, and I have confidence in our in our police staff and in our police chief that, you know, we will be very mindful of concerns with regard to privacy. So I think we need to move forward now, not just because, you know, we've got Easton homeowners associations concerned, but, you know, we've got West End homeowner's associations and and whether or even renters who are concerned about about crime. And we need to give them a signal that we're going to give our police a fighting chance in order to enable to to deter crime and to solve crime. And I think in LPR, I think that's what that that's what we're giving them. Speaker 0: Thanks, Councilmember Desai. So here are my comments. I am very mindful of the comments that I heard from residents tonight concerned about increasing crime and also those concerned about privacy and other issues. But certainly anyone who follows the news knows that we are seeing some changes in the way that crime is taking place. Our attorney general, Rob Bonta, who happens to be a former member of this body and Alameda resident, has been on the news lately talking about the need to get tougher on some of these criminals. I think our technology can be a valuable tool. But based on what is in front of us today, this particular staff report, I'm not ready to move forward approving the use of this technology. I would like to give staff direction to come back to us. So this is this is what I would propose. And I will add that I did have a lengthy phone conversation with Chief Joshi this this morning or this afternoon sometime today, because I have a lot of questions about the staff for it now. We've heard some information presented tonight. It's not in this staff report. And I would like when if if when this item comes back to us, I'd like some of that fleshed out more because the as far as the cost of these of this technology, the amount that was given in the staff report was actually between 500 and $700,000. That's a lot more expensive. This is on page four in the staff report that had a fix. Our PR system is preliminary, preliminarily thought to cost 500 to $700000. Now we're hearing that it's under 3000 per unit. So I'd like some explanation of that. And also, there's there's the the cost of installing the cameras if if that is approved, if there's a majority to approve that. But then there's the cost of of maintenance. So what would that be? But we've heard many references to privacy concerns. And so I do want to know what specifically is the retention policy that's being proposed. We heard Chief Joshi and I also have huge regard, and I'm so glad he's our chief and other local resident, too. But he said that he would be willing to reduce the retention time that needs to be in a policy where we're just hearing, again, more anecdotal evidence. I would want to see that there's been talk about fix security cameras and also continuing mobile cameras. I'd like some more discussion about which actually might have the more chilling effect on residents. There's always that balancing act that when Chief and I talked today, I use the example of, you know, the the mobile unit with the camera that goes past the mosque at prayer time. So just some considerations I'd like to see fixed versus mobile or do we do both? And so the other question I'd like explored is the city of Berkeley, you may have heard recently approved the use of security cameras. Berkeley is also experience increase in crime. Berkeley's about as progressive as they get in Alameda County, and I have huge regard for their mayor. My friend Jesse Archean, we communicated about this Berkeley City Council, approved the use of security cameras in various locations throughout the city. And there are, again, tells me that the city manager I'm I'm guessing in concert with the city attorney is currently drafting the use policy for these fixed security cameras. I would like our staff to look into to communicate with Berkeley. What are they doing? What is their policy say? Might that be a way that we go about making our residents safer and and helping the police solve crime? And I do very much understand the need to free up our officers to do the kinds of patrolling and and covering our neighborhoods and business districts to make us safe. We need to do more with less. And then the other thing that I want addressed when if when this item comes back to us is how do you handle vehicles without license plates? Because in some of these mass retail thefts that we've heard about, these cars can be. And they don't have license plates. So how does what is an LPR do it appear to do in that in that instance? And then data retention and storage, where does it go? Who's storing it? What are the you know, what are the possible uses of it? And I do think we need to have some explanation of that Clearview snafu that occurred a year or two ago. Whatever happened to the folks who without authorization, were trying out this new software? I think that that's a fair question for the for the council and the public to know about. And finally, I want to encourage our city council to get behind supporting a b550. This was authored by Assembly member David Chu when he was still on the Assembly before he became a city attorney of the county of San Francisco. But it's now been picked up by Assembly member Friedman, who is the chair of the Transportation Commission, which is a good thing. But this is automated speed cameras and as you would expect of an assembly member, David Chiu, it's very thoughtfully designed so that, yes, if you're caught going over a certain speed, you do get the other citation. But there's a process for appeal for folks with low incomes to not have to pay that fine. But it is part of what is viewed as part of Vision Zero. So I want our city to join a big MTC, the League of California Cities and others. I understand that it got hung up in appropriations because the California Highway Patrol sees some threat to maybe their territory. But I think that's an important tool for for law enforcement and to help our cities remain a little safer. But anyway, at this point in time, I am willing to support giving a staff direction to come back in the manner I've laid out, but not to support the motion that's been made. Council days have been. Council are not. Speaker 1: Swayed. Speaker 4: Well, I'm just going to second Councilmember Patricia Spencer's motion. And with a yeah, I'm just going to second it. Speaker 0: Okay. And, Kelso, we're not sweating. So you to go up. Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you. I know I talked a lot earlier, but I haven't actually given my comments. We already support 8550. And actually, we were one of the few cities to send a letter when it was before we did. So it's good. And I appreciated the the lead him because I was going to say I'm not against cameras. I just think that if we're going to tell our community that we're going to install them, we need to have confidence that they're going to actually have an impact on the things that we're telling them. And we heard a lot of a lot of statements today, and I've read a lot of threads on next door in the past that make a lot of claims about what cameras are going to do. And I haven't heard one that actually accurately describes the outcome of putting these cameras in place. I think we you know, we have through many different and I want to say, I understand that our community has concerns about safety and crime. And I think we need to be doing as much as we possibly can. And I would be supporting these cameras if I thought they were actually a tool that was going to do that. And I want to thank our staff and our and appreciate the work they're doing. I also had a chance to speak with Qureshi. He knows I. He has my support. I greatly, greatly appreciate him. And I think this is just an issue that we're going to we're going to disagree. There is a reason that there are no studies that show that these do not deter or change crime. And the reason is because they don't. And there's a reason why we have to listen to anecdotal stories of one issue that happens in one city and one issue that happens in another city. And it's because nobody says that they have never solved a crime. It's that when you install cameras, they do not change what happens with crime in that city. In the years after Piedmont put in cameras. Assault went up twice as fast as it went up in Alameda with no cameras. Violent crime went up 104%. Alameda was dropped 4%. Robbery went up 20%. Alameda has dropped 4%. Firearm robberies went up 17%. Alameda is dropped 30. Aggravated assault went up 210%. Alameda has dropped. Burglary dropped 23 and a half percent in Piedmont, 33% in Alameda. We are overpromising if we move forward with this program that somehow putting these cameras in are going to have an impact on the crime outcomes in our city. And it's not going to. A 2018 study of Vallejo's use of these found that 37% of the license plate hit were wrong. That's 37% of the hits that our police officers chase down are going to be after. Things that are not are not crimes. People who are not involved in things, it ends up wasting time. One of the reasons why I'm concerned about this is that we are actually short of officers, and rather than using this to leverage the officers, we have to do more and better work. We're actually going to be taking away from the time they are spending on the streets doing the work that we need them to do. I appreciate it, Mayor. As the Ashcraft mentioned of the Clearview issue, I don't know how we move forward with with a new camera program until we've addressed the issues that that we still that are still out there about Clearview and our police force writing about how they know we don't like these cameras and yet still continuing to use them. And I do know that a lot of people didn't use it, and I appreciate that as well. But I would like to finish up that before we move forward. So, you know, for me, I'm not going to be supporting this because I think that it actually ends up being just security theater. We're going to spend $700,000 for trying to put things up on the bridge. We're going to actually pull away the resources that we have. And we're at the end of the day, a year, two years, three years after this, we are going to have nothing to show for it. But the companies that we have spent this, hundreds of thousands of dollars are going to have pocketed that money and are going to be on to selling us the next technological fix. Dozens of agencies in this Bay Area and in the country use these things and there is not one study that can show they have impact on crime. For me. That's all I need to hear. So I'm absolutely now I'm moving forward with this. I don't think we need to spend any time even asking staff to come back with more information. I think at such time that we can say to our community, hey, look, this has been used in hundreds of cities, and here's the data that shows us that actually it's effective. I will be there with you saying, let's put these in. But until then, I'm not ready to move forward. Thank you. Speaker 0: Councilor Daisuke. Speaker 4: You know, I just in my brief amount of time left, I just want to say, you know, we have had two, maybe three police chiefs who have been supportive of things like LPR. I think that that has got to amount to something. And, you know, the fact that, hey, there are other police forces employing it, I think that's got to amount to something. I you know, hey, you know, whatever a university professor in some ivory tower has to say, you know, great. You know, wonderful. But I'm going to have to balance that with what the men and women, you know, dressed in blue are telling us. I don't think they're just, you know, whipping out loopers for because they've got nothing better to do. I think if they're telling us that this is a tool that can help them in deterring and improving solving crimes, then and I think we owe it not just to our police force, but we owe it to our residents. So I don't know what more to say because it sounds like we're going to be waiting another seven years. And it was seven years when we first started this conversation. Now we're going to wait another seven years to find that perfect magic tool. Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai I'm willing to consider moving forward, but after the questions I posed or answered. Speaker 4: I think it was. I second it. Councilmember. Speaker 0: So you did councilmember knox way. Speaker 3: I guess what I would say and I and I didn't read it off my list but I think Alameda is actually police force has let us know what you know how overly useful these are we have four of them and two of them have been in the shop because we didn't take care of them and we haven't met and maintain them and they are out of commission and they were not deemed so important that we needed to, you know, prioritize fixing them and getting them back on the street. So again, I'm not looking for the perfect bullet. I'm looking for something that says that where you can where we can find where there's data that shows us, because there is so much data about crime fighting out there that shows us this can be impactful. Speed cameras is exists. There are reams of studies that show you this time. Speed cameras, slow speeds down, reduce crashes, make places safer, but not for these. So anyway. But we can just disagree. Speaker 0: We have counsel for her, Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to give the Chiefs the opportunity to respond to some of these comments. And there have been many made. So, for instance, just last councilmembers spoke in regards to the developers that have been working. But I believe I read in the report that part of the reason that you had to bring it back was that you want to hear from council what to do. But if you could address that, that concern, as well as the best use of the officers that we have. That was another issue that was raised. Speaker 0: Actually. Councilmember Harry Spencer, I think it's time for a vote on your motion. I have asked for direction to have staff which would include the chief, come back with answers to questions. But I think it's time to take a vote now. Speaker 2: If you want me to take a roll call vote. I mean. Speaker 0: I do. I yeah. Speaker 2: Okay. Councilmember Desai. Speaker 4: Well, just a point of order. I mean, I think if the councilmember is asking a question that she would like our staff to answer, I think that's her prerogative. Speaker 0: It is okay. And I'm going to need a vote to have more time. Speaker 3: One minute. Speaker 1: Actually, I think the question gets answered. Point of order. You can't just call the question without doing emotion. And you tried to do that. But I did have a question to the chief, and it's extremely disrespectful to not allow him to speak. However, I do have time. You do have a point of order. Speaker 0: Yeah. I heard you. We had a staff presentation. The questions you were asking. The information was in the staff report. Council member Harry Spencer. So I'm not sure the value of hearing it from the chief again. But we can we can let him speak. But if you want to move this item forward, it's going to have to be from a different direction. But. Yes. What question would you you asked him about the unused IPR powers. Is that it? Speaker 1: I'm sorry. You've been extremely disrespectful to myself as well as the chief. I've already asked the questions and I'm pretty confident he can answer them. You might not be able to remember, but I bet he can. Speaker 0: And Councilmember Harry Spencer, I apologize if you think that I've been disrespectful to you. I am trying to run a meeting and I'm trying to also move this item forward, actually. So I will just remind all of us that we don't speak disparagingly to each other. I do know that we get a little frustrated at times. We don't see eye to eye, but we all have the city's best interests at heart. Chief Joshi, perhaps you could restate the question so I make sure we all understand what it is you were asked. Speaker 3: I think the question was regarding the the Alps that are in the vehicles that are not in use as I think that's okay. So there were. So back in 2014 is when the department had the four cameras installed. Two of the vehicles are actually it's not that equipment is out of commission. The actual vehicles are out of commission. And in order to move the equipment from those out of commission vehicles into in commission vehicles would require. Go initiating another contract with this current vendor. And I just think that there are other vendors that we can we can work with. And I just I just that that's why it has not been done. So the two cars are out of commission and that's why they're not being they're not out there as much. Speaker 1: May I continue? Speaker 0: Council Member Harris Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you, I my chief, thank you for that comprehensive answer. My second question went to your professional opinion of the best use of the officers, our officers, and the use of this equipment to do your to do your job. Speaker 3: I think there's value in in this. But I do want to say it's a tool. And so these crimes are solved by people. And so if there's a tool out there that I think can help, I think there's value in that. Speaker 0: Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. That's all. Speaker 1: At this time. Speaker 3: It's. Speaker 0: Well, we're about to take a vote. Did you want to ask anything else? Speaker 1: Not at this. Speaker 0: Time. At this time. Okay. Any further comments by Samir Vella? Speaker 1: You know, I think and this has been said before, I think it's not whether and I understand what Councilmember Herrera Spencer was trying to get at, but it's not whether or not a tool can be useful. It's whether or not it's effective and how effective. And I think one of the things that several of us have raised are creating relative to also creating not only looking at efficacy and efficient use of public resources, but also creating limitations to protect members of the public as well and to not have a chilling effect. And so I think part of our job as policymakers is to evaluate all of those things. I guess we can listen to the recommendations of staff and but but ultimately, we need to make those policy decisions. And I think one of my concerns is that I feel as though we have made some of the related policy decisions , certainly around parameters relative to privacy. And I appreciate that staff is going to to do that analysis. But I also think that certain things need to be codified rather than just kind of, you know, decided after the fact or. Responded to after the fact. So that's all. Speaker 3: Well. Speaker 0: So anything further? Okay. Are we ready for a vote? I think we're ready for a vote in America. Speaker 2: Councilmember de fag. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 2: Sir. Spencer. I Naxalite. So Vela. Speaker 1: No mayor. Speaker 2: As you. Speaker 0: Know. Speaker 2: That motion fails to two three. Speaker 0: I would love to have the time to make another motion that perhaps could move forward, but I would need some time to do so. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you. I'd like to make a motion. I'm not going to ask. Well, I can ask the clerk, but I don't think it's necessary. I, as the mayor, had asked for multiple things that she'd like to have this staff to come back with. And first of all, my question to the staff would be how much time do they think that they need to to address all of her concerns and questions? Speaker 0: That would be Chief Joshi, I think, or maybe Chief Joshi and city attorney, whoever I'd like to answer. Speaker 3: Okay. I think the question was on cost. Madame Mayor, and I think that you also asked looking at looking at cameras similar to what's being proposed in Berkeley. And I just wanted to cover whether whether other items I apologize. Speaker 0: And there is no. And Madam Kirk, do you want to be the one to read that back? Speaker 2: I wish I had an alternate. Speaker 0: I've got I've got it in my notes. Okay. So the it is the cost, the delta between the 500 to 700000 in the staff report and the amount less than 3000 per unit that you told us this evening would like to have staff look at the security cameras. The city of Berkeley just approved and the the use policy. The city manager there is is drafting. Also, there was a statement from the chief that he would be willing to retain data for less than six months, 90 days or even less than 90 days. I think that's of great interest to us. And also on how to how Alpers would deal with vehicles without license plates and where the data goes and where it's both stored and stored, retained and other possible uses that could be made of it, as in sharing with other agencies. And I also want an explanation of what happened around the the consequences for members of APD who used the Clearview Software without authorization of the chief of the department. Those were the requests they made. Let's let the chief halcyon days of this year head and let's let the chief answer Councilmember Harry Spencer's question of him, which was how much time does it need? Would you need to provide that information? Speaker 3: Yeah, all those questions are I could get to pretty quickly. I would admit the only longest item would be looking at the looking at Berkeley's proposal. And then yes, I, I don't, I could be ready pretty, pretty quickly at maybe at our next at our next meeting. I could be ready, but I would have to go with. Speaker 0: The city managers at the next meeting. Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah. Speaker 0: The meeting is tomorrow. Oh, yeah. Okay. Hold that thought. Councilmember Desai, then City Attorney Councilmember Desai. Speaker 4: So just a point of clarification. If there is to be a motion, is Councilmember Herrera Spencer going to make a motion based upon the items that mayor, as he Ashcraft had enumerated? So because he's out of time. And so just kind of clarifying what she said minutes ago. Speaker 0: Yes. So through the chair. But wait whole if you would just wait whenever the city attorney puts his hand up, I feel I should call on him. Mr. Sharon. Yes. Speaker 3: I just want to caution on the last request, which involves what happened to police officers, violations of policy. That's confidential personnel information that the police should not share with you in open session and entirely within the city manager's administrative control. And so I just. Speaker 0: Very good to. Speaker 3: Respectfully request that that item be that request, not be included in the report back. Speaker 0: Okay, I will withdraw that request, but I would say that counsel might still be interested if there's some other way to say anyway, I will. We will leave that and I will leave that discretion. City Attorney Councilmember Desai, back to you. Speaker 4: I think the question was, was Councilmember Herrera Spencer going to move? Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 4: Move those items. Speaker 0: And I was I got to ask you through the chair, but I felt I needed to. And I'm glad I called on the city attorney, Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 1: Member de SAC. If you wanted to make a motion, I'm more than okay then I'm happy to make that motion. But with the. So I want to get back to the city manager. Then for me, time is of the essence. I agree with member de SAC. Seven years is seven years. Too many is what I'm going to say. Actually, as far as I know, Chief Joshi is the only one on the screen that is actually in law enforcement or has not any formal training in law enforcement. So with all due respect to the chief, so I do respect his opinion. And I'm not just saying that I am happy to have him. I'm actually going to listen to what he says. So city manager Eric Levitt, when you think this could come back. Speaker 3: So based on some based on the request in my emails. Speaker 0: Yes, please. Mr. Lovett. Yes. Yes. Speaker 3: Based on the request, the privacy policy, bringing that report back to the Council. I remember, Andrew, it took a few days for him to put that together. Andrew Thomas Mr. Thomas, the planning director, it took him a few days to put that together when we brought back the last report. So there would be some of that. The 18th would be absolutely early if you could bring it back. But I'd have to rely on Chief Joshi, because there's. About five things. He couldn't bring it back on the January 4th meeting. And because that would be due tomorrow for him to bring back on January 4th, he would have to have everything done and complete review tomorrow. But January 18th is a possibility. Probably the first meeting in February would be a more likely scenario. Speaker 1: So so I'm happy to move that the mayors requests the information. And I would say, you know, my preference is, of course, the 18th, because I do believe time is of the essence. And I actually that's what I hear from our chief also about it staff. The staff thinks they need to do it on, you know, whenever you can get to it within my motion. Speaker 0: Okay. We had a motion by Councilmember Herb Spencer, Councilmember de SAC seconding. Okay. Any further discussion? May we have a roll call vote, please? Speaker 2: I'll remember station. Speaker 3: Guy. Speaker 2: I, however. Spencer, I knocked. Right. Oh, well. No mayor as yet. I that motion carries 3 to 2. Speaker 0: All right. I want to thank everyone for all your comments. This is not an easy issue. There are different a lot of different perspectives to consider. I am convinced that we can bring forward some more information, maybe more and better, and especially now that there's an understanding of some of the concerns that were raised tonight. So thank you, everyone. Staff council members, members of the public. Thank you. And we will get to this early in the new year. So with that, we finished all of our items that we would vote on. We have already heard. So, Madam Clerk, help me out here. Item seven eight Julie moved that to be item six on our next agenda. Speaker 2: If, if, if the council wants to take a vote to continue it, otherwise staff can just place it back on under the regular item two. It's up to the Council's discretion. Speaker 0: Okay. Member That's what. Have any thoughts about that one? Speaker 3: Yeah. I don't know what else is on the agenda, but it seems like a good one to write like that. I mean, we just finished the one item we deprioritized in the conversation about police reform. And so I think maybe we should prioritize the things we actually prioritized for the beginning of our next meeting. Speaker 0: Yeah. So if we do an item six and it gets up to the top of the agenda. Speaker 3: I move to move item 7 to 6 A at the top of the next item agenda. Speaker 0: Okay. And we do need a vote on that, right? Yes, please. Yes. So as vice mayor, I think you're reaching into a section. If we have a roll call, vote, please. Speaker 2: That's a rotation. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 2: Her Spencer. I right. I avella i as Ashcraft. Right. That carries by five. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you so much. And then finally, we go to item nine for all communication on agenda items. Do we have any public speakers on this? Speaker 2: And we did one Jim Australia. Speaker 0: Yes. Oh, do you know what? No. We did get back to. And this just drove on. Lawyers. Never mind. So welcome back, Australia. Speaker 3: Yes, sir. I am commenting on Alameda Avenue between Park Street and Oak Street. I learned the other day that additional garbage cans there on Alameda Avenue attract flies and rats. Does the city have a plan to better manage the garbage situation on that part of Alameda Avenue? Also, at the last council meeting when you had seven Bays Signalized intersection, it was full of motions and superseding motions when even the city clerk had trouble reading back what the motion was. So the general public, at least I would like a clarification about what actually passed. What was AC Transit's reply to the pedestrian priority over transit priority and when will the City Council place a follow up agenda item to clarify? Lastly, they on the AB 550 actually has been silenced or is no longer in. It is not. There's no longer an active AB session. It said that traffic enforcement disproportionately punishes those who can least afford it and that's why they stopped AB 550. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further public speakers? An oral communication? Speaker 2: There are none. Speaker 0: All right. With that, we will close item nine and we can go to Council Communications. Item 11 Councilmember notes wait. Speaker 3: Thanks. Last week I came, I guess it was Thursday night I attended the supervisor named Miley, had a community workshop with 700 people to discuss removing the truck ban on Interstate 580. This is a project that is going to go through years of study with the air district and the Caltrans in order to identify that. Yes, indeed. It turns out putting all the trucks in the area where all the black and brown people live has a disparate impact on those neighborhoods. They are going to be engaging, I think the city managers and information afterwards they're going to be engaging with with San Leandro and Oakland. When you look at the air quality maps, the northern side of Alameda has significant noise and health issues as well related to I mean, you could just watch it travel along 80. I think this is an issue that the city of Alameda has to have some engagement with and can get involved with the committee. So I want to just use my time to say that it was a good meeting. I really appreciate the supervisor putting it forward. Everybody is being very careful to say we're going to study it before we make any decisions. But it's an issue that that Alameda can both lend our voice in support of our East Oakland and San Leandro neighbors with as well as look out for our residents as well at the same time stay on that I'm just going to say it's it's the end of another year. This is supposed to be the year that we're supposed to be in the part of the year where everything was going to be really exciting and we're reopening and everything's back to normal and we're at Christmas parties and whatnot and it seems like we didn't make it. So I'm going to go really low key on my wishes for 2022, which is I hope it's a good one for everybody, but I'm not making any promises because I don't want to. I've got to mitigate expectations for after this after this one. So thank you. Speaker 0: Manage expectations always a good thing. Thank you for remarks by Vice Mayor Vella. Anything to report. Speaker 1: Last week I attended the LED Abatement Board meeting. We had it a week early just to make sure that everyone could attend a few things. There are still issues with a number of different products that are kind of common products, especially different spices that are healthy homes, department staff thinks is is causing some of the lead poisoning cases. And so, you know, we we had a presentation on that and just trying to find out if there's some way to either get some sort of labeling or requirement testing requirement for spice folks in the in the spice business. One of the issues is that they source them from all over the world and some farmers have used lead to actually make the weight of their crops heavier and then lead gets in the food. And this is very common, I guess, with turmeric farmers from some other countries. So there's heavy, heavy metals in the soil and it's it's a common practice. And so there's remediation issues and some other things. And if you don't track and trace where the actual original produce comes from, it can contaminate a number of different batches. So this is something that we're we're looking at. There may be some legislation attached. We're not sure. There's there's several different recommendations. Additionally, we're hoping to get an update. We're really encouraging the county and the city of Oakland to get together and finalize the agreement relative to the lead paint settlement so that those dollars can go back to the communities that have been disproportionately impacted. So that's from the lead paint litigation. There was a fairly large settlement and we know that there's communities, especially in the Fruitvale and West Oakland, that that really need those dollars to help alleviate and prevent lead poisoning, especially in homes and daycare facilities for for many of our kids. The other thing that we covered, again, is just there's going to be there's there may be legislation again around mandating. Or requiring universal led testing for all one year olds. It's something that comes up fairly regularly. We also know that there's a number of children who have not been tested because it's an optional test. And during COVID, a lot of parents didn't want to bring their children in to get those tests. So we know that they have learning impacts is something we'll be watching. Additionally, the state of California I know is CBH has distributed a number of COVID tests, millions of COVID tests and made them available to our school districts to send home with with students. I think Alameda Unified was one of the districts that if they went through the CDP program or on their own, that set them home. So hopefully there will be more tests distributed ahead of our kids going back to school in January. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Who else? Anything to report? Councilmember Harris Spencer. Speaker 1: Thank you. I actually want to thank our city manager for his initial comments regarding the new care program. The care team with Alameda Fire Department and the Family Services. I'm very happy to hear that that this had a good first week. And I want to thank the fire department for stepping up on that program. I remember when they applied back there, it was them in Belton that applied. And I really trusted their program and them to step up and lead. And then my was very hopeful that our family services would be interested in supporting them. And and we all know that they did. And I want to also thank their director, Kathleen Schwartz, for all of her efforts to couple with the fire department and now bring this to realization. And I know our department has I think I think working with staff to thank our staff to be able to get the 5150 approval that they can do that. And so, honestly, I see this as a very big lift from our city. I think it's something that we can all be proud of, and I'm very much looking forward to continued updates from the city manager. How is working to thank you so much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilor Bridges, like anything from you. Speaker 4: Just quickly, like I said earlier, it was a privilege attending the hiring ceremony of three new police officers, along with the mayor as he Ashcraft and Councilmember Tricia Spencer. I guess on a somber note, you know, attended the memorial for the late supervisor Wilma Chan over at the Oakland Museum. And I guess, you know, one thing that I for those who are still watching and listening, I would certainly encourage Alameda is to come to city hall at night time to check out the beautiful tree. The holiday tree is very beautiful. Come and check it out. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. I did so again. So I. And since we last met, I have attended a big regional planning committee meeting where we went over our legislative policy agenda proposals for the coming year I on Saturday, December 11th. And actually Councilmember Spencer was at both of these events. I had the privilege of doing the ribbon cutting for a great art installation. You are should check it out. It's called polymer, which is the Spanish word for squid. You've never seen a more adorable squid or probably a larger one, but it's an amazing metal sculpture. You know where it is? It's right. It's along the Bay Trail where the the lawn next to the Wheeler facility. So ride your bike out there to go check out the calamari. And then that evening, I got to do the ribbon cutting at the little ice rink, which is out in Alameda Point. Now, it's as I told Chris Seibold, who is generously underwriting this, we are trading street racing and donuts for ice skating because this is out almost to where dash sellers and urban legend wineries are. And it's in a big airplane hangar that had just been used for storage for BRICS beverages. But now it's an indoor ice skating rink, but very airy, high ceilings. There's a couple of great art installations out there, and there's a little courtyard as you enter with food trucks. So and there's some food you can get inside, too. But it's adorable to see the kids and families and teens and just everybody lining up to skate out there. It will be open until January 17th, I believe. And then on Monday, seven December 13th, there was a joint meeting of the Allegheny County Board of Supervisors and all of the mayors in Alameda County, because we are trying to come to some agreement and to work out funding arrangements to fund our homelessness programs. And so the money comes through the counties to the cities. Cities want to make sure that we're getting the money we need and that we're able to direct these moneys that are coming from the state to the counties and to the county and ultimately to us. So, you know, we've got to keep working at addressing homelessness. And then this past Friday, I was invited to see the distribution of gift cards. These were gift cards that our firefighters. Local 689. I for 69, I didn't know to their fundraising or whatnot. They came up with target gift cards, $35 apiece for families in Alameda Housing Authority, Headstart families, 1100 children altogether. Any family with kids got a $35 target gift card for each of the kids. So that was pretty sweet to see that parents out there, too, can pick up those gift cards and have a little merrier holiday season. So we are just about to the end of this day. But it was the winter solstice, December 21st, shortest day of the year. That means that every day after this, it's just going to get days. The day is going to get a little longer. There'll be a little more light. We can all use more light in our lives. Thank you for all the good work, the hard work, all of you staff, we appreciate you and council members. Thank you so much for your hard work on behalf of the city. I hope you have a restful, relaxing, enjoyable holiday season. I'm a crime is real, so just be super careful and wear a really good mask. Social distance. Just be smart about it. Test if you've traveled or been to a large gathering and we'll see you safe, sound and healthy in the new year by everyone. Good night. Speaker 1: I wanted to add real quickly, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention and I didn't hear anyone else mention it. The Western Arts District did a very large mural on Webster and Pacific. I was able to go to their grand opening of it, and I really encourage people to go by. And I want to thank the muralist also Dave Young Kim, who worked with students to do it. But if you see it, you might not really understand what it is. So I encourage you to go super close and then pull back. And I'm not going to tell you that there's a lot to be seen there. So I wanted to share that also. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. With that, everyone, good night or good morning. Happy holidays. Happy New Year. We'll see it in the new year. Speaker 1: Bye bye.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Amending the Capital Budget by Increasing Appropriations in the 2021 American Rescue Plan Project (C99300) by $1,911,000 for Replacement of Three Portables and Decking at the Midway Shelter, Food Bank Facility Repairs, and Purchase of Wireless Hotspots for Lending. (City Manager 10021030/Finance 10024051)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11162021_2021-1449

Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay let's do five. I as quickly as possible Councilmember Harry Spencer, you pulled it. Anything you want to say? Speaker 2: Thank you. Yes. So this is in regards to continuing to have virtual meetings for the council as well as all of our commissions. And I did want to ask the city attorney in regards to what are the requirements that we have to find in order to do that? Because there was common in regards to just doing it forever. If I understand correctly. Speaker 3: Mr. Shin as a council member under AB 361, we have essentially, I believe, and the SINCKLER can help me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we have until we could do this for as long as January 20, 24 or 23, for some period of time, we're able to do this certainly through the share and the findings that the city has to make is contained in the staff report, which is that they're still in a state of emergency as declared by the state of California, by the governor. That remains true. And then the second finding is a local finding, which is that local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distance distancing or and that as a finding you're essentially making tonight in approving this item. Speaker 2: Thank you. And I wanted to share. So I've been trying to well, I've actually had some people that have a different opinion of we should be meeting in person. And City of Hayward started doing a hybrid with where they have some members or my understanding as members of the council or the commission. But they also allow Zoom. And so it's a hybrid. And I would like to add my understanding on that one is that they do require a proof of vaccination to be in the bill in the chambers. And then my understanding is that Vallejo staff resume in-person November 16th and that they require everyone to wear masks inside. And I think I've heard from other constituents that they think that in-person meetings are, in fact, preferred than the zoom. And so I would like us to look at doing a hybrid and what the requirements of that would be as we know that other cities are starting to do that. And for the members of the public that are listening and also many of us are actually here in city hall right now, I am member de SOG is the mayor, is our city manager. I believe you're here and our assistant city manager. You're here. I believe I think I think that's is as you know and I and I'm not quite sure about our attorney, but many of us are here. We are in different rooms. And I think that and I would like to know from our attorney, looking forward, if we have council members that or commissioners that I don't want to say something, that they have to give out their home address of wherever they're going to be. If we stop this, could they then use a room in the city hall as we're using right now, if they have concerns of being around others, what that would look like to try to figure out a way to offer more more of a hybrid, a hybrid model and so on. So I will not I would be voting no this time, but when this comes back, I would like to have more information about what other cities are doing for their for their council meetings and other public meetings like this as and then, you know, what could we do to facilitate that? I have had some people don't feel comfortable or in fact don't have the means to be online like this. And they have either poor Internet or they don't have Internet. So they are actually denied the opportunity to participate in these meetings. Now, they may have a phone, they have the phone, but some people sadly do not feel comfortable calling in like that. And so they would prefer coming in and being able to have the ability to participate in these meetings as they used to. And so I do think it's important to include all of our members of the public and not just those that happen to have reliable Internet service or the ability to use the phone to call in so that we are, in fact, trying our hardest to include all members of our public. So I wanted to share that information I look forward to, because this item comes back every month. So I look forward to getting more information from staff what we could do to accommodate all members of our public. Thank you. Speaker 1: Your music. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer. Any further comments saying then may we have a roll call vote on item five? Please. Speaker 0: We need a motion for. Speaker 1: A motion and. Speaker 3: I'm going to move approval with with with the direction that we continue to put this consent and just move forward for the rest of the year. Speaker 1: All right. We had a motion and we have a second. Vice Mayor Vella has got her hand up to second. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: Maybe we have a roll call vote now, please. Oh. Speaker 4: Come in. Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sorry, Councilor. It's a comment. Speaker 4: Quick comment. I'm going to support the the matter that's before us. But I think the point that council member Harris Spencer is right on. I think we should start moving towards a hybrid model to the extent that it's safe and we can meet and as a council and public and for those who can, me I'm sure if other cities are figuring out ways to have a hybrid model, we can figure that out, too. Thank you. Speaker 1: So I'll just throw in my comment that just what I'm hearing from public health officials is that this may not be the time to rush in to more indoor gatherings. We are seeing some surges and we're about to go into both the Thanksgiving and the December holidays. So I we will keep an eye on things. We'll keep an eye on our numbers of the cities that you mentioned that have gone back to hybrid or all in-person models. Our COVID vaccination rates and COVID cases are much better. And I mean, there's a lot of factors that go into it, but public health and safety comes first. But we, you know, will weigh all those things. I'm just not sure that as we go into the winter months is exactly the time to to loosen up. I know some of the boards and commissions I sit on are waiting out, you know, getting to the end of this year and going to reconsider in January. Speaker 2: But. Speaker 1: Okay. Any further comments? Vice mayor. Speaker 2: You know, one of the things that California Department of Public Health that a mayor continues to raise is the fact that, you know, our our COVID surge last year really started with Halloween and continued and really started to spike drastically around Thanksgiving and was uniquely and distinctly American. And our surges were different from that of the rest of the world. And it really coincided with those holidays in particular. So I think, you know, now is not the time to say the pandemic is over. And we do know that the rates, to your point, are increasing. And we also know that the governor earlier this week, I think yesterday issued some more emergency declarations and in fact, is asking for out of state health, health, official health, state for health workers. So, you know, I don't think we're quite through this, but I certainly think and take into account the comments about how we function and how government functions in a post-COVID world. So I'm going to continue to support this at this time. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 2: Thank you. I want to underscore that at no time did I say the pandemic is over. I absolutely do not believe that. And I think it's unfortunate to hear such comments. I do think, though, that many of us do not stay in our homes 24 seven and that at some point we do, in fact, need to figure out a way to support open government and a hybrid model. I think that's a good compromise that other cities are doing. But I but I absolutely agree the pandemic is not over. And I think at some point, if anyone tried to fight it, that's what I said. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilor Desai. Speaker 4: Just quickly, two points. One is I got to hope that the vaccine counts for something so that 2021 and going forward after October is different from Halloween 2020. So I'm putting face faith in science. I hope it works. And the second point is, you know, I see how regularly, at least in Washington, D.C., Congress seems to be holding committee meetings. And granted, you know, in those rooms there is a lot of space. But I think if they can do it, figure it out in Washington, DC or Vallejo, which kind of figure it try to figure it out in it are not going to be tomorrow or the next month, but maybe sometime soon. I think residents kind of want to see a path forward in terms of getting back. But if it's a hybrid model, great. Speaker 1: Great. Let's take a vote. Calls for an X, Y. Speaker 3: And Z, because I know that we've been talking and actually there was a polling for a free workshop, a council workshop. And I think it's be a great conversation for an in-person council workshop when, when and if that is held. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah, I agree. I think that there are some things we can do spread out and yes, that's one of the best is not before a threat assessment. Let's vote. Madam Clark. Speaker 2: Quick. Speaker 0: Quick. Speaker 4: Before I. Speaker 0: Ever censor. No, not quite. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 2: Fella. Speaker 0: I there is the Ashcroft high that carries 4 to 1. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Okay, so then we have dispensed with our consent calendar. Speaker 2: Correct? Correct. Speaker 1: So we are moving on. We have nothing under item six this time. So we are moving on to item seven A and I'm hoping that we've got all of our staff is ready to come in so we can keep moving. Speaker 0: The staff in and I can read the title while we're doing it. Speaker 1: That's a great. Speaker 0: Recommendation. Authorize the city manager to execute an agreement and the amount not to exceed $2,536,047, with the Bay Area Community Services for Emergency Homeless Housing Services for up to two years. A recommendation authorize the city manager to negotiate Mexican agreement with Alameda County in an amount ranging from 30000 to 45000 in homeless emergency aid program. Interest funds to assist with the remodeling repair of city owned housing is emergency homeless and adoption related resolution. Speaker 1: Thank you. And so I think we have as is Ms.. Butler and Ms.. Maxwell are you the team is going to present.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via Teleconference. (City Clerk 10022020)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11162021_2021-1391

Speaker 0: A recommendation to reorganize the city's parking management program and parking fund and adoption of related resolutions. Speaker 1: All right. And so. Speaker 2: Look. Speaker 1: At that. Like magic, they appear. So who is? And I just want to say to Miss Smith, who I know we had a conversation maybe a week ago, and I told you we'd hear your item today. We did it. All right. Look at all of you. Hi. Hi. We've got Captain Jeff Emmett from HPD. We've got our public works director, Aaron Smith. We have our planning bill and transportation director Andrew Thomas and Lisa Foster, who has a title in transportation that is escaping me at the moment. But she'll introduce herself. Who's going to take the lead on this? Speaker 3: I'm going to jump in. It's Andrew. Speaker 2: Thomas, my planning. Speaker 3: Director. There's more. Speaker 1: Listen, the. Speaker 2: Board. Speaker 3: Where this has been a multi departmental effort, some just want to recognize and thank the public works department and the police department for their help on this as well. It's really been a big team effort. And I'm going to turn it over to Lisa Foster, who will present our joint recommendation for moving forward with the reorganization of the parking program here in Alameda. Take it away, Lisa. Speaker 5: All right. Thanks for that introduction, Mr. Thomas. Good evening, Madam Mayor, and members of the Council. I'm Lisa Foster, senior transportation coordinator with the City of Alameda. And I'm here with colleagues to represent the staff recommendation that the city council approved resolutions to make two things happen, and those are to move parking enforcement, parking enforcement from police to public works and establish a single inclusive parking management fund. And both changes were endorsed unanimously by the Transportation Commission. And since we haven't spoken about Parking Management Program as a whole for a while, I wanted to put this effort into context. Public parking and curb space usage are part of the transportation system in the public right of way. And when we manage parking, that is part of managing transportation and can be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If we can use parking, pricing and time limits to achieve an 85% parking occupancy goal, which means that a driver is able to get into a space more quickly, thus reducing circling and double parking. And it can also be used to create incentives for people to use other modes. Managing parking also increases safety whenever we reduce circling. That's less time for drivers driving across crosswalks in dense areas. Reducing double parking keeps vehicles out of bike lanes and red zones, and many of those red zones are there for very important safety reasons. We can increase economic vitality by ensuring parking space availability for visitors and facilitating loading and short term parking. We support transit by reducing double parking and incentivizing transit use, and we protect the environment not only by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but when we enforce street sweeping that can help prevent stormwater pollution. We have several plans that call for parking management, the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, the Alameda Point Transportation Management Plan, and the Transportation Choices Plan. All call for parking management, including paid parking at all ferry terminals, adjusting pricing to 85% occupancy. And then the Commercial Streets program that you discuss the council discussed at the last meeting speaks to have a new short term disability and loading zones on Park and Webster. So in 2019 and early 2020, staff were working on improving the parking management program in general and gearing up to meet the increasing needs of Alameda Point and City Council approved expanding the parking enforcement program with two new full time parking technician positions and continued use of part time positions. Council also approved amending the Alameda Municipal Code to enable mobile payment and electronic permits and to set parameters within which the Public Works Director can adjust hourly parking meter rates to achieve an 85% occupancy target of the code. Also defined specific uses for excess parking rate funds, including alternative mode programs and painting curbs for loading and facility parking. And then the pandemic hit. And, you know, it changed everything in our lives. Parking is a small part of it relative to everything that was going on, but it did impact the parking program significantly. So with the shelter in place, order meter revenue plummeted 92% between April 2019 and April 2020. And then at the request of businesses, the Commercial Streets program shifted almost all of the parking along core business areas of Park and Webster to free 15 minute pick up and drop off. Our meter revenue has increased in 2021, but it's still about 40% lower than we had in a similar month in 2019. So the results are we have not filled those full time parking enforcement positions. We haven't established paid parking at our very terminals. And we had to decommission multiphase meters on two blocks of Park Street because they were old machines and it wasn't worth paying the monthly fees when we weren't using them. So having the parking program so diminished provides an opportunity to think about how best to rebuild the program and what structure would best help the city achieve its goals related to transportation, safety, economic vitality and more. And staff from police, public works and transportation planning have collaborated to develop a plan, two steps of which were taken to tonight. First to create a public works parking enforcement program. This would move public parking enforcement from police to public works, allowing a greater focus and connection to transportation goals. Unlike moving violations like speeding, parking enforcement does not need to be done by sworn personnel. And it's very common for parking enforcement to occur in departments that are responsible for transportation or public works rather than law enforcement. The Public Works Parking Enforcement Program would have a new look and feel with a new logo. New uniforms with a feel of more. Speaking more to parking as a service rather than about law enforcement. The public works parking enforcement technicians without clearance to access personally identifying information which simplifies hiring, training and privacy. But because you need to be able to run a plate to tell those technicians to coordinate with police when a vehicle needs to be towed because it's in the driveway or in front of a fire hydrant, etc.. This is also another common setup. So to support that, police would retain for those for currently filled part time positions for this, as well as traffic control and other police support. Second, we recommend creating a single parking fund. An effective program requires financial planning and the ability to allocate resources to improve the program. Currently, program revenues and expenses are tracked in separate funds. Parking revenues from meters and larch are placed in the parking fees of civic center garage funds. Expenses for parking enforcement are in the police department. Budget and parking citation revenues go into the general fund. So staff recommends bringing these together into one fund with three divisions as shown here. We see several benefits of this. It would allow financial planning across all facets of parking management, with the goal of meeting no general fund support in the short term citation revenues being in the mix will help the parking fund recover from the pandemic revenue losses and invest in the equipment and staffing needed to meet the growing needs in commercial corridors, ferry terminals and Alameda Point. In the long term, we expect the fund to generate excess revenues, which council can decide where to direct. So the next priorities that we see are to establish that public works enforcement program and equip it, recruit the enforcement positions, reestablish parking management and enforcement on commercial corridors, and begin paid parking at Seaplane Lagoon. Prioritizing that particular terminal because of the AC Transit pilot bus line that is going to that terminal and will go away if people don't take the bus. Achieving these priorities will include steps that require more involvement from council moving forward. So this is just the first step. Things like we might need to change the Alameda Municipal Code to allow non-police employees to enforce parking violations. Approving rates for seaplane, lagoons, purchasing meters and more. And we we do plan to include additional budget allocations for these things in the Midcycle budget review. So in summary, we recommend that the City Council approve this to recommend these two resolutions, and I will close there. As you heard, there are many staff members here to help field questions and join in the discussion. Speaker 1: Okay. Good timing with 37 seconds left. But he wanted to say anything quickly. How about if I will? Let me ask this, Madam Clerk, do we have any public speakers on this item? Speaker 0: Yes, a few. Speaker 1: A few. Okay. Counsel, do we have any clarifying questions before we go to our public speakers? Councilmember Harris Spencer. Speaker 2: Thank you. In regards to the theory, parking, any moneys received, do they get split with Rita or what happens to money collected for ferry parking? Speaker 3: That if if the city initiates parking fees at the ferry terminals, that the revenue would all be coming to the city. Into this parking fund. It's not split with we. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. And other clarifying questions. Let's take our public comments. Speaker 0: We have five right now, so they still get 3 minutes. The first is sack bowling. Speaker 1: Good evening, speaker bowling. Speaker 4: Evening Council. I just wanted to voice my support of moving parking enforcement out of the police department into public works. I'm also in favor of ferry terminal parking fees to help limit excess parking at that facility and encourage more bus and transit usage to the ferry terminal, which should help spur at least some encouragement to AC transit that that line, the new 78 bus line that we have installed is going to be widely used and not competing with car traffic. And I'll leave my comments there. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Your next speaker. Speaker 0: Amanda Chair. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Cheer. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you to staff for the presentation. It was really thorough. I didn't catch who was doing it, but it helped me understand the issue a lot better and just appreciate the time that you spent on it. I just want to support this move from parking enforcement to its public works out of PD. As you all know, a parking employee and slash volunteer slash wannabe cop is a person involved in the murder of Mario Gonzalez. So it's very clear that APD doesn't really have the capacity to handle managing that particular staff. I appreciated that separately. The vision was also outlined in your presentation about how this ties into a larger transportation issue. And I would encourage, as you move through these issues council and it comes up again and again that traffic also be considered in this traffic stops are really deadly for black and brown people and in our country. And we all know that because, you know, you just have to watch the news to know that and and that this be part of a larger conversation of how we can move away from traditional policing and think about different ways to keep our community safe. But definitely support this and appreciate you taking the time to hear it tonight. Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 0: Ryan read. Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker. Right. Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members. I am calling because while I am in favor of that and of of the parking being being part of the of the new program, I am against the paid parking at the ferry terminals. And the reason why is because the ferry tickets are already quite expensive and increasing the cost of people's daily commute is extremely burdensome on families and it continues to create inequities in our community. So I ask that you take that into consideration where we what we would likely see are wealthy residents being able to park their cars at the ferry terminals and maybe the average resident who is trying to make their way. Maybe also people who have other other financial stressors wouldn't be able to do so. And especially as people are dropping their kids off at school or, you know, trying to do other things for their families anyway. So I'm I'm against the paid parking at the ferry terminals. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 0: Ju, dara abrams. Speaker 1: Good evening, speaker dara abrams. Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. I just wanted to offer some brief positive comments on this proposal. A good complement to the item two weeks ago from remembering last meeting on a parking parking maximums. And so I got to offer some positive comments on that, both as a resident of the East End and a co-owner of a small business on Park Street in a built in a building that has no off street parking. So it's really great to see these programmatic levers that the city can potentially make use of to now make better use of the parking that is built. So very much glad to see this coming along at the same time as the changes that remove parking minimums and replace them with parking maximums. I just want to very briefly offer one additional thought in case it isn't under consideration by city staff that thinking of a parking brokerage model for the business districts where I know lots of folks have talked about how they park in other businesses lots when those businesses are closed. Technically speaking, you look up at that sign and it says, legally, you can't park here. There are ways that the city could make that more straightforward for businesses to pool their parking, whether it's in a parking lot that is legally branded as a city facility or through another means. Because I think as the city makes parking easier for residents and shoppers to use, there are other ways to expand and brand other parking lots as well. And finally, I do also want to echo the comment made earlier that a good goal that out of way out of context or scope for this item. But I think a good ultimate goal is also moving traffic enforcement out of the police department and looking at traffic and transportation issues in a more holistic manner. So thank you for taking this feedback. Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 0: We have three more speakers now, which puts us at the seven limits of the speakers we'll get to. And next is Morgan Bennett. Morgan Bellinger. Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Bollinger. Speaker 3: Good evening. I applaud the city's efforts to bring as many services as possible out from under the purview of our violent police department. I have a simple question for you all. Who should pay for parking? I can tell you who pays for it now. When we use the general fund to pay for parking maintenance expenses, all Alameda taxpayers pay for it. Even seniors and folks who can't afford a car. When we fail to enforce daylight and bike lane violations, cyclists and pedestrians pay for it with their bodies. When we declined up zone because it would impact street parking, the unhoused in Alameda paid for it. I'm begging council to go beyond the proposal in front of you. It's clear from comments on numerous items tonight that we need to separate our parking problems from our housing problems. Parking as a function of public works is a great first step, but why draw the line for 85% occupancy at the business districts? Some of you know how hard it is to find a spot at night when neighbors have no motivation not to park six cars on the street. Please consider implementing street parking permits from 2 to 4 a.m. across the entire island so that people who use parking can be the ones who pay for it. This will allow us to build housing while limiting the number of cars and traffic that prospective residents bring with them. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 0: Jim Strelow. Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Strelow. Speaker 3: Also on staff California law enforcement transactions class does not allow non sworn law enforcement officials access to their vehicle data. Thus, illegally parked vehicles blocking bike lanes or streets cannot be checked for stolen or all points. Bulletin status. All the public works can do is just take up that vehicle, move along when the police could have run the vehicle for its history. Yeah. Your put public works employees and general public at risk with the inability to check license plates for crimes. As a public works employee approaches the vehicle, that employer will be at risk if the vehicle was reported stolen and the driver of the vehicle's occupants are potentially dangerous. I trust law enforcement officers. I do not trust elements of public works, discriminatory practices of favoring bicycles against vehicles. Well, public works employees choose to not ticket illegally parked bicycles. Bad guys from Oakland and other nearby cities can also double dump their stolen vehicles or parked their vehicles in Alameda parking spaces. How does this program reduce circling and double parking when parking spaces are not available in the city continues to reduce the number of parking spaces . I see Amazon, FedEx, UPS, double parking throughout the city daily, particularly blocking bike lanes because you must coordinate with police for towing vehicles. It will then take paying to Alameda City employees to enforce towing when it used to take just one employee. Also, I'm against paid parking at Seaplane Lagoon in order to promote fair use. There is no paid parking at the Main Street Ferry terminal now. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 0: And that's our it'll be our final speaker, Dennis Anderson. Speaker 1: All right. Good evening, Speaker Anderson. Speaker 2: Good evening. I just wanted to echo Savannah and say that I support this. I think that the fewer. People on the street with guns interacting with our community better. And I also wanted to say that I don't support paid parking up a very maybe some at some point in the future. But right now, I don't think that it's appropriate. And we never did it at the Main Street terminal. And when somebody doesn't, to my knowledge, go out there on the weekends, which is when it's really popular to be used. So I get somebody working. Thank you, Adam. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Speaker 0: We had one more speaker right there speaking. Speaker 1: Evening. Speaker Jeopardy! Speaker 2: Good evening, council members. I'll keep this really brief. I know it's a long night. I just want to say that bipoc alameda strongly support staff's recommendation, especially around the paid parking at the ferry terminal. Yeah, it's true. We haven't had paid parking at the ferry terminals before. We also haven't had transit access to the ferry terminals before. And it's also my understanding that this paid parking would only be during the week. But I could be wrong about that. But anyway, we strongly, strongly encourage anything that will help us capture some of the the costs that we are supporting as taxpayers now, where we're subsidizing driving in Alameda by providing free parking. So strongly recommend this proposal. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Any last speakers, Madam Clerk? Speaker 2: No more. Speaker 1: Okay. With that, I am going to close public comment on item seven. Speaker 2: D. Speaker 1: And we will return to the council. So, Councilmember Harris Spencer. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. I want to follow up on some of the comments that were made from the public speakers, and I'll I'll try to remember them. And you might remember better than I do. In regards to currently the police is that sworn officers that are doing the checking the meters. Oh, no. Speaker 5: Right now. Okay. Speaker 1: Where we left the map did better. Thank you. And by the way, I'll call on the people to answer. Captain Emmett, can you address us? Speaker 3: Yes. So small officers can enforce parking violations. We try not to use word officers for that. We are a little short on the parking technician side, but when we have them available, we do use our parking technicians or our police service technicians, which are also professional staff. They're not sworn police officers. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. So when there's a car. So how do we know? Like if someone does have a stolen car, do they do well? Will these people now be able to run the license plates or will they have the I think some cars, some of our police cars, these have the cameras so that they can check to see if they're still already here, if they have a plate on it, what followup will there be when it's moved over to public works? Speaker 1: Captain Emmett. Speaker 3: Well, I'll speak to the police involvement side. When a public works parking enforcement employee finds a vehicle that they believe is stolen or comes back as stolen, they will contact the police department. If a vehicle is stolen, it will necessitate a sworn police officer to respond. If it is a vehicle that needs to be towed for blocking a private driveway or that needs to be cited for parts on private property, which would require to run the license plate to identify the registered owner, they would be able to call the police department and we would send an employee out that has access through Platts to run that license plate to identify the registered owner. Speaker 1: And Captain Emmett. How would you? I'm assuming you'll do some or APD will do some obstruction. How? How would a public works parking enforcement person suspect that a vehicle was stolen? Speaker 3: Outlet public works. Take that and fill. Speaker 2: My understand. Speaker 1: Actually. I've got. Okay. Public works. Speaker 3: Go ahead. Speaker 1: Go ahead. Matt Smith. You go first. Speaker 2: And so my understanding how that works is the police department will be able to give us what's called a hotlist. So those are license plates that can be loaded into the handheld device that although the public works parking technicians aren't certified and aren't seeing any owner information, we are able to confirm if it on the hotlist and then coordinate with the police department as needed. Speaker 1: Thank you. Go ahead, Councilor Spencer. Speaker 2: Thank you. So we get, you know, Amber Alerts on our phones with those be immediately put into this hotlist then. Speaker 3: As stolen vehicles are entered into flats by the agency that takes the initial report. It depends on when that originating agency puts the vehicle into the system. So sometimes it's immediate. Sometimes it could be several hours after the report is taken. It depends on the agency. Speaker 1: And Captain Emmitt, if I could just ask you to tell us what the acronym stands for, if you would. Speaker 3: It's California law enforcement telecommunications system. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Yes, it's going normally. Speaker 2: Okay. Since I made this information, I go to the police, LAPD, but now it goes from APD to public works. So does that happen seamlessly somehow whenever APD does find out? Speaker 1: Ever. Yes. Miss Smith, do you want to talk about the devices that you referenced? But what will these parking enforcement folks be using? Speaker 2: I can speak generally. I will say I don't have the level of detail that Councilmember Herrera Spencer is getting out, but it is an item that we will work out the details on. So tonight, obviously, we're seeking direction for this transition. So we've done a lot of a lot of legwork to assess the viability. Speaker 0: Of moving in. Speaker 2: This direction with the specifics of how frequent the hotlist will upload to the handheld devices. I don't have that answer for you tonight, Councilmember Spencer, but I know we will work out those details. But when I'm mentioning a handheld device, I had the opportunity to go on a ride along with actually our existing police technician, parking enforcement technician in the police department. And they are the devices that issue the tickets we might get into the discussion. It's the license plate reader that's different than the automatic license plate reader policy that's being talked about separately. This is literally just a handheld device that is able to scan the license. And then instead of the technician having to punch that license plate into the handheld device that issues ticket, it puts it right in there and it enables the parking technician to take a couple of photographs to document. Speaker 0: Situation and. Speaker 2: Then to issue the ticket, print it right from the handheld device. So that's the unit that I'm talking about in the specifics of how that hotlist gets on to that, we will, following this meeting, work out those those details. Okay. And do the cars currently of our parking technicians have cameras on them? No. No. Okay. Okay. So there's no loss of services in that respect. Someone raised the issue of. Speaker 1: If we have. Speaker 2: Anyone that's getting a ticket that is not happy to be getting a ticket. Will our text from Public Works somehow be trained similarly to the text that we have from our police department currently? Yeah. Many are. I'm sorry. Speaker 1: No, go ahead. I was calling on you. That's fine. Speaker 2: We have Waiting in the wings following the nine Dixon Consulting, their parking experts that we will be developing a program manual that will include training specifically training generally and specifically to target issues of any sort of altercation while issuing a ticket. Okay. And then the parking meters that we used to use pre-COVID, they would operate, I believe, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and then people could parking spaces before or after those hours for no charge. What is the city's plan moving forward in regards to hours of me having the meters, the active? Speaker 3: We don't we don't and haven't gotten to that level of detail. And that's something that we don't plan on changing any and in the immediate future. Speaker 2: And it's not not been brought up at all. I mean, I think our immediate priority is is going to be enforcement of of what is the the ferry terminal has been talked about that's not being voted upon tonight. That's going to take a separate effort in and of itself to establish those rates. Okay. So. But tonight, are we being asked to approve paid parking at the site? No, no, that's not what I'm things. So in regards to what we're being asked to approve tonight, it. So the first would be to transfer it to public works. And then there's this budget. And can you go over how much more money is is going to cost the city? Speaker 1: The next hour. I missed you, Thomas. Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm. In terms of how much more. Okay. Speaker 1: I think. I think Miss Smith had a go ahead. Speaker 2: It's all right. Speaker 1: She's right above you. My script. Speaker 2: Was taken. We're actually voting on is the establishment of a new fund. So single parking funds, like an umbrella fund where they'll be three divisions within there. The program is anticipated to be self-sufficient, so we're not infusing money. And as the program continues to grow, it's going to take us a bit to kind of constitute the program, but it'll generate sufficient revenue and then they'll likely be excess revenue, which will be a council policy decision on what to do with that excess revenue. And when I say excess, meaning the revenue will support operations and then anything above and beyond operational needs would be able to be transferred elsewhere for other purposes. And so I won't add one more item. So for tonight, we again, we're just seeking direction that this is acceptable to council. We do have a bit more work to do to really detail out the total cost of the program, transition, things like. So I keep bringing up the handheld device, but it is one like the police department has four of them and well they will, they need to keep two and we need to buy two. Like there's just some real specific stuff that we didn't. Speaker 0: Want to get. Speaker 2: Too far down. There's also vehicles that have come up. We will we do anticipate needing additional vehicles as the program grows, but we're not asking for any money tonight. We'll do some homework. And Lisa, I thought your presentation was awesome. Speaker 0: There's one thing at the end. Speaker 2: Where you said mid-cycle I think will probably be coming at mid-year with any sort of budget, new budget appropriations for any program expenses, because I think by February we'll know what we need. So will you be coming back? Also, when you the current rates do use the meters. Will that be changing without just fluctuate whenever you think 85% is there or is that part of what we're being asked today? We're not asking for any change in meter rates this evening. Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. As their council comments are a motion council vote next Friday. Phil, I see your hand about to go up. Speaker 3: Thank you. You seem to do a lot of clicking without hitting that. But I want to I want to both thank our staff for the great presentation and work I as a point of personal privilege, I'm just going to recognize I think I have done this in the past, but Miss Fosters has been a part of some of the US kind of leading parking policy and program development and operations around, around the country. And so I just want to say we have, you know, we have so many great staff working here, but I want to recognize her specifically in this in this arena. I plan to support this. I really want to encourage our staff as we're starting to put together the work program, to really think about how we can make other cities like San Francisco do use these parking control officers to address issues like double parking. Well, just parking in the middle of a traveling around schools. Right. So we know that would middle school 15 minutes before school gets out. You know, you have cars in both directions on Grand Street just parking in the middle of the street and waiting to pick up their kids. You know, they're not moving. They're double parked. We can we can issue double parking tickets for that and address some of the key safety concerns that are being raised by parents around those schools using these parking tickets at a time when when other parts of the city are less used and they probably need less and less parking enforcement. So I just I want to encourage us to really think about how we can deploy these folks in ways that other cities do to address a wide, very wide range of different. Issues. And then also just want to encourage that as as necessary. You know, we we know that before the pandemic, you know, this this will allow us to start putting into place our parking pilot, our parking program. But we know that parking was heavily impacted in the evenings. It was very hard to find a parking space around Park Street and Webster Street Street at seven or 8:00 at night . And people complained that they were they were leaving. We can use parking pricing in those hours to actually make sure that there's always spaces to be found for people who want to pick up food, etc.. And so looking for ways that we can have those policies kind of come back as a part of our economic support, you know, outside the current hours, I think will be really important. So yeah, I'm happy to say I. Speaker 1: Want to make was a motion. Speaker 3: To make a motion motion that we approved that we adopted the staff recommendation. Speaker 1: We don't start with seconds. Speaker 2: I want to make sure. Speaker 1: And vice mayor of. That a second. Speaker 2: So I have a recording. Speaker 1: Okay. We've had emotion. We've had a second. I'll say a couple things. Councilor Woodside, go ahead. Speaker 4: Right. Well, thank you. I think that parking enforcement is better left in the hands of our police department. I think they're neutral. Unbiased. Individuals who just want to enforce our parking laws. And I think that's what the residents need, is people who are able to enforce our parking laws in a neutral, unbiased manner. So I'm not going to support the staff's recommendation. Speaker 1: I'm I'm going to just chime in as I'm not so muted right now. I'm just cause I'm the keeper of the council rules on meeting conduct. I get a bit concerned when I hear what sounded like an inference that some of our city staff are biased. I mean, there may be reasons you think that police should continue doing this. That seemed a bit accusatory. So I will express my dismay because we try not to our council falls state that we do not make personal attacks on each other, staff, members of the public. So I would just ask all of us to please bear that in mind. Councilmember Herrera. Spencer, you have your hand up. Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I'm not sure that I heard the comments the same way you did, but I wanted to get back to in response to our police, it's my understanding that our police is agreeable to transferring this responsibility to public works and after and I don't know if our police you do if you review the program that you could give any reasons supporting why you think this could work as opposed to having police here. But if you are in fact supporting this transfer. Speaker 1: You're asking Captain Emmett. Captain Emmett, please. Speaker 3: Yes, we do support it 100%. And it's going to be a process that we're more than happy to help them to be successful. And we have training outlines and training programs that we can provide to public works to help them create their own and to train their staff and to take on the responsibility. And for us, it's we've had a difficult time hiring for those positions in the past. And I think transferring it over to public works hopefully will be the city will be more successful in being able to staff those positions. So we do we do support it and we plan on being there to support them and help them through the process. Speaker 1: Thank you, Captain Emmett. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 2: Offer you say thank you. And I really appreciate that insight in regards to the hiring. And I thought that was a very important point that I hadn't thought of. So thank you. And I found a supportive. Speaker 1: Thank you. And I just want to say that I also support this and thank you to all the staff members for bringing this forward. We talk about how short staffed we are in police, in the police department. And so this is a better utilization of resources. And I have no misgivings about transferring this responsibility over to the to the public works department and that the training sounds more than adequate. So we've had a motion, it's been seconded me. We have a roll call vote please. Speaker 0: Come from member station. Career Spencer. Speaker 2: High. Speaker 0: Next light. Speaker 3: High valley. Speaker 2: High. Speaker 0: Near as Ashcroft High. That carries 4 to 1. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. You all can go home or you're home. You can go to bed or do whatever you want. Pat, Liz, hug while. Speaker 2: Sure. Speaker 1: I mean, it's fine with me. Yeah. Why not? Tuesday. Right. Okay. Going once. Going twice. Tuesday, November the 30th. You don't get to vote. Tuesday, November the 30th, 5:00 start. And remind us again what we're we're going to do the housing element and the general plan. Is that the plan. Speaker 0: DNC? Speaker 1: Well, I'm just making sure council tax rate raises. So is that was that you're thinking you can unmute. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 1: It was nice. Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it was everything. We did move to item six. I mean, if we wanted to think about some of the things we moved item six and just get them all out of the way. So then we're really moving into Vision Zero on the seventh, which I just think is going to be a big one. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we should give lots of time for the housing element in the general plan, myself and not you, and not keep people up to all hours doing it because that's, you know, that's that's also not as accessible as we'd like to be howsoever Harry Spencer thank you. Speaker 2: I agree with just limit it to the housing element and the general plan but I would ask that staff really try to push out to the public that we're starting at 5:00 that day, that we're having a meeting that day on these items because that's unusual, right? We know we don't normally meet on that Tuesday. So everything the staff can do to really alert because we're going to have the same problem we had earlier today, people not knowing what we're doing. Speaker 1: Okay. And, Madam Clerk, you want a motion? I mean, you want to vote on this or. Speaker 0: That would be fabulous. Speaker 1: Fabulous. Speaker 0: Can't continue it specifically. Speaker 1: Council member in Knox White is going to make that motion, right? Speaker 3: Yes. I move that. We schedule a special meeting for November 30th at 5 p.m. to hear items currently or that were identified as items seven B and seven C on the current council agenda in that order. Speaker 1: And Councilor Harry Spencer, you're going to seconded, aren't you? Speaker 2: Your muted. Now. I'm happy the second. Thank you. I thought we had to push it out. Right. Speaker 1: Okay. Let's take a roll call vote, please. Speaker 0: Councilmember de thank. Right or center. I Naxalite. I well, i there is Ashcroft and I'm just laughing. Speaker 1: I wasn't shaking my head. No, my neck is just stiff. Yes. Speaker 0: Bye. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yes. Okay. So Council, we move now. Speaker 2: To. Speaker 1: Man and agenda gets really dogged by the end of a meeting. So we go on to item eight. City Manager Communications. Mr. Levitz.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Reorganize the City’s Parking Management Program and Parking Fund; Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Parking Fund Budget to Restructure the Parking Fund; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Salary Schedule for the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) and the Alameda Police Officers Association, Non-Sworn (PANS) to Move the Two Parking Enforcement Positions from PANS to ACEA and Reassign Two Full-Time Parking Enforcement Position Allocations from the Police Department to Public Works. (Public Works 265) [Not heard on November 2, 2021]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11022021_2021-1395

Speaker 2: system. But it does offer a small amount, a modicum of rent increase based upon the based upon the rules, the Berkley style rules that are in place right now. So while we can't adopt any changes to the moratorium on rent increases, nor can we adopt any changes to the moratorium on on evictions. With regard to the former, I think, you know, out of concern for the smaller mom and pop landlords, we're going to have to begin to have that conversation because I think many are beginning to hurt along with the tenants. So so we're going to have to come have some kind of discussion about that. So with that, I'd like to move five G. Speaker 0: Well, let's get the vote first on the balance of the consent calendar and then we'll come back to 25g. So, Madam Councilmember, Herr Spencer, you had your hand up. Thank you, Mayor. Speaker 4: So I'm happy to amend my motion to include 5G. So that's the entire consent calendar. Speaker 0: Okay, we could do that just as our seconder. Willing to second he is. All right, then maybe we have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 2: I have. Speaker 1: Spencer. Speaker 4: I. Speaker 1: Not quite I avella. Speaker 4: I. Speaker 1: May as you Ashcraft. Speaker 0: I. Speaker 1: Carries by five eyes. Speaker 0: Look how easy that was, everyone. Okay, so now then we're going to move on to item six. And ma'am, can you explain this for us? Speaker 1: Yes, this item was continued from the last meeting and it was on the consent calendar. The last meeting in the public comment was already heard. So now the council members will hear it and have 5 minutes to discuss it, which is the amount of time allocated for consent calendar items. And I can introduce the title. It's a. Speaker 0: Recommendation. They do authorize. Speaker 1: The city manager to execute the Sixth Amendment to the agreement with Cultivate LLC to increase compensation by 60,000 for total aggregate compensation, not to exceed 354,000 to continue providing technical planting planning support to the City of Alameda. General Plan Update through Housing Element Adoption.

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government Code Section 8630(c). (City Manager 10021030)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11022021_2021-1404

Speaker 1: Seven is a recommendation to provide direction on the provision of housing for the city's unhoused population, including emergency housing, transitional supportive housing, permanent supportive housing, and prospective homeless housing projects. Speaker 0: All right. And I know you've got a presentation and I'm seeing some community development staff showing up, so. Ms. MAXWELL We have Community Development Director Lisa maxwell. Are you leading off on this? Speaker 6: I am leading off on this. Speaker 0: Welcome. Speaker 6: Thank you so much, Madam Mayor and city council members. I'm Lisa maxwell. I'm the community development director for the city. And I'm here tonight seeking direction from council for various options available to the city to provide much needed housing for unhoused community members. At this time, Alameda has no beds or housing options in our city to offer our homeless neighbors. But importantly, we currently have an opportunity to address some of the housing needs for unhoused Alameda. And as a result of the availability of a significant amount of funds from a number of important sources, the federal government has made American Rescue Plan Acts of ACT funds available to the city, and the city has already received $14.5 million of that and will receive the second tranche next year. The City Council, if it elects, may use a portion of that fund to help to assist the unhoused of Alameda. The states also made homekey funds available for homeless housing. Currently, applications may be submitted for the second tranche of HOMEKEY funds, which are to be used for homeless housing. And overall, the state has allocated to about $1.5 billion that the county also has a pot of funds available. And in combination, the availability of the federal, state and county dollars presents a pretty unusual opportunity for the city to make a material difference in the lives of its homeless community members. In light of the availability of funds and the lack of housing for our homeless community members in Alameda, staff is recommending the following two options. First, we would like the council to consider emergency homeless housing at Alameda Point. This project would house approximately 30 homeless individuals and three currently vacant homes, and Alameda Point residents would be offered supportive services with a particular focus on helping each find permanent housing. If the council directs, staff will return on November 16 with more project details and seeking approval for use of ARPA funds for this emergency housing project and seeking approval of a service provider to operate that project. Secondly, we'd like to discuss and recommend a transitional supportive housing project at the Bottle Castle in Alameda. The vital parcel is on Fifth Street, next to the College of Alameda. This project would involve a ground to build a modular ground up modular building on the site. It would include an en suite bathrooms, a pet area, community rooms, community kitchens and some parking. Other details are still in development, of course. This project, this parcel is owned by the successor agency and if council directed, will again return on the 16th with more project details. Seeking approval to submit a homekey application on this project, as well as approval of the service provider and the developer for the project. We will partner with them on this particular item. As we reported steps also recommending a third possible homeless housing project and seeks direction from council tonight regarding whether it should continue to work on this potential option. What we're considering is a permanent, supportive homeless housing project at a site that's to be determined. Specifically, we're investigating the possibility of purchasing a hotel within the bounds of Alameda that we could purchase with a third with dollars from the third tranche of the Homekey project funds. When those later become available, if staff finds that this potential project on a particular site could be a viable option, then we will return to council for further direction. So tonight we're just looking for a direction on this item as to whether we should just continue to work on this further and do greater due diligence. That's my report, and I am more than happy to answer questions. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Ms.. Maxwell. And I also want to note that we have Lois Butler also from Community Development, who works on homelessness response projects. So council oh, I should ask, Madam Clerk, do we have public speakers on this item? Speaker 1: We do not have. We do now. Speaker 0: Okay. So before we go to our public speakers, does anyone on the council have clarifying questions they want to ask of Ms.. Maxwell, or should we go to our public speakers? Counsel her desk. Speaker 2: Clarifying question Is there any particular reason why we don't specify what the that hotel motel site is the prospect for number three. Speaker 6: We haven't put that down yet. At council's direction, we had gone out to an RFP and indicated that we were interested in receiving proposals on the Marina Village in and we didn't receive any. We received a proposal from the Housing Authority for another property, but they're in very early stages, so we don't have that. I negotiated a written agreement pinned down yet, and we're just continuing to investigate our options and once we return, when it's a little more fully baked. Speaker 0: Okay. Any other clarifying questions, counsel? Okay. Let's go to our public speaker. Speaker 1: And we have two now. And the first is Karen Grace. Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, Speaker Bay. Speaker 3: Good evening. Speaker 4: Mayor and City Council Staff. I am still concerned about the continuation of placing all of the project homekey projects on the West End. Currently, they're being proposed in. Speaker 3: Key economic development areas of the West End, our historic districts, potentially in our gateway corridors and in our waterfront district. Again, I'm asking for a more equitable distribution of these projects throughout the community. Speaker 4: My suggestions are one to choose the. Speaker 3: Village of love for the three families, not the big whites, because they are located in a historic district fund. Speaker 4: The 90 unit north housing project. And if the Road and Hotel is one of the hotels that's been considered, consider developing that hotel. Speaker 3: As a mixed use mixed community gateway project, which would really benefit the West End as well, and the Western. Speaker 4: Business. Speaker 3: District and using the project homekey funds to help fund that development. That would be a nice food chance, I think, as you mentioned, but that would give us plenty of. Speaker 4: Time to consider maybe not just. Speaker 3: The road and hotel, but the coal leaf, the coal leaf hotel, which is on the East End. Speaker 4: So again, I want to make sure. Speaker 3: That we are looking at other areas other. Speaker 4: Than the West End. Speaker 3: Other than Alameda Point for these. Speaker 4: Projects. Speaker 3: A lot of community members. Speaker 4: Raised concerns. Speaker 3: About equity. Speaker 4: About fair housing and redlining. Speaker 3: So thank you very much for your consideration. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Marilyn Allen. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Orban. Speaker 3: Good evening. Speaker 4: I agree with the former speaker. And I guess what I would say is that the step. Speaker 3: Continues to view the. Speaker 4: West End as the area to. Speaker 3: Be developed for. Speaker 4: Their homelessness projects. And I would be member ask them to remember that. Speaker 3: Equity was a. Speaker 4: Something that was brought up and that was actually agreed upon by the City Council as a. Speaker 3: Goal. Speaker 4: So I would ask that they keep that in mind and in the forefront of their mind, actually. And then now to something new, newer, I guess the home the road home includes. Speaker 3: Counselors as a device. Speaker 4: To help the unhoused individuals. Speaker 3: Transition into permanent housing. Speaker 4: The solution, therefore, is permanent housing. However, permanent housing does not exist, and I suggest that the city focus on permanent housing going forward. Secondly, I propose that the permanent housing does not create a slum or a concentration of poverty, but. But that it creates a community that would be where. Speaker 3: People of mixed. Speaker 4: Incomes live together. Speaker 3: That would be. Speaker 4: Where formerly unhoused people. Speaker 3: Live side. Speaker 4: By side with working. Speaker 3: People, with seniors, with. Speaker 4: Veterans, with anyone. A perfect example would be the North housing site. And I would suggest that the city partner with the housing authority on that project and rather than develop a. Speaker 3: Slum or develop homeless, develop, quote unquote, homelessness, housing projects. Speaker 4: I would suggest that thoughtful vision would. Speaker 3: Would serve. Speaker 4: The unhoused as. Speaker 3: Well as our city as a whole. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then quickly have another speaker. Speaker 1: Ryan Kennedy. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Kennedy. Speaker 4: Hi there, everybody. I just want to. Speaker 3: Congratulate Millie Avila on her two beautiful children. She uses them well as political props. Malia, what. Speaker 4: Are the names? Speaker 0: All right, Mr.. Mr. Kennedy, I. I have asked you before not to reference children. We are elected officials. Please confine your remarks to us. Our children are not elected officials. Speaker 1: And I would also just add that this is public comment on this agenda item, which is the homelessness matter. So we will put head, put him back in and let him finish his comments on homelessness. Speaker 0: You may continue to comment on this particular item, Mr. Kennedy. Speaker 3: Sure. I just hope Malia ever loves her kids. God bless them. I wish them the best. Speaker 4: Unfortunately, angel. Speaker 3: Families can't help it. Speaker 0: All right. I don't believe that this is actually a comment on this particular agenda item. So we will have more opportunity for public comment on items, not on the agenda at the end of the regular agenda. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: That was our last speaker. Speaker 0: All right. With that, I'm going to close public comment on item seven A and we will go back to the council discussion. So Council, where would you like to start? Do we? Ms.. Maxwell has laid out three different proposals. Do we want to go one at a time or do you just want, you know, more information any way you like? Who would like to start? Councilmember Not quite. Speaker 3: I really want to thank staff for bringing this forward. You know, consistent with my last comments, I really appreciate the the prioritization of items that can get us housing and resources built very quickly. And so I want to throw a very strong support behind the Battle Parcel Project concept as well as the the de Almeida Point housing that is currently city owned and available. And also, just to add to the points that we have heard from many speakers, I think that I think that if and when we find a hotel project that works really well, I can certainly get behind that. I'm glad that it's moved to a much longer time frame because we know that it's going to take some time, but that I would like to provide some personal direction that we may be focusing those conversations not on the West End, but much more on the East End and Bay Farm to the extent that that we can , I know that these are going to be tough. They're privately owned businesses. So. Right. We're not going to eminent domain, folks, folks, hotels. But I do think it is an opportunity for us to do that. And then, as I have said through these as well, I do look forward to some opportunities to talk about the resilience centers and other services that could access some some of these funds as well, using whether it's Carnegie or other East End resources so that we're not constantly just moving everybody to the to the West and to provide the support that they need. But great work. Thank you very much. And signify also just wanted to thank Lois Fowler for her quick response to some questions I sent very late in the day, so I got them. Thank you very much. They were very helpful. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilmember. Not quite. Councilmember Desai. Speaker 2: Well, I just want to say thank you very much to staff for the three options that they presented. I think any one of the three provides US City Council with an opportunity to go really big in terms of delivering on the needs of persons and families who are homeless. In that regard, if I had to prioritize of the three, I certainly like the bottle option and following that I certainly an open to the big whites. And with regard to the hope of possible hotel motel site, particularly if it's in the if it's in an area zoned community commercial and particularly if it's the first thing that you see coming into the community commercial district, I think that we're going to have to not only look at this as as a real estate project for for for formerly homeless families, but also as kind of the beautification part for when you come into the area. So we can't just look at how can we convert this if should this be one of the three? How can we convert this formerly motel, hotel that might be in a community commercial district, i.e. Webster Street, but how can it convert it into homeless facility? But but how can you make it beautiful? So that's the first thing that you see coming down Webster Street or even Park Street is that you see something beautiful. So if we're going to pursue the third option, we can't just look at it as a housing project, but we have to see it as a beautification project. But, you know, any way that we're going, I think this is a great opportunity with the assistance of Washington, D.C., for us to really go big. And I certainly join my colleagues in this regard. Speaker 0: Thank you councilmember decide this next has a her spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So in regards to the ACA, first of all, in regards to the people that need homes and who this is supposed to serve, is there is a for those that are unsheltered throughout the county? Or is it for those that are currently in Alameda? Can staff give any response to who were actually going to be able to help? Speaker 0: Thank you. Who want to take that that you, Ms.. Maxwell. Speaker 6: I'll start and I will let Lois jump in as well, please. Speaker 0: I'll hear from Ms.. Butler as well. We do. We do titles in council meetings. Okay. Speaker 4: You take. Speaker 0: It away. Speaker 6: There. Reminder. Correct. So with respect to the emergency housing, ah, in our focus would be on our local residents and our goal for that housing is in the short run to be able to provide some opportunities for shelter and beds for those within Alameda. And we don't see that project as being a long term project. It's a project that we can get off the ground pretty quickly and hopefully in the near future. The transitional housing project would probably be slightly different in that we would need to go through the county's coordinated care system if to the extent that we have homekey funds and county funds involved. So that would be a larger a larger pool we would be pulling from. However, to the extent we were legally able, we would love to house our residents if we did a hotel project, it would be a we're envisioning a potentially a permanent supportive housing. So that could potentially be a larger county population as well. Did you want to add anything to add Ms.. Speaker 0: Butler? Go ahead and then mute. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 0: So we can hear you as. That's okay. We're we're used to refer to each other as on our first name basis, and we're a friendly place. Speaker 4: But I do. Speaker 0: Yes. Welcome this butler. Speaker 4: Thank you. So I was I think you you covered it when you said we will try to get our Alameda residents in there and work with the county on an Alameda preference. Speaker 0: And can I just ask both of you just to amplify on the question Councilmember Spencer asked, so explain to us what the benefits of coordinated care or coordinated entry are. I mean, so because there is a selection process for people who are well suited to a particular resource, if I'm not mistaken to someone, I want to just pick up on that. Speaker 4: So for each person that is unhoused in Alameda, we try to register with them within a system. And and so the county and the state require us to go through that system. If we're receiving HOMEKEY funds at the one and we're asking for help queue funds on the bottle parcel if if we go forward with that. And so what it does is it tells you a lot about the individual, what their what their elements are. A lot of the information and system is HIPA. It's confidential, but but it it tells you how long the person has been on the street where they're from. And a number of the people that are in the system, a lot of them even don't live in Alameda, but they're from Alameda would like to return to Alameda. There are others that have lived here in Alameda. Most of our unhoused in Alameda have relational ties to Alameda. Either they lived here previously or they have relatives that live here. And so our hope is that we would have a the ability. Speaker 5: From the county to use the system. Speaker 4: And house alameda. But this is a process that's going really quickly and we need to continue to. Speaker 5: Negotiate different items. And that's one item we continue. Speaker 4: To negotiate the preference option. The preference type option. Correct. Speaker 0: Okay. So back to you. Councilmember Harris Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So I just want to make sure so this is at the scattered sites, which is the single family homes that we would in fact, we know that that would help people that are currently unhoused in Alameda. Speaker 6: Correct. That's our best opportunity for an expedient solution. There's three homes that are in various varying states of repair and disrepair. Near one of them, we could probably get online and available. I would say pretty quickly after the 16th. And by that I mean approximately three weeks or a month. And then we'd follow the other ones in sequence as they became ready to be occupied. But our goal is to try to get up and running quickly during the poor weather months. Speaker 4: All right? Because. Because we don't have. Speaker 5: Other money in there from other agencies, we would be able. Speaker 4: To target our agents. Correct. Speaker 0: Thanks. Speaker 4: All right. So I want to discuss that because and I appreciate the clarification because when we see people that are unhoused in the currently in Alameda, my understanding the staff you can describe. My understanding is that the city's hands are. Options are very, very limited in what we can do because we need to be able to offer housing or allow people to remain in tents or wherever throughout the city. And so can staff describe why how that impacts the staff's ability to address people that are unhoused in the city. Speaker 6: I will certainly begin the conversation and I will ask city attorney Sen to jump in if he feels that there's some supplements needed in place. It will give us an opportunity to offer housing to individuals on the streets, and we will then at some point have to wrangle with the fact if someone is just interested in housing , what our solutions would be. That would be a pretty complicated conversation and we'd be in consultation with the city attorney's office as well as probably the police chief's office, and imply that that is our that is our option. That is our preference is to be able to offer a bed and be able to provide that first opportunity for housing. Speaker 0: Anything to add, Mr. Mayor? Yeah. Speaker 3: Yes, Councilmember, I believe in just to echo what Ms.. Mesbah has indicated, I believe the city's program is targeting voluntary individuals. I don't believe the program intends to compel anyone to be in any of these locations. If I misunderstood the question, I'm happy to follow up once I get more clarification. Speaker 4: Can someone describe the Boise case and how it impacts the city's options of what to do with those that are unhoused right now? Speaker 0: I would think that's a question for the city attorney. Speaker 3: I am happy to. Our Madam Mayor Councilmember. So in the Boise decision, which is a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, the court held that local agencies and really federal and state agencies cannot to criminalize the act of being homeless when there are not sufficient shelter space for folks to go to. And it is a groundbreaking decision because prior to that, there were jurisdictions that have adopted various laws that precluded folks from being, for example, out on the street, sleeping on the street a certain nighttime hours. The Court Basically how that that is a violation against the Eighth Amendment rights, your a person's Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment because that person does not have a home to turn to. And that decision remains good law today. Speaker 4: Thank you. So I do support the scattered sites and I'm hopeful that the city can continue to look for scattered lymphocytes to help house Alameda homeless. In regards to the bottle parcel I can so that's right next to the College of Alameda. The College of Alameda now has many programs for it to help to provide services to help people either get right get education and they serve veterans. And I'm wondering if the city is planning to try to come up with some providers that then can really work with the college and help the people that are housed there? Since it's a I think it's a great location, especially if we're able to do anything to partner with the college to help provide services to Ms.. Speaker 0: Maxwell and our Misspellings. You want to talk about the kind of provision of services we would be looking for for this this housing at the bottom parcel? Speaker 6: Certainly, I'd be happy to know. So we will offer full wraparound services. There will be counselors available to assist with, you know, educational interest, job needs, you know, getting your driver's license back and whatever. But we'll be the person where each individual where they are. But I think that that's an excellent suggestion to have a relationship with the College of Alameda and to offer that as a easy educational pipeline to some of the individuals. So I think that's a that's a great suggestion. And we will be cultivating those relationships. And with respect to this potential project. Speaker 4: Thank you very much, because the college has all types of services for all types of people meeting them where they are. Very I think we're very fortunate to have the college there, and that makes this a very unique opportunity. The third category on here is in regards to hotels. That is by far my least favorite because as I had heard for many, many years from staff, that's how. Speaker 0: We get our. Speaker 4: Transient occupancy tax. And that is a big we count on that for years. I've heard Andrew Thomas who's not here currently but talk about why we need hotels because of that transient occupancy tax and before. So I'm not interested in giving up the revenue stream because then we have to not only we have to make up that revenue stream somehow to continue to provide the services we provide right now. And we all know when you look at our financial forecast, at some point we we exhaust our reserves and it's just. I think it's critical that we continue supporting our revenue streams. I think that we could be looking at apartments, maybe those buildings that could could possibly work that then are not. Giving up a revenue stream like the transient occupancy tax that we get from hotels, which is a high, high percentage higher than a lot of our other revenue sources. So I would I would suggest looking to see if there's any apartment buildings or other multifamily housing available for the city to purchase. And we did have a caller speak to trying to partner with the housing authority. That is something that I have always consistently brought up. So I appreciate the caller mentioning that. I think the housing authority does a very good job, that they are the experts in our community and that they're really part of the city other than now, they're they're somewhat separate, but not completely, because our mayor does nominate to their point to their oversight committee. But I think that I and the equity issue I agree with the caller said spoke to that. And you know, whatever opportunities we have across the island to to look at places that the city can purchase or work with the housing authority to purchase from different revenue streams. But I really don't want to touch our hotels. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm vice mayor of L.A.. Speaker 5: I want to thank staff for their work on this and the swift turnaround. I know we've we we gave a lot of different instructions the last time. And I appreciate the fact that we were able to go out and at least get some responses to see where we can move forward. I think that in many ways there is there's no reason for us to not act right. We have to act. And I think this is a both and situation. I absolutely, you know, I'm comfortable giving direction with. Just sorry. I have a mini construction worker at home. And these days I am comfortable giving giving instruction to staff to move forward with the bottle bottle parcel. And I also would like to see more exploration into the hotel option. And while I'm disappointed we didn't get a submission from from from one hotel, that's fine. I think we have other opportunities. I would like to look throughout the city and then I think, you know, this is the beginning of much larger and longer conversations. I think Council member Knox White raised some good points about making sure that we're looking throughout the entire city, making sure that we're making the most of of parcels and understanding the need that exists and the fact that the need continues to grow. So that's that's where I'm at. I think we we can move forward. I look forward to supporting it. And and also recognizing this is still a first step. I also think and Village of Love's proposal is is really something that is worth exploring. I think they've they've done some good work providing services and everything else as well. So anyway, I would like to support moving forward with the first option with some other other direction to staff to continue to pursuing additional additional opportunities for the city to fund supportive housing. Speaker 0: Thank you, Amy. I would also note that the city does have regulation on the construction, the hours within which construction activity can take place. So let us know if there's anything you need us to do. So I would go last. I want to thank staff for all the time and effort you've put into this, and I've had the pleasure of accompanying Ms.. Jackson, Ms.. Butler and other members of city staff on the screen here on a couple of field trips where we actually got to see in real time the difference, the truly life changing impact that transitional housing, emergency housing can make in a person's life and getting them on the road back to being permanently housed. City Manager Eric Leavitt Was it very long on the job between before and back to who was formerly a member of our staff? And I dragged him on that literally dragged on. But we he accompanied that to Berkeley to see a navigation center and a residential care center, they call it in Berkeley. And so I've also had the opportunity to see some of these providers that our city staff will be considering to to provide the services at these various locations . And there's some really wonderful, innovative and again, truly life changing things going on out there. So I pretty much love everything about that you've brought to us, I think the emergency housing at Alameda Point. Yes, let's do that. It has paid me terribly and I'm sure many of you that we do not have a single place in Alameda where 365 days a year someone could come in out of the weather and not sleep outside if they didn't have a place to sleep. We sometimes have the warming shelter. Christ Episcopal Church has been a wonderful community partner, but then their ability to provide services was curtailed by the pandemic. And so we we need to do better. And now we've had this wonderful opportunity, a silver lining from the cloud of the pandemic that we have ARPA funds and we've got more . The state came in with an amazing surplus because as we've said many times, COVID didn't impact everyone equally. So the state's coffers were very full from people who, you know, in the upper income level. So let's take this opportunity to help level the playing field some more. So, yes, love the emergency housing in Alameda Point. Also a big fan of the bottle parcel. You've got some great providers to choose from and as far as a possible hotel yeah keep looking I mean I to councilmember her sponsors point we get. Occupancy tax revenue, but not so much in the time of the pandemic and the providers who would be willing to sell or enter into some sort of a deal. They haven't done well. And so nor have they been contributing a lot to the the tax base. And the other thing to remember is we pay a lot to address homelessness. There is an amazing cost of just the, you know, helping get people into other placements and what it takes when we go out to clean up. It's not just a sweep and moving people off the pavement or wherever they are, it's finding them other resources, getting them there, just lots and lots of things, time and staff, effort as far as partnering with provider to go into, say, a hotel. And there's some really exciting possibilities. The housing authority would obviously be the last of my choices simply because there are so many more current innovative providers who are doing things just very creatively and very quickly, getting people employed and getting them connected with the services they need and bringing resources to them that the housing authority just isn't set up to do. So I would really favor someone whose specialty is helping lift people out of homelessness. And the you know, the good news is there are some amazing providers out there. So I know staff is going to bring us back some really exciting possibilities. But yes, I mean, I wish we could vote on it today, but we will, as I understand, it's coming back to us on at our very next meeting on the 16th, correct? Speaker 6: Ms. MAXWELL Yes, that is correct. We'll be back with you on a full report on both Alameda Point Housing, emergency housing and the transitional housing on the title parcel with our thoughts on appropriate partners and suggestions there. Speaker 0: Perfect. Thank you, Councilwoman X-Y. Speaker 3: Thank you. One comment I've had to make on the bottom parcel. I do know that some of our research has shown that it is often not a terrible idea to provide some parking onsite for people who bring cars, etc. when a ball site person comes back, especially given the conversation we'll be having a little later tonight, I'd like to at least make sure that the staff report addresses the attention and trade tradeoffs that we have made in order to provide whatever parking is. It is ultimately a part of that. My preference is more housing for people. I think we have a home base and other places where we can find places to help people park and store their cars while they while they're here. So anyway. But I just wanted to throw that out there for. More public discussion. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you for bringing it up, Councilmember. That's why, you know, one of the things we learned, I think, from our very first visit is parking is needed because a lot of these folks are working. They go every day to a job. It's you know, there's a lot of misunderstanding or a lack of understanding of what homelessness means. People can be working. There could be a two couple to partner couple working both of them jobs and just haven't been able to get a roof over their heads. But we are looking to change that. So, yes, that's a very important part of the conversation. Thank you. Howsoever Harry Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you. In regards to parking, I want to keep in mind also that many of these people have been living in their cars and they have a real emotional attachment. And I would hope that we don't require that they actually give up what they've been living in to be able to have a real roof over their heads . Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Another good point. Thank you. Okay. I'm seeing no further. Hands up. Again, thank you so much to staff. This is it's important and it's really exciting that we're moving forward on this. So we will be ready for you in two weeks. Thank you so much. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 0: Bye bye now with you. Okay, counsel, you do a good job moving along. Yes. Well, I'm not going to say that could bring bad luck. So we will move on. Where are we, Madam Clerk? Item B 70. Speaker 1: Yep. Speaker 0: Please. Speaker 1: Recommendation to approve a Commercial Street two year work program to improve the Park Street and Webster Street striping plans improve the on Street Parklet program. Maintain the Alameda Avenue Street Closure. Rename Resumed pre-COVID parking management fee collection enforcement activities an adoption resolution approving precast concrete traffic control, safety barricades, standards for parklets and adoption. A resolution amending the capital budget by transferring $630,350 in American Rescue Plan Act Project Funds from Capital Improvement Project See 903002 Commercial Street Capital Improvement Project See 12100 an increasing appropriations for the commercial streets CHP by 630,000 350. Speaker 0: Take a breath. And the reason we have long titles is that we can get all of our city staff in place. Councilmember Desai, you have your hand up. Yeah.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Provision of Housing for the City’s Unhoused Population, Including Emergency Housing, Transitional Supportive Housing, Permanent Supportive Housing and Prospective Homeless Housing Projects. (Community Development 10061833)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11022021_2021-1354

Speaker 0: Take a breath. And the reason we have long titles is that we can get all of our city staff in place. Councilmember Desai, you have your hand up. Yeah. Speaker 2: Just quickly as a point of order. Well, not really. One where I had inquired as to the city attorney if I have to recuse myself, since my house is close to Webster Street and have been informed that for a variety of legal reasons that I actually don't have to recuse myself on the matter of the commercial street . So I, I just, I won't pretend to, to tell those legal reasons. Ah, but if the city attorney would like to add more. Great. Thank you. Speaker 0: Sure. Mr. Chan, city attorney. Speaker 3: Sure. I'm happy to share. I'm an American council member. So the the FTC in recent years have loosened the public generally exception. One of the additional exceptions has been, I guess, enhance in favor of participation is one where there are limited neighborhood effects is what it's called. And in that case, when the city undertakes public safety or street improvement or nuisance abatement or any or street work, and either a 5% or more than 50 residences are being affected. The public generally exception would apply, and in this case, the public works director had informed me that more than 50 homes are adjacent to the proposed work. And in that case, we have advised Councilmember de SAC that he is not required to recuse for this item. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you for that. All right. So, Staff, welcome. And who's going to lead out, Mr. Ramesh? Speaker 3: Yes, I am going to lead off. I'm going to be joined by Rachelle Wheeler, who's sharing her screen while we are here today. We are here tonight to introduce our recommendations for the next two years of your Commercial Streets program. You started this two years ago in response to the pandemic. We received a newspaper article today from one of the friends of Alameda reminding us that this is not a new conversation. What you see here is a front page article from 1972 Alameda Times where they're talking about what should we do about Park Street? So this has been a multi departmental effort planning, building, transportation, of course, with Rochelle sort of leading and coordinating the team. But it couldn't have happened over the last two years without public works, without your city attorney's office, without a ton of work from your economic development department. So we've all been working on this together. And of course, we have two other really important team members, downtown Alameda Business Association and Webster Avenue Business Association, who are both here tonight. So before I turn it over to Rochelle to present the staff's recommendations for the next two years for this program. I'd also just like to say that the executive directors from both the business associations are here tonight. They would love to follow speak after the staff presentation. If it's possible to give them each four or 5 minutes, that would be great, but I'll leave that up to the council. I know you have your rules of order. So with that, let me turn it back over to Rochelle. Rochelle, why don't you complete the staff presentation for us? Speaker 0: Welcome, Ms.. Wheeler. Speaker 4: Thank you so much. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. The commercial STS program was created at the request of our commercial districts over a year and a half ago to help the businesses and our communities safely get through the incredibly difficult period of the pandemic. And in partnership with the Business and Improvement Association, staff developed a five pronged commercial streets program. One was the reconfiguration of both Park and Webster streets to make space for Parklets. Two Streamlining the Parklets permit process to allow for outdoor dining and retail. Three Converting parking along the commercial corridors to short term spaces for quick pickups, for allowing for private parking lots to be used for outdoor commercial uses. And five the closure of portions of Alameda Avenue off of Park Street to allow for outdoor dining and gathering. And this package of programs was endorsed by the City Council in May 2020 and later extended by the Council through October 2021. But the end of the program quickly nearing. Staff undertook a full evaluation of the program over the summer and found that this program has really been essential in helping many businesses survive the pandemic, the business and the overall commercial district. The businesses are still very much in recovery mode today and continue to need support. The pandemic is still influencing how people dine and shop, and the need for outdoor dining out at speeds along Park and Webster streets have slowed, which is beneficial for safety. There has been no increase in collisions that we've seen so far. Through a community survey, we found that about 60% of respondents support this program, and we have planning efforts underway for walking, biking and transit, which will be looking at plans for these commercial corridors. With this information and more that was described in the staff report, our staff recommendations are to approve a two year extension to the Commercial Streets program, adopt safety barricades, standards for parklets, and to allocate American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA funds to implement the recommendations at a cost of $630,350. More specifically, the recommended two year extension is to do the following on Park and Webster Streets to retain the existing striping for the next two years. Immediately, though, we would make needed improvements to the parking bollards and striping in order to more efficiently and effectively provide on street parking and to improve transit speeds along these streets by removing bottlenecks. Over the next two years, staff would develop and bring recommendations for final configurations for each of these streets, including a process of community engagement for parking. We recommend the city reestablish the pre-pandemic parking rates and time limits for on street parking along Park and Webster Street, while also retaining some short term parking and adding parking for people with disabilities. And we also recommend the city reestablish parking enforcement as soon as feasible to ensure an equitable use of available on street parking and to strive to achieve the Council adopted policy of 85% occupancy on any given block. We're recommending the city maintain the closure of a half block of Alameda Avenue, which was closed to provide outdoor space for dining and gathering and is maintained by the harbor. This closure would remain for the next two years or until Adobe are no longer wants to manage the space for Parklets staff is recommending and extending the PARKLET program for another two years by issuing two year permits to those parklets that would like to remain and to any new ones. The two main issues that we see that need to be addressed with this extension are esthetics and safety. The city's role in this will be to include higher esthetic and safety standards as part of the permitting process in order to improve the look of the commercial areas and safety for those using the PARKLETS. Also to address these two issues, staff would replace the existing water, fill barriers as seen in the middle photo here with new decorative concrete barriers that would form a solid line along two of the three sides of each parklet, including the roadway side as described in the safety standards included in the resolution. The lower right image shows the concrete barricade design type that we would use, which would be stained most likely a green color. The cost for the city to purchase and install barricades for 30 parklets is $323,000. Parklets for the for the businesses with parklets, they also have an increased responsibility instead of just an encroachment permit. They would sign a license agreement with the city. And while initially all parklet fees were waived by council, businesses would be asked to pay a 20 $400 deposit to cover staff costs to approve the parklet and inspect it. Businesses would have three months from now until February 3rd to submit this package, and once approved, they would need to make any upgrades to the PARKLETS to meet our new safety and esthetic standards. Finally, they would need the businesses would need to pay any increase in costs for higher insurance level, which are being levels which are being proposed to reduce the city's liability should a collision occur. The current standard is 1 million per occurrence and 2 million aggregate staff are recommending a 2,000,004 million policy for all parklets except those within 50 feet of corners, which are at a higher risk. And so would need to have a $5,000,005 million policy. And make these recommended changes. The budget request totals $630,000, insert 300, the $630,350 for a two year extension to come from ARPA funds. This includes the 323,000 to cover the costs for the concrete barricades around Parklets. $157,000 to maintain an upgrade. The street parking $150,000 to do the long term planning for the street designs for parking Webster Streets, including with community engagement and the final line here show in Orange reflects an option which is not included in the total cost for the city to pay the businesses, the incremental increase in costs for their insurance to meet our new insurance requirements. The city could issue grants to businesses or the base for this, and it's hard for us to estimate the total cost, but we do think it would likely be between 30 and 40 $50,000 and would also come from ARPA. So in summary, our recommendations are to approve the two year extension of the Commercial Streets program, adopts a new safety standard to guide how to install the barricades we purchase allocate funds from ARPA to cover the program costs. And finally, we know you'll be hearing from the business community about the insurance costs. And so staff are asking also for direction on this issue. Thank you. Speaker 3: She? Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Wheeler. And look at that. You came down with one minute and 29 seconds. So you okay. And you mentioned Mr. Thomas mentioned that both of our executive directors from both Downtown Media Business Association and West Hall made a business association, would like to make comments. Would that be as like a continuation of your presentation or during public comment? Help me understand. Speaker 3: I think it would be great if it would be possible to hear from the two directors. They are really partners in this program with us and I think they have very specific concern about some of our recommendations that they'd like to talk. Speaker 0: To you about. Okay. So let me pull the counsel. Counsel, this is one that, if I recall incorrectly, if we have a vote of four individuals, we could take some more time to hear from our two business association directors. What I would like in a motion, if you're so inclined to make a motion, is how much time should we allocate to the business directors? I, I would not make it as many as 10 minutes the piece how. Speaker 3: They, they each think they can do it in less than 5 minutes. Speaker 0: All right, Councilmember. Not quite. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 3: Here's notes as they already have. Three, I'm happy to as they're speaking on the behalf of many, many business owners, and I don't see them all here. I'd be happy to give them 5 minutes each. Speaker 0: All right. Is that. Speaker 3: Is a motion that the. Speaker 0: Motion and Councilmember Spencer, I saw your hand go up. Would that be a second? Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a second. We're not going to take time for discussion because this is about extending time. May we have a roll call vote, please, Madam Clerk. Speaker 1: Some British I Herrera Center. Speaker 0: I know. Speaker 1: Quite well. Speaker 0: By. Speaker 1: Mayor as Ashcraft High. That carries by five eyes. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. So do we go alphabetically? How do we? Miss Wheeler, who are we going to hear from first? Speaker 4: Oh, I'm actually not sure. Sorry. Speaker 1: Okay, we. Speaker 0: Ready? Speaker 1: We are, Cathy. Ready to go. We can put. Speaker 0: All right, so we have Ms.. Weber. Miss Kathy Weber is the executive director of the Downtown Alameda Business Association. Welcome. We I'm sure we'll see her any minute now. And of course, that's Darva. That's the Park Street area. There she is. Greetings. Speaker 5: Hello. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Speaker 4: Council member city staff. I'm Kathy Webber. I'm the executive director of the downtown Alameda Business Association. And it was at the business district's request all those months ago that the Commercial Streets program was put into motion, and we hope it will continue. The street reconfiguration parklets Alameda Avenue have provided positive benefits to our business districts and given us an opportunity to rethink how we interact with public space as a community. And to be sure, this conversation is not simply about 27. Speaker 0: Individual parklets. Speaker 4: It is about the vitality and the vibrancy of our entire business districts. The benefits are felt beyond the parklets it's stopping to get a book on your way to dinner and grabbing a gift after enjoying lunch. They have helped us rebuild a sense of community and we hope to establish a long term parklet program with design, safety and fee. Speaker 5: Guidelines that we can rely on as we're moving forward. Speaker 4: Safety is a shared priority and we look and support the installation of the decorative concrete barricades. They'll offer an added level of safety, create a unifying look, and with the enhanced safety that the concrete barriers provide and paired with our district wide umbrella insurance policy, we are asking that you reconsider the increased insurance coverage or that you create a fund to offset these increased insurance expenses. Depending on carriers, these increased costs will vary, some doubling and others more so that there will be increased. Speaker 5: Cost incurred by our businesses. Speaker 4: In one instance, it will cost a business 70 $500 over the two years for the additional insurance alone. And when you add permit fees, it's nearly $10,000 to continue in a program that was designed to help businesses. And I don't think that. Speaker 5: That is anyone's intent. Speaker 4: To help streamline this process. We can assist and work one on one with our businesses and. Speaker 5: To help with help the city navigate the administration of that. Speaker 4: We're here to help you help us. And we are eager to look at parking, usage, needs, signage and work with the city to reinstate a much needed parking compliance program. Businesses are still in need of support and our road to recovery is just beginning. And it has been said that you invest in what you value and a vibrant, lively business districts are vital to our community and your investment in the program will pay dividends far into the future. And I do want to thank again Andrew Thomas and Rochelle Wheeler and Russ Thompson and all of the Commercial Street's team for getting us to this point. So thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Weber. And actually, Mr. Thomas, may I just take a minute and ask you to introduce Mr. Thompson, who's on the screen? Speaker 3: Yes, I am so sorry. Yes, Mr. Thompson, Russ Thompson is our acting city engineer. I think that's his correct title. But whatever his title is, he's been instrumental in and helping this program really come together over the last year and helping us think about how to move forward over the next two years. So any any actual technical tough questions, ask him. Speaker 0: They get to him. Thank you and welcome. Mr. Thompson, was there anything you wanted to add about this program? Speaker 7: No, I'm just here to answer any questions. And it's been a long process to get to this point. You know, I think my title as a previous interim city engineer who we know now, Robert Mansell's in that position. So I'm here still supporting public works in whatever way they need. Speaker 0: Well, we're happy to have you. Thank you so much. And stand by for this. Tef technical questions. I see that we are now joined by Linda Asprey. Linda is the executive director of West Alameda Business Association on the west end of town. Welcome, Ms.. Astbury. Speaker 4: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. I'm Linda Asbury, as you said, executive director of the West Alameda Business Association. Our parklets are so important to the entire district for every one that comes to a parklet and they eat or there's sometimes some shopping, they I see them. Then they're going off to other spaces. They're going to the new thrifty kitty. You know, they'll come for lunch and they're doing that. So it's far beyond just the parklets. Our mission is to keep Webster safe, clean and inviting, and the proposed cement barriers will do that for enhanced safety. What we do want to cover is the insurance cost. I know Kathy got some quotes. I've got some quotes. It doubles their insurance to meet that new threshold. And coming we're coming out of recovery. And I suspect many of them are trying to catch up from last 18 months of the shutdown. So we're in the recovery mode and any cost that we can not put on to them so they can survive is so important. So I much could have a much quick talk quicker than Kathy, but that is what we want. Thank you for your consideration and concern. Continued support, Val and me, just business districts. And as Kathy said, we are here to help you on this whole process. Thank you. Speaker 0: Well, thank you for your remarks. All right. My goodness. I don't think they even needed the time. We a lot of them, but well-said, everyone. So, Madam Cook, do we have public comments on this item? Speaker 1: We do. We have three so far. Okay. Four, five, the other here. Speaker 0: They keep coming in. So before we go to our public comments, were there any clarifying questions council wanted to ask or should we go straight to our public comments? We will go to our Councilmember Knox White. Speaker 3: And I'll just ask this this quick question. I'm just wondering for prior speakers and whatnot if we can quickly get an answer to if we are going to put in concrete barriers, which are essentially, you know, built for freeway speeds to keep cars from crashing. And why are we also then going to ask businesses to double or even quintupled their insurance rates if we're making things safer than they currently are? We're right now we have sidewalks all around the city that have six inch curbs that people can crash off and whatnot. Speaker 0: Okay. Who wants to take that with you, Mr. Thompson? Mr. Thomas. Thompson and Thomas? Hmm. Speaker 3: Yeah. I was going to see if I could ask city attorney Shan to help me out with this one, if that's okay with you. Speaker 4: Even more than happy to. Speaker 3: We've consulted with our insurance carrier, the city's insurance pool, with respect to what are the appropriate levels of protections for outdoor dining spaces on streets. And as you can imagine, there is a wide range of uses in the Bay Area and in California and really nationally. The our carrier had informed us that their recommendation was to deploy concrete barriers and their recommended insurance limits were to five and five. And I understand that. And I believe the minimum they recommended was the two and four limit. And I believe staff struck somewhere in the middle by recommending the two and four limit for middle of streets, and then the five and five for the more potentially more risky areas, which are the intersections at the five and five location. And part of the reason for some of these requests have to do with the the uncertainty around what liability might result with respect to sidewalk collisions that might occur. As a matter of example, we the the carriers have pulled a number of recent verdicts on sidewalk collections, not with respect to outdoor dining. And some of them go back as far as 2007 and the range of verdicts on essentially cars jumping curbs or and resulting injuries resulted in anywhere from a $1.3 million verdict to a over $10 million verdict with a number and with a few in the four some million dollar range. And I think that may have informed their recommendations for the five and five. Speaker 0: Hey, Councilwoman Marks White did that. Speaker 3: And that's it's a bid right now. It's because the insurance companies are suggesting it, not because it's. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 0: Right. And and based on jury verdicts as well. Okay. And Mr. Thompson, did you want to add anything to that? Speaker 7: No, I think that's the crux of it. Just I did want to and we've talked about this at a staff level, is that concrete barriers are not an insurance policy. They don't prevent injury, but they are a step up and definitely provide more protection than the waterfall barricades. And so we're just trying to elevate, you know, the safety level along the streets. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Other clarifying questions. Counsel for her, Spencer. Speaker 4: Human error. So other jurisdictions have required the concrete cross this entire time and but from the picture. But you all are proposing it do the do this cement. Barricades, if you will. Do they connect with each other like the cranes do? But they're not Carol's son trying to figure out why we're not doing Carol's. Speaker 7: Right. So these these are vehicular traffic barricades made for that purpose. They are decorative. So, I mean, you could have good interlocked cranes like you'd see along a freeway construction project out there. But this was used in other jurisdictions and it has a little more of a decorative lot because there's not a huge cost difference. And these come in four foot segments, so they're a little bit easier to manipulate in the place. So those are some of the factors that went into our recommendation, but it was mainly a decorative work. Speaker 4: I understand. Speaker 0: And I think Mr. Miller wanted to just add something to that. Yes. There. Speaker 4: I would just add and correct me if I'm wrong, Russ, but I think these these four foot long barricades do interlock and they connect. And the and that per the standard that's included in the resolution, they would they would not look like that picture I showed where we just had a couple of water filled barriers that would be a solid line of barriers along the roadside and then along kind of what you would think of as the oncoming side, it would be completely solid. But the concrete, interlocking concrete barriers. Speaker 0: Tell them, Harry Spencer, go ahead. Speaker 4: I want to make sure, though, that they do provide similar protection to the crowds because that's why this is being proposed as safety. And as much as I appreciate decoration. Then I want to make sure that, yes, in fact, this speaks to the how how do they compare for safety purposes to the crowds? Speaker 0: Who would like to take that? Mr. THOMPSON. I'm thinking. Speaker 7: Yeah. So again, they're they're made for that purpose. And after we reviewed it at the low speeds that are existing along the street segments that these there are £150 apiece. And then they do get connected with a cable system, interlocks them. So they're secure and they're they're made for this purpose. So we feel comfortable that this is a suitable safety enhancement. Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel for her, Spencer. Speaker 4: I appreciate that you feel comfortable, but is there no data that actually speaks to what force these can endure versus the carriers? I didn't have real data that says that they are the same or. Speaker 7: I don't I don't have it with me tonight to provide to you. But there is there is data out there for these types of systems that exist. And we did review some of that. Speaker 0: I have a suggestion. We're going to take public comment, perhaps forward. We're taking public comment. People could avail themselves of the Internet or whatever accessing files and get an answer to that question. I would think that that wouldn't be too difficult to do. Any further clarifying questions, Councilmember Harry Spencer, before we get to our public comment. Speaker 4: Thank you and I appreciate your comments there. Thank you. Speaker 0: Yeah, we'll get that answer. Any other clarifying questions for council? And I'm not seeing any. So let's do public comment. Speaker 1: Okay. And we have six speakers. Speaker 0: Okay. So that means. Everyone gets. Speaker 1: Yeah they'll still I'll get 2 minutes and then if somebody I mean 3 minutes and then somebody else raise their hands, it'll go down to two. So the first is James Johnston. Speaker 0: All right. Welcome, Speaker Johnston. Speaker 3: Hello. Speaker 2: One, two, three, four, five, six. Six lanes were dedicated to the automobile on the so-called Park Street before covered for traffic into parking. You know, I thought it was. Speaker 3: Better named Automobile. Speaker 2: Street than Park Street. There was only a relatively narrow. Speaker 3: Sidewalk that could not accommodate. Speaker 2: Businesses and no bike lanes. Not much in the way of greenery either. It's an obsolete design, relatively hostile to anyone, not an automobile. The Bay Area is well known for its usually fantastic weather and I love spending time outdoors. And what's more, like it or not, COVID is here to stay. Speaker 3: Breakthrough infections and long COVID. Speaker 2: Will always remain a risk, even with vaccines. So redesigning and improving the concept of parklets is a good idea. Speaker 3: And I encourage council to it, at least at minimum, follow. Speaker 2: These staff recommendations. However, in the long run, I suggest we bring the. Speaker 3: Park back in Park. Speaker 2: Street. It's terribly missing and let's dream big. Speaker 3: And completely. Speaker 6: Transform the street. Speaker 2: Into a park. Let's build some more elaborate landscaping that makes the place feel like a park. Imagine more trees, native vegetation. Speaker 3: Hearts, gaping. Speaker 2: Fountains and so on. Let's have first. Speaker 3: Class protected. Speaker 2: Bike lanes and wider sidewalks. And very importantly, let's allow all of the businesses to expand outdoors onto the street with permanent and attractive dining and shopping facilities with first class outdoor facilities for these businesses to use that feel like they were designed for that not tiny parklets that fit in the shadow of automobile infrastructure as if. Speaker 3: It was an afterthought. Speaker 2: And suffer from loud and dangerous automobiles that spew toxic exhaust gases only a few feet away. This whole debate about insurance and what would happen if a car hits a parklet would be. Speaker 6: Moot if we didn't have them there. Speaker 2: So, you know, to help make room for this, let's close the road to private automobiles. If San Francisco can do it on Market Street, why can't we busses only if even that use other roads to get around and off the island. But not this one. If someone needs to drive to this area, we have a big parking garage. We don't need gratuitous amounts of street parking. Let's give that to our businesses permanently and in an attractive way. So I. Speaker 3: Encourage council and staff to. Speaker 2: Pursue this ambitious, ambitious vision for the future and come up with some really amazing plans over the next year or two. And let's completely transform and rebuild Part Street for the better. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Marilyn Rushman. Speaker 0: Good evening, speaker. Amen. Speaker 4: Hello again. I actually am one of the 40% who do not care for the current commercial streets. I do not go near Park Street anymore. The traffic is horrible with one narrow lane each way. I see the only benefits of the parklets is for outside dining, whose popularity is surely going. Speaker 5: To decline during. Speaker 4: The winter. I think that the 600,000 ARPA money could be much better spent on, say, the FDA office pilot program. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you to our next speaker. Speaker 1: Zach Bowling. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Bowling. Speaker 3: Hi there. Can you hear me? Speaker 0: Yes, fine. Speaker 2: Awesome. Yeah, I'm a big fan of road diets. I've probably said that before. I think. I think the of situation that we've got on Webster and Park are great additions to the city. I do have concerns around biking infrastructure because we do ban bikes on the sidewalks in our commercial areas in front of our stores. So we really don't really have a place to ride anywhere near there in any kind of safe way. In the current configuration, one of the ideas is thinking is we do have at the end of a policy, the Memorial Parkway. At the very end, we built that shared space. And I know some agencies probably get a get upset that we're converting like a hub and a state Highway 61 into a shared space. But I think we can make the case that that kind of infrastructure of having a pedestrian friendly space and moving cars off of those two roads predominantly, but using it for like local traffic or deliveries would make sense. But thinking about that on the barriers, I was also thinking concrete barriers there. People already complained about the 71 barriers, the white ones. I'm not a fan of the white ones. I know they're more reflective, but they just you see scuff marks. I'm more of a fan of the 72 that we have them on on Otis. They're they're a little bit more fancy, for lack of a better term, and they look a little nicer. And I think the brown ones are a little bit better. But if that's being considered, instead of having if we can get people to drive slower on that street through just behavior modification of changing design elements, shrinking the road's any way possible to get people to drive slower? Do we really need to go up to concrete barriers also reducing some of the width of that space and if we could replace that with other bollards that could be used instead of a concrete barrier. I know it's temporary. The 7270 ones are really good for that kind of temporary infrastructure and they're very inexpensive. Those are some of my thoughts. I think if we can improve the biking situation on both of those roads, I think it would make it a better interconnect with the rest of the community. I think I'll leave my comments there. So thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Herman Reid. Speaker 4: Good evening, Speaker Reid. Speaker 5: Good evening again, Madam Mayor, and city council members. I do appreciate the city staff's report and I and I strongly support our local businesses. I am a bit concerned, however, how the reduction of lanes on both Park Street and Webster Street may affect residents in the event of an emergency evacuation. And I'm wondering if the city has considered this this impact in there and if there is some some plan to address that. I do support the closure of Alameda Avenue, but I think that more investment should be made to beautify the area and perhaps create a structure of some sort. Like we like some structures that you see in Europe and maybe where it could serve as a farmer's market, as well as the picnic tables that are and that are utilized by Alameda High School students. And with some additional creativity, the space could be very flexible for multi uses. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next. Speaker 1: Speaker, Aaron Miller. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Miller. Speaker 4: Just done meeting myself. Hi, guys. I am I am very frustrated in your and in the city's response to cars. I'm 72. My husband's 77. He can't he can't ride a bike. I'm not riding a bike. We're all going to be driving electric cars in the near future because it's mandated by the state. And so this environmental emphasis on cars to me is very misplaced. I have not spoken to one person that I know who is in favor of what's going on in Webster and Park Street as far as the striping. It's a disaster. You can't park. I always I have a four year old granddaughter. I always frequent a toy safari. I do not go to Park Street anymore. I go to Target over on West End because I can't park there. I I'm surprised that the businesses are supporting this on both Webster and Park Street because I read the results of the the traffic and Webster, the average traffic reductions are down. How can that help the businesses? Park Street right now says that the traffic isn't down, but it's slower. But it's slower because it's an obstacle course. I go to rise, ladies. And he is he was very upset. His two parking spots in front of his business were taken away. He had no choice. He now has a parklet there. He did not want a parklet there. He wanted the parking spaces. And what is he going to do as a gym owner with his parklet? He's built it. He had to pay for it. He's now got to insurance costs. He didn't want it. So I get it for restaurants. I totally understand it for restaurants. They needed it during the pandemic because no one could eat inside. It was mandatory. You had to eat outside. I totally understand that. And I know that some people are more comfortable still eating outside. But but to disrupt the business districts on the two main business corridors that we have I think is just really wrong. And again, everybody I spoke to, I looked I looked at your survey. If you look at how many people actually answered that survey, it was all the people who were interested in it's bike Alameda. It's all the people who want it to be that way. But it's a very, very small representative of what this town is. We've got 80,000 people and what, 2000 people maybe answered that survey, and I think they all had an agenda. So I just really want to represent the people who are not being represented today. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: And we now have two more speakers. So we are over the seven or more limit, so to speak. Your time will go to 2 minutes and the next one is true. Dara Abrams. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Dara Abrams. Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening. Andrew Dara Abrams here. Speaking both as an East End resident on Calhoun Street and also a co-owner of a small business park in Blanding. So I want to thank city staff and the business districts for acting really quickly, really creatively over the last 18 months. Lots of cities around the Bay Area in the country have done similar programs. But I think it's to almeida's credit that Alameda has done an above average job and is now in a position to consider what to make permanent. So I can say as a resident that walking to Park Street with our two young kids, it's a more pleasant it's a safer experience. Would love to make permanent some of those improvements. As a resident, you know, also. Speaker 7: Walking with we. Speaker 3: Were not in a a line of business where we have our clients coming into the office. But those of us who do work out of the office certainly appreciate being able to also walk down, park, use a parklet and so on. The I you know, I will you know, I think it's worth acknowledging that the experience for drivers has changed. And now I walk, I ride a bike, I do drive as well. And so I do hope that part of making these changes permanent, that some some work can be done to improve signal timing and intersections for cars , signage for folks who just want to find a parking lot and ditch their car. And I think actually through through making these permanent, the the the quality of the experience can be improved for people no matter what mode they're arriving by. And finally, let me just point you all to bike ped informed from University of North Carolina and Nak Doh staff members already know this, but there's a lot of info on here. Speaker 0: I think. Thank you for your time, Zach, and we'll go on to our next speaker now. Speaker 1: Jim Strelow. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Stellar. Speaker 3: Good evening. Not all businesses support this program. Your program picks and chooses winners. While there are many businesses that are losers, some businesses have lost parking spaces. More importantly, loss of visibility to some businesses hidden behind the temporary parklet structures where their entrances or signage has been blocked. Some businesses were closed. They could not even open their doors due to county rules because of touching prohibitions such as the tactile galleries, gyms, bars, etc.. So businesses need deliveries, particularly day shipments. Amazon, FedEx and disabled need access. So do not restrict vehicle use. Now, the question I know you don't answer questions about will the county increase tax rates for businesses who are taxed by square footage of usable space? And then now, since the city is going to be paying for insurance, will the city pay for increased county taxes based upon square footage usable space ? Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Ginny Sanderson. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Anderson. Speaker 5: Good evening. I find myself in an odd position. I'm actually disagreeing with my friend Marilyn and somewhat agreeing with Carmen Reid. I would like to see a little bit more build out of Alameda Avenue right there. I felt like that was a useless street beforehand. You know, something a little bit more robust. Infrastructure would be great. A farmer's market would be amazing. And as far as I understand, nobody is quite getting rid of cars on Park Street right now. But, you know, maybe someday in the future, that would be great. Perhaps we could have a trolley system like they're implementing out at the point to kind of ferry people up and down it. I understand the businesses need deliveries. But I you know, prior to the pandemic, it was just all cars, all parking. And I would like to see a little bit more pedestrianized I agree with Zach and other other speakers about bike access. I never ride to businesses over there because I can't. There's hardly any bike parking and it's just not safe to ride on Park Street the way people drive. So I just want to say that I, I support keeping the parklets I as far as I know. I don't understand why someone was forced to build a parklet. Those are public spaces, not their spaces specifically. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the implementation of Parklets, but that's not my understanding. Anyways, yeah, I just fully support keeping this system and keeping it safer for pedestrians. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Ron Mooney. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Mooney. Speaker 7: Good evening. How are you? Speaker 0: Well, thank you. Speaker 7: Great. Mayor, council members here to support the staff report and the work that our association and WADA has put in to do this. Very excited to see a continuance. We have other members that are looking for this longer term vision and then they both are planning on improving their parklets and looking for a few more applicants to come in. And as I think everybody knows. No business was required to build a parklet. Everybody that wanted to applied, including the mentioned one. But more importantly, I am so happy that Park Street is slower. I have to say living on Park Street, having a business on Park Street, it is so nice. I would love to see it drop down to 20 miles per hour, but I think that's a discussion for the next over the next couple of years. So I'd love to see the supported in having parking compliance put in place is another important thing. I'll just remind people we have a fantastic parking garage and as I walk cooky around I've yet to see it under 100 places available. So there's always spaces available in one of the city. Lots in the core of the downtown and also. But it's been reduced by five blocks to one lane to two lanes or 2 to 1 lane. It's five blocks. It's not that huge. And I just would love to see it extended. I know that's not in the works, but we'll see how it goes. So support the staff report. Thank you. Staff and council. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: And that's our it'll be our last speaker. It's Denise Trapani. Speaker 0: All right. Good evening. Speaker champion year. Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you, Mayor and council member. My name is Denise Trapani. I'm the board president. I walk alameda and I just wanted to provide our enthusiastic support for staff's recommendation tonight to continue the Commercial Streets program, even though the original program really didn't do much. Honestly, for biking and walking, it was needed for our businesses to survive. But in terms of pedestrian and cyclist, other than some bike corrals, there really wasn't much done for us. But what it did give us was a chance to really reimagine what our business districts could be like. And I think using this time the next couple of years to continue the analysis and to continue to have the conversation about what this could look like. I mean, just tonight, we've heard from closing them to, you know, closing them on weekends to just all these types of different modifications. This planning work takes a lot of time. And what I would hate to do is go back to a configuration that we had before, put people through that change, and then come up with a better, more robust design and then have to go through all the work again and the change for folks to get used to the final configuration. So let's use the next couple of years to continue the conversation and do the analysis and the work and get the design right by continuing this program. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Madam Quirk, you said that was our last speaker right there. Speaker 1: That was our last speaker. Speaker 0: All right. So with that, we will close public comment on item seven B and we will open it up to the council. All right. Who would like to go first? Councilmember Knox. Right. Speaker 3: And nobody else raise their hand. I'm happy to go first and that's fine. So thank you to staff. I think this is very exciting. The staff presentation reminded us that we started this in May. I think during that conversation we had a conversation about how well, first off, we thought we were coming out of this thing a lot earlier by COVID, but we all said we're talking about how this could be back. Back at that time could be the beginning of how we start thinking about our business districts and the changes that COVID is going to write and the fact that we're going to have more work from home folks in Alameda looking for places to have lunch, etc., and that we're going to need to rethink public space. And I think that chamber event the the economist who came out that was his prediction also for the future. So I think that approving this and moving forward is very important. You know, I'm going to I'm going to I'm not going to spend too much time on the whole design and what the insurance companies want. It is true they are looking at jury jury awards as a jury awards for people jumping curbs in specific instances and not for running into kiwirail. And I do think that we are probably being based on what other city, a lot of other cities are doing, exceedingly cautious and exceedingly risk averse. And I think that that is fine for the city to do that. But if we're going to, I think we should also then take on the burden of covering the the delta between the what folks are currently paying for for their liability insurance and what we would be requiring for the future of liability insurance. I think also that instead of looking to just do what those parklets that are out there right now, we have striping on just a few blocks in both of our business districts that have been striped to allow for public space, parklets, etc.. And I think that we should look at actually just putting the K rail or whatever we're going to call that, the decorative cement barrier that is equally as good as K Rail, the length of all of our streets and really create that space to make that space so that if somebody six months from now wants to create a parklet, we're not then going back out and readjusting the existing K rails that are around some of the parklets and whatnot, and really rather just that that space is going to be dead space. One way or another, it's not going to be a parking space between the partnership, between the parklets because we've striped it. So so let's just really, if we're going to require carry ons instead of real stops, let's, let's just do that. My guess is the incremental cost of doing it once and doing it the full length and really supporting our business community and thinking giving them easy flexibility for the future would be well worth it and I think would actually lower hurdles to other businesses as we're coming out of this, opting to step into these spaces and make them more active. I'm not quite sure. So we're proving that, I guess there's language about improving the Commercial Streets program for two years, but I really see the only place in any resolution that we're that we're doing that that really relates to just extending the temporary permits for two years. So know I think we should do that. I really appreciate that. Staff has in other presentations I've seen really talked about the iterative nature of what this is going to look like as well, how this will give us the opportunity to kind of see what's working and make changes along the way. And then two years from now, when we're looking to really make a more permanent decision, we can we can put those in place at that point in time. But really, I'm just here to say thank you to for all the great work. I'm really looking forward to seeing this. Like I said, I would really like us to at least our staff to come back with either to move forward with a cost for putting up the barriers, the length of each of these these blocks so that we have a uniform each uniform block. And it's not these weird in and out, you know, every every 60 feet there's a new parklet with with with concrete barriers. We can ask them to come back or we can give the direction to just do it right. What I would say, do it right the first time. So thank you. Speaker 4: And. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember knocks White Castle her desk. Speaker 2: Well, thank you. You know, I think it's because of the Parklet program and the street reconfiguration. Businesses on Webster Street especially were given a fighting chance to survive through this incredibly difficult time. And, you know, all you need to do is during the daytime and sometimes even in the evening, early evenings, there is a certain liveliness on Webster Street that I have just never seen before. And, you know, as I said from the outset of this thing, you know, I live practically close to Webster Street, so I'm there all the time. And I think I think the success of this this program speaks for itself. You know, the the flip side of this is it slowed down traffic on on Webster Street. That's true. And, you know, I mean, but is it a bad thing that their cars are now traveling 25 miles per hour instead of 33 or 34 miles per hour on what had always been kind of a narrow street anyways. I mean, I get the concern that residents have raised about, you know, the ability of vehicles to transit through Webster Street. But you know, what I'm seeing in Webster Street because of the Park Parklet program and the street reconfiguration is a certain liveliness that just far outweighs the downside of slower traffic. People just seem so much more excited about what's the street, you know, local residents who live nearby, they're always like counting all there's going to be a restaurant opening pretty soon, you know? Thank you, Leslie. A neighbor or. Oh, look, there's a new coffee shop that just opens, like you said, your coffee shop. And thank you. Continuing coffee shops with Miguel and Monica and Bob Echo there on the corner. And it's just I just I like what I'm seeing in terms of the other commercial streets. And, you know, I'm a West End guy, so that's why I'm, you know, talking on and on about Webster Street. Park Street looks great, too. I'm just kidding. It is so. So I'm in favor of it. I think the other thing, though, I'm not a fan of of the neighborhood. Blocked off Slow Street program though. I think we're out of a. Speaker 0: Councilmember days like if I could ask you to and I think it'll make the city attorney happier if we could just confine our remarks to the agenda item. No, this isn't the residential streets. This is. Speaker 5: Commercial. Speaker 2: Oh, the commercial. Okay. Sorry. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Good idea. Oh, well, in that case, yeah. Well, then, yeah, I think I said. I said my piece. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you. I was going to ask vice mayor of L.A., Councilmember Spencer, vice mayor of L.A.. Speaker 5: So I think, you know, I'm in support of continuing this. I think, you know, it's one of the few ways that we see a lot more people out and about is by having these parklets on in our commercial districts. And I think that it's really helped businesses. Many of them have invested time, money, resources in terms of these setups. And I think we we should continue it. I would like to see, you know, when we erect the structures that they're erect, the barricades that they're erected in a way to Councilmember Knox White Knight Point, that we can we can add parklets or change them as needed where it's not going to be a huge construction issue. I also think that our our parklets have created a really nice sense of space in our business districts, especially on Webster Street. We don't we don't drive there. I live a few blocks away, you know, and I walk over with my children. I think in my family, I think it's you know, we've we've made our business districts much more welcoming to folks to come in in a number of different using different types of modes, whether it's walking or biking . And and for folks that are driving, we certainly have a number of parking lots at both business districts that are being utilized and they're being well utilized in parks. In terms of Park Street, that parking garage certainly has much more capacity, but I think it's really opened up and made these streets much more welcoming for folks that are traveling by foot. And the pandemic is not over yet. So we keep talking about recovery. But, you know, we last year saw a huge COVID surge starting at Halloween that took us through the winter. And so I think it's important to be focused on recovery, but also focused on continuing safe practices and opportunities for people to socialize in a safe way. And that's what we can do through these parklets. Speaker 0: Thank you. Cast over her, Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. I want to get back to the survey. It had I think it was about 1700 respondents, but there seems to be inconsistency. Yes, 1759. Inconsistency in regards to surveys that the city is putting out, that sometimes it has demographic data, sometimes in regards to like age and race. But I didn't see that included in this survey. And it did say, do you live in Alameda? Or what is your connection to Alameda? And I don't know. It was a very high percentage was living in Alameda, which is great. But I don't know if there's a way for the city to know that these respondents actually live here or if they are unique response respondents. And I think it's important for the city to come up with a consistent way that we survey, because it is you know, we have 1759 and then we're looking at that, too, if if we are looking at that to impact how we vote and, you know, using it, then I would like us to figure out. How how how does the city do surveys? And I think that sometimes we ask for demographics. Sometimes we don't. But I do think it's important that we try to ensure that these are our immigrants in some way in the city. You know, asked for the address of where they live. It doesn't, of course, if there's a way to do it. So, of course, is that part is always kept confidential. But I want to make sure that I'm hearing actually from people that really are Algerians. So I wanted to share that the turning lanes and middle line impact up because we've lost those now. Right. And so things traffic does get backed up. So, yes, I agree it is slower. But in deliveries and the busses we have, we have all of that happening. And I want to make sure. So first for me is safety. When this issue came before. Earlier, I had I had concerns about not having the crews. And so I'm happy to have that. But I do want to make sure that whatever this alternative is, that it is, in fact, as safe, because that's actually the purpose of what it's about. And I think it is very important that if we're going to be offering outside space and I'm also one of those I, I still believe safer outside. So I, I do like the idea of offering these spaces, but I think it's incumbent upon the city to actually be as safe as possible. So and so, you know, these are some of my concerns and right to make sure that whatever we're using is, in fact, as safe as the kiwirail's. That has to be the priority for me. I want to make sure that in regards to. These are our main roads to get out of town. If we have to, we need to evacuate. Do we have a plan? Paradise, sadly, had two lanes. And that's what we're down to at this point. So I think we do have to make sure that these are safe to evacuate if we need to do that, but also for emergency vehicles. Where do they go? And traffic and the impact on the alternate streets that you can see right off and eighth and constitution is completely backed up all. Speaker 0: The way. Speaker 4: Down. And it's not just on weekends. It can be any time all the way down. I went to one out on Webster Monday night and it was all the way down to the water. So I think we're seeing a lot of cars avoiding Webster and that's what we hear as well as part. And then we have to figure out how to make these alternative streets, be aware of the traffic. Then they have to accommodate and not just focus on. Park, Hagen, Webster. How do we make the other streets safe also to make sure that we're not just shifting and creating problems on our other roads. But it's obvious that people are going to be. Broadway on the park side. So and then, you know, to address where do our fireplace go? Then how do we get out of the way? For those of us that are in cars? I think, you know, we've heard from bicyclists. You do see bicyclists on the sidewalk. And how do we come up with like this is a two year plan. A two year plan is actually a long time. I feel like we should actually if I personally would prefer holding back at this point, keeping it the way it is for another 3 to 6 months and see how do we address these issues that have been raised to make sure we're doing it safely for all users there. But I'm concerned that we're doing this for two years and in fact, we're going to be doing it permanently. And we really haven't addressed the the concerns of bicycling, which really should should be addressed that we're. You know, it really should it should be addressed for all of our users. I do agree with you, two Avenue. I think that was a great idea to close that to car traffic. And I think we I love that. I will agree with Carmen Reid's comments, suggestions to make that area more useable. The insurance costs that I, I do support the city attorney's office of adding the K rails as well as requiring additional insurance. I am concerned about how our business is going to be able to pay for that, though. And I'm also concerned in regards to this is a chunk of this is going to be ARPA monies at least. And I don't know if it can be ARPA money for two years and staff can address that. Mm hmm. How are we funding that for the two years? And then if and if, in fact, we're using $630,000 of ARPA monies for this, and I don't think the additional 40,000 or whatever for the insurance to support the businesses really makes a difference at that point. So I would think we should include that from the ARPA monies, if we can, to make to make this work. But I am concerned that we're not really addressing the safety issues. And I do want to hear about, you know, are these barriers really going to work? Because they really should be. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Councilor Spencer, I did want to come back to our technical experts to ask, so did you have a chance to look into the question that Councilmember Herrera Spencer asked earlier? Mr. THOMPSON. Speaker 7: Yes, I did. So there's you know, Caltrans has research available on it. Caltrans Division of Research and System Information has published documents on K rail and temporary concrete traffic controls. F each way, the Federal Highway Administration has portable concrete transition plans, research barrier guide and the ASTRO also has a roadside design guide that has the full research . And, you know, there's a multitude of guardrails, k rails, concrete blocks, you know, water field barricades. It's a very wide range of products. And so this this is, you know, it can without getting into the weeds of that, I mean, this is definitely an upgrade from the waterfall barricades where we saw a collision a few months ago , where the water filled barricades do slide, you know, more than what we anticipated. And so I think these concrete barricades will definitely provide a higher level. And it's a wide range. And I want to emphasize that putting up even Caltrans freeway style highway barricades does not guarantee that a car collides with it. And, you know, something bad happens. But it's it's a oftentimes you hear things about reasonableness. You know, when you what extent did you go to and was it reasonable? And so. Some cities do nothing. You know, some cities require for Caltrans highway trails, you know. So we are, you know, on that spectrum. But towards the K rail and the fence. I heard your comment about is it as safe as Kitty Rail? And my answer to that would be, you know, 25 foot long, heavy, interlocking rails would be safer than what what is proposed. Again, it's a continuum. We're trying to be reasonable. And I think at these low speed locations, the traffic data that we have shows very low speeds in these areas. But these are an appropriate concrete barricade for the situation. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Counsel for Harry Spencer. Speaker 4: Okay. So I appreciate that answer. I, I know other counties and cities are requiring the crowds throughout the state, and, and I don't want to compromise our safety. Sally there have, in fact, been at least one death I'm aware of. We were fortunate. It hasn't happened here, but we have had accidents. And you're right, we've had so so I. I don't think it's appropriate to compromise our safety. I think we we need to do what everyone else is doing. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. So I will go last with my comments. Thank you so much to staff and members of the public and council colleagues for all of your comments. I am a fan of the reconfigurations, but I also want to recognize and we heard this evening there is a range of opinion and so we need to take that into consideration. I think we're doing some of that by changing the parking, you know, the 15 minute limited parking times and making it a little easier for people to get to Park Street. I would also repeat what I think Vice Mayor Vella mentioned, that if you're coming to Park Street by car, we do have the Civic Center parking garage. I think people forget about it. It almost always has spaces available. And as has been noted, there's a little marquee at the entrance and you can see just how many and the rates are really reasonable and I think we don't charge after 6 p.m.. So remember that I'm a bicyclist, my husband's a bicyclist. We ride up to Park Street, we ride all over the island, especially on the weekends. I do. Sometimes I ride to city hall for work. I don't go down Park Street and I don't go down Webster Street, but it's really easy to get around if you just go one parallel street over. So for Park Street, we've got Oak Street that has SROs all the way down, and it also intersects a couple of our slow streets, San Jose Avenue and then Pacific Avenue. And you again are just one block over from Park Street. So you can ride up or down Oak Street and then just turn at whatever your side street is where you need to go. We've always found places to lock up, you know, across from the Almeida Theater and all along Park Street and Webster Street, there's parking. In fact, I was just on Webster on Sunday. It was Halloween and the kids were out trick or treating. It was sweet, but they've put in a nice row of bicycle parking by parking at no. Miss Wheeler knows what intersection that was. I think it was maybe Haight and Webster or wherever I was. But anyway, so, so just think in terms of don't be afraid to ride park. Just think in terms of an alternate route. And you know, once upon a time and I hope we're still publishing it. Bike Work. Alameda I think I collaborated on a great map of the city and bicycle rides that probably we do need to update it because, well, new streets will be opening soon, you know, with some of the work that's being done on the northern waterfront. So anyway. But let's also find a way to to realize that people have different abilities and different comfort levels of getting around. And we do want to make the downtown districts welcoming for all, which is what I love about seeing walking down Park Street, walking down Webster and seeing the people just out enjoying being outdoors. It's a time to be social and yet feel safer when you're outdoors. And so I think it's something worth continuing. My two criteria are safety first, but I'm satisfied with what our staff has talked about and then esthetics. So I do expect I know there's going to be a staff level design review. I expect Parklets to also enhance the the the visibility of the street or the the the streetscape. So I don't want to. Speaker 4: See. Speaker 0: Parklets that are kind of an eyesore. So just set that bar high. It just makes the downtown more attractive. And I was really happy to hear from Ron Moody because not only are they he and his family business owner on Park Street, they are not the owners of a restaurant. They're owners of a retail shop. Daisy's And so one thing I've been concerned about is, you know, do these parklets hamper the the ability of some of these retail businesses that also had had to limit their indoor capacity? One creative thing that I know that Daisy's did is they put in a little parklet outdoors because sometimes they have a pop up event or some sales event, but I believe they share it. After they closed in the early evenings, they allowed the restaurant next door, which is Burma Superstar, to use their parklet as the place where the DoorDash and the Uber eats. Delivery people can come. So there's a lot of nice cooperative ventures, I think, that are going on, you know, shared spaces and whatnot. And then let's see the, you know, the farmer's market that's been talked about for a while, enticing idea and. Alameda Avenue. Just remember, for those of you who go to the farmer's market on Haight Street on Tuesdays and Saturdays and CALS everyday said knows this. Those farmers that they have to or the people bringing the produce, they've got to get there with their trucks, with their vans. They've got to park somewhere. So, you know, staff will take that into consideration in thinking of what we're going to do next with that space. But I think that it would be a shame to discontinue the program now because it takes a while to get used to anything new. I think we've gained a lot of insight, lessons learned, what you know, how could we treat this to make it better? So I would actually like I don't mind funding the project for two years. I would like a check in with the council in a year from now just to see, you know, with implementing these changes that have been suggested, where, you know, where we are, how the businesses are feeling about it, how respondents are feeling about it. We could do another survey. So I would I would suggest that. So I believe we've got a couple of resolutions we need to pass, Madam Clerk, or. And our city attorney. We can do those. Well, do you want us a motion? You can. Great motion. All right. Councilmember Knox. What? I believe I saw your hand somewhere in the air. Did I? Speaker 3: Yes. Yeah, I'd love to. I'd love to try a motion. I'd like to move that. We approve the commercial streets to your work. Work plan with direction to to return to council with a with the costs for the proposed concrete barriers in all locations to approve the precast concrete traffic control barricade standards as as as the standard . And and hold off on the on approving the money because I think we should come back as well since we're having to move money from one place to another that we will need the full cost in order to be able to do that. Speaker 0: But so I'm sorry, help me understand hold off on the money. Speaker 3: That we can't approve the money because we don't have the cost. Speaker 0: So as far as the transferring. Well, that's the capital budget plan. Are you? Speaker 3: Yeah. So essentially, they would have to come back with a capital budget plan for for approval unless somebody has a way that we can move forward with moving them, not knowing the exact cost. Speaker 0: So you want. Okay. Help me understand, if you would. You want your proposal to be costed out and included in the budget proposal. Speaker 3: Right now, there you have given us a proposal on the costs and are asking us to transfer those funds based on that cost. I would like them to come back with a slightly different plan that that uses the I'm going to call it Carol. I know it's not Carol. Speaker 0: The concrete barriers. Speaker 3: Identified Gabriel on all and all the area, all the striping, so that each block is fully railed so that we don't have individual spotty broken teeth along along along each of our business districts. So I don't believe the cost is going to be that much more. But given that we don't know what it was, I would ask staff to come back and come on content with with the with the budget request. Speaker 0: All right, there's a motion to have a second. Speaker 4: Also. Speaker 5: I do have a question of whether staff can can bring it back just as a budget request. The Budget request on consent or if it would need to be fully agenda go. Speaker 0: Okay. We've had a second and then we have a question from Seth, but I think we need to have a discussion about whether that's the direction we want to take. But let's go first to staff who wants to address whether we can just bring it back on consent for budget item. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 0: That's Mr. Levinson's question. Yeah. And the city manager Eric Levitt has said that. Mr. LEVITT. Speaker 3: Yes. So you could bring if you decide to, to narrow to the budget request, you could we could bring that back if that's what the council monitors do. Speaker 0: All right. So we have a yeah, Tony. So Councilmember Desai, you have your hand up your muted for you partly. Speaker 2: Media question for staff does staff have any comments with regard to the way that the motion is is framed, particularly with regard to any possible cost above and beyond what's already kind of estimated? Speaker 3: Yeah, I think as I understand, you know, what we did is we looked at the fact we assumed about 30 parklets we looked at and then Rust did all the heavy lifting on this kind of assume looking at where the existing parklets were thinking it might happen two or three more. But basically what we've got is essentially protecting each parklet how many how many barricades would we need sort of wrapping each parklet at least on two sides, what Councilmember Knox White is suggesting as well. What about a different approach instead of three or four parklets on a block each individually wrap, what have you just did? A continuous line of barriers and my my sense and Russ jump in here if I'm wrong is yes if what we'll have to do is we'll have to come up with a new barrier plan for the blocks, which won't be hard because it's going to be a continuous line just on the blocks where we have parklets on and the reduced language. And it will be an incremental increase in the amount of. Barricades we will need to purchase. I don't think it's going to double the amount. I think it's going to increase it. But. Russ, do you do you think. Am I right about this? Speaker 0: Mr. Thompson I don't want to weigh in. Speaker 3: I also think there's other things we're going to need to do. We're going to need gaps between those barricades so that people can go from the park cars to the sidewalk. We also want to get in some space for, you know, transit to be able to pull over. So, I mean, there's it's not going to be necessarily one long contiguous row is what I'm thinking. Speaker 4: Councilmember Cost. Speaker 3: But the cost will go up. Speaker 0: Back to Councilmember de SAG and then I'll go to you, Mr. Thompson. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. So the follow up question is so as I'm understanding the motion that you're going to come back to us. Is that correct? Councilman, you're not quite that. I was going to come back to council and then we'll make it. Well, I mean, we're like approving the concept, but the the final cost of which we will make a determination when you come back. I think that's the motion. Yes. Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. So I'll get Mr. Earthy, Mr. Levin and Ira. Mr. Thompson, you had anything else you want to add? Speaker 7: Just quickly. Speaker 0: Yeah, go ahead. And then you. Mr. Levitt. Mr. Thompson. First. Speaker 7: Okay. So the price that we included in the staff report was based on the roughly the existing number of parklets and protecting them in accordance with the detailed parklet barricade detail. So it was not to create, you know, long lengths of unoccupied, you know, security, unprotected park, whether it was just for the parklets that exist. So that's a little different than I think what I'm hearing from Councilmember Knox White is that we want to make some kind of a uniform corridor for potentially unused parklet space. So that's not the way that cost was calculated, as I'm saying it was. Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. Okay. And Mr. Leaven in the back to you Councilman de so. Speaker 3: So I guess I would recommend an alternative approach might be to approve the funding from the ARPA if if the council wants to move forward, approve the funding with GA. But with the direction to bring back this alternative approach, I think it won't be doubling. I would agree with Mr. Thomas and we'll be doubling to bring back the alternative approach. And then at that point the Council could go one way or the other. That way we could start to design it and we could start to have it start to be implemented, and then that we would come back relatively quickly with that alternative approach so that we can move in one direction or the other. But you you could appropriate the funding now being recommended by staff because I don't think it would be less than that. I think will be a minimum of that. I'm happy to amend my motion to. Speaker 0: Okay. And we haven't had a chance. Okay. Let let us get to the discussion. We'll go back to you for amendment, if that's necessary. Councilmember Desai, did you finish? Because I wanted. Speaker 2: To I think the city manager, Levitt, laid out a reasonable and it sounds like Councilmember Knox fight. Speaker 0: Yeah, I thank you. I, I actually couldn't support that proposal at this time. I think let's work with what we have if we are going to increase the cost of what we're spending rather than this. Speaker 4: Long. Speaker 0: Line of concrete barrier corridor for parklets that may or may not come about in the future. Why don't we use that money to help pay and underwrite the insurance costs so that our businesses aren't burdened with that? But I just I think that it's it's a little more complicated than, as Mr. Thompson just noted, and just putting this long line of of barricade down all the blocks that have parklets now, because you do have to have some openings to to get through. And I think I just think that we we can always add to it. But I think at this point in time, we're probably spending enough ARPA money and let's, you know, we're trying to make adjustments to this existing program. So anyway. But back to Councilmember Knox White for you. Did you want to. Speaker 3: I like I said, I well as a councilmember her expenses Hancock's of the. Speaker 0: Park. Oh, I'm sorry. I looked down for a minute. Councilmember Herb Spencer. Speaker 4: I just wanted to point out that the resolution speaks specifically to Carroll, so we're not going to do that. I think it should be clear that we're not doing that, but we're using a lower standard. And then I would be concerned about giving up even more parking. And if you have a continuous line, thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. So is. Well, I believe the resolution, if I'm reading the same phrase, talks about this would be I'm on page one the last whereas before the now they're. Speaker 4: At. Speaker 0: Their for be at resolve. Whereas the installation of continuous precast concrete safety barricades, parents, creoles or equal are commonly used and accepted as a means to separate living vehicles. So maybe I don't need to toss that one to the city attorney. So then any further comments, council scene and back to you. Speaker 3: Councilmember Knox Way I was simply going to just amend my, my, my motion to what the city manager recommended if if vice member was going to support. Speaker 0: Okay. So to recap that was to to go ahead and approve the. Speaker 3: Current funding and give direction to return with the alternate, the alternative and any additional funding request for further consideration. Speaker 0: Thank you, Madam Seconder. Vice Mayor, would you consent to seconding that amended? Speaker 4: Sure. Speaker 0: Okay. Any further comments seeing then? May we have a real cover, please, Madam Clerk. Speaker 1: So everyday. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Please, sir. Spencer. Speaker 4: No. Speaker 1: Not quite. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 1: Vella? Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 1: Mayor Ashcroft. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: That motion carries 4 to 1. Speaker 0: Okay. And now we need the resolutions, right. Speaker 1: No. I think the Russian. Speaker 4: Government expert is. Speaker 0: Saying that we could have proven adopt all at once. I'm good with that council over not. Speaker 3: I would just I was trying to I did have a second motion I want to make I wanted to make a motion to actually for the city to cover the differential and the insurance given the high standard of protection that we are providing at the at the parklets that the differential between what they're currently paying and what we are required are requiring them to cover. I'd like to see the city cover that. Speaker 0: Um, do we have a second for that? Councilmember Spencer. And secondly. Speaker 4: Yes. Happy the second. Speaker 0: I was about to read lips there. But yes, thank you. And I will just it's more of a question that a comment. Is it possible I realize that the business owners carry insurance now, but is there possibly something that can be done or perhaps staff to look into doing something about a purchase on a, you know, on a group basis there might be better rates or I'm not an insurance expert, but I'm sure staff will look into that. So we've had that motion by Councilmember Knox White, seconded by Councilmember Harry Spencer. Madam Quick, may we any further discussion? No. Speaker 3: Both Mayor Vella has a hand. Speaker 0: Oh, you did? Okay. Sorry. Speaker 5: I just wanted to. To hear, hear back what the motion was. And from the maker of the motion. Speaker 3: And the maker, the maker of the motion says to talk about it, talk about myself. Speaker 0: But does he. Speaker 4: Mean. Speaker 3: The motion was for the city to cover the differential between current insurance coverage rates and any additional coverage the city is requiring? It's different on different, different parklets. So I'll leave it at that. And so if we can if they can find a way to save everybody money, great. Doesn't preclude that. Speaker 0: And you can. Speaker 5: That's fair. I just wanted to make sure that that motion would allow for city staff to look into the mayor's suggestion of some sort of umbrella plan or something. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thanks. And Mr. Thompson, Thomas gave us a thumbs up. So good. Let's have a roll call vote then. Could you please help me? Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 1: All right, Spencer. I looked like. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 1: Mayor by mayor as the Ashcraft High. That carries by five. Speaker 0: Thank you, everyone. Okay. We have completed item seven be whenever council members start speaking in the third person. I think it's time for a break. So we are going to take a break. We've been at this council almost 3 hours, exceeding my two hour zoom limit. So let's be back at it's 954. Could we be back at 1010? Okay. 10:10 p.m. everyone, we'll see you back. All right. Thank you. Speaker 3: It's. Speaker 4: And the gentleman. Speaker 2: Good evening, good lady. Speaker 4: Now it's 3 to 1. Speaker 0: Right. So we have guys. A full house, I think the sea. Okay. So, Laura, are you ready for us? Speaker 1: It's my cell phone. Okay. Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, everyone. We are back from our break. And as we have finished, item seven and 17, I just want to check in with the clerk. We have one item that is time sensitive this evening. Speaker 1: E. I'm sorry. I might be saying that. Seven. Speaker 0: I think it's seven. Speaker 1: That is right. Thank you. Speaker 0: I'm wondering whether we might be well advised to move that up to hear it now. Do you want to just explain briefly? Speaker 1: Yes, sir. This this item is an ordinance that needs to be introduced tonight and finally passed at the next meeting in order to have the 30 days to become effective before the end of the year. So it is time sensitive. Speaker 0: Okay. And do I need a motion to move it up to hear it now? Speaker 1: Sure. That would be great. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Harris Spencer. Speaker 4: I'm happy to move seven e up to. Speaker 0: Here and now. Thank you so much. I have a second. Councilwoman Knox White. Thank you. May we have a roll cover, please, Madam Clerk? Speaker 1: So I'm ready. Thank I. Harris Spencer. Speaker 4: I. Speaker 1: Knox Light. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 1: Bella. Speaker 4: Hi. Speaker 1: Mayor. As yet get high. That carries by five. Speaker 0: Okay. And I realized that I just did. That was completely no notice to staff ahead of time. But they are nimble. Is Madam Clerk, do we have the necessary staff? Let's see. With that. Speaker 4: We. Speaker 1: Do. Yes. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 1: We've promoted Mitchinson Hall, I believe, giving the presentation and we've got a couple more that'll be joining her. Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Vincent. Welcome. And Mr.. Speaker 4: Green. Hello. Hello. Speaker 0: Yeah, I. We just. I know this, like we said, as the clerk mentioned, we do need to to get this done tonight. So if you're ready, we're ready. Speaker 5: Good evening. Thank you. Just a quick point of clarification. Speaker 1: Rob Helton from HFA Consultants is going to be giving the presentation and myself. Speaker 5: Angela Vincent from Zero Waste Program and the Public Works Department and Mark Green will be here for questions. And also if Liz Acord and Elizabeth. Speaker 1: McKenzie could be elevated as well. Speaker 0: The more, the more the merrier. Speaker 1: Yes, sorry. Mr. Cord was texting that she was frozen, but I think we're trying to get her in and then we don't see Mr. Helton, so I'm not sure what happened. Speaker 0: Perhaps someone wants to just text him. Speaker 3: Yes, right now, madam. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. And I apologize for the lack of advance warning. It's just that I realize, you know, when to keep this moving so well. So you're not prepared to tell us anything about this item that. We'll get to the city staff here in a minute. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Yes, go ahead. So, Ms.. Vincent, you are with the city, correct? Speaker 1: Yes, I am. Speaker 0: Apologize to our viewers. Speaker 1: Yes, yes, yes. Good evening, Madam Air Vice Mayor and Council. My name is Angela Vincent. I am with the city's. Speaker 5: Public works department in our zero waste program. And looks like we have Liz Acord and we will also be getting on Rob Hilton. Speaker 1: From HFA consultants. This is an and proposed ordinance to comply with a state law Senate bill 1383 designed to. Speaker 5: Divert organic waste. Speaker 1: From infill as part of the state's climate strategy. Speaker 0: Welcome this accord. Okay. And this accord, if you want it, I Newt and I think most people know you, but you can tell us who you are. Speaker 5: Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council and with the Court of Public Works Coordinator, with the major technical difficulties this evening. So apologies. Speaker 0: Sir. Is that a department or a division of division? No worries. You are here now. Take a deep breath. It's all good. Do you want to introduce this a little bit? We? Sure. He went to Mr. Hilton. Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm going to see if we can get our consultant, Rob Hilton, with an H to join in the room. Speaker 1: And he's still not on. We we still. He's still not. As an attendee, I can't even. Could he have another name or perhaps. Speaker 5: What we can do. Laura, hopefully you have the presentation. I think you're going to bring it up. We can have our one of our wonderful program specialists, Angela Vincent, jump in and take the lead and we'll see. Speaker 0: If we're on the line. Let's do that. Okay, here we go. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you all for your flexibility. So as I mentioned before, the item before you tonight is a proposed ordinance to comply with a state law Senate Bill 1383. Go on. Please go on to the next slide. Thank you. Speaker 5: So a. Speaker 1: Quick overview. I'll provide an overview of the requirements of Senate Bill SB 1383, California's short lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy Strategy designed to divert organic waste from landfills to reduce methane emissions. Provide an overview of the proposed municipal code updates and then summarize with our. Speaker 5: Recommendation to council. Next slide, please. Speaker 1: Thank you. So in summary, SB 1383 was passed in the state legislature in 2016 designed to reduce methane emissions. Landfills are a large source of methane emissions, so this law's ultimate goal is to reduce organic waste going to landfill by 75% by 2020. There is also a 20% edible food recovery. Speaker 5: Reduction goal as well. Next slide. So SB 1383 requires all jurisdictions in California to. Speaker 1: Adopt an enforceable, unenforceable ordinance to implement the requirement by January 1st, 2022. You can see here there is a number of items that cities are required to implement. The first one is to require recycling and organics recycling for all generators and to establish an edible food recovery. Speaker 5: Program to implement the Cal. Speaker 1: Green building standards, to have an enforceable ordinance, and to have to update any additional policies to remove any restrictions prohibited by 1383. Next slide. Speaker 5: Please. Speaker 1: So the ordinance before you has three main categories of code updates. The first one is to ensure the city's compliance with SB 1383. The ordinance is modeled after Stop Waste Ordinance. Stop Waste is the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. They have developed a countywide ordinance called the Organics Reduction and Recycling Ordinance for ORO, as it's a now referred to as. And the city has. Speaker 5: Used that the county's template ORO as a model. Speaker 1: To update our code to comply with state. Speaker 2: Law. Speaker 1: The ordinance also designates additional implementation and enforcement entities as allowed by SB 13 three to help the city comply. Then the next category of code updates is to conform with the recently approved. Speaker 5: Franchise agreement. Speaker 1: With ASI, Alameda County Industries. Speaker 5: The city's waste hauler, which became effective July 1st, 2022. Speaker 1: There's some revised definitions removal of provisions that no longer apply and adds additional requirements to the code that are in the franchise agreement, including enhanced reporting. Speaker 4: Requirements. Speaker 1: Related to 1393, as well as contamination monitoring requirements again to comply with SB 33. And though the last bucket of updates is to provide legal basis to implement strategy, four of the Council approved 2018 zero waste implementation plan update Strategy four is related to construction and demolition debris diversion. These code updates include codifying the California green building standards, increasing the diversion rate of concrete and asphalt to 95%, and requiring contractors to consider deconstruction and use approved facilities. Next slide, please. In summary, the recommendation to the Council is to update the excuse me adopt the ordinance to comply with SB 1383. To reiterate, cities are required to adopt an enforceable ordinance by January 1st, 2022, and failure to comply could result in penalties. The ordinance would also conform the city's code with the franchise agreement with ACI and implement strategy for related to construction and demolition debris. Speaker 5: Of the Council approved. Speaker 1: 2018 zero waste implementation plan. Update That includes my presentation. Speaker 5: We will open it up to questions. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Vincent. Admirable job at being tossed in feet first, as it were. There. You did great. Thank you. Madam Cook, do we have any public speakers on this item? Speaker 1: Nobody has raised their hand yet. And we do have Mr. Helton in now. Speaker 0: Yes, I see that we do. So what council do we. Hi, welcome. Do we have any clarifying questions of Mr. Vincent or any of the staff before us? Yeah. Okay. Not see any hands up. Mr. Helton, Ms.. Vincent just did a nice job taking us through the slide presentation. What would you like to add in the remaining 4 minutes and 22 seconds? Speaker 3: Just my apologies. I was in the middle of a identical item with another city council on another zoom and jumped over as quickly as I could. So my apologies. But it is, as was described in the presentation and Angela did a great job. Speaker 0: As long as you assure us that we're your favorite city. But now that. Speaker 3: I abandoned them and came right over here. Speaker 0: Well, that's all we want to hear. Okay, so anything else? Mr. Green. Ms.. Acord. Ms.. McKenzie, anything you wanted to add? Speaker 5: Nothing to add. I think we're ready for questions. Speaker 0: All right. Well, I'm Councilmember Harris. Spencer. I believe you represent the city on subways. Is that correct? Do you want to lead the discussion? So make a motion or anything. Speaker 4: I want to commend staff for bringing this. It is obviously very important and it has to happen sooner rather than later. Right. So I appreciate the mayor moving to that. I think it's critical. Obviously, our our community is extremely supportive of this work. And I am happy to move the item for approval. And I also want to thank Angela and Vincent. You did a great job, didn't she? Speaker 0: Sometimes you don't expect to be the lead speaker, but hey, now you can do it any time. Okay, well, we have a motion. Thank you for that information. Councilmember Harry Spencer, do have a second. Councilmember Knox. Right. All right. And any further discussion, council. CNN, may we have a roll call vote, please? Speaker 1: Rotation? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Herrera Spencer. Speaker 4: I knocked. Speaker 1: White. Speaker 3: With appreciation. Staff Yes. Speaker 5: Melissa Yes. Speaker 1: Mayor As the Ashcraft and ditto. Speaker 0: Councilmember Nice words. Thanks. Yes, I guess I'd say that's unanimous. All right. Well, thank you, counsel. Thank you. Staff and consultants, everyone, for for doing this work. And then we look forward to the second reading next meeting. Correct? Adam Kirk. Speaker 1: Yes. It will come back on consent. Speaker 0: I think it's perfect. All right. Thank you so much, everyone. All right. So now we will move back to what will we move back to? Is that seven.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Approve a Commercial Streets Two-Year Work Program to Improve the Park Street and Webster Street Striping Plans; Improve the On-street Parklet Program; Maintain the Alameda Avenue Street Closure; Resume Pre-COVID Parking Management, Fee Collection, and Enforcement Activities; Adoption of Resolution Approving Precast Concrete Traffic Control Safety Barricade Standards for Parklets; and Adoption of Resolution Amending the Capital Budget by Transferring $630,350 in American Rescue Plan Act Project Funds from Capital Improvement Project (CIP) C90300 to Commercial/Slow Streets CIP (C12100) and Increasing Appropriations for the Commercial/Slow Streets CIP (C12100) by $630,350. (Planning, Building and Transportation/Public Works 310C1210)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11022021_2021-1385

Speaker 0: I think it's perfect. All right. Thank you so much, everyone. All right. So now we will move back to what will we move back to? Is that seven. Speaker 5: C? Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. Speaker 0: All right. So he'll switch out the staff. See if we can confuse anyone else, huh? Well, I just felt better. I always worry when we've got something that's coming up against a year end deadline. Councilor Spencer. Speaker 4: If possible, I'd like to move that. We move seven G up next because I think our chief has been on and this is also a critical I think it is important to update this policy and I'm not sure we're going to get to it otherwise. Speaker 0: I am going to do my best to keep things moving forward. I, I mean, you can make a motion. Speaker 4: Thank you. So I'd like to move that we here seven G next, which goes to updating the police practice regarding officer involved shootings. And I think it's critical we hear it tonight and otherwise, I don't think we'll get to it. Speaker 0: I think in council three days ago, you seconding. Okay. We've had a motion. We've had a second. Maybe we have a real cover. Please. Speaker 1: I'll with Doug. I or Spencer I knocked, right. Speaker 3: No. Speaker 4: Vella. Speaker 1: No mayor as Ashcroft? Speaker 0: No. But let's move expeditiously and we'll get to it tonight. Okay. Back to item C. Speaker 1: County Public to consider introduction of ordinance amending the Individual Code. Chapter 32 Comprehensively update city wide off street parking and loading space regulations and make conforming changes to other zoning code sections as recommended by the Planning Board.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 21 (Solid Waste and Recycling) to Comply with Senate Bill 1383, Conform with Franchise Agreement, and Implement Strategy Four of Alameda’s Zero Waste Implementation Plan Update. (Public Works 26141630/26241631)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11022021_2021-1401

Speaker 1: County Public to consider introduction of ordinance amending the Individual Code. Chapter 32 Comprehensively update city wide off street parking and loading space regulations and make conforming changes to other zoning code sections as recommended by the Planning Board. Speaker 0: All right. And I see Allan Chai, Andrew Thomas, Brian McGuire, who's taken the lead on this. Welcome, everyone. Speaker 3: Thank you. Council member. Mayor and council members. I'm going to turn this over to Allan Tai and Brian McGuire, who have done all the heavy lifting on this important code amendment. This is something that the city council has been asking for and looking for for quite a while. And so we're really pleased to have finally been able to bring it to you tonight. Thanks, Brian. Speaker 2: We'll do the honors of giving you the presentation. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, Mr. McGuire. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor. As the Ashcraft and members of the City Council, Brian McGuire from the Planning Building and Transportation Department. Item seven C is the introduction of an ordinance to comprehensively update citywide off street parking and local space regulations and make conforming changes to other zoning code sections as recommended by the Planning Board. It's worth noting that in addition to hearing about these proposed changes, if we have time, you'll hear these changes are for private off street parking, but you'll also be hearing about parking management in the public realm. Item seven if you can hopefully get there, I'll try to be expeditious. Parking is not a new issue for alameda. Council is taking a number of previous actions leading up to today. The Alameda Point zoning code adopted in 2014 was one big change. Tonight's changes cover the entire city, except for Alameda Point, where we are not proposing any changes at this time. The 2018 Transportation Transportation Choices Plan Project number eight is a near-term high priority item is to update parking policies for new development to reduce future congestion. Speaker 7: Associated with. Speaker 3: Growth. Additionally, last but not least, the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan calls for the elimination of minimum parking requirements and establishment of parking maximums. The car also specifically calls for promoting electrification of our transportation sector. Speaker 7: With the types of requirements in the ordinance before. Speaker 3: You tonight. We started this year the public process at the Commission on Persons with Disabilities in June to discuss the needs for accessible parking and how to prevent impacts on people with disabilities while still pursuing our transportation and climate goals. Planning Board held a study session also in June, followed by the Transportation Commission in July, which discussed the amendments and unanimously recommended adoption of the proposed changes. Finally, on September 27th, Planning Board gave unanimous recommendation to adopt the proposed changes in the ordinance today. And that brings us here to City Council to introduce this ordinance. The graphic you see on the slide shows what one and a half parking spaces and the associated sort of dry bile space. Takes up in reference to, say, a typical two bedroom apartment. Just to give you a sense of the just from from a sheer space point of view, you know, how much space parking parking needs can can take up in any any project. Studies can show some of the benefits of eliminating minimum parking requirements, such as reducing auto trips and overall congestion, promoting shift to more sustainable transportation modes , and perhaps most importantly, reducing the cost of housing. We have several goals in crafting the ordinance. We aimed for a code update that reflects the current City City Council policy objectives. Has an equitable approach in how we provide parking for people with disabilities and adopts aggressive but reasonable requirements. Speaker 7: For electric vehicle charging capabilities. Speaker 3: This table also in your staff report just show some local data illustrating recently approved projects with the parking that the existing the current code would have required and the the reductions that the planning board finally approved. Speaker 7: So you. Speaker 3: See 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit is is common planning. Speaker 7: Board has reduced requirements. Speaker 3: On hotels to allow for a little less than one parking space per room and so on. Table A from the ordinance shows us the maximum allowable. Speaker 7: Off street parking in the proposed changes. Speaker 3: Exceeding these ratios in this table would require an administrative use permit that gives the city a chance to make sure that a project adding more parking than is typical is beneficial and mitigations can be required if necessary. Our goal with the ordinance was to eliminate the minimum parking requirements without reducing the overall supply, current or future of accessible parking, which serves as a mobility lifeline for certain folks in our community. So staff proposes maintaining a minimum standard and new parking facilities for disabled parking, which exceeds what the California building code requires. Here we're looking at a visual representation of the proposed electric vehicle parking requirements. This is. Speaker 7: Also one thing called for. Speaker 3: In the car. You can see townhomes and single family homes with private garages would require a level two EV ready parking space in each private garage. That essentially means like your typical 240 volt outlet, like a dryer plug. Ready to. Speaker 7: Go for your EV. Speaker 3: Multifamily would need to have at least 25% of those level two EV ready spaces and an additional 25% of level. Speaker 7: One road ready spaces, which is the lower sort of voltage typical. Speaker 3: Electrical wall outlet. We have proposed 10% of commercial parking spaces. New commercial parking spaces have a level two charger installed and places where most people park all day. Like an office to have an additional 30% of spaces capable capable of being upgraded to a level two with minimal additional cost by having the electrical panel capacity and conduit already in place. These numbers represent a first attempt at striking the balance between accelerating the electrification of our transportation sector and managing cost burdens in concert with affordable housing and economic development goals. We would anticipate evaluating these numbers on an ongoing basis. Speaker 7: To see if we are getting it right. Speaker 3: This ordinance codifies what has been implemented on a project by project basis. The last ten or 15 years to try and mitigate congestion impacts from new development. We have proposed some simplification of the bike parking requirements and adding some clarifying requirements to make sure long term parking bike parking spaces we are providing are usable to residents and employees of the projects. Staff is recommending that you, the City Council, introduce the ordinance to comprehensively update citywide off street parking and loading space regulations and staff is here myself, Andrew Thomas, Allen, Ty and our consultant on all things electrification, Farhad Farman are here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you for your time. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. McGuire. Council Do we have any clarifying questions from staff? Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Maguire, for your presentation. I appreciate all your slides and whatnot. I want to go back to the staff report and background. It has refers to other cities and having excess parking from developments. I think San Diego, L.A., UCLA, there are different ones, but I didn't see anything for the city of Alameda. Has there been any analysis that the city of Alameda housing developments and where we are trying to right size the number of units. Speaker 3: I'll. I guess I can start and then Andrew can jump in. And I'm not sure that we have, you know, like academic studies of our existing parking. But I think. Speaker 7: You know, Andrew. Speaker 3: Comprise speak to some some anecdotes locally. Well, yeah, we, um, I'm blanking on the name. It was the group, a Bay Area group did a survey of Bay Area communities. It was not just Alameda, it was also Berkeley and others where they were basically going into existing residential projects and just observing, like how much of the parking was actually being used. A couple Alameda projects were included in that study. It was about five or six years ago and the results were very similar from other cities, which is they found that in a lot of the newer residential projects that, you know, that not all the parking was being used, basically indicating that we were over parking some of our residential projects. I think the Brian's, you know, Brian had to move fast. The point that were that he was making with some of those slides is. The Planning Board has been working to try to figure out what the right amount of parking is and what that slide that he was showing of all our prior projects, both hotels, residential, commercial. We have not we have not been requiring the total amount of parking required in the ordinance. They've been doing parking waivers regularly to try to right size the parking amount for each project. What this ordinance does essentially is use that information as as our maximum. So we don't see that this ordinance from a parking perspective is going to have a huge change in the amount of parking it's built with each project. What we're saying now is, hey, if you want to do more than that, which which is what we've determined is about right for these uses over the course of the last five or six years of of planning board hearings about individual projects, well, then we're going to have to have a different conversation. Why do you need more than that? And how should we mitigate it? But if you want to do what that number is, or a little bit less than that. You're good to go. Speaker 0: K Councilmember harry spencer. Speaker 4: Could we go back to the chart? The director thomas is speaking to randy. Speaker 3: Can you take us to that slide? You know, the one with the existing projects show Del Monte and some of the hotels. That's it. Speaker 4: So 1825 Park Street. What's there. Speaker 3: Now? That's a small building. That's a small property right down by Clement. Speaker 0: And it's a coffee shop. Coffee culture. Speaker 3: No, it's. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: No, it's not that. It's not that far down. It's just a few doors up the street from that existing, existing property. No, no, no. Excuse me. No parking. I mean, the parking there. No access to the street. So they want to redevelop their property. The part that the zoning code said they needed to have nine parking spaces, they couldn't fit any on the property. I mean, that's a that's an issue. And there's another one on Webster Street, 1929, that's down by the roadway in right there by the Cross Army trail. We have a number of properties in Alameda, especially on parking lot, the street. You can't find a single parking space. Those are two, I think, you know, outliers. Those are situations where the planning board didn't require any parking spaces because if you put in a curb cut in a parking lot, you wouldn't have been able to build the building. Speaker 4: Well, my question was commercial. Residential. I think it's commercial. Speaker 3: No. Yeah, I'm sorry. There was a both commercial. Speaker 4: Both commercial? It's actually this scooter. I believe it's a scooter importer. Speaker 3: No, it's across the street from them. It's if I may, it's next door to the USA. Kung Fu, I believe it is, yes. Speaker 7: Remodeling a sort of existing site. Speaker 3: And it's a mixed use, very small mixed use building and sort of one storefront wide with a little bit of residential above some commercial on the ground floor. Speaker 4: Okay. So thank you. So it's commercial, right? Can we agree? It's commercial. Speaker 3: It's got residential upstairs. There is a residential upstairs commercial downstairs. I think it's one unit, Brian. I think maybe that's correct. It's one unit. Speaker 4: Of residential upstairs. Speaker 0: Correct. Thank you, Mr. Tai. Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So the company that. That is residential and it's. Yes. The 1929 Webster. Speaker 3: Commercial. Speaker 4: Okay. Internal terminals. Speaker 3: Residential. Speaker 4: Right. And that's why it's getting those spaces. So I wanted to point out that when you look at this, most of these are, in fact, not residential. And the ones that are actually do have other than apparently one unit, 1825. Speaker 3: Well, the commercial Lexus commercial home, too. I mean, those are all commercial all the way down to the bottom. 1435 is residential mixed use. Speaker 4: Okay. So right. So this shows that actually we are normally we have been assigning parking spaces for residential units. Then if we could go to the next slide. Okay. So this is now. If I understand correctly and if you can clarify the accessory dwelling unit, we're going to if they want more than one off street parking per unit. Then they go and they get some kind of special permit or something. Speaker 3: They have that? Yeah. Essentially they have to ask for special permission. All right. The idea of going to maximums is to establish a maximum amount, say, on telling everybody you can build as many as you want up to this limit. If you want to go above that limit, then we need to have a conversation and discuss why it's necessary for you to go above the max, the maximum. Speaker 4: And this this is an idea and it can have like up to 1200 square feet, three benefits. That's something. So you can have three bedrooms and most you get one parking space unless you get some special permission from staff. Speaker 3: That's right. Speaker 4: And the mayor and under. Speaker 3: State law, a state eight EU law cities cannot require any parking if the adu is within a half mile of transit. Speaker 2: And when we look at the Alameda map. Speaker 3: Other than Crete in circle and harbor in Harbor Bay, every every property in Alameda would meet that state criteria for no parking for 80 use. Speaker 4: Thank you. That completes my questions. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. The you know, counsel, maybe before we go on, it's 1046 and we have to take that vote. About what? COUNCILMEMBER That's right. Go ahead and take the, the, the words out of my mouth. We have got these remaining items seven D, seven G, seven H, and then there are seven referrals. There's something about the numbers to. Speaker 3: Move the we go we re we go into a midnight and we get through as much as humanly possible. Speaker 0: Is there a second for that? Councilmember Desai. That's the second. Okay. Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call? And this one takes four votes, correct? Speaker 1: Councilmember de Herrera. Spencer? Speaker 4: No. Speaker 1: Next light. I Vela. No mayor, as you know. And that motion fails to two. Three. Speaker 0: Okay. Want to craft another motion? We could. Well, we need to finish this one up, and I think we might be able to do that. Madam, quickly, we have many public speakers on this item. Speaker 1: Just one. Speaker 0: Okay, so. Speaker 1: Now to. Speaker 0: Guess, it's usually the trigger. Well, we are almost at 11:00, so we could just finish this one. Or for those who voted no, do you want to propose something else or do you just want to? And at 11:00 or when this item finishes. Cats over here. Spencer, go ahead. Speaker 4: It's my clarification because I haven't announced it. So under Council Communications, will we be able to do that if we complete this item, which is a hard stop at 11:00? Speaker 1: Oh. Speaker 0: It depends. Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it depends on how you fashion your vote to continue. But it's no new regular item. You have to vote to hear any additional items. But you can continue through those other sections and you can establish a hard stop time if. Speaker 4: You so desire. Speaker 0: But if the clock runs out before we finish voting, although I started a little early to give us time, we just ended 11, is that correct? Speaker 1: You know, you would finish this item and then you would continue to those other, you know, non agenda item sections. Speaker 4: Right. Speaker 0: Okay. Vice Mayor Vella, anything from you? Speaker 5: I would be open to hearing item seven tonight after this one. So I'll make a motion to just extend the meeting no later than midnight, but just to hear item seven. Speaker 0: And what about when. Speaker 5: You conclude this and conclude this item? Speaker 0: Because I said, what about the like council communications and whatnot? Speaker 5: I'm fine with that, including council communications. Okay. Speaker 0: All right. So two, I just would. Speaker 5: Like to be able to tell our staff or seven age that we're not going to hear. Speaker 4: Tonight because. Speaker 0: To cut them loose if necessary. Okay. So so that motion is to hear, to finish hearing seven C and seven G. Council Communications 77. Sorry. Are we? Speaker 5: We're sorry. 70. Yeah, we. Speaker 0: We're on air. We're going to also write. Right. Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. In heart, stop at midnight or when it's finished, whichever comes first. Okay. Is there a second? Speaker 4: I just want to make sure we're talking about seven G, which was the police. Yes, I'm okay. I'm happy the second. Speaker 0: Okay. We've got a motion maybe got a second. Maybe we have a real cover. Speaker 1: Please remember Jason. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Spencer. I knocked right. Speaker 3: By the. Speaker 4: Fella by. Speaker 1: Mayor as. Speaker 0: I. Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay, everybody, back to our clarifying questions. Councilor for her. Spencer, had you completed your. Speaker 4: Yes, thank. Speaker 0: You. You had. Okay. Anyone else with clarifying questions? I. Okay, counselor. Everyday day I. Then I've got my clarifying question. Speaker 2: So in table A under dwelling unit, the maximum number of bases. If this is adopted for a dwelling unit and that's a second row is 1.5 units. That's that's correct. Right. Speaker 3: So that's correct. Speaker 2: But currently. And 30. Dash 7.6. The minimum amount of dwelling units. And it depends on the square footage of of a unit less than 3000 square feet is two. Is that correct? And the dwelling units for greater than 3000 square feet is three. So that's the minimum amount of off street parking. Speaker 3: Correct? That's correct. And just just to clarify, if there is a single family home that develops, any fraction can get rounded up without having to go through any process. So this one home, the effective number. Speaker 7: Would be two in this. Speaker 3: Case. Okay. Speaker 2: But. So what I'm looking at, though, is it the maximum number even? I mean, assuming we can round it up is less than what's already in place. Although what's in place is the minimum okay, at least for dwelling units, especially for dwelling units. More than 3000 square feet in size. Also on table, on slide table A, it has hotels, motels. So the maximum number of spaces is one off street parking per guest room. That's what's proposed and what's in the current. Is one and a quarter per room. And but for our hotels within community the commercial districts. It's it ranges from 1 to 1 and a quarter, although I don't think there's going to be any hotels in community commercial district. So. So for the hotel motel, what's in the ordinance right now is one and a quarter. And what's being proposed would be lessening that to one. Speaker 3: That's correct. As a maximum. One. Maximum. Okay. And all the hotels that have been approved in Alameda in the last ten years have been approved with .83 about parking spaces per room. I mean, if you think about it, typical hotel room. How many people bring two cars to a. To share one room? Not very often. So what? What all the studies have shown and what all the recent approvals in Alameda for all the hotels in the last ten years. They've all hovered around .83, like what is actually been proposed by the hotels and what have we actually approved? About 23 spaces per room. Speaker 2: And when they're approved or or when requests come in for something lower than what's in the ordinance or in that schedule, they go to the ordinance. Right. And that would be 30 Dash 713, which is currently reductions in parking requirements, which kind of lays out. Kind of approach that you would take for justifying any reductions. Speaker 3: Currently the minimum, which is what the current set in the new system. If you want to do less, it's okay. We you don't need special permission to do less. You need special permission to do more. Speaker 2: Yeah, but if I think. Well, we're always concerned about is people not doing enough parking. So if you set the maximum. Right now, if you set the maximum lower than what was what was there before, you're basically setting in place a process that makes it easier to come in with lower. Speaker 3: I think the what we've just what we've learned over the last ten years is that actually people. In particular on the commercial. We've often been trying to push them lower and lower and they're like, Look, I need at least this amount of parking. So what we've ended up for is what we've ended up approving is something very close to what the. The lenders who are who are financing the project are demanding. I mean, banks will not allow I mean, sometimes I've been in meetings where people are like, why do you need so much parking? And the answer is because my banker is requiring it. That's what I mean. So we very often don't have a situation where staff is saying, hey, we need you know, you're not giving us enough parking. It's very often that the developers of these projects seem to be financially feasible. This is the right amount of parking. And what the conversation has been over the last ten years is your minimums in your parking code are way too high. The right amount is about this for hotels. .83 for the residential, about 1.5. If when we've tried to push them lower, they've pushed back on us and said, no. We've had this conversation a lot at the planning board where the plan was like, Hey, we'd like to do less parking. And the developer is saying, No, no, no, no, I can't do less. To make it financially viable, I need to do about this amount. Speaker 2: So I guess the point that I'm getting out though is simply that it seems to me what the table prior to table eight shows is that we have a system in place that already is flexible to accommodate when someone wants a lower standard. Okay. But that's that's. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 3: No, that's that's true. That's true. The problem is we're forcing every project through this process of conversation to get a waiver. And that's what we're trying to avoid. We're trying to streamline the process, make it cheaper and more effective and, you know, just less costly for particularly for housing. I mean, that's one of our major goals. Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Desai. So I have just one question for staff. I really like the attention paid to requiring charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. We hear a lot from residents, especially residents of apartment buildings, that there just aren't enough places if they have an EV where they can charge. So I noticed that this proposal has been through a number of different boards and commissions. Public Utility Board wasn't among them. So what are the implications for AMP, our municipally owned and very clean green electric utility of these expanded EV charging facilities and infrastructure? Speaker 3: I'll take the first crack at this and find out about it. Speaker 0: Mr. Maguire. Yes. Speaker 3: If Farhad has anything to add after this, I'll defer to him. We did consult with AMP's staff on these plans, and one element of the ordinance does allow something that's called and the term is its load management system. Right. Which allows you to sort of not if you're building a parking structure, not have to overbuild the panel to handle everybody at full power 24 hours a day. And so we did work with AMP staff on this. But you're right, we did not go to the pub and there are some there are some cost implications in terms of cost to build. But I think AMP expressed, you know, this is comparable if not a little bit. Speaker 7: Of a reach from what recent projects are doing. So I think they are. Speaker 3: You know, anticipating they seem comfortable with these levels. Speaker 7: And may be eager. Speaker 3: For the customers. Speaker 0: And so AMP is comfortable that with the transmission lines we have and our sources of clean green power, they will be able to adequately accommodate these this expanded charging infrastructure. Speaker 3: I can put those words in their mouth, but they did have an opportunity and sort of had input and didn't express any concern when we did discuss this with them. Speaker 0: Okay. And I mean, I guess we could also probably assume that this doesn't all happen at once overnight. I you know, it would be lovely to have had that reference in the staff report, but thank you so much for bringing bringing that up. Mr. Titus, you want to add something to that? Speaker 4: Yeah. May I add that? So. Speaker 3: So the parking spaces and infrastructure would not just happen automatically. I mean, the ordinance would apply to with new development or new construction of parking spaces, and that would typically be reviewed by AMP. Speaker 0: Right? No, I understand that it was more than just the capacity. I mean, I don't think. Well. Speaker 3: For capacity issues as well. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. Any other clarifying questions? Counsel Then let's move on to public comment. Madame Clerk. Speaker 1: We have five speakers, so they each get 3 minutes unless we get a couple more. The first is Jack Bowling. Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, Speaker Bowling. Speaker 2: Hi there. Yeah. I think this looks great. I want to thank staff, and I want to thank them for taking some of the comments that I made and adopting those into this with one of the committees. This came before in the past. I think this is a great step in the right direction. I think moving away from mandatory minimums and moving towards mandatory maximums without forcing discretionary review on every single project that could be built with less, because we know that adding a parking space to a project increases the cost of that project by 80 grand per parking spot . And when you're thinking about housing, that's terrible, especially about affordable housing, and especially in the summer, we like to complain about traffic as much as I don't think we have that much encouraging more cars more than we need without going for that. That review makes more sense to me than requiring more parking. That's just going to encourage more cars and be worse on the environment, and especially where we have places where we can build near transit. We can discourage car use as much as possible, but when we do, we have clauses in there for at least easy requirements for 25% in commercial areas. So I think it's a great plan. I really support this. I think staff did a great job on this and I fully, fully support this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Good evening, Speaker Reid. Speaker 5: Good evening again, Madam Mayor, and city council members. I'm weighing in to oppose the proposal for maximum standards for parking. This seems like a workaround that does not adequately address the fact that parking is an issue in many areas of Alameda, and a lot of residents do rely on vehicles as a mode of transportation. It seems as if new developments especially should accommodate for sufficient parking needs, as the city is also proposing an increased density in their general plan, in some cases up to 60 units per acre. It seems reasonable to increase parking instead of limiting it. I also heard Mr. Thomas State at the transportation meeting just a couple of days ago that parking is going to be an issue as we increase our population. So here it seems like we have some type of conflict here regarding equity by by unbundling parking on new developments. It's likely that people with less means may opt out of purchasing a parking spot further, creating an inadequate and inequitable gap. As a result, they may have to park in the street and walk further from their homes. And for many individuals and families, especially as they're bringing their children home, or maybe they also have disabled family members or people with limited mobility issues, this may be a burden. So I believe that it's more responsible to close that gap and and provide the parking that that's necessary for our residents. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: Denise Trapani. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker tiffany. Speaker 4: Thank you. Mayor ashcraft and council members. I just want to provide bipoc almeida's very enthusiastic support for the introduction of this ordinance tonight, and I hope you all hope you'll move forward with it. One of the hard conversations we're going to need to have is, as the last speaker just alluded to, is as we increase our density , we're simply not going to be able to provide parking spaces for, you know, every single adult in Alameda to store their cars around the island. And as we've made amazing progress in developing additional transit options for folks with the introduction of the new line 78 to the to the new ferry terminal and across Alameda Trail, we're just providing more and more options, other options for people who want to get out of cars to choose other ways of getting around. We're in a climate emergency where we're adopting Vision Zero. You know, these are the kind of changes we need to make in order to to meet our reduction in vehicle miles traveled, go also to strongly support the introduction of this ordinance and want to thank staff for their work on this and hopefully you'll move forward with it. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Drew Dara Abrams. Speaker 0: Good evening, speaker dara Abrams. Speaker 3: Hello again, mayor and council members. True Dara Abrams on the East End. And I want to offer one example. I mentioned I work at a park in Blanding. It's actually in the building at 1926. Park Park is esquina features, coffee cultures, nice, vibrant, new busy coffee shop and a building with zero on site parking spots. The site works because there are no office off street parking spots and it's a bit of a wedge right there. And the the the owner and his team did a great job figuring out how to make that site work. I'm not here to suggest that, you know, every commercial property should now have zero parking spots. But I think that's a great example of what can be built when the market has some more flexibility. I am hardly a libertarian, but parking policy is one of the few aspects where I think our city will actually benefit from more direct influences by market forces here. I think the city does have other programmatic means to make parking available easier to use, easier to pay for. I know you all have another agenda item on that, and I would encourage the city to adopt this policy and think ahead to other ways to improving the experience for everyone to access parking that does exist so less about ensuring some grand unlimited supply and more about maximizing the availability of what is built and making it really it is also can get a bigger goals like equity goals. You have a you have meters you can use and other means to make the parking that is available there accessible to all of the folks who need it. So thank you to staff for working on this policy that can really help the city join on the same good company in other cities that have adopted similar policies. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our next speaker. Speaker 1: This is our last speaker, Jim Strelow. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Stellar. Speaker 3: Good evening. I have a problem with how the presentation was presented. It has to do with slide number ten, that of charging requirements because it says residential, private, dedicated garage level two ev ready. Yeah. For what kind of project for the casual citizen looking at that presentation. They would fear that gee if I do some sewer work or change my fence or cut down a tree and need a permit, all of a sudden I'm going to have to put in any level two charger because of the way the presentation was worded. Now I agree. Buried in the agenda description is some note that it has to be, you know, ten or more, some number or whatever. But it's not being described very clearly to the average citizen what the residential requirement is, because there's nothing in the slides that help clarify, you know, so that maybe citizen residences will consider not doing projects because they're fearing that they'd have to install a level two charger. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments. And madam, you said that was our last speaker. Speaker 1: A recap. That was. Speaker 4: Last. Speaker 0: Okay. And with that, we will close public comment. But I wonder if I could ask someone and staff to just clarify. Mr. Strelow raised a question that I think others might be interested in. Could someone just. Speaker 3: Mr. THOMAS Yeah, just real quick. This is off street parking, so if you're building a parking lot. These these these these requirements get triggered if you're putting an electric circuit in your existing home. It does not. So new buildings, new dwelling units, expansions of existing buildings. You know, this is about what your requirements are. If you are essentially building these types of things and you are proposing parking, then if you are going to be building new parking, we want you to go to we believe it's appropriate to require that you put in EV charging. Just one other just big picture comment just to sort of relieve some of the anxiety about parking. The average household in Alameda has 1.3 cars. Observation shows that a lot of people use their parking garages that we require them. They use it for things other than parking their cars. They use it for storing their stuff. But that's just observation. The data is 1.3 cars per household. What we're saying is if you want to do more than 1.5 parking spaces. That's that raises some questions. So we feel like the 1.5 not only is it very consistent with everything that the planning board has been recommending and approving of it, and the council has been approving over the last five or six years, it also is fits. It really reflects the actual data of car ownership. Among Alameda households in Alameda. So this is not a radical ordinance by any means. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 0: You'll let us know when you bring radical ordinance working. Speaker 3: We'll want you flying clear in the presentation, please. Speaker 0: All right. Okay. So. Okay, so back to I is getting a little later. Okay. So council discussion. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So I'd like to go back to the building address that's listed on the slide that we were talking about. Is 1825 part. However, from the conversation from the speakers, I'm thinking we're actually talking about 1926, which is where coffee culture is. Speaker 3: There's there's two projects, both on Park Street, both on the same side of Park Street. Within a block of each other. There's coffee, coffee cultures at the corner of Park and Clement, which the last public speaker was talking about. He has an office there. They have no parking at all? Speaker 4: No. 1926, then. Speaker 3: One block up from that next door to the karate place on the corner. Is another project that was approved which is much smaller. Ground floor commercial one one unit upstairs, also zero parking. So if I may. Speaker 0: Mr. Maguire wanted to add something. We'll be right back. Mr. Maguire. Speaker 3: I just want to add it's possible that there's a typo in it and that I should have said 1820. Speaker 7: Park Street across the street. Speaker 4: Okay. Even numbers are on one side and on the other guy. Speaker 3: I defer to you, Councilmember PEREIRA. You probably have that right. Speaker 4: I apologize. Hey, thank you, Mr. Maguire, because I want to make sure we're talking about the right place, that. Speaker 0: We have reached agreement that odd numbers are on one side of the street and even around the other. That's why we've got three. Speaker 4: Members of. Speaker 0: Planning building. Okay. Speaker 3: Jeff knows parking, but we don't know how to address the numbers. Speaker 0: No worries. We've got to get back to you, Councilmember. Speaker 4: So I would ask that that address be corrected in that staff report. So when people are looking at the sort of course, they can figure it out. But in regards to the speaker that spoke about coffee cultures, I go there. I recommend people try it and whatnot, but I park across the way. The Dragon Rouge and other people do too, because Dragon Rouge doesn't open until 1130 and that's more of a opens a little later and goes into like nine or 10:00. And I think the other businesses don't open until like 10 a.m. probably at the earliest there that shopping center. Now that I'm suggesting other people do other people do do it. I see it. I see it because. Right, I go to there. And so if you're building a business but they're able to take advantage of other parking nearby. Right. That still you can't count on that. And so I think it's important that we keep that in mind because rest assured, people that go to coffee culture, many of them are in fact driving and they're parking somewhere and they're not parking at this structure because staff didn't require them to have it. But they are parking a car and they're lucky that Kitty Corner, you have Dragon Rouge in pretty good sized parking lot because I think coffee culture actually opens pretty early in the morning and so people can cross the street and but you can't count on that . And so I do have concerns about staff's recommendations, especially when your examples don't take into account the whole area. And the problem is, in fact, in some of these residential areas, we we absolutely do not have sufficient parking right now. We have people that have to circle around their neighborhood and try to find parking. It does it could it may very well not be on their street. And we have, for instance, on San Jose, we have these older homes that have been subdivided within. So you have, you know, there's multiple rentals and they do not have sufficient parking, but we do not under current law, you can add the ADU and in fact you can sell, you can subdivide your lot and up to 40 and up with four units instead of one. And, you know, where are these people going to park? And even if it's one point, whatever the number was, this is sensitive times is still a car. And I am concerned that this actually does not take into account the total impact. Speaker 0: And I do have a question because. Speaker 4: I looked at where we are and ridership on AC transit and BART right now post COVID and we had the prior item where it was very clear that we still support being outside. We are concerned about COVID, and I'm concerned that this item really doesn't speak to where we still are on ridership. I see transit currently the most recent report I could find July 20, 21. It is about 37% of what it was pre-COVID at and similar numbers for BART. The ridership is fluctuates. They they're very good. They show daily ridership and it's anywhere between 25 to 43% of what it was pre-COVID. So people at least here in the Bay Area here in Alameda, we are not back to using public transportation like we were. In fact, we also know this. There is a quote recently from MGC spokesperson October 5th, and they said topping 90% of pre-pandemic levels is the car ridership through the Bay Bridge. So we know that people that are commuting are actually driving a car, whereas before they were taking public transportation. And I think as long as we are still experiencing that COVID and people are not riding public transportation, in fact they are dramatically not. I do take BART, the parking garage at Fruitvale. You can show up any time of the day. You can park on the ground level outside. There are next to no vehicles there because people really are not back to ridership, public transportation, which means and we do know this, we know it's very hard to get a used car right now. It's very hard because guess what? People have actually bought cars that instead of using public transportation and they need to park those cars in our city because they have to park them somewhere. So I think that when I look at this, I don't think there's been any adjustment for the impact of what we're seeing in COVID. And I think that we have to assume people are not going to just get on. It's not happening. People are not back to using public transportation. I do support adding the Chargers and stuff. I think that's very important. We see that happening. I think that's great because it's actually very hard and very expensive to add after the fact. So I think that's a good idea. But I think these other numbers don't take into consideration where we are right now in a pandemic and the impacts in our neighborhoods. It is is not not what I think this reflects or will serve us. So I cannot support that those these are, I think, dramatic changes. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember. Next, what I think I saw your hand up for. Speaker 3: Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to approve the staff recommendation as written. I think the work was done really fantastic. I have no changes or tweaks. I'm just going to thank the staff for presenting the data that shows that these are not draconian. They actually support the existing conditions. I don't think we should be making long term, decades long policy based on a pandemic we're still in the middle of, and it supports the decision making that this council and previous councils have been supporting for the last 8 to 10 years. So with that, I'd like to move approval. Thank you. Great appreciation. Speaker 0: Thank you. Driver second. Well, Vice Mayor Vela or Councilmember Desai. Anyone prepared to second or shall I? Okay. Speaker 3: I was frozen. Speaker 0: Oh, my goodness. Okay. Does she know that? Madam Clerk. Speaker 1: Didn't I took notice? That took two snow. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, Richard, thank you. In the interest of moving things along, I will happily second your motion and also second the appreciation to staff. I'm really excited about this. I think it's forward thinking where we should be. And I want to just comment really quickly. I counsel rehearsed Spencer you're absolutely correct that public transit has not come back yet from our pre-COVID ridership levels. It is starting to slowly and I will say I have rarely ever parked in the Fruitvale BART parking station because it's so easy to hop on AC Transit in Alameda. I'm kind of lazy if someone else could do the driving for me, I go for it and I just want the public to know that on a rainy day last week, maybe I had to go to San Francisco, hopped on AC Transit, went to Fruitvale, BART got on, BART went to the city. People were really good about wearing masks. One of my things, but honestly, transit at the BART station, on the platform, in the BART car, and there's not a lot of people because it was a little bit off commute peak hours, but it felt very safe and healthy and just, you know, couldn't have been easier. And then it at the end, when I was done with my appointment, I came back and it dropped me off in front of city hall, which is, you know, pretty, pretty sweet door to door service. And then the the coffee culture is I it's not that we're trying to do advertising, but it is. Mr. Thomas I was there the other day and I was remembering, do you remember the groundbreaking doing the groundbreaking? And then all of a sudden I was with a friend having coffee out in the courtyard the other day. We rode bikes, by the way, and they've got bike parking at the far end of the the outside courtyard there. But Marcel single, the owner, came along just to say hi and you know, he and his family live upstairs that is residential over retail and there's also office. I mean that's a really cool, cool development. And and as far as the parking, it is a bit challenging that spot. But I want everyone to know that that assisted living facility at the foot of Park Street that is actually getting a new roof, you might have noticed. And so right now, all the construction vehicles and equipment, they're staging them and storing them on the side of the building where the staff would normally park. So staff are parking on the street. So some of that will be eased. I mean, I, you know, Park Street Corridor, it's it's a bit of a challenge to park, but it's a little unusual right now. The point being Alameda is love their coffee and they find a way to get to these places and it's just really nice to have places to socialize and get caffeinated. So I saw this vice mayor and she's got her hand up. So. So you froze. So Councilwoman Knox White made the motion. I would have seconded, but we love your comments before we take a vote. Speaker 5: Well, I was going to second and then I got kicked off of the zoom. Speaker 0: So I could withdraw my second. If you. Speaker 4: Really want to do it. Speaker 5: It's okay. It's okay. No, I think, you know, in many cases, and especially on Park Street and some other quarters, there is ample parking lots and other parking alternatives, as well as a number of different ways to get to get to and from those locations. So, you know, I appreciate all of the staff work on this and all of the feedback that we've gotten. I'm ready to support this tonight. Speaker 0: All right, Councilmember de thug. Speaker 2: Thank you. You know, I think that in our ordinance, especially in 37.13, we do have a system in place right now that forces developers to come to city hall hat in hand to ask for lower parking standards. What's before us would make it easier for these developers to reduce parking. But. I think that the system we have in place right now is not that burdensome on developers especially. So there's no reason to change the system. And just one more comment on affordable housing. Again, the system we have in place right now even allows for a lessening of parking requirements in an effort to make housing more affordable . It's all right there in 30 dash 7.13. And the table that you saw demonstrates that. A lot of these developers, especially developers of big projects. Have been accommodated. So I'm not I don't see the compelling reason to to change what we have. We shouldn't make things easier for developers. Um, thank you. Speaker 0: All right. So we've had a motion, we've had a cycle, we've had our comments made. We have a roll call vote, Madam Clerk. Speaker 1: So we're British. Speaker 2: I know. Speaker 1: Where Spencer Knox. Speaker 3: Is. Yes, yes. Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 1: Mayor Ashcroft. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: That carries 3 to 2. Speaker 0: All right. Very good. Thank you again, staff for all your hard work in bringing this forward. And we look forward to seeing it. Speaker 3: Thank you, Brian. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 4: May I just please make sure to quick remark on the work. Speaker 3: That staff did with the parking ordinance is. Speaker 2: Fully supported by the State. Speaker 3: Of California SB two planning grants. So with your approval tonight, the city would seek that reimbursement. So the cost has been paid for. Thank you. Speaker 0: Please do. Thank you so much. All right. Yes. Okay. Okay. We need to move quickly. Council and staff, because we have a hard stop at midnight and we want to hear this other very important item. All of our items are important, but we have item seven G. So Madam quick, why don't you introduce that while we do a little moving of moving of screens here, if you would, please. Speaker 1: Of course. Recommendation to authorize the Chief of Police to update Section 310 of existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to conform to existing best practices and statutory requirements mandating notification of California, Department of Justice and certain officer involved shootings. And we have the police chief and captain here tonight and we are promoting them. Excellent. Speaker 5: It will be here for. Speaker 0: You are welcome, Chief Geraci. Welcome, Captain Emmett. We're happy to see you. I know we're keeping you out a little late, but.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to Comprehensively Update Citywide Off-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations and Make Conforming Changes to Other Zoning Code Sections, as Recommended by the Planning Board. (Planning, Building and Transportation 20962700)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10192021_2021-1221

Speaker 1: All right, Councilman Knox, wait. Speaker 2: Thank you. So I just wanted to both announce that Miss Montgomery, who I am nominated and will be appointed to the LGC tonight, was on is unable to attend the meeting due to a last minute family issue that came up. But I. So while she doesn't get her chance to introduce yourself and whatnot, I just wanted to take this time to quickly share my appreciation for her stepping up. I've gotten to know her over the last two and a half years. She has shown herself to be someone very interested in caring about the the business of the city and making sure that people are informed and involved and engaged in the work that we do. And I just wanted to honor honored that before we had the chance to vote, since she's not here to introduce and tell you why she's fabulous. So thank you. Speaker 1: And we'll look forward to her having another time to do to do just that. But for now, we need to we need to vote on her appointment, the appointment of Melody Montgomery. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: So. And we, Madam Kirk, do we vote or do we do okay? Okay. And Councilmember Herr Spencer is at a motion you're making. Speaker 0: I'm happy to move the item, but member Knox may want to add and I'll have a second. Speaker 1: Why don't you go ahead. Speaker 2: And move a second. Speaker 1: We've got a motion. We've got a second. Any further discussion? Seeing, hearing. Then may we have a roll call vote, please? Speaker 0: Meredith. Speaker 2: I like her. Speaker 0: Spencer, I. Knox like. Speaker 2: I avella. Speaker 0: I mayor as he ashcraft high that carries. Speaker 1: By five. Thank you, everyone. And so the city clerk will make arrangements to square Ms.. Montgomery in, and then we will make arrangements for her to come in and do that brief intro that we've been doing with our nominees, which is just a really nice way for the council and staff and the public to get to know them. And I will tell you that there's one other nominee who wasn't able to make it tonight either. So Will. But take care of all that. Okay, perfect. Well, we are moving right along. So now we come to item. Well, we don't have an item six because we don't have any anything continued from the previous agenda. So now we have we moving into our regular agenda. And the first item is item seven. Madam Clerk.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Appointment of a Member to the Open Government Commission. (City Clerk 10022020)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10192021_2021-1397

Speaker 1: Well, we don't have an item six because we don't have any anything continued from the previous agenda. So now we have we moving into our regular agenda. And the first item is item seven. Madam Clerk. Speaker 0: Adoption of resolutions, appointing Christina Moon as a member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and appointing Eva Jennings and Dan Paretsky as members of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel. Speaker 1: So council it is Ms.. Moon who is? I don't believe she was able to to join us this evening. Is that correct, Madam Clerk? Speaker 0: Correct. Speaker 1: Yes. So we can still vote on her nomination. Can we do all three of the nominations together? Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. Two. I have I have. Councilor, we're not quite stand up as a motion. Speaker 2: I remove approval of all three candidates. Speaker 1: Thank you. And I see Councilmember Desai with his hand up to second. Correct. Okay. Any further discussion? Singh then maybe have a roll call vote, please, Madam Clerk. Speaker 0: Somebody, shall I? PEREIRA Spencer, I'm not. Speaker 2: Quite high. Speaker 0: I may or as the Ashcroft high that carries by five eyes and we have this Jennings here but it looks like we don't have an mr. Prosecutor. So looks like we're missing the. Speaker 1: Cases of missing nominees. Well, Ms.. Jennings, you will just stand in for all of the nominees. But first, we we want the clerk to do the swearing in. Are you ready, Madam Clerk? Speaker 0: Yes, if you the way your right hand. You saw me to pull the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution. State of California, that you won't faithfully discharge the duties upon which you're about to enter and do. All right. Congratulations. Speaker 1: Perfect. Congratulations. Welcome. Thank you for for accepting this nomination and for which you were just unanimously approved. And we would love it if you would just tell us a little bit about you and your interest in serving on this particular advisory committee. Speaker 0: All right. Well, thank you, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the city council. As was mentioned, I think it was mentioned, I am currently the dean of Career and Workforce Education at the College of Alameda. And in this role, I continue to focus on career and workforce education, as I have throughout my entire adult working life. So I taught career ed in high school, in community college. I am invested and committed to educating people for careers and. You know, our economic in order to recover from the economic ills that the COVID pandemic brought upon us, it's dependent upon employing Californians with living wage jobs and the jobs that pay a living wage. Require increasing levels of education and training to meet our ever changing technological demands. So I look forward to sharing my knowledge and experience. Speaker 2: In. Speaker 0: Workforce education to advise the Mayor, City Council and staff on key economic development issues and initiatives. And I read that off the website because I haven't attended the orientation yet, and I don't know the specifics of what that entails. But I am honored to have been nominated to serve and represent the College of Alameda on the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel. I am thankful to the City Council for approving my nomination and for and for my college leadership. Dr. Nathaniel Jones, the president, and Dr. Diana Bahrami, Vice President of Instruction for their support. I look forward to contributing as best I can and to this important work. And I want to thank you very much for the opportunity. Speaker 1: Thank you so much for agreeing to serve. You will be a valuable member and bring a much added dimension to this this panel. So and you will be a quick study once you have. Speaker 0: Your orientation. Speaker 1: And first meeting and get to meet your fellow panelists. So thank you so much. We are delighted to welcome you on board. Speaker 0: Thank you. I look forward to it. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you so much. Okay, then we are moving right along to item seven. Be Madam Kirk for you. Introduce this item for us, please. Speaker 0: Imitation to provide direction to staff to pursue one or more options for reducing the negative impacts and public safety challenges associated with automobile oriented events at Alameda Point.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Christina Mun as a Member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Appointing Eva Jennings and Dan Poritzky as Members of the Mayor’s Economic Development Advisory Panel.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10192021_2021-1330

Speaker 1: So thank you so much. Okay. With that, we wrap up item seven B and we move on to item seven C, Madam Clerk. Speaker 0: Recommendation to adopt the city facilities and street naming policy. Speaker 1: And we have had we have on deck and we have our. Speaker 0: Recreation and parks director joining us for a presentation. So we will get her in and start the presentation here now. Speaker 1: Welcome, Director Amy Walter. Speaker 0: It's good evening, I believe City Clerk We have a city planner. Speaker 1: Yep. There he is. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 1: All right. The gang's all here. Speaker 0: Exactly. Good evening, Mayor and Council City Clerk. If you could please put the. Presentation up. Speaker 1: While she's doing that. Director Wooldridge knows I was the recreation parks director at Trails and Day Camp and other parks and we used to do they still sing Hail, Hail the gang's all here when they arrive. Speaker 0: At trails in. Speaker 1: Like I could lead that another time. Okay. Speaker 0: That could be fun. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: So as we've discussed before, the names of our public spaces really are meaningful and powerful for our community and every community. And as we've seen through the chain, your park renaming process really can be a mechanism for for deep dialog within our community about the impact of names and anti-racism equity and inclusion. And it's really an opportunity to reflect our community's values. So some background. After the renaming of Titanium Park in February 2021, the City Council provided high level input and direction for an updated city facility and street naming policy. And in September we we took a draft policy to several boards the Historical Advisory Board, Planning Board and Recreation and Parks Commission, specifically the Historical Advisory Board. Their comments were a recommendation was to include non property owners, an application for renaming streets which we'll talk to more about later. And some of the planning board's comments were to consider waiting more than three years, which is the existing policy to name after deceased individual. And they felt that residents of a street naming or renaming or most impacted and needed to be given more weight than general community members. And there was also some other comments that they included that were in the staff report regarding number of signatures for renaming. And we'll get to that more in a minute. In regards to our current facility naming policy, that existing policy is quite old at this point was 2006 and only has had one minor update since then to include an option for corporate naming. And really, it's a very basic process with no additional requirements for public input on names other or noticing other than our standard Sunshine Ordinance and Brownout compliance. The current policy also has very minimal information and direction on renaming facilities. So what has not changed? What you have before you with this draft policy and what what is is the same in it? I'm sorry. Could you go one more forward, please? Speaker 2: Actually one more. Speaker 0: Thank you. What has not changed is that the planning board will continue to review street names from developers for new streets as part of subdivision plans. We kept the requirement that a person be deceased for at least three years to be considered. We kept the corporate naming criteria in the policy and that Alameda Point Street will still reflect World War Two. Naval seems to be consistent with the area's historical designation. Next slide, please. What has changed with this draft policy before you is it really has a focus and really baked in the criteria of values of inclusivity, inclusivity and diversity that names really specifically states that names should intentionally broaden the representation of people in the native community. The current policy has a focus. It requires names, have local, all need a significant significance. And we kept that. But we brought in it to allow for names that may also reflect California or national significance where appropriate. Also, historical advisory boards role has been adjusted from. From the keeper of an overall approved nameless to now only recommending names for historic properties. We also, as I'll get into in a minute, have a much more in-depth four step public process with with boards and commission and city council for a significant amount of public input. We also created a more definitive process for renaming facilities and streets and it now that process now starts with city council to determine whether facility or street will be renamed. The current policy starts that process on the board and commission level. Next slide, please. So the process that's being forced, the process that's being proposed is, as I mentioned, for public meetings. It's written in the policy that the staff is to really do extensive outreach at each of these steps. So to really go above and beyond the existing Sunshine Ordinance and really post on social media through email newspapers, really get the word out in the community that and be very intentional about the messaging that this conversation is happening so that people have an opportunity to to provide their input and make sure that that their representations felt and they felt heard. So the first meeting, which would be at a Border Commission level, would be a presentation on the facility and confirm the naming criteria. So using Chicano Park as an example, we talked about the history of the park. We talked about how the park was named and the group identified what the naming what the criteria was for the new name. And this would be the process for both new and renaming facilities. So for example, right now we have two new parks that are being built by developers at Alameda Point, our main landing spot that both need new names. And so this will be an opportunity to follow this process and determine what's the criteria we want for each of those parks, for those names. Then the second meeting would be to review a full list of names. I'm sorry, let me back up. After that first meeting would be significant public outreach to solicit name ideas and then those name ideas, along with any existing list of facility names, would be brought before the board or commission with a shorter list recommended by staff that meets the criteria that was identified in the first meeting that Border Commission. At that meeting within narrow it down to a short list of possible names, maybe 5 to 10 names. And then again, that would be pushed out to the community to to solicit feedback on that short list of names. And at the third meeting, the OR commission would recommend their final name choice to the city council. And that at that point is where staff should be bringing forward to the board to commission any research or consultation with any affected group. So, for example, sitting in a park, we met with the local Indigenous tribes regarding the names that were on the list, also researching any names of individuals so that we know the background of that person for the names that are being presented. So then at the fourth public meeting, city council will determine that final facility needs. In regards to renaming a facility. There is more of a process outline now. It's an application process that is initiated by the community. And that application would include the reason for renaming. Any supporting documents, letters, historical research, and also a petition signed by Alameda residents with a minimum of 500 signatures and four streets. Because those are more complicated as it impacts all of the residents who live or rent on the street or have a business on the street. We what we did is put in there a petition of 50% of of owners plus one of owners on the street or 500 signatures. I want to point out here, too, that in regards to City Street naming, we we there was discussion at the last council meeting regarding including renters, and there was a lot of discussion on the staff level on how we could we could do this and make it work. And so I want to clarify, too, that really the step is a is intended to be the start of the conversation. And as you heard me talk about in all that four step public process, that actually really is five steps, because the very first step is coming to city council determine whether or not that facility is to be renamed. So the renaming process, it's actually a five step process. And so it really is intended to start the conversation. And what staff would do, particularly with a street, is if this application comes in and the and and the staff with then notice can very easily notice both people who are tenants and who are owners on the affected street to let them know the conversation is happening at the city council meeting about whether or not that street should be renamed because it will be a public hearing. So then it will go to city council, as I mentioned, to determine whether or not to be renamed. And if the answer is yes, then it would go back down to the appropriate board or commission and follow those same four step process as I previously outlined. And with that, that concludes my reports. Both Mr. Ty and I are here for any questions. Speaker 1: Another perfectly timed staff report with 47 seconds to go. Very impressive. So, Counsel, at this time I'll entertain clarifying questions for Ms. Wooldridge. Councilmember. I guess I want to go first. Speaker 2: Quick clarifying question on the last slide for meeting number one where it says confirming criteria. Is the Council involved in terms of what the criteria is at that meeting? Speaker 0: No, the as as written, the council is not involved in determining the criteria. The council determines if it's a new facility, it starts at the Border Commission level and makes its way through with council being the final deciding vote. If it's a renaming, it starts at the council level with a yes or no to rename, and then the criteria is determined at the Border Commission level. Speaker 1: Head count murders are. Speaker 2: At on renaming only now. So on renaming only. So it starts at the councils to say yes or no. We're going to rename. But there's nothing to stop a council member from expressing what she or he hopes to be a criteria. Right. Speaker 0: Absolutely. It could be included in the motion. Absolutely. That would be an option. Speaker 1: Okay. Is that all for you? At this time. Okay, Kels. Calcium monoxide. Did I see your hand up? Yeah. Your physical. Speaker 2: Hand. Sorry. So just a quick question. There's a recommendation to maintain the list of potential names for use, but not to use that list. Can you explain the the rationale between having the list that is has no use? Sorry, that sounded worse than it was intended, but I'm trying to figure out what the what the what is the list for if it's not going to be used where. Speaker 0: Where I'm trying to figure out where in the policy you're referencing a list that's maintained there was. Speaker 2: Sorry. Well, there are other questions. Let me let me let me find it. I thought it was in the staff report. It was it was definitely a recommendation of the AP. And I thought that it was so so that. Speaker 0: So that it may be the HB won't hold a list anymore. That's that's clearly not in the new policy. The I'll give you an example of the Recreation Parks Commission through this process is has expressed an interest and there's been a lot of work put into to what's now a three or four page list of names through the community process annual park. And they didn't want to just throw that in the trash. But next time there's a park to be named, go out to the community, find out, say, here's the park renaming, get in ideas and add to that list and see when the criteria is determined. See if anything on either what we already have or what's brought up in that process. What's the short list that that fits that criteria? Hopefully, that answers your question. Speaker 2: Thank you. You're welcome. Did you. Speaker 0: Find. Speaker 1: It? No. Speaker 2: I'm going to look. It's possible. I just confused myself. I apologize if that's the case. Speaker 0: I think it may just have been in the staff report as that was the intention to not just throw out any previous community work that's been done, but to be more additive. Speaker 1: I will just note that at the top of page two in the staff report under the Historic Advisory Board, the first bullet is keep the names list for future reference only. Was that what you're thinking? Speaker 2: I think it may be that plus require this list lists, but I think it's the list that their coverage is mentioning are also mentioned. I think I may have completed the two as I as I was reading it. So my apologies. Okay. Speaker 1: So thanks for that clarification, Kels. Over her, Spencer. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor. I'm looking at the proposed draft policy on page four. Item number seven says that if a street's named after some business is my understanding of the business leaders and the new property owner. It says all costs associated with renaming such a street shall be borne by the new property owner record, including payment of all appropriate processing fees under the master fee resolution. So if I understand that correctly, we have a business. They come to the city, they want the street named after them. Then they leave and the new property owner is responsible for the fees to remove this businesses name on a street when the business is gone. Speaker 1: Yeah. This was Richard. You want to address that? And can I just get. Can you help us? Where exactly are you? Councilor Herr Spencer, this is one of the exhibits. Speaker 0: At the draft city facilities and street name policy. It's exhibit. Speaker 1: One. Exhibit one. Okay. And page four, you said. Speaker 0: And it's item number seven for Broad Street naming criteria. So I'm going to ask Mr. Taylor. Speaker 2: Yeah. Good evening, mayors, members of the city council, L.A. City Planner, Planning Building, Transportation Department. So so that's a set of corporate street naming criteria isn't being modified and we're basically importing it. But that is existing policy and that was adopted by previous city council. And the again, the idea is, yes, if a business were to if it were to be named after business, if that entity leaves, then a new business or a property owner would be responsible for renaming that street. Speaker 1: Okay. Go ahead, girls. Harassment. Yeah. Speaker 0: Thank you. So I think counsel should look at what to do with that at some point. Just. Just clarifying questions. I'll speak to that more later. I also want to speak to any public outreach. Will those meetings be noticed so that the members of the council and the public can attend or there's going to be, you know , confidential meetings for a select few? I know, but is that all? All four of the four steps are all at the board and commission level. So they're all required to be noticed for the the Sunshine Ordinance and ground. Okay. And then finally, my last question is in regards to renaming of a street name, you could have people that live on the street, I think want to keep the name, but you could have 500 electronic signatures. How does the city, first of all, know that those are, in fact, residents of the city and not just someone that says that they're Alameda? Is it all ages? So one family could have six members and then so and you know, what does that really look like? It's a great question. And there was a lot of discussion on the staff about that very issue. We really don't have a way to to verify, which is why I really wanted to emphasize, especially in regards to tenants and, you know, and and versus owners. So that's why we really wanted to emphasize that, that we would do a lot of public outreach to ensure that people on the street know that there's a public hearing at the city council meeting about the name of their street so that they can come make their voices heard. And I'm sorry. Speaker 1: Continue. Yes. Speaker 0: The attendant costs. Right. So you have a homeowner, then they have to actually have legal documents changed, as my understanding, to reflect the current name of their street. There can be costs involved and then those would be borne by the residents. Does the city assist in any of those costs? Speaker 2: Mr. Ty So so there there would be a fee for the filing, the application. But let's just say once the city council approves of the street naming, then yes, the there would be social costs for in time logistics costs to the residents of that street to have to change their addresses, mailing addresses and work with the post office. Speaker 1: Go ahead, Kelso. Speaker 0: Thank you. I think actually, legal documents, they have to change the name of their street. Not just the puke, not just a dress. Speaker 2: Some processes might might involve costs. Yes. And I think that is that is a key consideration to I would I would just add that after the staff report was published, staff did try to reach out to other cities with similar processes. I found a city in the southern states, Raleigh, North Carolina, who who has a very similar model. And their advice for the city council is do not underestimate the social costs of changing a street name. And they've experienced it in recent years. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So at some point, I'd like more information about the costs, including social costs, but also just like on legal documents, what that really looks like. Speaker 1: Okay. And with that, all the clarifying questions for you at this time. Okay. As a clarifying questions, counsel, I had just a couple. So Ms. Wooldridge on page three of this staff report there is. Oops. Not page three, page two. And this is the planning board process. Well, this is when it came to the planning board. And these are their recommendations for strategic changes. Consider increasing the number of signatures. You talked about that to more than 500 residents or apply a tiered system based on number of homes, fresh businesses on that street. Or consider allowing two thirds of residents to veto a name change on their street. Can you just tell us what the tiered system refers to? Or I could ask Mr. Tiny Stretch. Speaker 0: I was at that step in that meeting. Speaker 2: So the idea is on a relatively short street, 500. I mean, there are streets in Alameda where you may have ten homes. And so the majority would really be just six, six property owners. But on a very long street, 500 might not be proportional to sort of getting a majority. And so some part of that discussion really was focused on giving more weight to the residents who lived on the street. And these ideas are just variations of what the city with the city council might want to establish as a threshold to start the conversation. Start the question. Speaker 1: Got it. Speaker 0: Okay. The renaming. Speaker 1: Right? That that's helpful. Thank you. So then under under the. So I on page three the these are the proposed changes and so the. The Last Bullet says creates an application process for renaming facilities and streets and requires that the city council first approve whether a facility or street will or will not be renamed. Are there criteria for that or is it just subjective or the staff will bring a report forward to us? How how will that work? Speaker 0: So we did not create criteria in this policy for whether or not a facility will be renamed. Really, what staff will do is take the information from the application process and any other due diligence that we have done and bring that to City Council to make an informed decision. It might be different for for any given particular name. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Okay. And I would imagine that would be the case of kind of on a case by case basis. And then finally, there is on the top of page four, there is a draft policy and procedures for naming city facilities. And under that first paragraph, last sentence. The intent and the intent of broad outreach and notification is to involve a more diverse group of stakeholders in the community, including residents who are historically underrepresented in city public discussions. Who do you envision those residents to be? Speaker 2: I think is. Speaker 0: For example, as we've seen with Zoom, more people are attending council meetings because they have better access to council meetings and can't necessarily drive to city hall to sit at 7:00 until midnight. So I think it could be there's many underrepresented folks. It could be people of color, it could be our disadvantaged residents, lower income, it could be youth. I think there's a number of people. The intent of that that sentence was really that there's a lot of people that either don't know how or choose not to get involved in the city, the bureaucracy of city, public discussions. And so I think there's a lot of outreach that we can do and and more we can learn about doing outreach to to, you know, get this information out to them so they can actively engage in something as important as a park or facility or street renaming. Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Thank you. I think we've learned a lot during the pandemic about how people get their information, some in venues like this, but not all. So I appreciate that. Okay. Those are all microphone questions. Anything from anybody else? I'm guessing we have public speakers that see any hints from the council for clarifying questions. So, Madam Clerk, do we have public speakers on this item? Speaker 0: We have one. One. Speaker 1: Okay, we have our two. Speaker 0: Josh Geier. Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Geier. Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and vice mayor and council members. So I wrote in a letter expressing my my feelings about this item, and I'm just going to elaborate a little bit on that. So first I think the work of Director Wooldridge and her team is fantastic and is is to be commended and both, both at this in the previous work on renaming Jackson Park. I wanted to I'm very I wanted to say something about the expense question. My view is that we should subsidize this social cost period. Renaming Jackson Park wasn't the right move because it was relatively inexpensive. It was the right move because it was a moral imperative that we all have recognized. Now we're participating in the Simi Land tax now, because there's a sense that to be kind of consistent between our actions and beliefs. The next step, after acknowledging the role of colonialism and white supremacy, is taking substantive steps to start to material repair, materially repair the harm that those phenomena have done to people in our community. We we understand now that that the question about about whether we should stop perpetuating these white supremacists, stop honoring people with figures like Jackson . Calhoun It's not a fringe issue. It's not a boutique concern. I think at this point it's clear that our decision between tacit acceptance or active rejection of the legacy of white supremacy and colonialism and our community is fundamental to our collective conscience and our identity as a diverse, inclusive community on the right side of history. I would just add that that as I wrote in my letter, the renaming of Street is the the circle of concern goes beyond the residents of the street. It's a concern to all of us in the community. And I think it goes the other way. If a if an action that we take collectively as a community has has individual implications for people who just happen to live on that street, we need to make them whole. Thank you for your time. Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 0: Herman Reid. Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Reid. Speaker 0: Good evening. And and thank you for the opportunity to make this comment. In considering the Street renaming process, I'd just like to piggyback on Mr. Geiger's concerns also, and I would recommend that the city include a financial outlook plan as part of the consideration so that the homeowners would understand the financial impact that they may incur. And furthermore, perhaps the city should consider offering support if the cost would be more than nominal. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. And our next speaker is Garfinkel. Good evening. Speaker Garfinkel. Speaker 2: Good evening again. In recent years, we've been increasingly been bombarded by, I guess, progressives who feel entitled to impose their sense of moral imperatives and justice on everybody else. I think that, as the last speaker said, this is an issue for the entire city, in which case name changes should be put on the ballot. There's nothing urgent on changing. Names have been in existence for 50 or 100 or 150 years. Put them on the ballot and get an eye or a name vote. I realize that the those who know what's right for the rest of us won't be happy with that. But I think that would be a more equitable way to approach this, since there are some 70,000 residents of the city. I don't see why a handful of of ideologues should be calling the shots. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. And our next speaker. Speaker 0: Drew Dara Abrams. Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Dara Abrams. Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor and council members. My name is Drew Dara Abrams, and I'm calling in from our house on Calhoun Street tonight. I got a chance to share a lot of extended thoughts by email, so I won't belabor it too more, but just want to share the very, very high thoughts at a very high level that we're talking about of a pretty finite list of street names, park names here in the city that I my neighbors on Calhoun Street and other folks that I've met around town since we moved here in 2019 have concerns about now know one of the planning board meetings the that hypothetical about what if you rename a long street came up about Central Avenue and now I think it's just more useful to ground this in the specifics. I heard Calhoun Street where I've been meeting my neighbors and meeting much longer term folks who've lived here for many years who have their concerns about the street name. We have Jackson Street that raises some of the same concerns as Andrew Jackson Park and Godfrey Park as well. So three places. And so I, I think it's very useful to think in these finite terms because it makes the questions more tractable. You know, the questions about cost and effort, is this worth all of our time? It's a symbolic move. It's not the most important move we all could be making, but it's still important when we think in these very finite terms, I think it becomes much more possible to get creative. And that's what worked about the park renaming process. It culminated in a great event. It brought a lot of people who wouldn't have otherwise been involved in the process, as Director Wooldridge was saying, into the life of the city. So I'd just like to encourage all of you to adopt this process, to make it possible to, in the abstract conduct renaming on an ongoing basis, but then to really focus on making possible three of the potential renaming that have really brought together community members over the past years and move them forward. Very concrete, very finite, and use those as opportunities to address any and all concerns that come up and make them as positive and welcoming as experiences as that. You train park renaming process. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker, Madam Clerk. Speaker 0: Megan Larson. Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Larsen. Hi there. Speaker 0: Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. I just wanted to follow up on the last comment that was made. I think that there's a difference of living in the town for two years versus there is a woman that I meet with every Wednesday who through friendly visitors from Meals on Wheels who has lived on Jackson Street now for over 50 years. So a transition and a name change for somebody like her, where it's in her will. It's in all of her legal documents. It's on her driver's license. It's on her mail, of course. But there are all of these documents where at 87 years old, trying to make a pivot into making all of those changes is is quite a tax on an individual, especially if they don't have the Internet. And so for me, I have major concerns for her. And I know that this is a big concern for her as well because of the change in the park. She knows that then it's a kind of a domino effect just because it's the same street name, in a sense. I can understand Park's park makes sense because people aren't necessarily tied to a park with their own personal address. But when it comes to streets and renaming a street, it does pay a large toll on that individual. Again, for somebody that's only been here for a short period of time, I imagine that's easy because you have recently just changed your driver's license to that current address. But for those who have been on the island for extended periods of time where their livelihoods are connected to that address, it's a big deal. And so that would be my concern there. Thank you for listening. Speaker 1: Thank you for your comment. Our next speaker, Madam Clerk. Speaker 0: That was our final speaker. Speaker 1: Okay. So with that, we will close have a comment on item seven C and we will bring it back to the Council for discussion. Who wants to lead by mayor to you? I never know if this is an opportune time that we didn't hear too much for you before. Speaker 0: I think that we've we've spent a lot of time the past few years discussing the naming and renaming processes, and we are trying to balance access as well as staff is trying to make sure that we and one of the issues that really hasn't come up is just that there was you know, we were essentially creating a large process just to get street names on a list and then not having enough names. I mean, these were part of the conversations that we had early on in that it was there was a lot of bureaucratic process involved that was unnecessary and also very cumbersome. And so I think we're trying to balance that with also having a process that's accessible. And I think I've learned a lot in my time on council as well as my time on the have discussing names, the amount of time and energy that has been spent by staff as well as our volunteers, many volunteers and council members has been you know, we spent a lot of time discussing it. So there's been a lot of effort put into this. And I think that there's, you know, feel comfortable with the process that Mr. Eldridge laid out. I think that there was a lot of input into that. I do think that. You know, and I hear the concerns about the different expenses of renaming expenses related to renaming. But that's why we need we need to have a public process and allow for input, which is, I think, what we're trying to do with what's been proposed. Thank you. Speaker 1: Mary Kay. Councilwoman. That's why. Speaker 2: Thank you for. For me, I. We're not you know, I think Vice Mayor Vella said it. Said it. Well, we're not creating a new opportunity to rename streets. We're clarifying a process that our it's something we can we can rename streets today. We could have renamed streets last year. We're not deciding whether or not to rename streets. And we were deciding how we're going to make sure that there is the people are plugged in on that. For me, I think I have three bullets, but one of them was very wrong. I would like to suggest the one thing that jumps out at me on the on the street renaming is that it's about property owners instead of residents. And in a town of 52% renters, I think renters voices are just as important as the people who live out of town, which we know a majority of, but a majority of our rental units are owned by people who do not live in Alameda. So if we want to have local input and make sure that we're getting that input, it should be residents, not property owners, who are the measure for supporting what's happening within their community. And I would like to I would like to see that change in the policy. Similarly, I just whenever we start talking about corporate naming public things, I think if, you know, if we were going to have a corporate naming policy, I appreciate that it's only for streets that only the corporation that's asking for the renaming accesses and whatnot, but then essentially becoming a private road with their name on it. And I think they should also, if they're to, we're going to change the name of the street. They should pay for the maintenance of that street as well. While it's while it has their name on it, I don't see why it becomes the city's business to start branding public public streets that we're paying for with people's corporate names. I think we can deal with it when it comes to it. I also think there is an issue if that if a business name is named after a person, are we going to put a person's name on a street where by they may be the name of the corporation, but they also may as again, there are many corporations out there where people are supportive of the corporation, but the individuals behind the corporation may not be people they want to name streets after. And I think it does get a little complicated. So I think making sure that there's some space for wiggle room in that discussion will be important. But beyond that, I really I think that this is a great policy. I will concur with Vice Mayor Miller's congratulations on on the work that was done. I think that this really carries forward a lot of the comments and discussions that we've had here at the council, as well as our boards and commissions. And I really think staff there are two we have received there are already two requests for naming that have come forward, that have met, I believe the criteria that was set. And there is a recommendation in here in the order alternatives to give direction to form an ad hoc committee to talk about street names. It's something we've talked about a couple of times. The last time we the last two or three times we've talked about renaming. And I would hope that council could give that direction to at least move those to which would be Godfrey Park and Calhoun Street, forward to some form of committee or through this process, I believe, to staff on how they wanted to bring it back. You know, I think the time is now. You know, the Jackson Park venue was sitting around for two and a half years until George Floyd was killed and there was interest all of a sudden to take action. And I think, you know, we don't we shouldn't have to wait for those type of momentous community uproars to take on some of these issues. We have some some some things that should at least be considered whether or not they should be renamed. And Godfrey and Calhoun are two very good examples that our community has stood up and said by the hundreds they would like us to consider. And so after we adopt the new policy, I hope that we can also give direction to bring those back forward for a conversation about how or where the vision for. Thank you. Speaker 1: Who wants to go next? Counsel for her is Spencer. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor. So I would like us to include residents plus property owners in regards to any collection of 50% plus one. Also, in regards to the corporate name, I agree with member Knox. One of if we're going to have it, be a street name after a corporation and they can maintain it. But I also think that they should include enough money so that if they leave that then the new owner should not have to pay to remove the the name of the former company. And then that we had received an email in regards to the proposed policy and maybe it's a current POS is a name could be named after someone who's deceased after three years and I would prefer the ten years that came in. One of the emails wait longer than just three years. And then also in regards to figuring out how to reimburse property owners for costs of changing legal documents and whatnot. And I think that that actually can and maybe they would submit what are their actual costs. But I think that could actually be expensive. And I and you know, for the social good then I think that it's not that and we've had multiple speakers speak to this and I support that of having letting them submit their actual expenses and then be reimbursed somehow for that if they if they are seeking that. Speaker 1: Thank you. Our offer. You care for her? Special? Yeah. Okay. Castle, over dessert. Anything to add? Speaker 2: Oh, well, thank you. You know what I am struck by and most appreciative of in the staff report is that when it comes to renaming of streets or facilities, the importance of having city council start that conversation. Because one of the one of the reasons why I voted no on Takano, because I felt that there was only one criteria that was that came out that I thought that, well, maybe there's other criteria is the one criteria that came out was, you know, racial diversity. Hey, racial diversity is great. You know, we want we definitely want to do it to to to make our community, you know, even more equal and representative for sure. But but maybe there was also other criteria that that that we also want to take a look at when we're kind of figure out, you know, what are the best names. And so, you know, I had no qualms in voting no on Chicano, but I felt that that what the staff has put together and the staff report kind of responds to the concerns that I raised. And so for that, I am most appreciative I see in this process one in which ideologues on the far left or ideologues on the far right or even ideologues in the center can't hijack for their own ends. That council will be certainly involved from the beginning to the end when it comes to renaming of streets. And for that I am thankful and I am supportive of this. On the question of property owners of renaming streets, I think it's important that we analyze what are the cost implications. I mean, because certainly I don't live on a street that whose name might be up for renaming. And, you know, I just want to know, you know, is there going to be am I going to have to bear some cost or anyone else is going to have to bear some costs if we have to change our mortgage documents or, you know, all those type of documents. On the other hand, maybe the costs are so low, I don't know. But I think, you know, we do when we are renaming streets that we that the staff should make sure to kind of understand and analyze those kinds of costs. But on the whole, though, I appreciate what has been put together. I think it's addressed the concerns that I had from the outset. So I look forward to supporting this. Speaker 1: Thank you. Killed somebody said so. I will go last and I will echo my colleagues in thanking both Amy Aldridge and Alan Tai for excellent work and laying out this very descriptive process across all these various boards and commissions. I, I like everything that was, that was recommended. And you answered my earlier questions with regard to a couple of things that were raised. I think that we need to have a little more information. And I'm speaking specifically about where private companies have a street named after their company. I cannot speak to all instances where that happens, but I was involved when a number. It came to us a number of years ago and asked if, you know, if you're familiar with Penumbra, you know that they're spread out over a number of buildings in our horrible business park. I believe they're still our largest private employer and they're growing. They're, you know, expanding into more buildings. They're bringing a lot of good revenue into the city. They were in a real dilemma because their different buildings were on different streets. And so then when. Speaker 2: The. Speaker 1: Postal carrier was delivering mail, there was confusion about where it went. So they came to us and said, would it be possible to have that the building that is the corporate, that the main building where the mail is processed and things like just all the things because they're an international company, but they're headquartered here in Alameda, California . So they wanted it. Could it have the address one penumbra way and Greg McFadden, the official and I can't quite remember why it was Mr. McFadden, but the two of us spent some time meeting with the postmaster for Alameda and explaining this and and that change was made. I don't know that that changed. In order for them to get their mail should then require them to pay for street maintenance. So I just would want staff to look into, you know, why is that done? How? How often is it done and what are the implications? But I just think that it might be a bit of a quantum leap to say you have a street named after your business, you now have to maintain the street. So, so just keep that in mind. And then I think a really effective process has been laid out. I would like to see that adopted and followed, which is what makes me hesitant to say, you know, Jackson, what is it? Jackson Street and Godfrey Park have been talked about for a while now. Let's just put together an ad hoc committee and make, you know, make those determinations. I think we could respect the process. Maybe they could be moved up to the top of the queue. I'm not trying to second guess staff, but that is true. We've been hearing discussions about about those particular names, but I'm not sure this is the time to say just one last time, let's just do an ad hoc committee . I think this is a really good plan that's been laid out. And the other thing I was going to say. Speaker 2: Is. Speaker 1: Slipping my mind. But I forget about someone who's been deceased. I don't think we need to wait ten years to name something after them. I do understand that sometimes the body of a person's work and things in their past might not come to light immediately. But three years seems a reasonable time. And I think there's there are some illustrious meetings. I'm not going to share the names now, but that that we should consider and I don't know that we need to wait ten years. I very much like what the staff has proposed. So with that with. Yes, Vice Mayor Vella. Speaker 0: That emerita question threw the chair to Councilmember Knox White. The on this on the street renaming. He had mentioned that he wanted it to be the resident signatories only. So is that getting rid of the option that we have, which is the 50 plus one of the property owners or the 500 residents enjoys? Or is it is Councilmember Knox White okay with this? The option. Speaker 2: I would be I mean, I would be I guess I would be fine with the option I personally. You know, I do think that there is benefit in having the 50% of the street actually concurring. And I think it gets to the concern of people who live on the street who might be impacted by it or at least been alert and supportive of the general idea. Right. They're not signing off on what is the name? They're signing off on the. We would be okay with starting a process that considered a new name. But, you know, I mean, if people want to leave the leave it so that it only takes 500 and none of them have to live on the street. If that's the. Speaker 0: Yeah, I was trying to I was just trying to clarify that you're not trying to get rid of the 50 plus one signatories of the property owners. It's on the other side of the 500 Alameda resident signatories. You're asking that a certain percentage of that be actual residents on that street, correct? Speaker 2: Yeah, I would. I guess what I would say is I think the 50% plus one signatories are are not the owners, but the people who actually live in town and live on the street are that is that for me is the important piece, not somebody who lives in Southern California who, you know, doesn't really may not even really know the city at all. Right. Or the corporate. I mean, we have some large corporate landowners that that own, you know, hundreds of units that are going to say that their vote gets basically to be the up or down on this. I would rather be talking to them, talking to the residents of the street. I think that the intent is to make sure that the people who live on a street are have an opportunity to say, we don't want to live on a street with this name. Speaker 1: So may I inject a question? Counteracts weight and vice versa. How do we determine that the online 500 people are Alameda residents? Or anyone who can answer that. Speaker 2: Well, let's step into that. Yeah. Madam Mayor. Speaker 1: Please. Speaker 2: So we did spend a lot of time looking into this particular issue. First of all. Well, our initial approach was thinking about property owners just because we have very good data of property owners in Alameda. We don't have good data on tenants, especially near tenants. We just won't have that figure. But then where that sort of discussion led was really. And given the input from the boards and commissions and members of the public, we, we, we added the possibility of you. It could be either 50% plus one of the property owners and residents or at least 500 Alameda resident signatures. I would imagine that a petition that's submitted with an application would include a name as well as their address. So but in terms of verification, I don't believe we have very good data to be able to verify that all 500 are actually residents or residents of that street. But and that's where we led to the let to the discussion, really, this is a threshold to initiate the conversation. And so when we are scheduling the hearing before the city council to consider the item, that's where we would formally notify the residents and occupants of that street. Speaker 1: A back to you. Where did you go? Councilmember That's right. Speaker 2: Yes. So, I mean, I can go I'm not going to die on the Hill if it's 50% of resident property owners or 500 residents, no matter where they live, as long as they're in the city. On the corporate name one I, I still think, you know, I'm sure a number could have a number issue could have been addressed by naming the street a different something else as well, if necessary. And I think that this is, you know, at the end of the day, the city can always waive its fees and things like that if it wants in the future. This is a I just think we should be careful not to start down a road where corporations can name city streets. Speaker 1: Councilmember Desai. Speaker 2: Just to clarify in question on the petition, 500 signatures on a petition, does it have to be on a paper petition? Is it required to be a paper position or is it require or is there no requirement that it could be like, you know, some Internet kind of thing? Speaker 0: That's right. And there's no requirement that it be paper, electronic or paper. Speaker 2: Or combination. Speaker 1: Council member, Harry Spencer. Speaker 0: Thank you. So I had asked earlier about this 500 electronic signatures. It's my understanding from staff's answer that there is no way for them to verify that they are, in fact, residents of the city of Alameda. So I'm wondering, are you just going to be asking for the name or are you going to ask for at least an address within the city so that there could, in fact, be some sort of follow up to confirm that these people live in the city? It does. The policy does stipulate that it should be it needs to be 500 Alameda residents. So if a petition is turned in that just has a bunch of names and no address, then certainly it would not be it would be rejected because it doesn't comply with the policy. Thank you. And in regards to the company, if the if the company leaves and then someone else has to pay for this new incoming company doesn't want to, of course, fire a company's name on the street. I heard member not try. Maybe the city could waive this. I think that maybe we could also ask for the city could ask for more money up front. So that is suing, you know. But as long as they're there, fine, we want to spend it. But whenever they leave, I don't really think it's appropriate to ask the new company to pay to change the street name for a company that's left. And as much you know, we have companies of all sizes that come and go. Speaker 2: Thanks. Councilmember data clarifying question in terms of verifying five 500 signatures, whether it's on a written piece of paper with name and address and signature, or whether it's on the Internet with name and address. Do have we thought through the process by which we will verify the 500? Are we going to do all 500 or are you going to? I think in some instances we don't do all 500 like we do a sample. And if the sample comes out, I mean, there's a methodology. I forgot what what it's for. But I think our city clerk knows what I'm talking about. So so what's the the process by which the 500 signatures would be verified? TBD. Speaker 0: Essentially, yes, we don't have a verification method outlined in the policy, but both Mr. Ty and I want it to be clear that that both in terms of staff resources, that this petition is not on the same level of what would be submitted to the city clerk for a, you know, something that would ultimately go to the voters. Right. We're not considering it on the same level because it's the start of a conversation in which there would be a five step publicly noticed conversation in which people can make their voices heard. Speaker 1: Okay. Anything further, Councilmember Knox, like. Speaker 2: I was going to make a motion, please. I'm going to move approval of the staff recommendation with with one direction and 111 change, which is I would like under that I'm going under the corporate street naming criteria. I don't hear a majority saying they're concerned about it. But I do really appreciate that. Councilmember Hirsch, Spencer's idea of collecting funds to pay for future renaming if the company moves. And I think that that is a great idea. I am comfortable with staff writing that after the fact, but just with a caveat that as a part of a corporate renaming, there would need to be a fund, there would need to be a fee collected for future renaming of the street if the company were to move off that street so that the city in the in the future business is not stuck with it. The direction would be. And while I know the broader ad hoc committee created by recommended by staff was was not collected, I would like to direct staff since we have collected to work with the applicants, the submitters of the two petitions that have over 500 names on them to submit a real ID to to, to begin the process to submit an application for council consideration for Godfrey and count as, as those submitted to the city already for consideration. That was your. Speaker 1: Mother and that was through the process outlined in the step through. Speaker 2: Third through the process. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. We have a motion to have a second vice mayor of L.A.. Second. Speaker 0: Second. Speaker 1: Okay. Any further discussion? Counsel Katherine Harris. Spencer. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor. So I'd like a clarifying question to the maker of the motion in regards to the process. The 500 signatures are plus signatures. As far as I know. They may or may not be Alameda residents. So when you're saying start the process, are you saying that they would have to make sure that, you know, try to get 500 residents or can be 500 plus people from wherever? Speaker 2: I think, yes, they would they would need to, you know, make a best case effort for that. Yes. But again, I do not personally believe that this is we're not going to the voters with this. This is we don't need. You know, Director Woolridge calling 500 people to make sure they live in Alameda. I believe I believe at face value of 1000 people have signed a petition and said that they live in Alameda. It's a good chance 500 of them live in Alameda and we can probably just roll. Speaker 0: And then also in regards to reimbursing for costs of those if it's on the street. Speaker 2: We will have that conversation. That's not a part of the policy tonight. And I think that that would be part of that conversation when it comes forward and the decision as to whether we want to move forward with it. Speaker 1: He has cancer every day. Speaker 2: So while I would rather not have those two things, part of the motion. Speaker 1: Which two things? Speaker 2: You know, the Godfrey thing and the whatever the other thing was Jackson's Jackson. Speaker 1: There's two locations. Speaker 2: It seems to me, though, that if they turn in 500 names and 450 of them have no address, then they've only turned in 50. So because that's what I heard was that if there was no address, if there was no basis by which. So that's their risk. If they're if they if they have a list of 500 names plus and there's no address, then. Okay. So anyways, while I would rather have those two not part of this, I think on balance, I think I'm still able to move forward. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Okay. I'm not seeing any more hands up, am I? Let's take a roll call. Vote, please. Speaker 2: Thanks. Speaker 0: From member station. Right over here, Spencer. Now. Speaker 2: Knox, Phi Phi Phi. Speaker 0: Alpha Phi Mayor. As the Ashcraft. Speaker 1: High that carries 4 to 1. Thank you. And you know, I want to thank all the public speakers who spoke this evening who sent us letters. Thank you for your input. It is all valuable and thank you again to staff for a great job. And I think you've put together a really great process for us to move forward. And you're right, these are very important decisions. All right, counsel, we're a little beyond my zoom rules of a break every 2 hours. But this is a logical stopping point. It's 930. We're going to come back at 945 and do our excuse me, last regular agenda item. So I'll see you back here at 945 space, everybody. And you probably want to mute yourself. No hot mikes, okay. Or leave. Speaker 0: The issuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds to refinance outstanding obligations of the city to the California Public Employees Retirement System, authorizing the initiation of a judicial validation action by the city attorney in approving and directing related matters.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Adopt the City Facilities and Street Naming Policy. (Recreation & Parks 10051400/Planning 20962710)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10192021_2021-1259

Speaker 0: The issuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds to refinance outstanding obligations of the city to the California Public Employees Retirement System, authorizing the initiation of a judicial validation action by the city attorney in approving and directing related matters. Speaker 1: Thank you. And at this time, I would like to introduce our city manager, Eric Levitt, who is going to tell us how this item will proceed. Mr. Levitt. Speaker 2: Thank you, ma'am. Mayor and City Council. I'm just going to briefly say that we have several staff members here, including the finance director and assistant city manager for questions. And the person that will be doing the presentation is Mr. Julio Morales, who's on the screen, and he'll be doing the presentation and then we'll be available for questions Speaker 1: . Thank you so much. And well, welcome to all of you. All right. Mr. Morales, the floor is yours. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Good evening, Madam Mayor, and members of the City Council. I'm going to quickly go over your pension liability, discussed a little bit about pension obligation bonds and the risks all within your timeframe allotted. So I'm going to go real quickly to your pension liability. If I can go to slide number four, if that's okay. Great. So we're going to start out with your annual pension cost. It's broken up into two components. And I apologize if some of you know this already. There's the normal cost. Some of these have new acronyms and terms, but that really is the current year's payment, what employees earn this year. And you pay that as a percentage of payroll and there's a past due amount of pass through payment. And that's what we're here to discuss, the unfunded accrued liability or past due amount. These are fixed dollar payments. So on the normal cost as the percentage of payroll, the other, you're on a payment plan with CalPERS, with fixed dollar payments, you and every other agency in California, it is a little bit different from any other agencies in the country. But every agency that participates in CalPERS as both a percentage of payroll and a fixed dollar fuel costs. Next slide, please. So your liability. As of the most recent actuarial report released this August, which is dated June 30, 2020, is $96.7 million. And that essentially comes up with the difference of the actuaries estimate that the liabilities that you have, the present value of liabilities is $822 million, both current employees and retirees. So they project out what the cost will be. They're going to have to pay in the future for all of these retirement benefits. And you have $525 million effectively in the bank with CalPERS. The difference is your net funding position. Now, the overall average net funding position is between 69 to 70%. So you're a little bit underfunded compared to some of your other agencies, but still within a modest range. Next slide, please. This is a little bit of detail, but I think it's very important to understand because that night, 296 or $1,997 million is comprised of a series of amortization bases. And if you were to think of it differently, I should say this is a series of loans, so you have to plan those for miscellaneous employees and those for sworn safety employees. Each plan is separate. The employees don't crossover between one and the other, though you are collectively responsible for both sets of plans, they each have a different adjustment. So the two subclans underneath the overall city of Alameda Plan and as you can see, there are a series of bases. So for the miscellaneous class 26 and for the safety plan it's 21, you can see the term is how long these are. So essentially these are adjustments that CalPERS makes every year. And if you want to look at it differently, that is a series of loans all at 7%. So I'm going to introduce a concept to you called the discount rate. And the discount rate really is their investment target and the rate at which you are charge these payments. So they essentially create a series of loans or if you want to see it, 47 loans all all factor it at 7% over time. The difference is they have different rates. So if you can go to the next slide. What we have done is created a model for you for each one of your bases. And this gives you an illustration of what your bases look like. For the miscellaneous plan. We call it the layer cake. So each one of the bases actually has a payment schedule. This is a graphical illustration, and then you receive net credits because if we knew a prior prior page, once again certain years, you actually when CalPERS outperforms the market, you get a credit. I will note that's a store credit. You don't get cash back from CalPERS, which you get a credit against your liability. So you can see, for example, in 2019, you had a credit for about $1.7 million. So if you can go forward to slides. What we're looking at and why we're here is that almost every agency in California. Has increased annual payments. Remember their fixed dollar? Next slide, please. Fixed dollar payments. So this is a combination of both your miscellaneous and your safety plan. And as you can see, your payment last year was 20 million. This upcoming budget year is 22 million and it's going to continue to rise up to 29 million. Now, I should also state a couple of things. These are fixed dollar payments, but they are adjusted every year. A little bit up and a little bit down. Some years can be more significant. But this is what the current picture looks like. So that totals $557 million. Or if we go to the next slide for really looking at is I cut off the mountain above $20 million and you can see this is the increase in payments for the next 27 years and that total $75 million. So as a former finance director, the way I look at it is those are resources are being cut or crowded out of your budget because those are fixed dollar payments. And as my colleague Jim Moore showed you before, in your long range financial planning model, in many cases, your revenues may keep pace with increasing revenues and expenses. However, regardless of whatever adjustments you make, these are fixed dollar increases. Similar, like saying your mortgage goes from 2000 to 20 200 to 2500 2900. And that makes it far more difficult to match on a budgetary perspective. So from there, what we've done and we've done with city staff is we look at possible solutions, how to address that 75 million overall $557 million, because once again, it's a it's a debt. It's a long term liability that you want to get hold of. So next slide, please. We looked at some funding strategies. These are fairly basic strategies. We take the same approach next. For every city. But the answers are very different depending on your underlying economics and policy objectives. The first thing we always look at is allocation between funds. The liability does not pertain solely to the general fund, but the super fund and the powerful also have that liability. So we will look at strategies there. The first and best thing that anyone can do if available is use reserves and one time money because there's no interest costs associated with you borrowing money. In fact, the opportunity cost is just the laugh rate. So it's the most efficient method of paying down your liability. Another method is looking at establishing the Pension Stabilization Fund, which is known as a 115 trust. We highly recommend that. And then those are just general budgeting approaches. How you think about each time you have this $550 million debt that you got to pay off, how are you going to get to it? And it usually involves multiple steps over a multi-year period, but there are also some financing approaches, leveraged funding, which is a financing mechanism, but unfortunately no current opportunities. Tax exempt exchange, which we think is a great idea but unfortunately is always limited in scale. You may be able to do 20, $30 million, but not address a $300 million liability. And that leaves you with pension obligation bonds. Which is a way to refinance your 7% liability with a bond at, say, three and a half percent. And finally, this notion of taking all of these options and recycling the savings from all of these to take over time. So those are the funding strategies that we've gone over. We're here today to discuss specifically pension obligation bonds, because it is the most it is the one action that can really significantly reset the table. So we've given you an illustration on two slides forward, please. Of of what a potential pension obligations would be. This is a 25 year pension obligation bond. And what we illustrate is really two components. So the the red line is what your fuel payments or your fixed payments to CalPERS look like. And the the blue line is what the payments would be like under a pension obligation bond. And one of the things we did is we kind of broke up your savings between true budgetary savings, where your level would go down from that 22 million that we're talking about today versus foregone or avoided fuel costs if you go to the next slide. Please. You can see that you can save about $2.7 million a year. That's actually true. Budgetary cash flow saving in the yellow is something that, as the city managers noted, this is savings to the city, but it's not one that you can reprogram day to day or from your current baseline of $22 million . It's very important to note that these is an illustration you can do any portion. We can model out a half, $20 million. You can do a five year POB. This is just an illustration of the full potential savings and we don't necessarily recommend to do that, but it is something as a baseline to establish the conversation. So next slide, please. It is really important to have a conversation, I think, and I have to hit it a couple of times. So all these components to talk about the GF advisory, the GF ways, the Government Finance Officers Association of which I actually served on the National Debt Advisory Committee and helped write this policy several years ago. However, I believe a number of these things are not germane to California and have not kept pace with the changes that have happened recently in the market. So you're going to have to hit it a few times to get all these things to show up. Hit enter, I think. There we go. So the first comment is that these are complex instruments that have swaps, cabs, derivatives and gigs. A lot of acronyms. I. That they increase. Speaker 1: Mr.. Mr.. MORALES. If I'm reading the clock right. Madam Clerk. With that time. Speaker 0: That was 10. Speaker 1: Minutes. Now, I will say that this is a very important topic to the council, to the city. And so with a motion approved by four council members, we could extend you more time. About how much time do you think you need to finish your presentation? Speaker 2: Two or 3 minutes. Speaker 1: To 3 minutes. And is anyone else on this screen also going to want to chime in, Mr.. For Minsky or anyone else? Speaker 2: No. The main discussions, Hulu and everyone else's. For Mr. Morales, everyone else is here just for answering questions. Speaker 1: How about motion for five more minutes for our presenter? Councilor Knox, why are you making that motion? Thank you. In his second year, Vice Mayor Val Seconding. Let's have a roll call vote if we could, please. Speaker 0: Councilmember Jay. Speaker 2: Shacknai. Speaker 0: Her sponsor, now. Speaker 2: Knocks. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 2: By the fella. Speaker 0: I know. I see Ashcraft High. That carries 4 to 1. Speaker 1: Please proceed, Mr. Morales. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Just to make it a little easier. So there are six items, five of which have been addressed. The first is they're complex instruments. And now now every issue in California of the 77 have been done in the past few years. All are plain fixed rate bonds. So these complex structures are no longer done, that they increase the debt burden or take a soft to a hard liability. As the finance director will tell you, the Government Accounting Board now place the liability on a balance sheet and CalPERS has you on a fixed dollar payment schedule. So really just refinancing a loan with a loan. They used to have these make hole calls which made them non callable. They're now issued with standard ten year calls. In the past you have a number of agencies that are extending repayment do in a number of features due to financial difficulty. We always recommend that you do that all within the same term. Rating agencies read this as a credit negative back in the day. Now it's a credit positive and it comes to the one and only thing that we think you have to be aware of is the fact that if you actually take the proceeds, you now have some risk to market timing risk and its inherent risk to pension obligation bonds. However, it is also a risk for any type of investment that any individual makes over time is market timing risk. So it's not specific to pension obligation month, but is a risk. Next slide, please. Okay. So when you when you take a look at this, it's really important to say one part is the refinancing. You can refinance from a 7% to three and a half percent. You get this great savings. However, you have to take a look at. The second component of it is once you take that money, let's say 300 million and you give it to CalPERS. You will not know whether it is a truly successful financing until the end of the financing 20 years from now. So it makes it a little more difficult than the standard mortgage refi. And there are some things that you can do to mitigate that risk. Namely, dollar cost averaging. But I think it's important for you to understand that risk. And I'll get to the last slide, if that's okay. Which is we believe in studying and thinking through these things. You already have a plan which is fantastic. We believe that plan should look for some additional edits as you go through this process. Looking at financial targets and metrics, how to use one time money, how to potentially use excess money, and lastly, potential funding solutions that you might contemplate. Thank you very much for the time. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Morris. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: Counsel, do we have clarifying questions for staff before we go to Madam Clerk? I'm assuming we have public speakers. Speaker 0: We do. Speaker 1: All right. So, Councilor Harry Spencer. So you can go up. Speaker 0: Go ahead and thank you for the presentation. My understanding is Mr. Rouse is a consultant for the city. Can someone tell us how much he's being paid today, how much he's been paid, and if there's an issuance, if he gets paid additional money, what is the structure of payments to him? Speaker 1: Who would like to answer that, Mr. LeVay. Speaker 0: Or. Speaker 1: Yes, whoever you can have it. Speaker 2: I can I can answer ma'am there. And Councilmember Herrera Spencer, for our pension analysis, it's been about $32,000. Speaker 1: And I think there was a second part to your question for her, Spencer, which was if there is an issuance, is it go ahead and finish. Speaker 2: The issuance on the way. And the agreements tend to work. They would be a financial advisor for their component of an issuance. It would be a flat fee that would be somewhere around 90 to $100000. Speaker 0: And I just like clarification. So I'm trying I'm going to try again. City Manager, the 32,000 that is in full at this point, correct. Speaker 2: For the coaches for that. It's an analysis that doesn't include the financial planning that you had earlier this year. Speaker 0: Okay. But then the next step to go, going to the judge to get approval. Is there any if that is approved or for that work, is there any additional moneys to Mr. Rouse or his firm? Is that included in the 32,000? Where does that come from? Speaker 2: I would defer to someone else on that question. Speaker 1: Is there a question for the city attorney? Mr. Chan, if this we go forward with the validation action. Speaker 2: Oh, I'll try, Madam Chair. So the validation action is a legal action, and obviously we share what legal fees might be like that confidentially with you in close session. And it is attorney client privilege with respect to legal fees. Those legal fees do not cover Mr. Morales's fees. And so I defer to the city manager or his team on whatever fees that might be paid to Mr. Morales. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Sand and Mr. Morales. Go ahead. You have your hand up. Speaker 2: I believe the services that I've read to date will provide what you'll need through validation. I was supposed to provide a good faith estimate, which is included. So essentially at this point, unless you want to do additional workshops, study through validation, yes, my fees are covered in the quote that he provided. Speaker 0: Thank you. And if there's multiple issuances of the bond over the 20 years or 30 years, whatever, what I'm hearing is 20 years at this point. But could there be additional issuances and then would there be additional money paid to his firm? Speaker 2: Each time you do a bond financing, you have to pay the people in the suits lawyers, financial advisors, underwriters for each transaction that you issue. Speaker 0: Okay. And then how many transactions are you anticipating and what would be the total cost at the end of all, say, 20 years? What is your best estimate? Speaker 2: Typically council member you issue one bond, say, for example, with a 20 year financing timeline and often you have the opportunity to refinance it for cost savings within a ten year because you have a ten year call feature. So this would be like doing a mortgage and then refinancing your mortgage for savings five, ten years down the line. So at least one, possibly two is what would be a reasonable estimate. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. What? Dollar amount for each one? Speaker 2: I can tell you what. The current market is now approximately 90 to $100000. In ten years, I anticipate that the costs will go up given the cost of inflation. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then my question to staff is, will we be hearing from the city's elected auditor and treasurer in regards to their recommendations and any feedback we have from them? Speaker 1: Mr. Levitt, you're still muted. Speaker 2: Yes. I've been talking with the city's treasurer about how they would be involved in the in that as we move forward and as we start to refine whether or not we would do a plan B if you approve this first phase. But in addition to that, I believe he's got his hand raised to speak tonight also. Speaker 0: So though they being a lot of 3 minutes or 2 minutes, or are they being treated like Mr. Rouse, who is a paid consultant. Speaker 1: A council member who are expensive, will proceed, as we do according to council rules, will take a vote like we just did to give them extra time if they needed. It will take four affirmative votes. Speaker 0: So I appreciate that, Mayor, because it is my understanding would be hearing from them tonight. Thank you. Speaker 1: Somebody has a way of looking at speakers coming up. I'm just just trying to connect the meeting, but whatever the clerk tells me. Okay, who else has the hand up? Councilmember de. Speaker 2: Just a quick question. If both are outside consultants, Mr. O'Hara's in the act. And Mr. Morales, if they can kind of diss each other for no more than one minute, talk about themselves and their certifications, are they financial planners? Are they CPAs? What are they? What's their background with regard to to to to this line of work? Thank you. Speaker 1: Who'd like to begin? Mr. Morales. Speaker 2: My name is William Morales. Summit Director, Urban Futures, Inc.. I have over 30 years of public and corporate finance experience. I have a degree from the city of Michigan, from Harvard University, a master's in public policy, and then be in finance and real estate as being fellow from UCLA. I have worked at Transamerica Corporation, where I learned a great deal as actuarial math. I also worked abroad, most recently at the U.S. Treasury, working as the technical adviser for the country of Paraguay. I have extensive derivative, mathematical and quantitative experience doing complex financial transactions, including P threes, travel transactions and complex valuations and workouts. Thank you. And good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council and the public. James was in the act here. Bond Council to the city from the law firm Jones Hall. We are a Bond Council only firm. Which means we represent public agencies such as the city in public finance transactions, pension obligation bonds, lease revenue bonds, other kinds of municipal financings. Our offices in San Francisco and we have been a bond council firm for 50 years there and represented literally hundreds of cities and other local agencies throughout the state. Personally, I've been working in multiple cities around the Bay Area for the last five years, and before that practice, corporate law. Before that, graduated from Harvard Law School. And it's nice to be with you tonight. Thank you. Appreciate it. Speaker 1: All right. Those were your only clarifying questions. Councilmember de SAC, any other clarifying questions from the council? Okay. So we will hear from our public speakers and then we'll come back for council deliberation. Madam Clerk. Speaker 0: So far, we have three speakers. The first is Kevin Kennedy. Speaker 1: All right. Good evening, Speaker Kennedy. Speaker 2: Good evening. Can you guys hear me okay? Speaker 1: We can. Speaker 2: Excellent. I'm going to try to keep this quick. My 3 minutes here. I do think this idea may have some merit, but obviously it carries a lot of risk. So I think we owe it to the public to really give this a thorough vetting before we actually issue any bonds at all. And prior to this appearing on the agenda tonight, the auditor and I have not been involved in any discussions recently on this issue, and I haven't seen any public discussion. I do see in the appendix of this presentation on page 34. There's a what I think is a great outline of an outreach program. It includes council workshops, community meetings, and I really think we need to follow that outline before taking any final action. I would also say a lot of cities have put this issue on the ballot so the voters can weigh in and we might think about doing something like that. The other point is the resolution, as I read it, indicates that you're not only going for the judicial approval, but also to some degree approving the issuance. And I've spoken to the city manager about this. I think maybe get some clarification on that section for that resolution even seems to hire a finance team, but that seems a little bit premature if all we're doing right now is is is looking for judicial approval and then coming back to council and preferably doing the public outreach in the in the workshops before we actually decide on doing any bonds. So with those two issues, you know, I would say I am in favor of of getting judicial approval. I think it puts us in a position to make an educated decision. But I do think this requires a lot more discussion publicly and among council. And I think we really need to understand this thoroughly before we take a risk of this magnitude. And I will hang on if anybody has any questions. But that's the end of my comment. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker Kennedy. Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 0: Jay Garfinkle. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker Garfinkle. Speaker 2: Good evening again. This is great presentation. I'm not sophisticated at all in these issues. So I would ask one how the payments are made on the bond. Does this come from property taxes or the taxes, or would the payment include just property owners or would renters be charged this? If renters are not charged for this, would their landlords be allowed to add the payments to their rent? You know, I think that since the current generation of residents ran up this bill, we should be the ones paying it. On the other hand, if we could pay it using money of RDF, such as the $29 million windfall that we received from the feds recently. On the other hand, I like the idea that if we pay it over time, it will be paid by all the NIMBYs moving to these apartments that they're pushing for. So anyway, the question for me really is how is this going to be paid? Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 0: Kearney. Speaker 1: Good evening, Speaker Kearney. Speaker 2: Good evening. Can you hear me? Speaker 1: We can. Speaker 2: Welcome. Fantastic. Nice to see everybody. I too, like the Treasurer. I'm hoping that we can follow that that plan on page 34 of the presentation. I think this is a very important decision. The plan that was outlined by Amy to rename streets in Parks, I thought was very thoughtful, and I'd like to see us have an equally thorough analysis of this, considering the fact that the dollar amounts are significant. The issue that I have a little bit with, though, is if we undertake this type of an obligation, how does that affect our our possible borrowings in the future for, say, for example, an infrastructure bond to repair our streets? We talked about that maybe several years ago, and that amount was $300 million. That didn't seem to. Go anywhere. And so if we add this other borrowings, how does this, again, impact our ability to borrow in the future? The other thing that that I'm a bit concerned about is once the proceeds from the bonds, if if if you guys decide to go forward or whatever the mechanism is, how is the allocation of the funds going to be among the two groups? I would hope that it would be pro-rata. That seems to be the fairest in my mind. But I think that's something to be considered. And I would like to hear your thoughts on that if this actually does go through. I would also like to see that in your discussion on whatever you decide, the possibility that the voters be involved in this, this is a significant undertaking. If it works out, it's great. If it doesn't, it's not good. The city of Oakland had that experience where it didn't work out, and Mr. Morales certainly indicated that time in the market is one of the crucial elements of this. And so in light of the current circumstance where our markets are and where we seem to be going, I'm not 100% sure that you know where we're going, and I don't think anybody knows that. But I would hope that all of you would consider that. And so I just would like to close by saying, I think there's a long ways to go before you actually make this decision. I think the public needs to be involved. I think there needs to be further communication to everyone, you know, city council, to the public, just to convey the, you know, the ins and outs of this so you guys can make a good decision because after all, once you pull the switch, the future generation is stuck with it . And we got here because of some bad decisions. So let's hope this isn't a bad one. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker Kennedy, our next speaker. Speaker 0: That was our final speaker. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. So with that, we will close public comment on item seven E and we will bring it back to the council. And I, I would appreciate one of our one of our speakers clarifying a question that was asked by one of our speakers about how are the payments made on on how does how does a pension obligation bond work? And, and what implications are there for, say, property owners? Speaker 2: So if I if I may, I think I'm. Well. Speaker 1: Well, please. Please. Speaker 2: Payment on the pension obligation bond is paid exactly the way your unfunded liability is paid to CalPERS. That is through the city's general fund. So the general funds of the city, the property taxes, sales tax that's collected by the city is available for all purposes currently is paying. CalPERS would be available instead of paying CalPERS, which would be received. The proceeds of the bonds would be available to make debt service payments on the bonds, and accordingly, no new additional taxes would be levied. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, council members. Your thoughts? Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Speaker 0: So there was a comment from the public. And I want to thank all the members of the public who spoke in regards to this is the result of the current generation or the former generation, and that we're somehow, you know, now moving forward, though, and it's is it's from pensions that were promised and not paid for as we went along, is my understanding. And so speaking so today are are recovering for the pensions that we have contracted for as we go along, or are we continuing to accrue more unfunded pension liabilities today today to recover all the pensions we promised? Speaker 1: Who'd like to take that one? I think that's probably more on the city side of things. Mr. Levitt. Speaker 2: I can start. And then I think Mr. Morales could actually probably go a little bit further in. But so what this is paying for is is the unfunded liability. It's paying for liabilities and accrued over time. Are unfunded as far as current liabilities moving forward. The person actually sent out a schedule and a cost per employee for current and future liabilities. Now, whether those will stay up to pace or not, that's the way it's formatted to do that. But there's no guarantee. But that is the way the first form formula is. So as you hire more employees, then you actually pay that extra current percentage per employee that you hire at their rate. But I don't know. Mr. Morales may be able to give a more technical answer on that, too. Thank you. If I may, if we go back to Slide four, that's exactly where I would start is with your normal cost is really your current bill. So as long as you have the minimum pay your normal cost. And then that orange part that we went to a while ago, if you recall, that usually is a pass through amount. The good and the bad about that pass to amount is it's $300 million. So you really have this big mountain that you have to climb that eventually is going to go from $22 million all the way up to $30 million, approximately. So you have your normal cost and as the city manager mentioned, as you increase or make raises or other adjustments, that will fluctuate a little bit. But as long as you make these other payments, I hear the 20 million plus to $6.7 million in normal cost. Remember, this 20 will grow to 30 in the next 10 to 15 years. Then yes, you should be able to pay it off. With one last caveat, if I may, which is each and every year CalPERS makes adjustments. So this is a dynamic, an ever changing life. If you keep pace with those adjustments, then you should be able to keep pace with your liabilities. If, however you don't, then each year, for example, if I may, one last slide. The next slide shows you two slides from that. If you go to slide six that each year CalPERS makes adjustments. These are essentially truing up your account. CalPERS actually is kind of like a like a bank. They whatever you deposit into the system, they go in, they manage, they manage the investments, but they throw up every single year. So you could fall behind. And what they do, for example, you may have a 30 million base, $30 million liability, and you can't pay $30 million in cash in one at once. So it would be your 6.7 plus your $20 million payment, plus that new base of 33 million. So they they spread that out typically over 20 years. So it's important for you to know and this is the most important thing the rating agencies have to know is this is not a static amount. This is a changing and ever dynamic liability. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilor Spencer, you're speaking about your muted. I'm not so good at reading that picture. Speaker 0: Thank you. So I wanted to get back to currently and someone knows how much money the city has in reserves. So someone can answer the question, does the city have enough money in the reserves to pay as we go? And I'll say for the next five years or ten years, when I look at the numbers, I don't think so. But you are you know, I'm hoping that someone has sent, you know, overlay that. Do we have enough money in reserves to pay for the ongoing moving forward? Speaker 1: Mr.. Are you two? Are you meeting to speak, please? Finance Director. Speaker 0: Hi. Good evening, everybody. I just want to clarify that the normal cost is based on a percentage of payroll. So each budget cycle we do budget for that. So right now we are good with the normal cost because as a percentage of payroll and the Council has adopted the budget and that that budget is sufficient to cover the next current year and next year. Speaker 1: Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 0: So there was a thank you there. So there's a chart that shows what the current payments are. And I think like a year, ten or 15, it does start dropping. Can we see that? And then can you show me where the lines are going to be of what this is going to I know, balance it out. So in those last years, are they paying will we be paying more than currently? And without doing this. Speaker 2: You're talking about slide I believe, slide eight, the overall dual payment schedule, is that correct? Speaker 0: I'm not sure if it has. I know. Speaker 2: That. Speaker 0: We have. Is that the orange slice? Speaker 2: The next one is the orange slide. It's one in the same. So many cities have a profile that looks like that. And this is just chopping off the mountain council member. So it is the same part. If you went to the prior slides, just cut it off with 22 million. This is the increase in costs. But the way that the base is and your payment schedule is structured, it has to peak many cities. Almost every agency has a peak from 30 to 33, and then it goes down some some more precipitously than others. Now it is important, and we can we can talk about this, that there are credits and liabilities added each and every year. So the structure of this may change as it has in the past. Maybe. Speaker 1: Mr. LEVITT Yes. Speaker 2: And maybe go to the previous slide so you can see what the, what the. Yeah. And so that is the current uel if you do not finance right now. Is that correct. That's correct. You have $557 million of the payments that you expect to make over the next 25 plus years. And then you have a slide that you show what the current what the payments are for the real over the years versus if you borrowed under the current interest rate. Yes, that's the one. That is slide number. 13. So that might be helpful. Speaker 0: So. Thank you. Thank you. City manager. So. So this is under the current interest rate. So it appears. Right. The red line. That's the current. Yeah. The blue is under this plan. Speaker 2: So that's an illustration of the 25 year of pension obligation bond in approximately 3.8%. Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. So the blue doesn't is not higher than the or the red isn't really higher than the blue until you get to the farther out years. How how does it drop like that at 2044, 2043. The red is the current. I know. So it does drop at some point. But your yours, the blue lines lower all the way across until you get to 2044 counts. Speaker 2: Remember, I structured it to match the final year. That's the same dollar amount. Graphically. If you look at the actual numbers, go to the next slide, you'll see that they're a couple thousand dollars difference. Okay. So after 20 years, they you know, by the way, bonds are done in $5,000 increments. So that's that's essentially as close as we can get mathematically. Speaker 0: Okay. So you said you used current interest rates to do this. Speaker 2: Yes. That's a scale based on the current interest rate. Speaker 0: Okay. And what what is the number that used? Speaker 2: Well, if you. One of the things that's different is municipal bonds are a series of bonds. And as you see, each year has a different interest rate. So there is the coupon rate inside. There are also prices, a spread to Treasury, which is different from a tax exempt month. So when you price them on the day of, you're going to have the two year Treasury rate. And the underwriter who sells and buys your bonds to investors is going to say these the market rate for this is 25 basis points above the two year Treasury rate. And then they price it up the three year Treasury rate, the five year Treasury rate, the seven year Treasury, the 20 year and the 30 year, they're all indexed. So these are all indexed off of the spread. And we use that on a scale that we provided. And the scale was that's what is kind of current interest rates. We use it off a pension obligation bond. I priced it off of the city Manhattan Beach based on current interest rates, plus a spread of 75 basis points. So there's an interest rate cushion here. In fact, the bonds that we've done recently have all been below 3% on the back end. But there's a significant cushion, given the 4 to 6 month validation period that's required. Speaker 0: Okay. So if you have fluctuation the other way, then what happens to your numbers? Speaker 2: Well, you're saying if interest rates go down. Speaker 0: And you just said, I think that used 3%. So if it goes down or if it goes higher. Speaker 2: Well, if it goes down, obviously the borrowing rate is lower. Household. But I did say you don't use one interest rate. You use multiple. All of these are the different interest rates for the year and the term. But I gave you a gross spread of the average rate is 3.33. If it goes up, obviously the cushion or the savings down, but there is a 75 base or three quarters of a percentage point. Question from somewhat current market rates. So we believe by that time that should be a pretty conservative cushion, but whenever certain. So. So essentially you put in a 70. You put in three quarters of 1% higher than what the current rate is that we would be borrowing at. That's correct. Speaker 0: Okay. So then just one more question. So the cities that did lose money on doing this. Do you want to explain why they did it wrong and why this would be right? Speaker 2: Certainly. First, we talk about when you go. We talk about jobs. They did it in a much higher interest rate environment and the timing was not ideal. So I've done a number of case studies. You might have seen them publicly available. If you issued bonds, for example, in 2008, that would have not been a good time. You would have been borrowing at 6%. And also they used cab structures which are deferred or zero coupon bonds. They extended the payments and took payment holidays. So there are a number of things that I believe when you look at the old issues, they did not use the most prudent financial management practices. Nonetheless, in no way do we guarantee the financial outcome. But if you study and understand your risk, then it's something substantially different. But in many cases, you'll see there is timing, high interest rates and then deferred payments, all of which are financial dominoes. Speaker 1: Okay. Other Council comments. Questions. I'm going to jump in with a thank you for all the good information. I really appreciate hearing all this and and that I'm intrigued, but I'm also mindful of what our city treasurer and auditor raised in their comments. And I feel like we we should make sure we have as much information as possible and, you know, a little more public information and outreach. What are the things that I noted in the staff report? It came right at the end on page. This is Page. Not a good time for the iPad to freeze. Okay, it's vitamins. Page five, where the city manager manager makes the recommendation and there was no reference to this in the body of the staff report. But it says city manager recommends authorization of the issuance of pension obligation bonds. The city manager anticipates if authorized, there will be further steps taken with City Council prior to a final decision to issue papers in the future. I'd like to know what those further steps would be, but it's this sentence that I'd like a little more flesh on the bones. Further part of the strategy recommended would be to set 50% of the savings through the PBE on an annual basis to create a sinking fund to be able to stabilize any risks in the future, as well as to pay down future pension obligations. I mean, that sounds smart and prudent, but I would have liked a little more information about how do we go about doing that. And and anyway, I it's just struck me as well that I just would have liked to have seen more information. It was just in the very end and your city manager's recommendation. But I feel like I, for one, would like to know more about this before voting to authorize issuance of pension obligation bonds, I'm intrigued, you know that I've been preaching for a long time about how we needed to take a portion of all an anticipated revenues and set it aside once we pay down the debt to make sure we had our reserves for the general fund, but to take it in a sign it to pay down this unfunded liability. But I before we embark on this step, which might be a great next step for the city, I would like a little more information on that. So if someone wants to provide that tonight or and and that's that's my field. I don't know how the rest of the council feels and what information they might like. Cal seven KNOX Right before we hear from staff writer Cecily. Speaker 2: I just wanted to ask a clarification. My understanding is the recommendation is for us to authorize the moving forward of starting to put together the information to return through through the process. That is on page 41 of the report that that that I believe City Treasurer Kennedy remarked it's a 4 to 6 process month process and that at the time we could give that direction. Because I agree there are some questions I would like to come back and including policy recommendations for how we would create that sinking fund. But my, my, I just want to make sure that what we're being asked is to start the process and and give direction on what we would like to come back for conversation as a part of that process before we vote to authorize any bonds. Speaker 1: Well, I'm reading the first line of the staff report, which describes the adoption of resolution authorizing the issuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds to refinance outstanding obligations. And then I'm reading literally in the first sentence of the city manager recommendation. At the bottom of page five, the city manager recommends authorization of the issuance of pension obligation bonds. The city manager authorizes anticipates that if authorized, there will be further steps taken with the City Council. I'm wondering if that might not be putting the cart before the horse, and I'd like to know what those additional steps and further steps and additional information would be. So I'm reading it literally as that. Look at City Manager Levitt. That was your recommendation. So why don't you go ahead and. Speaker 2: I can start right. Speaker 1: Now. Thank you. Speaker 2: I can start. And then I think Mr. Morales could probably fill in some of the some of it. So as far as the first, when you go to the first paragraph of my recommendation, which was that there will be further steps taken, that that is correct, that this issue is the first step in the issuance, but we would have to come back with the any final issuance before we can issue bonds that you would not be able to issue bonds based on this alone. For instance, the official statement would have to come back as one step. Also, if the council wants to go with the process as it I think it's on page, someone said 34 or 41 as put on that page, then there would be other steps. But this step tonight is actually the first step. So if we delay this everything, it's a critical path item. So this step needs to be taken before we can. Do the other steps to the next 4 to 6 months. So if we delayed this a couple of months, that would delay everything out another 4 to 6 months. And that's fine. You can do that. It just creates more interest rate risk as the economy goes forward. The second part of it, the 50%, there's a chart, the chart where the savings is, it's just a different way of saying the same thing that that chart said. And I can't read what page that was, was that page eight or ten in the policy? Now, the chart that showed the savings between the budget savings and the other, that is chart page number 14. Speaker 1: But we're talking about the presentation. Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a different way of saying the same thing that Mr. Merrill said, and that is when you look at it, or at least I believe it is. So if we can pull that off, that might help. Speaker 1: While we're playing it up, if I could ask. So is it correct to say that the city treasurer and city auditor were not consulted on any of this process? Speaker 2: So that there have been brief discussions, but now they haven't been fully involved in that would be correct. Speaker 1: Mr. Morales, I see you have your hand up. Why don't we hear from you? Speaker 2: So typically I've done about 22 of these in the past four years. And a number of the pension advisories that don't involve pension obligation bonds of like. So it's not the only solution. But because of the 4 to 6 month waiting period due to the delay in court and even in the best case, you're talking 60, 90 days for the validation process. Often what we do is we if you're contemplating it, I say this is similar to applying for a building permit. You know, you're contemplating doing this and you know, the building permit takes quite a bit of time and every day of delay is costing about $30,000 a day. Given your $300 million liability, then obviously accelerating this process and knowing that it doesn't really improve anything. As the city manager noted, you legally have to come back to council to approve the offering document known as the official statement. It certainly will save the city money and you have plenty of time to put on workshops, ask questions or analysis of, you know, I have 50 slides right here. I wrote a 50 page report for the city of San Jose. I have done up to 18 sessions for certain cities, so I have more than enough time and ability to answer almost every question you have. I don't know if they come to the satisfaction of the risks that people have, but we certainly can provide the type of analysis that you're looking for. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Rawls. Actually, that was helpful. So what you're saying is we would proceed on more than one front at the same time. Speaker 2: It's best practice. Yes, ma'am. Speaker 1: Okay. Okay. And city attorney. Give me a second, Mr. Levitt. City attorney san, is are you in agreement with the 4 to 6 months for the validation process to go through the courts? Speaker 2: It's always difficult to predict litigation timelines, so I don't want to do that in open session. And we're happy to talk with you privately in closed session. Speaker 1: Well. Okay, I'm well. Okay. But argue with the attorney. Mr. Levitt, you were trying to say something. Speaker 2: I was asking her to keep the chart up because I was going to refer you to the chart. So when you go to the chart and you see the blue, that's water current, or that's what the estimated debt service would be if under the assumptions provided tonight. When you go to the white next to it, that's what the well, we're currently we lost it. Speaker 0: We were trying to make it bigger because it was an issue. Speaker 1: I'm so glad I don't have to do that. Speaker 2: Oh. Let's hear. 13. Speaker 1: There now or it's the next one is 14. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: We were having trouble getting rid of the side panel. I'm sorry about that. Just to say that's okay. Speaker 1: Let's not worry about it. Talk me through it. Mr. Morales. You've got your hand up. Yeah. Speaker 2: No, I mean. Speaker 1: Oh, there it is. Look at that. Well, it's. Speaker 2: Eight, 14, 14. Speaker 1: There you go. I think that's big enough. Speaker 2: So you have the blue, which is the the debt service that projected under the interest rate of 3.3. On average, you have the CalPERS payments, which is what we're projected through the CalPERS actuarial, what we're going to be paying per year. If you do nothing, that's a do nothing approach. And then you have the budgetary savings, which is true savings in the budget in the green, and then you have the fuel cost, which when you add which would be what we would be paying in additional unfunded liability if we do nothing. So you add those two, you have the savings over on the side, which is about which goes from six to 8 to 9 million. And my recommendation would be you would not spend all that money, but you would you would put aside up to 50% of our money and we would have to bring back a process to do it that if you did that over the first two or three years, that any volatility, any risk that we're talking about would practically be solved at that point, because if you were setting aside 4 to 5 million per year, you would have about 10 to 15 million in your first three or four years that would be set aside to mitigate against any risk of downsides of investment risk. And that's what I was talking about, because that would actually resolve the biggest or the greatest risk as far as the interest rate risk of this of this option. Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr.. So I'm going to go back to Mr. Morales on page four of the staff report. There is the sentence in the middle of kind of in the middle of the page that talks about rating agencies have taken a neutral position on PBIS. More importantly, agencies are taking the time to study their pension liabilities and understand the risks. I'm reading that to mean the risks of policies. Is is that is that what it means? And what what are the risks that we should be aware of? Mr. Morales. I mean, Mr. Levitt just talked about market timing and trying to predict interest rates and that sort of thing. Is there anything else we should be aware of? Speaker 2: No. If I can go to the next slide, slide 15. And you're going to recall that there were a number of things that were being done. And now we deem this PDBs 2.0. And we said that most of them have been addressed if you take this systematic process. What is that risk of investment? And this is once again not germane to pension obligation bonds. You could just ARPA money cannot be used for pension and specifically written in the guidelines that say there was a pension money and you got $100 million, you now would have the same risk. Is now the right time to invest regardless of the source of money, whether it's from pension bonds, your reserves? Another kind of financing you now have to say, is this the right time to invest in the market? And that is a risk or a component of everyday investing that anyone in this room would invest. Any type of money has to think about if you put $20 into a savings account as opposed to the stock market or vice versa, you've made a decision as to when is the right timing. This, if I may say one thing, is the most difficult part about pension obligation. Bonds and pensions in California, or almost every system in the United States is that municipalities are not inherently designed to take on equity risk. If you really think about the suitability of investment, when we changed over from all bonds, fixed income investments to equities and fixed income, everyone was looking for that game that we got. But note, equities are a roller coaster ride and government. Now I'm speaking as a former city manager is not designed to take that inherent risk and everyone wants a risk free option, but that doesn't come with the gain in the benefit of equities. So we're kind of all pregnant in taking equity risk. We do it every day with CalPERS. The pension component is an added part. So if you have $500 million in CalPERS and you give them another 50 million, your first 500 million is still at risk. It's just whether I'm going to place that 50 million in the market now or later. This will take a bit of time. And I think people have to start to understand that it's one, a liability we all have to live with. And the risk is very difficult to address. So you can take some systematic methods, but it is that market time that is the primary risk that you're dealing with. And all the others have been pretty much addressed. And the only thing you can do is dollar cost averaging easily. Speaker 1: Thank you. I appreciate that. I just. And then I just want to raise this is something to consider. And this is for mostly for the city manager, but also for the council. Because we vote on these decisions, which is what I wrote in my notes, that simultaneously, as we consider this way to pay down our obligations and in a manner that costs the city less, we also need to be looking at ways to keep our pension obligations from increasing unreasonably. For example, hiring contractors rather than salaried benefit, you know, fully loaded employees, doing things like perhaps using actual inspectors to do code compliance. And, you know, we had a discussion about our fees for building inspections and just those really need to be firefighters that go out do that. And I and this is what I look to the city manager to help us manage, because we we can't keep digging out of a hole with one shovel while we're filling it with another. So I just want us to realize, as we make decisions about adding folks, you know, that there's there's an obligation that we're going to have to pay. I mean, some of these will continue long after any of us are working here. But but we owe that to to our city. Okay. You know, for me, who else can sort of desert has his hand up? We can probably go back to the the gallery view. And that's all you want to do. You want to keep this up? Counselor Desa. Speaker 2: Put up the slide where city manager Levitt pointed out the blue column. Speaker 1: The savings and the different. Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 1: Page four, page 1403. Sorry, that's 14. So it's before that. Speaker 2: They tried before you 14. Speaker 1: So wait a minute. Are there to page 1414. Speaker 2: What do you know? Okay. Speaker 1: Everyone's right. Speaker 2: Councilmember A thank you. You know, I think for the public, I think we need to understand the magnitude of the decision that's before us. And on the one hand, we talk about the possibility of issuing a pension obligation bond of 200 roughly $298 million to cover our unfunded liabilities. But as you see in the blue column, when you add in the interest, it comes out to almost be a total of $420 million. Now, yes, I understand the net present value depending on the discount rate that you use, the net present value of that stream of dollars in the blue column, net present value of this technical term of trying to take into account inflation, etc., etc.. It doesn't really come out to be $420 million will probably come out to be $298 million. So the value of $419 million as expressed in current dollars, is probably $288 million. But still, you know, we're not just talking about a $298 pension obligation bond, but we are talking possibly of $420 million, as indicated in this in this blue chart. So the residents really have to understand the magnitude of the decision that's before us. I think given kind of the technical aspects of this, I'm just going to try to focus on four, four areas. I think the first thing that I that that that I want to draw attention to is that. Speaker 1: Councilmember Desai, I'm so sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but I just looked at that time and it is 1051 and we're getting to that magical 11 p.m. hour. So what we need is. Speaker 2: A. Speaker 1: City clerk help me out. So I get this right. We need to take a vote on what, if anything, we are going to consider after we finish this item, sir. Correct, madam? Speaker 0: Correct. And there's six remaining referrals are the agenda items. Okay. Speaker 1: And we need four votes to go past 11. Speaker 0: You need to consider the items after 11 going past. Yeah, it's just okay that she has to. Speaker 1: Consider any items. Okay. Okay, so time for a motion and we can't take too long or it'll just become 11 p.m. and it'll be commitment. So he would want to make a motion to go past 11. And if we don't, then we finish this item and we we go home. So I see Councilmember DeSantis got his hand up. Speaker 2: I'll move to go past 11 and complete at least until the second council referral. So at the 80, the second council referral is completed then and work will be complete for the night. Speaker 1: Okay. Is there a second to that? Cast over her. Spencer, you're certainly. Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. May we have a roll call? Vote, please, Madam Clerk. Speaker 0: Celebrity. I have our Spencer I. Knox. Speaker 2: Wait now. Speaker 0: The villa now. Mayor, as the Ashcraft know, that motion fails. Two, two, three. Speaker 1: Okay. Any further motion or we're going to end this when it ends. Cats are not sweet. Speaker 2: But my understanding is we will still be able to have council communications and what not because those are not items. Is that correct? It's just no new business items to turn around. Correct. Speaker 1: Is that correct? Or do we decide. Speaker 0: How much it so? So it's new items that are actually agenda items. But those sections that were mentioned or communications canceled, vacations, city manager previous is already done. So you don't need to go back to that with those two. Okay. Speaker 1: Okay. So we would still hear oral communications and council communications bracketing. Okay. So set a motion council member or not quite. Are you just saying to let it go? Speaker 2: Yeah. Doesn't need a motion. Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Okay, everyone, then. I'm not saying hands up for another motion. It's 1054. Let's move along. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I totally forgot five f you guys had delayed five f, and I think. Speaker 1: You're so right. Speaker 0: Thank you, guys. Producer, director, just being means and thank you. So thank you. Thank you. So I think if you want to hear that. Speaker 1: Yeah, actually, what I think we need is, is that well that that is actually part of the agenda is next. We just. Speaker 0: Moved. Yes. Yes. So it's out there. So if you want to hear that, you need to vote to hear that Councilmember Knox. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 2: I move to I move to continue the meeting past 11:00 in order to hear five F and the regular business. No items for now. Speaker 1: All right. And do I have a do I have a second to that motion? Second. Vice Mayor Vela, seconds. May we have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 0: On de SAC. Speaker 2: No, her. Speaker 0: Spencer. No, not quite. Speaker 2: Yes, but it doesn't matter. Yes. Speaker 0: There is, Ashcroft. Speaker 1: Yes. But I would say what's going to happen is it's going to roll over to be item six on the next agenda. Would that be correct? Speaker 0: Yes. If you want to continue to that section or we can just bring it back on the content. It's it's up to council's discretion if you want to take a motion to continue it specifically to Section six. Speaker 1: So we could put it back on consent for the next meeting? Speaker 0: Yes, staff could, but then it would probably be pulled again. Speaker 1: Why don't we? My preference is we make it item six. So it's actually heard at the next meeting because I don't want to to this dance too many times. Speaker 0: Okay. So you just get a motion on that and it only takes three votes. Speaker 1: All right. May we have a motion to bring item current item five. Help me out, madam. Speaker 0: Circling, move five, Frank. Speaker 1: Okay. The move by the vice mayor to have a second councilor. And that's why. 8 seconds. Maybe we have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 0: I really. Speaker 2: Know. Speaker 0: Her, Spencer. I'm not quite all right. I may as the Ashira. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: That carries by 4 to 1. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We've gotten housekeeping out of the way. So, Councilmember De Saag, again, apologies for the interruption. The floor is yours again. Speaker 2: So just to recap, the first point that I made, that the magnitude of this is beyond the initial $298 million pension obligation bond. But when you take into account the interest, as you can see in this blue column, the sum of which is roughly $420 million. Again, yes, I understand that the net present value of that is different. So let me just be clear that I do understand that. I think the second point that I want to make is that, you know, I don't think we should take lightly the GFA and what they have to say with regard to pension obligation bonds. The GFA is the Government Finance Officers Association and we you know, we all know who the Government Finance Officers Association is, by the way. They're the people who every time we do our biannual budgets, they're the people who we slap on that certification at the beginning that says you did an excellent budget or you did an excellent Kaffir. So they're a reputable organization who we ourselves turn to for validation. And what the GSO has to say about pension obligation bonds is is specifically this. State and local governments should not issue pension obligation bonds. That's their advisory. So I think we I think we need to frame this discussion from that vantage point again. JF Okay, state and local governments should not issue pension obligation bonds. Now. Let me talk about four points. We talked you heard earlier about pension obligation bond. Version one, we're not. Pension obligation bond version. When we're now pension obligation bond. Version two. And that's good because just by way of background, the way that pension obligation bonds used to work with with that was that cities would issue pension obligation bonds. And they would take those proceeds and save $300 million. And they would actually invest it in the market. So they would hope that, you know, that the return on the $300 million that they invested in the market would be above the 3.5% interest rate that they're paying. But we are not doing pension obligation bond version one. We're doing instead pension obligation bond version two. And what this is, is basically, again, we would generate we would issue with a $300 million pension obligation bond, and we would then basically take that 300 million or $298 million and that we would prepay our our unfunded liability. In other words, we'd give it to CalPERS now. So that's good that we're not doing pension by obligation bond version one, but we're doing a pension obligation bond version two. But that's not to say that version two. Is without its risks. And this is what is meant by timing risks, for example. So you see this this chart where it says our unfunded liability is $298 million with a $298 million. Unfunded liability is a function of the 7% return rate that CalPERS expects. So if next year. CalPERS is return is not 7%, but instead it's 4.5% or 5%. What that would do is that would then recalibrate, you know, what our unfunded liability is, because suddenly CalPERS said, oh, you know what? We didn't get as much money as we anticipated, but we're going have to make up for that shortfall. And by the way, that shortfall is going to come from you. And if it comes from you, I in the cities in this pension obligation bond version number two, what that means is that the budgetary savings that would that that's in the green chart would not suddenly be $2.7 million. It would be something south of that. The concern, though, is that if CalPERS is return falls. To the same amount of interest that you're paying. Or even less. That basically eliminates the the savings. So that's the timing. One of the timing risks that we're talking about. So that's why I'm very I think we need to be very concerned about that. Now, another thing that we need to be concerned about is do you take a look at the the the the green column here and you look at the series of $2.7 million, $2.7 million, $2.7 billion of budgetary savings. Now, think about it. If you hire. Roughly 13 people. Who were not expected. Well, you know, you hire these people who you did not expect to hire, but for whatever reason, you do. You know, 13 times a fully loaded average of $200,000, you've you've basically eliminated the budgetary savings. So you would have eliminated the very purpose of having done the pension obligation bonds. That's why city manager Eric Levitt is correct in saying that if you're going to pursue this, you have to have a strict fiscal strategy to make sure to lockbox the budgetary savings that you're seeing there. So. So I think, yeah, that's an important point. I think the fourth point I want to get to is a scenario of, well, what if CalPERS has a return rate? That's higher than 7%. Suppose CalPERS has a higher return rate of eight or 9%. Well, guess what? CalPERS doesn't suddenly give you a refund. You know, whatever excess that you ended up paying, CalPERS won't do that. You're still going to pay the the the the annual debt service that you've you've agreed to. So there's really no real upside to that. I mean, certainly if CalPERS has a greater return for four new payments, it will be it will be lower than what you've been. But but for for what you've already prepaid, you're not going to get any money back from CalPERS and saying, hey, you know, you get to you get to share in the upside the fact that, you know, we got a 9% return instead of 7% return. So. My recommendation is, is to go very slow on this. I know there's a lot of Southern California cities doing this, but then again, there was a lot of Southern California cities doing the Orange County deal way back in the early 1990s, if we remember what happened then. So so I'll leave it at that and not support this. Speaker 1: I thank you, Councilmember. And Mr. Morales has your hand up to run to address some of this points. Speaker 2: Yes, Mayor, I can give you an illustration because I think there's some good news and this is far more complex as we're trying to do. Remember, the suggestion was to kind of move forward on building permit. But if the clerk could go to slide number 23 in the appendix, it would be helpful to give the Council an understanding of how this operates. So as you may know. CalPERS returned excessive 21.3 or 21.4% return this past fiscal year that's been announced. That means you're going to get a credit of $73.3 million. However, at the same time, according to the funding risk mitigation policy, they have announced that the discount rate has to go down to 6.8% . So you would actually increase your liability and net that by $20.4 million. What's that mean? You're $295 million liability would likely be somewhere closer to $241 million. However, there's always a non or a demographic adjustment that comes into this. So if you if you're starting really oh my God, there is a lot of numbers and a lot of estimation. It is because this is a $300 million liability. It moves each and every year and there are a number of component parts. So even then, we would never borrow or I would recommend 295 million because I already know about this adjustment. You don't have to borrow the full amount, but there is a lot of mathematics involved to this and a lot of moving parts. But I do know a couple. Desai said, Hey, you wouldn't get the share in it. The next slide, actually, we'll show you kind of what the credits and the cash flows come out with. Next slide, please. So you can see what your payments are currently, what the credit would be with the offsetting reduction in the discount rate and the net impact. So your payments will actually go down. Now, these are the type of projections that I have been sharing with city staff and obviously given a ten minute time frame. This takes about 4 minutes just to explain. But there's a lot of process to go through. And it's a refined concept. It's not not a recommendation issue, the full amount, but rather what you're paying your attorneys. The dollar value might as well ask for the full amount at that day and then decide what amount, what structure and when you're going to do it in the future. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. How can you address what Councilmember Desai raised about the DOJ FOIA saying state and local governments shouldn't issue poppies? Yeah, it's an obligation. Bonds. Yeah. Speaker 2: I certainly can. The Government Finance Officers Association has a big yellow warning sign on there on their website says do not issue pension obligation months. And as I disclosed upfront, I was on the National Debt Advisory Committee for the way, as was Julian Cooper, who the finance director at the same time for the city of San Jose . I can tell you specifically when I've written a number of policies, how they're designed to be written, they are written for the entire country. So the city of Alameda, city of New York or anyone, its financial sophistication is very different from a very small place on the plain fog in Illinois that does not know what Poppy stand for. Do not have the kind of sophisticated staff or council that can analyze this. So their policies are written for that measure and then written nationwide. The reason I say that's important is because each plan is different. The laws in each single state and the funding levels are completely different. So what you have in the CalPERS system is completely different from what you have. A county are very different from Alameda and very different, for example, what happens in New Jersey, Illinois or Minnesota, which is well funded. So you have to write this one universal policy. I think that's important for people understand, because the financial circumstances of each agency in the entire country are very different. We believe we've addressed a number of these, and probably what's most disconcerting about the Geoffroy is they basically say don't do it, provide no alternative options. In other words, you have this $300 million liability and we don't give you this. We take the tool out of the Senate and recommend nothing as far as alternatives outside of using reserves. And if cities had $300 million in reserves to pay off their liability, you would not be you would not be talking to me at this time, but. You should feel free to listen to that. And you should also read the points and counterpoints that the GOP has actually mentioned. My my mentor also wrote a counterpoint, Juror Miller. That's a very interesting one because he says you don't throw the baby with the bathwater. These are complex. They do have some downside I mentioned. Part of the downside is you're always you're stuck with equity risk. This is not an easy answer. Someone can say, I don't want to do it because the risk involved. The problem is you're facing the risk one and two, doing nothing has a detrimental impact on your operating budget going forward. If you recall the projected operating deficit that my colleague showed you, all of that, if you did the math and back ended it. All of that has to do with the increase in pension costs. If you recall, there was that shortfall for the next four or five years. If you did the math, you'll see that increase in our payments is primarily due. Are that deficit is due to increased annual payments. Speaker 1: I've got a question for you, Mr. Masters. Does the current economy, the the stock market that's been doing amazingly well, even though that's not necessarily reflected, you know, across the board and, you know, among the American people, the the very low interest rates. Do do you think that's sustainable? Do you see that? I mean, no one's got a crystal ball, but how are you feeling about that? How are you factoring this? I think rather unusual time, maybe it doesn't seem so unusual to you, but sure, you know. Speaker 0: If you're. Speaker 2: Exceptionally unusual, rates are at historic lows. And that's what makes it very compelling, too. I do not believe and that's why they are lowering the discount rate. And so the state in New York lowered their discount rate from 6.9% down to 6%. I personally do not believe that on a long term basis that we continue that growth due to various factors. One, we've had kind of what I call the second industrial revolution. When you look at the Facebooks and Amazon's of the world that have and the Teslas have had tremendous economic growth, you have to look for that continue to sustain growth. So can we continue at 21.3% growth? Can we outperform this problem? No. And that's what the actuaries are doing. They're taking more measured steps and saying, let's see what's realistic at the end of the day, most of the time, as the finance professional people love one end of what we call fat tails, everyone loves the gain and no one likes the downside. But as we know, they're typically parallel. So you have to think about that downside. I really do believe some are based on is correct. That is the risk and there are things that you can do to prepare themselves. Note I am not the one. I've done a number of pension obligation bonds. The President is on the line listening to the same time we say the same thing. This is this is not a panacea. It is not without risk. There are some steps you should take. But the most important thing is you should take the time to understand and then really think what alternative options are. What we don't think in both of us have been city government executives doing nothing is probably also the other part. That's not. You can't say it's too risky. And I'd rather do nothing because this has been growing for 20 years. So there has to be some type of plan to address it. And you have taken some steps already. Speaker 1: Thank you. Council members. Others want to weigh in. Make a motion. Speaker 0: Councilmember Spencer So I also do not plan to support this at this time. We did hear from our elected treasurer and auditor very, very briefly. I would have liked them to have had more time and to actually be able to answer questions and receive fresh answers to their questions. I think it's premature to proceed at this time. I have serious concerns of the fact, Mayor, you raised some points about what can we be doing at the same time to reduce our expenditures and so on versus non sworn officers or just really what are we doing moving ahead? And I don't hear that side of the equation and I think that is really a serious part of the equation. And so that also goes to I personally am not ready to proceed at this time. I think we do have to look at both sides of the equation. And I do want to hear more from including our community members. I would really like to have more back and forth workshop, if you will, something like that, to hear from them. This is a huge risk. I really appreciate Member De Sykes comments. I think that that helps for. That helped me a lot to understand really what we're talking about do pointed out so clearly and I just feel like we were rushing through a huge risk here that doesn't need to be. So I would like this to come back if we're going to entertain it and have more information and really give us the risk. I'm sorry. Just that there have there are cities out there that have lost a lot of money over this and they're minimized in this report is what I would say is where are the examples of the cities that have lost a lot of money? I don't see them in here. Speaker 2: Thanks. Speaker 1: Thank you. And Mr. Levitt, if I could just ask and I thought it right to you afterwards, Councilman. That's why I bet. Mr. Levitt, if I could just ask you, give us that overview. You I think you touched on it briefly a little earlier when I asked. So the way you envision this going forward, if we're to take the recommendations to tell us how we're going to be moving forward on several different fronts to allay some of our concerns. Speaker 2: Or so I can live. So what we would do is we would start the process of the court process. At the same time, I think one of our concepts was that we would come back with a work session with the council and we would also include public meetings. So similar to what the lawyer and Treasurer had agreed with the Treasurer's ideas of having some public meetings and public engagement as well as those meetings, and we'd be able to refine those policies as we go forward so that when we come back after the court decision, we'd be able to come back and bring back a full recommendation to the city council. I think the timing, I guess from my perspective there, there is risk with it. The risk of not doing anything is you're looking at it was shown when we were looking at the site and customer base. I was talking about the 290 million or 290 million being 420 million. When you look next to it, doing nothing was about 530 million. And so I think that's the risk you're talking about by not moving forward with some solution. And this solution, if it goes even half of the savings that we're showing, the programs the council's wanting to initiate and we're trying to find funding for this would be a solution to help you with some of those funding options. Speaker 1: And then just briefly, the timeline. If if you you know. Speaker 2: Yeah, the timeline is about 4 to 6 months. I mean, everything I've heard from other cities, obviously, when you go into to the courts and especially during COVID, that can delay things. But 4 to 6 months is what I've been hearing, has been what's typically occurred in other communities. Speaker 1: And when would you expect this to next? Come back to the council? Speaker 2: Well, I think in that period, the first thing we would do is and hopefully in the next couple of months, we would have a workshop to continue to have this educational period, and then we would be doing other steps during that 4 to 6 months. So you would be prepared if you want to make a decision whether to go for it or not. You would be able to do that in about 4 to 6 months from that. Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Councilor. And that's why it's been waiting patiently. Speaker 2: For you to ask, can we pull up page 41? Side 41. It just because it helped me a lot and this is the side of the city trigger referred to in thinking this was a good process. I just want to confirm this is the process we're talking about in general that the dates are clearly from when we thought this was coming forward to 2020, just right around the beginning of COVID. So not paying attention to the is this the as the general process that we're thinking the part a six month process. Speaker 1: Yeah. City manager. That's what you're referring to. Correct. Or is it. Speaker 2: Yes. No, that's correct. But Mr. Morales. Because this chart might be able to help to. Yeah. I just wanna make sure I mean, because from what I see, it's like in February, it's sometime between now and February we'll have a workshop and then we're going to come into a bunch of meetings in March, April, and sometime around May or June we might be back for that. These two council approvals at the end. No, I would agree that that is correct. Okay. So from from my standpoint, I know, and I'd be happy to make a motion, but I would. I have been doom and gloom on the economy for a couple of years now, and I continue to be proven wrong and I will be happy to be proven wrong again. But I think that if we're going to if we decide we want to take advantage of this, taking advantage of it earlier rather than later is going to be a big is going to be important because that the bond rates are going to most likely only be going up. And every couple of months we wait. Chances are it's going to cost us more to do this and whatnot. I think that there have been some reasonable concerns and raised and I think we have you know, I appreciate council member disagree asking for everybody's bona fides because it's clear that we have people who really know this stuff that we can listen to to at least provide an understanding. And then we can make decisions about what makes sense for Alameda based on the information we get. And clearly there will be a role for our city auditor and treasurer to provide their input and opinions as well. And they've both said that they generally approve moving forward, at least with starting the conversation, so that we can actually have this tradeoffs conversation and risk conversation and whatnot. And so tonight I'd like to move approval of the staff recommendation, which is to start the process with direction to ensure that there are, I'm going to say, two workshops, and I think they should not be council meetings. I think they should be workshops so that we are not stuck in this. It's 11:00 and we're trying to get out of here then to workshops between now and that first council approval whereby we can have Mr. Morales and staff and the necessary people here to really have a deep dove conversation with the council and our community Speaker 1: . Thank you. Well said. Council Member Vice Mayor, will I see your hand that. Speaker 0: I'd like to second the motion and I haven't spoken on this so it's. Speaker 1: Always yours. You've got 9 minutes to a lightness. Speaker 0: I'm not going to use all 9 minutes. I think we owe it to the city, to our constituents to have the conversation and explore. This is an option. As the experts have said, now is the time to to have this conversation based on the bond ratings. And, you know, yes, there have been other jurisdictions who have maybe done things at less less opportune moments. I don't want to be in a situation where we are making decisions out of desperation. I want to be in a position where we are making decisions based off of the best possible set of facts, knowing that we are acting in a fiscally responsible manner because doing nothing is frankly fiscally irresponsible, because we know what awaits us. And so I'm not I hope we can we can take a step forward in giving direction to come back to look at this as an option that has been allowing for a vetting process that allows for a number of different folks to weigh in, for us to have a work session as a council, and then to make an informed decision of if this is the right thing at the right time for our city. This does not exclude the ability to to look at other options and to have parallel tracks out there. I think we need to do all all of those things to make sure that we are placing our city finances in a position that is responsible. So that's why I think we should move forward tonight. I didn't hear any opposition from our our city auditor or treasurer to exploring this as a possibility and allowing for full vetting . I think that this timeline laid out gives us exactly that opportunity. So I hope we can move forward. I look forward to supporting this. Thank you. And sorry, I just want to say that it's almost double. If we do nothing, we are looking at hundreds of millions of dollars that we are going to have to pay, which really we all know creates a bigger problem. So I just I really hope that we can we can take a positive step forward. Speaker 1: Thank you. And for the maker and center of the motion, I, I don't know how exactly to incorporate it, but I, I do think it's important that we consider steps to make sure we're not. Creating even more unnecessary liability that we move very carefully forward. Or ask city manager to explore ways to minimize getting further into debt as we're judiciously paying off. Speaker 0: Where. Speaker 1: We are already. So it's okay to include staff direction as well. Speaker 2: I mean, as long as the direction is not that we should look at how we can outsource public positions, I'm happy to look at solutions. When I when I hear contractors and not hiring staff, I get a little nervous. Speaker 1: It's a broader conversation to be had, but I think it's necessary to look at alternative ways or just, you know, to explore that not to. Speaker 2: Pretend doesn't exist. I'm happy to have direction. That does not include looking at contracting out public employee jobs, but looking for other solutions to make sure that we do not increase pension liabilities. Speaker 1: To look at ways that we not raise public public liability. Public pension liabilities. Perfect. Carl Zimmer. Spence, raise your hand up. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor. So I want to ask for clarification, I think, from the maker of the motion, because there's a proposed resolution, and if I'm hearing correctly them, the motion is not to approve this resolution, but to approve this timeline. And I might be able to clarify it, which is full of the staff recommendation, which was the adoption of the resolution. Yeah, that's the way I interpreted the motion. Speaker 1: I think it was it was certainly sorry. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: Go ahead, counselor. That's right. Speaker 2: I was going to say, I mean, the city manager's recommendation is specifically that that they will start the process and come back for future votes before anything moves forward. And I believe we had earlier staff corroboration that that is the that that the resolution itself does include a step for council approval. So we are not approving the issuance of anything. We are just approving the beginning step and giving direction that this that we are committing to this timeline and process, which includes two of two future council approvals, one for the underwriter and pension funding policy in the second one following that of the the I'm going to say process , I don't actually don't know what that stands for. And I don't want to guess at this time of night and the amount of the permits. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: I'm asking I just want to make sure that the city clerk. Do you is that your understanding of the motion that's being made? From what city manager Levitt had said and council were not quite right. Speaker 0: Yes, I. I understand the resolution is part of the motion and with the additional direction. Yes. Speaker 1: And we want to hear from Mr. Morales, who's got his hand up. And then I'm going back back to Councilor Spencer. Go ahead. This was. Speaker 2: Council member. But I think it's important to note that on the left is the process and two workshops don't pertain to the actual bonding process that we do kind of hand-in-hand. So the workshops would be, for example, a community stakeholder meeting and a council workshop and or one on one, for example. So and we do this for almost all of my clients and you know that. But it's actually, I think the direction you should be to provide to workshops, for meetings, to address this topic and not specifically as an underwriter. Those are kind of internal. Just wanted to be clear. It reminds me I was just questioning them as things would be improving in the future. Speaker 1: It's still okay, Madam Clerk. Speaker 0: I believe so. Speaker 1: Okay. Is there anything we can clarify? Because I don't want to put you on the spot. Speaker 0: I think I think the motion is clear. And I think that, you know, the resolution will be certified based on the motion, which is the first step that you guys are taking tonight. Speaker 1: Okay. Councilor Harry Spencer. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor. Well, the reason I'm asking is the resolution begins. Authorize is issuance of one or more series of pension obligation bonds. And that is, in fact, the first section. Council hereby authorizes the issuance of one or more series of bonds. And I actually think that that contradicts what we're talking about here. I think that this resolution has a lot more legal significance than is being suggested tonight. Speaker 1: Either Mr. Levitt or Mr. Morales. Do you want to just agree with the city attorney? Speaker 2: He was the one who actually gave me so and I see him chomping at the bit. Speaker 1: Oh, you can me and Mike any time. Mr. Shannon, just raise your hand. Yes, go ahead. Speaker 2: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wozniak and I might tag team this, but the reason why section one of the resolution exists is that we cannot validate, we cannot bring a judicial action for a bond that don't exist. So if you are asking us to go file a judicial validate action validation action bonds actually have to exist. And that's a requirement under state law. Staff is giving you assurances verbally and in Section five of the resolution that they will come back to you before they're finalized. But if we take out Section one, there will be nothing for us to validate. Speaker 1: Yeah. I actually was going to reiterate that probably not as eloquently as you just did, but it is that process has to take place for getting started on it. But there's still some checkpoints, if you will, in the in the the timeline. But go ahead. And even Mr. Resnick, do you want to add it now? Speaker 2: Mr. City attorney said it perfectly. Section one and Section five, I think, accomplish what the council's looking to accomplish if they want to move forward. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further? Mr. Morales, go ahead. Speaker 2: Just want to clarify. The city manager really noted you cannot sell municipal bonds securities without approving the offer authorizing sale. Right. That is actually the one that designates what you talk about in your full disclosure, and it's your legal and fiduciary duty to review that. So in no way could Bond be sold without you authorizing that. And that document has not and isn't currently been generated. So there is no way legally you can issue or sell bonds without coming back to council and authorizing that specific document at minimum, as well as the amount and the size. It's just a number of things that have to be done. I believe the city attorney basically said you need to have a bond to exist in order for the judge to say, hey, I actually have this to to finance. Speaker 1: Thank you. That was helpful. Okay. I think we're ready to have a real cover. Right. We've had a motion has been seconded. We've had a discussion. And. Speaker 0: Clark Councilwoman Patricia Herrera. Spencer, no. Knox, right. Yes. Vela. Yes. Mayor, is he Ashcraft? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: That carries 3 to 2. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, everyone. Staff are consultants, our public speakers, council members. Good discussion. This is. It's complicated, it's big, it's important. And I'm glad we're moving forward on this important next steps. Thank you all. And, well, we'll be seeing more of each other, I think. All right, everyone. Goodnight. Well, not council and not, of course. Yeah. The consultants and Ms. to you can go head home. Or hopefully, maybe you're there. Okay, so now let's see. Madam Clerk, we've had signature communications, so we go to oral communications. Non agenda items. Do we have any? Speaker 0: I his hand was up for the last item. But Jay Garfinkle I guess is not for this. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker Garfinkel. Four items. Not on the agenda, correct? Speaker 2: Right. Thank you. I want to acknowledge that I understand the responsibility of being the only member of the public sufficiently interested or concerned to ask questions or make comments during these meetings. And I accept it humbly. This is a touchy situation. You know, please. I brought this up in a meeting a few weeks ago. Police departments across the country have learned that it was much better to be forthright immediately rather than delay giving out details when there's a police incident, even though there would be litigation expected down the road.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of One or More Series of Pension Obligation Bonds (POB) to Refinance Outstanding Obligations of the City to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Authorizing the Initiation of a Judicial Validation Action by the City Attorney, and Approving and Directing Related Matters. (Finance 10024051)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10052021_2021-1338

Speaker 0: Thank you very much, everyone, so quickly, because this is just the announcement in your request vote at the next meeting before the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. I am pleased to nominate Ms.. Christina mann. I miss my name is the Director of the Housing and Community Development Department for the City of Oakland. She has a master's in city planning from UC Berkeley and a Bachelors in Urban Studies from UC San Diego. She spent. Extremely well qualified. And then for the two nominees for the mayor's economic development advisory panel, where we have representatives from different sectors of our economy. And there were a couple of openings to fill. I would like to nominate Yvonne Jennings, who is the dean of Career and Workforce Education at the College of Alameda. And I would also like to nominate Dan Paretsky with Blue Rise Ventures, and that is the entity that owns Marina Village Business Park, which is getting quite a few exciting tenants in the biotech field, R&D. And these are my two recommendations. So thank you very much for allowing me to put those nominations forward at this time. Okay. And then we will move on to item number three, which is proclamations, special orders of the day and announcements. And I do have a proclamation to read and. And I will start now. This has to do with October being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer questioning man. Whereas, for 15 years, the month of October has been dedicated to the celebration of the important role lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer questioning individuals have played in creating social

Council Communication

Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Mayor’s Economic Development Advisory Panel.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10052021_2021-1202

Speaker 1: A Yes. It's a recommendation to review, comment and provide direction on preliminary needs, assessment and recommendations for development of Smart City Master Plan. And we do have staff and consultants here and they will be giving a presentation. We are promoting them now. Speaker 0: All right. I see our I.T. director, Carolyn Hogg, is here, and I know there's some consultants joining her. Speaker 3: Hello? Hello. Hello. Are we ready? Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor. Council members. I'm Carolyn, Director of Information Technology. Here to present the draft Alameda Smart City Master Plan and recommendations along with David Hoon and Monique Furman, our consultants from AI Terrace. This draft was developed in partnership with multiple departments and many community members and stakeholders. Next slide, please. Recognizing that there's a ten minute time frame for presentations. We're going to do a deeper dove into three or four of the more critical topic areas, but we will be available for questions from the Needs Assessment Recommendations memo. We're bringing this draft plan to you tonight as the city recognizes there's many opportunities to improve the digital experience or lack of digital inclusion in our city that we are now keenly aware of as we continue to live through the pandemic with much funding available for broadband infrastructure, the timing seems right to develop a plan. A smart city can be a vague concept, and each city may have different smart city plans. But this plan lays out the foundational pieces that we are considering considering with smart cities work that enable future decision making about policies and practices in a variety of areas, and on how to use data and technology to improve our community members lives. Next slide, please. So these are the objectives I identified from the stakeholder meetings that we held, and it also ties to a number of things that Council has expressed interest in recently. I'm going to focus on the equitable internet objective, which was a council referral in addressing equity, priority populations and local business community needs. So right now, a good example of the city's digital divide is out at Alameda Point, which is considered a dark area for Internet fiber, but where a large equity priority community population resides. It's also an essential area for emergency response and the location of the future veterans hospital. Because of the Stark area, the city's gym and club. They don't have wi fi in those buildings because it doesn't have fiber to those locations. And we costed it out with the local telecommunication carrier. It would cost the city $230,000 in construction costs alone just to bring fiber to the one building at the gym to offer free public Wi-Fi. The city would basically be investing city funds in a private companies fiber network rather than being used for public investments in city owned core fiber network. And David, our consultant, is going to go into further detail. Dale, on the core fiber ring, but this is one of the reasons why we were considering looking into some of the ARPA funding and the concept of equitable Internet isn't just tied to physical infrastructure, as you can see in the report, to offer free, affordable wi fi. But it's also the soft infrastructure, such as possibly establishing service learning programs in partnership with our educational institutions and other training programs for ongoing community technology training needs so that we don't repeat the unpreparedness that the city institutions did experience when we were thrown into the distance learning and remote work and telemedicine. I do want to point out, though, that with the equity priority community members right now, they typically rely on more temporary and somewhat unreliable technology, such as using things like hotspots. And that's connected through cellular service and with sporadic cellular service here on the island. That solution can be disadvantageous in certain locations compared to connecting to the Internet through fiber for distance learning and remote work and telemedicine. David's going to discuss the initial fiber runs throughout the city. That does include Webster Street to City Hall, West to Santa Clara Park Street, Broadway to the golf course with a potential link to San Leandro Lit San Leandro Fiber Network for Smart Traffic Corridor. Next slide, please. So to date the existing conditions have been evaluated, which helped us draft this needs assessment with at least 11 stakeholder organizations participating. This helped us get a very good, broad range of input from community members that represent their interest groups. Next slide, please. So these are the the stakeholders that we did meet with and for the business groups we met with the Chamber of Commerce, West, Alameda Business Association, downtown Alameda Business Association, College of Alameda, Alameda Unified School District. And for the Equity Priority Community Member Stakeholder Meetings, we met with Alameda Educational Foundation Paratransit, Alameda Family Services, Alameda Senior Center through Rec and Park and Alameda Point Collaborative and Alameda Housing Authority. So the city also presented this draft to Chamber of Commerce on September 1st. And by working with these focus groups, we feel we have a really good representation of our community in this plan. As I mentioned last week in Alameda Economic Forecast town hall meeting, which I was thrilled to hear. Alameda City will shine in the wake of the pandemic by focusing on telecommuting and lots of green shoots that community development is championing, which is has direct ties to this plan. But so noting that investments made in broadband has a direct tie to economic vitality. There was a recent Purdue University study that estimated that every dollar invested in broadband brings back $4 in economic benefits to that location. So next slide, please. So David is going to take this presentation over now and then hand it back to me at the end. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thanks, Karen. So my colleague Monique and I well we think over the recommendations that are in the report and I slightly. So we'll start with what is a smart city since the term is generally very broad. As Carolyn mentioned, there's lots of different definitions for it. But we like the way that the National League of Cities described describes a smart city as one that has developed some technological infrastructure that enables it to collect, aggregate and analyze real time data, and has made a concerted effort to use that data to improve the lives of its residents. Next slide, please. So so in that context, with a number of recommendations that are summarized in this table, for each recommendation, we have an associated timeframe as well as a high level cost estimate for each year. Not that in the time frame for some of the recommendations, it's a range. And that's because we expect these improvements to be implemented in phases over time, just due to the scale and cost that would be that would make it unlikely to happen all at once. Next slide, please. So we'll start with recommendation number one, which is to build out the city's communications network. And we really see this as the foundation and the core of all smart city initiatives, primarily because it is a required and key element to support other smart city initiatives that are built upon it. For Alameda, we envision the communications network to be primarily fiber optic with some wireless connections, and we envision that it'll connect most, if not all, city facilities and systems, and that the network will be resilient and redundant so that if there's a break somewhere in the network, there are redundant paths to keep the system up and running. Next slide, please. So we've developed this map that shows a proposed layout for the Connections Network. And we can go into more detail on this during Q&A if needed. Next slide, please. So recommendation number two is to develop public Wi-Fi. And we really see this as a way to enhance Internet availability and decrease the digital divide in Alameda. There's also an element of supporting economic development by attracting business and commerce to key business districts. Proposed Wi-Fi locations will be centered around public gathering places such as public service facilities, parks, commercial and business district areas. Next slide, please. So this map shows the proposed locations for the way high deployment locations are shown with the orange wireless symbol. And Pink Zones represents the commercial areas along Park Street and Webster Street. So at this point, I'm going to turn over the presentation to Monique, who will go over the rest of the recommendations. Speaker 3: All right. You can advance to the next time. So I'll quickly go over the remaining ones as they're all basically supported by recommendation number one, which is the fiber communications network. But recommendation number three is to deploy citywide emergency vehicle preemption, which is technology that provides emergency vehicles priority during an emergency. I mean, it just means it aims to enhance public safety by reducing response times and therefore enhancing the service that public safety is able to provide. Next slide, please. Recommendation for is to deploy transit signal priority a similar technology to emergency vehicle preemption which provides priority to transport transit busses to be able. Speaker 0: Yeah this transformation is firming of the ten minute limit for a staff presentation has been exceeded. But this report has been a long time coming. So let me see if I can get a motion from my city council colleagues here to add a little more time. It does take four votes. Can you give me a sense of how many more minutes you think you need? Speaker 3: I would say maybe three. I will go as fast as possible. Speaker 0: All right. Council Motion Councilmember Knox Way. Speaker 2: I'll make a motion to extend the presentation time by 5 minutes. Speaker 0: All right. And that was vice mayor. Okay. A motion by Councilmember Knox White to extend by 5 minutes, seconded by Vice Mayor Vella. And any discussion thing. Then we have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 1: Rotation. Yes, sir. Spencer, I knocked. Not quite. Speaker 2: Hi. Speaker 1: Vella. You were on your muted tie. Mayor Ashcroft, I. That carries by five eyes. Speaker 0: Okay, so take it away quickly. Thank you. That's from me. Speaker 3: Thank you. As I was saying, the TSP actually provides priority to busses, which helps to enhance bus service, making it more reliable, and obviously incentivizing transit to expand service on the island. Next slide, please. So this map actually shows where we already have TSP, which is in the green corridor on Webster, and we're proposing to expand it out to some of the other main corridors on the island, which do have some traffic from AC transit busses. Next slide, please. Our recommendation number five is to partner with ISPs. As you probably already know, the city is already partnering with Internet service providers to enhance existing Internet service opportunities and increase broadband availability on the island. So the city can further partner with ISPs to focus on lowering Internet costs for residents and mitigating predatory pricing. Next slide, please. Recommendation number six is to develop a dog once an installation and a dog once policy and installation standards. And this is this is a a bit of a plan to make sure that we're. Proactively building out planned infrastructure when we're already doing other improvements in the same areas. And the city has actually already begun making moves to implement this policy within public works. Next slide, please. Recommendation number seven is to implement centralized transportation management, and this recommendation includes the deployment of a centralized management system, which enables the city to remotely operated signal assets and provides key information for dealing with transportation issues in Alameda. The system has the capability to ultimately reduce person hours needed for maintenance and enables the city to fully utilize the technology that's already in place at their signals. Next slide, please. Recommendation number eight is to interconnect the EOC and city facilities, and interconnection of these facilities is an important element of the Smart City concept in that it provides centralized locations for management of city business and assets. And this is especially important in the case of an emergency when the EOC would be activated. Next slide, please. Recommendation number nine is to implement transportation, data analytics and the implementation of analytics is another opportunity for the city to utilize their existing assets to collect transportation network data . Better understanding how multimodal traffic utilizes the city's transportation network will help to inform decisions for future improvements. This data collection would, of course, abide by the city's data privacy policies. Next slide, please. And the final recommendation is to deploy traffic, a traffic monitoring camera network. And this centers on the deployment of a network of closed circuit television or CCTV located at commercial areas and Key Island access points. And these cameras would be used for improved incident management and emergency response and would not be placed in residential areas. The management of this CCTV system would also closely abide by the city's data privacy policies. And with that, I will turn it over or actually go to the next slide, please. And this this one shows a map of where we're proposing for these CCTV to actually be placed. You'll notice that they're at key points where there are chunks in the transportation network that can affect things like emergency response time or even traffic incidents and cause backups in two neighboring cities and on to the island. Next slide, please. With that, I'll turn it back over to Carolyn. All right. Thank you. So just quickly, this project is estimated at $6 million to build out that fiber network needed to begin to implement the top ten recommendations. Broadband has been identified as being eligible to use some of the city's ARPA funding, which must be spent by the end of calendar year 2026. And some other potential funding that we're looking into is the Federal Infrastructure Bill and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration opportunities. But we want to leverage those resources and look for those funding opportunities. So with this week, our next steps are to finalize these recommendations, complete the plan, and come back to council for approval. As you can see, these foundational pieces do present some ties to a number of things that Council has expressed interest in, as well as many community benefits. So as always, before proceeding with any purchase, we will come back to council with the actual cost. So this concludes our presentation and we are here to answer any questions. Thank you. Speaker 0: Well done, all of you. That was a lot of information to put into less than 15 minutes. So thank you for that network. I'm assuming we have public comment on this, correct? Speaker 1: We do. We have one speaker. Speaker 0: Okay. But before we go to our speaker, do I have any clarifying questions from the council? And I see Councilmember Knox White's hand knocks White's hand at. So calling you first, please. Speaker 2: Thank you, sir. I just have one single question, which is I'm Park and Webster Street. The city has already spent about 1000000 to 1000000 and a half dollars each for transit signal priority. And I'm curious how this plan which proposes to implement that, implement that at about the same cost, I think. How is that how is that addressing those two corridors? Are we are we just talking about transit signal priorities, often the kind of the outer areas of the city where we don't have very many traffic lights. Speaker 3: David, did you want to address the transit? Signal. Speaker 2: Question I can I can take care of that. Yeah. So the city currently does have a transitional priority on Webster Street, and I believe that was implemented as part of an AC transit project to improve the line 51 corridor that runs through Alameda. And as part of this plan, we've identified other corridors within Alameda, uh, where there's a concentration of AC transit lines that was shown in the map earlier. And what this plan intends, the intention is to fill those gaps. So along these other corridors, such as Park Street and Santa Clara and other streets where we have AC transit lines to also provide transit priority for those corners as well. Speaker 0: But I believe Councilman Alex fight was if I heard the question correctly by saying that we've already spent around $1,000,000 on TSP on Park and Webster, have we not implemented any capital single priority on Park Street yet? We miss, Furman said. Speaker 3: We have, and I think what David is mentioning is that we're proposing to expand the TSB on the on the island to provide the busses with priority to better enhance their service. So there are other lines that also go around around the island. And so we're talking about adding it on Santa Clara and Otis and out to Alameda Point just to improve that service. Speaker 0: Councilmember Knox, I did that answer your question. Speaker 2: It did, yes. So it's better. But I guess I just want to clarify. So we're not actually proposing to do TSP on Park Street because we already have a smart corridor in existence there. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: I see. Nodding head for Ms. from it. So that's affirmative. Okay. Thank you. And counsel for her is Spencer. You had your hand up? Yes. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. In the staff report early on, it speaks to that 230,000 construction cost invest in a private companies fiber network. Do we know a private company that is would that be determined in the future? Speaker 3: That was a quote we recently received from Comcast. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Councilmember de SAG. Speaker 2: Yes. On the part of the Internet service provider, are we basically saying that once we have the infrastructure, we're going to look for a partner who is going to be the Internet service provider so that partner could then potentially compete against other ISPs. Is that what we're getting at? Like, for example, are are we going to be competing against Comcast? The Sonics are are AT&T is of the world. How does that going to work? Is it going to require like subscribers and all that kind of stuff? Speaker 3: So I'll start. And then maybe David, you can finish. But the city does not want to be the ISP provider, but we do want to look into opportunities to partner with ISP providers on the city's fiber network to offer free Wi-Fi to our residents. David, do you have some other examples how other cities. Speaker 4: Have done this? Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. And to clarify there, it is not the intention of the plan for the city to be an Internet service provider and to compete with other ISPs. I think the intent here is in terms of partnering. What a lot of city, other cities have done is as as the city of Alameda builds out its communications infrastructure . There are opportunities to share that resource with other partners. Private companies being one of them in terms of lease agreements or share use agreements. So that incentivizes other private companies to expand their network in Alameda. Speaker 0: Elsewhere. Spencer, did that answer your question. Speaker 2: And answer my question. Speaker 0: Oh, I'm so sorry. It was Kalahari Desert, but then I saw cows over her. Spencer's hand go up and council were not quite so back to you. Councilmember Deicide did that? Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I think that more or less answers my question, that we're not we ourselves are not getting into the Internet business, meaning, for example, there will not be a tony de saag at free Alameda wi fi dot. Gov or whatever. So so we're not doing that, but we will have someone else. We will provide the infrastructure and we will have someone else do that. And, and, and I guess but but it's going to be free though. They're going to that someone else is going to be providing a service for free to to a consumer. And I guess at some point I just like to understand a little bit better now, not tonight. You know how that works business wise, because at the end of the day, there's still costs involved. So, you know, it's great that our our goal is to be to provide free Internet to those. So don't get me wrong, that's great. But I just want to make sure that I understand, you know, how the whoever is selected as the ISP, how they're going to carry that cost and provide free service. So. But later. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Hirsch, Spencer, then Councilmember Knox. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So I want to get back to the £230,000 for Comcast. So is it the city's position that Comcast cannot pay for their own infrastructure that is on the city to do that? Speaker 3: So the city approached Comcast to see what it would cost to bring fiber out to the gym out at Alameda Point. And they gave us a quote in order to dig the trench, lay the fiber down because there is no existing fiber location out in at that point. In Alameda point, it would cost the city $230,000 for those construction costs. Speaker 0: Okay. That's all for you, then, Councilwoman Knox. Speaker 2: Thank you. So I just. I just. I'm sorry. I should have asked this the first time around, but my understanding is that, as the firm mentioned. The main the main strategy is to build out a network. And then a lot of these other things like the transfer traffic, sorry, transits, the TSP crane is not working well, but this evening etc. would be used off of that. But that that's the first step and we could actually come back and talk about which are the which of these steps we want to implement later at a different time. Right. So tonight we're not making that decision, basically. I guess the question I have is, is what you're looking for is kind of agreement to move forward with this vision and strategy, which is to start moving forward with a backbone infrastructure. And then those other projects would come in separately after we had that, that the the broadband backbone ring that had been proposed. Speaker 3: Exactly. The broadband background backbone is the key to having the other top ten priorities and recommendations move forward. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So I have a question on page. Well, starting, I guess, on page two, three of the staff report is that the the plan with the so the top ten draft recommendations with the timeframe and some are short term, medium term, long term. And so my question has to do with on number four, the enhancing Internet availability in public places to decrease the digital divide deployed. That's part of deploying public wireless networks and also internet emergency operations center and city facilities. Well, specifically empower i.t. Management of cyber security citywide. And both of those are in the mid-term 3 to 8 years to deploy. So for equity purposes, I'm wondering if although I heard what you just said, his talk about we've got to get the infrastructure out there. But I would love to see the enhanced internet availability to decrease the digital divide moved up. And then as far as cybersecurity, I think that should be at the top of just about any list because we are all aware of cities and agencies and utilities that have been hit by ransomware attacks and ended up spending lots of their funds to get data back or to get systems unlocked. So can someone just give me an idea of how it might be possible to accelerate that or not at all? Speaker 3: David, do you want to handle the cybersecurity part? I will let you know that because we are still planning out what the priorities are. We have been meeting with our with existing telecommunication carriers. We met with a fellow cellular vendor the other day and also fiber. Well, we met with Verizon and Comcast and they are aware of our smart city initiatives. And in order to get more equitable Internet to the equity priority communities, Verizon is sending an engineer out to those weak areas with cell service to see if they can boost up their cellular signals. And that could be a really good stopgap for an immediate need. And as far as with Comcast, they've offered to come in and work with the city to maybe in the equity priority community locations to increase that. They have a program called lift zones that can increase their gig speed free for the first three years. So those are opportunities we're taking advantage of right now. But we do need to work in the cybersecurity features in a newly built out fiber corps that. David, do you want to talk a little bit about that with the newer technologies available? Speaker 0: And Mr. Hearn, before you start, I should just disclose that I think it was yesterday, Vice Mayor Vela and I joined our I.T. director, Ms.. Haug, and Comcast's government relations representative for our area, Chen Maxey, for a discussion of some of the equity issues. So so, Mr. Yoon, what can you tell us. Speaker 2: If I understand your question correctly, Mayor? I think it was in terms of moving the timeline for the public Wi-Fi. This is really in the time frame. Speaker 0: Public Wi-Fi. But I think what Carolyn addressed, that it was more. Is there any way we can accelerate the cybersecurity provisions? Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, absolutely. I think, you know, Caroline mentioned that, and I fully agree with her that as the city builds out this network, I think as the first starting point, we have to have cybersecurity built in as part of that network as we build it out. And, you know, as we talked about, you know, we envisioned this to be done in phases. So we would identify, you know, a first phase to build out. And as we build out that kind of that core, we would definitely have cybersecurity, you know, implemented as part of that because I think it would not be wise otherwise Speaker 0: . Thank you. And by the way, apologies. I slipped and referred to Ms.. Hug by her first name, which we do not do in council meetings, but sorry. So thank you for that information. Councilor, her response, which is I see your hand go up. No. Okay. Any further clarifying questions, council? Or should we go to our public comment? I'm not seeing any more hands. Madam Kirk, let's have our public speakers, please. Speaker 1: Jake Garfinkle. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Garfinkle. Speaker 2: Good evening. There is a lot of a lot of material presented in relationship to the internet services. We talked about why we talked about wireless. I think we talked about putting in fiber. You know, I lived in Harbor Bay Island, 3000 homes here, had fiber here initially. And then the city of Alameda came along and pulled all that fiber. And then I think they went out of business or the Internet service I think went out of business. So I am I'm a little bit reluctant to go through that again. Also, I have some considerations about the ability to provide adequate cyber security. You know, the federal government couldn't protect that their their employees website. I don't remember what it's called. It puts a big burden on the city to be responsible for cybersecurity. Also, we're looking at having an increased staff to maintain the services, which means more budget. And even worse than that, it means more pension costs. So I would rather see the city spend the money on fixing the roads and doing things like that and let the commercial area take care of the providing the Internet services. $250,000 is fairly trivial if you're talking about this whole picture, the 250,000, I think you said was four. Comcast to put in the service. So anyway, I think that this should be very carefully evaluated and we shouldn't be in too much of a rush to be a player in the Internet arena. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Speaker Garfinkel and our next speaker, please. Speaker 1: We don't have any more speakers. That was. Speaker 0: All right. With that, I will close public comment on item six. Speaker 2: A. Speaker 0: And just remind everyone that what we are doing there is to review, comment and provide direction on this preliminary needs, assessment and recommendations for development of a smart city master plan. Who have what we heard from Vice Mayor Vella, did you want to add anything? Speaker 3: Just think staff for their work on this. I think that, you know, there's a lot of moving pieces and parts to this. I think that this allows for a number of different options for the city, taking into account the different priorities that the council has expressed, really addressing the equity issues, the cybersecurity. I think that the phasing makes sense. This is all part of our gig ones policy as well. We do have a lot of you know, I'll need a point in in some of our areas where there is there is going to be a lot of work coming up soon. So I think it's really important that we we take the steps of putting these policies in place so that they're there when the time comes. It's already happening. But, you know, I think that we've had a lot of robust discussion around this item for a few years now. I think this is the first item that I met with Miss Hagen when I first came on board the council over four years ago. So I do want to put it out there. This this conversation has been in the works for quite some time, and it's gone through several different renditions and directives from council. So I just really appreciate the work and the thoughtfulness. I also understand that that the costs and the quotes that we're getting, that 250,000 is for one portion of all of the work that we would need to have done. So while a quarter of $1,000,000 might seem trivial for for one, when, you know, in terms of a cost for a city of our size, when we start looking at all of the places that that that type of trenching and work would need to happen in order for us to have equitable access, it really does add up quite quickly. So that that's all for me. Speaker 0: Thank you. Other speakers, I have a question for the city manager. So, Mr. Levitt, in the this report and Ms.. Haag alluded to it, there is a suggestion that $6 million of our defense could be allocated toward the total estimated cost, which is between 4.5 to $6.7 million. Now the ARPA funds come into tranches and we've received our first tranche, which I think is around 14 million. At some point, the Council will need to make some final decisions on expenditure of ARPA funds. When do you anticipate bringing that back to us? Speaker 2: Think and Mr. Bolton can also reject. But I think it was in November. Was it the November meeting or was it the first or the second meeting in November? We're looking at December where we're going to be ready for the first meeting in December. Speaker 0: That this is in city manager Jerry Bowden. A first meeting in December, you said okay. Correct. All right. Thank you. Other thoughts? Councilmember Hirsch Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So I brought a referral back in July 2017 trying to get council support to have free public wi fi throughout our city to eliminate or reduce the digital divide. That was over four years ago. Instead, I think council gave some direction to do this smart city $6 million plan. My concern is still the same thing. How do we get internet? And you know, the school district's been successful at doing this. They actually did hotspots. And I'm you know, but not all of us have kids in school. So we have many people that have been left behind during this pandemic and are still being left behind. My priority is closing that digital divide as quickly as possible. So I want to know how quickly can you do it? How much money do you need? And honestly, I'm disappointed that it has. Here we are four years later, and we still can't do what the school district has done. Speaker 0: And I did serve some of this. How aggressive and want to address that. And also I do believe in the staff report. There was an explanation of the limitations of hot spots and they they're good up to a point. Does someone want to just address that? Speaker 2: I'll just. If I could. Mayor. Speaker 0: Yes, please. Assistant City Manager. Speaker 2: Sir, the ARPA funding discussion that we've been having with council does include $50,000 for a hotspot program that would be launched by the library. So that could be a really near term implementation of the hotspot program. And then as Director Haug mentioned in her presentation, the the fiber network really allows us to build our own local system that would support greater WiFi access for people across the community. So I think that we're we have some near-term options and then we have kind of a a longer term plan to really enhance our local capabilities and take away that unstable hotspot network issue that could arise in different parts of the community. Speaker 0: Yeah, that that was actually what I was alluding to. I think Ms.. Hoggett came up yesterday when we were in the discussion with the Comcast representative that we can. Do you want to just amplify? Speaker 3: Well, actually, it came up in our meeting that we had with Verizon because the hotspots are cellular based. And so there are locations in our city that don't have good cellular signal. In my apartment complex, I cannot use my cell phone. I have to use wi fi calling. But because of that conversation that we had with Verizon, they are going to be sending out an engineer in certain locations of the city to see where those weak cellular services are so that they could boost up their signal in there in in those locations. So that's a really good first step to augment what the library can do if those check out hotspots are, you know, provided in those locations. Speaker 0: Thank you, counselor. Spencer Thank. Speaker 4: You. So I was recently at the League of Cities conference and there they shared that people or companies are using for the self-service, the street lights, that they that there's a way to use them to support this. But and in regards to which show your service, I agree. It's across the city and different homes and whatnot. But I do. But I also think that there's a way, for instance, when you bring up Verizon or Comcast, whichever one that we can be for. My focus is cellular, I think is actually fine. Many of us use cellular in our homes. I use cellular. That's what I have. And I think honestly, that's much more I personally at this point when I look at this plan, it is way more than I think I am ready to support and others may support it. But at the end I continue to think that our city has fallen short on providing the Wi-Fi throughout our city to help everyone. I think that is your digital divide, and I know when you bring up Verizon, there is a way to call them to come out and try to help out. And that's I think that's a better use of our money. But I am very concerned that here it is four years since my referral and we still haven't. You know, I, I, you know, I want to thank the assistant city manager for his comment regarding the library hot spots. I think that that should be funded and that should be a priority. I think getting Verizon out there and any anyone anywhere to help connect our phones, cellular service, I think that's the priority. But for ARPA monies, I would like to know how much money do we need to get the wi fi now to everyone across the city where we have those gaps? That's my priority that I think is appropriate use of ARPA money. I don't think the entire Smart City plan is appropriate for ARPA and if there's other moneys, then we can look at that city moneys. I think that's a bigger conversation. But for me, the ARPA monies are supposed to be COVID related somehow to help people through the pandemic. So yes, I think the wi fi is very appropriate for that use. The bigger, you know, getting this busses and whatnot, all these other things that you all have come back with. I think that's way beyond really ARPA. And for me, we have people that need money for housing, right? We know that we have possibly, you know, helping immediate needs of people is really what I think ARPA money is supposed to go for. So I am interested in hearing from you all in regards to other pockets of funding for this, but I really want to focus on closing that internet divide sooner rather than later and trying to I mean, honestly, I think four years is embarrassing. I just think it's embarrassing that we still haven't dealt with that more. But I'm very happy to have it coming through the library. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I was just. Was there anything else you wanted to add? Councilmember De Soto? Councilor Knox. Wait, before I do some wrap up comments. Councilmember. I guess I haven't heard from him, so if you want to go first, I'll take you now or. Speaker 2: The way I see it is that the availability of ARPA money from Washington, D.C. really makes this an opportunity that we must not miss. We have the we will have the funds to lay the infrastructure that closes the digital divide, improves our transit flow, as well as provides free internet through second party ISP providers. Whether this is, you know, COVID related or not, I don't know. But all I know is that is that we do seem to have the money to do things, to do these ten priorities that are enumerated here that we didn't have, we either didn't have before, or by virtue of all the other things that we have to prioritize. Just just couldn't crack the list of things. But but now the offer money is here. I think what it boils down to, though, is making sure that the the range of costs that we're estimating. It holds true the 4 to $6 million. Also, I think we do need to make sure that we we understand the business aspect, especially of a free Internet, because if we're going to say that in laying down this infrastructure, that we're going to provide free Internet to Alameda residents, we we need to make sure that we need to understand the business model and all of its potential pressure points where where that might fail. You know, we learned some hard lessons and from what happened with Alameda Municipal Power when we had our cable, internet telephone service. And one of the hard lessons that that I see that we learned here is that previously we were the the Internet provider, we were the system. So we had staff we had staff people who were, you know, doing staffing up, providing the Internet service provider. And then and they were staffed at a certain level which private sector competitors like Comcast could continuously underbid by providing continuous under in a lower prices. If you if you went with them and I think that really made it very difficult. But but we learned the lesson because we ourselves, as I'm hearing, are not going to be the Internet service provider. We are simply laying the foundation, the infrastructure that then we will find an Internet service provider. And they're going to they're going to carry the risk with regard to, you know, supposedly providing the free Internet service to our residents. But, you know, there's there's also a cost associated for that private sector provider. So I think we need to make sure to nail down the the business model of that. But but, you know, I think we can wait on that later. I think for now, I'm fine with priorities that put together largely because, like I said, this is a rare opportunity where our ARPA funds from Washington, D.C. are are being made available. And I think we should move forward. I think many times I hear residents saying, you know, we need to improve our Internet here and in Alameda as well as our cell phone service, obviously. And if this can help, particularly in regard to the ladder, all the better. So I'm supportive of of of staff's recommendation. And I like. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Desai, Councilmember Knox White. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Yeah, I'm still a little bit of a jump on my comments. I think in general, I am I am supportive of the concept of moving forward and knowing that we have until 2026, I think, some more discussion. It's just clear from the public comment and the council comments that there's still a lack of real understanding of what what is being proposed. And I think for me, I think it's great to talk about wi fi. I'm not familiar with a lot of free citywide or district wide public wi fi programs that are working exceedingly well tends to be very spotty. It seems to have a lot of problems. I'd like to have more information before I was going to buy into a program. The concept of providing that because I love the concept, but I know that there are some issues. I also know that a lot of the Smart Cities grants that came out, programs that were funded through the DOT when this was the US Dot Smart City program was announced, really overpromised and under-delivered. And I'm just a little concerned about jumping because we have money available into a quick decision on that. I will mostly limit my comments to the transportation stuff. I think that is a place where we are way over promising that there are benefits to the transportation operations. Beyond the staffing side of things, I have no doubt that there aren't some maybe staff savings in not having to go visit a traffic light and what not. But the problem that we have a transportation is people getting on and off the island. When the bridges go up or when there's so much traffic people can't get through. We spent millions of dollars on two smart corridor projects on both of our major transit corridors. And to my knowledge, we have not saved any time without either of those programs. I know that there continues to be. Oh, but if we only do the next step in Oakland or whatnot, that those things will happen. But I'm a little concerned that we're now talking about, you know, putting transit signal priorities at intersections, some of which we are currently talking about removing traffic signals altogether to put in roundabouts that. And so I'm just a little worried that some of our transportation as our transportation priorities and our goals and the outcomes that we have set for the city are not necessarily being met in the transportation section of this of this. And I'd like to be able to have more opportunity to have that discussion a little bit further before I'm ready to say, Yeah, this is the plan to me. What I hear is we need to start with the idea of implementing some form of background loop. I'd like to know a little bit more about San Leandro has experience with that because I know that they were one of the first cities to do that. And I think that providing that information and how it is being used and what impacts it really is having, I think would be really helpful to me as a as somebody who was going to be asked to identify funds to Councilmember de SACS point in my mind there's a lot of cyber infrastructure funding that is coming through both the state and the federal side, as far as I understand. And I would much rather be using that funding to fund a smart city type of of a program that then our COVID relief funds, when we already have a list two or three times longer than the total cost of programs, we have one project that we if we all if we move forward with it could fund it could take up two thirds of its costs. That gets the homeless response and whatnot. So for me, I, you know, I'm not ready to say this is this is the strategy that because I'm not 100% clear on what the strategy is. And I would like some more information really about cities that have done this, because I think that to me, the the AMP experience, they can't experience with Internet while a very different type of Internet was also a very good example of why smart cities need to be careful getting high technology solutions early on because they change very quickly. And what we found out with AT&T was that, oh, wait, it turns out that VoIP, you have to add another 25 million, that things were changing so quickly we couldn't even get up to full build out of the original baseline system before we had to go back and start re redoing the, the existing system. And so I'd like to have have more conversations, I guess as a council about what were, what were, what we're doing with this, this overall proposal. Before I'm ready to say, you know, all ten of these ideas are the ideas. I definitely am a big believer that broadband is a future that this city needs to prepare for. And I think that the ring is probably one of those first steps that we really need to take. I just think it would help both the community and our council kind of identify how to move forward with that, but also how to think about that. The ten items that get built off of that later. And now we're going to have those conversations because we haven't really had those conversations as a council at this point in time. So those are my comments. But I do I do want to acknowledge a lot of stuff. Time has gone into this. It's a lot of really good, solid work. I appreciate it. Ms.. Haag I met with the school district two summers ago with the school district and common networks as we were trying to figure out the hotspot issue. It's a very complex issue. And my only concern, even when I hear that Comcast will, you know, allow us to help pay them to do something and they'll give us three years of low cost or upgraded speed Internet. That's the the problem is when we when we when we put all our eggs in the basket of the private sector, they always limit the benefits. And after three years, everybody's painful price. And we're right back where we started. So just wanting to think through some of those concerns and how we can make sure that we're building something that that continues into the future a little bit more softly rather than with a known expiration date. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. And then part of what we're supposed to be doing is to provide direction. So I think I heard some direction from you. Councilmember Knox. Right. And do you think I wanted to ask you, do you think that the transportation related aspect of this should be referred back to the Transportation Commission with some items for them to look at? Speaker 2: You know, I'm not sure we're at that. I mean, I'm going to acknowledge that this is an issue that is not related to smart cities. But I am finding that we are having a lot of transportation related conversations in which the conversations are not actually working on the goals that we've set for cities, but are working on operational issues that don't necessarily align with them. And I'm not sure how to have that conversation yet. So at this point in time, I would rather come back here for some guidance before it goes to the Transportation Commission, because I think that if it goes to Transportation Commission, the question they're going to be asking, the question they're going to answer may not be the question that council is looking to have prioritized. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Council vice mayor of L.A.. Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, I think you know. Perhaps we could remove the portion of the direction relative to the transportation corridors, if that's what I'm hearing my colleagues suggest. I think that that's fine to have a broader conversation about what our goals are and what perhaps get some reports back about the efficacy of what we have done and kind of where things stand. Because I we hear about project by project and then time passes. But I think it would be helpful to have a more kind of broader update in terms of where we are for various transportation related plans. But that's not agenda tonight. So I don't want to necessarily get to that. But perhaps the direction is just to have staff come back relative and to incorporate this ask relative to a broader update and where it might fall. And with that, I'm fine with that. I do have a question because I think what's difficult is and I've heard this from my colleagues and at least what what I would like to see is I would like to see the city really exploring the different options available, whether those are private, publicly funded, perhaps joint efforts to really make sure that we have the infrastructure. We can't have the conversation about wi fi, and wi fi doesn't exist without infrastructure. And so it's not like you get Internet and it just comes out of thin air. Yes. There are cities that that can you can plug into different things, but they often have the underground infrastructure that allows that to occur. And I you know, I do think that there are costs associated with that. I think where the money comes from is a separate. There could be other grants. Yes. But I think if we don't have a policy in place, it's going to be very difficult for staff to go after funding or to really understand what the direction is from council. So I just I would like to hear more from my colleagues about kind of where they would like to see us go if they want to have the options about having the city really try to go out and partner in terms of the infrastructure and what that would look like. You know, I think that we really need to achieve something like that so that staff, whether it's the ARPA funds or not and I understand the ARPA funds have been spent six times over, but I just want to make sure that we we give some clear instruction to staff or at least we get to some consensus as a council. And I understand there's been various renditions of councils that have had this conversation. So I just like to understand where my colleagues are a little more relative to how we want to address the infrastructure side of things, or if we don't really want to leave it completely up to the private sector. Speaker 0: Thank you. Cause her. Spencer, I think I saw your hand up. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So I'd like to know. So I appreciate we have the library hot spots, and I don't know if staff thinks that we need more to support that or if that's sufficient. But I would like to break this down into parts. And and obviously, I don't want to tie up the hotspots or fi whatever we think we can most immediately do to support the cellphone use across the island. I think I think that's what it is. But to the, I guess, assistant city manager, is that all you need was the 50,000. Do you need more to meet that need? Thanks. Speaker 0: Sure. Assistant City Manager. Go ahead. Speaker 2: Thank you. Yeah, we have what we need through the ARPA discussions. We will be back in December. That's the plan to to get some authorization, formal authorization to spend that money and move forward. In the meantime, the the programs that the council has been discussing around housing and and the hotspots are being vetted and fleshed out. So we know exactly how much money we'll need related to specific housing projects to this technology project. So we'll have those numbers in the ARPA discussion. $50,000 seemed completely adequate for the time frame over. We're looking at that program and we'll have more information for you in December. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilor Herr Spencer? Yes. Speaker 4: Thank you. So, Assistant City Manager. Thank you. I really appreciate that answer. I'm looking forward to those discussions coming back in December. Then in regards to the rest of this, I think I agree with member Knox White of spending more time on this and coming up with spend. I guess I'm going to summarize, is spending more time on these different things, figuring out how we want to do it. But I'm not I don't think I'm ready to proceed with committing $6 million. And I definitely don't see ARPA as the appropriate use of as $6 million of it for this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Kalahari Desert. Yes. Speaker 2: Well, just quickly, the way that I envision tonight was that, you know, we have our city staff putting together a ten or so recommendations, which they have taken the time to also cast out. And they have brought these recommendations to us with regard to, you know, putting together the some of which would result in a smart city , which for some might improve transit, for others that might bridge the digital divide. And for even more, it might lead to a low cost free Internet. But but I think for me, the the the take away that I was envisioning was then for us as a council member, each of us to to raise the issues or questions that we have or then staff to come back. So, for example, I focused on the I needed to better understand the business model of how the ISP thing would work. Councilwoman Knox Light focused especially on the transit part so that that's kind of how envision this they provide us an envelope of recommendations. We then followed up with some questions for certain areas. Councilmember Herrera Spencer raised some questions regarding the digital divide and then for the staff to come back and that might result in some things falling off, that might result in so whatever. But at least, you know, they provided a starting point for us to have a conversation and to get our smart city going. And the fact that the that, you know, ARPA funds from Washington, D.C. are available great, you know, to cover that six or to $6 million but but yeah as as others have said, maybe it's not opera funds in the future and maybe there are other moneys from from from Washington, D.C., that can also, you know, help us establish this this smart city. But regardless, though, I think we have to start that conversation and staff has to hear from us what are our concerns and where where we want them to kind of focus is sharpen this smart city proposal. That's how I saw tonight going out. Speaker 0: Thank you, councilor. Everyday. So again, I would say I I'm landing in your court. There are two. I want to first thank staff for all the time and effort and the consultants for putting this plan together. With regard to the use of ARPA funds, we can debate what the correct amount might be. No one project that we're talking about, including are addressing homelessness, and preventing homelessness is going to be completely funded by ARPA funds. Fortunately, the state of California has a healthy budget surplus and has allocated even more money to addressing homelessness. So we're going to be cobbling together federal funds, state funds, money from the county. But with regard to the appropriateness of ARPA for this particular plan. I know that Assistant City Manager Jerry Bowden, we've been in some of the same webinars together and he's probably been in even more on the use of expenditure of ARPA. Funds are strict criteria. Where I do see the relationship to addressing the impacts of COVID is that the way people work has changed dramatically. And I think most of the council was at the Chambers Economic Forecast presentation last Friday where the economists who spoke to us talked about how we're not going to bounce back next year or the year after. It's going to take a couple, few years for California to come back to people going, to offices, working, you know, the way they used to. They are working from home. They are continuing to. And so we need that kind of infrastructure to support that. And then the staff report also mentioned telemedicine. You know, that is the way that a lot of people were getting the advice they needed, consulting with their doctors, having appointments during COVID and before. But it's going to continue for a variety of reasons. It can be a really efficient way to to receive those services. I mean, even in the discussion we had at our last meeting about the provision of mental health services for some of our emergency response calls, some of that is going to take place via telemedicine. And so we definitely want to make sure that we have the infrastructure in place. The the questions that I have do have to do with the additional staffing that will be needed. That was noted in the in the report. And so I would want to know an estimate of how much and where and where those funds will come from. Because the one thing I think we all know about ARPA funds is they're intended to be for one time expenditures. They could be to set up a project for infrastructure or what have you, but they are not ongoing sources of revenue. So I'm sure that's been considered. I'd like to hear more about that. I concur with the the concerns council member Knox quite raised about wanting to know more about where these kinds of programs have been used successfully. I will also say that I think there's a lot of relationship of this plan to our climate action and resiliency plan, because to the extent that we can get traffic moving more smoothly, more efficiently, not having cars sitting idling at stop signals at stoplights, just waiting for the light to change when there's no cross traffic. But to have smart signals that actually helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions until that time when we're all driving EVs, which isn't going to happen overnight. So I think there's a lot of relationship to council priorities. Should we get more information? I think we should, but I think that we need to move forward with getting infrastructure in place. The, you know, the big ones while we're doing our development out at Alameda Point, for instance, to support the residents out there, the businesses expanding business community, the different uses being made at Alameda Point. I think that's important and I don't think we ever want to underestimate our need for cybersecurity. And I will hasten to add that cities are not alone in providing for cybersecurity. There is and I know this Hogwood tell us this is National Cybersecurity Month, but there's a very important federal agency, possibly the newest federal agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, that works closely with cities, with city governments, and very closely with the National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors. So I would ask directly ask that staff come back with answers to the questions that we have raised, but with an eye toward getting that infrastructure in place, that the dig first kinds of objective dig once objectives. I think those need to be addressed sooner rather than later. Okay. So anything anybody else want to add and I want to again thank all of our staff and the consultants for all the time and this very informative report, and we look forward to hearing back. All right. Thank you, everyone. With that, I am going to close. Item six. Speaker 2: A. Speaker 0: And we will then return to the regular agenda and we have a very fun positive item to start out with, which is not that the last one wasn't. It was great. But this is 7 a.m. clear. Could you introduce this item for us, please? Speaker 1: Adoption of resolutions appointing Catherine Byler and reappointing Lisa Hall and Jennifer Rohloff as members of the Commission on Persons with Disabilities. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. And so if I can get my iPad to cooperate, I can even go to that next item. Okay. So first, we do have a resolution. We could do them all three at once. Is that correct?

Continued Agenda Item

Recommendation to Review, Comment and Provide Direction on Preliminary Needs Assessment and Recommendations for Development of Smart City Master Plan. (Information Technology 60626070) [Continued from September 21, 2021]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10052021_2021-1285

Speaker 1: Recommendation to approve the road home. A five year plan to prevent and respond to homelessness in Alameda. Speaker 0: Thank you. That's item seven B. Yes. Okay. And you want to tell us who will be presenting? Speaker 1: Yes. We have Amanda squared here. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: The Shirkey and then the consultant who I believe will give the PowerPoint here for us. Speaker 0: To man. Amanda's are better than one, right? They're both pretty amazing. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Amanda Gursky. I'm a development manager with the Community Development Department, and I've been managing the Homelessness Strategic Plan. In January, we brought on Homebase, a nationally recognized expert on homelessness, to assist us with the plan, and we kicked off work in earnest. In April, we brought a series of preliminary goals and strategies before you for review and feedback. And over the last six months, we've incorporated your feedback together with findings from our broader community engagement and assessment of existing programs in Alameda to create the plan that is before you tonight for consideration. So with that, I'd like to introduce Amanda Wagman, Director of Strategy and Evaluation at Home Base, to talk more about the plan. Speaker 1: Thank you, Amanda, for your introduction. And good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members, just on behalf of home base. Our team has been so honored to support your community in the development of this five year strategic plan to prevent and respond to homelessness in Alameda. When we last came to the city council in April, we were in the middle of a synthesis and recommendations phase of our work and shared some early drafts of our goals and strategies. And since then we have completed the analysis of the challenges and needs in the city and developed a complete roadmap of goals, strategies and action steps that are going to support the community in preventing and responding to homelessness. We've circulated iterative drafts of the plan to a wide variety of stakeholders, including the Social Services Human Relations Board, who recommended at their September meeting that the council approve the Road Home Plan. And we also heard some important feedback from the Shrub at that meeting, which will highlight during our review of the goals and the strategies in just a moment. This feedback will also be incorporated into regular work plans, which will guide implementation of the strategic plan. This slide outlines the table of contents. The plan starts with an executive summary of key takeaways from the plan and then moves in to an introduction that sets some context on the planning process, the current homeless system and data about homelessness. The Challenges and needs section synthesizes that information by identifying gaps in the system, and our roadmap lays out those goals and strategies to address the gaps. And then we conclude with a number of appendices, including an implementation plan that gives some more detail, a glossary of key terms, a snapshot of available programs and housing, and a crosswalk of the plan's strategies that shows how it aligns to the actions in the county's strategic plan. Update. The data shows us that homelessness is on the rise in the city and across the Bay Area, with a 13% increase in unsheltered homelessness from 2017 to 2019. I'll just note we don't have 2021 point in time count data due to due to the pandemic. But the county does plan to do a count this January, so we'll have updated information next year. While homelessness is on an upward trend, what this also tells us is that with coordination and implementation of the strategies in the plan , the scale of homelessness in the city is small enough that we can have an impact and much more data is included in the data finding section of this plan. But we won't have time to get into it tonight. The seven items that are listed here represent the main challenges and related needs that emerge throughout the planning process. And these became evident from research and data and community engagement in which we identified needs related to increasing affordable housing, providing flexible resources, low barrier shelter, enhancing supportive services, expanding data collection, leveraging funding and improving communication, coordination and transparency. And these challenges and needs have helped shape and inform the goals that you'll see in the roadmap. The three overarching goals. Speaker 0: Is to see for just a minute, we lost. Speaker 3: You. But, you know, I'm so sorry to hear that you're back. Speaker 2: Great. Speaker 1: The three overarching goals represent the roadmap to the city to prevent and respond to homelessness. And we highlight securing housing as the first goal, as it's proven to be the best way to end homelessness. Goals two and three are critical for having a robust front door that is coordinated and sustainable, and we look at each goal more specifically next, unpacking the strategies that support them and the challenges and needs that the goals are meant to address. In in the plan itself, you'll find some additional detail under each strategy that has specific action steps that support implementation and metrics to help quantify progress over time. So goal one is to secure a housing a future for all our mutants. And this goal includes three strategies that are meant to address challenges and needs related to affordable housing and coordination. First, for strategy 1.1 regarding assessing and using land for housing implementation involves identifying the private and public land that is available for acquisition, rehabilitation and new construction of permanent housing. With Strategy 1.2. The aim is to look at existing city policies and consider changes to streamlined, affordable housing development and strategy. 1.3 will involve partnering with neighboring cities and the county to secure sites for short and long term housing and to align with housing first practices. Goal two is to increase access to homeless emergency response services, which relates to the need for flexible resources, low barrier shelter and coordination. Strategy 2.1 emphasizes the targeting of funding to help prevent and resolve a housing crisis before someone is it is evicted or needs shelter. Strategy 2.2 promotes an evidence based low barrier approach to temporary housing solutions. And I'll note here that the Shrub provided feedback on the importance of providing temporary housing during winter months, especially here. And Strategy 2.3 involves expanding outreach and supportive services to unsheltered households. And this includes clarifying roles and methods for engaging with the unhoused community and promote promoting things like diverse street outreach teams. And Goal three is finally to mobilize the citywide response to homelessness. And this goal addresses a number of challenges and needs, including supportive services, data collection, funding and communication with strategy 3.1, we found that the community is eager to learn more about what's being done to address homelessness and how they can get involved in local initiatives. Strategy 3.2 focuses on a number of related efforts, including ensuring participation and coordinated entry and data collection, centering racial equity and the voices of people with lived experience in homeless services, design and strengthening coordination among providers. And many of our stakeholders, including the Shrub, really noted here the need for better data about subpopulations, including folks like families with children and particularly young children. This will allow for better targeting of specialized services and strengthened partnerships with organizations and programs that serve them like Headstart and more broadly. Under this strategy, the Shrub also noted their role in the implementation of the plan, including providing input on how to prioritize action steps and timelines. And the Shrub also noted the importance of prioritizing additional staff to implement this plan as a part of the homeless response system infrastructure. And with strategy 3.3, we know that none of this is going to work unless there are supportive services while people are on the street, in shelter and in housing. And the the shrub noted in their feedback the importance of the commitment to wraparound services and case management. Finally, we wanted to highlight the call to action that we included in the plan. We just reviewed a really robust list of goals and strategies, and there's a lot of important work to be done. But as this call to action notes, the scale of the problem in Alameda makes these schools realistic, achievable and necessary, and gives the city a roadmap to preventing and ending homelessness. So with that, we welcome any questions about the road home. And thank you so much for your time this evening. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Forman, for that presentation and Ms.. Kirkby as well. And Madam Kirk, I'm assuming we have some public speakers on this item. Speaker 1: We do. We have a couple. Speaker 0: All right. Well, before we get to our public speakers, let's hear clarifying questions about the report from Council and Councilmember de SAC. I see your hand up. Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. If the. Consultant or as a staff person can talk a little bit more about the what's called the Housing First approach, because my reading of the staff report and the accompanying report is that. That contrasts starkly with, I think, what's called the continuum of care model. Sophie kind of talk about that because what I saw was, for example, you referenced case management from what I saw in the report and the Housing First approach. We're talking volunteer case, voluntary case management. So whereas in the continuum of care approach, it seems as though. The housing that you receive is linked with required participation in some kind of service or or reaching out, working with a case manager 2 to 2 to go to services. But I think in the Housing First model, that that requirement, I mean, if you're is not there any longer, so we can have a discussion about that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Good questions. Did someone want to touch on the different terminology and what it refers to? Because Councilmember Desai is correct, it can be confusing and sometimes even seems contradictory. Ms.. Warman, you were nodding your head. You want to take that? Speaker 1: Yes, I'm happy to. Madam Mayor, so just a couple of key terms to be aware of. And thank you so much for your your comment and highlighting the Housing First approach, because it is definitely underscored in a number of the goals and strategies. Housing First is a an approach that is promoted by by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at the federal level, as well as by experts nationally and locally as a best practice approach to how we deliver housing and services to people experiencing homelessness. The idea, as you noted, is about reducing barriers to entry into programs, as well as reducing all of the restrictions and things that might force people out of those programs. So by reducing the restrictions or the programmatic requirements, it enables folks to get into housing more quickly and to be provided the case management and other supports that allow them to maintain their housing stability over time. I want to clarify what we mean by continuum of care. It's a little confusing because there are a few different definitions that are used as part of this field. The continuum of care, most broadly speaking, refers to all of the housing and services that are available to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness. It's also a term of art used by HUD to refer to the continuum of care. Speaker 0: Or This is where you cut out momentarily. Ms.. Orman. I'm Yuki. At least for me. Did you. Speaker 1: Stop here? Yeah, she said. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Speaker 0: Did anybody else get the message that your Internet connection is unstable? Okay, maybe we need to go back to that Smart Cities item. Miss Wurman, you were starting to say what the continuum of care means all the services, housing and services available to people. If you could just go back and pick it up from there. Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. And I apologize. That word technical challenge. Speaker 4: Not your fault. Speaker 1: So the continuum of care refers to a number of different things. It can refer to the continuum of housing and services that's available in a community to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness. It also is a term used by HUD to refer to the decision making body at a continuum of care level, usually a county level . So you might hear about the S.O.S. Board as a part of the work that everyone home does at the county level. And it's also a funding stream. The S.O.S. program is a funding stream, the continuum of care. So it means a bunch of different things. But I it doesn't it isn't meant to be in contrast to housing first. Rather, the continuum of care is the overall approach the community is taking to address homelessness. And the housing first approach is, is how you're delivering services within that continuum. So I know it's a lot of complicated terms of art, but I just wanted to create that distinction that it's there. It's not your choosing one or the other. You can very much deliver housing first. Programing within a social setting. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: He was out with an offer you see every day oc other clarifying questions council. I've got a couple cats over here. Spencer, did you have some questions? No. Okay. So when and again, thank you for all the work that went into this report. And it's just such an important topic when we talk about the numbers in around 300 people. I, I wonder, do you think that that number is even higher since we haven't been able to do a point in time count. Speaker 4: For. Speaker 0: What, two years now? And and we know just that people have been impacted by COVID and losing work and housing instability. So. That, you know, do we think it might even be higher? And I guess I would hasten to say probably the number doesn't matter. The point is we've got a problem and we need to start addressing it. But any thoughts about. The numbers. Speaker 1: Yeah. The beat. There is definitely an upward trend that we're seeing across communities. So I can think I can speak generally that that's something we're seeing. I will say that there you know, there have been a lot of steps taken during the pandemic to work on eviction prevention and a lot of resources coming down from the state . So we remain optimistic that that's going to help address some of the emerging needs from the pandemic period. But we really won't know until next year's point in time. Count that kind of comparative number. There is some additional analysis done in the plan that looks at other data, like from the Homeless Management Information System or HMAS. That's the county level data system that looks at individuals with ties to the city of Alameda and those numbers are higher. I think the 2019 number was 736 people, but that might be folks that are throughout the county that have some tie back to the city of Alameda. So it's a slightly different way of looking at the population, but that gives you some additional context on what the numbers might really look like. Speaker 0: Thank you. In addition to realizing that we haven't been able to do a point in time count for a little while now, I think just anecdotally, we have seen encampments appear in areas of the city where we certainly hadn't before the pandemic. But the. Thank you for that. And then let's see I. Okay. And the at the end of this item, I will ask the city clerk if she's able to put up on the screen this website for people to to go to to apply for emergency housing assistance. Because I think most of us know that the state's housing eviction moratorium ended last Friday or last Thursday, September the 30th, but that's at the end of this. So. Any other clarifying questions or shall we go? Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So we received a supplemental report from staff from Lois Butler and I would ask that be added to the agenda item if possible, because it has a lot of the data that I had asked for at the prior meeting. So I appreciate staff providing that. One of the things that comes up on this data is to safe parking that says we have capacity for 25 cars per day and serve 11 vehicles on an average day, approximately 21, and duplicated individuals per quarter since there's 25 car spots available per day. I'm wondering, do staff think that and that 11 are being served? The staff think that we have more than 11 in our city that could use those extra spaces or that we really don't have that. Speaker 0: Miss Butler, did you want to address that? Speaker 3: Yes, it's about community development. Speaker 4: Yes, we do have more than 11 cars within the city and we are actively going. Speaker 3: Out and letting people know that they can park at the safe parking location. In fact, we moved some folks from. Speaker 2: Internal. Speaker 4: Boat ramp over and also. Speaker 2: I believe that. Speaker 3: Some were recently moved over. So it might be higher than that because the data that I used was a little bit older than last week. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: Offer you counsel over here, Spencer. Okay. All righty. Councilwoman Dayton. Still muted on one level. Speaker 2: Thanks. So I just want to try to clarify one question. So the question, if I can clarify it, is so if we adopt the Housing First paradigm, if you will, would that mean that we would not require case management as a condition of housing, that it would be voluntary case management so a person with certain ailments wouldn't be required? Because that's what I read on page 34 of 69. So that's my question. Speaker 0: And this woman. Speaker 1: Thank you for your question. So the the recommendation and the plans the recommendations related to Housing First are about how to reduce barriers. So I would think think you're not wrong use paradigm or philosophy or approach. Like it's about how to how to make the the housing and programs that you have as low barrier as possible is you don't want to create scenarios where folks are cycling in and out of programs, but rather you want to create, create the space for folks to get into programs and then to be offered case management and other services that support them and maintaining that housing stability. So, no, it's it's not about having those requirements and restrictions. But at the same time, Housing First isn't saying that you just put put people into housing and let them be. It's about creating those robust supports and structures through the design of the program that helped ensure the success of program participants. So there's it's it's definitely more nuanced than just, you know, not requiring services, but it's about how to have trauma informed care and motivational interviewing and other best practice approaches that can be coupled with housing first to help get people the help that they need while not creating restrictions that might cause people to fall back out of those programs. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. I'm not seeing any more. Hands up. So, Madam Clerk, why don't we go to our public speakers? How many do we have? Speaker 1: We have six now. So, Priscilla, 3 minutes. But if anybody else raised their hand or got a two, the first one is Doug Biggs. Speaker 0: Okay. And you'll keep an eye on that. All right. Welcome, Speaker Biggs. I see that hand of Speaker Biggs. What do you think? Yes. There you go. Speaker 2: Good. I've I've adopted the council member. Disagree to button philosophy here, so that must be helpful. I very quickly want to. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm the executive director of Alameda Point Collaborative. I wanted to just add on very briefly about this whole Housing First policy. It is a requirement of HUD that all permanent supportive housing programs provide a housing first access to their programs in order to access HUD funding. So all permanent supportive housing programs throughout the country, including here in Alameda and Alameda Point Collaborative, our housing first projects. We like to say that case management services are voluntary for the client, but not for the employee. They do very aggressive outreach and engagement in order to get people to participate in services which they do. Regarding the plan. I want to thank staff at home base for their really inclusive, thoughtful process, that of all stakeholders, including those with lived experience of homelessness and others in implementing the strategic plan. I would hope that the Council take note of the need to serve homeless from throughout Alameda by providing services throughout Alameda, not just locating them all in one location, and also ensuring, as the one of the goals stated, that programs implemented are adequately and sustainably funded and that they have clear metrics to be able to access, access or assess success. One of the things we heard over and over again in the stakeholder meetings is people want to know what's being accomplished and how well it's working. Well, we're investing our local money. Lastly, I'd ask the Council to take note of the goal to streamline the development of housing. And I would encourage this counter to develop strategies to reduce the time and money the city and providers are forced to expend and the inevitable opposition that comes to any homeless services in the city. We don't have to look far to see that opposition to homeless services can increase the cost of projects by millions of dollars and delay their implementation by years, all while our unhoused neighbors are forced to live in unbearable conditions. Effective due diligence is good stalling tactics to deny services to homeless art. I ask the Council to include in the Strategic Plan Development Policy development of policies that limit the ability of those opposing serving homeless in Alameda from stopping or delaying the implementation of these important services. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Speaker Biggs, our next take your place. Then. Welcome speaker mix. Speaker 2: Hello, Madam Mayor and members of the Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm an Alameda resident. I'm also an architect involved in the creation of multifamily housing for all income levels in projects all across the Bay Area. The goal of the program, as mentioned tonight to secure a housing future for all Adam Alameda was definitely admirable and I think the strategy to access and use available public and private land for housing also makes a lot of sense for us. But the locations of the properties that are currently being considered for this program do not portray a city wide program. Not even close. Of ten potential properties that are being considered for the program, only one is east of Webster Street. Feels kind of like redlining. I provided a written comment for the meeting record with Google Earth Link showing the locations of all known properties under consideration. I would encourage the Council and the public to take a look at the map for themselves instead of using all of almeida's land to address this problem. The map makes it very clear that Almeida's homeless population will be housed West Webster. This leaves the majority of Almeida's neighborhoods unaffected by this program while putting an extreme concentration of homeless facilities west of Webster in spite of suitable land available elsewhere across the island. I would encourage the Council to more equally distribute the locations for shelters and services across all of Alameda. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Marilyn Rothman. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Rothman. Speaker 4: Hello. I wanted to bring up the. The idea that is that one of the first items that the Road Home Plan should focus on is the Fire Department Family Services Project to ensure its success. You know, I'd like to see some connectivity with that, and I don't know how that would work. Since we're trying to get this pilot. Speaker 3: Program going, it would seem like it would fit in here. And should we focus on? I'm also wondering, I. Speaker 4: Don't know who would be in charge of this, but who who would address those 100 plus people who only have large space shelter. Speaker 3: During winter months. Speaker 4: Who didn't have it last year because of COVID and probably won't have it this year because of COVID. And I don't know whether this is the the agency that would deal with that or it needs to be assigned to somebody or what. Anyway, thanks for letting me speak. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: We now got one more hand raised so the time will change down to 2 minutes for the remaining speakers. Right. And the next one is Maryland. All one. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker. Alvin. You just need to unmute. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 4: There you go. Good evening. I wanted to say that I have worked as a professional in affordable and supportive housing for over 30 years, and I support the city's recognition of the need to take action to address homelessness in Alameda. The road to home states that the city will purchase land and. Speaker 2: Properties to serve the homeless. Speaker 4: Population. As a resident of the West End. I have seen that to date. The properties addressing homelessness are concentrated in the West End. Going forward, I ask that a mechanism be established. Speaker 2: Around the decision making process. Speaker 4: For land and property purchases and that policy be formulated that defines criteria used. Speaker 2: For choosing the location locations. Speaker 4: Of these properties. Speaker 2: Furthermore, I request. Speaker 4: That these properties be distributed throughout the island and that the community involvement and transparency. Speaker 2: Be the basis for these decisions. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker, Harman Reed. Good evening, Speaker Reed. Speaker 3: Good evening and good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members. I appreciate this. Speaker 0: Opportunity to make a brief. Speaker 4: Comment related to the. Speaker 3: Report. I see two major concerns that should be thoroughly addressed and reviewed. Speaker 4: One is the fact that, according to the most recent unhoused count and survey, the number one self-reported cause. Speaker 3: Of a person's homelessness was the loss of a job at 26%. Obtaining and retaining employment through skilled job training. Speaker 4: Programs should be a top. Speaker 3: Priority, in my opinion. I'd like to see a substantial increase in support for higher paid workers. Speaker 4: We need to support programs that pay a living wage well above the minimum wage. Speaker 3: We expect these community members to regain their independence and dignity. This information should be included in any future reports. The second concern I see in the report is related to the availability of showers. From my understanding. Speaker 4: And from other reports that I have seen, the program available. Speaker 3: At Christ Episcopal Church is only open on Sundays. Can this please be increased to daily showers? Also, can you please clarify if the showers at the Village of Love are available to the unhoused on a daily or weekly basis? Speaker 4: It would be good to also focus on a data driven approach and continuing. Speaker 3: To address these concerns. And thank you for your consideration. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 3: Mark Foley. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Boling. Speaker 2: Hey there. Yeah, I just wanted to thank staff for this plan. I wanted to mention, with the housing on my process that we're going through, we have a great opportunity to identify sites for new housing at the same time. So I think there's some overlap there. And I think if we want to hit, are we if we want this new housing to count for our affirmative affirmatively fair furthering, fair housing goals that we have to hit in our housing element. We need to look at project sites more than just in the west of Alameda. And I think on the whole, though, this plan looks pretty good. It solicited input from all the right folks. So I want to thank staff for that. I think it's vital that we speed up production of needed homes in Alameda, including affordable housing. And I think we need to do whatever we can to remove roadblocks and stream new light or new housing, especially housing like this. And I'm just going to leave my comments at that. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Our last speaker is Janine Anderson. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Anderson. Speaker 3: Good evening. I just wanted to second Doug Biggs. We really need to streamline the process for building or renovating properties for these projects. I also strongly agree with Ben. I now live on the East End and I think that for this to be an equitable undertaking, the East End needs to participate in serving our unhoused neighbors. Especially given the conversations I've been witness to about these neighbors and the frequency of interactions I have seen between our between unhoused people and our police officers once I was off. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. And you said madam. Correct? I was our last. Speaker 1: Speaker and we just had one more person. Speaker 0: Okay, then. Speaker 1: Alexia Roach. Speaker 0: Good evening, speaker approach. Speaker 3: Good evening, everyone. Thank you. I promise I'll be brief. I just want to second what a lot of folks said, and I am grateful for all of the work that was put behind this. I think it's really important to have this sort of access, be barrier free and acknowledge the realities of what folks have been facing and are going to continue to face, especially with what's happening in the East Bay right now with the homelessness crisis. I also appreciate that the plan takes into account having people with actual lived experience being part of the planning. I think that's very important that they are part of the decisions that are going to be impacting their lives. So thank you everyone for your hard work. And I second a lot of what the prior speakers said. Speaker 0: Thank you. And you always have 2 minutes to speak. You don't have to rush of network any further speakers. Speaker 1: That does. Speaker 0: Okay. So with that, I will close public comment on item seven B and yeah, let's have a discussion, a really important topic. And you know, maybe I'll ask clarification from staff just for a couple of things or staffer or consultant that were brought up. The someone was concerned that last year and possibly this year we didn't offer shelter during the winter months because of COVID. My understanding that we did, we just did it in a different manner. Can someone speak to that? Speaker 4: I can speak to that. Speaker 0: Miss Butler. Thank you. Speaker 3: So last year, we reduced the number significantly of. Speaker 2: The people that we sheltered. Speaker 4: Because. Speaker 2: Of COVID. Speaker 3: We could not house the 90 that we normally house, and we only housed seven. Continuously. Speaker 0: Did we not, though, have hotel and motel rooms for people rather than in Christ Episcopal Church? Speaker 4: Correct. We have seven, seven hotels. Speaker 3: The price is extremely different. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Council comments. Speaker 4: Feedback. Speaker 0: Well, Ali. Okay, you go. Cause we're not quite. I prefer you to go. Speaker 2: So I guess I have a quick question that that will lead into my really one singular comment. But I'll start off by saying I think it's a fabulous report and I really appreciate all the staff work that went into it. We have had we've received a number of letters about already developed site lists for action. 1.1.8 says that we should collaborate with building planning, building transportation for identify sites for a lot of the services that are needed. Has a list been developed or are we talking about I know there was the list for the ARPA response that was put together, but I'm just curious, has 1.1.8 been completed? Speaker 0: Would like to take that. And Isabella, go ahead. Yes. Speaker 3: This has not been developed. Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. That was that was my that was my assumption as well. But I know that there have been lists and maps and things like that to the point that that a number of speakers have made. I think it would be really incumbent on us if we were to approve and move this this plan forward to add to 1.1.8, something that says that we want staff to identify ways in which to ensure there is some form of equitable. I don't want to say, you know, distribution of services provided across the island to our unhoused population and resident so that we're not assuming everybody is going to go out to the very end of the Alameda point. And we know that we have some land use constraints in some parts of our island because of about because we just have vacant land on the West End thanks to the Naval Air Station leaving or whatever else. And so we could do as a part of this list, have some list of some strategies and whatnot that could be implemented in order to make available sites across the island and Bay Farm as well for these. Beyond that, I just wanted to we we came up with the concept and we gave kind of direction last July to come up with a to come up with a strategic plan for homelessness. The work kicked off in January, which was phenomenally fast, especially given everything that's been going on. And here we are in October with a really well-written, well-developed plan that I really feel, you know, sets, you know, is yet another plan that that that now shows how we can do these things really well in the city by coming to council and checking in on goals and whatnot. So you're sure, you know, the community is kind of following along and the council's given input and whatever else. And I just think this really achieved what I was hoping for it when when I had my initial discussion with staff back at the beginning of the year. And I just want to give everybody great props and thanks. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. I would like to go. Next case over here, Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So I was not on council, and this decision was made back in July. And I appreciate member Knox. Right, sharing that history. I would like to know who chose or how the members were chosen that participated in the process. There is there was a lengthy list of people that were participants. Speaker 0: I'd like to take that. Speaker 3: I can take that. We had a kind of a tiered or a sort of multi-level process for community outreach. It included everything from a steering committee to focus groups, individual interviews, a number. A number of those were identified by staff, the steering committee, focus group participants. But then we also wanted to have a broader opportunity for the community in general to participate. So we had a survey that had over a thousand responses, as well as two community meetings. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: The community meetings were virtual, right? Yeah. I remember participating in the first. Somebody started to add something. Or was that you cast over her, Spencer? Speaker 4: Well, I was trying to continue, but, you. Speaker 0: Know, I was trying to call. And whoever was speaking, I just didn't. Didn't see who it was. It was you. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So then my my next question goes to within the staff report, there are some in the correspondence that lists addresses of sites. And one of them is this four, three, four Central Surfside Apartments. And it's this is that property that the city owns. Speaker 0: I miss Butler. You take that? Speaker 4: I would. I think. Miss Maxwell, take that one. Speaker 3: Miss that. That's a castle that we made a. Speaker 2: Loan on through through our hip. Speaker 3: Funds for security. Speaker 2: CDBG, so that we just assisted that owner with a loan. We do not own it. That was in connection with the renovation. Speaker 4: Okay. So what's the status of that property? Who lives there or is that connected to the city other than alone? Why is the city loaning that money? Speaker 0: Ms.. Maxwell Just so the public will know. When I tell people who you are, oh, I guess everyone to do that when you first speak. Speaker 3: Thank you for reminding me. Speaker 2: I appreciate that. I'm Lisa maxwell, the community development director. Speaker 3: Yes, we made that one to that fund. Speaker 2: And that was just an opportunity for him to provide an improved housing stock and to offer some affordable units as well. Speaker 4: So how many affordable units are there and how many units total? Speaker 2: I do. Speaker 3: Not remember how many. Speaker 2: Affordable units they are. I believe there is approximately 50 units in the parcel, though it's not a large it's not a large apartment complex. Speaker 4: Are there people living there right now? Speaker 3: Yes, there are. Speaker 2: And the units will be remodeled and people will potentially have to move that way. They will all be provided opportunities for housing during the remodel, and then they will get an improved unit following that process. Speaker 4: Okay so that is that building them sounds like not available for unhoused that it is separate from this proposal. Speaker 2: Yes. My understanding that was more for an affordable project for various income levels. So I think that's a little different product. Amanda, can you. Speaker 3: Speak a little. Speaker 2: Bit to the inclusion in this particular report of that project? Speaker 0: And that was which. Amanda. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 2: Here she is. She knows. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: So that project was not kind of on our radar when we first began this process. But we do talk about the importance of securing housing future for all our students. And we know that really any affordable housing can help to keep people housed and prevent homelessness, which is a key part of this plan. I don't know. Amanda Wurman If you would add to that. Speaker 1: Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for the strategy. 1.1 is where we talk about assessing and using available public and private land for housing. We didn't take the step of coming up with a list, but rather recommended action steps related to doing that analysis. So we talk about collaborating with planning, building and transportation. And I'll also just highlight we have an action step around assessing housing sites, proximity to amenities, which might relate back to some of our earlier comments about just thinking about where properties might might lay in the future. Speaker 0: Yes. Continue. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So, okay, so we did receive correspondence with addresses, right. And we had a speaker that spoke to that. And that's what I want to get clarification. That sounds like this apartment building is private property and has people living in it right now and is not really part of. And I'm going to add that is not really part of right now where a vacant parcel or building that we could put unhoused in. Speaker 2: That's my understanding, although it could also be used for very low or low, low income folks. So there's that opportunity accessed to assist people who may be on the verge of becoming homeless. Because as part of this program, as well as to prevent some of the homelessness from occurring. Speaker 4: Right. Okay. So thank you. So I get that. So I just want to try to be clear to the public, though, what we're talking about, because somehow there are there are lists that are being presented and you all got the correspondence attached to the agenda. And I think it's important to be clear to the public in regards to these these lists, what is really part of this program and what's housing that already has people in it. So that's why I was asking for clarification of that. I want to move on. When I look at this report, there is quite a bit of data in regards to the Alameda unhoused population, and I think that that was very helpful to look at that. And so I appreciate that work. However, when we get down to the goals, I'm actually not sure how many of these goals, if any, are particular to Alameda and how many and what is actually something that would apply to any city that hires this company to do this work. Because the, for instance, goal one secure housing future for all Alabamians. My guess would be that that could be, you know, to for whatever city and state and that net goal to increase access to homeless emergency response services to meet these goals. I'd like to spend more time, actually. But what do they mean for Alameda and and our plan? I look at this report and I think it's very helpful for the background so we know who is unhoused and we can try to figure out how to help them get housing where the more specific needs are. But I think that the actual goals here I'd like to spend more time on and really figure out. But I mean, honestly, the first goal is secure housing future for all immigrants. I think we all support that. But I think as I as a council member, I need more help of what does that really look like and how it's going to apply. And so these are I think maybe this is supposed to be a just a very general plan. But if we're being asked to actually prioritize and I want it more specific and I probably want it more specific from staff, what is the ask specifically that's coming to us? Because what I don't want to do is say, you know, I am very concerned about providing housing for those that need it as well as services. And we did have speakers and spoke specifically about help with jobs and that shows up in the data. So those are things that come from the data. And then I would like a more specific response from our city of how are going to meet the specific needs of our meetings that need housing and not so broad. So I think that's important for us to know what the real ask is from staff at this point. I'm happy to agree that the data part and I think that that honestly, that's something I've been asking for for a long time. So I really appreciate that work. But then now what are we going to do with that data? And what is the real ask that I'm concerned about is supporting this the goals here that are just, I think, very, very vague. And what is the real ask the council? Do we want to purchase, for instance, the bottle parcel? Do we want the marina? And things like that I think is where we can weigh in and make decisions to move forward. And that's where it's hard for me to support this. The goals other than we're using it very, very broad and not narrowing it down to this is what we're going to be doing. So I would like help from staff in regards to what is what are we really at being asked to approve? Speaker 0: Good questions council member Herrera Spencer. This Maxwell do you want to touch on that? Because I know you've been doing some work on a lot of things and also Ms.. Butler, I mean, all of you. But why don't you help us understand how have this all the work you've been doing and considerations council has been hearing about how it all fits? Speaker 2: Certainly I can kick off and then if Ms.. Cutler wants to supplement my response, I know she's knee. Speaker 3: Deep in this as well. Speaker 2: As I am. Speaker 3: So we have certainly. Speaker 2: Been. Speaker 3: Exploring very. Speaker 2: Specific projects council under her answer, and we will be coming to you with those in the near future. You know, we have various ideas. Speaker 3: For Explore and we're. Speaker 2: Exploring an opportunity for scattered sites. Speaker 3: Emergency transitional. Speaker 2: Housing. We're exploring, as you know, the battle parcel. And we've taken another look just today at the Marina Village. And we had another potential opportunity presented to that which we're sort of in the. Speaker 3: Early stages of. But all of these are on. Speaker 2: Our radar, and we have to sort of vet the potential of each of these. As you know, we've got the homekey money and the application process is opened up. So we're doing our best to gear up for that, which we hope to submit sometime in the late November, January phase. We have to interview our RFP. Speaker 3: Response providers. Speaker 2: To select a provider and look at what can we you need a partner. Speaker 3: To do those projects. Speaker 2: And so folks have offered various projects that they're interested in. So we're now speaking to them to try to identify a partner with the project if they're willing to to do with the city. So all of that is moving. Speaker 3: Rapidly forward, and. Speaker 2: We'll be coming to you soon for further information. But I really appreciate your interest in having more detail. And as soon as we can offer you very substantial details about our particular project, we'll be there to do so. But as Marissa mentioned, there's a lot of moving parts right now and we're exploring. Speaker 3: Lots. Speaker 2: Of opportunities that are looking pretty interesting. Speaker 0: Let's see if Ms.. Butler wants to add to that and then I'll get back to Councilmember Herr Spencer. Ms.. Butler. Speaker 4: I just wanted to point out on page. Speaker 3: Starting on page 42 of 69, there are specific. Speaker 4: Action steps and they go with the strategies. They are generalized and that generalization full. Well, we'll be more specific. Speaker 3: When we come to you, as Ms.. Speaker 4: Maxwell indicated. Okay. So I appreciate that. Speaker 0: Yes. Back to you, Councilor Spencer. Thank you. Speaker 4: Sir. We have a housing authority and I have a concern and I've expressed this before, is the city now is creating its own housing department. Speaker 3: No, we're certainly not intending to do that. The money that is available from this. Speaker 2: The state hope the the. Speaker 3: Home care money. Speaker 2: Is available to us as a city. Speaker 3: So we're just looking. Speaker 2: At opportunities that are presenting themselves to us. And there's comparable counting money that's presented to cities as well. So we're certainly not intending to take the place of the housing authority. We just are having opportunities like ARPA. Right now, there's a rare opportunity to attempt to do some some really great stuff and create some affordable homeless housing . So we're just trying to capitalize on those. Speaker 4: Okay. So I want to speak to that because the housing authority used to be part of the city. It really is still part of the city. The mayor nominated for the oversight, in my understanding, is that the housing authority was separated from the city to actually make it more efficient and help the housing authority to be able to apply for grants and streamline the process and then end up with more moneys being available for the cause, if you will. And I when I look at this report, I would like to see more working with the Housing Authority. I really think I do support the Housing Authority. I have concerns of staff at duplicating a housing department. And I and in other cities, the housing authority is within the city. So they would not I don't I don't think they'd be having a conversation like this. And I think that we need to try to reduce that barrier and increase the conversation with our housing authority to ensure that the majority so that as much money as possible is actually going to the cause and not creating more staff in this city hall as opposed to the housing authority that actually provides the same services. But I feel like it's starting to happen here, and my preference would be to really work with the housing authority and find out the best use of these. They're very limited funds. So I do have concerns about us duplicating their work and not really working with them. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Other comments? Council members. Council Vice Mayor Vela and just a mute. Speaker 3: I want to thank staff for their work on this. I think that that's really the objective here is to have, you know, a kind of a broad goals by which we can direct staff to to kind of follow while they explore different solutions to the problems and understanding that oftentimes with issues like housing, it's not going to be a one size fits all approach, that there's going to be much more detailed exploration and that they will come back to us once they've been able to see what's feasible relative to the funds that are available relative to the parcels that are available. I do. I want to echo Councilmember Knox White. Knox White's concerns about making sure that we have equitable access to housing and distribution throughout the city regardless of where things, you know, where we might have kind of conveniently located development going on. I think we need to and I think our staff is trying to to look outside of that to point and make sure. But I think that we have an opportunity with arena discussion, with the other conversations that we're having to really make a concerted effort to this. And so I want to make sure that we do that. I think the goals are spot on, and I think that the specifics in terms of where staff is going to be focusing their energy, in terms of exploring the possibilities, I think that that list as outlined, really captures a lot of the council directive that has previously been given. So I want to move support of this plan with the comments that have been made by several of us now about making sure that our plan is inclusive and really looking throughout the island. And I want to encourage all of us to really remember that this is the priority that we've set as a council. And when we are looking at projects and different things coming before us to really make sure that we keep that lens and that focus on equity, on making sure that housing for all and is our priority and making sure that we are putting housing first when when we're reviewing these different projects and plans. Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor. And a couple of us would still like to make comments, but Councilmember Knox White, you got your hand up. Speaker 2: Simply in a second so we can discuss. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for that second and we will continue to discuss. Okay. Councilor well, Councilor Bridges, like, I think you were starting to put your hand up when vice mayor validated some of the concerns that I'll go back to Councilmember Herrera Spencer and before I speak. Go ahead. Councilmember de SAG. Speaker 2: Well, great. Well, thank you. So these are my comments. You know, as a council member, as projects, specific projects arise, I will definitely be supportive of those projects. For example, I think whether the $15 million or so in ARPA money is for purchasing the marina village in as a homeless facility in the northern waterfront, or whether the $15 million in ARPA funds is used for developing a homeless site facility on what's called the Bottle Bottle Project, a bottle parcel near Safeway at Alameda Landing. And I'll I'll definitely continue to be supportive of these specific projects, much in the way that I have been supportive of of homeless projects since 1995, when I first served on what was called the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority. But I just don't feel like I have enough information with regard to the overarching across the board policies that are being implemented, particularly. I mean, my understanding of the way that the current way that homeless this is combated and maybe and maybe Housing First is superior to the current we I don't know. But my understanding is that the current way is that for those homeless individuals who are suffering from mental health issues or addiction issues, that progress towards achieving relief from from from their issues is is a. And part of their continued housing for those individuals who need jobs. Progress towards job training. Job counseling is is a critical part of that or it's a requirement towards fault for keeping the housing and that the case manager in this in the current system is an essential role and helping the homeless individual kind of maneuver through the different types of services that that that she or he needs to access. I'm sorry, but I'm I hear what what staff is saying or what our what our consultant is saying. But I'm looking at the report and the report itself, especially on page 34 of 69, is saying, you know, these things are voluntary. And and, you know, and. The requirement of services is kind of being interpreted as a barrier. And to me, okay, I get I get that maybe it's a barrier because I mean, maybe some people don't want services under the current situation. So, so maybe if they don't want services and they don't get housed, I think that's the fundamental argument of Housing First. But I kind of still think people need to be required to get services. And and my reading of of of of the of the report of the actions and priorities and goals is, is to kind of change that. And maybe maybe Housing First is. Mate, mate, maybe maybe it is far superior to to the previous system. And obviously, you know, all you need to do is, you know, drive through many parts of if not Alameda, then then many parts of of the East Bay to see that we have a homeless crisis even within the current paradigm. I get it. I get it. But I it's hard for me not I mean, maybe I'm literal. I'm taking the literal reading of page 34 of 69. I'm reading that too literally. But, but I just to me, services has to be a requirement of of of accessing and staying and housing. And so I hear what Steph is saying or a consultant is saying, but that's not what I'm necessarily reading. So I'll, you know, I won't support this, I won't oppose this. But but as projects come come before me, I'm certainly sure that I will support the projects as I have done in the past. But in terms of the overarching policy that we have before us, I just feel that there is still a lot of outstanding questions in terms of how we can actually require people accessing services as a condition of, of, of emergency homeless housing. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilor Brody, said Councilmember Herr Spencer. I think I saw your hand up. Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. I'm just going to quickly say that we also had a speaker that spoke about partnering with Army to Family Services, more in the fire department and what that's going to look like. Savvy. I think that these goals are way too broad and don't really are not particular to Alameda. I would have liked to see more specific work with Alameda and our housing authority. I will not be supporting this because I think we're also going to be duplicating the housing authority and staff. And I don't think that's appropriate. And I but I do appreciate the data. I thought that part was very good of the report. The rest of it, I don't think Alameda thinks. Speaker 0: So all the last. I have had the honor and privilege for the last year of chairing the League of California Cities Statewide Policy Committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development. During this year, I've also been the president of the. There's conference that's a group of the 14 mayors in Alameda County, our city managers and staff. Speaker 1: And you froze for just again. Okay. Speaker 0: I got that. Speaker 1: I'm getting it to a. Speaker 0: Stable Internet connection. Okay. Anyway, Alameda County Mayors Conference. I'm part of the The Mayor's Homelessness Working Group and that's chaired by Berkeley Mayor Jesse out again. What I will tell you as far as thinking that policies are cookie cutter could apply anywhere. We have a statewide housing crisis. We have hundreds of thousands of homeless individuals in this state. California, the fifth largest economy in the world. And yet we have residents sleeping in creek beds. Railroad rights of way under freeway overpasses along our streets, you name it. What we need is solution, not more talk. I've also had the privilege of a of a hearing from cities around the state that are doing some really innovative things to start eating away and solving this crisis. And that's what it takes, one project at a time. I've also had the privilege of accompanying staff on a couple of field trips, while I think I organized the first one and they came with me and then I tagged along on the second. So we have seen actual successes. We have seen what it looks like when you put people into supportive housing. It doesn't take a lot of money to put it up. There's various ways of doing it, but it comes with wraparound services. And when the people are there and when they have the job counselors, the mental health counselors, the substance abuse counselors, the counseling for their children and assistance with finding jobs and getting coaching for the interviews, magic starts to occur. But you need to give people a chance. What we don't need is to talk this to death. We need to take action. At some point, you've got to stop talking and actually take action. And I think we're really close to doing that. I completely agree with the motion the second that was made. I also would ask, and I think it was raised by in some of the comments, metrics, measurables, that's really important. We talked about that a lot in the Mayor's Conference Working Group. How do we know what's working, what needs to be tweaked? And I think and again, we are working with subject matter experts. I know from Ms.. Maxwell that staff is in the process of interviewing some really innovative, exciting service providers who have had successes in other areas where they have been, you know, provided the resources for this support for these kinds of supporting supportive housing. But let's get metrics incorporated so we know what we've accomplished, what might be changed, how far we've come. I completely agree that we and we've asked staff and I and I do believe that they're working on it, that we need to find ways to reduce these barriers brought by, I'll say, NIMBYs, who find every different way of opposing the kinds of supportive housing that addresses the kinds of needs we've been talking about. I give you the example of the wellness center. And so we do need to find a way to minimize the number of objections of roadblocks and barriers that are thrown up. And I think I know the time is now to do this. I also commend the the consultants for including people with lived experience in this conversation. It was a suggestion I made after the first meeting. I participated in that first one, and I thank you so much for bringing this report to us. I'm fully ready to support it. So we are going to take the vote. And then I do want just that minute to to make the announcement. Or, Madam Clerk, if you have a way of putting up on the screen. Speaker 1: We did. Sarah Henry forwarded it. I was ready to go. Speaker 0: You know what? I sometimes say this Henry is the other half of my brain, because I was getting ready to say if Miss Henry could provide that, because I was actually looking at the press release that she had done. So perfect because we're not quite. I saw your hand go up. Speaker 2: Thank you. Just ahead of the vote, I just wanted to expand my my support for this beyond the fact that it was just good work. You know, for me, this is a strategic plan. It's not supposed to be telling us what we're doing, where it's supposed to be the guiding principle. And I appreciate this butler pointing out I counted on there are 51 specific actions in here, all of which are the actions that will be taken to lead us to the outcomes that we want. And I also just wanted. Again, not for my colleagues, but for the 39 people who are watching. Housing First is not a new thing. It's an old thing. It actually went away during the Reagan administration and other times when they wanted to start making people have to do things in order to get housing. And what they learned was that until you have housing, you cannot be ready to go through drug treatment, mental health treatment, job training, etc.. And over and over and over again, the studies that have been done around this have found that you have to have a housing first program in order to get people to take those. And so I don't I take this very enthusiastically supporting the Housing First policy that is embedded here. It is also the direction of our county that we are already following, etc.. But, you know, my comment, and I'm sure most of my colleagues comments when they were interviewed by staff on this was like, I want a plan that that actually does something that gets us to success and it starts to starts to do that work. And yeah, I believe this is the plan and I look forward to support it. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, madam. Quick, may we have a roll call? Vote, please. Speaker 1: Celebrity soccer. Speaker 2: EPSTEIN Sorry you couldn't find her. Speaker 4: SPENCER No. Speaker 1: Not quite. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 0: I may or as he Ashcraft. Absolutely. Speaker 1: I carry my three eyes. What? No one abstention. Speaker 0: And we can show that they make you feel like. Yes, yes. So I just want members of the public I don't want anyone to experience housing insecurity or, God forbid, homelessness. So you can call two, one, one. You can also go online to this website w w w that ac dc housing security dot org and was there not also an 888 number are two and one. I'll do it. Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know if anybody here knows. I don't have Sarah. I've. I've got. Speaker 0: It. But is it. Is it. Can you actually. Speaker 3: When will be fine. Speaker 0: Too. And when will be fine. Okay. Anybody who's watching take a photo with your with your cell phone and just keep that handy. Yes. And just keep that handy for for your reference and go there today. You can download the information or two and one will help walk you through. You are eligible. You may be eligible. Don't second guess. But for 12 months of back rent and three months of forward rent paid for in full, it goes to your landlords. This is a program that helps landlords. It also will pay for unpaid utility bills. And Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is so serious and concerned about the fact that these funds just aren't getting out the door and getting spent fast enough that self attestation is all you need for some of the documentation about loss of income and employment history and that sort of thing. But please call two, one, one or visit AC dash housing secure dawg and do it now. Thank you, Madam Clark, for sharing that with us. Counsel We are going to take a brief break because we've been at this almost 3 hours, which violates my Zoom rule. So it's 943. Let's be back at 955. Staff consultants, thank you so much for providing presenting this wonderful, truly life saving, life changing information. And we look forward to next steps. Thanks, everybody. We'll see you at 955. Okay. Okay. I'm counting noses. Who do we have? Who do we have? Lara. Speaker 1: Well, let me see if I can get Councilmember De Soto. I know he's in there. Hold on. Speaker 0: Oh, yes. Okay. Okay. And. I think and I think down there we have council member knocks, weights and. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 0: And we've got city manager, assistant city manager, city attorney. I think we're good to go. What do you think we are? Speaker 1: I think. Speaker 3: So. Speaker 0: All right. Ready? Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. Speaker 0: Welcome back, everyone. We're back from our recess and we are going to go right into item seven. See, Madam Clerk, if I could ask you to introduce that item first, please. Speaker 1: Adoption of Unqualified Urgency Ordinance Continuing the suspension during the local emergency due to COVID 19 pandemic of certain provisions of the City Sunshine Ordinance to the extent inconsistent with Assembly Bill number 361, an executive order number 1521 of the Governor of the State of California, arising from the state of emergency caused by the COVID 19 pandemic and recommendation of findings to allow city meetings to be conducted via teleconference. And I will continue on to briefly introduce this item, if that's okay with. So basically, the city has been conducting these remote meetings with under a executive order of the governor that suspended some of the provisions of the Brown Act.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Approve The Road Home: A 5 Year Plan to Prevent and Respond to Homelessness in Alameda. (Community Development 10061831)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10052021_2021-1333

Speaker 1: recommendation of findings to allow city meetings to be conducted via teleconference. And I will continue on to briefly introduce this item, if that's okay with. So basically, the city has been conducting these remote meetings with under a executive order of the governor that suspended some of the provisions of the Brown Act. And so specifically, we didn't have to disclose the locations and open them to the public of anybody participating remotely. And so the assembly passed a bill and the governor in September approved it. And it puts new provisions into place that require the city council to make findings every 30 days that continue to allow us to suspend those Brown Act provisions. So this report is before each night, along with at the beginning of the pandemic, you adopted an emergency ordinance suspending some of the Sunshine Orders regulations, and that is before you again as well, so that meetings continue in the same fashion. Speaker 0: Okay. And any clarifying questions from the council? And do we have public speakers? Speaker 1: One speaker, Jay Garfinkel. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Welcome, Speaker Garfinkel. Speaker 2: That evening. I would appreciate it if somebody would explain what is meant by an unqualified ordinance versus a regular ordinance. It appears that we're doing this in order to comply with some state law or regulation. If you recall, when we were dealing with Article 26 of Measure eight, we said that even though there is a there's a disagreement, that we will go along with the idea that whatever the state says we have to do, we don't have to necessarily get rid of Article 26. My concern is that this is a backdoor way of continuing to call a state of emergency in Alameda, which we clearly no longer have. I would point out that in the charter section three, dash 11, it says that no ordinance shall be passed within five days of when it's introduced. This is the first introduction, I believe, of this, except when it's for immediate preservation of peace, help or safety for an ordinance enacted in the event of great emergency or necessity. Yes, the pandemic has is continuing, but we are no longer in a state of emergency. There is absolutely nothing that the city council would have to do on an emergent basis to respond to the COVID 19 situation. If an emergency arises, you can declare an emergency at that time. I just don't see any reason to continue the state of emergency. What it does really, in effect, say, get out of jail free card for the city council so that when it pleases you, you can ignore some of the regular rules. And I think that's somewhat disingenuous. I would also point out that the usual parliamentary procedure is that when a motion is made, the wording of the motion is entirely spelled out. It's totally inappropriate to say, Yeah, we're going to do what it says above the whereas is disappear once you pass the motion. So you can't say we're going to do whatever the whereas has said we're going to do. So I think that whole lot has to be rewarded. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Do we have any more public speakers than we did? Speaker 1: We have four more. The next one, Beth Kenny. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Kenny. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I am asking tonight that you support this measure. I've had the pleasure of serving on the Commission on Disability for the past seven years, and if the meetings are not to. Speaker 4: Be accessible remotely any more, I'll be forced to resign as a person with an autoimmune. Speaker 3: Disease who having three doses of the vaccine already, I still don't have any immunity to COVID. I also have a four year old who cannot get a vaccine yet, so. Speaker 2: The emergency. Speaker 3: Is not behind us. This needs to happen. Speaker 4: This needs to make it accessible. This is making these positions accessible to all. So I ask that you support and make these meetings accessible for both members and the public. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, speaker kenny. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: We now have seven speakers at the time, one or two, 2 minutes, and the next speaker is Janice Anderson. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Anderson. Speaker 4: Grieving. Speaker 1: I just want to. Speaker 3: Echo what you just said. I mean, I don't have children, but I do interact with them. And none of the children that I know are vaccinated. My brother is immunocompromised. He's the only contact I had during the pandemic for the first six months. So I. I can't go sit in a room with a bunch of people I don't know are vaccinated at these meetings. And I just think for accessibility reasons for, you know, immunocompromised, disabled people, I think that we need to continue this in a Zoom format. And contrary to popular belief, this pandemic is not over. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Savannah chair. Speaker 0: Good evening, speaker. Chair. Speaker 3: Hi. Thanks for having me tonight. I just want to echo what both refugees just said and also just maybe mention that if it could just be on council's mind, I guess as we if we ever exit the pandemic situation that we think about this accessibility issue in general with public engagement, it's really, really helpful for folks with many barriers to be able to access these meetings online and from the comfort of their home. And if there's a mobility challenge or just straight up just getting to the building to go to the meeting can be really challenging for some folks. So just hoping that that can be considered as we move ahead. But I really do appreciate the you know. Urgency of keeping it keeping it online now, because there are many people who are not vaccinated is out there. So so in order to create that community protection, this is really important to continue to support. Zoom Meeting Access for folks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Q Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Zach Bowling. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Bowling. Speaker 2: Either Council. Yeah, I supported AB 316 through the legislature. I called in at every one of the meetings to get this passed all the way from the Assembly through the Senate. And it's one of the bills I supported. I also supported AB 339 that unfortunately got neutered a little bit in that it only now affects the 15 largest cities, but it also emphasizes the importance for remote access to government meetings to make them more accessible. We had an open government item that I asked one of our commissioners to refer, and that ended up developing into a letter that was sent to council urging the importance of remote access to meetings from complete accessibility of government stance of why it's important that more people can now attend meetings that otherwise couldn't, and that that goes more with just working individuals, but also people that are immunocompromised. So this is an issue that I care about a lot. I think it opens up government to more people than people that can just come and attend. And I would be very supportive of a measure that would add the language for continuing meetings forward to our Sunshine Ordinance and making it a core part of our open government stance in Alameda to to make sure that our government meetings are accessible to more people remotely as we go forward. And I will end my comments there. Thank you much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next. Speaker 3: Speaker. Speaker 1: Alexia Rocha. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Rocha. Speaker 3: Hi, Nick. And I definitely second what our speakers have been saying and I support that accessibility, especially through these Zoom meetings. I hear that the first speaker doesn't think we're in a state of emergency. I know very many people who feel very much are still operating in the state of emergency. And I think we need to think about everyone. And earlier on this call, I was encouraged to hear folks talking about the equity and access for all in different areas. And I think this is a way to support that. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker Roach our next speaker. Speaker 1: Deborah mendoza. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Mendoza. There you are. Hello. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 3: Good evening. And I would also like to give public comment that I support the continuation of remote meetings not only now, but forever. And yeah, for anybody who has ever gone to a city council meeting in person attending by remotely is is just so much more manageable, convenient, let alone. Yeah. Speaker 0: Regardless of the situation, more. Speaker 3: People can be involved, engage, and let's just keep it going. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Kenny, has raised our hand again, so we'll see if it's somebody else using the same line. Okay. I cannot speak again. All. Speaker 0: All right. Who do we have? Speaker 1: Looks like it might have been an error. So we'll go ahead and go on to the next one. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Speaker 1: Laura Katrina. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Katrina. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I wanted to voice my support for continuing to host city council meetings online and zoom in the future. I echo what's been said around the accessibility piece, and it's it's critical that if we want to create more involvement and engagement with the city in our processes, that we make these accessible instead of in-person exclusive meetings. So thank you so much for. Making that happen. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Melody Montgomery. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Montgomery. Speaker 4: Good evening. Hello to the council. Seems like we're the same. Speaker 2: Group. Speaker 4: Meeting all the time. I would like to also get behind the staging with the remote type of access for meetings even into the future. I know that personally I have like chronic bronchitis and so out there is still scary for me. Some people say that the pandemic the pandemic is over, but it's not over for me. Speaker 2: I still don't feel comfortable in large groups of people. I would not feel comfortable coming to city council in that little tight, cramped room with hardly any air like we did for so. Speaker 4: Many years. Speaker 2: Before on instances. And still, I. Speaker 3: Just would. Speaker 2: Really support. Speaker 4: And like you to support the. Speaker 2: Continued access to all of our meetings through and. Speaker 4: Through, through Zoom or whatever, whatever digital access you have. But I think that it's. Speaker 2: Important not just for me, but for other people that maybe don't have transportation, can't. Speaker 4: Get there, have other physical disabilities. Speaker 2: That keep them from sitting in a room three or four or 5 hours waiting for an item to come up. Speaker 4: And so thank you for listening. Speaker 2: And I'm okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: And this is our final speaker. It's Carmen Reid. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Reid. Speaker 3: Good evening again and thank you for allowing me to speak. I wholeheartedly agree that two meetings are a great way for the public to engage and to access meetings. And I think that this is definitely, you know, here for the long haul and they should continue. Now, I'm also wondering, and I'm not sure if he or if the urgency ordinance is required to continue with the Zoom meetings. So I'm hoping that the Council can please clarify that it doesn't seem like you have to have one to have the other. So. So. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. With that, we have no further speakers. Correct, madam? Sporadic. Okay. With that, I will close public comment on item seven. See? Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 0: Council discussion are ready for a vote. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Speaker 4: Mayor. So I'd like to know how this or declaration or ordinance and codified ordinance differs from the declaration of the existence of local emergency that we do. You know, I think it's like every other month or something like that under government code section 8630. See if this has any impact on that. Speaker 0: Madam Clerk, did you want to address that or. Mr. SIM City Attorney. Speaker 1: I see that the city attorney I needed. But yeah, the first thing that the a the bills that was just passed pertains to a different section of the government code that is known to refer to as the Brown Act. And the other resolution passed every 60 days under the different government code section. So this has to every 30 days has to be and the findings have to be made by the City Council. And then the other one is separate. It has to return on a 60 day basis. So they are two completely separate things. And I guess the attorney could weigh in on the ordinance if he wants to. Speaker 0: City Attorney Benson, may we hear from you? Speaker 2: Sure. Thank you, Madam Mayor and council members. The council adopted an urgency ordinance at the beginning of the pandemic, suspending certain provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance. And this ordinance simply continues that with respect to AB 361, the reason that ordinance was previously adopted by the Council and the reason we brought forward this ordinance to you is that one could interpret the Sunshine Ordinance to require that a place of the meeting be City Hall and that attendees by remote meetings would have to provide that place of meeting for members of the public. That would have been the law prior to the pandemic. And in the interest of consistency with state law and in the excessive caution to reduce the potential for sunshine complaints, we brought that ordinance to you in the beginning of the pandemic, and we do recommend you adopt this ordinance tonight. Speaker 0: Thank you. Counsel rehearse. Speaker 4: Spencer Thank you. I want to follow up because I have voted no on this 8638630c subset of S.C. ordinance. And it's come to us and I want to make sure that by voting advice support this one that's in front of us today that that's not conflicting with the other votes that we've taken. On the other issue, it's very similar. Speaker 0: Mr. Chan. Speaker 2: Councilmember So this ordinance is similar, but it is also different in the findings that the council has to make is that, one, there is a state of emergency declared by the governor, not by a local agency. So I think that is different than the previous vote that you made, which declares a local emergency. The second finding that you would have to make essentially here is that public health officials continue to recommend social distancing and other pandemic related activities, and that in-person meetings would be a hindrance to the public health emergency that's been declared by the governor. So while they are similar, I do see that there are nuanced differences. And of course, how you vote is certainly the council members perspective. Speaker 4: Thank you. I appreciate that explanation. So then my next question or concern goes to I think we've talked about having a hybrid moving forward at some point where we would have allowed people to come in. And I and there are some people I know that want to be able to come and have concerns doing this zoom and have issues and don't feel that it's as accessible during the remote as they like to do it in person. And I was wondering if and I thought we were trying to come up with a way to do a hybrid where people could come, but they could also still continue to do it. And via Zoom. Speaker 1: Matt. American? Yeah. Speaker 0: I was going to say the city clerk or the city manager, but. Madam Clerk, why don't you take that? Sure. Speaker 1: So the provisions that are outlined in this Assembly bill pertain to the members so that all of the bodies, the city council and board and commission members. So this action tonight is specifically to allow you all to continue remote without having to disclose your location and allow members of the public in. If it's a remote location, it does not pertain to the members of the public. However, if we continue meeting this same fashion, the city hall will remain closed and the public will have to participate by calling in or participating on Zoom. Speaker 4: Okay. So do we have any idea of when we think we're going to allow the members of the public to come and speak in person? Speaker 0: A city manager. Mr. Levitt, do you want to speak to that or I mean, this way? I figure if you had a response, please, right ahead. Speaker 2: Mr. Levitt. I think that's why a singer would be better, because she's been the one definitely coordinating it. We were looking and she can correct me, but we were looking at the we would have the hybrid once the council started me in person. But I want to give this white singer the chance to clarify if if I'm wrong in that. Speaker 1: Correct. That was exactly what we were looking at was once the council resumes in-person meetings, then we would implement a different type of system. Speaker 4: Okay. So we recently had a swearing in of police officers at the library, and that was inside. And there were many members, many of us here were there in person and members of the public as well. And so I know that the city is, in fact starting to do in-person events, socially distanced. And I would like its I mean I would like the city to come back with a plan of when we will be able to meet in person, socially distanced and honor the COVID protocols. But I, but I am concerned that there are people, I think, that do want to that I would like us to come up with a hybrid so that people that are unable, if this is possible, legally, so that members of commissioners, council members who have concerns, if you will, and then open open it up and go to more in-person meetings so to facilitate the public's input. And I would like to hear more from members of the public, but I have heard from some that they really have difficulty doing this zoom process and accessing. And as we spoke about the digital divide, not everyone has the ability to sign in and be on here as much as many of us do. And they have they have like I personally come to city hall to do this because I would be losing the Internet from my home. I simply don't have that ability where I live to to be online and not lose reception. So I know that is a real phenomenon that happens to people here in Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm vice mayor of L.A.. Speaker 3: I want to speak to the fact that the state of emergency, the pandemic has not is is not over. I think that there is a marked difference between an outdoor event or a brief event, that versus an hours, hour, many hours long council meetings wherein you would be in close proximity or Border Commission meeting. Because this decision is not just about the council, it's about our boards and commissions. And I don't think that our volunteers should have to put their health and safety at risk or their families in order to serve. I think we ask a tremendous amount of those who serve on our boards and commissions. One need only look at the minutes of the meetings or view them to see how long some of these meetings can last. And I think, you know, basically forcing folks to have to disclose their home address or, you know, explain why they're not there in person when they're serving on a board or commission as a volunteer. I think that that's irresponsible of us. And I think, frankly, when we talk about equity and inclusion and everything else, it goes completely against that. We've heard from members of our boards and commissions, people who are already serving about how not doing this would impact their ability to continue to volunteer. I think we need to take that into account. You know, I know that we would all like the pandemic to be over tomorrow. I certainly would. I would like to be able to see family members and friends. I you know, I I'm speaking as somebody who has two children who even when the FDA approves the vaccine for elementary school children, they're still not going to be able to get vaccinated because they're younger than than five years old. I think we all have, you know, multigenerational families, family members and other members of our household who might not have the same robust health that we do. We need to take all of these things into account. And I would hope that we govern in a compassionate way. And I see this as allowing us to do that and allowing us to be very inclusionary with the members, with our constituents who are volunteering to serve on our boards and commissions. And so that's why I'll be supporting this tonight. I think that this you know, this will need to get reauthorized. There will be other opportunities. Of course, we will be reassessing. I just think that this allows us to address the fact that we are coming up into the same period of time that we saw a huge spike last year. The biggest spike in terms of COVID related cases came around Halloween. That was the start of kind of a long period where folks were getting infected. We've seen a number of breakthrough cases. I know we all know this. I just don't want people being afraid to step up and serve because we're forcing them to disclose personal information like their home address or things like that in order to serve remotely. So I just, I, I very much support this. I know that we'll continue to look at this issue and reevaluate as conditions change. Speaker 0: Did I hear a motion in the making? Speaker 3: That's in motion. Speaker 0: All right. I thought I might have. Elsewhere. We're not quite. Speaker 2: Second. Speaker 0: I was reading your hand. I thought that might be what it was. All right, we have a motion. We have a second. Do we have any further discussion? SINGH Councilmember Harris Spencer, thank you. Speaker 4: So when this comes back and I'll I'll support it now, but I, I do want to figure out if we're going to be doing this. You know, we are not going to go back to in-person meetings at all for anyone that does want prefers up or if we're going to do this indefinitely, because at some point we have been talking about a hybrid. And I think that that might be at least I'd like to consider a hybrid model. And definitely not saying that anyone from any commission has to show up in person, but trying to figure out legally how we could do a hybrid model at some point. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. We've had a motion. We've had a second. May we have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 1: And so I'm pretty shocked. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: Sir. Spencer, I knocked. Hi, Ella. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 1: Mayor Ashcroft. Speaker 0: Yes. Carries by five. Thank you. All right, we move on to item seven D. Madam Kirk, would you introduce this item? Speaker 1: It is a public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending Master P Resolution 121912 Revised fees for fire department services and permits.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Uncodified Urgency Ordinance Continuing the Suspension During the Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic of Certain Provisions of the City’s “Sunshine Ordinance” to the Extent Inconsistent with Assembly Bill No. 361 and Executive Order N-15-21 of the Governor of the State of California Arising from the State of Emergency Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic [Requires four affirmative votes]; and Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via Teleconference. (City Clerk 10022020/City Attorney 10023040)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10052021_2021-1188

Speaker 1: It is a public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending Master P Resolution 121912 Revised fees for fire department services and permits. Speaker 0: Thank you. And who is presenting this one? Mr. Levitt. I know, but help me out. Who is. Speaker 3: Presenting? Okay. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. We're promoting the interim fire chief right now. Speaker 3: Sorry. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 1: Remember the fight? Speaker 0: Got it. Okay. Okay. Ready when you are. Hello. Interim chief is on Beck. You're still there. Speaker 2: Good morning or good. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And Council rookies on Beck Interim Fire Chief. So I don't know that there's a presentation to be had here. I'm here to answer questions, but I can certainly fill in for anything that you or any questions that you have and you have a report in front of you. There's previous history with this. As you all know, it was in front of you in July and it got you know, it got extended to this evening. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 2: Listen, my answer or what can I answer for you? Speaker 0: Sure. Counsel, do we have any I should ask Madam Kirk, do we have public speakers on this item? Speaker 1: Do you not? Speaker 0: All right, then. I'm closing. Speaker 1: Come on, just raise your hand. Speaker 0: I'm not closing. Public comment. Let's hear a public comment and then come back to council questions and discussions, if we could. So let's go ahead and hear from our public speaker. Speaker 1: We have two now, Beth Kenny. Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, Speaker Kenny. Speaker 3: How do you think? I am hoping to. Speaker 4: Learn a little bit more about these fees. Speaker 3: I am concerned about whether they will be. Speaker 4: Applied to people who. Speaker 3: Are getting services through the alternative response team that will be based out of the fire department and because that will be a real barrier to service. Speaker 4: So I just want to make sure that. Speaker 2: These fees are. Speaker 4: Not being applied. Speaker 0: Oh. Speaker Kenny, you cut out there. Madam Clerk, is she. Are they still with us? Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm not sure. We could go to the next speaker and ring. Speaker 0: Let's try that. Speaker 1: Speaker, can you back? Okay. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: The next speaker is Jennifer Rakowski. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Rakowski. Hi. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 3: Counsel. Speaker 4: I would like to echo what best was starting to say as we transition more services over to the fire. Speaker 2: Department. Speaker 4: And we reimagine the mission. Speaker 3: Of the fire department. Speaker 4: I think we need to keep in mind these and the impact of the fees. Speaker 3: On our most vulnerable members of our community. Speaker 4: I urge you also to look with a racial equity lens and to some of the comments about city fees that the racial equity task forces highlighted. And even as these reports highlight, there's a lack of transparency about how much of the fees are recovered he needs to pay. I've heard reports from members of the community where they initially attempted reimbursement through their health care provider and if they rejected a out of service payment. So whether it's hardship provisions, increased transparency and looking at fees as it relates to the expanded mission of the fire department, I think there is. Speaker 2: A. Speaker 4: Whiff that the resolution. Speaker 3: Is silent on. Speaker 4: That the council should take up. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: We'll try Speaker Kenney again and see if she can speak. Speaker 0: Yeah, I think we've been having Internet issues. There you are. Hi. Speaker 3: Hi. Thank you. Sorry, I'm not sure where I got cut off, but basically I was just saying I want to. Speaker 2: Make sure that these fees. Speaker 3: Don't apply to the alternative response model that's going to be based out of the fire department. And I do think that we need to look at these fees and how, as Speaker Koski was saying. Speaker 4: They are collected. Speaker 3: What portion are actually getting passed. Speaker 4: On to individuals and is there. Speaker 2: Income based. Speaker 3: Considerations? Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Deborah mendoza. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Mendoza. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 3: Good evening. Speaker 4: I also want to. Speaker 3: Share my concerns when I when I. Speaker 4: Heard that. Speaker 3: There potentially could be a fee to those who receive services. I'm just very opposed to that. Speaker 0: When I worked. Speaker 3: With victims of crime, a lot of times I've seen situations where victims are charged for an ambulance that was brought dispatched for their for their own care. And we don't need that at all. Speaker 0: And especially when. Speaker 3: We consider the people that are going to be. Speaker 4: Receiving these services most likely are marginalized, our. Speaker 3: Most vulnerable members of our community. Right now, this whole state of California has just eliminated fees for, you know, juveniles. Speaker 0: Who are facing the criminal. Speaker 3: Justice system. We do not need to have a share of this. Costs go. Speaker 0: To the people who are. Speaker 3: Receiving these services, especially with this with this national model, do not do not fit the bill to the people who will be receiving services. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Melody Montgomery. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Montgomery. Good evening again. Speaker 4: I was going to say a lot of things, but Deborah and Jennifer pretty much said everything that I wanted to say. So I'm just going to let other people speak and ask you two to keep in mind what they said about. Speaker 2: Our most vulnerable. Speaker 4: Being. Speaker 2: Charged in their most vulnerable moment. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Our final speaker is savannah chair. Speaker 0: Good evening, speaker. Chair. Speaker 3: Hi. I think it's also already been said, like I think Melanie brought up. I was just going to support the comments that that that then Jennifer made. And I just wonder if this is a little bit of a piece of the pilot program that may have gone overlooked. I mean, because it's a pilot and it's new, it may not have been considered. So just to put this out there that, you know, it won't make a lot of sense to ask someone in crisis to pay a fee for a program that was designed to help that person in crisis. So it's difficult, I think, just to I want to point out that the public may not understand and I didn't understand this until I looked into it a bit more, that the kind of paramedic aspect of fire service is different than like the firefighting. And so if you get like an ambulance transport or you have like a a first responder, like an EMT, you know, I don't know, help you with something like a medical situation that, you know, that is different than them coming in, like putting out a fire in your kitchen or something so that some of the fees may be attached to that. And that, I think was maybe confusing to the public and could be further confusing for people utilizing the services of the Mental Health Alternative Response Program. So yeah, I just echo what everyone said and hopefully we're not going to be charging people for that service. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Further speakers, Madam Clerk. Speaker 1: There are none. Speaker 0: Okay. With that, I'm going to close public comment on item 70 and we'll take it back to council. Councilor comments, questions councilor for her. Speaker 4: SPENCER Thank you, Mayor. So I'd like to ask. All right. Acting Chief. Speaker 0: Interim, maybe. Speaker 4: I'm sorry. My apologies. Speaker 0: I get it wrong all that time. Speaker 4: The public comments in regards to the ambulance, how that works, and any other of the comments that you like to respond to. Speaker 2: Well, first, I think it'd be appropriate to state that this doesn't relate to the Crisis Mobile Response Unit. We're not recommending fees for that service. This is a new pilot program. And this these these fees are not related to that. These are existing fees that we're asking for just a an adjustment to the fee structure. And these are for fire prevention services. So when our fire prevention officers go out and do inspections of new buildings and, you know, systems that are being installed to ensure that they're done properly, and they're also for our ambulance transport program. And these both already have fees attached to them. So these are essentially adjustments to the fees. Speaker 0: Go ahead, Councilor Spencer. Speaker 4: So on the attachment, I think it's like a seven page attachment. It has multiple columns is the adopted fee. The current fee and then the initial fee. Can you explain your different columns here? Where is the current emergency adjusted fee? Speaker 2: Sure. So I'm sorry. I can. But I just want to make sure that we're in the same in the same place in the document. So you're. Are you referring to the. The the part where we're talking about the fee change over time through year one, two, three and four. Is that what you're talking about? Speaker 4: I was actually looking at the resolution. Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Speaker 4: On there, it states that staff is recommended that the percentage of the cost recovery be increased from 48 to 57% and the fully burdened hourly rate be increased from 150 to 180. But then on the exhibit A, it has multiple columns, adopted fee, initial fee, minimum, and I don't think it has the current amount. But do you have something that shows that the current amount is then what the request is? Speaker 2: Sure. I actually there's in the council report. There is. There are a couple of charts. So let me go back to probably the back up for just a minute and go give you a little background on this. So we, as you know, and I think you've seen it in the report, we've had a study conducted. We did that in 2000, late 2018. It was completed January of 2009, and it was forwarded and provided to council in March of 2019. And at that time, the study recommended that we enact a four year plan to raise the fees in our fire prevention office, fees for the various services that we provide from the current rate at that time in 2019 two over a four year period, so that we could go from the 28% recovery of our cost to potentially 57% over four years. So in 2018 19 budget year, the contractor estimated that we were collecting about 28% of the cost or recovering approximately 28% of the cost to provide this service. And the recommendation was to raise that over time, over four years to 57%, which still makes us one of the lowest cost recoveries in the county among the municipal or municipal fire departments. So the first step was in an act was enacted in 2019, in that budget year. And we went from the 28% that we were recovering of our costs to 48%. That was the recommendation it was in. It was enacted. And so currently we're at 48%. The second year or the second year of the proposed four year plan was due to be last year, July of 2020. And it was decided by the staff recommended that and and it was and the city manager agreed that we would not enact the the next step, which would have been to raise it from 48% cost recovery to 57% cost recovery. So now the next step would be 57% cost recovery from 48. So I know that's a little confusing, but our fees were the lowest in the county effectively. And so they recommended that over time we'd move them or into the middle. So we were at 28%. They moved up to 48%. The recommendation now is to move it to 57% of our cost. So that's the cost recovery. So it's still there is still some cost to the city for providing these services. But the recommendation is to. To charge the customer more in this case. These are typically the contractors that we provide services to to inspect other projects, including their new buildings, their fire protection systems, their plans that they put forth to be approved before they build. So related to fire the fire components of the built. So that's what we're recommending. Speaker 4: And I appreciate that. And this is we swore in firefighters to do this to do these inspections. Speaker 2: We do. We use both suppression personnel on on shift that some of those or those crew members go out and they do inspections during their their daily routine. But we also have specialists that work in our fire prevention office. And those folks do the more technical inspections, new buildings, the first suppression systems that are being designed into the buildings, including the the the the plans. Speaker 4: Thank you. And my recollection, I'll ask I'm not sure who this question goes to, but my recollection was when this came just before there was discussion about using non sworn firefighters for some of these inspections and saving money for the city as well as the consumer. Can anyone answer the other cities use non sworn firefighters to do any of these inspections? Speaker 2: Well, I can certainly answer that. So it was a recommended by council and the fire department actually looked into the prospect of doing that. We attempted to hire civilian inspectors over the last number of years, and I think we had an outreach. It was at least four different times, and we were unable to get qualified civilian inspectors. And I could you know, I could give you my opinion as to why that occurred. But the end result was we just were unable to coax civilian inspectors to come in, you know, to the fire department for these for these jobs. As far as other departments, other departments in the area do I know used some civilian inspectors when we were attempting to. Hire civilian inspectors. Several years ago, we when we were having difficulty, we talked to some of the other fire departments because, you know, they had used them and they said that they were having trouble also. And again, it was just a matter of the availability of folks that are trained to do this kind of work that are in civilian life. So we just we struck out, I think it was four different outreaches that we did. Speaker 4: Thank you. And a lot of these charges go to businesses for the inspections. Do we have an idea of how our businesses are faring, if this would be a good time to charge them more for the inspections? Because and again, I'm not sure who should be answering this, but it's my recollection that because of COVID, the city has actually been out there trying to support our businesses and keeping them afloat. So I'm I'm not sure what feedback we've received, if any. If you've reached out to the business communities to see if they think they are in a position to pay these higher inspection costs or if they're not. As we've heard many speakers say, we're still in a pandemic and that they're really not there yet. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to refer that question, Councilmember Spencer, to the city manager, because he was certainly at the chambers presentation this last Friday about economic recovery in general and then specific to Alameda. And he and I would also add assistant city manager Jerry Bowden to the extent he wants to chime in there in pretty close touch with our business community, I guess we don't have anyone still from community development, but this is the city manager and assistant city manager. Mr. Levitt. Speaker 2: For sure. Thank you, Mayor. As he I have to I want to say that, yes, that that's been a consideration. And so the fee that is being presented tonight was actually a fee that was increase. That was initially to go in in the summer of 2020. We actually at that time recommended deferring that fee for a year because of the pandemic. So we are bringing it back. But we would recognize if you decide not to increase, it is still below what the cost of the services we were to. Even though we'd be a year and delayed on the schedule, we were starting to try to to do the schedules. So even with this fee going in place, it would still be one year behind where where the initial schedule was on the initial study. But if you wanted to defer one more year, I'm open to that discussion to. Speaker 4: So I appreciate that answer. But that wasn't I think really my question was I haven't heard from Robert today, for instance, or other business communities the Chamber had. Is your outreach to them specifically that they support this at this time, or would they? Are they letting city know or, you know, what is that about? Is the outreach been where where are they on this issue? Speaker 2: We haven't done it. I don't believe the fire department's done specific outreach to those to the business community. This was on the agenda in the summer and it's been back. I think that they are they are facing stresses. I think you're correct. And we tried to look at that, but we also tried to lower the fact that we had deferred it for a year. And so so we brought it forward for consideration, but also with the option that you could defer one more year. Speaker 4: Thank you. And then also in regards to the ambulance fees, we have had comments during prior when we were talking about, for instance, the policing issue and subcommittees of we had some people call in and speak to the victims. Someone from the public call over a victim issue and then an ambulance comes and then the victim actually receives the bill for the ambulance and they may or may not have insurance that covers that. So but how does the city handle that situation? Speaker 2: Sit down. Speaker 0: Mr. Levitt or our interim chief, Sabet. Speaker 2: Because I would ask the interim chief to answer that because those bills go through the fire department. Sure, I can answer that. So first of all, I want to make sure I understand the question so we respond on an incident and someone is Bill that is a victim as opposed and perhaps they didn't call us, but so far, I understand that correctly. First of all, when the fire department responds, as, you know, the fire department provides a. A first responder service. That's our fire engine. We also have an ambulance that we provide a transport service. So that's an additional service. Most folks understand that they pay taxes to support police and fire services. The fire department provides us first responder services as part of those costs. Our ambulance is an additional service that is atypical. It's not traditional for the fire departments to provide, but the fire department, the city of our midst provided it for. I think it's 37 years now and I think it's an excellent service and we're very proud of it. So when we respond, if we can potentially transport someone and that's where we charge them an ambulance transport fee. Now, currently, the fire department transports more than 4000 people a year, and we certainly don't recover the cost of providing all of that service. But at the end, when we I guess maybe to get to the point, I would suggest that the when someone is billed, if there's an issue with the building, we're always very mindful of a person's ability to pay. We have, you know, obviously sometimes folks ask for hardships and we are currently working on a policy and it's actually going to be coming forward to you probably in about two months with the new fire chief. But we're internally working on that right now to update our hardship policy. But we always look at that and we take that into consideration. You know, a person's ability to pay. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: And, Mr. Levitt, you wanted to say something, please. Speaker 2: If I could just add that the ambulance fee is consistent with Alameda County. They set the fee cap, and we we keep our fees consistent with Alameda County. What Alameda County sets. If I'm correct. Right on that. Yes. Speaker 0: But is this a matter of what percentage for going after collecting? Speaker 2: Well, again, I as city manager said the county establishes the the fees that the providers can charge. So in the case of the US and the other fire departments, I can't speak for the private provider, but I do. I have close connections with the the other fire departments. And, you know, the fire departments are charged. We we charge with the county will allow us to charge and we we don't capture our costs by any means to provide the service. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 4: So I am concerned as we had speakers today, and I know you are too in regards to figuring out this hardship, how we address the issue of the people that cannot afford to pay or cannot afford to pay as much as this bill is. So I look forward to having that policy come back. Thanks. Speaker 2: Absolutely. And it is in the works. If I could just add one thing. You know, we do have a lot of our patients that we transport in Alameda are Medicare patients. So that's a large number of our are transport patients. And although there's a maximum amount that the county will allow us to charge those patients because their Medicare patients are under the Medicare rules. So they you know, they're not charged that same rate. It's just that's what Medicare requires. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Harry Spencer. And actually, in one minute, I'm going to need to make a motion because it's almost 11:00. But do you have something you really brief or should I? Speaker 4: Well, just real quick. So the Medicare maybe you want to answer it later. The Medicare patients, do they still have to pay something out of pocket? I don't know what the policy is. Things. Speaker 2: Typically, no. Speaker 0: Okay, Counsel, we have 10 minutes before it's 11:00. 11 minutes before it's 11:00. And so we have to make a decision about how much farther after 11:00 we will continue this meeting. We will finish this item because we're on it. But whether we take anything else, whether we decide to end at a specific time, takes a motion and it must be passed this for council members. So and if not, we just end as soon as this item is over. Anybody want to make a motion? Well, even Howard wants to make a motion. I take it to mean that when this item is over, well, that counts over a day. So, fanclub, cars were designed. That did other news. Speaker 2: Hi. Yes, I'll move that. We continue until 12 a.m. and that we just continue as we move along and wherever we land at 12 a.m. is wherever we land. Speaker 0: Is there a second to that motion? I am not saying a second. So that motion dies for lack of a second. Is there any other emotion? I am not seeing any hands up. So I will say that we are going to finish seven D and call it a night. Okay. All right. So where were we? Counsel for her. Spencer. Speaker 4: Well, I'd like to make a motion that we actually not adjust the fees at this time that we leave the masses. Speaker 0: Is there something to that motion? Vice mayor of L.A.. Speaker 3: I'll go ahead and second that. Speaker 0: All right, let's have a discussion. Councilwoman, an expert. I think I saw your hand going up. Speaker 2: I was simply going to make a motion, sir. Okay. Speaker 0: All right. Well, any discussion or should we just take a vote? I will I will go ahead and say that I will support this motion. I, I was at that luncheon last week and we heard from the economist of this recovery is not a matter of flipping a switch on and off. Our businesses are recovering slowly. People's incomes are recovering slowly. There's a lot of economic uncertainty. I don't think this is the right time to take this action. Okay. Vice mayor of L.A.. So your hand up and then you. Councilmember de SAG. Speaker 3: Yeah. I think our fees I know our fees are low relative to the rest of the county, but I think timing is really important. I'm just concerned that we're putting a lot of money out there in terms of housing, keeping people housed and helping our small businesses, helping helping them stay open. So I just want to be thoughtful about the timing of this and understanding that, yes, our fees do need to increase. I would like to have staff certainly come back with this at the appropriate time. I think especially looking at when we see indicators that that, you know, the we're through the pandemic, for one, or that that we see economic recovery happening. And I understand that there are cost implications. I'm not saying that we waive the fees. I just think that we. Speaker 2: Should. Speaker 3: Should hold off on increasing for right now. Speaker 0: I agree. I don't think we should burden our small businesses any more than they already are. I'm Counselor Kalahari Desert. I think I saw your hand up. Speaker 2: Yeah. Great. When the matter came before council in March 5th, 2019, I didn't support the matter in a range of votes that were raised. So actually, to be consistent with the March 5th, 2019, I'll be voting no. Okay. Speaker 0: All right, Mr. Leavitt, you got your hand up. Go ahead and unmute. Speaker 2: So I definitely understand the emotion regarding the inspection fees. I understand and appreciate that on the ambulance fees. And because some of those are tied to federal funding where such as many Medicare, what they pay, I would ask that you at least defer that I am and let us go research that further and bring that the ambulance fee, maybe segregate the two and have us bring that one back. Because Alameda County as a whole is is for the most part raising those fees. And we would be below the rest of the county at that point. Speaker 0: So I would certainly welcome you to bring that item back. Mr. Levitt, in the the staff report, it simply says that on July 14th, 2021, the Amity County Emergency Medical Services Agency notified the city that the county had authorized an increase subject to city council approval of the city's user fee for ambulance transport services. I didn't see anything about a loss of federal funds, so by all means, when this item comes back, I know the Council would appreciate having all the information we need to make an informed decision. Anything further counts. Alex White. Speaker 2: Can I ask a quick clarification? I believe the loss of federal funds is through the lack of collecting the full fee because we can collect them. So it's not other funds, it's just since we wouldn't be increasing the fee, we wouldn't be making that differential on Medi-Cal or Medicare. Right. As far as Medicare markup. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Vice mayor of L.A.. Speaker 3: I'm just curious how long it'll take the city manager to review that. I'm fine bifurcating this. You know, if I'm the second or I guess the the the amendment would need to go through the maker of the motion. But perhaps we can we can bifurcate the vote so that on the on the ambulance fees we can give we can just give further direction to staff to come back with that information. Speaker 0: Okay. So we're not approving anything tonight, but we're giving direction, okay. Speaker 3: To come to come back with the information. I mean, if there's if we can get the full reimbursement, that's fine. I just I would want more information before making a decision about the increase. Speaker 0: Over a course over her. Spencer, you're the maker of the motion. Speaker 4: So. So I appreciate that. In fact. So this is coming to us to increase the rate. But if we're not going to do that at this time, I'm not sure that we actually need a motion to keep it as is. And then staff will come back at any time in regards to addressing this issue or I don't know, in regards to the Medicare, if we can have it increased for that purpose at this time so that we receive that as much as we can from that for the city. But then in regards to people that don't have Medicare and that they would then have to pay more themselves for those patients, what do you what is the proposal on that or was that all look like? Speaker 0: Well, and I'll just chime in that I'm concerned. I appreciate the oral information we're being given. So it wasn't if it's in the staff report or somewhere and I missed it, please pointed out to me. But I, I think my feeling would be the better course is to bring it back. But Vice Mayor, you were you were proposing a kind of a compromise. Speaker 3: Yeah, I think, you know, I. I think if we can bifurcate the vote, vote down because I don't want this the fees to come back necessarily on the inspections. Right. So I if we could separate that out. And then on the on the second part for the fees relative to the ambulance, just not take any action tonight . But that way we would allow staff, for instance, if they have the information, they could get it available for the next meeting. We could perhaps continue that conversation if time is of the essence, maybe not to the next meeting, but to the meeting after it, rather than vote it down and then have to have somebody from the majority of the council. Speaker 4: And happy to accept that. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. So do you want to restate the motion just so we make sure the clerk has it and all of us are following along? Vice Mayor, if you could just restate the motion as you amended it, because I think the motion is amendable. Speaker 3: So we would be that motion would be to not increase the fees for building inspections at this time, but that would be the first motion. The second motion, and perhaps the clerk or the city attorney. Speaker 0: Is why interruption? I think it's inspections and plan reviews. Both. Speaker 3: Yes, yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 3: And then and perhaps, you know, and this is where I think some clarity from either the city attorney or the city clerk would be welcome. But to either continue the remainder, the the fees on the ambulance to a future meeting or to just give direction to staff at this time for more information. And to have that come back to us. Speaker 0: I think is either. Excuse me, I see. Mr. Levitt. Go ahead. Mr. Levitt. Speaker 2: I think the first motion if you just do the first motion, then we can bring the motion back. I don't even believe we need to continue it. You could just not have a motion on the ambulances currently and then we can bring that action back. That's all it. And that's consistent with what I was requesting. Speaker 3: Okay. I'm fine with that, if that's fine for the original maker of the motion. Speaker 4: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. So motion to to not increase the permit and fair review and inspection fees. Okay. Is it, Madam Clerk, that's okay with you? Speaker 1: Yes, definitely. That's perfect. Speaker 0: Okay. So we had a motion by Councilmember Harry Spencer. It's been seconded by Vice Mayor Vella. Any further discussion council seeing then maybe we have a roll call cover. Speaker 1: Please remember Jason. Speaker 2: No. Speaker 1: Harris. Spencer. I knocked. Right. Hi, Lola. So as the Ashcroft. Speaker 0: I. Speaker 1: Met Kerry supporter one. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Chief Sun back and firefighter Hern. I'm sorry. I don't know your your rank. Thank you very much. He's with. Is he? Speaker 2: He is our fire marshal. So he's he's a division chief. But to. Speaker 3: Visit you. Speaker 2: Will someone provide clarification to the department for what you'd like us to bring back? That's all I ask, because so we can bring it back in the future. Speaker 0: Because City Manager. Speaker 2: Clare right now. Speaker 0: City manager will be in touch. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, everyone on this item. Okay, so then let's see. We can, Madam Clerk, we can just. You help us out the. Speaker 4: Anything there. Speaker 1: I think you've reached your 11:00 stop time and you've completed the item, so I think you can simply go to adjournment. Speaker 0: Okay. So what I am going to do, though, to adjourn. Sorry. And just reaching for there. I had it. I did want to adjourn this evening's meeting in memory of a well known long time Alameda resident Ashley Jones, who passed away on September 25th of this year, just last month at the age of 90.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees for Fire Department Services and Permits. (Fire 10032220)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09212021_2021-1260

Speaker 1: The finance director and Bond Staff Balance Council. And I believe the letter of creditors is also joining. So they are coming in momentarily. Speaker 0: Coming in. Okay, great. I see Ms.. TOS name on the screen and now I see her in person. Welcome. Hi. Speaker 4: Thank you. Good. Good evening. Speaker 1: Mayor. And some members of the City Council. My name is Anita. Speaker 4: I'm here to present this item for you tonight. With me tonight is also. Speaker 1: Up on council. Speaker 4: Ryan Quinn, as well as members from. Speaker 1: Wells Fargo team who are here to answer any questions you may have. Just a little bit of background in April of 2016. Union Bank was hired by the city to. Speaker 4: Provide a letter of credit for the Alameda Public Financing Authority Variable Rate Demand Bonds known as Alameda Point Improvement Project. Speaker 1: For $9,080,000.23 Series A and 4,000,003 360,000. Speaker 4: For the 2003 Series. Speaker 1: B bonds for the taxable taxable bonds. Speaker 4: As background, Alameda Public Financing Authority issued a total of approximately 12.4 million and variable rate bonds. Speaker 1: Related to allow me to point in 2003, the source of repayment for these bonds as a rental income received from properties managed by the city's Base Reuse Department. Union Bank expired in. Speaker 4: The LLC, with Union. Speaker 1: Bank expire in June 14 of 2021. Fortunately, the city was able to receive an extension until November 15, 2021. With that extension, however, Union Bank increased the fee from 115 basis point to 125 basis points. Speaker 4: Plus they charge a one time fee of 5000 for the one time extension. Speaker 1: Union Bank has told us that they will not extend the LLC beyond the November 2021 expiration date. The market for the city's LLC is very limited because of the small size of the outstanding bonds. Typically, banks prefer large deals so they can. Speaker 4: Fine spread the cost of the. Speaker 1: Transaction over the size of the bonds. So the city reach out to other banks about providing a. Speaker 4: Letter of credit only. Speaker 1: To banks to express interest. Speaker 4: U.S. Bank in Wells Fargo. Speaker 1: Wells Fargo stepped. Speaker 4: Up and submitted a term sheet which offer a three year. Speaker 1: LLC at 100 basis points to the city. So is my. Speaker 4: Recommendation that we proceed with the substitution of the letter of credit. A bond counsel, Brian Quinn, is here to answer. Speaker 1: Any questions that you may have. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you for that clear and concise report. Ms.. TA And Madam Clerk, I meant to ask, do we have public speakers on this item? Speaker 1: We do not. Speaker 0: Okay, so I'll close public comment. So then, counsel, I will open the floor to counsel for any clarifying questions for a motion. What's your pleasure? By my count, from every next flight. Speaker 3: I'd be happy to move approval of the staff provider resolutions. Speaker 0: All right, Councilmember Spencer. All right. Any further council discussion? All right. We really appreciate all you representatives of Wells Fargo, Aspen Council for being here. Welcome. We'll get you home early tonight. Okay. So seeing no discussion. Madam, may we have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 1: So, member day. Thank. Yes. Herrera Spencer. I knocked like. Speaker 3: High. Speaker 1: Villa. I may or as the ashtray. Speaker 0: I. Speaker 1: That carries by five. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Two. Thank you to our guests. And we look forward to to working with you going forward. All right. That set a record for the. I hope that's a trend that is just starting to play out tonight. Garrett, thank you all. Good evening. All right. So then I'm going to adjourn that special joint meeting of City Council and Alameda Public Financing Authority. And we will move on to the regular city council meeting and may we have the roll call please. Speaker 1: Welcome has been voted five present and there are 64 attendees on the zoom. Speaker 0: Thank you for remembering to say that. All right. Speaker 1: 64 I'm at 55 change just out and I said it wrong do. Speaker 0: That was because the Wells Fargo crew left and took their entourage with them I guess. But anyway. Our next item is item two agenda changes. Do we have any agenda changes? Council member. Not quite. I see your hand up.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolutions Authorizing the City of Alameda and the Alameda Public Financing Authority to Commence Proceedings in Connection with the Substitution of the Letter of Credit relating to the Alameda Public Financing Authority Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds, 2003 Series A and Series B (Alameda Point Improvement Project). [City Council and APFA] (Finance 10024051)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09212021_2021-1287

Speaker 0: Perfect. All right, so, council member Knox, right? This is your referral. Take it away. Speaker 3: Thank you. So I'm going to be very short and short of singing the praises of a whiskey who I believe is here tonight and has some comments that she's prepared. As I said, she came forth in June with a proposal for an ordinance that would allow would have the city ban decline. After some quick conversation with the city staff, it turns out that cities are no longer allowed to do that in California. So we worked together to put together a resolution to the state legislature that is before us tonight asking the state legislature to enact this. They they've taken that right away from us. I just want to acknowledge how incredible it was to work with Miss Lasky. You know, just every word in the resolution is hers. We made two I mean, two very tiny little things. She did all the research. It was about the easiest referral I've ever done because I didn't have to do anything. And I just want to share my great appreciation for her. So anyway, I don't know. I saw that she had her hand up, but it looks. Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah. Let's get it back. Speaker 1: Yeah. Sorry we promoted her prematurely, but yes, we will protect her. Well, and. Speaker 0: I was just going to chime in and say that I think sometime in the summer I had or maybe spring, I had the privilege of doing a zoom with Miss Solecki and her teacher at Wood Middle School. There's a class, actually, Ms.. Hill, as I mentioned, the class, it's pretty cool that that she took, but yeah, she really ran with this item. So let's hear from Ms.. Husky. Speaker 1: Good evening, council members and staff. And thank you, Council Member Knox White for allowing me your time. I'm here once again to ask for your assistance to ban the cruel act of cat decline. This procedure causes only lifelong pain and suffering to our beloved felines, and we need to agree to end this procedure. A yes vote tonight will ensure the following the safety of our cats, the education of the public, and how important this issue was. And to prove that Alameda takes animal rights seriously, Alameda will be leading the way by supporting this resolution and bringing attention. Bringing this attention to the state level. Please vote yes to pass this resolution. Thank you for your time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Solecki, before you sign off. Remind us, what grade are you in this year? Speaker 4: I'm in seventh grade. Speaker 0: Pretty impressive. Hi, everybody. I'm impressed. All right, so the so the the referral is before us. Any council discussion or do we have a motion to approve? Vice Mayor Vella. Speaker 1: I'd like to move the approval. Speaker 0: We have a motion to approve by Vice Mayor Vella. Councilor Harris Spencer thank you. Speaker 4: I am happy this second. Speaker 0: Seconded by Councilmember Harry Spencer. We didn't have council discussion before, so I think we're ready for a vote. Madam Clerk. Speaker 1: Councilmember de SAG I. Herrera Spencer, I. Knox White. Speaker 3: Great appreciation. Ella, I. Speaker 1: Bella. Hi. Mayor, as you Ashcraft High. That carries by five eyes. Yay! Speaker 0: Good work. Speaker 4: Ally.

Council Referral

Consider Adopting a Resolution Calling on the State Legislature to Implement a Ban on Medically Unnecessary Animal Surgery, Such as Declawing of Cats. (Councilmember Knox White)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09212021_2021-1292

Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Alameda Family Services for an amount not to exceed $500,000 for one year, with an option to extend for an additional year for an amount not to exceed 1 million for two years. To provide for mental health services related to the city's alternative response to calls for mental health crisis support pilot program. Speaker 0: Okay, thank you very much. And Assistant City Manager Jerry Bowden. Are you presenting tonight? Speaker 3: I am. Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. Welcome. Speaker 3: Thank you so much. And Laura's has a presentation for us this evening as well. So that'll come up as we go. Good evening, Mayor. As he Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vela and members of the city council. It's great to be with you tonight to basically put together another piece in our puzzle, which is our alternative response to mental health crisis calls in the city of Alameda. Next slide. You'll recall that the city council authorized a pilot program in July. Since that time, we've been working to address a number of different components for this program the required personnel, the training needs, dispatch processes, modifications for a new vehicle that will help the program, the the first responders get around in our community. In addition to working with our county partners, with EMS, as well as with county health, to secure the necessary approvals to launch our pilot. And where we're in those negotiations as we as we bring this forward for your consideration this evening. A critical step is identifying and getting authorization from the city council to enter into an agreement with that mental health support partner, which is really why we're here tonight. Next slide, please. Thank you. After council direction in July, we did put an RFP out. In August, we received one proposal from Alameda Family Services. After reviewing the proposal, we we did. We did sit down and discussed the needs of the program. We ended up with a revised proposal. And we're recommending a combination of options, one A and one C from that proposal. From that revised proposal, it is a combination option. It summarized in a fairly high level on this slide. Note that there would be two full time staff people involved in the program. There'd be the program supervisor and the crisis response case manager. You can also see that there would be several part time FTE positions that would come from the Alameda Family Services Group to be able to support all of the needs of the pilot program. And this is on a 24 seven basis. And the cost estimate that we put together for the program is in the $400,000 per year range. And I'll talk a little bit more about that number and how it relates to the staff recommendation in a moment. Next slide. Just stepping back from all of the details just for a moment, the AFS proposal did set out to achieve seven goals which are listed on the slide. I won't go through them individually, but just to summarize, the really is an effort in building a strong relationship between Alameda Family Services and city staff for this program, including seeking out training opportunities for for our fire department personnel and possibly other training opportunities as well. Also assisting our community members who are in need of these these support services. So making the case management component is critical, linking folks to services in a timely fashion and then following up to ensure that the services are being utilized appropriately and as necessary is an important part of the program. Finally, the overarching goal here is to reduce traditional police interventions with respect to calls for certain kinds of mental health crisis in our community. And so all of these things start to form what could be what can be metrics for the program. Obviously, our firefighters, the fire department, EMT, paramedics, we're going to need to to also come to that that metrics discussion and we'll get into that as well. As the program continues to develop and before we go live. So I'll say next slide. Thank you. The proposal from Alameda Family Services was was very responsive relative to the the support services and the follow up care that was contemplated in the request for proposals that was sent out. There were three primary options in that in that proposal. Options one, A, B and C, they did allow for a range of service levels and coverage days and hours to be able to to craft different options, as I mentioned earlier, to provide a pretty robust program right out of the gate. Staff is recommending a combination of options one C, one A and one C. And what that does is it allows for 24, seven, seven coverage from from the start of the program, including access to an on call licensed clinician during non-business hours, which it would be unique for our county and something that that would would set us apart from many other programs that that particularly that are in the earlier stages of development. The cost for that option was refined by all media, family services staff after talking with city staff about how to best meet the needs of the community as we get going. But also but also just managing the costs of the program. So you'll see on this slide that when you combine options one and one see the total is about $550,000. But we did discuss how we could streamline the staffing and manage the the kind of the outside overhead or support that's necessary. So that number does now come in just under $400,000 a year. In the recommendation, we're suggesting, a, not to exceed amount of $500,000. That extra $100,000 just allows us some wiggle room. It is a pilot and we want to make sure that we can keep it all up and running, particularly as we hire staff and and move forward. There is there is also. A budget allocation that has been made that supports this number. So it is it is something that was contemplated as part of our two year budget process. Next slide. Of course, the pilot is an attempt to address the the the direction provided to date on this topic. As contemplated, the program would be led by the fire department and this is its approach does need mental health expertize to support the fire department's field work. That is something that is is we're discussing with our county health partners and something that we think is a critical component for the overall pilot success. And so what I'll say is if council would like to consider alternatives to the staff recommendation, recommendation this evening, here are some options that we included in the staff report. Just pursuing other options within the Alameda Family Services proposal, something like not going for a 24 seven model right out of the gate might be something that we could pull from that alternative. Directing staff to evaluate other community based organizations or mental health support options that would meet this need for our pilot program is another alternative. There's also support for the pilot program, but concerns about authorization for for the second year. And if that is a concern, then council might consider authorizing just one year rather than one year with the option for the second year. And of course, we can always redo the request for proposal process with a modified scope of work. If the items that are proposed in the in the of Family Services proposal aren't meeting the needs or the, the, the, the desired outcomes that the community is looking for. So next slide. Now, with all that being said, at this time, staff is recommending that the city council authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Alameda Family Services for an amount not to exceed $500,000 for the for the first the first year with an option to extend for an additional year in an amount not to exceed $1 million. This option would allow us to spend the next year or possibly two evaluating those those needs in our community. We would anticipate regular updates with the City Council and the community and city staff, as well as the leadership from Alameda Family Services are here this evening to answer any questions you may have. That concludes staff's presentation this evening. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Burton. And I want to particularly thank our assistant city manager, Jerry Byrd. And he has done the majority of the heavy lifting on putting this proposal together, and I thank him for bringing that forward. I want to share a concern that I have at the outset. And then we will certainly hear from many public comments and staff and council questions of staff and council comments. But my concern is that this proposal really isn't ready to be brought forward for a number of reasons, starting maybe from the back. We're being asked to provide, to approve, to give the city manager authority to enter into a services provider agreement. And there is indeed an agreement that is in attachment to this agenda item and it references the services to be performed. And I'm on I am for anyone who wants to follow along the the draft agreement is exhibit three and at the bottom of page one of exhibit three services to be performed and there's a paragraph and it talks about that the provider shall do all the necessary work included in Exhibit A as requested. The only problem is that there is no Exhibit A and it's not an attachment to this staff report. And in fact, what I've learned from talking to staff is that there just wasn't time to put it together because there's still so much that needs to be done in terms of getting approvals by the county. And the other thing that concerns me is that the the RFP that went out and again, a lot of people spent time on this, I acknowledge the work of our fire department, but it's a very generic RFP. It was put together by fire that has no experience in this area. In fact, they're awaiting their own mental health training. And so that rather generic RFP yielded one response. And I have a few concerns with that response. But in the interim, because we're kind of, you know, just learning more as we go along. So I mentioned earlier we've had great public response to. Board and commission applications. And I hear from very talented residents all the time. And one day I got a phone call in an email from a resident who works for San Mateo County, where this individual set up Santa Clara County's mental health response to assist with their first responders. And they very graciously said we'd be happy to to meet with city staff. And so I immediately directed them to city manager and assistant city manager who have been in conversation. My suggestion would be, I know we gave the city manager a deadline to get this done by the end of the year, but I think it's even more important to get it right. I would like to see another RFP issued, the RFP reissued, but this time to have it drafted in consultation with someone with actual relevant experience. And there's other possibilities, folks from county behavioral health care services. But and then to reissue the RFP anyone is is welcome to apply or reapply and this time we have a new fire chief who's about to start, I believe, next month. And that individual should be part of the selection process. But I am concerned that we're asked to approve the services provider agreement. I have a few concerns with what's in it, even the part that that doesn't exist, the Exhibit A But I think that this is premature. We should give staff a little more time to come back to us because it's more important to get this done right than to get it done fast. And the last thing I'll just throw in a concern that I had reading over how many family services proposal is that they won't work with anyone who is violent or has engaged in in criminal activity. And so the so for nonviolent non-criminal service calls. But that leaves kind of a wide gap. There are times, I think, when police do need someone with with clinical experience to be out there as a backup, certainly in a safe situation. But anyway, I just. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 0: Think we we need to take a little more time and a little more put a little more experience into this proposal. So, Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. I believe that was at this time we're normally having clarifying questions and then public comment and then our comments and I would like to proceed with the item is agenda. Speaker 0: I raised that my concern just that I think we might be getting into brown actor open government commission problem territory and I wanted to flag that at the outset, but I have done just that. So, Madam Clerk, do we have public speakers? Speaker 1: Yes, we have two. Speaker 0: Okay. So at this time, let's hear any clarifying questions from the council. And I'm sorry, what was that? Speaker 1: That many people just raised their hand just to age seven. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So that means 2 minutes for public speaker. Okay. Okay. So let's take clarifying questions now and then we will get to our public speakers. Any clarifying questions of Mr. Bowden? Okay. Let's go ahead. And I don't see anybody's hand up, so let's go ahead and take our public speakers, Madam Clerk. And so that is 2 minutes per speaker. Speaker 1: And the first one is Aaron Frazier. Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening, Speaker Frazier. Speaker 3: Evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. First, I just wanted to echo Councilmember Herb Spencer's point that my understanding of the rules of the meeting are the Council comments are reserved for after the public comment and for the period before public comments for clarifying questions, which I didn't hear. I wanted to speak in support of my fellow former committee member, Catherine Schwartz, who is the executive director of AMI Family Services and in support of staff's proposal to engage with healthy family services as an important first step. Further delay is an is an unjustified extension of the status quo. That is simply unacceptable. Several people have died in Alameda police custody, including one on this council's watch. And because of this council's inaction. Inaction. It is time to act. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Elise Castro. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Castro. You're still muted. Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I am. Yes. My name is Elise Castro and I am speaking in favor of crisis mental health pilot with an emphasis on the pilot with Alameda Family Services. Many of you know me as a high school principal here in Alameda Unified for about ten years, mostly at Island High School. And it was my involvement with Alameda Unified and with our highest risk students here on the island that led me to become involved with Alameda Family Services. And I really want to speak to my experience with this organization as a partner. I am, and I know that Alameda Family Services is a particularly effective partner for a pilot because I piloted a number of really innovators services with them and they are uniquely positioned to really respond to the wraparound supports that we hear so much from the chief that we hear so much in these council meetings about meeting, we have worked together to divert youth from the justice system to intervene and support families that are dealing with gun violence, dealing with addiction, dealing with domestic violence and many mental health needs. And the Alameda Family Services has continued to step up during the pandemic. And there are. You know, it's it's a hard job, but making it fit in any community is going to require some. Somebody that knows the community that is deeply tied in, that has the established history of providing the intervention and diversion that's evidence based and trauma informed. And Almeida Family Services is plugged in to the needs and resources in this community in a way that no other agency is. And they have the multilingual, multicultural staff to support equitable access to the quality of life and the community that we value in Alameda. And you couldn't find a better partner for a pilot. Speaker 0: Thank you. Her next speaker. Speaker 1: Lisa Anderson. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Anderson. Speaker 1: That evening. I'm kind of astounded to hear you, Mayor, say that you are in favor of delaying this further. Just a few weeks ago, you were in favor of handing out $2 million to institute some sort of pilot program in our city. And I just mean further delays will result in more harm in our community. I, for one, greatly appreciate the very detailed proposal from us. This should more detail and clear forward language than the previous proposal that had more than double the budget. I'm only here. I was only here to support the staff recommendation to adopt an option that offers a 24 seven option for care. Having recently started with MH first in Oakland, I can say that the need for a program like this is not is out there and the need is not Monday through Friday 9 to 5. I truly hope that this will be considered and is just the beginning of our city's efforts to limit police contact with our vulnerable neighbors and to financially committing to a true mental health response in our community. My only criticism was that the budgeting for this program was too low. If we're taking responsible responsibility away from APD, we should be able to reduce their funding in a corresponding amount. However, we can prevent another Mario Gonzalez from being killed in our neighborhood. Just do the right thing. It's. Speaker 0: Thank you, Speaker Anderson. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Marilyn Rothman. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Rothman. Speaker 4: Hello again. I agree with Janiece that this absolutely has to be a 24 seven kind of program. Even though they said they stay laid on one day a week, it's not late enough. You know, half of the problems are when most of us are sleeping this kind, this kind of program. Would actually help crime, the prevention of crime, because it's obvious that all the crime statistics have gone up because of the pandemic and people's lack of housing, lack of work. That's why crime goes up. It's not just in Alameda. It's all over. And we need a strong 24/7 response by non-police to incidents that happen in order. Speaker 1: To. Speaker 4: Stop. More of this happening. I. Yeah. I guess that's all I want to say. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. If we could hold for just a minute, I just got a text from our vice mayor, Willie Avila, who inadvertently got kicked off a zoom. Can you see if we can get her back on? Speaker 1: Yes. She texted me, too, and I'm as she's calling me. So let me work on it right now. All right. Speaker 0: Sorry about this. We sometimes have technical difficulties. But it's an important discussion and I want our entire council to be present. And there's the vice mayor connecting to audio. Speaker 1: She did it all on her own. She rebooted and fixed everything. Right. Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. So, um, but I believe we finished the previous year. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. The next speaker, then. Speaker 1: Jennifer Rakowski. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Rakowski. Speaker 1: I mean, they. Speaker 4: Is she. Speaker 0: Is she connected? Speaker 1: She disappeared. So now we have Jonna struggling. So why don't we take Baker Saigon? Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Good evening. Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item. And I am speaking in favor of the proposal. I'm fortunate to be now a member of the Board of Directors of Alameda for Family Services, but has also served on the subcommittee on unbundling police services. And we were the entity that made the initial recommendation to remove mental health calls from the purview of APD. And the next step we have to take is to. Engage mental health provider in the process of responding to those calls. We've got fire and now we need mental health engaged in that. And you couldn't do better than me and family services. Decades of experience with proven excellence in mental health services in the city. They've all the partnerships you would want to see for some work like this with Building Futures ABC, they used in more to address a couple of the mayor's concerns. I would say the weaknesses of the RFP. Are bounced out by the robustness of what we know AFS can provide with their years of experiences, their network, their experience and community. And that has to be also balanced out by the delay. I mean, we had the presentation from cahoots with the Mayor's meeting with Cahoots. A video was in July of 2020. It was pretty clear that what we needed was mental health response out in the process, and we're more than a year out from that and it's time to make it happen. And I think whatever weaknesses in the RFP are balanced out by that need to to make this happen finally after all this time. So I hope you can all support the proposal. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you for your cycling. And I did see Jennifer Rakowski here. Speaker 1: Before, try to. Speaker 0: Get her back. There she is. All right. Good evening, Speaker Rakowski. Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you for letting me back in. I bounced out. I wanted to echo what other people have been saying. We wanted strong mental health support. We wanted rooted in community with strong, consistent local ties. We directed staff and staff listen to the absolute necessity for 24 seven respond. And they didn't just take the proposal but really engaged with it and improved it to make a strong but also fiscally sound 24 seven response that I agree with the other speaker still underfunded the need so I absolutely support this proposal moving forward I support the ability for a second year because we need to start and we need to start now. And thank you. And I want to appreciate the staff time from the fire department and from the city in general on this proposal. Speaker 0: Thank you, speaker Caskey. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Abra mendoza. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker Mendoza. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker 0: I'm here also with. Speaker 1: Others in solidarity and in support of this mental health proposal, this pilot. Speaker 0: Program. Speaker 4: And since we listen to such data driven. Speaker 1: Evidence before, we know there's a need for this. Speaker 0: Service. Speaker 1: We know. Speaker 0: People. Speaker 1: We're taking risks right now. Speaker 0: The more delays. Speaker 1: That we make. I think another thing. Speaker 0: That's. Speaker 1: Important to understand is since the murder of George. Speaker 0: Floyd, there. Speaker 1: Has been such an increased demand in alternatives. And so we should be thankful that we have a qualified, community based organization like Alameda Family Services that has risen to the occasion. It does not make any sense to issue another RFP. I also came. Speaker 0: Here to. Speaker 1: To support this program to say that I'm in favor of it, that we need a 24 seven, we need $1,000,000 this. Speaker 0: Year. Speaker 1: Another million the next year. We need to continue to grow our alternatives to police. That's 50% of nine one. One calls are non-criminal in nature anyway. And so. Speaker 0: To. Speaker 1: Delay, this would just. Speaker 4: Be a. Speaker 1: Miscarriage of justice. So I'm asking all of you city council members to approve this, approve it with flying colors, and we are going to see our community improve. And this is the first step. This is the first of many, many steps. I urge you to do the right thing, to do it swiftly. Thank you. Speaker 4: City manager Jerry Bowden. Speaker 1: For that presentation and for negotiating and working with this nonprofit to make this pilot program work for our community. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker Mendez Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Matthew Maddox. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker. Speaker 3: Matter my doubts. Speaker 0: Yes, madam. Sorry. Speaker 3: My name is Matthew Meadows and I'm speaking in support of Alameda Family Services proposal. I'm a licensed clinical social worker and the executive director of the Behavioral Health Collaborative of Alameda County. We're an association of 30 for mental health and substance use providers, and we provide the vast majority of mental health services throughout the county. In my role, I've had extensive opportunity to work with the AFL staff and I can absolutely attest that they have highly competent staff, experienced leadership. They have a continuum of services and strong relationships with both the community and other providers that I think will really support this program. I am really confident that they'd be able to provide highly effective crisis mental health services, and I'd definitely recommend them for this really important program. The other comment I want to make is I've been very involved with the justice involved Mental Health Task Force, and this is exactly the type of program that the community needs, and I believe it can really have a significant impact. So I strongly recommend them. Thank you for your time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker Midas Oak. Next. Speaker 1: Speaker Savannah. Chair. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker. Chair. Speaker 1: I. Can you hear me? Speaker 0: Yes, we can. Speaker 1: Okay, great. I just wanted to echo generally what everyone has said. Much like Denise, my comments initially were going to start with just really the emphasis on that 24 seven care. I really appreciate, Jerry, that you included that and that his staff included that in the proposal. It won't work if you don't have if not everyone can access these really important services. I just really want to echo and put a lot of emphasis the point that like, you have to stop delaying this. It's just been too much time in the time that you delayed this, the police murdered someone. So we don't have any more time to wait. You already have that blood on your hands, so you have an absolute responsibility now to do something. A pilot's a pilot for a reason. I think Jerry commented on this actually in his proposal that this would be really unique and it would be more than anyone in the county has done. And it would be we would be position to try something and to imagine a new way of living that would help everyone. Right. That's should be the goal. That should always be your goal. The specifics around it and then nit picking details are, while perhaps warranted, not saving lives to spend time doing that. Getting in and doing the work is what saves those lives. And that's been clearly communicated to this council. I don't know how many times. I'm not too sure how many more times you need to hear that. So just echoing what everyone has said in general about PFS, that clearly there are providers that can support this type of programing and offer these critical needs to our most vulnerable friends and neighbors. And that should be the priority of everyone that sits on this council. That's your that's why you're elected and what you should be doing. So thanks to everyone for for putting in the time to make this happen. And we need to get this off the ground now. Really? Yesterday. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker. Chair. Our next speaker. Speaker 1: Melody Montgomery. Speaker 0: Welcome, Speaker Montgomery. Speaker 4: Hi. Thank you. I want to say it's good to be here again, but I that's really not true. I just am tired of the waiting, the delays. So no more waiting, no more segways normally no more delays. No more red tape. It's a pilot. Let's get it started. We can we can make tweaks along the way. We can fix this as we move, but we're never going to have anything to fix if we don't get it started. People, please. It's your job. And you all voted for these things to happen. The community has spoken time and time and time and time. Time and time and time and time and time again. I'm not sure what the holdup is. I so appreciated the proposal and I'm all in favor of this this combo proposal. So let's take a vote. Let's say yes and let's get something moving for our town and for the people that are so affected by your non-action. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker Montgomery, our next speaker. Speaker 1: Early stadium meeting. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker State m lang. Speaker 1: Good evening. Thank you. I just want to echo what other speakers are saying, that this is the time to act, that this is a pilot and it does not have to be perfect. So I just urge city council to approve this proposal by first. And I also just want to point out that we can't really critique the fire department for putting forth this RFP when city council already gave them responsibility for putting together this program. So saying they're not then equipped to put out this RFP is disingenuous. And also in reality, this is almost like the second RFP the City Council has already put out because there's a first opportunity for agencies to apply to run the program as a whole. And at that point Felton applied and the fire department. So and then now we're going through the second RFP and any other organization could have applied at either of those two points. So opening up again would just cause further delay and also saying that critiquing officials for saying they wouldn't work with someone who is violent or committing a crime, that's not really fair because I believe the program is restricted from handling those types of calls anyways. So it's disingenuous to not critique them for saying that they wouldn't respond to those calls. And also, the program was never meant just to be to, you know, send out caseworkers to serve as backup for law enforcement. So that asking for a program that would be willing to do that is not accurate either. So I don't think any of these excuses should be reason for a delay. I've read through the AFS proposal and I believe it is a sound comprehensive proposal and I support the City Council awarding this contract to address AFS. If if City Council does not, we'll be leaving our vulnerable community members without the services they need. And we. Speaker 0: Thank you for your comments, our next. Speaker 1: Speaker and any. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Kenny. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor. City council and city staff. You've heard from me many times on this issue in many ways. So you know how I feel about this. You know that this the need for these types of services. Speaker 0: Has greatly. Speaker 4: Increased during the pandemic. You know that we don't have time to. Speaker 3: The services weren't. Speaker 4: Available before the pandemic. You know that this needs to happen in order for us to have an alternative response team, it has to. Speaker 1: Contain mental health clinicians. Speaker 4: In order to be. Speaker 3: Effective. Speaker 4: I ask you to please support what the city staff has put forward and accept options one A and one C. And I want to thank city staff for putting this forward. And it is a pilot so we can make adjustments. It's more important to have something at this point than to have something perfect. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Speaker. Kenny. Madam Clerk, how many more speakers do we have? That was our last speaker. Okay. I'm going to close public comment now, and we need to do our housekeeping because we're coming up on 11 p.m.. So we need to and by the way, a hearty thanks to all of the speakers. You were quite persuasive. I so we've got 1 to. Speaker 4: 3 more. Speaker 0: Items under know regular agenda items. I would entertain a motion to go as far as we can to midnight tonight. We need four votes to pass that. But I say we just keep plowing through until we get to midnight and hopefully at least finish the regular calendar. Vice Mayor of L.A.. Speaker 1: I'd like to make a motion that we continue to midnight and try to get through as many items as we can remaining on the agenda. Speaker 0: Thank you. We've had a motion to have a second. Councilmember Desai. Seconds. Okay. Maybe we have a roll call vote, please, Madam Clerk. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 1: First, I'm sorry. I'm not quite. Speaker 3: High. Speaker 1: Villa. I may or as Ashcroft I. That carries by five eyes. Okay. Speaker 0: All right. And so we we heard some pretty profound public comment just now. So let's have our council comment. Who would like to leave? Vice mayor of L.A.? Speaker 1: So I have some questions about what's being proposed, because I think we can we can say that it's a 24 seven program and people have read through the proposal. But I do have some questions about the details. And I do think that the details matter because as many of the callers put it, is a matter of life and death. And if we have you know, if we say we are providing a certain set of services and people call in, you know, to get assistance and we are not writing those services, I also have concerns in that direction. So. The Assistant City Manager. Bowden The 24 seven on call says that they'll receive a stipend for being on call. The councilors would. I'm assuming that by agreeing to being on call, they're agreeing to not just like we would with any other city employee there. They would be bound by basically not they're not going to be drinking or anything like that while they're on an on call shift. They're going to be essentially on call and ready to go to work. Speaker 3: Correct. Yeah. The and I will say. Speaker 2: That Kathryn. Speaker 3: Schwartz is available. She's she's on the call this evening and can probably help to better articulate as far as internal policies. But our expectation with this contract would be that these are these are these are trained medical professionals, clinical professionals who are clinicians who who are able to deliver the services that at any given hour. And they'd be available on call just like any other professional would be working on behalf of the city. Speaker 0: If I could tag on to the Vice Mayor's question about the 24 seven on call provision on page eight, the eight a under paragraph premature rule for ability to provide behavioral health professional services on a 24 seven on call basis to respond to acute emergencies in the field to assist field responders, provide response within 90 minutes. 90 minutes. Sounds like a long time. And I do think that these details are important, but I think we have been joined by Catherine Schwartz, executive director of Alameda Family Services. Welcome to do you want to you want to speak to those questions? Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And good evening, city council members. And I'm pleased to be able to answer your questions. Yes. The answer is that if someone is on call and they are being paid a stipend, under no circumstances will they ever. Do anything that would inhibit their ability to perform their job functions fully, just like they would during a regular 9 to 5 shift. And we would pay them hourly if they were activated, if someone called them and they would be prepared to either respond in person or by phone, whichever was necessary. And the expectation that was articulated in the proposal is that they will call back within 15 minutes. The RFP indicated that buyer would accept 90 minutes. And so the indication was that would be the longest possible. But that clearly we reiterate repeatedly in the proposal that the expectation is that they would call back within 15 minutes. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Other other questions are vice mayor restore you? Sorry. Speaker 1: And by callback, they would be calling and interacting with the first responder. Is there is there going to be an opportunity for them to speak with the individual at all? Or is all of the communication and response going to be within that just limited to first responder, even if they come in person? How's that? What's the if they if they if they come in person, then the expectation would be that they would engage with with the caller, but with the consumer. Yes. And if they respond as a consultant, there would also be a potential opportunity as needed to speak to the person who was having the crisis. The way that our person that our staff is going to respond is going to be dependent on the situation. They're going to use their clinical judgment and work in collaboration with the first responder, the fire department, to determine the best course of action. But if we were called to the scene in order to support, the expectation would be that we would engage with with the caller. But the clinician will be the one making the determination of if they will be responding in person. It wouldn't be our first responder saying we would like a clinician to come. It would be. It would be a discussion. So, for example, the first responder could say, could call us and say, we need you to come out. We have a situation that we feel. We need your you know, we need you to come out in person to support. Or in the course of a phone call based on the information that the first responder gives the clinician, the clinician could make the recommendation that they would like to come out to support. So the clinician with the clinician is going to use their clinical judgment based on the information that they are receiving from the first responder, as in any situation, but also as in any uncalled situation, the person can make a judgment and say, I think it would be helpful for me to come in person and support you. So I do have a question. Would there be a scenario where first responders are asking for the clinician to come, where the clinician would be able to say, no, I don't think I should come? Or is when the request is made, the person would then come. So if our firefighters are saying we want a clinician here, then that would be an end of story. The clinician would would come in. Speaker 0: Okay. If I could just ask. Sorry to interrupt, but one person speaks at a time. So advice Maravilla, finish speaking then I'm back to you, Mr. Shorten. I do see Acting Chief as I'm back with his hand up, so we'll call on him next. But Vice Mayor, go and finish your question. Speaker 4: And then and then. Speaker 1: In the interim, so as the person and I'm assuming that the 90 minutes is to allow for travel time or whatever in the interim, what would happen is that is the first are the first responders going to be on the phone or they're going to be checking back in with the clinician? Can you walk me through that a little bit? I just want to understand, obviously, things can change in a certain matter of time. Is the expectation that our first responders from our fire department or then to stay with the person that's in crisis for the for that waiting period? And then is what what's the communication looking like during that time? I see Chief Beck has his hand and know if you want to speak to that or if you want me to try. What would you prefer, Chiefs? Speaker 0: Well, I'm actually running the meeting, so I'll make that decision. Thank you. I would like to hear the acting chief is on Beck because you had your hand up during that line of questioning earlier. Speaker 3: Yeah, just clarification. So, first of all, mayor and city council, I'm recused on back the interim fire chief. And there is a point of clarification here. So we've asked element of family services to provide support to the program. Of course, as we well know, and there are several different options situations where we we expect their assistance. One would be a telehealth connection between our first responder and their agency. So we would have an opportunity to put the client on the call and speak directly to a clinician. In certain instances, if it was warranted, because this would be and that's part of what we are working on with county mental health. So it's important that it be understood that, yes, the client could talk directly to the clinician over a telehealth connection and our first responder unit would stay on the scene until the completion of the call. So once we take a client on service, then we're going to stay until the completion. The other possible interaction with element of family services would be if we asked for them to respond directly to the scene. And again, we would wait with with the client until and even during the time that Air Force responds and is on the scene with the client. So those are two different scenarios per se. So that's just for clarification. Speaker 0: Okay. Back to you, Vice Mayor. Speaker 1: And have we we've been working with the county currently. Is that correct? Speaker 3: Yes, we are negotiating with the Council on Development of the Programs protocols as well as some of the additional response criteria. So in Chief Del Bono's on the call, by the way, and he can answer some questions related to operational issues. But we'll wait to hear what your questions are. Speaker 0: Yes, he did. He didn't raise his hand, but. Oh, I see. The city manager with his hand up. Sorry. Let me let me go to Mr. Leavitt. Speaker 3: And so I just want to add two things to what Houston back said. The third thing when we set out the proposal was the wraparound services after and referring them to the right agency and follow up the next day, which is also a critical component, whether it be this proposal or anyone. That's what we were looking for, an army of family services proposed in that way. And then I think interim chief Deputy Bono can also add where we are with the county. I think part of it is they're waiting until we have a decision of who the partner is because. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Leavitt. I'm going to make sure that the the vice mayor has the fire. Just want to make sure that she's completed her line of questioning, because I think she's still in the stage where the call is happening. So I wasn't sure if you were again vice mayor. Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I just wanted to kind of get walk through what does it look like? Because I think what it says on paper is one thing that our fire department is currently responding right now. And so they have an understanding of kind of what their needs are. So I would really like to hear from our deputy chief about kind of how things are going. And then also because my understanding is we are in talks with what will be required by the county if we need to make changes or modifications to this agreement, if we move forward with it. Is there, you know, what would we need in the agreement to allow for that to occur? If, for instance, if the county comes back and says, yes, I know you have this agreement, however, we're requiring these additional things. Do we need to negotiate that now? Are there things that that the chief can foresee becoming issues? Those are my questions. Speaker 0: Okay. So Deputy Chief checked up on her. Welcome. Would you like to take a shot at that? Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. City Council Members Deputy Chief Jarvis. I'll go now. Yeah, I'll take a shot at it. There's a few things here. So we're we're out with the county right now is we're working with public health and county EMS. We work as paramedics. We work under a doctor sports license. So he's he's our county medical director. And one of the things that public health wanted, in order for us to be able to initiate the 5150s and remove PD from there, they wanted oversight from a licensed clinician that we would have access to, meaning that we could pick up the phone kind of like we do. We used to do it in the county for medical medicines and things like that. So now we have access to a license condition 24 seven that we can call and say, hey, we're on scene of A, B and C, we're looking at initiating a 72 hour hold on this client. We want to get your input on it and kind of have somebody to consult with that allows us to do that. That was a requirement of the county. The police officers do not need to do that right now. The reason behind that is because public health doesn't want to expand the the the right for people to 5150. They kind of want to limit it because that was part of the goal of putting them in the county cat units was to limit the 51 phones that were being placed and that type of client being taken to hospitals in overwhelming the system. So that was the county's requirement for the telemedicine, the clinician part of it, obviously, just this week, yesterday, actually, our our nine paramedics who all volunteered to go through over 60 hours of training with the Bonita House as clinicians just completed it yesterday. So just to give you an idea, if we responded to some type of call where we got there and it was above what we could handle, our our personnel will be trained not just in the clinician type training, but the city type training to to de-escalate the situation, calm things down. That's where we would initiate, you know, the clinician and call AFC to come in and assist us. And, you know, Marilyn, you pointed out that that can take a long time, 90 minutes. These calls would take a long time. These are these aren't calls that are going to go fast. These are people that need you need to take time with. You have patients with be trained and talked to. And that's what our personnel wear now and then to have the clinician there to be able to come in after us and be able to bring their expertize there and complement the program because we're not. The word to lead the program. This is going to be a team effort. We're all going to be working really hard together. As you know, Emily's army, the family services, our community paramedics in program PD. There's going to be a lot of people involved in this. So I don't know if that gives an idea of how a call would go. I can ask more I can answer more specific questions if you need me to. Speaker 0: I would just like to ask you, Deputy Albano, how often are you able to use telemedicine for some of these calls? I mean, you really could get someone on the screen and having a conversation. We heard a lot of references to the Mario Gonzalez case. Would telemedicine have been used there or what? Help us understand the parameters. Speaker 3: Well, I'm I'm not going to go back and second guess what happened on that, because I was not on that call. But I would say in a situation like that, I think, you know, part of what everybody's experiencing with it is and I know I've talked about with San Francisco's models doing along with New York's model with that crisis mobile units, that would be a situation where you probably end up showing up there and moving back if, you know, in de-escalating the situation and and trying to talk to him and get him, you know, somebody that that's in crisis to calm down, work with with what tools we had. If we're not able to get that person to calm down and get in a position to where we can get them to help, and that's what we would call in the clinician to come in and and assist us with that. That makes sense. Okay. Speaker 0: Okay. And what if the person was violent? Speaker 3: Well, anything that if somebody was violent, we would we would have to have to be there for anybody. It would be a safety issue. Okay. You know, but again, we would be working as a team with PD, L, Alameda Family Services, us being there, you know, not putting people in harm's way and trying to get that that client out of out of harm's way. So. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Back to your first mayor. Speaker 1: And just to follow up on that, when we talk about violence, it wouldn't be it would be a a team effort, as you mentioned. Deputy Chief. So when you talk about de-escalating, you would, you know, perhaps in a similar scenario or similar future scenario, fire would come in and be the first phase of the interaction. Is that what you're you're saying so that it wouldn't necessarily be a situation where your your approach would be would be different from that of police coming in? Is that what you're saying? Speaker 3: I would say, yeah, that we're hoping to have us out in front first. And this would be two people on a low profile crisis unit. This isn't going to be a fire engine, an ambulance PD officer showing up. This is literally going to be two people in a vehicle together that are going to be in polo shirts, that are going to come out and engage, engage the patient, you know, are the client and see where they're at. If they're on the street in the building, you know, PD would probably be there a bit in the background. And we're and we've we've had several meetings with PD and they they they understand what they would their role would be to and, you know, we would work to de-escalate the situation. If there's a weapon involved and somebody is violent right off the bat, obviously, we would have to we'd have to make sure that the scene is secure in our police officers are the ones that know how to do that. But I really think that, you know, from the type of clientele and, you know, we've been transporting mental health patients since 1982. I mean, this is not new to us. And like Catherine had pointed out, this is this is to expand our options to get people to the right place for the right needs. So if we show up on a call, our only choice isn't to 51, 50 somebody and take them to a psychiatric felicity or restrain him and take him to the E.R. room. We're going to have a lot more options here, including treating and releasing. And that's one of the options that we're going to have under our pilot, meaning that we can show up and we call it refer and release in this type of situation. So if the client is somebody that we really feel comfortable with, that we can refer and release, we're going to have A.f.c. on site Monday through Friday handling a caseload that can go and do follow up with with this person the next day. Maybe it's not a mental health situation. Maybe it's a an addiction issue, maybe it's a homeless issue. And I don't know if I added this, but we already have office space for them in our community. Paramedics at the office where Catherine is agreed that this this clinician will be embedded Monday through Friday in our office. So, you know, again, that's a big deal for us because we'll be working as a team together with all of us tonight. That clinician is going to be here and like part of our family. So that's that's how that's how we're going to approach this, you know. So I hope that explained it all. Speaker 1: That helps. And and so to follow up the the having the clinician there, there will be an ability for fire to to follow up to actually make sure that the person's been seen as part of your refer and release program. It's not just here's the information. You'll actually have the person there on premises so that you can check in and say, Has this person come in? What's happened? And if the person doesn't come in or there's other issues, you'll be able to do additional follow up? Speaker 3: Absolutely. I think that's going to be a huge part of the success of, you know, our response is having that follow up care. I mean, you know, the majority of time that these these clients are like put on a hold, they go to John, George, they're released a couple of hours later. There's no follow up care. This is this is going to be you know, you know, like somebody had mentioned, this is going to be, you know, pretty much one of the one of the only kind of programs that are going on in California right now. So along with San Francisco, they're they're doing the same thing, really high success rates. So. Speaker 0: You have a. Speaker 1: Sense and then I really appreciate this. I think that this makes it more real and digestible for people to understand what the what the conversations have been among staff in terms of what's being envisioned by this. So I really appreciate the detail of the response. There were two things. I'm just going to go into kind of what my my comments, I guess are for the Quality Assurance Board. I would like to make sure I notice that AFS would be a part of it. I, I well I think AFS is going to be reviewed. I don't necessarily think having AFS be part of the board. I don't know if it was a semantics thing that I'm reading incorrectly, but I just want to make sure that that board, like AFS isn't reviewing itself. I think that's really important. And Chief. So I'm back. I, I see your hand up. Speaker 0: You want to comment? Interim Chief Zon. Speaker 3: Back. So first of all, let me explain the quality assurance board. We have one for each of our programs, community promotion program or our class or permanent program. So we have oversight. That's part of the process. We review what we do and we look to see how we can improve. So what we want to do, this is a collaboration. So we want to review together what we're doing and we want to understand where we're doing something right and where we need to improve. That's what the Quality Assurance Board is about. Now, we've also discussed the prospect of having an open meeting to the public, some sort of a committee are meeting potentially where we can then have a Q&A with the public about the program on a periodic basis. So that's another I would say what we want to try to do is be as transparent as possible on how the program's doing. Obviously, we're going to have data reporting that's going to be coming from both the fire department's data sources and Air Force. And we have some robust data reporting internally because we have our call response system, our record management, and we also have our our client services reports. We have what we call patient care reports, but there's something that we use for community paramedics and that we envision we use for this program. So we'll have data. We can report that out. Obviously, you'll want that. But we also we would like to be able to answer questions as appropriate to the community on how we're doing . The quality assurance is a big part of what we always do internally. Speaker 0: And I wonder, chief interim chiefs are back and Deputy Chief Charbonneau, is there a place for peer review in this process, perhaps from San Francisco, that's doing something similar, maybe what San Mateo County's doing? Deputy Chief And by the way, thank you so much for all the additional insight you provided. I learned a lot just from listening to you. Speaker 3: Yeah. So one of the peer reviewed things we're going to we're going to actually have our our personnel go right along with San Francisco's crisis mobile units. They're going to go spend a day or two out there and right along with their units to kind of see what they're doing. But yeah, there is going to be peer review and I know public health, the Alameda County Public Health and our EMS County because we're under a pilot, we're going to have review up there, too. They're going to want to they're going to want to take this data, look at it, see what kind of, you know, responses we have and how that goes. I want to I want to say one last thing, just so you guys get a little bit more comfort level. You know, part of the training was, you know, it was nine days. We had people volunteer board three, our personnel in there, which I learned hopping on in the morning and hearing why they were there. Our veterans, that two of them were were veterans, war veterans that were in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of them ten years and very heavily involved in PTSD stuff. And so these these these nine people, we have volunteered to do this. They didn't they weren't forced to do it. They want to do it. We're going to meet next week and also they're going to be part of forming this program. Speaker 0: So thank you guys there. Speaker 1: So I wasn't necessarily asking in terms of having community oversight in in the quality assurance. I think the peer review aspect is really what I was getting at. And I think if we can just build in something in the agreement that would allow for collaborative peer review or it doesn't it doesn't need to be quarterly or anything like that. I think maybe a six month check in and then one at the 12 month mark, something like that. You know, San Francisco has been doing their thing for a little bit and yeah, a little bit of time. I think just hearing what's happening within the region and when I say peer, I really mean peer peer programs, regional programs, because these are regional issues. So I just think that would be helpful and give you know, give you insight. I don't I worry about just opening it up to a full, you know, anybody from the public coming in to sit on that the quality assurance board because these are these are it is a pilot program and it's an emerging area and it's also an area where there's a lot of expertize needed. But I would like some sort of built in peer review. The other thing and I'll wrap up, I'm not necessarily in favor of that. The way that it's worded for the second year option by mutual agreement, I do think it should come back to the council at the one year mark we can review. That would be where I would want to hear the data presentations, what the peer review recommendations were because I don't know. If this is where this is a good starting point. I think there's been a lot of work to get us here. But we could be looking for an entirely, you know, a bigger build out to the program. We could find that there's a greater need in one area and not in another. And so I really think that at that point, we need to make that decision and to have it come back to council with that data and that , you know, all of the insight that you've learned to really make sure that whatever the program is, that we continue it in a way that is most appropriate for our community and for our department and what our needs are. So that would be that's my feedback on that. You know, I appreciate all the work that went into this, and I want to thank you all. I think that the goal here is really to just make sure that we have this alternative option. I do also worry about the exhibit A thing. So I feel like we might be able to give some direction tonight on the specifics and maybe have it come back at the next council meeting fully agenda and vote on it that way. I just want to make sure it's clean. So thank. Speaker 0: You. There might be a workaround on that one. Let's hear from some other council members who wants to go next. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So I would like to hear at some point from the city attorney in regards to the exhibit, because when I read it, it just says it's like a tentative document or something like that. I forget what the word was. So would it be okay to have that discussion now? I'd like to hear from the city attorney. Speaker 0: Okay. And I'm sorry. Your question is what again? Speaker 4: The issue you raised in regards to the exhibit? Because when I read the contract, I actually think that it's all right that we can proceed with the language that was used in here. Speaker 0: Sure. I mean, my concern is that will they open government commission, bring a complaint against us? But I don't have a crystal ball. But, Mr. Chan, is there anything you'd like to add? Speaker 3: Sure. Councilmember Spencer, if the council wish to proceed tonight, as Councilmember Avella indicated, you could provide direction as clear as possible. Right. As the staff report acknowledges that the contract is not done, then you would want to provide as many clear directions as possible so that when you're delegating that ultimate authority to the city manager, he understand what your directions are. So that is one path to proceed. Alternatively, you could consider the vice mayor his approach, which is to give direction and have staff bring you back a clean exhibit. Both are legally viable at the Council's pleasure. Speaker 4: Thank you. So my preference would act. So if you look at the bottom of page one of the proposed agreement, it says provider agrees to do all necessary work except the right to include it in Exhibit A as requested. Provider acknowledges that the work plan included an exhibit is tentative and does not permit the city to request provider to perform all tasks included therein. So I think it is actually written in a way that it is broad enough that I would my preference would be to move forward and give an allow, which is in fact the title of the document is recommendation to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Almeida Family Services. So it actually provides that to negotiate and execute. So that does within the title itself tell us that the negotiations will still be going on, but that that's what the ask is from staff in the title. So going back to the city attorney, how would you respond to that? Speaker 3: I think I think what the councilmember said is consistent with my response to you, which is that you have multiple path forward. You could give the city manager direction tonight. Delegate authority and help negotiate and execute the contract. Or you can direct him to bring back something that's precise. Both are within your authority tonight. Speaker 4: Thank you. So I would move that we accept the recommendation here to authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with me to family services for an amount not to exceed 500,000 for one year. And I appreciate vice mayor's comments in regards to the not wanting to proceed with the option and have it come back . But I would like to at least start with the year one and make a decision tonight and give that direction, which I think does comply and does honor exactly what the agenda item says here to negotiate and execute four options than one A and one C. See, and I'm going to. So I'm making that motion. I'm hoping that council will support moving forward today. I agree with all of our speakers and we had this like almost ten speakers in regards to how important it is to move forward with this. I was not on council when this process started. However, I agree with our community. It is time and I would actually say it is past time. And when I and some of you may remember back in July when I looked at the zoom screen, I said, In a time of crisis, I want our first responders. That is who I want. When I look at the screen today and I see the executive director of Alameda Family Services, Catherine Schwartz, joining our police chief, our interim fire chief, our deputy chief, that is Alamitos team. Why is that? Our team? First of all, for some of you that don't know this, Alameda Family Services has been serving Alameda, the city since 1969. Our community has been supporting Alameda Family Services for over 50 years. We heard from some of these people today that volunteer. Many of us donate to Alameda Family Services, time and money. They are in our schools serving our community. They are out. And there's a letter from Alameda Point Collaborative. They serve people at Alameda Point Collaborative. They have a presence in our community, bar none. There is no other provider of mental health services that knows Alameda and serves Alameda better than Alameda Family Services. This is, in fact, what I would call the A team that I was hoping we would get. And I strongly appreciate the assistant city manager's efforts and the city manager's efforts in bringing this. But and I agree and the vice mayor's comments in regards to an emerging effort here, cities across the country are trying to figure this out. I'm going to submit that we have a head start because our fire department is acting. I'm sorry, Deputy Chief Telefono said has been transporting transporting mental health patients since 1982. That's amazing. So this is exactly what I want and I thank everyone for stepping up. I hope that someone will second my motion and we can start serving our community to the best of our ability. Now, someone had said, you know, maybe more money should be at some point we may need more money for this some. And I would agree at some point we may need more money now. We do have the ARPA funds. I'm not sure if any of that can be used for mental health, but all the speakers that spoke to increased mental health demands and issues because of COVID. That's absolutely true. The data is there, which is why time is of the essence. And so thank you very much. I appreciate everyone stepping up. And actually, I appreciate you stepping up all these years to serve our community. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Kasper Harry Spencer. And there were many suggestions made by the vice mayor and also by myself. Are you including that is direction to city manager? Speaker 4: You know, I so I'm not sure what specifically I certainly do not want to backpedal. I want to move forward. So if you want to enumerate what all the suggestions were, I, I did articulate the one year coming back in a year and we can reevaluate. But I think that the ask is actually, hi, I'm here and I don't think we necessarily have to get into the weeds. When I read the agenda item that was said, if you want to make friendly amendments, I'm happy to consider your friendly amendments. Speaker 0: Let let's hear from Councilmember Knox White. Speaker 3: So I'm going to second the motion, but I'm going to start off by almost immediately asking to be commended. I appreciate it. I think there's ways to address the issue of the second year. But as somebody who's running two year programs, we're going to be a year and a half through this program. Before we have the data, we need to decide whether we should be moving forward. We're not going to be able to make it a value. I mean, it's taking us four months to get to this point, to have something in front of us, to start negotiating it just because of the turn times and whatever else. We're going to have to be almost back in front of the council on three months starting the conversation about what to do with your two. And I would recommend that we include the option to extend. If things are going badly, we can stop. If they're doing a six month, six month check ins and things are not working and we're not seeing the world seeing the results we want or we're getting complaints and things like that. That option gives us the opportunity to not move forward. But I would like to, to to I just we're going to we're going to cause a lot of work with without much benefit. Speaker 0: I think the question for you, Councilmember, not quite the the question that I think the vice mayor and I both had was that the agreement may be mutually extended to when you're at the sole discretion of the city manager, would you want it to come back to the council? Speaker 3: I personally, I would like to just give the city manager the authority. I feel like we're I worry that we're walking the walk. Speaker 0: That's a no. Okay. Okay. Got it. Okay. Speaker 4: We accept his friendly amendment on. Speaker 0: You know, it's. I've been studying up on procedure. I think you're actually creating a new motion, but it's perfectly fine. Why don't you go ahead with your amendments? I'm taking notes. Councilmember. Speaker 3: So, you know, I was going to say, I want to be careful that we're not stepping into the administrative realm by actually starting to write the contract. I think we I want to get my great appreciation. I was as we were going through the presentation, I was thinking about a year ago June, after the Watkins tapes came out and we stood on city hall, we stood there with city manager Eric Levitt, and he committed to the to the to the community that I think you said a year. But I'm going to say this council kind of blew a hole in the idea that it was going to take a year, but that we were going to be a leader in how we how we respond to these types of things within the next year or so. And I, I said at that point in time that I believe that we were that we had the leadership that was going to get us there. And I think we are here tonight, and I want to thank him for for that commitment very early on. Obviously, all the staff from assistant city manager about and chief and deputy chief and Tom Beck, Miss Schwartz and Chief Joshi as well, who I know is also part of these conversations just getting us here. So I want us to move forward to the point when we move when we pass the motion to do to bring this forward. One of the things we talked about was, you know, this was a pilot and we kept hearing that tonight. We talked about the idea that we wanted to make sure that it was a pilot that was iterative and I might my direction or recommendation or whatnot that I would suggest that I think gets to some of the concerns I'm hearing is that we write the contract in such a way that whatever ends up in Schedule A as the things that need to be done can be changed by the city, with agreement from his words, with 45 days or 60 days, you know, kind of notice or something like that. So that as we're iterating, if we find out something's not working and we want to make that change and you know, you know, either Almeida Family Services or the or the City Fire Department says, hey, you know what, we really should be doing something else because we're not we're not removing cause from the system of where we thought we should create some sort of mechanism for for you to go back as you're doing the quality review and even change the schedule very simply, rather than having to come back and re amend the contract every single day, every single time, I think having that flexibility would be really good. And then I think that if we can give the direction also to get to the address, I think as you're doing the check, you know, it would be good to get quarterly updates just on what's going on and what the numbers look like so that the council, if they have a problem, can raise it before that one year extension has come out. I it doesn't take much for one of us to put it on the agenda and say, hey, this is a problem. We don't want to we don't want to move forward and give that direction to the city manager in the future. So I think that there are ways we can kind of create those breaks. But I also I just I, I agree with our speakers. We have we have sat and talked 15 months on this issue or 14 months on this issue, and it's time for us to move forward. And I think we've got a team that can do this and I'm excited. So thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And so if I get my procedure correct and Madam Clerk, help me out here, I think this actually becomes the office amendments, become a substitute motion. Is that correct? Speaker 1: I was thinking I thought that I heard Counselor Knox, like, just say them as amendments to the motion. Speaker 0: And so, again, I was setting procedure for the League of California's Cities, and I thought that it isn't so much the maker of the motion who accepts the amendments that the the whole council has to decide on that. But what do we usually do now? Speaker 1: The usual process that we have followed typically here and I can study it more myself too. Thank you for bringing it up. But is that the maker of the motion does accept the amendments as the way we are practices? Okay. Speaker 0: Well, we can we can do it the Alameda way. That's fine. Okay. We've had a motion then by Councilmember Herrera Spencer that's been amended by Councilmember Knox. Right. And the maker of the motion accepted those amendments. And I believe Councilmember Knox. Right. You also seconded the motion. Correct. And so so let's have discussion from the one member. We well, people have time left, but councilor member distracted. You wish to to weigh in. Speaker 2: Sure. You know, I think this represents. A historic opportunity for reforming policing in Alameda, an action that I think generations and generations of Alameda will look to and be proud of. So I think we should move forward with the motion as amended. And while I voted for Felton Institute, I think the night that I said I voted for Felton Institute, I also indicated that I'm. Confident that the Alameda Fire Department can manage this contract on the substantive issue of the RFP, it is true that the RFP is all of, I think, a page and a half. But the way that I look at the RFP is basically it's really not an RFP. What you really have is an RFQ. You're asking for the qualifications with respect to the items and the sub items and the subset of items that are in the RFP. And the response that Alameda Family Services had provided was quite in-depth. I mean, there there are proposal is is is 27, 26, 27 pages. And they hit all the points that the Alameda Fire Department said were pertinent points with regard to making sure that we reform policing in ways that allow for mental health professionals to deal with nonviolent situations where mental health issues are certainly implicated. So I think we should not miss this rare opportunity to really reform policing here in Alameda. Will it be a model for others to look at much in the way that people look at cahoots in Portland, Oregon? I don't know, but I know that, hey, you know, this is really this is a big deal that we're doing. And so I support this. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Desai, I have vice mayor of L.A.. Speaker 1: Questions through the chair to Councilmember Knox. For the quarterly updates, how would you want those or how are you asking those to come? I just don't want them to necessarily be agendas on a council meeting and then become like massive updates. The second thing is, if we could just make sure that this gets agenda ahead of the one year mark, I would appreciate that. Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah. Off agenda reporting seems great. Can always be put forward by a council member who wants to. And similarly, I think we can give direction to, you know, a month before the one year extension is is executed. Agenda. Is it for conversation? Okay. Then it will be. We know it's going to be all on. I mean, I borrowed great job of remember remember that? Remember late. Speaker 0: Okay. Yes. Councilmember Harris Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you. For the record, I want to say that I am accepting all of the amendments from Councilmember Knox like. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'll just go last. And I, I will say this. I, I have been persuaded, I, I've listened to many of the speakers for over a year now, and I have huge respect for you and the time and effort and passion you've put into to this. And again, I can't think. Assistant City Manager Jerry Bowden And if I was not in any way questioning your competency and the diligence with which you've approached this Herculean task, but I know there's also been more recent information, but I guess there always will be. And it is, as was noted, an iterative process. Thank you for all the representatives from Amalgamated Family Services, the fire department. Thank you. Especially Deputy Chief Del Bono. You really, really shed a light, really illustrated what's been going on, what's what's already in place. And and I appreciate that. And so I, too, will be moving to support this. I think it's appropriate that we we move forward expeditiously, meaning now and I know the city manager has heard all the concerns that were raised by in the discussions and that he and the assistant city manager will take all of those things into consideration when they're finalizing the negotiations. So I would say we just approved this motion and we don't even worry about that. Service provider agreement and Exhibit A, it's not even part of this, writes makers of the motion. So just remove that as an issue. So with that, Madam Clerk, would you please do the roll call vote? Speaker 1: Councilmember de Shag. Yes. Herrera Spencer, I. Knox, wait. Speaker 3: Hi. Speaker 1: Fella. I mayor as the Ashcraft I if that carries by five eyes. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And thank you to everyone who's been involved and for, you know, really over a year on getting us to this point. So. Okay, everybody roll up your sleeves and we look forward to getting this program up and off the ground. Councilmember Knox. Right. Speaker 3: So just a procedural I'm wondering, I believe the Dave Park item actually has a time sensitivity given that there's an upcoming grant. I would like to take that first since the other the other items and. Speaker 0: Next it is the next when we should we should move quickly. Okay. So I. Speaker 3: Am sorry. That's all. Speaker 0: Right. But I'm I'm watching the clock to no. Good point. Okay. Thank you, everyone, for all involved. We're going to say good evening to you. Good night. And we are going to queue up item 70. Madam Clerk, could you please introduce that item to us? Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution to apply for the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, measure a grant to fund planning and design of the park, and allocate 50,000 in matching funds if awarded. Speaker 0: Thank you. And that. Okay. I have a suggestion. I know that we have, I believe it's recreation parks director Amy Wooldridge here to present, but I'm wondering if we might just oh I should stop and ask Madam Clerk, do we have public speakers on this item. Speaker 1: We do have one. Linda Karlan. Oh, now do you? Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Okay. So good evening, Director Wooldridge. Good to see you, Councilor. How about we take our public speakers and then just because we're playing Beat the Clock here, we'll see if we have any questions of Ms. Wooldridge and perhaps we could then entertain a motion without even needing a full glowing staff report. But let's please start with our public speakers. And the first speaker is Linda Carlon. Right. Welcome, Speaker Carbone. Speaker 1: Thank you. Can you hear. Speaker 0: Me? We sure can. Speaker 1: Great. Speaker 4: First, I just. I will be very quick. I first want to thank Amy for all of her work and her energy and her expertize that she put into getting this project to the state we're in. I also want to thank the city staff and the council members and also CASA, who have been instrumental in bringing this project

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with Alameda Family Services for an Amount Not to Exceed $500,000 for One-Year, with an Option to Extend for an Additional Year for an Amount Not To Exceed $1,000,000 for Two-Years, to Provide for Mental Health Services Related to the City’s Alternative Response to Calls for Mental Health Crisis Support Pilot Program. (City Manager 10021030)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09212021_2021-1284

Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance many amendments book chapter 24 Public Health to add Section 14 Prohibition on Gasoline Powered Leaf Blowers. Speaker 0: All right. And do we have any public speakers on this item? Speaker 1: We do not. Speaker 0: I'm closing public comment and. All right, I see we have both Alan Thai and Andrew Thomas. Take it away, gentlemen. And brevity is the key word here. Speaker 3: I'm going to turn over Tallentire did all the work on this. Thank you. Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Vice Mayor and city council members. I'm just going to make this very quickly. So there the city's Climate Action Resiliency Plan contains an action item to enact the ban on gasoline leaf blowers. Gasoline leaf blowers have been well documented as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In Alameda, our Karp anticipates a reduction of 76 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. So and many cities have enacted similar bans, most recently Oakland and Berkeley. The draft ordinance that is in front of you would ban the use and the sale of gasoline powered leaf blowers starting on January 1st, 2023. So that's a lead time of 15 months. The city staff plans to use that time to further outreach to. Speaker 3: Property owners and businesses and. Speaker 2: Allow the conversion transition to electric alternatives. Speaker 3: And we've discovered that there are about a. Speaker 2: Hundred landscape companies that do business in Alameda and we have all notified them. And so staff is recommending the introduction of this ordinance and I'm available for any questions. Speaker 0: Thank you so much, Mr. Tie. Councilmember her Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. I had asked before. Is the city still using gasoline powered leaf blowers? The city? Speaker 2: I believe I believe the answer is no. Our contractors are not using. Speaker 3: Gas leaf blowers. Speaker 4: Okay. Because I did receive a complaint, I think some of us have at one of the parks there. I believe that they did work for the city. So I would like clarification. I saw two other hands. Speaker 0: Mr. BURTON, did you have your hand. Speaker 3: That I'll I'll defer to City Manager Leavitt. So he's got the answer. I was going to clarify that we are converting to gas. I know I'm running away from gas, too. So and I it's getting late burning though too electric in our contracts with our outside contractors where the complaints have come from, what I've seen tend to be where we have outside contractors working for either public works or parks. I think it's for public works and some of our ride away areas and we're trying to convert those contracts and we're trying to do it consistent with this ordinance. Speaker 0: Thank you for that clarification. Councilmember Harris Spencer, then Vice Mayor of L.A.. Speaker 4: Thank you. So I support this, but I, I hope that the city will finish the conversion of who we hire, who the city hires, as well as what we use, because we can be the leader on this thing. And so thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor L.A.. Speaker 1: I just want to move approval of the ordinance as written, and then I hope that we actually follow and execute as the city and comply with it. Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel, over there. Speaker 2: So I'd like to second that with a quick comment. Finally, thank God, no more loud, obnoxious, odorous gas powered leaf blowers. Thank you, city staff. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, Councilman, relax. Okay. Speaker 3: So I was. I plan to support the motion. My only potential change would be to consider whether we wanted to actually make it make make it go into effect immediately. But have enforcement not start until the 23rd? I'd say till 2023. So basically the same timeline for enforcement. But rather than giving a year and a half of people to be able to continue using leaf blowers, you know, people we can start making sure that part of the part of the education could be the phase in of people getting notices that, hey, these aren't allowed and we're going to start enforcement in the next year. So just throwing that out. Speaker 0: So I actually would like to stick with the staff's recommendation. I have talked to some other cities where it's done and the education pieces is really important and the bilingual education and we are impacting people's employment. And so I bet. But the hope would certainly be that it happens sooner. But anyway, I but I do think the motion was as to the original ordinance, unless anybody wants to make amendments. Okay, let's. It is 1155. Madam Clerk, may we have a roll cover, please? Speaker 1: Councilmember dialog. Yes. Aurora Spencer. Speaker 4: Hi. Speaker 1: Knox Light. Speaker 4: Hi, Bella. Speaker 1: I mean, as Ashcroft. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: That carries by five eyes. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, staff. Mr. Time, Mr. Thomas. Thank you so much. And good work, counsel, for moving things along so expeditiously. So we aren't going to be able to get to item seven E today. So, Madam Clerk, help me out here. Speaker 1: We you have two options with this item. You could just have could just put it back on the regular agenda for the next meeting without you taking a vote and considering it. If you wanted to put it in that continued section, you could you would it would require council vote to put it in that section. So it's up to Council's discretion. Speaker 0: Counsel What do we think? We can have a vote to add it to the Section six, which means, if I understand correctly, it's heard before the rest of the regular agenda items at our October six meeting. But we have to decide quickly because time is running out. My man, Vice Mayor. Speaker 1: Yes. I moved to put it in Section six. Speaker 0: Okay. Do you have a second? Councilor Herr Spencer. Speaker 4: My second. Speaker 0: Okay. Any discussion thing, then? Maybe have a roll call vote with member station? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: However, Spencer I Naxalites II, Valley High Mayor as Ashcraft. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: I'm curious my. If I might. Speaker 0: Okay, that's great. Thank you. Okay. So the. We will take the city manager's comments and. And do we have the oral communications network?

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXIV Public Health to Add Section 24-14 Prohibition on Gasoline-Powered Leaf Blowers. (Planning and Building 20962710)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09072021_2021-1101

Speaker 3: In the last round of Sunshine Ordinance updates, we met with the Council to talk about various modifications. The most most of the modifications that the Council directed us to return to were changes to the remedies provision of the Sunshine Ordinance. And with respect to the remedies provision, the Council expressed interest in having us maintain the recommendation role of the Open Government Commission, but to return with the Open Government Commission's recommendation of keeping matters as much status quo as possible when a Commission decision has been rendered. We have met with the Open Government Commission throughout the last year on this topic, and that one major difference between our recommendation and the recommendation of the Sunshine Commission is or the Open Government Commission is, that we recommend that it would be an encouragement but not a mandate, so that city Garden City business can move forward as appropriate. Aside from that, the rest of the changes are minor and in the staff report itself, and we're happy to answer your questions. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Shen. Mr. Li, I can tell you in muted. Did you want to add anything? Speaker 1: Can you hear me? Just fine? Speaker 0: Yeah, just fine. Speaker 3: I guess it's just a video. I have nothing to add. I just wanted to make sure you can hear me. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And, Madam Cook, do we have public speakers on this item? Speaker 2: We have one so far. Speaker 0: Okay, Counsel, do we have any clarifying questions for Mr. Lay or Mr. Sheehan before we take our public comment? Should we take our public speaker first? Okay, let's do that. Madam Kirk, would you introduce our public speaker, please? Speaker 2: We now have two, but the first one is Carmen Reid. Speaker 0: All right. Good evening, Speaker Reid. Speaker 1: Good evening, Madame Air and City Council Members. I would just like to bring attention to the penalties section in the Sunshine Ordinance. It's to dash 93.8 subsection D, and it states that a person who makes more than two complaints in a in a in a calendar year by the commission is 20. So if if a person who makes more than two complaints in in one year a 12 month period by the commission to which is determined by the commission to be unfounded shall be prohibited from making a complaint for five years. So I find this particularly concerning and this penalty seems rather harsh and unnecessary, especially because the LGC has not traditionally heard many complaints. And if our community wants a more open government, I recommend amending that clause to represent a more fair process instead of discouraging community involvement with the penalty that prohibits engagement. And I would also like to let you know that in San Francisco, the Sunshine Task Force, which is relatively equivalent or similar to the Open Government Commission in Alameda, they do not have a penalty clause like that at all. So it's something just to point out that they do not discourage public involvement. And perhaps we should also follow their lead. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. When we finish our public speakers, I'm going to ask the city attorney's office to comment on what exactly is before us this evening. And we have another public speaker. Speaker 2: Yes, Jay Garfinkel. Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Garfinkel. Speaker 3: Good evening. I would second Commissioner Read's recommendation. My concern with the Open Government Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance is that while it made sense back around 2011, 2013, when the Sunshine Ordinance was created, it was aimed solely at enforcing the Brown Act. Since that time, we've all become aware of many issues that could use some more sunshine, but they are not related to posting of agendas. For instance, recently there was an error in an agenda and city staff went and changed what had originally been published. That's, um. That's uncalled for. Also, there are frequent additions to the agenda after its initial posting, and in the form, of course, it's finance. Now there is a number of people may submit correspondence over the ensuing two weeks and there's no notification given of the changes, the additions of the correspondence. There are any number of other items that need more openness and transparency. And I would suggest that we do what was what the Council did back in 2000, 11, 12, 13, whatever it was, create excuse me, create a citizens task force, just like you did for the police reform process. The difference I would make here is that I would have this meeting open to the public. I see no reason for secrecy. When discussing transparency, for instance, the ad hoc committee issue needs to be cleaned up. Most of what I've seen happening over the two years that the Sunshine Ordinance has been under scrutiny has been housekeeping. It's been items that restrict transparency. It makes the sunshine or the audit into the Open Government Commission almost useless. All it does is make sure that that agendas are published. Come on. That's not transparency. Yes, it should be done just as is required by the Brown Act. But there are a lot of things that go on in City Hall that the public is simply not aware of. And I think that a committee should be established to find out what the public wants to know and create a mechanism for doing that. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any further public speakers, Madam Clerk? Speaker 2: Joshua. I'll tarea Gualtieri Altieri MEP. Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Good evening. Speaker off here. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my name is Josh Schulz here. I'm the community relations manager at the Housing Authority of the city of Alameda. And I want to thank everyone for their time. And today I'm announcing the opening of the housing voucher waitlist for both our housing. Speaker 0: Project and Mr. Altieri. We're really excited to hear about that. I'm thinking you are probably not speaking about the Open Government Commission and the ordinance amending the Sunshine Ordinance. Yes, that's correct. If you could hang on really briefly for Matt to finish this item and the clerk will see that you were called on in oral communications, which is very shortly. Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Speaker 0: It's very important, very important information you have to share. And we look forward to hearing from you at that time under oral communications. Thank you. Thank you. And to I have and I might add, Mr. Asteria has been a member of my vaccine task force and doing great work. Any further public speakers, Madam Clerk? And there's John. Speaker 1: Lay. Speaker 0: It really is you, Madam Clerk. Speaker 2: No additional speakers. Speaker 0: Okay. With that, I'm going to close public comment on item six. E continued from July 20th. I did want to ask for a little bit of clarification. As I understand it, there are specific provisions we are looking at this evening with regard to the comments of the first speaker about a penalty section. A person who makes two complaints in 12 months is that Mr. Lay. Mr. Shin, help us understand, if you will. Speaker 3: I'm happy to, Madam Mayor. We do not propose any changes to that subdivision of the code. It is a carryover from, I believe, the original or near original, the Sunshine Ordinance. And I believe the intent there was to. Limit the amount of time that complaints complainants if they file unfounded complaints to limit the amount of work that the city's commissions and staff would end up doing with respect to unfounded complaints. We do not make any proposals in this particular round of ordinance changes before you tonight. Speaker 0: Thank you. He went to Mr. Lay. Speaker 3: No other than that, the I'm not. Speaker 5: Sure that the Open Government Commission which had. Speaker 3: An opportunity to properly that that issue as well. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So and then the other one was I was going to ask the clerk. Madam Clerk, could you just tell me a little bit? There was some reference to correspondence may be added, may come in after the original agenda is published. Can you tell us how you handle that? Speaker 2: Yes, gladly. So any additional correspondence that comes in, we attach to the agenda item and then as it's updated, if it it's continuing over days, that new new information is coming in. We basically put the date that it was updated and keep adding the most current new additions on the top so people don't have to scroll all the way to the bottom and then it can see it quickly and understand what's been added. Speaker 0: And would you say that you often find that correspondence is coming in right up until the time of the council meeting? Speaker 2: Yes, ma'am. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for those clarifications. Okay. Council motion discussion. Where are you? Calls over her. Eric Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. So I would like to know if it's possible to have the commission review that penalty that was raised during the public comments of a key member not being allowed to come back for five to file any complaint for five years. I think that's a pretty I don't know what that was based on, but I think in a court of law, you would not see that. And I think it's pretty extreme. So I would like to know the procedure of how to get us to look at to look at that again. And in regards to what I think is being proposed tonight under 2-9, 3.8 penalty subsection A, I have concerns in regards to the use shall. There's two places where it's used here. Speaker 0: And tell us if you would tell us again where are you in this is. Speaker 4: It's penalties is the name of the stats. Speaker 0: So exhibit one the subcommittee's proposal. Speaker 4: I'm looking at. Speaker 0: Exhibit are you looking at? Exhibit one? Speaker 4: Exhibit two. Speaker 0: Exhibit two. Same as the newly installed commission proposal. Speaker 4: Yeah. So that's. Yeah. Sorry. So that's what I was looking at. Sure. I think the same language might be in both. I'm not sure which one we're supposed to be looking at. Speaker 0: That's okay. Which. And your section was two point. Speaker 4: 92-93.8 in the title is penalties. Yes. A. Okay. Okay. So. That's third and actually fourth and fifth sentences I believe use the term shall where you have. If I'm reading this correctly, the Open Government Commission is making a decision that they think a decision needs to be reviewed. And then they're saying that such a. Let me see where the sentence is now. Speaker 0: Mr. Shannon has his hand up. Speaker 3: Council Member Maybe I could be of assistance in, in the fourth exhibit, which is the staff's draft ordinance. You're probably looking at 2-9, 3.8. And in the beginning the red line shows that the original body, the originating body, i.e. the City Council, will be required to consider the Commission's recommendation with the use of the word shall. I believe that's where you're directing us. Speaker 4: Okay. So tell me which exhibit you think that. Speaker 3: Is in the fourth exhibit. So in the audience. Speaker 4: The audience is one minus. Speaker 0: Instead of a third. It would be the third exhibit, isn't it? Speaker 1: The audience minus the third. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: We don't have a fourth exhibit. The fourth item after staff report is updated correspondence. Speaker 3: Oh, you know, if you the online version has correspondence as a third and audience is the fourth. And so depending, I guess on where you look in the third or the fourth exhibit. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: So what's called Ordnance Stash Sunshine, is that what you're referring to? Speaker 3: Yes, I believe that's where Councilmember Spencer is directing us to where her concern is that the originating body shall consider the commission's recommendation. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: The original. Okay. Okay. Is that where you are? Councilmember Harry Spencer. Speaker 4: It's the same language I think is very similar. But my concern is that I think it needs to be may consider the recommendation. I don't I have concerns about the commission dictating to council that we must consider their recommendation because in the interim as the in the interim, then they also suggest or say that council should keep the status quo. And so I don't understand in this correctly, you have a decision made by council, which we did while I was mayor in regards to cannabis. And there was the issue raised which I look to the city attorney and I asked if they thought the notice was sufficient. The city attorney says yes, and then we proceed with making a decision. However, in the meantime, then there's a change at council and it comes back. But I think if I'm reading this correctly, it would be that the council would have to follow the lead of the Open Government Commission and essentially void that decision, relook at it and then make a decision. So I think that this needs to be may consider, but I don't think it's appropriate if I'm interpreting it correctly or commission to be dictating to council what they have to do. I think not to make a suggestion. Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to ask I'm reading it a little differently, but I'm going to ask the attorneys. Mr. Shay. Mr. Lay, there's this language. The originating body shall be construed as the Commission's recommendation and render a final decision on whether to accept or reject the Commission's recommendation in whole or in part. But it would tell us a little bit about those 2 to 3 sentences. Really? Speaker 3: Sure. Madam Mayor, Councilmember Spencer, we're happy to help. So in the example that Councilmember Spencer provided, the commission, for instance, would render a decision at the council. Decision enacting an ordinance is unlawful. Under this proposed language, the Council will be required to consider that recommendation, and it does not automatically mean that the Council's previous decision was void . But you would have to agenda. Is it as soon as possible to consider the Commission's recommendation at that new council meeting? You may accept or reject the Commission's recommendation upon a majority vote, but you would be required to agenda as it and take action on the Commission's recommendation. If you changed it to May, then you may or may not consider the recommendation at your pleasure. To us, both of those are lawful approaches, and we would certainly take the Council's lead on which approach you prefer. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other councilmember, Harry Spencer, did you want to add anything to that or further questions? Speaker 4: Yes, thank you. And then it continues on the subsection B of penalties, where, again, the city clerk manager, city attorney, as appropriate, shall promptly consider the commission's recommendation for counsel. I. So, again, I have concerns of the use shall throughout this section. And I really think that it's up to the council at that point, whatever council it is, to decide if they want to revisit an issue or not, and they can consider the Open Government Commission's recommendation. But I have serious concerns of the use of the word shall in both in both of those subsections. And I actually I think briefly, I think the city charter is very clear who has the power, the ultimate power. And I think it truly is council and not the commissioners, unless, in fact, there's a vote by the people to give that authority to the Open Government Commission. And I would question, I think, honestly, giving them power over words, telling us any time of the shall I think is a problem. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. The attorneys. Anybody want to? Weigh in on that. Speaker 3: Madam Chair, we as you as you probably are well aware and Councilmember Spencer, we've had many meetings with the commission where the commission would have preferred to go much further than this. And at the end, this was compromised. We attempted to seek the maximum amount of compromise possible, given how far the commission was interested in going. If the Council wish to change the both shows, to me there are certainly no legal problems whatsoever and we can easily do it tonight. Speaker 0: So if I'm understanding correctly, this pertains to public information. When there has been a complaint brought in, the commission finds that some there was some violation of providing public information. So may recommend to the city the steps necessary to cure or correct the violation city clerk, city manager and or a city attorney as appropriate to properly consider the Commission's recommendation and inform the Council of their final decision. Do we need another sentence that talks about what the what the Council then does with it? Speaker 3: Not necessarily. Because on on the issue of public information, typically that's an administrative action. It's not the council doesn't typically take action on administrative actions. And so that's why we left this sentence in the cities, administrators versus the previous action where it's Brown Act violations, for example, when the council adopts an ordinance and that's why we included the council, the originating body, which includes the council. That's why the difference. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Other accounts from her. Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you. And thank you for asking that follow up question. So my concern would be what happens in our to open government makes a recommendation and then there's a time period before it comes to council. What happens to the council's decision that was made and now they're questioning the public access to the meeting? Does that decision continue moving forward or is it stalled? Speaker 0: Mr. Chen. Speaker 3: Yes. So the language provides that the city should be encouraged to maintain the status quo. So it will depend on the situation, largely the council by operation of law. The original council action is effective and so I'll give maybe a clear example. So for example, the council directed staff to lobby for a particular bill and there was only a month left before the session was going to end in that scenario. And if the staff do not lobby the council, the action will be nullified. In that scenario, it is more likely that staff would proceed, notwithstanding a commission decision, until the council reverses staff in a different scenario. Let's say the council directed staff to plant 1000 trees and it's going to take three years to plant those trees. Another two months delay would make no difference whatsoever. So in that scenario, I would imagine that staff would delay the planting of those thousand trees and then give the council the final say. Speaker 0: Thank you. Other council members. Speaker 3: Think. Speaker 0: Okay. Do I have a councilwoman outside? I think can't go up. Speaker 3: I think I simply wanted to thank all versions of the Open Government Commission that have given this consideration and city attorney Shen and staff, especially Mr. Lei, for their, I would say, very incredible hard work at trying to find a compromise that gets us to a place that provides some accountability at a certain point in time. May just allows the Open Government Commission to become even further a body that makes rulings but doesn't have that doesn't necessarily have impact on the way in which we do business. And I think that this language, with all the changes that have gone into it through the various public meetings, meets that compromise very admirably. It gives the city the flexibility whereby the harm from a finding is reduced, but also does give the public the ability to know that if if a finding of violation is found and there is the time to be here, that that it will be reheard and that that be cured at that point in time. So I'm ready to support it. Speaker 0: So are you making a motion? Speaker 3: Yes, sir. I will move approval of the of the ordinance as proposed by staff tonight. Speaker 0: Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? And we'll continue with discussion. Vice mayor of L.A. We've got a second. Speaker 1: I'll second if we can have time to discuss. Speaker 0: Absolutely. Okay. We've had a motion by council in Oxford, seconded by Vice Mayor Vella. I think I saw Councilor it. Yes, I can go up. Is that correct? So what kind? Council member defect next, please. Okay. Speaker 5: Well, thank you very much to the members of the public who have been involved in this, as well as the Open Government Commission members and our city staff. I, for one, would really like to hash this out even more. I'm not convinced of the language that we're seeing before us. The two areas of my concern let me focus on the first one, and we just had a brief conversation about that. It has to do with maintaining the status quo pending final review by the commission. So under this certain situation, as discussed by City Attorney Evenson and as asked by Councilmember Herrera Spencer if the city council makes a decision. That the Open Government subsequently finds troubling with regard to Brown Act or noticing or whatever under the current language that Lang the the decision of the city council. Should or should not move forward, depending on kind of the the immediacy of the issue as kind of outlined by city attorney even Chen. So if it's something as time sensitive of, say, you have to do something with regard to state legislation in those situations. Even if the Open Government Commission found something troubling with a council decision in those situations, the proposed language would allow the City Council to go ahead and move forward, even if the Open Government Commission found something troubling about that. In other scenarios, maybe there are some things that are kind of long distance in time. At that point in time, staff might defer to the to the Open Government Commission to delay a final decision. So here's here's the way that I see it. I think city staff needs to when they're putting together staff reports and agenda items, they need to factor in the the possibility that the Open Government Commission might have some questions with regard to how certain items are are noticed or gone through our Sunshine Act or or even the Brown Brown Act, the Sunshine Ordinance that is. So our city staff needs to kind of vet within before putting forward an agenda item. They need to do that kind of internal risk assessment and that should be done. I mean, if we're at a certain point where the Open Government Commission does find something that is troubling, I mean. Do we really want to move that forward, even if it's a time sensitive issue? Um, so I, I think in those situations, if the open government finds something troubling about something, then the City Council should revisit it and hold off on on finalizing its decision. So it should not be or should encourage the status quo, but it should be a must encourage the status quo. I think that's a critical part of giving our open government process effectiveness or or power, so to speak. So so I don't agree with that. The use of should encourage the status quo in cases where the Oakland government found something troubling with regard to the council decision. I think in cases where open government finds something that is troubling, the council should review that and hold off on on their decision, on executing their decision until having discussed it further. So that's less my viewpoint on that. The second point that I do want to talk about, what I'm concerned about is the idea that a person can't come back for five years. You know, I don't think that the situation in our open government is such that it's been so troubling where someone has just kind of mucked up the gears of the open government process. I don't think we've come to that situation. So I'm not convinced that that we have the reasons why we should impose such a drastic penalty at the end of the day. You know, if people want to come to city council, if people want to go to the Open Government Commission, that's their right. You know, if the Open Government Commissions don't like what they say or if they find them, you know, always raising things out there, just kind of mock up the gears. Well well, then the local government commission, I'm sure will will will act accordingly in their deliberations and their decision making. But I don't think we should be so heavy handed as to say, okay, well, if you have two things that are troubling and they don't pass muster. Well, now now you're you're, you know, put in the box for five years. I don't think that's fair. I don't think that's democratic. So, you know, let's let's let's let the people have their say, whether it's with the city council or with the commission. Speaker 0: And council every day. I just want to remind you what Mr. Lay reminded us, that this issue may well come back before the Open Government Commission. We heard Councilmember Herrera Spencer ask that that happen, but right now it hasn't been vetted by the Open Government Commission and it since it's in the center, I propose that an earlier iteration of their body came up with it should be up to that body to reconsider. But I think that's what you're saying in not so few words, maybe. Speaker 5: And that may very well be I'm just reiterating that that is just very drastic. But I think my key point is really the first point. I do think, you know, I agree. I was one of the first person to have concerns about the null and void power, because I just don't think the Open Government Commission has the power to declare things null and void. I don't think the charter gives them that power. So I, I'm going to have to say on that one to the Open Government Commission and to the public, I'm going have to say on that one, I'm going to have to go a staff. But on the matter of, you know, when when Open Government Commission challenges a council decision, I think those decisions should put be put in abeyance. They must be put in abeyance and it should not be should be put in abeyance. So that's where I am landing. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman, that's why. Did I see your hand going up again? No. Okay. Vice mayor of L.A. Speaker 1: Yeah, I, you know. I'm going to be moving forward with the recommendations. I think that there have been several lively conversations with the GC. I do just want to put out there that I think we've had the ordinance in place for a decade, I think, or we're coming up on a decade. And you know, there may be a number of things that that, you know, looking back, we may want to change. This dog Sea and Sunshine Ordinance came about from large scale community conversation. And I think that there have been some proposals and differences of opinion about what may or may not be within the kind of the confines of the city charter. And certainly I think that if our constituents are interested in seeing certain things change and there's proposals to take action, whether it be through amending the charter or looking at different alternatives, I'm sure that we will have a robust community conversation on that. And I think that looking back after having this in place for for a number of years, this is a good time to do that, to say, is this working? Is this not working? But in the meantime, I think that there's been a tremendous amount of effort that has been put into the language before us tonight. And I'm prepared to support it. And I know I want to thank all of the volunteers who have served on the LGC over the years that this this item in particular has been discussed at length and proposals have been put forward. I know that there's been a substantial amount of time put into this and that, you know, there might not always have been agreement. But certainly I think everybody came from a place of wanting to have a better ordinance before the city and something that will make sure that we are being as open and transparent as possible. But I do want to encourage, you know, as the council, the city staff, the community, if we want to have a forum for a larger discussion on what open government really means, I think that, you know, we should have that and we can look at the different provisions and what the different options are. But that's not agenda tonight. And so I don't want to get into the specifics of what could or could not be proposed. And I want to thank everybody for their work on this. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. With that, I think we've all been heard from maybe we have a roll cover, please. Speaker 2: Sorry. Councilmember de thug? Speaker 5: No. Speaker 2: Herrera Spencer. They're not quite. Speaker 3: High. Speaker 1: Vela. Speaker 2: Mayor as he Ashcraft. Speaker 0: High. Speaker 2: Net carries 3 to 2. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thanks. And Mr. Lay, Mr. Shan. All right, so with that, I am going to adjourn the continued July 20, 2021 City Council meeting, and I will open the regular City Council meeting of September seven, 2021.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Including Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter II (Administration) to Clarify Enforcement Provisions and Provide for Other Updates and Enhancements to the Sunshine Ordinance. (City Attorney 10023040) [Not heard on July 20, 2021]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09072021_2021-1230

Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. With that, I'm going to very quickly introduce you to my nominees for the golf commission, which is one position and two nominees for the library board. You will have a chance to meet them and vote on them at our September 21st meeting. And I am elated at what a robust response we have had to announcements of opening on our boards and commissions. People really want to get involved in their community and we have a tremendously talented, very generous community. So I am delighted to nominate Robert Lattimore to the Golf Commission. Mr. Lattimore is about to retire, but he has been working in finance, helping low and moderate income businesses and individuals build their businesses and be successful. And he also has been involved in the first tee program with minority young golfers for many years. He has experience as a PGA marshal at Pebble Beach and also a U.S. Golf Association scorer. He he didn't grow up playing golf and but he started in college and never put his clubs down since then. Then he, I think, will just bring a lot to the golf commission and really excited to nominate Mr. Lattimore. And we have two openings to fill on the library board and I am nominating Miss Dimple Kanji and she is by profession. She's a pharmacist. She actually works at CVS in Alameda where she tells me she's been given lots of COVID vaccines. Hooray for you as a 16 year resident. And she is the mother of a kindergartner and fourth grader who are very involved in the library and library programs and just have participated in all kinds of programs. And she has a lot of great ideas for making the library more accessible to everyone, including geographically, including out in the the West End, where maybe something like a bookmobile out at Alameda Point might be a way of bringing the library to people who can't come to the library. And then I'm also nominating Miss Sarah Strickler, who's a works for Google as a a service designer, and that's a designer of people's experience with various products. And and she spent a lot of time looking at case studies about libraries, how to make them more user friendly, how to make them more efficient and friendly to the staff, to all users, and. Speaker 1: Just lots. Speaker 0: Of enthusiasm. I love the fact that she's a Googler and she's young and all that, but she loves to just go and sit in the library and read books, actually flip the pages and read books, including cookbooks as a way of relaxation. So thank you. That is those are my nominations to the Golf Commission and the Library Board. It is my fervent hope that I will have a nominee for the Housing Authority Board and also nominees to fill the positions. Vacancies that are coming up on our Commission on Persons with Disabilities when we meet next time on September 24. So thank you very much, everyone. And now we will move on to proclamations and special orders of the day. And so I have a special announcement I want to share with you or news, I should say, which is I know you're aware we're Californians. We know that it seems like half our state is on fire. And there's been some really massive fires and fires that have joined fires and gotten even larger.

Council Communication

Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Golf Commission, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Library Board.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09072021_2021-1234

Speaker 0: Okay, great. Let's. Does anyone want to make a motion? 11 Council member Desert Moves Council Member Knox White. Second. Thank you. I just read your mind. We have a roll call vote, please. Speaker 2: Councilmember Dayton. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 2: Earl spencer. Speaker 1: No. Speaker 2: That's why. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 2: Rella mayor as. Speaker 1: Ashcraft. Speaker 0: I. Speaker 2: That carries by 4 to 1. Speaker 0: Thank you, madam. Okay. Last pulled item is 250, which is the option of resolution to increase expenditure. Appropriations in American Rescue Plan 2021 having to do with additional moneys for the Feed Army program. This is under community development and the city manager's office has also been involved. Specific questions council for her Spencer. Speaker 4: So my question goes to and I had shared this with the city manager in advance one and one restaurant or food provider in town was excluded from the program because they don't serve hot meals. They only serve a cold meal, whatever that is. And I think many of us I certainly have meals that are so I didn't know if that's actually part of the program or if the city has discretion. I think many of us I certainly do eat meals that are not hot all the time, salads, for instance, sandwiches. And so I want to know if that's actually part of the program or if we have flexibility to include that other local company that applied. Hmm. Speaker 0: Who would like to answer that? I see our community development director, Lisa maxwell, out there at the ferry terminal. However, is Maxwell, do you want to. Are you prepared or. Lewis Butler two. Hi, who's been nice to you? Also from community development, economic development, who has been very intimately involved with the Feed our meter program, including, I think, delivering some of those meals. Do you want to speak to the requirements and such? Ms. Butler. Speaker 1: Sure. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor. And City Council. The program did call for hot meals, and that's why one of the restaurants was excluded. But to answer Councilmember PEREIRA Spencer's question, if you would like us to include them, we could also include them. But they they they indicate they cannot provide. Speaker 0: And I will just throw in, because I had a little something to do with this program that, as I recall, the guidelines were those that they are set forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, I believe, or the state maybe Department of Agriculture, great plates. And it was similar to that criteria, though, that you had to have some fresh fruits and vegetables and couldn't include sugary drinks and there's nutritional requirements. Speaker 1: So and it was the middle of winter when we started the program as well. Speaker 0: That that's a good point. Yeah. Speaker 4: So some of them may continue. So the fresh fruit, vegetables that you just mentioned, obviously those can be done on a salad and heated. And so I would like to make a motion to accept this. But I also think that one restaurant that provides cold, cold meals, as long as they satisfy all the nutritional requirements are met Speaker 0: . And so you would also be approving whatever additional expenditure it takes to provide. Ms.. Butler, remind us how many meals at a time were our restaurants providing you? Speaker 1: Five. Again, we upped the amount because of the need. Speaker 0: We were we were very successful. It was very popular. And it is a wonderful program. I'll just give a little shout out that not only did it help give our local restaurants a lifeline, especially while they were really struggling with, there were times when they could only do takeout and delivery, but it provided some wonderful, tasty, nourishing meals to some of our most vulnerable who are enumerated in the staff report. Councilmember Knox. But I saw your hand up. Speaker 3: All right. And I guess since it's a theme for tonight's meeting, we're now discussing program design and selecting specific entities for and giving direction on an expenditure approval. I just wonder if we're yet again getting out. I know it says hot meals in here, but we're talking about adding giving direction to staff about specific program design and when we're actually just being asked to approve an appropriations request. So I'm just not sure we're not getting a little bit off the content account again. Speaker 0: Yeah, I think we're pretty close. I but my point is there's a specific dollar amount of appropriation we're being asked to provide and it would be increased a little bit to add that meal. So if there's the way we could fashion a motion to include that flexibility, I think it would be for a worthy purpose. Speaker 4: Be happy to include the additional cost for the one meal. Speaker 0: Okay. Madam Clerk, with that motion amended, motion clear enough for you. Speaker 2: As long as staff can amend the resolution accordingly. I believe for clear. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. I'm reading from your facial expression that you have questions. Speaker 1: Yeah. I just you know, we started this this meeting earlier. We were talking about, you know, the Open Government Commission and making sure that we have transparency. And I'm just concerned, you know, if it's possible to approve this and then if we could just give direction to staff to come back, perhaps. You know, concerns that you have. Yeah, that I would I would feel more comfortable doing that. Speaker 0: I think that's a good observation, I think. Councilmember Knox. Right. I you're right. You're very, very correct. We've we've heard from the Open Government Commission. We don't want to be inviting another Open Government Commission complaint. So I think the safest thing well. Attorney, I'm just going to read everyone's facial expression. City Attorney Mr. Chan, why don't you weigh in on this? Speaker 3: For if the council wishes to make changes, it has to be an expenditure change. So for example, you could tonight change the resolution dollar amount. Right now it says what it says. If you want to add $2,000 or whatever it is, that's fine. That's perfectly within the council's purview. Staff doesn't need to bring it back. If you want to make programmatic changes, you probably want to just give a side direction to staff and Bill respond accordingly, possibly bring it back, possibly work within your existing budget. But what you're asked to approve tonight is funding for the program. And if you want to increase funding, you can do it tonight. Speaker 0: We could modify that funding amount and you feel that the noticing is sufficient, such as it would not invite a complaint from the see? Speaker 3: Well, anything could invite a complaint from the city. So if even a perfectly correctly agenda item could invite a complaint, but I believe that we could adjust. You could change funding because that is what your agenda is to do tonight and which is to fund. And if you want to give more money or less money, this is your time to do it. Speaker 0: And I will add that this program is coming to its conclusion. But Vice Mayor Vella, I see your hand up. Speaker 1: I was just going to ask if we added additional funds. That doesn't necessarily guarantee that there is a change to the program requirements. And so there would still need to be direction or side direction to have that come back to us. My concern is my concern is twofold. One, what happens if we allocate the funds here? Is there a way to word it such that if we can't make the change in time? The the funds go, you know, at what point do they come back? And then the second question I would have is, what is the timeline that we're we're looking at relative to the, you know, how long it would take to make these sorts of. Five. So I don't know if the time has passed essentially for for staff to make changes. Speaker 0: Ms.. Butler, can you tell us about this to the vice mayor's point about. Does this require this change from hot meal to non hot meal? Does that require some sort of change or seeking permission on our part or. Speaker 1: So it could be very. Speaker 0: With that. Speaker 1: It's it's really under the city manager's limit. He's asking for funding. Speaker 4: And then the city manager. Speaker 1: Can give me direction to to follow up based on the concerns. And and I think he's within his authority to do that. And so if you increase the budget to 26,000. Happened here a minute ago. But if you increase the budget to include an additional $2,625, and I can give you the additions fairly quickly, I think that that would just I think it would settle everything. Speaker 0: How does that sound advice, maravilla? Speaker 1: I'm fine. Adding that specific sum. If we can get that specific number, I'm fine adding it and I'll make that motion. $26,250. Okay. So I would total. Speaker 0: The total amount. Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Speaker 0: Not for. Speaker 1: One. No. So I would I would move approval of that amount. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 3: And I'll second that. But I'd like to know what sense we're giving direction, almost to add a specific restaurant into a city program. I'd like to know what that restaurant is. Speaker 1: It's JS coffee and tea. Speaker 3: On. Speaker 1: SNL. Speaker 0: And it's an avenue. And in fact, I mean, do you want to read the list of all the. Speaker 3: There's 43 of. Speaker 1: Them. Speaker 0: No, no, no. The last six. I know there are. Trust me. But just the those last six that didn't get there. You know what? Let's keep moving that you can people can look that up. Okay. Yes. Speaker 1: And then I would just say, relative to the program requirements, just that that staff come back to us if they need council direction and get that agenda. Speaker 0: Absolutely. All right. It's been moved by Vice Mayor Vella, seconded by Councilmember Knox White. May we have a roll call vote, please? Speaker 2: Interpretations. I forever, Spencer. I knocked like. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 2: Fell a. You did it again. And we didn't need it so fast. We couldn't. Speaker 1: Move. Speaker 0: Moving too quickly. I like carries by five eyes. Okay, that is great. And then the last one we need to take care of. Madam Clerk, do you want to introduce item five? Yes. As in Sam for us, please? Speaker 2: Yes. Adoption of resolution authorizing issuance of City of I was made to Community Facility District 13 dash one Alameda Landing Public Improvements 2021 Special Tax Subordinate Bonds in the amount not to exceed 24,585,000 and approved related documents and actions. Speaker 0: Thank you. And so you, I believe, have sent folks on here. Speaker 1: Or. Speaker 0: Are you okay? Speaker 1: We have. Speaker 0: I feel fine. Council, our finance director. Okay. So, hey, counsel, I'm sure you have read the staff report. Does anyone have any specific questions or should we go straight to the motion? Maybe we go straight to the motion to have a motion to approve.

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution to Increase Expenditure Appropriations in the American Rescue Plan 2021 Project (96034/C9930) in the Capital Projects Fund (310) by $23,625 for the Feed Alameda Program to Provide Alameda’s Most Vulnerable Residents with Hot Meals and to Provide Support to Alameda Restaurants (Community Development 24161823)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09072021_2021-1200

Speaker 2: To provide further direction to staff regarding the allocation of 28.68 million of funding from the federal government through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to assist with recovery from the impacts of the COVID 19 pandemic. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I think we have a couple of members of our finance department. This one. Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 0: I do, too. But I'm also looking for. There she is. Jennifer, tell. So who's who's taking the lead on this one? Speaker 1: Jennifer will be presenting the report. Speaker 0: Tonight and taking this to. Good evening, Mr.. Speaker 1: Good evening, madam mayor and council members. I'm Jennifer Patel, budget manager in the finance department. This evening, staff is seeking for the direction from Council on the spending plan for the city's Allocation of American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA funding, which may be used for recovering from the economic and public health impacts of the COVID 19 pandemic . Madame Clerk, may we please bring up the slides? Thank you. Next slide. Earlier this year, the city was allocated $28.68 million in ARPA funding. We received the first tranche of funding or half of the full allocation from U.S. Treasury in June 2021. And we expect to receive the second tranche with the remaining allocation in 2022. Recipients have until the end of calendar year 2024. To spend or obligate ARPA funds to projects and obligated funds must be spent by the end of 2020 2026. Staff first sought direction from City Council on the use of the ARPA funds at the Budget Workshop on May 20th. At that meeting, council directed staff to focus on four main eligible use categories. Those were revenue lost due to the pandemic, addressing housing, homelessness and behavioral health, investing in broadband infrastructure and providing assistance to households and small businesses. On July 20th, staff returned to council for further direction on a draft spending plan that included proposals under the four main categories identified in May. At that meeting, council made a motion to refine the spending plan with a focus on housing, with flexibility to use the revenue loss funding for housing, and to include additional funding for Wi-Fi hotspots. Next slide, please. The refined spending plan put forth by city departments includes a supportive transitional housing program, development of permanent supportive housing through either hotel acquisition or ground up build of the bottle parcel, the Feed Alameda Program and a wireless hotspot lending program. Next slide. Since the last report to council in July, staff met with the Alameda Housing Authority to identify the housing authorities prioritized list of projects which could be initiated within the next 9 to 18 months. Those projects include an Eviction Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Fund. Funding to jumpstart construction on 90 units of permanent supportive housing purchase, or at least two own of existing multifamily units or motel suites that would be restricted for low income seniors. And funding to expedite affordable housing development. Next slide. Together, these spending plans exceed the city's first year allocation of $14.34 million, and, depending on the four affordable housing development options selected could also exceed the city has full allocation of $28.68 million. With that in mind, staff are seeking direction from council tonight on specific uses of the initial allocation of $14.34 million. If City Council authorizes staff to proceed on any of these projects, we will initiate work and report back on progress and available funds at a later date. We will also bring forward any necessary budget appropriations for City Council consideration and approval. Staff from the city manager's office, the Finance Department and the Community Development Department are here and available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Speaker 3: You're on mute, Mayor. Speaker 0: Sorry. I was just asking the city clerk if we had any public speakers on this item. Speaker 1: We do not. Speaker 0: Okay. With that, I am going to close public comment and we can just go into council questions, council direction, council comments. So I'd like to start. Okay. I don't mind. Well, let's all go left. Councilmember de Sack. I see your hand up. Speaker 5: Well, yes. I just want to say thank you to our city staff for kind of guiding us through this whole process. It's not every day that the federal government drops any amount of money, let alone a $28 million divided in certain in two different tranches, as they call it. And in looking at staff's recommendation of the $15 million for the hotel acquisition or the ground up, ground up build, I didn't certainly supportive of that. I continue to be so. Know, I think we as a city of Alameda, we've made incredible headway. And I certainly as a councilmember, have been involved in so many of the decisions, tough decisions with regard to implementing national leading homeless prevention programs here in Alameda. And I'm speaking of many years ago, the what used to be called the Alameda Point Collaborative. So I've been very happy to be part of that. And I see the possibility of building a new facility with the assistance of $50 million as continuing that that leadership of the city of Alameda has shown. In terms of the other items, I think I think they certainly follow through on the priorities that we listed above. And I am glad to see, particularly with regard to wireless, that it was kind of honed in a little bit more in terms of how it's going to be delivered, and particularly with the Library Department taking the lead in that. So I'm glad to see that that makes natural sense to have out of libraries, whether in the West End or the East End as kind of a natural hubs of wireless activities. So I look forward to having council pass recommendations and if we have to make some tweaks, you know, I'd certainly like to work with our colleagues in making tweaks. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember de SAC. Councilmember Cox. Well, I think I saw your hand up there. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. And I will share my my thanks as well to our to our staff. I think in terms of guidance for moving forward, I really appreciated the the focus on homeless accommodations that I think I heard very loudly in our last meeting. Learning a little bit more about some of the options. I am very interested in pursuing something that probably looks like the bottle parcel and maybe a transitional use or something at the at the big whites as well as, as I mentioned, the last the last meeting, I think we have a 20 year old city building that has not been able to find a use across the street from city hall that we can look at for some kind of resiliency and transitional center moving forward. I'd also like to really pursue how we could use some of these funds to support our 22 year commitment today. The folks at Alameda Point Collaborative in the rebuild of their various substandard housing out there that is in desperate need of of of work and that the city has said for over two decades that we will figure out how to how to help them do. And lastly, it's something that the mayor and I have talked about and we've talked about in those meetings as well. In year two, I'd really like to look at how we can use some of this money to support some sort of universal basic income pilot. I think for me, a pilot is not to show that it works. I think there's enough information coming out of existing pilots out there about the benefits, not just to the benefits of the folks who receive the money, but the benefits to the community around them, whether it's in terms of standard of living safety, public safety, etc. . And I think that we have an opportunity here, too, to really figure out how to do that and move something forward. Lastly, I would just like to ask I don't have a specific ask here, but I do think that maybe if our staff, you know, we were very blessed that the state stepped in to really provide help to renters across the state with the rental assistance and also landlords. Right. Everybody benefits. But, you know, I do think that there are likely some some folks who have been hit pretty hard by COVID and have outstanding medical costs and other things like that. I don't have a number on that, but I'm just wondering if we want to spend a little bit of time of just thinking if we're looking to that might be folks who are currently housed. How do we keep them from becoming unhoused? Is there is there any information we have or some of the programs that we run that we can help identify potential need? Again, I don't want to develop a city program for seven people, but if we were able to identify significant numbers of seniors or people who have had. I heard a story today about a family member whose parent died and now they're in the do I pay for my do I pay the outstanding medical fees for the person who is no longer with us? How do I pay my rent? And that's not something that necessarily comes under the rental side. So just to my question is, just as we as we move out of this, are there any needs out there that are not being met by the county? I have not done any research. I would expect our staff probably know this better than I do through the homeless strategic plan and whatnot about what our what things are out there. But I just think, you know, if we could just be looking at whether or not there are some places where we can fill fill holes in the net to help those who are most vulnerable. I think that that would be fabulous. Those are my comments. Speaker 0: Thank you. I see. Vice Mayor. I think I saw your hand up. Yeah. Speaker 1: So I think stuff that I work on this I very much like what's included in option one. But I do want to add one other thing, which is I really think that we need to be looking at alternatives. I appreciate the idea of looking at a ground up project on on the Bible parcel. I just don't want to be limited to those too, relative to figuring out how we how we add more affordable housing stock. And to that end, I also really want us to consider community land trust, public land trust options. I think these are these are things that really will keep the affordable housing stock, keep people housed. They don't require us to go out and acquire or build ground up. They they really will give us an alternative. So I would just like to to add some sort of direction. I know we're on a really tight timeline, and so I just have concerns about if something falls through, what is the the additional do we have an alternative to the plan in place that still seeks to achieve the overall goal? And so I just want to put that out there. And I think even if we don't end up using our ARPA funds for that, that's something that we should be looking at. Speaker 0: Thank you, Vice Mayor II Councilmember Harris Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you. So when I first of all, I want to thank staff for reaching out to the Army, the Housing Authority. I personally, their first item on here is evict eviction prevention and rapid rehousing funds around me to residents. And I think this is somewhat goes to the issues raised by member not quite in regards to allocating they're suggesting $2 million to be managed by a local nonprofit to assist households impacted by COVID eviction or other housing issues and finding housing and preventing displacement. So I think that I think that that's actually very important to keep families to help them right now. And it goes to what I think this money really could immediately help families stay in their homes and deal with preventing displacement. So to me, that is actually would be my first priority. The second one they have, again, under the Army, the housing authority, well, they have construct a jumpstart construction of 90 units of permanent supportive housing, and they estimate it's $8 million to expedite those first two phases. I think that's also very important. And then they also have purchase are based on of existing multifamily suites. And I don't have a pad on here. It's just a summary, doesn't have a timeline. However, it is existing buildings and then they have a price per unit of apartments going to 70,000. So these are move in ready. They describe them as I would think that that's a fast timeline as opposed to having to go out and build something from the bottom up. So I, I actually think the housing authority does a really good job and it's honestly, they would have been part of the city. But for a few years ago, under a different administration, they were separated from the city. And I think it's is appropriate to work with them and let them do their job. I want to call magic. This is what they do. I also I have the wireless hotspot lending program for that says 50,001 times 3600 annually to provide hotspots, 30 wireless hotspots. I think that that is something that I have actually been asking for for years to help people that don't have access. And especially as we've seen during COVID, how important it is that many individuals or families have been left out honestly of society during this COVID time. And I think that that that, too, is as as people are not able to participate in person, that continues to be an important need. And I know schools have tried to step up, but not every family has children that are attending schools that that's offered and not every family has children. And we have many individuals, especially seniors, that have been left out during COVID. And then I do have a concern in regards to the hotel acquisition that is currently in Marina Village in that is a revenue generating asset for even those that are owned by the city. It produces transient occupancy tax for the city. That's actually one of our few hotels in the city. And we have heard many times over the years how important that transient occupancy tax is. So I don't think it is I and if you look right now, they do currently they're operating, so they are creating revenue for the city. So I have concerns about removing one of our few hotels that produces higher level of tax dollars for the city as opposed to looking at another other ways of housing, those that are and has a transitional housing, because honestly, I think it defeats the purpose. If you're taking away tax revenue, then the city needs income to be able to provide services. And then there's also this battle parcel that is up for consideration, and I'm not sure that that's really the best use. I would like more information in regards to the fastest timeline to provide the housing. And I think the Alameda housing authorities proposals could very well be the most quick to get online, to start serving the people that need these services sooner rather than later. And I think it is more than likely going to be the most effective use of any income, any dollars. By the city to use to meet these needs as opposed to the city doing it on its own and not working with the housing authority. Those are the theater. Alameda. I think that's continues to be a great program if there's any you know, I, I absolutely support continuing that program to some dollar amount, as we think may be appropriate. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember Herrera Spencer. So I will start by saying I strenuously object to any expenditure at this time to the housing authority, the Alameda Housing Authority. I would want to have a lot more information. For instance, how much money has the Alameda Housing Authority received from ARPA? Why does it need funding? The city receiver knows that there is a reference to the possibility that it could complete the North housing project sooner if it had ARPA funding from the city. But when that project was conceived of and begun, ARPA wasn't even a gleaming anyone's i. We hadn't had a pandemic, so I can't figure out whether this is just the housing authorities way of getting cheaper money because presumably there wouldn't be a finance charge from the city. And if it's just meant to supplant funds that they will get eventually, then I guess it's a loan. But I would tend to agree, not tend to agree. I very strongly agree with Vice Mayor Vela that a community housing trust is something that a lot of cities have done that allows them to do the very things that the Housing Authority is proposing to purchase properties. The Housing Authority accomplished one of these transactions recently, but they can find an apartment building that is for sale. They can do a transaction. There is a way that you guarantee that so many of the units will be will remain affordable for a certain amount of time. There's no reason that the city can't do this. And certainly working with a partner to administer and if it involves some wraparound services, those models are out there. I'm disappointed to say that as far as protecting eviction protection by the Housing Authority, I have personally been involved with more than one Alameda Housing Authority tenant and have had to go to bat for them. One of them, I was successful in keeping her in her home. The other one, sadly, a disabled woman, has been evicted and were it not for the fact that her sister has flown out free from the East Coast a number of times, and I was able to connect her with a resource , but not the housing authority, because they were absolutely no help in finding alternative housing for this disabled woman who was prepared to camp on the beach. But anyway, I just feel that there's there's a lot of complexities involved with the housing authority. And I think that there are enough important things listed in option one that we should be allocating the funds from this first tranche to and not to extend our funds, certainly at this time, without more explanation and some safeguards in place to the housing authority. Among the other things that I just wanted to include. I we're going to talk at the end of the agenda, so maybe get there before midnight about the Alameda Sun so I won't go into too much of that. There I could see allocating some money from ARPA to the sun as a, you know, small business assistance as a business affected impacted by COVID. We'll talk about that when we get to that item. The the transitional housing. I did have a question. When staff is talking on page two about supportive transitional housing program provide temporary transitional housing allows for stays of up to six months. Extend on a case by case basis. Is that the bottle parcel or another location? Can someone give me a quick answer on that one? Speaker 3: I can jump in. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bowden. Speaker 3: It could be the bottle parcel. This is the idea of putting up temporary housing. The the. Gosh, the word is. Speaker 0: Portable, so. Yeah, yeah, that can go up quickly. Speaker 3: Go up quickly and start the services. And it could it could be a site that can move around even. But the bottle parcel is is ideal for it. Speaker 0: Okay. And I will also disclose that last week, I think it was last week, a number of us from city staff visited yet another transitional housing development. That's the city of Mountain View has done. I do get what I call Mayor Andy when I see this, but it's it's so instructive because we could compare and contrast it to what we'd seen in San Jose in the spring. And this one was interesting in that it it was these these units, these portables, portable sort. They they look like they're containers, but they really aren't because they're insulated. They have a tracking in and they combined in separate ends of this development. There were family, there was family housing. And then there was there's a need for single adults and adult couples. The one thing I will say about the Carnegie building, I think there was a reference to that. It is not ideal for transitional housing. It's really nice to be able to give people, in addition to roofs over their heads and their own bathrooms, a little outdoor space for they can just kind of chill in the sun and and they're eating outdoors these days because of, you know, concerns with congregate settings. And I think there's other uses and maybe, you know, as a navigation center or something. But as far as housing, not so much. But anyway, I would love to see us allocate money for transitional housing. And I think the bottle parcel is a great location close to a lot of city services. I will just reiterate what came up last time and I'll say it again. Every unit needs to have its own bathroom. It's a matter of human dignity. They were telling us at the this last place we visit that, well, you know, it's a way that you get people to leave their units, otherwise they'd never leave their units . And I said, Well, we're assuming they're not going to starve themselves. And they thought that if we were adding a bathroom, we were also adding a kitchenette. No, that really increases the price. And there is something nice about being able to if you want to eat at the same picnic table or nearby somebody else. So I that's great. I know staff is still in the process working with the Marina Village in on getting the appraisal during the negotiation as far as the amount of top transit occupancy tax that it brings in to the general fund. That facility wasn't doing terribly well to begin with because the owner was willing to sign up for the Project Roomkey program, and that gave him some guaranteed income, none of which came to our total. And so that's why he's had the place on the market for a while. But we'll see. It's a business. It's a business transaction. The price and the terms have to be right. We haven't seen what the appraisal is yet. But anyway, in short, I would just say that I very much support option one. Councilmember Knox White, thank you for bringing up the guaranteed basic income. We might be able to do something even sooner than the second tranche because and I know our state lobbyist is keeping track of this, there is some state grant money that's supposed to be coming down that the governor set aside in the budget. We're just waiting for the rules that govern that. But our our state lobbyist is keeping an eye on that. So maybe even sooner than the second tranche. And I very much like the concept that I was reading into what you were talking about, keeping people from falling through the cracks because of unanticipated or just, you know, untenable expenses. It reminds me of a program in Oakland, mayor envy called Keep Oakland Housed. And there is a fund where and I'm told that people usually need to just draw from it one time they can't pay a utility bill, although there's federal funding now that will pay 12 months of your back rent, three months of your forward rent and unpaid utility bills. So be sure to call two, one one. They can give you information on how to apply, but this is something that we also might want to set aside a pool of money for, to do something based on that, to just keep people from falling through the cracks. Lots of good opportunities. Thank you. OC Councilmember Herrera Spencer Thank you. Speaker 4: So I'd like to share that the Alameda Housing Authority does have a board and its appointed commissioners appointed by the council that offers oversight and they have meetings and I am disheartened to hear these come. Claims raised about their services. But I want to make sure the public is aware that there is an oversight board and the public is welcome to attend as meetings and report to council not to try to make them effective. But I do know that they try very hard to meet the needs and I don't know the extenuating circumstances of the particular case that was raised this evening. But I think that they serve many people and try their utmost. And I want to actually commend Vanessa for her efforts and your staff's efforts. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: So I'm. I'm sorry. Who is this? Just me. Okay. Okay. Speaker 1: So do we need. Speaker 0: Do we need a vote on this or is this just council direction? Speaker 3: I guess we were just looking for direction. Speaker 0: Direction? Okay. I would say. Speaker 3: Fine. Speaker 0: Yeah, I'd say the majority are saying we like option one with the enhancements of something akin to keep Alameda housed and something akin to a community land trust. Council are not quite. Speaker 3: And I think that generally is agree. So I am definitely losing interest in the Marina Village and personally. So I just want to make that clear in my kind of transitional housing comments that staff is aware and also I would be interested in looking at if we could do the bottle parcel for less because it's not doesn't have the purchasing of the. I would like to look at how we can provide some, whether it's just water and sewer or whatever else, infrastructure support for for reshape. Oh. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: I wasn't in there, but in the city manager's recommendations, that was kind of hidden in some clever language. Speaker 0: No, I meant to say. I meant to say exactly that. Thank you for reminding us. Thank you. Speaker 3: I just want to thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Okay, everyone, thank you so much for your input and thank you staff for all your hard work on this. All right, then we are moving on to item six D. Speaker 2: Adoption of resolution and approving a revision to the public safety retiree. The provisions in the Executive Management Compensation Plan to provide up to five years of service credit for time served as chief, assistant chief and or Deputy Chief in another agency. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I believe we have our human resources director, Nancy Bronstein, joining us. Speaker 1: Yes, she's coming. Okay, good. Speaker 0: Here she is. Welcome, Miss Bronstein. And Madam Kirk, do we have public speakers on this item? Not we do not. Okay, then I am closing public comment and we will just launch right into Ms.. Braunstein. Welcome. Welcome. Good evening, Mayor. Speaker 1: Council members. I wanted to provide a brief a brief background. Speaker 2: For you on this item before you tonight. In 2000. Speaker 0: 19, city council approved. Speaker 2: A modification to public safety, retiree health benefits for public safety chiefs hired from other agencies. And this modification allowed up to five years of service credit for actual time, served as a police or fire chief and another agency toward the ten years of service credit required to earn a retiree medical benefit from the city of Alameda. The item before you. Speaker 0: Tonight is to is. Speaker 2: Requesting to include time served as a deputy or assistant chief at another agency toward the five years of service credit. So we're just looking to expand who is eligible for that five years of service credit. And I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Councilmember Herrera. Speaker 4: Spencer thank you, Mayor. I have clarifying questions with Brownstein and thank you for your initial comments. The retiree medical benefits that you're speaking to. Can you describe what that is, that essentially lifetime medical or what is it? Speaker 1: It is a single. Speaker 2: Party lifetime medical benefit. Speaker 0: So the. Speaker 1: At some point, the employee. Speaker 2: Transitions to a medicare supplement plan. Speaker 0: But it is a. Speaker 2: Lifetime benefit. Speaker 0: For the employee. Speaker 1: Only. Speaker 4: And is that offered to all employees of the city of Alameda? Speaker 1: It's offered to public safety employees. So not all. Speaker 0: It is it's been negotiated. Speaker 1: For public safety. Speaker 4: All right. Thank you very much. So. So I don't know if anyone else had any questions before I offer my comments. Speaker 0: Any other clarifying questions for Mr. Bronstein? Counsel. Go ahead with your comments. Councilor Hurst Herrera Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Miss Bronstein, for those answers. So at the policy level, I have concerns about this proposal. I we have employees, obviously, and I support our current employees. And we have a system of how they progress. I understand that this actually encourages or somehow chips away, I would say, at the policy level of bringing in people from outside for the highest level positions that worked in other agencies and reduces somehow the benefits over time for our long term employees at the policy level. And so and I think we all know that this retiree lifetime medical benefit is only offered to public safety, is extremely expensive for the city. And and we know that we have significant amounts currently of pension and other pension, OPEB, other pension. You all can help me with employee benefits, which is what this medical falls under. So I, I will not be supporting this. And I am very concerned about continuing to, at the policy level, chip away at our. But I feel like for our long term employees then to have outside employees be brought in at the high level and offer these very expensive benefits for the city. That to me makes sense for a long at this point. This is what our city has decided long term for our long term employees that are eligible for this essentially lifetime medical benefits for this one group. Most of our employees are not eligible. And most people in the United States, of course, and in our city and our taxpayers do not receive lifetime medical benefits. So I think it's a serious problem to continue to lower the bar of who this is offered to. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. The council comments. Councilmember decide. Speaker 5: My quick comment is I could understand making changes for the head positions. But but I'm not I'm I'm not convinced about the changes for the assistant or the deputy positions. I think we really should be encouraging people to kind of grow through the ranks rather than kind of slotting people from outside into the higher positions. So but I understand why we might need to have these kinds of of of packages as if we're trying to recruit someone who's going to, you know, take the top positions. I'll leave it at that. Speaker 0: This is meant for the fire chief. Correct. Speaker 5: Assistant Chief and or deputy chief. Speaker 1: Oh, to. Speaker 2: Clarify, it's just to provide service credit for somebody who's being hired at that top position. So it would only be for somebody coming from the outside to be the fire chief. Speaker 1: Or police chief to give. Speaker 2: Them credit for time served, maybe in a larger. Speaker 1: Agency where they were an. Speaker 2: Assistant or a deputy. Speaker 5: Oh, okay. Speaker 0: But where they aren't coming as a fire chief, there is not an equivalent position, not a lateral. Exactly. It's a move. Did you want to add to that, Mr. Levitt? Speaker 3: Yes. And there was one other clarification when I looked at the resolution. It had been changed in the recommendation, but not in the resolution that I didn't see in the resolution. And that was we we were recommending that it was only that credit was only given if they worked in another agency and had benefits of similar type in that other agency. And then I think. Speaker 1: I'm sorry, that. Speaker 3: Did not get it got changed in the resolution, but I think you got the early on draft and not the final resolution that had that new language. I was just looking at the resolution just now. But if you look at the recommendation and say manager recommendation, we only are recommending that they would get credit if they had a similar type benefit. So only if they had retiree health in another organization and they were moving over here to be the chief. Speaker 0: Councilmember de SAC. Speaker 5: Okay, great. With that clarification, I'd support this. I think I just talked with the city manager about this. I thought this was for also for the assistance and bringing in deputies. So I'm glad that's not the case. Speaker 0: Thank you. Other comments? Okay. Maybe we have a real cover, please. Speaker 2: We still need that motion. Speaker 0: I'm so sorry. All right. We have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Do we have a second from anyone? Well, if we don't have a second, we won't have a vote. But you know that by now. Does anyone want to offer a substitute motion? Amended motion. Well, I would say this motion dies for lack of a second. All right. Now, remember, they thought. Speaker 5: What if we go with this and then sunset this after five years just to see how it goes? Speaker 0: Could you explain what you mean by that? Speaker 5: That we would just adopt the resolution but say that we're going to five years from now revisit this? If we want to go if we want to continue this or not. And so that would be part of the motion. If I had to a second. If we if we. Speaker 0: You need to make a motion because the previous one failed. Speaker 5: Or we can make the motion and then I can amend it. Speaker 0: You want someone to make the motion that you're proposing? Speaker 3: So can I just ask can I say quick question? My understanding is you're basically you're you're suggesting that we continue what we have done, which is basically negotiate every contract with a new chief and give them this. I mean, we have basically given every chief that has been here in the last ten or 15 years the same benefit that has come from outside. This is not a new thing. I mean, I'm happy if that's the way we get to to a vote. I'm happy to to to put some sort of timeline. I just want to call out that it's you know. Speaker 5: I would put a timeline on it. Speaker 0: I I've got a question about council remarks, its statement. I am trying to remember in the last 10 to 15 years how many chiefs from the outside we've had. And I know that that predates the sorry city manager and h.r. Director. We did have a recent fire chief from an outside agency, the other fire chiefs. I can remember all came from within rfd, the before Chief Joshi. The last two. 1 to 3? No, at least two, three. Fire and police chiefs. I can remember all came from APD Council over NOx. Wait, am I missing something? Speaker 3: No, but that's still the the the external candidates that have come in have been that we have offered this because it's a problem hiring from outside of. People are losing a major benefit that they have it. There exists I mean we went through a whole thing with the last fire chief because some people were really wanted an outside fire chief. I think that I think it's important to have a wide pool. So anyway, I. I think you said contradict what I had to say. If if Tony needs a timeline, I'm happy to just just move this forward. Speaker 0: Councilmember Herrera. Spencer, did I see your hand go up? Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And I did want to thank you for your comments. When you. I think you're right in regards to the promotions from within the department. Historically, other than the most recent fire chief and now the most recent police chief, and this policy from it looks like this started 2019. So it's not actually that old of giving these credits, but getting back to providing lifetime medical and the cost of that for something that's just come in. I know that we have we have not had those types of candidates very often when they reflect historically. So thank you. Speaker 1: For bringing that up. Speaker 0: Hey. And a vice mayor of L.A.. Speaker 1: I also just my understanding is, is that we have still had applicants, despite this being the policy, the existing policy, and that people have accepted the job that. That were the top choice. Even with this policy in place, I guess my concern is what's the point of having a policy if ultimately folks are going to come in and then immediately try to negotiate or if we're changing this policy now, who's to say that the next time we do a recruitment for a top spot, this happens? And then just the other thing is that we've also heard calls for us to to defund or to limit funding for some positions. And this is a significant expenditure. So I would want to have this conversation relative to the city budget. I'm also concerned we, I believe, have started negotiations with a number of different units. And so to Councilmember de SACS point where he was asking what positions this would apply to if we're applying this to the top positions. I would certainly hope that this is a conversation that we have relative to, you know, that we would take into account the differences between what our executive compensation looks like relative to our line staff. So at this time, I'm not going to be supporting this for those for those reasons. Speaker 0: Councilmember thank you both very. Councilmember de SA. Speaker 5: Yeah, just if I can explain, you know, why I like a time limit. I mean my history of all the fire chiefs and police chiefs that we've had. I always thought we seemed to have like grown people through the ranks. So I'm confident in kind of the pipeline that that we've created. I think for the most part, every single one of them, you know, have just been stellar. The first out of city police chief before I began on city council, as I remember, was Chief Mathews for the police. And then but then he had, you know, created a great staff and then that grew from from there. And then there was another police chief, I think came who came from Tibbets. Wayne Tibbets came from outside of Walter Tibbets. But I think, you know, we've all Noonan was from within chief where Larry was from within. And on the fire chiefs, I think there's been a whole series of fire chiefs from within. And I think it's a pipeline that has worked. So that's why I'm kind of like in the direction of I mean, I get the idea of creating something where we kind of encourage people to come from outside. And that's great. You know, you certainly want to test the field, but I'm kind of biased towards our kind of system that we have in place. But I'm willing to experiment because if it means like getting the fire chief that that we were on the cusp of getting now, then great. You know, that's why, you know, I'm more than happy to experiment by putting like a time limit on this thing where we're going to revisit this in five years. Speaker 0: Thank you, counselor. If I understand correctly and Mr. Levitt can confirm or deny this isn't a condition of the. Speaker 1: Oh, no, it's not prospective chiefs. Speaker 0: Fire chiefs, employment. It wasn't part of the employment package when that person applied. This is, you know, something that's being added on where I understand the credit in our department toward your lifetime medical benefits and I will just make a plug for fire. You heard that long list of our members of AFGE who are out fighting fires in various parts of our state. They're not just fighting fires on the line. They're breathing that air. It is very dangerous. It's harmful. It's unhealthy. Do they deserve lifetime medical benefits? You bet. I can justify that for folks who have worked here at AFGE and they should get that credit. I have a harder time seeing it for someone coming from the outside who was willing to come knowing that wasn't a part of the package. And also just the timing of we are going to have to grapple with how we pay for our unfunded OPEB liability. So those are those are my concerns. But at some point, we're going to take a vote. Councilmember decide that you. Speaker 1: Well, it just. Speaker 5: Seems to me then by putting a time limit on it, where it says that we're willing to experiment, but we're willing to draw back. So, I don't know, maybe I'm trying to have my cake and eat it, too, whatever. Speaker 0: There's nothing wrong with that. So if I recall correctly, you made your motion, Councilmember de so. Speaker 5: All right, I'll accept staff's recommendation, but with a caveat that I'd like to add that we that we sunset this in five years, at which point in time we would revisit it. Speaker 0: Okay. So your motion is to OC is to accept staff's limitation with the caveat that it sunsets in five years or we revisit it in five years. Speaker 5: So why you? It sunsets every year. Is it it or not? It sunsets. Speaker 0: It sunsets in five years. Okay. That's your motion. Okay. And then Councilor Knox. Right. Is willing to second. Okay. Any further discussion? Councilmember a councilmember I always want to add you to the Council. Speaker 1: Mr.. Speaker 0: Welcome aboard. Speaker 3: But I would just request that you would add to that, that it would be consistent with the staff recommendation to amend the resolution that would only be for benefits they similarly had in another organization that would not exceed benefits. They had another organization. Speaker 0: I can see that councilor dislike accepts that and I think you should count Councilmember NOx why it accepts that modification for his second. All right. That OC Councilmember Harry Spencer. You're muted. Council member. Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. At least one council member raised the issue of trying to train our first responders so that they are able to move up in the race. And I think that that is a policy a policy level I strongly agree with. And and that is something that historically our city has tried to do. So I just want to say that that is that is part of why I will not be supporting this. I have serious concerns about this type of policy. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilmember Spencer. Okay. We ready for a vote? Let's take a roll call vote count. And, Madam Clerk. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I heard Spencer. Speaker 1: No. Speaker 2: Not quite. Speaker 3: I Vella. Speaker 1: No. Speaker 2: Mayor Ashcraft. Speaker 0: No. Speaker 1: That fails. Two, two, three. Speaker 0: Oh, okay. All right. Thank you, everyone, for your time and all your thoughtful comments. And they were indeed thoughtful. All right. So then we are closing item 60 and moving on to item six E and I believe we have some new folks coming on to the screen for this one. Speaker 1: Yeah, well. Speaker 0: While they're arriving, do you want to introduce that? I didn't. Speaker 2: A quick introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a Second Amendment to the lease with Dreyfus Capital Partners, a Californian limited liability company, to extend the term for five years for building 29 located at 1701 monastery did Alameda point.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Provide Further Direction to Staff Regarding the Allocation of $28.68 Million of Funding from the Federal Government Through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 to Assist with Recovery from the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic. (City Manager 10021030/Finance 10024051)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09072021_2021-1098

Speaker 2: Introduction of ordinance authorizing the city manager to execute a Second Amendment to police of small size. Dig Mine Inc a California corporation substantially in the form of Exhibit four to extend the term for one year with 112 month extension option for Building 35 located at 2450 PanAm Way in the Main Street neighborhood in Alameda Point. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Is that back to you, Miss Curtis? That's very nice. Okay, please. Speaker 2: So, as Ms.. Larger said, this is a lease renewal for Building 35, which is located at 2450 PanAm Way. It is a 12 month extension term with 112 month extension option. Small size. Big mine is a child care and preschool provider in Alameda. They've been here since 2006 and expanded over to the West End in 2018. Not only do they help meet the growing demand for preschool and child care services in Alameda, but we've gotten substantial feedback that the imaginative and inviting playspace they've created at Alameda Point is somewhere that adults and children alike would love to play. So I hope that you're. Speaker 0: One of them. Speaker 1: Thank you. Yes. Speaker 0: Thank you for that. I don't know if I've never had a chance to. I should call them and invite myself over. I haven't had a chance to tour the facility, but if you peek over the fence, it's like Miss Curtis said. The play yard just would inspire imaginations. You just want to get in there. Hands on. Can we have. Oh, I'm sorry. I should ask, do we have public speakers on this? Speaker 2: We do not. Speaker 0: All right. In closing, public comment on this item. Councilor Harry Spencer. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to move this item. And I do want to comment that I think they provide a very critical need of daycare on the West. And and I, I supported their expansion back in 2018. And I think that they've done an amazing job. And so I think and again, I want to thank staff for your efforts of bringing this back and recognizing the timeline. So this is one year, 112 month extension, balancing everything that you all have in front of you. But I am very happy to support this and appreciate your work to get us to 12 months. Get get the parents and the children. The 12. Speaker 0: Months. Thank you. Do I have a second? Councilmember Marks 5 seconds. Any further discussion seeing then maybe have a roll call vote please. Speaker 2: Remember I Herrera Spencer. Speaker 1: I knocked right. Speaker 3: By. Speaker 1: Vela high. Speaker 2: Mayor as the Ashcraft High that carries I. Speaker 0: Write perfect. Thank you so much, staff. Speaker 1: You. Speaker 0: Don't think you're on our next run, but thank you so much. I appreciate your efforts and good. Speaker 1: Work. Speaker 0: And great votes. Right. All right. Item six G and a bet. We're going to be joined by public works director or we are. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: You want me to read the title? Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Why don't we keep things moving? Yeah, please. Speaker 2: Recommendation Implement water conservation measures in response to drought and provide direction on further city of Alameda water reduction efforts. And the rec and park director will also be coming up. Speaker 0: Oh, very nice. All right. So I see. Before I start, she is Public Works director Aaron Smith is back and we are also joined by recreation parks director Amy Wooldridge. Greetings and Dylan Hammond. Refresh my recollection.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to the Lease with Small Size Big Mind, Inc., a California Corporation, Substantially in the Form of Exhibit 4, to Extend the Term for One Year with One 12-Month Extension Option for Building 35, Located at 2450 Pan Am Way in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point. (Community Development 29061822)

AlamedaCC