Public Safety Committee 8/12/2025

Good morning.

The Public Safety Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.33 a.m.

August 12th, 2025. I'm Robert Kettle, Chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Juarez.

Present.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Here.

Council President Nelson.

Council Member Saka.

Here.

Chair Kettle.

Here.

Chair, there are four members present.

Thank you.

Council President will be joining us soon.

If there is no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing and seeing no objection.

the agenda is adopted.

This morning for chair comment, I will admit my focus for chair comment was gonna be more on criminal justice system, criminal justice broadly, but events really dictate that we as a committee, particularly the Public Safety Committee, should speak to what is happening in Washington, D.C.

a city on the opposite coast, a city that I know well from my time there, the activation of the National Guard, the taking over the Metropolitan Police Department is wrong.

It's unprecedented and it's wrong.

And I hear the justifications and I think that instead if the federal government wants to help cities in public safety, for example in the Seattle context.

They should be intercepting the flows of guns and drugs into our city, primary along I-5.

That's not the National Guard, that's ATF, that's DEA, FBI.

They should be supporting the recruiting and hiring of sworn officers like our Washington State program under Governor Ferguson.

They should be looking to support our firefighters in staffing and equipment, especially equipment, and their needs that are so important.

And by the way, not important just for us, as we saw with the L.A.

Firefighters from this region, from our city and from the region, went to support them, which is a great transition to another area where the federal government should be helping us in public safety, not sending the National Guard, but to support us in emergency preparedness by ensuring FEMA is well supported and not hollowed out as what is happening right now or shut down completely.

We need FEMA.

Every city in this country needs FEMA.

We need to have that support.

We've seen it again and again.

Yet this administration is looking to cut it and instead they're sending the National Guard to Washington, D.C. As I said in a recent chair comment, our standard here with the Seattle Police Department and Public Safety more broadly is professionalism and to be professional at all times.

You know, the idea of setting the standard.

We need federal law enforcement to do the same, and it's not doing it now.

We see it with ICE.

I mentioned this two meetings ago in terms of how we do business, no masks, et cetera, announcing ourselves, identifying ourselves.

That is the standard.

That is not being seen there.

And also the standard is not bringing the National Guard under these circumstances.

What is happening with federal law enforcement is not in keeping with that standard.

Again, as I said two meetings ago, we need varsity level.

And what we're seeing out of the federal government really is junior varsity.

I'll also add that the use of National Guard and the law enforcement function is contrary to American ideals.

The military's role in this is not this, but rather defend the nation.

We need law enforcement that is of a guardian ethos, not a warrior ethos.

We need more blue, not black.

You know, I sit here, in addition to being a council member, of being a veteran, a military veteran, with my colleague, Vice Chair, Councilmember Saka.

and I think I can speak for Councilmember Saka but also our third veteran on the council to say this is not right in terms of using military personnel, the National Guard, in the context that it's being used.

This is not a national disaster or something along those lines.

This is unprecedented and it's wrong.

and that guardian model and the like and the professionalism, that is what we have in Seattle, that is what we're striving for with our police department and public safety more generally.

The police department is here to protect and serve.

Its mission is to carry out its mission of prevent crime, enforce the law and support quality public safety and do so with Seattle values in the Seattle way, which is something that we see to transition today's schedule with our legislation.

Separately, I was gonna say regarding criminal justice, and this was gonna be the main chair's comment today, but I'll just be really quick, is I've been having discussions with the city attorney and the presiding judge of the Seattle Municipal Court.

We need a functional criminal justice system, and we will continue to work that, and in fact, our meetings in September will be focused on the criminal justice system, will be focused on the city attorney's office and the Seattle Municipal Court.

Those efforts and efforts more broadly, you know, goes to us showing and doing what it takes to be successful as a west coast blue city that is focused on public safety and creating a safe base.

That's what we're doing here in Seattle.

That's what we're doing with this council of ours and with this committee.

With that chair comment, I would like to now open up the hybrid public comment period.

Public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within the purview of the committee.

Clerk, how many speakers do we have signed up today?

Currently we have nine in-person speakers signed up and seven remote.

Okay.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

Start in person.

Can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 60 minutes.

Speakers will be called in the order in which they registered.

Speakers will hear a chime when 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open.

We'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first in-person speaker is Dan French.

Greetings.

My comments initiate at the unsafe 130th Street project and the Fifth Avenue adjacent to that, which is also unsafe and dangerous.

I pointed this out to the committee multiple times and have been basically ignored.

How does that relate to today's agenda?

It doesn't and it does.

When King TV was there and showed that the backups and the traffic problems were dangerous, they sent the message to SDOT and SDOT's response was, we have cameras.

Golly jeepers, you have cameras.

We still have a problem.

You're proposing to put more cameras in there.

Great.

The news media has done an excellent job of providing you the advertisement for putting more cameras out in public.

That's not gonna do a heck of a lot of good.

In fact, it's not gonna do very much good at all.

You might be lucky to catch people after the fact, if they're not wearing a mask, if they're not wearing a hoodie, if they're facing, staring at the camera.

If they're not, you need a cop there.

Get more enforcement and don't use the false information that was provided the last time I was here.

Yes, I watched after I gave my testimony that there was an individual that gave his information and part of that was false.

I can prove it.

Nobody wants to hear that.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you very much.

And to state again, yes, comments are on today's agenda or within the purview of the committee and it is, so thank you.

And my colleagues committee too.

Thank you.

Next.

Next up is Bill Clifford to be followed by Charlie Richter.

Yeah, I've lived on 22nd Avenue near Fir Street.

It's on the western edge of your Garfield Nova proposal since 1979. Shortly after I moved in, I was recruited into, quote, one of the oldest block watches in the city, and we're still going.

A week ago tonight, we closed the street for the SPD-sponsored night out.

We had 30 or 40 neighbors there on August 5th, and I didn't hear anything about the RTCC proposal.

We're in it, why weren't we notified?

I kind of got the impression it was just institutions and businesses.

On the 8th, a neighbor posted a question about RTCC on our Google Group listserv.

It lit it up.

Our biggest issue was the erosion of our civil rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Washington has a reputation for going beyond the Federal Bill of Rights.

This doesn't feel like it.

At your July 31st meeting, Mr. Maxey hypothesized a circumstance where the feds could get a warrant for SPD video from Axon.

He thought the likelihood was very low.

Kind of a propos of Chair Kettle's comments on where the federal government's going.

It feels a lot more likely now than it did a year ago.

We've lost Roe vs. Wade, Voters Rights Act being eroded, many bulwarks of personal freedom and democratic institutions are going down the drain.

That's the context here, why my neighbors are concerned about this proposal.

Our next biggest issue was the disparate impact on minority youth.

We've seen it before when the feds did weed and seed in the central area.

And you know, bless the police, I wouldn't want that job, but there's institutional bias in the police department and the prosecutor's office, which is hard on minority youth in particular.

Coming in third was, why was our residential street, 22nd Avenue, included in this?

22nd has had its ups and downs, but it's been pretty quiet for many years.

The neighborhood has changed.

25 years ago, 21st Avenue, one block over, was the host row.

It's not anymore.

Councilman for Hollingsworth amendment takes the heat out of this issue, but the other issues remain.

So, I mean- Thank you.

Am I done?

Yeah.

Okay.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Charlie Richter.

Good morning.

My name is Charlie, and I'm here to speak against the use and expansion of surveillance technologies in our city.

CCTV does not reduce violent crime, it does not make us safer, and it does not protect our community.

In fact, evidence shows quite the opposite, particularly in how police use surveillance tools.

There are far too many ways for me to list just here, but I will explain a big one.

Police share data with whomever they please.

and with cloud-based software, third parties and other states can access our data with even greater ease.

I especially want to make you aware that the police share data with ICE to facilitate the violent abduction of members of our community.

I have witnessed the collusion with my own eyes as ICE abducted people straight from their appointments at USCIS while the police gasped and flash banged folks who tried to stop this from happening.

This illustrates a complete lack of professionalism and a failure to protect and serve.

Surveillance technologies are not a tool for keeping our community safe.

They are a tool for targeting and harming marginalized groups.

If you care about constituents, please do not let Seattle become yet another pawn for the surveillance state.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Peter Condit.

Good morning, counsel.

My name is Peter Condit, and I live in Green Lake, District 6. I do not want the police to watch me and my family as we go about our daily lives.

Surveillance leads to a loss of privacy, creativity, and individuality.

And CCTV has no significant effects on violent crime, research shows.

I'm asking that this committee reject legislation that would massively expand SPD's camera network, that would make permanent SPD's pilot surveillance program, and that would expand SPD's real-time crime center.

More cameras and police technology do not make me feel safe raising a family in Seattle.

They make me feel less safe.

As we saw yesterday, the president is liable to take over municipal police departments.

This legislation would allow the police and whoever controls them more ability to target whoever they want, and we don't know who the targets are going to be.

ICE is already using surveillance data like this to help them kidnap and terrorize immigrants and our immigrant neighbors.

SPD itself has a history of biased enforcement and unprofessionalism.

Council should reject all legislation that expands surveillance.

Council should instead spend these millions that these technologies would cost on safety through community-based supports like housing, food access, and libraries.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Connor Nash.

Hello, I'm here in opposition to the expansion of the surveillance cameras in the city.

First, these cameras are invasive and can be co-opted by the fascists in the federal government.

Just yesterday, Trump took over D.C.

over the lie that our nation's capital is overrun with crime and said that he will go much further.

It's obvious that he will try to go after Seattle since he has a disdain for our city and you're giving him the tools to do it.

Although you wrote in the original law that the cameras would stay in control of the city, there would be some federal court or the Supreme Court that could rule that you have to turn over the cameras to the feds and there's nothing you can or would do about it.

Finally, I will say that although these cameras are invasive, they have done nothing to deter crime in the neighborhood that I live in, in Little Saigon.

The city needs to stop creating more useless, hostile architecture, like these cameras with signs that say that you're being recorded, the spiked fences that are deterring of people to want to go to our parks, or the signs that say they don't sell stolen goods, which are useless because people are still selling stolen goods right below those signs.

Instead, you all should be addressing the root causes of crime and increasing the treatment resources that are desperately needed.

I challenge all the people on the council to go the 1.5 miles down the street to Little Saigon to see the failures of this committee on addressing crime in the city.

Thank you.

Next up we have C.S.

Hi.

Thank you for changing the wording.

However, the SIR still doesn't have maps of the new areas, and item 4.4, the CCTV SIR, now only names the first three original locations as being part of the pilot, leaving out the new locations.

While the new locations will be in the valuation, the SIR does not limit their deployment to the duration of the pilot.

If that's not your intent, then it's an easy fix to make the legal language in the SIR say that all SPD-owned CCTV cameras are in the pilot.

Regardless, deploying tech for the sake of doing something is not the same as doing a good job, and the plural of antidote is not data.

A difficult problem deserves a well-thought-out and data-driven decision, not throwing things at the wall and hoping they stick, especially when these impractical approaches are not only ineffective but very costly and harmful.

We don't have the funds to be playing these games.

You need to get serious by looking at the actual work of academics that shows what works and what doesn't.

The largest assessment to date on CCTV systems is a peer-reviewed meta-analysis which is basically a study of studies.

This robust meta-analysis was done on 76 studies and found that CCTV has no significant effects on violent crime.

It has been explained repeatedly that our local laws do not protect data stored in Axon.

Even SPD pointed to federal law, not local.

Continued references to Seattle and Washington laws as providing safeguards is willfully misguiding the public.

Saying Seattle isn't at all like China shows how xenophobia can cloud one's ability to see our similarities.

SPD wants every public camera in Seattle in the RTCC.

People are being kidnapped off the street, put in camps, and disappeared to black sites.

And protesters jailed journalists under attack, and people are having their opinions policed with what they post on social media, or funny pictures that they have on their phone determining their fate.

It is very clear that this is not a safe city to dissent in.

The only difference is that you have the power to stop this mass surveillance.

Just because it isn't Trump asking you to roll out this doesn't make it good.

Residents deserve better than this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our last in-person speaker is Nathan.

Hi, so I am a graduate of Garfield High School.

I'm very proud to be a graduate of Garfield.

Garfield is the school in the city that gets, it gets talked about like it's the problem school.

Like we need more surveillance in our school and we don't.

Our school is great and I am not comfortable with a surveillance state around Garfield High School in particular.

Additionally, with what Donald Trump is doing in our country, I would really, really ask and really demand, especially you and you, we voted for Democrats, not Republicans.

Stop doing Donald Trump's work for him on the council.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

The first remote speaker will be Matt Offenbacher.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt, you have been unmuted.

Hello.

Hi, Council.

My name is Matt and I'm a resident of Capitol Hill and a small business owner.

There are two things I hope that you'll keep in your mind as you consider expanding CCTV today.

The first one is using data to guide your decisions.

There are a number of well-designed studies that demonstrate increased surveillance does not reduce gun violence or human trafficking and does not make people safer.

Although I wish we had entirely avoided the extensive mistakes of cities like Denver in the blue state of Colorado, which is among several cities now removing their existing surveillance systems, I appreciate the Council building into the initial CCTV pilot an annual review and two-year study of the effectiveness of the program.

Good governance depends on quality data.

I do not understand the rationale for rushing this process.

Expanding a program without waiting for information is a huge gamble of precious city resources, especially when we already have a lot of evidence that it will be a bad bet.

The other thing I wanted you to keep in mind is that trust in public officials right now is at an all-time low.

At the last meeting, Council Member Hollingsworth suggested that she had talked to business owners who were too frightened to take a public stand in favor of CCTV because of the potential negative impact on their businesses.

When council members wave away the testimony of hundreds of people who have expressed their opposition and instead defer to the opinion of mystery people who claim they are too scared to come give public testimony, it frays the fabric of our civil society and democracy itself.

As a queer man whose everyday life will be documented by these cameras, I have a right to know who supports this invasion of my privacy and what arguments they're making that my elected representatives find so persuasive.

I suggest to this council that this is a sign that a majority of satellites reject CCTV for our neighborhoods.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Amy.

Sorry, I don't know how to pronounce your last name.

Hi, this is Amy and I am calling to ask the City Council to strike down this proposal to expand CCTV and RTCC.

As a lot of folks before me have said that this type of surveillance threatens our safety as a community.

Folks have talked about collaboration with the police department and ICE and other assaults on our First Amendment rights, our Fourth Amendment rights.

I also want to talk about just that nature of criminality.

Bob Kettle's remarks at the beginning talked about law enforcement's focus on professionalism and to protect and serve and I implore the entire council to think about protecting and serving whom.

For folks like me, whose last name is difficult to pronounce as a woman of color walking around, we already see over and over what types of immigrants are considered to be suspected to be illegal or suspected to be unacceptable in this country.

and it's even more important to think about the vulnerable people who will be affected by this surveillance, so folks who have survived sexual assault or stalking, folks who are victims of domestic violence, and then also folks who are protesting and speaking out on behalf of their human rights.

This type of surveillance can access individuals from where they work, where they shop, where they worship, and any other businesses or associations they're a part of.

And as many folks have said before me, it does not work to clear crimes.

There's a lot of studies in the UK and other US cities showing the ineffectiveness of this type of expensive technology.

And I just want to express my sincere disappointment that the council is not investing in other more cost-effective and efficient alternatives to reducing community violence, such as community-based violence interruption programs that we've seen in other places, the Rainier Beach Action Coalition, other types of services that would be more effective when it comes to reducing violence and poverty.

Thank you.

Thank you, Amy.

Next up we have Flora Wright.

I'm sorry, it looks like she's not on.

We'll go to Julia Buck.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Julia Buck and I'm a resident of District 6. Councilmember Kettle, it's interesting to hear about Seattle exceptionalism and professionalism when just weeks ago police were arresting a trans woman for legally using a nude beach.

Also, our cops do wear neck gaiters over their faces.

They also cover their badge numbers with electrical tape.

And most of their uniforms do seem to be black when I see them out and about.

I also think it's notable that the council is trying to do this expansion of CCTV the week after CCTV technology was used as an excuse to arrest a random Amazon engineer in Wallingford for arson and murder.

This person was interrogated for hours during which they offered their own in-house technologies records and their roommates to show that they were home at the time the crime was committed.

SPD started the investigation with a name and this camera footage.

A person with alibis was still held in jail for a week in spite of having a different name and not being the person captured by the camera.

CCTV is a probable cause generator.

You're keeping the CCTV footage where Trump can access it on servers out of state.

In Trump's fascist circus, you are the clowns and I, many in Seattle, are losing patience with your antics.

Thank you.

Next up we have Kelsey Burns.

This is Kelsey Burns.

I'm here to speak against the expansion of the mass surveillance in times where there is such a blatant disregard for the law at the federal level.

There are also a significant number of risks for misconduct from individual officers using tooling for stalking and other things that we've seen indications of historically.

In addition, I think the larger concern is when we end up starting to use these resources starting to use to move them towards the cloud we put immigrant communities at significant risk of information being shared with ICE.

I've seen with my own eyes coordination between ICE and SPD and the ability for the federal government to access these resources that are being added to a CCTV network are significantly worrying to me.

On a technological level, I think there are also some additional security concerns that are probably less important than the number of lives that we're going to be endangering regarding the potential interaction for ICE.

with what we're seeing with the National Guard taking over D.C.

Do you really want to trust the federal government with taxes, the fees, and services?

I don't think that we've established the degree of trust at a local or federal level to be able to responsibly use map surveillance tools.

Thank you for your time.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Next up we have Coco Weber.

Hello, I'm a teacher and a queer and a renter and all my friends are renters.

I've lived all over Cap Hill as well as the district off Aurora in the city and other neighborhoods in Seattle.

Have I had a package stolen?

Sure.

Is this package a threat to my safety?

No.

Renters in my neighborhood are more worried that the city has left people to die on the sidewalk outside.

We're walking by them as you cut public services for those who need it most.

That is a public safety failure.

Public safety means that my friends and student families who are queer can receive gender-affirming care without worrying about being disappeared.

Public safety means friends who are parents are not disappeared by ICE because of their documentation status.

You said activation of the National Guard taking over the police is wrong in D.C.

Counsel, please open your eyes and see what's happening in our country.

Are you going to be the counsel that hands over the mothers and fathers and children of Seattle to the increasingly fascist police state of the U.S. federal government?

I am a teacher and I will be in school soon teaching the children and I will not be able to show up to public safety meetings to plead with the Democrats on this council to not implement a fascist technology in what is supposed to be a sanctuary city.

Please walk away from surveillance tech, cut your losses.

This is not how you wanna go down in history.

Please all power to the people and stop surveillance city.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Next up we have BJ Last.

Good morning.

My name is BJ Last.

I'm calling against the expansion to CCTV and RTCC.

I think the biggest Seattle context to keep in mind on this is the reaction to the original adoption of these things last year was overwhelmingly negative.

The Community Surveillance Working Group, whose members are appointed by y'all and the mayor, not only did they oppose it, but one of the reasons they opposed it was because they pointed out the incredibly high number of responses which were overwhelmingly negative to this.

So despite the community really indicating that they did not want CCTV and RTCC at all, they all pushed forward against what the community wanted.

They all decided to spend over $5.7 million a year on RTCC while actually going and cutting vital services to people, services that actually keep people alive and reduce harm.

So they all did that.

And this overwhelming opposition came out despite SPD lying about what the surveillance would look like.

Captain Britt unequivocally told the people of Seattle that SPD would not do any live monitoring of the RTCC or CCTV cameras.

That was an outright lie.

We've seen since SPD is now fully going and doing live monitoring on that.

SPD has a history of lying on surveillance.

We've seen this as reported in real change with SPD's surveillance impact report for forward-looking infrared and SPD's history of secretly buying drones and CCTV cameras without telling everyone.

I bring this up to point out there is no reason to trust anything SPD has said about any of their surveillance, including that this will somehow magically be kept separate from the Trump administration with them unable to access that.

We've seen this with ALPRs throughout the state, including King County Housing, being accessed by federal agents.

We've seen this with the Washington Department of Licensing, going and sharing their data with ICE, There is no reason to expect that anything Seattle police collect could be kept separate.

And what has Seattle police been doing?

They've, you know, been raiding nude beaches and nude bars because they're historically queer areas.

They've been using this to arrest and jail innocent people for a week.

If Trump took over SPD, no one would ever notice.

Thank you.

Next up we have Katie Gendry.

Hello Council, my name is Katie Gendry and I live in D6.

I'm calling in today to oppose expanding mass surveillance in our city.

Expanding mass surveillance under the Trump administration will only target and further endanger Seattle's BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, and immigrant communities, abortion seekers, protesters, and everyone's civil liberties and right to privacy.

Surveillance is a powerful tool of social oppression and surveillance does not keep us safe from violence.

Violence can be reduced by investments in violence interruption programs, mental health treatment, substance use treatment facilities, affordable housing, emergency financial assistance, and library.

Evidence shows that poverty and income inequality are associated with violence, especially assault and homicide.

As we approach budget season, it is important to note that surveillance actually contributes to disinvestment in our community.

Seattle is required to have a balanced budget.

Every dollar spent on surveillance is a dollar that cannot be invested in any of the evidence-based strategies for violence prevention listed above or otherwise invested in our community, such as the mental health supports, programs for kids, parks, public spaces, affordable housing, jobs, job skills, training, and food access.

Listen to your constituents and do not expand CCTV.

Invest in our community instead by spending money on supports for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have David Haynes.

The federal government can help, yet council wants to button push voters with hatreds of Trump purposely not working collaboratively to solve the public safety crisis and the homeless crisis.

The grocery stores at Fred Meyer and QFC are more elaborate in their security apparatus and cameras in your face Yet I don't hear these same sympathizers of the devil complaining about that.

They just want more people to suffer because there's a lot of people who have mental problems in Seattle and they're happy when somebody is sad and miserable and they get jealous and enviously mad when somebody's successful.

And it is showing itself once again, because people want people to be like all messed up on drugs so they can brag about how much you can take advantage of them.

But yet the bottom of the barrel of the, okay, excuse me, This surveillance technology is not going to work because you're allowing the police chief and the progressive bottom of the barrel liberal Democrats to purposely sabotage the integrity of the technology.

Well, you're not going, you're going to trick the law abiding community into believing that something's probably being done with video cameras.

But yet those cameras are purposely not going to be able to make out the facial recognitions to specifically target and identify the individual criminals.

But yet you're going to have a random video that can identify the color of a car.

and then all of a sudden they're going to be looking for a certain color of the car instead of the definitive details of the individual who's conducting uncivil war in the community.

It's almost like we still have liberals who are pulling their punches on crime fighting and then scaremongering people into believing that we live in a fascist society and that everything should be blamed on Trump, but yet it turns out they're running interference for evil drug pushers who are conducting uncivil war.

It's like people are literally running interference for drug pushers in Seattle.

And you all are part of the problem.

You want to cater to all these, like, school-lived experiences that want to dump their trauma on everybody else, and you're undermining public safety.

If you all can't be more bold and stop playing the Trump hate card, you all need to be kicked out.

Thank you, David.

Next up, we have Aiden Carroll, and then we'll go back to Flora Wright for one more try.

Aiden, go ahead.

Wow.

Well, that last one seems like a distilled example of the case for this and of your size.

I'm talking about dumping the talent.

Do not do this.

It is not safe.

It won't work.

And the recent election results have shown people are against this.

If you actually want to stop crime or to prevent or To confront crime, to respond to crime, you need to drill down into which crimes you are fighting, how you are fighting them, should depend on knowledge of what is generating them and how you can solve it.

It may be hard to believe that this is cheaper and more effective given the common knowledge and what is accepted as common sense.

in our society but given the level of propaganda that's how far we are from reality and it is equally hard to believe when you look at the evidence that this is going to do anything helpful other than maybe the one thing that Danes was right about to create a show to provide a lack of awareness that you are not able to do anything substantial.

Now, I get that you might think it would cost more money to address in real solutions, anti-poverty and providing extended healthcare, et cetera, et cetera, but that is a job for working with the legislature.

talk to Olympia the way Zoran is going to do in Albany and the other thing is that when Housing First does not have the services in the building it makes it look like a failure and that's what conservatives take advantage of because Housing First was never supposed to be housing only thank you Aidan thank you and our last remote speaker is Flora Wright

Flora, go ahead Flora, are you there?

All right

We can hear you.

Oh, you can hear me?

Yeah.

Oh, sorry.

I thought I was still muted.

Okay.

Hello, I'm a resident of District 3 calling in to oppose the wildly unpopular expansion of mass surveillance.

When the city is facing a budget deficit of $244 million and federal funding for affordable housing and medical care is being drastically cut, it's irresponsible to waste millions of dollars on more toys for SPD.

We know that expanding mass surveillance under the Trump administration will only target and further endanger Seattle's LGBTQ and immigrant communities, abortion seekers, protesters, and everyone's right to privacy.

A recent audit found that data from the King County Housing Authority's Flock ALPRs has been used hundreds of times to hunt immigrants and an abortion seeker from Texas, despite a state shield law.

Additionally, King 5 investigation uncovered that the Washington DOL is providing ICE and Homeland Security with access to private driver's license and vehicle info, again despite state law prohibiting this collaboration.

We also know that SPD has a history of abusing the surveillance tools it already has, including spying on protesters, stalking former romantic partners, and leaking information about domestic violence victims.

Seattle police misrepresented the abilities of surveillance tech that they used to spy on 2020 protests in surveillance impact reports and didn't fulfill the Seattle Surveillance Ordinance's obligation of transparency.

Recently, we also saw SPD use CCTV footage to racially profile and arrest an innocent person for a deadly house fire and jail them for a week in a case of, quote, rushed and racist misidentification.

Now, SPD has a plan to potentially give SBC access to cameras that view indoor spaces, another massive breach of privacy.

The only studies that SPD cites in support of CCTV and RTCC technology concluded, quote, no significant effects observed for violent crime and, quote, a relatively smaller impact on violent crime clearance.

while other studies show that RTCC has no effect on violent crime clearance rates.

Do not ignore the recommendations of the community surveillance work that concluded that they were unsupportive of even pilot deployment of RTCC and CCTV.

Do not give Seattle police and ICE open access to data that previously would have required a warrant.

Do not expand the pilot program and stop surveillance city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

First, I want to say thank you for everyone who gave comment, but I really appreciate too the snaps.

So thank you for going with the snaps.

Thank you very much for that.

Public comment has expired.

We will now proceed to our items of business.

Members of the public are encouraged to either submit written comment, public comment on the signup cards available at the podium or email the council at council at seattle.gov.

I also wanted to note council president has joined us, who's on our committee, but also council member Rink has joined us as well.

Welcome.

So now we will move to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

CB 121052, an ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2025 updated surveillance impact report and the 2025 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of closed circuit television cameras systems.

Thank you.

So we're starting off with CCTV.

Mr. Doss from central staff has already joined us at the table.

Please introduce yourself for the record and provide a quick summary of the CCTV legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greg Doss, your central staff, here today to talk about Council Bill 121052 on CCTV and then also on Council Bill 121053 on the RTCC.

Quick summary, you all heard on July 31st a presentation from SPD on the council bill that would expand the use of CCTV as approved by you all last year under Ordinance 127110. And that expansion would add cameras in three new areas, one at the Capitol Hill Nightlife District area, one at the Stadium District, and one near Garfield High School.

In summary, just to keep this flowing as one committee meeting, I'll also say that you approved Ordinance 127111, which approved the Realtime Crime Center, and you would expand that under the legislation before you to allow SPD to access and continuously record Seattle Department of Transportation traffic camera footage at the RTCC.

and the last thing I'll note is that under the legislation before you, the data and retention policies in the surveillance impact reports that were adopted last year have not changed significantly.

The only changes to these policies that guide the department and govern the data collection and use are that there are now three new locations for CCTV and the SDOT cameras for RTC.

So other than that, the policies are the same as what you had approved last year.

So with that as a summary, I will ask if there's any questions.

Brian Maxey, the Chief Operating Officer for SPD, is here with me today.

I am happy to take your questions initially, and if it's appropriate for SPD to provide more information at an operational level, he can do that.

Thank you, Mr. Doss, and also thank you for your central staff memo dated 29 July 2025 on the same topic, so thank you very much.

I trust not just our colleagues, but the members of the public have seen it as well.

You noted Mr. Maxey from SBD here.

I also want to note we do have members from our accountability system here today, and they're always welcome, so welcome to you all.

I appreciate you being here.

Okay, any questions?

I recognize there are some amendments, and there's a sequence for those, but any questions beforehand as a follow-up to the first meeting that we had on these two pieces of legislation?

Seeing none, Council Member Hollingsworth, I invite you to move your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate it.

I'm not on, I'm not as a, what do you call it?

Panelists on Zoom.

It's okay.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I would have raised my hand.

Thank you so much, but I appreciate the verbal instructions.

I moved to amend council bill 121052 as amended, amendment number one.

Okay, it is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1. Central staff is recognized to describe Amendment 1, and then we'll go to its sponsor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask if the clerk could put up the map, please.

So, Amendment 1 to Council Bill 121052 would restrict camera installation in the Garfield area to arterial streets, which are arterials or minor arterial streets within the boundary that is identified in the surveillance impact report submitted by the executive.

And so, in short, the gray area up there is the area, the boundary that's described in the surveillance impact report.

So SPD would propose to put cameras in anywhere between Cherry Street on the north, Jackson on the south, 20th on the east, and even though it's not shaded, all the way to Martin Luther King on and what this amendment would do is it would say within that area that SPD has designated for cameras, they may only put the cameras on the major or minor arterials.

Those are highlighted in yellow on this map and so that would be Cherry, 23rd and Jackson.

And that summarizes my comments.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Councilmember Hollingsworth, you are recognized to address Amendment 1.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Doss, for your help in helping us take the feedback, what we heard from community and trying to put it all into one.

Since our last committee, I've received a lot of messages from residents in the Central District who were worried about losing their privacy to cameras, placing them around Garfield, Nova High School, and I do understand why.

I also wanted to clarify that I hear people's concern, and that's why I was trying to find a delicate balance from people that supported this investment and then others that said no, to try to limit this to just on arterial ways, which are Cherry, Jackson, and 23rd.

So I am proposing a revised map that replaces cameras only on heavily traffic areas along 23rd with the northern boundaries, as Mr. Doss said, going from the AM-PM to Nova High School and on the southern boundaries, which go from Washington Middle School to MLK.

I tried my best to find the best balance here between everyone's feedback.

I know some people don't agree, some people do agree.

I also wanted to recognize that I heard from folks and it's clear that we need to make investment in other things that make people safe.

And I agree and I believe that Seattle does do that and will continue to do that and it's a little mix of everything and want to continue to support the investments to our community partners that make people safe and continue to invest in food access.

continue to invest in school and health and wellness and the Odessa Brown Clinic that's on Jackson Street that just opened up in the Central District.

All these great things that we will continue to invest in as well.

And so I try to find a balance here and colleagues, I really appreciate your support on this.

I'm also gonna continue to be listening to community and trying to address a lot of concerns that they have with the cameras and making sure that we are not violating people's civil liberties.

But it does come out of trust.

People want to trust in the government.

and I understand that.

And I have to continue to work on that.

Me being a part of, anytime I hear someone say the city of Seattle, I'm realizing that I am part of the city of Seattle.

And so trying to continue to build that trust with community is what I'll continue doing in my role as a city council member.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Hollingsworth.

Are there any questions or comments on amendment number one colleagues?

Council President Nelson.

Thank you Council Member Hollingsworth for bringing this forward.

It did prompt me to reach out to SPD to find out was it ever intended?

Are we intended to install cameras on residential streets going forward?

And what would be the circumstances that would lead to that?

I mean, it just occurs to me that I don't know if there is already a policy and how this amendment could inform what we do going forward.

Yeah, I just speak to the surveillance impact report.

They Both the surveillance reports generally provide leeway to the department to determine which streets to put them on based on their goals of deterring and combating violent crime.

It is the case that if they went on a residential street, any of the houses, windows, everything would be masked by SPD policy and that is something that is currently happening.

Beyond that, I would need Mr. Max to go up here and give you any information about what the operational reasons for putting up cameras in neighborhoods might be.

I don't think that would be necessary.

Thank you very much for reminding me of the masking.

I remember that being mentioned in the previous presentation.

I just didn't know if, and I remember that being mentioned for arterials or maybe the example shown on the screen appeared to be an arterial, but it occurs that that could be the same thing on residential streets as well.

But in any case, thank you very much for that explanation.

Thank you, Council President.

And yes, with this pilot, they're all in arterials, whether it's Aurora, Third Avenue, Second, and the like, and public-facing street and sidewalk only.

And as noted, and I've seen this, I've seen the masking myself, if there was say an apartment building on that arterial.

So I've seen the technology used and I should also note there's no facial recognition and it's only held five days on site.

Hence the reason for the five days and it's only pulled if brought in for an investigation.

I just highlight those things because we hear different points made and I just wanted to highlight that.

Any other, Questions or comments from colleagues?

Just to follow up.

Yes, Council President.

I just, I feel that this is, even if the intent was not to put them on residential streets, this just kind of makes sure that that will not be the case by putting it in writing.

So it is a, it's an additional, I guess, it makes the intent clear.

Thank you.

Yes, exactly.

Okay, seeing no questions, and I am looking both at my screens and down the line, I don't see any.

So will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number one.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Sacco.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

There are five in favor and none opposed.

Thank you, Amendment 1 is adopted.

Thank you, Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Okay, we'll move to our second amendment.

I will move it.

One of the things I wanted to note now is Each committee is slightly different.

In the beginning, I say on the agenda or in the purview of the committee, not every committee is the same on that.

And the other thing relates to amendments for those individuals on the council who are not part of the committee.

I think this is a much better opportunity to engage.

And so I will be sponsoring the amendment on behalf of my colleague who does not sit on the committee.

So I move to amend Council Bill 121052 as presented on Amendment 2. Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 2. Central Staff, Mr. Doss, you're recognized to describe Amendment 2.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you just mentioned, this amendment that you are bringing forward is authored by Council Member Rink.

and this amendment would require the Office of the Inspector General for Public Safety to include in any contract with a vendor for the evaluation of the Realtime Crime Center and CCTV pilot projects a methodology that determines if CCTV in combination with the RTCC deters violent crime, human trafficking or persistent felony crime.

It says that if the evaluation does not show that CCTV deters violent crime, then the executive would need to consider in compliance with the existing surveillance impact report policies, discontinuing the pilot project.

I'll take any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Any questions?

I will go to, actually before questions, I will ask Council Member Wink, you're recognized to address amendment number two.

Thank you, Chair Kettle, and thank you for being willing to sponsor the amendments that my office has authored today.

And thank you for that overview, Greg, and well explained.

I thoroughly explained what the intent of what we're trying to do here.

Again, colleagues, this amendment would require the Office of the Inspector General for Public Safety to include in any contract that the methodology deters violent crime if the evaluation does not show that CCTV deters violent crime, then the executive in compliance with the surveillance impact report would consider discontinuing the pilot project.

Colleagues, the amendments that I'm bringing forward today at the whole help to ensure that these pilots measure a causal relationship between these technologies and the intended outcome of reducing violent crime.

If these evaluations do not show that there is a direct impact in deterring violent crime, then I ask why are we as a city avoiding the trust of the people and over surveilling our constituents in the face of a federal government that continues to push against our civil liberties?

we as an elected body should be instilling trust in our community and not pushing for expansions of programs before getting data and information about their effectiveness.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Colleagues, are there any questions or comments on amendment number two?

Okay, hearing, seeing none.

I just, I wanted to, oh, Council President Nelson.

I would like you to speak first.

Oh, okay.

I want to thank Council Member Rink for joining us today and for the amendments to work through the issues that are part of this process.

I think it's important to do so.

I recognize the intent, I recognize what we're looking to do here and we do have to have this review and this review with UPenn is part of the system.

My concern with the amendment is that it narrows it in a sense that, you know, with CCTV, the RTCC, this set, you know, we're looking, you know, violent crime, gun violence and the like, felony crime.

And that's a broader piece.

And goes to this too is, and I've already, I won't speak to it, it's too early, but the ability, the response time for SPD, you know, how does this aid, how does this impact SPD's ability to work felony crime in terms of priority one response time and their ability to effectively cover, particularly in the challenges of a very growing city, and understaffed as we know in the north where the north precinct has a massive span of area with very little staffing relative to that.

And so these are factors that need to be part of the review.

And I'd also note that in terms of felonies, and I kind of talked about this related at the beginning and chair comment about criminal justice system and ensuring that we have a functional criminal justice system because every step forward or two steps forward that we make in public safety, we can step back 10 times if the criminal justice system starts to falter.

And we've had elements of this at times.

This is why I have my meetings with the city attorney or the presiding judge at Seattle Municipal Court, or when we had our King County Day recently here on the committee with King County prosecuting attorney Lisa Mannion, the presiding judge of the King County Superior Court, Judge Shaw.

And then we also had King County Jail Health, which is also a part of that system.

and so another factor too is how does this aid the ability of the King County prosecutor or the city attorney to prosecute the cases and to do so smartly and effectively.

This has got to be part and this goes to the overall piece of attacking felony crime overall and it's for those reasons and by the way that You know, body worn video is also kind of instructive on this in terms of how it helps in terms of that process.

It also helps in terms of the relationship between the public and the Seattle Police Department and the public safety system overall.

It's not just the Seattle Police Department.

And so for those reasons, again, I understand, and this is included, you know, in terms of, you know, the OIG, the Office of Inspector General who's working with, the academics, the UPenn team to look at this pilot project.

But I think, and this is part of the evaluation as we do across, this comes out of surveillance ordinance with Sears, this broader piece.

And it's because of that broader piece, which I still think is in keeping with what my colleague had said, is the reason why I will not be supporting this amendment.

I see you've come off, Council President, but I see Council Member Juarez.

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

I want to thank Council Member Rink for bringing this forward.

Well, I appreciate and I understand the spirit and the intent, and I get it, but as a former public defender and judge and lawyer, just contractually under contract law, when you have a meeting of the minds, you actually put in a contract what you can measure, what people can actually what conditions can be met, how they're enforced, and those are usually objective.

We can actually, in fact, we can look at different contracts and we can, even when we do collective bargaining agreements, we list what we, two people agree to, and then it can be measured, enforced, and then, of course, if there's any kind of default on that contract, there are remedies for that.

The problem I have with this is I, again, I understand where Council Member Rink is coming from, and we've seen this issue with the ACLU, we've seen it with cameras, all the time, is that we would have a hard time measuring and enforcing whether or not the cameras are actually deterring violent crime.

Because if we could do that, we would have done that.

And so that puts an objective or a subjective spin on it into hands that, you know, can change and can be politicized.

And that's my concern.

What would be considered deterring violent crime in one neighborhood might not work in another neighborhood.

I know we started out with Aurora, the downtown commercial core in Belltown.

I appreciate Councilman Hollingsville.

I keep wanting to call you Judge Hollifield.

I don't know why I have that in my head, Hollingsworth.

the amendment I supported on the Garfield, which made sense.

Privacy can be measured.

You can look at it on the map.

You can make it narrower.

You can get away and protect people's right of privacy.

I can also see the issues on Capitol Hill is a different neighborhood and certainly in the Stadium District.

So for that reason, I will not be supporting this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

Mr. Chair?

Yes, Mr. Doss.

If I may, speak to your comments, Councilmember Juarez.

Everything you say of course is correct.

I did want to interject though that the operative language in the amendment, specifically about the methodology and determining deterrence with the cameras, staff took that out of the contract that is being is being suggested by the UPenn researchers to the OIG and then also ran that language by the OIG and UPenn and they're both in concurrence that this is part of their planned study and could be done.

I guess if I can follow up, I understand from the amendment though and from the memo that you wrote and the other issues, I mean, it's just still a concern and that's what all I'm saying.

So I agree, but respectfully, these are my concerns.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Doss for that clarification.

I would note that my comments, that doesn't really address my comments and my rationale.

So Council President Nelson.

So thank you very much for bringing this forward.

I'll first of all say that I supported the underlying legislation that approved the use of CCTV and RCTV because I believe that they provide additional tools to enhance public safety and that's why blue cities across the country, large blue cities like us, have also implemented them.

They are an extra tool.

and those underlying pieces of legislation required an evaluation, as noted already.

And that also is good.

Indeed, I've been following closely the similar academic reports on other city programs since I've been in office, the study led by the UW Addictions Drug and Alcohol Institute on Seattle's controlled substances ordinance to evaluate whether or not, you know, in English that is, it's a study on Mayor Harrell's bill prohibiting the public use of drugs.

And so this is what we do.

We study what we, we study the impacts of what of our actions, of our legislation.

So that is fine.

I believe that, I have to believe that the conclusions, well, I'll just cut to the chase.

I think it's very difficult to draw causal conclusions based on an evaluation because many things could be impacting the trends that we see after this technology is implemented.

We have seen some success stories.

There was an article in, I think it was on King TV, about an August 6th incident.

It was an assault on 3rd Avenue and the officers called RCT, the folks at the center.

and asked for information and provided information that allowed them to apprehend a suspect when they had already been thinking about somebody else.

So my point is that I do believe that this technology and the evaluations will generate conclusions that show that this is helping make our city safer.

Whether or not they are deterring crime, I don't know if that can be asserted with confidence.

One thing that I noted though in Council Member Rankin, your comments is that you're focusing on, that is the benefit of your amendment, but I thought that the point of the amendment was to provide information for decisions that are gonna be made later.

So could you talk more about that or Greg?

I would defer to the sponsor or the author on that one.

Councilmember Rink, can you follow up, Council President?

Thank you for your question, Council President.

Of course, understanding that we're midstream in a pilot and understanding the sequencing this amendment would be related to as we expand this pilot to still garner some of that information.

I think, again, what is proposed in this amendment and as Greg's data concurred with the UPenn researchers and OIG, have said would offer an opportunity for us to really study a causal relationship, even if it's after this pilot expansion.

I think that that data is important to understand.

Definitely, otherwise why do we have the data?

So thank you very much for explaining that.

We do need information and then we can use it to decide whether or not we want to continue with the program.

So I agree with the spirit of the amendment and I'm you know, processing whether or not it's, it will provide enough data to generate the conclusions that you are, that you desire for the continuation of the program.

I mean, we should always study the impacts, whether or not the study is, we can draw conclusions that we feel confident in depends entirely on the quality of the study.

Yes, Council President and Dr. Nelson.

Exactly.

Council Member Rink, any last words before we move to a call of the roll?

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be brief.

Again, colleagues, I ask for your support on this amendment.

I think it's important that we invest in things that will work, and we won't know if things work until we have good data and understand some of these causal relationships.

So I ask for your support on this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Will the clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number two?

Council Member Juarez.

No.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Council member Saka.

Nay.

Chair Kettle.

No.

Chair, there is one in favor, one abstention and three opposed.

The amendment two is not adopted.

Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna move to amendment number three.

I move to amend council bill 121052 as presented on amendment three.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 3. Central staff is recognized to describe Amendment 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you mentioned, this is an amendment to 121052, the CCTV bill.

It is brought, authored by Council Member Rink.

The effect of this is to ensure that SPD provides in the annual report that it will already send, under requirements from the previous legislation, any information about whether a warrant, subpoena, or court order that has included a non-disclosure order has been used to obtain CCTV or real-time crime center data.

It is the case that this report was required under the original legislation.

And when staff wrote the amendment, I targeted the amendment towards the existing reporting structure.

I think that that may not, was not consistent with the council members original intent, which was that such a report be provided as soon as possible.

So I want to note that that is something that I contacted the law department on overnight and learned that it is faster to have, or it is possible to have a faster report.

So that is not information that the council member had when she was drafting this amendment.

That'll ask if there's any questions.

Can you state that again, please, just for the record?

In short, it's an annual report on non-disclosure warrants.

And I think the council member's intent is to have a report be more frequent or more timely than annual, say within 48 hours of learning that a non-disclosure warrant was used to obtain CCTV data.

And so...

This amendment would make it annual.

I will leave it to the council member to speak to her intent as to whether or not she wants to eventually do something that would be even more timely.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Council member Rink.

Thank you, Chair Cattle, and thank you, Greg.

Colleagues, I'll fill in the blanks on this one.

This third amendment is in line with what Brian Maxey and the executive stated on the dais during our last meeting.

With this amendment, SPD would include in the annual report whether information through CCTV has been accessed by other jurisdictions.

We want to ensure that any violation of our city's data needs are to be remedied, which may include termination of this pilot project.

As Greg had mentioned when we were drafting this amendment, the spirit in originally drafting was to try and find an immediate way to remedy it.

I wanted to still bring forward this amendment today for inclusion in an annual report.

I think that's still a meaningful step forward, but want to publicly state my intent given this updated information I will be bringing forward an additional amendment before full council that would give us an opportunity to more immediately address data breaches, such as within 48 hours of it happening.

Thank you, Chair.

And colleagues, I ask for your support.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink.

Colleagues, Two things.

One is I note that, you know, this is a amendment to the bill related to CCTV, although it does reference, you know, the ALPR and other data that may be body worn.

It doesn't have that.

I just wanted to note that, and this has been reviewed by law, so I don't think there's an issue with crossing different pieces.

I did want to move to amend amendment number three as presented in version two of amendment three by focusing and suggesting a pause in the CCTV program in the second to last sentence and then restate that in the last sentence.

Because I do support the reporting piece.

I support the intent of this.

but I think it's best to pause it if in that circumstance so then all the pieces can be factored in and not to have a rush judgment to end the program when in fact conditions may change or conditions are addressed or ameliorated in some fashion.

So colleagues, I'd like to formally move to amendment three as presented in version two of amendment three.

as presented in what's being handed out right now.

Second.

Thank you.

The amendment to the amendment has been moved and seconded.

And I've already just spoken to that, but I will stay again.

I do believe, I support this amendment generally, and I do believe that if there is issues related particularly to warrantless, undisclosed warrants, that that is an issue that we have to address and that we have to basically review and understand.

And I believe that we should do it to then pause the program as opposed to end it, because if we were to end it and then we get additional details and the like, then it's a whole different piece.

And I think it's more from a good governance point of view, looking at the different pieces as we work through these, that we should pause the program in light of any issues related to non-disclosure orders.

Are there any comments or questions?

Council Member Juarez.

Thank you.

For a point of order, Mr. Chair, Are we going to hear from Councilmember Rink on what her feelings or her position is on whether we eliminate our pause?

Because those are big things.

So I didn't know if you were going to do that.

Yes.

Okay.

I didn't know that.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Although your hand was quicker than Councilmember Rink's.

But yes, you're right.

Councilmember Rink's.

Well, actually, this is kind of a unique situation because technically it's my amendment since I'm sponsoring, but Councilmember Rink, Thank you, Councilmember Juarez.

As we kind of do this back and forth, I do want to give you the first and last word on this amendment to the amendment before we go to the last word on the amendment itself.

Mr. Chair, one quick point of order.

So this is a friendly amendment to Councilmember Rinks?

Yes, this is a friendly amendment, and I am supportive of the amendment.

I just wanted to put this little slight change.

Understood.

Well, thank you, Chair, and thank you, also, Council Member Ruiz.

I think just as a point of curiosity, I'm wondering if there's openness to this being additive rather than either or, meaning we want to give latitude to the executive.

You know, we have in here the language stating, you know, discontinue collecting certain data.

or pause or end.

I'm wondering if you'd be open to creating additive options that allow for, again, flexibility for reconsideration of the program.

So a question back to the sponsor of the amendment, to my amendment, if there's openness to an additive approach to create that latitude rather than a swap.

Either or.

Okay, colleagues, if you can work with me.

So basically set up two pieces in this sentence that including steps that might be taken to discontinue collecting certain data and whether to pause or end the CC pilot program.

So, and I'm writing this down.

when a clerk will work with our other clerks as well, and to either pause or end the program.

Are you gonna say and or eliminate?

That was the second to last sentence that I was referring, you were referring to the second last sentence, correct?

Yes.

Okay, does everybody understand that change to my friendly amendment to the amendment?

Mr. Chair, point of order.

I think I understand it.

So we have two pending motions before this body, as I understand it.

Do you consider this updated that we're seeing live on the screen here, this updated whether to pause or end the program?

Do you view that as a friendly amendment?

Yes.

and it's on the screen.

Thank you.

I think we're good now.

Mr. Doss has reviewed, spoken to our clerk.

Yeah, I just wanted to point out that the council would be making a change in the first place that you see red there, whether to pause or end the CCTV program.

But in that last sentence, the language already said pause or eliminate, so you don't need to change that.

Okay, thank you.

Now, I see the point.

Thank you.

I see that point.

The amendment to the amendment had struck or eliminate.

For parallelism, should we have eliminate be replaced by end so it's in sync?

Chair, I would support that change.

Okay.

Clerk?

Okay colleagues, on your screen is the updated amendment to the amendment after the conversation, after the discussion.

And again, this is a friendly amendment to the amendment that I support.

Just looking to have that.

Thank you.

although that was already pulled from the original.

Do you need to strike it out when it's already not in the?

Just in case, leave it there.

All right.

Okay, any other discussion, colleagues?

Any additional comment from our central staff?

Okay, with that said, will the clerk please call the roll on the amendment to amendment to Amendment 3 as represented in version 2, Amendment 3 as modified.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Saka.

Aye.

Council Member Kettle.

Aye.

Five in favor and none opposed.

Okay, so the amendment is now officially amended.

Is there any additional comments or can I go to the amendments sponsor unofficially.

Councilmember Rink.

Thank you, Chair Kettle, and thank you for your collaboration in adjusting the language.

Appreciate it, and certainly just appreciate the friendly amendment.

Colleagues, I don't have any additional comments beyond just I think this is an important measure.

at minimum to have this in an annual report again stating my intent to work when we to have an additional amendment that allows us to address it in a more immediate basis for us to take up at full council but for today I think this amendment marks a meaningful step forward in creating an opportunity for us to evaluate the program if there are any data breaches.

Thank you chair.

Thank you, Council Member Rink.

Okay, Clerk, will you please call the roll in adoption of Amendment 3?

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council Member President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Sacco.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Chair 5 in favor, none opposed.

The amendment is adopted.

Okay, now time to vote on the bill as amended.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amended?

Seeing none, hearing none.

Clerk, will you please call the roll on the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 121052 as amended.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Honkrey.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Your five in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass as amended will be sent to the September 2nd City Council meeting.

Okay, we will now move to item number two, which has somewhat been spoken to by Mr. Doss.

We'll move to the second item of business.

Clerk, please read item two into the record.

Council Bill 121053, an ordinance relating to surveillance technology implementation authorizing approval of uses and accepting the 2025 updated surveillance impact report and 2025 executive overview for the Seattle Police Department's use of the real-time crime center software.

Mr. Doss, any further comments?

No, I would just say this is the exact same amendment from Amendment 2 that you voted on with the CCTV bill about the evaluation and I apologize to the council members for not mentioning earlier that I had done that work behind the scenes with UPenn and I should have provided that background.

But it is the same exact amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Doss.

Okay.

I move to amend Council Bill 121053 as presented on Amendment 1.

Second.

It is moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on Amendment 1 and central staff has already spoken to it.

So though I'm technically the sponsor, again, Council Member Wink, you are recognized to address Amendment 1.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll save us all a couple minutes and say it's the exact same amendment that we've already had some discussion on, but related, but related instead to our TCC.

And I hope you will consider supporting it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Rink, colleagues.

Again, as Council Member Rink noted, this is the same, and Mr. Doss noted, it's the same as the one for CCTV.

As Chair, I just wanted to say, again, appreciate the points in it, and it is included in so many ways, you know, as we've been bringing, and my position is, you know, that broader piece in terms of priority one response times, the felony, the broader criminal justice, the broader functional criminal justice system, the ability for the King County prosecutor and the city attorney to bring the cases forward better, smarter.

And for those pieces, as it relates to felony crime, which is part of the set as it relates to these programs, I will not be supporting it.

Okay.

Will a clerk please call the roll on adoption of amendment number one?

Councilmember Juarez.

No.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Yes.

Council President Nelson.

Abstain.

Council Member Saka.

Nay.

Chair Kettle.

No.

Chair, there's one in favor, three opposed and one abstention.

Thank you.

Amendment one is not adopted.

Okay.

Are there any final comments on the bill as amendment for the Real Time Crime Center and more broadly, I guess.

Any questions?

I'm not seeing any, but as chair, I just wanted to note, you know, there's a lot of comments, there's a lot of points made related to the Real Time Crime Center and CCTV and I do take it in.

I do review, I see documents like the one I have here that's, you know, talking about this and it says, you know, it talks about carceral and surveillance and it starts off by saying, carceral surveillance is the technology data and infrastructure that is used to track people's movements, sounds and biometrics in order to criminalize and incarcerate people.

the system, the CCTV in this case or RTCC is not criminalizing and incarcerating people.

It's the actions of those individuals that is getting them on the path to being possibly charged and then incarcerated.

I think this is important.

This is how this report starts off with.

And I think we have to look at the individual pieces, it goes to my point about compassion and wisdom in a way, but also look at the broader city and the requirements that we have.

You know, I see reports talking about or articles talking about ALPR and then, you know, it was brought up that, you know, Austin has ended its ALPR program.

Well, It's very different.

We have a very different system here in Seattle.

And I think it's really important for us to highlight that.

And it has come up.

It noted that Austin, in terms of the background on this, was using fixed position ALPR.

It was Flock technology.

We do not use Flock.

So there's a lot of differences.

And if you look at our bills, all the pieces that we built in reflect our Seattle values.

And as noted, we don't do fixed position.

We do not work with FLOC.

And it's important.

And in terms of this, using Austin as an example, oftentimes people say, hey, the federal government's getting access to the data and so forth.

This is happening.

And these are the arguments made.

But the arguments made are as if we are a jurisdiction in some red state, red county, America, and we don't have that.

We built in, last year we built in so many different pieces.

We restrict those who can access the database.

It is solely with the detectives and the civilian analysts of the RTCC.

And each search is logged and is audited by the OIG.

Remember, we have accountability partners.

A lot of these jurisdictions around this country do not have accountability partners.

The OIG is on this.

and oh, by the way, currently because of the pilot with UPenn.

And so the people with access is really restricted and it's tracked because this is really what's happening a lot of times.

What's happening is essentially kind of like an insider threat in some of these other locations where an individual is passing the data and it's from my old world counterintelligence kind of concern.

and that's not what is happening here because we built in safeguards.

Again, in Seattle, we've done it differently.

And it's really important to note that.

And also, there's a lot of talk about like the flock data.

Again, they extended the period that it was being held.

Axon is not allowed to do that.

And even here, like with CCTV, SPD doesn't use 30, they use five days.

That's really due to the camera itself.

That data is not sitting in Arizona.

If it does get pulled, it's because of its part of investigation and so forth.

And there's different rules that fall under that, different protections that fall under that.

And so I bring this up because One of the challenges as we work through these things is working from the same place.

And, you know, like with this example with ALPR, it's quite clear that when I hear the arguments, the arguments are not made against the Seattle program.

It's made against a generic program or a program like in Austin that has different pieces to it.

Flock, for example, and oh, by the way, as I noted in our last meeting, they have Attorney General in Texas, Ken Paxson, who's very different from our Attorney General here, Attorney General Brown.

And oh, by the way, Attorney General Brown is working this under the laws of the state of Washington and we're doing our part here in the city.

And so I just bring this up because I do get the public comment, but I also get the emails and I really, by the way, appreciate emails when they come from somebody's personal address and they write it in their own voice.

and again I look for these pieces but I also even in these see some of the similar things where it's a talking point which is a valid talking point generally but not valid here in the sense that we built in different protections and we have different laws and there's very different unique circumstances.

And I see this from the Action Network emails as well where they're going through and it doesn't help the argument when you're making the argument as if we're in some other location as opposed to Seattle.

With our Seattle values, are we perfect?

I hear the public commenters, no.

Is SPD perfect?

But we are moving in that way and Chief Barnes has made, as the leader of the department, has made points in terms of how we do business, the professionalism that Chief Barnes talked about and the standards and the like.

I appreciate the engagement.

I look for the pieces, like how can we do things better?

I appreciate Council Member Rinks bringing this amendment that we've added, and I anticipate the other one that she's noted, because that could be an issue, that would be an issue.

but as I noted, oftentimes it comes from that insider piece and we've already built safeguards on that.

And so we're continuing to work these pieces and I always look to carry on the conversation on these pieces.

So as I finish my comment, I just wanted to make those notes and I noted Council Member Juarez has raised her hand.

So Council Member Juarez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank you for your leadership on the Public Safety Committee.

I want to thank Greg Doss, again, for excellent memos and fiscal notes and summaries.

And I really, I know you put a lot of work in that and I read them and I appreciate it.

And I also want to thank Brian Maxey for the information he provided.

But a special thank you to you, Council Member Rink, because you did pose the question on August 8th, or we got a response from the Chair.

to the Seattle Police Department, Mr. Maxey, and Mr. Maxey did respond on August 8th, and it kind of encapsulated what you just said, Chair.

First of all, it's good to see young leadership understanding and spotting these issues, having the bravery to come forward and ask more questions.

Thank you, Chair, for sharing the response from Mr. Maxey to the rest of Council, because I would not have known that Austin and Flock, even though I had been reading about Flock, I didn't understand what the connection was there.

So it is important to note that SPD will not be sharing this data with ICE.

That state, local, and Seattle Police Department prohibit police officers and departments from proactively cooperating with ICE.

So I know we heard a lot on public comment, those who called in and those who showed up, and we will stay on top of that.

I know that Pierce County and Tacoma is having a different issue with their prosecutor and their city attorney.

We don't have that here.

And for someone who's kind of been around this a few times, we will stay on top of that.

And so I want to thank all the leadership here for following this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Juarez.

Council President Nelson.

To me, the bottom line is that we just can't be satisfied with the status quo.

And we have to always be looking for more methods and tools to make our city safer.

I mean, we can't be happy with kids getting shot at bus stops or with the wrong suspect apprehended or what have you.

And so it's our responsibility to always be looking for ways to improve public safety in our city.

And that's what I think that these two pieces of legislation did or are trying to do.

Thank you, Council President Nelson.

Anybody else?

Okay, seeing no other hands raised or seeing any as I look left and right.

Clerk, will you please call the roll and the committee recommendation to pass Council Bill 121053 as amended.

Council Member Juarez.

Aye.

Council Member Hollingsworth.

Aye.

Council President Nelson.

Aye.

Council Member Sacca.

Aye.

Chair Kettle.

Aye.

Chair, there are five in favor and none opposed.

Thank you.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass as amended will be sent to the September 2nd City Council meeting.

Okay.

We have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Hearing and seeing none, we are adjourned.

Thank you very much, everyone.