-Hello. I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
A vacancy on the Seattle City Council
has set off a fast-paced replacement process,
but a familiar name may provide some answers.
And there's no shortage of questions,
as the council considers a major change to the city's
business tax structure.
Plus, there's a new sales tax proposal intended
to provide a boost to public safety.
I'm with council members Mark Solomon and Dan Strauss
to consider these issues and the questions you're sending in too.
That's next on "City Inside Out Council Edition."
-This Shield proposal is providing relief
for them to be able to be successful in a city
that is rapidly becoming unaffordable.
-I never thought I'd be in a position
to want to protect our country from our federal government.
-All that and more.
Coming up next on "City Inside Out Council Edition".
♪♪
♪♪
Welcome once again to "City Inside Out Council Edition"
here on the Seattle Channel.
I'm Brian Callanan and for this episode we have with us
Mark Solomon, council member from the district two area
of Southeast Seattle there. Very glad you're here.
Also, the council's land use chair.
Thanks for being here, Council Member Solomon.
-Thank you very much.
-Also, we have with us Council Member Dan Strauss
from district six, from Green Lake out to Bauer,
parts of Magnolia in northwest Seattle there.
He's also chair of the finance,
Native Communities and Tribal Governments Committee.
Good to see you again, Council Member Strauss.
-Always good to see you, Brian.
-All right. Let's jump into it here.
I'm talking to you right in the middle of the council's process
to find a replacement for Council Member Moore,
who stepped down from her position unexpectedly.
July 7th was her last day.
A few viewers have some questions
about what kind of candidate you are looking
to fill this vacancy, including Lab who writes this.
Lab, thanks for the email.
There are a lot of questions in there, as it turns out.
But Council Member Strauss,
you've got 22 candidates to choose from,
one of whom happens to be former council president
and D5 representative Debora Juarez.
How do you answer this question?
-Which question?
-Right. There's a ton of them there.
-Yeah, I mean, so caretaker, I'll take from the top,
which is, you know, I've gone back and forth
over the last couple appointments about
whether caretaker is is a good thing or not.
I don't think --
-Meaning someone who wouldn't run for the job afterwards?
-Right. I don't know that there's a perfect answer there.
I think this one's different
than the last two appointments that we've had.
That it'll be 16 months instead of just a few months.
-Right, right.
-Mark to my right is just... is a caretaker,
and he's been a joy to work with.
So, you know, there's not a a right answer about caretaker.
Answering the question about budgeting and
policy and experience, or have they run before?
There is the need to understand budgeting
and how a city bureaucracy works
because there's not a lot of lead time
before we get into budget.
-Yeah, it's a couple of months here, right?
-Just right around the corner.
And it's rare for a city council to appoint a council member.
It's even more rare to do it two years in a row,
and it's even more rare to do it two years in a row
and have two appointees at the same time.
-Right, right.
So having experience is important,
and that means knowing the blocks.
You know, in my conversation today,
highlighting that Holman is very different than Crown Hill.
-Sure. Right.
-I mean, Licton Springs and Northgate
are a quarter mile away from each other,
-and they're very different. -That's right.
Blue Ridge is very different than Matthews Beach.
I need to...in Meadowbrook is very different than Broadview.
-Right? -Right. Right. Right.
-I need somebody to know the streets, know the blocks.
Know the issues and know D5 inside and out.
-So it sounds like Debora Juarez has the job
or what do you think?
-No, I mean,
what I just described could have been a number of people.
-Okay. -Right.
You know, Jed Bradley didn't make it to the finalists,
but he has budgeting experience in for the UW,
which has a larger budget than -- than we do.
Lulu Jenks has great on-the-ground knowledge of
across Lake City.
Talking to Julie King,
she -- she understands what's going on in Aurora.
She understands the West. She understands the East.
I mean, there are a lot of really good candidates
that we have to look at right now.
-All right. Fair enough.
Council Member Solomon,
as Council Member Strauss pointed out,
you've been through this appointment process here.
You joined the council back in January
when Councilmember Morales stepped down.
And I've talked to a few people
who really think Council President Juarez,
if she didn't get the job, they'd be shocked.
But I do want to make sure I ask the question of
how you're going through this process?
-Well, I will acknowledge
that there are a number of qualified candidates,
and I appreciate everyone
who's put their name forward to be part of this process.
And when I think about what we have in front of us,
when we are looking at budget,
when we're looking at comp plan,
when we're looking at BNO and shield law.
We're looking at the myriad of issues,
not the least of which is our budget constraints,
and not only the city's budget constraints,
but the fact that we really can't count on the feds
for anything that we're going to do with the city
and the monies that have been promised ain't coming.
They're just... they're not, right?
So in addition to having some experience
of how this body works, how the city functions,
those are some of the things I'm looking for.
But more importantly for me, I'm looking for heart, right?
I'm not so concerned about a person's pedigree, resume,
or even their agenda about what they want to accomplish.
I want to know what's in here, right?
What is their passion?
What drives them to want to serve on this body?
You know, to get a sense of their why.
And I want to marry that why
with what are you bringing to the table?
-Okay. All right. Great. Thank you.
And we're going to see this happen
in the next couple of weeks here.
So I appreciate the input here.
Whoever you do, appoint one decision
that will be in front of them very likely soon
after they're sworn in as this Seattle Shield proposal
which you brought up here,
which voters would have to approve.
Just some background here.
This was sponsored by Council Member Rink,
which changed the city's business and operation
tax structure, the BNO tax there.
About 90% of businesses in Seattle
would owe less than they do today.
But companies with higher gross receipts would pay more.
This would raise about $90 million.
Again, if voters approve it.
And this is expected to shield the city from some of these cuts
to federal funding for human services
you're talking about here.
This is expected from the Trump administration.
Council Member Solomon, your thoughts on Seattle Shield?
-When I look at this as a... I look at it as a creative way
to again shield us from what is coming
or what has already occurred.
And realizing that there are some concerns,
what is the impact going to be on those large employers?
We know that it's going to benefit
or should benefit our smaller employers,
-our small mom-and-pop shops. -Sure. Right. Love it.
-One of the things I've heard loud and clear
in talking to our business community partners
is one of the ways
that we can hopefully reduce the number of vacant storefronts
is to give them, give those businesses some kind of relief
and maybe BNO is the way we can do that.
So how do we increase our basic tax structure
our basic occupancy rate,
make it easier for businesses to actually be in this space.
-Okay.
-But I also have heard concerns about,
okay, what is this going to do to,
you know, the larger employers, the big ones?
Are there adverse impacts?
Are there unintended consequences?
So those are things that, you know,
we're going to have to weigh.
-Okay, let me bring in one of those critiques, if I could.
And Council Member Strauss, I'll put you in here.
Jon Scholes, the CEO and president
of the Downtown Seattle Association,
has a lot of concerns about this.
He wrote this a few weeks ago.
How do you respond to that, to that pushback?
-It feels extreme. That statement feels extreme.
And I think one of the most important parts
of this piece of legislation, again, I'm not the sponsor.
I'm the chair of the budget committee.
And this is something that will go before voters too.
-Right. -Is that it goes before voters.
It has a sunset.
And there are also, we need to protect our port economy
because the port makes up a third of our sales and use tax.
The port maintains a steady level of economic activity
when tech is doing well and when tech is doing poorly.
When we overlook our port,
and when we overlook the -- the bedrock
of what our finances are based on, it can create problems.
-All right.
-But, you know,
the Downtown Seattle Association and Jon himself
has come to city council requesting more revenue
through rate increases.
They just requested permission for kiosks
that will generate money for them.
-Yes.
-Because again,
what I've heard from them is that things are more expensive.
Costs are rising. We want to expand the mid.
These are all things that I agree with.
-They're down -- They're downtown and --
-And that's why I never said anything
like what he just said about the DSA requesting more funding.
-Okay. All right. Fair enough.
Thank you for responding to that piece.
Five council members,
including both of you signed on to a letter
that had signatures from city and state officials
all around the state here
in support of progressive revenue measures
like Seattle Shield.
It also called out President Trump's
Big Beautiful Bill as a national disaster.
Plus, it called out our state's governor.
Here's an excerpt.
This was a concern for the council.
I know Council President Nelson did not sign on to this
because of the way it called out Governor Ferguson there.
She and Council Member Kettle,
Council Member Rivera didn't join in on supporting this.
Can you talk to me -- talk to me, Council Member Solomon,
about why it was important for you to sign on to this letter.
You know...
I didn't think I was going to go there.
Go here, but I will.
I served in the US military.
I served to protect and defend this country,
to uphold our values.
I never thought I'd be in a position
to want to protect our country from our federal government.
And that's where I see we are now.
And I may not necessarily agree with the characterization
or calling out of Governor Ferguson,
but I cannot idly stand by
and see what's happening on the federal level
and how it's going to be impacting us here
and stay silent.
-Council Member Strauss,
I know this this letter had some different feelings
on the council here.
What were your thoughts about it?
Why did you sign on to it?
-Yeah, you know, I probably...I had some concerns
about going after the governor so -- so critically.
And at the same time,
the governor reduced the funding for the right of way
homeless services that we rely on in this city.
That back to the shield law.
The shield proposal is that is looking to shield us from cuts
that are happening at the state and federal level.
So when we're in a downturn economic situation
with our budget as we are,
I'll come back to why I signed on to the letter.
-Yeah, please.
-I have three levers that I can pull to address the budget,
which is I can create efficiencies,
I can make reductions, or I can make new revenue.
We just closed a $250 million hole last year
where we ran this, we ran this same exercise.
-Right. -Got to April.
Forecast was downturned.
We're back in the same position,
but we've just run the exercise a moment ago.
-Yeah. -Right?
And so why did I sign on to that,
even though I probably wouldn't have used
that pointed language at the governor,
is because we need to make a statement that we're together.
-Got it. -We're all in this together.
-Thank you.
And it was -- it was a letter
that had broad support from across the state.
-Yeah. Yeah. It's important.
Just with Seattle Shield,
it does have to go before voters.
And we're talking about $90 million,
which I know would be very important
to fill the budget hole you're thinking about.
-90 million net.
And and that's what I want to focus again on,
is because 90% of businesses in Seattle
are going to be zeroed out from their BNO tax.
And there's a small adjustment that is made for businesses
that are grossing the most, right?
And the majority, or maybe not the majority,
but this is also helping
those smallest businesses find tax relief.
When I was having the conversation
with the smallest businesses,
and when I say smallest, I mean 50 or 40 or fewer employees.
So the restaurant that...
I actually call them owner, owner occu -- owner operator.
-Sure. Yeah. -Owner operated.
-Yeah, yeah. Yes, I get it.
-Because they're not hiring someone that's --
-I understand.
-To manage their business. -Yeah, I get.
-This Shield proposal is providing relief
for them to be able to be successful in a city
that is rapidly becoming unaffordable.
-Got it.
In terms of the revenue that is raised, though,
$90 million looks pretty nice,
I would imagine when we're talking about a --
about a budget deficit here.
If it doesn't pass,
what kind of position does that put Seattle in?
-So your words, it looks nice, right?
But again I'm looking at a $250 million hole.
-90 million is not 250 million. -That's correct.
-Right, so that -- that leaves another hole
-that needs to be filled. -Okay.
-And it is through there
that we we have to look at efficiencies,
because the budget exercise that we started last year
was a multi-year budget exercise to look at efficiencies.
Because not all efficiencies can be found and implemented
in a single year. But they do run out a lot.
You know, we took the low- hanging fruit last year.
And as you saw at the Select Budget Committee yesterday,
Director Ben Noble of Central Staff,
he's the only person that has held the director of CBO,
director of central staff and director of the forecast office.
-Right, right.
-You know, his reminder to council members yesterday
was every year this exercise of efficiencies comes forward,
this exercise of reductions.
And at the end of the day,
most folks don't have the stomach
for those cuts and reductions,
because at the other end of that reduction is a working family.
It's an individual.
We laid -- we laid city employees off last year.
This year, actually for the first time since 2008.
People take, you know,
and when I was talking to business leaders about this,
they said, "Yeah, that's normal."
And I said, "Yes, that's normal for the private sector."
-Okay.
-If Microsoft's not laying people off every few years,
you kind of wonder, is there something going on in Redmond?
-Sure.
-People take government jobs because not for the pay,
because they're getting paid less.
For the benefits and for the stability and security.
And so to lay off city employees is a really big deal.
Granted, you know, we had about 180 pockets last...
-I don't have my exact notes -- -That's all right.
-In front of me, so about 180 pockets last year.
That was about 77 that were filled.
When I received the budget, we gave an extra six months
because laying somebody off on January 1st
versus June 30th is a psychological impact
of being the darkest time of the year.
It also has an impact on people's Hanukkah
-or Christmas presents. -Okay, sure. Yeah, yeah.
Right.
-But by giving that additional time,
many found other jobs.
Some got out-of-class employments.
And I believe that we had fewer than 20 actually laid off.
I don't have the numbers right in front of me,
but to come from 180 down to 100
just by giving a little bit more time.
-Okay. -That's important.
But again, if we're going through this exercise again,
do people have the stomach for it?
-Yeah, that's going to be the test here.
And those were Director Ben Nobles' words.
-I know that's going to be the test coming up here if I could.
-Please. -If I could follow up on that?
You know, the idea of or, you know, looking at efficiencies,
looking at, you know, the responsibility of our body,
I feel, is to ask the question, what are we spending?
What are we spending it on,
and what are we getting for that spending?
What are the actual results?
And if what we're spending is not getting us
where we need to go, then maybe we change
or alter where those dollars are going,
so we get the results that we actually want.
Yeah, definitely, let's promote those efficiencies.
Let's promote that accountability.
Let's -- Let's look at our outcomes to make sure
that our spending is aligning
with what we actually want to achieve.
-Got it. Thanks.
I want to try to cover some more ground here if I can.
There's another revenue piece
I want to bring up with you, if I could.
The 2025 state legislative session,
lawmakers authorized cities and counties
to collect a 0.1% sales tax
that would go towards criminal justice expenses.
Council President Nelson has been talking about this,
supportive of this, wants at least 25% of this money.
If indeed the council does do this
towards addiction treatment services.
Council Member Strauss,
I know you've heard from critics
who say a sales tax is regressive.
It is,
but it puts a bigger burden on lower income people there.
On the other hand, it could bring in $35 million,
this tax increase could
to a city budget that could need some help.
What's your position on this new sales tax?
Where should the money go? Some thoughts about this.
-All options are on the table to close a $250 million hole.
-Okay. -That's the answer.
You know what council president's promoted,
those services that she's promoting are good services
-that need to be funded. -Okay.
-She's not proposing the 1% sales tax.
-Okay. 0.1%. -0.1%.
She is not proposing new revenue.
She's proposing new spending.
-Right.
And she's not doing so in concert with the rest
of the budget and understanding what the more macro issues are.
-Okay, okay.
And so, I'm all for funding those important
what I consider medical services
that are treating addiction and substance use
and their interaction with homelessness.
Those things must be funded.
But she's not proposing a new revenue source.
She's proposing new spending
while also not identifying
where efficiencies or reductions are happening.
But that's also because all of that
is supposed to take place in the budget process.
-And I did want to get to this idea,
though, of this 0.1% sales tax piece.
Is it something that you support?
Would you like to see the council bring
in these kind of dollars?
That's kind of where I was going with this.
-The council needs to bring in the dollars.
And, you know, to the point that's been made.
Yes, a sales tax is regressive.
It's going to hit those on the lower economic ladder
-harder than anybody else. -Yeah.
-Yet what other levers do we have?
What other buckets do we have?
We can only, you know, go to the property tax so often.
You can only go to the other revenue sources
we have available. Perhaps a state income tax.
-Yeah. -We're kind of hamstrung, right?
What I see in terms of taking a portion
of that 1% that's been or 0.1% that's being proposed
and linking it to those prevention services,
those treatment services, those addiction services.
You know, I think about it from my public-safety lens.
And look at what crime is happening out there in the city,
out there on the streets
and how much of it is fueled by addiction?
-Sure. -There's a direct correlation.
You know, how much of our unsheltered population
is dealing with substance abuse,
dealing with untreated mental health issues.
-There's a correlation. -Okay.
-So at some point we got to tackle that.
And you know, we have to acknowledge
that there is a link between those.
-Okay, okay.
I know this discussion is going to continue
and I'm looking forward to that budget discussion for sure.
Hitting the mailbag here once again,
if I could, Council Member Strauss.
Eric's got a question for you
about the Neighborhood Street Fund,
which directs money from the levee
to move Seattle towards projects supported directly
by the community. Eric writes this.
Some background here.
Stay Healthy Streets reduces
or closes off streets to car traffic.
It's meant to encourage more walking and biking.
Some people really like it.
Eric doesn't have to be a fan.
Council Member Strauss, some thoughts
about the Neighborhood Street Fund, if you could.
-You know, one of the other things
that we did in this last round of budgeting
is we put to the side a council district fund.
-Yeah.
-So I go back and I look at, you know,
when district councils or district community councils,
I was I was a member of the Ballard District Council before
it was -- before it stopped receiving city funding
and before it stopped functioning.
-Existing, yeah.
-It was based out of the Ballad Service Center,
which was a Department of Neighborhoods' building
-that became an FAS sub tenant. -Okay. All right.
-And that's now where I have my office.
-Oh, I got it. Okay. -Right?
And so I occupy the space that that district council used to
by being present with my community,
by finding out what their needs are,
by being able to sometimes bring presentations
to have town halls.
I've got, I think, let's see,
I've got four hours of office hours right after this.
-Right there. -Okay.
-And in a similar way to the Neighborhood Street Fund
and the council district funds,
I will be looking at what are the different things
in the district that we need to fund.
-Okay. -Right.
And that's separate and aside
from all of the things that SDOT does.
-Okay, okay.
-And so, you know, roundabouts.
I can't get SDOT to put in a roundabout
to save my life. I swear to God.
-That's tough. Okay. -You know, and --
-You're a council member. Come on, right?
-And like, I'm sure SDOT's going to watch this.
Everything that I've said in our private meetings,
I'm saying on the record, which is like,
you know, I've got five roundabouts
that neighbors have been asking about for years.
I've got one on 62nd and 2nd that the guy David
has been asking since before
Mike O'Brian was a council member.
-What's the holdup? What's up?
-They won't do it. -Oh, okay.
-Right, and so sometimes they'll say there's no funding.
And then I'll say, "Okay, so I've got the funding."
And they'll say, "Well, there's not a program to do that."
And so, you know, this council district fund
is how I am saying, "What are we doing here?"
But, you know, in my most recent meeting with them,
they said, "Well, you know,
five roundabouts might take up the whole $2 million.
-And I said, "Come on. Come on." -Okay, all right.
And they're like, "Well, what about drainage?
What about the the the ramps around the corner?"
And it's just kind of like if you're not going to --
if you're not going to slow down, cut through traffic...
-Yeah. -...on side streets.
-Yeah. -You have to put in speed bumps.
You have to put in a stop sign,
or you have to put in a roundabout.
I don't care, but the answer can't be no.
-Okay. All right. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing that piece of it.
Council Member Solomon,
we got a whole other letter coming in here.
A question about urban growth in Seattle
from Kyle, who writes this.
The background here, alternative five is this proposal
to add a lot more density to the city via the comprehensive plan.
The council is working through that right now.
I know we're talking about the vacancy here as well,
but Council Member Solomon, how would you answer this question?
I really want to try to focus on this comp plan.
-Okay. Well, when I look at the comp plan,
when I think about the city,
we need more density and we need it throughout the city,
not just in certain neighborhoods.
Because when I think about D2, we have density.
I don't need necessarily more density.
I want that density to be shared in other districts.
At the same time, I'm looking at affordability.
How many of the units that are actually in my district
are affordable units?
And something that is keeping me up at night
is when we think about our housing providers,
especially those that are tax credit properties,
you know, not the market rate stuff.
You know, those who are at 6% AMI and lower.
Some of our providers are selling off their assets
to just balance their books,
which makes me worry about what's going to happen
to the affordable housing units in my district
-if those providers go under. -Yeah. Right.
-So I'm that's why I'm looking at more affordability,
more units, more density, and more parts of the city
-at more levels of AMI. -Got it.
-I need I need units at 30 AMI and lower.
-Not 90 AMI and higher. -Okay. Got it.
-And so again, that's one of the things that's driving
some of the efforts I'm involved in right now
is to, number one, keep people housed.
You know, reduce displacement,
and allow our affordable housing providers to continue
to provide affordable housing.
-Got it. Thank you.
-Those are central to the things that I'm looking at right now.
-And I'm sure that's going to be part of the process
in bringing in a new council member, too.
I've got time to ask one more question of you both.
And Council Member Strauss,
I wanted to make sure I asked you the council just passed
a measure meant to speed up the construction
or make it easier for Sound Transit to bring in light rail.
You serve on the Sound Transit Board as well as
the city council.
Does this mean the line to Ballard is open in next week,
or what are we talking about here?
-Well, I sure hope so. -Wouldn't that be neat? Yeah.
-But no, Sound Transit is going through an enterprise process
right now because the long range financial plan is out of sync.
And in the past,
when Sound Transit has addressed this budget issue,
they have just done realignments,
which means things get delayed
or things get taken off the table.
And that has not been good for the agency or our region.
Which is why I'm heartened to know
that through this enterprise initiative,
we're looking at the operations and maintenance,
we're looking at the design.
How can we make the capital construction go
-more efficiently? -Okay.
-And then what has to happen for, you know, any realignment.
But the city's part in this is if we did not pass this,
then Sound Transit would have sucked up a lot of time,
and a lot of money, and a lot of appeal process
over permitting the entire line piece by piece.
-Yeah. Okay.
-By packaging the entire line into sets of permits,
it doesn't reduce anyone's ability to appeal.
-It just streamlines it. -Got it.
-It doesn't reduce any of the environmental factors.
In fact, I think it actually increases them
because we're going to start planting trees
-before we cut them. -Right.
-So by packaging what is usually independent permits,
we're able to have a better,
more comprehensive view on the whole thing
as well as save money and save time.
-Got it.
I only have a few seconds,
but I do want to touch on the presentation
you made recently about crime prevention
through environmental design or CPTED.
This idea that communities can design buildings and spaces.
They can reduce the fear of crime, end crime.
I only have the 30-second version,
but I know this is important to you.
It's part of your professional background.
What do you want the council to do with this?
-Codify it. -Okay. Okay.
Make it part of the city code. Okay.
-Yeah, and one of the things we're looking at is,
you know, we're doing some design review
like some interim legislation
that puts CPTED requirements into the design review.
It's like, okay, if you're going to build something,
consider these elements before you, you know,
before you draft your final product.
And do it before the 60% phase, you know,
so that you actually can, you know, make those changes
before it's like, "It's too late to actually make these changes.
It's going to be too expensive."
Consider these things in the design phase
early on in the concept phase.
So it's actually much easier to implement.
-Got it. There's Ted Talks and there's CPTED talks.
Appreciate you breaking that down.
Council Member Mark Solomon, Council Member Dan Strauss,
thanks for joining me. Brian Callanan here with you.
And we'll see you next time on "Council Edition".
♪♪
♪♪
♪♪