Robinson proposing that the city add a stipulation: "If we don't spend the money by [a certain time], then the money goes to the County. Cause the worst that can happen is that we spend this money and don't do anything with it. There should be a cutoff date."
Conversation
(I would argue that the worst thing to do with the money would be to waste it on projects that aren't needed or are more ineffective than what the King County Council is presently proposing, but *Kermit sips tea*)
1
3
CM Robertson saying that "this is the easiest tax vote she'll ever take," because it's not Bellevue voting to raise taxes, "the County's doing that. This allows us to choose what we do with the funds that we raise."
Imma call that out as quite the mental gymnastics.
1
1
1
Love it when Republican CMs drop words like "equitable" when their whole policy positions are the exact opposite of equitability. That's super fun, that appropriation right there.
1
1
2
Stokes cautioning that we not look at this as a "huge bucket of money that we go off and do a bunch of housing stuff with." He's advising we use this money cautiously, not get tempted to use the money to do something with housing that's not covered with the intent of the bill.
1
Doesn't want Bellevue to be perceived as being selfish and taking control, want to still have partnership/conversations with the County. "Let's talk about what to do in this area."
It seems like the KC proposal ought to have been the culmination of that process, no...?
1
2
There are definitely times at these meetings where I'm glad I'm not city/county staff, because I can definitely see myself losing my shit after having given a cogent and thorough presentation to a body who's decisions were made before they even entered the room.
1
2
DM Nieuwenhuis emphasizing that this shouldn't be a signal that Bellevue doesn't believe in regionalism, that we're being selfish. "We can immediately start doing some good things with this money."
Dude, we been listening to the same presentation? KC has the concrete projects.
1
1
1
Zahn emphasizes the importance of regional partnerships, going for the deepest affordability we can. "Just because the legislation allows for up to 60% AMI doesn't mean we shouldn't focus on the lower affordability. 25% of what we build through ARCH is in that range."
1
2
Zahn supports putting in a sunset clause to hold the city accountable, notes that it's easy to say that "We'll get rid of the tax at any point," but if we're serious about partnering with the county, then we need that to have teeth, that they commit to working hard w/ the County.
1
1
Seems the Council is coalescing around the idea of approving the resolution this evening, with the caveat that when the County has a more concrete implementation plan, the city reexamine this issue and see if it's still the best decision.
1
1
My concern is how many CMs mentioning that as an option are using it as a good-faith argument for voting on this initiative? That they are sincere about actually reexamining this issue in the future and potentially "relinquishing that local control" they've been praising tonight.
1
1
Barksdale reemphasizing that he wants the city to also have a clear implementation plan and support for 30% AMI housing.
1
2
CMs keep bringing up ARCH as an example of Bellevue's commitment to a regional approach, but as other CMs acknowledged, ARCH currently isn't meeting the needs of the lowest affordability levels. Seems like this is maybe an opportunity to change that, no?
2
3
The resolution for the city tax passes unanimously, 7-0. CMs want staff to examine 1) further regional partnerships, 2) focusing on 0-30% AMI units, 3) bonding capabilities, and 4) the concerns raised by the regional service providers who were supportive of the County's approach.
1
2
3