The city council is meeting right now to address the mayor's veto of the JumpStart Seattle spending plan. A little hitch in this is that the budget office reported an additional $26 million shortage in the 2020 budget as of Monday morning

That spending plan money will come out of the city's emergency reserves to spend toward COVID-19 relief in 2020. Durkan's big issue is that she doesn't want these funds drained. However, the spending plan would pay back these funds in 2021

CM Mosqueda, the bill's sponsor, is proposing that if the bill gets reinstated they can rightsize the bill by reducing the relief package by $26 million

The original plan would have spent $86 million in COVID-19 relief from the city's emergency coffers

The council *has* to act on the veto according to the city charter. They can't just make a new bill or amend the bill. First, there must be an up or down vote on the veto, Herbold clarifies.

CM Andrew Lewis is explaining why he's conflicted with this vote. He's highlighting the divide between the council and the mayor and the friction between the two legislative bodies.

"The mayor... is not going to spend this money, she’s not going to spend the money if we send her a revised package... she is going to continue to push back until there is a broader accommodation to her concerns."

Lewis wants a "sustainment" today in order to "force" a conversation to find an "accord" with the executive.

Pedersen also wants more time. This veto vote is going to be close

lol Gonzalez wants to see Pedersen's math since he's saying that the budget hole is $50 million as opposed to $26 million

Pedersen, it turns out, was combining projected deficits from 2020 and 2021. He thinks that people are ignoring the 2021 deficit. Gonzalez "with all due respect" pushes back on that.

lots of very polite, veiled barbs in this meeting. it's tense, baby

Mosqueda is firm that JumpStart would replenish the dollars that the spending plan uses in 2020. Also, in 2021 JumpStart's spending plan will invest in core city services so the threat of furloughs and layoffs is a misnomer.

Pedersen is doubling down on his concern about "the revenues" of the rainy day fund. In case anyone missed it, the economy is bad right now

whoa whoa whoa, Gonzalez just dropped that the mayor's office wouldn't agree to a number/compromise for this bill until the council agreed to sustain (aka keep) the veto in place

Gonzalez: "Unfortunately, it was made very clear to me that an agreement could not and would not be reached without first agreeing to sustain the mayor’s veto and that is not something I think is procedurally appropriate for us to do..."

The council wants to amend the original bill in a way that would satisfy the mayor's concerns regarding emergency funds and provides flexible language around the funds but can only do that today if the veto is overturned

waiting would push back when COVID-19 relief gets out even more. These conversations other CMs want to keep having wouldn't result in legislation passing until September since the council goes on a weeklong recess one week from today.

oh boy we're getting into the weeds about how many votes are needed to overturn this veto. Pedersen thinks it's 7. Gonzalez (+central staff, the charter, and city attorney) say it's 6

6-2. Veto is overridden. Pedersen and Lewis are the no-votes.

For the second time this week, CM Lisa Herbold is prefacing legislation she has brought forward or helped with by "anticipating" the narrative that will come out of the vote.

The first was Herbold reducing Best's salary cut for fear of "the headlines" that would come if the council didn't. Now, Herbold is explaining extra clarifying language in the supplement bill that gives the mayor flexibility in spending COVID-19 funds

idk exactly what we're witnessing but it's both the council trying to squeeze legislation through with the looming threat of mayoral inaction but also this fear of their actions being warped, twisted, and taken out of context