Public Safety Committee 7/31/2025

We'll come to order.

It's 9.34 a.m.

July 31st, 2025. I'm Robert Kettle, chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Hollingsworth?

Here.

Council President Nelson?

Present.

Councilmember Saka?

Here.

Chair Kettle?

Here.

Chair, there are four members present.

Thank you.

By the way, we will have Council Member Juarez joining our committee.

She's not here today, but we'll have her shortly soon on the committee.

So we look forward to that.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

For the chair report today for this meeting, I just quickly wanted to note a couple of things.

One is the earthquake in Russia, Kamchatka Peninsula, the resulting tsunami is another reminder that emergency preparedness is serious and important and it's important for our city Given the unique pieces related to the earthquake and tsunami threat.

And I think we, again, like what we've seen with other national disasters, we need to be looking at these things and being reminded and ensure that in the area of emergency preparedness, in this case, that we're ready.

And tied to this is the importance of FEMA.

And we need to be also looking at FEMA, looking what the administration's doing in terms of funding and all the like.

It's really important to have that That kind of national backstop that the technical expertise and everything that FEMA brings to a national disaster, which one day could be a tsunami as well.

For my main chair comment today, I wanted to talk about technology and public safety.

I appreciate we get a lot of emails.

I've seen different articles, different reports talking about technology, and I wanted to say When we approach these things, we do it with a Seattle values, Seattle way kind of approach.

This committee, this council is pressing our executive and judicial partners to ensure that is the case, and they do so themselves as well.

And what we have here in this city is not what we see in other cities around America, across America.

Perfect?

No.

But we continue to move in that direction as we look to create a smarter, more efficient, and more effective constitutional community policing to help create the safe base in Seattle that we're looking for.

And wanted to say, when making the arguments, I think it's, arguments should be made in this context, because oftentimes I hear arguments made as if we're in a jurisdiction in another part of America, you know, as people say it, red county, red state of America.

We're not that.

Our laws are very different.

And they also incorporate the different pieces, the hard work of former Councilmember Kathy Moore, for example, or currently Councilmember Rivera, who often will attend meetings that relates to And she had a great play with the automatic license plate reader.

And this also goes to my colleagues to my right, Council President Nelson and Council Member Hollingsworth, engaging with the amendments to ensure that we do public safety in that kind of Seattle values and Seattle way.

And this also includes my vice chair, It's somewhere in the ether right now but is en route.

And the one piece I wanted to add too is in Seattle we have an accountability system.

Very unique compared to all the other cities across America.

Very unique.

No other country, no other city has what we have in terms of The Office of Inspector General, Office of Police Accountability, and our Community Police Commission.

Chicago has some of these pieces.

Different cities have pieces of it, but they don't have what we have.

And it is their job, in part, as it relates to technology, to ensure that we're doing things in the Seattle values, Seattle way.

And we need to have them do their job.

That's part of their responsibilities.

We have our responsibilities and we'll continue to do so.

And I think that's important because I look forward to the engagement.

I believe we're going to have some additional council members coming to this meeting.

I look forward to their questions, just like, you know, the questions we had last year with automatic license plate reader or CCTV or the real-time crime center the first time that we did it.

So with that, that is chair comment.

We'll now open 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 today?

Currently, we have eight in-person speakers signed up and six remote speakers.

Okay.

I don't think our new rules go in effect quite yet, but we will follow them and each speaker will have two minutes and we will start in person.

And clerk, 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 and their comments within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open and we'll begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first in-person speaker is Heather Smith to be followed by Alex Zimmerman.

Hello and thank you for your service.

Our family has been doing business on Capitol Hill near Pike and Broadway for over three generations and I want to share that our area safety has become our primary concern in the last few years.

Nearly every small and large business in the area has experienced incidents of violence, vandalism, theft, and sometimes all three, many times a week.

Within just the five blocks of Pike and Broadway, there are currently 45 vacant storefronts.

That number speaks volumes for itself.

I am keenly aware that Capitol Hill is the only neighborhood in Seattle where collected data shows that crime has gone up in 2025. Recent incidents near our place of business include a New Year's Eve day homicide where the person killed was not the intended target.

In the last 18 months, there have been six other homicides in the area nearby.

An assault and arson case that just happened on our block in the last month is currently in the courts.

We are aware of multiple assaults and fights that involve guns, knives, hammers, and even two incidents involving axes in the surrounding area.

At least three stolen vehicles in the past month just in front of our building.

There is daily drug trafficking on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection.

Collisions are frequent.

In fact, just this last week, there was a pretty major collision between a bicycle and a car at the intersection.

Unfortunately, private security footage has become the only reliable method for tracking many of these crimes.

Police and federal investigators often routinely go business to business in our area requesting access to private footage as there are no systems in place I really do wish CCTV weren't necessary, but the reality is that for most of the crimes that I've listed, and this is far from a complete list, it has become private security footage that has helped identify those involved.

Thank you.

Thanks, Heather.

Next up, Alex Zimmerman to be followed by Brittany Peterson.

Thank you.

Yeah, you can open it.

My name is Alex Zimmerman, and I want to speak about something that's absolutely critical.

No one government, no one city can feel safety and public feel good when fascism, Gestapo principle go deeper, deeper, and deeper.

I give you two classic examples.

You choose a consul who For my understanding, I'm a Nazi Gestapo pig, what does I know?

For four years, she never gives chance.

People see faces, you know, when they speak.

It's never happened before in human history.

I don't understand how this is possible.

The EU choice here right now for consul, Plus, she's mentally sick, and I'm talking about Jairus.

It's a nightmare.

It's number one.

Number two, I will show you another example of deeper fascism as we go and go.

Mayor Harrell, you know, for example, for a year, never have one Q&A.

How is this possible?

I come to this chamber for 30 plus years, I never see one mayor before for 30 plus years, who for four years, Four years, not have one Q&A.

In seventh floor, close.

Why his close seventh floor?

He's thinking somebody will come with bazooka and kill him.

He have four security officers, you know, policemen, but it cost us one million dollars.

So what?

When this will be stopping?

How people in Seattle, 700,000 freaking slaves and idiots, don't change this, don't clean this chamber from Nazi pigs.

When we have a fascism, this will be for another Tory year, because nobody give power and money for free.

Never happened before.

And exactly now, when Trump talked to everybody, America is first.

That's exactly it.

People are first.

This is exactly what Vinny is doing.

Viva Trump!

Viva New American Revolution!

Stand up, Seattle freaking idiota!

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Brittany Pearson to be followed by Mike Oaksmith.

I choose to live in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood for its vibrancy and sense of community.

Especially around the Pike Pine Corridor and Cal Anderson Park.

Over the past few years, I've watched the area shift into an environment that feels unsafe and unlivable.

The Pike Pine Corridor and the Nagel Place have devolved into an open-air drug market, especially after school and work hours.

The market fuels visible drug use and associated behaviors, including public intoxication, overdoses, and violence.

My Street Nagel has become nearly impassable with encampments, gang activity, and all of this is concentrated outside the basketball courts of Calenderson Park.

The drug market attracts gang activity with people showing guns for intimidation, openly defending their territory to ensure that they are able to meet the needs of drug addicts lining up for their fix.

Last year, two homicides occurred right outside my window, leaving bullets and blood on the streets for weeks.

Both incidents happened at dusk, a time when many of my neighbors were outside trying to enjoy the space intended for positive community use.

In that case, there had been heavy drinking and fighting throughout the day leading up to the shooting, and all of that activity would have been captured.

Calls to the police department started well before homicides were met with no response.

If SPD had been able to monitor the footage in real time, local businesses and residents could have alerted them and the officers would have responded sooner.

without real-time monitoring 911 did not trigger an immediate response and the intervention came too late.

Implementation of CCT cameras will greatly benefit Capitol Hill community and the larger community of Seattle.

These cameras will help ensure illegal activity as it happens, supplement the limited resources that the East Precinct and precincts across the city have, and improve the overall safety and well-being of residents and visitors who want to enjoy the vibrant neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Next up we have Mike Oaksmith to be followed by Bridget Harman.

Hi, I'm Mike Oaksmith, Capitol Hill resident for 40 plus years.

Thank you guys for your time on this.

This is, if Capitol Hill ever needed the cameras, now's the time.

You know, the police need all the support they can get.

In today's staffing shortages and eyes on the street and some of their inabilities to police, I think this is an effective way to maybe gain some knowledge on what's going on up there when human eyes aren't seeing things.

I do represent a lot of buildings in the area.

And I know that the tenants are all in support of this.

They want to see more effective policing.

Again, with the staff shortages, why not embrace this technology?

You know, why not give it a trial effort?

Why not try and root out the bad actors that are causing harm in our community and causing people to feel unsafe?

I think it's something that you should consider and consider heavily.

And that's all.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next up is Bridget Harman to be followed by Kate Kiji Tsusaki.

Sorry.

Hi, good morning.

I just wanted to say I work on Nagel.

From my desk, I can view the whole park, but more specifically the basketball court area.

This section has become a very well-known spot for drug activity, and with that comes crime.

I witness it daily.

It's really sad to see such an amazing park and vital part of our community be overrun and become an unsafe place for people.

I think installing CCTV cameras on Pike Pine, and specifically Nagel, would be a very significant step in making the community that much safer.

Not just for those of us who work nearby, but for the entire community of Capitol Hill.

Cal Anderson is a huge part of our community.

And with all the crime on Nagel, it really deters people from wanting to enjoy and use the park.

As many have mentioned, the East Priest Inc. is stretched thin and cannot always respond to every call in real time.

I believe with the CCTV in place, law enforcement will have the ability to review incidents, identify suspects, whether through facial recognition or license plate, and act accordingly.

It will make their jobs easier, our lives safer, and the whole community of Capitol Hill safer.

Thank you.

Yeah, so my name is KG.

Thank you for doing this.

So I own a restaurant on the Capitol Hill, right across the street of the Calanderson Park.

It's Nagel Street.

I've been doing this like five years.

I'm always there from noon to 11 p.m.

I've been seeing this drug dealing, people die.

Yeah, and still going on every day.

It's pretty same people actually coming there for drug dealings and stuff, and by car actually driving.

I wish if you guys can put this on camera.

And tell people there's a camera on the street.

And I'm sure it's gonna be easy, best way to know people.

And they will not come by car.

But yeah, I just wanna say this one.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next up, we have CS to be followed by Will Tim.

Hi.

It's alarming how much integrity has degraded across council, SPD, IT, and the mayor's office.

These updated SIRs were submitted to the wrong committee so they could be processed as a pet project and as an information item so as to avoid the rules about council bills that require thoughtful consideration of legislation that takes more than one meeting.

SPD previously lied when they said during IT's public engagement meetings that the cameras are not going to be live monitored and then told council that they would be and they would need yet more funding for that.

And SP lied with the cost, which keep ballooning every time they speak.

Even more concerning, central staff seems to be hiding that the updated CCTV SIR, if approved as is, will make the system permanent, not a pilot.

Please read the track changes version of the SIR.

References to pilot have been replaced and or re-scoped And item 4.4, SPD removed that the deployment is limited to the pilot.

And SPD had to have been drafting these updated SIRs before even the first cameras were installed.

Plus, SPD intentionally released the initial SIRs as a pilot just so they could get their foot in the door with easier to swallow legislation for the more rigorous process while planning all along to get approval for their actual intentions for a massive expansion in scope and permit installation by the expedited material update process which doesn't include any IT-hosted public engagement meetings and zero review by the Community Surveillance Working Group, while also having the added benefit to SPD of erasing the original privacy and civil liberties impact assessment and the historic amount of public comments received that were in opposition to these technologies.

SPD said that this was a pilot with evaluation at the one and two year marks, but it's clear that the mayor sees the evaluation as just paperwork to be completed with zero impact because he, quote, does not believe that the forthcoming evaluation should be a barrier, end quote, and clearly neither does council who are entertaining these updates.

No new maps are in the proposed binding legislation and adding SDOT's cameras violates 28 different parts of the license plate reader ordinance.

Residences are real solutions, not security theater.

Please see my email.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And to that point, thank you for your email because I read it today or this morning and I recognize the talking points from the email.

So thank you for sending both.

Next.

Will Tim.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Will.

I've had the opportunity to live in every corner of this great country.

And as of this summer, I'm proud to call Seattle home.

I'm the founder of a company called Spree LLC.

We specialize in the development of advanced AI-driven security systems, specifically ceiling-mounted retractable paintball marking turrets.

These systems are designed to enhance public safety by autonomously monitoring and mitigating potential threats in real time.

Our technology integrates with existing security infrastructure using both LIDAR and 3D maps for precise situational awareness.

We leverage OpenCV for object recognition and threat assessment, ensuring our systems can identify and track individuals or potential threats accurately within the most sensitive environments.

Our mission is to prevent mass shootings and other violent incidents in public spaces by providing a rapid response solution that communicates with local law enforcement and operates with human oversight.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

The first remote speaker is LG.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt.

You have been unmuted.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, go ahead.

All right.

So I did hear a couple people saying that Kyle Anderson is a space for positive community youth and I'd like to say like when you're considering targeting people and locking them up it brings them to a place that is not change anything except making y'all have an easier way to ignore what's happening.

It's having surveillance doesn't make lives easier for those who would be affected by it which would mostly be Immigrants and trans folks and homeless people and those who are doing things out of scarcity.

We see these changes being made without enough interaction from those who are affected and the Seattle Police Department has already been steadily increasing their presence in funds while basic needs are actively neglected.

The City Council is not acting as though they are responsible for the effects they have on countless people and the policing system was built with the intention of finding and capturing runaway slaves and it has continued to grow as a means to incarcerate and profit off people, leaving their lives changed in ways that are so hard to come back from.

Now, I know it's easy to ignore, but you, the City Council, are in this role with the job to listen and represent the people of Seattle.

More surveillance is not what we need and there is no reason for SPD to obtain a cloud-based, real-time crime center, which would weaken state laws and endanger women, trans folks, and immigrant residents.

Yeah, also that last dude promoting his current thing.

You're weird.

All right, that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next remote speaker is Matt Offenbacher.

Hi, council.

I'm calling to say that I'm appalled that you're considering expanding the police camera network.

Council member Hollingsworth, you can hold a public town hall about this.

It's summer, so maybe have it out in Cal Anderson near the beloved hot rat summer.

You heard from some business owners and landlords this morning, but if you held a well-advertised public forum, I guarantee you would hear from hundreds of Capitol Hill residents like myself who reject this proposed surveillance of our daily lives, who do not trust SPD and who do not believe the mayor and SPD when they claim that sensitive surveillance data will not fall into the hands of federal agents who have no respect for the law or due process and who will use this data to track and persecute immigrants, trans folks, activists, and many more of your constituents.

The mayor and SPD talk about Capitol Hill as the nightlife district, but this is home for many of us.

Queer folks feel safer in Capitol Hill than we do anywhere else in Washington State.

This is precious.

These cameras will make our neighborhood less safe.

When the council approved the first round of cameras, against overwhelming public opposition.

SPD and the mayor said, this will be a two-year pilot.

They said, we're going to gather empirical evidence and see if these things reduce violent crime rates.

So what's up?

It's been about a month since the first cameras were started up.

What possible evidence can SPD give you today to justify expanding this network?

They will tell you some stories that will sound very exciting, like straight from a TV show, the high-tech cops nab the bad guys.

As you listen, please remember that these are just stories, not anything to base a decision on that will put queer folks and immigrants at risk and spend money we don't have.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Rebecca Garcia to be followed by Coco Weber.

Hello, and thank you for your time.

Can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Okay, great.

My name is Rebecca Garcia, downtown Seattle resident.

I'm here as a member of my community today to state that more police surveillance is not what we need.

Council members, neighbors, I'm here speaking to you today because Seattle is very quietly considering powerful new surveillance tech that can turn any camera into a license plate reader tracking where people go, including clinics, churches, homes, and protests.

If we move all this data to a third-party cloud, we risk handing it over to bad actors and and out-of-state agencies, including ICE and anti-abortion states, violating Washington's own privacy laws and making it easier to target immigrants, women, trans people, and activists.

These are our friends, our families, our communities.

It isn't hypothetical.

It's already happening.

The privatization of policing represented by relying on private consumers to expand the camera network undermines democratic values, effectively excluding Seattle's residents from being able to provide our input and oversight on the growing Seattle surveillance apparatus.

We cannot let that happen here.

SPD already has the tools they need.

It is more surveillance, more risk.

A police state doesn't spring into existence overnight.

It starts with a skyrocketing budget, a surveillance net that grows out of control.

Thank you, Rebecca.

And people too disturbed or scared to push back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we have Coco Weber to be followed by BJ Last.

Go ahead, Coco.

Hello.

Thank you.

Hello.

Thank you, counsel.

I just want to share I am a resident of District 3, a queer, a teacher, and a former community mental health clinician and substance use disorder clinician.

All the people who are saying they're scared about what's going on on Capitol Hill is a public health crisis, and mass surveillance is not going to help a public health crisis.

You need public health response.

You need social services, and we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on police checks.

That is doing nothing to solve this problem.

So I hear that you're scared and mass surveilling our population in the most diverse neighborhoods under a fascist rising federal government is not it.

This technology violates the Washington Shield Act, which allows people to access protected health care services like reproductive health care, abortion, It's a vendor for Medicare and it also violates the Washington Working Act.

Nearly one million Washingtons are immigrants.

That's one out of every seven people in the state as people are getting disappeared in vans.

Over 16% of the workforce in Washington are immigrants who were born in other countries.

Over 15% of business owners were born in another country.

This is a really scary thing to allow mass surveillance in Seattle that claims to protect immigrants, Claims to protect women's rights in healthcare and gender-affirming care.

And to make that data available to a private company that can be subpoenaed by any other court in any other state, subpoenaed by ICE, subpoenaed by any other bad actors, is very scary.

And Seattle claims to be like this great place for people to come and live and you're free.

And that is not what's going to happen.

I chose a complete disregard for the sanctuary laws.

There's no reason that they would abide by a contract with a vendor.

Austin, Texas, and Nashville, Tennessee already abandoned RTCC.

Thank you.

Next up, we have BJ Last.

Hello, my name is BJ Last.

I'm Ballard homeowner.

I absolutely oppose these expansions to CCTV and RTCC.

Chair Kittle, you asked for Seattle-specific stuff?

Sure, let's get Seattle-specific.

SPD had the highest number of cops on January 6, despite being across the freaking country.

That's Seattle-specific.

Lisa Judge, head of the OIG, was just caught violating Freedom of Information Act under a public disclosure request, according to whistleblowers, as reported in The Urbanists.

That's Seattle-specific.

Hey, when Flock, it came out that their ALPRs and cameras were being searched for ICE and to find people seeking abortions, their stuff in Washington State was also searched despite the Keep Washington Working Act and the SHIELD law.

That's also all really local specific for you.

And the response to that was Flock telling people, don't use those search terms.

That's what it boiled down to.

Not don't do searches for these things.

Hey guys, don't do searches saying you're seeking someone having an abortion because it's an embarrassment for us.

Let's not pretend that there's any actual protection here.

Let's also keep going Seattle-specific.

Blue Streets Our Streets had a survey showing that the level of surveillance in Seattle is already so high that it has a negative impact on the people of Seattle.

That was before your massive expansion.

So you know that's also Seattle-specific.

Speaking of these expansions, hey, the Office of Civil Rights, the Community Surveillance Working Group, and the vast majority of people in Seattle, thousands of people, submitted comments opposed to RTCC and CCPD last year, which y'all just freaking ignored, that's Seattle-specific.

So people in Seattle do not want this, as opposed, except for a couple of chamber stooges, who, of course, is all you actually care about listening to.

Also Seattle-specific, y'all probably know we are facing a massive budget shortfall.

This is austerity.

Where's the money to pay for this going to come from?

There's already over $10 million for these technologies in this budget biennium, which, by the way, y'all took that money from affordable housing.

Remember that?

You took it from something that's actually proven to reduce violence to surveillance technologies, which don't.

So you want to talk Seattle-specific kettle, there's your Seattle-specific.

None of this actually creates safety, and you're actually furthering austerity and defunding things that actually do create safety.

Thank you, BJ.

Thank you.

Our last remote speaker is David Haynes.

Hi, thank you.

A lot of people in Capitol Hill like to take advantage of other people's addiction and they're happy when you're sad and jealous mad when you're glad.

It would be a brilliant move to incorporate the future kiosks into the CCTV system when there is a 911 emergency call for service and the criminals take off.

You could have 911 tap into the system to assist cops to target the criminal.

Although you might have to add some qualified crime fighters inside 911 call centers instead of relying exclusively on civilians who have an agenda to de-escalate proper police response and are not tactically trained for real crime fighting, acting more like a criminal defense lawyer running interference for their brother from the smother.

Remember when the deviant police chief Adrian Diaz Went out into the Pine and Pike corridor and gave a heads up to the whole of the hotspot criminals with flyers talking about future police actions, attempting to manipulate the 911 calls for service in certain areas by further dispersing the misleading community about crime is down in certain areas, deceiving about public safety while looking for an easier payday.

The same thing occurs now with CCTV.

If you could install the cameras without announcing to the criminals you're recording, it would be more effective.

Instead, the new police chief wants to announce to everyone there is a recording in progress with a big sign as the criminals have a right to know they're being recorded.

Sympathizing with the devil, making cry fighting more difficult than necessary because progressives Always sympathizing with criminals because we all know how overdramatic, bottom-in-the-barrel progressive drama queens in Seattle are, always acting like the biggest threat to the community is the noble crime-fighting cops instead of the evil predators and customs violators.

Beware that defund police progressives who continue to sabotage the integrity of police reform and run interference for the city's priorities that originated from what to do with all the repeat-offending criminals who were exempted from jail when they defunded and sabotaged, starting with Bruce Hale, the original bird on city council to...

No additional registered speakers.

Thank you, Clerk.

Public comment has expired.

We will now proceed to our items of business.

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

And thank you, everyone, for participating in public comment.

And I did find the email, so thank you, and I forwarded it to my team.

So thank you for that.

I wanted to note my vice chair has gone from remote to in-person.

Thank you, Vice Chair Saka.

And we also have not a member of the committee, but welcomed all the same.

Council Member Rink has joined us as well.

We will now move on to our first item of business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Closed circuit televisions and real-time crime center surveillance impact report material updates.

Thank you, clerk.

And we have more people on my list, so why don't we start with introductions for the record, starting with Deputy Mayor Burgess.

Good morning, council members.

Deputy Mayor Tim Burgess.

Good morning, Council Members.

Lee Hunt, Seattle Police Department, Executive Director, Crime and Community Harm Reduction.

Thank you.

Morning, Council Members.

Brian Maxey, Seattle Police Department Chief Operating Officer.

Good morning, Council.

Captain Jim Britt, Seattle Police Department.

I oversee technology and innovation.

Good morning.

Nick Zahowski, Seattle Police Department, and I'm the project manager for the CCTVN Realtime Crime Center.

Morning, committee members.

Greg Doss, your central staff.

Thank you and welcome again.

Let's proceed with the briefing and Probably best because, you know, this is a, you know, a special meeting in the interest of time because everybody is busy.

Why don't we go through the briefing first and then have the questions at the end of the briefing, which, of course, we'll start with my vice chair, just so he knows.

All right, go ahead.

Very well, sir.

Thank you.

We'll have a brief slide deck followed by a short video that I'll talk you through, and then we'll take any questions that may come up.

The reason we're here today, the pilot project, the original surveillance impact report for the CCTV and RTCC was passed last October.

The ordinance numbers are there.

The current pilot areas for CCTV include the Chinatown International District, Downtown Core, and Aurora Avenue North.

To date, we have installed 57 of the cameras that were approved with just a handful left in the varying areas.

The RTCC itself launched fully On May 20th, 2025, just a few months ago, since that time, we've assisted with over 1,000 911 calls for service, and that assistance varies everywhere from looking up information in our systems all the way up to providing real-time information via the cameras that were installed to the responding units to aid in a desirable outcome.

We've also assisted in more than 90 violent crime investigations, aiding investigators in reviewing additional information and looking up additional video footage that could be available.

A couple of the effectiveness cases that we wanted to highlight.

Drive-by shooting that resulted in the suspect being taken into custody.

We actually have a brief snippet of this one in the video coming up.

Footage from a stabbing incident in the Chinatown ID that was used to assist investigators.

That incident involved a subject who threatened a person with a knife, then stabbed another, and then ended up crossing into an area where the cameras were able to aid officers in identifying, locating, and arresting that individual.

A female reported an attempted robbery.

Of course, many times when we respond to calls, we get two sides of the story with no objective information about what occurred.

In this case, it was a report of a robbery where a male attempted to take a woman's purse.

He, of course, denied those allegations.

But the CCTV footage that was reviewed and advised to the officers by the Realtime Crime Center was able to support the victim's allegations, and the suspect was taken into custody.

Located a suspect after the victim called 911 to report someone was following them with a knife, another similar incident to the stabbing.

911 call of three to four people fighting in the street.

Once again, we get a lot of information from our witnesses who oftentimes will see things that didn't necessarily occur, but the cameras tell us the real story.

So in this case, a witness called in and said there were this many people involved.

Well, it turns out they'd identified a bystander as an involved party, and so by using the footage, the officers were able to Actually clear somebody of any wrongdoing in that particular case.

And then one of these cases was an iPhone crash detection.

So a car actually was involved in a collision and the iPhone called 911. The call came in as an unknown injury collision, entered the queue, and both dispatch and the RTCC started working to find additional information.

The RTCC located the camera, determined that it was actually a rollover collision, which was significantly more Severe than was originally indicated, and they were able to spin up the appropriate resources to respond much more swiftly and aid the personnel involved.

Again, these are just a few of the thousand examples that have gone on since we've gone live.

The purpose of the legislation.

We're asking for expansion of cameras into three additional areas.

The CCTV cameras would involve the stadium district around our two major sports stadiums.

The Garfield Nova High School neighborhood.

and the Capitol Hill Nightlife District, as was previously referenced in public comment.

The changes to the retention policy simply reflect the city and state retention schedules to up to 30 days after the date of recording or until determined that no incident occurred that had evidentiary value before being deleted.

This brings the legislation language in alignment with city policy.

To be clear, we're still only recording for five days right now.

That's not going to change in this process.

The second piece is the RTCC material update.

This gives the Seattle Police Department the ability to record and view the SDOT traffic management cameras through our RTCC software.

Currently, SDOT's cameras all broadcast onto a public website, and they're actually recorded by other parties who sell that footage to insurance companies for their investigative purposes.

We're asking to get access to those cameras so that we can do our jobs more efficiently as well.

These are maps of the proposed expanded areas.

The first, of course, being the Garfield High School area, second being the Stadium District, and the third being the Capitol Hill nightlife area, which includes Nagel Place there, where several of the commenters mentioned concerns about the safety in that particular spot.

The fiscal impact here for the three areas, $425,000 for the Garfield-Nova High School area with $40,000 in ongoing annual costs for camera maintenance and connectivity.

That money was already included in the 2025 budget.

Thank you, Councilmember.

The $200,000 for the Stadium District deployment with $20,000 in ongoing annual costs is included in the budget proposal for FIFA World Cup.

We're awaiting resolution on that.

And then $400,000 for the Capitol Hill nightlife area deployment with the 35,000 ongoing annual costs.

That funding has yet to be identified.

What will not change, and this is a critical component, all SPD-owned cameras are subject to the pilot evaluation.

This is still a pilot project.

We are still doing our evaluations.

There is nothing permanent about this.

We still need to make sure that this actually does what we need it to do.

The functions of the RTCC is also unchanged and will continue to support real-time response and investigation of incidents.

This simply allows us to support more responses and more investigations in more areas.

Before we take questions, I'll cut to the video that we wanted to show you.

So let me unshare for just a moment, if I may.

Or I'll just pull up the video.

So I'll talk you through.

There's no audio in this particular video.

We've assisted in over 1,000 calls for service, and the 75 number is actually a little outdated with 57 cameras.

This is a call where there were gunshots near 12 and Weller.

Witnesses talked about two vehicles shooting and one chasing the other and shooting.

Shell casings and bullet fragments were recovered.

Officers were able to review the video and actually identified the vehicles involved, were able to track down the vehicle through investigative means, identify the driver, speak with them, And ended up making an arrest on this case.

You'll see the video here from two different cameras.

The first camera shows a vehicle that's chasing the other.

So the first vehicle is the truck.

The second vehicle, as you can see, crossed over the yellow line and is chasing the other vehicle.

The next camera you'll see here, the vehicle in back actually sticks his hand out and shoots.

At the driver, it turns out it was an owner chasing his stolen vehicle.

And we were able to contact the owner, get the vehicle back, and take the person into custody.

This was a call regarding a man brandishing a knife up on Aurora.

RTCC analysts were able to locate the subject on camera, and you'll see that he actually was carrying a very large knife.

We were able to guide officers by watching him on camera as he moved, and we were able to take the person into custody.

Unfortunately, the victims were unwilling to cooperate in the legal process, but we were able to remove a person from a dangerous situation.

So you'll see here our cameras up here at Aurora and 90th were facing across the way, and they saw the suspect.

And I will show you here in just a moment.

You can see in his left hand, he's carrying a rather large bowie hunting, some kind of other large style knife.

And it was very, very open.

It wasn't sheathed.

It wasn't backpacked.

It was in his hand.

And this person was accused of threatening people with the knife.

And again, unfortunately, the victim was unwilling to cooperate.

But as the person moved throughout the Aurora corridor, we were able to utilize our cameras So rather than the officers responding to where the suspect was, they were able to respond to where the suspect is and take them into custody without incident.

And the third and final example, on May 24th, a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle at the corner.

I believe this was 8 and Jackson.

Perhaps 10 and Jackson.

No, this is 8 and Jackson.

Forgive me.

Unfortunately, the footage was a little bit blurry, and so we were unable to get tags or other information off the vehicle, but this footage did further the investigative efforts, very quickly identifying what had actually happened and guiding officers and detectives in their investigative efforts, which are ongoing.

For anybody watching this, if you have information about this incident, we urge you to call Seattle PD.

This investigation is ongoing.

The suspect vehicle will overtake the car that's approaching here and then we'll switch to the other angle of the camera.

And then the vehicle flees.

Now those things happen so quickly in so many cases that people don't often get license plates and we don't get a lot of good information.

They can't believe what they just saw.

We are now staffed 0800 to 8 a.m.

to 3 a.m.

each day, seven days a week, to support these types of operations.

I'll stop sharing.

Okay, Captain Britt.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Any additional comments, Deputy Mayor?

No, sir.

That concludes our presentation.

I'm just trying to get to a slide here that we can leave up on the screen.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Chair Saka.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Captain Britt, members of the Seattle Police Department, Deputy Mayor Burgess, and Mr. Doss from our own central staff.

I really appreciate the presentation here and the insights.

I am pleased to be able to support the rollout of the Soto cameras in the Stadium District.

As a representative of that area, I know my constituents there are in strong support of these new technologies to help fight crime, in some cases prevent crime.

And so a lot of small business activity around there, heavy freight corridor, of course.

Did I mention World Cup?

So excited about that opportunity.

Want to make sure our deployment and rollout is also thoughtful as well in line with some of our previous adoptions.

So can you help me better understand on slide four there, it notes that the Department, as part of this proposal, is seeking access to existing SDOT feeds of traffic management cameras.

Can you talk a little bit more about that?

I'll stop there.

Certainly, sir.

SDOT deployed cameras as part of their traffic management solutions many years ago.

Those cameras, I think, over 500-plus, if I'm not mistaken, right now.

My apologies, 350 cameras scattered throughout the city are utilized by DOT to monitor traffic flow throughout the city.

As part of their deployment, they also broadcast those cameras live on a website, so any person can actually go in and review or watch the cameras live.

There are entities out there that record those feeds, third parties that record them and sell that information to insurance companies.

As it stands right now, DOT does not record those except for purposes of traffic studies.

And because SPD doesn't pull those cameras into our platforms, we don't record them either.

So when an incident has occurred, those cameras provide no value to the police department for going back and doing investigative purposes.

The only way they would currently be usable is if we were live monitoring an incident or event utilizing those cameras.

This ask is that we're able to pull those cameras in, record them the way we do our other existing camera feeds, essentially taking advantage of existing camera apparatus.

Got it.

And so...

If I can add on to this, this does not include the traffic enforcement cameras.

So none of the red light cameras, none of the speed cameras.

Thank you.

And so colleagues across the street, SDOT manages the Traffic Operations Center with live, real-time traffic feeds, primarily for purposes of monitoring congestion and that kind of thing.

It's a fun field trip.

I highly recommend if you have the time, find the time, to just quickly pop across the street and get a tour, meet the team.

I've done it.

And you'll see some of the cameras that the department here is seeking to have access to in this case.

And it's a bit remarkable that in the absence of formal legislation, The department would be otherwise unable to access publicly available camera footage that even third-party private companies and sellers commercialize and sell to insurance companies.

We need formal legislation to merely have access to data that the city collects anyway.

Here we are.

Can you help me better understand So these cameras themselves, with respect to the CCT camera deployment, these cameras themselves, in my view, are not inherently biased.

That said, if not thoughtfully deployed, can be biased in terms of outcomes and results.

And so as the executive is thinking about deploying these cameras in the most thoughtful manner, to reduce, mitigate, and avoid incidents of bias and bias outcomes.

How is it approaching that vital work?

How are you approaching that vital work?

Councilmember Sacco, we approach that at several levels.

First, we ask the question, where should these cameras be installed?

And there are three criteria that we use to make that determination.

The presence of repeated gun violence, or the presence of human trafficking or concentrated felony crime that more traditional policing methods has not been able to abate.

If a location meets any one of those three criteria, then it potentially becomes a site where we would install the CCTV cameras.

In addition to that, we have multiple safeguards built in to the system.

We have ordinances that the council has passed that restrict how the information can be used.

We have state law that applies that restrict how the information can be used.

The police department has negotiated special provisions in contracts with our third-party vendors that restrict how they can use the information, and the police department policies on how the cameras can be monitored, who has access, The audit trail that is built into all of these systems so that the Office of Inspector General or the Office of Police Accountability, which have full access and audit authority, can find out which individuals have actually logged in and looked at camera.

Footage or ALPR information, whatever the case may be.

So Mayor Harrell was very clear from the very beginning.

We want safeguards in place so that we can use these technologies wisely and effectively, but not violate privacy, not violate civil liberties that we all cherish.

Thank you and appreciate the recitation of some of those robust privacy and security safeguards.

I'm very familiar with them because I wrote some of them, many of them myself, with previous implementations and deployments of the same technology and my hope would be I haven't I had a chance to closely review the proposal as much as I would have liked.

Embarrassingly, I haven't read yet our own central staff's excellent memo.

I know it's excellent because the work product is always excellent.

So I've been focusing on the comp plan and other things this week, but I'll review that.

My hope is that those same safeguards were ported over here, and that will guide my approach as we consider this proposal.

But strongly do support the general proposition we need.

These three locations seem to make sense, especially the one in my own district, and we just need to make sure our deployment is thoughtful.

And last question.

And by thoughtful deployment, that includes robust privacy and security safeguards.

Last question.

Around the CCTV implementation here, can you clarify, is this just the raw footage only that we would have access to and be able to view, or are there any analytics capabilities built on top of the underlying CCTV footage to facilitate review and investigations?

So the original RTCC and CCTV SIRs Included the AI capabilities that are in place on the cameras that we are deploying.

That AI does not involve any kind of facial recognition.

I'm going to repeat that again just to be perfectly clear.

We will not be using facial recognition.

We're not using biometrics.

We're not using kinesthetics.

We're not using any kind of other behavioral analysis.

What we are looking, what it can do is object recognition.

For example, a red Toyota, or a blue truck, or, uh, in the case of, uh, the best example that's used is the Boston Marathon bombing, when they were looking for suspects wearing hats and backpacks.

We can use the cameras to identify people wearing hats and backpacks, but in keeping with the city policies regarding AI, The human in the loop, the RTCC analyst asks the system to find something that fits that description, hat, backpack, red shirt, black pants, whatever it might be, and it gives them examples that it finds within the footage, within the timeframe and area asked.

And then they can work through that footage to determine what, if any, is what they're looking for.

But again, we use no facial recognition or biometrics of any kind.

Thank you, and thank you for calling out the Boston Marathon example.

It is one that is near and dear to me personally because I was there.

I'm a survivor, finisher, and qualifier of the 2013 Boston Marathon, and I was a block away from Boylston Street when both of those bombs went off.

Me and my wife both ran it, and so I'll never forget that.

And then suing fallout and what that meant for the city of Boston and the country in the immediate aftermath.

And also thanks for clarifying that there was absolutely no facial recognition technology tied to associated built-in capabilities chained on top of this proposed deployment.

I think that that call out or any biometrics I think that is very, very, very important to emphasize and highlight because we do value privacy and security safeguards here in the city of Seattle and our civil liberties.

And this is not the People's Republic of China, where we have social scores that have facial recognition technology built in on top of the CCTVs on every block, and they'll track if you don't do something for the party or the state, and they'll monitor you and assign you a score.

This is not that.

But it can be, again, if thoughtfully deployed, a vital tool.

So in any event, thank you.

Appreciate the presentation here and the pre-briefing as well.

And no further questions, comments, Mr. Chair.

All right.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And thank you for the, you know, recognition of the surveillance ordinance and the SIRs and the different purposes as, you know, as it relates to like SDOT, for example, very different purposes with SPD versus SDOT.

Before going to Council President, on this point about accountability partners, I do want to note for the record that we do have some members of our accountability partners in the audience.

And I just want to welcome them.

and say thank you for joining us.

Okay, Council President.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

I want to note that two nights ago, the Columbia Funeral Home was burned down.

They say arson, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to this neighborhood institution, basically, that had been there since, you know, built, I think, in 1907 or so.

Anyway, I was listening to the radio and I heard that Seattle Media had actually downloaded footage or they looked at footage of the SDOT cameras and noticed that in one of the corners of the frame that they saw that the arson was captured clearly on the video.

To your point that this footage from SDOT cameras is also used by insurance companies, et cetera, because it's publicly available.

So that media provided video that allowed the fire investigators to really quickly declare that it was indeed an act of arson.

So my question is, can that video be used in the upcoming investigation?

And how would this bill impact that, change the ability to use that video?

Or is it just kind of moot because it's already public and so there it is?

No, it's still going to be very useful footage for the investigators, both from the fire department and the police department as their investigations continue.

I can't speak to the specifics of the investigation, but any time footage like that becomes available of any incident, regardless of whether it's been released to the public yet or not, it's still an invaluable tool in In forwarding investigative efforts, whether by identifying or exonerating parties involved or identified.

In the case of whether we were able to pull that footage in, we would have had access to that footage much faster, possibly even within real time or within moments of it occurring, and we would have been able to guide response efforts in a more investigative approach right from the get-go, rather than simply responding initially to And again, I can't speak to the specifics, but oftentimes for fires, we're simply responding for traffic control at first until it's determined that it is, in fact, suspicious in nature.

Whereas in this case, if we'd had the footage, we may have.

And again, this is very speculative.

We may have been able to go back, determine that it was, in fact, suspicious in nature and begin investigative efforts much more quickly than we did.

OK, so basically it's the connection with the RTCC that is making the difference here because the video is already available and usable but doesn't help for the rapid response.

OK, I understand that.

Two more questions.

How are the SDOT cameras different technologically from the CCTV cameras?

By function, they're not.

OK.

They function identically.

Our cameras are a little bit better.

They're newer.

You know, we spend good time identifying the appropriate cameras to put up for the needs we have, but we have needs that SDOT cameras don't necessarily have.

We want to get more specific about what we're looking at, whereas SDOT's looking at the flow of vehicles, so they don't necessarily need as high a quality.

So, functionally, they're identical.

Capability-wise, ours are much better.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

And then, lastly, Also kind of a comment, I went to a conference in D.C.

that was put on by the National League of Cities and it was for presidents of councils of large cities and we did visit D.C.' 's equivalent of the Real-Time Crime Center.

And of course that's the nation's capital and so therefore there's a lot more surveillance and a lot more law enforcement agencies.

There are 44,000 private feeds going into that.

Those are private businesses and residents or like apartment complex on busy streets that are looking at the sidewalk.

So I guess and then during this tour, there were a lot of other cities there that said, oh, yeah, we have this and we have 18,000 or whatever.

And so those were not the capital cities.

My point is that this seems to be kind of standard practice in large cities across the country, some of whom do not have as large a staffing issue that we're trying to make up for as we are in Seattle, which does, I think, make the need to take advantage of some forms of technology to enhance public safety efforts.

But I'm sure that you have researchers that are looking at all these different kinds of technologies and what should be the next thing that the department considers.

Would you confirm that this model of using different sources of video in these real-time crime centers is fairly common practice?

I'm not asking a leading question.

I just wanted to make sure that that was not just a really narrow sample that I happened to be exposed to.

Certainly.

Both proponents and critics of Police usage of technology have spoken about the proliferation of real-time crime centers across various major cities, both large and small throughout the United States.

It is a commonly used tool throughout law enforcement in the United States to support both real-time and investigative efforts for police response.

A lot of it is built on, specifically in the private camera ingestion model, built on the concepts that were kind of first pioneered most effectively with Detroit's Project Greenlight program, which first started partnerships between private businesses and their cameras and the police department's ability to view them.

A whole industry has grown out of that concept, and it's what you see today.

So, a long answer to your short question.

It is a rather common tool among law enforcement.

Thank you.

Very smooth, Captain Britt.

Next up is Council Member Hollingsworth.

Thank you all for being here.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, first of all.

Thank you all for being here.

And I really appreciate the opportunity to have this honest conversation about what's going on in our city, particularly in Capitol Hill and what's facing the challenges.

The challenge is there.

Quick question, has, and I know I heard people say Pike-Pine Core, has it been identified in which where this proposal is?

I might have missed that, where the actual cross streets are for the cameras.

I'll go ahead and pull up the map again.

I'm sorry.

No, no, no, it's quite all right.

We flashed past it rather quickly during the presentation.

If you look right here, The initial deployment on the right side of this map shows the rough deployment.

It's roughly 12th to Broadway, Union to Pine, and then covering Nagel and Broadway as well, up to roughly Denny and John.

Thank you.

Sorry, that went fast.

I missed that.

That's quite all right.

I apologize.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm just getting caught up to speed with everything.

And I also recognize to the public, public safety means different things for different neighborhoods.

And you just look at Madison Street, it's arterial.

It cuts through Madison Park, Madison Valley, Central District, Capitol Hill, creeps up to First Hill, up and over the hill and goes down.

into the downtown area.

And every neighborhood has something different and tailored response when it comes to safety.

And I also want to acknowledge that I know I've invested a ton of time into Capitol Hill, oftentimes at the other expense of other neighborhoods where they don't get as much as attention because Capitol Hill requires so much energy of me from the different activities that have been going on.

And I also wanna recognize that many people don't feel safe to come down to City Hall to tell us they don't feel unsafe because of the backlash that they get from online media, from reporters, from people.

because they don't feel safe to do that because they'll be a target.

So they tell me privately, or when I'm walking down the street, or when I'm talking to them, or I'm going door to door to businesses, they literally look me in the face and they tell me about a lot of the stuff that they have to deal with.

And the people that do come down to say, hey, we just don't feel safe, or the restaurant owner that I've heard from so many times about Nagel Place and all the activities, That, you know, they're scared to come down to say that because of what they feel the backlash is going to be at their business.

And that's a concern as well because I know we hear from people that are, you know, they have concerns about this, which is important because there's two sides of the conversation and I respect that.

And I want to make sure that we outreach to them because I think it's our responsibility for us to listen to them and understand, hey, these are what the concerns are.

But I've heard overwhelmingly so many people from the people at Pride Place to the people that are directly over, live in all these buildings, to the small businesses that we often attack that pay taxes so we can fund human services.

and go into these programs that, and sorry, I'm on my little soapbox here today, I apologize, but I kind of have to be because of the rising amount of activity that has been at Cal Anderson and that has been on Nagel Place and Pike Pine that I have been dealing with for 18 months and for a long time is alarming.

It's alarming.

And the drugs, I just rode past there yesterday, and there were people, gang activity, people showing their guns on Nagel Place, and I did not feel safe.

It was unbelievable, sorry, because it was people were scared, and I constantly get this outreach from folks.

And so I'm frustrated because I know that we want to move forward.

I know we want this.

I've heard from families who take their kids to Cal Anderson Park, and I just want us to come to a place in Seattle where we understand that I don't think it's okay for kids to be around this type of environment.

I just don't.

It's unacceptable.

Anywho, I don't have any questions about this right now.

I just wanted to voice my frustration in the current state of Capitol Hill.

I know we'll hear from people.

I know I'll get emails.

I know I'll hear from people, and I want to make sure that they are heard so we make sure that this technology, as we've heard from the caller say, we've heard from the person today talk about wanting to make sure that we have the right steps to ensure that this technology is not violating people's rights, that there's not a potential government overstep, that we don't have increased surveillance.

Those are serious concerns, too.

And so are the people that are dealing drugs in our community and fueling this Surge of unsafetiness in our city.

So I just had to say that there are two sides.

We want to make sure we have a common balance.

So I'll be looking more into this.

Thank you for bringing this.

On another step, I've heard from people at Garfield that want these cameras because of the gun violence that is constantly in the Central District, along 23rd, all the time.

They have talked about this at the school, the principal, the families, all these folks have asked for this technology to make sure that our kids are safe along the 23rd Avenue core constantly.

So anyways, thank you for bringing this.

I will do my due diligence as the council member to make sure that people are, they feel heard and we can bring whatever amendments to make sure that we can get to a place where we can have safety.

But I just really appreciate You all letting me be on my soapbox.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth.

And to your point about digging further, I should note that we have our own central staffs, Mr. Doss here.

And he wasn't part of the presentation, but we will be taking this up again in another meeting.

And I'm sure we can work with Mr. Doss if you'd like to add anything right now, but I just wanted to give you a shout out and two, a warning that you're gonna be the main presenter at the next meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm excited about that.

I want to thank the executive and police department for working with me on the process leading up to the introduction of this legislation.

A couple of things that I wanted to point out, really some small technical things.

But one thing, there was a speaker earlier that noted that There are some concern, noted some concerns about the nature of the pilot and whether it was still a pilot.

When there was some initial review done of the SIR documents, there's some technical language there that could lead someone to the conclusion that maybe it isn't a pilot anymore.

Had some discussions with the executive and they added to the SIR some specific language that said that the CCTV and RTCC programs are designed to be a pilot project with independent researchers conducting an outcome evaluation to be completed two years after implementation.

Depending on the outcome of the evaluation, the pilot project may be either discontinued or continued.

That's important language that got added.

It's not language that you're going to find if you go to the City of Seattle's surveillance website.

It's language that you'll find when this bill is introduced and the CSRS are attached, or there are some links in my staff report which is being uploaded right now that will allow you to go into the CSRS and see that language.

So I wanted to clarify that.

And then just one minor technical piece is that the The $200,000 for the stadium district cameras is going to come a little bit later, the appropriation.

The appropriation is going to be probably in the mid-year supplemental.

And that was just because through discussions with the executive, the thought was get your approval first for these cameras and then ask for the money.

And that's all I had.

Thank you.

And again, we'll hear from Mr. Doss again in the follow-on meeting.

We will now jump over to Council Member Rink.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you again for allowing my participation in today's discussion.

Thank you to our presenters for bringing forward this information, and as Councilmember Hollingsworth noted, some of the concerns we've been hearing around civil liberties, just to give you some context, my questions for today are related to that exact topic, just to dig in a little bit more.

As we heard during public comment, and I know my office has certainly heard from constituents about the deep concerns about civil liberties and infringement on them, particularly as it relates to historically marginalized communities in our city.

Additionally, our office, through reading the surveillance impact reports, would also like to note that a majority of the 282 pages of public comments in Appendix B of the RTCC and CCTV Demonstrate the existing community perception of these technologies leading to mistrust, over-surveillance of communities of color, and potential misuse of the data that is being collected.

And in this time where the federal administration has exponentially increased Ice enforcement and noting KUOW's latest report that people without a criminal history have been increasingly targeted in Washington, 42% of 780 administrative arrests have been of this type.

Could you please provide clarification on how this information collected through surveillance technology could be obtained by the federal government?

Because it has been my working understanding that the data in SPD's RTCC through its contract with Axon is not fully protected under Keep Washington Working nor the Shield Law.

Axon isn't a Washington company.

Its data centers aren't in Washington.

They're located outside of Chicago, is my understanding.

And so understanding that We've negotiated specific provisions in the contract.

My concern is how will a contract hold up against another state's law?

So again, could you please provide clarification on how this information collected through new surveillance technology could be obtained by the federal government?

Thank you for the question, Councilmember, and we're always very interested in clarifying this and making sure that we're as transparent as possible about the potential risks because we take these concerns very seriously.

And we've done our best through all of our mechanisms with contracting and our agreements with Axon, which in this case is the only vendor in question, to protect the data And to ensure that it does not get outside of our hands, because as you pointed out, there is both state and local and SPD policies that govern release of data to protect against a variety of Marginalized communities, specifically the immigrant and refugee community, people seeking gender-affirming care, and those exercising their reproductive rights.

We modified the contract with Axon, not for the RTCC or for the cameras, but in the master level agreement.

This would cover body cameras, any information that we have that is stored by Axon.

And the way the contract reads is Axon, and this is under federal law, they are the holder of our data.

They are not the owner of our data.

So under federal law, any request defaults to us.

Axon has sent us a briefing in which they have defended a local department's right to claim ownership over the data and exert control over that data.

So we know from past history and our contract that Axlon will go to court to defend our right to control our data.

We know that it is In legal mechanisms, previously we talked a lot about gag orders or silent warrants.

Looking into those, there is always a theoretical possibility that a court could issue this.

However, typically the person that is subject to a gag order, the goal is to protect against the subject of the investigation becoming aware of The ongoing investigation, and that would be at the court level.

I have not found any incidents in which a court has prevented a department from knowing that there is a request for its data.

Does not mean it can't happen.

It means that it's unprecedented.

I realize these are unprecedented times.

But in the agreement with Axon, if that narrow possibility occurs, they have agreed that they will alert us as soon as they are not subject to the gag order, and should that happen, then we would, as a city, come together and revisit the efficacy of this program.

That would be a major problem for all of us, and we would have to deal with it if that happened.

However, Again, that's a very narrow theoretical and unprecedented pathway.

More importantly, we have no agreements with any data aggregators.

A lot of the articles, including the one that was referenced earlier out of Texas and Flock Technologies, which is not a technology we use, that comes from aggregation where departments voluntarily share their data into a common platform at the national level.

We do not do that.

So our data is not going out.

It is not being shared.

Any other requests from the federal government, we've locked down all of our processes, whether it's crime records, public disclosure, legal requests, to ensure that we have oversight over any requests coming from the federal government.

And we're examining those requests on a case-by-case basis.

There are legitimate reasons that event-based data, in other words, we had an incident, Here's the subject.

That might be of legitimate concern for federal enforcement.

We would share that on a case-by-case basis, but we are not sharing data sets.

We are not sharing aggregate information with any law enforcement partner at all.

So what we've done is we have narrowed every possibility in every way we can to maintain control over our data, and we are fully aligned with You know, the values that I talked about earlier with, you know, immigrant and refugee rights and reproductive rights and gender-affirming care, and we are going to do everything we can to ensure that we do not in any way violate people's privacy.

You know, the last piece I'll just throw in there is that all of our camera feeds are in public areas, facing public open areas.

We will not take, and this is The current state and into the future, we do not accept camera feeds from any constitutionally protected area.

We also put up privacy masks.

For example, if there is an apartment building and we want to see the street level, we mask the rest of the building because we do not have a legitimate interest in looking at that.

So that's all digitally masked out on a permanent basis.

So hopefully that responds to your question, but I just want to emphasize that we share the same values.

Thank you for laying that out, Mr. Maxey.

And if I may, as a follow-up to this point, if it is later discovered, such as via whistleblower, that ICE or red states are using data housed within Axon, then what specific steps will SPD take to protect our residents?

If we found out that there had been some unwarranted or unacceptable intrusion into our data, we would escalate it immediately to the executive.

Certainly would lead with recommending either remedying whatever led to that breach or shutting down the program if we find out we actually cannot control it.

That would be the recommendation and the city itself would have to grapple with how to respond.

Understood.

Thank you.

And we've talked a little bit about, and I know the Chair has spoken to this matter of how Seattle has deployed this technology a bit differently.

Could you expand on that a little bit when compared to other jurisdictions?

I know jurisdictions such as Austin have moved away from their ALPR CCTV and RTCC systems.

So, would appreciate some clarification on, you know, how we've come to understand why they've stepped away from those programs and why maybe we're continuing to push on with them.

I'm not familiar with anything like that.

I'm unaware that Austin had stepped away.

I'm certainly happy to look into it.

We evaluate and we talked with our law enforcement counterparts across the country, and the majority of the folks I speak with talk about not rolling back but actually expanding their capabilities.

We also talk with those agencies that use some of the more controversial technologies or some of the more concerning, I should say, technologies to learn lessons that we don't want to follow.

So, you know, not enrolling in aggregated data sets, for example, being wary of agencies or vendors that come to us with those offers.

We're very conscious of the overarching concerns here in Seattle.

To answer your question, I wasn't aware that Austin's rolling back.

I'm happy to reach out to them and get some more insight from the law enforcement perspective to determine if it was an operational decision or a political one.

Certainly.

Thank you for that.

It's my understanding.

It's recent news, so it was as of May, just a couple months ago.

So certainly would be curious to understand why they've made that political decision.

Just would like to continue that discussion.

Looking towards just some of the data, I suppose I'm curious to understand at this point why we're pursuing expanding and making permanent CCTV and RTCC SIRs without having our first public report done by academic consultants.

Perhaps I could address that, Councilmember.

So when we originally launched this program, we retained researchers at the University of Pennsylvania.

The co-principal investigators are Lisa Bararo and Anthony Braga, both highly regarded criminologists in our country.

And we ask them to do a two-year evaluation.

We'll have a report at the end of year one.

So that should be in the middle of next year.

And we will have a final report at the end of year two.

All of the technologies, including these new cameras, will be included in that evaluation.

So the program is, how do we answer the three problems that we've identified that we have in the city?

Will this evaluation give us good insights into whether it's working or not working?

We'll make adjustments based on that, but there's certainly no...

If the Council approves these three new areas, all of those cameras and that technology will be included in the evaluation.

Understood.

So just to clarify again, when are we receiving that first report?

The first report will come at the end of year one, so it'll be the middle of next year.

We started on May 20, so we'd probably have to get past May 20 of next year and within a month or two hopefully get their first year report, and then the second year report mid-2027.

Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying that point.

Next question is just related to budget, understanding we all know we're in a budget deficit.

And if I'm reading these slides correctly, understanding that there's money that has been allocated for a number of these programs but not for the Capitol Hill location, if I'm reading the slides correctly, it looks like we're seeking a $435 ad, the $400,000 for initial deployment, and $35,000 ongoing.

Am I reading that correctly?

Yes.

Thank you.

I suppose I'm still mindful of deficit and considering this is a pilot program.

I suppose, again, why at this time are we considering expansion without having sufficient data?

Right now, we've only had CCTV cameras live as of May 20th of this year.

That's just two months' worth of information.

Because we are responsible for maintaining the peace of our streets and sidewalks and parks and neighborhoods.

We have real challenges in the three areas that I discussed.

Gun violence, human trafficking, and persistent felony crime at concentrated places.

We want every tool we can possibly use to help combat that.

We're not going to look away at gun violence.

We're not going to ignore human trafficking.

And we're going to take reasonable steps to make sure that our police officers have the tools that they need to suppress that kind of serious, dangerous, violent crime in our city.

And my last question, Chair, if I may, just looking towards community orientation, understanding we heard a lot of community concern today.

My office continues to hear it.

I suppose wondering how we're going to continue to engage with community partners that I think has some still rightful concerns about this kind of technology, how it could be used specifically in deployment of these areas of our city.

How are you all approaching engagement?

So we've had community forums, specifically in the Capitol Hill nightlife district area.

We've walked the streets.

We've gone business to business and talked to people.

We accept comments from everybody, those who favor and those who do not favor this technology.

I do find in conversations with those who are Opposed that they often don't fully understand what the program involves, what the safeguards are that have been built in.

But yeah, we do that community outreach and we'll continue to do that.

We pass out flyers to notify people that the cameras are present.

We post signs that talk about the video recording is in progress by the police.

The sign is very clear as to who's doing that.

So there aren't any surprises.

That's for certain.

Thank you for that, Deputy Mayor Burgess.

And thank you again, Chair, for allowing me the time and committee today.

Thank you all for being here.

Of course, of course.

I'm also thinking about the advisory councils.

I'm thinking about our CPC whose job it is to engage the community and his membership on the commission is broad covering a number of different communities, some of which maybe have concerns and that's another way that we can be engaging with them.

One of the things that I said at the beginning, I talked about Seattle values, Seattle way, that's the city of Seattle values, city of Seattle way, but it's also the state of Washington values, state of Washington way.

As I hear about Austin, they're in Texas and the state of Texas is very different from the state of Washington.

They're attorney general.

It's essentially 180 out from our Attorney General.

And for the record, I would choose our Attorney General, who's been doing fantastic work as it relates to the relationship to the federal government.

So there's a lot of factors that go into this, but I do believe that we've been, you know, with good due diligence, butting in different pieces.

And by the way, as usual, I will engage with our accountability partners.

I do this on every piece of legislation.

If they come up with a good idea, I'm more than happy to hear it and potentially use it.

And I have done that with other bills.

Just a question, a couple of quick questions.

One is the size of the expanded areas.

I note, based on all the other work that we've done in this committee, the Garfield area is larger.

And I was just curious in terms of the development of the Garfield area.

Is that due to the unique circumstance of the school, but it also has different elements?

We think of school, think of one building, but actually it's got many different pieces.

In terms of the Garfield area, is that to cover the various pieces that we've seen with the school?

There were three specific incidents that caused us to consider the Garfield Nova neighbourhood.

We're all aware of the homicide that occurred outside the community center there last year.

Also last year, the preschool facility on South Jackson Street had gunfire come through the windows.

Kids had to dive underneath their tables.

Nova High School, while class was in session, had a drive-by shooting.

Bullets flying into the classrooms.

And the frequency of those events and others and the conversations with the school district, we identified that area as needing the cameras.

The area is actually quite restricted.

If you look at the map carefully, you'll see that it goes approximately one block to the east.

of the Garfield campus, one block to the west, and includes Nova on the north side and includes South Jackson on the south side.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

And you noted the incidents with our children.

And as my colleague would always say, we have to look out and take care of our babies.

And I see the need.

And obviously, there's going to be coordination related to that.

Speaking of coordination with different pieces, You know, with the traffic management cameras, so just to highlight, when SPD uses it, brings it in, it falls under the rules to include retention and all the like.

Can you just clarify that again in terms of, and maybe more generally, like, you know, in terms of anything that you get outside of SPD, you know, how that is used?

What's the rules related to that use?

So in the case of the SDOT cameras, they would essentially function identical to our cameras.

We would hold the recordings for five days, the same way we do with our deployed cameras, and then the retention policy for the city says up to 30. We're only holding it for five right now for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is just physical storage capacity.

But that gives us enough time to fulfill our investigative obligations, hopefully.

But then information that is gathered from those cameras that's relevant to an investigation would be stored in our digital evidence, consistent with other digital evidence associated with investigations.

So the S-dot cameras would behave identical to how our cameras would when it comes to retention and recording.

Thank you.

And regarding the Realtime Crime Center, I've heard it when I was there for the event at the Realtime Crime Center at 100th and Aurora.

That incident, you know, in terms of how the real-time crime center engaged.

I was curious too, would the real-time crime center also look to engage SDOT or, and as I look at some of these other, you know, expanded areas with the parks department, park rangers, can you speak to like any kind of reach out or consideration or coordination, et cetera, with non-SPD in terms of like that example, for example, like park rangers or...

You know, especially since we have Cal Anderson being mentioned many times today.

Certainly.

We're reaching out to all city departments that operate cameras to discuss the ability to pull their cameras into the real-time crime center to support our investigative efforts.

Parks Department is on the list.

Other governmental partners to include the Port of Seattle that operates facilities along the waterfront, as well as our transit partners at King County with the Sheriff's Office and Sound Transit.

We're discussing basically anybody who has a camera in the Seattle area.

We're very interested in talking with them about how we can responsibly and appropriately pull that footage in to support our investigative and response efforts.

Thank you, Captain Britt.

You know, just to close, I really appreciate this briefing.

I really appreciate the public comment and the like, and just raising Council Member Ring, asking these questions because as Mr. Doss has noted, because I've been hearing about these pieces.

Is this a pilot, not a pilot?

No, it's not a pilot and the like.

And you spoke directly to that and with the authority of someone who's dug in and is engaging.

So I value all these questions.

I value, because it's serious.

I understand the LGBTQ community has concerns and they should.

But we have been going left, sound of freedom above the City Hall right now.

We have these concerns and we built them in to the registration that we've already done and we will do the same with this legislation to protect the LGBTQ plus community.

That's serious and we need to do that and for other communities particularly as noted immigrant and refugee community and particularly given today's circumstances.

And so we will do that.

And so my ask is raise the points, raise the points, ask the questions, and then also do it in the Seattle context.

Because making an argument against a program using a For lack of a better phrasing, Red State of America jurisdiction that doesn't care, that will be opting in, as Captain Britt noted, that's not really helpful because their law are so different.

Their legislation, their policies are so different.

It's not comparable really.

And so we need to be looking at what Seattle's SPD policies are, what the law in the city of Seattle says, what the law in the state of Washington says, and we should be engaging on this and then being mindful of the pieces.

So thank you for asking the questions related to the federal government because to ensure that we're covered.

And this is the, you know, the point that I was making in my chair comment today is that we need to be doing that And we need to be leveraging our accountability system because that's another area in terms of budget that we spend money on our accountability system.

Well, let's use them.

Let's flex that accountability system muscle, let them do their jobs.

And speaking of budget, by the way, thank you, Council Member Hollingsworth, because if we keep losing businesses, You know, there's a Starbucks that used to be in the second, nor it's no longer.

I mean, thankfully, there's a smaller coffee shop in, but there were some good tax dollars coming in.

But it's lost because that neighborhood's been so hurt by the public safety posture that we have in that neighborhood.

And that's happening throughout the city because, trust me, I hear it every day.

At the end of the day, our deficit would be that much worse if businesses close because of all these public safety threats, and not just threats, actions.

And so I just want to really appreciate that.

And for those who are just listening and can hear it, Given my formal career, that's why I said sound of freedom, because we do have the Blue Angels going overhead right now.

And which is a perfect way to end at 11-11?

So we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn, other than listening to the Blue Angels?

Actually, and seeing them.

Hearing and seeing no further business come before the committee, we are adjourned.

Thank you very much.