AN ORDINANCE related to COVID-19; making a supplemental appropriation of $8,505,000 to several general fund agencies; making a supplemental appropriation of $23,498,000 to several non-general fund agencies; making a supplemental appropriation of $5,719,000 to capital improvement fund 3311; making a supplemental appropriation of $25,199,000 to capital improvement fund 3951; amending the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18835, Sections 7, 19, 20, 41, 44, 52, 72, 72, 73, 84, 85, 85, 95, 101, 116 and 126, as amended, and Attachment A, as amended, adding new sections to Ordinance 18835, as amended; and declaring an emergency.
And I understand you'll be staying with us for the next item as well. I will. Thank you. That takes us to six times in his agenda, that proposed ordinance 2020 177, which is a supplemental appropriations ordinance that releases the COVID 19 response on Auckland Council members and staff to distribute an ongoing amendment package today by email. 1216 It came from both the Senate and the media, and I would like to have that email and attachment of it for you. And we have council staff in the meeting present to brief us and answer your questions. Andrew Campbell Give us the staff report and brief the Senator and Mr. Williams. Well, the amendment amendments measure spending, gentlemen, but I need yours. I think he's a jerk. Can you hear me? Okay? Yes. So. And you're cute with general staff. I will begin with the staff report, which is on page 11 of that. I'll be kind of skipping around a little bit, so I'll make sure to write. Appropriate page. I'm on page 11. The proposed ordinance would make a total supplemental appropriation of about $1 million, of which one point and will be made to the general fund agencies 22 million to 9 general fund and 31 million to the capital improvement. If. Now on the next page, page 12. If you look at page. Table one. Page two. Summary of all that emerges the omnibus. Taking action on guarding the. COVID 19. Virus. As you recall, in the March omnibus, we appropriated a total of 27 million for this omnibus proposal, 54. And we have a kind of a running total of 81.8 million for the two omnibus legislation. And as she has repeatedly mentioned, there is going to be another one in May. Table to provide a summary of of. Along the appropriation included in the proposed ordinance. I'm going to spend most of my time on on that table. I'll just do a brief review of each item in that. And that's so in the proposed ordinance, the first item that would be included is a $1 million to the Office of Equity in Social Justice to expand funding for their COVID 19 Community Response Fund. This was the fund that was created from the last omnibus where the council appropriated. The second item is $95,000 to the Department of Assessments for laptops and related equipment to allow employees to work remotely. The third item is 410,000 for the adult juvenile detention for two full body security screening systems to minimize physical contact with the poor social distancing requirements. $2 million for a small business relief program administered by the Department of Local Services, including partnering with local chambers and providing translation services for small businesses. On page 13 on the top of the page. We have a population of 48,000 for public health to support and in a way that would provide a premium pay in addition and an additional $4 per hour for nights and weekends for public health nurses employed in the different isolation, quarantine and shelter densification sites. We also have 4.3 million to the Housing Community Development Fund, which increases the additional revenue that we release for the Community Development BLOCK Grant and the emergency services grant. I'm sorry. Here's the solution, Grant. We have a $2.2 million increase in the IDF in the operating to support the isolation, quarantine and shelter in Asian sites, particularly inbound new residents which. We have $5.7 million for leasing costs for the 7 to 7 sites. Around the county. $25.2 million here for additional cost for the placement and installation of modular units across the county. And $150,000 to install fencing around the mailing regional justice center. And as Councilmember Coleman discussed before, $12 million for an event on lodging, tax, future lodging tax revenues to support $8 million for a visit. Seattle on the South Side for tourism campaign, $2 million for culture to provide relief funds to arts, culture, heritage and preservation organizations. $1,000,000 to sound science organizations, 250,000 for arts education and 750,000 for live music venues. And lastly, $1,000,000 operation. This is also for future lighting, moving future lighting tax revenues to support homeless youth programs. The subsequent pages are just additional details of the summary that I provided. So I'm going to skip over those for the purpose of time, and I will direct you now. Page 21. On page 21. This speaks to the future lightning tax allocations that will be used to support the $2 million and $1 million for homeless expenses. So, as you know, that $4 million will be funded by an advance of utilizing tax revenues earmarked to support tourism. So the Council adopted Ordinance 1878, which was an ordinance that signed an agreement with the Washington with the Seattle Mariners. And it also provided some intent of the allocation of utilizing tax revenue. And in that ordinance, a total of 9 million was supposed to be allocated for tourism from 2021 to 2029. With this proposed ordinance, the executive is proposing that that allocation increase from 9 million to 21 million from 2021 to 2029. It should be noted that in order for that to happen, we would the Council will need to memorialize that. That changed by amending board in 2017. The executive hasn't transmitted that ordinance yet because due to our new restriction on what can be taken up during the virtual meeting, legal counsel opined that given that this is related to neutralizing tax revenues, that that would not qualify as something that can be taken up during this time. So exactly how we try to transmitting that at a later time. If I can direct you to page 23, the page 23 on it has a table six. And what table six includes is all the different allocations that would be used for each variety tax revenues as indicated by ordinance one eight, seven, eight, eight. And then there's three columns. So there's one that they were allocated by that ordinance. The March 31st important preliminary forecast includes some or some preliminary sales tax work tax revenue that was provided by a Oliva and this that assumes that forecast with the additional $12 million for tourism annually. And then the last column is actually what Dwight talked about was the latest April 30 preliminary forecast. So that assumes that forecast in addition to the $12 million, in addition to tourism. I just like to note that in the original ordinance, 18788. Reallocations were slated to the belief we forecast based on the August 2018 forecast and any any revenues in excess of that forecast. And that's why you have those two different sections for the line tax revenues. The subsequent pages also speak to the revenue sources and the revenue outlook of of how these appropriations would be paid. A lot of it is just a summary of what are doing that we mentioned in the proprietary things. So I will I will I won't go into that. But I would note that there are a couple of tables that might be helpful. Table seven on page 26 includes the sales tax interim forecast for April 30th, and it shows the different the decrease in revenues that White mentioned in his briefing. And then the next page, table eight includes the year to date actual county revenues that would have been collected as of April 2022. So you'll see that a lot of the property tax levies are okayed by. But but the sales tax revenues are significantly lower. That concludes my staff report before going to the striking of Mr. Chair, if there is any questions I can answer. Never so many questions on the underlying ordinance through what we briefly spoken about the. The question that member. And Council member Lambert. Posted to her team something about a 1 million public school site is deeply regrettable and that in one of the times you talked about acquiring 680 beds. And I think the number right now, because it varies every day, 50 and 70. So how are we going to face this on a day to have 608 bed allocated or purchased if we're going to need less than 100? So I'll I'll I'll try to answer the last question. And so that's what the executive has been proposing, that maybe that we need the county, maybe so because of like how how many beds are currently being used. And I recognize that the number of beds. Definitely lower than what happened in Ferguson. You know, very quickly, I'm speaking to why we need that many number of beds. And then I think your first question would be related to $1,000,000 for a science center. It was. Yes, it was. Thank you. So my understanding is, is that the $1 million would be part of that lodging tax future in tax revenues, and it would essentially just go to support science organizations. The proposed ordinance is as broad in general as that. That's a pretty big allocation. And we're talking about not having enough money to keep businesses going. And I'd be interested in knowing what we're targeting. Back to you. What what are some of the things you had in mind that would need. Call that set up one. Okay. It's a terrible regime. I think I have a problem with having. Nicholas Stern would like to provide some explanation to council member members. We have in this proposal come in second and we have $2 million fund for culture to provide for grants or be covered under in the charter for for culture . There's no provision to provide grants. Two sides organizations. So therefore the executive included language for. PRC to be able to determine grants. The phone lines. Education programs are examples of science programs that would be included. Could it be? Science teacher, Mercer Smith. Who created the aquarium. A crewed flight could could serve. There are a lot of. Things that could be. Any ideas to help with promoting Turks? Statement. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I don't know if this is the appropriate time, but I just want to put down outstanding or bust as we go through this presentation for each of the different programs that we're talking about. I mean, I really want to understand where the money comes from and what our confidence level is, that it will be there and when we're assuming that there will be reimbursement from federal or other companies. I know that's not typically what we start with during appropriations, but it feels important given the reason we just had. Councilmember Bill Dombrowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On point. It doesn't amount to cheese inquiry and circling back it may have slipped by, but I thought maybe I could emphasize it or just seek validation or confirmation from Dwight. But I believe I heard Mr. Daly say that he has reviewed the package of amendments, including the Second Amendment, and that he believed that all of the appropriations that are contemplated herein were likely to be or would qualify for federal reimbursement out of the cares money that we have in on hand today. So if that might help us with governmental duties, I think very good question. Yes, sir. We refer you back to the staff report. Ages 12 and 13. That itemize is the individual things in the original proposed ordinance. So everything on page. Well, we are confident is eligible either for FEMA money and or for the CARES Act. But on page 13, the public health item at the top is explicitly allowed in the CARES Act money. The next item Housing Development and the Emergency Solution Grants. Those are separate appropriations in the CARES Act. And so this is just appropriating federal money that was sent to us for these purposes. And then the rest of the items on this page, other than the last two, are clearly eligible for FEMA money. And then we would presumably also get state money in CARES Act money to cover all those facility costs. It's possible that the wanting parents items would also be eligible for CARES Act. That's not the mechanism we're proposing at this point. We're proposing this advance on future revenues. But if we got to the end of the year and we still have earmarked, money was unspent, we can certainly check with our lawyers and see if any of that could also be reimbursed. I've also, as you said, Councilwoman Dombrowski, most of I think all or at least many of the amendments that are proposed, and they also seem to me to fit within the ability fund, either with FEMA money, state money or cares act money. Followed by favorite costumes. Oh, yeah. But did you? No. Councilmember malignancy, please. Thank you. I want to thank you for that answer. That was helpful. The. Items that you said would be reimbursable with FEMA or terrorism funding. So excluding the lodging tax items for a moment. If for some reason they don't get reimbursed. Where does that money come from and put the people in the general fund? Right. Yes. Now, remember that the federal money is working in two different ways. So the. FEMA money. You have to apply for and then they review your application. And if that qualifies, they awarded. Historically, that has been a slow process. They assure us that, no, no, no, this is different. They know they have to get across. So that's one process. The $262 million in CARES Act money we already have, it is in our treasury. So there is no reimbursement process involved. We will have to have documentation because obviously at some point we're going to get a lot of it, but we don't have to wait on that money. So the some of the items that we are less confident about, FEMA reimbursement, if we wanted to just immediately charge those the CARES Act money we got. And what's the. I'm just looking for that. I'm just looking for risk here. Okay. So what's the downside if we a set of we find cares act funding to a certain. Expenditure and quantifiable. Because the rules have jumped around a bit. Find a balance model. What's the worst case scenario? Well, I would say there are two worst case scenario. So the first worst case scenario is we have expenses like the facility expenses that we have been assured by the federal government and FEMA that, yes, those are going to qualify and yes, we will get reimbursed. And at some point a year from now or two years from now, they'll say, oh, we changed our mind. And so, no, we're not going to reimburse you for those expenses. And at that point, Cares Act money will have expired. So that will be suddenly stuck with a hole in our general fund that we could not have anticipated. That, I think in my mind, is the worst case. This. The other risk is that we spend some of our cares act money on something that at some point in the future the federal government determines oh you to read some part a vast one that 46. Never sat here. And, you know, that kind of small business assistance didn't qualify, but other kinds of small business assistance there. And then again, that would be back to the general fund. The reason I'm less concerned about the second one is the guidance, at least so far, is so bright. It's hard to see how an auditor could really make much of an argument and demand that we return money we had already spent. So frankly, I think the CMA risk is the higher risk just because it's not money we already got in our treasury. And just a close eye on this topic. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will say we, as some of us have come by this distrust of federal reimbursement. Honestly, you know, the Howard Hanson Dam situation and I think you remember that quite as well. As I do remember that. Gentlemen. Terminator will continue to be working on the spectrum of. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the summary of the striking amendment is on target on page 27 of your in the packet to the first page in the strike, the amendment would add an additional expenditure restriction to specify to make it explicit that the million dollars would be used to support the Community Response Fund. On page 28, there were two. We would currently the expenditure restriction related to the small business program, which deals in very broad. What we've done is we've added an expenditure restriction to break out the different allocations as the executive had intended. The $1.7 billion for grants to small businesses, $200,000 to partner with local chambers and community based organizations. 50,000 for translation services to small businesses. The striking amendment also includes some additional criteria, for example, considering historically disadvantaged communities for their or the allocation to be geographically balanced, etc.. The third change would be adding an additional $3 million to also implement a small business relief program countywide. Again, the deal at auction is for unincorporated King County only, and what we've done is been added to the PSC so that they can try to figure out which means they will be able to implement this program. It adds a $3 million and it provides the same, but would probably provide the breakdown of 2.5 million for grants to small businesses, 125,000 to partner with both local chambers, which associations and community based organizations, and 75,000 for translation services. Again, it also establishes some additional criteria for the grant, and it also requires that he has the community work group to think through an approach to implementing the program. Number four is the expenditure restriction related to the advance of lodging. Tax funds are fairly broad and what we've done is we've narrowed or we've written your language to be more specific. So for example, the $8 million for tourism organizations we've provided that 6 million would go to visit Seattle and 2 million will go to Seattle Southside. And we added some additional language to provide more requirements. For number five, we've done the same thing where we've allocated $1,000,000 to science organizations, $250,000 to arts and culture science organizations that provide education program $750,000 to live music venues. So that was what the executive intended and the expenditure restriction was recommended. Explicitly breaks that down. Now on page 29. Number six, with a lifetime of living in services again, it adds an expenditure restriction to call out that the million dollars would be used for homeless youth, for organization, providing programs and shelter to homeless youth throughout county . But it creates an additional requirement that it should be outside of the ME of Seattle. And I think that if you consider that the grants provided are geographically bound throughout the county and also these proven successful outcomes as a graduate number seven in the operating budget, we're adding an additional half million dollars to burn mitigation funds for cities to recover costs related to the these various coping sites around the county. Number eight, the striking amendment makes councilmen grant applications that's related to commit. And number nine, it has some additional language for the various grants that legal counsel has. The request that we add to abide by the EU opinion on providing grants and loans to various working organizations during this time in the last three years. There are some additional technical corrections and we also have a title limited to one and that could prove my we might consider. Thank your colleagues. Well, I will now take questions on the Second Amendment. And then once we concluded the questions on the Second Amendment, I will ask what the party's preference is as to whether or not they asked us to brief each amendment or whether we asked members if they wish to make an amendment to remove an amendment and then a separate debate. So we'll start with questions on the Second Amendment itself. Colleagues. I've been. Mr. Chairman, city. Council member, D.C., please. Thank you. So big question on the lodging tax. Talk a little bit about where this money comes from. And somebody explain to me. Whether or. How it affects the allocation that we worked so painfully on laboriously through earlier in the year to things like. Housing. Councilmember. So these this $12 million and the $1 million for all of these services would come in advance on beach related items. So, you know, since those revenues are available today, if if if the council approves these appropriations, then they will request the Executive Finance Committee to do a loan of the same amount to advance those funds. If I can direct you to back to my staff report to table. Number six on page 23. And what this shows is that the rationale on how the so the rationale is that because the assumption that he has be or the council used to do the allocation of all the future lies tax revenues having a debt service interest rate of about 5.5%. But given that with the new economic climate and the lowering of interest rate by the Fed's the PSP, it's assumed that the interest rate for those will be lower. So in essence, the debt service or the TLT bonds for the $87 billion, $100 billion would actually cost less than what we've out , what we've assumed in the original allocation. So if you look at the people say, if you look at the 21 and 22 line, the Warren is one 8780 column, you see that it needs 181 million and 212 million. That decreases to 134 million and 184 million. With this proposal. So in essence, what we're saying that we won't need to take away from what has been already committed to the different buckets, affordable housing policy, the arts and culture, etc., because of the lowered interest rate. But what it would not what this does is it does increase the tourism allocations. If you look at tourism where it has a parentheses of 25,000 you to save it on. It was originally allocated 9 billion, but now it's increasing to 21 million. The April 30th preliminary forecast is a lower sales tax forecast. So the backdrop, 20.5 million. So what the numbers that you that the council members should be looking at is the rightmost column. That's the latest forecast, which assumes that you are increasing the tourism budget by 12 million. How's that? Yeah. Actually, that makes it worse for me. I. It looks to me like if what you just said is correct, it looks to me like we took $30 million away from affordable housing to do this. BA So if you look at the $187 million in total bonds, you know, what council committed to was to spend $187 million fourth quarter because of the debt servicing and the interest rate. What we did back in when we adopted Order 2780, that would have cost us 154 million plus for 2012. But now with a lower interest rate, that $187 million of mine will now cost us less, would actually cost us $134 million of 181. So these calls are class. And so by going down. Is good. Does that mean that in terms of money going up is bad? It just means that the allocation for tourism is increasing. So if you look at affordable housing, a home with you, there's an allocated home. So what we've done is, you know, I know we've been an allocated column or in our prior in the ordinance, 2078 allocation was 280 million. But because revenue for sales tax is forecast to grow up, says you've adopted that one and it's not going to 8 to 9. So in summary, we're really not taking away any commitments or any money from an allocation. All we're really doing is adding an additional $12 million to the tourism bucket. But in that sense, because revenue forecast has increased since August 2018, everything for the most part, everything, all the allocation are increasing. So we tried this again. Let me check if looking at the whole before line forums that consist of the section on affordable housing and homeless youth. Did any of the numbers in there change because of what we're doing here? Well, our what was what we're doing here entirely contained in assumptions around the tourism. I would say that even if we didn't know and we know the time and. That was a yes or no question, can you repeat the question? Did anything change on the four lines of the affordable housing and homeless U.S. before rose here? The 1830 132 homeless youth unallocated because of the proposal to use lot of in fact the way we're proposing to use it said. Yes. I'm looking for. No. No. Yeah. No. Yeah. No. Yeah. No. I think the question is so if it comes in and obviously if we assume, let's say, for example, we didn't add an additional $4 million for tourism. We would still see a lowering of the total hospital bonds. In these exact numbers. You know, one more time. When we see these exact numbers. Yes. Yes, exactly. Well, everything that we've done in order to increase the amount of money for tourism is to make assumptions about future interest rates. And is what we're doing now going to guarantee this money such that if those interest rates like if our assumptions fail, we're not going to go take money out of housing. I just want to talk about the. We find you all calm, everybody watching, as most of the people who testified will recall how hard that battle was. And I just don't want to reopen it. And I don't want to be somewhere further down the road here hearing what we committed to jurors. And so therefore, because our assumptions failed, we're now going to have to have less money for housing. That's important to me. And I just want to be reassured about that. And I'm not understanding the answer to plaintiff gets what was kind of your word for it? What is a bit of a scary place. For you to be? But that's where we're. I would. Just close by saying that the assumptions that he's using I've currently with the forecast from the leaders in charge working for people and the new assumptions for the interest rate is reflected on the. Table and that. Well, right. Course it is. This is their proposal. And they're making those assumptions. I don't know. Maybe I. Agree. I agree with you on that. But I have a real concern here that we are going to I don't see anything in this proposal for rental assistance. I don't see anything in this proposal to help people keep keep people keep a roof over their heads. And that's a huge concern of folks out. I don't see anything in this proposal that you like, and I'm hoping to see anything that won't harm our long term commitment to housing affordability, because that problem is going to be, like everything else, just exacerbated by COVID. And in terms of recovery, I think homebuilding is an excellent way to spend our money and grow jobs while at the same time addressing an ongoing and badly exacerbated housing bill. I just I'm having these concerns about phone supervision. And if I could understand what would happen if there was someone to show me, I would not worry here. Mr. Chair, can I try, please, Mr. Dudley? All right, so, Councilor WG, in addition to looking at Mr. Tim's Page 23, you might want to also look at page 22. So what Mr. Kim has summarized on page 22. Or your your dad controls policy decisions about how to allocate the money when you at the last minute. And there are state law requirements and then the council made further decisions about how to split up the money between arts, housing and tourism. Since you made those decisions, two significant things have happened. One is coalbed, which is lowering revenue in the near term. The other is a significant decrease in the interest rates so that the amount you committed to debt service on $187 million housing bonds is low. The combination of those things leaves you with a little less total money, but more in essence, on allocating money compared with what you cited in ordinance 18788. The executive and some of your colleagues are proposing to take some of that unallocated money, the 12 million, and add it to the tourism bucket and advance it so that it can be spent. Now to help organizations that are adversely affected and provide funding for a tourism campaign, help us rebuild our lodging tax revenue. That's a policy for then you could have decided and you may personally. Prefer. To say, I don't want to do that, and I would rather have more money in the arts bucket or more money in the housing market. That's also a policy choice. So. I think it's not correct to say that the 12 million has been taken away from housing because it's not, as Mr. Kim said, there's actually. More. An allocated money available in housing now than at the time past 18788. But it is a policy choice about how to spend some of that unallocated money. Which means we and this is like it's a totally rational thing to do. And there's been some some good, you know, presentation and discussion already about the rationale. You know, the source comes from hotels and I get that. I just want to understand exactly what it is we're proposing to do. And I do fear that we are. Kind of moving the lines on the buckets a little bit here. A little bit. My $12 million. So. The size of the buckets themselves as well is fluctuating in different ways. But we are saying. That is some amount of what we know or some portion of what we have identified as affordable housing and homeless youth. Bucket money will now be tourism marketing. That's that's what I'm hearing. And I'm not your frankly. I don't think that is correct. So you have a different amount of money available to you now than the last time. The decision about how much to in tourism the last time was based on needs. And the other two buckets that you wanted to satisfy you and your colleagues wanted to satisfy. There is now more money allocated, money available. Any proposal has been made. It's some of that, in essence, new money imported to tourism. And I was. Saying that is right. There's no such thing as back on allocated money in the way we're putting it in any form that summarizes what we were doing. No such thing as an allocated money. It was at least 37.5%. At least 37.5%. At most. 25%. So I guess maybe the way to ask it is if we were to do all this and everything happened the way we plan to do, and we asked ourselves forward into the future and look back, will these percentages hold? Yes. So that the tourism allocation that is proposed now is 174 out of. Well, 95 is 13%. That's way below the 25. That's a very good answer. And Dombroski. Councilmember Dombroski, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate Councilmember Belushi's question and Dwight's answer. I just want to make a couple of points. In developing the proposal around this. I think a foundational principle was no reduction in the number of units of Tier D housing that could be built because we knew that was not going to be a successful proposal. I think comes from to one another. Way to look at it is an additional way to look at it is within the housing bucket. There are really two submarkets and the submarkets are one. The direct subsidy we give to build the units. And the second measure some bucket is the big check. We write to the guys on Wall Street that hold the bonds. And what's occurred with the markets is we have to we get to pay those guys less because the rates are down. So I look at this as taking money that would have gone to Wall Street and bondholders and bringing it back to the county to invest in growing this business, to keep this fund healthy. And that's the secondary and maybe the primary goal. Singer And then a bit of a primary goal is keep the front housing so we can actually build all of the units of housing. We want to build support arts and culture and youth homelessness because if we don't have the dollars coming in to the fund at all, we don't get to do all that that we want to do. So I think that an additional layer of of the two by two submarkets within housing, but it's important to keep in mind and the one sub bucket of support to build the units remains there. The number of units remains unaltered, but the money going to Wall Street and the bond holders is lower. And that benefit by. The macro environmental conditions in the country, low interest rates, we are just taking advantage of that to do. But I think if the dollars were there before. I suspect you have broad consensus on keep the fund healthy, keep people coming, put assets. Yeah, I'm still struggling with it. And it's been pointed out to me that by the age 22 is actually the. But looks like what the RTW says. And what we did was something probably from I don't know. I am going to need to dig into this more before I'm going to be able to book this whole thing . And so we've got to leave. Thank you. About. Okay. What? I'm. Or asking for myself for a moment. That's what founded this club last summer. There is what I wanted to ask about, and part of you seems to get a structure for what the state and legislation allow at least 37.5 hours in college for these 37.5 for affordable housing, homeless services, and most 25% for tourism. But at the time the council's work was then done with public policy was that 50% of the funding allocated to affordable housing and homeless services and. So even in the finance costs of $187 million of affordable housing went down. We will send send those funds to Wall Street brokers to line their pockets with. We would have spent it another way on affordable housing and, you know, almost human services. That's that's the policy framework. I'm looking at this problem and asking myself questions very similar to what Councilmember Excuse just outlined. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, please. So I think that is what you guys are referring to, and I think this might help figure it out. So with regard to the piece point to your right and I don't want to disagree with Dwight, but that does outline what the RTW requires, not what was adopted by more than 27. So that's so I can clarify that. And then the. With this proposal. As I mentioned, the south of the border, the council would need to amend Ordinance 2788 to change the allocation. So because we're now increasing tourism and the ordinance needs back, what, about $9 billion? But that would have to increase to 21 million. And in essence, the the proportion of that percentage are for affordable housing and homeless youth. Well, I'm sorry, affordable housing would have to go down to accommodate that. So when I know that that kind of culture is counter to what we're saying, but I believe we need to amend the ordinance 4788 to make sure we increase the tourism budget. In order to do that. We have to change the percentage of allocation to housing that. And if we need to figure it out afterwards, then I would have to get Bert. To follow up. Oh, the growth. Were you able to to say Mr. Kim is right. And that's why the reference to needing to change the ordinance was has been clear from the beginning of this proposal. And we have the unfortunate complication that. Legally you can't. Do that right now because of the restrictions, the outline. So our original intent had been to transmit this appropriation and the ordinance changed at the same time. So that would have been clearer. And unfortunately, that is impossible. But yeah, Mr. Kim is right about that's why we have to come back and change that ordinance is to create a slight deviation from what he said before the two reasons that the debt service is different and that the revenue is now different. And I'm sorry. You can keep on request. I think I have Cornwell's and then Lambert and. Up the good. Oh yes. When you say apologies, Captain America, the. Captain America. Was. Broken. The structure, our right to just go back in time a little bit and think about when we first some of us first started working. On this proposal that was for us and when it came up. I have some. Concerns. Similar to what I'm hearing from council from the. And because my priority has been affordable housing. And I was very concerned about what would happen to the funds that we would be. And I became comfortable with this proposal. In large part because, number one, the desperate need, the overwhelming need to get more money into our launching tax from our ration taps, into our revenue. Stream so that we can use it for affordable housing down the road. The second thing that came up for me was that and which I looked into was that the affordable housing projects that we have addressed are not ready to go. They're not ready to be built. And what I came to the. Conclusion on was that it's really a false dichotomy to think that. This proposal is placing a priority on tourism. Over affordable housing. And I think that is something important that we have to keep. We need the revenue now. We have been desperate to get people back to work, to get our restaurants open, our hotels and motels, to bring in the lodging tax revenue, the barbershops, certain cinemas that were mentioned, all the things that are associated with tourism. Getting people to be able to go to the theater. One of the attractions that really helped bring about insurance. To our area. Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. I'm also very interested in diving in a little bit more carefully to the buckets and and looking at the impact on affordable housing. A couple of quick things that I'd like to say. I would like more information, Mr. Ken, on some of the things that were listed as science or other things that were substantially funded in the parks levy. So I'd like to know what that overlap is so I can see what the need is. And secondly, I did have phone calls from a consortium of many chambers that were very surprised at how many going into the chamber. And yes, I see that they do need to work with the rest of the chambers. And I think we need to be very careful in the language and and maybe we need to look at some of the language to just say that they need to go out and talk to the chambers before they make up their plans . Because I will tell you that there was a large group of chambers yesterday that were complained that they had not been spoken to. And the testimony today from the written priority on the fencing, not in the fire code. It needs some language about that. And then lastly, in looking at the lodging pact for in Section four, you see no. Well, actually, I thought and the section where we are talking about going out and looking at all the different areas and allocating, I think we're going to need to be very careful in making sure that they just pull it up here and pull it up and where it is. That's actually for that. And I really appreciate the members working on the words in subsection any to consider different segments of the population. That's great. They seem to be able to consider it says consult and identify tourism designations located in historically disadvantaged communities. And the agency also do that. The idea of it being solely into that is very problematic because in talking to the chambers yesterday, they all know like they are disadvantaged right now and that everybody is in need of a pass. And so I concern that the language in the they just want those things out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. More questions on this fighting in Baghdad. Any more questions on this front? For sure. I'm sorry to have someone recall us. Thank you. This is not a question to Councilmember Blackburn. Please stand and correct me if I'm wrong here. But the parks levy included funding for some of the science programs. And others for capital. For operational. Enjoyment. Clinton, senator. That's true. Councilmember calls the parks levy would fund capital projects for the Seattle Aquarium and it would. DEMBOSKY Councilmember DEMBOSKY, thank you. And this is again, this is also an additional clarification to Councilmember Lambert's inquiry. And I understand the confusion. I haven't thought about it. But there is in this proposal and some amendments, some some proposals to support chambers of commerce with. That's not the lodging tax piece. The lodging tax piece. The 8 million is six to the. The name of the organization is the Seattle King County Convention Visitors Bureau. It's county wide and then. The South South Side, which is the organization focused on staffing, both of which aim to bring convention, business and tourism here and have those dollars spent around the county and fill hotel rooms around the county. And so with respect to the chambers, that's another set of work in this appropriation. I think it's pretty exciting that there's some some proposals scored every chamber, but that's a different piece of it. So I didn't I didn't want them to get conflated. Saying no further questions or on the Second Amendment. I will now ask colleagues, but in fact, would you go so far as to suggest that we take up the ordinance as frank amendment and amendments and brief amendments as we get to them, unless somebody has a strong objection in knots. So you have the benefit of having your video on, as I can see you not in the affirmative. So I encourage council members to leave the video on with that. So we have I would call on Council member Caldwell's to move adoption of the ordinance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here's my question, since one of which I hear that the proposed ordinance 20 10177 Supplemental Appropriations Subcommittee. Launching tons of ordinance. Declaring an emergency. Councilmember KO. Well, can I ask how you've made. Out of it. May I ask how you've made that motion with recommendation. With recommendation that you pass recommendation before helping to pass recommendations for council. You don't keep them in one word. I think we've got about a month to go. Councilmember Caldwell's in crisis management adopted an ordinance. One. Order ordering from on people once 2020 177 and certain among the one or one that will take up amendments and perspective. This is where the involvement was sent in. 1216 this afternoon will be part of video and I understand it may still be offered as Amendment three councilmember. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And moving document the three. Members of the government deduction Amendment three. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to preface this by saying whether this amendment hangs or doesn't defame. I think that. There's an opportunity or I would recommend that we keep working on the language around this section of the chair and vice chair and put some time in. It's an issue I've had some interest in and no other interest. I know that my amendment is perfect and I think there's elements of both. I just want to preface it by that. But I think there's in the next week there's an opportunity to settle in. Here's what my interest is with this amendment. We don't have enough money to help every small business. That's clear. And so one of the strategies I've been interested in is this idea of help, the helpers. And there are chambers and merchant associations and community development associations and other small organizations focused on helping small businesses that are doing a lot of great work right now to help not only connect small businesses with state and federal benefits, but also to support localized marketing efforts to encourage people to get takeout from local restaurants. Those organizations have been. Hammered. Too, because all of their members are not working like a lot of other organizations. And I think it's a shame to see them struggling so much when they're providing such a needed benefit also. And. I have been interested in the idea of sort of. Significant or meaningful size grants that could allow, for example, a small to medium sized chamber do not have to lay off an employee. I also heard him talking with the vice chair in. Interest in. Making sure that everyone gets a little something for some of these really small organizations, a small grant, and give them a little breathing room in their fundraising. And let. Them focus on service delivery. So I just kind of. Took that. Concept and and put it into an amendment compared to the underlying section in the strike amendment, there's a fixed dollar amount, I think it's 425,000. This is the outside the local government part. And the approach I took is they're putting a fixed dollar amount was to put a fixed dollar amount for competitive grants. You know what I recommended 250,000 of that 3 million go out to ten competitive grants, the $25,000 that would be competitive. And then any eligible. Organization in the county would get just automatically 20 $500 grant to provide some definition of who's eligible with the short timeline. I don't know how many there are. There are 40, 56. So your guess is somewhere in that range. So we're talking about the same dollar amount that would be, oh, 300, $400,000. So I think there's broad agreement on kind of a rough dollar amount or some conceptual agreement. I may have lost the translation portion in my amendment. I'm not sure. So. I don't have strong feelings of the if the chairman whether I withdraw it and we work on it or if we want to bring this up down for a vote, a vote. Now, I think either way, it needs more work. So I think I encourage support, but I'm also open to withdrawing it if that's the cleaner process for the chair. Councilmember Dombroski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the work, the group, for digging into that section. I think like Councilmember Lambert indicated earlier, everyone's hurting. It's a catastrophe. I think that the notion here of making sure everyone gets along well and helping the helper is a really strong one, but also realizing that there are disproportionate impact on some communities. And I think that's the magic of the $50,000 section here. The bigger grants where folks are chamber or business support organization wants to come forward with a specific plan. We can send more help to those that need more help and that are ready to go. So I will say I'm becoming increasingly a little more uncomfortable with the direct grants to businesses having work. And some of this has been a rolling lesson money. But we've seen the challenges of PPE, City of Seattle, 10,000 applicants, and we're able to get 250 businesses to strike the $10 grants. And when I just when government starts picking winners like that or it's by, you know, by chance or whatever, there's some firms in that base by by sending these dollars to organizations that are doing more broad help in the business sector, which I think is the focus of these. I think I'm a lot more comfortable with that, and I like the basic structure of this, and I think it's a good step forward and I appreciate government about the growth working on it. And maybe then maybe the buckets need to be even a little bigger. But I appreciate his willingness to keep working on it as we refine it. But that's kind of where I am. On the notion of the business support and where we might send our economic help at this stage. And this is just one piece in the realm of work to do, but I want to get my support for the direction here. And remember, I think that last two speakers, I think this was a great idea and in the language needs to be cleaned up. The this will be in there and we welcome it. And so I think it's good for us, too, if it passes to have that language in there. And I think people have really come together in good groups and communities saying, hey, we're helping each other. And I'm really impressed with the people who are being overly and helping each other and trying to get through everybody's hurting. So I think if this is really it and make it by working on it. Discussing. This is often associated with biology memorability of. That's why it is getting more off the ground with Republican. Oh well you the know up the software council member. Looking at the the language that talks about community based organizations. Whose primary mission is to provide marketing and technical assistance to small businesses. Are there? Were you thinking about some chambers? How about primary mission other chambers? Well, I'm just. I'm trying to figure out. I'm just not to put too fine a point on it. Is there, like, a small chamber in my district that might qualify would but wouldn't be on city council. But the with no chamber of commerce. I live in Marshall Island in the Commons. Not that I, you know. Anyway, that's my question. Right. Pleased to become a member of the group. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, quite the opposite comes in here. Due about my intent with the language was to include all chambers and any other organizations whose primary mission is to support it. It was the original language I thought was a little open, it said, or other organizations serving business, and I was concerned if we had an automatic grant going out that there should be some definition. Otherwise any nonprofit could say, You know what, I can serve small business in need. And so instead of having people chasing the money, it would be money for organizations who that's their mission. So I think the comma, the way it was drafted is. Every chamber plus every organization who was. In. Whether it got that definition right, I don't know. I wanted to be flexible enough to include legitimate business serving organizations. It had parameters around it. So that was the intent. Thank you. That's well, that's an excellent. Mr. Chair, I support this amendment and I didn't speak a word about it. It's a couple of days ago. And the concept of it now, what would be really I mean, it seems that there'd be more it would be more streamlined, easier to administer. What you would need would be to have a list of exhaustive list of all chamber to serve those organizations or some solutions that do the same work on something called this chamber, maybe out in the years, the unincorporated rural areas and farmer associations. But whatever it is that serves that purpose, just want to make sure we get the entire list to. Coming from rough to go in really in the language. And listening to your question, I hear your discussion being recognizing that not every community is served by a chamber. And some organizations that are doing real work or to support business communities are members of commerce, and you want to be supportive of that. I might read the language too particularly, but I'd be concerned if, for instance, the White Center Chamber of Commerce is not currently a functioning organization and may still exist on paper, but it is not functioning and is not meeting and serving a purpose and the White Center community in the 1787. And as is providing that role, I would advocate and suggest that $0.01 or CBA might not. Meet. The definition, in your words. But doesn't the conversation we're having if this happens, I would hope that we can make sure that in the intervening week we address that issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Absolutely. I don't know that I got there. Right. The concept is for organizations like CPAs, merchant associations that are a little more informal. It was just some. Constraint other than saying. And other organizations. So yeah, I'd love to have our staff settle, make sure we capture it captured broadly, but certainly an intense saw. Hello. That's numbers all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember up the grove. I think this question might have been asked before, but just a little bit more clarity when we say to every Kent County local chamber, can you clarify one more time? Is that is there an accounting of every local chamber that exists? And do we have enough money to fund every single one? Is that what it's the same. Mr. Chair. Okay. If the in the short amount of time we couldn't get the exhaustive list with the kind of estimates or others 40. 50, 60. And with this dollar amount, we're talking about a difference of 100,000 versus 200,000. Kind of it's going to be in that range. And I by. Next week, we can do the best. Some of it depends on the definition. That's in the final language. Right now is limited to small and medium chambers. So we're not finding Amazon in the Seattle chamber in this one. This also says in addition to Chambers, other organizations whose primary mission is helping business is with marketing technical assistance around the world. And the chair suggested we kind of fiddle with that language so we don't have. I was unable to generate an exhaustive list prior to today's meeting, but had a rough estimate. And with the small dollar amount we're talking about, even that goes up and down by ten, 20, 30. We're still talking about. That would be. We'd still, I think, be well within the dollar amount that's appropriated in the strikers. So I'm sorry. That's a little vague, but that's my best answer. I've got. Prior questions. Yeah. Close, Mr. Chair. That's my book to go to close. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to make a comment. I know that Oldsmobile ad that says this is not your your parent's Oldsmobile. Are you feeling that way about the chambers? In my district? This is not your. Your grandparents chamber. We've seen some of the chambers physically in South King County, really adaptable to the changing demographics and the changing economic situation. It was noted earlier, I mean, I attended a conference put together by some. Downtown. County chambers looking at issues of economic mobility and. Economic inequality. And it was a diverse room and engaged with small cultural organizations. And I think these organizations all have work together to build those relationships. As it was noted, the Southwest King County Chamber allows free membership for micro-businesses, and they're trying to be a constructive part of the solution to help displaced immigrant refugee businesses. But they're all really hurting. As I mentioned, the Chamber of Commerce, for example, we heard from Zenobia Harris, is a very progressive African American leader. The chamber represents a diverse community. I believe she has laid off all of her staff. It's not just her working right now at a time when these businesses need a lot of help. So sometimes we hear the word chamber of commerce and we get a stereotype of our. Grandparents Chamber of. Commerce. And at least in the South End, I can say these are organizations that are working and some with more success than others. But to try to be inclusive, trying to reflect the community and try to make a difference. And this is a pretty small amount of money. This amendment actually, I don't think increases the money. It just kind of clarifies a methodology for sending it out. I appreciate the chair and the executive for including the concept to look forward to working with everyone between now and full council to clean it up to finalize it. All those in favor of the saying I oppose their. Yeah. They seem to have it. Yeah. Amendment three isn't up to amendment for council members. Would you put the document under four for me? So, Mr. Chair, thank you. Amendment four has been imminent and to speak to it. I ask for this amendment to be all he has to grant funds that are in the ordinance before us that restricts recipients to organizations that have not already that have not already received funds from the previous slab. That's one round already in our previous ordinance. And that's simply that's the word directly on. There is a in at least one case, there's a coalition that received funds. And I would like the individual organizations to still be eligible to apply in this round. And sorry, I've heard already that these are only be restricted to organizing and organizations who are not directly received funds already might still be eligible to apply. Questions. Colleagues. That's number one. Thank you. I just. This is the person putting on the money. I have to say, there's a couple of ads in this Stryker because I hate that ad million dollars than $3 million. And that's a four or 5 million that we just added today. And I do worry and I know we've had great reassurance that we're going to be reimbursed for a lot of this money, but we've just kind of a catastrophic hole in our general, almost undoubtedly growing as we speak. So I appreciate it. The need is so huge, right? And so the need is absolutely there. And I just I just wanted to say for the record that I have concerns about the amount of money that we're putting into some of this stuff. I would. Have to rely on the budget. Process to ensure that we these are eligible. For reimbursement. But that's going to be important. Get some real detail, have a harder time, you just or make a similar comment on the next amendment. And this amendment changes to eligibility. It doesn't increase the amount available. DEMBOSKY Now speaking to number five, I take it back. All right, I'll be prepared. COUNCILMEMBER Then I'll say that you should just have a little more understanding on the on the kind of motivation for this. One of the problem we're trying to solve, does this relate to some of the concerns we heard from community about the first million and a prominent foundation that maybe received a fair bit of. We're hoping for a little more diversity in terms of the allocations. Tangentially? Yes, not directly. The foundation made its own awards. Previously, though, we've had one transfer of funds into our own office and actually a social justice fund. And those awards have been made this second round. On the second one, as it comes before us right now, they're restricted to people who did not receive funding in the first round and as a as a reference to be a little too vaguely busy, particularly those those of people of color and minority organizations that as a coalition we see there's over 20 members of that AusAID. And I would want individual or coalition members to not be ineligible because the overall Coalition received funds in the last round. I think it sounds a little bit on a technical clean up, but the general thrust is to make additional organizations eligible, if not prioritize them, if they in fact in fact purchase them. If they didn't receive funds from round one, I would say it doesn't prioritize but does certainly make them and removes it ineligible. Got it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Further questions. This debate comes from Brazil. Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just wanted to speak in favor of Councilman MC Councilmember McDermott's amendment. Again, there is a coalition that has been closest to some of the impacts of COVID 19. They represent several vulnerable communities and as a coalition, they received an amount of money in order to, you know, increase the likelihood of getting funding . But since they applied as a coalition, they only got, you know, each organization only got a couple thousand dollars. And so you wouldn't want to ban them from applying again in their individual capacity. Seeing no further discussion. All this amendment for senator signify by saying i. I. Last night, the historic amendment was adopted. The amendment Fire Council members are like, Would you do the honors again? So moved, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Amendment five is before us to speak to it and anticipated councilmember buildings that the. Ordinance is transmitted to the council. 1 to $2 million in business support. The seven member three councilmember grants First Amendment offer today touched on and the Second Amendment puts before us today has continued that fine and it has a new section of $3 million allocated to PSB in order to provide county wide support. Our first $2 million income is directed to unincorporated county is the second at noon today before on $3 million is available countywide in the we are the local government and the only governments or other already King County. I believe it's important we do the investments in dollars and cents and workers in small businesses are disproportionately hit on hard. And some of our unincorporated areas are more than a five that covers the entire county. So I'm asking for some work done to increase of D+ appropriation by 2. To 4 million. Simon Cowell's record. Must ensure journey around favorites and multidimensional roles from ten to bring the worlds of more and more urban depression. Dwight's. Here for us. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I would like to get your comments on this or the end of John Taylor. It seems to me that. Here's a look at the whole count. One of the reasons that I am Councilmember Dombroski of the party of additional Mount County was. It would also include the corporate world. Do you? What are your thoughts about RB the likely to be able to be the first. By the federal government on this. We've talked about this already, but I understand my concern. About. This point was it was. Well. So, Councilmember, this is not one where we would seek reimbursement. One that we would think through the money we have already received, the CARES Act, money we spend for an annual for getting FEMA reimbursement. But I think more likely, this is one that we would expect to come out of the CARES Act money and we are very confident, at least until the court cartons, that it is eligible for that. I culpably misspoke and how I said that it would be coming out of kinsman for a request with regard to all the demands of all the needs that we are. Just everywhere. Can you give us props representing. Circular just for the board about increasing this amount? I think concerns. Weren't. But looking at what? All the other side. I'd like to get your feedback. So let me give you two answers and maybe an idea. So one answer is. We are the only government. We're the unincorporated area. And as I think Councilmember Lambert has pointed out, when the state allocated some of its Cares Act money to cities, they didn't allocate anything that that incorporated area of the counties that got recognized. So we are the only source of that. So, yes, if you acknowledge that there's nobody else, including the state, who is going to give us cares act money for the corporation area. There's a pretty strong policy rationale for doing that. Secondly, I think we all know that even $4 million is not going to go very far and are certainly going to be plenty of need for it in the area. I think your earlier point about talking to John Taylor would be a good idea. I just want to make sure they have as they handle more money. And then the idea that I could give you, if you want to consider and this is a very good one, McDermott's proposal, you always can come back in one of these subsequent monthly ones and add money to a program. So one option you might want to consider would be to do that. You know, here at the last one, it's a process. Assess that, you know, hey, we got 8 million of of good qualifying businesses that applied and then make a decision to add money to subsequent time. I'm not saying that's the way the idea, but it is another option that we have to set and test the waters, test the market. And then once you have that information, make a decision about adding money in a subsequent supplement. I was just this is this is John Taylor for the record, director of the Department of Local Services. I just want to think Dwight's idea is a very good one. We're very excited about this program. We think it can be impactful. But I would just say we are literally building this airplane as we are flying. And might be good to do a bit of a dry run with $2 million to figure out what worked, what didn't work, how much demand there was, and think about how to augment that. Here comes a member of. Our Mr. Chair. And so and I think that what was decided is very interesting and important, and the need is so great that, as Mr. Bailey said, there will be needs going forward. And we had no idea how many months to the end of this year or even beyond. So getting as much money as quickly as possible. And in my district, I know that the chambers have really worked hard together to be able to say this is where we need are. So I think we have partners out there who are maybe doing this work. So I don't think it would be hard to be able to disburse this amount of money. And as I've said before, it's not going to solve the problem. So we will need to come back. But I think this amendment that we. I'm different about our diversity. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this proposed increase? I want to make sure I understand, because I know Chambers have been referencing. But would this be for the direct grants pursuant to the same rules of. I think it's 15 boys or fewer and 1.5 million in revenue. That. We need to augment the increase. Um, to double is one of the line items within the deal along the 1.70 5,200,000 and the 50,000. All right. So it doesn't go to the other translation services and what? Yeah. I suspect that there's more a need than. I know there's one need that we'll be able to supply, but I guess I'm interested in getting it started and seeing how it goes. And I again, I'm having concerns about how do we treat folks fairly, given the lessons learned with the City of Seattle program and the federal program . And making sure that folks don't feel like they were too late or not connected enough. And I would like to. Then you learn a little bit and we come from a whole wealth as our budget year I think is setting up a more methodical process to work in partnership with the executive branch and the council to make sure we spend 20, 62 million wisely. So I guess at this time I would be inclined to make the old one on that. Not not trying not not saying no in the future. Discussing this chair comes together. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Talk about $262 million. And of course, the governor's appropriation didn't include the other corporate attorneys in the county. It is expected. I think both both at the state and federal level that pass through dollars are going to go from the county to the other unincorporated areas. And you're talking about a quarter of a million people. And I just heard 2 million. That's it. No, this is just if we really, truly care about equity and social justice and it's not just a pretext. Well, remember that the rural and unincorporated residents and the farmers are also people who are historically underrepresented and don't have an imaginary voice, certainly on the King County Council. So I would I would I think that the the chair of this committee's motion is appropriate and certainly would support it for me as a staff. Member comes from the library. Thank you. I appreciate. And today, give me the allocation formula or how the governor passed through the dollars to give to the city. And in the chart that we were sent on Friday, it showed the population of each city and the amount of money given and you get the items to that eight $30 per person so that everybody has a few million people, not 2 million, because Seattle had their own allocation. So the 1.5 million people participate and got $30 per citizen in their area. And so to me, in fairness, that we should complete the those 250,000 people in the county with the same funding formula that everybody else got . If you do that. Then that comes out to 7.4 million, and that would just bring it to equity early with everybody else. And so I want to point out that this is not the end for sure, because this is no way bringing us to parity with everybody else, is that. Mostly. Sorry. All right. Number two, dusty baking the math. The arithmetic is compelling to me. I think that we've got to treat our unincorporated areas equally. I think my concern is this is the funding that individual businesses and maybe there's some more work that can be done between now and final on that. If the amendment hangs because a lot of people are going to fly and most aren't going to get it. And I just wonder if that's the best use of those dollars like this one, a flag that in effect, this one proceeds. But I, I appreciate the math and I do it along with you, Councilmember Lambert. And this would even still come up short of 30 bucks a person times a quarter. I've got to go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh. This is one I go back and forth on struggling. I have no significant unincorporated areas in my community. And we heard, I think in a staff meeting that local services doesn't necessarily have the capacity right now. So it's. Why it is attractive to me to ramp up this need in capacity is there? On the other. Hand. I'm more familiar with the urban unincorporated areas and Skyway and White Center and see the economic devastation and it's these are families already on the margin. I worry a little about the balance. I'm wondering. Yeah, I guess maybe it's more of a comment. I'd be interested. You know, if we're going to do 4 million focused in unincorporated and then 3 million for. Everything and then unincorporated some portion of that. I'm worried about a pretty small. Amount available. Goodwill out of the chambers. I'm also interested in concerned about the sort of help the helpers model that the amount available to drive out to organizations outside of the unincorporated areas becomes fairly limited relative to what's in the unincorporated areas. So between now and for council, should this pass, you know, one idea might be to focus. Some of those chamber. Grants coming out of PSB, but have the local service money fund the chamber, work chamber and small business work within unincorporated areas and have the PSB allocation fund the chamber grants outside the incorporated areas to ensure that there is some some balance there. So just an idea to kick around between now for council to make sure we don't. So I think on balance. Further today's. Singing None too close as we as we have said in debate in this debate the. Balance to support unincorporated King County is, I think, really a settlement here, referring in testimony beginning at today's meeting hours ago now about the real name. And I'm going to do this particular one because of the increase in the Second Amendment, the $3.3 million program, the money to have an appropriate balance and ask members to support with that. All those in favor of Amendment five please signify by saying I. I was opposed. No, I died. Let's try that again. All those in favor. First of all, if members want to unmute themselves now and in favor, signify by saying hi. I. Others of us may. I believe the ayes have it. And the eyes and the eyes have. The Founders adopted. I believe the next amendment to be offered with the amendment is council member duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment eight becomes member. No duty is lifted up from Amendment eight plus member belt and seat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eight would just call out farms and associated farm related businesses as as all businesses that are eligible, along with all other small businesses, to seek relief from the Department of Local Services small business relief program that we just increased. And the thinking behind this is that while we do have quite a number of farms out in unincorporated King County and many of them are small farms. Following is the definition of small business owner under the program. And we're hearing that although they on K through the early part of the growing season, there's a lot of concern about whether some small farms will be able to continue planting growing into the summer because they're concerned about whether they'll be able to sell their products with restaurants closed and their Sears closed down, which are of primary source of revenue for many of those businesses. And so it seems important that we support the farms and the associated farming businesses because, you know, they are a potential percentage portion of our our food supply. We see many people going to food banks as a great program that will be involved in the executive branch to connect all of our farms, including some of the smaller ones with food banks, to be able to provide those in need. And it seems like it all fits together with the idea behind this program. And I would urge your support. Pottery Barn. Oh, well, Councilmember Bernard Bauer, with Councilman Belushi's permission, I'd like to be a co-sponsor. She and I discussed this yesterday at length that I think is outstanding idea that benefits the entire region. You are welcome to join as a co-sponsor. I'd like to stop you. Come to my. Beloved. I don't think you do. I think you've got to do the. And colleagues. Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had been very interested in this as well. Councilmember Lambert and I have an idea for a meeting that's over in folks from. How to manage the funds programs. And I think what Councilmember Dow didn't you just mentioned is an ideal example. Of something that we could improve and set priorities for our next come. In common through omnibus and comes to my mind more than I won't talk about that I have acquired and have been informed that funds actually are considered small business. Those who meet the criteria. I don't think this is enough said. I don't think it hurts. I can reinforce that our values are based on our family and community. But I don't think that's. Some funds are. Predatory small businesses there are strong. Want to discuss it. Remember Benghazi the clothes and burned all the Russians. I think Councilmember Coble raises a very good point and she may very well be correct. The ladybugs and suspenders, I think if nothing else, it's just a signal to the farming community that they are knowledgeable. They may not may or may not think of themselves as all of our regular small business loans. And I do believe it wouldn't hurt and it could help. So and if it's not too disruptive, I would ask for all your support. All those in favor of amendment number eight. Please stick at the same time. I. I was made. The ayes have it. Amendment eight is adopted. Amendment number nine, Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair and I to move amendment number nine. Councilmember Landers moved to document amendment number nine. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. And underneath it includes a work group for small businesses and their grant program that will be administered by KIT with an amendment. This amendment would do would be just added to the similar work with or the grant program idea and the work group with media and DC as and SBA, which are the same people that we're putting our in our elderly. But it would also add the director of our county director of yesterday and the chair of local services so that we have a bit broader section and that would be the group that we parallel, group that we have and the underlying or the other grant for small. Councilmember Carlos. Community Council member Coles. So far. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I suppose this amendment in discussing this with some people in circumvention appears that this would really slow down the process. And the whole effort that we're going through here to fast get out to the small business. And we're really happy. It appears to me another level of bureaucracy to both the crunch response to our to provide the. I don't know. Maybe John Terry. John Taylor Yeah, I, I will say that a little more diplomatically. We are absolutely open to having input from members of the council and community members. We will be seeking that. But Councilor Caldwell is right. Our goal is to have checks in the hands of business owners by June. We have businesses out there right now based on the work the university has been doing, both in urban and rural unincorporated King County, who are really right on their margins. So $5,000 can make the difference between keeping the lights on until they get. The stay at home order lifted and some business flowing back in. And our goal is to move as fast as we can. We will absolutely do that in consultation with the Council and with our partners across the Executive Branch. But we we are moving really, really fast on this. So I would. I would like to maintain maximum flexibility. DOMBROWSKI Excuse me, Mr. Governor, way to work. Thank you for bringing this forward to look at the process. John, maybe on this process topic, could you tell us a little bit about what you are envisioning as the grant administrator to ensure. That there isn't. Something that you disagree? But let's assume that there is a lot more demand for this came down to money to private businesses than there is money available. And if we look at Seattle, 10,000 applications, 250 awards, how do we ensure how do you anticipate or expect to ensure fairness and distribution of the dollars to. Urban and rural parts of the county, northeast and southeast. LaShawn. And what is the answer to in one building where you have said to applicants. A barbershop and a coffee shop, both facing devastation. One gets the award and the other doesn't. How do we how do we have no doubt that the dollars are needed? But how is how what's the answer in terms of equity and fairness? And these dollars are why this is a loss or a misfortune that you get it or don't get it. What processes are you looking at that help me understand this process, this customer Lambert's notion of moving quickly but having some oversight and ensuring fairness by having dialog is appealing to me a little bit for those reasons. And I completely agree with that. I think we need to be transparent about how we build this. Our current thinking right now is we are going to be using income and businesses that are in census tracts that are historically low income as one of the major factors in this. And then we will probably be looking at where businesses are located county wide to way, where some of the dollars cuts are both getting a geographic distribution, but the dollars are going to some of the most historically underserved communities. And I think it's really important to remember the translation services and the outreach dollars that are part of this. It is one of the things that we've seen in doing the outreach that we did to sort of frame this program out. And some of the partners we brought in is that it's those historically underserved communities, kids of color, businesses that are owned by people who speak English as a second language, who missed out on a lot of the traditional funding sources. They may not have relationships with banks. So a lot of the outreach effort and this is going to be targeting those businesses and organizations that partner with those pieces of know those businesses. That's why the outreach dollars and the support to chambers and other community development associations and key financial institutions is so important. And just to be clear, when you look at census tracts, there are census tracts with less than 200% of poverty across the county. They are not concentrated just in Western King County. They are everywhere. They're national. They're in far Eastern in King County. So that is at this point, Councilmember, a broad thinking on how we would approach this. One of the things that I want to make clear is we're going to be bringing in some kind of an outside partner to help us deal with the magnitude of applications broadly. A community development financial institution has done this before and had some preliminary conversations about that. We are looking for ways to move quickly on this once the dollars become available, but we will absolutely do that in close consultation with all of you who have a strong interest in this. Yes, that's helpful. Jon, it sounds like maybe there are some preliminary outlines of a program. You mentioned the 200% of federal poverty level census tracts you mentioned historically this last year. Is there a draft written kind of guidelines document either formally or informally that can be shared between now and final adoption? Yeah, there is. We've worked internally, our staff. I just want to give kudos to Hugo Garcia and we're going to have some and a lot of the people within the DHS director's office between our CFO have spent a lot of time framing this program out, so we're not starting from scratch. We'd be happy to share those work products with you and with your staff so that they can react to. Now, we've had input from the Office of Equity and Social Justice, and we've had a lot of input from the Small Business Task Force and Executive Staff to put together part of that COVID 19 response. That would help me know, know what we're buying here with a little more granular granularity, because right now it's just an appropriation, but very broad guidelines. And so it feels like it could use a little more definition of a language amendment would help get there. I agree with Governor Raquel Welch that that's that maybe the exact approach could slow it down. But if we could see what the concept is, that may be the most expeditious way to get comfortable. How do you do that? And I just and I think Councilman Roman has worked with the Department of Local Services enough to know we don't shy away from engaging the community or having the community involved or council involved in developing programs. It's just this program. We're trying to move with alacrity and we want to move with the pressure. And the only other comment that I'll stop talking on this is the economic development issue. Sort of my memory serves me correctly in the jurisdiction of the committee and the whole stuff. With respect to the particular proposal here, that seemed to be something that it were this to be perceived that that seemed to be the chair by chair committee. The whole or at least the chair should probably. Participate in the. Lambert. LAMBERT Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been very interesting. ABEL Yeah, well, it is that because the need is great and getting out as quickly as possible. When I was reading the underlying bill and I came to line 165 where the exact situation is what's being done in aid. That's where I got the idea from. I'm replicating why in 167. Sorry, what? 65. So it's the easy way this speed it up, it appears be it slow it down and deal. So I modeled it after what I said. Speed it up. And now I listen to all of that. And well, he had beaten up. On the other hand, you close it down. So that is confusing to me. So I, I liked the idea and I am very familiar with what would be allowed and their ability to reach out to people and to the council members . But I was not briefed that they were already doing that. And I have still no idea exactly who will be overseeing. So. And they were based in the setting surrounding 165 as to who would be the people, you know, giving the final line. And so I thought, wow, that is a really good idea. So I had borrowed it. And so when it's a good idea to and it's not just an easy I borrowed the idea to say, okay, this is going to be for the local government, the chair and vice chair of the local government to also be included as is parallel to July one, 65. So my goal was to speed it up. My goal is to model exactly what's happening on line 165 and I think the team in line 165 will do an excellent job. And so I was hoping that we could model the good work that they intended to see out of 165 to also be here. So the idea came from the underlying bill and replicating it. And so I'm a little surprised by what I'm hearing. And right now, I do believe that work by 155 should work here also. So I would still ask that we ask this and allow there to be partners who also believe that there is a need for expeditious behaviors here to be included. And in parallel politics, if I ask for deep, deep pass recommendation. Paul Well. I. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate very much what Council. Member members brought out, which is absolutely right about the language floor. I started on 1165. The differences were as we were looking at the language and working with the executive staff as well. I would expect here that to provide financial assistance for small business. How to live a price that. With responsibility of the PSP to administer that. They do not have the capacity and the expertize that the department. Of local. This does. Unincorporated areas. Mr. Taylor brought out that he had good relationship with small business, sir. Yes. And that's not the same for people, see, that's not what their function has been talked about. PSB select a third party to administer these grants and finally came up with the way to try to get a console from. Or be able to come up with a logical, rational format and process. To balance out the rest of this paragraph. A lot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all. So to Councilmember Lambert. I appreciate the name of this amendment. I wanted to ask, does it document somewhere what the process would be for setting up a workgroup? So just to build off of the questions that I'm hearing regarding the speed of the process. It feels like there would be a process for the process, right, for establishing the workgroup in the first place. Now. That was my main concern with it. Otherwise, I appreciate the aim. I just try to understand how we would establish the work group and what that process would look like. Mr. Chair, as the member was making its two chair response to that question, do you have in the language that the office performance strategy imagine being a work group and what the conference will be? And this again was suggested to me to include parts of the law and I don't take any. The lack of expertize. Capacity. PSP is not traditionally. Been engaged in this process. Portland, Ore. And all the rest of. How to administer grants to small. So the process is specified. In the language under my. That's like a good segue. Remember. And so clarification so from the testimony we just heard in the course, very difficult that we're doing all that. You know, the information is going as quickly as it has on world together. And so from what John Taylor just said, and maybe you can tell me so all I was trying to get at what I thought the good work had been done. I wanted to keep it as a great idea. We're a group that got expertize and I wanted to make sure at other people because anyone 65 I remember correctly and chair and I share a budget with beyond that so that right diet with that right. And I don't have it in front of me. Now, one of your colleagues who has an open can tell you that. Okay. So. So what I was trying to model was that the chair and vice chair role for government would be on this one, but it would be the same type of thing as what you were doing so that we would have an a bit of a deal as well as a chair and vice chair at the local services and potential. So are you saying then that not only with the PCG, the IRC here in Houston with VLS, but Navy and Incorporated. No, you're shaking your head. So please know. So the executive's. Proposal. Was to do the unincorporated area business grants through the allows, as Director Taylor has been discussing the council. STRANDBERG This is not for me exactly. And the proposal to do $3 million elsewhere in the county, including potentially the Inc. area, and assigned it to my office, which has no staff or expertize in awarding grants. And I would say, frankly, I might have a conversation with the council. If you received the 3 million, then we would actually work through the cities and hammer out those grants. Many of the suburban cities approached me with requests along that line. They know their businesses. My office does not. And so in the little workgroup that is described in the strength of the proposal I was going to make was rather than try to create our own county bureaucracy to do this, let's just work with the cities to get the money out. I think that would be the most effective, obviously, since that group hasn't met. We haven't had that conversation yet. To share. I remember, though, in a meeting that I had earlier this morning, SBA did say that they were interested in doing that. And I agree that they would do a better job of getting it to the cities. But that then again, without the unincorporated areas. And they said they would assist with that. But I think for the unincorporated area to be going to the cities for those type of things and they should have their own government feel as doing that. So how if you did turn that over, how would you then allocate deals to be able to have enough money to do the allocations being incorporated? So my personal proposal would be that if the council appropriated money for other than the unincorporated area. So for businesses in cities, very often we go to businesses in cities and we work through the cities to administer those grants and at the council separately decides how much we want to allocate the deals for the unincorporated area. Because I agree with you, Councilmember, I'm going to ask our cities to also administer programs outside of their jurisdiction. Seems impractical. Not appreciated either by the UN. Appropriate? Probably not if you. Think it's. Part of discussion on Amendment nine. Yeah. I think that we've had some discussion and I would like to continue the discussion and bring this up and play it only to find out the number 1009. Number ten times the number that. Paul thank you for is having the same conversation with a participant in our little home school. And it's gonna turn out. Okay amendment number ten. I am not gonna offer this amendment, but I want to speak to it, and I would like to try to work on this in between now and final passage. By means you can. That has to be a promise for goodness, not promise. At the moment, the amendment would have removed the 500,000 obligation that was added if. The striker was not in the underlying proposal. To support a mitigation bond for citizens for documents and calls related to the county's isolation and quarantine and recovery, the size and scope of the investigation. The point is that the reason is that. Just after this strike was put together, the state's allocations to the Cities for Cares Act funding was announced, and each city had a fairly significant allocation a minimum of 25,000 from small jurisdictions and up to several million through some of the larger jurisdictions based on population. It is unclear as yet. I understand that the executive branch has been serving the for their actual. Costs. Related to COVID 19 response activities. I don't want them to see the volatility or you know, as you know right now, I hadn't seen it yet. So it seemed to me that this is premature to be thinking about taking on a portion of our year out of funding just because I the source for this and presumably I should probably ask that as a question because the general fund would be a different problem. And I think through how we want to allocate that fund in a more general way rather than setting early presidents. This way. I'm mindful of Councilmember Wells isn't. Communicating very openly and frequently, frequently with us about her approach as budget chair. And one of the things that she's been talking about is forming principles for how we want to work with the executive to help buy the distribution of about 200 of the needs of that $235 million. And this seemed like it was kind of jumping ahead and maybe setting a precedent that wouldn't even really be necessary or make a difference, because all cities will have some amount of money to address and offset their COVID related costs now. And we could still come back later and supplement that. But it seemed that discussion would be better upfront. And I'm offering it today because we've all heard very clearly from City of London and others. They don't want to send the message that we're not supportive, but really do ask that we work to find a way to not presuppose a small distribution of this money and instead work towards a bigger, more comprehensive policy approach to how we will support our jurisdictions more globally. And then adhere hear what the city is saying. I would actually love to hear from the executive at some point. Today was a great moment. What work they are doing with the budget because I know they are and in other cities and how they might hopefully, you know, bring more detailed information about that situation. We heard some of the public comment to on performance as we were having this week's meeting. Well, I'm not an optimist today, but those are my folks and I and I think that we should be. For the passage of the growth. You're out of work. That's former deputy council member, after all. Thank you. Before she withdraws it. Thank you. I appreciate that. Comes from due to your humble ideas I want to bring forward this week, one would be to refer to local governments instead of cities because we have some fire districts, for example, that maybe didn't get a fair. And secondly, to clarify that this would be for costs specific to the county deploying signs during the emergency that were not covered by their state share. So that this would be sort of like the emergency reserve value of. I think if I were looking at just philosophically, I would be in agreement about mapping the whole thing out in advance. Makes sense. We're Spending Cares Act money in other sections today we're starting to kind of spend it without a map. So I think it's a precedent there. I also think it's a very modest amount, and I think that the positive message it sends to those jurisdictions helps us manage those relationships as we work through this over the next few months. And those are some of the reasons I'm interested in fixing it rather than in end over the next week. Thanks. And Kevin, member of the gang, wanted to turn your back on and an doctrine of Amendment 11, if you're so inclined. Thank you, Mr. Chairman of Adoption. Amendment 11, Council Member of the adoption of Amendment 11. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The as we heard from public testimony on the impact of the densification signs, particularly the one in Renton with over 200 folks, is significant on a city. And as a result, the city of Renton has sought to enter into a about year with the county to memorialize in writing the expectations and common understanding that relates to security, operational protocols and most importantly. How and when a decision will be. Made to end the use. Those discussions are continue. I am supportive of the same Renton's position in those discussions and hope that something gets worked out and because those discussions are continuing. I wanted to raise the issue and would withdraw the amendment. It was time to go to the movie in Independent 12. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Adoption Amendment 12 cut my reference number down. And Amendment 12 was the first one six council member. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to ask for a vote on this amendment and ask your support of this amendment would require that the executive transmit a report. And although it's not noted that we approve that report, we vote to accept it before 1.2 million. Basically, it is a proviso restricting 1.2 million. Upon approval of the report. But on the rationale for continuing the use of the report in Red Lion cite as a de intensification side following the conclusion of the current 90 day list of which were three or four weeks into. My interest is in involving the Council in this decision. To be clear, I am a strong supporter of our county's de intensification efforts. I think it is the necessary and thoughtful thing to do to provide health and safety protection to protect the lives of people who are particularly vulnerable. I also believe that we should not philosophically object to, just as a matter of philosophy, to citing people who don't have homes in shelters in our different communities. It's not an ideological concern I have. I'm one of those who sometimes chance in my back yard meeting, I believe we need to deploy services for people who are vulnerable throughout King County. But I also believe that the impacts are very real. You heard a flavor of it today, and that was just the flavor. Very specific cost impacts to local businesses that are hiring security, that are spending money on graffiti removal and cleaning. To give you a sense of the impact, these are 200 plus folks from the Downtown Emergency Services Center, a well-respected and well-regarded organization doing a good job. But if you look out the window of our courthouse down on Third Avenue, that's the population we're talking about. And to take 200 of those individuals and move them from Pioneer Square into downtown Renton there in their retail core has very. Significant real. Impacts. And the city, to their credit, this is not easy. We're not getting. Flooded with emails. The city council members and the mayor have been flooded with e-mails, concern from neighborhood associations and businesses and the city by large part. Has been sticking. Up for us in the sense of saying we're all in this together. Sure we don't like it, but we have a shared responsibility in an emergency. And I think the key word is a shared responsibility. And this, I would say, would give us as a council, the opportunity to end that lease after 90 days and share that responsibility with a different community in particular. I believe there. Is tremendous open hotel space in Seattle and perhaps some even within. Walking distance of the current shelter. And so we have policies in other parts of government. A lot of cities do. The State Department of even we had King County allow, for example, tent encampments to be temporary. And they're temporary for a reason because it doesn't burden that community for a period of time. And I think we ought to at least allow. Ourselves the ability. To have that discussion in a couple of months as to whether or not it makes sense to look at other options and ask the executive branch to make the case to us, as the Council is not inconsistent with providing that necessary social distancing, that distributed transportation. We can protect public health, we can support our most vulnerable citizens. We can build regional partners, and we can still allow ourselves one more opportunity to look at whether or not there's other options. That's all this amendment would do, would give us the opportunity to approve a plan to continue and give us the opportunity to be in discuss that in a couple of months. And I strongly encourage you support. Colors are going to be. Obviously Church Council members are low income city council member. Don, thanks. Mr. Chair, I want to echo and agree with what Councilor Brooks drove the point he just made in his amendment broadly. You know, the city of Renton and the surrounding businesses are paying a significant price in costs associated with the county's location of this facility. And they really did it more or less without warning, not nearly as smoothly as it could have been done. Does it mean it was the wrong decision? I think long term, ultimately citing folks who did intensification sites is going to be a good, broad policy choice that will slow the pandemic. But we shouldn't punish Renton for them doing the right thing. I mean, they made the right choice to take this on. They've been a willing player. They were negotiating with the executive at another location in advance of this. And so I do think there is a limit to the patience and flexibility of the cities. We have to recognize the very real political toll. This is taking locally on the mayor and the city council. And so I think we should, as we start setting policy, moving forward on this site and others, have a chance to take a quick look at it. You know, every 90 days or so, just like our homeless encampment or tent city encampments and make the policy choice and have a little more control of it at the council. As a member of the public. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am following the issue. I know the site well from the childhood on. I think I saw my first ever movie at the old Britain. They had a theater there and I believe it comes from Berkeley. Longmire runs a grocery store in the shopping complex. Is that correct? Correct. One of my concerns about this situation is that we may have an attempt to intensify the Morrisson over intensified not part of one city in the county, just the magnitude of 200 folks coming in suddenly without a community infrastructure prepared to handle that is is a real concern. And we're moving quickly and expeditiously and it's an emergency and we've got to step up beyond our comfort level. And perfection is not the test here, but the time proposed by this to come back and take a look at what it should be if it goes forward and what terms this is seems reasonable to me and I wonder if Tesla were up the ground, if things like total, if it were to continue beyond 90 days with respect to county funding for the state, things like total allowable occupancy and support services, things like that. Could that also be considered in a report that would be presented and approved by the Council? I think anything could be included in the report. Absolutely. I'm inclined to be supportive of. Emotion here. And I think this is that respect a little different than a lot of the other sites that the cities around the county have stood up in partnership with us. And the intensity here is is far above beyond any of the other side. So I think your proposal is reasonable that. Only when things settle down a little bit and more function a little more normal. We can take a look at this for next steps. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I. Nobody heard from the executive what their perspective is on the discussions that have happened with the city of Renton and where there are negotiations. Because it seems to me by adopting this for essentially saying give them what they want or else we're going to shut you down. That's what this says. Unless Renton agrees, because it says we won't give you money to support the operation unless there is an agreement from the city to do so in front of me. And I'm sorry. It got withdrawn. What? I think you're speaking to the amendment I went through. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm trying to follow you all. So you're talking about provides the 1.2 million you would require, of course, on the rationale number 12, is that correct? Perhaps horrible that. Never mind. But I would like at some point to hear from the executive on this. And I don't know today is the point, but I don't. Because you hear sort of. You know, honestly, if I had it to do over again in a meeting I had with Brendan, I would have invited the executive to participate so we could have all. Talk to each other. But I'd only and I have a great deal of sympathy for them hearing from the city. They are trying to be your partners. They say that over and over again. They're really committed to that position. And I appreciate that. It's not been shown every place, by the way, every jurisdiction that is controlled with concerns about the site has had some type of concern that was totally and utterly unique to their access to their city. And so I think if we get into the business of micromanaging these things, we're going to have we're going to evolve. We're always going to be the executive building has been experiencing. And I know that that's not what this does. I appreciate that. But I do I do want to at some point hear from the executive about what the discussions have been and where the hang ups are and hope we can do that. You know, if they're not objecting to our report, then that's fine. But I don't know. It was all problems. Exactly. So I'm happy to vote yes to a report. And I was concerned that we were very sorry. Thank you. Hello. Let's start with you. Carter responded. You want to defer until sometime during the week or consultation? I think you. Need to speak with Mr. Ford. Mr. Right. And my knowledge of the negotiations with Brendan is that they are underway and I know nothing else. So unfortunately I can't give you much value today. But I know. That the numbers are a lot. Will eventually. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support the intensification side. I think we need to be providing a way, way more permanent housing options, co-located with wraparound services for the people and the demographic that we're talking about. And I largely agree with the people we heard from in Renton. My only pushback is something that I heard from somebody who commented, saying that we need to send people back to where they came from. I'm against that mentality if we're going to have a regional approach to homelessness. We need to keep treating county like a region and all be together in terms of addressing this issue and building housing for people. That being said at all, we should use in making all of our decisions, including where we place the intensification sites, has to be that equity impact review tool. And so I support Councilmember Up to grow amendment because I would like to see the rationale for keeping it in that specific location. We heard the demographics in Renton, low income populations, people of color. All those things do exist largely in Renton. And so I would like the executive to take a broader view and let us know why this places specifically. Is there going to be a concentration of locations in South King County? All those questions I would like to see answered in a report. So I'm speaking in favor of councilmember up the growth amendment while acknowledging that we need the intensification sites up in Foley fully support those. Teacher Observer. Como Thank you, Mr. Chair. I found this very interesting issue on discussion, and we're having an impact in my district district for having already two other incumbent sons. You just now being. Informed that we both have two sons. Both. So we're going ahead with that. My concern now. This amendment is the potential impact on our public health workers going on. And I think Kelly Rider was going to be with us if she. Here. Maybe she could provide some comment. Be okay, Mr. Chair. Writer. Hi, Councilmember. Chairman Bernanke, do you hear me? Yes. I tried to start my video, but I can't actually see myself, so I will just go on. Thank Councilmember. Now that I have done all of that work, I don't know that I am the best person to speak to our public health response at this point in time. I know that we will absolutely want to be able to follow up with you all. There's a specific question. I can certainly try to answer it. But in terms. Of our broader response, I. Have not heard that said advice. I am speaking from an issue that has come up. Okay. I was just an appointment with Mr. Taylor representing the executive along with Jonathan, and maybe Dwight comes forward. But this is a concern that I have, is whether this would provide an impediment. To implementing public health strategies so that. So again, I would second what writer said that I think we really need to hear from Mr. Ford. I would just know that. These these efforts are extremely difficult. And. It's always going to be a very difficult challenge to site a facility of this type for any period of time. And so. And if you pass this amendment, I would just encourage you to think about how the council will actually write this report and so that it gets, you know, expeditious attention. And we don't end up in a situation where the report is ending, the lease expires, and we have no place for these individuals to go, which creates the public health problem that as well as you're referring to. So I would just encourage you to have a conversation in the next week with Mr. Floor and others to talk about how we can best meet the needs you're all expressing and understandably expressing without creating a situation that could have some very serious unintended consequences. Thank you. I also but many, many phone calls from people in Suffolk County. And the one thing that came very clear to me is that they're perfectly happy to have and and they have been and tend to be very good hosts. And this is an important with the mayor was speaking. And but each of them said to me we do not like certain behaviors that we believe are uncivil. And if those things were not happened, it would be easier. And I think at the end of the day, conversation that we need to have. But if we're going to do when there are behaviors that now especially are not safe from a public health standpoint, that in the past have been ignored. And both the prosecutor, Seattle, has said he refuses to. Civility, love. And apparently there was a meeting recently with South Daily News, as well as they hoped, on talking about the idea that we as a society have got to have civility, love, and if people would admit them so that people are not uncomfortable or walking through things on the street that shouldn't be on the street, it would be much easier. So if we do did this report, I think one of the issues that we should be discussing is why are the civility laws not being enforced and how is that impacting socially but also in public health at this point? I think it's. Further discussion. Is here. Just briefly to Councilmember Lambert's point. Are we talking about a behavior in the city of Renton and wouldn't they be subject to his laws? And is one of the issues here that Renton is having to respond frequently and clean up graffiti and you've also got to behave yourself. I don't think that that's I just don't think that's something that we should ask for a report about because we don't control movement. And in fact, I think we understand what's happening is that that's causing some impact. I just want a bit more to the point, I'm probably going to vote no on this because I think it's too much money to the point about having the the timeline laid out on us without a plan B. I'm worried about that. I'm worried about running off the clock and having suddenly an emergency where we have to remove a bunch of people. I want to try to find a solution that works for everyone for the prime site Renton for whatever happens at the end. They have respectfully and correctly asked for a plan for how this ends. What's the end game? I don't think we have that yet. I think we should push for that. And they have made a case for needing some reimbursement. And I think that that is fair as well. And there is the CARES Act money that can be a part of that. But I'm really concerned about setting up a situation where we're going to be in an emergency and have to quickly make a big move. And I just don't want to set that up. I think there's other ways to get it where we're trying to go. It's not that I don't support the idea of working with the city because I think this. Approach might put us in a bind. A few weeks down the road. And I'm thinking. They? Of course, the roll call vote for clarification since it sounds like it's divided up. Voters requested cast number. Do you care to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the diverse views on this, and my hope to pass. Would be to. Participate constructively to ensure that our processes don't get in the way of it. I appreciate there is a quote. You know, Councilman Lambert had comments about sort of a broader regional response. And I don't want those to complicate this particular amendment. This simply has us approving a report and it gives us an opportunity to participate in that discussion and debate as to the future of the site. And if a majority of this council is comfortable with the current approach, then the current approach will continue. So but it does give us. The time between now and. That means expires to make a case and explore options and look at what those best option might be in to better inform that decision with additional information and analysis. And so I appreciate your consideration. Carter, could you please call the roll. On a name? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member about reaching. So Councilmember, how do you both know. I. Councilmember Dombrowski both I'm Councilmember Dunn. By. Councilmember Dunn are Councilmember Colwell? No Councilmember Caldwell Sports no councilmember member. Council member Mathieu High Council member Lambert Fox. I was a member of the girl. I grew up the Girl Scouts. I was a member of my bar. I council member of all my colleagues. I month members are all. Council members, all allies. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, now. Mr. Chair, the vote is 653 nos. A number 12 is adopted. That takes us to amended 13.1. Council members are hereby. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move Amendment 13.1. Thank you. Council members. Most adults never mentioned 13.1 to speak to this amendment and throughout the attempt to be to have an effect on the entire supplemental. However, the only place in the new language were adopted today where the phrase geographically balanced is found is in the tourism sector. And that's why you see it. Well, there's only about four reasons. And I think our intent in seeking a geographically balanced is to make sure that we don't concentrate all of the funds in one place , that it is not isolated to one community or one place in the county. And there is some in more than one place, multiple places, where I want to make sure that what we're not doing is on peanut butter and putting it across the country evenly. And therefore this amendment would add where we were saying geographically balanced on. And so what needs to be balanced based on me? Because truly, as we address economically the most content content during the pandemic, we're doing this all with an eye toward me. Front of discussion. Transformative policy. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I like the I think the notion behind it, if I'm understanding it and I was talking with Governor Caldwell's and I wonder here's my philosophy. I think that we are in these circumstances in a time where there's devastation throughout the county and there is need everywhere. And so I think we should be responsive countywide in our response. At the same time, I, I agree with the philosophy that those who need more help and who have traditionally not had as much help from structural racism, reasons of power, lack thereof. We should account for that, and they should have more help and they should be prioritized. Even the language that you're suggesting geographic balance based. On need. Would seem to be exclusive to based on need. I wonder if geographically balanced account, while accounting for me, would more finally reflect that. We want to have some geographical balance here, but we also want to account for need. The based on need seems to maybe exclude the geographic balance, if you will. And I wonder if you are open to further discussions or some sort of change in that direction. I am. You have have geographically be balanced while accounting for name. Then Kilgore called my editor. I wonder if she might if that captures the discussion we're having better. Let's do chair assignments, because frankly, we really struggle with the language here. And as you all know, they're very hard to get to the initial conceptual striking then that we sent you last Thursday. And then the final one there went out in front of the number. Confirmed to most of them up until midnight of that. And so I think there really are still some areas and a certain moments that need some words. I think this is one of the. I like the suggestion made by Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I'm not sure that it's exactly right. We need to vote for this amendment with the understanding that we will do some more work. Other quotes. As well. Opposed to the idea of more wordsmithing, but I would actually accept a friendly and very friendly and uncertain stance. Grand, mutually acceptable friendly manner. The language of 13.1. So it means you have to be balanced or accounting for me. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I think given our circumstances, it is anything we can do to narrow the narrow the path toward them, toward the finish line is good. You and I agree that doesn't cause it probably needs another country coming over time to work on language, but I think that advances it closer to the finish line . I appreciate your dialog and working with. You're welcome. And I'd like a nod from someone in talking to the committee that they've gotten and recorded the amendments as we've discussed it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have it recorded as geographically balanced while accommodating for me. While accounting for me. I'd say while accounting for me. That is what I had written, but not what I read. After about four and a half hours. Neither did Paul. Thank you very much, Mr. Potter. I remember as amended, stating that all those in favor please signify by saying I thought I was never going to have a third one as a doctor. I will go slow for a moment before I get to 15 to see if anything happens. Pausing briefly before the end of the season. Anything happens. I see nothing happening here. Amendment 15 Councilmember Bill Gibson. You are a murderer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not going to offer. Oh, I learned my lesson. I'm going to offer Amendment 15 and then speak to. 13 Cardinals member DC has moved to remember the 15 cast member double duty to revive. The air, so to speak, to a mental drive. The lead and concept of including a funding source for youth homelessness organizations was mine. So I appreciate the charity, including IT and the executive including it. All the support I have been advocating for and the dollar amount they believe was well targeted to fund the small number of organizations that are actually licensed youth shelter providers. And not just anybody can call themselves the youth shelter provider. It's a highly regulated activity and there is a large organization on the east side of funds. And yes, I believe it's the why in the South End. And then there's the backing of NGOs. That is the name was given. And so these these are really the big players in this in this area. And they are all struggling and struggling to meet the needs of young people among those who don't have homes, who are at risk of infection, who are at risk of bringing infections into the shelters and aid programs, and therefore, they need to be ready to move spread out. They need to be ready to be intensify their shelters and then all takes resources and resources for more space and resources for more staffing. And it's just very challenging time for these service providers. And so Seattle has done quite a bit to take care of the services within the city of Seattle. But outside the city of Seattle, the four organizations are not around about seeing the same level of support and they really need our help. So I appreciate the million dollars being included. I wanted just for for reassurance, to know that my intent, as I just described it, was the actual way it was going to get implemented. We've spoken a number of ways today and on other days about putting in money into an appropriation, not being 100% clear about how we intended to be spent and then finding ourselves surprised and sometimes disappointed without actually gets so kind of different in a couple of different ways to get out. What I would like to see half of this money go to friends and use and the other half to go to the library or whatever that is. I think that I just don't know enough for this number to be the right number and expenditure restriction is a very blunt instrument and says you shall spend this amount on this thing and I'm not sure that that works in this situation. So that's why I'm from 2008. I do want to continue to work with the chair and the executive branch just to make sure that the intent is clear of this. This particular part of the lodging tax money which is eligible is now being used for modern task homelessness. The is to support the major providers of homeless services outside of Seattle thinking that it was right and I to get. Thank you. We have an ordinance, Mr. Chair. Asking. I'm sorry. Sure. I just. I want to take the opportunity on this to just make sure the records are clear. I was very proud to offer the Youth Homelessness Amendment in the lodging tax allocation measure. That was a couple of years ago. It was unanimously adopted by the council, and this money would bring it forward. And that's a good thing. I, I, I do think I'm a little troubled with the exclusion of Seattle and certain young people in Seattle with the but the legislation that's of course, in between now and full council . I want to understand why we are excluding a whole population of young homelessness and surge fighters that are like youth care from eligibility. Because I do think there are needs countywide friends of youth amazing organizations and their fundraiser a number of times their leadership and I think they absolutely should be supported with these dollars. So I too am interested in making sure that we're funding the organizations who can best serve this population regardless of where the kids are throughout the county. Thank you. We have before us for 2020 177 amendments as amended. So when we have the starting amendment as amended before us and all those in favor of the Second Amendment as amended by saying I, I, I oppose nine and the ayes have it. The amendment is, is that we have ordinance 2021, 77 as adopted as amended before is. Mr. Chair. Would you like. Somebody to move that type of amendment? I was under the impression we were all entitled to a full council because we to have the rights and amendments protected or which amendments got accepted, that's currently here. Okay. So so as I suspected, four members information never there among any other work we do between now and next week, there will be a title amendment. We are moving it out of committee without a proper format by title at this time and are aware of the fact that discussing our final passage. Still to come below. Well, to say a few words. And we really spent a great number of hours to so I don't want to go into any detail here, but I, I just want to reiterate that we all know that we're in the midst of an enormous crisis with catastrophic realities for our constituents, for our residents in the commons, health, well , and well-being, as well as our economic well-being. It's not different from what's happening all around the country. I just checked the latest figures for today. We now have an additional seven positive test cases. That brings us to 6653. In our county. Now we have an additional four fatalities, bringing us to a very tragic 467 deaths. We know those numbers are growing strongly. Those numbers are not reflective of the reality. We have a lot more positive cases and a lot more deaths than actuality. So we're seeing some slowing down, but we need to get our economy started. But we also need to ensure the health and well-being of all of our residents. I really appreciate the executive's transmittal of this very well thought out plan to help out in our recovery response and recovery efforts, including releasing the isolation sites and providing alternatives to shelters that not be used to promote social distancing requirements for those ceremonies. And as we discussed, that at the heart of our small businesses, really. And how would you assistance to get gone? We're very worried that. Many of our businesses are threatened. Clubs, learn stories about those all the time that are incorporated areas as well as in similar cities. So I saw one of them, Councilor DEMBOSKY, come up with the idea of looking at our lodging tax. We know that it is being depleted because our hotels are mostly closed to restaurants are operating in many of them just with takeout and delivery services are. And our arts, culture, science, heritage organizations that typically draw tourists and visitors to us during the month it's such a robust was economically but also to attract businesses to attract visitors . It's a wonderful, wonderful relationship. And we want to get back to where we can have all the crucial. I commend this to you. I don't want to go on more second one more consultant. That's a great deal. That's very positive. But it will. And the bottom line is, it will jobs that will help the economy and also help in terms of public sector. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to say that I appreciate a lot of good work and and people without eating really hard in the last week with that. And as we go forward and I really appreciate the wording and it's just an honor and the last 2 minutes, I thank you for accepting that and friendly amendment . It's always interesting to me that geographic equity is the only one that had some kind of 400 foot around it. And I'm just saying. And it continually happens. So I just want to point that out that I don't see that happening with any other premier. And also, you know, making sure that we are defining need because as Councilmember Caldwell just said, everybody has needs right now. And in the study that's going to be done and disability issue has been brought up by many, many mayors and several chambers. And while Renton does have the ability to to police it, to arrested, and they don't have the ability to prosecute it, and that is concern. And I will have to add the amendments that I just want to put on the record that as the blueprint is that we will as councilmember said, we will we have an update for how this is going on and for our budget. And and then it will be that as we get the update, they tell us whether it's in the previous month and then to make it down by district. So we'll have an idea of how well we are doing and making sure that our needs across the county are be addressed. And then lastly, and that as we work on the amendment that I would do today on making sure that when we're talking about the local government and the local government committee is very much involved. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the discussion. Councilmember Belmonte Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to ask if it's possible to move this out today without recommendation. I understand it has to be ruled in a new item passage by next Tuesday's council meeting. But there are some very big financial questions in my mind that resurfaced early on in this very long discussion. If you remember back a couple hours, it came out in this in this discussion that although we have been acting on, the assumption was the word I'll use that I think it's been 700 times. But we were not going to redistribute the types of funding the lodging tax ordinance that we passed. In fact, we are going to come back with what am I supposed to change that ordinance to conform to this appropriation? Despite all the discussion, I'm still not really clear how millions of dollars in tourism money is going to be funded. I like to make sure it's being funded in a way that makes sense. I mean, I don't think anybody's talking about a big tourism campaign this summer because nobody's traveling this summer. We're still in Corona virus lockdown. So I just want to make sure that it's being spent sensibly and that there's going to be accountability for how it gets done. And yeah, and so the big concern I started with, I continue to have and so on. There's a lot of important things in this ordinance that. I do support. There's significant chunk about that. I saw big questions about in order to vote yes on it today, I would like to pass it out without a recommendation that is acceptable to the nature of the motion. Councilmember Karl Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe I should have talked a little bit longer, but I would prefer to pass that on this recommendation that the bottom line of £7,000 with the recommendation, of course, we go along with that. But I would like to say that two things. One, we are really facing. Situation here. Just getting money out to our small businesses, getting money to our children's, getting money out to our tourism abroad so that we can be competitive. We've both been ahead of the curve comparisons to many other local jurisdictions and other states. But we know that there's going to be a huge amount of competition to attract tourists to places all over this country. Now, I think it's important to really go ahead with this. I'd like to have this really be out there indicating that we support this is always supported strongly. But the second thing I would say is that we will have a process in place here regardless where we will come up with the new striking. For counsel consideration for months to. And what I am looking at is working with staff to develop that striking amendment that would like to get your concepts to be included in it. Robinson heard a lot right now. But I'd like to ask. What would be a reasonable. The timeline for when those. Concepts for language, for the strength in the moment and then when we can read some of them again, but striking them around to some point in preparing to submit to not directly answer some. Questions that I'd like people themselves the classes. If I may, Mr. Chair, please. Just so you know, the timeline is going to be pretty tight, Mark. Our committee is that we need time to bring both the amendments adopted today to the underlying ordinance. I know that there's a lot of conversations going on, so I feel like there's going to be needing more time to finalize the Second Amendment. They can almost, almost envision the striking amendment being finalized towards the end of the weekend. And so given that, that doesn't leave much time for my amendment to the striker. So so I guess what I'm saying is, is that if we can take more time working on the striking amendment, that would be less time for line amendments. But if the members would like to shorten the time frame to finalize this amendment, then we can take the weekend to draft line amendments. I think that those are kind of the options. Pros and cons. I think the staff's preference is to work as diligently as possible to or as comprehensively to finalize the striking amendment throughout the weekend. And then perhaps on Sunday night, we can send out a draft of the striker. And then on Monday morning, council members can request line amendments and staff can use the rest of the Monday to draft and have legal review with action on Tuesday. That's just kind of the initial thoughts that I'm having. I'm not sure. I mean, come on, what would be really helpful to me as budget chair and working with the staff on the system work? But you also heard a lot now that if you have other concepts or maybe refinement of language that you suggest and get them to staff, then please indicated for the SARA to share those with me because that would expedite the whole process. It's better to get a striking amendment that would really be built on trying to ensure census among all of us. To take into consideration those suggestions. That you all. Have. You know, your description of the. We talk about one of mine county, but we're also talking about knowing that the vast differences. Among all the work. Just some. Satisfy everybody to the extent possible. So, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure where to go with the answer to some of the boundaries question. I don't know that it matters that much when you go for this to approve this with recommendation. It is. I hear you're not accepting the request council member boundaries here. Is it in a sense? I agree. It doesn't make that much difference. I suspect there are the votes to members now. If it's with recommendation, I will vote no because I don't have enough understanding of the use of housing funds of what had been allocated by ordinance vote. This body is part of monitoring systemic fix of affordable housing to tourism promotion in an emergency. And I just have to say, we're using the words emergency and crisis and we need to really rebound. And all of those words are absolutely justified in this in this period of time. Absolutely. However, there is a timing and a sequencing issue here. Emergency is May one just past and I can't pay my rent or I can't put food on my table, or I might have COVID 19, which is a lethal disease. That's the emergency. That's the right now crisis. Small businesses losing their their they're they're not being able to pay their rent and therefore not being paid. Are people shutting down, putting more people at risk? That's also a crisis for that institution and for the people who rely on them for money. A tourism promotion package is not an emergency in May of 2020. It's just not. We want to plan for the future and we want to plan for the near-term future. And so it is a an important and possibly very time sensitive thing, but to call it an emergency is to denigrate the real emergencies that people are going . Through every day. You and I am just not super clear what this money is going to be used for and when and whether we are doing the right things that we need to be doing with the resources that we have. So I would want to support the package as a whole, but I have some very big questions that just remain unanswered. And I've been asking them, I mean, it's not like this is a surprise to anybody. And I just want to make sure that we get to the bottom of hope. We learned some things in this meeting today that were different from what we had the morning before. And so I just can't vote for this with that level of uncertainty still hanging out there. But there's a lot of great things in here that I do absolutely support. I do absolutely support the small business support, absolutely support putting money into arts and culture and ultimately into tourism in a way that makes sense. But I really want to I just this councilmember needs a little bit more understanding and certainty about what's happening. And so that's just where I'm at today. And that's, you know, that's what all of us like when we all have our different our in different places, all different things, we represent different interests. So thank you, Mr. Chair. On this motion, I'll be a no vote, but with a commitment to work towards getting to yes. Mr. Chair, further discussion. Councilmember Colwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Want to belabor, but I do want to bring out a couple of options of mine mind. We heard from Tim Anderson from Construction Trades Council. We heard from people in businesses and chambers that some. Residents feel that there are thousands of people now out of work not being able to pay their rent, not being able to have the means to do other things because their businesses have closed. And we're talking a lot about the tourism bureaus, the arts and culture and science and heritage, the museums, the theaters just across the board . People are not working in many of these. And nonprofits are closing completely. So this is a crisis. This is very urgent. And what we're doing with this legislation, and I thought it was very articulate about this, is we wanted to be to have our tourism promotion and marketing going on. So we will get people to stay in our hotels and even the restaurants and visit our retail stores and so forth. And without their promotion, it's going to be much more difficult to do. So I think this is very well timed so that we can get funding back into our our hotels and motels to support getting the revenue needed for affordable housing. So with that, I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, of what the best thing to do is. Here is the motion, because if that were to fail, what could we revisit the councilmember down, the promotion ban or what? Plus the number of calls. If the motion reforms were to fail, the legislation would remain in the committee of the hall. And could be removed at council. It's a big problem in Sudan, and one yes, it could. We have a motion before us. We're going to do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 177 as amended. Councilmember Dombroski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start by saying that I'm very proud of this Council for taking on the executive or taking initiative to be responsive to our earning community. We are all out in our district working on the ground with partner organizations and individuals who are responding to this crisis and seeing firsthand the severe devastation across our economy that's following the necessary public health orders. And that devastation falls. A lot of people have become sick and many who have died, including from our own family. In the county courthouse, we lost just this last weekend and we are talking a lot today about dollars and budgets. But what we're really talking about is compassion and responding to lift up and support a community that's hurting. And I'm very proud of our government for taking this initiative and looking at these items and trying to the very best we can under circumstances to spend these dollars as smartly as we can. I think of my dad would permit me. He came here in about 1965. His first job was in a warehouse in their national district when we started The Little Idiots. That store was like the dollar stores of today selling all kinds of dry goods and down on Meeker Street in Kent and councilmember up the Grubbs district. And he ran that business, had employees. It was a retail business in the heart of Kent at the time. You know, I worked there as a kid, and we counted on community celebrations and visitors called Cornucopia Days, Maker, Days in parade, people coming together, come downtown, spend money. And he ran that business until about 82 through the bowing bus to the big interest rates of the late seventies through the oil crisis. And I saw the struggles firsthand. There were times, frankly, when our mortgage was paid and when we have small business leaders and employees all over this country suffering today. And what we're trying to do here with this package is be as responsive as we can with the resources we have on the timeframe we have. To turn this around when we can on the tourism piece, which is a piece I've kind of been focused on Kels rebounding. She indicated that it was not an emergency, and I really ask all the refugees to meet with the destination marketing organizations. They are funded in large part by the lodging tax and they are looking at laying off employees. And when we got that infrastructure, they are not being able to go out on a timeframe which frankly is 2 to 3 years to bring the conventions here. You go to the doctors and the anesthesiologists and the gaming conventions and those kinds of things. There's a long time frame to get those conventions that bring thousands of people to the area filling hotel rooms. And so you are absolutely right. We are not going to see those in the next couple of months, probably because of the distancing things. But they do need the resources to be to plan with the conventions of the next two years, look like in this health crisis, to go get that business, to develop the plan, to keep their infrastructure in place and not let people go because membership organizations and things like that are often the first to get cut in terms of their revenue when the number of business. Revenue dries up. So I think that's an investment in patching a broken roof right now to protect the house that's under it. And that house that under thunder is a very, very precious revenue stream that pays for me, for my house and the arts and cultural programs that we're talking about and that we all support. It's an investment in making sure that that stream is healthy, and it's a relatively modest one. I'm still hopeful I might get more clarity from Dwight that that will be reimbursable as a response to this measure and won't have to actually be used for the lodging tax to do it. But at the end of the day, though, the lodging tax at its course is the purpose is to bring people here and put it out of rooms. And that's what that piece of this proposal is. And it supports hotel workers, room cleaners, custodians, h-back, maintenance people, you know, building and construction trades folks, restaurant workers, tour guides. Talk to anybody in the Pike Place Market about what they what they count on with the cruise ships that come. And we want to make sure to bring those back here. It's. Children of the Grove once told me the number of jobs that come from Sea-Tac Airport. So that means it's a medium sized city out there. And I just think that's a very modest investment in restoring that piece of the economy. Not next month, but in the next year and a two year and beyond. And so I really encourage members to. To learn as much as you can about it. There is a proposal released from the Cherokee County Convention Visitors Bureau on how those dollars would be spent. And if you don't have that, I can help get that to you, because I think you're right to want to have the additional detail . But it is fair and I really respect your hard questions on it. We should be that and they're not unreasonable one. So I hope we can advance this today and work out the final details. But by next Tuesday I think we'll be able to do it. But I'm really proud of us, Mr. Chair, and I'm proud of this government. I think we're doing a pretty, pretty good job helping our communities out. And there won't be enough help. But I think we're meeting with our values and the good values and we're doing the best we can. Thank you. Thank you for our discussion about the growth of the government. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just as concerned about you talked about the council being responsive. I also want to acknowledge the budget chair being responsive. These are weird times when we're getting frequent budgets or frequently we're not physically together to have the ability of face to face conversations and communication is tough. I mean, to be candid, we're also. A little bit busier than normal. And so even with communication taking place via staff late at night and kind of muddling through things, I think this I'm very supportive of the final product. I think it strikes a balance. I think we do a good job of balancing our equity and social justice interests throughout how we drive money out. I think we also do a good job of addressing geographic balance. And. Of being genuinely responsive to the ideas and issues and concerns that colleagues brought forward. And it's not easy and it's not going to get easier as the as we get this budget. The budget challenges in the year ahead. But I think this does a lot of good for a lot of people. There's things that I wouldn't do. You know, I think all nine of us would have a different looking budget. But I feel that it is a fair representation of the balance of the interests of the executive and the council members. And for that reason and for the good it's going to do in our community, I want to commend the Chair and express my support. Thank you for the discussion earlier today. Madam Court, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Belushi. Councilmember these two votes now. Councilmember DEMBOSKY. I. Council member dumbass people fine council member done. By. Council member Dan Brown's local member Coles or Council Member Coles. But I was a member member council member. Lambert votes on Article II, Council member of the Grampians. I remember going that far. Councilmember Formica. Awesome. Council members. All are council members all able to. Mr. Chair. No. The chair votes no. Mr. Chair, the vote has six eyes, two nose and Councilmember one right there. Yes. But you know, we were given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2021, 77 that will be extended to fall. Council appeared on the full council agenda one week from today. With that, you'll be happy to know that the Metro Transit briefing has been postponed or it's a town meeting. However, that is not true of the what I believe will be brief briefing of under enormous planning in connection incident. I'm sorry the north much like an interceptor and condemnation. And given that we do expect this condemnation to come before a full council next week.